Facebook & 10 Years in Prison...

Cafe World and all those other games on Facebook are addictive, no doubt. However, I am not sure that they are that addictive that I would be even slightly tempted to leave a 13-month old baby in the bath by themselves while I go and cook some cakes or harvest a few crops in Farmville or even have a few 1-minute rounds of Bejeweled Blitz.

Shannon Johnson of Fort Lupton in northern Colorado was sentenced to 10 years in jail for allowing her 13-month old son to drown in the bath while she played Cafe World and check her status updates.

According to Johnson she wanted her son, Joseph, to be an independent baby and not be a "mama's boy". Also Johnson claims to have been traumatised as a child from constantly being told "no". Therefore, she was committed to never saying no to her own child. And, subsequently Johnson was claiming that little Joseph himself asked to be left alone in the bath.

Sadly, Johnson had been warned of the dangers of leaving an infant in the bath by themselves. This warning came from Johnson's own mother, but the advice was ignored and tragically it was little Joseph that paid the ultimate price.

The point of this post is not to bang on about Facebook or Mark Zuckerberg being ultimately responsible for Joseph's death because they facilitated Johnson's addiction. To the contrary, it is really about parenting and what constitutes good parenting and how we learn to be good parents. I have been wondering how, as parents, we learn to find that balance between allowing our children their independence and protecting them from the dangers that surround them?

The learning curve is steep.

Talk Of The Town -- The Colli Crew...

I have only been teaching for a short period of time at Collarenebri Central School. However, in a term I have had the opportunity to be involved in many great projects and activities. One of the proudest and most enjoyable moments has been the "raps" that the Colli Crew have been making with the expert assistance of Toby Finlayson of Desert Pea Media and the dedicated staff of the school.

I have included the link her and embedded the video for your ease. However, please clink on the link and go to the You Tube video and watch it there as often as you like. Here is the video.



This is destined to be "our" best rap yet. The reasons are simple: the message is real and it is timely.

On a personal level, it has been very rewarding to see these young people come out of their shells and commit themselves to something that is so much bigger than themselves. It has been fantastic to see how these young people have responded to the internet / YouTube fame that they have encountered. It was, and is, rewarding to watch these young people grow and develop as they start to realise that the world is there and opening up before them.

Superb effort and my whole-hearted congratulations to all those involved.

I am proud to have been associated with the project.

Facebook, Cafe World, and Addiction...

This is a truly sad story. A mother, Shannon Johnson, in Colorado has admitted to police that she was busy playing Cafe World on Facebook, checking out her news feed, and sharing a few online videos while her one-year-old son was drowning in the bath.

According to Johnson's confession, her son was in the bath for a total of ten minutes, and she checked on him once. Then, when she did not hear any sounds coming from the bathroom she thought she better check again. When she did, she found her son with his face submerged. After that the confession to police gets a little weird. When the police asked her why she would leave her one-year-old in the bath by himself, she reportedly said she:

"didn't want him to be known as a mama's boy."

On a personal level, I find it hard to comprehend. Perhaps I am over-protective or something, but there is no way that Will, even at two-years-old, stays in the bath by himself while I go off to check my email or make a cup of tea or whatever.

Then again, maybe this story says something about the "dangers" of a technology addiction, in this case to Facebook and Cafe World. Just like any other addiction, it has a way of messing with one's priorities and skewing the understanding of what is important.

When one thinks of internet game addictions you normally think of children spending hours or days non-stop on games like "World of Warcraft" (or whatever it is that is popular now). However, it would seem that it is not only children that suffer from this.

In South Korea a couple was found guilty of starving their baby to death. What was truly bizarre in that case was that the couple were raising a virtual child in a video game and doing a reasonable job at it.

I wonder if this is going to become an increasing more acute and severe problem in the future? And, assuming that it is, I wonder how governments are going to deal with internet addiction? Legislation? Counselling?

The mind boggles.

