Slashdot Mirror
Child Porn Probe Uses Live Internet Wiretap
rrkap writes "The Sacramento Bee is reporting
that Jason Heath Morgan, a suspect in a child porn case was subject to the first 'live internet wiretap.' According to the story, 'Technology used in the surveillance is very similar to a phone tap. Agents attached a monitoring device to Morgan's phone line, then tracked his Internet activity from remote computers.' This packet sniffing was authorized by the PROTECT Act - officially Prosecutorial Remedies and Other Tools to End the Exploitation of Children Today Act, which authorizes such tapping of internet connections."
Prosecutorial Remedies and Other Tools to End the Exploitation of Children Today
Will these forced acronyms never end?
It sounds like when they investigated him the act was not in force yet and they had to actually get a judge to agree to the tap; that makes this not a particularly interesting or scary story -- judges have had the ability to approve taps to compromise our privacy for a long, long time now.
It looks like PROTECT might make this at the discretion of the prosecutor which is, obviously a Very Bad Thing[tm], but it's not all that relevant in this case, it seems.
now if I can only set one of these babies up at echelon I'll know everything :)
This issue doesn't seem to be a big deal, for the privacy issue - the authorities did have to go to a judge and get a warrant first, just like they would for a phone tap or for an in house search.
When Sacramento agents made their request in August 2003, the wiretap provision had not yet been used, and authorities had to convince a federal judge to grant the authority.
The court order was granted, with a requirement that two groups of agents be involved in monitoring Morgan. The first scrutinized his computer use and culled out everything not related to the investigation. The rest was turned over to the second team.
Everything was by the book here. Now, it's just that computer users aren't invulnerable to using the Internet to commit crimes, the Feds have caught up.
SIG:Slashdot: indymedia for nerds.
I believe this is exactly how the RCMP and the Montreal Urban Community Police (MUC) caught Mafia Boy back in 2000....
Never by hatred has hatred been appeased, only by kindness - the Buddha
Just curious, I realize a lot of slashdotters have jobs where you have to help with implementing some of these things, how do you feel when asked to assist?
This is one of the more rational and intelligent responses I have seen to address what is a hugely emotive issue.
Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
What truth?
There is no dupe
...first off it's approved by a court order, so no problems there. Second, what's the big deal about "live" as opposed to "near-real" time? I mean computer logs are kinda like a tape of a regular wiretap. Yes, you might have an officer to listen in "live", but unless that's about something going down in the next few minutes, does that matter?
What's more surprising is that they haven't been able to do this before. drop a LOG line in iptables and you can have a complete log of every packet, live. Somehow I fail to see the big difficulty in this...
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Brought to you by a commission of Acronyms Sliding into Silliness through Halfwits Appending with Thesauruses Simple-mindedly (ASSHATS).
Maybe they'll introduce the PITA act for all the criminals they catch?
With technology like this in place, it becomes harder for the government to justify the need for less discriminate and more easily abused capablities like Carnivore/DCS-1000 or their demands that VoIP wiretapping capability be built into ISP networking gear. If they can tap someone's net connection like their phone line, they don't need to have things installed in every ISP to be able to track what someone does.
For your security, this post has been encrypted with ROT-13, twice.
you still need a judge to ok something like this, and who *really* wants to bother supporting child porno slime.
These guys followed the letter of the law, and im glad they caught the guy. Case closed.
Significant Linux Advocating Site Housing Dozens Of Trolls?
^_^
It's not far fetched to assume an overly zealous agent might consider planting evidence on a computer either. They already do this in a variety of other cases. Sometimes they are caught at it, a lot of times they aren't, and you can't tell. And there's a lot of prior cases to prove the point, the miami cops busted planting guns on suspects, trying to clear themselves of murder. the texas prosecutiors and cops who "flaked" (that's the cop slang term for it, it's so common, taken originally from gold mining and planting gold flakes I think to make a mine look better)) hundreds of people in this small town with drugs that weren't drugs, getting convictions, sending people to jail.
