The WiFi systems of portable phones make it easy to get the phone's unique number or IMSI.

I think the root of this problem is that the phone transmits a unique number that the user cannot change. When I connect to WiFi or ethernet, I change my MAC address each time I use a different network. Machines that won't let you do this are mistreating you.

Israel rejected France's proposed peace process in favor of an alternative that has been dead since 2014, and was only a sham before that.

A survey in Germany found that 2.4% of men admitted to viewing "child sexual abuse images". I share the article's concern, but my conclusions are very different from those in the article.

To imprison such a large fraction of society would be outrageous. In the US, that would amount to millions of people. (The US already imprisons far too many of its residents.) This shows that the current repressive approach is untenable.

The boundaries of "child sexual abuse images" are subject to a lot of stretching, and I don't know what those men had in mind when they answered, or whether they were shown a specific definition. We must not label everyone under 18 as "children", nor assume that sex for someone under 16 or 18 (take your pick) is invariably "abuse", nor treat images of fictitious children as real "abuse". But real children are sexually abused for real, and I support laws against that. Efforts against the business of making and distributing images of that are justified — but these must not be done by dangerous methods.

A law against looking at or possessing a copy of some publication, no matter how odious it is or why, is a threat to everyone. It is an excuse for fishing expeditions, when the state seeks an excuse to imprison someone. It also provides an easy way to manufacture a case against someone. How hard is it to slip copies of things into your computer?

A survey in Germany found that 2.4% of men admitted to viewing "child sexual abuse images". I share the article's concern, but my conclusions are very different from those in the article.

To imprison such a large fraction of society would be outrageous. In the US, that would amount to millions of people. (The US already imprisons far too many of its residents.) This shows that the current repressive approach is untenable.

The boundaries of "child sexual abuse images" are subject to a lot of stretching, and I don't know what those men had in mind when they answered, or whether they were shown a specific definition. We must not label everyone under 18 as "children", nor assume that sex for someone under 16 or 18 (take your pick) is invariably "abuse", nor treat images of fictitious children as real "abuse". But real children are sexually abused for real, and I support laws against that. Efforts against the business of making and distributing images of that are justified -- but these must not be done by dangerous methods.

A law against looking at or possesing a copy of some publication, no matter how odious it is or why, is a threat to everyone. It is an excuse for fishing expeditions, when the state seeks an excuse to imprison someone. It also provides an easy way to manufacture a case against someone. How hard is it to slip copies of things into your computer?

Iraqi men liberated from PISSI's rule celebrate being free to get rid of their beards.

I hope that women will celebrate being free to get rid of their veils, but I am not sure if they get that freedom.