FBI "Took Over World's Biggest Child Porn Website" (telegraph.co.uk) 301
An anonymous reader writes with this excerpt from The Telegraph: The FBI took over the world biggest child pornography website in a sting operation intended to catch viewers of sexual images of children sometimes 'barely old enough for kindergarten', it has been revealed. The controversial operation ran for nearly two weeks last year, when the bureau took control of the Playpen website in an effort to weed out users who would normally be hidden because they accessed such sites through encrypted addresses. Agents have defended the dubious of ethics of a government agency running a child porn site by insisting there was no other way to catch offenders.
One obvious question. (Score:5, Interesting)
The ones who actually abuse the children. Are they doing anything about catching them?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:One obvious question. (Score:4, Funny)
Well then, you might be disturbed to learn that the later stages of Operation SunDevil were aborted because the 2/3 of the child porn links resolved to .gov & .mil addresses and the remaining 1/3 was almost all .org registered to tax exempt religious organizations.
After signing up the local police of every state & the District of Columbia, the feds bailed at the last moment when they realized that the vast majority of registered users and providers of child porn were government and religious authorities.
They even had the sign in books of hotels in DC frequented by underage prostitutes and various government employees.
Re:One obvious question. (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, a high school couple (at least one of whom is 17) sexting each other is definitely causing harm to innocent victims! After all, they are manufacturing, possessing, and distributing sexually explicit images of minors. Won't somebody think of the children?!?
The child porn laws are broken, very badly. There's no room in them for taking the actual situation into consideration. That's what happens when you laws that are written in absolutes, when the world is more complex than righteously angry legislators (and the fools who vote for them) can bother to take into consideration.
People making claims like "always causes harm to an innocent victim" without actually paying any attention to what qualifies as "childporn" in this country are part of the problem. Yes, this means you.
Re: "child porn" laws are somewhat absurd (Score:2)
- You can legally have sex with anyone who is 15 years or older (this varies by country).
- You can legally take a picture or record a video of anyone who is nude/doing something even remotely sexual if they are 18 years or older. It is a serious crime to take such a picture of anyone who is not 18 years old.
So.. you can get a girlfriend when you're 15 and have sex wi
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, a high school couple (at least one of whom is 17) sexting each other is definitely causing harm to innocent victims!
Most legislations have provisions for these types of cases, or did you seriously think you were smarter than everyone else?
The child porn laws are broken, very badly. There's no room in them for taking the actual situation into consideration.
Yes there is. Instead of getting your legal advice from the back of a cornflake packet, maybe do some research so you won't sound so foolish...
Re:One obvious question. (Score:4, Insightful)
Don't be so sure about the child porn.
Firstly, in many countries even artwork, photoshop fake images, crude comics and fiction are classified as child pornography.
Secondly - if the images already exist, does distributing them hurt the 'victim' any more? Their part is done. They won't even know if another person looks, so how can it possibly harm them? You could argue that it creates demand for more images and so create a financial incentive to create more, but by that logic downloading music should increase demand and increase profits by the labels.
Re: (Score:2)
Other than that, yeah, how some jurisdictions can see something like a highly stylized comic (manga for example) as CP, does seem weird and idiotic to me as well. In this case,
Re: (Score:3)
The state of Ohio did ban fiction, but it was overturned by a court on first amendment grounds. The case is State v. Dalton - it's a rather convoluted case, as the accused pleaded guilty initially under a plea bargain until the ACLU intervened and there were appeals, but the end result was the Ohio supreme court ruling the law unconstitutional. It is likely any other state would rule likewise. However, artwork and sculptures showing children or fictional children in an obscene manner are still illegal at th
This is crazy... (Score:5, Interesting)
I could understand it when it was a crime to cause harm to underage kids, like assaulting them or taking pictures of them. I can also understand how it would be bad to sell pictures of kids even if you haven't produced them yourself, there should not be a market for that.
It starts to go downhill when it is a crime to download or just view (which is pretty much the same thing) an underage pic on your computer (and let's not go into ludicrous things like underage cartoon characters who are also considered verbotten!). Then they tell you the same thing is not a crime if you do it in order to catch other people doing it. So, is it a crime or isn't it? I don't know of another crime that it is OK to "perform" if you're "the good guy"...
Re:This is crazy... (Score:4, Interesting)
Cops violate civilian law all the time for the sake of enforcing the law. The main thing that comes to mind is speeding, running red lights, and blocking traffic. And of course, an entire debate can start from cops usage of firearms.
Re:This is crazy... (Score:4, Interesting)
Cops violate civilian law all the time for the sake of enforcing the law. The main thing that comes to mind is speeding, running red lights, and blocking traffic. And of course, an entire debate can start from cops usage of firearms.
Not even remotely close to comparable situations.
