Slashdot Mirror
Major UK Child Porn Investigation Flawed
Oxygen99 writes "The Guardian (UK) is carrying a story on Operation Ore, a major police investigation aimed at catching online pedophiles. This has resulted in several high-profile arrests, such as those of Pete Townshend and Robert Del Naja (both falsely accused), while attracting significant press attention. Yet, the reality of the investigation is one of stolen credit cards, wrongful accusations, and ignorance leading to a significant number of the 7,292 people on the list being wrongfully accused of a very emotionally charged crime. There have been 39 suicides and a number of other people on the list will probably never be investigated. It seems to me this case highlights flaws inherent in the way law enforcement agencies handle evidence that only a small minority of front-line officers fully understand."
cameras watching your every move, laws designed to control your behaviour [asbo and the like]. Congrats, you live in a nanny-police state.
If only they could actually do anything meaningful with all this "order" they're creating.
Tom
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
Police are stunned to learn that people who look at child porn might use stolen credit card information to pay for it.
Seriously, because child porn is such an emotional issue, everyone tends to leap without looking. Sadly this results in a lot of false accusations and lives ruined. Because these charges are so serious, officials must take more time before jumping to conclusions over any accusation.
DeviantArt Page
NSFWFirst Pedophile? Get the fuck off my Slashdot you pervert.
The government has no interest in prosecuting child porn offenders. They have found the perfect way to get rid of someone without anyone protesting. Simply accuse them of child porn possession and you've pretty much got an open and shut case. Judges are in on the system and juries have been trained to see anyone accused of such a crime as guilty until proven innocent.
Who would seriously by Child Porn on their own credit card? You'd have to be a really dumb person. If that's all these cops are going on, then the investigations should be shut down. It should be expected that the people purchasing are using stolen credit cards.
Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
No evidence against man in child porn inquiry who 'killed himself' ... the commodore was dead the next day.
The inquest into his death heard that computer equipment and a camera memory chip belonging to Commodore White had yielded no evidence that he downloaded child pornography, and a letter was written by Ministry of Defence police to Naval Command on 5 January this year indicating that there were "no substantive criminal offences" to warrant pressing charges. But the Second Sea Lord, Sir James Burnell-Nugent, feared that the media would report the case and on 7 January removed him from his post anyway
In one case at Hull Crown Court last year, a distinguished hospital consultant was acquitted after it emerged that hackers had used his credit card on Landslide. The judge dismissed some police evidence as "utter nonsense".
Reduce, reuse, cycle
Thoughtcrime.
The reason that everyone jumps on this bandwagon is because it gets the votes.
Everyone hates it. Everyone wants the government to "do something about it". Everyone wants it done today.
So very little thought is put into these projects and the more people that can be swept up, the better. That way you're fairly sure, statistically, that you'll get one of the "bad guys".
But it seems more likely that you'll catch an innocent, high profile person who's appearance in your project will reveal how flawed that project is.
the events of this case means that law enforcement must take due diligence when hunting child pornographers
it doesn't mean that law enforcement should stop hunting child pornographers
you would think this is an obvious difference, but you watch the kinds of comments these sad events conjure here
the problem, of course, is shoddy law enforcement. but whenever something like this happens- the police bungle it big time, people come out with comments pointed against the very concept of law enforcement itself
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
There could certainly have been developments in this since however many years ago that it happened, but didn't Pete Townshend acknowledge having sought out and downloaded child pornography, claiming it was "research"? Whether or not you believe that, he certainly wasn't "falsely accused" in the sense used in the story.
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
I use paypal
And this relates to the story how? The article was about false accusations, and that most of the so called child porn sites being used as evidences in these cases were just dummy sites without much of anything on them being used for credit card fraud. Kind of a novel approach to credit card fraud at that, a bit closer to pay per click fraud than traditional credit card fraud as it was the hosts committing the fraud and relying on the re-seller to take the hit for the charge-backs.
Curiosity was framed, Ignorance killed the cat.
