Perspective: Thinking the unthinkable about kids and Net porn

In England, the government plans a crackdown on pedophiles' Internet aliases. Home Secretary John Reid wants to force pedophiles to register their cybernicknames and e-mail addresses.

So it is that the United Kingdom plans to study the feasibility of a system that would issue alerts whenever convicted pedophiles logged on to Internet chat rooms.

At first blush, that sounds like just the ticket.

"The Internet brings huge advantages and a whole new world to kids, and kids are very Internet-savvy," Reid said earlier this week. "But they are not always worldly wise."

Tell me something we don't already know. Cyberstalkers are motivated, tech-savvy, and usually seem to be one long step ahead of the government. Reid's proposal pointed to the faint hope that the authorities could turn technology to the public's advantage. But it continues to be an uphill slog.

The British government's get-tough promises were quickly overtaken by reports out of Austria of the existence of a vast international child pornography ring. The network involved at least 2,360 suspects from 77 countries. (The FBI is said to be investigating about 600 of the suspects in the United States.) What the police turned up was horrible. The local press quoted one Austrian police official saying that girls could be viewed being raped. You could also hear their screams.

With all the intellectual firepower at society's disposal, why do the good guys forever seem to be playing catch-up to the sleazebags?

Depraved people have been around for all of human history. The difference now is they can exploit technology to make a buck. Still, the infliction of terror on the most vulnerable among us leaves one mute with rage. With all the intellectual firepower at society's disposal, why do the good guys forever seem to be playing catch-up to the sleazebags? Why can't they turn the tide? So it's understandable that when it comes to children and pornography, the frustration with the status quo is boiling over.

And it's forcing a political realignment. U.S. Sen. (and Republican presidential wannabe) John McCain this week proposed a tough new law aimed at helping police crack down on child pornography. These days it's rare to see left and right unite under a common banner, but unlike taxes or the war in Iraq, the fight against Internet porn crosses political lines. As he announced his proposal on Thursday, McCain was flanked by that torchbearer of mainstream liberalism, Sen. Chuck Schumer, a New York Democrat.

Free speechers and civil-liberties worrywarts (like yours truly) noticed that this was not just the typical photo op. There is now major support in both major political parties for taking action. But where this might head remains unclear.

McCain's proposal would triple the penalties on Internet service providers that fail to report illicit images and make it a criminal offense. Did his advisers forget that existing laws already deal with data retention and Web labeling and include some child porn reporting penalties?

ISPs must already report illegal images or face substantial fines. There is no known case of any ISP covering up for pornographers. Hate to be the Friday cynic, but so much of this smacks of grandstanding. (The McCain bill also requires the reporting of cartoons that may be judged obscene. I kid you not.)

None of this is meant to trivialize the challenge. A recent University of New Hampshire study found that 4 out of 10 American youths, ages 10 to 17, have seen pornography online, and two-thirds say it was uninvited. That means there's a very good chance your kids are going to see penises, vaginas, breasts and any combination thereof rubbing against each other. Without you even knowing.

We can tut-tut and posture all day long. Go ahead and talk all you like about how parents should be more responsible. That's not enough. We're all wired, and these days that includes kids. If there's a clear answer out there, I'd love to hear from you. In the meantime, I find myself wrestling with the unthinkable notion that we're engaged in a losing battle.

Biography
Charles Cooper is CNET News.com's executive editor of commentary.

More Perspectives

[Orengeman]

Grandstanding

I agree that this has to be a lot of grandstanding. I think everyone is in agreement that children should be protected from harmful images and the predators who circulate those images. At the same time, I cannot count the number of reports I have read relating to the difficulty of accurately and efficiently tagging media. Do the ISPs really have a duty to monitor all traffic to such an extent that a person would sit and view every image that travels through that ISP's servers and then flag the ones that this individual deems inappropriate? What a logistical nightmare, not to mention that the necessary objectivity to properly flag this media would likely be severaly lacking in the person who applied for this job. Finally, what effect could the requirement that registered offenders also register their aliases? John Q. Pedophile can register his half-dozen most used e-mail accounts and online aliases and then still keep another dozen just for his favorite scumbag message boards. Governments can't seem to track terrorists online and we all know how much money is being thrown at that war. Why would this be any different. Why not just put a tracker on all data lines that a registered offender may have access to (anywhere in the known and unknown universe, while we're at it) and scan those lines constantly. If the offender types "www.myspa" into a browser immediately shut down their lines and drop swat troops out of the sky to bust them up. That will surely work.

