Buttbuttination – or – The Scunthorpe Problem

I’m pretty sure everybody has come across this. You send a mail, type something in chat, or try to post something on a forum, and your statement is either rejected or comes out garbled. What’s at work there are filter systems, so you might find yourself talking about the “Buttbuttination of Abraham Lincoln” or the “Consbreastution of the United States”. Clbuttic. Okay, I’m embarbutted by the products of my fellow programmers…

Conclusion #1: Obscenity filters don’t work. At all.

They’re doing it again! Internet censorship

I wrote a rant about internet censorship infrastructure last year, and I probably should give you a follow-up on the subject. Mrs von der Leyen (Germany’s family minister) was unsuccessfull in creating an internet censorship infrastructure. Thank God. Well, actually, thank Democracy. There was an election later in the year, which lead to a new coalition of political parties in charge. Funnily enough, Mrs. von der Leyen still has the same job, but her plans to “fight internet child pornograpy” (read: implement a massive censorship infrastructure that’s not going to help fighting against child pornography at all) were put on a hold.

So… “Yay for democracy”, right?

Wrong.

Somebody figured: “if you cannot do that on a national level, lets do it on a european (EU) level instead”. And instead of having one country with censorship, lets make it mandatory for every country in the EU. The whole thing seems to be a great f**king hydra. Makes me wonder what would happen if somebody chopped off Mrs. von der Leyen’s head…

Anyways. This is where Cecilia Malmström, a swedish EU minister comes into the picture. She created the website www.cleanternet.org, and puts this funny video online:

Thanks Mrs. Malmström. It’s people like you that stop me from losing all hope in democracy.

I concluded my last post about the subject with “If you are searching for a country with intelligent politicians, look elsewhere. Ours certainly ain’t.” May be Sweden is.

Evolution, missing links and whatnot.

This has been lying around as draft for quite a while, because I wanted to do further research on the subject. Not having had time to do that, I now decided to publish it anyways, so if you find a mistake, feel free to comment.

1994. An american research team finds bones in Ethopia, only 75km from the location of the famous “Lucy“. They soon discover that they are about 4.4 million years old and belong to a yet unknown species, which they then had the honor of naming Ardipithecus ramidus. What followed were years of boring research and restauration.

15 years later. The research is published in the magazine Science

A day later. Everybody goes crazy about the “missing link” having been found. And every single creationist out there has comment on the fact that man clearly is not related to such low creatures as monkeys, and that all this Darwinism is so totally wrong, and that this finding proves nothing.

OMG. Why can’t they shut up? Once? Pwleeze?

Okay, calm down. Is this the “missing link” everybody has been looking for?

Sorry, but no. Simply because the missing link does not exist, there are numerous. But lets see what science has already found out so far:

The oldest fossils of homo sapiens (that is the sort of funny species you and I are part of) are about 200.000 years old and were found in Africa, also known as the archaic homo sapiens. The oldest fossils outside of Afrika are about 100.000 years old, which leads to the conclusion that around that time we left Africa and started conquering the rest of the world. DNA studies have proven that every human on this planet is linked to the same “genetic Eve” from Africa. So, no missing link for about 200.000 years.

At least two other species of the homo family lived during that period: homo neanderthalensis and homo floresiensis. Both are extinct, but neither species is our “ancestor” – they are our “siblings”. For a long time, scientists had thought that homo neanderthalensis was our ancestor, simply because at that point in time the known neanderthalensis fossils were older than those of homo sapiens. They were looking for fossils that were half-neanderthalensis-half-sapiens to prove that one evolved from the other. This was a “missing link” people tried to find for decades. Today, we know that no such fossil exists, because there is no direct link.

A fourth species, homo erectus is the common ancestor of all three.

How exactly the three younger species came about is where missing links set in again. Homo erectus appeared around 1.500.000 years ago. Sometime between 500.000 years ago and about 200.000 years ago, the three younger species evolved.

Unfortunately, the number fossils in that time period are very few, there are about 10. If they were nicely distributed in age and all from the same location there would be a gap of 30.000 years between each and every one of them. You might have guessed it: they are not. The fossils were found in different places and precisely dating them is a problem in itself. What adds to the problem is evolution having “jumps” every now and then, when it only takes very few generations to create a different species, and we are hoping to find just that: A half homo erectus, half homo sapiens fossil. Or half-erectus-half-neanderthalensis, for that matter. There are about three or four that might fit in that line, but scientific evidence is not good enough to actually put them into the right position in the evolutionary tree.