A friend of some of my friends, a man I run into about once a year was caught up in this.
The story I heard was that he claimed innocence but pleaded guilty as the legal advise he got was that he would be let off with a fine but he would definetly be found guilty and sent to prison if he tried to fight it.
Coming from Britain I can say this is typical of our government. They are of the impression all it takes to solve a problem is to assign someone (typically totally unsuited) to the task of assigning money to agencies or companies (with the greatest kick back) with absolutely no insight into how to handle things and then sitting back thinking how to BS there way out of the mess that inevitably ensues (just watch them on the news, they are experts at dodging the questions they get asked about how they fucked up again).
The way they try to fix this is to create new agencies in between agencies.. all this creates is more paper work that never finds its way into the correct hands and causes more problems and tax pounds which could be better put elsewhere.
Britain is essentially becoming a broken beurocractic piss hole.
Exactly, you do have to act on your desires before being arrested. That's why people aren't arrested for pedophilia, they're arrested for child porn viewing, or having sex with children. I can't stand when the media uses "pedophilia" as a blanket term, as you're perfectly correct: pedophilia is thoughtcrime, and really shouldn't be a crime at all.
ResidntGeek
that even being accused of it should ruin one's life. Virginia Tech shooting had a false suspect. The mistake has been revealed and he is fine now. Why should this be any different? We can not allow ourselves to become so horrified by anything that we embark on a witchhunt without due process and skepticism. Otherwise, corrupt government or an angry neighbor can ruin your life by just suggesting you are a pedophile. Or distract people from real problems - deaths in Iraq, global warming, poverty - by dishing out some juicy news to keep the media busy.
From what I read in some of the linked articles, in many cases it wasn't so much a case that stolen card numbers were used, but rather that the portal/payment access site processed payments for merchants both legal and illegal (but if you were found with a payment, it was assumed to be illegal). At least according to the PC Pro Mag link from the wiki entry
For example, let's say that they found that a paypal account was used to sell illegal pornography. The smart thing to do would be to determine which goods sold were illegal, and if possible follow up on the buyers. What seems to have been done, instead, was to go after EVERYONE who bought from the seller, whether the purchase turned out to be for fuzzy bunny slippers or underage smut.
Unfortunately, these type of charges, and the revulsion the instill, tend to inspire an automatic assumption of guilt coupled with overzealous prosecution and an lack of desire to delve too far into the evidence (after all, if there are illegal images, who would want to be the one that has to sort through them all). What I really can't understand is that while the actions against the assumed purchasers of said material were rapid and heavy, the providers of the material were left fairly untouched.
Maybe it's just my point of view, but I'd imagine that the sellers of this variety material - especially those with enough resources to start a full payment network - would be much less than the seekers. However, it's easier for the police to leave those that actual peddle in and commit atrocious acts active, as it allows them to dragnet all the possible users. Bust the drug addicts and leave the dealers?
if pedophilia is the desire to have sex with children, are there cases when people download child pornography with no intention of having sex with a child?
Strike the 'child' part, and re-evaluate for legal adult porn. Does the downloader intend he'll be having sex with a porn star?
and if so, are they still pedophiles?
Repeat the above process - does the adult *wish* he were having sex with a porn star? I'd guess both cases are true - some of those folks really do think that, some would rather be happily married. Unless you go in for the whole 'adultry of the mind' or 'adultry against God' theories (then they're all going to hell, but don't suffer legal consequences).
So, if the test is to capture all pervs who think little children are sexy, then it's a fair net. If the test is to capture all pervs who are likely to commit a crime, it's probably too wide a net. I'm not sure anybody has defined the requirements adequately. But to equate viewing pictures with intent to commit a real world crime - that's a big leap.
That's not to say that they're not in possession of contraband or that they're not enabling the commission of crimes (they are) but that's a separate issue. Due to the high emotional impact of the various crimes they're often conflated, but that's not helpful for proper legal prosecution of the actual crimes.