Heidi: 15 Minutes of Opossum Fame...

The internet and social networking media is a powerful tool and a revealing insight into what makes us tick as human beings. Heidi the cross-eyed opossum is an excellent example of both this power and insight.

Heidi is an opossum. She is 2.5 years old. Her claim to fame is that she is cross-eyed and incredibly cute and cuddly.

She also has a Facebook page with 80,000 fans, a YouTube song, and soon a plush toy replica of herself. Heidi and her sister Naira came from a zoo in Denmark and are soon to be the resident attractions at the Leipzig zoo in Germany.

Heidi is to be the main draw in a tropical exhibit that the Leipzig zoo is opening in July. In essence, Heidi's fame is peaking way before the exhibit actually opens and people, or is that "fans", get to see her in the flesh.

So, if one can harness the power of the internet and social media for an opossum, I wonder what you could do for the promotion of an out-of-left-field political candidate, say in the 2014 Indonesian presidential election (after all, it worked for now President Obama in the US, right?)

You have to admit, she is really cute...

Telkomsel and Excelcomindo Get on Board the TitS Bandwagon...

In a victory for ignorance and stupidity, Telkomsel and Excelcomindo have decided to jump on board the TitS Express to "Insanityville". TitS has been waging a "War Against Porn". The main thrust of his current strategy is to shut down access to any site or material that he determines is offensive and undermines the morals of the Republic of Indonesia. So, Research In Motion (RIM), the makers of BlackBerry Smartphones, is now in his sites.

The Minister for [Mis]Information and [Mis]Communication (photo caption: "nah, I am right-handed and I start like this!") has decided that RIM has two weeks to shut down access to all pornographic sites. Here is my confusion as I sit down typing away while looking at my new mobile phone. I am wondering who is responsible for blocking porn content on my phone if Australia ever gets to the point that Indonesia is at now with TitS? My phone is a HTC and my service is provided by Telstra's Next G network. So, is HTC responsible for blocking porn content that may be accessed through my mobile phone or is that the responsibility of my service provider Telstra?

I would have figured that Telstra would have had to have been the responsible party in this instance. So, if that is the science of the matter then why is TitS so adamant in his pursuit of RIM and their BlackBerry Smartphones? I am no techno wizard, so feel free to jump in and comment.

I wonder if the real issue is not one of nationalisation through creative and novel interpretation of the prevailing laws and regulations, specifically the Pornography and ITE Laws.

I am sure I will get back to TitS and his RIM obsession in the future. Although, the mind boggles, where to from here Mr TitS, porn for the sight-challenged (blind in less politically correct terminology)?

Ted Williams: The Voice of the Homeless?

The power of the internet and social networking media is amazing and life-changing in many cases. Sometimes this is a bad thing, but there are those occasions where it is a good thing. One would hope that the story of Ted Williams turns out to be one of those good ones.



If you feel the need to learn more about Ted Williams and his story then start here or here.

In a nutshell, and from what I can tell, Ted Williams was a radio announcer in his younger years. He fell on hard times as a result of alcohol and drugs and a few "other things". He ended up homeless and panhandling out in Ohio on the I-71, and from there, the rest is history as they say.

Let's hope that the second chance Ted Williams finds himself with is one that he grasps with both hands. There is surely a powerful message of hope and perseverance in this story that bad things happen but good things can happen too.

If nothing else, you would have to agree, it is an amazing gift that he has. His voice is just so engaging.

Groupon Says No to USD 6 Billion...

I am not sure that many people would have the testicular fortitude to say "no" to Google and USD 6 billion. However, the founder of Groupon, Andrew Mason, has apparently done just that. Groupon is an online coupon site that has reportedly reached a very impressive 35 million users. Simply, that many daily users is going to be of interest to Google as it looks to crush its competitors and to beat its way into more spaces in the online world.

