WPA2 hack: How secure is your Wi-Fi?
Whilst I abhor the subject matter and agree that everything should be done to limit the ability of people to view this vile material, I am not convinced that this is the best way to go about it.
There is a chance that credit card staff will make comments to non-employees, thus breaching the act. This could snowball into wrongful identifiation of innocents and the associated fall-out.
I think a more appropriate method would be for the courts to pass judgement on this in an open manner.
My other concern stems from what crime do we include next?? Do we say murderers and rapists cant use a credit card because they may buy a weapon to attack people?? The ultimate conspiracy theory would be that you could eventually be in a situation where the state decides everything you can do, say etc and if you disagree then they cut off your access to money etc, thus making your life hell.
I appreciate that some forum members do not think this will happen, but it is very easy to justify anything on generally accepted abhorrent crimes and then slowly expand it to cover other aspects of peoples lives.
I am not a great believer in banning anything on the whim of a politician, but would rather an open an honest record of the reasons were made. Each situation is different and this needs to be recognised.
it's a priviledge, one which carries with it certain responsibilities. One of those is that you shouldn't use the card for illegal purposes, and downloading pornographic images of children is a criminal offence. If you do it, you have no right to expect a card company to maintain your credit status.
The change in the law is a good one, and the small risk that a card comany employee might blab to a third party is worth taking. I couldn't care less about the feelings of people who revel in child pornography.
While I agree with your logic it still leaves open the question of what next.
Politicians do not have a good reputation when it comes to keeping their word. If some pressure group becomes vocal enough then a politician is likely to say that the principle of passing on information has been established and can therefore be extended to something else.
How would you feel if the insurance companies were to be informed if you were caught breaking the speed limit, found guilty of driving under the influence of alcohol or even just for having a defective light on your car. All of these could be argued as acceptible reasons for loading your insurance premium.
Also consider how long after conviction should the information be supplied. It seems that almost every conviction is followed by an appeal these days. Should we wait until all the legal processes have been exhausted or send out the information immediately?
1. Politicians may say what they like - draft legislation will not become law that easily.
2. You are already legally obliged to inform your insurers if you are convicted of a motoring offence, and with the possible exception of the defective light your examples are all valid reasons for loading a insurance premium.
3. No information can be passed to a third party unless you are convicted - you're presumed innocent until then. If you are given leave to appeal the conviction the information must not be passed unless the appeal fails. If you appeal the sentence then the conviction would obviously be unaffected - the information can be passed.
Unfortunately, I can only see, as with so many other "knee-jerk" laws, that it will be utterly ineffectual, and have unforeseen consequences.
Anyone who might have a mind to make such transactions with a credit card only has to ensure that the billing is untraceable. Is there any doubt that this would happen?
I'm dead against child pornography - AND - pointless laws.
one of the ways that authorities use to catch these low lifes is by using so called sting operations with fake websites, identifying people by their credit cards. A good example is operation orr, some details of which can be found here
If they still have cards they may be tempred to use them online, thus (hopefully) providing at least an electronic trail of their wrongdoing. I realise that some may view this as slim, but I'm in favour of anything that helps identify these scum.
Once a person commits that sort of crime then they dont deserve any sort of sympathy. Im a father and i know what i would like to do with them.
Ref. the original post, there is no "best way to go about it." I have absolutely no problems with the suggested legislation. The potential benefits, IMHO, greatly outweigh the possible inconveniences.
This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.