[HN Gopher] The cesspool of the internet is to be found in a vil... ___________________________________________________________________ The cesspool of the internet is to be found in a village in North Holland Author : ahubert Score : 169 points Date : 2021-04-03 15:45 UTC (7 hours ago) (HTM) web link (www.nrc.nl) (TXT) w3m dump (www.nrc.nl) | breakingcups wrote: | Somehow, when the following two sentences are put together I lose | all hope in the world's incentive structure: | | "Grapperhaus instituted a number of measures. [...] Companies | would have to respond to a notification from the child | pornography hotline without discussion within 24 hours" | | "In 2015, Ecatel became embroiled in a lengthy conflict with the | Premier League in the UK over claims of illegal streaming of | football matches over Ecatel's network. Streams must be removed | by court order within 20 minutes of a notification." | sennight wrote: | How fast does the ban hammer need to be to restore your hope? | You know that "porn filtration", regularly used to justify | state censorship, always ends up filtering speech that the | state just doesn't want heard? I forget from where the latest | porn blacklist leaked, either NZ or AU, but it was full of | sites the likes of WikiLeaks. | fallingknife wrote: | > When the hoster receives an official request from the US to | remove copyrighted materials - a DMCA takedown notice - the men | do nothing about it, says a person who saw it happen. ,,DMCAs are | just tossed in the wastepaper basket." Subletters even advertise | this 'service'. ,,DMCA ignored" reads one advertisement offering | space in the ,,state of the art Ecatel DataCenter, located in | Amsterdam". | | The Dutch hosting company doesn't obey _US law_. My god! Can you | believe these assholes? Running a hosting company that just | hosts, and doesn 't snoop into what their customers are doing? | And how dare they make enforcement agencies actually go through | the required legal processes to enforce the law! | iudqnolq wrote: | I don't care morally about the DMCA, but you're a dick if you | pull pranks on your child pornography reporting form | | > For reasons that are unclear, the web form that the two men | drew up for reporting gruesome images is designed in such a way | that the system can only handle five reports an hour. That is | unworkable, according to the hotline. | nightwing wrote: | I would agree if the questions was about helping to catch | someone who had made these videos. But hosting isn't a | morality question, they are just storing a number, and | hosting company should not have to care what interpretations | of a number can exist. | smhost wrote: | > they are just storing a number | | they are just storing atoms. the storage company should not | have to care about what configurations the atoms can exist | in. | liamwire wrote: | Those 'interpretations' are tangible, meaningful products | of harm inflicted on children. Let's not pretend there's an | alternative - that anyone is using those bits in a | different way. | yabadubakta wrote: | Sounds like you'd be a terrible citizen, turning a blind | eye to exploitation and corruption to make a buck... | egypturnash wrote: | Okay, what's your social security number, legal name, and | date of birth? It's just a number, you shouldn't have any | problem sharing all of those. | xur17 wrote: | Honestly, we shouldn't have to worry about publishing | those, but banks like to use them as "proof of identity" | for some stupid reason, so sharing them can cause | problems. | kernoble wrote: | So a bookstore is just selling colored pieces of paper, | even if those pieces of paper are images of child abuse? | | Seriously what is wrong with you? I get that cryto- | anarchist are hip and think they're so cool, but there is a | real human cost here. Are you OK with that? | nightwing wrote: | Images of child abuse are not child abuse. Instead of | wasting energy on fighting with windmills and numbers, it | would be better to concentrate efforts on catching child | abusers, and keeping an eye on people who buy such books, | to prevent crimes. | | The argument is exactly the same as the argument for not | banning alcohol, decriminalizing drugs etc. Fight against | actual crime instead of wasting resources on ineffective | measures that look "morally right". | [deleted] | obedm wrote: | "images of child abuse are not child abuse". | | Right. Because those images were just created magically? | Someone took them. And there's a market for them. | | If there's no market for such pictures, likely less | children will suffer the