[chris__anderson]

porn makes the internet go 'round

that's why you will never get rid of it.

hell, 2/3 of the technology that makes the internet what it is today (streaming video, e-commerce, instant messaging) was perfected in support of the porn industry.

kiddie porn is bad, but the internet is a haven for porn in general... so good luck stopping it.

[Hardrada]

Here's how to stop it:

remove the expectation of privacy. Your congressman is going to stop visiting that shemale porn site pretty quickly once he realizes that his constituents (and his wife) are going to find out.

[uriarteuno]

A viable Solution

I am not saying this is the perfect fix for all of the internet problems. But given its analogous good result on cable I firmly believe CP80 can make a difference. Besides, it makes economic sense. At least it is a firs step to keep the home safe. Then we will be able to deal with child porn a little easier. Or have you ever seen child porn on a cable channel?

See <a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.cp80.org/" target="_newWindow">http://www.cp80.org/</a>

[zemoxian]

Not a great solution

There are different issues at stake here. Making sure that objectionable material doesn't reach the home is only part of the problem.

With child porn, a top priority is the prevention of the material in the first place. A lot of adult porn is consentual and legal. Child porn is the recording of criminal acts and violence against minors. Dumping it into the backwaters of the internet still keeps it around as a lucrative criminal operation. It also feeds the fantasies of current and future predators.

I haven't reviewed CP80, but if it's like other filtering schemes, may will work for the most part at filtering sites. It will probabl ban sites that shouldn't be and let some through that sould not be. I haven't heard of a perfect filter.

[Philo\]

An expensive solution

This is an easy solution to propose, but the choices to implement it are not easy:

1) Tear down the internet and rebuild it with the new structure.

2) Install filters (with all of their false positive and false negative errors) at the ISP's.

3) Block all non-American content.

[bgirard]

Don't make confusion

There is in this paper a confusion between child pornography and pornography that children can see. Which is very different. If child pornography should be fought vigorously and can probably be, I doubt one can prevent children from viewing pornography and I am not sure we should really take too much care. Children were always interested by "these things", we were when 10 or 11. And as far as I know we have no serious proof that it really harms anyone.

[Davross]

Drawing a parallel...

I think Mr. Cooper's tie-in of children seeing porn online detracts from the main subject of dealing with child porn. Child porn can be dealt with in much better fashion than it has been. The bit of wrist slapping that current laws provide acts as little in the way of a deterrent.

Frankly, the stiffest of penalties will not ban child porn from existence but these globally organized rings can and should be destroyed. However, silliness like having pedophiles register an internet screenname (as if they'll only have one) will not work. Pol grandstanding on the issue won't work either. What will truly be needed is a public outcry for change. Given that most people seem apathetic unless something directly affects them... expect little to change.

With regard to children seeing porn online parents are the first line of defense. I take issue with the idea Mr. Cooper puts forth in saying "Go ahead and talk all you like about how parents should be more responsible. That's not enough." No, it's not enough but you must get to base one BEFORE you move on to base two. Politicians don't just up and propose laws out of the goodness of their hearts. Legislation tends to come about in one of two ways, it's either bought or a substantial number of citizens clamor for it.

I'm of the opinion that sex and the naked human body are still held in too taboo a mindset by many. When I went through puberty and all the urges that go with it, I sought out nude women wherever I could get away with finding them. Sneaking a peek at Playboy at the newsstand to staying up late watching HBO or Showtime, the Web didn't come along until my mid-twenties.

The internet affords an insane amount of ease for anyone looking to access porn and some children are going to be curious... and dare I say it? Some will be aroused at porn as I was during my hormone-laden teens. We are all (well ok most of us) sexual beings, it is how we all got here. Rather than treating sex and things like porn as something to be hidden and locked away until some magical age of proper reason &#38; understanding... maybe we need to confront it, demystify it and put it in its proper context.

The common parental fear at the discomfort of talking about "it" with the children has to end. No amount of laws, filtering software, computers only in the living rooms will do. Kids are going to see porn, those who want to will as well as those who don't. Instead of sitting around bemoaning that our governments aren't doing more how about we do more ourselves? Because the real problem isn't porn, or sex in mainstream movies or on cable and not even the suggestive dances in music videos. The real problem is those of us who wince at the idea of talking about sex with our kids to the point of wishing that someone somewhere would just make it all go away.