There's just something spooky about it. Child porn is a real problem, but we can't deny government lying isn't a problem as well. It's a serious major problem, ongoing, chronic. Just now on drudge headlines they are investigating a secret service guy for falsifying evidence/perjury in the martha stewart case. And remember the FBI "crime lab" tests scandals of a couple of years ago.
The bad guys commit crimes, but we have a much harder time exposing the "good guys" who really aren't. Look at all the controversy about iraq now, the weird circumstances around 9-11, prisoner abuse, etc.
I'm glad to see that the Feds are pursuing predators online by using methods that will stand up in court, rather than the questionable tactics used by the vigilantes of Perverted Justice
Pete Carr Owner Chatmag.com
I don't know about you, but I hate this invasion of privacy the gouvenment is doing.
I have nothing to hide, and most people don't, but in a few years, everybody will be scared to click links because of fear of what might load, and the cops thinking they went there on purpose.
And yes, it will happen, and it pretty much already is (with cellphones and other methods of telecommunication).
x86, oh yes, I'm pro.
Why didn't this guy use encryption, good encryption techniques would defeat the cops, them being the man in the middle.
Pedophiles are not smart enough to use encryption?
Do the feds ever actually bust the guys making the porn in the first place i.e. doing the real explotation. Or do they always just bust some sorry shlub who tried to download some old .jpeg and never touched a kid in his life?
I encrypt everything. I think some cops like to make shit up to prove their case (anyone remember Richard Jewel?). Encryption is the solution to this.
Also cops, like people, can be assholes. How many assholes did you know who might be cops now. If its >1 then you could be screwed.
One of the advantages (assuming they use it this way) is a real-time wiretap lets them confirm who is actually *at* the computer when something's happening. A log, unless combined with large amounts of surveillance, can not necessarily be correlated back to an individual. But now, they can see illegal activity and go look at who's doing it while it's happening.
(Hopefully they are, and aren't just assuming the owner of a computer is the one breaking the law..)
In the netherlands somewhere in the nineties law was developed forcing isp`s to make their networks tappable. The first plan was based on the idea that this would be just as easy as with previously goverment owned telephone compnies wich always cooparated with police investigations. Internet providers howevery are many *many* small buisnesses that operate on much tighter margins and are owned by an entire diffren kind of people. And the goverment wanted to listen in on all of them. This became a big conflict. The conflict even gave rise to a very small group of people that figured that in order to meet these requirements cheaply, scaleable and securely an opensource implementation of the goverment proposed protocols should be made. The site is still alive and contains a world of information on goverment imposed eavesdropping in all sorts of networks. (read the cyberpunks collection of standards and documentation, Or better yet get the more recent docs for free at etsi.org and the osi sites. Goverment acces is developed into standards nowadays which is ofcourse much cheaper then adding it when networks are up and running. This was demonstrated when german celluar phone users where billed for having their phones listened into ;-). This also includes some information on the biometric/rfid passport ideas that politicians think are a great idea becouse... you know terrorist and stuff, let pump millions in this and get on our way kissing babies and doing TV interviews okey?)
Currently, most big providers (I think mostly the ones owned by kpn including XS4ALL???) have machines in their network permanently to sniff traffic when a warrant arrives. This can`t be that hard, people keep saying the netherlands taps more phones then the US but real numbers that are reliable are very hard to come by (dutch link). These machines then tunnel the sniffed traffic to central collection machines. For this the "ITO" is peering with all major isp`s. The dutch internet service provider association has a couple of the sniffing machines provider can borrow if they dont have their own. I havent actually read the current version of these laws but in preivous version webhosters to should sniff traffic when asked to.
Ofcourse noone knows when this network is used, but it is safe to guess that the title of the first internet connection litened in to life by goverment snoops goes to the "hacking at large 2001" event (Lots of tents in a field, big network, lots of visitors and speakers on many topics and a big internet pipe). The then public traffic graph of the ASN of the goverment collection facility spiked really high during the days of that event ;-). I dont recal if it was this event or another one like it where people found out the police claimed to be dealing with "subversive anachist". When people found out about this T-shirts where sold with the text "staatsgevaarlijke anarchist", these where quite populair. OFcourse If this was the event the police was looking at then it would make sense that visitors where called dangerous, there needed to be a reasing for listening in.... what better reason then being anarchist-ish, terrorist-ish or terrorist-ish people releated, with a bit of pirate flavour to finish the mix.