consequences. | | Fighting the crime directly is important, but so is doing | it indirectly. | | Read about the suicide rates in the UK by women before | and after the country changed the type of gas stoves. | Indirect effects can be very strong. | | Reconsider your morals and logic. | cambalache wrote: | > If there's no market for such pictures, likely less | children will suffer the consequences. | | The market will always exist: pedophiles. They have been | and will be among us until the end of times. | | > Fighting the crime directly is important, but so is | doing it indirectly. | | Yes, but the difference is so abysmal that you know where | is more important to put the effort. Stopping even 1 | child of being abused is better than stopping the sharing | of 1 million child porn pics. | smhost wrote: | > Images of child abuse are not child abuse | | have you talked to those children and asked whether or | not they think publically displaying and selling images | of their abuse is abuse? | chr1 wrote: | Do you mean that images that are hand drawn or generated | by neural net should be handled differently? | anonAndOn wrote: | Anytime those images/videos are shared you are | victimizing the abused. | | Disagree? I would love to see enablers/apologists put | some skin in the game (pun intended) and start posting | some of their favorite images of them getting abused. | Let's see some of that philosophy in action! | [deleted] | vimax wrote: | I might care more once laws start protecting children from | those in power more than used by those in power as a ploy to | dismantle privacy from ordinary people. | JeremyBanks wrote: | Have you seen the news about the child predator congressman | facing imminent indictment? | [deleted] | aww_dang wrote: | Many of the robo-DMCA-claim firms simply search for the string | of a movie title. If the page in question is determined by | their poorly written software to include the content, a DMCA | takedown request is spammed. No human confirmation is involved. | One wonders who the abusers and spammers are in this situation. | | Of course some will claim that provisions exist for damages to | be claimed in the event of false takedowns, but it is hard if | not impossible to collect. Typically you need to provide all of | your personal data to respond. | dragonwriter wrote: | > Of course some will claim that provisions exist for damages | to be claimed in the event of false takedowns | | If the falsity is only in regard to the not-under-perjury | parts of a takedown notice (like, say, that there is | infringing content!), then you maybe, in some circumstances, | have a tortious interference claim, but, generally, you are | screwed. If you are _lucky_ , your host has and follows a | counternotice process and you can get the material back up, | but recovering any damages is unlikely. | mindslight wrote: | Yes the DMCA is a terrible law that isn't based on justice, | but rather was one of the first laws bought by copyright | holders so they could attack the nascent Internet. This was | apparent at the time, and the community tried to fight it. | But as with most ratcheting authoritarianism, we lost and | it's just how things are now. I feel like this has been | forgotten, based on how people talk about the claim- | counterclaim process expecting it to be equitable. | Grollicus wrote: | I wish people would find a way to monetize obviously false | DMCA requests. | | I know of some people who basically finance their niche | bulletin boards via police requests - they get something in | the range of 2-3 digits (EUR) for a information request. Get | a few of these a year and your hosting costs are paid. | | There's not a lot of money to be made but if it's your hobby | anyways.. | inter_netuser wrote: | They get paid by the police? Is there a pricelist somewhere | for these police requests? | PartiallyTyped wrote: | personal story: | | I remember uploading a BF3 montage on YouTube some eons ago | when it was all the rage, no copyrighted music or anything. I | received a DMCA claim by some spanish tv/broadcasting company | or something along those lines, totally unrelated to my | content. | | --- | | The fact that DMCA claims can be issued with no human | interaction and no repurcussions is beyond me. If anything, | the hosting company should at least issue penalties on false | claims. | azeirah wrote: | Filing a false DMCA claim is perjury. | | > A DMCA claim (or takedown) is when a copyright holder | notifies a service provider that they have infringing | material on their site/service. It is also known as a | "Notification of