news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57552225-38/senate-bill-rewrite-lets-feds-read-your-e-mail-without-warrants/

A Senate proposal touted as protecting Americans' e-mail privacy has been quietly rewritten, giving government agencies more surveillance power than they possess under current law, CNET has learned.

Patrick Leahy, the influential Democratic chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, has dramatically reshaped his legislation in response to law enforcement concerns, according to three individuals who have been negotiating with Leahy's staff over the changes. A vote on his bill, which now authorizes warrantless access to Americans' e-mail, is scheduled for next week.
Leahy's rewritten bill would allow more than 22 agencies -- including the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Federal Communications Commission -- to access Americans' e-mail, Google Docs files, Facebook wall posts, and Twitter direct messages without a search warrant. It also would give the FBI and Homeland Security more authority, in some circumstances, to gain full access to Internet accounts without notifying either the owner or a judge.

CNET obtained a draft of the proposed amendments from one of the people involved in the negotiations with Leahy; it's embedded at the end of this post. The document describes the changes as "Amendments intended to be proposed by Mr. Leahy."

It's an abrupt departure from Leahy's earlier approach, which required police to obtain a search warrant backed by probable cause before they could read the contents of e-mail or other communications. The Vermont Democrat boasted last year that his bill "provides enhanced privacy protections for American consumers by... requiring that the government obtain a search warrant."

Leahy had planned a vote on an earlier version of his bill, designed to update a pair of 1980s-vintage surveillance laws, in late September. But after law enforcement groups including the National District Attorneys' Association and the National Sheriffs' Association organizations objected to the legislation and asked him to "reconsider acting" on it, Leahy pushed back the vote and reworked the bill as a package of amendments to be offered next Thursday. The package (PDF) is a substitute for H.R. 2471, which the House of Representatives already has approved.

One person participating in Capitol Hill meetings on this topic told CNET that Justice Department officials have expressed their displeasure about Leahy's original bill. The department is on record as opposing any such requirement: James Baker, the associate deputy attorney general, has publicly warned that requiring a warrant to obtain stored e-mail could have an "adverse impact" on criminal investigations.

Christopher Calabrese, legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union, said requiring warrantless access to Americans' data "undercuts" the purpose of Leahy's original proposal. "We believe a warrant is the appropriate standard for any contents," he said.

An aide to the Senate Judiciary committee told CNET that because discussions with interested parties are ongoing, it would be premature to comment on the legislation.

Marc Rotenberg, head of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, said that in light of the revelations about how former CIA director David Petraeus' e-mail was perused by the FBI, "even the Department of Justice should concede that there's a need for more judicial oversight," not less.

Markham Erickson, a lawyer in Washington, D.C. who has followed the topic closely and said he was speaking for himself and not his corporate clients, expressed concerns about the alphabet soup of federal agencies that would be granted more power:

There is no good legal reason why federal regulatory agencies such as the NLRB, OSHA, SEC or FTC need to access customer information service providers with a mere subpoena. If those agencies feel they do not have the tools to do their jobs adequately, they should work with the appropriate authorizing committees to explore solutions. The Senate Judiciary committee is really not in a position to adequately make those determinations.

The list of agencies that would receive civil subpoena authority for the contents of electronic communications also includes the Federal Reserve, the Federal Trade Commission, the Federal Maritime Commission, the Postal Regulatory Commission, the National Labor Relations Board, and the Mine Enforcement Safety and Health Review Commission.

Leahy's modified bill retains some pro-privacy components, such as requiring police to secure a warrant in many cases. But the dramatic shift, especially the regulatory agency loophole and exemption for emergency account access, likely means it will be near-impossible for tech companies to support in its new form.

A bitter setback
This is a bitter setback for Internet companies and a liberal-conservative-libertarian coalition, which had hoped to convince Congress to update the 1986 Electronic Communications Privacy Act to protect documents stored in the cloud. Leahy glued those changes onto an unrelated privacy-related bill supported by Netflix.

At the moment, Internet users enjoy more privacy rights if they store data on their hard drives or under their mattresses, a legal hiccup that the companies fear could slow the shift to cloud-based services unless the law is changed to be more privacy-protective.

Members of the so-called Digital Due Process coalition include Apple, Amazon.com, Americans for Tax Reform, AT&T, the Center for Democracy and Technology, eBay, Google, Facebook, IBM, Intel, Microsoft, TechFreedom, and Twitter. (CNET was the first to report on the coalition's creation.)

