BoyWiki - User contributions [en]

Sexual revolution

2021-05-31T01:39:11Z

Wanker: /* Porn at home */

'''Sexual revolution''' is the name for a number of behavioral changes that took place in the second half of the twentieth century, as a result of which the world became more liberal about sex. (Local differences existed in many countries.)

==Birth-control pill==

The [[United States]], with a puritanical component in it from the beginning (the Puritans), tried to suppress birth control information harder than any other nation in the world as of that time. It became illegal in the latter nineteenth century to send birth control information.through the mail (or sex toys either, which in 2017 remain illegal in Alabama). The pessary or diaphragm, used casually in pre-World War II France by Anaïs Nin, was unknown. Condoms, if available at all, were "for the prevention of disease only"; they were never on open shelves as they are in the modern (2017) supermarket, but were behind the counter in phamacies and had to be asked for. The idea that sex might be fun, though often admitted in private, was all but anathema to the establishment of the time.

Into this unhappy country comes the birth control pill, in 1960. Now, as long as a pill was taken once a day, intercourse (penis-vagina sex) became carefree: no pregnancy! Contraceptive failure was far lower than with barrier devices. One need not interrupt or pause sex to put on a condom or insert contraceptive foam. One pill a day, by the woman, made sex pregnancy-free, removing one of its biggest risks. Contraceptive pills did not provide STD protection, but this was unimportant because usually this is within a monogamous, or "monogamish" (term from gay podcaster Dan Savage: mostly monogamous but not totally) relationship.

Another reason the limitation on "bareback" (no condom) intercourse is less important than it seems at first glance is that it is well established that the sexually adventurous, such as swingers (wife-swappers), know the symptoms of sexually transmitted infections (STIs, more precise than STD, diseases) which display symptoms, and get tested for the ones which do not ( which? ). As herpes is only significant (serious risk) when giving birth to a child, it is very common among those that have promiscuous sex with strangers (porn actors/actresses, to start with).

==STDs were eliminated==
In the 1950s and 2960s, the only sexually transmitted or ''venereal'' diseases (as they called them at the time) were syphilis and gonorrhea. Sex ed. materials of the time often presented them as scary figures, out to get the unchaste. Then -- penicillin became generally available in 1945. Syphilis was soon conquered, gonorrhea was controled. No one but doctors had heard of herpes or sexually-transmitted hepatitus.

The reasons there were so few STDs is that there was so little Sex. A low rate of STDs means not much fucking was taking place. (Other types of sex existed, but they were a real fringe. The idea that cocksucking or pussy eating (daintily called "fellatio" and "cunnilingus") might merit serious attention from scholars, and be taught, was inconceivable at the time.)

Low STDs and low intercourse went together. If you don't have sex, you can't transmit a sexually transmitted disease. When STDs go up, that means there's been more fucking. (Fucking and intercourse (penis-vagina sex) were usually equated )

==Pornography became legal==

From the beginning, although the word never appeared in the document, it has been taken for granted that obscenity was not protected by the freedom of the press guaranteed by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The U.S. Supreme Court has clearly and repeatedly supported the position that obscenity has no First Amendment protection.

In the United States, where the judiciary makes policy to a degree unknown in other Western countries, the courts were used to change this situation. After a string of high-profile cases, some brought by the sleazy publisher of ''Screw'', Al Goldstein, pornography turned out not to be obscene. Coinciding with dwindling support for censorship, because there was no definition of the obscene, literary classics (''[[The Naked Lunch]]'' by William Burroughs, ''Tropic of Cancer'' by Henry Miller), then movies for which some pretense of "socially redeeming benefit" could be found. Works were to be evaluated "as a whole", not solely on isolated passages. It turned out to be impossible to objectively define obscenity, at least to the degree the U.S. court system would require.

Since pornography was not obscene, it was permitted. Porn was popular. "Bruce liked it." Books, in abundance in the 1950s-1960s (Greenleaf Readers), with competition only from relatively inconvenient and expensive 8mm movies, lost ground to hardcore 35mm porn videos shown in theaters in many U.S. cities. In a few theaters, such as the Park-Miller in New York, gay porn movies were shown. A lot of cocksucking and other sex acts took place in those theaters.

==Porn at home==
The video tape recorder, using half-inch tape cassettes, became affordable and small enough for hobbyists about 1980. This made full-length pornographic movies, with sound, viewable in the home. At first, prerecorded tapes were rented from videotape rental stores; in the United States these frequently had a separate, windowless room, marked "no minors", housing the porn stock. The period–1980-2000, approximately—is remembered as "The Golden Age of Porn", with full-length movie with plots, and "porn star" actors and actresses.

The cost of electronics fell and kept on falling. It was suddenly within the budget of the middle class to buy two recorders and a camera-microphone, and thus produce pornographic movies at home. There was no shortage of willing couples

However, the cost of prerecorded videotapes, though far cheaper than 16mm 1As the prices of players and recorded movies

What really made the porn industry take off was the video tape recorder, which became a consumer product about 1980. This meant that the photographic laboratory, the "developer" or "photo finisher," with its human operator, was no longer necessary. One could make one's own movies, and with two machines, make copies.

This meant, among other things, that [[child pornography]], and other types of taboo sex, could be taped, reproduced, and shared among enthusiasts.

==The 18 year age barrier==

When all pornography was prohibited, there was minimal public attention to child pornography, which was no more illegal than other types of pornography. In the same way, when all homosexual sex was illegal, kids that wanted to join in were welcome, as they did not increase the fisk, as long as they kept their mouth shut.
n the United States, one tool that the porn industry used to make acceptance

Condom fatigue

==Phones became cameras==
And system (Internet) capacity enabled massive transmission of videos.

==Infection parties, and HIV+ men who give the "fuck of death" to unknowing, uninformed partners==

Cuba - better life in sanatorium community.

Seaker of hepatitus C. A type of suicide.

Sexual revolution

2021-05-31T01:04:16Z

Wanker: /* Pornography became legal */ split section

'''Sexual revolution''' is the name for a number of behavioral changes that took place in the second half of the twentieth century, as a result of which the world became more liberal about sex. (Local differences existed in many countries.)

==Birth-control pill==

The [[United States]], with a puritanical component in it from the beginning (the Puritans), tried to suppress birth control information harder than any other nation in the world as of that time. It became illegal in the latter nineteenth century to send birth control information.through the mail (or sex toys either, which in 2017 remain illegal in Alabama). The pessary or diaphragm, used casually in pre-World War II France by Anaïs Nin, was unknown. Condoms, if available at all, were "for the prevention of disease only"; they were never on open shelves as they are in the modern (2017) supermarket, but were behind the counter in phamacies and had to be asked for. The idea that sex might be fun, though often admitted in private, was all but anathema to the establishment of the time.

Into this unhappy country comes the birth control pill, in 1960. Now, as long as a pill was taken once a day, intercourse (penis-vagina sex) became carefree: no pregnancy! Contraceptive failure was far lower than with barrier devices. One need not interrupt or pause sex to put on a condom or insert contraceptive foam. One pill a day, by the woman, made sex pregnancy-free, removing one of its biggest risks. Contraceptive pills did not provide STD protection, but this was unimportant because usually this is within a monogamous, or "monogamish" (term from gay podcaster Dan Savage: mostly monogamous but not totally) relationship.

Another reason the limitation on "bareback" (no condom) intercourse is less important than it seems at first glance is that it is well established that the sexually adventurous, such as swingers (wife-swappers), know the symptoms of sexually transmitted infections (STIs, more precise than STD, diseases) which display symptoms, and get tested for the ones which do not ( which? ). As herpes is only significant (serious risk) when giving birth to a child, it is very common among those that have promiscuous sex with strangers (porn actors/actresses, to start with).

==STDs were eliminated==
In the 1950s and 2960s, the only sexually transmitted or ''venereal'' diseases (as they called them at the time) were syphilis and gonorrhea. Sex ed. materials of the time often presented them as scary figures, out to get the unchaste. Then -- penicillin became generally available in 1945. Syphilis was soon conquered, gonorrhea was controled. No one but doctors had heard of herpes or sexually-transmitted hepatitus.

The reasons there were so few STDs is that there was so little Sex. A low rate of STDs means not much fucking was taking place. (Other types of sex existed, but they were a real fringe. The idea that cocksucking or pussy eating (daintily called "fellatio" and "cunnilingus") might merit serious attention from scholars, and be taught, was inconceivable at the time.)

Low STDs and low intercourse went together. If you don't have sex, you can't transmit a sexually transmitted disease. When STDs go up, that means there's been more fucking. (Fucking and intercourse (penis-vagina sex) were usually equated )

==Pornography became legal==

From the beginning, although the word never appeared in the document, it has been taken for granted that obscenity was not protected by the freedom of the press guaranteed by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The U.S. Supreme Court has clearly and repeatedly supported the position that obscenity has no First Amendment protection.

In the United States, where the judiciary makes policy to a degree unknown in other Western countries, the courts were used to change this situation. After a string of high-profile cases, some brought by the sleazy publisher of ''Screw'', Al Goldstein, pornography turned out not to be obscene. Coinciding with dwindling support for censorship, because there was no definition of the obscene, literary classics (''[[The Naked Lunch]]'' by William Burroughs, ''Tropic of Cancer'' by Henry Miller), then movies for which some pretense of "socially redeeming benefit" could be found. Works were to be evaluated "as a whole", not solely on isolated passages. It turned out to be impossible to objectively define obscenity, at least to the degree the U.S. court system would require.

Since pornography was not obscene, it was permitted. Porn was popular. "Bruce liked it." Books, in abundance in the 1950s-1960s (Greenleaf Readers), with competition only from relatively inconvenient and expensive 8mm movies, lost ground to hardcore 35mm porn videos shown in theaters in many U.S. cities. In a few theaters, such as the Park-Miller in New York, gay porn movies were shown. A lot of cocksucking and other sex acts took place in those theaters.

==Porn at home==
What really made the porn industry take off was the video tape recorder, which became a consumer product about 1980. This meant that the photographic laboratory, the "developer" or "photo finisher," with its human operator, was no longer necessary. One could make one's own movies, and with two machines, make copies.

This meant, among other things, that [[child pornography]], and other types of taboo sex, could be taped, reproduced, and shared among enthusiasts.

==The 18 year age barrier==

When all pornography was prohibited, there was minimal public attention to child pornography, which was no more illegal than other types of pornography. In the same way, when all homosexual sex was illegal, kids that wanted to join in were welcome, as they did not increase the fisk, as long as they kept their mouth shut.
n the United States, one tool that the porn industry used to make acceptance

Condom fatigue

==Phones became cameras==
And system (Internet) capacity enabled massive transmission of videos.

==Infection parties, and HIV+ men who give the "fuck of death" to unknowing, uninformed partners==

Cuba - better life in sanatorium community.

Seaker of hepatitus C. A type of suicide.

Sexual revolution

2021-05-31T00:57:31Z

Wanker: /* Birth-control pill */

'''Sexual revolution''' is the name for a number of behavioral changes that took place in the second half of the twentieth century, as a result of which the world became more liberal about sex. (Local differences existed in many countries.)

==Birth-control pill==

The [[United States]], with a puritanical component in it from the beginning (the Puritans), tried to suppress birth control information harder than any other nation in the world as of that time. It became illegal in the latter nineteenth century to send birth control information.through the mail (or sex toys either, which in 2017 remain illegal in Alabama). The pessary or diaphragm, used casually in pre-World War II France by Anaïs Nin, was unknown. Condoms, if available at all, were "for the prevention of disease only"; they were never on open shelves as they are in the modern (2017) supermarket, but were behind the counter in phamacies and had to be asked for. The idea that sex might be fun, though often admitted in private, was all but anathema to the establishment of the time.

Into this unhappy country comes the birth control pill, in 1960. Now, as long as a pill was taken once a day, intercourse (penis-vagina sex) became carefree: no pregnancy! Contraceptive failure was far lower than with barrier devices. One need not interrupt or pause sex to put on a condom or insert contraceptive foam. One pill a day, by the woman, made sex pregnancy-free, removing one of its biggest risks. Contraceptive pills did not provide STD protection, but this was unimportant because usually this is within a monogamous, or "monogamish" (term from gay podcaster Dan Savage: mostly monogamous but not totally) relationship.

Another reason the limitation on "bareback" (no condom) intercourse is less important than it seems at first glance is that it is well established that the sexually adventurous, such as swingers (wife-swappers), know the symptoms of sexually transmitted infections (STIs, more precise than STD, diseases) which display symptoms, and get tested for the ones which do not ( which? ). As herpes is only significant (serious risk) when giving birth to a child, it is very common among those that have promiscuous sex with strangers (porn actors/actresses, to start with).

==STDs were eliminated==
In the 1950s and 2960s, the only sexually transmitted or ''venereal'' diseases (as they called them at the time) were syphilis and gonorrhea. Sex ed. materials of the time often presented them as scary figures, out to get the unchaste. Then -- penicillin became generally available in 1945. Syphilis was soon conquered, gonorrhea was controled. No one but doctors had heard of herpes or sexually-transmitted hepatitus.

The reasons there were so few STDs is that there was so little Sex. A low rate of STDs means not much fucking was taking place. (Other types of sex existed, but they were a real fringe. The idea that cocksucking or pussy eating (daintily called "fellatio" and "cunnilingus") might merit serious attention from scholars, and be taught, was inconceivable at the time.)

Low STDs and low intercourse went together. If you don't have sex, you can't transmit a sexually transmitted disease. When STDs go up, that means there's been more fucking. (Fucking and intercourse (penis-vagina sex) were usually equated )

==Pornography became legal==

From the beginning, although the word never appeared in the document, it has been taken for granted that obscenity was not protected by the freedom of the press guaranteed by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The U.S. Supreme Court has clearly and repeatedly supported the position that obscenity has no First Amendment protection.

In the United States, where the judiciary makes policy to a degree unknown in other Western countries, the courts were used to change this situation. After a string of high-profile cases, some brought by the sleazy publisher of ''Screw'', Al Goldstein, pornography turned out not to be obscene. Coinciding with dwindling support for censorship, because there was no definition of the obscene, literary classics (''[[The Naked Lunch]]'' by William Burroughs, ''Tropic of Cancer'' by Henry Miller), then movies for which some pretense of "socially redeeming benefit" could be found. Works were to be evaluated "as a whole", not solely on isolated passages. It turned out to be impossible to objectively define obscenity, at least to the degree the U.S. court system would require.

Since pornography was not obscene, it was permitted. Porn was popular. "Bruce liked it." Books, in abundance in the 1950s-1960s (Greenleaf Readers), with competition only from relatively inconvenient and expensive 8mm movies, lost ground to hardcore 35mm porn videos shown in theaters in many U.S. cities. In a few theaters, such as the Park-Miller in New York, gay porn movies were shown. A lot of cocksucking and other sex acts took place in those theaters.

What really made the porn industry take off was the video tape recorder, which became a consumer product about 1980. This meant that the photographic laboratory, the "developer" or "photo finisher," with its human operator, was no longer necessary. One could make one's own movies, and with two machines, make copies.

This meant, among other things, that [[child pornography]], and other types of taboo sex, could be taped, reproduced, and shared among enthusiasts.

==The 18 year age barrier==

When all pornography was prohibited, there was minimal public attention to child pornography, which was no more illegal than other types of pornography. In the same way, when all homosexual sex was illegal, kids that wanted to join in were welcome, as they did not increase the fisk, as long as they kept their mouth shut.
n the United States, one tool that the porn industry used to make acceptance

Condom fatigue

==Phones became cameras==
And system (Internet) capacity enabled massive transmission of videos.

==Infection parties, and HIV+ men who give the "fuck of death" to unknowing, uninformed partners==

Cuba - better life in sanatorium community.

Seaker of hepatitus C. A type of suicide.

User talk:Dandelion

2020-04-19T23:48:31Z

Wanker: /* Thanks */ new section

'''Welcome to ''BoyWiki''!'''
We hope you will contribute much and well.
You will probably want to read the [[:Category:Help|help pages]].
Again, welcome and have fun! [[Etenne]] [[File:BLSmileyface.png|50 px|link=Etenne]] 02:08, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

==Images==
Dandelion would you like to be the person to work on uploading images? I just can't seem to get to it. If so, I will explain what you need to do. --[[Etenne]] [[File:BLSmileyface.png|40 px|link=Etenne]] 13:30, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

: I would be glad to help. However, if other users are going to contact me, I'll need a BoyWiki email address, as I would prefer not to use a personal account. [[User:Dandelion|Dandelion]] ([[User talk:Dandelion|talk]]) 19:07, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
::I have changed you status so you can upload images. Free Spirits email is a bit wonky right now and I prefer to use the internal system for requesting image uploads. [[BoyWiki:Requests for file uploads]]--[[Etenne]] [[File:BLSmileyface.png|40 px|link=Etenne]] 14:12, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
::: Thank you very much. [[User:Dandelion|Dandelion]] ([[User talk:Dandelion|talk]]) 20:00, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
:::: Quick note: When you upload an image, please try to indicate how the picture is licensed or if it is in the public domain ( something that indicates that it is free to use). You should also try to indicate the author if known, so they are credited for their work. --[[Etenne]] [[File:BLSmileyface.png|40 px|link=Etenne]] 20:18, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
::::: Understood. Thanks for the advice. [[User:Dandelion|Dandelion]] ([[User talk:Dandelion|talk]]) 00:00, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

== BLSB ==

What does that mean? Thanks. [[User:Wanker|Wanker]] ([[User talk:Wanker|talk]]) 02:49, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
: I think it's Boylove Sourcebook (see [https://www.boywiki.org/en/Category:Boylove_Sourcebook https://www.boywiki.org/en/Category:Boylove_Sourcebook]) [[User:FalseAlias|FalseAlias]] ([[User talk:FalseAlias|talk]]) 03:39, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
:: Indeed. The acronym was added to the titles of the pages in that category in order to distinguish them from regular wiki articles, since their format and type of content are different. [[User:Dandelion|Dandelion]] ([[User talk:Dandelion|talk]]) 21:52, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

== Request for image upload ==

Hi Dandelion, I wrote a message to Etenne a couple of days ago but I'm not sure if he still visits here, so I thought to ask you, since you have permission to upload images. I'd like to add a picture of this podcast's logo to this article: [[https://www.boywiki.org/en/MAPs_irl MAPs irl]].

[[User:Hikari-again|Hikari-again]] ([[User talk:Hikari-again|talk]]) 04:37, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
:Hello, Hikari. Is there a URL for the image? [[User:Dandelion|Dandelion]] ([[User talk:Dandelion|talk]]) 19:27, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

::Dandelion, not sure if [https://ton.twitter.com/i/ton/data/dm/1157169031670976516/1157169025123680256/3bq61Yul.jpg:medium this link] will work but if not I can email it to you. [[User:Hikari-again|Hikari-again]] ([[User talk:Hikari-again|talk]]) 06:06, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
:::I checked the Twitter account for the podcast. Is [https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/1085257494530789381/J7wJfGYu.jpg this picture] OK? [[User:Dandelion|Dandelion]] ([[User talk:Dandelion|talk]]) 22:51, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
::::Yup, that works. [[User:Hikari-again|Hikari-again]] ([[User talk:Hikari-again|talk]]) 05:56, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
:::::[https://boywiki.org/media/File:MAPs_irl_Podcast_logo.jpg Done]. Sorry for the delay. [[User:Dandelion|Dandelion]] ([[User talk:Dandelion|talk]]) 00:54, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
::::::Thank you, no problem! [[User:Hikari-again|Hikari-again]] ([[User talk:Hikari-again|talk]]) 23:16, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

== Anglosphere ==

Hey Dandelion, do we have any more info about the [[anglosphere]], the non-[[anglosphere]], and the differences between them that are relevant to boylove and boylovers, and the reasons why they are the way they are, with regard to those topics? Currently there's not a lot of info in those articles, but it seems like I've read more about it elsewhere, I just can't remember where. Thanks, [[User:Lysander|Lysander]] ([[User talk:Lysander|talk]]) 20:54, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
:Hi, Lysander. Sorry for the late reply, I had a problem with my computer. I recommend that you seek advice from BoyChat users who may be acquainted with the relevant literature. Edmund, Kit, Filip30, Sick Rose, Shy Guy and Pharmakon are some names that come to mind. Hopefully they can provide you with the titles of articles and books, if not with links or quotations. [[User:Dandelion|Dandelion]] ([[User talk:Dandelion|talk]]) 06:18, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
::Yeah, I'm banned from BoyChat so I guess that won't be happening. Seems someone did write an article awhile ago on this topic, though. Oh well. [[User:Lysander|Lysander]] ([[User talk:Lysander|talk]]) 12:03, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

== Thanks ==

Much appreciate the texts and links on Islamic boys. [[User:Wanker|Wanker]] ([[User talk:Wanker|talk]]) 23:48, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Computer security

2019-10-18T11:33:18Z

Wanker: /* iPhone/iPad */

The term '''computer security''' for boylovers normally refers to preventing hostile operatives from tracing your Internet activities back to you. You need to make sure that your computer, if stolen or lost, does not reveal anything linking you to any boylove activities, even if activism is legal. That still means the risk of losing your job, friends, and family, and being physically attacked.

Although one hundred per cent security is impossible, you can make it more difficult for hackers and authorities to trace you, so they'll go bother somebody else. It is like installing an alarm system in your house - it guarantees nothing, but it makes breaking in burdensome, so the would-be burglar goes to a house with no alarm. ''Security is a function of the resources your adversary is willing to commit'', said Julian Sanchez, a policy expert with the Cato Institute in Washington, D.C.<ref>"Beat the FBI: How to Send Anonymous Email Without Getting Caught", by Ben Weitzenkorn,http://www.tomsguide.com/us/-anonymous-email-how-to,news-17511.html</ref>

Because terrorists are perceived as a bigger danger than boylovers, the bulk of the computing power available in the world (always finite) is focused on them.

== Internet security==

The Internet was originally built with no security, as it came out of a military environment in which all participants were known and trusted <ref>Wikipedia: History of the Internet https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Internet</ref>. Privacy and security is continuously grafted onto the platform as it grows and expands into new fields that their creators never designed it for. With complexity it increases the chances of a vulnerability being exploited for nefarious purposes, Internet Security is a game of a whack a mole, you should never lower your guard.

There are technological advances every single day, if you care about computer security, you must read about technology and security news as often as you can to update your knowledge, what is safe today might change tomorrow, by being up to date on technological advances you can plan for the future, for example, by picking a strong encryption algorithm that will be safe for the next twenty years.

===Web browsers===

A Web browser is a program that runs on your computer/smartphone/tablet and is used to access the Internet. It has the function, among others, of decoding the data received — most of it strings of characters are meaningless if not processed — and transforming them into a meaningful form to a human while displaying it optimally on your computer/smartphone/tablet. Chrome, Firefox, Microsoft Edge and Apple's Safari are some example of Internet browsers.

When your browser sends a request for a page to a web server, it goes first to your Internet Service Provider (in some countries a government agency), which records it and sends it on its way on the Internet. Together with the name/address of the page desired, the request includes information about you. Most important is your IP (Internet protocol) address, a string of numbers that identifies the requesting computer, so that the desired data can be sent to it. It also includes the browser and operating system used, and sometimes the hardware used.

===IP Address===

Every device connected to the Internet is identified by a unique number known as an [[IP address]], IP stands for ''Internet Protocol'', an IPv4 address number is made up of 32 bits and takes the form '''n.n.n.n''', IPv4 address example: 127.1.67.235. To cope with Internet growth, due to IPv4 addresses running out, a new Internet Protocol Version called IPv6 was developed, they are made up of 128 bits and represented as eight groups of four hexadecimal digits with the groups being separated by colons, IPv6 address example: 3ffe:1900:4545:3:200:f8ff:fe21:67cf

Both protocols IPv4 and IPv6 are interoperable, the numbers may be different each time you connect but your Internet Service Provider assigns these numbers, they know the history of each IP address, they can provide law enforcement with the name and address of the subscriber that has been assigned a particular IP address.

Internet Service Providers have the capacity of logging each page a user visits and blocking access to them, in some countries this is a reality. In the United Kingdom the Investigatory Powers Bill forces Internet Service Providers to keep web records of users for 12 months. <ref>Investigatory Powers Bill UK https://www.wired.co.uk/article/ip-bill-law-details-passed</ref>

In the United States, if national security is at stake, National Security Letters, authorised by Congress can be used by federal agencies. They require Internet Service Providers to release to all data they have about any user, furthermore, the Internet Service Provider is prohibited from informing you that a request for information about you has been received. Given the recent history of misconduct by the FBI and similar agencies, it would be naive to assume that all of these warrantless, secret searches are for legitimate national security purposes. It is well documented that if evidence of any illegal activity is found in the data gathered using a National Security Letter, even if it has no relevance to national security, that data can be and is legally used to bring criminal charges.

In addition to your ISP, Web sites routinely log the IP address of every visitor, together with the browser they are using and operating system. This information may also be retained indefinitely. While a subpoena is usually necessary for law enforcement to obtain access in the United States, a subpoena may entail little more for the requesting agency than filling out an online form. In many countries law enforcement has total access to servers within its borders. <ref>Russia demands access to VPN providers’ servers https://www.networkworld.com/article/3385050/russia-demands-access-to-vpn-providers-servers.html</ref>

To secure your web browsing and stop Internet Service Providers from logging, spying and censoring your Internet activities, you can use a [[Proxy and VPN|VPN or Tor]].

=== Virtual Private Networks (VPNs) ===

A [[Proxy_and_VPN|Virtual Private Network]] creates an encrypted tunnel and connects you to a proxy server that will receive your data request for an Internet page or download and forward it using the VPN server IP address instead of yours, because of the encryption, your Internet Service Provider will not be able to see what you are doing on the Internet or intercept your communications, only the VPN provider will be able to do that, many claim they keep no logs, or keep them very briefly but such claims must be treated with caution as you have no way to verify it.

A VPN provider located in a foreign country, simply because of the hassle of dealing with an agency of another country, can provide more protection than a domestic one. The client software running on your computer/smartphone or tablet will [[encryption|encrypt]] your request for a Web page, so even if your data is being monitored, all the monitor can tell is that a certain IP address (you) sent a request to a VPN, but the URL of the page that you requested is not visible. Another use of a VPN is being able to access websites that are georestricted, for example watching CBS online outside the USA.

In most Western countries using a VPN is completely legal and there are many legitimate purposes to use one, like wanting to secure your Internet activities on a Wifi access point or a business looking for secure access to a stock market account.

The Onion Router [[Tor]] is a chain of proxy servers located in multiple countries and it is far more secure than a VPN, however speed is slower.

==What information does your browser store?==

Most web browsers store a great deal of information every time you visit a web page; law enforcement accesses it by running the program Browser Postmortem. This storage is intended to make it easier for you to later find and reload already visited Web pages. What information is stored, how and where, depends on which browser you use, which version you have, on what platform or operating system you are running it, and your personal security settings. Some of the items a browser may record are:

# All web page addresses (URLs) you entered into your browser's address bar. This is found in your browser's History.
# The page itself in your cache.
# Any embedded elements, such as graphics or scripts, saved separately in your cache.
# Cookies.
# Search history (terms searched for by [[search engines]]).

===Address Bar and History===

Both the browser history and address-bar list make it easier to access recently-visited sites by storing the addresses of any site you visit. These effectively leaves a trail for others with access to your computer to find and follow your activity on the Internet. Anyone else who uses or has access to your browser can easily look at your recent internet activity.

All major browsers have a menu command to delete the history; but this is no protection and can be easily recovered with specialist software by law enforcement or computer technicians. There are programs like Bleachbit that will securely overwrite temporary files so that recovery it is not possible but wiping software is not 100% perfect, the only way to be sure that no data will ever be recovered from your computer is to encrypt the whole hard drive or use a live DVD to browse the Internet, for example Tails.

===The Browser Cache===

The browser cache is designed to make loading frequently-accessed pages quicker. Downloading a page from the internet takes time, so the cache is designed to store entire pages from sites which you visit. Some browsers create a single cache file, while others may store embedded elements such as images, style-sheets or scripts separately. When you type an address into your browser it will check with the server to see if the page has been modified since last accessed and if there are no changes it will draw the page from the cache rather than from the server.

The browser cache is a record of the sites you have visited and can easily be accessed by others. Major browsers have a menu selection to erase the cache. However it does not securely erase the data is still recoverable with specialist undelete software. A medium security solution is to deploy secure erasing software like CCleaner, or browse the Internet in incognito mode, it considerably reduces the information available in your hard drive but not all of it if your opponent has high IT skills he might still be able to recover small bits of information.

===Cookies===

[[Cookie]]s are small files used to by web sites to either store settings or track what you do online. They are sent to your computer and stored by your browser when you visit a site. Cookies are necessary for innocent purposes such as automating log-in and storing preferences, and providing targeted advertising, but they too leave their footprints for others to follow. If someone can look at what cookies you have stored in your Internet browser they can find out what websites you visited and the associated usernames.

Inside your Internet browser settings you can manually erase cookies but this will not be done safely unless they are overwritten with specialist Internet privacy software that stops computer forensic tools from unerasing them.

==="Private" or "Incognito" mode===

Modern browsers often have what is called ''Private Browsing'' (Firefox) or ''Incognito Mode'' (Chrome), when activated, no browsing history, cookies or cache are kept. Once all tabs are closed, all session information is discarded. However, it does not conceal from your Internet Service Provider, workplace, library or Internet cafe which pages you visited and it will not stop other applications in your computer. like a keylogger, from monitoring what you are browsing, if you have downloaded a file in Incognito mode, this file will remain in your hard drive. <ref> Myths about private browsing: https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/common-myths-about-private-browsing</ref>

== Windows 10 ==

* Microsof account: Microsoft Windows 10 operating system attempts to convince users to sign up for a Microsoft account, signing into Windows 10 with your Microsoft account will immediately sync settings and data to the company’s servers, the data contains your Internet browsing history, passwords and settings saved. <ref> 5 privacy settings you should change in Windows 10 https://www.cnet.com/how-to/5-privacy-settings-to-change-in-windows-10/</ref> to avoid this use a local Windows 10 account instead of a Microsoft cloud account.

* OneDrive: When you upload files to OneDrive they are automatically scanned to detect child pornography, <ref>Microsoft tip leads to child porn arrest in Pennsylvania https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-28682686</ref> the main problem with this is approach is that Microsoft treats everybody like a suspected criminal and child pornographer without being one, it is like having to submit yourself to a search without any evidence of any wrongdoing and without any warrant, by agreeing to using OneDrive, you are waving your privacy rights, the same for Dropbox and other cloud services. If you care about not being treated like a suspected criminal, uninstall OneDrive from Windows 10.

* Cortana: Microsoft speech assistant is turned on by default, it collects and analyses speech data like your name, contacts and calendar events, they are all saved on Microsoft servers. You can not uninstall Cortana from Windows 10 but you can turn it off in settings and you should do that if you are privacy conscious.

== Smartphones and tablets ==

=== iPhone/iPad ===

The latest Apple's iOS operating system, used on the iPhone and iPad, [[encrypt]]s all information on the device. A user-chosen 4 digit (6 digit for iOS 9) passcode <ref> How to encrypt your iPhone: https://ssd.eff.org/en/module/how-encrypt-your-iphone </ref> must be created when the phone is first used, and it must be entered each time the device restarts (after complete shutdown). The passcode is also required when a screen lock activates after a certain (adjustable) period of inactivity; this feature is on by default, though it can be turned off.

Finding a 6 number passcode by what cryptographers call the "brute force" method (trying all 999999 possible codes) is almost impossible, because the iPhone only permits 10 attempts to enter the code. After that the phone is frozen, and a setting, not enabled by default in older models, will cause all data on the phone to be erased after 10 unsuccessful attempts.

The [[encryption]] on the iPhone has never been defeated by either thieves or law enforcement. Police and similar agencies have hundreds of seized iPhones, which cannot be accessed without the passcode. Apple itself cannot break the [[encryption]].

All of the data on the iPhone is backed up onto servers operated by Apple, iCloud, easily accessed by law enforcement because Apple hold the decryption key for iCloud, but this backup can be turned off by the user. If this is done, the only way to access the data on your iPhone will be with your password, however, in some countries like the United Kingdom, the law forces you to hand over your decryption keys if law enforcement requests it. <ref> UK police can now force you to reveal decryption keys: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/10/03/ripa-decryption_keys_power/ </ref>, but in other countries like the United States, you can plead the Constitution Fifth Amendment right not to self-incriminate and refuse handing over the password to your iPhone. <ref>Forcing Someone to Unlock and Decrypt Their Phone Violates the Constitution https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/03/eff-court-forcing-someone-unlock-and-decrypt-their-phone-violates-constitution </ref>.

There has been cases in the US where people using Touch ID, fingerprints, and Face ID to lock the iPhone have been forced to unlock it for law enforcement, this is contested area, some judges have ruled that forcing somebody to unlock a phone with his fingerprint does not violate the Fifth Amendment<ref>Police Can Force You to Use Your Fingerprint to Unlock Your Phone: https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2016/05/iphone-fingerprint-search-warrant/480861/</ref> and other judges have said that this is a violation of their right not to self-incriminate. If you are want top privacy use only a passphrase to lock your iPhone and do not rely on fingerprints or Face ID.

=== Android ===

== See also ==

* [[Privacy Freeware]]
* [[Tor|The Onion Router Tor]]
* [[The Dangers of using VPN]]

==References==
{{reflist}}

[[Category:Essential reading for BoyLovers]]
[[Category:Technology]]

== External links ==

* [https://ssd.eff.org/ Surveillance Self-defence Guide] Electronics Frontiers Foundation guide
* [https://www.whatismybrowser.com/ WhatIsMyBrowser.com] See your Interner browser headers
* [https://www.bleachbit.org/ BleachBit Privacy Cleaner]
* [https://www.oo-software.com/en/shutup10 Windows 10 O&O ShutUp10]
* [https://www.techadvisor.co.uk/how-to/windows/remove-onedrive-3664769/ How to remove OneDrive in Windows 10]
* [https://www.howtogeek.com/230543/how-to-revert-your-windows-10-account-to-a-local-one-after-the-windows-store-hijacks-it/ How to Revert Your Windows 10 Account to a Local One]

Computer security

2019-10-18T11:30:50Z

Wanker:

The term '''computer security''' for boylovers normally refers to preventing hostile operatives from tracing your Internet activities back to you. You need to make sure that your computer, if stolen or lost, does not reveal anything linking you to any boylove activities, even if activism is legal. That still means the risk of losing your job, friends, and family, and being physically attacked.

Although one hundred per cent security is impossible, you can make it more difficult for hackers and authorities to trace you, so they'll go bother somebody else. It is like installing an alarm system in your house - it guarantees nothing, but it makes breaking in burdensome, so the would-be burglar goes to a house with no alarm. ''Security is a function of the resources your adversary is willing to commit'', said Julian Sanchez, a policy expert with the Cato Institute in Washington, D.C.<ref>"Beat the FBI: How to Send Anonymous Email Without Getting Caught", by Ben Weitzenkorn,http://www.tomsguide.com/us/-anonymous-email-how-to,news-17511.html</ref>

Because terrorists are perceived as a bigger danger than boylovers, the bulk of the computing power available in the world (always finite) is focused on them.

== Internet security==

The Internet was originally built with no security, as it came out of a military environment in which all participants were known and trusted <ref>Wikipedia: History of the Internet https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Internet</ref>. Privacy and security is continuously grafted onto the platform as it grows and expands into new fields that their creators never designed it for. With complexity it increases the chances of a vulnerability being exploited for nefarious purposes, Internet Security is a game of a whack a mole, you should never lower your guard.

There are technological advances every single day, if you care about computer security, you must read about technology and security news as often as you can to update your knowledge, what is safe today might change tomorrow, by being up to date on technological advances you can plan for the future, for example, by picking a strong encryption algorithm that will be safe for the next twenty years.