Ofcourse, we can all look ahead at another fantastic episode in this series. Unlike other epic sagas (starwars) these episodes get not only bigger but also better and more exciting every time ;-) You see the European union has been buzzing with the idea of mandating the storage of traffic data of not only telephone providers but also internet providers (and hosters?) for years. But a new proposol for this idea has recently been introduced by Britan, France, Ireland and Sweden... Imagene being forced to store terrabytes of logs on 99.999999
In the Macarthy (sp) era you only had to point someone and scream "red", "pinko", "commie" and that individual's life was done for. Down the drain for good...
What tell us that in the near future someone won't cry "pedophile" "child abuser" "terrorist" and your life goes down the drain. And nowadays evidence is soooooo easy to fake, and juries tend to be so damned illitare...
This is not the whole thing, though, with worms and virus and spywares doing the gods know what to your computer, using your storage for the gods know what purposes, who can assure us that we won't wake up some day to the sound of the police storming our door and the press cameras getting us labeled as "worse than scum" for the rest of our life...
... y Dios vio que Linux era bueno... Genesis 99.666
Obviously I have no objection to getting another vile kiddie-porn peddler off the streets, that's not what I'm trying to get at, it's the way this case could be used by the powers that be to get permission for more cases, possibly monitoring any of the poor bastards they deem to have a high Terrorist Quotient?
Invasions of privacy are justified in cases like these, but all it takes is one loud squeal of 'terrorism' and they'll be monitoring totally innocent people just in case they turn into Islamic extremists overnight. I don't think it's the case me or anyone else are objecting to, it's the principle.
--
Dealing with lawyers would be a lot less tedious if they all looked like Casey Novak.
1) Internet wiretapping has been going on for years, this does not surprise me. /. community.
2) It will be very difficult to garner any sympathy for these sickos from myself or the
Or any community for that matter.
I hate sigs.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Child pornography probably doesn't encourage people to go out and molest people, just like watching an action movie probably doesn't make a majority of people go out and start killing people.
The problem though is that child pornography may increase child abuse since it can encourage *the creators* to make more of it if they are paid for it. On the other hand it might also discourage child abuse as pedophiles relieve their sexual energy on the smut instead of on real children.
To further muddy the water there is also drawings, which no real person is being harmed, that tried to be outlawed in America but the Supreme Court struck it down. Examples are Shota and Lolicon.
3dinfo@maficstudios.com
There is plenty of porn out there that depicts 18 - 19 year olds as being much younger (or so I here), are these kind of images also illegal and considered child porn?
Meh.
On face value, there appears to be nothing wrong with increased police powers, for example, the ability to detain somebody for significant periods of time if they are suspected of something, without allowing the detainee to contact their lawyer or make a phone call to the outside world. Law enforcement officials would only detain bad guys, right ?
The problem with this is that it is based on the assumption that the everybody within the law enforcement organisations involved are totally and 100% honest. Of course, this isn't the case.
Judicial oversight of things such as wire taps is there to try to ensure that these mechanisms aren't abused by corrupt, dishonest or overzealous law enforcement officials.
Sadly, it seems that, since 911, George W. Bush's adgenda is to minimise or remove Judicial oversight in the name of "security". I can only suggest that he believes that law enforment officials are 100% honest.
The Internet's nature is peer to peer - 20050301_cs_profs.pdf
Than going after the consumers versus going after the producers(I'm not defending consumers in any way though). All this will do is ensure that the consumers use better cryptography etc to protect what they are doing. Just like they started to use the internet after the government went after the people who would order it by mail.