Mason has allegedly turned down Google's offer because he was not comfortable with what was going to happen to Groupon post-acquisition, particularly the direction that the company would take and what would happen to Groupon people. So, rather than take the plunge, Mason told Google to go away. This is probably not the end of the deal, but it would seem that Mason is now holding all the cards, or at least the best hand by some way.

Google and, the CEO, Eric Schmidt are going to have to part with a little bit more of the reportedly USD 33.4 billion in cash that they have on hand for acquisitions. It would also seem reasonable to suggest that Mason requires a few other assurances from Google if this deal is to be re-started and concluded. This is a distinct possibility because the numbers game so far suggests that Google was prepared to go all out to get Groupon. The USD 6 billion offer, combined with the supposed incentives factored into the deal, meant that the Groupon acquisition was set to double the previously Google record for an acquisition of USD 3.2 billion for DoubleClick.

Nevertheless, the cards will not remain in Groupon's favour forever as other imitators will undoubtedly rise from the internet coupon dust. Google may opt to throw cash at a coupon start-up if it cannot convince Groupon to sign off on the acquisition. Yet, even Google must realise that Groupon is the best alternative with respect to immediate growth potential. A start-up is always a much more risky proposition, particularly when Groupon is reporting that with projected growth this year it is expecting sales of some USD 500 million.

This might be one worth watching as it Groupon seems like it is willing to go the IPO route if an acquisition is not finalised. However, even if an acquisition is finalised, it is not a done deal because there are plenty of concerns about whether this deal would be bad for consumers. US regulators are sure to run the critical eye over the deal.

I am wondering whether I would have had the testicular fortitude to say no to USD 6 billion. Then again, I would not know how to start spending it once I had it. There are only so many things once can conceivably buy and enjoy, right?

"History Sniffing"...

History sniffing is the art of tracking where people have been on the internet. Essentially, it is to help advertisers target very specific advertisements to very specific people. However, it seems that it happens most obviously with porn sites which kinds of makes the the whole idea of 'history sniffing' sound a little dirty. Yet, the biggest problem is that this kind of snooping is really tantamount to an invasion of privacy. It is an invasion of privacy because you, the internet surfer, has not consented to your data being collected in this manner nor have you consented for it to be collected for this purpose.

Nevertheless, it would be unfair to label this as exclusively a porn site thing. It is clearly not. The data being harvested can be done through a visit to a news site, while you are doing your internet banking, or if you are visiting a porn site for the purposes of research. Some of the biggest 'offenders' based on the research / survey data was Morningstar.com and Newsmax.com. Morningstar is a financial services website and Newsmax is a news website. For example, a recent survey, conducted by the University of California at San Diego, found that most internet search browsers allow for history sniffing to continue unabated.

However, the report based on this survey also found that the more recent versions of Google Chrome prevented history sniffing from occurring. Also Apple's latest versions of Safari do not allow history sniffing to take place. Microsoft's Internet Explorer does not yet prevent history sniffing from happening although the next version will, yet will come at a price as it will seemingly disable other useful features such as allowing your computer to recognise where you have been previously. The other popular browser that continues to allow history sniffing is Mozilla Corp's Firefox.

I am currently using the latest version of Google Chrome, so with a bit of luck I am not currently susceptible to history sniffing.

It is worth noting that one's passwords are not at risk here. This technology is not being used to harvest passwords or any other personal data except for where you have been. It really is about following your trail and then modifying advertising to give you, the "consumer", the most personalised service possible.

It is also worth noting that it might not matter too much longer with respect to what internet browsers in conjunction with advertisers want as US regulators are looking at requiring the use of a "Do Not Track" tool that is designed for no other reason than to stop advertisers from tracking specific individuals in order to target them with equally specific internet bargains.

I am no techno wizard so I am never sure whether this data even know it is stated that it is being used only for advertising purposes cannot be worked to develop a comprehensive profile of one's habits. Perhaps it is better to err on the side of caution if doing things that may be misconstrued if they were to ever become publicly available.

