Slashdot Mirror
Kiddie Porn - The Virus Did It
The New York Times reports on a British man who was accused of downloading child pornography, and who successfully convinced the court that a virus did it. This is at least the second time this has happened. These cases are extremely interesting since they bring together all sorts of issues of computerized agents - who is actually responsible when your computer does something?
Yes, but common knowledge tells everyone what the brakes do in a car. You do a driving test that requires the use of the brake.
A lot of the people who use the internet these days know nothing about it. I'm sure that at least 90% of web users are oblivious to the fact that it's possible for a mallicious web page to crash your browser, install a trojan, and do all sorts of nasty stuff. How many click OK to Comet Cursor or "magical time sync software"? Who here hasn't been asked to help a friend with a troublesome system, that was found to contain all maner of trojans and ad-ware?
It's often said that ignorance isn't an excuse. I'd argue against that in many cases. Ignorance is an excuse where it would take 3-4 years of learning about IT to be aware of what's going on under that case.
"those with pictures are statistically likely to go on to physical acts..."
Do you have figures to back up this claim?
The study of pornography and its impact on sex crimes is always highly charged, but there is a good basis for believing that free access to pornography actually reduces sexual offenses (not just against children, but of all kinds).
And yes, there are "wrong buttons" that will download images to your PC. Someone else here mentioned that Newsnet is regularly spammed with child porn.
Criminals should be punished, no doubt about it. But witch-hunts are never productive. You think you are catching the real crooks? You're not. In fact, you're driving the sale and distribution of child porn underground, causing it to become harder and more violent.
Pushing even an obnoxious trade into the hards of real criminal networks is not wise: you may get that rosy feeling of 'doing good', but the cost is paid by huge numbers of new victims in far-off places.
Ceci n'est pas une signature
Possibly intentionally: child molesters, and people who download child pornography.
Uhm, I've a large collection of videos about cars crashing, but that does not make me a dangerous driver.
You are being somewhat wicked when you imply that everyone with a penchant for watching a kind of act is also likely to go out and commit it. This is a tired pseudo-psychology that has tried and failed to link TV to violence, games to violence, foreign-language films to political insurrection, what have you. Monkey see, monkey do? I don't think this argument has any provable basis.
You cannot save children from exploitation by making such falacious arguments. You must show a clear connection between the person in possession of pornography, and those committing the acts.
Imagine we're talking about rape videos. Now rape is a crime. Does this mean that someone luridly watching a rape video (real or faked) is actually a criminal too?
How about someone watching the film of a bank heist. Or the millions of viewers who watch 'cop reality shows'. Are they all likely to jump up and start stealing cars?
You can't stop using logic just because you're discussing an emotive subject - if anything you have to be more clear headed than usual.
Lurid interest in an illegal act is not (in the general sense) a crime, and is often a substitute for the real thing. Think clearly and you will see that there are better ways of preventing abuse of children.
One example: to recognise that most abuse of children actually happens in countries where children's rights are totally ignored, and often takes far worse forms than sexual exploitation.
Ceci n'est pas une signature
The question of culpability for the actions of a computer is going to become increasingly interesting. Spammers and other miscreants are getting more brazen about the use of third party computers by which to make mischief. I'm not saying that it's a new concept -- far from it -- only that the audacity factor is going up. Dealers in kiddie porn and other widely-considered-bad things may start to see third party computers as a safe medium for their wares; a good way to cover their tracks.
It seems unfair for a person with a virus-infected computer to be accountable (even in part) for the actions of a malicious third party who takes control of that computer without the owner's knowledge. On the other hand, it's risky to let them off the hook for it: genuinely culpable parties may install a virus on their own system as a legal defense measure! And if the owner of the computer were nailed for the actions of their computer, could they then sue some software or hardware vendor for enabling a malicious third party to use their computer without authorisation, thus exposing them to this risk? Presumably the end user doesn't haven't much of a case against the Internet Service Provider: I would expect the ISP to be offering a network service, leaving it up to you and your equipment as to what use is made of that service.
The real problem here, as I see it, is that we want to discourage systems which facilitate abuse by evading accountability. The real culprit -- the malicious third party who uses the computer as a zombie slave to get up to no good -- is safely hidden from accountability through anonymity. The owner of the equipment is deemed not culpable on the basis of inability to know or do anything about it. The owners of the network infrastructure are just providing the advertised service, and should be thought of as common carriers. The owner of the software which enables the virus, well, no software authors seem to want to be held accountable for their software either, and that's somewhat understandable.
But if we don't come up with some strategy for discouraging systems which facilitate abuse by third parties, the natural consequence will be an increase in unpolicable lawlessness. To complicate matters, insecure systems are already pervasive, so it's hard to know where to start. Who do we put the pressure on? I didn't RTFA, as I said (don't read NYT's website on principle), so I don't know what conclusions were drawn. It strikes me that perhaps we need to start holding the end user accountable for the mischief of their system if they don't take reasonable precautions to prevent it, such as using anti-virus software, or keeping modestly up to date with security patches. Maybe we can also hold commercial software/hardware sellers accountable to do their fair share in selling a merchantable product, with particular reference to reasonable standards of safety, and working as advertised. In the case of OEM-installed operating systems, it's probably the OEM that should foot the bill, as the seller of the product. Penalties should be relative to the cost of the product.
I'm not suggesting that these ideas ought to be implemented, but we ought to think about them. What seems fair and would have the desired impact? Most end users aren't aware how unsafe the Internet is, with regards to this kind of abuse, and they should be educated about it, or protected from it. Computer manufacturers are selling computers as internet-ready but by and large they are selling an unsafe product. Selling a machine bundled with anti-virus protection might be sufficient to make the product "safe", from a merchantability perspective. Removing (or not providing) Internet functionality would also protect the manufacturer from Internet-related issues. Providing clear warning material on the dangers of connecting to the Internet might also be sufficient ass-cover.