Infringement". For example, Twitch has | these guidelines for submitting DMCA claims. Essentially it | boils down to send in writing who you are, who is | infringing your rights, how they're doing it, and swear | under penalty of perjury that you are telling the truth. | | https://blog.pretzel.rocks/lets-take-a-minute-to-talk- | about-... | maccard wrote: | Has that ever been enforced, in any shape or form? | salawat wrote: | You have to counterfile, but there's a poison pill in the | regulation that by doing so you agree U.S. courts have | jurisdiction, thereby nullifying any protections you have | from being in another countries juridiction. | | I mean, there is no getting around it if you want the | countersuit to work and reflect poorly on the claimant, | but you are agreeing to letting the U.S. have extra- | territorial jurisdiction. | maccard wrote: | If you're in the US then you're already under | jurisdiction, right? Why wouldn't someone who is already | under us jurisdiction try it? | JadeNB wrote: | > If anything, the hosting company should at least issue | penalties on false claims. | | If penalties are issued by the hosting company, then they | just won't be paid. Then you lose: there's no way to take | _all_ the non-paying offenders to court, and you can 't | ignore subsequent requests, so you wind up in the same | situation as you're in now. | | Instead, move the onus off the hosting company: if they | receive from some entity a DMCA takedown that is believed | to be false (according to whatever standards are applied to | counterclaims), then no further takedown notices from that | entity are required to be obeyed until the entity takes | appropriate remedial action. | dragonwriter wrote: | > if they receive from some entity a DMCA takedown that | is believed to be false (according to whatever standards | are applied to counterclaims) | | There are no standards for counterclaims except format | standards. All a counterclaim does is permit undoing a | takedown without the provider being liable, transferring | determination of who is right to litigation between the | purported copyright owner and the content uploader with | the host fully immunized. | [deleted] | 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: | >Dutch law states that a hosting company cannot be prosecuted | for the actions of those who hire its servers. It is impossible | for a hosting company to know the content of every byte on | those servers. But hosting companies are required to take | action if they are informed of the presence of illegal content. | The question is how quickly and how actively they do so. | | Chucking a DMCA in the trash sounds like it's against Dutch law | tyingq wrote: | I don't think a DMCA constitutes "presence of illegal | content". It constitutes presence of "content with a US | copyright, maybe". | kazen44 wrote: | not really, DMCA is not binding by dutch law. If however, | they get a request from a dutch/european authority, they | would have to respond to that. | 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: | It might count as being notified of illegal material which | they are required by Dutch law to remove. | techrat wrote: | Digital Millennium *Copyright* Act. | | To use a claim for any purpose other than enforcing your | own copyrights (since 'illegal images' is such a broad | term) is illegal in of itself. | | The DMCA itself has no jurisdiction outside of the US | regardless of the person accessing the data is within the | US. | | In order to submit a DMCA claim, one has to do so under | the penalty of perjury. | | https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/512 | | >(vi)A statement that the information in the notification | is accurate, and under penalty of perjury, that the | complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the | owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed. | | A DMCA claim isn't a "notification of illegal images." It | is a statement of "I own the (copy)rights to this work | and you do not have permission to host/use it." | [deleted] | vonwoodson wrote: | Copyright laws are international. If you think WIPO won't | enforce a DMCA claim because "American laws don't apply outside | of the US" (Bwahahahaha! Ha hahah! _gasp_ HAHAH!! Ha! Ha! _Ahh_ | heh heh heh... oh, my...) you're kidding yourself. | | https://www.wipo.int/ | toast0 wrote: | You can't enforce a DMCA claim against an entity without ties | to the US. You can enforce a copyright claim against an | entity in a jurisdiction that respects copyright, but you're | going to need to use that jurisdiction's