Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.python > #99809 > unrolled thread

Re: Is Microsoft Windows secretly downloading childporn to your computer ?!

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.python

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: Is Microsoft Windows secretly downloading childporn to your computer ?! Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> - 2015-12-01 20:49 +0200
    Re: "Downloading" Random832 <random832@fastmail.com> - 2015-12-01 19:05 +0000
      Re: "Downloading" Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2015-12-02 10:46 +1100
        Re: "Downloading" Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2015-12-02 10:56 +1100
    Re: Is Microsoft Windows secretly downloading childporn to your computer ?! Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-12-01 11:11 -0800
    Re: Is Microsoft Windows secretly downloading childporn to your computer ?! Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2015-12-01 14:19 -0600
    Re: "Downloading" Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2015-12-02 10:05 +1100
      Re: "Downloading" Grant Edwards <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2015-12-02 15:15 +0000
        Re: "Downloading" Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2015-12-02 18:37 +0200
          Re: "Downloading" Emile van Sebille <emile@fenx.com> - 2015-12-02 12:10 -0800
    Re: "Downloading" Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2015-12-01 17:28 -0600
    Re: "Downloading" Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2015-12-02 10:32 +1100
    Re: "Downloading" Erik <python@lucidity.plus.com> - 2015-12-01 23:37 +0000
    Re: Is Microsoft Windows secretly downloading childporn to your computer ?! "Skybuck Flying" <skybuck2000@hotmail.com> - 2015-12-02 01:22 +0100
    Re: Is Microsoft Windows secretly downloading childporn to your computer ?! Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2015-12-02 08:57 +0000
      Re: Is Microsoft Windows secretly downloading childporn to your computer ?! Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-12-02 09:42 +0000
        Re: Is Microsoft Windows secretly downloading childporn to your computer ?! Grant Edwards <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2015-12-02 15:20 +0000
          Re: Is Microsoft Windows secretly downloading childporn to your computer ?! Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> - 2015-12-03 06:21 +0200
            Re: Is Microsoft Windows secretly downloading childporn to your computer ?! Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> - 2015-12-03 07:43 +0200
      Re: Is Microsoft Windows secretly downloading childporn to your computer ?! Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2015-12-02 04:09 -0600
        Re: Is Microsoft Windows secretly downloading childporn to your computer ?! Grant Edwards <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2015-12-02 15:20 +0000
      Re: Is Microsoft Windows secretly downloading childporn to your computer ?! Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-12-02 08:36 -0800
        Re: Is Microsoft Windows secretly downloading childporn to your computer ?! Laura Creighton <lac@openend.se> - 2015-12-02 17:53 +0100
        Re: Is <someone> secretly downloading <some stuff> to your computer ?! Rob Hills <rhills@medimorphosis.com.au> - 2015-12-03 01:00 +0800
        Re: Is Microsoft Windows secretly downloading childporn to your computer ?! Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2015-12-02 11:32 -0600
          Re: stuff and nonsense Denis McMahon <denismfmcmahon@gmail.com> - 2015-12-02 22:51 +0000
            Re: stuff and nonsense Laura Creighton <lac@openend.se> - 2015-12-03 01:46 +0100
              Re: stuff and nonsense Denis McMahon <denismfmcmahon@gmail.com> - 2015-12-03 01:28 +0000
            Re: stuff and nonsense Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-12-03 07:37 -0500
      Re: Is Microsoft Windows secretly downloading childporn to your computer ?! Chris in Makati <mail@nospam.com> - 2015-12-03 14:24 +0800
        Re: Is Microsoft Windows secretly downloading childporn to your computer ?! David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-12-03 10:00 +0100
          Re: Is Microsoft Windows secretly downloading childporn to your computer ?! Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2015-12-03 20:11 +1100
        Re: Is Microsoft Windows secretly downloading childporn to your computer ?! Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2015-12-03 09:16 +0000
          Re: Is Microsoft Windows secretly downloading childporn to your computer ?! Chris in Makati <mail@nospam.com> - 2015-12-04 11:22 +0800

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#99894

On 2015-12-02, Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> wrote:
> Juha Nieminen wrote:
>> In comp.lang.c++ Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>>> You download things FROM a computer, you upload them TO a computer.
>>
>> It's a matter of perspective. If a hacker breaks into your computer and
>> starts a download from somewhere else into your computer, isn't the hacker
>> "downloading" things to your computer?
>>
>> --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news@netfront.net ---
>>
>
> Down is towards an end node; up is towards the backbone. Servers live
> closer to the backbone. Usually. Or rather did when the nomenclature
> was forged.

Exactly!  Thats the usage I've been used to for the past 30 years.

-- 
Grant Edwards               grant.b.edwards        Yow! I'm pretending that
                                  at               we're all watching PHIL
                              gmail.com            SILVERS instead of RICARDO
                                                   MONTALBAN!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#99898

Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> writes:
> In comp.lang.c++ Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>> You download things FROM a computer, you upload them TO a computer.
>
> It's a matter of perspective. If a hacker breaks into your computer and
> starts a download from somewhere else into your computer, isn't the hacker
> "downloading" things to your computer?