But if you wanted some comparable situations, you could point at Law Enforcement using under-cover officers posing as prostitutes to catch 'Johns' for soliciting prostitutes. Kind of a similar situation. I guess since Law Enforcement is allowed to do that, this probably is being allowed for much the same reason. Could also compare it to Law Enforcement attempting to buy or sell drugs in order to catch dealers and users. All of it is pretty devious if you asked me.
I know I've seen some Law Enforcement reality shows where Law Enforcement busts a drug dealer, then stays in their residence for a few hours to catch users coming over to buy drugs. So that does happen, very similar to honeypotting a seized kiddie porn site. But I personally don't like it, I think it's just low. Gets a bit too close to entrapment for my taste.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
yeah the worst part is how they conduct the negotiations. I've seen plenty of cop shows w
Re:This is crazy... (Score:5, Insightful)
That is why entrapment is forbidden in a lot of countries in the world. It is tempting people who might otherwise never commit such a crime into commiting a crime. It is inventing/creating criminals and that is not a thing we as citizens should condone of our respective law enforcement agencies.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I'm fairly sure the people visiting the site were going there regardless of whether or not the FBI had control of it, so in this case it's not entrapment.
Now if they were running targeted ads against a group group advertising the site, that would be entrapment. This is simply bait.
Re: (Score:2)
Entrapment or not, these suspects are among the most loathed people in society. You could add war crimes and regicide to the charges and a jury would probably still convict.
Re:This is crazy... (Score:5, Insightful)
The officers that distributed child pornography committed felonies. The government is not allowed to commit felonies in the pursuit of criminals. In fact with this knowledge in hand any attempt to prosecute anyone involved is under threat of having the evidence suppressed because of the felony.
This would be akin to officers selling drugs on the street and allowing everyone to drive off after purchasing in the hope that maybe they could catch a couple of them several weeks later. This would not be legal and the officers would be prosecuted for distribution of a controlled substance and sent to prison. All the FBI agents involved should be prosecuted for distribution of child pornography.
Re: (Score:2)
I thought officers regularly did such things and would plant trackers in cash or drugs etc in order to try and catch offenders...
Police also often commit felonies like murder in the performance of their duties. We don't jail any cop who shoots a suspect, we investigate to determine if they were justified in doing so.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
They do not commit murder in the performance of their duties.
When they commit murder the public gets upset, the city that hires them loses millions, they lose their jobs and sometimes (not often enough) they go to jail.
The situation actually analogous to your situation is if the police murdered a person when told to while undercover. That would be murder.
Police in large scale undercover operations are allowed to consume drugs (they have to report it as soon as possible and get treatment after the undercove
Re: (Score:2)
Police also often commit felonies like murder in the performance of their duties. We don't jail any cop who shoots a suspect, we investigate to determine if they were justified in doing so.
That's not murder until the investigation determines they were not justified. If they were justified, then its considered something else (not sure which term the law would apply....self defense? justifiable homicide? another term that applies specifically for police officers?)
Re: (Score:2)
In general I disagree with you. I'm alright with authorities having to set up more elaborate sting operations which require breaking laws to catch criminal. Maybe not your more contrived example of selling drugs indiscriminately and letting everyone run off, but I'd certainly support something like selling drugs in an effort to get further into a major drug organization in hopes of getting access to the top players in the organization. There are limits though. Selling drugs (to adults, not children/teens),
Re: (Score:2)
When I wrote the OP the under-cover prostitutes did come in mind, but the cops themselves don't actually perform the act. And note, performing the act in this case would mean the under-cover cops to do the sex part AND KEEP THE MONEY!
Re: (Score:2)
But if you wanted some comparable situations, you could point at Law Enforcement using under-cover officers posing as prostitutes to catch 'Johns' for soliciting prostitutes.
This would be comparable if said under-cover officers were actually having sex with their targets. Which, incidentally they have done in the other direction -- with cops having sex with a prostitute to "verify that she really is a prostitute" and then arresting her.
Specific Exemptions (Score:2)
Cops violate civilian law all the time for the sake of enforcing the law. The main thing that comes to mind is speeding, running red lights, and blocking traffic.
Aren't those specific exceptions to the law granted to police officers? i.e. the law specifically allows emergency vehicles to go through red lights and for them to speed when responding to an emergency. I'm not a lawyer but I'm pretty certain there will not be an exemption to the laws about distribution of child pornography to let the police do it.
In similar types of cases involving lures to catch criminals in the act the police stop short of actually committing the crime themselves: if posing as a hit
Re: (Score:2)
These are all very specific exceptions granted under very specific circumstances. A cop that fetches coffee with sirens blaring has a real problem when caught, for example. If they now get allowed to distribute, the next step is to allow them making it or at least not doing anything to stop others making it when they know it is going on and they could stop it. This is a very, very bad precedent.