As you can imagine, the further one goes up that tree, the rarer the puzzle pieces get. Especially when it comes to fossils older than 3 million years, every single finding is important. “Lucy” is 3.2 million years old. Scientists think the split between apes and hominids must have happened around 7 million years ago. The number of fossiles that are between 4 and 7 million years old is pretty much: zero. That is a huge gap of 3 million years. Oh, you guessed it… the missing link!

Since we have finally found out what is commonly called the missing link… will a single fossil bridge the gap? Surely, no. If we cannot close a gap of 300.000 years with 10 findings, how could a single one close 3 million years? But every single discovery will make the picture a bit more complete, even if it turns out to be a side-line, like the neanderthalensis.

Okay. Now back to the story. We now know what we are looking for: All kinds of humanoid or apelike fossiles in the time span of 4 to 7 million years old.

What did they find? Something that is 4.4 million year old. Does it make a difference? yes. Do they have the missing link? no.

Thanks.

You can now claim the T-Shirt, and get on with your life.

Oh, since youre still around: If you still believe, Adam was created by God 5.000 years ago, please note that the Babylonians invented friggin’ glue a thousand years before that. And if you still think evolution is a “theory”, please note: so is gravity.

Further reading: National Geographic Little Green Footballs

“Top Ten” of doctored images

There are a number of sites with “doctored” images on the net, but Time Magazine recently created what they believe are the Top Ten Doctored Images.

but lets see what Time came up with (links are to stories behind those images):

1. abt. 1865: General Sherman was added to a group photo. Scientific American (and yes, that’s part of another top ten)
2. abt. 1935: Trotzki and Kamenev were removed from a famous Lenin picture. Wikipedia
3. abt. 1937: Goebbels was removed from a group photo with Hitler. Scientific American, again
4. abt. 1970: A pole was removed from a photo Wikipedia
5. 2003:  A cigarette was removed from a Beatles CD cover. BBC
6. 1989: Oprah’s head was mounted to somebody else’s body. NYTimes
7. 2005: Martha Stewart’s head was mounted to somebody else’s body for a Newsweek cover NPPA
8. 2008: A malfunctioning missile launcher was removed, and replaced with the image of a fourth missile. NYTimes
9. 2009: Kim Jong Il was added to a photo (Time Magazine has a whole series on doctored photos of him)
10. 2009: Two women in a group photo of the israelian cabinet replaced by men. ABC News

Hmm… thats the top ten? By what measure? Importance? Kim Jong Il and Martha Steward? It seems they just produced a list of ten such images and somebody put the “Top Ten” title on, because it’s so catchy. If you want to choose your own top ten, this is a good place to start. But then again, it’s friggin Time Magazine! So it must really be the top ten, mkay?

Lets assume for a second those are actually the top ten, and see how and why those images were changed.

sorted by analog vs. digital (“photoshopped”)

• analog image manipulation: 1 through 4
• digital image manipulation: 5 through 10

sorted by type of change and intent

• important person removed or added, changing context/meaning: 1,2,3,9,10
• important items removed or added, changing context/meaning: 8
• body parts removed or added, changing appearance: 6,7
• secondary/distracting items removed without changing overall meaning: 4, 5

sorted by “who dunnit”

• unknown: 1, 4
• dictator / government: 2,3,9 (plus possibly #8)
• publisher: 5
• press / newspaper / news agency: 6,7,10 (plus possibly #8)

No matter whether you think Time Magazine was right in choosing those or not – image manipulation has been there ever since there were photographs. What has changed drastically is who does the manipulation. What used to be a propaganda trick of dictators, has appearantly become fashionable with newspapers and magazines. Oh, and the dictators still love it.

I personally couldn’t care less about some celebrities head on somebody elses body, and I’m not shocked that people like Stalin, Hitler or  manipulated photos. But look at the dates, and look at the effort that was probably needed: Digital image manipulation is new, its cheap and it brought a new player to the game: newspapers and news agencies. That does worry me.

Funny as HELL.

A couple of days ago, I came across this article in the Daily Telegraph: Atheists offer to care for Christians pets after the Rapture

Funny as hell, right? Oh, does that count as blasphemy already? Yay! I qualify for atheist pet care

You can now safely send your $110 to me.

Push Technology – Finally There?