There is a different, and better way to catch these people. Most of these scumbags who make this stuff are quite proud of what they do, and often put both their faces and the faces of their victims in the picture. Canadian and US authorities have recently been using these faces to track down both the people commiting the acts and the victims. Going after the producers is a lot easier, and probably a lot more effective at stopping future abuse than going after consumers(esp. ones who don't pay any money), since the producers will probably continue to abuse new children regardless of whether or not they share the photos.
yes, of course i can see that it's wrong when a 40year old man is having sex with a 6year old girl.
but i also think that it's wrong if a guy kills an other guy...
if i have a picture of that 40year old guy having sex with the girl, then it's crime. and if i have a picture of a guy killing an other guy, then it is not a crime. that's the paradox imho
The farther you get from an endpoint, the harder it is to actually reassemble the stream. This is because packets can take multiple routes to their destination -- if not through load balancing, then through asymmetric routes (i.e. the packets from the client to the server are taking a wildly different network route from the path taken from server to client.)
Asymmetric routing always seems to confuse people. It shouldn't -- the traffic on the freeways isn't symmetrical in each direction, and sometimes it makes sense to take one highway to work and another back.
Upshot of all this is that, while all the long haul fiber lines actually are probably tapped by someone or other, it's an enormously tricky problem to integrate the data accurately, and you ultimately still don't get as good results as having a direct feed a hop or two up from the endpoint being monitored.
Now, there have been tools for quite some time to do realtime stream monitoring -- Driftnet is a cheap (and occasionally very scary) one, but there have been solutions floating around the corporate space that basically reassemble a browser screen in realtime. I imagine the gov space has even nicer stuff.
You know, "tcpbust" (a sniffer with integrated safe reassembly, third party cryptographically signed timestamps, and a pony) would probably be a really interesting thing to write...
--Dan
How do we prevent child pornography, how do we report it? I would suggest that plugins be provided to automatically scan for these items and forward significant results to the FBI or the ISP that the user is coming from. At the very least we have a moral responsibility to create software that prevents child pornographers from proliferating on the Internet.
...first off, how do you identify it? "Umm yeah I was just doing one-handed investigative work for the police, looking at those pics" Or are they going to deliver us a list of files we're not supposed to find?
Never mind that the best P2P programs I know (DC++, eMule) are both open source. There's no way to force them to include any backdoors, plug-ins, logs or other such things. It'd be trivial to compile without.
Besides, you'll quickly run into the "becoming an agent of law enforcement" problem. The police can't create a civilian "police force" using their lists or plug-ins to get around their own restrictions.
And on a principal level, I disagree with you. Everything from ink printers to digicams to web browsers have been used for kiddie porn. It's not Epson or Canon or Microsoft's responsibility to do the impossible. The police have to handle those that misuse software just as the guy using a kitchen knife as a murder weapon.
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
That article is very disturbing. It admits that the old system worked while glorifying the newfound ability of police to wiretap anyone they feel like. It's hard for me to understand how the reporters, Stanton and Walsh, were able to twist their brains into missing the big picture.
How on Earth can this case be seen a triumph of ghastly new police powers? This creep was caught despite the inconvenience of judicial oversite and due process. The issue is a simply put in the US Bill of Rights, amendment 4 to the Constitution:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
That is, your house will not be violated unless reasonable evidence presented and sworn too in a public court of law.
"Terrorism" and kiddie porn are declared serious enough to remove this protection but the removal for some crimes eliminates the protection for everyone. Without that public record and oversight, anyone can be tapped as a "suspect". The potential for abuse is enormous. PROTECT is a perverse name indeed.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
If I ran an illegal site, or rather a site that was illegal in a country where lots of my customers were, I'd listen to my customers. I'd run everything with strong encryption.
Strong encryption in and of itself doesn't look suspicious. I run my own blog and I use SSL so people can sign in and look at entries I don't want to be publically visible. I use SSH for a ton of stuff. I use it to log in to my server when I'm at home on my LAN because it's conveniant. The first thing I do when I get to work is log in to my server with SSH so I can do e-mail and blog without anyone worrying about it.
Apart from the SSL blog stuff, this is pretty normal behavior for a lot of tech people. SSH is just too damn convenient.
And if I had anything illegal, I'd probably keep it on an encrypted partition that automatically unmounts if I don't log in for a while. And I'd probably make sure the unmount system call makes sure to overwrite the memory where the key is stored.
I rarely criticize things I don't care about.
Just reporting files to the FBI does nothing. The name of the file does not tell you it is or isnt child porn. The file itself might be on the computer but this does not tell you that the owner of this computer is the child pornographer who created the file.