Re:This is crazy... (Score:4, Insightful)
Cops are not allowed to rape people under any circumstances and with good reason. The whole argument against CP is that it victimizes those displayed again. Hence the FBI committed mass child-abuse in a very real sense.
Re: (Score:2)
I thought the argument was that if you want it, you're creating a demand for it, which means it will be created, which means children will be abused (or, you know, will take pictures to give to their boyfriend, who then posts them on 4chan after they break up, whatever). I hadn't heard "victimizes those displayed" before. It's a better argument for banning such media if you take the premise (that viewing causes victimization) as true, but that seems a shakier premise than that demand creates a market...
Re: (Score:2)
It is the an argument frequently used by the DoJ, so it should be what the FBI uses as well. I am not saying there are not other arguments as well, I am just saying that by the argumentation of the DoJ, the FBI did something akin to raping all these children again. And it is even worse than when some random Internet user uploads/downloads this stuff, because a) the FBI must have expected this to become public knowledge, i.e. the victims would _know_ they have been victimized again and b) this time it was th
Re: (Score:3)
The whole argument against CP is that it victimizes those displayed again.
What? Who told you that? They're stupid, and you should feel bad for repeating their stupidity. The primary argument against CP is that someone has to make it, and the demand for new CP (there is always demand for new content in any kind of media) can only be fulfilled by abusing children.
Hence the FBI committed mass child-abuse in a very real sense.
They really, really didn't, because no additional children had to be abused for them to maintain the site. However, they did help fuel the demand for new CP, just like any other distributor of CP — which is the other
Re: (Score:2)
The whole argument against CP is that it victimizes those displayed again.
What? Who told you that? They're stupid, and you should feel bad for repeating their stupidity. The primary argument against CP is that someone has to make it, and the demand for new CP (there is always demand for new content in any kind of media) can only be fulfilled by abusing children.
I did not say this was my argument. It is however the official position of the DoJ. And I do not believe this position is stupid, because if even one victim feels victimized again if pictures of their rape get distributed, then it is a valid position.
Incidentally, there is apparently exceptionally little CP that is made to "fulfill demand" or for commercial reasons according to a law-enforcement source that should know. Sure, people that are abusing their children anyways may also take pictures if they can
Re: (Score:2)
Law enforcement receives substantial additional vehicle training and have lights and sirens to make other drivers aware when they responding to an emergency or blocking an intersection. Law enforcement is allowed to carry restricted firearms and to do so in restricted areas (such as bars) while on duty, but again they have substantial additional training and are performing a specific function. The conditions for legally discharging their firearms are pretty much the same as for you or I.
The privileges of a
Re: (Score:2)
You do know there are specific exceptions in firearms discharge laws, and speed laws for law enforcement and emergency responders right?
So no they are not breaking the law when they do those things at least not when they do them while performing an otherwise lawful enforcement or rescue action.
Re: (Score:2)
Not even close. It may be different in your country, but there are VERY strict definitions on when they may use those privileges in my country. Speeding and running red lights requires them to turn on their flashy gimmicks, pretty much telling everyone in a mile wide radius "Here comes law enforcement, get the fuck out of my way", and if they use it to get to the doughnut shop in time and you catch them, you can easily get them in enough trouble that they will not be allowed near a car with the flashy gimmi
Re: (Score:2)
Cops violate civilian law all the time for the sake of enforcing the law. The main thing that comes to mind is speeding, running red lights, and blocking traffic.
It's interesting you mention that, since the cops' own rules and regulations typically require them to use lights (and when in motion, sirens) whenever they do that, but they typically don't bother. You're lucky if they remember to turn on the Arrowstik when they park in the middle of the road. Rules are for the sheeple, not our fearless leaders.
Re: (Score:2)
There are specific laws that allows the police to speed, block traffic and use firearms. Is there a special law that allows cops to view child porn?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Umm what about the undercover cop that sells drugs to victim drug users?? They don't just take their money and cuff them they usually make a true deal and the user is grabbed once the drugs are in their possession.
When an operation like that is conducted it's typically fake drugs. Pharma companies like Purdue and Actavis sell identical copies of their oxycodone pills without the oxycodone to law enforcement for example. Powders are obviously easy to fake. But in any case, they sure as hell don't sell to tens of thousands of buyers, let the buyers go home, enjoy the drugs, and pass some along to others, then sell some more to them a few days later, maybe bust them or not some months later, or if they're not US citizen
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
It starts to go downhill when it is a crime to download or just view (which is pretty much the same thing) an underage pic on your computer (and let's not go into ludicrous things like underage cartoon characters who are also considered verbotten!).