Real push technology is here. zOMG. And it only took 12 years.

What am I talking about? Lets go back in time a bit.

Sometime around 1997, Netscape came up with the CDF-Format, and said it would revolutionize the web, because it would “push the web to the users” instead of the users having to fetch it from the web. People were all excited, Microsoft said they would do something much better called the “Active Desktop”, and everyone was on the edge of their seats.

Then, what happened? Appearantly, not much. CDF never became popular, and more or less faded away. So did Netscape, eventually. Active Desktop was a continuously crashing thingy that nowbody could make real use of, which had very little in common with CDF, and shouldn’t have been programmed in the first place. The revolution did not happen. At least not yet.

Funnily enough, there was no “pushing” involved at all. The users would have an application on their systems (conveniently bundled with the Netscape browser), which would periodically fetch a list of things from the web (the CDF data), see if there was anything new. It would then present the new stuff to the user. Notice the “fetch” part. Its the user application checking periodically if something new has arrived, not the server saying “hey, I got something new”. So if you set that application to check every 60 mins, you might get an important information 59 minutes late – just as if you had set your email application to fetch new mails only once an hour. The only thing you could do to prevent this would be to check often, causing lots of unnecessary traffic and load on both your PC and the server. The same information- the “list-of-things”-CDF-file – would be sent over and over again.

From a technology point of view its pretty much like a browser getting a certain webpage over and over again, only to be able to tell you whether it had changed since the last time you saw it. Meh.

The idea behind CDF actually made some sense, and became popular in a different form: RSS feeds. But RSS feeds inherited the same problem: it still is your pc fetching (or: “polling”) the information from the web. The subscriber (you) will check for content again and again, the publisher (the website) will continually answer with “these are the latest 10 news items”, your computer will repeatedly check if there was anything new, and if so, tell you about it. What a waste of resources, all because the server couldn’t shout at your system when something new was there.

Up to now, it seemed that was the end of the story.

So, what happened? Google and a bunch of smart guys who obviously were better at coding stuff than at giving it a good name came up with pubsubhubbub.

It starts out with the same situation: A publisher and a subscriber (hence the pub-sub in the name). Whats new is the hub. With the new protocol (which is an extension to RSS), the publisher can actively inform the hub if there is anything new. It is not necessary that the hub checks for new stuff, and thus, the publisher does not have to wait for the hub to check. The hub, in turn, is able to actively inform the subscriber (you) about new information. Again, it is not necessary for the subscriber to check with either the hub or the publisher for news. The publisher is actually “pushing” the information to the subscriber, via the hub. The round trip time of this procedure should be in the region of seconds.

You turn on your PC. Your RSS feed reader checks for news, because it might have missed whatever happend while it was turned off. Up to this point its the same as it has been since 1997. But now your RSS feed reader tells the hub “I’m here, tell me when there’s anything new”, and goes to sleep. If something new is there, the hub will then wake up your RSS reader …. tadaaa! Thats all there is to it.

Effectively, this means your RSS feed reader will be able to get the news only seconds after the publisher publishes it, without the traffic that would be caused if you set your RSS reader to check every second. Your PC actually uses less computing power and bandwith than before.

It only took a mindboggingly long 12 years until technology did what marketing said. And no, thats not going to be a revolution, but it sure is a neat solution to a very common problem.

Oh, and before anybody asks: there is no “bub” in it. They just thought it was funny calling it that.

Binary

P.S. Wake my hub if you have anything new

Photoshopping – when pictures lie.

I guess almost everyone has a digital camera these days, and we have all tried to enhance an image in some sort of image editing software. Now those who tried probably found out that editing images is difficult, and that for the most part it cannot be done with a few mouse clicks. From Adobe’s famous image editing software PhotoShop, this art has gotten the name “photoshopping”. If you know what you’re doing, you can substantially alter an image to your tastes. Done right, it can be an art in itself.

So, what’s wrong with photoshopping?

Lets just take an example, okay? Take this image that came through Reuters in 2006. What do you think it shows?

It shows Beirut on fire, right? And heavy black smoke, right?

Readers who know what a “clone brush” is, please look closely at the smoke in the upper left corner. Does that look “cloned” to you? It sure did to somebody.

Now as it turned out, that image wa really a photoshopped version of this image:

That is Beirut with one building on fire and some smoke.