Hmmm...

"Crush Videos" -- Banned in the US...

The "Internet!" The mention of one word, "internet", can inspire such varied and passionate reactions in people. These reactions stream along a curve from the positive to the negative. The internet is a wonderful resource. Yet, it is also a place where there is much to be found that highlights the darkness and depravity that makes some of us tick. Crush videos are one of those things that hide out in the deepest and darkest recesses of our existence.

The US Senate voted unanimously to ban the creation, sale and distribution of crush videos. For some of you, this might be the first time you have ever heard of the term crush videos. You are also wondering "what the hell is he talking about?" A crush video, to all of you reading this who have lived very sheltered and protected lives, are sexual fetish films in which small animals are maimed and killed. It is probably worth noting that the law does not cover "cruelty" to small animals that fall victim to hunters or who might suffer in the care of veterinarians.

If you are anything like me, then you are having a hard time getting your head around the idea that there is anything sexual in the maiming and killing of small animals. Then again, I have always wondered what it is that makes a seemingly super-ordinary person a serial killer? For me, the what makes them "tick" aspect of it all.

I really do not have any problem with parliament getting involved in this way. I have absolutely no problem with crush videos being banned. I do not see the banning of these sorts of videos as an impingement on the freedom of speech of those who make them or those who want to watch them. I would reckon that in this day and age of modern technology there would have to be a way to satisfy this sexual fetish 'virtually'.

Yet, come to think of it, it would not take a whole lot to ban virtual sexual fetishes either. The law as it was passed seems to provide a free pass to virtual content as the wording goes something like this: "actual conduct in which one or more living animal is intentionally crushed, burned, drowned, suffocated, or impaled in a manner that would violate a criminal prohibition on cruelty to animals".

Digressing a little, has a crime been committed against a person, a child, in a virtual child porn, operation? I have been watching too much "Law & Order: SVU" of late.

Back on track, and back to the internet. The internet is a vast resource if you know how to look for certain things or if you are looking for specific content. To be honest, I have not ever looked for crush videos. To be equally honest, I have not studied sexual fetishes that closely to know that there was even a sexual fetish that involved cruelty to animals.

Nevertheless, the truth of the matter, these videos have traditionally been distributed for free utilising file-sharing peer-to-peer networks. The internet and ever-improving connection speeds have ensured that the ability to disseminate and distribute content has become much easier.

As context to why the US Senate had to pass a law on this sort of material arises from a US Supreme Court decision from this past April that declared an earlier 1999 law that criminalised videos that showed abuse and cruelty to animals to be unconstitutional. The 'unconstitutional-ness" of the 1999 law stems from the fact that SCOTUS held that the original law was too broad and therefore a violation of people's First Amendment rights to free speech.

Free speech vs. the right to life of some small defenseless creatures...hmmm, consider the animals for a moment and let's stop the crush!

What The F**K Has Obama Done So Far?

You might not know it, but the website "What the fuck has Obama done so far?" is pro-Obama. Funnily enough, there is a PG version called "What the heck has Obama done so far?"

The website lists the accomplishments of the Obama Administration to-date. The video comes from The Last Word. The article I found at The Huffington Post.

I guess that with Obama doing a swing though this part of the world I am paying a little more attention to all-things Obama. Besides, I kind of appreciate the sense of humour that this site exhibits. Then again, I am also impressed that the site has only been up and running for a week and has already had over four million hits. My blog has been up and running for much longer than that and I have only just gone over 400,000 hits. Maybe I should change the name of my blog :)

Sexting...

The internet is a wonderful knowledge tool. The internet is also a place where harm and the potential of harm is ever present. Technology such as mobile phones are also excellent pieces of equipment that allow us to access and share knowledge. Modern mobile phones and instant sound and image communication devices that not only make us more productive, but have the potential to get us into serious trouble.

This is one such case on the serious trouble front.