The problem here is... just viewing the picture is creating a 'demand' for such material, and therefore a supply must be created, which exploits minors. I'm not really on board with the drawings of such things being forbidden as well, that seems like overkill to me, and drawings may supply the consumers of such materials that aren't exploitative of minors. It's an ugly nasty situation for sure.
Then they tell you the same thing is not a crime if you do it in order to catch other people doing it. So, is it a crime or isn't it? I don't know of another crime that it is OK to "perform" if you're "the good guy"...
I definitely have a problem with a honeypot situation involving child porn. I've already said in other posts, co
Re: (Score:3)
Not necessarily. Certainly if someone's paying for it, they're going to incentivise production. But at the other en
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
It wasn't a honeypot trap. The site existed before the Fed's took over. They got around the Tor encryption by getting some JavaScript/Java/PHP code to run on the host PC and extract the IP address that way. Stack Overflow and a hundred other blogs will all explain how to do this within a standard webpage. No illegal downloading of executables, DLL's, shared object files or modification of kernel permissions. Just plain web page design:
http://javascript.about.com/li... [about.com]
Re: (Score:3)
The problem here is... just viewing the picture is creating a 'demand' for such material, and therefore a supply must be created, which exploits minors. I'm not really on board with the drawings of such things being forbidden as well, that seems like overkill to me, and drawings may supply the consumers of such materials that aren't exploitative of minors. It's an ugly nasty situation for sure.
You're saying people have sex with children just to get some high fives online? It's illogical on its face. They might be more likely to record it if they're already doing it, but that's about it. Commercial transactions are an entirely different issue. Also, some people enjoy watching children beaten and brutally murdered. But that's legal (as long as the child isn't naked) to possess pictures/videos of. People get off on adults being raped too, but videos of that are legal. If viewing encourages the act,
Re: (Score:2)
Killing or injuring someone is usually a crime, but in certain circumstances it's not such as self defence or in the performance of law enforcement / military duties.
Re: (Score:2)
What would be the criteria upon which law enforcement would make the distinction between those two? What would be the threshold between 'this was accidental exposure' and 'this was deliberate' ? Should law enforcement go indicting everyone who has pictures of underage persons in suggestive poses in their browser cache (provided there is existing probable cause in any case)? Or should law enforcement also go deeper and look for the reasons the pictures were there before deciding someone is suspected of being
Questions. (Score:5, Insightful)
Do they mean Tor and such? Because if so, then how did they get addresses even when they were running it?
Also, why not just remove all the images so that the links show errors. You'd achieve the same end results but you wouldn't be hosting or DISTRIBUTING kiddie porn. Claim it was a drive failure or whatever.
Not to mention possibly being able to track the people who complained about the images being broken. Get them to use another, non-Tor, way to check when the images would be fixed.
Re: (Score:3)
Do they mean Tor and such? Because if so, then how did they get addresses even when they were running it?
Also, why not just remove all the images so that the links show errors. You'd achieve the same end results but you wouldn't be hosting or DISTRIBUTING kiddie porn. Claim it was a drive failure or whatever.
Not to mention possibly being able to track the people who complained about the images being broken. Get them to use another, non-Tor, way to check when the images would be fixed.
Because they want the site visitors to click around enough that they can get infected by the malware that phones home and lets the FBI break through their anonymizing software. So when they cleverly cover their tracks by using an anonymous VPN to connect to another anonymous VPN to connect to an anonymous web proxy to connect to Tor, when they drop the anonymizers to buy more hand lotion from Amazon, the FBI can see their beacon and track them down.
Re: (Score:2)
Anything they were going to upload they could upload while the users were reading the "explanation" about the "drive failure".
The same with anything they might be able to download from the users' machines.
Easier still would be to set up a junk Twitter account and ask those users to follow it for updates on the "repair" work. Then get a warrant and ask Twitter for the details of anyone following that account.
Re: (Score:2)
When people are knowingly committing a crime they get spooked easily, a notice about a drive failure could cause someone to suspect the truth and start covering their tracks. The only evidence would be the fact they accessed the site very briefly, which a good lawyer could claim was accidental or otherwise performed without the intent of accessing child porn.
It's not uncommon for users to briefly access site they didn't intend to, sites can get hacked and filled with bogus links, search engine results are o
Re: (Score:2)
TOR is broken as far as I'm concerned. The fact that it was funded by the US government always did seem suspicious. In fact there was a recent story about the feds paying CMU to run thousands of fake nodes.
Re: (Score:2)
Many of these sites are paid-for sites: the operators run them in order to make money.