===Web browsers===

A Web browser is a program that runs on your computer/smartphone/tablet and is used to access the Internet. It has the function, among others, of decoding the data received — most of it strings of characters are meaningless if not processed — and transforming them into a meaningful form to a human while displaying it optimally on your computer/smartphone/tablet. Chrome, Firefox, Microsoft Edge and Apple's Safari are some example of Internet browsers.

When your browser sends a request for a page to a web server, it goes first to your Internet Service Provider (in some countries a government agency), which records it and sends it on its way on the Internet. Together with the name/address of the page desired, the request includes information about you. Most important is your IP (Internet protocol) address, a string of numbers that identifies the requesting computer, so that the desired data can be sent to it. It also includes the browser and operating system used, and sometimes the hardware used.

===IP Address===

Every device connected to the Internet is identified by a unique number known as an [[IP address]], IP stands for ''Internet Protocol'', an IPv4 address number is made up of 32 bits and takes the form '''n.n.n.n''', IPv4 address example: 127.1.67.235. To cope with Internet growth, due to IPv4 addresses running out, a new Internet Protocol Version called IPv6 was developed, they are made up of 128 bits and represented as eight groups of four hexadecimal digits with the groups being separated by colons, IPv6 address example: 3ffe:1900:4545:3:200:f8ff:fe21:67cf

Both protocols IPv4 and IPv6 are interoperable, the numbers may be different each time you connect but your Internet Service Provider assigns these numbers, they know the history of each IP address, they can provide law enforcement with the name and address of the subscriber that has been assigned a particular IP address.

Internet Service Providers have the capacity of logging each page a user visits and blocking access to them, in some countries this is a reality. In the United Kingdom the Investigatory Powers Bill forces Internet Service Providers to keep web records of users for 12 months. <ref>Investigatory Powers Bill UK https://www.wired.co.uk/article/ip-bill-law-details-passed</ref>

In the United States, if national security is at stake, National Security Letters, authorised by Congress can be used by federal agencies. They require Internet Service Providers to release to all data they have about any user, furthermore, the Internet Service Provider is prohibited from informing you that a request for information about you has been received. Given the recent history of misconduct by the FBI and similar agencies, it would be naive to assume that all of these warrantless, secret searches are for legitimate national security purposes. It is well documented that if evidence of any illegal activity is found in the data gathered using a National Security Letter, even if it has no relevance to national security, that data can be and is legally used to bring criminal charges.

In addition to your ISP, Web sites routinely log the IP address of every visitor, together with the browser they are using and operating system. This information may also be retained indefinitely. While a subpoena is usually necessary for law enforcement to obtain access in the United States, a subpoena may entail little more for the requesting agency than filling out an online form. In many countries law enforcement has total access to servers within its borders. <ref>Russia demands access to VPN providers’ servers https://www.networkworld.com/article/3385050/russia-demands-access-to-vpn-providers-servers.html</ref>

To secure your web browsing and stop Internet Service Providers from logging, spying and censoring your Internet activities, you can use a [[Proxy and VPN|VPN or Tor]].

=== Virtual Private Networks (VPNs) ===

A [[Proxy_and_VPN|Virtual Private Network]] creates an encrypted tunnel and connects you to a proxy server that will receive your data request for an Internet page or download and forward it using the VPN server IP address instead of yours, because of the encryption, your Internet Service Provider will not be able to see what you are doing on the Internet or intercept your communications, only the VPN provider will be able to do that, many claim they keep no logs, or keep them very briefly but such claims must be treated with caution as you have no way to verify it.

A VPN provider located in a foreign country, simply because of the hassle of dealing with an agency of another country, can provide more protection than a domestic one. The client software running on your computer/smartphone or tablet will [[encryption|encrypt]] your request for a Web page, so even if your data is being monitored, all the monitor can tell is that a certain IP address (you) sent a request to a VPN, but the URL of the page that you requested is not visible. Another use of a VPN is being able to access websites that are georestricted, for example watching CBS online outside the USA.

In most Western countries using a VPN is completely legal and there are many legitimate purposes to use one, like wanting to secure your Internet activities on a Wifi access point or a business looking for secure access to a stock market account.

The Onion Router [[Tor]] is a chain of proxy servers located in multiple countries and it is far more secure than a VPN, however speed is slower.

==What information does your browser store?==

Most web browsers store a great deal of information every time you visit a web page; law enforcement accesses it by running the program Browser Postmortem. This storage is intended to make it easier for you to later find and reload already visited Web pages. What information is stored, how and where, depends on which browser you use, which version you have, on what platform or operating system you are running it, and your personal security settings. Some of the items a browser may record are:

# All web page addresses (URLs) you entered into your browser's address bar. This is found in your browser's History.
# The page itself in your cache.
# Any embedded elements, such as graphics or scripts, saved separately in your cache.
# Cookies.
# Search history (terms searched for by [[search engines]]).

===Address Bar and History===

Both the browser history and address-bar list make it easier to access recently-visited sites by storing the addresses of any site you visit. These effectively leaves a trail for others with access to your computer to find and follow your activity on the Internet. Anyone else who uses or has access to your browser can easily look at your recent internet activity.

All major browsers have a menu command to delete the history; but this is no protection and can be easily recovered with specialist software by law enforcement or computer technicians. There are programs like Bleachbit that will securely overwrite temporary files so that recovery it is not possible but wiping software is not 100% perfect, the only way to be sure that no data will ever be recovered from your computer is to encrypt the whole hard drive or use a live DVD to browse the Internet, for example Tails.

===The Browser Cache===

The browser cache is designed to make loading frequently-accessed pages quicker. Downloading a page from the internet takes time, so the cache is designed to store entire pages from sites which you visit. Some browsers create a single cache file, while others may store embedded elements such as images, style-sheets or scripts separately. When you type an address into your browser it will check with the server to see if the page has been modified since last accessed and if there are no changes it will draw the page from the cache rather than from the server.

The browser cache is a record of the sites you have visited and can easily be accessed by others. Major browsers have a menu selection to erase the cache. However it does not securely erase the data is still recoverable with specialist undelete software. A medium security solution is to deploy secure erasing software like CCleaner, or browse the Internet in incognito mode, it considerably reduces the information available in your hard drive but not all of it if your opponent has high IT skills he might still be able to recover small bits of information.

===Cookies===

[[Cookie]]s are small files used to by web sites to either store settings or track what you do online. They are sent to your computer and stored by your browser when you visit a site. Cookies are necessary for innocent purposes such as automating log-in and storing preferences, and providing targeted advertising, but they too leave their footprints for others to follow. If someone can look at what cookies you have stored in your Internet browser they can find out what websites you visited and the associated usernames.

Inside your Internet browser settings you can manually erase cookies but this will not be done safely unless they are overwritten with specialist Internet privacy software that stops computer forensic tools from unerasing them.

==="Private" or "Incognito" mode===

Modern browsers often have what is called ''Private Browsing'' (Firefox) or ''Incognito Mode'' (Chrome), when activated, no browsing history, cookies or cache are kept. Once all tabs are closed, all session information is discarded. However, it does not conceal from your Internet Service Provider, workplace, library or Internet cafe which pages you visited and it will not stop other applications in your computer. like a keylogger, from monitoring what you are browsing, if you have downloaded a file in Incognito mode, this file will remain in your hard drive. <ref> Myths about private browsing: https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/common-myths-about-private-browsing</ref>

== Windows 10 ==

* Microsof account: Microsoft Windows 10 operating system attempts to convince users to sign up for a Microsoft account, signing into Windows 10 with your Microsoft account will immediately sync settings and data to the company’s servers, the data contains your Internet browsing history, passwords and settings saved. <ref> 5 privacy settings you should change in Windows 10 https://www.cnet.com/how-to/5-privacy-settings-to-change-in-windows-10/</ref> to avoid this use a local Windows 10 account instead of a Microsoft cloud account.

* OneDrive: When you upload files to OneDrive they are automatically scanned to detect child pornography, <ref>Microsoft tip leads to child porn arrest in Pennsylvania https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-28682686</ref> the main problem with this is approach is that Microsoft treats everybody like a suspected criminal and child pornographer without being one, it is like having to submit yourself to a search without any evidence of any wrongdoing and without any warrant, by agreeing to using OneDrive, you are waving your privacy rights, the same for Dropbox and other cloud services. If you care about not being treated like a suspected criminal, uninstall OneDrive from Windows 10.

* Cortana: Microsoft speech assistant is turned on by default, it collects and analyses speech data like your name, contacts and calendar events, they are all saved on Microsoft servers. You can not uninstall Cortana from Windows 10 but you can turn it off in settings and you should do that if you are privacy conscious.

== Smartphones and tablets ==

=== iPhone/iPad ===

The latest Apple's iOS operating system, used on the iPhone and iPad, [[encrypt]] all information on the device. A user-chosen 4 digit (6 digit for iOS 9) passcode <ref> How to encrypt your iPhone: https://ssd.eff.org/en/module/how-encrypt-your-iphone </ref> must be created when the phone is first used, and it must be entered each time the device restarts (after complete shutdown). The passcode is also required when a screen lock activates after a certain (adjustable) period of inactivity; this feature is on by default, though it can be turned off.

Finding a 6 number passcode by what cryptographers call the "brute force" method (trying all 999999 possible codes) is almost impossible, because the iPhone only permits 10 attempts to enter the code. After that the phone is frozen, and a setting, not enabled by default in older models, will cause all data on the phone to be erased after 10 unsuccessful attempts.

The [[encryption]] on the iPhone has never been defeated by either thieves or law enforcement. Police and similar agencies have hundreds of seized iPhones, which cannot be accessed without the passcode. Apple itself cannot break the [[encryption]].

All of the data on the iPhone is backed up onto servers operated by Apple, iCloud, easily accessed by law enforcement because Apple hold the decryption key for iCloud, but this backup can be turned off by the user. If this is done, the only way to access the data on your iPhone will be with your password, however, in some countries like the United Kingdom, the law forces you to hand over your decryption keys if law enforcement requests it. <ref> UK police can now force you to reveal decryption keys: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/10/03/ripa-decryption_keys_power/ </ref>, but in other countries like the United States, you can plead the Constitution Fifth Amendment right not to self-incriminate and refuse handing over the password to your iPhone. <ref>Forcing Someone to Unlock and Decrypt Their Phone Violates the Constitution https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/03/eff-court-forcing-someone-unlock-and-decrypt-their-phone-violates-constitution </ref>.

There has been cases in the US where people using Touch ID, fingerprints, and Face ID to lock the iPhone have been forced to unlock it for law enforcement, this is contested area, some judges have ruled that forcing somebody to unlock a phone with his fingerprint does not violate the Fifth Amendment<ref>Police Can Force You to Use Your Fingerprint to Unlock Your Phone: https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2016/05/iphone-fingerprint-search-warrant/480861/</ref> and other judges have said that this is a violation of their right not to self-incriminate. If you are want top privacy use only a passphrase to lock your iPhone and do not rely on fingerprints or Face ID.

=== Android ===

== See also ==

* [[Privacy Freeware]]
* [[Tor|The Onion Router Tor]]
* [[The Dangers of using VPN]]

==References==
{{reflist}}

[[Category:Essential reading for BoyLovers]]
[[Category:Technology]]

== External links ==

* [https://ssd.eff.org/ Surveillance Self-defence Guide] Electronics Frontiers Foundation guide
* [https://www.whatismybrowser.com/ WhatIsMyBrowser.com] See your Interner browser headers
* [https://www.bleachbit.org/ BleachBit Privacy Cleaner]
* [https://www.oo-software.com/en/shutup10 Windows 10 O&O ShutUp10]
* [https://www.techadvisor.co.uk/how-to/windows/remove-onedrive-3664769/ How to remove OneDrive in Windows 10]
* [https://www.howtogeek.com/230543/how-to-revert-your-windows-10-account-to-a-local-one-after-the-windows-store-hijacks-it/ How to Revert Your Windows 10 Account to a Local One]

Child pornography

2019-10-18T11:27:16Z

Wanker: /* Textual child pornography */

'''Child pornography''' is any depiction (image or video) or written description (story, etc.) that involves a child and that violates legal prohibitions against child pornography. The definition is necessarily circular, since the numerous and varied laws that apply to this subject make a more concise definition virtually impossible to formulate. In addition, the definitions tend broaden over time, rendering controversial any number of things that may have been legal previously.

"Child erotica" is a more neutral term for "child pornography". "Child erotica" may or may not include overt sexual activity, and may or may not be illegal, depending on how the law is applied in any particular jurisdiction.

== History ==

Before the mid 1970s, "child pornography" was available legally in most countries, including the [[United States]]. With the advent of [[child abuse]] legislation in the mid 1970s, however, anti-pornography advocates and other social and religious conservatives argued against child pornography since they claim that the production of child pornography may involve [[child sexual abuse]]. Even though scholars have challenged whether child pornography (in the broad sense) involves child sexual abuse (see Schuijer and Rossen 1992), whether child sexual abuse (again broadly defined) can lead to psychological trauma (see the [[Rind Report]] and [The Trauma Myth (book)]), and whether it can lead people to offend against children (see Howitt 1995), many people today are convinced that producing, distributing or possessing child pornography is even ''worse'' than child abuse. Even though all adult-child sex is declared, inaccurately, to be abusive and criminal, child pornography, their minds, is worse. It's child abuse made into a movie, for men to masturbate to. It confirms for doubting pedos that kids can really enjoy sex.

In the decision by the US Supreme Court on April 23, 2014, ''[[Voodoo Molestation and US Law|Doyle Randall Paroline v. United States, et al.]]'' <ref>[http://www2.bloomberglaw.com/public/desktop/document/Paroline_v_United_States_No_128561_2014_BL_112162_US_Apr_23_2014_/1 DOYLE RANDALL PAROLINE, PETITIONER v. UNITED STATES, ET AL. ]</ref>, it was adjudicated that ''restitution'' can be awarded based not only on the manufacture, sale, or distribution of child pornography, but can be collected from all those who have been convicted of viewing the image, based on the magical belief <ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magical_thinking</ref> that the act of viewing the image has essentiall caused psychological damage to the soul of the person depicted. Aside from pne well-publicised case,

== Definition ==

This has led to broadening the definition of child pornography. In general child pornography is understood as pornography featuring children (i.e. images of children involved in sexual activity). Over the years the definition has become broader to the following ways:

*'''Age of the "child"'''. The child is not defined nowadays as a prepubescent person, but as a person under the [[age of consent]] (usually between 15 and 18), or more strictly under the age of 18, or more broadly, according to the council of the [[European Union]] decision ([http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32004F0068:EN:HTML|E.U. Council Decision 2004/68/JHA]), "a person appearing to be a child" (which may be an adult over 18 who can pass as 16). {{uscsub|18|2256|1}} defines a minor as any person under the age of eighteen years, so it is possible for a person who takes sexually explicit photographs of his 17-year-old spouse to be convicted of child pornography production, even if there was no state law against such conduct. There have been cases in which naked "selfies" (pictures of oneself) have been deemed child pornography, in which case the child is both the injurer and the injured. [[Families Against Mandatory Minimums]] has expressed concerns over the [[mandatory minimum penalties]] established for these offenses, arguing that they sometimes result in absurd sentences, such as a 15-year sentence in a case involving a victim who consented and was of legal age to marry the offender.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.famm.org/federal/ChildPornographyOffenses.aspx|title=Child Pornography Offenses|author=Families Against Mandatory Minimums}}</ref>
*'''Nakedness of the "child"'''. According to ''[[United States v. Knox]]'' the "child" in question does not need to be nude as long as there is a "actual or simulated lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area." An image of a "child's" (broadly defined as above) crotch in underwear may fall under this definition.(see [[Azov Films Prosecutions]])
*'''Conduct of the "child"'''. In some countries, the portayal of naked children does not need to be sexual in order to be considered child pornography. Even though a three judge panel of the U.S. Third Circuit Court ruled on October 23, 2000 that [[naturism|naturist]] magazines depicting naked children in "a variety of outdoor activities, all of which are natural and expected for healthy and active children, teenagers, and adults" should not be considered obscene, American photo labs are arresting parents as child pornographers for taking pictures of their kids in the bath or photographers taking artistic pictures of naked children in [[naturism|naturist]] beaches (see [[Jock Sturges]]).

As of March 2014, a Danish proposal called for banning images that show young children who are obviously being posed in ways designed to be erotic: scantily clad, wearing adult makeup and pouting sexually, for example – even though they are not being abused and have their genitalia covered.<ref>http://cphpost.dk/news/politicians-disagree-on-child-pornography-laws.8847.html</ref>

== Dost Test==
The '''''Dost'' test''' is a six-factor guideline established in 1986 in the case ''United States v. Dost''. The case involved 22 nude or semi-nude photographs of females aged 10–14 years old. The undeveloped film containing the images was mailed to a photo processing company in Hollywood, California.

In order to better determine whether a visual depiction of a minor constitutes a "lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area", the court developed six criteria. Not all of the criteria need to be met, nor are other criteria necessarily excluded in this test.<ref>url=http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9482047682589425170&hl=en&as_sdt=10000000000002&as_</ref><ref>http://www.eff.org/issues/bloggers/legal/adult</ref>

# Whether the focal point of the visual depiction is on the child's genitalia or pubic area.
# Whether the setting of the visual depiction is sexually suggestive, i.e., in a place or pose generally associated with sexual activity.
# Whether the child is depicted in an unnatural pose, or in inappropriate attire, considering the age of the child.
# Whether the child is fully or partially clothed, or nude.
# Whether the visual depiction suggests sexual coyness or a willingness to engage in sexual activity.
# Whether the visual depiction is intended or designed to elicit a sexual response in the viewer.

Concerning the lascivious display of clothed genitalia, the U.S. Department of Justice described use of the Dost test in child pornography and 2257 documentation regulations in a 2008 rule, writing that the precedent ''United States v. Knox'', did not prohibit ordinary swim team or underwear model photographs, but "although the genitals were clothed in that case, they were covered by thin, opaque clothing with an obvious purpose to draw attention to them, were displayed by models who spread or extended their legs to make the pubic and genital region entirely visible to the viewer, and were displayed by models who danced or gyrated in a way indicative of adult sexual relations".<ref>http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2008/E8-29677.htm</ref>

Briefs submitted in late 2009 for [http://caselaw.findlaw.com/fl-district-court-of-appeal/1246396.html ''Brabson v. Florida''], a case in which girls were secretly videotaped during the "innocent conduct" of changing into swimwear, differ concerning the nature of "intent" in the Dost test. At issue is whether "Cases applying Dost hold that the focus in determining whether an image is lascivious should be on the objective criteria of the image's design, not the 'actual effect' of the images on a particular defendant".<ref>http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/clerk/briefs/2009/1-200/09-136_JurisIni.pdf </ref><ref>http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/clerk/briefs/2009/1-200/09-136_JurisAns.pdf</ref>

== Criticism of the Dost Test ==

The test was criticized by New York University School of Law professor Amy Adler as forcing members of the public to look at pictures of children as a pedophile would in order to determine whether they are considered inappropriate. "As everything becomes child pornography in the eyes of the law—clothed children, coy children, children in settings where children are found—perhaps children themselves become pornographic".<ref>http://www.law.nyu.edu/news/ADLER_SPECTACLES</ref>

The sixth criteria of the Dost Test," Whether the visual depiction is intended or designed to elicit a sexual response in the viewer", seriously approaches thought crime. The case could, and has, been made that because a particular image elicited a sexual response in the viewer, it could therefore be seen as child pornography. This means that because someone gets turned on by an image that makes the image pornographic. It is a total legislation of thought crime against pedophiles and is entirely dangerous for society. If it turns you on it is lewd and therefore illegal. Schmitt v. State involved a father who was accused of taking nude photographs of his daughter while she was between the ages of eight and twelve years old. The court argued over whether or not the photographs were lewd. In distinguishing mere nudity from a lewd or lascivious display, the court considered the photographer's intent and actions.
{{quote|While it is conceivable that one might view the allegations in the present affidavit as depicting simple nudity, we believe the magistrate had a substantial basis for concluding otherwise. The affidavit's factual allegations indicated that Schmitt did not treat the nudity of himself, his daughter, and others in the offhand, natural manner that might be expected if the conduct were purely innocent-for example, if they were nudists. Rather, the affidavit shows he made nudity a central and almost obsessive object of his attention. Thus, the magistrate reasonably could have believed that Schmitt's conduct toward his daughter included the “lewdness” element required by the statute. '''While nudity alone would not have sufficed, this overall focus of Schmitt's conduct tended to show a lewd intent''' and thus created a substantial basis for believing that the search would fairly probably yield evidence of a violation.<ref>http://caselaw.findlaw.com/fl-district-court-of-appeal/1246396.html</ref>(emphisis added)}}

It is the '''intent''' of the photographer which is being used to say whether or not an image is child pornography. The photos themselves are not pornography unless the photographer intended them to be. That is thought crime. A heterosexual man may take pictures of a nude boy, and prove that he had no sexual intent, and that therefore the pictures are not child pornography. If the exact same pictures were taken by a boylover they could be deemed illegal because the boylover had "lewd intent". This makes the simple metaphysical act of being a pedophile illegal in and of itself, in certain instances. It is unabashed thought crime through and through.

==Term==
Sometimes objections are raised to the term "child pornography" on the grounds that it implies consensual activity.<ref>http://www.interpol.int/en/Media/Files/INTERPOL-Expertise/IGLC/Child-abuse-material-and-the-Internet</ref> Terms such as "child abuse material" or "child abuse imagery"<ref>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-life/10675738/Patrick-Rock-child-abuse-arrest-Can-we-all-stop-calling-child-abuse-child-porn.html</ref> are preferred instead. In cases involving children who create their own child pornography without adult involvement, the children are presumably abusing themselves, according to this view. Some children have been charged with producing and circulating child pornography for taking and circulating pictures of themselves.

== Simulated child pornography ==

As if these were not enough, child pornography law in the U.S. has established that simulated computer images, or drawings, or [[painting|paintings]] of children (naked or not) that are deemed "indecent" or "lascivious" are illegal as well, even though there should be no question of child sexual abuse since, by definition, the production of these images do not involve real children.

In particular, [[United Kingdom]] with an 1994 Criminal Justice and Public Order Act introduced the legal definition of an "indecent pseudo-photograph of a child", which is prohibited as if it were a true photograph. On October 1, 2002, the [[Netherlands]] introduced legislation (''Bulletin of Acts and Decrees'' 470) which deemed "virtual child pornography" as illegal. German law does not discriminate between actual or "realistic" sexual depictions of children, while [[Canada]] in October 2005, Canadian courts sentenced an Edmonton, Alberta man to one year of community service for importing [[Shotacon|manga depicting child sex]]. Nevertheless, the [[United States]] Supreme Court decided in 2002 that the previous American prohibition of simulated child pornography was unconstitutional (''Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition'').

==Allusion pornography==
As a response to the publication of the first edition of ''[[Destroyer Magazine]]'' the Swedish Ombudsman for Children, Lena Nyberg proposed in 2006 a change to Swedish law making "allusion" pornography (defined as images of males who have not completed puberty and merely ''appear'' to be under the age of 18) illegal.<ref>''Gay Man's Worst Friend - the Story of Destroyer Magazine'' Karl Andersson, (self-translated by the author from the Swedish) (2011), Entartetes Leben:Czech Republic, p. 20, [Translation of ''Bögarnas värsta vän – historien om tidningen Destroyer'', Karl Andersson (2010) ]</ref>

:A law to treat arbitrarily defined “young-looking” adults as legal children has been rejected so far even in porn-hysterical US. Such a law could send a Swedish gay man to prison for possessing, say, a photo of his formerly furry boyfriend’s now smooth-as-a-baby’s-bottom shaved crotch.<ref>''The Guide'', 2006, as quoted in ''Gay Man's Worst Friend''</ref>

For additional details, please read ''Gay Man's Worst Friend - the Story of Destroyer Magazine''.<ref>''Gay Man's Worst Friend - the Story of Destroyer Magazine'', ibid. </ref>

== Textual child pornography ==

In some countries textual material describing sexual activities involving children is legally classified as child pornography (e.g. in [[Canada]] and [[Norway]] since 2005) while in other countries, for example the [[United Kingdom]], it is not prohibited in itself, but is covered under general laws controlling indecency and [[obscenity]]. The rationale behind these laws is that textual depictions of sex with children promote child sexual abuse. In yet other countries, most significantly the [[United States]], it is legal; written child pornography is legally protected by the US Constitution as long as it is not judged obscene. As it very difficult to prove obcenity, it is effectively legal. As a result of its general legality in the [[United States]], written child pornography is easily available on the Internet. In some states, a person can be prosecuted for mere writings. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_v._Dalton The State v. Dalton] is a legal case in the United States state of Ohio involving the prosecution of a man for recording fictional tales of alleged [[child pornography]] in a diary. He had no images, either drawn or photographed, just writings in a journal and it was deemed to be [[child pornography]]. Altogether the man spent over 10 years in prison for simple writings.<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2001/07/14/us/child-pornography-writer-gets-10-year-prison-term.html/</ref>

In September 2006, Federal authorities prosecuted Karen Fletcher for transmitting obscene materials in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1462(a) and 2, after she posted various stories on the website describing the torture, sexual molestation, and murder of fictional children. The case was notable because the allegedly obscene materials were text only, and the government has never won a conviction based solely on text under current obscenity law. Fletcher pled guilty to six counts of distributing obscene materials online in August 2008. She was sentenced to a term of probation of 60 months, with 6 months of home detention, a fine of $1,000, and a special assessment of $600.<ref>http://www.dmlp.org/threats/united-states-v-fletcher</ref>

In addition, the [[New Zealand]] Court of Appeals ruled in ''Moonen v. Film and Literature Board of Review'' (1999) that erotica stories published by [[Acolyte Press]] should not be considered child pornography as they could not see how these stories explicity promote child sexual abuse.

Due to its widespread availability, countries in which it is prohibited have not always actively sought to enforce the legal prohibition against it. In general, people possessing or distributing this material are only charged if they come to the attention of law enforcement, most commonly while being investigated for other crimes (such as possession of visual child pornography, or child sexual abuse, see [[Robin Sharpe]])

The prohibition against written child pornography can extend even to materials produced by [[pedophilia|pedophiles]] for their own personal consumption and not revealed to anyone, such as diaries or journals in which they record their fantasies. Several individuals have been prosecuted for keeping such diaries (see [[Brongersma Foundation]]). Some have argued that this violates their right to freedom of thought.

==Enforcement and penalties==
The penalties for non-contact child pornography offenses are often greater than those for actually touching minors.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/05/us/life-sentence-for-possession-of-child-pornography-spurs-debate.html?_r=0|author=Goode, Erica|date=4 November 2011|publisher=New York Times|title=Life Sentence for Possession of Child Pornography Spurs Debate Over Severity}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.nacdl.org/Champion.aspx?id=22897|date=October 2011|pages=12|title=A Quiet but Growing Judicial Rebellion Against Harsh Sentences For Child Pornography Offenses — Should the Laws Be Changed?|author=Specter, Arlen and Hoffa, Linda Dale|publisher=The Champion}}</ref> In the ''Pabon-Cruz'' case, Judge Gerald E. Lynch noted that if the defendant had been charged with having sex with a 12-year-old, he would have faced only about five years, rather than the ten years prescribed by federal law: "This leads me to the rather astonishing conclusion that Mr. Pabon-Cruz would have been better off molesting a child."<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/13/nyregion/a-judge-s-struggle-to-avoid-imposing-a-penalty-he-hated.html?pagewanted=1|title=A Judge's Struggle To Avoid Imposing A Penalty He Hated|author=Weiser, Benjamin|date=13 January 2004|publisher=New York Times}}</ref> No reliable study has found that a possessor of child pornography is more likely to commit a contact offense.<ref>{{cite web|title=The Changing Landscape Of Sentencing Mitigation In Possession of Child Pornography Cases|url=http://www.nacdl.org/Champion.aspx?id=20607|date=May 2011|pages=32|author=Shein, Marcia G.|publisher=The Champion}}</ref> In fact, Melissa Hamilton notes:<ref name=Cardozo>{{cite journal|author=Hamilton, Melissa|volume=33|pages=1679|date=2011-2012|title=The Child Pornography Crusade and Its Net-Widening Effect|publisher=Cardozo Law Review}}</ref>
{{cquote|Despite the deontological presumptions underlying the child pornography crusade, researchers in the child sexual abuse arena contend that the evidence to date strongly and rather consistently shows that child pornography consumption does not itself represent a risk factor for contact sexual crimes. Instead, multiple studies show that child pornography offenders are at a much lower risk for contact sexual offending than previously known contact offenders. . . . Paraphilic interest does not motivate all child pornography offenders, but is one among many explanations for consumption. . . . Given that child pornography offenders tend to score low on antisocial tendencies, they are not likely to imitate the pornographic scenes with real children. Investigations of child pornography consumers have yielded several other, relatively nondeviant, motives that render these offenders at lower risk. Briefly, these motives include using the images as a substitute for contact offending, curiosity and accidental access, facilitating social relationships, and avoiding real life. . . . Further, child pornography offenders are better prospects for postconviction rehabilitation, with far better rates of compliance when treated and when supervised postrelease, compared to child molesters. This may be the case, in part, since child pornography offenders may have more incentives as they tend to be better educated, of higher intelligence, and more likely to be gainfully employed than other types of sexual offenders. In sum, child pornography offending as a signal crime used to invoke fear for the safety of children is a social construction that misses the mark.}}

The FBI has made more than 10,000 child pornography arrests since 1996, with the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement reporting a similar number of arrests since its creation in 2003.<ref>{{cite web|title=Child porn prosecutions soaring in U.S.|url=http://www.denverpost.com/ci_17306656|author=Elias, Paul|date=6 February 2011|publisher=Associated Press}}</ref> The average sentence in 2007 was 91 months.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/22/nyregion/22judge.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0|title=Defiant Judge Takes On Child Pornography Law|date=21 May 2010|author=Sulzberger, A.G.|publisher=New York Times}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.nacdl.org/Champion.aspx?id=14684|date=December 2009|pages=12|author=Ian Friedman, Roger Pimentel|title=Sexual Offenders: How to Create a More Deliberative Sentencing Process|publisher=News and The Champion}}</ref>

The manufacture of such content carries a 15-year mandatory minimum sentence,<ref>{{uscsub|18|2251|e}}</ref> while pursuant to the [[PROTECT Act]], receipt or distribution of it is punishable by a mandatory minimum sentence of five years in prison for a first offender.<ref>{{uscsub|18|2252|b|1}}</ref><ref>{{cite court|url=http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-2nd-circuit/1059531.html|litigants=U.S. v. Jorge L. Pabon-Cruz|court=2nd Cir.}}</ref> The penalties have been substantially increased; in 1991, a first offender a with no criminal history who possessed violent child pornography images and movies and shared them with others would face a maximum of two years in prison in federal cases. Today, that same person could face more than 20 years.<ref>{{cite news|title=Making Punishments Fit the Most Offensive Crimes|author=Efrati, Amir|date=23 October 2008|url=http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122471925786760689.html|publisher=The Wall Street Journal}}</ref> One judge noted, "Our 'social revulsion' against these 'misfits' downloading these images is perhaps somewhat more rational than the thousands of witchcraft trials and burnings conducted in Europe and here from the Thirteenth to the Eighteenth Centuries, but it borders on the same thing."<ref>{{cite court|vol=551|reporter=F3d|opinion=516|date=9 January 2009|litigants=U.S. v. Paull|pinpoint=533|url=http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx?page=12&xmldoc=In%20FCO%2020090109099.xml&docbase=CsLwAr3-2007-Curr&SizeDisp=7|court=6th Cir.}}</ref>

When the [[U.S. Sentencing Guidelines]] were first promulgated, simple possession of child pornography was not a federal crime, and the single relevant Guideline addressed "transporting, receiving, or trafficking" offenses, for which the base offense level was 13. Since then, pursuant to the PROTECT Act and other laws, possession has become an offense with a base offense level of 18, and the base offense level for trafficking and receipt offenses has been raised to 22.<ref>{{cite web|title=Lessons from Two Failures: Sentencing for Cocaine and Child Pornography Under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines in the United States|author=Steiker, Carol S.|date=2013|url=http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4345&context=lcp}}</ref> In a 2010 survey of federal judges by the [[U.S. Sentencing Commission]], about 70 percent said the proposed ranges of sentences for possession and receipt of child pornography were too high.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/04/29/debate-rages-over-severity-child-porn-sentences/#ixzz1z1JmMKjU|title=Debate rages over severity of child-porn sentences|publisher=Associated Press|date=29 April 2012}}</ref>

==Child pornography is a "cheap crime" to investigate and prosecute==
Child pornography is a cheap crime for police, prosecutors, and judges to deal with. It can be investigated from an officer's desk, and at whatever schedule that he (or occasionally "she") finds convenient. The evidence is easy to store; it could hardly be easier. The definition of the crime is clear-cut; what was going on in the perpetrator or alleged victims' minds, always hard to deal with, is irrelevant. Charges are rarely contested or go to trial. There is scarcely any other felony whose investigation is so labor-efficient for law enforcement. Favorable news stories practically produce themselves. Unsurprisingly, prosecutions have boomed since the Internet became mainstream, about 2000.

(A similarly labor-efficient "crime" investigation technique is setting up "[[sting]]s", in which a law enforcement officer or ally pretends to be a minor in Internet chat rooms, sets up a meeting for sexual contact, then arrests the adult (almost always male) when he shows up for the meeting.)

==Arguments for and against child pornography==

===Arguments against child pornography===
The [[Meese Commission]] wrote:<ref>http://obi-investigators.com/xuk/porn/meese/207-child-pornpgraphy.htm</ref>
{{quotation|The problems to which child pornography regulation is addressed are numerous, but four stand out most prominently.

The first problem is that of the permanent record of the sexual practices in which children may be induced to engage. To the extent that pictures exist of this inherently nonconsensual act, those pictures follow the child up to and through adulthood, and the consequent embarrassment and humiliation are harms caused by the pictures themselves, independent of the harms attendant to the circumstances in which the photographs were originally made.

Second, there is substantial evidence that photographs of children engaged in sexual activity are used as tools for further molestation of other children. Children are shown pictures of other children engaged in sexual activity, with the aim of persuading especially a quite young child that if it is in a picture, and if other children are doing it, then it must be all right for this child to do it.[74] As with the problem of the permanent record, we see here a danger that is the direct consequence of the photographs themselves, a danger that is distinct from the harms related to the original making of the picture.

Third, photographs of children engaged in sexual practices with adults often constitute an important form of evidence against those adults in prosecutions for child molestation. Given the inherent difficulties of using children as witnesses, making it possible for the photographs to be evidence of the offense, or making the photographs the offense itself, provides an additional weapon in the arsenal against sexual abuse of children.

Finally, an argument related to the last is the unquestioned special harm to the children involved in both the commercial and the noncommercial distribution of child pornography. Although harms to performers involved would not otherwise be taken to be a sufficient condition for restriction of the photographs rather than the underlying conduct, the situation with children is of a different order of magnitude. The harm is virtually unanimously considered to be extraordinarily serious, and the possibility of consent is something that the law has long considered, and properly so, to be an impossibility. As a result, forms of deterrence of the underlying conduct that might not otherwise be considered advisable may be considered so with respect to photographs of children. If the sale or distribution of such pictures is stringently sanctioned, and if those sanctions are equally stringently enforced, the market may decrease, and this may in turn decrease the incentive to produce those pictures.