So it's more complicated than simply arresting random people who have files with the wrong names or who have kiddie porn files. This does absolutely nothing to stop the creation of these files and you only are arresting the people who share it.
To me it seems to be more of an attack on P2P and internet freedom than an attack on childporn. Everyone knows the childporn is produced offline yet everyone is focused on the internet? This would be equal to going to the ghettos and trailer parks to arrest drug addicts. Yes of course you will find drug addicts if you look for them but arresting them does absolutely nothing because the drug dealers will continue producing more drugs.
In this situation we have to remove the producers of child porn and by doing so, the child porn will eventually become too rare to find and won't be floating around on kazaa. I don't really see how tapping peoples internet connections has anything to do with stopping childporn, it seems more like invading peoples privacy. If there is a wiretap used it should be to monitor the activity of the computer, not monitor internet activity.
Anyone who produces childporn most likely uses Windows and one of the digital camera programs. Shouldnt law enforcement work with the makers of this software and hardware to allow them to tap just that software or access JUST the pictures on a computer? Or movies if movies are the problem could still be handled in such a way so that it does not require a wiretap.
People don't exist to serve systems, systems exist to serve people.
I made the mistake in college of choosing this subject for a study/report. Once I got a few days into the research, and found things like the 1979 Calvin Klien ad for "designer jeans for kids" was being hammered by conservative groups as being kiddy porn because the fully clothed 12 year olds in the ad - wearing the designer jeans - were in a standard collegiate wrestling starting position. The girl was on her hands and knees, with the boy leaning over with one arm underneath her, and the other grasping her arm. The conservative group determined this looked too much like doggie style sex, so therefore was pornographic - since they were kids - child porn. Calvin Klien pulled the ads under pressure from this group. Personally, I think it was a far cry from what I'd consider child porn. Things like this made that report the most difficult thing I've ever written. Focusing my position on what I thought was (in)appropriate use of children in advertising rather than the general "end child porn" paper it was supposed to be.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Trojan horse found responsible for child porn
Munir Kotadia | ZDNet UK | August 01, 2003
Excerpt:
The way to stop childporn has nothing to do with P2P or the internet.
The real way to stop child porn is to sit back and wait for Moore's Law.
Within 10 years tops, computer graphics will have gotten so good that there is no longer any reason to use actual human actors in porn- whether children or adults. Criminal's won't take the risk of using real children when they can just buy "3d Poser 2015" for $199 and crank out 100% fake pics.
Remember that in the USA, illegal child porn is only pictures whose production actually involved the sexual abuse of children- not just ones that look that way.
Stopping the junkie does nothing to stop the creation of childporn. Why does it matter if we stop the spread of child porn vs the creation?
Stopping the creation of childporn is very obvious, we know why we must do this, children are being hurt by this. Childporn thats already created and being spread around Kazaa by millions or thousands of people, what do you gain by arresting each person?
Same goes with nuclear weapons, we have no right to tell other people they cannot create them if we have them. This also goes for the internet, when we start with censorship and start invading privacy in the end we lose our ability to tell China they are backwards if we are trying to outlaw P2P to stop kiddie porn.
Kiddie porn is bad, but its not like the whole internet is flooded with kiddie porn, I don't see the point in creating new laws and suddenly cracking down on a problem which has always existed. What is the goal? If its to stop children from being hurt then we need to go after the producers and this has little to nothing to do with Kazaa. If the goal is to stop the spread of childporn, we can use the filter systems built into these P2P programs and perhaps make them more advanced.
I don't see however the point in chasing every single person who has a copy of file X in their shared folder. It's a slippery slope.
I'm all for stopping the production of kiddie porn, I'm against censorship. If censorship is the only way to stop the distrubition then its not worth it. The distribution is not whats doing the harm, those are the pawns of the producers.
This would be like arresting everyone who is infected by the worm instead of the creator.
People don't exist to serve systems, systems exist to serve people.
You too can help!
If you find child porn on the internet, please contact SAVE THE CHILDREN at http://www.rb.se/hotline/
You are geeks, you can traceroute. Help make the world a better, safer place for children!
