Department of Justice: FBI Too Focused On Child Porn 487
itwbennett writes "The Department of Justice has issued a scathing report (PDF) on the ineffectiveness of the FBI in investigating and countering cyber attacks. The shortcomings are partly attributed to lack of training and lack of communication, but the biggest issue is the allocation of effort. From the report: 'Overall, we determined that in FY 2009 the FBI used 19 percent of its cyber agents on national security intrusion investigations, 31 percent to address criminal-based intrusions, and 41 percent to investigate online child pornography matters."
The math is right. (Score:5, Informative)
41% devoted to online child porn, 59% for EVERYTHING else. Cyber attacks are not the primary mission of the FBI. As a matter of fact, they are supposed to be the counter-intelligence arm of the US security apparatus, which would mean that I would expect that to be the largest part of their effort. Instead, it is a mediocre 19%.
Also, would you prefer the FBI not go after child porn? I personally think it's a pretty odious thing, and the Internet is making it easier for pedophiles to indulge (where, for example, in the past they might have had to order magazines or videos from shady overseas sources or something).
Bullshit. Sorry, but you drank the Koolaid that online pervs are the biggest risk to kids. Never mind that the biggest risk of plain old abuse comes from parents and family members, the biggest risk of abduction comes from parents and the biggest risk of abuse comes from family members and friends of the family. Online pervs are a drop in the bucket in that list. Online posting of child porn is a) just proof of a crime that has happened in the past, and b) catching the posters or downloaders does little to nothing to help solve that particular crime. So yes, it is part of their mission, but it's not 41% of their mission. If anything, I'd peg it at about 1%-2%.
Re:Bureaucrats (Score:5, Informative)
If there exists a demand for a good, eventually someone will fill that demand. If there is a "healthy" "market" for child pornography then some people will go out and get fresh product for that market. This is how children are harmed by viewing it.
Pew Research Center’s Internet & American Life Project found that 4% of cell-owning teens ages 12-17 say they have sent sexually suggestive nude or nearly nude images or videos of themselves to someone else via text messaging, a practice also known as “sexting". The same survey also found that 75% of all American teens ages 12-17 own a cell phone. According to Wolfram Alpha, there are 22,410,000 teens between 15 and 19, which is likely close enough for these calculates. this means that roughly 672,000 images classifiable as CP are generated by teens during the 5 years that cell-owning teens are between the ages of 12-17. This works out to 134,000 images per year produced by teens for other teens.
Re:FBI Too Focused On Child Porn (Score:5, Informative)
By trading it your encouraging it.
By trading it, you are discouraging it.
See, anyone can make illogical and unsupported assertions. Seriously, when some pervs are illegally trading copyrighted (yes, even if the material is illegal, the copies are still copyrighted) material you are asserting that it encourages the production of more. But the media organizations claim that when you illegally copy copyrighted material, you are actively discouraging the producers from making more.
After listening to the MPAA and RIAA, pirating and trading child porn will decrease the number of children harmed. Please, trade child porn for the children. Won't you think of the children?
Seriously, if pirating hurts media, then child porn pirates aren't encouraging anything. If pirating doesn't hurt media (as you asserted), then the regular media sharing should be legal. But no, it's always inconsistently applied because people don't actually care about fixing problems. People only "hate" whatever they hate, and then make up whatever lies they can to justify their personal opinion.
close (Score:4, Informative)
Not just that. Reno pushed cases to the supreme court to establsh precedent, then the white house started lobbying for more crackdowns on "the coming plague of online child pornography."
There were lots of articles about it at the time, including warnings of the toxic effects this increased focus on child porn would have on our society.
I argue that these laws, intended to protect children from sexual exploitation, threaten to reinforce the very problem they attack. The legal tool that we designed to liberate children from sexual abuse threatens to enslave us all, by constructing a world in which we are enthralled - anguished, enticed, bombarded - by the spectacle of the sexual child.
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/ilaw/Speech/Adler_full.html [harvard.edu]
Of course, those articles were dismissed. Still are today, and yet....
http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/article5516511.ece [timesonline.co.uk]