Sexting is a serious problem. It is a serious problem because of the immediate harm it can do to those involved. It is a serious problem because after the immediate harm there is ongoing and long term harm that must be endured by those involved. Mobile phones link so easily into the internet now days that an image sent from one phone to another can be quickly uploaded to the internet. People need to realise that once an image is online, it is almost impossible for it to 'disappear'. What goes online, stays online...forever!

So, if you send or post a naked picture of yourself, then make sure it is something you will be happy to see when it comes back to haunt you in the future.

Now, that takes care of the sermon angle.

Onto the news.

A young man, Damien Eades, thought he had avoided any serious consequences from his part in soliciting a 13-year-old to post him naked images of herself. For Eades this might have been a little presumptuous. He is now set down to be the first Australian to stand trial in a sexting case.

In March of 2008, an 18-year-old Eades was employed at KFC. He sent the picture to a 13-year-old girl with the message "you like?" Aside from the fact that he is 18 and she is 13, what happens at KFC that employees have time to take off their shirts and pose for a few photos and then start sending them off to people? What ever happened to preparing and cooking chicken?

Anyways, after establishing that the 13-year-old "liked" what she saw, Eades for some reason thought it would be a good idea if she returned the favour, but by sending a shot of her 'bottom half'. The girl agreed and ended up sending a full-frontal nude shot of herself to Eades.

The story might have ended there, except for a rather vigilant father who thought it necessary to check out his daughter's phone. When Dad discovered the messages, it was on the phone to the police.

The case originally went to the Penrith Local Court and was dismissed. It would seem that the magistrate did not think that the charges against Eades, incitement of a person under 16 to commit an act of indecency and possession of child pornography, were worth pursuing at trial.

However, the Director of Public Prosecution was far from satisfied with that outcome and decided to appeal. The appeal was heard by Justice Greg James of the Supreme Court. Justice James agreed with the Director and sent the case back to the local court for trial. According to Justice James, the sexual content of the electronic transaction warranted a trial.


Eades might not be so lucky the second time around.

Fail Blog?

The internet is a place of some truly weird and fascinating stuff. It is also home to some real nasty stuff as well. But, I had never heard of this site until today, failblog.org. Yet, if you are looking to lighten up your day then this might be a place to visit in order to see how the other half lives...

Photoshop? Anyone?


see more funny videos

Well, now back to work!

The Birds & The Bees...

Life used to be so much more simple when the conversation was really only about when to have that "talk". You know, the one about the birds and the bees. However, the conversation is no longer a conversation hut a fully-fledged debate, and perhaps rightly so. There has been an increasing trend, courtesy of the internet, for our children and their youth to be tested by the bounds of what is 'right'.

Some of the more interesting debate centres on child stars as they grow into adulthood and begin testing the waters with respect to finding themselves, finding an identity that they are comfortable with, and moving from the relative safety to the less safe world of being an adult. This is exacerbated by the youngsters themselves when they avail themselves of the technology at their disposal and post pictures of themselves. Miley Cyrus as the childhood sweetheart of the Hannah Montana series is a prime example of this need to adult-me-up crossover from childhood star to wanna-be taken seriously adult.

Another 17-year-old looking to have a much more adult image of late is Taylor Momsen.  Her recent appearance on the cover of Revolver magazine is tribute to that desire to ratchet-up to the next level the desire to be an adult.

As I was looking for some images that were tame enough to attach to this post, it struck me that once an image is posted to the internet then it forever remains "out there".

I guess the point of this post is really to ponder why there is a need to sexualise our children through the media, how we should deal with it as a community when these youngsters bring it on themselves by posting pictures of themselves, and should this topic be addressed in schools as a means of trying to prevent the most negative outcomes of what seems to be out of control at the moment?

Science vs. Faith...

Something that I uncovered on my daily jaunt into the cyber-world. It is truly amazing what can be uncovered without even trying to find stuff.