The case of CGI versions of the above really gets to the heart of the issue, because the contraband and creation crimes aspect is factored out, leaving the original question to stand alone.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
The problem with viewing child porn online isn't so much with the viewer as it is with the producer. To produce real child porn you need real children, and that's exploitation pure and simple. If you pay for it, you're paying people to exploit children.
This distinction gets a lot blurrier with CG and drawn porn, but from what I understand the cops tend to focus on real porn instead of the fake stuff. Otherwise you'd have to imagine a gigantic crackdown on things like the Tokyo Doujinshi shows and whatnot. 4chan wouldn't still be around (although there are plenty of other reasons it shouldn't still be around). It's the stuff where real children are exploited that the cops rightfully focus on.
I read the internet for the articles.
We currently give law enforcement officials far too much leeway. The individual officials involved, not the state, should be held responsible for situations where their failure to engage in responsible behavior leads to a miscarriages of justice.
The best example of this by far is the exclusionary rule in the United States. (I don't know how this sort of thing works in other countries.) It is rare for a police officer who obtains evidence improperly to be punished for their (sometimes outright illegal) actions. Instead what we do is make the evidence itself inadmissable, in effect punishing the one innocent party in the entire situation: The victim of the crime!
As constitutional scholar Leonard Levy argued in his wonderful 1974 book Against the Law (sadly out of print), the admissability of evidence should be determined solely by the legitimacy of that evidence. If there are indications that the evidence is bogus or fabricated, it absolutely must be inadmissable. But if the mistakes are procedural in nature and the evidence is sound it should be admissible and the police should be severely disciplined for their procedural violation in obtaining it.
The way things work right now is that the police feel free to "roll the dice", engaging in actions of dubious legitimacy with impunity. They calculate, correctly, that it's a no-lose thing for them to do: If they get caught they lose evidence they wouldn't have had in the first place and suffer no penalty, if they don't the "bad guy" (who may be nothing of the sort) gets what's coming to them. The tacit way this encourages the police to violate rules or even laws leads unavoidably to little if any respect for the truth, and it's all downhill from there - citizens are well aware that this goes on and stop trusting law enforcement.
But change this so that officers are held accountable for their actions and police will change their behavior accordingly. Firing or even jailing the officer responsible for, say, a blatently illegal search would send a nice clear message to other officials to clean up their act.
In the present case I have no idea if there were procedural violations. But there were definitely serious and ongoing errors in judgment, and the odds are good that the officers responsible were never held accountable for them. Doing so of course would not change this any less of a fiasco, but it might prevent it from happening again.
Oh, that's entirely related to the story. Don't you see? Anything that protects The Children must be done, no matter what the consequences and fallout. Even if it doesn't actually protect The Children. If you're not with us, you're against us. You perv. The cops are on their way to your house right now.
Proud neuron in the Slashdot hivemind since 2002.
So in other words consumption is illegal because they're trying to target the producers. Well, since that tactic has worked so well with the War on Drugs, I guess it'll work here, too.
Liberty in your lifetime
while the cops are torn a new sphincter for every little mistake
IMHO it's not exactly a "little mistake" when nearly 40 people -- many evidently wholly innocent -- kill themselves as a result.
But hey, I'm just one of the ones with "crazy priorities".
Kythe
... compared to being marked with the Scarlet "Pedo" marker forever.
(disclaimer: from a US perspective)
Before a trial you are destroyed. Your face gets in the local paper. Reporters show up at your home and place of work and hassle you and your family. Your home is ransacked in the name of gathering evidence. Local politicians and big wigs claim it's a victory for the children and call you a monster. News interviews your neighbors who are all amazed and shocked and now they, of course, don't feel safe. They might just deny you bail on a judge's whim and toss you in a jail cell. You better believe that when guards hear "that pedophile pervert" calling for help to protect him from other cellmates they're not going to rush to his aid. You're let out? Expect lots of threatening phone calls and letters.