Tell your friends about xenu.net
How about A meta-analytic examination of assumed properties of child sexual abuse using college samples. "Meta-analyses [based on 59 studies based on college samples] revealed that students with [child sexual abuse] (CSA) were, on average, slightly less well adjusted than controls. However, this poorer adjustment could not be attributed to CSA because family environment (FE) was consistently confounded with CSA, FE explained considerably more adjustment variance than CSA, and CSA-adjustment relations generally became nonsignificant when studies controlled for FE."
And could you elaborate on what exactly "validated scientific research" proves that pedophelia (sic) is abhorrent.
Not to mention that P2P child porn downloading is an entirely different issue. So despite damage to kids from child abuse being minor, despite not all sex being abuse and despite porn downloading being mostly unrelated to real sex with kids, having one questionable image on your PC is a crime in the US. If this is not "biblical bible thumping", it's just stupidity of general public, sensationalism of the media and opportunism of the politicians.
Child porn is not bad. Real scientific research (as opposed to some mythical studies about "abhorrence" - sound like something a preacher would say) showed that about 25% of adult men can be sexually aroused by children (Freund & Costell 1970, Hall et al. 1995, Quinsey et al. 1975, references from Wikipedia). It is perfectly normal to jerk off to images of naked kids or kids having sex. No harm, no foul. Just keep in mind the difference between your sexual fantasies and the real world and you'll be fine. Just like with videogames.
Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
Child porn hurts children. It's a business with two sides: vendors and subscribers. If only one side is present there is no transaction and children will not be exploited because it won't be profitable.
So...viewing child porn is a part of the problem. Children must be protected against exploitation by adults - its why we have child labor laws in most first-world countries.
In the United States there is a Supreme Court decision that clearly allows for the definition of child porn as prohibited speech.
What to DO with those who both use and create child pornography is a more complex problem. The last time I looked there is no known way to cure a pedophile. It is how their sexuality is wired. Many will want to find and use children. Many will not. For the pornographers themselves - toss them in jail and go after their assets as if they were drug dealers (they are).
Personally I'm in favor of real asylums for those whose desires are incompatible with the world. They do not need to be punished, they need to be isolated. Which means decent living accomodations, a setting that is more campus-like - except it is isolated - protecting society from them AND them from society.
Don't be sure sure. While IANAL, the minute you can produce child pornography with computers only, miles away from any child, it too will be outlawed (if it isn't already). It is moral hysteria, and it's in power.
"Oppression and harassment is a small price to pay to live in the land of the free." -- Montgomery Burns.
So the next step was to criminalize pure possession of child pornography. (Molesting children was already illegal, but having pictures of it wasn't until the Reagan years.) This made it much easier for law enforcement to make arrests, and, significantly, provided much broader reasons for search and seizure.
Then came the child porno entrapment industry. Law enforcement started sending out child pornography and seeing who'd bite. This is far less work than finding real child abusers, but generates cases.
As with most forms of self-generating police activity, there's a tendency to lose touch with reality in such operations. In the complaint-driven end of law enforcement, performance is measureable - how many murders were solved, how many stolen cars were recovered. There are "customers" (people who report crimes) to be satisfied.
Self-generated law enforcement activity (drugs, porno, "red hunting" in the 1930s and 1950s, and today "terrorism") doesn't have "customers", so there's a strong tendency for it to get out of control.
The worst abuses come when self-generated law enforcement activity becomes self-financing through seizures. So far, child pornography and terrorism enforcement haven't reached that level. The "war on drugs" reached that level about fifteen years ago. For some law enforcement organizations, it's a profit center.
Anonymous Coward wrote: Incorrect. Any video that has an actor portraying a child (even a virtual actor) is childporn. I remember a story about this a few years ago.
No, you are incorrect, though you wouldn't have been a few years ago. Please see Ashcroft v. The Free Speech Coalition in which the U.S. Supreme court found that the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996 was overbroad, violating the first amendment. (Follow this link for a news story about it. A more in-depth article can be found on Findlaw.com here.)