As part of the previous justification, it ought to be obvious that virtually all child pornography is produced surreptitiously, and thus, even with vigorous enforcement efforts, enforcement will be difficult. Enforcement efforts against the more accessible product of the process rather than or in addition to the less accessible process itself may enable the realities of enforcement to track the magnitude of the problem.}}

===Arguments in favor of allowing child pornography===
It is sometimes argued that child pornography images validate and normalize the sexual exploitation of children. This may well be true. But the same could be said of explicit arguments in favor of exploitation of minors, which nevertheless enjoy [[First Amendment to the United States Constitution]] protection.<ref>{{cite journal|quote=If politicians and judges were worried that paedophiles might be so sexually aroused by such pictures as to attack other children, or have their inhibitions removed so that such attacks would be possible, there should have been consideration as to whether this would/might/was likely to happen. No such research was conducted prior to the legislation being passed. Furthermore, if such endangering of children is proven, it seems logical that stories, cartoons, sketches, paintings or other indecent representations of child sexual activities should also be tested as they might have similar effects and therefore need controlling. However, these items are only controlled if they are deemed obscene, a more stringent test, and only then if they are traded in some way; mere possession is legal.|author=Williams, Katherine S.|date=2004|title=Child Pornography Law: Does it Protect Children?|journal=Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law|volume=26|number=3|pages=245-261|doi=10.1080/01418030412331297065}}</ref> Also, there is evidence that pornography, including child pornography, can serve as a substitute for sexual violence.<ref>{{cite web|title=Outrage As Judge Tells The Truth About Child Pornography|url=http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2013/07/07/outrage-as-judge-tells-the-truth-about-child-pornography/|author=Worstall, Tim|date=7 July 2013|publisher=Forbes}}</ref>

Gordon Hawkins writes, "There are two contrasting definitions of [[victimless crime]], only one of which would include most instances of the involvement of children in pornography. The most common definition, derived from John Stuart Mill and according to which such crimes have no other victim than the perpetrator, who harms only himself (Mill, [1859] 1975:10-11), does not really apply in this context. Even if children consent to being used in, or exposed to, pornographic communication, their immaturity could nonetheless render them victims in Mill's sense. But another concept of victimless crime defines it as referring to 'crimes that lack victims, in the sense of complainants asking for the protection of the criminal law' (Morris and Hawkins, 1970:6). In light of this definition, all of the consumption of pornographic material by willing children, and a substantial amount of child participation in the production of pornography, would be victimless crime."<ref>{{cite book|title=Pornography in a Free Society|pages=191|chapter=Public policy after liberalization|author=Hawkins, Gordon and Zimring, Franklin E.|date=1988|publisher=Cambridge University Press}}</ref>

Lew Rockwell points out that if the state is unleashed to solve the problem of child exploitation, "The power will not be used to solve the problem, but rather to intimidate the population in ways that people will find difficult to object to":<ref>{{cite web|title=But What About the Children?|author=Rockwell, Llewellyn H.|date=30 April 2008|url=http://mises.org/daily/2967/}}</ref>
{{cquote|The goal of the state is to find some practice that is universally reviled and pose as the one and only way of expunging it from society. The best example today is child pornography, a grim and ghastly industry that every decent person would like to see eradicated from the earth. But in the name of doing so, the state invades everyone's privacy, controls speech, interferes with families, and otherwise uses the issue as a wedge to eliminate every freedom.}}

There are some concerns that Canadian child pornography law causes harm to society by suppressing thoughts and expression concerning child and youth sexuality that involved no harm in production, fall short of advocating harm and that have at best a tenuous connection to the commission of harmful acts.<ref>{{cite journal|author=Ryder, Bruce|title=The Harms of Child Pornography Law|date=2003|publisher=University of British Columbia Law Review|volume=36|pages=101|url=http://ssrn.com/abstract=1739873|archivedate=January 14, 2011 }}</ref> In the U.S., court rulings have required restrictions on free speech to have a direct connection with abuse of actual children, while the Canadian Supreme Court has allowed much broader possession offenses, including works of the imagination such as writing, to pass constitutional scrutiny.<ref>{{cite journal|title=Child Pornography in Canada and the United States: The Myth of Right Answers|journal=Dalhousie Law Journal|volume=29|issue=2|date=Fall 2006|pages=375-412|author=Johnson, Travis}}</ref> In the U.S. Supreme Court case of ''Osborne v. Ohio'', {{ussc|495|103|1990}}, the dissent by Justice Brennan argued:
{{cquote|The notion that possession of pornography may be penalized in order to facilitate a prohibition on its production, whatever the rights of possessors, is not unlike a proposal that newspaper subscribers be held criminally liable for receiving the newspaper if they are aware of the publisher's violations of child labor laws. . . In both cases, sanctions against possession might increase the effectiveness of concededly permissible regulations on the production process. But although the need to protect children from exploitation may be acute, it cannot override the right to receive the newspaper or to possess sexually explicit materials in the privacy of the home, especially when less restrictive alternatives exist to further the state interests asserted.}}

Howitt suggests that child pornography's use in grooming is rare.<ref>{{cite journal|author=Howitt, D.|date=1995|title=Pornography and the paedophile: is it criminogenic?|journal=British Journal of Medical Psychology|volume=68|number=15–27}}</ref>

According to Hamilton:<ref name=Cardozo/>
{{cquote|several concerns held by child pornography crusaders should be addressed. One is the argument that there is value to pursuing child pornography offenders generally, in order to reduce the production market. The market thesis, though, is more speculative and ideological than supported by experiential data. The global nongovernmental organization End Child Prostitution, Child Pornography and Trafficking of Children for Sexual Purposes (ECPAT) acknowledges that organized crime is rarely involved with child pornography. Furthermore, a United Nations report indicates skepticism that children are sexually abused for the sole purpose of making a marketable product. The argument is also troubling on several other-though somewhat contradictory-grounds. The illegality of the content may encourage consumption as many report that the unlawful nature of the content is what makes the material more sexually enticing. From an economic-theory perspective, just as the country witnessed with the war on drugs, the criminality itself could conceivably drive profits for those organizations that can charge for the material. In actuality, however, the Internet permits widespread trading and downloading of child pornography materials for free, thereby creating a disincentive to those who believe they can profit by creating new products.}}

According to Wolak, Finkelhor, and Mitchell:<ref>{{cite journal|journal=Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment|title=Child Pornography Possessors: Trends in Offender and Case Characteristics|author=Janis Wolak, David Finkelhor and Kimberly Mitchell|date=2011|volume=23|number=22|doi=10.1177/1079063210372143}}</ref>
{{cquote|One concern is that the accessibility of online CP has caused increases in child sexual abuse. Some research suggests that CP may trigger sexual abuse by activating and validating sexual urges in CP viewers that were previously suppressed or controlled (Beech et al., 2008; Quayle & Taylor, 2003; Wilson & Jones, 2008). There is no evidence of increasing abuse in the United States, however. In fact, rates of child sexual abuse have declined substantially since the mid-1990s, a time period that corresponds to the spread of CP online. Statistics from U.S. child protective service agencies show that from 1992 to 2007, child sexual abuse declined 53% (Jones & Finkelhor, 2009), including interfamilial abuse (Finkelhor & Jones, 2006). Evidence of this decline also comes from victim self-report surveys and U.S. criminal justice system data (Finkelhor & Jones, 2008; Finkelhor, Turner, Ormrod, & Hamby, 2010), as well as the child protective services data collection system. The fact that this trend is revealed in multiple sources tends to undermine arguments that it is because of reduced reporting or changes in investigatory or statistical procedures. Nonetheless, we cannot conclude for certain that the online circulation of CP is having no impact, despite these indicators. Even if child sexual abuse has not increased, more abusers may be recording and circulating images of the abuse they perpetrate, there could be increases or shifts in victim populations that might not be reflected in large aggregated data collection systems, and increases in abuse associated with CP consumption could be seen in the future. However, it is important to recognize that, to date, there has not been a spike in the rate of child sexual abuse that corresponds with the apparent expansion of online CP.}}

====Child pornography as a positive experience for the child====
Recent discourse on child pornography, except for [[Judith Levine]], falsely portrays it, like child sex in general, as a disaster for the child. Children are (supposedly) "traumatized" because they cannot consent, and their parents cannot consent for them. Thus all child-adult sexual contact is by definition the crime of rape (actually, it is ''statutory rape'' which usually involves no real physical violence at all), and the child pornography is considered documentation of "crime" and more or less permanently remains available on the Internet for all to see.

Unfortunately, there are small numbers of people who really do abuse children, and who even violently rape them, without the child's consent or that of their parents. These are, and should be crimes, of course.

Yet there are many children seen in child pornography whose words, facial expressions, body language, and orgasms show that they thoroughly enjoy the sexual activity, sometimes enjoying it immensely. Why causing another human being intense enjoyment and pleasure, without any complaint from the alleged victim or his/her parents, is necessarily a crime is one of the contradictions of our sex-conflicted age.

Children, especially younger children, need protection from abusers and rapists. The logical people who should provide this protection are the child's parents. Here are some reasons why parents might even ''endorse'' their children's participation in child pornography:

* Many children are eager consumers of pornography of all sorts.
* Since smartphones such as the IPhone became available, each of which contains a still and video camera, some children - how many is unknown, but a variety of cases have appeared in newspapers - without any adult participation, knowledge, or guidance start taking and circulating among each other nude and pornographic pictures and videos of themselves.
* Making pornography brings the child, in some cases, into contact with sexually enlightened people, who can teach the child about sex.
* The sexual sophistication exhibited by just-turned-18 porn actors and actresses is documentation of "kinky" sex by minors.
* Making pornography can be very lucrative for the child. This may brighten the child's future, if the money is invested; if the family is suffering economic difficulty this income may alleviate it. Like a [[Thai]] child "prostitute," a child may be very happy to be able to help the family economically.
* Children enjoy the attention they get during the photographic session. They come to learn that they are perceived as "hot", and this is a source of pride, as is the fact that people will be watching and be stimulated by the child's sex scene(s) for many years. Some may become Internet "stars" and get fan mail.
* It's fun. Sex is fun. It's an adventure. As the Lone Ranger said, "Hi-yo Silver." (Silver was his horse.)

Of course, in some cases it is the parents ''themselves'' having loving sex with their own children that may be recorded, and referred to as "child pornography."

== Further reading ==

*Jan Schuijer and Benjamin Rossen, "[http://web.archive.org/web/20010806083348/http://ipt-forensics.com/journal/volume4/j4_2_1.htm The Trade in Child Pornography]," ''[http://web.archive.org/web/20010806075608/http://ipt-forensics.com/journal/index.htm Issues in Child Abuse Accusations]'' 4, no. 2 (1992). --Examines the origins of claims regarding child pornography.
*Anne Higonnet, "[http://www.ipce.info/library_3/files/higonnet_text.htm Conclusions based on observation]," ''Yale Journal of Criticism'' 9, no. 1 (1996): 1-18. --Examines some controversial pictures of naked boys.
*The Perverse Law of Child Pornography(2001)- Amy Adler(medium_resolution).pdf
:http://www.keepandshare.com/doc18/view.php?id=9294&da=y
::''Columbia Law Review'' 101, no. 2 (2001): 209-273. --Argues that child pornography law, intended to protect children from sexual exploitation, threatens to reinforce the very problem it attacks. (This is the original article, not a copy!)
*Chuck Kleinhans, "Virtual Child Porn: The Law and the Semiotics of the Image," ''Journal of Visual Culture'' 3, no. 1 (2004): 17-34 [http://vcu.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/3/1/17 Abstract]
*Andrew Sorfleet and Chris Bearchell, "[http://www.walnet.org/csis/news/toronto_94/parallel-9406.html The sex police in a moral panic: how the 'youth porn' law is being used to censor artists and persecute youth sexuality]," ''Parallelogramme'' 20, no. 1 (1994). --The Law in Canada.
*D. Howitt, "Pornography and the paedophile: Is it criminogenic?" ''British Journal of Medical Psychology'' 68 (1995): 15-27.
*D.D. Knudsen, "Child sexual abuse and pornography: Is there a relationship?" ''Journal of Family Violence'' 3 (1988): 253-267.
*B. Kutchinsky, "The effect of easy availability of pornography on the incidence of sex crimes: The Danish experience," ''Journal of Social Issues'' 29 (1973): 163-181. --Based on the Danish experience, concludes that concurrent with the increasing availability of pornography, there was a significant decrease in the number of sex offenses registered by the police.
*[[Dave Riegel|David L. Riegel]], "Effects on Boy-Attracted Pedosexual Males of viewing Boy Erotica" ''[[Archives of Sexual Behavior]]'' 33, no. 4 (2004): 321-323.
*[[Dave Riegel|David L. Riegel]], ''Beyond Hysteria: Boy Erotica on the Internet'' (Philadelphia: SafeHaven Foundation Press, 2004) [http://www.ejhs.org/volume8/book35.htm Review]
*Rod Liddle. "[http://www.guardian.co.uk/child/story/0,7369,874336,00.html Should it really be a crime to look at child pornography?]" ''The Guardian''. January 14, 2003.

==References==
{{reflist}}
==See also==
*[[Azov Films]]
*[[ Azov Films Prosecutions]]
*[[ Azov Films Prosecutions - Canada‎]]
*[[Spading Up Hate: Joanna Beaven-Desjardins’ Big Lie]]
*[[ChildPorn.info]]
*[[List of works that were legal when created and later banned as child pornography]]

==See also==
*[[The_Pederast_(magazine_article) by Parker Rossman]]

== External links ==
*"The Perverse Law of Child Pornography" by Amy Adler
:https://cyber.harvard.edu/ilaw/Speech/Adler_full.html

*[http://www.hawaii.edu/PCSS/ Dr. Milton Diamond of The Pacific Center for Sex and Society ]-- Dr. Diamond has investigated Pornography, as it relates Rape and Sex Crimes and his research demonstrates that countries where child pornography was legal showed a significant decrease in the incidence of child sex abuse.

*[http://web.archive.org/web/20080129233731/http://www.geocities.com/pca_1978 Indecent Acts: child pornography in the UK] --An excellent site that "presents a discussion of the English laws that apply to 'child pornography' and their current application"

*'Everything is Now "Potential" Child Porn' by Dr. Marty Klein; Sexual Intelligence; 24 June 2011
:http://www.sexualintelligence.wordpress.com/2011/06/24/everything-is-now-%E2%80%9Cpotential%E2%80%9D-child-porn/

*[[Wikipedia: Child pornography]]

[[Category:Child pornography]]

Child pornography

2019-10-18T11:22:33Z

Wanker:

'''Child pornography''' is any depiction (image or video) or written description (story, etc.) that involves a child and that violates legal prohibitions against child pornography. The definition is necessarily circular, since the numerous and varied laws that apply to this subject make a more concise definition virtually impossible to formulate. In addition, the definitions tend broaden over time, rendering controversial any number of things that may have been legal previously.

"Child erotica" is a more neutral term for "child pornography". "Child erotica" may or may not include overt sexual activity, and may or may not be illegal, depending on how the law is applied in any particular jurisdiction.

== History ==

Before the mid 1970s, "child pornography" was available legally in most countries, including the [[United States]]. With the advent of [[child abuse]] legislation in the mid 1970s, however, anti-pornography advocates and other social and religious conservatives argued against child pornography since they claim that the production of child pornography may involve [[child sexual abuse]]. Even though scholars have challenged whether child pornography (in the broad sense) involves child sexual abuse (see Schuijer and Rossen 1992), whether child sexual abuse (again broadly defined) can lead to psychological trauma (see the [[Rind Report]] and [The Trauma Myth (book)]), and whether it can lead people to offend against children (see Howitt 1995), many people today are convinced that producing, distributing or possessing child pornography is even ''worse'' than child abuse. Even though all adult-child sex is declared, inaccurately, to be abusive and criminal, child pornography, their minds, is worse. It's child abuse made into a movie, for men to masturbate to. It confirms for doubting pedos that kids can really enjoy sex.

In the decision by the US Supreme Court on April 23, 2014, ''[[Voodoo Molestation and US Law|Doyle Randall Paroline v. United States, et al.]]'' <ref>[http://www2.bloomberglaw.com/public/desktop/document/Paroline_v_United_States_No_128561_2014_BL_112162_US_Apr_23_2014_/1 DOYLE RANDALL PAROLINE, PETITIONER v. UNITED STATES, ET AL. ]</ref>, it was adjudicated that ''restitution'' can be awarded based not only on the manufacture, sale, or distribution of child pornography, but can be collected from all those who have been convicted of viewing the image, based on the magical belief <ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magical_thinking</ref> that the act of viewing the image has essentiall caused psychological damage to the soul of the person depicted. Aside from pne well-publicised case,

== Definition ==

This has led to broadening the definition of child pornography. In general child pornography is understood as pornography featuring children (i.e. images of children involved in sexual activity). Over the years the definition has become broader to the following ways:

*'''Age of the "child"'''. The child is not defined nowadays as a prepubescent person, but as a person under the [[age of consent]] (usually between 15 and 18), or more strictly under the age of 18, or more broadly, according to the council of the [[European Union]] decision ([http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32004F0068:EN:HTML|E.U. Council Decision 2004/68/JHA]), "a person appearing to be a child" (which may be an adult over 18 who can pass as 16). {{uscsub|18|2256|1}} defines a minor as any person under the age of eighteen years, so it is possible for a person who takes sexually explicit photographs of his 17-year-old spouse to be convicted of child pornography production, even if there was no state law against such conduct. There have been cases in which naked "selfies" (pictures of oneself) have been deemed child pornography, in which case the child is both the injurer and the injured. [[Families Against Mandatory Minimums]] has expressed concerns over the [[mandatory minimum penalties]] established for these offenses, arguing that they sometimes result in absurd sentences, such as a 15-year sentence in a case involving a victim who consented and was of legal age to marry the offender.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.famm.org/federal/ChildPornographyOffenses.aspx|title=Child Pornography Offenses|author=Families Against Mandatory Minimums}}</ref>
*'''Nakedness of the "child"'''. According to ''[[United States v. Knox]]'' the "child" in question does not need to be nude as long as there is a "actual or simulated lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area." An image of a "child's" (broadly defined as above) crotch in underwear may fall under this definition.(see [[Azov Films Prosecutions]])
*'''Conduct of the "child"'''. In some countries, the portayal of naked children does not need to be sexual in order to be considered child pornography. Even though a three judge panel of the U.S. Third Circuit Court ruled on October 23, 2000 that [[naturism|naturist]] magazines depicting naked children in "a variety of outdoor activities, all of which are natural and expected for healthy and active children, teenagers, and adults" should not be considered obscene, American photo labs are arresting parents as child pornographers for taking pictures of their kids in the bath or photographers taking artistic pictures of naked children in [[naturism|naturist]] beaches (see [[Jock Sturges]]).

As of March 2014, a Danish proposal called for banning images that show young children who are obviously being posed in ways designed to be erotic: scantily clad, wearing adult makeup and pouting sexually, for example – even though they are not being abused and have their genitalia covered.<ref>http://cphpost.dk/news/politicians-disagree-on-child-pornography-laws.8847.html</ref>

== Dost Test==
The '''''Dost'' test''' is a six-factor guideline established in 1986 in the case ''United States v. Dost''. The case involved 22 nude or semi-nude photographs of females aged 10–14 years old. The undeveloped film containing the images was mailed to a photo processing company in Hollywood, California.

In order to better determine whether a visual depiction of a minor constitutes a "lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area", the court developed six criteria. Not all of the criteria need to be met, nor are other criteria necessarily excluded in this test.<ref>url=http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9482047682589425170&hl=en&as_sdt=10000000000002&as_</ref><ref>http://www.eff.org/issues/bloggers/legal/adult</ref>

# Whether the focal point of the visual depiction is on the child's genitalia or pubic area.
# Whether the setting of the visual depiction is sexually suggestive, i.e., in a place or pose generally associated with sexual activity.
# Whether the child is depicted in an unnatural pose, or in inappropriate attire, considering the age of the child.
# Whether the child is fully or partially clothed, or nude.
# Whether the visual depiction suggests sexual coyness or a willingness to engage in sexual activity.
# Whether the visual depiction is intended or designed to elicit a sexual response in the viewer.

Concerning the lascivious display of clothed genitalia, the U.S. Department of Justice described use of the Dost test in child pornography and 2257 documentation regulations in a 2008 rule, writing that the precedent ''United States v. Knox'', did not prohibit ordinary swim team or underwear model photographs, but "although the genitals were clothed in that case, they were covered by thin, opaque clothing with an obvious purpose to draw attention to them, were displayed by models who spread or extended their legs to make the pubic and genital region entirely visible to the viewer, and were displayed by models who danced or gyrated in a way indicative of adult sexual relations".<ref>http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2008/E8-29677.htm</ref>

Briefs submitted in late 2009 for [http://caselaw.findlaw.com/fl-district-court-of-appeal/1246396.html ''Brabson v. Florida''], a case in which girls were secretly videotaped during the "innocent conduct" of changing into swimwear, differ concerning the nature of "intent" in the Dost test. At issue is whether "Cases applying Dost hold that the focus in determining whether an image is lascivious should be on the objective criteria of the image's design, not the 'actual effect' of the images on a particular defendant".<ref>http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/clerk/briefs/2009/1-200/09-136_JurisIni.pdf </ref><ref>http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/clerk/briefs/2009/1-200/09-136_JurisAns.pdf</ref>

== Criticism of the Dost Test ==

The test was criticized by New York University School of Law professor Amy Adler as forcing members of the public to look at pictures of children as a pedophile would in order to determine whether they are considered inappropriate. "As everything becomes child pornography in the eyes of the law—clothed children, coy children, children in settings where children are found—perhaps children themselves become pornographic".<ref>http://www.law.nyu.edu/news/ADLER_SPECTACLES</ref>

The sixth criteria of the Dost Test," Whether the visual depiction is intended or designed to elicit a sexual response in the viewer", seriously approaches thought crime. The case could, and has, been made that because a particular image elicited a sexual response in the viewer, it could therefore be seen as child pornography. This means that because someone gets turned on by an image that makes the image pornographic. It is a total legislation of thought crime against pedophiles and is entirely dangerous for society. If it turns you on it is lewd and therefore illegal. Schmitt v. State involved a father who was accused of taking nude photographs of his daughter while she was between the ages of eight and twelve years old. The court argued over whether or not the photographs were lewd. In distinguishing mere nudity from a lewd or lascivious display, the court considered the photographer's intent and actions.
{{quote|While it is conceivable that one might view the allegations in the present affidavit as depicting simple nudity, we believe the magistrate had a substantial basis for concluding otherwise. The affidavit's factual allegations indicated that Schmitt did not treat the nudity of himself, his daughter, and others in the offhand, natural manner that might be expected if the conduct were purely innocent-for example, if they were nudists. Rather, the affidavit shows he made nudity a central and almost obsessive object of his attention. Thus, the magistrate reasonably could have believed that Schmitt's conduct toward his daughter included the “lewdness” element required by the statute. '''While nudity alone would not have sufficed, this overall focus of Schmitt's conduct tended to show a lewd intent''' and thus created a substantial basis for believing that the search would fairly probably yield evidence of a violation.<ref>http://caselaw.findlaw.com/fl-district-court-of-appeal/1246396.html</ref>(emphisis added)}}

It is the '''intent''' of the photographer which is being used to say whether or not an image is child pornography. The photos themselves are not pornography unless the photographer intended them to be. That is thought crime. A heterosexual man may take pictures of a nude boy, and prove that he had no sexual intent, and that therefore the pictures are not child pornography. If the exact same pictures were taken by a boylover they could be deemed illegal because the boylover had "lewd intent". This makes the simple metaphysical act of being a pedophile illegal in and of itself, in certain instances. It is unabashed thought crime through and through.

==Term==
Sometimes objections are raised to the term "child pornography" on the grounds that it implies consensual activity.<ref>http://www.interpol.int/en/Media/Files/INTERPOL-Expertise/IGLC/Child-abuse-material-and-the-Internet</ref> Terms such as "child abuse material" or "child abuse imagery"<ref>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-life/10675738/Patrick-Rock-child-abuse-arrest-Can-we-all-stop-calling-child-abuse-child-porn.html</ref> are preferred instead. In cases involving children who create their own child pornography without adult involvement, the children are presumably abusing themselves, according to this view. Some children have been charged with producing and circulating child pornography for taking and circulating pictures of themselves.

== Simulated child pornography ==

As if these were not enough, child pornography law in the U.S. has established that simulated computer images, or drawings, or [[painting|paintings]] of children (naked or not) that are deemed "indecent" or "lascivious" are illegal as well, even though there should be no question of child sexual abuse since, by definition, the production of these images do not involve real children.

In particular, [[United Kingdom]] with an 1994 Criminal Justice and Public Order Act introduced the legal definition of an "indecent pseudo-photograph of a child", which is prohibited as if it were a true photograph. On October 1, 2002, the [[Netherlands]] introduced legislation (''Bulletin of Acts and Decrees'' 470) which deemed "virtual child pornography" as illegal. German law does not discriminate between actual or "realistic" sexual depictions of children, while [[Canada]] in October 2005, Canadian courts sentenced an Edmonton, Alberta man to one year of community service for importing [[Shotacon|manga depicting child sex]]. Nevertheless, the [[United States]] Supreme Court decided in 2002 that the previous American prohibition of simulated child pornography was unconstitutional (''Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition'').

==Allusion pornography==
As a response to the publication of the first edition of ''[[Destroyer Magazine]]'' the Swedish Ombudsman for Children, Lena Nyberg proposed in 2006 a change to Swedish law making "allusion" pornography (defined as images of males who have not completed puberty and merely ''appear'' to be under the age of 18) illegal.<ref>''Gay Man's Worst Friend - the Story of Destroyer Magazine'' Karl Andersson, (self-translated by the author from the Swedish) (2011), Entartetes Leben:Czech Republic, p. 20, [Translation of ''Bögarnas värsta vän – historien om tidningen Destroyer'', Karl Andersson (2010) ]</ref>

:A law to treat arbitrarily defined “young-looking” adults as legal children has been rejected so far even in porn-hysterical US. Such a law could send a Swedish gay man to prison for possessing, say, a photo of his formerly furry boyfriend’s now smooth-as-a-baby’s-bottom shaved crotch.<ref>''The Guide'', 2006, as quoted in ''Gay Man's Worst Friend''</ref>

For additional details, please read ''Gay Man's Worst Friend - the Story of Destroyer Magazine''.<ref>''Gay Man's Worst Friend - the Story of Destroyer Magazine'', ibid. </ref>

== Textual child pornography ==

In some countries textual material describing sexual activities involving children is legally classified as child pornography (e.g. in [[Canada]] and [[Norway]] since 2005) while in other countries, for example the [[United Kingdom]] it is not prohibited in itself, but is caught under general laws controlling indecency and [[obscenity]]. The rationale behind these laws is that textual depictions of sex with children promote child sexual abuse. In yet other countries, most significantly the [[United States]], it is legal; written child pornography is legally protected by the US Constitution as long as it is not judged obscene. As it very difficult to prove obcenity, it is effectively legal. As a result of its general legality in the [[United States]], written child pornography is easily available on the Internet. In some states, a person can be prosecuted for mere writings. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_v._Dalton The State v. Dalton]is a legal case in the United States state of Ohio involving the prosecution of a man for recording fictional tales of alleged [[child pornography]] in a diary. He had no images, either drawn or photographed, just writings in a journal and it was deemed to be [[child pornography]]. Altogether the man spent over 10 years in prison for simple writings.<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2001/07/14/us/child-pornography-writer-gets-10-year-prison-term.html/</ref>

In September 2006, Federal authorities prosecuted Karen Fletcher for transmitting obscene materials in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1462(a) and 2, after she posted various stories on the website describing the torture, sexual molestation, and murder of fictional children. The case was notable because the allegedly obscene materials were text only, and the government has never won a conviction based solely on text under current obscenity law. Fletcher pled guilty to six counts of distributing obscene materials online in August 2008. She was sentenced to a term of probation of 60 months, with 6 months of home detention, a fine of $1,000, and a special assessment of $600.<ref>http://www.dmlp.org/threats/united-states-v-fletcher</ref>

In addition, the [[New Zealand]] Court of Appeals ruled in ''Moonen v. Film and Literature Board of Review'' (1999) that erotica stories published by [[Acolyte Press]] should not be considered child pornography as they could not see how these stories explicity promote child sexual abuse.

Due to its widespread availability, countries in which it is prohibited have not always actively sought to enforce the legal prohibition against it. In general, people possessing or distributing this material are only charged if they come to the attention of law enforcement, most commonly while being investigated for other crimes (such as possession of visual child pornography, or child sexual abuse, see [[Robin Sharpe]])

The prohibition against written child pornography can extend even to materials produced by [[pedophilia|pedophiles]] for their own personal consumption and not revealed to anyone, such as diaries or journals in which they record their fantasies. Several individuals have been prosecuted for keeping such diaries (see [[Brongersma Foundation]]). Some have argued that this violates their right to freedom of thought.

==Enforcement and penalties==
The penalties for non-contact child pornography offenses are often greater than those for actually touching minors.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/05/us/life-sentence-for-possession-of-child-pornography-spurs-debate.html?_r=0|author=Goode, Erica|date=4 November 2011|publisher=New York Times|title=Life Sentence for Possession of Child Pornography Spurs Debate Over Severity}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.nacdl.org/Champion.aspx?id=22897|date=October 2011|pages=12|title=A Quiet but Growing Judicial Rebellion Against Harsh Sentences For Child Pornography Offenses — Should the Laws Be Changed?|author=Specter, Arlen and Hoffa, Linda Dale|publisher=The Champion}}</ref> In the ''Pabon-Cruz'' case, Judge Gerald E. Lynch noted that if the defendant had been charged with having sex with a 12-year-old, he would have faced only about five years, rather than the ten years prescribed by federal law: "This leads me to the rather astonishing conclusion that Mr. Pabon-Cruz would have been better off molesting a child."<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/13/nyregion/a-judge-s-struggle-to-avoid-imposing-a-penalty-he-hated.html?pagewanted=1|title=A Judge's Struggle To Avoid Imposing A Penalty He Hated|author=Weiser, Benjamin|date=13 January 2004|publisher=New York Times}}</ref> No reliable study has found that a possessor of child pornography is more likely to commit a contact offense.<ref>{{cite web|title=The Changing Landscape Of Sentencing Mitigation In Possession of Child Pornography Cases|url=http://www.nacdl.org/Champion.aspx?id=20607|date=May 2011|pages=32|author=Shein, Marcia G.|publisher=The Champion}}</ref> In fact, Melissa Hamilton notes:<ref name=Cardozo>{{cite journal|author=Hamilton, Melissa|volume=33|pages=1679|date=2011-2012|title=The Child Pornography Crusade and Its Net-Widening Effect|publisher=Cardozo Law Review}}</ref>
{{cquote|Despite the deontological presumptions underlying the child pornography crusade, researchers in the child sexual abuse arena contend that the evidence to date strongly and rather consistently shows that child pornography consumption does not itself represent a risk factor for contact sexual crimes. Instead, multiple studies show that child pornography offenders are at a much lower risk for contact sexual offending than previously known contact offenders. . . . Paraphilic interest does not motivate all child pornography offenders, but is one among many explanations for consumption. . . . Given that child pornography offenders tend to score low on antisocial tendencies, they are not likely to imitate the pornographic scenes with real children. Investigations of child pornography consumers have yielded several other, relatively nondeviant, motives that render these offenders at lower risk. Briefly, these motives include using the images as a substitute for contact offending, curiosity and accidental access, facilitating social relationships, and avoiding real life. . . . Further, child pornography offenders are better prospects for postconviction rehabilitation, with far better rates of compliance when treated and when supervised postrelease, compared to child molesters. This may be the case, in part, since child pornography offenders may have more incentives as they tend to be better educated, of higher intelligence, and more likely to be gainfully employed than other types of sexual offenders. In sum, child pornography offending as a signal crime used to invoke fear for the safety of children is a social construction that misses the mark.}}

The FBI has made more than 10,000 child pornography arrests since 1996, with the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement reporting a similar number of arrests since its creation in 2003.<ref>{{cite web|title=Child porn prosecutions soaring in U.S.|url=http://www.denverpost.com/ci_17306656|author=Elias, Paul|date=6 February 2011|publisher=Associated Press}}</ref> The average sentence in 2007 was 91 months.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/22/nyregion/22judge.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0|title=Defiant Judge Takes On Child Pornography Law|date=21 May 2010|author=Sulzberger, A.G.|publisher=New York Times}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.nacdl.org/Champion.aspx?id=14684|date=December 2009|pages=12|author=Ian Friedman, Roger Pimentel|title=Sexual Offenders: How to Create a More Deliberative Sentencing Process|publisher=News and The Champion}}</ref>

The manufacture of such content carries a 15-year mandatory minimum sentence,<ref>{{uscsub|18|2251|e}}</ref> while pursuant to the [[PROTECT Act]], receipt or distribution of it is punishable by a mandatory minimum sentence of five years in prison for a first offender.<ref>{{uscsub|18|2252|b|1}}</ref><ref>{{cite court|url=http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-2nd-circuit/1059531.html|litigants=U.S. v. Jorge L. Pabon-Cruz|court=2nd Cir.}}</ref> The penalties have been substantially increased; in 1991, a first offender a with no criminal history who possessed violent child pornography images and movies and shared them with others would face a maximum of two years in prison in federal cases. Today, that same person could face more than 20 years.<ref>{{cite news|title=Making Punishments Fit the Most Offensive Crimes|author=Efrati, Amir|date=23 October 2008|url=http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122471925786760689.html|publisher=The Wall Street Journal}}</ref> One judge noted, "Our 'social revulsion' against these 'misfits' downloading these images is perhaps somewhat more rational than the thousands of witchcraft trials and burnings conducted in Europe and here from the Thirteenth to the Eighteenth Centuries, but it borders on the same thing."<ref>{{cite court|vol=551|reporter=F3d|opinion=516|date=9 January 2009|litigants=U.S. v. Paull|pinpoint=533|url=http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx?page=12&xmldoc=In%20FCO%2020090109099.xml&docbase=CsLwAr3-2007-Curr&SizeDisp=7|court=6th Cir.}}</ref>

When the [[U.S. Sentencing Guidelines]] were first promulgated, simple possession of child pornography was not a federal crime, and the single relevant Guideline addressed "transporting, receiving, or trafficking" offenses, for which the base offense level was 13. Since then, pursuant to the PROTECT Act and other laws, possession has become an offense with a base offense level of 18, and the base offense level for trafficking and receipt offenses has been raised to 22.<ref>{{cite web|title=Lessons from Two Failures: Sentencing for Cocaine and Child Pornography Under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines in the United States|author=Steiker, Carol S.|date=2013|url=http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4345&context=lcp}}</ref> In a 2010 survey of federal judges by the [[U.S. Sentencing Commission]], about 70 percent said the proposed ranges of sentences for possession and receipt of child pornography were too high.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/04/29/debate-rages-over-severity-child-porn-sentences/#ixzz1z1JmMKjU|title=Debate rages over severity of child-porn sentences|publisher=Associated Press|date=29 April 2012}}</ref>

==Child pornography is a "cheap crime" to investigate and prosecute==
Child pornography is a cheap crime for police, prosecutors, and judges to deal with. It can be investigated from an officer's desk, and at whatever schedule that he (or occasionally "she") finds convenient. The evidence is easy to store; it could hardly be easier. The definition of the crime is clear-cut; what was going on in the perpetrator or alleged victims' minds, always hard to deal with, is irrelevant. Charges are rarely contested or go to trial. There is scarcely any other felony whose investigation is so labor-efficient for law enforcement. Favorable news stories practically produce themselves. Unsurprisingly, prosecutions have boomed since the Internet became mainstream, about 2000.

(A similarly labor-efficient "crime" investigation technique is setting up "[[sting]]s", in which a law enforcement officer or ally pretends to be a minor in Internet chat rooms, sets up a meeting for sexual contact, then arrests the adult (almost always male) when he shows up for the meeting.)

==Arguments for and against child pornography==

===Arguments against child pornography===
The [[Meese Commission]] wrote:<ref>http://obi-investigators.com/xuk/porn/meese/207-child-pornpgraphy.htm</ref>
{{quotation|The problems to which child pornography regulation is addressed are numerous, but four stand out most prominently.

The first problem is that of the permanent record of the sexual practices in which children may be induced to engage. To the extent that pictures exist of this inherently nonconsensual act, those pictures follow the child up to and through adulthood, and the consequent embarrassment and humiliation are harms caused by the pictures themselves, independent of the harms attendant to the circumstances in which the photographs were originally made.