Assuming you're aquitted because you didn't break any laws, the damage is DONE. Nobody will ever see you the same way again. News of your name being cleared isn't shouted quite as loudly as the accusation. What a surprise.
Can you really blame the falsely accused in this case comitting suicide? It's really tragic how lives can be ruined just by pointing a finger.
I know if I was falsely accused I'd probably kill myself, too.
More Twoson than Cupertino
Here's more background on these cases. A load of wrongly convicted have banded together regarding calims of Operation Ore http://www.inquisition21.com/ and more importantly this http://www.computer-investigations.com/index3.html
I hope the victims win and the police are "spanked"
And currently up for discussion is the UK is a new law that would ban fantasy depictions of underage (that includes imaginary 17 year olds) having sex. Here is an interesting link and some quotes from it.
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/documents/cons-2007 -depiction-sex-abuse?view=Binary
We are unaware of any specific research into whether there is a link between accessing these fantasy images of child sexual abuse and the commission of offences against children, but it is felt by police and childrens welfare organisations that the possession and circulation of these images serves to legitimize and reinforce highly inappropriate views about children.In other words, the proposal discussed is based on no scientific research. It is purely aimed to ban a specific minority fetish. Violent video games is another minority fetish that has been under attack in the news lately.
It is all pure bullshit. Banning soccer games would be more logical, since there is a clear scientific link of soccer games leading to hulligan behavior. Of course, this doesn't mean that I want to ban soccer, but I am just pointing out the obvious bias of the legislators.
It is the case that cartoons, drawings and material created entirely by manipulation of computer software do not harm real children in the same way as taking indecent photographs of children [...] Nevertheless this material is causing increasing concern both within the UK and internationally (see below). The police [...] are concerned that the fantasy images themselves fuel abuse of real children by reinforcing potential abusers inappropriate feelings towards children.Just to point out that this isn't the same as the US child pornography laws, that explicitly bans images/drawings based on real children/photographs (which was a loophole used to circumvent previous laws). This law explicitly targets fantasy drawings, the most common type probably being the japanese hentai artform.
collectors of material of this kind almost always also have indecent photographs of children.I don't. And I am pretty sure most hentai viewers/readers don't. Oh, and in case you wonder, I am mostly interested of the highschool based hentai (which would also be illegal if the proposal above was passed as a law). I fully support the rights of lolicon viewers though. This is a classic case of the "First they came for the Communists, and I didnt speak up..." scenario. They target a minority fetish because they can get away with it.
Anyway, What research do they base their statement on? Unless they have asked XXXX number of people randomly about it...and I doubt that would work either, because very few people would admit they had child porn on their computer.
The relation in the other direction may be more likely though. Child porn collectors are probably likely to have hentai drawings. That relation is easy to find, by looking at the computers of people arrested for having child pornography.
Finally, Don't begin complaining that hentai sucks and I should watch real porn instead. I can't stand real porn with their payed actors and actresses having mechanical sex without feelings. Not, to mention that the redicioulus story lines in hentai movies/mangas are light years beyond the stories in the average porn movie. Oh sure, there are a few exceptions of great scenes, but they are by far the exception. If I didn't have hentai, I would probably stick with sex stories (which I still use sometimes). And I am not saying that you shouldn't watch porn. I am just explaining why I and probably some others prefer hentai. And, oh yes, having real sex is of course the best, but that has nothing to do with masturbation needs.
Anyway, Pete (who has a parallel career as a writer) posted an article on child pornography on his web site before the charges arose.
Absolutely. Both are important, and both are critical for the functioning of modern society.
And for the record, the police are in a position to to a heck of a lot more damage, and that's just due to simple incompetence. The problem is exponentially worse if your blind assumption that the police don't act out of maliciousness doesn't hold up.
evil is a worse threat to you than stupidity
Really? You do realize you're far more likely to die of an accident than you are from a crime, right?
Kythe
As another poster has already pointed out, this is just another example of thought crime and those who wish to use it as a bid to take more control over the lives of others.
