58 minutes ago, sanemax said:

Your post doesnt make sense through  , because it wasnt "laziness" that stopped the Police tracking those people down, it was because they didnt break any laws

 

Not correct. It was because the police could not demonstrate law-breaking by any specific person - not the same thing at all.

Edited June 26, 20188 yr by KiwiKiwi

1 minute ago, sanemax said:

We are talking about why the viewers were not prosecuted in this case .

They were not prosecuted in this case because they broke no laws regarding this case .

  Whether they may have or may not have committed other crimes unrelated to this case is besides the point .

 

Not correct, as already posted. Bluespunk is correct. A motivational deficit (laziness) or a technological deficit (incompetence) are the only 2 possible causes.

1 minute ago, KiwiKiwi said:

 

Not correct, as already posted. Bluespunk is correct. A motivational deficit (laziness) or a technological deficit (incompetence) are the only 2 possible causes.

Which laws did they break ?

59 minutes ago, jvs said:

I should have said what i  got fom he article that the people watched it live,streaming does use a lot of data and leaves traces on your pc or mobile but it does not download everything.I could be wrong .

 

You're partly right. The file must be copied to the device at least in part (streaming) or in full (downloading) and then decrypted for it to be viewed. It seems to me to be 100% that the police could not break LINE's encryption and therefore could not identify specific users. That is a problem, and more or less makes surveillance of online platforms impossible. Not good news for the junta.

Edited June 26, 20188 yr by KiwiKiwi

9 minutes ago, KiwiKiwi said:

 

Any file which is viewed locally (whether streamed or not) is doewnloaded eiethr in full or in segments before viewing is possible. So far as I am aware.

And, where did I say it was not???? By the way, you are correct. Was that what you wanted to know?

5 minutes ago, sanemax said:

Which laws did they break ?

 

Whichever laws relate to viewing online pornography or kiddie porn, of which there most certainly are some - probably numerous knowing this lot.

4 minutes ago, KiwiKiwi said:

 

You're partly right. The file must be copied to the device at least in part (streaming) or in full (downloading) and then decrypted for it to be viewed. It seems to me to be 100% that the police could not break LINE's encryption and therefore could not identify specific users. That is a problem, and more or less makes surveillance of online platforms impossible. Not good news for the junta.

What about if you were watching live ?

If you have a live videochat , would that be recorded on your computer ?

 

3 minutes ago, Get Real said:

And, where did I say it was not???? By the way, you are correct. Was that what you wanted to know?

 

No, I already knew that. But thanks anyway.

11 minutes ago, sanemax said:

We are talking about why the viewers were not prosecuted in this case .

They were not prosecuted in this case because they broke no laws regarding this case .

  Whether they may have or may not have committed other crimes unrelated to this case is besides the point .

The post of mine you quoted was making clear my views of the bib.

 

You chose to challenge me on that.

 

I've explained why I said what I said.

 

You may not like the limits of my post, but that's your problem.

 

Not mine.

Just now, sanemax said:

What about if you were watching live ?

If you have a live videochat , would that be recorded on your computer ?

 

 

Live is just another form of streaming, the generation is different but the transmission is not.

 

And yes, a videochat exists on the source and destination devices. Encrypted is more secure but traces still exist, and readable traces o the decrypted fil or fragments of it may also be available. The police may just not have the skills, but the skills do exist in Thailand.

2 minutes ago, KiwiKiwi said:

 

Whichever laws relate to viewing online pornography or kiddie porn, of which there most certainly are some - probably numerous knowing this lot.

Which laws are those ?

The RTP stated that they didnt break any laws , if you feel that the RTP are wrong, then state the laws which they broke

2 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

The post of mine you quoted was making clear my views of the bib.

 

You chose to challenge me on that.

 

I've explained why I said what I said.

 

You may not like the limits of my post, but that's your problem.

 

Not mine.

Plus it was wrong to say no crimes were committed, though that may have been the story the police chose to tell. It would be more correct that no climes could be proved, perhaps not even detected. Not the same thing at all.

1 minute ago, sanemax said:

Which laws are those ?

The RTP stated that they didnt break any laws , if you feel that the RTP are wrong, then state the laws which they broke

 

I don't know if you are saying that Thailand does not have any l;aws prohibiting the viewing of kiddie-porn, that may be true though I doubt it. If that is the case then, prepare for an international outcry about trafficking, the availability of porn, and under-age sex.