Don't Ya Just Hate Internet Ads?

I have found recently that some of the sites that I visit have these nasty ads that pop up and completely ruin the viewing experience by interrupting my ability to read the news or do whatever it is that I want to unhindered. It has been getting so bad that sometimes it almost feels like a violation of my personal space.

So, I was happy to see, and read, that I am not the only one suffering under the burden of unwanted Internet ads.

Oh Dear, Mr. Sembiring Are You Serious?

It is a real shame that this man's name is not Titaful instead of Tifatul. This is particularly so considering the Minister of Communication and Information's fascination with banning pornography in Indonesia. But, never mind Indonesians regularly shorten their names, so from now on Mr. Tifatul Sembiring has the moniker "Tits", which is fair enough as all the letters are in his name and appear in that order...

Now, Tits has declared that he is a man on a mission, presumably from God, to ensure that all porn sites originating in Indonesia are shut down and all porn sites hosted overseas are blocked by Indonesian filtering technology before reaching screens in Indonesia. The plan calls for all these sites to be history before the start of the holy month of Ramadan. Ramadan as many of us are all to aware is a month where Muslims refrain from eating, drinking, smoking and other earthly pleasures during daylight hours.

While most people are thinking that the porn ban that Tits has in mind will only effect images, and that this is not such a bad thing, they are sadly mistaken. If Tits gets his way, then even sentences will be classified and if deemed to be too rude then they will be labelled porn and prohibited. Yes folks, Indonesia is back on the path to burning books and treating its adult population like naughty children who do not know what's best for themselves. Tits is looking at getting this banning and burning thing done on a "massive" scale. It reminds me of a picture I once saw about social media 'experts'. I attach it for your viewing pleasure.

Personally, to each their own on the porn front. I have no problem with making porn more difficult to access, especially the idea of making it as difficult as possible for children to access. I have no problem with prohibiting kiddie porn. Our children need protection from this sort of material, whether that be protection in the form of ensuring they do not become the subjects of child porn or being prevented from seeing what is already out there. However, I cannot see why the government needs to regulate whether two consenting adults enjoy looking at pictures of each other in the nude.

In any event, if Tits is thinking that he is going to be successful in protecting people from themselves then he is going to be in for a rude awakening. The blanket ban, which "massive" suggests will not work. The idea that it will presupposes that purveyors of pornography are stupid and technologically incapable of adapting. This is clearly not the case.

The porn industry is not one that is about just tens of thousands of dollars, or even hundreds of thousands of dollars, nor millions of dollars. The porn industry is a multi-billion dollar gig. The reality is that where there is a will there is a way...it is the chicken and the egg theory, or perhaps it is even simple supply and demand theory. People want porn, so other people produce it. Indonesians want porn, so somebody somewhere is going to be producing it and Indonesians are going to work out a way to get access to it.

So, Tits it is time you focused your energies on other more important issues in your portfolio. Quite simply, the big red mark you have against your name with respect to your ministerial performance to date has nothing to do with your failures relating to porn. Time to stop trying to deflect attention from your shortcomings by playing the porn card. It is time to get on with doing your job.

Maybe, this poster is something the good minister might want to consider when working out how successful this plan of his might be.

Happy fasting to you Tits!

Fatma, Trans TV, Sex Tapes, Porn, and Defamation -- Legal Issues...

A private Indonesian television station, Trans TV, is pondering the possibility of a criminal defamation action over a sex tape posted on the internet and alleged to be of a Trans TV employee by the name of Fatma.

According to Trans TV they have an employee by the name of Fatma but the video is clearly not of her. The sex tape in question provides a pretty clear shot of "Fatma" so a simple photo comparison might be enough to prove this one way or the other.

I have written elsewhere on this here blog of mine about criminal defamation in Indonesia and the pros and cons of such laws. It is interesting that Trans TV thinks that there is something actionable here in the first place. But, the complaint seems to be based entirely on the belief that an employee sex tape scandal harms the image of the company. Maybe it would, then again, maybe it would enhance it.