Leahy, a former prosecutor, has a mixed record on privacy. He criticized the FBI's efforts to require Internet providers to build in backdoors for law enforcement access, and introduced a bill in the 1990s protecting Americans' right to use whatever encryption products they wanted.

But he also authored the 1994 Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act, which is now looming over Web companies, as well as the reviled Protect IP Act. An article in The New Republic concluded Leahy's work on the Patriot Act "appears to have made the bill less protective of civil liberties." Leahy had introduced significant portions of the Patriot Act under the name Enhancement of Privacy and Public Safety in Cyberspace Act (PDF) a year earlier.

One obvious option for the Digital Due Process coalition is the simplest: if Leahy's committee proves to be an insurmountable roadblock in the Senate, try the courts instead.

Judges already have been wrestling with how to apply the Fourth Amendment to an always-on, always-connected society. Earlier this year, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that police needed a search warrant for GPS tracking of vehicles. Some courts have ruled that warrantless tracking of Americans' cell phones, another coalition concern, is unconstitutional.

The FBI and other law enforcement agencies already must obtain warrants for e-mail in Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee, thanks to a ruling by the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals in 2010.

LMAO!!

http: / / www. bbc . co . uk / news / uk- 16883566

The FBI and the Metropolitan police have launched a criminal investigation after computer hackers intercepted a conference call.

Officers were heard discussing their efforts against hacking. The phone conversation, which the hackers have released on the internet, revealed details of joint operations and the dates of planned arrests.

IT LOOKS AS OUR GOVERNMENT CAN SPY ON US BUT CRIMINAL WHEN WE SPY ON THEM! LMAO!!!!!!

All you Motherless teachers, subs or otherwise, with a taste for cheese pizza -- I confess, your numbers are dwindling:

http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2012/04/three_men_indicted_for_possess.html

CLEVELAND, Ohio � A trio of Cuyahoga County residents were indicted Wednesday for possessing child pornography following a collaborative investigation by law enforcement agencies and the Ohio Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force.
Indicted were Edward Marton, 25, of Independence; David Kerekes, 54, of Parma; and Jason Cardillo, 30, of Parma.
Marton, a substitute teacher in several school districts, was indicted on 68 counts of pandering sexually oriented matter involving a minor, one count of illegal use of a minor in nudity-oriented material, and one count of possessing criminal tools.
Kerekes was indicted on the same three charges, but with 140 counts. He had more than 40 child pornographic videos on six compact discs.
Cardillo had five pairs of women's undergarments in his bedroom which he claimed he took from a local laundromat. Cardillo was indicted on 10 counts of pandering sexually oriented matter involving a minor, 31 counts of illegal use of a minor in nudity-oriented material, and one count of possessing criminal tools.

RE: STATE TROOPERS:

""A trooper is just "anybody" who happened to do well, which could be anyone on any given day, on a civil servant test. They then go to an academy which is nothing special. They come out of the academy however "thinking" they are something special. These young troopers today don't even realize they work for us. For the most part they are just a money machine for the government. When it comes to do some serious criminal investigative work they haven't the slightest idea what they're doing. They'll swear to you they do, but they know nothing. They have no experience in that arena & the academy courses are only paper. The BCI are the people for the real jobs. Many troopers today have badge muscles.
""

Many criminal cases, even when investigated by the most
experienced and best qualified investigators, are ultimately
solved by an admission or confession from the person responsible
for committing the crime. Oftentimes, investigators are able to
secure only a minimal amount of evidence, be it physical or
circumstantial, that points directly to a suspect, and in many
instances, this evidence is not considered strong enough by
prosecutors to obtain a conviction. In such cases, the
interrogation of the suspects and their subsequent confessions
are of prime importance.

This article addresses the question of why suspects speak
freely to investigators, and ultimately, sign full confessions.
The physical and psychological aspects of confession and how
they relate to successful interrogations of suspects are also
discussed, as is the "breakthrough," the point in the
interrogation when suspects make an admission, no matter how
minuscule, that begins the process of obtaining a full
confession.