The access logs (if they exist in the first place) won't give originating IP addresses - information of which could then be used to find home addresses through ISP records, and get search warrants and the like. The most reasonable way to find people accessing these sites, is through payment details. See who pays for it - and go after them. It also instantly negates the "I got there accidentally, saw those images, it's not
Hi (Score:2)
I wonder how the abuse victims feel. (Score:5, Interesting)
I've been abused in my youth. I don't think any photos were taken, but if they were, the idea that the government I elected is distributing them is far more abhorrent to me than the idea that a bunch of creeps is gawping at them. The latter are people who need serious therapy but who pose no threat sweating behind a monitor, while the former are the very model of power imbalance against a helpless child.
If I witness news footage showing someone dying (e.g. war, terrorist attack, police shoot-out, whatever) then I'm not re-murdering them. But there are ethical questions involved in distributing such videos: am I being respectful to the memory of the deceased or survivors? am I glorifying the murder? am I exploiting the murder? am I providing sufficient warning? and so on. Shitlords on the Internet will spam such videos insensitively as "gore", and they remain shitlords, but that's all. Governments, however, are acting on my behalf. They should not just do what is legal, but avoid doing what is not ethical.
In particular, a government's duty is to publicise third parties only when the public interest in the content of the publication outweighs the harm to the third parties. If there is no benefit in the public consuming the content, but instead the content is being used for some further aim, the publication is not occurring in the public interest. Rather, the subjects of the content are being exploited non-consensually.
So, the police might distribute CCTV of a hooligan attack which shows the parts of the victims (probably face blurred out), even if the victims cannot all be identified. This would help make the public aware of an attacker, and give them the opportunity to report sightings to the police: obvious public interest in the content of the publication. But to use the video not to find the perpetrator but, instead, to identify other people who want to watch it - telling the victims that they need to have their attack watched over and over to stop those who want to watch them being attacked - is patently absurd.
Re: (Score:2)
Amen to that.
In the name of National Secuirty (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
I think the only real issue people have with this is that if the FBI can justify such tactics then whats to stop them from doing the same to WikiLeaks
Wikileaks would probably have a meaningful First Amendment defense. Child pornography site, not so much.
The Abyss (Score:3, Interesting)
Once again, Nietzsche knew what he was talking about:
"Beware that, when fighting monsters, you yourself do not become a monster...
for when you gaze long into the abyss. The abyss gazes also into you."
Big deal... (Score:4, Insightful)
How many producers of child porn were caught in this "sting"?
Re:Big deal... (Score:4, Interesting)
How many producers of child porn were caught in this "sting"?
Zero probably. Its so much easier to catch the users here instead and claim a nice PR victory than actually try and solve a problem.
It's exactly like the war on drugs, just with an even touchier subject. The problem is all imported. This shit is being made over seas, in places where the laws are different, people don't give a fuck, or are corrupt enough to be bought off, or all three. And as long as all we do is focus on the end user instead of the source, we will piss away lots and lots of money, and accomplish sweet fuck all.
Except these criminals don't have to smuggle 100 tons of coke across the border. Five minutes and a high speed internet connection and they are set. We can't hope to try and keep it "out" because it not a physical product to be intercepted anymore. We can't possibly get anywhere in terms of restricting access, we either get the source, or fail.
Rankings of such sites (Score:2)
FBI Took Over World's Biggest Child Porn Website
So they have them all indexed and ranked, but they just decided to go after the biggest one ?
Seems like they are more interested in going after the viewers than the producers.
Re: (Score:2)
You should add "they know about" to the end of that headline.
Of what I heard about it, it seems that a lot of this child porn is made in places outside the US. That means the producers are outside of US jurisdiction (and somehow in this case it seems the FBI cares about that little detail), making it very hard to go after them. So instead they go after the offenders they can go after: Americans on US soil that actively seek out those images, thus helping in sustaining the market.
100,000 vs 137 (Score:2)
It seems an awfully small number of arrests compared to the 100,000 accounts. Even assuming that most accounts are probably dead we're talking about roughly 0.1% efficiency.
Was it the usual? You only catch the dumb ones?
Broken System (Score:2)
Why does it seem like the system spends all of the effort going after the small problem. I would argue that people viewing the pictures are causing less harm than the people making the pictures in the first place. Yes they should have shut down the site but found out where the pictures were uploaded from and gone after the content creators. And not the people who write fictional stories and the cartoons. Those aren't the high priority. While disgusting children weren't harmed in it's creation. Go after t
Sweet (Score:2)
So if there's no other way for me to do something than to break federal laws, it's OK to break them?! Neat!
Goals are not enough (Score:2)
The argument against distributing, as opposed to producing, child porn is that people seeing the images harm the victims. That harm is believed to be very great, resulting in long jail sentences for people who distribute or view child porn.
If that is true, then the FBI did great harm to those innocent victims by distributing the pictures.
If that is not true, then we need to re-evaluate why viewing child porn is such a serious felony.
