Slashdot Mirror
Graphics Advances Make Identifying Real Images Difficult
destinyland writes "The FBI's geeks admitted they were nervous over computer-generated images at a recent forensics conference. In court they're now arguing that a jury 'can tell' if an image is real or computer-generated — which marks the current boundary between legal and illegal. But reporter Debbie Nathan argues that that distinction is getting fuzzy, and that geeks will inevitably make it obsolete." Note: some of the linked (computer-generated) images may be disturbing.
No comments and already both sites are down? Wow.
I'm assuming 100% clicktrough...
"Note: some of the linked (computer-generated) images may be disturbing."
MP3 Search Engine
Disturbing doesn't really give us much to go on, and I don't feel like being the guinea pig.
aaaand...whee!
The justification for child porn laws is that real children are harmed in making it. The justification for arresting purchasers is that they create the market for it. It doesn't matter whether they buy CG or real porn, they still encourage the crimes against children.
Intron: the portion of DNA which expresses nothing useful.
I thought the purpose of child-porn laws were to ensure that no children were hurt (a fairly noble goal).
As long as no children are hurt in the production of these images, why does it matter how real they look?
As CG graphics improve and more photography is done digitally instead of on film, what's to stop a savvy defense lawyer from convincing a jury to dismiss photographic evidence -- including video from surveillance cameras -- on the grounds that it's computer-generated and therefore fake?
I write sci-fi for metalheads
Every pedo in the world is having a field day over the free CG kiddie porn :P I was wondering why they put that stuff online, when the US is trying to make CG kiddie porn illegal.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Service Temporarily Unavailable
He's right, images are disturbing!
The first just times out.
Maybe some sort of a watermark or protection is in order... Oh, wait
They can tell from a few pixels and having seen quite a few shops in their time.
It'd be nice to see a "NSFW" (Not Suitable For Work) tag on the article. I clicked the link and I'm at work, and am now worried that large men with guns will appear. Saying "The following images may be disturbing" is too ambiguous.
The latest Scientific American has an interesting article on the current state of the art of how to tell whether a photo has been doctored. http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=digital-image-forensics
Here's a coral cache link for the 1st site:
Click me
The last one won't work at all
Since you are reading /. at work, those men showing up might happen anyway. And righfully so. You shouldn't read /. at work. You should work! For me! WORK! FOR ME!! HEHEHE ! FOR MEEEEEE!
Kind regards,
Your Boss...
To Terminate, or not to Terminate, that's the question - SCSIROB
Seeing how well Image Based Rendering works (as for example in this impressive, and already old demo of a 3D morphable face model), many things are now being calculated from a single image or a pair of images.
Object geometries, light sources, occlusions, textures can be determined more and more precisely from simple photos, making it easier to add objects which exhibit the correct shadows and highlights for the surrounding scene.
So my guess would be that confidently identifying fudget images is already near-impossible and will become even more so with more robust image based rendering algorithms
You are not a gadfly.
Oh don't worry, we've seen goatse and tubgirl already.
some of the linked (computer-generated) images may be disturbing.
Aha! Your little trick worked. It made me actually read the article before posting.
Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
Shit, you found me! *Get's back to work*
"How does producing images that look like child porn without actually abusing children encourage crimes against children?"
I don't know the answer to that but I think the 'target demographic' for life-like cartoon kiddie porn should not be provided with masturbation material that 'normalizes' their behaviour. I would also argue GC assists in obfuscating the real thing, if by no other means than volume.
OTOH I agree "CG child porn doesn't harm children in its production....given the fact that you can produce it without running afoul of the law, you'd get more CG than real child porn produced".
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Maybe photo companies could start implement a digital signature like process into their photos.
The idea is that each pixel would be assigned its own identifier. Kind of like HTML format like #342332. You then take the sum of the identifiers (or something like that) and use the camera's encryption key and sign the document. When you want to verify the pictures authenticity you use the image verification feature on the camera which would match the picture's identifier and match it against the camera key to make sure it still hasn't been altered.
This is only an IDEA and my explanation on how it MIGHT work is just an idea. I also know it might not be perfect as someone could steal the encryption key. But at least it would deter 95% of people out there altering pictures that aren't that computer savvy.
I can just see this coming back. "See the pointy hat and broomstick! She's clearly a witch!"
If they can generate images of kids that you cannot tell are fake, then they can generate images of YOU that cannot be identified as fake. So, it's just a matter of time before we start putting "sicko pedo bastards" in jail for harming innocent children when in fact, not a single real person appears in the photo. At the same time, real sick and twisted pedophiles, who are smart enough to cover their tracks, will continue to abuse real children. But who cares about that right? As long as we hang a few, innocent or not, it makes us feel better.
Fittingly, their art is an homage to Diego Velázquez.
Hard for a layman to tell a photo of a Velázquez from a photo of its model. Like everything else, today's artists just have better tools. A good painter could have fooled the FBI in 1920, only easier than with a computer-generated image today.
