From the BBC:
Credit and debit card companies should face fines if their products are used to buy child pornography on the internet, an MP says. The Labour MP, Geraint Davies - whose motion is being debated on Wednesday - said he wanted an end to anonymity for pre-paid credit cards. He said as long as the users of the cards remained anonymous the credit card firms were "complicit" in the viewing of child pornography. Forty MPs have so far backed his call.
Mr Davies told BBC Radio 4's Today: "The major abuse now in terms of use of credit cards for downloading child pornography is through pre-paid credit cards, which you can pick up for around £100 a time at your local shop or service station. They're completely anonymous, you can register as Donald Duck at Buckingham Palace, and then use these, through a password or directly, to download abusive images."
Geraint Davies' motion in full: "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to impose penalties on credit and debit card providers for the facilitation of the downloading of child pornography from the internet; and for connected purposes"
The Swansea West MP said the identity of the person who owned a pre-paid card should be known.
These arguments fail for use of the word should and in any event, "known" to whom?
Further, he is muddling two completely separate issues: fines can be levied on the credit card companies whether the identity of the person using it is known or not. And if PayPal goes "legit", then as sure as eggs are eggs, there'll be plenty of others to take its place.
Wednesday, 21 July 2010
What about PayPal? And "known" to whom?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
Also, I thought that CP paysites had pretty much disappeared (due to the combination of payment processors cutting them off much faster, and punters being aware that the cops could get their details), with the nonce action shifting to P2P and secret communities. Would be interesting to know whether Mr Davies is better informed than me on this, or whether he's just a gibbering moron who believes everything Jim Gamble tells him.
This is just more government paranoia about the "uncontrollable" internet. Ideally, the government wants to know what everyone is doing, all of the time. CP and terrorism are simply excuses to further that aim. I blame David Blunkett.
Bayard - I doubt whether david blunkett is paying to view CP. That would be pointless.
JB, probably the last bit.
Ch, indeed, hence the 'climate of fear' tag.
If I'm wrong, I'm wrong, but I just looked up the rules on Anti Money Laundering and Combating the Financing of Terrorism (!!) and e-money is not excused the usual due diligence / Know Your Customer checks. In fact to get one of these cards you have to send in bank statements and id, as far as I can see.
Is this another example of Welsh Windbaggery, then?
These arguments fail for use of the word should and in any event, "known" to whom?
Known to all of us, not that I'm fussed either way.
Some people will not be satisfied until everyone (else) is "pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or numbered".
In an attempt to
cover their arses/repress any wish for privacy or manifestation of non conformity/find a new bandwagon to jump on
another politician dreams up another intrusion of privacy, under the usual excuse of
'stopping the terrorists'/'stamping down on organised crime'/'think of the children'.
Utterly depressing.
Post a Comment