Remember, the reason child porn is illegal while images of adults engaged in the same activities is legal is because engaging in those activities with children is abuse. (And if you come across a pair of emotionally disturbed 6-year-olds spontaneously engaging in sexual activity, grabbing your camera is not the proper response.) The images themselves are records of child abuse.
Think about it. No matter how icky the images, the situation is entirely different if the images are really of 19-year-old actors who happen to look younger, or if they are drawings or paintings of something that never really happened-- even if those drawings are computer graphics that are difficult to distinguish from photographs.
I remember reading a story in Cosmo or some magazine like that several years ago about a cellist in her 20's who decided to use an artistic topless picture of herself next to her cello on the cover of her first album. The picture was intended to make a reference to the similarities in the shape of the instrument and the female form. Unfortunately for her, her figure was rather "youthful" and probably looked more so the way the photograph was done. The album covers were sized for being child pornography and she had to go through a big rigmarole because of it. As awful as child pornography is, we don't want things like this to happen to innocent people either.
I agree with you in general, but in this case they had to prove to a grand jury that the tap was necessary and get a court order for it. I think that easily passes constitutional muster, as opposed to some PATRIOT provisions.
and the worst part? These people don't PAY for kiddie pr0n, no more than anyone else pays for the sex movies coming down Freenet, Kazaa, or Gnutella. So, they may look, but they're not hurting anyone, nor helping those that do the porn making.
On the other hand, what psychological effects do porn vids have on people? Is it possible that once the 32 year old perv watching the vids realize that he might get caught, he'll stop with the downloads and start with his 11 year old niece? The hard truth is that, whether they get the content or not, they're paedophiles either way. You can't just lock them up for wanting to bang children, unless maybe they have an honest intent to. It's just like any other sexual deviation: you're made that way, and you don't turn it off, you just control it.
Well, being sexually aroused by kids is not sick - if 25% of men can be, it's not sick. Neither is jerking off to something you are sexually aroused. Fantasy != reality. Just like killing people in computer games is ok, so is looking at child porn.
Yours is a typical example of hysterical response to child porn. First of all, asking the children was exactly what was done in all 58 stuides. The researchers asked college students specially designed questions controlling for different factors, eliminating bias, etc., etc. And it turns out that there were very few kids who were fucked up for life. And those few that were usually had a pretty fucked up family, which was responsible for them being fucked up.
Of course, if you have an agenda, then such research is harmful and should be replaced by blunt psychological pressure on kids to persuade them they actually have been terribly abused. Sometimes the damage done by the police, school, parents and psychologists is greater than the damage done by the sexual act itself.
As for the contribution, I have never paid a single cent for child porn and I have no intention of doing so. The only way it can influence child porn producers is to discourage them, since it's very hard to profit from child porn.
Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
The harms from sexual predation have been answered by psychologists, law enforcement, physicians and so forth.
That is incorrect. Firstly, law enforcement knows nothing of the studies, they just do as they are told. Further, with the case at hand, a "protection service" is involved, not law enforcement.
Further, physicians can only speak when actual actions happened that caused damage.
Thus, the only group worthy of being asked are psycologists.
However, psycologists only see the cases where there was abuse, or where the pedophile did activities that ultimately led to his arrest. Being this is a small amount of total pedophiles (one must assume that most are not caught, and then there are still others who do not partake in such actions (which constitute the majority)) the people they have spoken to are not an accurate representation of the group.
Also, there is a social stigmatism on the matter, which impedes proper impartial study of the matter. So much so, that when Congress heard a report mentioning many adolecents recalling positive experiences with pedophiles, it was rejected out of hand.
Thus, in conclusion, the matter has not been shown at all. In fact, the fear that many people have on the matter is possibly indicative of nefarious traits in themselves. Perhaps one day we shall review the matter truthfully.
Have you read my journal today?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
It was not debunked - it was condemned by Spiegel, denounced by Congress - hardly a way to do science. Science by consensus always makes me suspicious and in this case the suspicion is valid.
Rind, Bauserman and Tromovitch have responded to their critics (or, shall I say "accusers") several times. Here is a link to one of such articles, The Condemned Meta-Analysis on Child Sexual Abuse Good Science and Long-Overdue Skepticism (via FindArticles):
Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.