Hacker News Reader

Comment by jcbrand | Hacker News Reader

> Then couldn't a preventative measure be to take all the existing child porn and make it available to them?

What about the victims' right not to have their privacy and dignity violated by the continuing consumption of the material?

View on HN

Yes, what about that. The only way the FBI is justified is if we ignore that. And if we are choosing to ignore it to justify the FBI's actions then why not do it here for the greater good? Personally I'm with you that we shouldn't ignore it in either case.

I read a post where someone actually set up a honey pot without actually hosting CP. There was an application system where the pedos thought they were going to get cp via an application process or were a big enough part of the "community." I feel like the FBI could have implemented something similar without actually hosting the images. I feel like there is no excuse for distributing cp, even if it is to catch pedos. You shouldn't become a pedo to catch pedos.

Yeah, such a better system. Even set up a bit coin address where they have to pay about $25 to get in to prove intent (along with visiting the site and then logging in).

I was responding to a comment that made the case that prevention of future physical child harm is more important than prevention of revictimization, so I'm just continuing along that line of reasoning. You'll have to ask him if you want an answer for why he felt that trade-off was valid.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com