procedures. | | I'm sure these companies don't throwout local court summons, | but a lot of copyright holders (or their agents) send out | DMCA claims and don't follow through beyond that. | dragonwriter wrote: | > You can't enforce a DMCA claim against an entity without | ties to the US | | a "DMCA claim" isn't really the issue, the DMCA _safe | harbor_ (takedowns aren't a basis for claims, but for safe | harbor from claims against the provider) doesn't apply | outside of US law. To the extent another jurisdiction has | provider liability, following US DMCA takedown rules won 't | protect you from it. | throwawayfire wrote: | > You can't enforce a DMCA claim against an entity without | ties to the US. | | This is less obvious than it might appear - the US has | pushed to include DMCA-equivalent claims in international | trade deals. | | E.g. The proposed UK-US Free Trade Agreement explicitly | includes negotiation around intellectual property rights: h | ttps://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/Summary_of_U.S.-UK_Nego | ... | PeterisP wrote: | The core copyright laws e.g. the Berne convention are | international and pretty much universally accepted, however, | DMCA goes way beyond that, and several key provisions of DMCA | - including the specific takedown process and the prohibition | on distributing DRM-circumvention tools - is USA-specific law | that does not have an equivalent in many other jurisdictions. | zabzonk wrote: | WIPO don't "enforce" anything - they are not like agents of | SHIELD. | | Worked for WIPO as a consultant back in the 90s. | [deleted] | [deleted] | alejandrojaez wrote: | what about the isp companies they use for connect the datacenter? | irq wrote: | Read the article. | | > If the companies that give IP Volume access to the rest of | the internet were all to decide to stop doing so, the company | could no longer operate on the internet. This is called de- | peering, and it does occur very sporadically. | | > But it is highly controversial, says Guilmette. It flies in | the face of the voluntary, decentralised structure of the | internet. That is why the largest hub, the Amsterdam Internet | Exchange, say they won't do it. A spokesman for the exchange: | ,,We are only a highway, we have nothing to do with the | content. You surely can't expect us to paternalistically review | what such a party is hosting?" | iudqnolq wrote: | I enjoy the idea that a translater decided to include the dutch | word _hashcheckserver_ instead of looking for a similar english | word. | | > Grapperhaus instituted a number of measures. A technical system | for detecting child pornography - a hashcheckserver - would be | set up that hosting companies could join. | unfunco wrote: | The similar English word would surely be hash check server? | iudqnolq wrote: | Yep, and I learn again to never assume a joke will work over | the internet. | MomoXenosaga wrote: | Safe and boring, too much water and wind, everyone speaks | English, government will help you evade the IRS. Its basically | heaven for data centers. | Reason077 wrote: | > _" Armin received a bottle of jenever in thanks. ,,But the | customs made me throw it away before the return flight. I | couldn't even take a sip.""_ | | It would have been airport security that made him throw it away, | not customs. At that time, the UK was part of the customs union, | so there were no customs on a flight between the Netherlands and | UK. | raverbashing wrote: | Yes (he should have known not to take liquids as hand-luggage | on a flight) | | Edit: as hand-luggage | [deleted] | toomuchtodo wrote: | Can you not take spirits, wine, or beer (sealed) on a flight | in the EU? EDIT: Removed question about duty free, answered | by replies below. | | Odd, as in the US, there is no limit if in your checked | baggage if below 24% ABV, and 5 liters if 24% - 70% (carry on | has much stricter limits [3.4oz or less that can fit | comfortably in one quart-sized, clear, zip-top bag], but is | still permitted). | | https://www.tsa.gov/blog/2019/06/21/tsa-travel-tip- | traveling... | bayindirh wrote: | Duty free shops put your bottles in a sealed transparent | bag with the receipt, everything is perfectly visible. | | You're not allowed to open the bag on the flight, | obviously. | masklinn wrote: | > Can you not take spirits, wine, or beer (sealed) on a | flight in the EU? How do duty free shops work if that's the | case? | | The duty free is inside the secure area, you've already | passed security. | jerrysievert wrote: | when flying back from china, the duty free shop asked me | what my next airport was (Seattle) and whether it was a | connecting flight or not (it was). at that point, they told | me that they wouldn't sell me anything, as I would have it | confiscated. | | they were correct, the international arrivals required | another bag check to enter the domestic part of the | airport, that had the stringent TSA rules (after you went | through customs and collected your luggage, before you | could drop your luggage off again for your next flight). | | so, it appears to be airport by airport when traveling to | the US. | Ekaros wrote: | They are after the checkpoints and they are marked. So you | can take them on board. But that likely won't work for next | flight if you have to through security again... Also some | airlines sell stuff that is directly deposited on your | seat. | eptcyka wrote: | I don't want anything to do with seats on planes that | have had liquids deposited onto them. | tsimionescu wrote: | You can buy it from a duty-free shop even if you have | multiple flights, even if you have to transfer out of the | security area - they seal it in a special bag with | receipts attached; when you go to your next security | check-in, you present the sealed bag, and they check if | it has been less than 24h since it was purchased, they | inspect the seals, and they let you through if everything | is in order. | dmacedo wrote: | You can from duty free, just nothing that you bring from | outside the airport that goes with your carry-on that | passes through security. Your luggage can carry spirits or | whatever other drinks you want, just not carry-on though. | For... Safety reasons, obviously. | [deleted] | tsimionescu wrote: | For checked-in bags, there is no limit in the EU at all as | far as I know. The problem is with carry-on, where you are | extremely limited in the quantity of liquids you can get | past security - no more than ~100ml, and even then it must | be in a bottle inside a clear plastic bag. | buzer wrote: | There probably isn't an EU-level limit, but member | countries can set them. In Finland you can bring as much | as you want for your own use, but past some point you | need to be able to actually prove that it's for your own | use. Current guidelines are: 110 liters of beer, 10 | liters of other alcohol drinks, 20 liters of max 22 % | intermediate products, 90 liters of wines or fermented | long drinks/ciders. Common reasons for bringing more than | that are e.g. your own wedding. | gaucheph wrote: | what's the significance of this distinction? | graeme wrote: | Accuracy? Always worth striving for. For example it's akin to | saying "the police made me go through a metal detector" if | building security did or "the nurse gave me CPR" when a | lifeguard did. | | They're....close but it isn't the same. | | In case you were asking literally: security are the people | that make you throw out liquids due to bomb threats and check | for weapons. Customs see you after the plane across a border | and check that you didn't bring anything that requires | payment of border tax. If you do, they will make you pay the | tax at the border before entry. | 1996 wrote: | > ,,But the customs made me throw it away before the return | flight. I couldn't even take a sip."" | | B.S. | | Before a flight, a highly paid (given what they do) security | theather monkey tried to demand that I forfeit an expensive | bottle. | | Knowing full well how it works in most countries, where the | loots are split at the end of the day, I said "watch this", | chugged it down, and voluntarily surrendered the now empty | bottle. | | At least I enjoyed it partly! | | Even if later I did throw up during the flight, I prefer being | sick than my luxury bottle being stolen by a security theater | monkey. | layoutIfNeeded wrote: | Sounds like a good way to get alcohol poisoning. | 1996 wrote: | The human body is wonderfully done: you then throw up. | | It was a smelly flight however. Sorry, plane ground! Sorry, | seat neighbours! | | But it was funny when the stewardess asked my why I was | sick: I just told the truth, I was drunk! What was she | going to do anyway? Throw me out of the first class and | into the main cabin? | iandanforth wrote: | Hosting center known to multiple nations as a hotbed for illicit | activity that surprisingly hasn't been shut down? Yeah that's a | compromised system. | h2odragon wrote: | It makes life simpler, when the usual suspects are all in one | easy to watch place. | markdown wrote: | North Holland? More like Hamsterdam. | pindab0ter wrote: | I get the The Wire reference, but I don't think it applies | here. | [deleted] | jtvjan