Now, I’m totally not getting into why there was an israelian air strike in the first place, and what would be right or wrong with that. What I’m aiming at, is that we just cannot trust images anymore the way we used to. There have been numerous occasions where photoshopped images were released as “news”, this just happens to be a very prominent example.

This raises quite a few questions:

Q1. Why was the image altered in the first place?

I don’t know much about Adnan Hajj, the photographer, so I can only do guesswork on question 1. A lot of photographers get paid only if their photo gets published. So if you are a photographer, you want to get images that are exciting and news-worthy. The manipulated image sure looks more alarming than the original. With the level of competition on the news market, news agencies have outsourced more and more staff. People who only get their money if they sell a photo will be more likely to forge something to make a living than somebody who gets a regular salery no matter what.

On the other hand, Hajj is lebanese, and might have done that to shift public oppinion. But using the same kind of reasoning, the whole thing could also have been a setup to discredit anybody reporting on that side of the war.

Sorry, I cannot give you the real answer on what happened here, but it turns out not to be as important as you might think. Sure, Reuters could rely more on their own staff, but they cannot do so entirely. And there will always be somebody tampering with images just to get them sold or to make a point.

Q2. Did Reuters know the image was modified?

I’m not sure which answer I should hope for. Either they didn’t, which would be an unbelievable level of neglegance, or they did, which would be a level of bias only few people would expect from them either.

With only very few exceptions, it is possible to detect image manipulation. Even on a large scale. If they had any provisions to check for altered pictures, that would have caught Hajj’s image. Any experienced digital artist can easily see that it was photoshopped – if the Reuters staff didn’t, they’re blind or plain incompetent. There are ways to automatically detect such conduct, or at least raise a flag for further investigation. They could probably collect the RAW camera image files, which are a bit harder to manipulate, and check if the image had been altered.

On the other hand, what if they did know it was manipulated? Is Reuters biased, as some people think? Honestly, I don’t know, but if that were the case, they would be pretty stupid in releasing this particular photo. As said before, its rather easy to notice that the image is photoshopped, even with the low quality copy shown above. If they had wanted to manipulate public opinion, I personally find it hard to believe that they wouldn’t do a better job at it.

In the end, they were either sloppy at manipulating it, or they were sloppy checking for manipulation. That probably says more about how a news agency works than anything else.

(side note: if you don’t believe that this could have been automatically detected, here are two white papers on how it very well can be done: Image Manipulation Detection with Binary Similarity Measures [PDF],Image Manipulation Detection [PDF] )

Q3.  What does all that mean to us?

To us, it does not really matter why the image had been altered, since there will a number of reasons to do so, and there would always be reasons to do that.

It does shed a bad light on Reuters, and we have no reason to believe that Reuters is any different from other news agencies.

In the end, it should teach us that we cannot believe something to be true, just because we see a photo of it. Not that that would be all that new – there have been manipulations before digital imaging, and you never know how and why a picture came about. It could have been a set-up, an optical/analog manipulation or a digital one.

A picture sure can say more than a thousand words, but it can also tell more than a thousand lies.

Q4. So why am I blogging about the whole subject, anyways?

Its not new… been there, done that, got the t-shirt, now what?

Any new technology brings new opportunities and new pitfalls. This time its digital image manipulation and a stubling news agency. Next time it will be something else. What we really need is discussion on the technology’s implications.

We need to set moral standards on how a technology may be used, and where it should not.

After all, the pitfall doesn’t suddenly turn the technology into one from hell. It is always people who decide what they make of it – just think “nuclear fission” here. It can be used for nuclear bombs and in power plants. It is up to us to decide which uses we allow, and which we prohibit. Despite how tricky it can be to monitor its use we do need an open and public discussion on the use of technology.

There are a number of pretty new technologies that really do need such a discussion. Photoshopping is just one of them. I’d love to read your comments on this.

Freedom of Religion, and what people totally forget mentioning.

Now for the most part of the world, freedom of religion is believed to be a human right, and in a whole lot of countries it is granted as fundamental right in national laws. Yay. Good.

There is something wrong with it, though.

Everybody feels good about claiming this right for themselves: “I can choose to believe in whatever I want, and its nobody’s business.” And they are right, but thats just half the truth. The other half is respecting the others’ Freedom of Religion. And that is where the trouble comes in, as that seems to be ignored by the same people that claim it for themselves.