DEFINING INTERROGATION

Interrogation is the questioning of a person suspected of
having committed a crime. (1) It is designed to match acquired
information to a particular suspect in order to secure a
confession. (2) The goals of interrogation include:

* To learn the truth of the crime and how it happened

* To obtain an admission of guilt from the suspect

* To obtain all the facts to determine the method of
operation and the circumstances of the crime in question

* To gather information that enables investigators to arrive
at logical conclusions

* To provide information for use by the prosecutor in
possible court action. (3)

Knowing the definition and objectives of the interrogation,
the question then asked is, "Why do suspects confess?"
Self-condemnation and self-destruction are not normal human
behavioral characteristics. Human beings ordinarily do not
utter unsolicited, spontaneous confessions. (4) It is logical
to conclude, therefore, that when suspects are taken to police
stations to be questioned concerning their involvement in a
particular crime, their immediate reaction will be a refusal to
answer any questions. With the deluge of television programs
that present a clear picture of the Miranda warning and its
application to suspects, one would conclude that no one
questioned about a crime would surrender incriminating
information, much less supply investigators with a signed, full
confession. It would also seem that once suspects sense the
direction in which the investigators are heading, the
conversation would immediately end. However, for various
psychological reasons, suspects continue to speak with
investigators.

SUSPECT PARANOIA

Suspects are never quite sure of exactly what information
investigators possess. They know that the police are
investigating the crime, and in all likelihood, suspects have
followed media accounts of their crimes to determine what leads
the police have. Uppermost in their minds, however, is how to
escape detection and obtain firsthand information about the
investigation and where it is heading.

Such "paranoia" motivates suspects to accompany the police
voluntarily for questioning. Coupled with curiosity, this
paranoia motivates suspects to appear at police headquarters as
"concerned citizens" who have information pertinent to the case.
By doing this, suspects may attempt to supply false or
noncorroborative information in order to lead investigators
astray, gain inside information concerning the case from
investigators, and remove suspicion from themselves by offering
information on the case so investigators will not suspect their
involvement.

For example, in one case, a 22-year-old woman was
discovered in a stairwell outside of a public building. The
woman had been raped and was found naked and bludgeoned.
Investigators interviewed numerous people during the next
several days but were unable to identify any suspects. Media
coverage on the case was extremely high.

Several days into the investigation, a 23-year-old man
appeared at police headquarters with two infants in tow and
informed investigators that he believed he may have some
information regarding the woman's death. The man revealed that
when he was walking home late one evening, he passed the area
where the woman was found and observed a "strange individual"
lurking near an adjacent phone booth. The man said that because
he was frightened of the stranger, he ran back to his home.
After reading the media accounts of the girl's death, he
believed that he should tell the police what he had observed.

The man gave police a physical description of the
"stranger" and then helped an artist to compose a sketch of the
individual. After he left, investigators discovered that the
sketch bore a strong resemblance to the "witness" who provided
the information.

After further investigation, the witness was asked to
return to the police station to answer more questions, which he
did gladly. Some 15 hours into the interrogation, he confessed
to one of his "multiple personalities" having killed the woman,
who was unknown to him, simply because the victim was a woman,
which is what the suspect had always wanted to be.

This case clearly illustrates the need for some suspects to
know exactly what is happening in an investigation. In their
minds, they honestly believe that by hiding behind the guise of
"trying to help," they will, without incriminating themselves,
learn more about the case from the investigators.

INTERROGATION SETTING

In any discussion concerning interrogation, it is necessary
to include a review of the surroundings where a suspect is to be
interrogated. Because there is a general desire to maintain
personal integrity before family members and peer groups,
suspects should be removed from familiar surroundings and taken
to a location that has an atmosphere more conducive to
cooperativeness and truthfulness. (5) The primary psychological
factor contributing to successful interrogations is privacy--
being totally alone with suspects. (6) This privacy prompts
suspects to feel willing to unload the burden of guilt. (7) The
interrogation site should isolate the suspect so that only the
interrogator is present. The suspect's thoughts and responses
should be free from all outside distractions or stimuli.

The interrogation setting also plays an important part in
obtaining confessions. The surroundings should reduce suspect
fears and contribute to the inclination to discuss the crime.
Because fear is a direct reinforcement for defensive mechanisms
(resistance), it is important to erase as many fears as
possible. (8) Therefore, the interrogation room should
establish a business atmosphere as opposed to a police-like
atmosphere. While drab, barren interrogation rooms increase
fear in suspects, a location that displays an open,
you-have-nothing-to fear quality about it can do much to break
down interrogation defensiveness, thereby eliminating a major
barrier. (9) The interrogators tend to disarm the suspects
psychologically by placing them in surroundings that are free
from any fear-inducing distractions.