[sammy.henrich]

Responsible Parenting

You say that more responsible parenting is not enough which I agree with, there must be more action taken (longer prison terms, sharing of information across states and countries, implant them with RFID tags and put readers outside of schools and so forth). On the other hand if some one is worried that their kid might be getting into chat rooms or on my space and conversing with a person who is not who they say they are.... then they should be ACTIVELY monitoring their Childs internet usage at least as much as is humanly possible (you cannot check out what your kid is doing at someone else's house). Take the computer out of their bedroom, turn off the wireless router when you are not at home or asleep. If a parent does not know about computers take a class, buy some monitoring software. I would not be surprised, if at some point in the near future it is considered child endangerment for parents to let their kids have unrestricted, unmonitored access of the internet and in some ways that might be good, because it may make parents realize how serious a problem it could be.
I can tell you that I will not leave anything to chance or the government (which amounts to the same thing some times) that I can effect in my Childs life from education, to being open enough that they will talk to me about what ever questions they might have and monitoring what they access on the Internet.

[novelator]

Responsible Parenting, etc.

I agree with virtually every point made in this post, but I would like to add one thing. As a responsible parent, you have the right, if not the duty, to know whose house your child is spending time at, whether or not the parent(s) of your children's friends are as vigorous as you in protecting their children from the dangers of the Internet, etc.

In my humble opinion, from what I've seen of parents these days, too many of them take the job of raising their children far too lightly. They are too willing to let someone or anyone else, even the government, take over their responsibilities. More laws will never replace an involved, caring parent. Never.

Parenting is a twenty-four seven gig.

[MasqueNumber]

protect your kids' cell phone, too...

We advise people to protect their privacy - and their kids' privacy with MasqueNumbers, that's why we developed that service.
When you "masque" your kid's cell phone, you can control who is calling by time of day, block calls at night for example, and check the call records online very easily.

Check story 4 at:
<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.masquenumber.com/how_to_use_it.php" target="_newWindow">http://www.masquenumber.com/how_to_use_it.php</a>

[208mbrandon]

It's bigger than you think, but still doable

Just take a look at the 1,000 top search terms at Wordtracker WITHOUT the filter. Fully half of them are porn-related, and many of them are clearly from those seeking illegal content (i.e. "preteen models" in the top 100, etc.). If people are serious about cracking down, they have to realize that a whole lot more people than they realize are searching for these images. Based on the above information, there are a lot more people looking at child porn for titillation than are using the titillation to actually go out and abuse a child. I will call these people the "lesser" sickos.

That said. There should be a coordinated effort by the UN's human trafficking effort and ICANN. First, all legal porn sites should be relegated to a .xxx domain, with legal ramifications for having obscene content on .com, .net., .org, and the rest. That way, people won't "accidentally stumble" upon porn. Second, a browser plug-in should be developed to allow vigilantes to tag illegal images. These tags would have to be evaluated by a real live human team with credentials (such as the UN), so that bogus tagging done by competitors does not tarnish legitimate businesses and sites. Sites deemed illegal should be sent to ICANN where they would be brought down immediately. This part can be automated. Third, legislation banning porn storming (the automated loops of popup browsers), with real teeth should be enacted. Then, using the previous information, ISP's should be warned to block the IP of the host computer.

My last suggestion itself borders on illegal, and should only be attempted by vigilantes. Using a combination of bogus sites and IP tracing, they should blackmail the users to get counseling or be outed as the sickos they are to their families, communities, and so on. It only has to be done on a small scale, but just the threat of outing might keep the lesser sickos from engaging in the behavior.

[PzkwVIb]

Vigilantism

Is thoroughly illegal.

[phantomsoul]

Identity

I've said this before and I'll say it again -- that while this is a noble cause and really should be commended, its success will be limited until the commercial internet is subject to a standard state/government-issued form of authentication -- akin to that of a drivers license (US) or passport in the physical world.

Cyberstalkers are generally internet-savvy people and will usually find reliable workarounds to restrictions on non-standardized identities. At least standardized Internet identities would be more difficult to defeat...

[zemoxian]

I miss the Internet 01d days

Once upon a time when Usenet was still king, I remember people rejoicing about how the anonymity of the internet made everyone equal and promoted free speech, democracy, and a whole host of other good stuff.

Is all that going away too?