The Principle of Missioning – What is called “missioning” is effectively ignoring the another person’s current faith (because it is so obviously wrong) and trying to convince them that there is only one true religion. It ignores that the missioning victim is already pursuing his right to freedom of religion by believing a) in something else or b) that all religions are crap. Allowing missioning in your religion provides the moral basis to deny others of their fundamental right, until they believe in the same thing as you are. Even if you put a sign at your door saying “I don’t want to be bothered with your nonsense”, you can be sure that some Mormon is gonna ring the bell. This is totally not what was meant by Freedom of Religion.

Soaring above Others – I cannot tell you how often I’ve heard somebody preach how much more valueable and great the followers of the true religion are, because they believe. Well? Totally unlike the non-believers, who aren’t worth as much because they don’t happen to believe in the same crap as you? I’ve heard preachers comparing the non-believers (or whoever happens not to believe in their truth) to frogs, because their lives are as meaningless as that of frogs. Okay – “Ribbit”. Now what? I’m not even getting into how important frogs are to nature, but I am totally objecting to the principle of The Chosen People. And I’m totally objecting preaching that, because – just think about it once – if one is chosen to be more valuable than the other, it makes the other worth less. Duh! That is the foundation to slavery and genocide. If your preacher tells you that you’re worth more than others, he’s not only wrong, he’s also making way for mass murder – that totally is not Freedom of Religion.

Entitlement – Again and again religious leaders claim that their religion entitles them to certain privileges, state funding, the right to build temples on public grounds, influence laws and media and whatnot. The answer is: No it does not! The fact that you believe in something entitles you to big fat nothing. I’ll give you that for free, you can pick it up at my house. If you want to believe in something, go ahead, but don’t expect others to support you! Just because you believe your temple should be built in the center of your town, does not entitle you to that property. If the property you have does not allow for a building with more than three stories to be built, then you cannot build a church tower there – your beliefs don’t change that, okay? Just because you believe there shouldn’t be topless women in public TV does not give you the right to enforce that on the media – the only thing you’re entitled to is to switch the damn thing off. And if you’re preacher is on TV, I am so entitled to switch channels, you wouldn’t believe it. What seems so simple still doesn’t get into peoples heads. It is called Freedom of Religion, not Entitlement to Dictatorship.

I know that according to Martin Luther, reason is the devil’s bride, so I have probably lost a number of readers half way through. But fundamental rights apply to everyone, thats what makes them fundamental. That includes you, but that also includes me, and mind you, I am going to claim my Freedom from Religion.

So keep your beliefs out of my life, will ya?

Uncybilized Introduction

Hi there

I still don’t know why we do this. Doesn’t matter, since I don’t know so many things …

But, while in ‚my room’ stirring soup, I keep wondering what’s stirring us into action, my Binary Grunt and his Cybil Unrest. I mean, let’s face it, it’s not going to make any difference if we share our thoughts or not. On the other hand, so many things have changed because people were sharing thoughts…

In the worst case, sharing thoughts may start a new era. That’s, if your name is Jesus or Mohammed. You had the best intentions while babbling words of wisdom and what happens? Dang, all of a sudden you’re a prophet. That’s pretty tough, especially when it comes to the crucifixion part. The real mess starts when you’re gone. Miraculous tales will be spread, until some disciples  have finished scribbling this book. Draughty temples will be erected on the best properties  and you’re  to blame for sending  people through the troubles of adapting to a new calendar. I know, Binary Grunt’s gonna like this. Not the crucifixion part, but the dawning of the Binary Grunts Age, tata! Forget Aquarius. I’ll not imagine what that era is going to be like, not now. But, this is what unsolicited ranting can do, worst case scenario of course. I think it’s scary. Just a wee bit.

Comforting to know that the world doesn’t listen to women, hardly ever it does. Unless she answers questions like ‚your place or mine?’ Phew, I can’t really do much of a damage then. I can simply jabber on about all sorts of things crossing my mind, when in ‚my room’ or elsewhere and nothing’s going to happen. All as it ever was, apart from one thing: It’s gonna be fun (and girls just wanna have fun)

So, thanks to my Binary Grunt for setting this up. He’s hopelessly chauvinistic (just a man <shrug>) but he’s right – he’s the one with the binary stuff, the techie-stuff and in charge of all the other, oh so masculine duties, including plumbing. We live in two separate worlds but that’s so helpful sometimes! He’s the nerd (cruel people call him ‚geek’) addicted to electric smog while I’m in charge of all the quaint things, such as breathing oxygen.