PSYCHOLOGICAL FACTORS

More than likely, suspects voluntarily accompany
investigators, either in response to a police request to answer
questions or in an attempt to learn information about the
investigation. Once settled in the interrogation room, the
interrogators should treat suspects in a civilized manner, no
matter how vicious or serious the crime might have been. While
they may have feelings of disgust for the suspects, the goal is
to obtain a confession, and it is important that personal
emotions not be revealed. (10)

Investigators should also adopt a compassionate attitude and
attempt to establish a rapport with suspects. In most cases,
suspects commit crimes because they believe that it offers the
best solution to their needs at the moment. (11) Two rules of
thumb to remember are: 1) "There but for the grace of God go
I"; and 2) it is important to establish a common level of
understanding with the suspects. (12) These rules are critical
to persuading suspects to be open, forthright, and honest.
Suspects should be persuaded to look beyond the investigators'
badges and see, instead, officers who listen without judging.
If investigators are able to convince suspects that the key
issue is not the crime itself, but what motivated them to commit
the crime, they will begin to rationalize or explain their
motivating factors.

At this stage of the interrogation, investigators are on
the brink of having suspects break through remaining defensive
barriers to admit involvement in the crime. This is the
critical stage of the interrogation process known as the
breakthrough.

THE BREAKTHROUGH

The breakthrough is the point in the interrogation when
suspects make an admission, no matter how small. (13) In spite of
having been advised of certain protections guaranteed by the
Constitution, most suspects feel a need to confess. Both
hardcore criminals and first-time offenders suffer from the same
pangs of conscience. (14) This is an indication that their defense
mechanisms are diminished, and at this point, the investigators
may push through to elicit the remaining elements of confession.

In order for interrogators to pursue a successful
breakthrough, they must recognize and understand certain
background factors that are unique to a particular suspect.
Many times, criminals exhibit psychological problems that are
the result of having come from homes torn by conflict and
dissension. Also frequently found in the backgrounds of
criminals are parental rejection and inconsistent and severe
punishment. (15) It is important that investigators see beyond
the person sitting before them and realize that past experiences
can impact on current behavior. Once interrogators realize
that the fear of possible punishment, coupled with the loss of
pride in having to admit to committing mistakes, is the basic
inhibitor they must overcome in suspects, they will quickly be
able to formulate questions and analyze responses that will
break through the inhibitors.

SUCCESSFUL INTERROGATIONS

Investigators must conduct every interrogation with the
belief that suspects, when presented with the proper avenue,
will use it to confess their crimes. Research indicates that
most guilty persons who confess are, from the outset, looking
for the proper opening during the interrogation to communicate
their guilt to the interrogators. (16)

Suspects confess when the internal anxiety caused by their
deception outweighs their perceptions of the crime's
consequences. (17) In most instances, suspects have magnified,
in their minds, both the severity of the crime and the possible
repercussions. Interrogators should allay suspect anxiety by
putting these fears into perspective.

Suspects also make admissions or confessions when they
believe that cooperation is the best course of action. (18) If
they are convinced that officers are prepared to listen to all
of the circumstances surrounding the crimes, they will begin to
talk. The psychological and physiological pressures that build
in a person who has committed a crime are best alleviated by
communicating. (19) In order to relieve these suppressed
pressures, suspects explain the circumstances of their crimes
they confess.

And, finally, suspects confess when interrogators are able
to speculate correctly on why the crimes were committed.
Suspects want to know ahead of time that interrogators will
believe what they have to say and will understand what motivated
them to commit the crime.

CONCLUSION

It is natural for suspects to want to preserve their
privacy, civil rights, and liberties. It is also natural for
suspects to resist discussing their criminal acts. For these
very reasons, however, investigators must develop the skills
that enable them to disarm defensive resistors established by
suspects during interrogation. Before suspects will confess,
they must feel comfortable in their surroundings, and they must
have confidence in the interrogators, who should attempt to gain
this confidence by listening intently to them and by allowing
them to verbalize their accounts of the crimes.

Interrogators who understand what motivates suspects to
confess will be better able to formulate effective questions and
analyze suspect responses. Obviously, more goes into gaining a
confession than is contained in this article. However, if the
interrogator fails to understand the motivations of the suspect,
other factors impacting on obtaining the confession will be less
effective.

http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/08/why-ip-addresses-alone-dont-identify-criminals

In the case of Tor, the police can avoid mistakenly pursuing exit relay operators by checking the IP addresses that emerge in their investigations against publicly available lists of exit relays published on the Tor Project's web site. The ExoneraTor is another tool that allows anyone to quickly and easily see whether a Tor exit relay was likely to have been running at a particular IP address during a given date and time. The Tor Project can also help law enforcement agencies set up their own systems to query IP addresses easily. These simple checks will help officers concentrate their investigative resources on tracking down those actually committing crimes and ensure that they don't execute search warrants at innocent people's homes.