wrote: | Would ,,confidental computing"[1] be able to provide a solution | in this situation? If it is encrypted using a TEE, they would | have no way of knowing what kind of data they are hosting. | | [1]: https://confidentialcomputing.io/ | kernoble wrote: | Are you suggesting that something is a "solution" by shielding | people who perpetuate the distribution of child abuse media and | profit off it? | | If you are, then there is something seriously wrong with you. | pindab0ter wrote: | I think this is a case of a HN user seeing the abstraction of | a problem rather than the actual subject matter. | SV_BubbleTime wrote: | Yes, you can use one of the four horsemen of internet crime | to strip rights from everyone who isn't doing anything wrong, | or, you can realize the good will always outweigh the bad. | fireeyed wrote: | The hosting company could be a cesspool but I just checked one of | the news blog site the article attributed to 'right wing | radicals'. The content looks like Dutch version of Buzzfeed or | TMZ https://vizieroplinks.org/ | [deleted] | radicalbyte wrote: | A version of Buzzfeed who put letter bombs through left- | winger's mailboxes, regularly make death threats to left-wing | politicians and generally act like a they're living in some | third world anarchist state. | cbozeman wrote: | Anarchists don't want states. | | That's the whole point of being an anarchist. | PartiallyTyped wrote: | Anarchist state is an oxymoron. | the-dude wrote: | Sources please. | korijn wrote: | It was on the national news couple days ago, too many to | list but here's one article: https://nos.nl/l/2373565 | | I don't know about death threats though. But I for sure | would feel intimidated as hell. | De_Delph wrote: | This Nadia Bouras person has cheering on red paint | 'attacks' on an elected right wing politician's home | address front door a while ago. Something something black | kettle. | the-dude wrote: | I see nothing about letter bombs or death threats. | korijn wrote: | That's right. | the-dude wrote: | So it is not a source for the actual claims of the OP, | right? | korijn wrote: | Sure. I guess I missed their point. I would consider it a | source for the argument that they can't be compared to | buzzfeed, and that people feel intimidated by them, but | that's as far as it goes, correct. | the-dude wrote: | > and that people feel intimidated by them, | | OP did not claim that, OP claimed letter bombs and death | threats. I ask for a source on that, and you provide a | link which does not deliver at all. | [deleted] | radicalbyte wrote: | Here are the death threats: | | https://www.gelderlander.nl/nijmegen/huub-bellemakers-gl- | wor... | | Rumoured letter bombs were around new years (Cobras). | They were rumours, mind - it's not like they've made | specific claims. | the-dude wrote: | Could you please quote the _death_ threats? I am not | seeing them at a glance. | | So are you backtracking on the letter bombs? They were | merely rumors? | misja111 wrote: | I don't approve of Vizier op Links, but there is not a | single mention of death threats in the article you | linked. | sergiotapia wrote: | I'm glad they wipe their asses with DMCA. They have nothing to do | with the USA. | KirbyTetro wrote: | These issues are endemic to any platform. Even mainstream | blogging sites like Tumblr had issues with the large quantities | of child pornography being shared by the users. It's the users | posting illegal content that should be held accountable not the | platform owners. | [deleted] | polishdude20 wrote: | Yeah isn't this akin to say, posting child pornography on | electrical poles in the city and then blaming the city for it? | luckylion wrote: | No. The servers in the data center are rented to specific | clients. If these clients commit crimes and the DC operator | knows about it but chooses not to shut down the offenders, | that's their business feature. | polishdude20 wrote: | I'm considering the previous posters comment on how the | users who post illegal materials should be responsible, not | the platform. But yeah that makes sense. In this case it | would be as if the city knew about the child pornography on | the street but decided not to do anything about it. | read_if_gay_ wrote: | But also the city is required to check all the light | poles for CP constantly. | t0mas88 wrote: | North Holland is quickly rising in datacenter fame... They also | have an ongoing conflict between local and higher level | government about Microsoft building a huge datacenter and using | all their renewable (wind) energy. | kazen44 wrote: | Also, the electricty