Stuff to ponder. And note that I didn't rant about Microsoft Windows, despite opportunity and motive.
proof, n. A demonstration that a conclusion is implied by certain premises and axioms.
This is the argument often used by those that want to throw the book at buyers/downloaders of child pornography. Some of them would even agree that looking at such pictures in itself is not a bad thing, but going after 'users' of kiddy porn results in a diminished demand for such stuff, and as a result less children are abused. (Not my argument, but this is the line of reasoning often quoted). However, the fact that 'consumers' of child pornography create a market for such material, does not automatically make the act of looking at or posessing the material a crime.
That is a very dangerous statement for two reasons:
1) If people who look at these pictures are more likely to go on to physical acts... is that because of the pictures, or did they have the tendency anyway? In the latter case, giving them such pictures might actually help getting them their fix, so that they will not go on to the physical act.
2) If colored people are statistically more likely to commit crimes (disclaimer: this is just an example which I picked because it's a widely held stereotype). Does that mean we should pre-emptively go and arrest them all? Propensity to commit a criminal act is not a crime! Besides, just like in the example I gave, the propensity to commit the crime isn't even proven... it's just a statistical correlation.
It should be followed up, but it must not turn into a witchhunt. Too bad that these days it seems that when it comes to our rights and due process, anything goes when 'the safety of our children' might be involved.
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
Yeah, but their culture see's it differently i.e. not so much of a problem. To them, it's like Saudi Arabia asking us to clamp down on alcohol, because their society doesn't tolerate our activies. A lot of Asian porn features school girl references there, and they really dig the whole cute china-doll thing. I'm sure many of the legal ones get made up to look as young as possible, jeez that even goes on in Western porn as well, 25 year-olds masquerading as 18 year-olds.
With different ages of consent around the world, policing this planet is not an easy task. I think I heard once that the age in Spain was 12, though that may have been years ago and it's probably standardised through the EU now. How exactly to you legislate based on widely differing laws and cultures?
Remember also that our society is very diffent to many others, and has only become that way recently. Several hundred years ago, most people were married and had had several children by 17-18 years old. You'd be lucky to reach 30 years old and have half of your children reach adulthood. Our ever extending life-span has lengthened the "age of innocence", but it's not "naturally human". If a boy/girl can conceive children, that's natures way of saying it's time to start having sex, regardless of what abstinence groups or abusive catholic priests regard the issue.
It's a very muddled issue. Where do you draw the line?
If I notice that my car's brakes aren't working that well, I can do one of three things. I can A: repair the brakes or B: take my car to someone who can to fix the brakes or C: drive around as if nothing's wrong. If I run over somebody because my brakes don't work, I'm pretty sure I can get sued because I'd be responsible for my car.
Once again, someone who tries to apply a metaphor from the real world, and fails.
You see, almost every day I get kiddie porn spam. Young russian girls, y.o.u.n.g BOYZ!, girls and horses, all kinds of crap. Sometimes they attach pictures, usually they don't. I always delete them. They're not actually deleted of course though, and the thought has crossed my mind: could something like this be used as a form of entrapment?
"Look, we found KIDDIE PORN in his TRASH FOLDER!!!"
So, if you wanted to make a little comparison with real life, in this case it would be more akin to someone cutting your brake lines and you driving into a crowd of people and then being held responsible then sent to prison.
Of course, since the moderation system on Slashdot was meant to censor anyone with an even slightly unpopular opinion.. this will be posted at 0. Oh well..
> There are lots of issues to consider here, firstly the daughter claim... his daughter may have had a vendetta against him because he molested her, or she knew that he was commiting acts against children and just wanted him to get what was coming to him. Who knows...
To be blunt, who cares? If she was molested, she should accuse him of that. If she has reason to believe he's molesting other children, let her present that evidence. Framing him for a crime he didn't commit is never right, even if he committed some other crime.
> also the other thing to consider (and i have some experience in this) when i was getting started in computers and did some stupid things (bruteforcing passwords from my own system), i always ran a copy of BO on my own pc, so i could blame "the evil hackers" if it came down to it. Possibly he was doing the same thing with much more sinister acts.
Sorry, but "possibly" doesn't do in a court of law. Sure it's possible he set up an alibi, but if there's not sufficient evidence that he did it's not the court's right to assume guilt. That's how "beyond a reasonable doubt" works.
Virg
Yes.
And just like the Committee on Anti-Communist Activities, or the Salem witch trials, the answer will continue to be "yes" until a sufficient number of high-profile people have been inconvenienced by it. Right now, the witch-hunt is under control. But like all fires, it will quickly go wild, and the frenzy of the mob will take over - at which point, there will be a few nasty incidents until someone powerful and influential is damaged, at which point the tides will change and we'll all realize what a mess we've created.
Then we'll find a new name and a new face for it and start the whole process over again.
-Hentai [in vita non pacem est]
Are you saying that most people like to look at kiddie porn?
If you define kiddie porn as any sexually suggestive photo of a female under the age of 18 (the legal definition), then yes. If you define it as the same type of photo of a female under the age of 11 (the pre-pubescent, almost boyish look), then I would say no.
Everyone seems to have their own definition of "too young". Forget about how bad most guys are at actually being able to differentiate the photo of a 14 or 15 year old from on 18 year old in real life. Of course, some people are very good at guessing people's ages.
Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.