MCFARTS.....
----------------

PLEASE READ CAREFULLY THE SECTION BELOW BEFORE SIGNING.*

U.S. law requires that, if hired, you must furnish your choice of appropriate documentation establishing identity and employment eligibility, generally within 72 hours of starting work. Please consult a member of the management team to see a copy of DHS Form I-9 for a complete list of acceptable documents.

1. I certify that I have read this application and the information on it is complete and correct. I understand that any omissions or misrepresentation of information is grounds for dismissal.

2. I authorize the persons, employers, schools and organizations listed on this application to give you any information concerning my employment and other pertinent information they may have, personal and otherwise, and release all parties from all liability and damages that may result from furnishing this to you.

3. I acknowledge that I am applying for employment with an independently owned and operated McDonald's franchisee, a separate company and employer from McDonald's Corporation and any of its subsidiaries.

4. I acknowledge that the owner of this McDonald's franchise reserves the right to amend or modify any of its handbooks or policies at any time and without prior notice. These policies do not create any promises or contractual rights between this employer and its employees. At this independently owned and operated McDonald's franchise, employment is at will. This means an employee is free to terminate his/her employment at any time, without any reason, with or without cause, and the franchise owner retains these same rights. The owner of this independently owned and operated McDonald's franchise is the only person who may make an exception to this, and any exception must be in writing, addressed to a particular individual, and signed by the owner.

5. This independent McDonald�s franchise is an Equal Opportunity Employer. Various federal, state, and local laws prohibit discrimination on account of race, color, religion, sex, age, national origin, disability or veterans status, or other categories protected by law. It is this McDonald�s franchise policy to comply fully with these laws, as applicable, and information requested on this application will not be used for any purpose prohibited by law.

6. I understand that as a part of the procedure for my employment application an investigative consumer report may be made concerning my character, general reputation, personal characteristics and mode of living. Upon written request, additional disclosure concerning the complete nature and scope of the investigation will be provided. If I am denied a job based either wholly or in part because of information contained in an investigative consumer report, I will be provided the name and address of the reporting agency that supplies the information.

California Employment Only: You may exclude information regarding any conviction for which the record has been judicially ordered sealed, expunged or statutorily eradicated. You also may exclude information regarding any conviction that is more than two years old for a violation of California Health and Safety Code Sections 11357, 11360, 11364, 11365 or 11550 (or predecessor statutes) as they relate to marijuana.

Connecticut Employment Only: Under Connecticut law, an employer cannot require an employee or prospective employee to disclose arrest, criminal charge or conviction records that have been erased. An employment application that asks an applicant about his or her criminal history must contain the following notice: 1. The applicant is not required to disclose the existence of any arrest, criminal charge or conviction, the records of which have been erased pursuant to Sections 46b-146, 54-76o or 54-142a; 2. The criminal records subject to erasure pursuant to Sections 46b-146, 54-76o or 54-142a are records pertaining to a find of delinquency or that a child was a member of a family with services needs, an adjudication as a youthful offender, a criminal charge for which the person has been found not guilty or a conviction for which the person received an absolute pardon; and 3. Any person whose criminal records have been erased pursuant to Sections 46b-146, 54-76o or 54-142a shall be deemed to have never been arrested within the meaning of the general statutes with respect to those proceedings so erased and may so swear under oath.

Massachusetts Employment Only: Under Massachusetts law, an employer is prohibited from asking questions on an initial written application form about an applicant�s criminal background. MASSACHUSETTS APPLICANTS SHOULD NOT RESPOND TO ANY OF THE QUESTIONS ON THIS INITIAL WRITTEN APPLICATION SEEKING CRIMINAL BACKGROUND INFORMATION. Following the initial written application, an employer may inquire about and consider an individual�s criminal conviction record.

Maryland Employment Only: Under Maryland law, an employer may not require or demand, as a condition of employment, prospective employment, or continued employment, that an individual submit to or take a lie detector or similar test. An employer who violates this law is guilty of a misdemeanor.