5 hours ago, Denim said:

What a sad world we live in.

 

Parents should be arrested and charged too .Not fit to have a child in their custody.

 

It's the same world Denim.

 

Just different characters.

 

Edited June 26, 20188 yr by watcharacters

7 minutes ago, KiwiKiwi said:

 

No, I already knew that. But thanks anyway.

Ok, now you got me confused??? Can you please tell me what you just meant with your reply then: Reply mentioned and ask for below

22 minutes ago, KiwiKiwi said:

 

Any file which is viewed locally (whether streamed or not) is doewnloaded eiethr in full or in segments before viewing is possible. So far as I am aware.

Just please give me an answer, dear Sir.

3 minutes ago, Get Real said:

Ok, now you got me confused??? Can you please tell me what you just meant with your reply then: Reply mentioned and ask for below

Just please give me an answer, dear Sir.

 

2 reasons...

 

It was partly a fig-leaf - I am not completely knowledgeable, though I used to be.

 

I was pretty sure I knew it already, just softening the language.

 

Not that I owe you anything.

 

Edited June 26, 20188 yr by KiwiKiwi

2 minutes ago, KiwiKiwi said:

 

2 reasons...

 

It was partly a fig-leaf - I am not completely knowledgeable, though I used to be.

 

I was pretty sure I knew it already, just softening the language.

 

Not that I owe you anything.

 

No, nobody is talking about owe somebody something here. Maybe next time you can let your standalone comment be a standalone one, because it was not connected at all to mine that you quoted.

Now it´s just to go back to the blanket, and have a good night sleep.

 

2 minutes ago, KiwiKiwi said:

 

I don't know if you are saying that Thailand does not have any l;aws prohibiting the viewing of kiddie-porn, that may be true though I doubt it. If that is the case then, prepare for an international outcry about trafficking, the availability of porn, and under-age sex.

The viewers did not break any laws .

 

2 minutes ago, sanemax said:

The viewers did not break any laws .

 

Not true. The police said they did not break any laws. Not the same thing.

 

Forgive me, but I would speculate that this might impact on you, to judge from your comments?

 

 

Edited June 26, 20188 yr by KiwiKiwi

Just now, KiwiKiwi said:

Nope. The police said they did not break any laws. Not the same thing.

 

Forgive me, but I would speculate that this might impact on you, to judge from your comments?

 

 

Do elaborate , what do you mean by that ?

1 minute ago, sanemax said:

The viewers did not break any laws .

 

How do you define that into the child pornography law? What they did here is softly killing justice in another area of the law.

It's almost impossible to trace users of an app such as 'Line' if the phone sims have not been registered and also the communication between users is encrypted. The British police have been complaining about terrorists using whatsapp (similar to Line) to communicate securely.

4 minutes ago, Get Real said:

No, nobody is talking about owe somebody something here. Maybe next time you can let your standalone comment be a standalone one, because it was not connected at all to mine that you quoted.

 

Sure it did, but no problem, the matter is resolved.

 

Your unnecessary and puerile final comment was uncalled -for. Try to get a grip.

Just now, sanemax said:

Do elaborate , what do you mean by that ?

Nope, it´s you that must explain stupidity, once again. Ball is on you!

2 minutes ago, KiwiKiwi said:

Nope. The police said they did not break any laws. Not the same thing.

 

Are the Police wrong ?

Which laws were broken by them ?

1 minute ago, sanemax said:

Do elaborate , what do you mean by that ?

 

No elaboration called for, you know perfectly well what I mean, and you did when you read it for the first time.

Just now, KiwiKiwi said:

 

No elaboration called for, you know perfectly well what I mean, and you did when you read it for the first time.

Are you suggesting that I am a pedo ?

2 minutes ago, Get Real said:

Nope, it´s you that must explain stupidity, once again. Ball is on you!

I have explained previously in this thread .

Just now, sanemax said:

Are the Police wrong ?

Which laws were broken by them ?

 

Yes, I believe them to be wrong - deliberately so, in order to appear to be competent..

 

Please direct your 2nd question to a Thai lawyer, they'll be able to tell you. Maybe.

 

3 minutes ago, sanemax said:

Are you suggesting that I am a pedo ?

 

I'm not suggesting anything, friend, I was asking a question.