It is NOT OK for the the FBI to do a few contract murders to try to catch c
Re:ew (Score:5, Interesting)
...To the broken US justice system where they get labelled as sex offenders, are on a public registry and can never again get a decent job or live anywhere close to anyone.
Many of these people were abused themselves as children. I met an Australian who volunteered with troubled youth. He met kids who were angry at their abusers, their families .. the world. And they had a right to be. They were sexually abused in horrible horrible ways. ... any person would see that kid as a victim who has a right to be angry ...and at some point, there is a possibility that kid turns into an abuser -- manipulating children into relationships that those kids have no ability to understand. They are monsters; horrible people with no hope of redemption.
So when does the victim ... become the monster? At 15? 18?
I'm not saying I agree with what they do, but we can't just keep locking them up. I don't know what the solution is, but the current system is broken.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
In Australia, is it illegal to view obscene, cartoon images depicting child pornography? Not depicting any real life person. Here in the US, it might be. This is a problem because it seems like our politicians want to look like they're getting something done, when in reality they're doing nothing to solve the problem. Or so I think.
The solution? We need psychiastrists or psychologists to help determine what to do so the cycle of abuse stops. The American justice system might be too focused on retribution th
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, or someone who has just turned 18 and their still 17 year old partner... Technically that's breaking the law, but since they're so close in age (likely in the same school year) there's nothing morally wrong about it.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
For one, the age of consent isn't uniformly 18, and most places have restrictions on the law that allow for close-age relationships.
The screwed up thing is that some of the places that don't have the exceptions for close ages can have consensual 14 year olds both raping each other at the same time. And places where the age of consent is 16, you can legally have sex at 16 with a 45 year old i
Re: (Score:3)
We have something of a similar situation in the UK: Our age of consent is sixteen*, but child pornography is anything below eighteen. I assume people between sixteen and eighteen are supposed to wear a blindfold.
*With a close-in-age-exception, and it becomes eighteen if there exists a relationship that gives one party a position of power over the other.
Re: (Score:2)
Name a place in the US where two 17 year olds have sex, and once one of them turns 18, it suddenly becomes illegal.
Well, if Wikipedia's summary of age of consent laws [wikipedia.org] is accurate, your scenario would likely apply in North Dakota, Virginia, and Wisconsin. It seems in all cases that these would be misdemeanors, not felonies.
For one, the age of consent isn't uniformly 18, and most places have restrictions on the law that allow for close-age relationships.
Yes, but not all do. And by perusing Wikipedia's summary list, you can see how convoluted the laws are in various places. The "close in age" exceptions can vary from a couple years difference to decades.
Re: (Score:2)
So when does the victim ... become the monster? At 15? 18?
When they're no longer small and cute enough to trigger parental instincts.
Re:ew (Score:4, Interesting)
Looking at the news over recent years, it seems there is an explosion in the number of pedophiles - I'm not too sure about that, various historical traces show that it isn't anything new, but it has recently been fount as a very efficient tool to get quite unsavoury laws passed. However, if indeed there is a growth in those numbers, I can't help but think that your kind of attitude fuels it. After all, if you think that, whatever their age, children should be subject to criminal laws intended for adults, why couldn't they be perfectly valid sexual partners?
Re:ew (Score:5, Insightful)
Indeed, but that contradiction is the consequence of laws going awry. In some states, sexual 'offences' - even between minors, and even when voluntary - are deemed so grave, one can convict them as adults.
Which, as other posters already pointed out, begs the question:
If they are legally deemed to be able to be sentenced as an adult, why can't they be legally deemed to be allowed having sex as an adult in the first place?
It makes no sense.
Re: (Score:3)
A slight problem, though: it completely ignores decades of studies that show and prove that, indeed, although they are not children anymore, adolescent are not yet adults. Are they able to reproduce or, more generally to take some decisions related to themselves? Sure they are. That doesn't mean they're adults. Among a bunch of other things, not being an adult means still having a very high plasticity allowing for quick personal development (in whichever direction). This, adole
Re:ew (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem, however, is deciding when it's actual abuse or not. If courts decided that on case by case instances, *without* automatic statutory rape principles which currently do not take a nuanced approach, I have no issue with it. However, many laws are currently written that *automatically* makes it an offence, the moment "minor" and "sex" comes together. This becomes very problematic, since minors are not sexual inactive until, at the very moment they turn 18, they suddenly and magically become sexually active. That's silly. That's not reality you're describing.
