Slashdot Mirror
Computer-Edited Photos Lead To Child-Porn Locale
Leilah writes "Toronto police have found a new application for computerized photo editing. The police released edited photos on Feb. 3 from a series of child pornography pics in an attempt to locate where the photos may have been taken. Two days later, they have identified the Port Orleans hotel in Disney World as being the location. This seems to be the first time photo editing has been used in law enforcement this way and strikes an interesting line between protecting the victims and being able to get public tips. It looks like it may be used quite heavily in the future given this success."
Anyone have a link to the originals?
...
Countdown to flame war in 3, 2,
Publishing the photos like that is blatant infringement of the child pornographers' copyright!
Everyone who thinks they're a comedian should be raped in the ass by islamic, nubian, HIV invected robots.
You know what, take two bullets, you are a part of the problem, and by following my recommendation you'll reduce it's efficency.
You're not the fucking victim in any case, and I don't think your hypothetical victim would appreciate your leeching of her well deserved compasion.
There are holocaust jokes, 9/11 jokes, the first of which I heard just one day later. Get over yourself, you worthless, buzzkilling, humorless, overly empathetic sack of shit.
People ARE mean, instead of sobbing uncontrollably and doing nothing but making other people miserable with your insufferable presence how about we laugh at the incongruities in the darkness on our way over to kill the ass-hats and comfort the victims.
Again, because you deserve it, "FUCK YOU." Now go die.
the way you keep commenting on this story, one would think you'd been touched by your daddy when you were a little boy.
relax man.
*shudder*
You are obviously an illiterate moron. Iliterate because you did not even read my comment which you responded to elsewhere, and a moron because you jump to sanctimonious conclusions without having absorbed a word of fact.
The photos were released in the hope that they might provide leads to the man...not as proof of rape.
You do not know what the police are holding back. You do not know the sequence in which the photos were taken. You do not know if the child is still alive.
Fully-clothed doesn't matter. Consent doesn't matter.
Not when you are talking about the abduction and abuse of a nine year old child.
While this use of technology seems laudable, it does bring up one question - why do we automatically assume that just because the police say there was a sexual assault, that there actually was? By making even the possession of child pornography illegal, the State has made sure that there can be no legitimate discussion of the issue, because no one can look and see for themselves whether the pictures are pornographic, or actually show children, and if so, if they actually show an assault. Given the propensity of the police to describe EVERY sexual encounter between a child and an adult as assault, there is already sufficient evidence to be skeptical - and by doing this the government cheapens the experience both of those children who consented to sexual relations, and those who WERE actually the victims of assault. Consider this quote by a former FBI expert on child abuse, Kenneth Lanning: "It confuses us to see the victims in child pornography giggling or laughing." Hmmn. Yes, that would be confusing. Lanning, "Child Sex Rings": http://www.sexcriminals.com/library/info-1076.html
points to a pdf - quote on p. 16 at bottom.
Baldur of Asgard
Right - no one in prison cares that the other guy is a murderer who might kill their family, they're worried about the guy who might touch their daughter. Yeah, right.
How about this: people who are in prison for theft and murder know that they're scum, but they don't want to feel like scum. If they can find a scapegoat, however, they can feel like they are a part of society, and feel better about themselves. That's the REAL reason why society has chosen, in the past 30 years, to scapegoat child molesters, where for millenia beforehand they didn't much care. And it's why they don't care about confusing pedophiles with child molesters - because their real object is to feel better about themselves without having to deal with their own defects.
Baldur of Asgard
I don't know if you are male or female, I presume the former but I don't understand what damage to your genitalia can still exist after 30 years? Torn scrotum, bites? what? As for the damage to your anus that is possible with a large penis used inconsiderately.
I have sex with my girlfriend's 7 and 9 year old girls and their experience is different to yours: I do full vaginal and anal penetration of both of them and neither of them have the problems you did. Furthermore as I love them deeply I wouldn't want to inflict that kind of damage. My technique is not to stampede into them without lots of prior lubrication, stimulation and gentleness. Apart from an enlarged sphincter there is no physical change. They both love it (in fact they prompt me for it) and say it hurts in a good way. I ask them for permission.
sorry for your bad experiences but they aren't universal. Though I accept damage happens, its not an argument for not doing it, any more than any regular sexual act between adults causing damage is an argument against that act.
==JulesT==
The moment you have children of your own, this naive right-wing passions of yours will go straight out the window. - Fromage