--I*Love*Green*Olives
There are nights when the wolves are silent and only the moon howls. --George Carlin
What about the 14 year olds that do nude webcam shows for the pervs? Isn't that sex online?
Uh, no? Do you know what sex is? Here's a clue: it takes more than looking at a naked person.
Uh, no? Do you know what sex is? Here's a clue: it takes more than looking at a naked person. You must be new here - Welcome to Slashdot!
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
I've got first hand experience of this. My close friend was accused as part of Operation Ore. He came around sobbing one afternoon, after the police had crashed into his flat at 7:00, searched through all his stuff, took all his computer equipment (which he needed for his work, and contained irreplaceable files) and took him down the station.
That night he slit his wrists.
*Luckily* another friend went round there the next morning, and found him barely alive in a pool of blood.
Since then, after several months of recovery, he's lost his flat and had to file for bankruptcy. And yes, he was one of the victims of credit card fraud.
That's just one of the reasons I've since moved from the UK.
Don't let anyone tell you the UK isn't a Police State - they're too blind to see the reality.
I would add to this that anyone who has listened to a decent amount of his music will pick up on an underlying theme of child abuse by adults. Look at Tommy, with his crazy Uncle Ernie or Crazy Cousin Kevin.
In my mind Pete Townshend has had do deal with a lot more abuse in his life then he's let on to the public. I think his music, his book and even his "research" were honest attempts at dealing with things in his personal life.
I don't think he went about it the right way and I question the benefit of subjecting oneself to such material but I tend to think he was just stupid about it and honest in his intentions at least.
Just my $.02 and I admit bias as a long time Who fan but in the end I decided I wouldn't judge him too much as I don't really think I have the complete story.
Creationist Textbook Stickers Declared Unconstitutional by CowboyNeal
Let me reformulate your post:
if being gay is the desire to have male-male sex, are there cases when men download gay pornography with no intention of having sex with a man?
and if so, are they still gay?
Now, many parts of the world have legalized it and more (or less) accepted it, but surely there's plenty people now and in the past that either out of fear of the law, or fear of the public opinion, or fear of their family, or fear of their religion and so on don't practise what they desire. If you look at suicide rates of gay people they're considerably higher than for straight people, showing people have troubles with accepting their own sexuality. It is far from inconcievable, in fact more than likely that many have repressed their sexuality to the point where they'll look at it and be aroused by it, but feel so guilty about it they don't actually want to do it in real life. And this is sex between adult consenting individuals we're talking about. I'm sure you can add all those with much greater force and at least half a dozen factors more related to physical, mental and economical balance of power which would make it even worse for a pedo to reconcile his desires with his ethics. And yet almost everyone needs a sexual outlet, even if it's in the jpeg format...
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
> within the narrow scope of police abuse of power, i fear criminal action more than that
You, my friend, are mistaken.
Not stupid, not "sheeple", just plain misinformed. Happens to the best of us.
Unfortunately, being misinformed in this particular matter is dangerous (both to yourself and to others) so I feel obliged to add to the discussion.
For starters, please consider:
You have more protection from criminal action than from abuse of power (police or otherwise).
Abuse of power is criminal action, but performed by people who
(a) are less likely to be investigated for their crimes,
(b) are less likely to be punished for their crimes, and
(c) have more tools at their disposal to commit those crimes.
Corruption destroys a society from the inside.
To me, this is much scarier than criminal activity.
to be fair to the Sunday Herald, it's quite possible that they've been asked specifically not to name anybody against whom an ongoing investigation is in progress.
I'm sure the name will come out in the future. It may even be released by the minister in question, as part of a Government statement on the issue.
If anything it's about bloody time the media gave a little more privacy to those accused but not convicted of various crimes. Personally I loathe the anonymity given to people that make accusations of rape, child molestation, etc, and not to the accused. Give the anonymity to both, and reveal a name only after a conviction or police caution (which requires an admission of guilt).