[chuck_whealton]

Re: Identity

There's no question that standardized type of authentication would be a good start. There are very few reasons why people need to remain anonymous on the Internet. And for those who do need to remain anonymous (i.e. - drug, alchohol counseling, etc.) I'm sure there are mechanisms that can be put into place for them to be anonymous when in those situations online.

Charles R. Whealton
Charles Whealton @ pleasedontspam.com

[Hardrada]

Bingo!

Why should anyone expect that they would have greater privacy on the Internet than in any other milieu? The Internet is a public resource. If people cannot use it responsibly, it needs to be regulated.

[DeeepBlue]

war on porn

This sounds to me like another "War On (insert, drugs, terror, porn, obesity or whatever)". A campaign to get the gen pub fired up, spend a lot of money and create another government bureauracy without really doing anything about the problem. Fining the ISP's after the little girl has stopped screaming seems a little late. If the child pornographers can't send it over the internet then what's to keep them from burning cd's.
Why not concentrate your resources on stopping it at the source, rather than after it's already in the pipeline? Somebody somewhere knows that little girl. We have task forces in foreign countries working to stop drug trafficking, why not do the same thing to stop or slow down the child porn industries?

[zemoxian]

international war on porn

One issue slowing that battle is that investigators waste months analyzing data and materials before seeking international cooperation. So if it turns out (as is often the case) that the child in the video is from another country, once that country is found, another round of analysis must occur to track down the scene of the crime.

If the materials were shared initially, it would give law enforcement quicker response time to catch the perpetrators.

[index2006]

Who sings that tune?

--Today if you want to run Outlook Express you must pay for a Hotmail subscription. Messenger should also be paid and it should also be downloaded apart from windows. I'm sure it will avoid lots of trouble.
--Concerning sex and internet it is a greedy business controlled by a handfull of big players.
--Concerning children and internet: Parental love and openess should come between them. Even those "loving and caring" parents apparently believe that a computer safely installed in the confort of their homes pose no risk for their sibblings and also can give them(parents) time. Time which is precious to waste with kids asking too many questions or demanding such understanding of their emotions that may be unpleasant, misfit, untolerable, uncontrolable, unacceptable.
--Unfortunately, any new device that would keep the children "at home within your reach(and quiet of course)" is truly a "blessing" and wellcome.
--Finally, not all parents are prepared to be parents, not all adults are prepared to deal with sex. Money is the root of all evil and confort can still bring misery.
PS. Please don't forget that rigid censorship and intolerance activate the transgression wish like an aggressive disease.

[Fireweaver]

Broad, generalized legislation

Everyone thinks that child porn is about the worst stuff society can come up with. But overly vague legislation like this has potential to be used to restrict a LOT more than what it's supposed intentions are aimed at.

This Legislation not only covers actual child pornography, but it covers fictional child pornography (cartoons), and one they snuck in- clothed youth in lascivious poses.

It doesn't say who decides what's objectionable or how they determine how old the fictional characters are. It just gives them terms to throw the law around if they may want to object.

Read C-Net's other article about this at <a class="jive-link-external" href="http://news.com.com/Senator+to+propose+surveillance+of+illegal+images/2100-1028_3-6156976.html?tag=nefd.pulse" target="_newWindow">http://news.com.com/Senator+to+propose+surveillance+of+illegal+images/2100-1028_3-6156976.html?tag=nefd.pulse</a>

Good commentary about it there as well.

[raildr07]

The Balance

Call me a leftie, but when politicos start talking about solving problems with laws, I cringe. Remember what Ben Franklin said....

[COMALite J]

Cartoons?

Better go after Disney, then. The original <i>Fantasia</i> had a whole sequence involving little nekkid baby Cupids and fauns enticing equally nekkid colorful centaurs into doing the nasty. One of the Cupids even watched, with bare @$$ in plain view.

[flashfast]

Childish Obscenities

It's a problem but hey, let's allow kids to work in factories in
Asia and pay $100 for the label. Let's allow Shia policeman to
control Sunni areas, and vice versa to promote a civil war in Iraq
and then wonder why the bodies of innocent children are
littering the streets. Let's allow drugs to infuse into poor and
ethnic neighborhoods to dull the brains of our children. Let's
allow our kids to be doped up with pysche meds so they never
learn how too deal with depression.

Either way, they're getting #5%$#ed.

[Old Yellar]

Porn

It would seem to me if a filter can be created to catch Spam and pop-ups one could be made for porn images. Places with an Ip it would not be allowed thru the server.

