(no subject)

[ramtops]

from BBC news, Police to monitor net chat rooms - which I rather thought they did already ..

but what caught my eye was this:

"He says the police are also stepping up efforts to persuade banks to withdraw credit cards from people who use them to pay for child pornography on websites."

is it just me who thinks this is just *wrong* ?

Comments

[sheepthief.livejournal.com]

I thing it's wrong on several levels. First of all it's unethical. Secondly it's the thin end of the wedge. But thirdly, and most importantly, this will not stop people, but it will remove a means of traceability and proof, which is pretty bloody stupid.

[syllopsium.livejournal.com]

Of course it's wrong - people should be prosecuted if they pay for that sort of stuff.

Sounds like PR crap to me 'A symbol may appear on computer screens to let chatroom users know that they are being overheard.' - so, a limited number of chatrooms (any betting it will be AOL only?), no IRC etc.

I still think an awful lot could be done to protect children via simple things such as keyword scanning on instant messenger programs, etc.

[ajshepherd.livejournal.com]

I just feel sorry for the poor sods who have to monitor the chat rooms. Imagine having to put up with all that poor spelling and atrocious grammar!

[latexiron.livejournal.com]

I think it's wrong.

You should either get a conviction, and put the person in jail, or they are innocent and therefore you have no right to persecute them.

Another thing I object to is the "Sex Offenders Register", and here is why... If that person is still a threat to society, then they should still be locked up. If they are not, then I don't think there is a basis for continuing to persecute them.

What are we going to have next? A "burglars register" where anyone who has ever been convicted of a burglary has their mugshot and details of the offences so that potential employers and neighbours can check?

It's the same principle:

"I have a small child, so I need to know if there are any people in the area who might be a threat to that child even if the government deems that they need not be locked up"

... or ...

"I have a nice house with nice things in it, so I need to know if there are any people in the area who might be a threat to those items even if the government deems that they need not be locked up"

[easterbunny.livejournal.com]

I heard a bit on that in Woman's Hour last week. A woman representing a card fraud division of a bank (I think) pointed out that the purchase of child pornography doesn't exactly show up on a bank statement as "Child Pornography Inc.", and is much more likely to be hidden as a florist, music downloads, online books, etc. Not to mention that every online store I've ever seen just says "We accept Visa / Mastercard", not "We accept the WWF Mastercard from the Weston-Super-Mare Lloyds TSB". Even if yanking the card was a good idea (which I don't think it is), why should it be the responsibility of the bank and not Mastercard? Given how much junk mail I get congratulating me that I Have Been Approved, I hardly think that the loss of a single credit card would stop someone from using another one. As others have pointed out, conviction and jail should be the result of a felony.