I cannot speculate on the reasons for giving the video the title of "Fatma - Trans TV", but if I was to speculate then it would probably be because Indonesians love a good scandal and a TV employee on a sex tape would be good fodder for gossip shows, gossip magazines, and even the rival TV stations.

The funny part of this, if there is a funny part, is that Trans TV has in fact admitted to being in breach of the law, the Anti-Porn law to be precise. The quote from Trans TV via their spokesperson, Hardiansyah reads as follows:

“Our own investigation shows that the video was taken from a porn site and the perpetrator changed the title to ‘Fatma-Transtv’”

The Trans TV investigation revealed that the tape lasts for 2 minutes and 34 seconds, was originally taken on a mobile phone, and was produced on 3 March 2007.

So, this investigation and knowledge that the original video has been taken from a porn site was done by Trans TV. So, does this mean that Trans TV has been accessing internet porn and downloading it in Indonesia? And, then heavens forbid, viewing it in Indonesia? The Minister of Communication and Information is going to be horrified!

I might follow this case as it develops, if it develops, because it will be interesting to see where Trans TV takes their criminal defamation complaint. I will also need to do a little more reading and research. This will not necessarily involve watching Fatma in action, but I have note read anything about who uploaded it, whether it was uploaded in Indonesia or overseas, or who Trans TV is thinking they are going to make the subject of the complaint.

There has certainly been a lot of porn coming out of Indonesia of late. Perhaps Ariel, Luna Maya, and Cut Tari were just the tip of a porn iceberg that is about to come into full view.

Peterporn...

The Peterporn saga continues unabated but slowly. There is so little happening in this case, and that which does happen takes so long, that it is a wonder that anyone even cares about it. Yet, it has all the key ingredients for great gossip and as such will serve to satiate the Indonesian appetite for celebrity gossip for sometime to come.

The key is that there has been rumoured to be some 32 tapes of Ariel of Peterpan fame bedding a bevy of women, all of whom are Indonesian celebrities of various fame and stature.

I was reading recently that another tape has surface in Sulawesi of all places. It reportedly shows Ariel (aka Nazril Irham) getting down and dirty with Bunga Citra Lestari (aka BCL). This tape has been conveniently converted to the DVD format and is being sold for between IDR 50,000 and IDR 450,000 on the streets. Now, a quick survey of the internet highlights that the clip is supposedly available for download from Rapidshare and Torrentbit, among others. Unfortunately, these all require registration before a download can be initiated, I am just not that interested in downloading the clip. Besides, if it really does exist then it won't be too long before it pops up in a much easier place for download, like YouTube or on someone's blog.

The latest development, as far as I can tell, is that the police have arrested eight people for allegedly being involved in the uploading of the two confirmed videos to date, Luna Maya and Cut Tari. However, the police, by their own admission are doing it tough in the investigation phase as they have not been able to uncover the 'missing link'. This is specifically how did the videos get to those who allegedly uploaded them to the internet.

The case theory is that someone close to Ariel 'passed' them on. Ariel's ex-wife, Sarah Amalia, has been interviewed by police, but police have not suggested that she is a suspect or in anyway involved in the dissemination of the tapes / videos. The police though have not been able to prove this missing link yet. So, it remains nothing more than a theory.

The police have also explained that their failure to move on the two women allegedly depicted in the tapes is that the police have some conflicting expert opinions to sort through before deciding on a legal basis to proceed. As is the tendency in Indonesia, the police want to ensure that the case is legally solid before proceeding. The idea being that the more solid the case is the less likely there is to be an acquittal. On a side, and completely unrelated note, perhaps the police should have thought about this idea when pursuing the Commissioners of the Corruption Eradication Commission. And, perhaps it is something that the Office of the Attorney General might want to consider in determining to end those shenanigans.

