I disagree with that. As FW says, downloading sharing these images creates a demand. The peple who are interested in this stuff aren't isolated from the rest of society. They have families, children near them. It's right they're arrested, hopefully treated and go on the sex offenders register in some capacity IMO.
David Cameron urges internet firms to block child abuse images
- Thread starter editor
- Start date
I disagree with that. As FW says, downloading sharing these images creates a demand. The peple who are interested in this stuff aren't isolated from the rest of society. They have families, children near them. It's right they're arrested, hopefully treated and go on the sex offenders register in some capacity IMO.
Boris Sprinkler
Dont be scared
I know he doesn't care. Nor does he read his twitter. But I had nothing better to do whilst having a dump this morning.
Boris Sprinkler
Dont be scared
That's my badly made point. It is a bullshit piece of legislation. And open to much interpretation. Look at the emotive language used in constructing those sentences. If they want to bang you up (no pun intended) for something, they will myopically interpret their legislation to push whatever agenda they see fit.
one of the first forensic cases i was involved in, involved a number of hardcore porn images being stored on our work fileshares and the guy accused actually emailing them to some other colleagues. This was 14 years ago when most places, didn't have forensic procedures, Information security policies, or even proper HR policies to deal with this sort of thing. One of the images was a full amputee woman having sex with a man.
HR argued that the image depicted rape, and a discussion ensued involving reprensentatives from HR, our legal dept, myself as the forensic investigator, the guy who was being fired and his union rep discussing this graphic image (which was in front of all of us covering an entire wall via an overhead projector) as to whether or not this was a depiction of a consensual act. I was 19 years old with no formal training, having to discuss my interpretation of the image. I myself had only had sex a handful of times at that point, and was in no position to offer a proper analysis of what i was looking at, but that was what was being asked of me. To analyse the facial expressions of the people in the picture. Baring in mind my only experience of any facial expression during sex at this point was my own, which was probably one of open mouthed excitement and amazement that OMG! I was actually doing it with a lady.
But sharing, ie, distributing this material is much more than just looking at it in isolation! And yes, I assume that this people have families and children, but I can't see the point you are trying to make.
I suppose it's a case by case situation and we can't theorize about it: you have to see what the nature of these images are, where they came from, how they ended up in this person's computer. I agree that it might be evidence of other, related crimes being committed, but we have to be very cautious before we make anyone guilty before they're even charged, and this os often the case with emotive stuff, like children.
People have already been arrested and charged for having images of individuals "that MIGHT look like minors", only to find out that it was something like twinkie porn, or young-looking porn models in piggy tails. But by the time a court decides that the people on the images weren't minors, your life and reputation had been ruined.
And for the record, I am not condoning child porn in any way or form. But I don't think that this "let's arrest everyone" would stop child porn being produced. It's the same used for the Swedish legislation that criminalizes punters for hiring a prostitutes, and that they tried to implement in Scotland (or they did, eventually?) thinking that this will top the demand and therefore, get rid of prostitution.
Boris Sprinkler
Dont be scared
FFS it has nothing to do with looking at images of children being abused.
Boris Sprinkler
Dont be scared
Images of children being abused are illegal. If they know where these are published, they can get these removed and try and find who published/produced them, which is being done to an extent. What this is about is censorship and the beginning (or furthering of censorship) in the UK: Under the guise of "please, think of the children. "
FW, I am conflicted in this matter. I think that just looking at something doens't make you part of it, but also need to ask: what constitutes "looking"? On the other hand, I can't help feeling, like you, very suspicious of somebody who's gone to great lengths to build a considerable collection of CP, specially level 5 and stuff, and I agree that they should be investigated. But not criminalizing them for just "looking", but for other crimes that might be behind this interest.
Again, investigating somebody is not the same as charging them with a crime.
But things are rarely in B&W. There are lots of people innocently arrested, and also many grey areas. Often, it's very hard to determine even the nature of the images reported, of if the person got them into their hard drive cache by mistake, or sent to their mobile by a malicious person. It's happened. If what the police has been alerted to, always consisted of neatly labelled folders with fool-proof looking images of individuals that look clearly like children being abused, everything would be much easier: this person has an interest that perhaps should be investigated further, in case they pursue it in real life. Agreed. But it's not always as B&W as that. It's a subject full of grey areas.
I'm aware that I'm speculating, citing cases I've read about, but I'm no expert. My interest, that I've done research on, is in the so called "extreme images", when it refers to activities between consensual adults. Which is also full of grey areas.
frogwoman
No amount of cajolery...