Second, there is substantial evidence that photographs of children engaged in sexual activity are used as tools for further molestation of other children. Children are shown pictures of other children engaged in sexual activity, with the aim of persuading especially a quite young child that if it is in a picture, and if other children are doing it, then it must be all right for this child to do it.[74] As with the problem of the permanent record, we see here a danger that is the direct consequence of the photographs themselves, a danger that is distinct from the harms related to the original making of the picture.

Third, photographs of children engaged in sexual practices with adults often constitute an important form of evidence against those adults in prosecutions for child molestation. Given the inherent difficulties of using children as witnesses, making it possible for the photographs to be evidence of the offense, or making the photographs the offense itself, provides an additional weapon in the arsenal against sexual abuse of children.

Finally, an argument related to the last is the unquestioned special harm to the children involved in both the commercial and the noncommercial distribution of child pornography. Although harms to performers involved would not otherwise be taken to be a sufficient condition for restriction of the photographs rather than the underlying conduct, the situation with children is of a different order of magnitude. The harm is virtually unanimously considered to be extraordinarily serious, and the possibility of consent is something that the law has long considered, and properly so, to be an impossibility. As a result, forms of deterrence of the underlying conduct that might not otherwise be considered advisable may be considered so with respect to photographs of children. If the sale or distribution of such pictures is stringently sanctioned, and if those sanctions are equally stringently enforced, the market may decrease, and this may in turn decrease the incentive to produce those pictures.

As part of the previous justification, it ought to be obvious that virtually all child pornography is produced surreptitiously, and thus, even with vigorous enforcement efforts, enforcement will be difficult. Enforcement efforts against the more accessible product of the process rather than or in addition to the less accessible process itself may enable the realities of enforcement to track the magnitude of the problem.}}

===Arguments in favor of allowing child pornography===
It is sometimes argued that child pornography images validate and normalize the sexual exploitation of children. This may well be true. But the same could be said of explicit arguments in favor of exploitation of minors, which nevertheless enjoy [[First Amendment to the United States Constitution]] protection.<ref>{{cite journal|quote=If politicians and judges were worried that paedophiles might be so sexually aroused by such pictures as to attack other children, or have their inhibitions removed so that such attacks would be possible, there should have been consideration as to whether this would/might/was likely to happen. No such research was conducted prior to the legislation being passed. Furthermore, if such endangering of children is proven, it seems logical that stories, cartoons, sketches, paintings or other indecent representations of child sexual activities should also be tested as they might have similar effects and therefore need controlling. However, these items are only controlled if they are deemed obscene, a more stringent test, and only then if they are traded in some way; mere possession is legal.|author=Williams, Katherine S.|date=2004|title=Child Pornography Law: Does it Protect Children?|journal=Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law|volume=26|number=3|pages=245-261|doi=10.1080/01418030412331297065}}</ref> Also, there is evidence that pornography, including child pornography, can serve as a substitute for sexual violence.<ref>{{cite web|title=Outrage As Judge Tells The Truth About Child Pornography|url=http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2013/07/07/outrage-as-judge-tells-the-truth-about-child-pornography/|author=Worstall, Tim|date=7 July 2013|publisher=Forbes}}</ref>

Gordon Hawkins writes, "There are two contrasting definitions of [[victimless crime]], only one of which would include most instances of the involvement of children in pornography. The most common definition, derived from John Stuart Mill and according to which such crimes have no other victim than the perpetrator, who harms only himself (Mill, [1859] 1975:10-11), does not really apply in this context. Even if children consent to being used in, or exposed to, pornographic communication, their immaturity could nonetheless render them victims in Mill's sense. But another concept of victimless crime defines it as referring to 'crimes that lack victims, in the sense of complainants asking for the protection of the criminal law' (Morris and Hawkins, 1970:6). In light of this definition, all of the consumption of pornographic material by willing children, and a substantial amount of child participation in the production of pornography, would be victimless crime."<ref>{{cite book|title=Pornography in a Free Society|pages=191|chapter=Public policy after liberalization|author=Hawkins, Gordon and Zimring, Franklin E.|date=1988|publisher=Cambridge University Press}}</ref>

Lew Rockwell points out that if the state is unleashed to solve the problem of child exploitation, "The power will not be used to solve the problem, but rather to intimidate the population in ways that people will find difficult to object to":<ref>{{cite web|title=But What About the Children?|author=Rockwell, Llewellyn H.|date=30 April 2008|url=http://mises.org/daily/2967/}}</ref>
{{cquote|The goal of the state is to find some practice that is universally reviled and pose as the one and only way of expunging it from society. The best example today is child pornography, a grim and ghastly industry that every decent person would like to see eradicated from the earth. But in the name of doing so, the state invades everyone's privacy, controls speech, interferes with families, and otherwise uses the issue as a wedge to eliminate every freedom.}}

There are some concerns that Canadian child pornography law causes harm to society by suppressing thoughts and expression concerning child and youth sexuality that involved no harm in production, fall short of advocating harm and that have at best a tenuous connection to the commission of harmful acts.<ref>{{cite journal|author=Ryder, Bruce|title=The Harms of Child Pornography Law|date=2003|publisher=University of British Columbia Law Review|volume=36|pages=101|url=http://ssrn.com/abstract=1739873|archivedate=January 14, 2011 }}</ref> In the U.S., court rulings have required restrictions on free speech to have a direct connection with abuse of actual children, while the Canadian Supreme Court has allowed much broader possession offenses, including works of the imagination such as writing, to pass constitutional scrutiny.<ref>{{cite journal|title=Child Pornography in Canada and the United States: The Myth of Right Answers|journal=Dalhousie Law Journal|volume=29|issue=2|date=Fall 2006|pages=375-412|author=Johnson, Travis}}</ref> In the U.S. Supreme Court case of ''Osborne v. Ohio'', {{ussc|495|103|1990}}, the dissent by Justice Brennan argued:
{{cquote|The notion that possession of pornography may be penalized in order to facilitate a prohibition on its production, whatever the rights of possessors, is not unlike a proposal that newspaper subscribers be held criminally liable for receiving the newspaper if they are aware of the publisher's violations of child labor laws. . . In both cases, sanctions against possession might increase the effectiveness of concededly permissible regulations on the production process. But although the need to protect children from exploitation may be acute, it cannot override the right to receive the newspaper or to possess sexually explicit materials in the privacy of the home, especially when less restrictive alternatives exist to further the state interests asserted.}}

Howitt suggests that child pornography's use in grooming is rare.<ref>{{cite journal|author=Howitt, D.|date=1995|title=Pornography and the paedophile: is it criminogenic?|journal=British Journal of Medical Psychology|volume=68|number=15–27}}</ref>

According to Hamilton:<ref name=Cardozo/>
{{cquote|several concerns held by child pornography crusaders should be addressed. One is the argument that there is value to pursuing child pornography offenders generally, in order to reduce the production market. The market thesis, though, is more speculative and ideological than supported by experiential data. The global nongovernmental organization End Child Prostitution, Child Pornography and Trafficking of Children for Sexual Purposes (ECPAT) acknowledges that organized crime is rarely involved with child pornography. Furthermore, a United Nations report indicates skepticism that children are sexually abused for the sole purpose of making a marketable product. The argument is also troubling on several other-though somewhat contradictory-grounds. The illegality of the content may encourage consumption as many report that the unlawful nature of the content is what makes the material more sexually enticing. From an economic-theory perspective, just as the country witnessed with the war on drugs, the criminality itself could conceivably drive profits for those organizations that can charge for the material. In actuality, however, the Internet permits widespread trading and downloading of child pornography materials for free, thereby creating a disincentive to those who believe they can profit by creating new products.}}

According to Wolak, Finkelhor, and Mitchell:<ref>{{cite journal|journal=Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment|title=Child Pornography Possessors: Trends in Offender and Case Characteristics|author=Janis Wolak, David Finkelhor and Kimberly Mitchell|date=2011|volume=23|number=22|doi=10.1177/1079063210372143}}</ref>
{{cquote|One concern is that the accessibility of online CP has caused increases in child sexual abuse. Some research suggests that CP may trigger sexual abuse by activating and validating sexual urges in CP viewers that were previously suppressed or controlled (Beech et al., 2008; Quayle & Taylor, 2003; Wilson & Jones, 2008). There is no evidence of increasing abuse in the United States, however. In fact, rates of child sexual abuse have declined substantially since the mid-1990s, a time period that corresponds to the spread of CP online. Statistics from U.S. child protective service agencies show that from 1992 to 2007, child sexual abuse declined 53% (Jones & Finkelhor, 2009), including interfamilial abuse (Finkelhor & Jones, 2006). Evidence of this decline also comes from victim self-report surveys and U.S. criminal justice system data (Finkelhor & Jones, 2008; Finkelhor, Turner, Ormrod, & Hamby, 2010), as well as the child protective services data collection system. The fact that this trend is revealed in multiple sources tends to undermine arguments that it is because of reduced reporting or changes in investigatory or statistical procedures. Nonetheless, we cannot conclude for certain that the online circulation of CP is having no impact, despite these indicators. Even if child sexual abuse has not increased, more abusers may be recording and circulating images of the abuse they perpetrate, there could be increases or shifts in victim populations that might not be reflected in large aggregated data collection systems, and increases in abuse associated with CP consumption could be seen in the future. However, it is important to recognize that, to date, there has not been a spike in the rate of child sexual abuse that corresponds with the apparent expansion of online CP.}}

====Child pornography as a positive experience for the child====
Recent discourse on child pornography, except for [[Judith Levine]], falsely portrays it, like child sex in general, as a disaster for the child. Children are (supposedly) "traumatized" because they cannot consent, and their parents cannot consent for them. Thus all child-adult sexual contact is by definition the crime of rape (actually, it is ''statutory rape'' which usually involves no real physical violence at all), and the child pornography is considered documentation of "crime" and more or less permanently remains available on the Internet for all to see.

Unfortunately, there are small numbers of people who really do abuse children, and who even violently rape them, without the child's consent or that of their parents. These are, and should be crimes, of course.

Yet there are many children seen in child pornography whose words, facial expressions, body language, and orgasms show that they thoroughly enjoy the sexual activity, sometimes enjoying it immensely. Why causing another human being intense enjoyment and pleasure, without any complaint from the alleged victim or his/her parents, is necessarily a crime is one of the contradictions of our sex-conflicted age.

Children, especially younger children, need protection from abusers and rapists. The logical people who should provide this protection are the child's parents. Here are some reasons why parents might even ''endorse'' their children's participation in child pornography:

* Many children are eager consumers of pornography of all sorts.
* Since smartphones such as the IPhone became available, each of which contains a still and video camera, some children - how many is unknown, but a variety of cases have appeared in newspapers - without any adult participation, knowledge, or guidance start taking and circulating among each other nude and pornographic pictures and videos of themselves.
* Making pornography brings the child, in some cases, into contact with sexually enlightened people, who can teach the child about sex.
* The sexual sophistication exhibited by just-turned-18 porn actors and actresses is documentation of "kinky" sex by minors.
* Making pornography can be very lucrative for the child. This may brighten the child's future, if the money is invested; if the family is suffering economic difficulty this income may alleviate it. Like a [[Thai]] child "prostitute," a child may be very happy to be able to help the family economically.
* Children enjoy the attention they get during the photographic session. They come to learn that they are perceived as "hot", and this is a source of pride, as is the fact that people will be watching and be stimulated by the child's sex scene(s) for many years. Some may become Internet "stars" and get fan mail.
* It's fun. Sex is fun. It's an adventure. As the Lone Ranger said, "Hi-yo Silver." (Silver was his horse.)

Of course, in some cases it is the parents ''themselves'' having loving sex with their own children that may be recorded, and referred to as "child pornography."

== Further reading ==

*Jan Schuijer and Benjamin Rossen, "[http://web.archive.org/web/20010806083348/http://ipt-forensics.com/journal/volume4/j4_2_1.htm The Trade in Child Pornography]," ''[http://web.archive.org/web/20010806075608/http://ipt-forensics.com/journal/index.htm Issues in Child Abuse Accusations]'' 4, no. 2 (1992). --Examines the origins of claims regarding child pornography.
*Anne Higonnet, "[http://www.ipce.info/library_3/files/higonnet_text.htm Conclusions based on observation]," ''Yale Journal of Criticism'' 9, no. 1 (1996): 1-18. --Examines some controversial pictures of naked boys.
*The Perverse Law of Child Pornography(2001)- Amy Adler(medium_resolution).pdf
:http://www.keepandshare.com/doc18/view.php?id=9294&da=y
::''Columbia Law Review'' 101, no. 2 (2001): 209-273. --Argues that child pornography law, intended to protect children from sexual exploitation, threatens to reinforce the very problem it attacks. (This is the original article, not a copy!)
*Chuck Kleinhans, "Virtual Child Porn: The Law and the Semiotics of the Image," ''Journal of Visual Culture'' 3, no. 1 (2004): 17-34 [http://vcu.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/3/1/17 Abstract]
*Andrew Sorfleet and Chris Bearchell, "[http://www.walnet.org/csis/news/toronto_94/parallel-9406.html The sex police in a moral panic: how the 'youth porn' law is being used to censor artists and persecute youth sexuality]," ''Parallelogramme'' 20, no. 1 (1994). --The Law in Canada.
*D. Howitt, "Pornography and the paedophile: Is it criminogenic?" ''British Journal of Medical Psychology'' 68 (1995): 15-27.
*D.D. Knudsen, "Child sexual abuse and pornography: Is there a relationship?" ''Journal of Family Violence'' 3 (1988): 253-267.
*B. Kutchinsky, "The effect of easy availability of pornography on the incidence of sex crimes: The Danish experience," ''Journal of Social Issues'' 29 (1973): 163-181. --Based on the Danish experience, concludes that concurrent with the increasing availability of pornography, there was a significant decrease in the number of sex offenses registered by the police.
*[[Dave Riegel|David L. Riegel]], "Effects on Boy-Attracted Pedosexual Males of viewing Boy Erotica" ''[[Archives of Sexual Behavior]]'' 33, no. 4 (2004): 321-323.
*[[Dave Riegel|David L. Riegel]], ''Beyond Hysteria: Boy Erotica on the Internet'' (Philadelphia: SafeHaven Foundation Press, 2004) [http://www.ejhs.org/volume8/book35.htm Review]
*Rod Liddle. "[http://www.guardian.co.uk/child/story/0,7369,874336,00.html Should it really be a crime to look at child pornography?]" ''The Guardian''. January 14, 2003.

==References==
{{reflist}}
==See also==
*[[Azov Films]]
*[[ Azov Films Prosecutions]]
*[[ Azov Films Prosecutions - Canada‎]]
*[[Spading Up Hate: Joanna Beaven-Desjardins’ Big Lie]]
*[[ChildPorn.info]]
*[[List of works that were legal when created and later banned as child pornography]]

==See also==
*[[The_Pederast_(magazine_article) by Parker Rossman]]

== External links ==
*"The Perverse Law of Child Pornography" by Amy Adler
:https://cyber.harvard.edu/ilaw/Speech/Adler_full.html

*[http://www.hawaii.edu/PCSS/ Dr. Milton Diamond of The Pacific Center for Sex and Society ]-- Dr. Diamond has investigated Pornography, as it relates Rape and Sex Crimes and his research demonstrates that countries where child pornography was legal showed a significant decrease in the incidence of child sex abuse.

*[http://web.archive.org/web/20080129233731/http://www.geocities.com/pca_1978 Indecent Acts: child pornography in the UK] --An excellent site that "presents a discussion of the English laws that apply to 'child pornography' and their current application"

*'Everything is Now "Potential" Child Porn' by Dr. Marty Klein; Sexual Intelligence; 24 June 2011
:http://www.sexualintelligence.wordpress.com/2011/06/24/everything-is-now-%E2%80%9Cpotential%E2%80%9D-child-porn/

*[[Wikipedia: Child pornography]]

[[Category:Child pornography]]

Encryption

2019-10-18T11:21:08Z

Wanker: /* Degrees of security in encryption */

'''Encryption''' is the process of encoding messages or information in such a way that only authorized parties can read it. Encryption does not prevent interception, but denies the message content to the interceptor. In an encryption scheme, the intended communication information or message, referred to as plaintext, is encrypted using an encryption algorithm, generating ciphertext that can only be read if decrypted.

The process, as most commonly seen, involves a one-way process, in which movement in one direction is easy (encryption), but movement in the other (decryption) is hard.

For technical reasons, an encryption scheme usually uses a pseudo-random encryption key (a fancy password) generated by an algorithm.

It is in principle possible to decrypt the message without possessing the key, but, for a well-designed encryption scheme, large computational resources and skill are required. An authorized recipient can easily decrypt the message with the key provided by the originator to recipients, but not to unauthorized interceptors.

== Purpose of encryption ==
The purpose of encryption is to ensure that only somebody who is authorized to access data (e.g. a text message or a file), will be able to read it, using the decryption key. Somebody who is not authorized can be excluded, because he or she does not have the required key, without which it is impossible to read the encrypted information..

== How encryption works ==
:''For more information, see [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Key_size Key size] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryptographic_hash_function Cryptographic hash function]
All modern cryptographic systems are based on the factoring of numbers. It is easy to multiply two numbers and come up with a product. To take a number and determine what the numbers were that were multiplied to "create" it (called "factors") is very difficult. Despite serious looking by very bright people, no method or algorithm to solve "finding the factors" —for example, that the factors of 21 are 7 and 3, and those of 551 are 19 and 29 — has been found. Other than the simplest of methods, what could be called "no method at all", trying every conceivable solution (called the "brute force" method). The number of solutions to be tried is incredibly huge, astronomical. To even attempt it the most powerful computers are needed, so as to get results within a usable time frame. If it takes three years to get the missing key (password), probably it's not going to do you much good. The makers of encryption software try to create a number so huge that the number of solutions is just impossible to test. The makers of decryption software try to come up with shortcuts thst reduce the number of numbers that must be tested, or at least prioritize some numbers to test before others.

The more the speed of the hardware increases, the more it is possible to defeat encryption by a brute force attack (which is the only method because it's the only method that covers every possible answer). These are custom-built, single-purpose computers;.a single-purpose computer is always faster than a general-purpose computer. The original use of computers, during World War II, was to calculate coordinates for misiles (what angle up or elevation should they be at, among other things). Now it is to penetrate encryption, or try to. That's where the action is, in computing hardware.

This is a great simplification of a complicated area. However, it is the root of the whole system.

== Degrees of security in encryption ==
Any encryption must have a key, or in more basic terms a password. This is a string of characters which, in practice, describes the type of encryption used and provides the recipient's software the means to decrypt the message if authorized. The keys are easy to create but hard to undo.

The longer the password the more possible passwords have to be tested by the person that wants to break the encryption and view the message without permission. An eight-character password permits only about a billion possible passwords, and free software will break this in seconds on an ordinary desktop computer (2016). There are various standards, but 256 characters is commonly seen (2016). The longer the better.

A significant problem is providing the desired recipient the key (password) so the message can be decrypted. It should not be given over any type of electronic communication. Better guve it in person, or on a flash drive sent through the mail.

== PGP ==

== Boylovers and encryption ==

Many boylovers encrypt files related to boylove to keep themselves safe along with using programs like [[Tor]]. It is often recommended that boylovers use full disk encryption with a program like [https://www.grc.com/misc/truecrypt/truecrypt.htm truecrypt], [https://veracrypt.codeplex.com/ veracrypt], or [https://www.ciphershed.org CiperShed] There is some debate over whether or not truecrypt should still be used as the project has been abandoned by it's authors. However, truecrypt is the only open source encryption tool which has been audited and the audit found: "The TL;DR is that based on this audit, Truecrypt appears to be a relatively well-designed piece of crypto software. The NCC audit found no evidence of deliberate backdoors, or any severe design flaws that will make the software insecure in most instances.<ref>http://blog.cryptographyengineering.com/2015/04/truecrypt-report.html</ref> [http://istruecryptauditedyet.com http://istruecryptauditedyet.com] Some believe that the new break offs from truecrypt, such as veracrypt and CiperShed, could contain backdoors. There is no evidence for this and all three programs are open-source. An extensive comparison of all available encryption programs can be found on the wikipedia page [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_disk_encryption_software Comparison of disk encryption software] Whichever platform you use, a strong password is the most important thing to remember. See: [https://www.boywiki.org/en/Internet_security_tutorial#Using_secure_passwords Using secure passwords]

One need not only use encryption if they have illegal files; even totally legal files related to boylove can destroy a person's life if brought to light. Sometimes it is difficult to know what even is legal with regard to boylove.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_v._Dalton The State v. Dalton]is a legal case in the United States state of Ohio involving the prosecution of a man for recording fictional tales of alleged [[child pornography]] in a diary. He had no images, either drawn or photographed, just writings in a journal and it was deemed to be [[child pornography]]. Altogether the man spent over 10 years in prison for simple writings.<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2001/07/14/us/child-pornography-writer-gets-10-year-prison-term.html/</ref> This case highlights how important it is to encrypt everything related to boylove.

Also, in the USA, even totally clothed photographs can be considered [[child pornography]]. See: https://www.boywiki.org/en/Child_porn#Definition This further demonstrates that boylovers should use encryption of anything having to do with children or boylove. What is legal today may not be legal tomorrow.

==Key (password) disclosure laws==
Key disclosure laws, also known as mandatory key disclosure, are laws that require individuals to surrender cryptographic keys (passwords, though actual words are rarely used today) to law enforcement. The purpose is to allow access to material for confiscation or digital forensics purposes and use it either as evidence in a court of law or to enforce national security interests. Similarly, '''mandatory decryption''' laws force owners of encrypted data to supply decrypted data to law enforcement.

Nations vary widely in the specifics of how they implement key disclosure laws. Some, such as Australia, give law enforcement wide-ranging power to compel assistance in decrypting data from any party. Some, such as Belgium, concerned with self-incrimination, only allow law enforcement to compel assistance from non-suspects. Some require only specific third parties such as telecommunications carriers, certification providers, or maintainers of encryption services to provide assistance with decryption. In all cases, a warrant is generally required.

In the United Kingdom and Australia, it is a criminal offense not to reveal an encryption key when requested by law enforcement. In the United States there is no such law, nor is their any legal obligation to cooperate with law enforcement unless a warrant has been issued by a judge. The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, on which there is a Wikipedia article, prohibits the government from requiring anyone to testify against himself (self-incrimination). Whether supplying a password constitutes self-incrimination has not been ruled on definitively by the courts. However, a judge, usually at the request of law enforcement, can give a key holder immunity for anything discovered using the key; the material revealed by use of the key can not be used as evidence against the key holder or to get an indictment of the key holder. That the encrypted material might give law enforcement leads on where to find new evidence that'' could'' be used to indict the keyholder, or might lead to indictment of someone other than the key holder — typically an ally of some sort — is not relevant to a judge. Judges can and do hold persons in Contempt of Court for failing to follow a judicial mandate. (Search warrants and arrest warrants are judicial mandates.) A judge can order someone the judge finds guilty of Contempt of Court to be incarcerated indefinitely, until the judge's order is complied with.

"A Philadelphia man suspected of possessing child pornography has been in jail for seven months and counting after being found in contempt of a court order demanding that he decrypt two password-protected hard drives. The suspect, a former Philadelphia Police Department sergeant, has not been charged with any child porn crimes. Instead, he remains indefinitely imprisoned in Philadelphia's Federal Detention Center for refusing to unlock two drives encrypted with Apple's FileVault software in a case that once again highlights the extent to which the authorities are going to crack encrypted devices. The man is to remain jailed "until such time that he fully complies" with the decryption order." <ref>http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/04/child-porn-suspect-jailed-for-7-months-for-refusing-to-decrypt-hard-drives/</ref>

== Legislation by nation ==

=== Antigua and Barbuda ===

The Computer Misuse Bill, 2006, Article 21(5)(c), if enacted, would allow police with a warrant to demand and use decryption keys. Failure to comply may incur "a fine of fifteen thousand [East Caribbean] dollars" and/or "imprisonment for two years."<ref>[http://www.laws.gov.ag/bills/2006/computer-misuse-bill-2006.pdf Antigua and Barbuda: The Computer Misuse Bill, 2006]</ref>

=== Australia ===

The Cybercrime Act 2001 No. 161, Items 12 and 28 grant police with a magistrate's order the wide-ranging power to require "a specified person to provide any information or assistance that is reasonable and necessary to allow the officer to" access computer data that is "evidential
material"; this is understood to include mandatory decryption. Failing to comply carries a penalty of 6 months imprisonment. Electronic Frontiers Australia calls the provision "alarming" and "contrary to the common law privilege against self-incrimination."<ref>Electronic Frontiers Australia. [http://www.efa.org.au/Issues/Privacy/security.html#ccb01 Privacy Laws in Australia: Security / Cybercrime]. Retrieved 2010 November 8.</ref>

The Crimes Act 1914, 3LA(5) "A person commits an offence if the person fails to comply with the order. Penalty for contravention of this subsection: Imprisonment for 2 years."<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/C2015C00111/Html/Volume_1#_Toc415554770|title=Crimes Act 1914|last=AG|website=www.comlaw.gov.au|language=en|access-date=2016-04-30}}</ref>

=== Belgium ===

The ''Loi du 28 novembre 2000 relative à la criminalité informatique'' (Law on computer crime of 28 November 2000), Article 9 allows a judge to order both operators of computer systems and telecommunications providers to provide assistance to law enforcement, including mandatory decryption, and to keep their assistance secret; but this action cannot be taken against suspects or their families.<ref>[http://cwisdb.kuleuven.be/pisa/fr/jur/infocrimewet.htm#Art.9 Loi du 28 novembre 2000 relative à la criminalité informatique: Article 9]. 2000 November 28. Retrieved 2010 November 9.</ref><ref>[http://www.ejustice.just.fgov.be/cgi_loi/loi_a1.pl?DETAIL=1808111930%2FF&caller=list&row_id=1&numero=7&rech=9&cn=1808111930&table_name=LOI&nm=1808111901&la=F&dt=CODE+D%27INSTRUCTION+CRIMINELLE&language=fr&fromtab=loi_all&sql=dt+contains++%27CODE%27%26+%27D%27%26+%27INSTRUCTION%27%26+%27CRIMINELLE%27and+actif+%3D+%27Y%27#Art.156 Code d'instruction criminelle. Livre II, titre I, Art. 156.] 1808 November 19. Retrieved 2010 November 9. (''in French'')</ref> Failure to comply is punishable by 6 months to 1 year in jail and/or a fine of 130 to 100,000 Euros.

=== Canada ===

Canada implements key disclosure by broad interpretation of "existing interception, search and seizure and assistance procedures";<ref>[http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/ecic-ceac.nsf/eng/gv00118.html The Digital Economy in Canada: Summary of Canada’s Policy on Cryptography]. Industry Canada. Last modified 2009-02-11. Retrieved 2010 November 19.</ref> in a 1998 statement, Cabinet Minister John Manley explained, "warrants and assistance orders also apply to situations where encryption is encountered — to obtain the decrypted material or decryption keys."<ref>[http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/ecic-ceac.nsf/eng/gv00119.html The Digital Economy in Canada: Speaking Notes for John Manley: Canada's Cryptography Policy]. Presentation to the National Press Club, Ottawa. October 1, 1998. Industry Canada. Last modified 2009-02-11. Retrieved 2010 November 19.</ref>

=== Finland ===

The Coercive Measures Act (Pakkokeinolaki) 2011/806 section 8 paragraph 23<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.finlex.fi/fi/laki/ajantasa/2011/20110806#a806-2011|title=Coercive Measures Act (Pakkokeinolaki)|language=fi|access-date=2016-04-30}}</ref> requires the system owner, its administrator, or a specified person to surrender the necessary "passwords and other such information" in order to provide access to information stored on an information system. The suspect and some other persons specified in section 7 paragraph 3 that cannot otherwise be called as witnesses are exempt from this requirement.

=== France ===
Law #2001-1062 of 15 November 2001 on Community Safety allows a judge or prosecutor to compel any qualified person to decrypt or surrender keys to make available any information encountered in the course of an investigation. Failure to comply incurs three years of jail time and a fine of €45,000; if the compliance would have prevented or mitigated a crime, the penalty increases to five years of jail time and €75,000.<ref>Articles 30–31, {{cite French law|number or usual name=no 2001-1062|date in French=15 novembre 2001|full name=relative à la sécurité quotidienne|language=French|lower case=yes|URL=http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichTexte.do?cidTexte=JORFTEXT000000222052}}</ref>

=== India ===

Section 69 of the Information Technology Act, as amended by the Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008, empowers the central and state governments to compel assistance from any "subscriber or intermediary or any person in charge of the computer resource" in decrypting information.<ref>[http://police.pondicherry.gov.in/Information%20Technology%20Act%202000%20-%202008%20(amendment).pdf Information Technology (Amended) Act, 2008] (PDF); Government of India – Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs (Legislative Department); '''XI''' (69) pp. 27–8.</ref><ref>[http://220.227.161.86/18962sm_finalnew_isca_cp10.pdf Paper – 6 : Information Systems Control and Audit] (PDF) '''10''' pp. 42–3. [http://www.icai.org/post.html?post_id=5777 Study Material - Final (New)] The Institute of Chartered Accountants of India.</ref> Failure to comply is punishable by up to seven years imprisonment and/or a fine.

=== New Zealand ===

New Zealand Customs is seeking Power to compel Key disclosure.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.stuff.co.nz/technology/digital-living/67449940/customs-downplays-password-plan|title=Customs downplays password plan|website=Stuff|access-date=2016-04-30}}</ref>

=== Poland ===

In relatively few known cases in which police or prosecutor requested cryptographic keys from those formally accused and these requests were not fulfilled, no further consequences were imposed on the accused. There's no specific law in this matter, as e.g. in the UK. It is generally assumed that the Polish Criminal Procedure Code (Kodeks Postępowania Karnego Dz.U. 1997 nr 89 poz. 555.) provides means of protecting against self-incrimination, including lack of penalization for refusing to answer any question which would enable law enforcement agencies to obtain access to potential evidence, which could be used against testifying person.<ref>[http://webhosting.pl/W.jaki.sposob.sluzby.moga.uzyskac.dostep.do.zaszyfrowanych.danych Webhosting.pl - W jaki sposób służby mogą uzyskać dostęp do zaszyfrowanych danych]{{Dead link|date=April 2016}}</ref>

=== South Africa ===

Under the RICA Act of 2002, refusal to disclose a cryptographic key in your possession could result in a fine up to ZAR 2 Million or up to 10 years imprisonment. This requires a judge to issue a decryption direction to a person believed to hold the key.{{Citation needed|date=September 2014}}

=== Sweden ===

There are currently no laws that force the disclosure of cryptographic keys. However, there is legislation proposed on the basis that the Council of Europe has already adopted a convention on cyber-crime related to this issue. The proposed legislation would allow police to require an individual to disclose information, such as passwords and cryptographic keys, during searches. The proposal has been introduced to make it easier for police and prosecutors. The proposal has been criticized by The Swedish Data Inspection Board.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.publikt.se/artikel/di-kritiserar-nya-it-regler-46346|title=DI kritiserar nya it-regler|date=2013-09-26|website=Publikt|language=Swedish|access-date=2016-04-30}}</ref><ref name="Swedish Data Inspection Board">{{Cite web|url=http://www.datainspektionen.se/Documents/remissvar/2013-09-25-konvention-it-brottslighet.pdf|title=Remiss av betänkandet Europarådets konvention om it - relaterad brottslighet (SOU 2013:39)|language=Swedish|format=PDF|access-date=}}</ref>

=== The Netherlands ===

Article 125k of the Wetboek van Strafvordering allows investigators with a warrant to access information carriers and networked systems. The same article allows the district attorney and similar officers of the court to order persons who know how to access those systems to share their knowledge in the investigation, including any knowledge of encryption of data on information carriers. However, such an order may not be given to the suspect under investigation.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0001903/EersteBoek/TitelIV/Zevendeafdeling/Artikel125k/geldigheidsdatum_12-01-2015|title=wetten.nl - Regeling - Wetboek van Strafvordering - BWBR0001903|website=wetten.overheid.nl|access-date=2016-04-30}}</ref>

=== United Kingdom ===

The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA), Part III, activated by ministerial order in October 2007,<ref>{{cite news|first=Jeremy |last=Kirk |url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/01/AR2007100100511.html |title=Contested UK encryption disclosure law takes effect |agency=PC World |publisher=Washington Post |date=October 1, 2007 |accessdate=2009-01-05}}</ref> requires persons to supply decrypted information and/or keys to government representatives with a court order. Failure to disclose carries a maximum penalty of two years in jail. The provision was first used against animal rights activists in November 2007,<ref>{{cite news|last=Ward |first=Mark |url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7102180.stm |title=Campaigners hit by decryption law |work=[[BBC News]] |date=2007-11-20 |accessdate=2009-01-05}}</ref> and at least three people have been prosecuted and convicted for refusing to surrender their encryption keys,<ref>{{Cite news |url=http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/10/06/jail_password_ripa/ |title=Youth jailed for not handing over encryption password |work=[[The Register]] |date=6 October 2010 |first=John |last=Oates}}</ref> one of whom was sentenced to 13 months' imprisonment.<ref>{{Cite news |url=http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11/24/ripa_jfl |title=UK jails schizophrenic for refusal to decrypt files |work=The Register |date=24 November 2009 |first=Christopher |last=Williams}}</ref>

=== United States ===

The right not to be forced to incriminate oneself is guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. At present there is no legal requirement that forces anyone to reveal a password.<ref>http://www.coreyvarma.com/2015/07/encryption-vs-fifth-amendment/ |title=Encryption vs. Fifth Amendment |first1=Corey |last1=Varma |website=www.coreyvarma.com |accessdate=July 28, 2015}}</ref> However, this is an active area of the law. The question of whether one can be forced to reveal a password that would ostensibly only incriminate ''someone else'' being investigated (and whether incriminating evidence ”accidently" revealed concerning the password holder can then be used against them) is unanswered. Various password holders are in jail right now (2016) for Contempt of Court: violating the order of a judge, who says his order is legal. Disobeying a judge is technically not a crime, but you're still in jail.

Encryption is an active political topic today (2016) in the United States.

However, the federal case ''In re Boucher'' may be influential as case law. In this case, a man's laptop was inspected by customs agents and child pornography was discovered. The device was seized and powered-down, at which point disk encryption technology made the evidence unavailable. The judge held that it was a foregone conclusion that the content exists since it had already been seen by the customs agents, Boucher's encryption password "adds little or nothing to the sum total of the Government's information about the existence and location of files that may contain incriminating information."<ref>{{cite web|url=http://volokh.com/files/BoucherDCT.1.pdf |title=In re Grand Jury Subpoena to Sebastien Boucher, Memorandum of Decision |date=February 19, 2009 |format=PDF |work=The Volokh Conspiracy |accessdate=2009-08-29 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140716161430/http://www.volokh.com/files/Boucher.pdf |archive-date=July 16, 2014}}</ref><ref>http://www.cnet.com/news/judge-man-cant-be-forced-to-divulge-encryption-passphrase/ |title=Judge: Man can't be forced to divulge encryption passphrase |first=Declan |last=McCullagh |publisher=CNET |date=December 14, 2007 |accessdate=October 19, 2014}}</ref>

In United States v. Fricosu, a district court judge ordered a Colorado woman to decrypt her laptop so prosecutors can use the files against her in a criminal case: "I conclude that the Fifth Amendment is not implicated by requiring production of the unencrypted contents of the Toshiba Satellite M305 laptop computer," Colorado U.S. District Judge Robert Blackburn ruled on January 23, 2012.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/01/judge-orders-laptop-decryption/ |title=Judge Orders Defendant to Decrypt Laptop |first=David |last=Kravets |publisher=WIRED |date=January 23, 2012}}</ref> In Commonwealth v. Gelfgatt,<ref>{http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?q=GELFGATT&hl=en&as_sdt=2006&case=13313310379620456644&scilh=0</ref> the court ordered a suspect to decrypt his computer, citing exception to Fifth Amendment can be invoked because "''an act of production does not involve testimonial communication where the facts conveyed already are known to the government...''".<ref>http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/06/massachusetts-high-court-orders-suspect-to-decrypt-his-computers/ |title=Massachusetts high court orders suspect to decrypt his computers |first=Cyrus |last=Farivar |publisher=Ars Technica |date=June 26, 2014 |accessdate=October 19, 2014}}</ref>

However, in United States v. Doe, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit ruled on 24 February 2012 that forcing the decryption of one's laptop violates the Fifth Amendment.<ref>https://www.eff.org/press/releases/appeals-court-upholds-constitutional-right-against-forced-decryption |title=Appeals Court Upholds Constitutional Right Against Forced Decryption |first1=Marcia |last1=Hofmann |first2=Hanni |last2=Fakhoury |publisher=Electronic Frontier Foundation |date=February 24, 2012 |accessdate=October 19, 2014}}</ref> <ref>http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/02/appeals-court-fifth-amendment-protections-can-apply-to-encrypted-hard-drives/</ref>

The Federal Bureau of Investigation may also issue national security letters that require the disclosure of keys for investigative purposes.<ref>https://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2014/01/29/lavabit-appeals-contempt-of-court-ruling-surrounding-handover-of-ssl-keys/|title=Lavabit appeals contempt of court ruling surrounding handover of SSL keys|date=2014-01-29|website=Naked Security|access-date=2016-04-30}}</ref> One company, Lavabit, chose to shut down rather than surrender its master private keys.