Hawaii Employment Only: Under Hawaii law, following a conditional offer of employment, an employer may inquire about and consider an individual�s criminal conviction record where the conviction record bears a rational relationship to the duties and responsibilities of the position. I understand that the Company may conduct a criminal background check (including a check on any sex offender website), after extending any conditional offer of employment. The Company may withdraw a conditional employment offer or release me from any employment, if my criminal background check discloses any criminal convictions that rationally relate to the duties of the job. Any criminal conviction that is more than 10 years old (excluding periods of incarceration) or that involves certain family court matters will not be considered.

By choosing Yes, I agree that all of the above information is accurate.*

MegaUpload - Closed.
FileServe - Closing, does not sell premium.
FileJungle - Deleting files. Locked in the U.S..
UploadStation - Locked in the U.S..
FileSonic - the news is arbitrary (under FBI investigation).
VideoBB - Closed! Will disappear soon.
Uploaded - Banned in the U.S. and the FBI went after the owners who are gone.
FilePost - Deleting all material (will leave executables, pdfs, txts)
Videoz - Closed and locked in the countries affiliated with the USA.
4shared - Deleting files with copyright and waits in line at the FBI.
MediaFire - Called to testify in the next 90 days and it will open doors. Pro FBI
Org Torrent - Could vanish with everything within 30 days "he is under criminal investigation"
Network Share mIRC - Awaiting the decision of the case to continue or terminate Torrente everything.
Koshiki - Operating 100% Japan will not join the SOPA / PIPA
Shienko Box - 100% working China / Korea will not join the SOPA / PIPA
ShareX BR - group UOL / BOL / iG say they will join the SOPA / PIPA

MegaUpload - Closed.
FileServe - Closing does not sell premium.
FileJungle - Deleting files. Locked in the U.S.
UploadStation - Locked in the U.S.
FileSonic - The news is arbitrary (under FBI investigation).
VideoBB - Closed! would disappear soon.
Uploaded - Banned U.S. and the FBI went after the owners who are gone.
FilePost - Deleting all material (so will leave executables, pdfs, txts)
Videoz - closed and locked in the countries affiliated with the USA.
4shared - Deleting files with copyright and waits in line at the FBI.
MediaFire - Called to testify in the next 90 days and it will open doors pro FBI
Org torrent - could vanish with everything within 30 days "he is under criminal investigation"
Network Share mIRC - awaiting the decision of the case to continue or terminate Torrent everything.
P.S. mediafire has start deleting copyright protected files. Only left is the personal files.

Lisa Haugaard: Huffington Post:

Just a few steps south of the U.S.-Mexico border, p******** Calder�n unveiled a towering billboard last week wielding a message written in plain English: "No More Weapons!" Weighing over 3 tons, the billboard itself is made of seized firearms that have been chopped, melted and welded together. Visible from the United States, the call is clear: halt the southbound flow of guns that fuel violence in Mexico.

Arms trafficking over our southern border has provided deadly firepower to brutal criminal organizations, fueling a tidal wave of violence that has led to some 60,000 dead in five years. Many of the dead include police officers, like the five massacred in Acapulco in 2007 with weapons that were later traced to Carter's Country gun shop in Houston. During the billboard unveiling ceremony, p******** Calder�n directly appealed to the United States, saying, "Mexico needs your help to stop this terrible violence that we're suffering... the best way to do this is to stop the flow of automatic weapons into Mexico."

Unfortunately, it appears unlikely that Congress will enact meaningful measures to curb the flux of arms into Mexico anytime soon. Rep. Gerry Connelly (D-VA) has highlighted the failure of Congress to seriously address gun violence in Mexico, noting that the House Oversight Committee, which has held a string of hearings on the notoriously botched Operation Fast and Furious, has yet to hold even a single hearing to examine any of the three steps that many experts agree could actually reduce arms trafficking to Mexico: a federal law prohibiting the trafficking of firearms, stronger penalties for straw purchases, and the reinstatement of the assault weapons ban.

Rep. Connelly has a point. Amid the political fervor and pursuit of accountability related to Operation Fast and Furious, important questions surrounding the larger issue of arms trafficking to Mexico have been largely ignored. Here's what's missing:

For starters, it is critical to note that Operation Fast and Furious was a result--not the cause--of the staggering flow of arms into the hands of organized crime in Mexico. It's true that between 2009 and 2011 ATF agents allowed 2,000 weapons to be bought by straw-purchasers, in hopes of tracing those weapons to higher-ups in a cartel gun smuggling ring. Yet experts estimate that upwards of 2,000 guns are smuggled across the U.S. border into Mexico every day, whether the ATF is watching or not. A senior member of the Zetas drug cartel echoed U.S. law-enforcement findings last July, admitting that his cartel buys virtually all of their weapons from the United States.