I don't mean somebody who's been sent a virus or a dodgy email or whatever with child porn in it. There are always those types of cases. I mean people who have loads of pictures of child porn on their computers and sit there having a wank to it. Surely it's common sense that they shouldn't be allowed to work with children?
If someone has got one picture which they haven't looked at again and again and was sent to them through a virus or whatever then I'm guessing a lot of the time they will report the image to the police and not be charged anyway?
If someone has got one picture which they haven't looked at again and again and was sent to them through a virus or whatever then I'm guessing a lot of the time they will report the image to the police and not be charged anyway?
Well, then it's down to the police to go and investigate these people, for evidence of real life child abuse. But I wouldn't criminalize somebody JUST for wanking to anything, including child porn. I may not like the idea, I may find it personally abhorrent, but disgust only doesn't make it a crime.
frogwoman
No amount of cajolery...
But you wouldn't want them working with kids, or coming into contact with kids would you? you wouldn't think they were suitable? there should surely still be some activities which they can't participate in?
spacemonkey
I Love Noodles
They've won haven't they? They've got everyone talking about the porn filter, when it's got nothing to do with porn.
I can't answer that right now, FW. I hear what you say, but I am also conflicted between thinking that a fantasy is just that, and that protecting the most vulnerable members of society is of paramount importance. And also, that many adults, and the courts, and the government, are twisted, untrustworthy and opportunistic. In other words, I don't have a yes or no answer to your question yet, but that's food for thought
Boris Sprinkler
Dont be scared
Hey! I wasn't.
Boris Sprinkler
Dont be scared
I am in Denmark though. or pornoland as it is more commonly known.
spacemonkey
I Love Noodles
They need better control of filtering what we see on the net. An all-encompassing, mandatory filtering system at ISP level. Something that can be updated rapidly at the whims of people in power. And they'll get it.
spacemonkey
I Love Noodles
Yeah a few people picked it out, I meant more generally though, in the media, other forums, in the break-rooms at work. Protect the kids.
They've got everybody talking about the royal sprog. Cameron sneaked in his speech while only a bunch of anti royal malcontents like us was listening to him.
If peple are downloading child abuce material on a private p2p network for example, they're likely sharing it or at least encouraged to, amongst similarly minded users. Even if they're not, possessing such images is still rightly illegal. They're are different grades for the material.
My point about them possibly having families and children around them is to simply point out they're not hermetically sealed away carrying out solipsistic isolated activities with zero consequence or potential consequences for those around them. Interests do not become unplugged when the computer goes off.
Sorry dont' get what you mean re making peple guilty before charging them. I'm talking here about the current situation regarding possession of illegal material. OTOH I'm against this enforced filter idea. Let ISPs offer software, training and such filters, if they can but this state backed thing stinks.
Sure, not with this ISP filter idea. Just tangential discussion.
I would. It's nothing to do with consenting adults and their personal liberty.
Boris Sprinkler
Dont be scared
Ok. Anyway, here's one for all you wankers out there.
Get a vpn, one that doesn't keep logs and that uses openvpn protocol (because ISP's are loathe to block openvpn since many companies use this for their remote workers, I have found that pptp is getting blocked in the UK now, I like phantompeer. Four quid a month. https://www.phantompeer.com/
Use DNScrypt. So noone can see what you are looking up. http://www.opendns.com/technology/dnscrypt/
Use Tor - https://www.torproject.org/projects/torbrowser.html.en learn to tunnel all internet applications through it.
I use these (and other things), not because I am doing anything morally wrong (I won't say illegal because I don't give a fuck what is illegal, I know what is wrong or right, and I don't need any state enforced violence to tell me what i do is wrong according to what they decide. I decide what is fair and what is wrong or right for me and those I interact with).
Furthermore, the more people who use encryption the better, there is safety in numbers. The state has no right to see what I (or you) do, look at write, believe or think. If the need for state dictated societal vengeance is required because of any actions I have carried out have adversely affected another person or caused them harm or suffering (and that includes the production of media that was made involving the suffering of others), they can deal with me as they claim to see fit. In the meantime. I have nothing to hide and i will continue to hide it.
Get a vpn, one that doesn't keep logs and that uses openvpn protocol (because ISP's are loathe to block openvpn since many companies use this for their remote workers, I have found that pptp is getting blocked in the UK now, I like phantompeer. Four quid a month. https://www.phantompeer.com/
Use DNScrypt. So noone can see what you are looking up. http://www.opendns.com/technology/dnscrypt/
Use Tor - https://www.torproject.org/projects/torbrowser.html.en learn to tunnel all internet applications through it.