Since the summer of 2015, cases were fought between major tech companies such as Apple over the regulation of encryption with government agencies asking for access to private encrypted information for law enforcement purposes. A technical report was written and published by MIT Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, where Ronald Rivest, an inventor of RSA, and Harold Abelson, a computer science professor at MIT with others, explain the technical difficulties, including security issues that arise from the regulation of encryption or by making a key available to a third party for purposes of decrypting any possible encrypted information. The report lists scenarios and raises questions for policy makers. It also asks for more technical details if the request for regulating encryption is to be pursued further.<ref>https://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/97690/MIT-CSAIL-TR-2015-026.pdf |date=6 July 2015 |title=Keys Under Doormats: Mandating insecurity by requiring government access to all data and communication |work=MIT Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory }}</ref>

Most recently, as noted above, a person may now be indefinitely detained for refusing to unencrypt their drives.

"A Philadelphia man suspected of possessing child pornography has been in jail for seven months and counting after being found in contempt of a court order demanding that he decrypt two password-protected hard drives. The suspect, a former Philadelphia Police Department sergeant, has not been charged with any child porn crimes. Instead, he remains indefinitely imprisoned in Philadelphia's Federal Detention Center for refusing to unlock two drives encrypted with Apple's FileVault software in a case that once again highlights the extent to which the authorities are going to crack encrypted devices. The man is to remain jailed "until such time that he fully complies" with the decryption order." <ref>http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/04/child-porn-suspect-jailed-for-7-months-for-refusing-to-decrypt-hard-drives/</ref>

==See Also==

* [[Steganography]]
* [[Tor]]
* [[Internet security tutorial]]
* [[Email security]]
* [[Hard drive]]

==References==
{{reflist}}

==External links==
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encryption https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encryption]
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Key_disclosure_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Key_disclosure_law]
*[http://www.nytimes.com/2001/07/14/us/child-pornography-writer-gets-10-year-prison-term.html http://www.nytimes.com/2001/07/14/us/child-pornography-writer-gets-10-year-prison-term.html]
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_v._Dalton https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_v._Dalton]

[[Category:Technology]]
[[Category:Essential reading for BoyLovers]]
[[Category:Civil rights and liberties]]

Encryption

2019-10-18T11:18:28Z

Wanker: /* How encryption works */

'''Encryption''' is the process of encoding messages or information in such a way that only authorized parties can read it. Encryption does not prevent interception, but denies the message content to the interceptor. In an encryption scheme, the intended communication information or message, referred to as plaintext, is encrypted using an encryption algorithm, generating ciphertext that can only be read if decrypted.

The process, as most commonly seen, involves a one-way process, in which movement in one direction is easy (encryption), but movement in the other (decryption) is hard.

For technical reasons, an encryption scheme usually uses a pseudo-random encryption key (a fancy password) generated by an algorithm.

It is in principle possible to decrypt the message without possessing the key, but, for a well-designed encryption scheme, large computational resources and skill are required. An authorized recipient can easily decrypt the message with the key provided by the originator to recipients, but not to unauthorized interceptors.

== Purpose of encryption ==
The purpose of encryption is to ensure that only somebody who is authorized to access data (e.g. a text message or a file), will be able to read it, using the decryption key. Somebody who is not authorized can be excluded, because he or she does not have the required key, without which it is impossible to read the encrypted information..

== How encryption works ==
:''For more information, see [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Key_size Key size] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryptographic_hash_function Cryptographic hash function]
All modern cryptographic systems are based on the factoring of numbers. It is easy to multiply two numbers and come up with a product. To take a number and determine what the numbers were that were multiplied to "create" it (called "factors") is very difficult. Despite serious looking by very bright people, no method or algorithm to solve "finding the factors" —for example, that the factors of 21 are 7 and 3, and those of 551 are 19 and 29 — has been found. Other than the simplest of methods, what could be called "no method at all", trying every conceivable solution (called the "brute force" method). The number of solutions to be tried is incredibly huge, astronomical. To even attempt it the most powerful computers are needed, so as to get results within a usable time frame. If it takes three years to get the missing key (password), probably it's not going to do you much good. The makers of encryption software try to create a number so huge that the number of solutions is just impossible to test. The makers of decryption software try to come up with shortcuts thst reduce the number of numbers that must be tested, or at least prioritize some numbers to test before others.

The more the speed of the hardware increases, the more it is possible to defeat encryption by a brute force attack (which is the only method because it's the only method that covers every possible answer). These are custom-built, single-purpose computers;.a single-purpose computer is always faster than a general-purpose computer. The original use of computers, during World War II, was to calculate coordinates for misiles (what angle up or elevation should they be at, among other things). Now it is to penetrate encryption, or try to. That's where the action is, in computing hardware.

This is a great simplification of a complicated area. However, it is the root of the whole system.

== Degrees of security in encryption ==
Any encryption must have a key, or in more basic terms a password. This is a string of characters which, in practice, describes the type of encryption used and provides the recipient's software the means to decrypt the message if authorized. The keys are easy to create but hard to undo.

The longer the password the more possible passwords have to be tested by the person that wants to break the encryption and view the message without permission. An eight-character password permits only about a billion possible passwords, and free software will break this in seconds on an ordinary desktop computer (2016). There are various standards, but 256 characters is commonly seen (2016). The longer the better.

A significant problem is providing the desired recipient the key (password) so thecmessage can be decrypted. It should not be given over any type of electronic communication. In person or on a flash drive sent through the mail.

== PGP ==

== Boylovers and encryption ==

Many boylovers encrypt files related to boylove to keep themselves safe along with using programs like [[Tor]]. It is often recommended that boylovers use full disk encryption with a program like [https://www.grc.com/misc/truecrypt/truecrypt.htm truecrypt], [https://veracrypt.codeplex.com/ veracrypt], or [https://www.ciphershed.org CiperShed] There is some debate over whether or not truecrypt should still be used as the project has been abandoned by it's authors. However, truecrypt is the only open source encryption tool which has been audited and the audit found: "The TL;DR is that based on this audit, Truecrypt appears to be a relatively well-designed piece of crypto software. The NCC audit found no evidence of deliberate backdoors, or any severe design flaws that will make the software insecure in most instances.<ref>http://blog.cryptographyengineering.com/2015/04/truecrypt-report.html</ref> [http://istruecryptauditedyet.com http://istruecryptauditedyet.com] Some believe that the new break offs from truecrypt, such as veracrypt and CiperShed, could contain backdoors. There is no evidence for this and all three programs are open-source. An extensive comparison of all available encryption programs can be found on the wikipedia page [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_disk_encryption_software Comparison of disk encryption software] Whichever platform you use, a strong password is the most important thing to remember. See: [https://www.boywiki.org/en/Internet_security_tutorial#Using_secure_passwords Using secure passwords]

One need not only use encryption if they have illegal files; even totally legal files related to boylove can destroy a person's life if brought to light. Sometimes it is difficult to know what even is legal with regard to boylove.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_v._Dalton The State v. Dalton]is a legal case in the United States state of Ohio involving the prosecution of a man for recording fictional tales of alleged [[child pornography]] in a diary. He had no images, either drawn or photographed, just writings in a journal and it was deemed to be [[child pornography]]. Altogether the man spent over 10 years in prison for simple writings.<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2001/07/14/us/child-pornography-writer-gets-10-year-prison-term.html/</ref> This case highlights how important it is to encrypt everything related to boylove.

Also, in the USA, even totally clothed photographs can be considered [[child pornography]]. See: https://www.boywiki.org/en/Child_porn#Definition This further demonstrates that boylovers should use encryption of anything having to do with children or boylove. What is legal today may not be legal tomorrow.

==Key (password) disclosure laws==
Key disclosure laws, also known as mandatory key disclosure, are laws that require individuals to surrender cryptographic keys (passwords, though actual words are rarely used today) to law enforcement. The purpose is to allow access to material for confiscation or digital forensics purposes and use it either as evidence in a court of law or to enforce national security interests. Similarly, '''mandatory decryption''' laws force owners of encrypted data to supply decrypted data to law enforcement.

Nations vary widely in the specifics of how they implement key disclosure laws. Some, such as Australia, give law enforcement wide-ranging power to compel assistance in decrypting data from any party. Some, such as Belgium, concerned with self-incrimination, only allow law enforcement to compel assistance from non-suspects. Some require only specific third parties such as telecommunications carriers, certification providers, or maintainers of encryption services to provide assistance with decryption. In all cases, a warrant is generally required.

In the United Kingdom and Australia, it is a criminal offense not to reveal an encryption key when requested by law enforcement. In the United States there is no such law, nor is their any legal obligation to cooperate with law enforcement unless a warrant has been issued by a judge. The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, on which there is a Wikipedia article, prohibits the government from requiring anyone to testify against himself (self-incrimination). Whether supplying a password constitutes self-incrimination has not been ruled on definitively by the courts. However, a judge, usually at the request of law enforcement, can give a key holder immunity for anything discovered using the key; the material revealed by use of the key can not be used as evidence against the key holder or to get an indictment of the key holder. That the encrypted material might give law enforcement leads on where to find new evidence that'' could'' be used to indict the keyholder, or might lead to indictment of someone other than the key holder — typically an ally of some sort — is not relevant to a judge. Judges can and do hold persons in Contempt of Court for failing to follow a judicial mandate. (Search warrants and arrest warrants are judicial mandates.) A judge can order someone the judge finds guilty of Contempt of Court to be incarcerated indefinitely, until the judge's order is complied with.

"A Philadelphia man suspected of possessing child pornography has been in jail for seven months and counting after being found in contempt of a court order demanding that he decrypt two password-protected hard drives. The suspect, a former Philadelphia Police Department sergeant, has not been charged with any child porn crimes. Instead, he remains indefinitely imprisoned in Philadelphia's Federal Detention Center for refusing to unlock two drives encrypted with Apple's FileVault software in a case that once again highlights the extent to which the authorities are going to crack encrypted devices. The man is to remain jailed "until such time that he fully complies" with the decryption order." <ref>http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/04/child-porn-suspect-jailed-for-7-months-for-refusing-to-decrypt-hard-drives/</ref>

== Legislation by nation ==

=== Antigua and Barbuda ===

The Computer Misuse Bill, 2006, Article 21(5)(c), if enacted, would allow police with a warrant to demand and use decryption keys. Failure to comply may incur "a fine of fifteen thousand [East Caribbean] dollars" and/or "imprisonment for two years."<ref>[http://www.laws.gov.ag/bills/2006/computer-misuse-bill-2006.pdf Antigua and Barbuda: The Computer Misuse Bill, 2006]</ref>

=== Australia ===

The Cybercrime Act 2001 No. 161, Items 12 and 28 grant police with a magistrate's order the wide-ranging power to require "a specified person to provide any information or assistance that is reasonable and necessary to allow the officer to" access computer data that is "evidential
material"; this is understood to include mandatory decryption. Failing to comply carries a penalty of 6 months imprisonment. Electronic Frontiers Australia calls the provision "alarming" and "contrary to the common law privilege against self-incrimination."<ref>Electronic Frontiers Australia. [http://www.efa.org.au/Issues/Privacy/security.html#ccb01 Privacy Laws in Australia: Security / Cybercrime]. Retrieved 2010 November 8.</ref>

The Crimes Act 1914, 3LA(5) "A person commits an offence if the person fails to comply with the order. Penalty for contravention of this subsection: Imprisonment for 2 years."<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/C2015C00111/Html/Volume_1#_Toc415554770|title=Crimes Act 1914|last=AG|website=www.comlaw.gov.au|language=en|access-date=2016-04-30}}</ref>

=== Belgium ===

The ''Loi du 28 novembre 2000 relative à la criminalité informatique'' (Law on computer crime of 28 November 2000), Article 9 allows a judge to order both operators of computer systems and telecommunications providers to provide assistance to law enforcement, including mandatory decryption, and to keep their assistance secret; but this action cannot be taken against suspects or their families.<ref>[http://cwisdb.kuleuven.be/pisa/fr/jur/infocrimewet.htm#Art.9 Loi du 28 novembre 2000 relative à la criminalité informatique: Article 9]. 2000 November 28. Retrieved 2010 November 9.</ref><ref>[http://www.ejustice.just.fgov.be/cgi_loi/loi_a1.pl?DETAIL=1808111930%2FF&caller=list&row_id=1&numero=7&rech=9&cn=1808111930&table_name=LOI&nm=1808111901&la=F&dt=CODE+D%27INSTRUCTION+CRIMINELLE&language=fr&fromtab=loi_all&sql=dt+contains++%27CODE%27%26+%27D%27%26+%27INSTRUCTION%27%26+%27CRIMINELLE%27and+actif+%3D+%27Y%27#Art.156 Code d'instruction criminelle. Livre II, titre I, Art. 156.] 1808 November 19. Retrieved 2010 November 9. (''in French'')</ref> Failure to comply is punishable by 6 months to 1 year in jail and/or a fine of 130 to 100,000 Euros.

=== Canada ===

Canada implements key disclosure by broad interpretation of "existing interception, search and seizure and assistance procedures";<ref>[http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/ecic-ceac.nsf/eng/gv00118.html The Digital Economy in Canada: Summary of Canada’s Policy on Cryptography]. Industry Canada. Last modified 2009-02-11. Retrieved 2010 November 19.</ref> in a 1998 statement, Cabinet Minister John Manley explained, "warrants and assistance orders also apply to situations where encryption is encountered — to obtain the decrypted material or decryption keys."<ref>[http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/ecic-ceac.nsf/eng/gv00119.html The Digital Economy in Canada: Speaking Notes for John Manley: Canada's Cryptography Policy]. Presentation to the National Press Club, Ottawa. October 1, 1998. Industry Canada. Last modified 2009-02-11. Retrieved 2010 November 19.</ref>

=== Finland ===

The Coercive Measures Act (Pakkokeinolaki) 2011/806 section 8 paragraph 23<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.finlex.fi/fi/laki/ajantasa/2011/20110806#a806-2011|title=Coercive Measures Act (Pakkokeinolaki)|language=fi|access-date=2016-04-30}}</ref> requires the system owner, its administrator, or a specified person to surrender the necessary "passwords and other such information" in order to provide access to information stored on an information system. The suspect and some other persons specified in section 7 paragraph 3 that cannot otherwise be called as witnesses are exempt from this requirement.

=== France ===
Law #2001-1062 of 15 November 2001 on Community Safety allows a judge or prosecutor to compel any qualified person to decrypt or surrender keys to make available any information encountered in the course of an investigation. Failure to comply incurs three years of jail time and a fine of €45,000; if the compliance would have prevented or mitigated a crime, the penalty increases to five years of jail time and €75,000.<ref>Articles 30–31, {{cite French law|number or usual name=no 2001-1062|date in French=15 novembre 2001|full name=relative à la sécurité quotidienne|language=French|lower case=yes|URL=http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichTexte.do?cidTexte=JORFTEXT000000222052}}</ref>

=== India ===

Section 69 of the Information Technology Act, as amended by the Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008, empowers the central and state governments to compel assistance from any "subscriber or intermediary or any person in charge of the computer resource" in decrypting information.<ref>[http://police.pondicherry.gov.in/Information%20Technology%20Act%202000%20-%202008%20(amendment).pdf Information Technology (Amended) Act, 2008] (PDF); Government of India – Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs (Legislative Department); '''XI''' (69) pp. 27–8.</ref><ref>[http://220.227.161.86/18962sm_finalnew_isca_cp10.pdf Paper – 6 : Information Systems Control and Audit] (PDF) '''10''' pp. 42–3. [http://www.icai.org/post.html?post_id=5777 Study Material - Final (New)] The Institute of Chartered Accountants of India.</ref> Failure to comply is punishable by up to seven years imprisonment and/or a fine.

=== New Zealand ===

New Zealand Customs is seeking Power to compel Key disclosure.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.stuff.co.nz/technology/digital-living/67449940/customs-downplays-password-plan|title=Customs downplays password plan|website=Stuff|access-date=2016-04-30}}</ref>

=== Poland ===

In relatively few known cases in which police or prosecutor requested cryptographic keys from those formally accused and these requests were not fulfilled, no further consequences were imposed on the accused. There's no specific law in this matter, as e.g. in the UK. It is generally assumed that the Polish Criminal Procedure Code (Kodeks Postępowania Karnego Dz.U. 1997 nr 89 poz. 555.) provides means of protecting against self-incrimination, including lack of penalization for refusing to answer any question which would enable law enforcement agencies to obtain access to potential evidence, which could be used against testifying person.<ref>[http://webhosting.pl/W.jaki.sposob.sluzby.moga.uzyskac.dostep.do.zaszyfrowanych.danych Webhosting.pl - W jaki sposób służby mogą uzyskać dostęp do zaszyfrowanych danych]{{Dead link|date=April 2016}}</ref>

=== South Africa ===

Under the RICA Act of 2002, refusal to disclose a cryptographic key in your possession could result in a fine up to ZAR 2 Million or up to 10 years imprisonment. This requires a judge to issue a decryption direction to a person believed to hold the key.{{Citation needed|date=September 2014}}

=== Sweden ===

There are currently no laws that force the disclosure of cryptographic keys. However, there is legislation proposed on the basis that the Council of Europe has already adopted a convention on cyber-crime related to this issue. The proposed legislation would allow police to require an individual to disclose information, such as passwords and cryptographic keys, during searches. The proposal has been introduced to make it easier for police and prosecutors. The proposal has been criticized by The Swedish Data Inspection Board.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.publikt.se/artikel/di-kritiserar-nya-it-regler-46346|title=DI kritiserar nya it-regler|date=2013-09-26|website=Publikt|language=Swedish|access-date=2016-04-30}}</ref><ref name="Swedish Data Inspection Board">{{Cite web|url=http://www.datainspektionen.se/Documents/remissvar/2013-09-25-konvention-it-brottslighet.pdf|title=Remiss av betänkandet Europarådets konvention om it - relaterad brottslighet (SOU 2013:39)|language=Swedish|format=PDF|access-date=}}</ref>

=== The Netherlands ===

Article 125k of the Wetboek van Strafvordering allows investigators with a warrant to access information carriers and networked systems. The same article allows the district attorney and similar officers of the court to order persons who know how to access those systems to share their knowledge in the investigation, including any knowledge of encryption of data on information carriers. However, such an order may not be given to the suspect under investigation.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0001903/EersteBoek/TitelIV/Zevendeafdeling/Artikel125k/geldigheidsdatum_12-01-2015|title=wetten.nl - Regeling - Wetboek van Strafvordering - BWBR0001903|website=wetten.overheid.nl|access-date=2016-04-30}}</ref>

=== United Kingdom ===

The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA), Part III, activated by ministerial order in October 2007,<ref>{{cite news|first=Jeremy |last=Kirk |url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/01/AR2007100100511.html |title=Contested UK encryption disclosure law takes effect |agency=PC World |publisher=Washington Post |date=October 1, 2007 |accessdate=2009-01-05}}</ref> requires persons to supply decrypted information and/or keys to government representatives with a court order. Failure to disclose carries a maximum penalty of two years in jail. The provision was first used against animal rights activists in November 2007,<ref>{{cite news|last=Ward |first=Mark |url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7102180.stm |title=Campaigners hit by decryption law |work=[[BBC News]] |date=2007-11-20 |accessdate=2009-01-05}}</ref> and at least three people have been prosecuted and convicted for refusing to surrender their encryption keys,<ref>{{Cite news |url=http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/10/06/jail_password_ripa/ |title=Youth jailed for not handing over encryption password |work=[[The Register]] |date=6 October 2010 |first=John |last=Oates}}</ref> one of whom was sentenced to 13 months' imprisonment.<ref>{{Cite news |url=http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11/24/ripa_jfl |title=UK jails schizophrenic for refusal to decrypt files |work=The Register |date=24 November 2009 |first=Christopher |last=Williams}}</ref>

=== United States ===

The right not to be forced to incriminate oneself is guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. At present there is no legal requirement that forces anyone to reveal a password.<ref>http://www.coreyvarma.com/2015/07/encryption-vs-fifth-amendment/ |title=Encryption vs. Fifth Amendment |first1=Corey |last1=Varma |website=www.coreyvarma.com |accessdate=July 28, 2015}}</ref> However, this is an active area of the law. The question of whether one can be forced to reveal a password that would ostensibly only incriminate ''someone else'' being investigated (and whether incriminating evidence ”accidently" revealed concerning the password holder can then be used against them) is unanswered. Various password holders are in jail right now (2016) for Contempt of Court: violating the order of a judge, who says his order is legal. Disobeying a judge is technically not a crime, but you're still in jail.

Encryption is an active political topic today (2016) in the United States.

However, the federal case ''In re Boucher'' may be influential as case law. In this case, a man's laptop was inspected by customs agents and child pornography was discovered. The device was seized and powered-down, at which point disk encryption technology made the evidence unavailable. The judge held that it was a foregone conclusion that the content exists since it had already been seen by the customs agents, Boucher's encryption password "adds little or nothing to the sum total of the Government's information about the existence and location of files that may contain incriminating information."<ref>{{cite web|url=http://volokh.com/files/BoucherDCT.1.pdf |title=In re Grand Jury Subpoena to Sebastien Boucher, Memorandum of Decision |date=February 19, 2009 |format=PDF |work=The Volokh Conspiracy |accessdate=2009-08-29 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140716161430/http://www.volokh.com/files/Boucher.pdf |archive-date=July 16, 2014}}</ref><ref>http://www.cnet.com/news/judge-man-cant-be-forced-to-divulge-encryption-passphrase/ |title=Judge: Man can't be forced to divulge encryption passphrase |first=Declan |last=McCullagh |publisher=CNET |date=December 14, 2007 |accessdate=October 19, 2014}}</ref>

In United States v. Fricosu, a district court judge ordered a Colorado woman to decrypt her laptop so prosecutors can use the files against her in a criminal case: "I conclude that the Fifth Amendment is not implicated by requiring production of the unencrypted contents of the Toshiba Satellite M305 laptop computer," Colorado U.S. District Judge Robert Blackburn ruled on January 23, 2012.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/01/judge-orders-laptop-decryption/ |title=Judge Orders Defendant to Decrypt Laptop |first=David |last=Kravets |publisher=WIRED |date=January 23, 2012}}</ref> In Commonwealth v. Gelfgatt,<ref>{http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?q=GELFGATT&hl=en&as_sdt=2006&case=13313310379620456644&scilh=0</ref> the court ordered a suspect to decrypt his computer, citing exception to Fifth Amendment can be invoked because "''an act of production does not involve testimonial communication where the facts conveyed already are known to the government...''".<ref>http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/06/massachusetts-high-court-orders-suspect-to-decrypt-his-computers/ |title=Massachusetts high court orders suspect to decrypt his computers |first=Cyrus |last=Farivar |publisher=Ars Technica |date=June 26, 2014 |accessdate=October 19, 2014}}</ref>

However, in United States v. Doe, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit ruled on 24 February 2012 that forcing the decryption of one's laptop violates the Fifth Amendment.<ref>https://www.eff.org/press/releases/appeals-court-upholds-constitutional-right-against-forced-decryption |title=Appeals Court Upholds Constitutional Right Against Forced Decryption |first1=Marcia |last1=Hofmann |first2=Hanni |last2=Fakhoury |publisher=Electronic Frontier Foundation |date=February 24, 2012 |accessdate=October 19, 2014}}</ref> <ref>http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/02/appeals-court-fifth-amendment-protections-can-apply-to-encrypted-hard-drives/</ref>

The Federal Bureau of Investigation may also issue national security letters that require the disclosure of keys for investigative purposes.<ref>https://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2014/01/29/lavabit-appeals-contempt-of-court-ruling-surrounding-handover-of-ssl-keys/|title=Lavabit appeals contempt of court ruling surrounding handover of SSL keys|date=2014-01-29|website=Naked Security|access-date=2016-04-30}}</ref> One company, Lavabit, chose to shut down rather than surrender its master private keys.

Since the summer of 2015, cases were fought between major tech companies such as Apple over the regulation of encryption with government agencies asking for access to private encrypted information for law enforcement purposes. A technical report was written and published by MIT Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, where Ronald Rivest, an inventor of RSA, and Harold Abelson, a computer science professor at MIT with others, explain the technical difficulties, including security issues that arise from the regulation of encryption or by making a key available to a third party for purposes of decrypting any possible encrypted information. The report lists scenarios and raises questions for policy makers. It also asks for more technical details if the request for regulating encryption is to be pursued further.<ref>https://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/97690/MIT-CSAIL-TR-2015-026.pdf |date=6 July 2015 |title=Keys Under Doormats: Mandating insecurity by requiring government access to all data and communication |work=MIT Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory }}</ref>

Most recently, as noted above, a person may now be indefinitely detained for refusing to unencrypt their drives.

"A Philadelphia man suspected of possessing child pornography has been in jail for seven months and counting after being found in contempt of a court order demanding that he decrypt two password-protected hard drives. The suspect, a former Philadelphia Police Department sergeant, has not been charged with any child porn crimes. Instead, he remains indefinitely imprisoned in Philadelphia's Federal Detention Center for refusing to unlock two drives encrypted with Apple's FileVault software in a case that once again highlights the extent to which the authorities are going to crack encrypted devices. The man is to remain jailed "until such time that he fully complies" with the decryption order." <ref>http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/04/child-porn-suspect-jailed-for-7-months-for-refusing-to-decrypt-hard-drives/</ref>

==See Also==

* [[Steganography]]
* [[Tor]]
* [[Internet security tutorial]]
* [[Email security]]
* [[Hard drive]]

==References==
{{reflist}}

==External links==
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encryption https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encryption]
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Key_disclosure_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Key_disclosure_law]
*[http://www.nytimes.com/2001/07/14/us/child-pornography-writer-gets-10-year-prison-term.html http://www.nytimes.com/2001/07/14/us/child-pornography-writer-gets-10-year-prison-term.html]
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_v._Dalton https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_v._Dalton]

[[Category:Technology]]
[[Category:Essential reading for BoyLovers]]
[[Category:Civil rights and liberties]]

Encryption

2019-10-18T11:17:59Z

Wanker: /* How encryption works */

'''Encryption''' is the process of encoding messages or information in such a way that only authorized parties can read it. Encryption does not prevent interception, but denies the message content to the interceptor. In an encryption scheme, the intended communication information or message, referred to as plaintext, is encrypted using an encryption algorithm, generating ciphertext that can only be read if decrypted.

The process, as most commonly seen, involves a one-way process, in which movement in one direction is easy (encryption), but movement in the other (decryption) is hard.

For technical reasons, an encryption scheme usually uses a pseudo-random encryption key (a fancy password) generated by an algorithm.

It is in principle possible to decrypt the message without possessing the key, but, for a well-designed encryption scheme, large computational resources and skill are required. An authorized recipient can easily decrypt the message with the key provided by the originator to recipients, but not to unauthorized interceptors.

== Purpose of encryption ==
The purpose of encryption is to ensure that only somebody who is authorized to access data (e.g. a text message or a file), will be able to read it, using the decryption key. Somebody who is not authorized can be excluded, because he or she does not have the required key, without which it is impossible to read the encrypted information..

== How encryption works ==
:''For more information, see [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Key_size Key size] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryptographic_hash_function Cryptographic hash function]
All modern cryptographic systems are based on the factoring of numbers. It is easy to multiply two numbers and come up with a product. To take a number and determine what the numbers were that were multiplied to "create" it (called "factors") is very difficult. Despite serious looking by very bright people, no method or algorithm to solve "finding the factors" —for example, that the factors of 21 are 7 and 3, and those of 551 are 19 and 29 has been found. Other than the simplest of methods, what could be called "no method at all", trying every conceivable solution (called the "brute force" method). The number of solutions to be tried is incredibly huge, astronomical. To even attempt it the most powerful computers are needed, so as to get results within a usable time frame. If it takes three years to get the missing key (password), probably it's not going to do you much good. The makers of encryption software try to create a number so huge that the number of solutions is just impossible to test. The makers of decryption software try to come up with shortcuts thst reduce the number of numbers that must be tested, or at least prioritize some numbers to test before others.

The more the speed of the hardware increases, the more it is possible to defeat encryption by a brute force attack (which is the only method because it's the only method that covers every possible answer). These are custom-built, single-purpose computers;.a single-purpose computer is always faster than a general-purpose computer. The original use of computers, during World War II, was to calculate coordinates for misiles (what angle up or elevation should they be at, among other things). Now it is to penetrate encryption, or try to. That's where the action is, in computing hardware.

This is a great simplification of a complicated area. However, it is the root of the whole system.

== Degrees of security in encryption ==
Any encryption must have a key, or in more basic terms a password. This is a string of characters which, in practice, describes the type of encryption used and provides the recipient's software the means to decrypt the message if authorized. The keys are easy to create but hard to undo.

The longer the password the more possible passwords have to be tested by the person that wants to break the encryption and view the message without permission. An eight-character password permits only about a billion possible passwords, and free software will break this in seconds on an ordinary desktop computer (2016). There are various standards, but 256 characters is commonly seen (2016). The longer the better.

A significant problem is providing the desired recipient the key (password) so thecmessage can be decrypted. It should not be given over any type of electronic communication. In person or on a flash drive sent through the mail.

== PGP ==

== Boylovers and encryption ==

Many boylovers encrypt files related to boylove to keep themselves safe along with using programs like [[Tor]]. It is often recommended that boylovers use full disk encryption with a program like [https://www.grc.com/misc/truecrypt/truecrypt.htm truecrypt], [https://veracrypt.codeplex.com/ veracrypt], or [https://www.ciphershed.org CiperShed] There is some debate over whether or not truecrypt should still be used as the project has been abandoned by it's authors. However, truecrypt is the only open source encryption tool which has been audited and the audit found: "The TL;DR is that based on this audit, Truecrypt appears to be a relatively well-designed piece of crypto software. The NCC audit found no evidence of deliberate backdoors, or any severe design flaws that will make the software insecure in most instances.<ref>http://blog.cryptographyengineering.com/2015/04/truecrypt-report.html</ref> [http://istruecryptauditedyet.com http://istruecryptauditedyet.com] Some believe that the new break offs from truecrypt, such as veracrypt and CiperShed, could contain backdoors. There is no evidence for this and all three programs are open-source. An extensive comparison of all available encryption programs can be found on the wikipedia page [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_disk_encryption_software Comparison of disk encryption software] Whichever platform you use, a strong password is the most important thing to remember. See: [https://www.boywiki.org/en/Internet_security_tutorial#Using_secure_passwords Using secure passwords]

One need not only use encryption if they have illegal files; even totally legal files related to boylove can destroy a person's life if brought to light. Sometimes it is difficult to know what even is legal with regard to boylove.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_v._Dalton The State v. Dalton]is a legal case in the United States state of Ohio involving the prosecution of a man for recording fictional tales of alleged [[child pornography]] in a diary. He had no images, either drawn or photographed, just writings in a journal and it was deemed to be [[child pornography]]. Altogether the man spent over 10 years in prison for simple writings.<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2001/07/14/us/child-pornography-writer-gets-10-year-prison-term.html/</ref> This case highlights how important it is to encrypt everything related to boylove.

Also, in the USA, even totally clothed photographs can be considered [[child pornography]]. See: https://www.boywiki.org/en/Child_porn#Definition This further demonstrates that boylovers should use encryption of anything having to do with children or boylove. What is legal today may not be legal tomorrow.

==Key (password) disclosure laws==
Key disclosure laws, also known as mandatory key disclosure, are laws that require individuals to surrender cryptographic keys (passwords, though actual words are rarely used today) to law enforcement. The purpose is to allow access to material for confiscation or digital forensics purposes and use it either as evidence in a court of law or to enforce national security interests. Similarly, '''mandatory decryption''' laws force owners of encrypted data to supply decrypted data to law enforcement.

Nations vary widely in the specifics of how they implement key disclosure laws. Some, such as Australia, give law enforcement wide-ranging power to compel assistance in decrypting data from any party. Some, such as Belgium, concerned with self-incrimination, only allow law enforcement to compel assistance from non-suspects. Some require only specific third parties such as telecommunications carriers, certification providers, or maintainers of encryption services to provide assistance with decryption. In all cases, a warrant is generally required.

In the United Kingdom and Australia, it is a criminal offense not to reveal an encryption key when requested by law enforcement. In the United States there is no such law, nor is their any legal obligation to cooperate with law enforcement unless a warrant has been issued by a judge. The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, on which there is a Wikipedia article, prohibits the government from requiring anyone to testify against himself (self-incrimination). Whether supplying a password constitutes self-incrimination has not been ruled on definitively by the courts. However, a judge, usually at the request of law enforcement, can give a key holder immunity for anything discovered using the key; the material revealed by use of the key can not be used as evidence against the key holder or to get an indictment of the key holder. That the encrypted material might give law enforcement leads on where to find new evidence that'' could'' be used to indict the keyholder, or might lead to indictment of someone other than the key holder — typically an ally of some sort — is not relevant to a judge. Judges can and do hold persons in Contempt of Court for failing to follow a judicial mandate. (Search warrants and arrest warrants are judicial mandates.) A judge can order someone the judge finds guilty of Contempt of Court to be incarcerated indefinitely, until the judge's order is complied with.

