Researchers Use Computer-Generated 10-Year-Old Girl To Catch Online Predators 545
mrspoonsi writes "Dutch researchers conducted a 10-week sting, using a life-like, computer-generated 10-year-old Filipino girl named 'Sweetie.' During this time, 20,000 men contacted her. 1,000 of these men offered money to remove clothing (254 were from the U.S., 110 from the U.K. and 103 from India). Charity organization Terre des Hommes launched a global campaign to stop 'webcam sex tourism.' It has 'handed over its findings to police and has said it will provide authorities with the technology it has developed."
The numbers (Score:5, Insightful)
The numbers there are roughly proportional to the number of internet users from each country(just under 1 per million). So... sick-fuckitude crosses all races and cultures.
Re:The numbers (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:The numbers (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, no. It's okay to be disgusted with crimes that harm others. Wanting an empirical approach to addressing crime doesn't mean the crime itself is intrinsically more OK.
Re:The numbers (Score:5, Insightful)
What's considered "harm"? To some folks, a 17-year-old hearing the word "penis" is a disgusting crime that should be prosecuted. The way I've seen it most often handled, it's the parents of the child who get to decide whether something's harmful. Usually, the minor has no input on the matter at all.
Almost all law involving minors is based around the ancient notion that people don't start thinking until someone else tells them to. Until that time, the father/owner/king knows best, right?
Re:The numbers (Score:5, Insightful)
Laws about minors revolves around the fact that, by necessity, not all of them are capable of rational consent, and any line used would be arbitrary, so an arbitrary one is used. It's not tyranny to seek limitations on those who would take advantage of naivete.
I mean, it's almost like your arguing against the existence of childhood.
Re:The numbers (Score:5, Insightful)
Laws about minors revolves around the fact that, by necessity, not all of them are capable of rational consent
Not all adults are capable of rational consent. In fact, I'd say that most adults aren't anything resembling "rational."
Re:The numbers (Score:5, Insightful)
You're right. Not all adults are, and we do have laws to protect them too. That's not a valid justification.
Re:The numbers (Score:4, Insightful)
You're arguing for the rights of pedophiles to abuse minors against the protection of children. How can you possibly think that's a valid interpretation of basic human rights?
Re:The numbers (Score:4, Insightful)
If you wish to pay out of your own pocket to fund the creation, validation, and application of a test that can be applied to each child individually in order to determine the "real" line for that child, that gesture will no doubt make many people and groups very happy!
Short of that however, unfortunately not many other people or groups wish to pay what it would cost.
Cheaper measures mean less reliable results with more noise. That's why we have the imaginary line of your Xth birthday. It's as cheap as a validated ID card (which most places is govt/state issued anyways, so already an expected and required cost)
No one, including the lawmakers, are claiming or believe a person magically changes from a child to an adult at midnight of the magic day, if that is what you meant.
It's just the best you get when no effort or money is being allocated for a better way.
Plus, looking at the percentage of the population that has kids, I'd imagine the majority of that majority* actually have had the thought occur that they could use the existing system as a form of "legal club" against other adults whom do anything to them or their child that they dislike.
I doubt that group would want to change the existing system to anything better, as it removes a powerful weapon from their hands.
* I'm assuming the child-having percentage of our population is larger than the childless percentage, but admit I don't actually know. Apologies if that is incorrect.
Re: (Score:3)
That only sounds arguably better at face value, and perhaps only balancing out the original+actual problem. I'm not sure either option could claim to be the best one.
I agree that too many people have been prosecuted under such laws after being twisted for situations they were never intended for, and I agree that really needs to stop.
I also see the majority of the problem being "at home" as well which seems to be mostly ignored, which is very wrong too.
I even seem to remember some reports and studies out th
Re:The numbers (Score:5, Insightful)
It sounds better to me overall, because freedom is my prime concern, not safety.
Then shouldn't one factor in the 10 year old girls freedom to not have undesired sex forced upon her? How is the girl free if she has no option but to submit to sex she never claimed to have wanted?
Talking to someone and actually abusing them are two different things.
Exactly. Adult people showing up to the "girls" posted address, and sending pictures of their penis to without saying in advance thats what the picture is, is very far from "talking"
Perhaps you're thinking of other unrelated situations where child abuse laws were themselves being abused?
They weren't and didn't.
As it turns out they weren't, but they didn't know that at first.
At first, they fully thought they WERE in that situation, and proceeded to try having sex with her.