How is this possible?

The simple answer is that for Mexican drug cartels, the United States is the easiest and cheapest place to purchase high-powered assault weapons, due to lax U.S. gun laws. According to Mexico's Secretary of the Interior Alejandro Poir�, assault weapons made up one-third of guns captured in Mexico back in 2005. Today, that number has grown to two-thirds, a dramatic rise that can be linked to the United States' failure to renew the assault weapons ban in 2004. Other commonly cited shortcomings that ease the path for arms traffickers include the ability to purchase firearms at gun shows with no background check or identification, weak penalties for straw purchasers, an absence of specific federal penalties for arms traffickers, and a continually underfunded ATF that has long suffered from the absence of a confirmed director.

At a congressional hearing on Fast and Furious earlier this year, one ATF agent noted that "there are stronger regulations on purchasing Sudafed than purchasing guns, and that penalties for gun trafficking are no more severe than those issued for minor traffic violations."

Perhaps from a partisan perspective in Congress, it makes sense to focus exclusively on finding out "who knew what" about Fast and Furious and "when they knew it." Indeed, the mismanaged tactics used in the investigation are troubling, and deserve scrutiny. But from across the border, Fast and Furious is not viewed as the lone enabler of the horrific levels of violence. From Mexico's perspective, weak U.S. gun policies are primarily responsible.

That's why a diverse civil society movement in Mexico initiated a petition urging p******** Obama to enact policies that would help stop the illegal flow of guns from the United States into Mexico. Some 35,000 people have signed the petition to the p********, including a broad coalition of faith, anti-gun violence, and human rights groups in the United States and Mexico.

One of the founders of Mexico's peace and justice movement, Javier Sicilia, the Mexican poet whose 24-year-old son was allegedly murdered by members of organized crime last March, has spearheaded a charge against his country's spiraling violence. Last October, Sicilia came to Washington, DC to meet with policymakers about gun trafficking from the United States to Mexico. During one speaking engagement, he addressed a hushed crowd saying, "I know the U.S. has a culture of arms... but behind each and every one of your weapons are our dead -- and that's a grave responsibility."

We couldn't agree more.

I am looking for as many opinions as possible, from anyone. I am not a police officer nor do I have any connections to law enforcement or any governmental agency. I am a private citizen doing research on a subject. I am not here to judge you, sting you, rat on you, whatever. I don't care if you are a sex offender, someone with fantasies, or someone who is completely against the taboos discussed in this topic. I am a former student in Criminology (the study of criminal behavior). My younger brother is a convicted sex offender, sentenced to spend at least another 15 years (his offense was non-violent, and there was no actual victim involved- he was surfing chat rooms for adult porn. Another user sent him a hard drives worth of old that flooded his whole comp with viruses that caused a whole bunch more old to come in automatically. The perp also attached viruses that took screenshots of the hard drive, including credit information, then ripped my brother off while he was in prison. One of the old files had an attachment courtesy of the FBI that ended up screwing him). Due to his case, I took an interest in so called "sexual deviants" and the studying of paraphilias. For one assignment, I had to choose an offender to interview. The instructor put up a list in the class with no information, just a number. At the end of the class, the number we chose from the list was the number file the instructor gave to us. That way, we did not know anything about the offender we were to interview prior to us choosing the case (I guess this way those that were squeamish could not avoid the assignment, and those that were way too interested in the subject could not choose a specific offender they were interested in. We had to work the case, no matter what. My subject seemed to be rather normal- he was a former intern for a doctors office that treated convicted sex offenders and broken families that had been hurt through domestic violence, rape, pedophilia, molestation, etc. During his employment, it was discovered he was stealing case files from the office and using them as masturbatory materials. After several months of lifting files from the office and fantasizing, he decided to act on the fantasy. He began dating a woman with young toddler age children, and gain their trust. One day while his girlfriend was at work, he hit her two year old daughter so hard that her brain severed itself from the spinal cord due to severe whiplash. She remained the rest of her life on life support in a hospital in a coma, as a vegetable due to this. Her mother finally took her off life support at age 4. During his incarceration, the subject was diagnosed with a brain tumor that had been growing in him since he was a teenager, and had it removed. After the removal, his urges seemed to subside for awhile. But after several months, he found himself masturbating in his prison cell to the same violent fantasies as before. Concerned the tumor came back, he went in for an emergency checkup. The doctors saw no return of the cancer, and no other neurological abnormalities in the brains function, and all chemical levels seemed to be balanced. Intrigued by this, I began doing background on the subject. He lived a normal childhood, in a normal middle class family. He was a a B average student all through school, had normal relationships and friendships with peoeple in his own age group, and had no sign of severe mental illness traits in either him or his family. Aside from his conviction and sexual urges, there was nothing in his environmental or physiological traits/background that would point to his reason for these desires other than the brain tumor. I discussed my subject with a neurologist who said the tumor could have changed the chemistry of the brain, but due to current scientific limitations, this isn't showing on any modern test. A sex therapist I went to for a professional opinion saaid that though the tumor caused the imbalance and urges to begin with, the reason she believes the urges continue is due to the fact that his sexuality was de-sensitized during his experience, and this is the only way he knows and is attracted to in order to orgasm. He does truly feel remorse for what he did, and most likely will not offend again if he can maintain the minimal self control he demonstrates by keeping his fantasies as fantasies and not trying to make them reality, while continuing therapy and treatment.