This means, he’s going to tell you a lot about cyber space, outer space and other distant worlds while I’ll be on about planet earth and the wondrous species inhabiting it. Needless to say that both of us experience close encounters of the peculiar kind.

I’m afraid, we’re going to tell you about it…. 

Cybil

Why child porn filters are nonsense

We are all against child pornography, right? So if a politician does something against child pornography, that is good, right? And there’s nothing you can say against that, right?

True, unless it is Ursula von der Leyen and her party trying to filter the web.

Now what exactly is wrong with that?

Before I get into that, lets see what she proposes to do: She wants to have a blacklist of pages that will be filtered by the internet access providers. If you try to go to one of the pages on that blacklist, you will get a red STOPP-sign (yes, with double P, and it has german text on it) instead. Technically this will be done by manipulating the DNS-servers of your internet access provider.

So far, so hoopy. If I accidentally click on such a link, I won’t be bothered to see the dirt. This is how far people (and our minister) think. And this is exactly the only positive thing that it will do: keeping people who do not want child porn away from it.

Now the alleged purpose is not to keep your grandma away from that dirt, so for those who wanted to get to child porn, how hard would it be to overcome that filter?

Surpassing that filter is trivial.

All you need to do is use a DNS-server that is not located in Germany. Since neither german legislation nor the blacklist apply there, it will let you get to the page. Changing your DNS server is a matter of 5 minutes, no computer expert needed. Once you changed that setting in your computer, the child pornography will be accessible to you just like nothing ever happened.

Okay. So the filter protects me and your grandma from seeing stuff, but not the consumers of child porn. Thats not a lot, but there still is some good in it, right?

No. Putting on sunglasses was never a solution to a real problem, and it sure ain’t this time around.

Here’s a list of problems caused by this:

Problem #1: The Blacklist

The blacklist has to remain secret, mainly because it is so easy to circumvent the filter. It is important for that blacklist not to be published. So the minister decided it would be best to keep courts out of the process, and that the law enforcement agencies manage it.

That means the jurisdiction is not involved. There is no judge banning a site, there is no way to find out if your site is on the list, and there is no way of filing a case to have your website to be removed from that list, if should it ever be included accidentally. And don’t think that hasn’t all happened yet! There was a dutch forwarding company on the norwegian blacklist and a dentist on the australian, neither one had anything to do with child pornography. Imagine your business site on that blacklist! BAD, mkay?

The examples of other countries (most recently: Australian Blacklist leak) shows, that such hardly ever is kept secret, and is the perfect users manual for pedophile. Since they are not affected by the filters, they can easily use that blacklist to get what they want: child porn. This was certainly not intended, but is the ultimate outcome. BAD, mkay?

Problem #2: Creating censorship infrastructure

Once the blacklist is in place, there will be a number of other interest groups who want stuff blocked from access. The communists want the nazi-stuff removed, the nazis want the communist stuff removed. Copyright holders want illegal copys made inaccessible, and on and on and on ….

Youre opening pandora’s box here. BAD, mkay?

Problem #3: Logging

I already explained how easy it is to surpass the filter, and that child porn consumers will not see the STOPP-sign, but there is the (albeit very slight)chance of YOU accidentally visiting such a page. Now the minister wants to log access to that STOPP-sign, and pass the data on for further investigation.

This means: Police will stand in front of your door with a search warrant, while the child porn consumer remains unmolested. BAD, mkay?

Problem #4: Distraction from the effective measures

To make things worse, somebody took one of the leaked blacklists from other countries and checked where the sites where hosted. 90% of those sites were hosted in Europe or North-America, but seemingly no effort had been made to shut those sites down. They just put it on the blacklist, and thats it. Trying to take the sites down or finding out who is behind it would actually help fighting child porn, but once its on the blacklist, why bother?

Now what again was that blacklist supposed to be doing? Ah, yer, fight child pornography. Cool. Totally cool. Lets put sunglasses on, so that we dont see it. Sure helps… NOT! Its BAD, BAD, BAD, BAD, BAD, DO YOU HEAR ME?

Conclusion

Child porn internet filters are complete nonsense. Whoever comes up with that is a complete moron, has no idea how the net works, and certainly doesn’t care to listen to the experts.

In short: Ursula von der Leyen, you are as thick as two short planks.

If you are searching for a country with intelligent politicians, look elsewhere. Ours certainly ain’t.

The Binary Grunt.