I see little difference in showing up at the profile address of a bot or cop that you thought was a 10 year old girl, and showing up at the profile address of a 10 year old girl.
In both cases they thought they would be having sex with a 10 year old girl.
There are also only a small number of situations, mainly where the adult chances their mind and doesn't want to do so in the end, that would factor in.
If their intent is to have sex with a 10 year old, they clearly have intentions to have sex with a 10 year old.
It doesn't matter if the reason they were prevented from doing so was that the girl wasn't real, or they got in a car accident on the way over, or what have you.
This bot did not reach out to anyone. The entire conversation was initiated by the adult, it was escalated to sex by the adult, and it was the adult that pursued the sex.
Now if the police see a chat transcript where the adult finally asks the girls age, she says 10, and the adult replies "uhhh, seriously? Yea sorry that's not the age difference I was looking for. Bye" and then proceed to make arrests and press charges, THEN I will grant you the adults freedom was infringed.
But that wouldn't be the case at hand. So to me the freedom of the child outweighs the adults freedom to fuck a 10 year old.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't think there is a State in the country that requires presenting a State ID before having sex.
Neither do I. I simply said that with our current system of "You are legally an adult at midnight of your Xth birthday" it is very simple and straight forward to verify and confirm this.
The ID will say you are over X years old, and lack of ID (or an ID that says otherwise) means you are not over X years old.
That is the entire basis why the "your Xth birthday" is simple and cheap, compared to what the GP claimed was better (individually judging each individual as competent as an adult, at the time they actu
Re:The numbers (Score:4, Interesting)
The laws in most civilized countries reflect that to some degree. There is necessarily a degree of arbitrarieness, but laws tend to be different for kids less than 16, for kids between 16 and 18, and for those adults 18 and over. And the penal code in those countries reflects that.
Re:The numbers (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
...alluding that people trying to have online-sex with 10-year-olds is somehow similar to someone saying "penis" in the presence of a 17-year-old
I think you found my point there. In some jurisdictions (namely any jurisdiction with a hard-line age of majority set at 18), they aren't just similar, but legally they're exactly the same. A high-school Romeo is, in legal terms, just as much a predator as anyone found by this bot, and I think that's wrong.
I worry that in the rush to "protect people from predators", we'll forget to check first whether the "predators" are actually dangerous.
Re:The numbers (Score:5, Interesting)
...and you lost it again.
Before we're "disgusted with crimes that harm others", we should realize that different amounts of harm are lumped into the same criminal label. The disgust and stigma applies its heavy weight to all cases, not just the most heinous. In the name of "thinking of the children", we push for ever-tougher laws
I know someone who has to explain a "sex offender" label every time he applies to a job, because his high-school sweetheart's parents didn't like him. They even had him arrested and charged without their daughter's knowledge. Does he have "sick-fuckitude" for not breaking off a relationship during the three months they were on different sides of an arbitrary boundary? That's what disgusts me: that the panic about the crime can sometimes cause more harm than the crime itself. It's a treacherous domain indeed.
Re: (Score:3)
I think the one that stuck (out of about a dozen charged) was "molestation". The long story made short is that my friend, and secretly his girlfriend, are not particularly religious, her parents are strongly. When he turned 18, the mother took the girlfriend on a college-visiting tour while the father called the cops. The short investigation showed that there was an obvious relationship, and the father ever-so-helpfully gave a statement on his daughter's behalf. The guy was arrested and charged just before
Re:The numbers (Score:5, Informative)
Funny thing is, I have heard the AG of my state on the radio being absolutely chewed out by a parent about the fact that our age of consent is 16
The parent was an idiot. AGs enforce the law, they don't make them. The parent's complaints should have been addressed to the legislature.
and all she could say was "Well the law is the law".
For an AG, that is the appropriate response.
Re: (Score:3)
The problem is the disgust with pedophilia tends to reach levels where it actually hinders doing anything effective to stop it, as such action often requires carefully thought-out measures, as well as threatens harm to innocents in the tradition of witch hunts.
There's another, related effect: outrage is addictive, so it's easy to get stuck on needing targets to hate, in the exact same way a crackhead needs crack but with the caveat that this crack is m
Re:The numbers (Score:5, Insightful)
Sorry. There's a difference between me not necessarily being wise about my sexual indiscretions, and a 5 year old having no idea what's going on.
There is such a thing as childhood. This shouldn't be a point of debate. At all.