It has long been established that minors, even young kids, engage in some sexual behaviour, and that is just part of a natural behaviour while growing up. Our society has demonised this, and made laws that are so draconian, one gets situations as described by other posters, where a 15 year old takes a nude picture of herself, and gets convicted as a sex-offender who has created child-porn, and has to be registered as such for the next 25 years. That is crazy, period. Idem with youths who voluntarily have sexual acts with eachother; when caught, they often get crushed by society - especially in prude USA - and got labelled sex-offenders for the rest of their life, with all the dire consequences for their future life. And for what? For engaging in behaviour which is NOT abnormal, but is just part of growing up. And which, btw, the vast majority is doing to some degree long before they turn 18. It's just antithetic to how people actually live and behave, thus. And in most of these cases, there is no victim, in the sense as we normally understand it (and not as statutory rape defines it).
Luckily, at least in Europe, people begin to realise this, and the prudish USA-type of hysteria gets some counter. In many countries in the EU now, one starts to make exemptions in the law for minors that voluntarily engage in sexual acts with other minors (from around the same age). That's because one finally has realised that going the USA way is ridiculous, since the main goal is to protect kids against things they do not want (aka, actual abuse), not 'protect' kids by putting them in jail themselves for things that shouldn't have been criminalised in the first place.
I'm all for a more nuanced approach to it, like in the EU, for the simple reason USA laws are getting to a point where they are defeating their own purpose, and create massive damage to children itself.
Re: (Score:2)
we should put them all on a special island then use it for target practice.
Re: (Score:2)
Heh, I wonder if someone will gather all the government-distributed child porn and give people copies, with a nice "I got these from the government" notice? Because unlike with other illegal things the government might distribute in its quest to jail people, information can be copied indefinitely.
FBI: trust us, we would never abuse power (Score:5, Interesting)
Who are we talking about here, the FBI or the pedophiles?
Isn't this just the Feds again telling us that the ends justifies the means? Apparently, it is ok to run a child pornography site, as long as it is being used to catch sex offenders.I have mixed feelings about this. It is clearly good that the FBI is working to put people who would hurt children in jail. It is less clear that people who might be consuming such illegal material are the people who produce it. It seems eerily similar to the failed drug wars where large numbers of people who consume drugs are the people that are being arrested, as opposed to the people who are making and distributing drugs.
Re: (Score:3)
Well in this particular instance i'm assuming the FBI wasn't creating any new child porn, so there were no new victims... Rather they were watching pedophiles acquiring existing material from the site in order to catch them in the act and gain evidence against them.
Had they simply shut down the site immediately, then word would soon have spread and their ability to gain any evidence for further prosecutions from the site would have been gone, and the pedophiles would quickly move to other sites and probably
Re: (Score:2)
Well in this particular instance i'm assuming the FBI wasn't creating any new child porn, so there were no new victims...
But that's not the logic the FBI uses in convicting those who possess or distribute child pornography. According to them, the existence and distribution of child pornography creates a market for more child pornography, which means more children are abused to create it. If you follow the standard FBI logic, then, their distribution of pornography necessarily contributed to the creation of a market which would cause more abuse and thus "new victims."
(That is, of course, assuming that the FBI did not manag
Re: (Score:2)
I can see one simple situation where that wouldn't be the case.
If the site had a verification process that was already in place, so new files wouldn't show up immediately but would be vetted by moderators, that could stay up, allowing file after file of evidence to be submitted - and the submitters would only start to get worried when the usual turnaround time was exceeded.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I am sure (Score:4, Funny)
Hey, we're only doing the media keeps telling us, to think of the children.
Re:I am sure (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I am sure (Score:5, Interesting)
I like CSI:Cyber for something the writers didn't intend: It shows a realistic example of police abuse of power. The protagonists of the show are not out to be an oppressive, invasive government agency - but they are driven to catch the bad guys. Little things like warrants and due process just get in the way - from the perspective of law enforcement, they are just weasel tricks that the horrible people use to escape justice. The Cyber Squad are constantly intimidating and threatening suspects and routinely carry out acts that are blatantly illegal, or legal only on very NSAish grounds - they outright state at one point that they have a law that grants them the right to hack any computer anywhere so long as they have reasonable suspicion that it contains data important to an investigation, which they use to hack the database from a dating app because it's the quickest way to identify which user is their suspect. The one time a person denies their request for information without a warrant they pull political strings and threaten to have their organisation barred from government contracts if the information isn't handed over 'voluntarily' rather than go to the delay of getting a warrant. But despite this, they maintain the conviction that they are the 'good guys.' The end justifies the means - and when the end is catching murderers, rapists and child molesters*, that enough to justify any means. To themselves, at least.
It's an interesting approach to the program, but the problem is that is leads viewers to the same conclusion: Watch enough super-virtuous cops on TV who routinely break the law to catch a filthy perverted murderer, and the public's attitudes to such things relax in the real world. Where the police are not infallible, and it isn't always clear who the villain is, and sometimes innocent people are accused.
I've noticed Cyber Squad also like to brutalise suspects a bit on arrest, making sure to 'accidentally' slam someone's head against a concrete floor even when they aren't resisting.