"A Philadelphia man suspected of possessing child pornography has been in jail for seven months and counting after being found in contempt of a court order demanding that he decrypt two password-protected hard drives. The suspect, a former Philadelphia Police Department sergeant, has not been charged with any child porn crimes. Instead, he remains indefinitely imprisoned in Philadelphia's Federal Detention Center for refusing to unlock two drives encrypted with Apple's FileVault software in a case that once again highlights the extent to which the authorities are going to crack encrypted devices. The man is to remain jailed "until such time that he fully complies" with the decryption order." <ref>http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/04/child-porn-suspect-jailed-for-7-months-for-refusing-to-decrypt-hard-drives/</ref>

== Legislation by nation ==

=== Antigua and Barbuda ===

The Computer Misuse Bill, 2006, Article 21(5)(c), if enacted, would allow police with a warrant to demand and use decryption keys. Failure to comply may incur "a fine of fifteen thousand [East Caribbean] dollars" and/or "imprisonment for two years."<ref>[http://www.laws.gov.ag/bills/2006/computer-misuse-bill-2006.pdf Antigua and Barbuda: The Computer Misuse Bill, 2006]</ref>

=== Australia ===

The Cybercrime Act 2001 No. 161, Items 12 and 28 grant police with a magistrate's order the wide-ranging power to require "a specified person to provide any information or assistance that is reasonable and necessary to allow the officer to" access computer data that is "evidential
material"; this is understood to include mandatory decryption. Failing to comply carries a penalty of 6 months imprisonment. Electronic Frontiers Australia calls the provision "alarming" and "contrary to the common law privilege against self-incrimination."<ref>Electronic Frontiers Australia. [http://www.efa.org.au/Issues/Privacy/security.html#ccb01 Privacy Laws in Australia: Security / Cybercrime]. Retrieved 2010 November 8.</ref>

The Crimes Act 1914, 3LA(5) "A person commits an offence if the person fails to comply with the order. Penalty for contravention of this subsection: Imprisonment for 2 years."<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/C2015C00111/Html/Volume_1#_Toc415554770|title=Crimes Act 1914|last=AG|website=www.comlaw.gov.au|language=en|access-date=2016-04-30}}</ref>

=== Belgium ===

The ''Loi du 28 novembre 2000 relative à la criminalité informatique'' (Law on computer crime of 28 November 2000), Article 9 allows a judge to order both operators of computer systems and telecommunications providers to provide assistance to law enforcement, including mandatory decryption, and to keep their assistance secret; but this action cannot be taken against suspects or their families.<ref>[http://cwisdb.kuleuven.be/pisa/fr/jur/infocrimewet.htm#Art.9 Loi du 28 novembre 2000 relative à la criminalité informatique: Article 9]. 2000 November 28. Retrieved 2010 November 9.</ref><ref>[http://www.ejustice.just.fgov.be/cgi_loi/loi_a1.pl?DETAIL=1808111930%2FF&caller=list&row_id=1&numero=7&rech=9&cn=1808111930&table_name=LOI&nm=1808111901&la=F&dt=CODE+D%27INSTRUCTION+CRIMINELLE&language=fr&fromtab=loi_all&sql=dt+contains++%27CODE%27%26+%27D%27%26+%27INSTRUCTION%27%26+%27CRIMINELLE%27and+actif+%3D+%27Y%27#Art.156 Code d'instruction criminelle. Livre II, titre I, Art. 156.] 1808 November 19. Retrieved 2010 November 9. (''in French'')</ref> Failure to comply is punishable by 6 months to 1 year in jail and/or a fine of 130 to 100,000 Euros.

=== Canada ===

Canada implements key disclosure by broad interpretation of "existing interception, search and seizure and assistance procedures";<ref>[http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/ecic-ceac.nsf/eng/gv00118.html The Digital Economy in Canada: Summary of Canada’s Policy on Cryptography]. Industry Canada. Last modified 2009-02-11. Retrieved 2010 November 19.</ref> in a 1998 statement, Cabinet Minister John Manley explained, "warrants and assistance orders also apply to situations where encryption is encountered — to obtain the decrypted material or decryption keys."<ref>[http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/ecic-ceac.nsf/eng/gv00119.html The Digital Economy in Canada: Speaking Notes for John Manley: Canada's Cryptography Policy]. Presentation to the National Press Club, Ottawa. October 1, 1998. Industry Canada. Last modified 2009-02-11. Retrieved 2010 November 19.</ref>

=== Finland ===

The Coercive Measures Act (Pakkokeinolaki) 2011/806 section 8 paragraph 23<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.finlex.fi/fi/laki/ajantasa/2011/20110806#a806-2011|title=Coercive Measures Act (Pakkokeinolaki)|language=fi|access-date=2016-04-30}}</ref> requires the system owner, its administrator, or a specified person to surrender the necessary "passwords and other such information" in order to provide access to information stored on an information system. The suspect and some other persons specified in section 7 paragraph 3 that cannot otherwise be called as witnesses are exempt from this requirement.

=== France ===
Law #2001-1062 of 15 November 2001 on Community Safety allows a judge or prosecutor to compel any qualified person to decrypt or surrender keys to make available any information encountered in the course of an investigation. Failure to comply incurs three years of jail time and a fine of €45,000; if the compliance would have prevented or mitigated a crime, the penalty increases to five years of jail time and €75,000.<ref>Articles 30–31, {{cite French law|number or usual name=no 2001-1062|date in French=15 novembre 2001|full name=relative à la sécurité quotidienne|language=French|lower case=yes|URL=http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichTexte.do?cidTexte=JORFTEXT000000222052}}</ref>

=== India ===

Section 69 of the Information Technology Act, as amended by the Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008, empowers the central and state governments to compel assistance from any "subscriber or intermediary or any person in charge of the computer resource" in decrypting information.<ref>[http://police.pondicherry.gov.in/Information%20Technology%20Act%202000%20-%202008%20(amendment).pdf Information Technology (Amended) Act, 2008] (PDF); Government of India – Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs (Legislative Department); '''XI''' (69) pp. 27–8.</ref><ref>[http://220.227.161.86/18962sm_finalnew_isca_cp10.pdf Paper – 6 : Information Systems Control and Audit] (PDF) '''10''' pp. 42–3. [http://www.icai.org/post.html?post_id=5777 Study Material - Final (New)] The Institute of Chartered Accountants of India.</ref> Failure to comply is punishable by up to seven years imprisonment and/or a fine.

=== New Zealand ===

New Zealand Customs is seeking Power to compel Key disclosure.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.stuff.co.nz/technology/digital-living/67449940/customs-downplays-password-plan|title=Customs downplays password plan|website=Stuff|access-date=2016-04-30}}</ref>

=== Poland ===

In relatively few known cases in which police or prosecutor requested cryptographic keys from those formally accused and these requests were not fulfilled, no further consequences were imposed on the accused. There's no specific law in this matter, as e.g. in the UK. It is generally assumed that the Polish Criminal Procedure Code (Kodeks Postępowania Karnego Dz.U. 1997 nr 89 poz. 555.) provides means of protecting against self-incrimination, including lack of penalization for refusing to answer any question which would enable law enforcement agencies to obtain access to potential evidence, which could be used against testifying person.<ref>[http://webhosting.pl/W.jaki.sposob.sluzby.moga.uzyskac.dostep.do.zaszyfrowanych.danych Webhosting.pl - W jaki sposób służby mogą uzyskać dostęp do zaszyfrowanych danych]{{Dead link|date=April 2016}}</ref>

=== South Africa ===

Under the RICA Act of 2002, refusal to disclose a cryptographic key in your possession could result in a fine up to ZAR 2 Million or up to 10 years imprisonment. This requires a judge to issue a decryption direction to a person believed to hold the key.{{Citation needed|date=September 2014}}

=== Sweden ===

There are currently no laws that force the disclosure of cryptographic keys. However, there is legislation proposed on the basis that the Council of Europe has already adopted a convention on cyber-crime related to this issue. The proposed legislation would allow police to require an individual to disclose information, such as passwords and cryptographic keys, during searches. The proposal has been introduced to make it easier for police and prosecutors. The proposal has been criticized by The Swedish Data Inspection Board.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.publikt.se/artikel/di-kritiserar-nya-it-regler-46346|title=DI kritiserar nya it-regler|date=2013-09-26|website=Publikt|language=Swedish|access-date=2016-04-30}}</ref><ref name="Swedish Data Inspection Board">{{Cite web|url=http://www.datainspektionen.se/Documents/remissvar/2013-09-25-konvention-it-brottslighet.pdf|title=Remiss av betänkandet Europarådets konvention om it - relaterad brottslighet (SOU 2013:39)|language=Swedish|format=PDF|access-date=}}</ref>

=== The Netherlands ===

Article 125k of the Wetboek van Strafvordering allows investigators with a warrant to access information carriers and networked systems. The same article allows the district attorney and similar officers of the court to order persons who know how to access those systems to share their knowledge in the investigation, including any knowledge of encryption of data on information carriers. However, such an order may not be given to the suspect under investigation.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0001903/EersteBoek/TitelIV/Zevendeafdeling/Artikel125k/geldigheidsdatum_12-01-2015|title=wetten.nl - Regeling - Wetboek van Strafvordering - BWBR0001903|website=wetten.overheid.nl|access-date=2016-04-30}}</ref>

=== United Kingdom ===

The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA), Part III, activated by ministerial order in October 2007,<ref>{{cite news|first=Jeremy |last=Kirk |url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/01/AR2007100100511.html |title=Contested UK encryption disclosure law takes effect |agency=PC World |publisher=Washington Post |date=October 1, 2007 |accessdate=2009-01-05}}</ref> requires persons to supply decrypted information and/or keys to government representatives with a court order. Failure to disclose carries a maximum penalty of two years in jail. The provision was first used against animal rights activists in November 2007,<ref>{{cite news|last=Ward |first=Mark |url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7102180.stm |title=Campaigners hit by decryption law |work=[[BBC News]] |date=2007-11-20 |accessdate=2009-01-05}}</ref> and at least three people have been prosecuted and convicted for refusing to surrender their encryption keys,<ref>{{Cite news |url=http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/10/06/jail_password_ripa/ |title=Youth jailed for not handing over encryption password |work=[[The Register]] |date=6 October 2010 |first=John |last=Oates}}</ref> one of whom was sentenced to 13 months' imprisonment.<ref>{{Cite news |url=http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11/24/ripa_jfl |title=UK jails schizophrenic for refusal to decrypt files |work=The Register |date=24 November 2009 |first=Christopher |last=Williams}}</ref>

=== United States ===

The right not to be forced to incriminate oneself is guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. At present there is no legal requirement that forces anyone to reveal a password.<ref>http://www.coreyvarma.com/2015/07/encryption-vs-fifth-amendment/ |title=Encryption vs. Fifth Amendment |first1=Corey |last1=Varma |website=www.coreyvarma.com |accessdate=July 28, 2015}}</ref> However, this is an active area of the law. The question of whether one can be forced to reveal a password that would ostensibly only incriminate ''someone else'' being investigated (and whether incriminating evidence ”accidently" revealed concerning the password holder can then be used against them) is unanswered. Various password holders are in jail right now (2016) for Contempt of Court: violating the order of a judge, who says his order is legal. Disobeying a judge is technically not a crime, but you're still in jail.

Encryption is an active political topic today (2016) in the United States.

However, the federal case ''In re Boucher'' may be influential as case law. In this case, a man's laptop was inspected by customs agents and child pornography was discovered. The device was seized and powered-down, at which point disk encryption technology made the evidence unavailable. The judge held that it was a foregone conclusion that the content exists since it had already been seen by the customs agents, Boucher's encryption password "adds little or nothing to the sum total of the Government's information about the existence and location of files that may contain incriminating information."<ref>{{cite web|url=http://volokh.com/files/BoucherDCT.1.pdf |title=In re Grand Jury Subpoena to Sebastien Boucher, Memorandum of Decision |date=February 19, 2009 |format=PDF |work=The Volokh Conspiracy |accessdate=2009-08-29 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140716161430/http://www.volokh.com/files/Boucher.pdf |archive-date=July 16, 2014}}</ref><ref>http://www.cnet.com/news/judge-man-cant-be-forced-to-divulge-encryption-passphrase/ |title=Judge: Man can't be forced to divulge encryption passphrase |first=Declan |last=McCullagh |publisher=CNET |date=December 14, 2007 |accessdate=October 19, 2014}}</ref>

In United States v. Fricosu, a district court judge ordered a Colorado woman to decrypt her laptop so prosecutors can use the files against her in a criminal case: "I conclude that the Fifth Amendment is not implicated by requiring production of the unencrypted contents of the Toshiba Satellite M305 laptop computer," Colorado U.S. District Judge Robert Blackburn ruled on January 23, 2012.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/01/judge-orders-laptop-decryption/ |title=Judge Orders Defendant to Decrypt Laptop |first=David |last=Kravets |publisher=WIRED |date=January 23, 2012}}</ref> In Commonwealth v. Gelfgatt,<ref>{http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?q=GELFGATT&hl=en&as_sdt=2006&case=13313310379620456644&scilh=0</ref> the court ordered a suspect to decrypt his computer, citing exception to Fifth Amendment can be invoked because "''an act of production does not involve testimonial communication where the facts conveyed already are known to the government...''".<ref>http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/06/massachusetts-high-court-orders-suspect-to-decrypt-his-computers/ |title=Massachusetts high court orders suspect to decrypt his computers |first=Cyrus |last=Farivar |publisher=Ars Technica |date=June 26, 2014 |accessdate=October 19, 2014}}</ref>

However, in United States v. Doe, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit ruled on 24 February 2012 that forcing the decryption of one's laptop violates the Fifth Amendment.<ref>https://www.eff.org/press/releases/appeals-court-upholds-constitutional-right-against-forced-decryption |title=Appeals Court Upholds Constitutional Right Against Forced Decryption |first1=Marcia |last1=Hofmann |first2=Hanni |last2=Fakhoury |publisher=Electronic Frontier Foundation |date=February 24, 2012 |accessdate=October 19, 2014}}</ref> <ref>http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/02/appeals-court-fifth-amendment-protections-can-apply-to-encrypted-hard-drives/</ref>

The Federal Bureau of Investigation may also issue national security letters that require the disclosure of keys for investigative purposes.<ref>https://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2014/01/29/lavabit-appeals-contempt-of-court-ruling-surrounding-handover-of-ssl-keys/|title=Lavabit appeals contempt of court ruling surrounding handover of SSL keys|date=2014-01-29|website=Naked Security|access-date=2016-04-30}}</ref> One company, Lavabit, chose to shut down rather than surrender its master private keys.

Since the summer of 2015, cases were fought between major tech companies such as Apple over the regulation of encryption with government agencies asking for access to private encrypted information for law enforcement purposes. A technical report was written and published by MIT Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, where Ronald Rivest, an inventor of RSA, and Harold Abelson, a computer science professor at MIT with others, explain the technical difficulties, including security issues that arise from the regulation of encryption or by making a key available to a third party for purposes of decrypting any possible encrypted information. The report lists scenarios and raises questions for policy makers. It also asks for more technical details if the request for regulating encryption is to be pursued further.<ref>https://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/97690/MIT-CSAIL-TR-2015-026.pdf |date=6 July 2015 |title=Keys Under Doormats: Mandating insecurity by requiring government access to all data and communication |work=MIT Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory }}</ref>

Most recently, as noted above, a person may now be indefinitely detained for refusing to unencrypt their drives.

"A Philadelphia man suspected of possessing child pornography has been in jail for seven months and counting after being found in contempt of a court order demanding that he decrypt two password-protected hard drives. The suspect, a former Philadelphia Police Department sergeant, has not been charged with any child porn crimes. Instead, he remains indefinitely imprisoned in Philadelphia's Federal Detention Center for refusing to unlock two drives encrypted with Apple's FileVault software in a case that once again highlights the extent to which the authorities are going to crack encrypted devices. The man is to remain jailed "until such time that he fully complies" with the decryption order." <ref>http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/04/child-porn-suspect-jailed-for-7-months-for-refusing-to-decrypt-hard-drives/</ref>

==See Also==

* [[Steganography]]
* [[Tor]]
* [[Internet security tutorial]]
* [[Email security]]
* [[Hard drive]]

==References==
{{reflist}}

==External links==
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encryption https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encryption]
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Key_disclosure_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Key_disclosure_law]
*[http://www.nytimes.com/2001/07/14/us/child-pornography-writer-gets-10-year-prison-term.html http://www.nytimes.com/2001/07/14/us/child-pornography-writer-gets-10-year-prison-term.html]
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_v._Dalton https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_v._Dalton]

[[Category:Technology]]
[[Category:Essential reading for BoyLovers]]
[[Category:Civil rights and liberties]]

Justin Berry

2019-10-18T10:57:06Z

Wanker: /* Aftermath and Controversy */ wording

'''Justin Berry''' is a 19-year-old man (in 2009?) raised in [[Bakersfield]], [[California]] who during his teen years designed and maintained multiple websites in which he stripped, showered, and performed sex acts on [[webcam]] in return for money and gifts. The term coined for these types of underaged shows is [[bibcam]]s, which stands for "boy in bedroom cams".[http://groups.google.com/groups?q=bibcam&hl=en] He treated his websites as a professional business for profit and encouraged other boys both older and younger to participate as well. When he turned 18, journalist [[Kurt Eichenwald]] of the [[New York Times]] stumbled upon his image on the net and began a covert operation to uncover Justin's business. Once Justin agreed to the story, he revealed all of his activities and agreed to turn over all information on the other individuals involved in return for immunity. He is now a federal witness.

His first website, [http://web.archive.org/web/20011003222941/http://www.justinscam.com/ justinscam.com], was fairly simple. It showed only informational text on how to join, a preview page, a rules page, a links page, and a wishlist page where he would request various items in exchange for a webcam show. He used the [[AOL Instant Messenger|AIM]] handle "sexyJustinCAM" and people could talk to him directly to request various shows. Money would also be exchanged using [[PayPal]].

According to the ''New York Times'' article, his ventures were found out by his peers at the age of 16 and he was scorned, mocked, and ridiculed. He moved to Mexico where both he continued the business, in conjunction with his father. He started a new website called [http://web.archive.org/web/20031013172928/http://www.mexicofriends.com/ Mexicofriends.com]. On this site, he continued to have sexual encounters on camera, writing taglines on his online journal such as "How does he pimp the nice mexican ladies?"[http://web.archive.org/web/20040622052011/http://www.mexicofriends.com/]

After PayPal decided to stop servicing adult-oriented websites, the teenaged Justin switched his transactions to credit card merchant accounts, taking monthly subscriptions. At one point, during technical problems, he offered a '''free''' webcam temporarily while his customers waited for the issues to be cleared up. Soon after, he continued his ventures, having sex on camera with [[prostitution|prostitutes]], both male and female. He offered live technical support, which he himself manned. He offered a free welcome video describing what was included with membership ([http://web.archive.org/web/20031202204531/http://www.mexicofriends.com/welcome.rm]).

In July of 2004, at age 16, he agreed to a paid trip to [[Las Vegas]] and continued (in his own words) "having a bunch of fun"[http://web.archive.org/web/20040717050429/http://mexicofriends.com/], staying at the [[Luxor Hotel]] under the bill and presence of [[Gregory J. Mitchel]], the man who provided the webhosting space and advertising for Justin. Justin claimed in the New York Iimes article that he was sexually [[Child Molestation|molested]] by Mitchel during these trips. He later developed DVDs for purchase called "Justin on your big screen"([http://web.archive.org/web/20041125005222/http://mexicofriends.com/]) and began development of a new website.

In late 2003, Justin announced the newest (and the most noted) website, Justinsfriends.com, which would not only be devoted to his but others' webcams. He began to recruit other boys to join and formed associate memberships with other websites to increase web traffic.

Justin's health and morale depreciated. He developed a smoking habit and grew an addiction to drugs, most notably [[cocaine]], as stated by [[Kurt Eichenwald|Eichenwald]]. Eichenwald had joined the website and posed as a customer, and offered to meet up with Justin, who agreed. Upon meeting, Eichenwald revealed himself to be a reporter for the New York Times and asked Justin to agree to a story about the whole webcam business. There is speculation as to how Justin agreed to this, whether it be through willing participation or pressure from Eichenwald and law enforcement. Justin purportedly became born-again, water-[[baptized]] and began to not only show Eichenwald the info he needed, but also agreed to comply with federal agents in return for immunity and become a federal witness. Justin claims to have the information on at least 1,500 individuals who were customers of his.

== Aftermath and Controversy ==

While most view Justin's change of heart as an act of rebirth, some have critized his compliance with law enforcement as done under duress, to avoid facing criminal charges himself. As Eichenwald himself stated in the New York Times article: "Justin was now 18, a legal adult. He had crossed the line from under-age victim to adult perpetrator." This crossover of social role may have played a part in his decision to switch sides.

Many claim that responsibility for the websites should indeed be Justin's because of his age, and that he could have easily turned the webcam off at any point, regardless of how heinous the acts might have been on the parts of adults. Much debate has taken place online in various forums ranging from Oprah.com's web boards following her interview with Justin to the Community boards at Meta Filter.[http://www.metafilter.com/mefi/47714] As stated in the New York Times article, a [[boylover]] named "DLW" stated: "Did a sexual predator MAKE them make a site? No. Did they decide to do it for themselves? Yes.", which Eichenwald then states as "tempting" to believe but "misguided". The subjection of opinion is quite clear.

There is also criticism of the way Eichenwald allegedly handled his role in the story. Some accuse him of "getting too close" to Berry, effectively negating his role as a journalist. In a [[slate.com]] article entitled: "KurtEichenwald.com: The Back Story", the editor states: "When Berry asked if he could put the site up on KurtEichenwald.com, the reporter says he didn't give the issue 'much consideration' before securing permission from Random House to use the address." This could suggest that personal emotions and feelings toward Berry, however humanitarian in nature, could have posed a threat to non-biased reporting.

Others cite that even though Justin refused to sign paid book deals to tell his story for a spot on the [[Oprah Winfrey Show]], it's "odd" how his appearance on the show almost coincided with Nightline's exposé on [[Perverted Justice]] during [[Nielsen Ratings|sweeps week]].

Justin repeatedly proclaims that the people who urged him to perform these acts were [[pedophiles]], but this assessment is refuted by many; Justin, whose career was mainly carried out through his post-pubescent [[adolescent]] years, had a mature body which a true pedophile would not have found attractive, thus the moniker "pedophile" would not apply. If anything, his audience would have been mainly been [[Ephebophilia|ephebophiles]] — men attracted to post-pubescent, teenaged adolescents — rather than actual children.

==External links==
* [http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/19/national/19kids.ready.html "Through His Webcam, A Boy Joins A Sordid Online World"] - ''[[The New York Times]]'' (December 19, 2005)
* [http://www.nytimes.com/justinberry "NY Times Internet Documentary"] - ''[[The New York Times]]'' (December 19, 2005)
* [http://www.slate.com/id/2132702 "The New York Times Legal Aid Society"] - ''[[Slate Magazine]]''
* [http://www.slate.com/id/2133905/ "KurtEichenwald.com: The Back Story"] - ''Slate Magazine''
* [http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2005/12/19/publiceye/entry1135651.shtml "A Heartbreaker From Eichenwald And The Times"] - ''[[CBS News]]''
* [http://www.amazon.com/gp/registry/registry.html/102-9040552-5546548?%5Fencoding=UTF8&type=wishlist&id=2B4B57V4L0Q8A Justin's Amazon.com Wishlist].

==Notes==
*This article was taken in its entirety from [http://www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=Uncensored:Justin_Berry Wikitruth.info] and is the original wikipedia article that was deleted by Jimmy Wales on 8 March 2006. The current revision of this article may not reflect the original from wikitruth.info.




[[Category:Boys|Berry Justin]]

Ottoman Empire

2019-10-18T10:50:01Z

Wanker: /* The boy-tax */ ş

[[File:Flag of the Ottoman Empire.png|thumb|200px|'''Flag (1844–1923)''']]
The '''Ottoman Empire''' was a long-lived Islamic caliphate (state), whose capital was Istanbul, which is the most populous city in modern-day [[Turkey]]. The Ottoman Empire ruled over the Eastern Mediterranean, parts of Eastern Europe, and most of North Africa after the fall of Constantinople (the Christian name for Istanbul) in 1453, until its dissolution at the end of World War I (they unfortunately having chosen to side with the Germans).

The Ottoman Empire constituted the biggest threat to Europe. Turks turned the great St. Sophia church into a mosque. They conquered the Balkans and reached, but did not conquer, [[Vienna]]. Shipping or traveling by ship was, because of Ottoman piracy, quite dangerous.

Though the Ottoman Empire was "an Islamic threat" to Europe, the main issue was not religion, but security. In fact religion ''per se'' was not the issue at all. For over 200 years the Ottoman Empire was a military threat to Eastern Europe. It either openly endorsed or took no action against the pirates and coastal raiders, who stole shiploads of merchandise and sold off many captured Christians as slaves, holding the well-to-do ones for ransom.

Many of the biggest trouble spots of today's world -- the Balkans, Palestine/Israel, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq -- are parts of the former Ottoman empire. Its dissolution, at the Sèvres Conference of 1920, could have, with hindsight, been better handled.

The Ottoman Empire should not be confused with modern [[Turkey]]. It did not view itself as Turkish (though Turkish was the language of empire, and it was definitely centered at its capital and largest city, Istanbul). It viewed itself as ''the'' Muslim state -- the true caliphate, ruled over by descendants of Mohammed.

Turkey has rejected its Ottoman past, moving its capital from Istanbul to a new capital it created at Ankara, and changing from the Arabic to the Roman alphabet (thus making all prior books published in Turkish unintelligible to modern readers without special training). Also, the Ottoman Empire was much larger than present-day Turkey.

==Sensuality==

At its peak, in the sixteenth century, the Ottoman Empire was quite sophisticated and cosmopolitan. Many educated Spanish Jews chose to go to Istanbul, by way of [[Italy]], after their expulsion from [[Spain]] in 1492. The sultan received them with open arms, commenting, with happy astonishment, that Spain was sending him "its best citizens".

The Empire was also sensual and hedonistic. As part of this, recreational drug use was perfectly acceptable. While avoiding the drinking of alcoholic beverages, which the Koran prohibited, hashish, opium, and coffee were freely indulged in. All of these products reached Christian Europe via the Ottoman Empire. (Coffee was highly controversial in Christian Europe when first introduced, in the seventeenth century; thus the current association of leftish, Bohemian, rebellious persons with coffeehouses. See Bach's Coffee Cantata.)

The Ottoman Empire was Europe's most important contact with the "East": it was the exotic "other". Their markets were full of merchandise -- spices, fabrics, etc. -- unavailable in Christian Europe. Their clothing was strikingly different and often ornately decorated. The modern descendants of this clothing are the ''traje de luces'' worn by Spanish bullfighters, and its American relative, the outfits and saddles of the Western cowboy.

Those running from the law in the Christian world, or from a wife and children, could safely take refuge in the Ottoman Empire.

==Sex==

Sex, in [[:Category:Islam|Islam]], is viewed as a natural appetite, similar to hunger; if one is hungry, one needs to eat. As most of the Muslim world before it was influenced by colonizing, prudish Christians, usually no one cared about sexual behavior as long as it did not threaten public order. A man was expected to marry, and to produce and support children. Aside from that requirement, a man could sexually do pretty much whatever he wanted, and there wasn't even a need for [[secrecy]]. Prostitution was openly tolerated, though confined to designated areas, as it still is in the early twenty-first century. Nothing was considered to be wrong regarding men having sex with younger boys -- a "peccadillo" at worst <ref>Khaled El-Rouayheb, ''Before Homosexuality in the Arab-Islamic World, 1500-1800'', University of Chicago Press, 2005, p. 7.</ref> -- and there were houses for boy prostitution, and "peg houses" where boys' anuses were systematically stretched as they sat on wooden diodos attached to the seat (straight up) they used waiting for clients.<ref>Jonathan Drake, "'Le Vice' in Turkey", ''International Journal of Greek Love'', vol. 1, no. 2, 1966, pp. 13-27, http://exitinterview.biz/rarities/ijgl/v1n2/ijgl2txt.htm, consulted Jun 22, 2015</ref>

The modern Western distinction between love (always good) and sex (only good when limited to specific relationships) did not exist. Things that we would today call "sex" (a modern, "scientific" term), they called "love".

One could not be a homosexual, at least as the term is currently understood in the West. A man willingly receiving the penis of another man was (at least publicly) inconceivable and disgusting, as it is today in, for example, [[Morocco]] (though the same source also says that in Morocco there is little or nothing wrong in taking the active or top role in sex with another man or boy). But having sex with whomever was never a real problem if it were done with a minimum of discretion. The elite openly indulged in many "exotic" sexual behaviors, and, as in all cultures, set the model for others to follow.



==Marital sex==
Christian Europe was, at the time, becoming more prudish -- making priests live up to their vows of chastity, for example. It astonished them to think that in Islam (and the Ottoman Empire was identified as the Islam) men could have up to four wives, as long as they were treated equally (which seldom happened, in practice). Even more important, a man could divorce any or all of his wives whenever he wanted to, and take new ones. Since [[Mohammed]] consummated his marriage when the girl was nine (this was Aisha, and it ended up being his most successful marriage), pre-pubescent girls were not off-limits at all.

Sexual slavery was common. Christian shipping on the Mediterranean was hazardous, as officially sponsored pirates would seize ships and sell as sex slaves all the boys and girls, and the pretty women (the "fate worse than death", as European women put it). Regular, forced imports of young slaves from eastern Europe were common, and an important difference between Ottoman slavery and that in the South of the [[U.S.]] is that "the Islamic market demand for children was much greater than the American one".<ref>From the Wikipedia article on [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_views_on_slavery Islamic views on slavery].</ref> Muslims could not enslave other Muslims (as contemporaneous Christians could not enslave other Christians, only "heathens"). Using Non-Muslims for one's sexual pleasure was acceptable, and even viewed as "hotter" than sex with another Muslim.

The very first, and successful, mission of the newly-constituted U.S. Navy was to sail to [[Algiers]] (ruled loosely by the Ottomans), to stop pirate raids on American ships.

== Boylove in the Ottoman empire ==
Boylove -- which was understood to mean sex with boys -- was seen in the Ottoman empire as especially enjoyable. "The Gauls and those living in the northern countries are [as seen by the Turks] insensible of pleasure; it is only them that have the true smack of voluptuousness" (i.e., from sex with boys).<ref>Nicholas Chorier, ''The Dialogues of Luisa Sigea'', trans. not specified, North Hollywood, Brandon House, 1965, p. 284 (paraphrased).</ref> In sixteenth-century Algiers, according to Spanish historian Diego de Haedo (our only source), "Sodomy is honorable, because he who supports more boys (''garçones'') has more status ("es más honrado"). Men like them more than their own wives and daughters. Many of the Turks and renegades [European Christians converted to Islam], even senior, influential men ("hombres grandes y viejos"), only want boys for wives, and boast of never having had sex with a women their whole lives. Rather, they despise females and don't want to set eyes on them."<ref>"La sodomía se tiene...por honra, porque aquel es más honrado que sustenta más garçones y los celan más que las propias mujeres y hijas.... A muchos de los turcos y renegados, que con ser ya hombres s grandes y viejos, no sólo no se quieren casar con otras mujeres que estos garçones, pero se alaban no haber jamás en toda su vida conocido alguna hembra, antes las aborrecen y no quieren ver de los ojos." Quote from Diego de Haedo, ''Topografía e historia general de Argel'', 3 vols., Madrid: Sociedad de Bibliófilos Españoles, 1927-29, vol. 1, pp. 176-177. The authorship of this work is disputed.</ref>

The Ottoman Empire (not modern Turkey) appears as a location for pedophile fiction, as in [http://www.nifty.org/nifty/gay/historical/sultans-favorite-boy/ "The Sultan's Favorite Boy"] (which starts with the boy-tax) and [http://www.asstr.org/files/Collections/nifty/gay/adult-youth/osman-goes-to-court.html "Osman goes to Court. A Thousand and One Tales of Osman the Pedophile"]. Osman is a Turkish name.

== The boy-tax ==

The boy-tax (devşirme, commonly written outside of Turkey devshirme; see the Wikipedia article) was a required tribute of boys imposed on the Christian communities of eastern Europe under Ottoman control, from the fourteenth through the seventeenth centuries. Every four or five years boys between 7 and 10 (though some were much younger) were taken by the hundreds to Istanbul, converted to Islam, and educated. The ostensible purpose was to create a caste of soldiers and servants who had no allegiance to anyone but the sultan, since they had no relatives save a very distant, inaccessible family. Some became janissaries. Handsome specimens served the sexual desires of the sultan and his friends.

Many of the boys, dressed as females, became [[köçek]] dancers.

== See also ==
* [[Bacha bazi]]
* [[Sufi]]
* [[Ghilman]]
* [[Pederasty in the Middle East and Central Asia]]

== Further reading ==
* [http://web.archive.org/web/20131113174344/http://exitinterview.biz/rarities/ijgl/htmfiles/ijg2p13.htm Jonathan Drake, "'Le Vice' in Turkey," ''International Journal of Greek Love'', Vol. 1, No. 2, 1966, pp. 13-27.] Also available at http://greek-love.com/near-east-north-africa/le-vice-turkey-pederasty.

==References==
{{reflist}}

[[Category:Ottoman Empire]]
[[Category:Islam]]

Penile plethysmograph

2019-02-04T03:33:30Z

Wanker:

A '''penile plethysmograph''' is a device placed around a male's penis for the purpose of measuring sexual arousal. The plethysmograph is capable of measuring minute changes in the circumference in the penis, and these changes in circumference are presumed to be correlated with sexual arousal. A typical penile plethysmograph examination involves exposing the patient to various visual and/or auditory depictions of sexual behavior and measuring his response to each.

It is used frequently with sex offenders, who if on parole or probation cannot refuse it (or they would be sent to prison). The penile response reveals what ages and genders the testee finds sexually stimulating.

A roughly equivalent procedure for women, vaginal photoplethysmography, measures blood through the walls of the vagina, which researchers claim increases during sexual arousal.

These devices have no use outside the criminal justice system.

== External links ==

* [[BC:1004853]] ''Brief discussion of Hall, et al. (Kent State)''
* [[BC:1008237]] ''Plethysmograph tests disallowed by federal court''

[[Category:Law enforcement]]
[[Category:Security for boylovers]]

{{stub}}

Penile plethysmograph

2019-02-04T03:32:12Z

Wanker: /* External links */

Sex offender

2019-02-04T03:13:03Z

Wanker:

A '''sex offender''' is a person who has <strikeout>committed and</strikeout> been convicted of a sexual offence according to the laws of their home jurisdiction. Sexual offences range from rape and kidnapping to public urination and public nudity (streaking). Sexual offences do not have to involve a [[minor]], and are not required to be violent. Sexual offences can be charged even without physical contact, as is the case with child pornography (where two young persons sending sexual pictures to one another over the Internet can be charged with production and distribution of child pornography).

==Definition==
Due to the wide variety of legal and cultural differences globally, the definition of sex offender varies from country to country. In some countries, consensual homosexual acts can still be charged and punished by imprisonment or execution.<ref>[https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jul/27/gay-relationships-still-criminalised-countries-report Gay relationships are still criminalised in 72 countries, report finds | World news | The Guardian] Retrieved November 2, 2018.</ref>

==Tracking of sex offenders==
In some countries that monitor and track sex offenders through a register, a person who was convicted for a sex crime may remain on their country's register for many years even after their sentence has been completed.{{cite}} They may also be subject to additional restrictions as a result of their status on their country's register.

===United Kingdom===
In the United Kingdom, a nationwide database called the Violent and Sex Offender Register, or ViSOR, is used to track: persons compelled by the Sexual Offences Act 2003 to register; persons jailed for more than 12 months due to violent offences; and persons who are considered as at-risk of committing a violent or sexual offence. The register requires persons registered to inform police at least seven days before travelling to any foreign country and must additionally register any United Kingdom address that they reside at for more than seven days.<ref>Section 83 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003.</ref>

===United States===
In the United States, sex offenders are monitored and tracked by the [[Sex offender registry#SORs_in_the_United_States|Sex offender registry]].

In late 2017, the US State Department begun the process of revoking the passports of registered child sex offenders. The child sex offender must reapply for a new passport, and their new passport will identify them as a child sex offender. The action comes following the passing of a law in 2016 which was designed to reduce child exploitation.<ref>[https://www.swiftpassportservices.com/blog/passport-rules-sex-offenders/ New Passport Rules for Sex Offenders] Accessed November 2, 2018.</ref><ref>[https://edition.cnn.com/2017/11/02/politics/us-passports-identify-child-sex-offenders/index.html US passports to identify convicted child sex offenders - CNNPolitics] Accessed November 2, 2018.</ref>

==Employment==
Due to registries existing in various more-developed countries, those placed on a sex offender register or prosecuted of a sex offence often have difficulty finding work after any sentence has been carried out. Many well-paying workplaces perform background checks on applicants prior to employing them, and are reluctant to hire a person who has been charged with a sex offence regardless of its nature.{{cite}} The website SexOffenderJobs.com tells sex offenders to apply "everywhere that does not violate any sex offender law or stipulation of your release" in order to find a job.<ref>[https://www.sexoffenderjobs.com/filling-out-applications/ Filling Out Applications - Sex Offender Jobs] Accessed November 2, 2018</ref>

==See also==
*[[State rape]]
*[[Sex offender treatment]]

==References==
{{reflist}}

{{Navbox RSOL organizations|collapsed}}
[[Category:Sex crimes]]

BoyWiki:What BoyWiki is not

2019-02-04T02:58:13Z

Wanker:

{{Sidebar/Guideline list}}
There are certain things that BoyWiki is not.

