New scanners break child porn laws
guardian.co.uk
guardian.co.uk
Brings a tear to my eye.
My comments there still stand: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1032821
I'd guess they are absolutely not effective at all.
I don't understand the rationale behind making viewing certain images illegal :/ Obviously I'm not someone who wants to view such images, but I can't see why doing so should be a crime. It's verging on 'thought police'.
We're living in an age where you can view videos of beheadings, people send around youtubes of some guy being electricuted on top of a train. Death? Hey sure that's fine, but post a pic of your baby enjoying bathtime and you'll be hunted down and burned as a witch. It's perverse.
> I wonder if there's a study into how successful internet child porn laws are at actually preventing crime.
I dont know of one. The trouble is work in that area is actually classified (I cant remember to what level). So we can only work with the data we know of (i.e. ours) - same for every company/force working on such cases. Second problem is that it is usually quite a fragmented field from detection through investigation and to trial that collating accurate stats is even harder.
I might try to put something together though.
In terms of:
> We're living in an age where you can view videos of beheadings, people send around youtubes of some guy being electricuted on top of a train.
I actually agree the law is a bit wierd here. For example if those images or video's also included something class able as pornography it become extreme porn and hence illegal (at least here in the UK). Im not really sure where I stand on that (apart from the fact that the point is the viewer is more likely "getting off" on the porn or something)
> but post a pic of your baby enjoying bathtime and you'll be hunted down and burned as a witch
If you post it on a pedophile network well, then, probably you will be :) On other sites? Highly unlikely. And if you are investigated someone like me will prove the negative.
Please dont forget; the VAST majority of people are caught in 3 ways:
- by actively downloading from known and watched pedophile networks
- by being caught IRL by someone and reported to the police
- by grooming youngsters on the web and the victim / victims parents reporting it (sort of like #2 but more pro-active)
As to the legality or morality of viewing these images; I choose not to comment. Because I suspect we differ entirely there.
With all of that said:
> and that there a thousands of them ready to strike on YOUR kids when you least expect it.
I could not agree more with such a sentiment. It really annoys me (along with my colleagues) that the media/govt. persist these attitudes. It actually damages our efforts too.
Are you saying you believe simply viewing particular light patterns should be a crime? It's just bizarre. But as you say, I guess we disagree on that point.
Should "thinking inappropriate thoughts about minors" be a crime also? Should we develop brain monitors and all wear funny hats?
If you believe viewing such images should be illegal, then even law enforcement officers should not be able to view them - otherwise how do we know if they secretly 'enjoy' looking at them. The whole sorry exercise is one of thought policing.
I think your deconstructing too far. And I think your not equating the act of viewing with the effect further up the chain; aka the abuse.
> Should "thinking inappropriate thoughts about minors" be a crime also?
No, clearly not. But I think there isn't a single line in the sand regarding this. Would you be comfortable with someone interacting with your kids who goes home and uses them in his/her sexual fantasies? There is a hazy line and we must use common sense to ensure minors are protected.
In the case of thoughts, no I dont think they should be illegal. But if someone admits to having such thoughts I think it should be legal to say "I dont want to around my kids".
> If you believe viewing such images should be illegal, then even law enforcement officers should not be able to view them
This is where your missing the point entirely; the whole issue is context.
Think of it this way; viewing the images is, perhaps, impossible to define as illegal. However viewing and distributing these images feeds the cycle of abuse and so the viewers are directly or indirectly perpetrators.
If XYZ person viewed an officially indecent image with no sexual motive (either accidentally, in the course of their job or for whatever reason) do I think they should be prosecuted? No!
I know there's a multitude of complexities here, but I think 'viewing images' should never be illegal. Paying for someone to obtain images that involve illegal activities should definitely be illegal.
So maybe we sort of agree after all...
I agree. The idea of making certain strings of bits illegal is perverse and, long term, utterly unenforceable, and will only promote contempt for the law - well deserved contempt.
The other culprit here of course is the media who whip up hate campaigns, scare parents and generally enforce the idea that pedophiles are worse than serial killers, and that there a thousands of them ready to strike on YOUR kids when you least expect it.
I believe it is a systemic problem. Yes, the media is involved, but they're just giving the public what they want. The institutions we have were formed in the mid-20th century to stop what was then legitimate child neglect/abuse. They succeeded in the 70s, but they didn't disband. They merely redefined abuse, and continue to do so, and today they are part of the government itself. They are the ones who feed the media, and with the credibility of government encourage the fear epidemic, as it's in line with their interests.
The institutions in our government are out of control and this is happening everywhere. It's not a USA or UK or AU problem; we all have the same cancer.
We've all seen kids naked. Who cares.
That's what a judge said before passing down sentence for a guy who took 'fairy' pictures of children at the request of their parents. He got 150 hours community service, which I guess was the lightest sentence the judge could hand down.
Story on it here: http://tinyurl.com/69ew9w
He pled guilty, probably to keep the case short and after being pressured to by the CPS. That means no jury was involved.
So this case is strange; it's not something I would have expected to see go to trial.
The only thing I can think of is that there doesn't appear to have been any need to photograph them actually topless/nude in order to create the photo's - and so they might be judge gratuitous. 150hrs community service is light for a child sex offence - it's just above an official slap on the wrist I would say. So it could be the judge wanted to impress on the guy to be careful in future (or something).
Ultimately the CPS were at fault there, IMO, in taking it to court.
You know, hearing things like that makes me determined to never, ever have anything to do with kids no matter what. If you're below 18 I won't even look at you, let alone talk, let alone help. It's just too risky.
To me, this outcome is more perverse than any picture could be.
I think it should be compulsory for schools+nurserys to have the same ratio of female:male in staff, as there are in pupils.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/dec/15/vanessa-george-jail...
And child care workers are 100% female, almost without exception.
update:
I think it should be compulsory for schools+nurserys to have the same ratio of female:male in staff, as there are in pupils.
Man you got no idea. Rationality has completely departed. I know someone who recently completed a child care qualification. She was instructed that it was the law to ask the baby's permission to pick them up prior to doing so. They are babies. They cannot understand, let alone answer. And yet the students were instructed to go through the motions anyway.
It is totally insane. This is in NSW, Australia, but don't gloat, all the western democracies copy and try to one-up each other - if it's not like this there, it will be soon.
Anyway, that's getting off topic. Yeah, I suppose a hyper-media-brainwashed jury might reach the conclusion that some fuzzy grey image of a child is "porn". God help us all.