My understanding of the word "downloading" has always been STOP FEEDING
THE TROLL!

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org  <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Working, but not speaking, for JetHead Development, Inc.
"We must do something.  This is something.  Therefore, we must do this."
    -- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#99900

In a message of Wed, 02 Dec 2015 08:36:24 -0800, Keith Thompson writes:

>"We must do something.  This is something.  Therefore, we must do this."
>    -- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"

This is one of my favourite quotes of all time.  Unfortunately, you
have it slightly wrong.  The quote is:
Something must be done.  This is something.  Therefore we must do it.

cheers!
Laura

https://www.google.se/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjZvrXl0L3JAhVmJHIKHTBjCugQtwIIIjAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3Dtrw1PbQt_Yo&usg=AFQjCNHEKrgju4vVOH_hmwnbn0zAWU0aEg&sig2=VwmILBUKi-vz7YCA5k_0ew

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#99901 — Re: Is <someone> secretly downloading <some stuff> to your computer ?!

On 03/12/15 00:53, Laura Creighton wrote:

> This is one of my favourite quotes of all time.  Unfortunately, you
> have it slightly wrong.  The quote is:
> Something must be done.  This is something.  Therefore we must do it.

I wish people would check their email subjects before replying to this
thread.  I suspect part of the OP's intent is to have his assertion
generate lots of traffic, all repeating the assertion via their subject
heading...

Unless of course you actually agree with his assertion!

Cheers,

-- 
Rob Hills
Waikiki, Western Australia

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#99903

On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 10:36 AM, Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> wrote:
> Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> writes:
>> In comp.lang.c++ Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>>> You download things FROM a computer, you upload them TO a computer.
>>
>> It's a matter of perspective. If a hacker breaks into your computer and
>> starts a download from somewhere else into your computer, isn't the hacker
>> "downloading" things to your computer?
>
> My understanding of the word "downloading" has always been STOP FEEDING
> THE TROLL!

In what way is discussion of a tangential topic feeding the troll?
Said troll is not even participating in the discussion.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#99916 — Re: stuff and nonsense

On Wed, 02 Dec 2015 11:32:25 -0600, Ian Kelly wrote:

> In what way is discussion of a tangential topic feeding the troll? Said
> troll is not even participating in the discussion.

Reposting / responding / following up with the original subject boosts 
the visibility of the subject to internet search engines because of the 
way newsgroups get gated to websites.

-- 
Denis McMahon, denismfmcmahon@gmail.com

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#99924 — Re: stuff and nonsense

In a message of Wed, 02 Dec 2015 22:51:13 +0000, Denis McMahon writes:
>On Wed, 02 Dec 2015 11:32:25 -0600, Ian Kelly wrote:
>
>> In what way is discussion of a tangential topic feeding the troll? Said
>> troll is not even participating in the discussion.
>
>Reposting / responding / following up with the original subject boosts 
>the visibility of the subject to internet search engines because of the 
>way newsgroups get gated to websites.
>
>-- 
>Denis McMahon, denismfmcmahon@gmail.com

That is not what I was told.  I was told that these days it is all
done by References: lines.  Thus changing the Subject no longer has
this effect.  Wrong?

Laura

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#99927 — Re: stuff and nonsense

On Thu, 03 Dec 2015 01:46:44 +0100, Laura Creighton wrote:

> In a message of Wed, 02 Dec 2015 22:51:13 +0000, Denis McMahon writes:
>>On Wed, 02 Dec 2015 11:32:25 -0600, Ian Kelly wrote:
>>
>>> In what way is discussion of a tangential topic feeding the troll?
>>> Said troll is not even participating in the discussion.
>>
>>Reposting / responding / following up with the original subject boosts
>>the visibility of the subject to internet search engines because of the
>>way newsgroups get gated to websites.

> That is not what I was told.  I was told that these days it is all done
> by References: lines.  Thus changing the Subject no longer has this
> effect.  Wrong?

Hmm, not sure on that bone, I heard that more instances of a phrase being 
found (eg in forums where a web page includes the subject in each 
message) helped increase the visibility of the phrase in some way, but I 
don't profess to understand how search engines score stuff, and I'm 
fairly sure few people do to be honest.

And what I heard might no longer be true if it ever was to be honest.

-- 
Denis McMahon, denismfmcmahon@gmail.com

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#99957 — Re: stuff and nonsense

On Thu, 03 Dec 2015 01:46:44 +0100, Laura Creighton <lac@openend.se>
declaimed the following:

>In a message of Wed, 02 Dec 2015 22:51:13 +0000, Denis McMahon writes:
>>On Wed, 02 Dec 2015 11:32:25 -0600, Ian Kelly wrote:
>>
>>> In what way is discussion of a tangential topic feeding the troll? Said
>>> troll is not even participating in the discussion.
>>
>>Reposting / responding / following up with the original subject boosts 
>>the visibility of the subject to internet search engines because of the 
>>way newsgroups get gated to websites.
>>
>>-- 
>>Denis McMahon, denismfmcmahon@gmail.com
>
>That is not what I was told.  I was told that these days it is all
>done by References: lines.  Thus changing the Subject no longer has
>this effect.  Wrong?
>
	Reference lines may control threading of, but when it comes to a search
engine indexing operation, I'd expect it to weight the index by how often
terms show up... When was the last time you searched for something by a
unique reference header value -- for example: <n3nsl0$u4e$4@dont-email.me>
(which was the post to which you responded, I believe).