==BoyWiki is not a general encyclopedia==
BoyWiki does not cover topics that fall outside the [[BoyWiki:Relevance|relevance]] criteria. BoyWiki is not primary an encyclopedia, it is the archive of our expirance as boylovers.

==BoyWiki is not GirlWiki==
BoyWiki does not cover the girllove movement, except for legal cases that have implications for boylovers.

[[Category:BoyWiki]]

User talk:Dandelion

2019-02-04T02:49:41Z

Wanker: /* BLSB */ new section

Pedophilia

2019-02-04T02:46:36Z

Wanker:

{| border="0" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="2" align="right" width="30%" style="border:1px solid;margin-left:4px"
|+'''Diagnostic criteria for 302.2 Pedophilia'''
|-
| bgcolor="#ffdead" align="center" style="font-size:8pt;" | ''Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders IV Revised, 2000''
|-
| bgcolor="#ffdead" |
*Over a period of at least six months, recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors involving sexual activity with a prepubescent child or children (generally age 13 years or younger).
*The person has acted on these sexual urges, or the sexual urges or fantasies caused marked distress or interpersonal difficulty.
*The person is at least age 16 years and at least 5 years older than the child or children in Criterion A.
Note: Do not include an individual in late adolescence involved in an ongoing sexual relationship with a 12- or 13-year-old.

:'''Specify if:'''
:*Sexually Attracted to Males
:*Sexually Attracted to Females
:*Sexually Attracted to Both

:'''Specify if:'''
:*Limited to Incest

:'''Specify type:'''
:*Exclusive Type (attracted only to children)
:*Nonexclusive Type
|}
'''Pedophilia''' (or '''paedophilia''', originally Greek '''παιδοφιλια'''; "love of boys") is sexual attraction to pre-pubescent children. While the exact definition varies by context, it commonly refers to the medical definition defined in the ''Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders'' published by the ''American Psychiatric Association''. The correct term for an attraction to adolescents is [[ephebophilia]].

Those who meet the criteria set above are classed as '''pedophiles'''. Common usage do not follow the strict medical definitions of an adult or teen who is attracted to ''prepubescent'' children, but often refers to any adult who is attracted to, or has sexual contact with, any person under the age of consent, or the age of majority (16-18 in most western countries).

In many societies and cultures, the term pedophile is highly stigmatized and represents an image of an evil, callous monster. This spurs many self-identified pedophiles to adopt names such as [[boylover]], minor-attracted adult, [[girllover]], and [[childlover]], among others, to assist in differentiating themselves and their values from this Invented stereotype.

Some believe that pedophiles have made great contributions to past societies, and that their influence is often ignored or their attraction to children is greatly played down. (See [[Pedophilic genius]].) Others disagree with this idea, and claim that alleged historical pedophiles actually preferred the company of persons who were in their late teens or early 20s: that is, they were [[ephebophilia|hebephiles]].

For information on child-love, see:
*http://web.archive.org/web/20051101165116/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Childlove_movement

Pedophilia's essence does not reside in exploitation, assault or harm to others, and some pedophiles look also for the child’s friendship and love.<ref>Lautmann, R. (1994). Attraction to children. Hamburg: Ingrid Klein.</ref><ref>Li, C. K. (1990).‘‘The main thing is being wanted’’: Some case studies on adult sexual experiences with children. Journal of Homosexuality, 20, 129–143.</ref><ref>Schmidt, G. (2002). The dilemma of the male pedophile. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 31, 473–477.</ref><ref>Seto, M. (2012). Is pedophilia a sexual orientation? Archives of Sexual Behavior, doi:10.1007/s10508-011-9882-6.</ref> Pedophilia means, in Greek, '''love''' of boys.

==Diagnosis==
Sexual interest is difficult to measure because fantasies, sensations of attraction, and urges, are covert, and people may deny deviant sexual interests.

==History==
Two important changes occurred in 1980 with the publication of DSM-III. Pedophilia and the other paraphilias were switched to the general chapter on Psychosexual Disorders, replacing their previous categorizations "Sociopathic Personality Disturbances" or "Personality Disorders". Furthermore, the term sexual deviation was replaced by paraphilia (supposedly less pejorative) and each of the categories was defined in more specific terms, with the significant difference that homosexuality was included only in its ego-dystonic manifestation.

The DSM-IV omitted the the first part of Criterion B. This criterion now required, for all paraphilias, only that "the fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors cause clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning". Failing distress or impairment, unusual sexual fantasies, urges, or behaviors were considered nonpathological. Either they were normal—"a stimulus for sexual excitement in individuals without a paraphilia"—or they should be understood as ordinary criminality. Conservative religious groups worried that the change meant DSM-IV did not recognize pedophilia as a mental disorder unless it caused distress. Therefore, DSM-IV-TR reverted to the DSM-III-R's diagnostic criteria for paraphilia.

==Proposed changes in DSM criteria==
It was proposed that criterion B be changed so that seeking sexual stimulation by three or more pubescent or younger children, or two if both are prepubescent, be required for a pedophilic disorder diagnosis. One critique of this was that it would be better to make the unit of analysis be incidences rather than victims. Another criticism was that there was no justification put forth for equating three pubescent children with two prepubescent children.

It was also proposed that paraphilias be ascertained according to the A criteria and diagnosed according to the B criteria. A critique of this was that it would put people who had been ascertained but not diagnosed with a paraphilia in a gray area with uncertain implications for custody and sentencing.

It was also proposed that Criterion A be modified to require that the deviant arousal be greater or equal than the arousal from mature individuals. A criticism of this was that the current state of measurement technology does not allow for this quantification to be practically or validly assessed.<ref>A critique of the proposed DSM-V diagnosis of pedophilia.
O'Donohue, William; National Library of Medicine. Archives of sexual behavior 39.3: 587-590. (June 2010)</ref>

==See also==
*[[Misconceptions about pedophiles' sexual activities with young people]]
*For somewhat better descriptions, see:
*https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?hl=en-DE&q=cache:5P79MXoPtUcJ:https://www.newgon.com/redir.php?http://www.gayleft1970s.org/issues/gay.left_issue.07.pdf&gbv=1&&ct=clnk
*and the 2005 version of the Wikipedia article:
*http://web.archive.org/web/20051202195605/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia
:An interview with Lindsay Ashford describes the feelings of isolation in society of pedophiles
*http://web.archive.org/web/20130927183109/http://www.pennlive.com/news/expresstimes/stories/molesters1_otherside.html

==References==
{{reflist}}

[[Category:Sexuality]]

Pedophilia

2019-02-04T02:32:23Z

Wanker:

{| border="0" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="2" align="right" width="30%" style="border:1px solid;margin-left:4px"
|+'''Diagnostic criteria for 302.2 Pedophilia'''
|-
| bgcolor="#ffdead" align="center" style="font-size:8pt;" | ''Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders IV Revised, 2000''
|-
| bgcolor="#ffdead" |
*Over a period of at least six months, recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors involving sexual activity with a prepubescent child or children (generally age 13 years or younger).
*The person has acted on these sexual urges, or the sexual urges or fantasies caused marked distress or interpersonal difficulty.
*The person is at least age 16 years and at least 5 years older than the child or children in Criterion A.
Note: Do not include an individual in late adolescence involved in an ongoing sexual relationship with a 12- or 13-year-old.

:'''Specify if:'''
:*Sexually Attracted to Males
:*Sexually Attracted to Females
:*Sexually Attracted to Both

:'''Specify if:'''
:*Limited to Incest

:'''Specify type:'''
:*Exclusive Type (attracted only to children)
:*Nonexclusive Type
|}
'''Pedophilia''' (or '''paedophilia''', originally Greek '''παιδοφιλια'''; ''paidophilia'') is a sexual attraction to pre-pubescent children. While the exact definition varies by context, it commonly refers to the medical definition defined in the ''Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders'' published by the ''American Psychiatric Association''. The correct term for an attraction to adolescents is [[ephebophilia]].

Those who meet the criteria set above are classed as '''pedophiles'''. Common usage do not follow the strict medical definitions of an adult or teen who is attracted to ''prepubescent'' children, but often refers to any adult who is attracted to, or has sexual contact with, any person under the age of consent, or the age of majority (16-18 in most western countries).

In many societies and cultures, the term pedophile is highly stigmatized and represents an image of an evil, callous monster. This spurs many self-identified pedophiles to adopt names such as [[boylover]], minor-attracted adult, [[girllover]], and [[childlover]], among others, to assist in differentiating themselves and their values from this Invented stereotype.

Some believe that pedophiles have made great contributions to past societies, and that their influence is often ignored or their attraction to children is greatly played down. (See [[Pedophilic genius]].) Others disagree with this idea, and claim that alleged historical pedophiles actually preferred the company of persons who were in their late teens or early 20s: that is, they were [[ephebo0hioia|hebephiles]].

For information on child-love, see:
*http://web.archive.org/web/20051101165116/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Childlove_movement

Pedophilia's essence does not reside in exploitation, assault or harm to others, and some pedophiles look also for the child’s friendship and love.<ref>Lautmann, R. (1994). Attraction to children. Hamburg: Ingrid Klein.</ref><ref>Li, C. K. (1990).‘‘The main thing is being wanted’’: Some case studies on adult sexual experiences with children. Journal of Homosexuality, 20, 129–143.</ref><ref>Schmidt, G. (2002). The dilemma of the male pedophile. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 31, 473–477.</ref><ref>Seto, M. (2012). Is pedophilia a sexual orientation? Archives of Sexual Behavior, doi:10.1007/s10508-011-9882-6.</ref>

==Diagnosis==
Sexual interest is difficult to measure because fantasies, sensations of attraction, and urges, are covert, and people may deny deviant sexual interests.

==History==
Two important changes occurred in 1980 with the publication of DSM-III. Pedophilia and the other paraphilias were switched to the general chapter on Psychosexual Disorders, replacing their previous categorizations "Sociopathic Personality Disturbances" or "Personality Disorders". Furthermore, the term sexual deviation was replaced by paraphilia (supposedly less pejorative) and each of the categories was defined in more specific terms, with the significant difference that homosexuality was included only in its ego-dystonic manifestation.

The DSM-IV omitted the the first part of Criterion B. This criterion now required, for all paraphilias, only that "the fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors cause clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning". Failing distress or impairment, unusual sexual fantasies, urges, or behaviors were considered nonpathological. Either they were normal—"a stimulus for sexual excitement in individuals without a paraphilia"—or they should be understood as ordinary criminality. Conservative religious groups worried that the change meant DSM-IV did not recognize pedophilia as a mental disorder unless it caused distress. Therefore, DSM-IV-TR reverted to the DSM-III-R's diagnostic criteria for paraphilia.

==Proposed changes in DSM criteria==
It was proposed that criterion B be changed so that seeking sexual stimulation by three or more pubescent or younger children, or two if both are prepubescent, be required for a pedophilic disorder diagnosis. One critique of this was that it would be better to make the unit of analysis be incidences rather than victims. Another criticism was that there was no justification put forth for equating three pubescent children with two prepubescent children.

It was also proposed that paraphilias be ascertained according to the A criteria and diagnosed according to the B criteria. A critique of this was that it would put people who had been ascertained but not diagnosed with a paraphilia in a gray area with uncertain implications for custody and sentencing.

It was also proposed that Criterion A be modified to require that the deviant arousal be greater or equal than the arousal from mature individuals. A criticism of this was that the current state of measurement technology does not allow for this quantification to be practically or validly assessed.<ref>A critique of the proposed DSM-V diagnosis of pedophilia.
O'Donohue, William; National Library of Medicine. Archives of sexual behavior 39.3: 587-590. (June 2010)</ref>

==See also==
*[[Misconceptions about pedophiles' sexual activities with young people]]
*For somewhat better descriptions, see:
*https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?hl=en-DE&q=cache:5P79MXoPtUcJ:https://www.newgon.com/redir.php?http://www.gayleft1970s.org/issues/gay.left_issue.07.pdf&gbv=1&&ct=clnk
*and the 2005 version of the Wikipedia article:
*http://web.archive.org/web/20051202195605/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia
:An interview with Lindsay Ashford describes the feelings of isolation in society of pedophiles
*http://web.archive.org/web/20130927183109/http://www.pennlive.com/news/expresstimes/stories/molesters1_otherside.html

==References==
{{reflist}}

[[Category:Sexuality]]

Cryptography

2019-02-04T02:25:21Z

Wanker: Redirected page to Encryption

#REDIRECT [[Encryption]]

Encryption

2019-02-04T02:24:22Z

Wanker: /* How encryption works */

'''Encryption''' is the process of encoding messages or information in such a way that only authorized parties can read it. Encryption does not prevent interception, but denies the message content to the interceptor. In an encryption scheme, the intended communication information or message, referred to as plaintext, is encrypted using an encryption algorithm, generating ciphertext that can only be read if decrypted.

The process, as most commonly seen, involves a one-way process, in which movement in one direction is easy (encryption), but movement in the other (decryption) is hard.

For technical reasons, an encryption scheme usually uses a pseudo-random encryption key (a fancy password) generated by an algorithm.

It is in principle possible to decrypt the message without possessing the key, but, for a well-designed encryption scheme, large computational resources and skill are required. An authorized recipient can easily decrypt the message with the key provided by the originator to recipients, but not to unauthorized interceptors.

== Purpose of encryption ==
The purpose of encryption is to ensure that only somebody who is authorized to access data (e.g. a text message or a file), will be able to read it, using the decryption key. Somebody who is not authorized can be excluded, because he or she does not have the required key, without which it is impossible to read the encrypted information..

== How encryption works ==
:''For more information, see [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Key_size Key size] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryptographic_hash_function Cryptographic hash function]
All modern cryptographic systems are based on the factoring of numbers. It is easy to multiply two numbers and come up with a product. To take a number and determine what the numbers were that were multiplied to "create" it (called "factors") is very difficult. In Despite serious looking by very bright people, no method or algorithm to solve them has been found. Other than the simplest of methods, what could be called "no method at all", trying every conceivable solution (called the "brute force" method). The number of solutions to be tried is incredibly huge, astronomical. To even attempt it the most powerful computers are needed, so as to get results within a usable time frame. If it takes three years to get the missing key (password), probably it's not going to do you much good. The makers of encryption software try to create a number so huge that the number of solutions is just impossible to test. The makers of decryption software try to come up with shortcuts thst reduce the number of numbers that must be tested, or at least prioritize some numbers to test before others.

The more the speed of the hardware increases, the more it is possible to defeat encryption by a brute force attack (which is the only method because it's the only method that covers every possible answer). These are custom-built, single-purpose computers;.a single-purpose computer is always faster than a general-purpose computer. The original use of computers, during World War II, was to calculate coordinates for misiles (what angle up or elevation should they be at, among other things). Now it is to penetrate encryption, or try to. That's where the action is, in computing hardware.

This is a great simplification of a complicated area. However, it is the root of the whole system.

== Degrees of security in encryption ==
Any encryption must have a key, or in more basic terms a password. This is a string of characters which, in practice, describes the type of encryption used and provides the recipient's software the means to decrypt the message if authorized. The keys are easy to create but hard to undo.

The longer the password the more possible passwords have to be tested by the person that wants to break the encryption and view the message without permission. An eight-character password permits only about a billion possible passwords, and free software will break this in seconds on an ordinary desktop computer (2016). There are various standards, but 256 characters is commonly seen (2016). The longer the better.

A significant problem is providing the desired recipient the key (password) so thecmessage can be decrypted. It should not be given over any type of electronic communication. In person or on a flash drive sent through the mail.

== PGP ==

== Boylovers and encryption ==

Many boylovers encrypt files related to boylove to keep themselves safe along with using programs like [[Tor]]. It is often recommended that boylovers use full disk encryption with a program like [https://www.grc.com/misc/truecrypt/truecrypt.htm truecrypt], [https://veracrypt.codeplex.com/ veracrypt], or [https://www.ciphershed.org CiperShed] There is some debate over whether or not truecrypt should still be used as the project has been abandoned by it's authors. However, truecrypt is the only open source encryption tool which has been audited and the audit found: "The TL;DR is that based on this audit, Truecrypt appears to be a relatively well-designed piece of crypto software. The NCC audit found no evidence of deliberate backdoors, or any severe design flaws that will make the software insecure in most instances.<ref>http://blog.cryptographyengineering.com/2015/04/truecrypt-report.html</ref> [http://istruecryptauditedyet.com http://istruecryptauditedyet.com] Some believe that the new break offs from truecrypt, such as veracrypt and CiperShed, could contain backdoors. There is no evidence for this and all three programs are open-source. An extensive comparison of all available encryption programs can be found on the wikipedia page [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_disk_encryption_software Comparison of disk encryption software] Whichever platform you use, a strong password is the most important thing to remember. See: [https://www.boywiki.org/en/Internet_security_tutorial#Using_secure_passwords Using secure passwords]

One need not only use encryption if they have illegal files; even totally legal files related to boylove can destroy a person's life if brought to light. Sometimes it is difficult to know what even is legal with regard to boylove.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_v._Dalton The State v. Dalton]is a legal case in the United States state of Ohio involving the prosecution of a man for recording fictional tales of alleged [[child pornography]] in a diary. He had no images, either drawn or photographed, just writings in a journal and it was deemed to be [[child pornography]]. Altogether the man spent over 10 years in prison for simple writings.<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2001/07/14/us/child-pornography-writer-gets-10-year-prison-term.html/</ref> This case highlights how important it is to encrypt everything related to boylove.

Also, in the USA, even totally clothed photographs can be considered [[child pornography]]. See: https://www.boywiki.org/en/Child_porn#Definition This further demonstrates that boylovers should use encryption of anything having to do with children or boylove. What is legal today may not be legal tomorrow.

==Key (password) disclosure laws==
Key disclosure laws, also known as mandatory key disclosure, are laws that require individuals to surrender cryptographic keys (passwords, though actual words are rarely used today) to law enforcement. The purpose is to allow access to material for confiscation or digital forensics purposes and use it either as evidence in a court of law or to enforce national security interests. Similarly, '''mandatory decryption''' laws force owners of encrypted data to supply decrypted data to law enforcement.

Nations vary widely in the specifics of how they implement key disclosure laws. Some, such as Australia, give law enforcement wide-ranging power to compel assistance in decrypting data from any party. Some, such as Belgium, concerned with self-incrimination, only allow law enforcement to compel assistance from non-suspects. Some require only specific third parties such as telecommunications carriers, certification providers, or maintainers of encryption services to provide assistance with decryption. In all cases, a warrant is generally required.

In the United Kingdom and Australia, it is a criminal offense not to reveal an encryption key when requested by law enforcement. In the United States there is no such law, nor is their any legal obligation to cooperate with law enforcement unless a warrant has been issued by a judge. The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, on which there is a Wikipedia article, prohibits the government from requiring anyone to testify against himself (self-incrimination). Whether supplying a password constitutes self-incrimination has not been ruled on definitively by the courts. However, a judge, usually at the request of law enforcement, can give a key holder immunity for anything discovered using the key; the material revealed by use of the key can not be used as evidence against the key holder or to get an indictment of the key holder. That the encrypted material might give law enforcement leads on where to find new evidence that'' could'' be used to indict the keyholder, or might lead to indictment of someone other than the key holder — typically an ally of some sort — is not relevant to a judge. Judges can and do hold persons in Contempt of Court for failing to follow a judicial mandate. (Search warrants and arrest warrants are judicial mandates.) A judge can order someone the judge finds guilty of Contempt of Court to be incarcerated indefinitely, until the judge's order is complied with.

"A Philadelphia man suspected of possessing child pornography has been in jail for seven months and counting after being found in contempt of a court order demanding that he decrypt two password-protected hard drives. The suspect, a former Philadelphia Police Department sergeant, has not been charged with any child porn crimes. Instead, he remains indefinitely imprisoned in Philadelphia's Federal Detention Center for refusing to unlock two drives encrypted with Apple's FileVault software in a case that once again highlights the extent to which the authorities are going to crack encrypted devices. The man is to remain jailed "until such time that he fully complies" with the decryption order." <ref>http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/04/child-porn-suspect-jailed-for-7-months-for-refusing-to-decrypt-hard-drives/</ref>

== Legislation by nation ==

=== Antigua and Barbuda ===

The Computer Misuse Bill, 2006, Article 21(5)(c), if enacted, would allow police with a warrant to demand and use decryption keys. Failure to comply may incur "a fine of fifteen thousand [East Caribbean] dollars" and/or "imprisonment for two years."<ref>[http://www.laws.gov.ag/bills/2006/computer-misuse-bill-2006.pdf Antigua and Barbuda: The Computer Misuse Bill, 2006]</ref>

=== Australia ===

The Cybercrime Act 2001 No. 161, Items 12 and 28 grant police with a magistrate's order the wide-ranging power to require "a specified person to provide any information or assistance that is reasonable and necessary to allow the officer to" access computer data that is "evidential
material"; this is understood to include mandatory decryption. Failing to comply carries a penalty of 6 months imprisonment. Electronic Frontiers Australia calls the provision "alarming" and "contrary to the common law privilege against self-incrimination."<ref>Electronic Frontiers Australia. [http://www.efa.org.au/Issues/Privacy/security.html#ccb01 Privacy Laws in Australia: Security / Cybercrime]. Retrieved 2010 November 8.</ref>

The Crimes Act 1914, 3LA(5) "A person commits an offence if the person fails to comply with the order. Penalty for contravention of this subsection: Imprisonment for 2 years."<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/C2015C00111/Html/Volume_1#_Toc415554770|title=Crimes Act 1914|last=AG|website=www.comlaw.gov.au|language=en|access-date=2016-04-30}}</ref>

=== Belgium ===

The ''Loi du 28 novembre 2000 relative à la criminalité informatique'' (Law on computer crime of 28 November 2000), Article 9 allows a judge to order both operators of computer systems and telecommunications providers to provide assistance to law enforcement, including mandatory decryption, and to keep their assistance secret; but this action cannot be taken against suspects or their families.<ref>[http://cwisdb.kuleuven.be/pisa/fr/jur/infocrimewet.htm#Art.9 Loi du 28 novembre 2000 relative à la criminalité informatique: Article 9]. 2000 November 28. Retrieved 2010 November 9.</ref><ref>[http://www.ejustice.just.fgov.be/cgi_loi/loi_a1.pl?DETAIL=1808111930%2FF&caller=list&row_id=1&numero=7&rech=9&cn=1808111930&table_name=LOI&nm=1808111901&la=F&dt=CODE+D%27INSTRUCTION+CRIMINELLE&language=fr&fromtab=loi_all&sql=dt+contains++%27CODE%27%26+%27D%27%26+%27INSTRUCTION%27%26+%27CRIMINELLE%27and+actif+%3D+%27Y%27#Art.156 Code d'instruction criminelle. Livre II, titre I, Art. 156.] 1808 November 19. Retrieved 2010 November 9. (''in French'')</ref> Failure to comply is punishable by 6 months to 1 year in jail and/or a fine of 130 to 100,000 Euros.

=== Canada ===

Canada implements key disclosure by broad interpretation of "existing interception, search and seizure and assistance procedures";<ref>[http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/ecic-ceac.nsf/eng/gv00118.html The Digital Economy in Canada: Summary of Canada’s Policy on Cryptography]. Industry Canada. Last modified 2009-02-11. Retrieved 2010 November 19.</ref> in a 1998 statement, Cabinet Minister John Manley explained, "warrants and assistance orders also apply to situations where encryption is encountered — to obtain the decrypted material or decryption keys."<ref>[http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/ecic-ceac.nsf/eng/gv00119.html The Digital Economy in Canada: Speaking Notes for John Manley: Canada's Cryptography Policy]. Presentation to the National Press Club, Ottawa. October 1, 1998. Industry Canada. Last modified 2009-02-11. Retrieved 2010 November 19.</ref>

=== Finland ===

The Coercive Measures Act (Pakkokeinolaki) 2011/806 section 8 paragraph 23<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.finlex.fi/fi/laki/ajantasa/2011/20110806#a806-2011|title=Coercive Measures Act (Pakkokeinolaki)|language=fi|access-date=2016-04-30}}</ref> requires the system owner, its administrator, or a specified person to surrender the necessary "passwords and other such information" in order to provide access to information stored on an information system. The suspect and some other persons specified in section 7 paragraph 3 that cannot otherwise be called as witnesses are exempt from this requirement.

=== France ===
Law #2001-1062 of 15 November 2001 on Community Safety allows a judge or prosecutor to compel any qualified person to decrypt or surrender keys to make available any information encountered in the course of an investigation. Failure to comply incurs three years of jail time and a fine of €45,000; if the compliance would have prevented or mitigated a crime, the penalty increases to five years of jail time and €75,000.<ref>Articles 30–31, {{cite French law|number or usual name=no 2001-1062|date in French=15 novembre 2001|full name=relative à la sécurité quotidienne|language=French|lower case=yes|URL=http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichTexte.do?cidTexte=JORFTEXT000000222052}}</ref>

=== India ===

Section 69 of the Information Technology Act, as amended by the Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008, empowers the central and state governments to compel assistance from any "subscriber or intermediary or any person in charge of the computer resource" in decrypting information.<ref>[http://police.pondicherry.gov.in/Information%20Technology%20Act%202000%20-%202008%20(amendment).pdf Information Technology (Amended) Act, 2008] (PDF); Government of India – Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs (Legislative Department); '''XI''' (69) pp. 27–8.</ref><ref>[http://220.227.161.86/18962sm_finalnew_isca_cp10.pdf Paper – 6 : Information Systems Control and Audit] (PDF) '''10''' pp. 42–3. [http://www.icai.org/post.html?post_id=5777 Study Material - Final (New)] The Institute of Chartered Accountants of India.</ref> Failure to comply is punishable by up to seven years imprisonment and/or a fine.

=== New Zealand ===

New Zealand Customs is seeking Power to compel Key disclosure.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.stuff.co.nz/technology/digital-living/67449940/customs-downplays-password-plan|title=Customs downplays password plan|website=Stuff|access-date=2016-04-30}}</ref>

=== Poland ===

In relatively few known cases in which police or prosecutor requested cryptographic keys from those formally accused and these requests were not fulfilled, no further consequences were imposed on the accused. There's no specific law in this matter, as e.g. in the UK. It is generally assumed that the Polish Criminal Procedure Code (Kodeks Postępowania Karnego Dz.U. 1997 nr 89 poz. 555.) provides means of protecting against self-incrimination, including lack of penalization for refusing to answer any question which would enable law enforcement agencies to obtain access to potential evidence, which could be used against testifying person.<ref>[http://webhosting.pl/W.jaki.sposob.sluzby.moga.uzyskac.dostep.do.zaszyfrowanych.danych Webhosting.pl - W jaki sposób służby mogą uzyskać dostęp do zaszyfrowanych danych]{{Dead link|date=April 2016}}</ref>

=== South Africa ===

Under the RICA Act of 2002, refusal to disclose a cryptographic key in your possession could result in a fine up to ZAR 2 Million or up to 10 years imprisonment. This requires a judge to issue a decryption direction to a person believed to hold the key.{{Citation needed|date=September 2014}}

=== Sweden ===

There are currently no laws that force the disclosure of cryptographic keys. However, there is legislation proposed on the basis that the Council of Europe has already adopted a convention on cyber-crime related to this issue. The proposed legislation would allow police to require an individual to disclose information, such as passwords and cryptographic keys, during searches. The proposal has been introduced to make it easier for police and prosecutors. The proposal has been criticized by The Swedish Data Inspection Board.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.publikt.se/artikel/di-kritiserar-nya-it-regler-46346|title=DI kritiserar nya it-regler|date=2013-09-26|website=Publikt|language=Swedish|access-date=2016-04-30}}</ref><ref name="Swedish Data Inspection Board">{{Cite web|url=http://www.datainspektionen.se/Documents/remissvar/2013-09-25-konvention-it-brottslighet.pdf|title=Remiss av betänkandet Europarådets konvention om it - relaterad brottslighet (SOU 2013:39)|language=Swedish|format=PDF|access-date=}}</ref>

=== The Netherlands ===

Article 125k of the Wetboek van Strafvordering allows investigators with a warrant to access information carriers and networked systems. The same article allows the district attorney and similar officers of the court to order persons who know how to access those systems to share their knowledge in the investigation, including any knowledge of encryption of data on information carriers. However, such an order may not be given to the suspect under investigation.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0001903/EersteBoek/TitelIV/Zevendeafdeling/Artikel125k/geldigheidsdatum_12-01-2015|title=wetten.nl - Regeling - Wetboek van Strafvordering - BWBR0001903|website=wetten.overheid.nl|access-date=2016-04-30}}</ref>

=== United Kingdom ===

The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA), Part III, activated by ministerial order in October 2007,<ref>{{cite news|first=Jeremy |last=Kirk |url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/01/AR2007100100511.html |title=Contested UK encryption disclosure law takes effect |agency=PC World |publisher=Washington Post |date=October 1, 2007 |accessdate=2009-01-05}}</ref> requires persons to supply decrypted information and/or keys to government representatives with a court order. Failure to disclose carries a maximum penalty of two years in jail. The provision was first used against animal rights activists in November 2007,<ref>{{cite news|last=Ward |first=Mark |url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7102180.stm |title=Campaigners hit by decryption law |work=[[BBC News]] |date=2007-11-20 |accessdate=2009-01-05}}</ref> and at least three people have been prosecuted and convicted for refusing to surrender their encryption keys,<ref>{{Cite news |url=http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/10/06/jail_password_ripa/ |title=Youth jailed for not handing over encryption password |work=[[The Register]] |date=6 October 2010 |first=John |last=Oates}}</ref> one of whom was sentenced to 13 months' imprisonment.<ref>{{Cite news |url=http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11/24/ripa_jfl |title=UK jails schizophrenic for refusal to decrypt files |work=The Register |date=24 November 2009 |first=Christopher |last=Williams}}</ref>

=== United States ===

The right not to be forced to incriminate oneself is guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. At present there is no legal requirement that forces anyone to reveal a password.<ref>http://www.coreyvarma.com/2015/07/encryption-vs-fifth-amendment/ |title=Encryption vs. Fifth Amendment |first1=Corey |last1=Varma |website=www.coreyvarma.com |accessdate=July 28, 2015}}</ref> However, this is an active area of the law. The question of whether one can be forced to reveal a password that would ostensibly only incriminate ''someone else'' being investigated (and whether incriminating evidence ”accidently" revealed concerning the password holder can then be used against them) is unanswered. Various password holders are in jail right now (2016) for Contempt of Court: violating the order of a judge, who says his order is legal. Disobeying a judge is technically not a crime, but you're still in jail.

Encryption is an active political topic today (2016) in the United States.

However, the federal case ''In re Boucher'' may be influential as case law. In this case, a man's laptop was inspected by customs agents and child pornography was discovered. The device was seized and powered-down, at which point disk encryption technology made the evidence unavailable. The judge held that it was a foregone conclusion that the content exists since it had already been seen by the customs agents, Boucher's encryption password "adds little or nothing to the sum total of the Government's information about the existence and location of files that may contain incriminating information."<ref>{{cite web|url=http://volokh.com/files/BoucherDCT.1.pdf |title=In re Grand Jury Subpoena to Sebastien Boucher, Memorandum of Decision |date=February 19, 2009 |format=PDF |work=The Volokh Conspiracy |accessdate=2009-08-29 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140716161430/http://www.volokh.com/files/Boucher.pdf |archive-date=July 16, 2014}}</ref><ref>http://www.cnet.com/news/judge-man-cant-be-forced-to-divulge-encryption-passphrase/ |title=Judge: Man can't be forced to divulge encryption passphrase |first=Declan |last=McCullagh |publisher=CNET |date=December 14, 2007 |accessdate=October 19, 2014}}</ref>

In United States v. Fricosu, a district court judge ordered a Colorado woman to decrypt her laptop so prosecutors can use the files against her in a criminal case: "I conclude that the Fifth Amendment is not implicated by requiring production of the unencrypted contents of the Toshiba Satellite M305 laptop computer," Colorado U.S. District Judge Robert Blackburn ruled on January 23, 2012.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/01/judge-orders-laptop-decryption/ |title=Judge Orders Defendant to Decrypt Laptop |first=David |last=Kravets |publisher=WIRED |date=January 23, 2012}}</ref> In Commonwealth v. Gelfgatt,<ref>{http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?q=GELFGATT&hl=en&as_sdt=2006&case=13313310379620456644&scilh=0</ref> the court ordered a suspect to decrypt his computer, citing exception to Fifth Amendment can be invoked because "''an act of production does not involve testimonial communication where the facts conveyed already are known to the government...''".<ref>http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/06/massachusetts-high-court-orders-suspect-to-decrypt-his-computers/ |title=Massachusetts high court orders suspect to decrypt his computers |first=Cyrus |last=Farivar |publisher=Ars Technica |date=June 26, 2014 |accessdate=October 19, 2014}}</ref>

However, in United States v. Doe, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit ruled on 24 February 2012 that forcing the decryption of one's laptop violates the Fifth Amendment.<ref>https://www.eff.org/press/releases/appeals-court-upholds-constitutional-right-against-forced-decryption |title=Appeals Court Upholds Constitutional Right Against Forced Decryption |first1=Marcia |last1=Hofmann |first2=Hanni |last2=Fakhoury |publisher=Electronic Frontier Foundation |date=February 24, 2012 |accessdate=October 19, 2014}}</ref> <ref>http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/02/appeals-court-fifth-amendment-protections-can-apply-to-encrypted-hard-drives/</ref>

The Federal Bureau of Investigation may also issue national security letters that require the disclosure of keys for investigative purposes.<ref>https://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2014/01/29/lavabit-appeals-contempt-of-court-ruling-surrounding-handover-of-ssl-keys/|title=Lavabit appeals contempt of court ruling surrounding handover of SSL keys|date=2014-01-29|website=Naked Security|access-date=2016-04-30}}</ref> One company, Lavabit, chose to shut down rather than surrender its master private keys.

Since the summer of 2015, cases were fought between major tech companies such as Apple over the regulation of encryption with government agencies asking for access to private encrypted information for law enforcement purposes. A technical report was written and published by MIT Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, where Ronald Rivest, an inventor of RSA, and Harold Abelson, a computer science professor at MIT with others, explain the technical difficulties, including security issues that arise from the regulation of encryption or by making a key available to a third party for purposes of decrypting any possible encrypted information. The report lists scenarios and raises questions for policy makers. It also asks for more technical details if the request for regulating encryption is to be pursued further.<ref>https://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/97690/MIT-CSAIL-TR-2015-026.pdf |date=6 July 2015 |title=Keys Under Doormats: Mandating insecurity by requiring government access to all data and communication |work=MIT Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory }}</ref>

Most recently, as noted above, a person may now be indefinitely detained for refusing to unencrypt their drives.

"A Philadelphia man suspected of possessing child pornography has been in jail for seven months and counting after being found in contempt of a court order demanding that he decrypt two password-protected hard drives. The suspect, a former Philadelphia Police Department sergeant, has not been charged with any child porn crimes. Instead, he remains indefinitely imprisoned in Philadelphia's Federal Detention Center for refusing to unlock two drives encrypted with Apple's FileVault software in a case that once again highlights the extent to which the authorities are going to crack encrypted devices. The man is to remain jailed "until such time that he fully complies" with the decryption order." <ref>http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/04/child-porn-suspect-jailed-for-7-months-for-refusing-to-decrypt-hard-drives/</ref>

==See Also==
*[[Steganography]]
*[[Tor]]
*[https://www.boywiki.org/en/Internet_security_tutorial Internet security tutorial]
*[https://www.boywiki.org/en/Email_security Email security]
*[https://www.boywiki.org/en/Hard_drive hard drive]

==References==
{{reflist}}

==External links==
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encryption https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encryption]
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Key_disclosure_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Key_disclosure_law]
*[http://www.nytimes.com/2001/07/14/us/child-pornography-writer-gets-10-year-prison-term.html http://www.nytimes.com/2001/07/14/us/child-pornography-writer-gets-10-year-prison-term.html]
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_v._Dalton https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_v._Dalton]

[[Category:Technology]]
[[Category:Essential reading for BoyLovers]]
[[Category:Civil rights and liberties]]

Tor (The Onion Router)

2018-11-27T01:42:17Z

Wanker:

'''Tor''' is a free open-source project providing people with a [[proxy]] to make their computer IP address more anonymous (harder to find) when surfing the Internet. It contains its own browser.

