Alberto Gonzales: Child Pornographer

[black_rabbit]

There’s an article in today’s NYT regarding efforts by the DOJ to get your ISP to retain records of your browsing habits for a much as two years. Currently, they throw it away after a couple of weeks.

Naturally, AG AG’s justification for this is fighting terrorism, kiddie porn, terror porn, and kiddie terrorism. Oh, and helping out the RIAA, too:

At the meeting with privacy experts yesterday, Justice Department officials focused on wanting to retain the records for use in child pornography and terrorism investigations. But they also talked of their value in investigating other crimes like intellectual property theft and fraud, said Marc Rotenberg, executive director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center in Washington, who attended the session.

“It was clear that they would go beyond kiddie porn and terrorism and use it for general law enforcement,” Mr. Rotenberg said.

Yeah… but… they would never look at without a warrant. Unless you’re foreign. Or send emails to foreigners. Or aren’t foreign, actually, but just trust 'em. They won’t. Honest. Yup.

Yeah, so I know that a lot of you will have a problem with it, some of you will think it’s just peachy, and one particular Doper will hew so tightly to the narrowest possible interpretation of every word in the Fourth Amendment that this thread will likely be thrown off on a three page tangent about the definition of the words “shall” and “not.”

But that’s not what I’m most pissed off about at the moment. I’m most pissed off about this:

An executive of one Internet provider that was represented at the first meeting said Mr. Gonzales began the discussion by showing slides of child pornography from the Internet.

WT-FUCKING-FUCK?

So the nation’s number two law enforcement official is disseminating images of kids being fucking abused not as evidence in an investigation or a court case, but to make a fucking political point to a bunch of fucking suits in a fucking meeting? Did Clippy go, like:

It looks like you’re looking for pictures of children being raped, Would you like to:
[ul][li]Use a little boy getting fucked in the ass?[/li][li]Use a little girl sucking her uncle’s dick?[/li][li]Visit the NAMBLA Online Clip Art Archive?[/li][/ul]

…or something?

Jesus. I bet that those big-shot telecom executives can imagine what the term “child pornography” denotes.

This is like those abortion protesters with their pamphlets with that photo of a bloody fetus in a garbage bag, or the PETA shmuchks who hand out leaflets with pictures of a steer being gutted in front of Burger King. Only much, much more fucked up.

What a sick fuck.

[Stringer]

You don’t think the images were pixilated or blurred in some way?

[Musicat]

We should be grateful that someone else does our dirty work for us, so we aren’t corrupted. Thank Dog for the altruistic volunteers. :rolleyes:

If I look at child pornography or distribute it, that’s bad. If a censor looks at it or passes it around, that’s good.

[UncleBeer]

Wow. A whole onion of irony there. Good show, Gonzales.

[Sailboat]

@micahjn

You don’t think the images were pixilated or blurred in some way?

Maybe. Let’s examine the repercussions:
Pictures not pixelated or blurred in some way: a hideous crime, punishable with substantially less due process than is accorded to murdrers.

Pictures ACTUALLY pixelated or blurred in some way: a hideous crime, punishable with substantially less due process than is accorded to murdrers.

I seriously doubt that the law makes any distinction between child porn shots with minor blurring if I post them. I’ve never heard anyone discuss whether actual child porn was more or less revealing or disgusting; the quality of the child porn is not the issue. No one says “yeah, but they were shitty little thumbnails.” The articles just say “child porn was found” and that’s it for the guy’s freedom and/or reputation.

I believe it’s time we prosecute this guy. In the meantume, no bail.

Sailboat

[Waverly]

It’s a typical shell game. Certainly you are against child porn, so you won’t mind me pouring through the usage record of every American. Sure, other, invasive things could be done with the information, but first and foremost, we’re fighting child porn. You aren’t in favor of child porn, are you?

It’s a slight of hand that seems to work on children and Americans.

[Baldwin]

The Justice Department assures us that they would never obtain those records without a proper court order. And they’ll stop drinking, and they’ll never hit us again.

[JRDelirious]

Way to crash the web business sector all over again, Alberto… Y’know, Alberto Gonzales is Spanish for “Edwin Meese”, I swear…

[Mighty_Girl]

@black455

There’s an article in I bet that those big-shot telecom executives can imagine what the term “child pornography” denotes.

Yeah, but *were *they thinking of the children?

[Squink]

@JRDelirious

Way to crash the web business sector all over again…

Uh Oh, sounds like we’ll need another round of tax cuts for the wealthy to stimulate the economy.

[KGS]

@black455

Did Clippy go, like:

It looks like you’re looking for pictures of children being raped, Would you like to:
[ul][li]Use a little boy getting fucked in the ass?[/li][li]Use a little girl sucking her uncle’s dick?[/li][li]Visit the NAMBLA Online Clip Art Archive?[/li][/ul]

HA!!..sorry, this part made me fall out of my chair laughing. (Kinda reminds me of this.)

C’mon, we all know kiddy porn is putrid, revolting, and absolutely criminal. But if everyone would stop these knee-jerk reactions, the gov’t wouldn’t push our buttons like this. I mean, look at yourself. The #2 law enforcement guy in the country has possession of kiddy porn (which he has every right, he’s a cop after all) and you’re immediately profiling him as a child molester!

It’s true, profiling is scary. Because it’s not what you’ve done, it’s what people can suggest you’ve done, or what you’re into. It’s a game of smoke and mirrors, and the only way to avoid scrutiny is to lead such a boring life, there’d be no point. And sometimes, even that’s not enough.

[Czarcasm]

@Mighty_Girl

Yeah, but *were *they thinking of the children?

Do you mean before or after they got to study the pictures at length?

[Kamino_Neko]

@Mighty_Girl

Yeah, but *were *they thinking of the children?

For God’s sake, stop thinking of the children, you sicko.

[BrainGlutton]

Hate to sound hard to please, Your Honor, but do you have anything with anal?

[BrainGlutton]

@BrainGlutton

Hate to sound hard to please, Your Honor, but do you have anything with anal?

Sorry, I meant, “Mister Attorney General.” Apologies. My mind was on . . . something else.

[KGS]

@BrainGlutton

Sorry, I meant, “Mister Attorney General.” Apologies. My mind was on . . . something else.

Yeah, I’ve got pics like that…chicks in long black robes with gavels…excusemeasecIgottago…

[DxZero]

@KGS

Yeah, I’ve got pics like that…chicks in long black robes with gavels…excusemeasecIgottago…

Oh I’d like to bang that gavel…
Thank you. I’ll be here all night. Be sure to tip your waitress.

[Otto]

@DxZero

Be sure to tip your waitress.

…over the back of the chair.

[Operation_Ripper]

STFU and GBTW.

[Evil_Captor]

This shit is so fucking typical of Republicans. I remember some conservatives saying back in 2000, “Bush will never censor, he’s not that kind of Republican.” I thought it was bullshit then, and as is usual wrt Repubicans, I was absolutely right.