Postscript...
The Jakarta Globe are reporting that the police have "changed positions on the sex tape", no pun intended I am sure, and the eight previously arrested have had their status changed from suspects to witnesses. Sounds like things are not going so well on the investigation front.

Child Pornography...

Are there any lines to be drawn in the sand as to what constitutes child pornography? It would seem that for some the definition is clear and for others the definition is less than clear. In fact, the definition can be interpreted in any old fashion that may be required for the purpose of an arrest and a subsequent prosecution.

For example, is the possession of photographs of a child in a swimming costume playing in a pool or riding in that same swimming costume in the back of a truck or sitting on a relative's lap a case of being in possession of child pornography? Would it make any difference if that child was a relative of the person in possession of that photograph. Perhaps even more personal, if I am in possession of a photograph of my son swimming naked in the pool, am I in possession of child pornography? Would it make any difference if I then placed that photograph on my blog or used it as a screen saver on my computer?

These are important questions for many reasons. Personally, I find child pornography abhorrent and do not condone its production or distribution. However, I cannot reconcile that me having a photograph of my own son swimming naked in my pool is child pornography. I also cannot reconcile that placing that photograph on my blog would be tantamount to disseminating or distributing child pornography online. I appreciate that there are evil people out there who might get some degree of cheap sexual pleasure from the photograph, but should that mean my posting of the photograph or even having it in the first place be considered as being in possession of child porn?

The idea that any image of a naked child is child pornography means that there is no artistic merit exception for artists that produce images of naked children. I am not an artist and therefore cannot give an adequate answer as to the artistic need for such images, but I believe that artists can make a case for the need for such an exception. The furore that erupted over images produced by Bill Henson last year is an example of do we need to draw lines in the sand, and if we do, then where do we draw them?

An interesting case has arisen in the US military where a National Guard soldier has been found in possession of images of a child, his four-year-old relative in a swimming costume. The images were sent to him by his mother as an attempt to relieve some of his homesickness associated with being posted on a tour of duty in Afghanistan. The US Army brass has decided to purse an investigation of the images with a view to a court martial. The penalty under US Army law is potentially a ten-year jail term. The rest of the soldier's unit has already returned back to the US after their tour of duty.

If this case is as simple as this soldier having a couple of images of a four-year-old relative in a swimming costume, then the US Army is wasting its time. Simply, it is making mountains out of molehills. By all accounts the images found by the US Army do not include any naked images. The closest you have to a porn image is a partially exposed buttocks (apparently still in a swimming costume).

The definition of what constitutes child pornography is going to have to be very tight. And, there will need to be consideration given to intent. There simply must be a mens rea component to the charge. If there is not a mens rea component then any image of a child may give rise to a possible child pornography charge. Seriously, is a shot of a young girl in a pose for a beauty pageant to be considered sexual or seductive?

The mind boggles as to where this can lead.

Although this post might lend itself to a photograph or two, I am not posting any...a silent protest (sort of).

Censorship...

This is something I have seen around the traps a number of times. However, the most recent sighting of it has been over at my good friend the Treespotter's work-related blog, (you can find it here) and his blog is well worth a visit or ten.

Censorship is something that rears its ugly head every now and then in just about all countries.

Indonesia has had a recent bout with censorship relating to the screening of the film Balibo. This bout of censorship failed miserably as some organizations defied the ban. The ban has really been a bit of a non-event because pirated copies of the film are readily available in just about every roadside stall that sells disks.

Australia is also under the censorship gun as the government seeks to legislate internet filters that are supposedly designed to prevent certain types of nasty information and sites from every seeing the light of day in the land downunder. Unfortunately, those in the know have shown how silly this piece of legislation is as the filters are easily bypassed by using proxy servers that 10-year-olds can master. A bit fraudulent in that sense seeing the claim of the government is that this legislation and filters are needed to protect our children from the seedy side of the internet.

Oh well. Enjoy the picture!