*Cyber or not, it's still CSI: Practically every crime has a sex angle. Ratings!
Re: (Score:3)
In fairness, CSI:Miami had Horatio going his ass down to Brazil to shoot some motherfuckers to death extrajudicially. NCIS has Jethro Gibbs that sniped the cartel leader that had his wife and child killed, extrajudicially. Every show like that does the take the law into your own hands sooner or later. Its entertainment, but its also unusually accurate b/c all these agencies do in fact skirt the law, all the time. We only accept it because we don't actually know about it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: I am sure (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Which ones? The ones who actually do the molesting or the ones who casually view it? Both need Mental Counseling but only one needs to be in Prison. Regardless of how awful it is, it is a Mental Disorder.
What's even more disturbing is Men and Women who Wax and Shave their parts to mimic prepubescent children. You are not kids anymore, grow up.
Re: I am sure (Score:2)
Liking things you don't like is only a disorder if you're a Nazi.
Re: I am sure (Score:5, Insightful)
If I have to choose between siding with child molesters or siding with a police state, I'm on the side of child molesters. Simple self interest.
Child molesters have no interest to bother me. The same cannot be said about a police state.
Re: (Score:2)
If I have to choose between siding with child molesters or siding with a police state, I'm on the side of child molesters. Simple self interest.
Child molesters have no interest to bother me. The same cannot be said about a police state.
I get where you're coming from, but this isn't true if you are a child. Or if you have children. Or actually, if you aren't selfish and don't have children.
Sometimes, when trying to weigh the lesser of two evils, it comes up a tie.
Re: I am sure (Score:4, Informative)
People watching child porn are not a danger to my children.
Not a direct danger, but.., (Score:2)
People watching child porn are not a danger to my children.
They may not be a direct danger, but to the extent that their viewing the stuff makes your "friendly neighborhood wanna-be child porn producer" think there is a demand for it, he may decide to start producing.
There is also the issue of "porn isn't enough any more" - your local child-porn viewer may decide just watching kids on-screen isn't enough and he may start acting out what he sees.
While your children are probably safe just because of the extremely low percentage of kids who are victimized in this way,
Re: (Score:2)
Except, the porn has to be produced somewhere, and actors have to be acquired or abducted to perform in it.
Re: I am sure (Score:5, Insightful)
Now that the battle to normalize homosexuality is largely won there are a growing number of voices in society (including academicians) working to normalize pedophilia.
No there aren't.
There was a time (which had its heyday in the late 1970s and early 1980s) when there was a push to abolish ages of consent and recognize the possible validity of sexual relationships between all ages, and it had some significant academic support (particularly in Europe).
But that was 30-40 years ago. Support for that sort of thing has been declining ever since.
There is some growing interest (though only in a small minority of researchers) in trying to sort out more details concerning the behavior of pedophiles -- for example, how many viewers of child pornography actually also commit offenses with children? How often does the "escalation" you refer to actually occur? Are there differences in the recidivism rates and possibilities for rehabilitation in those who merely view child pornography vs. those who actually sexually assault children?
The research on a lot of these questions is in its infancy, partly because it's a very icky topic, and we all want to believe the worst about anyone who would ever view a naked picture of a child. But such research is trying to sort out whether our criminal penalties make sense, whether they are actually effective in reducing further abuse, etc.
That's not "normalizing pedophilia" -- it's trying to focus effort on places where it can prevent the most harm, and trying to help people who may actually be able to be helped vs. just demonizing everyone who we can corral into the category of "dangerous pedophile."
Re: (Score:2)
their fueled passions and arousal may overcome their restraint to seek out your kids,
There is not much to support this. Many also argue that pornography give a alleviates the desire. Who knows, probably both depending the individual. Would the Columbine shooters come up with the fantasy that became reality without playing Doom (or whatever game it was) obsessively, probably not. Would many here go into a nerdrage and kill people at work because of extreme dissatisfaction with their mediocre jobs without the outlet gaming provides them, probably.
I'm not for passing laws because we did a soc
Re: (Score:2)
Starting with you, no doubt. ;-)
Re: (Score:2)
If someone is using Tor, VPN's or some other IP address obfuscation system, then then odds are that one person is going to be using multiple proxy servers which will themselves be randomized due to machines being switched on or off depending on the time of day. Those users might have multiple systems; (desktops, laptops, tablets, smartphones).
So 20000 visits might be 1300 systems making 16 visits/week. Each of those systems is through a different proxy/Tor path which is reduced down to 100 users.
Re: (Score:2)
"because there was no other way" is arguably the worst excuse for violating someone's rights.
"You were doing something, we didn't like it, and this was the best response we could think up. And so that's our justification for doing what we did. We did it because it was the only way we could find that got results."