[Philo\]

Not so easy

Spam filters are based on word pattern recognition. Images require a lot more sophisticated recognition to detect what is porn. It's hard for a computer to tell the difference between a person in a swimsuit and a person in lingerie. Then there is intent - there are some pictures showing preteens where they are clothed, but the picture leaves little doubt that the intent is sexual. People have argued both ways on the legality of that issue, but a computer would be hard pressed to identify this.

[John Butler]

Well meaning legislation bad consequence

This is infortunatley just the kind of well meaning legislation which does not hit the target but is later used by Big Government to harrass innocent people.

We have seen it in the UK where the anti-terror legislation allows the police to arrest any one for any act and imprison them for up to a month for "suspicion of terrorism" with out bringin charges. We have seen hundreds of arrests followed by imprisonment for as long as three weeks and then released without charge.

[zealot144]

Modest Proposal

So we are now talking about more laws that can't be enforced. The problem of child pornography is undeniable, but nothing new. Both Romeo and Juliet were children by current American standards, even though Juliet's mother warned her she would soon be an old maid. But there were no explicit scenes in the play. America judges as a "child" what cultural history judges as an adult.

Nonetheless, I am convinced that our global justice efforts are skewed. Josh Wolf may as well be living two decades ago in South Africa, or in 1930's Germany. Our government is able to pursue journalists, but not rapists (though, arguably, anyone with a camera phone could be a "journalist" and be protected from giving up information critical to public safety...where does one draw the line?). We can't make a dent in the illegal drug trade, so the government profits by taxing the legal drug trade. Now John McCain wants to ban cartoons, and a professional photographer faces child porno charges for distributing pictures of teanage girls who are clothed because their poses are too suggestive. What next?

Robert Heinlein's "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" proposed a novel government which included a third legislative body with the sole responsibility of removing laws that were no longer pertinent or just wrong from the start. This is a great idea, as enforcement becomes impossible when there are too many laws with too many convolutions. Too many things are illegal. Enforcemant is impossible (the US incarcerates a higher percentage of it's citizenry than any other western nation, while suffering from higher crime rates...something's wrong!).

Add to this an American legal system that allows legal actions to be postponed almost indefinitely, so the crooks with enough resources know they can get away with just about anything if they have the right lawyer (think O. J. Simpson as an example).

So, get rid of vague, unenforceable laws. Enact definite, unambiguous laws. See if we can all come to some democratic concept of a universal standard of right and wrong (is this possible in a culture permitting tobacco companies and spyware developers to legally profit from their victims?). Require swift justice. Absolutely require it. Few nations in the world permit the protracted legal processes we have in the US.

Laws without concerted enforcement are worthless. Don't pass new laws when we cannot enforce the old ones. Crime flourishes in the US because the criminals know the laws are vague and the prosecution processes weak and slow. If we cannot fight Cocaine, terrorism and child abuse effectively, how can we hope to fight child porn?

[zanzzz]

Banning Cartoon= Thought Crime

The Supreme Court already struck down prior legislation that criminalized fictitious depictions of underage sex. Congress wanted to make a crime out of essentially a fantasy depiction of very poor taste. No children where abused but the thought should be punished our esteemed legislators reasoned. Now these hacks are back for another round. Whatever draconian legislation they manage to pass will have little or no effect on the real criminals. It will of course degrade privacy, generate expenses that will be paid for by the consumer, and ultimately put us another step closer to a totalitarian state in the name of "protecting the children". Those opposing will be labeled pedophile enablers and other similar slurs.

[COMALite J]

That would be Senator Orrin Hatch...

&hellip; who wrote that previous legislation back in the late 1980s if I remember right.

As I pointed out back then, by his definition (and that of Senator John McCain&rquo;s today), Walt Disney&rsquo;s original <I>Fantasia</I> movie would qualify, thanks to the sequence involving little nekkid Cupids and fauns (also nekkid, but with fur from the waist down, which the baby Cupids lacked) enticing colorful nekkid centaurs to do the nasty. One of the nekkid Cupids even watched! This, mind you, in a G-rated family film!

[Philo\]

Drawing the line on line drawings

How do you identify the age of a cartoon character? Perhaps the artist simply likes to draw petite and slim (but adult) figures. What if the character is a 300 year old elf, but with a childlike figure? What about a drawing of two adults pretending to be children?