When asked what he thinks of during masturbation, he began recalling the case files he stole from his previous job: the man who tied his wife to a chair in the kitchen, then called their young 1 year old toddler in the room and began beating her while the mother was forced to watch. The mother/father team who beat, molested, and eventually began a full incest relationship (including a so-called marriage ceremony when one of the girls had her first period, and the father took the daughter into a pedophilic polygamous relationship- the girl was 11) all 4 of their children since before they could walk, and were not caught until the oldest child was in her mid-20s. The other mother/father rape team- a young woman (age 24) would masturbate while watching/video recording her husband (age 27) with their daughter (age 4) beating, slapping, pulling hair, choking, throwing, and twisting/locking her joints to the point of severe pain. They apparently also filmed several child rape videos with the child. I compared cases with another student in the class- her subject was found to be in a pedophilic incestuous relationship with his 7 year old daughter. He started with her when she was barely a newborn, performing oral on her, and masturbating/ejaculating on her. When she was 2, he sodomized her for the first time, and this activity continued until he was arrested. By the time she was 3, she was performing oral sex on him. When she was 7, he raped her vaginally. During school the next day, she went to the nurse with severe stomach pains. When the nurse was examining her, she noticed a large amount of spotted blood near the childs crotch area, and had the girl admitted to a hospital. That is when the sexual abuse was discovered, and the investigation began. When interviewed in prison, he showed no remorse, guilt, or shame in what he had done, claiming that he loves his daughter in the same way a man loves his wife, and believed he was showing acts of love whenever he touched or had intercourse with the child. His background is not unusual for someone who displays this type of behavior- rough childhood, parents who abused alcohol and drugs, physically abusive father who left the family for a stripper when subject was 9. His mother eventually abandoned him at age 15 on the street, since him living at home meant she couldn't afford her drug habit. He was in and out of jail as a teenager, and was raped at 13 by an older cell mate. The girl he was convicted of abusing was mothered by a prostitute the subject was dating, and has since improved her life as a healthy and happy young adult who runs support groups, and an inspirational speaker who specializes in abused women and children.

I am not here to pass judgement, support any viewpoint or suggestion, and am looking to remain completely neutral regarding any of this. I am mainly looking at it from a scientific point of view, and have a few curiosities on the subject.
Since my class, I have had the same questions mulling around my head, so I figured I would bring them to a board where I can find what seems to be a large variety of people (both those attracted to children, and otherwise):
1. How do you feel about the idea of a relationship with a child being sexual?
2. If you are sexually attracted to children, how do you define your attraction? Is it based out of power and control? Do you feel you are loving the child?
3. What is your take on offenders whose actions were less sexual and more violent? (IE, offenders who receive sexual satisfaction or fantasy out of watching women/children be hit, cry, or abused)
4. Do you have fantasies of violence, or love when it comes to children?
5. Are the children yours, or someone elses?
6. Do you have anything in your background that would influence your opinion? If so, what?
7. Do you feel modern day society has a large influence on your decision? Follow up question- how much sex and violence have you been exposed to throughout your life? (movies, magazines, games, books, interests, etc)

Thank you for reading my study, and any answers are appreciated.