Yes. There is such a thing. In fact, there are quite a few people who act like children their whole lives. This issue is so emotionally charged for you, that you aren't able to step back and understand the point these other folks are trying to get across.
I agree that those who are emotionally and intellectually unable to give informed consent (regardless of age, but children are the largest group that fits that description) need to be protected from those who would take advantage of such people. It is certainly *possible* (perhaps even likely) that someone incapable of consenting to sexual activity could be harmed by it.
I also agree that it would be much too onerous on our legal system to take each case and evaluate all those involved to determine whether or not consent is possible. As such, arbitrary age limits are applied, just as we do WRT driving and purchasing alcohol or tobacco. However, I suspect that *most* of us would agree that the overwhelming majority of pre-pubescent kids are generally too immature emotionally and intellectually to give consent. This is the issue addressed by TFA. Whether using an AI to entrap folks is appropriate is a difficult question.
AFAICT, the points that many folks who are up in arms about this are trying to make are valid as well.
1. Viewing fictional depictions, reading or talking about sexual contact with those unable to consent should be protected expression. Ideas should not be criminalized.
2. Teenagers have sex with each other all the time. And do other things like send each other explicit photos and videos of themselves. Criminally prosecuting teenagers for doing what teenagers do, and them branding them as predators for the rest of their lives is both cruel and counterproductive.
Can you get your head around those concepts? Feel free to disagree, but if you are going to disagree, please provide some reasoned arguments. And "herp derp, think of the children" or "herp derp, there is such a thing as childhood you know" don't qualify, IMHO.
Screw it. I'm going to blow my mods on this thread for this. Hopefully not posting as AC will give you more incentive to respond intelligently.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:The numbers (Score:5, Insightful)
This shouldn't even be the least bit surprising if you've spent any time at all looking at the current research in the field, suggesting a combination of both environmental and neurological factors. It's like any other 'variation' in human sexuality, statistically you will find it anywhere given a large enough sample. Yet our solutions are entirely reactive rather than preventative. The solutions the experts propose repeatedly are simply never going to happen. This is a field where people assume getting really angry is the only way to fix things, and stopping to understand the problem and break it down into its components is somehow condoning it. Understanding criminal behavior with prevention in mind is 'hugging a thug' instead of getting tough on crime and we must operate under that false dichotomy.
If we fixed electronics like we treated society's ills, we'd take a sledgehammer to them accompanied by 'die MOFO die!' (a la office space) every time there was a problem. And we'd have a pile of wasted and broken things, and even more problems to deal with as a result... And well, that's what we are seeing, and will continue to see, until we get smart about this problem and start listening to what experts are saying.
A very small start, just the tip of the iceberg:
http://www.salon.com/2013/05/15/our_approach_to_pedophilia_isn%C2%B4t_working/ [salon.com]
Re:The numbers (Score:5, Insightful)
Boiling down your core argument: Dumb people hold back democracy. It's undeniable, but none of the solutions to that problem are going to take either.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes. I think two researchers summarized the problem well.. the 'Dunning-Kruger' effect.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
i hate child abuse (including emotional and psychological abuse by ignorant and apathetic parents) but this case is bordering on entrapment
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entrapment [wikipedia.org]
Entrapment (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Entrapment (Score:5, Informative)
This wasn't the police. How can you have police entrapment with no police involvement?
I wish people would stop claiming entrapment for stings. They're completely distinct.
Re: (Score:3)
Yep. Entrapment by police and entrapment by well-intentioned vigilante investigators are completely different things. Though if they have done their research, they'll know the importance of never leading the suspect on or enticing them to any action.
Re:Entrapment (Score:5, Informative)
Yep. Entrapment by police and entrapment by well-intentioned vigilante investigators are completely different things. Though if they have done their research, they'll know the importance of never leading the suspect on or enticing them to any action.
I don't think they are on firm legal ground here. Nobody is going to get charged with a crime and when they start naming names they run the risk of being sued for defamation.
I don't like child predators and I want them caught and locked up, but this kind of activity doesn't help that much.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Entrapment (Score:4, Insightful)
Still no. The sting/entrapment distinction would still apply. Incitement means actively encouraging an illegal behavior. Otherwise we'd arresting attractive rape victims.
The public/private distinction is only one of the two mistakes the OP made.
Re:Entrapment (Score:5, Informative)
I think that you'll find that it does.
From wikipedia:
Entrapment arises when a person is encouraged by someone in some official capacity to commit a crime.
A private citizen completely lacks the ability to have official capacity. Police posing as civilians are also not entrapping anyone. To be entrapment, there must be a reason for the suspect to falsely believe their actions are legal on the part of someone associated with law enforcement(it doesn't have to be police).
Re:Entrapment (Score:4, Interesting)
Also, entrapment only applies if they are encouraged to commit the act by someone in some official capacity. Providing a target for a crime =/= encouraging someone to commit a crime.
For example: in theory a person should be allowed to leave their car sitting anywhere in any city with the doors unlocked and valuables in plain view. The fact that they haven't secured their possessions against crime doesn't make theft of the car or its contents legal. So, if the cops parked a car and left it unlocked with a wallet in the front seat, they could arrest anyone who tried to steal it without running afoul of entrapment, because they aren't actually encouraging anyone to commit a crime, they're simply providing an opportunity for the person to decide to commit a crime.
If by contrast they were to put up a sign that says "steal the wallet or a sniper will shoot you", or had an officer standing nearby telling people to steal the wallet, they'd be guilty of entrapment because they're encouraging the person to act.
Re:Entrapment (Score:4, Informative)
To be entrapment, there must be a reason for the suspect to falsely believe their actions are legal on the part of someone associated with law enforcement [...]
Just a note: That isn't how the laws are written in all countries, though. In Sweden, for instance, it is illegal for the police to "provoke" someone to commit a crime, regardless of what the subject of the action believes or not. The idea is that it is not the job of the police to prosecute anyone with a potential to commit a crime, as that would probably include a large portion of the entire population, most of which would otherwise live peacefully their entire lives. Their job is only to step in when a crime is actually at hand; about to be committed or in progress. They are however allowed to actively facilitate an ongoing crime in order to gather more evidence, but that's where the line is drawn.
Re:Entrapment (Score:5, Insightful)
Except the article points out that they made sure to never actually suggest anything unless it was asked of them (OK, in fairness this one isn't as clear on that point, but I've seen quite a few covering this already).
It's not entrapment when you initiate contact and are the first one to offer to pay to see an underage girl naked.
They just had a fictional 10 year old join a chat room. That a bunch of them immediately started making contact with her ... well, that's their actions. It's not like they went in and said "hey, I'm a 10 year old girl willing to get naked for old men".
And, remembering ICQ ... a/s/l and other immediate responses to the apparent presence of a female, I find this entirely plausible.
Re: (Score:3)
Except it's not since these people would have done this anyway. They were not forced into doing this.
This web site [tumblr.com] gives a good description of what is and is not entrapment.
Re: (Score:3)
8-bit porn music starts playing.
Re: (Score:3)
Did the predators get entrapped to sign online? Or tricked into joining a chat room? Did they get tricked into replying to a 10 yr old girl? Did they get tricked into asking the girl to cam? did they get tricked into asking the girl to undress or telling the girl they will pay for them? These are pedophiles, nothing more nothing less. No entrapment.
You are right, but for the wrong reasons. There is no entrapment because the people posing as the 10 year old girl are not law enforcement and NOBODY is being charged with a crime so NOBODY has been enticed to commit a crime, even if they did all the things you say they didn't...
Re: (Score:3)
Entrapment is inducing someone to do something they would not normally do. Setting up bait is fair and legal and it should be. Forcing people to take that bait is neither fair nor legal (nor should it be). If an undercover cop poses as a drug dealer and busts people who buys from him, that's not creating crime - those people would have found a dealer to buy from anyway. The crime would have happened anyway.
Re: (Score:3)
Exactly. Also 'entrapment' (seducing people into committing a crime) is illegal in Holland. So the pedophiles found in the Netherlands in this way will likely not be prosecuted. However, I get the feeling that this was not the intention of the project. I think they just wanted to show how widespread this issue is, and get attention for it. So that 'legal' (whatever that is in your country) measures can be taken to stop this.
I'm not seeing how this case would be entrapment in any sense. Entrapment seems to require more than the passive approach used by the researchers. I don't see solicitation or any inducement to criminal behaviour. It doesn't seem the researchers had robololita join a chat room and begin offering nude pictures for cash. If I stand in a subway, late at night, with the intention of making myself a potential victim, would this be illegal? It's pretty similar in principle, and perfectly legal. It'd be a different
I don't see the downside so far (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:I don't see the downside so far (Score:5, Insightful)
Asking a 10 year old to get naked isn't a gray area, this isn't a case where a 16 or 17 (or even 15) year old "looked old enough"; this is absolutely a (virtual) child these turkeys are trying to use for their own thrills. More like this and fewer child porno cases against cartoons are what is needed.
I see you put the word "virtual" in parenthesis, perhaps hoping we wouldn't notice it, or if we did, think it really isn't relevant. But if you remove the word "virtual" entirely, then you're making a blatantly false statement, if you remove the parentheses, then you're making a true, but ridiculous statement. Very clever of you, but I doubt it will work on most Slashdot readers.
Re:I don't see the downside so far (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I don't see the downside so far (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd say that if we allow for the punishment of people for thought crimes based on their romantic intentions with a virtual girl, wouldn't it also be appropriate to arrest the investigators for pimping a virtual girl?
I know it's offensive to think about nasty old men taking advantage of little girls -- and I want a world where that doesn't happen. Why not just allow for virtual girls to fill the demand and no real person need be abused?
I don't want an internet full of "honey pots" where one wrong click leads people to commit a crime -- without real damages to real people. It's damage I'm worried about, not intent nor thoughts.
Downside? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Nice thought, but many jurisdictions have already outlawed even fictitious depictions of children.
The lure of illusions (Score:3)
So it's an advanced, immaterial sex doll. Probably the adult industry will move on to employ similar creations in live web shows.
Of Course! (Score:3)
"We believe that criminal investigations using intrusive surveillance measures should be the exclusive responsibility of law enforcement agencies," spokesman Soren Pedersen told the Reuters news agency.
People in political or law enforcement power are at least as prone to this sort of activity (and often more considering the typical mental/emotional profile of such child predators) as everyone else. So of course they want to control any investigative activity so that they can filter out the protected 'elite' from those caught in the sting.
Making an underage sex bot (Score:5, Interesting)
Will these researchers be convicted for developing an under-age sex bot?
Or does it not count because they were giving paedos sexual titillation "for research purposes"?
I fucking hate child sex abuse. I'm one of those bleeding heart feminists. But this is NOT child sex abuse - and if the authorities spend one moment on it, they are deliberately redirecting resources away from catching criminals, i.e. choosing to take a path which will increase the number of abused children.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The problem is that there is no, "It looks like you probably did something bad, so we're going to give you a summary telling-off!" standard of criminal justice. The police gather evidence, but they don't convict. It's bad enough with the accusations of people downloading pirated material, except a false accusation of being a child sex abuser is way more harmful.
I have no problem with wide publication of the information that some "Filipina girls" are in fact European bots logging everything. I have no proble
Re: (Score:3)
Are you being deliberately obtuse?
The intention of the bot was to lure men into sex chats. It was set up and installed in a way which researchers thought would be alluring to paedos. The purpose of the CGI created of the 10 year old girl was to elicit physical sexual attraction in paedos. That's pretty fucking creepy, if you ask me.
Re: (Score:3)
"...scum of the earth..." Well, sadly, I think you've already betrayed your kneejerk feelings.
What is sexually attractive? If this bot were to include a picture of a scantily clad adult woman and comments about how big her breasts are in the profile, you'd say it was sexual, and thus might satisfy the criteria for a sexbot, right? These are the things which are sexually attractive to many heterosexual males. But they're not sexually attractive to gay men. But we still say it's a sexbot, because it's set up
Re: (Score:3)
No, I'm stating that these guys' actions are at least as creepy as anyone who tried to titillate themselves with the sexbot, and I do not see why any criminal justice system would sanction those messaging the sexbot but not those creating it. Because while the men who talked to it were (looking at the BBC news images) probably just thinking they were engaging in paedophilic role-play - itself creepy - the "researchers" endeavoured to create the CGI form of a sexually appealing and accessible child. Either p
Re: (Score:3)
Err, I haven't interacted with the sex bot myself, but looking at the pics on the BBC web site, this is obviously CGI. The men may have thought that it was role-playing no more real than, well, any other role-playing game (sexual or otherwise) which occurs online.
Turing test... (Score:5, Insightful)
...21st century style!
This is the internet (Score:5, Insightful)
A computer-generated, ten year-old goldfish would get thousands of propositioning messages.
Re:This is the internet (Score:5, Funny)
From a guy called Guppy, by any chance?
Network 23 (Score:3)
Uncanny valley (Score:3)
Maybe some of them could tell by the pixels that it was computer generated.
Re: (Score:3)
3D (Score:4)
Am I the only one to see immediatly that this is 3D Computer Graphics ??
It's very realistic but still computer generated...
Re: (Score:3)
I bet if you scale down the image size it would be more acceptable.
Is it actually illegal? (Score:5, Insightful)
The question is: is doing/seeing something in virtual reality actually a crime? I'm sure Christians would say "Yes, it's a sin" but legally you haven't 'hurt' anyone. As this stuff gets more realistic, how much of the criminals currently exploiting children will simply buy/rent a render farm and become a legitimate business? To put it very crudely: the render farms do not involve the cost and risk of kidnapping, transporting, exploiting and maintaining people (whether they be adult or not) and they can give the same experience without putting anyone either physically or legally at risk.
At that point (if you're "into" that stuff), doing this becomes merely thought crime. I haven't done the research into whether this increases or reduces the risk of actually physical incidents (I hope it would reduce the drive for gratification in the illegal ways drastically) but it could be a boon for a host of people and move a lot of law enforcement activity to other exploitation of humans.
The Internet (Score:5, Insightful)
where the men are men, the women are men, and the 10-year-old girls are FBI agent-bots.
Re:profile = evidence? (Score:4, Informative)
Well, Europol thought that they exceeded the appropriate investigative behavior for civilians. So you might not be the only one to think so.
Re:profile = evidence? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:profile = evidence? (Score:5, Funny)
*[13 today]:-O :==8
OH GOD IT'S ASCII CP ART! Quick, put me on the sex offenders' register!
Re:profile = evidence? (Score:4, Insightful)
What are they charged with? "Molesting under age pixels"?
No need to charge them with anything... publicizing their real names and locations would do as much damage as charging them with anything would. Of course, there lies the lynch mob....
Re:profile = evidence? (Score:5, Informative)
What are they charged with? "Molesting under age pixels"?
In many countries, including the U.S., it is unlawful to attempt to solicit sex or sexual activity from a minor, and it is not a defense if the target is in actuality not a minor, as long as the accused believes him or her to be such. Since it is impossible to prove a belief, a reasonable person test is usually employed: would a reasonable person, under those circumstances, believe they are communicating with a minor. This is how adult police, masquerading as children online, are able to conduct sting operations against potential predators. In this case, they merely substitute computers for police.
Re:profile = evidence? (Score:4, Informative)
The curious thing is that if you solicit sex from someone who a reasonable person would believe was not a minor, but actually is, I'm pretty sure that's still illegal, which is sort of a double standard. I guess the bottom line is to treat sex like cigarettes: if she's under 35, ask for three forms of ID.
BTW, it is not necessarily impossible to prove a belief, or at least to prove it with enough certainty that it qualifies as evidence. For example, it would be interesting to see how a jury would rule if the defendant in such a case provided diary entries that indicated that he or she was reasonably certain that the person on the other end was not actually a minor. Certainly that doesn't prove that the defendant really believed it, but it does at least present reasonable doubt.
Re:profile = evidence? (Score:5, Interesting)
"The curious thing is that if you solicit sex from someone who a reasonable person would believe was not a minor, but actually is, I'm pretty sure that's still illegal, which is sort of a double standard."
Not necessarily. I know of at least one state in which if you are 14 years old or more, and represent yourself to be older, YOU are responsible for the outcome. In other words, if you deliberately fool an adult into thinking you are over 18 (which for some 14- or 15-year-olds is quite possible), the other party is not guilty of any crime.
Of course, establishing that someone misrepresented their age is not always easy. But sometimes it can be demonstrated. A record of a chat session, for example.
In that state, or any others with similar laws, if the "fake girl" were 14 or older rather than 10, someone on the other end would be committing no crime.
Re: (Score:3)
I wonder if in defence one could demand not a "reasonable person" test, but a "reasonable drunk person" test. "She was so hot I had to go and throw up, and then came back to chat to her! She seemed really intelligent, way smarter than me, so she had to be at college, like she said she was!"
I know that in the states I have lived in, intoxication is not a defense against the "reasonable person" standard.
Re: (Score:3)
This kind of "would have happened if it were real, therefore this person can legitimately be charged" counterfactual is also why the part about the other parties contacting "her" and initiating an offer is important. The investigators would like to be able to show that, absent the sting operation, the person would have initiated the same contact in a real situation (and maybe even did so in the past). But if the sting is too aggressive, initiates contact, etc., it can end up convincing people to do somethin
Re: (Score:3)
Re:profile = evidence? (Score:4, Funny)
Had to stop watching after that. Depressing on so many levels.
Gnnnnaaaa must not say it, I must not say it! (Score:3)
Damn it! I can't help myself, it must be said!
The cake is a lie!
Gaaah.... that felt good.
Re: profile = evidence? (Score:3, Interesting)
My thought exactly. Isn't that, i don't know, victimless crime? Do pixels dream of electronic sheep or is it like smoking weed, you get prosecuted for making good to you and not harming anyone in the process? I meam, come on, will a 3d animator that models naked underage children get sentenced as soon as his 3dmax or blender or whatever finishes rendering?
Re: profile = evidence? (Score:5, Interesting)
"My thought exactly. Isn't that, i don't know, victimless crime?"
It really is an interesting question.
A few years ago, in the United States, the Supreme Court ruled that in order for something to be prosecuted as child pornography, it had to [1] involve a real child (not just an artificial "depiction" of one), and [2] be real pornography... in other words, something that would be judged pornography even if it didn't involve a child.
Therefore, bathtub pictures of the kids playing don't qualify, for example. But before the Supreme Court ruled on it, there were some pretty outrageous claims and prosecutions in a few states.
So what about this? Is it soliciting from a minor if it isn't a real minor? Where is the line between an actual crime with an actual victim, and "thought crime"?
Re: profile = evidence? (Score:5, Informative)
Your information is true, but incomplete and misleading.
Immediately after that Supreme Court ruling, the lawmakers rushed through a new law (worded a bit differently) making it all illegal again. And the new law was never challenged and still exists.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PROTECT_Act_of_2003 [wikipedia.org]
Re: profile = evidence? (Score:5, Interesting)
"Immediately after that Supreme Court ruling, the lawmakers rushed through a new law (worded a bit differently) making it all illegal again. And the new law was never challenged and still exists."
So I see:
"Prohibits computer-generated child pornography when "(B) such visual depiction is a computer image or computer-generated image that is, or appears virtually indistinguishable from that of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; (as amended by 1466A for Section 2256(8)(B) of title 18, United States Code)."
So Congress subverted the Supreme Court's clear intent, and made "thought crime" a crime after all. Goddamned politicians.
This isn't the America I signed up for. I'm all for actually protecting actual children, but that provision has nothing to do with protecting children at all. It's "thought crime", pure and simple.
The Supreme Court case, as I recall, was over an artist and his "controversial" paintings.
Re: (Score:3)
"The difference between this and thought crime is that one involves thinking about doing it and one involves doing it.
Idiot."
No shit, Sherlock.
The situation *I* was referring to, was making it a crime to possess "artificial depictions" of children as though it were really somehow harming children.
Precisely the difference between thinking about it, and actually doing it.
So take your "idiot" comment and stuff it up your own idiot ass.
Re: profile = evidence? (Score:5, Interesting)
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PROTECT_Act_of_2003"
Holy crap. Take a look at this provision:
"Authorizes fines and/or imprisonment for up to 30 years for U.S. citizens or residents who engage in illicit sexual conduct abroad, with or without the intent of engaging in such sexual misconduct."
WTF? This makes it a felony for a U.S. citizen to engage in "illicit sexual conduct" while out of the country??? How outrageous can a law get?
Some countries have some pretty outrageous laws. This is in effect saying you can't engage in "illicit" conduct in any country, at any time, or you might face as much as 30 years in a U.S. jail, even if it's something legal in the U.S. but illegal in that other country!?!? Could the law possibly be more bizarre?
Just what is "illicit", anyway? Not just bizarre, but bizarrely vague.
That reminds me of the Federal law that makes it illegal to break the laws of any other country when importing goods. Some poor importer got put in prison because he accepted some lobster tails, which was perfectly legal, but the country he got them from had a law against exporting seafood in plastic bags.
Jesus. Some of these politicians should be taken out and shot. This is beyond ridiculous.
Re: (Score:3)
How about putting the shoe on the other foot.
A Saudi woman goes to the USA, is raped there. Goes back to Saudi Arabia and is thrown in jail for having been raped (had sex outside marriage).
Re:profile = evidence? (Score:4, Interesting)
They've established that online web-cam pornography with digital images of imaginary under-age girls is possible and commercially feasible.
In the U.S., and other jurisdictions, it would be legal.
It's waiting for the next Internet entrepreneur to come along and make a fortune.
Re: (Score:3)
What are they charged with? "Molesting under age pixels"?
It'll be even more interesting when they're able to simulate the rest of the 10-year and mass produce the results. Would that be an unspeakable abomination or a means of preserving real 10-year-olds from predators?
Re:profile = evidence? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:profile = evidence? (Score:5, Interesting)
"DNA is the most accurate, with dependencies mostly occurring in attempts to tell twins apart from one another."
Common myth. Corrected: DNA can be the most accurate, but is often not.
The main problem with DNA evidence is that it is far too easily contaminated. Hell, strew some semen around a crime scene from a used condom, and it's "solid" evidence the guy did it, eh?
DNA can be very solid evidence, but only under very narrow and specific conditions. It would be ridiculously easy to kill somebody and leave some skin scrapings under a couple of fingernails, for example.
And witnesses are notoriously unreliable. In fact, in at least one study, police who were "trained witnesses" proved to be far less reliable at reporting incidents accurately than people off the street.
And IP addresses don't even necessarily track a culprit to "a residence". I maintain an open WiFi connection ("guest" network) as a public service. It has a good signal and it is available to my whole neighborhood, including people walking by with a cellphone and even cars driving through the area.
Re:profile = evidence? (Score:5, Funny)
> Does that mean when I buy a new game and rip off the cover, it's non-consensual rape?
Please that "wrapper" was practically see-through. That game was asking for it!
Re:profile = evidence? (Score:4, Funny)
Please that "wrapper" was practically see-through. That game was asking for it!
Plus it hugged every curve. It was pretty much skin tight!
Re: (Score:3)
Questions of entrapment aside, let alone questions of intent, I'd think the obvious defense to this would be, "I thought it was an interesting chat program and was testing it's capabilities and responses."
If any of these go to trial, then they may certainly present that as their defense at their trial.
It will be up to the judge and/or jury to decide if they believe them. A variation of your defense could also be used in attempted rape or murder cases. "I was just trying to see how hard (s)he would fight. I'd never have actually gone through with it."
Oh, and Clinton didn't inhale, either.
Re: (Score:3)
For the courts entrapment is generally not acceptable but there is this rather clear line, if the perpetrator volunteered to come into the chat room and it was his and not the 'victim' that initiated the illegal parts of the conversation.
Your software argument is rather weak if not outright shitty.
Re: (Score:3)
???
Attempted crimes are prosecuted routinely. Google "Attempted Murder" or "Attempted Robbery" and you'll see some.
Which isn't to say that there aren't other issues with this "sting operation".
Re: (Score:3)
In this case, the person attempted to get naked images of a real little girl. The fact that these contacting individuals were wrong about the status of the realness of the girl doesn't change what was attempted.
That is why my examples are relevant. A real crime was really attempted by a real person. That is sufficient. The target (real and naive? real and bait? not even real?) doesn't matter.
To quote: "Should it be a crime to "sexually abuse" software, even if you don't know it was software?"
The crime
Re: (Score:3)
Does that mean when I buy a new game and rip off the cover, it's non-consensual rape?
If the game is less than 17 years old (18 in some jurisdictions), consent is not an issue. It will be statutory.
Once the game is 17 years old, yes, it has to consent to you unwrapping it. However, the fact that the game was selling itself on the store shelves provides implied consent to completion of the act. At that point you and the game will both be open to charges of prostitution and related.
That means you can bonk Duke Nukem and Zelda all you want, if they agree and you didn't pay for them. I'm wai
Re: (Score:3)
Technically it isn't a crime to chat up under age computers.
No crime has occurred or been proven and there is zero evidence.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Photography from turn of the century - 19 th ce (Score:5, Funny)
You should try out for the Olympics, that's one hell of a leap.
Re: (Score:3)
it *is* considered art
Not in the US. There are families here that were accused of child pornography because they put a photo of their two year-old playing naked in the yard sprinkler on their web site.
"Sweetie"? Should've called her "Uncanny Valerie"! (Score:3)
Based on the photo in TFA, its pretty obviously CGI*
Bingo. Why hasn't anyone else said this- it's *exactly* what I first thought when I saw this story on the BBC!
The figure still has that very "uncanny valley" look that gives it away (even if you didn't realise, it would still likely be freaking out your subconscious at some level.) It also doesn't look like a real person in front of a webcam- not crappy enough. It'd need (e.g.) to be able to handle highlights > 100% then render them in the same way as a crap-quality webcam does under bad over-contrast