grid around amsterdam is basically filled | to the brim, and there has been a ban on expending datacenters | in the area because of energy concerns. | | In my opinion this is quite a good thing, considering this | would ditribute the datacenters more across the netherlands. | stingraycharles wrote: | Can confirm, it's kind of ridiculous to build all kinds of | renewable energy sources only to have them cause a massive | increase in datacenter electricity usage, because they want to | become 100% renewable. It would maybe be OK if they weren't | subsidized as heavily. | [deleted] | vultour wrote: | > Tim Kuik, director of copyright organisation BREIN, says he was | told by the men that he had to stop sending legally formulated | letters of complaint. ,,They wanted a meeting where I would tell | them what was wrong in a jovial tone, and then they might look at | it." | | This is hilarious, I wish less sketchy companies would do this to | DMCA requests. | oneplane wrote: | Odd to see so many people come up with ways to defend this | unethical business. | | It's hard to pin it on them legally but they are still dicks | doing dicky things, they know it and they do it on purpose, and | there is no clear way to fight it. | rowanG077 wrote: | Damn. Seems like I found the adres where I will get servers when | I need them. | aaomidi wrote: | 50% of known CP is hosted in Netherlands. A country smaller than | New York state. | dragonwriter wrote: | > 50% of known CP is hosted in Netherlands. | | Does that mean "CP is hosted disproportionately in the | Netherlands" or "CP hosted in the Netherlands is | disproportionately likely to be discovered"? | orhmeh09 wrote: | Also a hotspot for drugs trafficking, yet with a pristine | official record of corruption, ranking as one of the ten least | corrupt countries in the world. These seem incongruous, | somehow. | rocqua wrote: | There has been movement and cries for help about criminal | influence at the municipal level. With cases of criminals | getting elected, or mayor's being threatened for taking | action against criminals. | | These have been listened to, and a campaign to undermine | criminality by law enforcement has been setup with moderate | success. The issue is known in government and action is being | taken. At the same time, our value and expertise is largely | in logistics. Government tries to balance economic interests | against crime fighting. | | Meanwhile we are a huge logistics hub with a relatively small | police force (cause we are a small country). So it makes | sense that we are attractive for criminals. | | What worries me most is the port of Rotterdam. It is big, | vital, and known to have quite a large criminal element | embedded in the workforce. Fixing that whilst keeping the | port operational is probably quite difficult. | kazen44 wrote: | the south of the netherland is the largest XTC producer in | Europe, and very hard to tackle because criminal enterprises | are usually entrenched in local villages and communities. | ummonk wrote: | Sounds like a ranking as meaningful as pandemic preparedness. | https://www.statista.com/chart/20629/ability-to-respond- | to-a... | FabHK wrote: | Not incongruous, I think. By basically legalising drugs, | prostitution, and similar victimless peccadillos (and | focusing on treatment and support instead), you destroy the | mob's business model, reduce opportunity for corruption, and | allow cops to concentrate on real crime. | mustafa_pasi wrote: | But actually the opposite is happening in the Netherlands. | | There are drug labs basically everywhere in the | countryside. | | All global organized crime syndicates have a local | presence. | | With regards to prostitution, human trafficking has | actually increased and prostitutes get imported and pimped | out. Half the business is legal so the police have even | less incentive to care, especially if the victim and the | pimp are both foreign. Basically free tax money and no harm | (to ethnic Dutch people). | | There's also lots of arms trafficking. | FabHK wrote: | Oh wow, I didn't realise it was so bad. | kome wrote: | often northern Europe is like this... or Switzerland. I have | seen incredible stuff in Switzerland. | zabzonk wrote: | >yet with a pristine official record of corruption | | A pristine record with whom? | | I've worked for several years, on and off, in the Netherlands | (and enjoyed doing so, mostly), and it has always seemed to | me that they simply ignore any crimes and corruption they | can't be bothered with. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2021-04-03 23:00 UTC)