Every computer (or phone or tablet) that is accessing the Internet has an IP (Internet Protocol) address. Typically these are assigned by the Internet Service Provider (the company you connect to which then connects you to the Internet using their own permanent connection), and can and often are different each time you use the Internet. They are in digits and typically take the form 000.00.000.0. There are more computers than there are IP addresses, so in most cases a number is assigned when you connect and the number is released when your Internet session ends. (There are partially implemented plans to increase the number of IP addresses, by making them longer.) Internet Service Providers typically keep records of which IP address is assigned to which customer at which time. Thus, a warrant from a judge can (in the U.S.) compel the Internet Service Provider to identify who used an IP address at a certain time.

A proxy is a computer server that acts as an intermediary. It receives your request for a Web page, with your IP address exposed. It then forwards the request, using its own IP address as the requestor. When the requested page arrives, the proxy computer sends it to you.

Tor typically uses as series of servers (10 is a number frequently seen), each located in a different country. Thus the origin of the name: there is an similarity to layers of an onion.

To track the request for a Web page back to you, law enforcement must track it through multiple servers in multiple countries. These servers change (a new route is selected) frequently, adding to the difficulty in tracking through them. Many of the proxy servers deliberately do not keep records of the requests received and processed. Tor also encrypts the data leaving or arriving at your computer. Your IP address cannot be encrypted.

However, what cannot be concealed from your Internet service provider is the time you connected to Tor. At the other end, the same thing applies. In other ords, if law enrforcement wants to devote the resorces, the times you logged on to Tor can be matched with those of a recipient. This is not a hypthetical danger; law enforcement has done this. The solutin to this is to use a [[VPN]], in a country other than the one in which you reside.

Because of the multiple steps involved, using Tor will result in slower Web page loading than when it is not used. This is, to a degree, common to all types of [[encryption]].

==The Darknet ==
There are a variety of services, both legal and illegal, that can be accessed using Tor and only Tor. This is called the Darknet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darknet). There is no single directory of them; they change frequently. Tor conceals which country the server of the requested material is in.

Browsing on the Darknet can easily reveal disturbing material - animal torture, for example - which is not available on the regular Internet. One can order an assassination ("no prominent politicians"). There is much copyrighted material posted illegally.

However, there is plenty of material on the Darknet which is legal under the laws of all Western democracies, but is illegal under the laws where some user finds him- or herself. For example, anti-Islamic writings or discussions of textual or other errors in the [[Koran]], can lead to formal execution or assassination in many Islamic countries. Conversely, in the [[United States]] there is an active anti-birth control movement, where, not long ago, birth control information could not be mailed, and Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger fled the country, under indictment for distributing it.

No one is in favor of the free distribution of all the information and communication, including child pornography and torture of children, found on the Darknet. (OK, a few left-wing First Amendment nuts are.) But there is no way to shut it down without shutting down the whole Internet, in which case the cure would be worse than the disease. The Darknet is, on purpose, completely decentralized; one would have to shut down individually all the hundreds of thousands if not millions who use it.

== Limitations on Tor security ==
Originally, it was thought that the anonymity provided by Tor was total. However, law enforcement, which has more resources than all the boylovers in the world put together, has developed a number of ways to penetrate Tor security. Ross Ulbricht, on whom there is a Wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ross_Ulbricht) is serving a life sentence as a result of law enforcement penetrating his Tor security. It only took them a few months.
* The fact that you sent a request for an Internet page, through your Internet Service Provider, to a Tor proxy is not and cannot be concealed using current technology. Even though the name of the page is encrypted, law enforcement can easily find out that you requested some Web page through Tor (but not which one) at a particular time. Most Internet Service Providers keep logs of which pages each user requests and when they request them. At the other end of the chain of servers, law enforcement can find out which IP addresses requested the page the users of which they are investigating. Even if all they can find out is the IP address of the final Tor proxy in the chain, the time the page requested cannot be concealed. If the time the page is served matches with the time you requested a page, this does not prove that you requested that page, but it could serve as grounds to seize and search your computer (phone, tablet).
* Nothing prevents law enforcement from acting as a Tor proxy -- anyone running the browser can -- and thus spying on the data requests sent and received somewhere in the chain.

:NOTE: This article gives an overview of how Tor works. If you'd like to skip the technical information, then just see link to the Tor Project home page at the end of this article, visit the Tor home page, download the browser bundle, and install it. '''''You should make sure that the "global scripts option" (the "S" with a circle and line through it, found on the the upper-left corner of your screen) is set to ''not'' allow scripts.''''' (You can disable this option, and enable scripts, for visiting "safe" sites which do not contain sensitive information.) Using Tor, you can surf the Internet more securely. (Note: ''Never'' try to download bit torrents that contain sensitive information through Tor--you are NOT protected from others monitoring your downloads, and your real IP address will be exposed! Also, you should NEVER combine the visiting of sites which have ''the details of your real-life identity'' at the same time that you visit "sensitive" sites. Only do one thing at a time--browsing that involves your "real-life identity," should ''not be done'' at the same time that you are using Tor to visit "sensitive" sites (like BoyChat, for example) Remember: close your Tor browser, and then start it again to protect your real-life identity and to keep yourself safe.

To access the Tor network the end user runs a program called a Tor client (a special Internet browser) on his computer, this comes with an extra filtering program (like [[Privoxy]]) between the Tor client and the Internet browser on the local computer due to the risk of applications like Java revealing user information. Any Tor user with sufficient bandwidth can also choose to run a proxy allowing other Tor users to route traffic through his computer, but one has to be very careful when running an Tor "exit" node, which is the last computer in the chain, and the one that connects directly to the site you are visiting.

Used correctly, Tor protects one's anonymity. But there can be problems: In 2013 Ross William Ulbricht was arrested for running a Web site--Silk Road--using Tor. It was primarily a marketplace where illegal drug sellers and buyers could connect. He was sentenced to life in prison without parole. (See Wikipedia for information on how his site was compromised by the legal authorities.)

The Tor technology is attractive to [[boylover]]s because of the [[anonymity]] offered by the proxy network. Some sites, such as Wikipedia, restrict access or posting using Tor software, to reduce spam and malicious hackers. [[BoyChat]] for example, will only allow people to post using Tor if they have a registered nick. The Tor network also hosts hidden sites that can not be taken offline because it is not possible to work out which server is hosting them, however these sites, with the extension ''.onion'', are only accessible if you run Tor software in your computer.

Many files on Tor may be accessed at http://tor2web.org.

=== Tor and live CD ===

Even when you use Tor it could still be possible for someone to see information on your computer hard drive, and to look at your drive's contents--websites that you have visited using Tor proxy can be found in the Internet browser cache (if it is enabled). But if you use the "Tor browser bundle," with the special version of Firefox that comes with it, then you do not have to worry about your browser cache being stored on your computer.

Using a "live CD" to browse the Internet avoids leaving any traces of your browsing history on your hard drive, because after you have finished browsing using a live CD all of the data held in volatile RAM memory will disappear, and recovery will not be possible. A live CD (i.e. Tails) with Tor is one of the most powerful anonymity tools that exist.

== Javascript Exploit ==
Javascript provides many "whistles and bells" in your browser while you browse the Internet. Without javascript enabled in your browser, you may find the functionality of many websites diminished. Some sites will not function at all without javascript enabled in your browser.

(NOTE: One "workaround"--which ''sometimes'' works--to the problem of javascript limiting site functionality is to access the site desired using the Wayback machine found at https://www.web.archive.org)

But you should be aware that at least one "exploit" (a "trick" used in computer programming to compromise a computer) exists which law-enforcement personnel can use to expose your identity '''even though you may be surfing behind the protection provided by Tor'''.

<big>Javascript should ''never'' be enabled in a browser used to visit "sensitive" sites, such as sites posting information which is "pro-pedophile" (or even "anti-pedophile") or which contains other information (or images) which may be of interest to a [[pedophile]].</big>

A large number of [[boylove|BoyLovers]] (and GirlLovers) are now serving very long terms in prison because they enabled javascript in their browsers. Don't be one of them!

=== Links to articles describing the risks of browsing with javascript enabled===

*Inside the Tor exploit | ZDNet
:http://www.zdnet.com/inside-the-tor-exploit-7000018997/
*Firefox Zero-Day Exploit used by FBI to shutdown Child porn on Tor ...
:http://thehackernews.com/2013/08/Firefox-Exploit-Tor-Network-child-pornography-Freedom-Hosting.html
*FBI Admits It Controlled Tor Servers Behind Mass Malware Attack ...
:http://www.wired.com/2013/09/freedom-hosting-fbi/
*The FBI TOR Exploit - InfoSec Institute
:http://resources.infosecinstitute.com/fbi-tor-exploit/
*Actual risks of javascript and Flash? : TOR - Reddit
:http://www.reddit.com/r/TOR/comments/1y8r3m/actual_risks_of_javascript_and_flash/
*Identity-exposing malware on Tor "could be work of FBI"
:http://www.welivesecurity.com/2013/08/05/identity-exposing-malware-on-tor-could-be-work-of-fbi/

==See also==
*[[Encryption]]

== External links ==
* [http://www.torproject.org/ Tor Project homepage]
* [https://tails.boum.org Tails live CD]
* [https://www.whonix.org/ Whonix Anonymous OS]

[[Category:Technology]]
[[Category:Essential reading for BoyLovers]]
[[Category:Security for boylovers]]

Socrates

2018-10-21T10:11:13Z

Wanker:

{{Draft}}
[[File:Socrates Louvre.jpg|thumb|140px| Portrait of [[Socrates]]. Marble, Roman artwork (1st century)]]
'''Socrates''' (/ˈsɒkrətiːz/;<ref>Jones, Daniel; Roach, Peter, James Hartman and Jane Setter, eds. ''Cambridge English Pronouncing Dictionary''. 17th edition. Cambridge UP, 2006.</ref> Greek: Σωκράτης [sɔːkrátɛːs], Sōkrátēs; 470/469 – 399 BC)<ref name="enc1911">{{cite web|url = https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclop%C3%A6dia_Britannica/Socrates
|publisher = 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica|title = Socrates|year=1911|accessdate = 2012-09-13}}</ref> was a classical Greek (Athenian) philosopher credited as one of the founders of Western philosophy. He is an enigmatic figure known chiefly through the accounts of classical writers, especially the writings of his students [[Plato]] and [[Xenophon]] and the plays of his contemporary Aristophanes. Plato's dialogues are among the most comprehensive accounts of Socrates to survive from antiquity, though it is unclear the degree to which Socrates himself is "hidden behind his 'best disciple', Plato".<ref>{{cite book|author=Sarah Kofman| title= Socrates: Fictions of a Philosopher |year=1998| ISBN= 0-8014-3551-X| page=34}}</ref>

Through his portrayal in Plato's dialogues, Socrates has become renowned for his contribution to the field of ethics, and it is this Platonic Socrates who lends his name to the concepts of Socratic irony and the Socratic method, or ''elenchus''. The latter remains a commonly used tool in a wide range of discussions, and is a type of pedagogy in which a series of questions is asked not only to draw individual answers, but also to encourage fundamental insight into the issue at hand. Plato's Socrates also made important and lasting contributions to the field of epistemology, and the influence of his ideas and approach remains a strong foundation for much western philosophy that followed.

==References==
{{reflist}}
==External links==

[[Boylovers of ancient Greece]]

Isabel Khan

2018-10-21T09:58:19Z

Wanker:

'''Isabel Khan''', 34 at the time of her 2015 sentencing, was a science teacher in Melbourne, [[Florida]], who had consensual sex with a then-14-year-old male student "several times" over the course of several months during the 2011-2012 school year. She pled guilty to two counts of "lewd or lascivious battery against a child 12 to 16 years of age". She was sentenced to two years of [[Probation, parole, and supervised release|community control]] and ten years sex offender [[Probation, parole, and supervised release|probation]]. This is intended to prevent her from abusing other 12-16-year-old boys, at least during that time period.<ref>unsigned, "Florida Teacher Pleads Guilty to Having Sex with her Student", ''Brevard Times'', May 13, 2015, http://news.brevardtimes.com/2015/05/florida-teacher-pleads-guilty-to-having.html.</ref>

==Reference==
{{reflist}}

[[Category:Female boylovers]]

Talk:Text of the Boylove Manifesto (Dutch)

2018-10-21T09:54:34Z

Wanker:

Boys Love is a global phenomenon that can occur with every gender, every race, every nationality, every age, every religious belief and every worldview. Boys Love is a special kind of sociocultural relationship between people. Boys Love has always existed, there is still now and will continue to exist.

Boys Love is sexually-scientifically seen in the category ' Paedophilia '. As boys ' lovers, we can only speak for ourselves: Feminist theorems will not be treated here. We do not want to talk about the love of women for boys, nor about the love of men for girls. This manifesto explains the love between men of the male sex.

As boys ' lovers, we take away from the current issue of ' sexual abuse of children and adolescents '. We oppose a discussion, which in no way differentiates between the different types of intergenerational sexual relationships.

This manifesto expresses the view of its author. ' The ' Boy lover does not exist. Also among boys lovers there are as many different opinions as people!

‘'''For whom is this text intended?'''
This manifesto was written for all the boys lovers, their friends, boys-friends and girlfriends. Also for all the children who have been confronted with this problem or are still going to be. It is intended for parents, educators, teachers and for anyone who is professional or private with children and young people. Hopefully it is read by those who have as a therapist with children and youngsters, and also with boys lovers. Furthermore, if you have retained an unbiased mind, this manifesto wants to study the difficult matter of ' boys love '.

This manifesto hopes to be a contribution to the formation of everyone's own judgement. We do not want to persuade anyone to take our views in this debate, but we want to explain our position and initiate it in the debate.

'''WWhy is this manifest issued?'''
The debate about sexuality between different age groups, in particular between children and adults, has become a deadlock in terms of argumentation. The conversation between the interested parties no longer takes place. A unilateral debt allocation of self-proclaimed children's guardians to boys ' lovers has exceeded the boundaries that secrete gossip from supposed truth. For centuries prevailing repressive sexual morality provides the breeding ground for this purpose. As child sexuality was declared taboo, in the consciousness of mankind the notion that there is no such thing as child sexuality was developed. This taboo has been broken since Sigmund Freud, but has since been attempted to channel the newly discovered child sexuality through laws and bans. Existing repressive machtsstrukturen [power structures] in the adult-child relationship, were extended to sexuality. The Adult Society prescribes the child how to deal with his/her sexuality. The attempt to educate with punishments and bans brings the child's inner self into a conflict situation that may have traumatic consequences. The discrepancy between the personal desires and the social punishment of those desires does not allow the child to develop a healthy sexuality; This also leads to mental follow-up damage at an adult age.

This manifesto is, on the one hand, the attempt to shed light on the matter, on the other hand, a contribution to free children and adults from a sexual morality that sets invalid premises. In view of the Sociokulturele position of the boys lover will also be tried to formulate ethical ground rules, in particular rules that deal with the rights of the boy and the responsibilities of the boys lover.

'''What Is Boys love?'''
Boy love does not allow itself to be redirected to the sexual aspect of a relationship. Sexuality plays in a boys love relationship the same role as in any interpersonal relationship. It can therefore not be absent, only latently present or explicitly present. A relationship that consists only of sexual contact does not fall entirely under the heading of ' Boys Love ', as this concept includes much more.

A boy lover strives for a friendly, intimate relationship with a guy. This does not necessarily entail sexual intercourse, nor does it necessarily exclude those. The boy lover does not see the child's amiableness in the first place in his body or in his role as a sexual property-this can or may not be present-but in his being. Especially the ' childish ' or ' Boys like ', which is peculiar to the boy's being, works fascinating on the boys lover. A boy lover tries to shield a child from negation as much as possible.

'''Ongensliefde relationship.'''
The attraction between a boy and a boys lover is usually mutual. The boy feels attracted to an adult who takes him seriously and treats him respectfully. The humiliating power strategies and bans – all too often common in adult/kindrelaties – play in a jongensliefde relationship no role. Here the boy experiences himself as a personality, who may have his own opinion, his own past and especially his own, seriously taken identity within a social fabric. His view is taken seriously and not rejected as an immature hand. His being as well as his body are perceived in their wholeness, not as things that are still being in progress, developmental phases on the way to adulthood.

In today's society, a child is often regarded as someone who needs to grow to become a person. Its existence is only considered as a scale model for a total to be attained later. The childlike being is kneaded and formed by the standards that the adults set. Undesirable or inappropriate personality traits are eliminated by the education and educational process.

In a boys love relationship, the elder partner enters the childlike creature, feeds it and does not try to squeeze it into a corset. This acceptance of the own character experiences the boy as a salutary and something very special. He can develop and grow because he is taken seriously as a personality and a partner.

Although the adult partner is always in a position to exert power on the child, the boy lover endeavors to give power relations within the relationship no chance. Then still the boy lover must be aware of the fact that there is a struktureel power imbalance in any adult/kindverhouding. There may be situations where he should discuss this subject with his partner. ° The continual self-reflection belongs to the inner being of a boys love relationship.

'''What rights does the boy have?'''
The boy's right to an undisturbed development of his personality and sexuality must characterize every boys love-relationship and do so too. Physical or psychological pressures are an inherent offence against this right. Furthermore, any restriction on the further development of the personality of the boy and any restriction to experience his sexuality unencumbered and with pleasure can be considered as an infringement of this right. The boys lover has the responsibility to keep the relationship according to the wishes and demands of the boy. He also has the responsibility to ask questions and listen with attention to the boy. The main commandment of the boys lover remains the right of the boy on autonomous development.

The boy has the right to be protected from abuse, both physical and psychological. However, if a boy is forbidden to use his right to a loving relationship and to the experience and experiencing of his own sexuality, it is equally abusive. Here too, the rights of the boy are inalienable!

'''What requirements do we have?'''
We demand the right to own sexuality, both for boys and for boys lovers.

We demand the reconsideration of a sexual morality, which violates basic human rights because it disclaims both children and those who love them to even think of any sexual intimate intercourse.

We demand that no medical, psychological or religious biased attitude against the sexuality of the child will be part of a new sexual morality.

We demand that both boys ' lovers and children are involved in the current debate about sexuality between adults and children. Currently, "experts " participate in the debate, which extracts their knowledge of intergenerational sexuality from books and statistics. ° It is essential that those who have a direct interest in the debate should also be involved. It sounds incredible: people are defending the interests of an age class without asking this age group whether they need to find and accept such a defence.

We demand our right to freedom of expression in the media. There at present above all the Internet as platform for boy lovers under shot state, we demand that also boy lovers equal rights with all participants on the Internet be allowed: As long as nothing is illegally published-° Ttz. As long as the content of an expression is not punishable itself, internet pages of boys ' lovers and about boys ' love cannot be arbitrarily closed and censored.

We demand the possibility of being able to communicate in a repressive and open forum with boys ' lovers. Discussion, support and the feeling of belonging are important, because only a sexual ethics can be discussed. The secluded boy lover will rather pose a danger to boys than the one who feels in a regulatory community.
ur most important claim is the heroverdenken of the child's image in society. As long as a child is not taken as an independent personality, as long as it is on "defenders " designated of his "self-interest" and as long as it will not be able to freely develop his own personality and his sexuality.

° Vert.: This sentence is only found in the German version.

1997 by Jay_h, Vert. From German by Steph.

Thanks to AHS/green/Red Baron/Many boys lovers at whom I found inspiration.

This manifesto may and should be freely distributed. Links to there or inclusion in home page are welcome, but please mention the author.

Talk:Text of the Boylove Manifesto (Dutch)

2018-10-21T09:53:07Z

Wanker:

Talk:Text of the Boylove Manifesto (Dutch)

2018-10-21T09:50:04Z

Wanker:

Talk:Text of the Boylove Manifesto (Dutch)

2018-10-21T09:47:14Z

Wanker:

Talk:Text of the Boylove Manifesto (Dutch)

2018-10-21T09:45:52Z

Wanker:

Talk:Text of the Boylove Manifesto (Dutch)

2018-10-21T09:43:59Z

Wanker:

Talk:Text of the Boylove Manifesto (Dutch)

2018-10-21T09:42:16Z

Wanker:

Talk:Text of the Boylove Manifesto (Dutch)

2018-10-21T09:41:01Z

Wanker:

Talk:Text of the Boylove Manifesto (Dutch)

2018-10-21T09:38:49Z

Wanker:

Talk:Text of the Boylove Manifesto (Dutch)

2018-10-21T09:35:21Z

Wanker:

Talk:Text of the Boylove Manifesto (Dutch)

2018-10-21T09:30:06Z

Wanker:

Talk:Text of the Boylove Manifesto (Dutch)

2018-10-21T09:27:20Z

Wanker:

Talk:Text of the Boylove Manifesto (Dutch)

2018-10-21T09:25:24Z

Wanker:

Talk:Text of the Boylove Manifesto (Dutch)

2018-10-21T09:23:50Z

Wanker:

Talk:Text of the Boylove Manifesto (Dutch)

2018-10-21T09:22:09Z

Wanker: Created page with "Boys Love is a global phenomenon that can occur with every gender, every race, every nationality, every age, every religious belief and every worldview. Boys Love is a special..."

Sex offender

2018-09-24T00:31:30Z

Wanker:

'''Sex offenders''' have been called "today's lepers.'" (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leprosy_stigma.) A leper is someone that people fear, that they try to expel from the community, that they try to keep as far as they can from gathering places, that they need especially to keep away, no, keep ''further'' away from their children. In a notorious case in Florida (Miami-Dade County) available housing areas have been systematically barred and at present (2017) the only place they can live is the swamp (the Everglades). (See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julia_Tuttle_Causeway_sex_offender_colony) Like lepers, sex offenders have a variety of fears projected onto them. "I hate faggots and that sex offender is going to make my boy queer," for example.

Spread the word that sex offenders have the lowest recidivism rate of any type of crime except murder. [[RSOL]] has the research on their Web site.

==Impossible to define==
Like obscenity, a word destroyed by philosophy through the mouths of lawyers, what constitutes a sex offense varies somewhat, and sometimes dramatically, between jurisdictions. (For example, having sex with a 16-year-old is legal in Alabama, but it is a felony in New York.) The same with sexual crime: what it is is different in each state, and sometimes in differing jurisdictions within the state. The same crime typically receives a sentence of probation in one jurisdiction, 7-10 years in another.

A "sex offence" is what a polity (government) says it is, in that jurisdiction. It has no fixed meaning, which is to say it has no meaning. A sex offense is violent rape and torture; it is public urination or sex on a beach. It can be having sex with a child, or looking at photographs of someone having sex with a child.

[[Child pornography]] has grown. Computer sex video

It’s an easy crime to prosecute
Sentences harsher than than for contact offenses.
is a person who has been convicted of one of the broad range ''sex offenses'' from rape, kidnapping, dd murder to public urination and public nudity (streaking). The vast majority of sex offenses are non-violent crimes but carry the most severe punishments. Sexual offenses may or may not involve a [[minor]]. It also does not necessarily involve physical contact; for example, [[child pornography]] offenses are considered sex offenses, as are young people sending sexual [[selfie]]s to each other.

What constitutes a sex offense can vary significantly, sometimes dramatically, from one jurisdiction to another (as does the [[age of consent]]). In many countries today, and even in the U.S. and other Western countries, consensual adult [[homosexual]] acts are still on the books as sex offenses and serious crimes. In many countries, homosexuals can still be punished by imprisonment and even public execution.

Sex offenders often have difficulty finding employment. SexOffenderJobs.com notes, "One of the many concerns of a sex offender is 'where do I apply?' Well there is a very easy to understand short answer for this one. EVERYWHERE! You must apply everywhere that does not violate any sex offender law or stipulation of your release. This literally means every single store, restaurant, factory and whatever else you can think of."<ref>http://www.sexoffenderjobs.com/filling-out-applications/</ref>

==Making contact through a sex offender registry==

==See also==
*[[State rape]]
*[[Sex offender treatment]]

==References==
{{reflist}}

{{Navbox RSOL organizations|collapsed}}
[[Category:Sex crimes]]

Infantophilia

2018-09-24T00:17:07Z

Wanker:

'''Infantophilia''' or '''nepiophilia''' ('''nepi''' for short) is the sexual attraction to infants and toddlers, defined by various studies as children aged 0–4<ref>[https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/4721/444e410960fc51ef6eaea13a15300b968973.pdf Greenberg, D. M.; Bradford, J.; and Curry S. (1995). "Infantophilia—a new subcategory of pedophilia?: a preliminary study". The Bulletin of the American Academy of Psychiatry and Law, 23(1), 63-71. ] Retrieved on September 23, 2018</ref>.

Many [[pedophile|paedophiles]] attracted to females may also experience a nepiophilic attraction, unlike the majority of male-attracted paedophiles who are more likely to experience a degree of [[ephebophilia|ephebophilic]] attraction.{{cite}}

The concise Oxford English dictionary twelfth edition (2011) does not contain an entry for infantophilia nor nepiophilia, despite both being scientifically accurate and accepted terms for many years. The website for the Oxford Dictionary does not contain any matches for either word.

Wikipedia categorises infantophilia as a sub-type of paedophilia where the preference is for children below 5 years old.<ref>[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia#Definitions Paedophilia - Wikipedia] Retrieved on September 23, 2018</ref>

==References==
{{reflist}}

{{stub}}

[[Category:Sexuality]]

Prepubescent

2018-09-12T11:21:07Z

Wanker:

[I got the idea of writing this from a red link, and for those that don’t know what that is, it means some editor has felt there should be an article on a topic. These can be reported on. — User:Wanker]

The '''prepubescent''' boy is the boy who has not reached puberty, defined for the male as the age when ejaculation of semen, and with it the capacity of-reproduction, begins. The boy ideally receives some help from older males in understandng this for some bewildering phenomenon. These are most frequently older brothers, but they also can also be teachers, camp counselors, doctors, and we must not forget priests, rabbis, and very probably Islamic religious leaders, see Bacha bazi in Afghanistan. A fascinating discovery from a southeast Asia island is the native practice of intergenerational oral sex and swallowing semen, part of becoming a man.

In the United States, until the hippies-LSD movement of the late 1960s, and only gradually changing then, it was not unusual for the boy — especially an only child or an oldest brother) to receive no advance notice of the rjaculstion, and the only help afterwards being told to keep your hands off your penis, keep them on top of the bedcovers, and save "it" (the semen?) for marriage. Alas, that was my experience, my father started my sex ed. at 16, when he invited me to talk about it. When I fi4st came, it was a surprise, but I knew exactly what it was. I may have read their The Child from Ten to Fifteen (sequel of The Child from 5 to 19).

Today (2018) the Internet, and with it the access to highly varied and free pornography, has brought the biggest jump ever in child sexual education. (Gay sex columnist [[Dan Savage]] says the Internet was ''invented'' for the purpose of circulating porn.)

Child

2018-09-12T11:08:49Z

Wanker:

A '''child''' may be defined as someone who is either below the [[age of majority]]/[[age of consent]] (minor) or a [[prepubescent]]. Familial usage (regardless of age) is not an issue of relevance to intergenerational sex.

'''Childhood''' and by extension, the status of human beings as children, is an unstable concept. It has been suggested by some historians such as [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippe_Aries Aries] that the concept of childhood is itself an invention of the second millennium (2000–). In that view, there is an uninterrupted gradual evolution from birth to adulthood, the only biological indicator being the first ejaculation around 13, celebrated by Jews with the zBarMitzvah (Aramaic for “son of Mitzvas, of thr law”) and a later bat-Mitzvah for girls at age 12.

==[[Childhood innocence]] and [[vulnerability]]==

Central to the issue of intergenerational sexuality is the concept of childhood (sexual) innocence and its postpuritanical/utilitarian counterpart, vulnerability.

==See also==

*[[Boy]]
*[[Girl]]
*[[Adult]]
*[[Adult-child sex]]
*[[Child sexual abuse]]
*[[Child pornography]]

==External Links==
* The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy has a good article on childhood:
: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/childhood/
*[http://web.archive.org/web/20120707101522/http://newgon.com/wiki/Child "Child" (Web archive)] (Original Newgon Wiki Article)

[[Category:Developmental psychology]]

Video recording

2018-09-12T10:57:52Z

Wanker:

[''A full treatment of this to
Ic would be very long. ( See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=Video+recording&title=Special:Search&profile=default&fulltext=1&searchToken=dsltudxevib7ou90v33eoj7l6.)’’ What follows is the question of format as seen by the pornographer and the pornography collector. While I never produced video pornography — I am doing some small scale audio porn —my masturbation addiction, of which I’m proud, and the resources I had as a professional, meant I could buy each format of pornography as it vanquished the old. — [[User talk:Wanker]]

Home pornography was born around 1979, with the commercial launch of the home video recorder, which used cartridges of 1/2" magnetic tape in two formats, the triumphant VHS (Video Home System), and the technically superior Beta, used only by the brand Sony, which captured a significant market share., 2 inch and 3/4 inch video recorders are earlier, but they were too expensive for home use and a content industry in those formats never arose, The videodisc (12" discs) was popular in the 1990s, and for a few years it was routine for major mainstream studios to release movies in that format if they were released in VHS. It was an analocg device and could not keep up with the improvements in picture quality from digital devices.

8 milimeter film was used on a small scale for porn. It required in most cases that the pornographer set up his own film developing facility, as sending it to a commercial lab would mean sure incarceration. Old Reliable (David Hurles, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_ReliableZ) did that. Pornographers tended to be friends with each other — many of them fucked each other, or shared younger “models” — and there are isolated cases of shared darkrooms. (Film developing required a dafk room, which could only be illuminated with a pale red light, red being the color photographic film is least sensitive to. I had my own darkroom in high school; my parents gave me the equipment. Unfortunately, dick pics, I learned the hard way, were not of much interest to students in the early 1960s.)

A limited amount of gay porn was available in VHS, still on the home workshop level. The CD (Compact Disc), a 5" plastic disc, was first seen about 1984; with audio (music,usually) files using the storage-hog, copy-protection-free but technically simpler .wav (wave) format. The discs could be read by home computers, first on external attached devices, then built-in. This became the main format for pre-Internet pornography. Decreasing costs meant that recording capability, which first required expensive equipment, became built in to personal computers At this point user-to -user "filesharing" programs, first via discs and soon by email, USENE!T — see the chaotic http;www.asstr.org (Alt Sex stoRies) and its gay, well-maintained offshoot http:nifty.org, two of the rew venues for boylove stories.

Ihe only formats in which sold p gay pornography existed, existence definedthere being a list or caralog, advertised or circulated to small maklong lists, such as that of ''Straight to Hell'', hand-addressed inthe hundred by Boyd McDonald).s there was at least one gay pornography was sold

Video recording

2018-09-12T10:44:55Z

Wanker:

[''A full treatment of this to
Ic would be very long. ( See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=Video+recording&title=Special:Search&profile=default&fulltext=1&searchToken=dsltudxevib7ou90v33eoj7l6.)’’ What follows is the question of format as seen by the pornographer and the pornography collector. While I never produced video pornography — I am doing some small scale audio porn —my masturbation addiction, of which I’m proud, and the resources I had as a professional, meant I could buy each format of pornography as it vanquished the old. — [[User talk:Wanker]]

Home pornography was born around 1979, with the commercial launch of the home video recorder, which used cartridges of 1/2" magnetic tape in two formats, the triumphant VHS (Video Home System), and the technically superior Beta, used only by the brand Sony, which captured a significant market share., 2 inch and 3/4 inch video recorders are earlier, but they were too expensive for home use and a content industry in those formats never arose, The videodisc (12" discs) was popular in the 1990s, and for a few years it was routine for major mainstream studios to release movies in that format if they were released in VHS. It was an analocg device and could not keep up with the improvements in picture quality from digital devices.

8 milimeter film was used on a small scale for porn. It required in most cases that the pornographer set up his own film developing facility, as sending it to a commercial lab would mean sure incarceration. Old Reliable (David Hurles, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_ReliableZ) did that. Pornographers tended to be friends with each other — many of them fucked each other, or shared younger “models” — and there are isolated cases of shared darkrooms. (Film developing required a dafk room, which could only be illuminated with a pale red light, red being the color photographic film is least sensitive to. I had my own darkroom in high school; my parents gave me the equipment. Unfortunately, dick pics, I learned the hard way, were not of much interest to students in the early 1960s.)

A limited amount of gay porn was available in VHS, still on the home workshop level. The CD (Compact Disc), a 5" plastic disc, was first seen about 1984; with audio (music,usually) files using the storage-hog, copy-protection-free but technically simpler .wav (wave) format. The discs could be read by home computers, first on external attached devices, then built-in. This became the main format for pre-Internet pornography. Decreasing costs meant that recording capability, which first required expensive equipment, became built in to personal computers At this point user-to -user "filesharing" programs, first via discs and soon by email, USENE!T — see the chaotic http;www.asstr.org (Alt Sex stoRies) and its gay, well-maintained offshoot http:p

For all intents and purposes, the only formats in which sold p gay pornography existed, existence definedthere being a list or caralog, advertised or circulated to small maklong lists, such as that of ''Straight to Hell'', hand-addressed inthe hundred by Boyd McDonald).s there was at least one gay pornography was sold

Video recording

2018-09-12T10:37:56Z

Wanker:

[''A full treatment of this to
Ic would be very long. ( See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=Video+recording&title=Special:Search&profile=default&fulltext=1&searchToken=dsltudxevib7ou90v33eoj7l6.)’’ What follows is the question of format as seen by the pornographer and the pornography collector. While I never produced video pornography — I am doing some small scale audio porn —my masturbation addiction, of which I’m proud, and the resources I had as a professional, meant I could buy each format of pornography as it vanquished the old. — [[Talk:Wanker]]

Home pornography was born around 1979, with the commercial launch of the home video recorder, which used cartridges of 1/2" magnetic tape in two formats, the triumphant VHS (Video Home System), and the technically superior Beta, used only by the brand Sony, which captured a significant market share., 2 inch and 3/4 inch video recorders are earlier, but they were too expensive for home use and a content industry in those formats never arose, The videodisc (12" discs) was popular in the 1990s, and for a few years it was routine for major mainstream studios to release movies in that format if they were released in VHS. It was an analocg device and could not keep up with the improvements in picture quality from digital devices.

8 milimeter film was used on a small scale for porn. It required in most cases that the pornographer set up his own film developing facility, as sending it to a commercial lab would mean sure incarceration. Old Reliable (David Hurles, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_ReliableZ) did that. Pornographers tended to be friends with each other — many of them fucked each other, or shared younger “models” — and there are isolated cases of shared darkrooms. (Film developing required a dafk room, which could only be illuminated with a pale red light, red being the color photographic film is least sensitive to. I had my own darkroom in high school; my parents gave me the equipment. Unfortunately, dick pics, I learned the hard way, were not of much interest to students in the early 1960s.)

A limited amount of gay porn was available in VHS, still on the home workshop level. The CD (Compact Disc), a 5" plastic disc, was first seen about 1984; with audio (music,usually) files using the storage-hog, copy-protection-free but technically simpler .wav (wave) format. The discs could be read by home computers, first on external attached devices, then builtin. This became the main format for pre-Internet pornography. Decreasing costs meant that recording capability, which first required expensive equipment, became built in

For all intents and purposes, the only formats in which sold p gay pornography existed, existence definedthere being a list or caralog, advertised or circulated to small maklong lists, such as that of ''Straight to Hell'', hand-addressed inthe hundred by Boyd McDonald).s there was at least one gay pornography was sold

Video recording

2018-09-12T10:12:56Z

Wanker:

Video recording

2018-09-12T10:08:46Z

Wanker:

Video recording

2018-09-12T10:06:43Z

Wanker: