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."
I don't see the downside so far (Score:5, Interesting)
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: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:profile = evidence? (Score:2, Interesting)
20,000 men contacted a piece of software.
1,000 of those men expressed interest in either having a piece of software remove it's clothing, or utilizing its interface port in a method not intended by most software developers, but apparently intended by these developers.
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."
More scary are the ramifications if any of these people are prosecuted. Unwrapping software has never been illegal, but these Dutch apparently think that not only should it be illegal, but that its actionable to even request to unwrap software. Does that mean when I buy a new game and rip off the cover, it's non-consensual rape?
Re:The numbers (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]
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: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: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: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: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: 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, 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, 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: 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.