I use these (and other things), not because I am doing anything morally wrong (I won't say illegal because I don't give a fuck what is illegal, I know what is wrong or right, and I don't need any state enforced violence to tell me what i do is wrong according to what they decide. I decide what is fair and what is wrong or right for me and those I interact with).
Furthermore, the more people who use encryption the better, there is safety in numbers. The state has no right to see what I (or you) do, look at write, believe or think. If the need for state dictated societal vengeance is required because of any actions I have carried out have adversely affected another person or caused them harm or suffering (and that includes the production of media that was made involving the suffering of others), they can deal with me as they claim to see fit. In the meantime. I have nothing to hide and i will continue to hide it.
abe11825
Like to take a cement fix
So here's a question:
What would be the difference between child porn, child abuse (leading to porn), exotic/erotic art, and posting a picture of your naked kid completely bullocks naked... on your blog?
Reason I say that, is the fact I've a cousin who has two young boys. One is 7 and the other 5 (or there about for both children). All their lives, the mother has had a blog, of which she will post their naked bodies on. The boys are in different positions, outside, inside, colouring on a bench, playing in mud, feeding the farm animals (the family are farmers, living in the country).
After so many visits to the blog and seeing the children in undress, I had enough. I don't want to be subject to an arrest, should the pictures be found on my computer (I've had loads of problems with my pc since I got it - its a lemon). That can't be explained / excused - how I got naked children on my laptop. "Err... its me cousin's kids..." aye, sounds logical. Not.
There was even one post, where the children were sitting down on the pavement with chalk, and the youngest was sitting in a way that you couldn't tell if he was wearing anything past his belly button (his brother was next to him). The caption to the picture was something to the effect of "R knows to sit this way when Mommy takes pictures". Because they know she'll be putting them online?
Although she admits that they let the two roam however they want - in whatever state of (un)dress year round, it's awkward to see. No one has told her to stop posting her children online, so she will continue to do so. It's a public blog (on Blogger even!), so the whole world can see a seven year old's nob.
What would be the difference between child porn, child abuse (leading to porn), exotic/erotic art, and posting a picture of your naked kid completely bullocks naked... on your blog?
Reason I say that, is the fact I've a cousin who has two young boys. One is 7 and the other 5 (or there about for both children). All their lives, the mother has had a blog, of which she will post their naked bodies on. The boys are in different positions, outside, inside, colouring on a bench, playing in mud, feeding the farm animals (the family are farmers, living in the country).
After so many visits to the blog and seeing the children in undress, I had enough. I don't want to be subject to an arrest, should the pictures be found on my computer (I've had loads of problems with my pc since I got it - its a lemon). That can't be explained / excused - how I got naked children on my laptop. "Err... its me cousin's kids..." aye, sounds logical. Not.
There was even one post, where the children were sitting down on the pavement with chalk, and the youngest was sitting in a way that you couldn't tell if he was wearing anything past his belly button (his brother was next to him). The caption to the picture was something to the effect of "R knows to sit this way when Mommy takes pictures". Because they know she'll be putting them online?
Although she admits that they let the two roam however they want - in whatever state of (un)dress year round, it's awkward to see. No one has told her to stop posting her children online, so she will continue to do so. It's a public blog (on Blogger even!), so the whole world can see a seven year old's nob.
I agree that an image depicting real child abuse, should be investigated to see who made it, and find the people who committed a crime. But I still think that wanking to it, disgusting as we may think it is, isn't a crime.
DotCommunist
So many particulars. So many questions.
surely it confers a degree of complicity
Your cousin is being very naive, given the current climate. Last year, an art show was ordered to close because it had photos of the artists' children naked on the beach. I can't find the link now, will have a rummage later.
What do you mean by complicity? Just looking at something doesn't make you complicit (ie, taking part or helping) in the actual crime that made those photos possible.
Boris Sprinkler
Dont be scared
Funny. I just viewed the tor network statistics, over the last few months, the number of relays has risen (no doubt due to Edward Snowden's whistleblowing, but yesterday there was a surge in nodes joining the network. Coincidence?
It fuels a demand for the material to be created. And I wouldn't want anyone who wanked over pics of child abuce to work any where near children.
Louis MacNeice
Autumn Journalist
Why shouldn't your use of a product, the manufacture of which is a crime, and the impact of which can be utterly devastating, not be viewed as a crime itself?
If you think the artefact is acceptable to use then you are also saying that it is acceptable to make; you are effectively endorsing (if not encouraging) the abuse necessary for its production.
Cheers - Louis MacNeice
If you think the artefact is acceptable to use then you are also saying that it is acceptable to make; you are effectively endorsing (if not encouraging) the abuse necessary for its production.
Cheers - Louis MacNeice
Similar threads