	Forte Agent may use reference lines to thread -- but (at least mine) is
also configured to create a new thread if the subject line changes
(ignoring the "re:" prefix).
-- 
	Wulfraed                 Dennis Lee Bieber         AF6VN
    wlfraed@ix.netcom.com    HTTP://wlfraed.home.netcom.com/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#99933

On Wed, 2 Dec 2015 08:57:44 +0000 (UTC), Juha Nieminen
<nospam@thanks.invalid> wrote:

>In comp.lang.c++ Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>> You download things FROM a computer, you upload them TO a computer.
>
>It's a matter of perspective. If a hacker breaks into your computer and
>starts a download from somewhere else into your computer, isn't the hacker
>"downloading" things to your computer?

Does it matter? As far as the law is concerned, it is possession of
child porn that's illegal. How it got there is irrelevant.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#99941

On 03/12/15 07:24, Chris in Makati wrote:
> On Wed, 2 Dec 2015 08:57:44 +0000 (UTC), Juha Nieminen
> <nospam@thanks.invalid> wrote:
> 
>> In comp.lang.c++ Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>>> You download things FROM a computer, you upload them TO a computer.
>>
>> It's a matter of perspective. If a hacker breaks into your computer and
>> starts a download from somewhere else into your computer, isn't the hacker
>> "downloading" things to your computer?
> 
> Does it matter? As far as the law is concerned, it is possession of
> child porn that's illegal. How it got there is irrelevant.
> 

You are posting to a wide range of international newsgroups (with this
thread being way off-topic for all of them...).  It makes no sense to
talk about "the law", because this is not something covered by
/international/ law.

What counts as "child porn", what counts as "possession", how relevant
intention, knowledge, etc., is, varies enormously from country to
country.  Even if the OP is telling the truth (and if Skybuck said that
grass is green, I'd recommend going outside to check), and he gets
caught with this stuff on his machine, punishments can vary from "it's
fine as long as you don't distribute it" to "25 years for each picture,
to be served consecutively".

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#99944

On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 8:00 PM, David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
> Even if the OP is telling the truth (and if Skybuck said that
> grass is green, I'd recommend going outside to check)

Here in Australia, we're coming up on summer, so grass is more likely
to be yellowish-brown. Definitely don't believe people who claim it's
green.

ChrisA

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#99945

In comp.lang.c++ Chris in Makati <mail@nospam.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 2 Dec 2015 08:57:44 +0000 (UTC), Juha Nieminen
> <nospam@thanks.invalid> wrote:
> 
>>In comp.lang.c++ Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>>> You download things FROM a computer, you upload them TO a computer.
>>
>>It's a matter of perspective. If a hacker breaks into your computer and
>>starts a download from somewhere else into your computer, isn't the hacker
>>"downloading" things to your computer?
> 
> Does it matter? As far as the law is concerned, it is possession of
> child porn that's illegal. How it got there is irrelevant.

Most judiciary systems are not robots following a narrow set of instructions.
If they determine that it wasn't your fault, they will not punish the
innocent.

Besides, how would they even know what's in your computer?

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news@netfront.net ---

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#99992

On Thu, 3 Dec 2015 09:16:32 +0000 (UTC), Juha Nieminen
<nospam@thanks.invalid> wrote:

>In comp.lang.c++ Chris in Makati <mail@nospam.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 2 Dec 2015 08:57:44 +0000 (UTC), Juha Nieminen
>> <nospam@thanks.invalid> wrote:
>> 
>>>In comp.lang.c++ Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>>>> You download things FROM a computer, you upload them TO a computer.
>>>
>>>It's a matter of perspective. If a hacker breaks into your computer and
>>>starts a download from somewhere else into your computer, isn't the hacker
>>>"downloading" things to your computer?
>> 
>> Does it matter? As far as the law is concerned, it is possession of
>> child porn that's illegal. How it got there is irrelevant.
>
>Most judiciary systems are not robots following a narrow set of instructions.
>If they determine that it wasn't your fault, they will not punish the
>innocent.
>
>Besides, how would they even know what's in your computer?

If you do a Google search for <child porn arrested> you will find
literally thousands of cases where raids have taken place and people
have been found with this material on their computers.

In many of these cases the authorities have traced the IP addresses of
people whose computers have made connections to known sites that host
child porn. It's no use trying to claim that a bot you weren't aware
of downloaded it without your knowledge. If you could get off the hook
that easily everybody who was interested in the stuff would
deliberately install such a bot and use that as an excuse.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.python

csiph-web