Cyclone Posted June 8, 2012 Share Posted June 8, 2012 I know that as well. I've never disputed it. What they don't know is who was connected at the other end. Indeed, and such a list would be a bad thing, which is what I've been arguing. You've been arguing that a corollary already exists, and I'm saying, no, not quite because of the ambiguity present in the current data set. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted June 8, 2012 Share Posted June 8, 2012 I'm not sure what you mean by "that's not true". It was exactly my working experience. Well apart from the hypothetical bit, which obviously cannot be either true or false, being hypothetical. I'm saying that at the moment it is not true that the inference you claim can be drawn. An ISP has a list of url's visited, I agree. It does not however know who is using an internet connection, there cannot be an assumption that it is the person who's name the account is in. Which means that the current data held is not the same as holding a list of account holders who have explicitly requested that the (hypothetical) block on porn be lifted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted June 8, 2012 Share Posted June 8, 2012 Pretty much anyone who does watch / download porn from the internet is already in such a database, whether they know it or not It's this that I'm (still) arguing against. It isn't accurate. Pretty much any account that used to watch/download porn is already in such a database. Which is subtly, but legally significantly different from what you said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
splodgeyAl Posted June 8, 2012 Share Posted June 8, 2012 It's this that I'm (still) arguing against. It isn't accurate. Pretty much any account that used to watch/download porn is already in such a database. Which is subtly, but legally significantly different from what you said. Yes fair enough. Well done, have a bun But, you see, that is specifically why I said "pretty much". I knew it wasnt exactly right, but was probably close enough to answer the question without all this tedious technical detail. It'll probably come as a shock to most that the legal system does it's best to weed out such ambiguity, and if the hypothetical list existed, it still wouldn't prove who used the account to watch porn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.