In addition, what harm does this do? No children are raped when a cartoon is drawn. Some argue that this presents an alternative that gives pedophiles a release without harming real children. Others may argue that this will encourage a pedophile to commit acts against live children.

Following the logic that art that promotes behavior, then the producers of most TV shows and movies should be behind bars for encouraging the violence that happens on our streets. My thought is that it is the person who commits the acts who has responsibility for the act.

[wbenton]

Thinkable or Unthinkable?

If it's unthinkable... then it's not thinkable.

And if it's thinkable... then it's not unthinkable.

The title stinks of a bad odor oxymoron to say the least.

As for the story... it brings out what many didn't want to hear. But just because they don't want to hear it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

The problem with such laws in either the UK or the US is that those laws are ONLY valid within the approved countries. Thus the culprits side-step by logging in through other countries without such restrictions.

The same held true with spamming and hacking. Once local laws get tough... they just move overseas where there are still no such laws in effect.

The biggest problem with trying to stop spam and hacking is that there are so many ways to circumvent the system and no TRUE authentication required. Thus these pedophiles have decided to use those same holes.

Require mandatory absolute non-reputable authentication throughout the world and the problem will be resolved.

Only problem with that is that it could take anywhere from 6-10 years or more before the entire world implements such a system.

So what do we do in the mean time?

We limit which PC's and ISP's which the pedophiles can access the internet from and if they're found using another PC... or another ISP... then "back to jail with double the jail time"! We could monitor all the known access methods and if they're ever found using an unknown access method... KERPLUNK!!! back to jail!!!

Some problems aren't as difficult as we try to make them.

FWIW

[AngelaSG]

Charles Cooper is among thousands of irresponsible news reporters that are NOT properly investigating and reporting to the public.

Case in point in 2005 AOL lied in an investigation that forced the illegal sale of a private home to pay for attorney fees for an individual accused of possession of child pornography. Volusia County Sheriff's Office revealed in the investigation that Child Pornography is being prolifically advertised in pop up ads all over the internet - EXPOSING ALL INNOCENT INTERNET USERS TO CHARGES OF POSSESSION OF CHILD PORNOGRAPHY.

I became apprised of the truth while digging records to file lawsuits to regain my financial losses in 2006 - Congressional records indicate that in 2003 the National Association to PROTECT Children addressed Congress in regards to Child Pornography being prolifically advertised in pop up ads ............BUT IT NEVER MADE NATIONAL NEWS --------------- THE DANGER ALL INTERNET USERS ARE BEING SUBJECTED TO CRIMINAL CHARGES OF POSSESSION OF CHILD PORNOGRAPHY.

So, Mr. Coopers statement in regards to "there is no known case of an ISP covering up for pornographers" IS AN UNTRUTHFUL STATEMENT AND I HAVE THE DOCUMENTS TO PROVE IT.

Angel, Founder of Angels Against Child Predators, Inc.

[morphine123]

Now a days Antivirus and Internet securities are so smart they keep these kinda issues on the bay

http://www.ceveni.com/2009/06/how-to-block-sexual-websites-and.html

[JosefMayr]

Josef Mayr about internet pornography:

It is unquestionably very nice that the issue is being extensively investigated, that measures are being proposed, and that MONEY! is being spent to counteract this incredible manifestation of our society's fundamental ailment: monetary greed.
It is indisputably MONEY! that promoters of online (or any kind of) pornography are after. And the problem is not that we do not realize this, but WHY WE REFUSE TO TAKE ACTION AT APROPRIATE LEVELS? What is the cause for crime in general? MONEY! What is the cause for poverty, illness, pollution? MONEY!
Therefore, once we are ready to acknowledge WHAT MONEY! IS AND WHAT MONEY! DOES we will be able to solve the majority of mankind's pressing problems&.

http://freeworldcharter.org/
http://vimeo.com/21262650
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nOO_AVwfZ9Q&feature=player_embedded

And he shakes up the sack of tokens and swiftly strews them across the table top; with watering eyes he stares at the various symbols upon them. The message, cryptic at first, gradually manifests in his mind. Then he goes out and announces to everyone: "The symbols have spoken and the orders are clear!"
And so we go again dump food in the oceans, let land lay unused, let neighbors starve; lie, cheat and steal to/from/off one another, for the symbols have said so again, just as they did for hundreds of years&&.

Religion is to Divinity as a used-car-salesman is to a '65 Mustang: Entirely irrelevant to its Grace and Power.

Josef Mayr