The cameras weren't as good then, so it would have been harder to tell a photo of a model from a photo of a painting of the model. The cameras were not in color. Nobody expected a photo of a painting to be anything but a photo.
Lets see any of you lay persons who haven't been trained in art make a photoshop image as good as a Velázquez painting.
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
Once women began faking orgasms, the world went straight to Hell.
Now we have fake kiddie pr0n.
Oh, the humanity!
Where will it end?
Please tell me that professional wrestling is still real !!
At what point will photographs no longer be credible? When it progresses to the point that we cannot tell a fake from a real photo, could we have possibly blurred the lines between reality and illusion a bit too much? When it gets to the point that photographic evidence is no longer good enough to establish, let's say, an alibi, what will we look to then?
Why would non-CG-pron grow? After all, you don't have to pay actors, you can get more good looking talent than you can afford to hire IRL and if it's KP, you can't get arrested and done for child abuse for producing GC depictions.
Given that the payoff is just as high and the consequences so much lower, why would you continue to make the difficult version?
For an analogy, one-press soda cans. Replaced the cylinder with two ends production. Why? Because the newer version cost less to manage. Even though you had to buy a new machine to start.
I was in a jury for a case where a guy has child porn that he "made" using legal porn he found online, but photoshopped on the faces of young girls he knew (including a stepdaughter). In Virginia, we found him guilty because he "manufactured child porn", so it was almost as bad as having actual underage girls photographed in those scenes. It was an interesting case because of the legal definitions.
--- witty signature
That an adult and a 5 year old in an explicitly sexual act is a far cry from a 17 year old in a bikini with a camel toe close up. Yet the law treats both as EQUAL in terms of punishment.
I think it's fair to say that most if not all of us would be for punishing the persons involved in the first example, but the second?
Until you happen to notice the brush strokes and the fact the "camera" really did a great job painting the photo right on to the "photograph." I can see the FBI guy now, "Gee, I didn't know photos used paint, this must be from one of those new kinds of cameras with a mini artist built right in."
Child Porn is just outright wrong. Be it real or computer generated.
I have to beg to differ on this:
1861: The first known permanent color photograph is taken by James Clerk Maxwell http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_photography Check out the link for excellent examples of early color photography as well
Some of these color photos look like they could have been taken in the past couple of decades, but this one was from nearly 100 years ago and in full color: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/87/Prokudin-Gorskii-12.jpg
I have used digital surveillance cameras at two jobs now. Both systems I used had a hidden watermark embedded into the files. .jpeg, you would break the evidence chain since it didn't have the software to validate it. It is fine for giving to the newspapers to try to catch the bad guy, but when it comes to putting them in court, you would always need to export the video wrapped in a .exe that included the player. Then the software company could prove that the video was unaltered from the time it was taken.
If you exported a
Grammer Nazis - I mod you "troll" unless you actually add something on-topic. Yes, I know I have mispellings in my sig.
That according to a recent post (late May/early June) in Slashdot, the UK is currently starting the process of making it a sexual offence to make or possess pictures of children deemed (by the authorities) to be pornographic. Let me be clear, I'm not talking about photographs of real children, or digitally manipulated pictures of real children.
ANY drawing, painting or work of computer art showing an image of a child in inappropriate circumstances, or their genitalia, will be banned and its possession made a criminal offence, resulting on conviction, with the offender serving time, having their name placed on the sexual offenders register and having their lives generally ruined.
There are highly thought of collections of classical art (think of all those cherubs...) that fall within the remit of laws like this.
Check your caches, don't look at the parent site. Today the UK, tomorrow the US!
OP's a Sith Lord you fool, of course he's part of the problem
It's usually even easier than having to plant it on his laptop. (Not that that's hard either, given most people's security skills.)
Just post a few of those photos online, and chances are the Interpol will start wondering who's the adult child molester there. See, for example: Interpol appeal unmasks US actor as child abuse suspect.
There's even a funny bit at the end about another guy where the police had photos with his face "swirled" to hide his identity, so the police just reversed the filter. So you could even make it more damning by doing just that with that CG photo: apply some easy to undo Photoshop or Gimp filter, so it looks more believable. (After all, someone trying to frame him, wouldn't have tried to hide his face, right?;) Heck, if done right, it could even hide the imperfections of that CG photo.
There we go. No access to his laptop is needed.
Now, admittedly, actually planting it on the computer would make it easier to prosecute all the wayx through. But then again, if you just want to make someone's life hell for a few weeks, even the purely online version will do just fine.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
Almost all the animated porn out there is created with models from the human figure modeling software "Poser". It's great, remarkable software. But does it really need to have realistic genitalia? How about only on adult avatars? Probably won't make a difference, since human figure modeling is really getting common place, and skin shaders are getting better and better... We are already in an age when no image should be trusted, still or moving.
Not many people are in a position to recreate Crysis or Half Life.
Lots of people are in positions where they can recreate child porn.
No sig today...
It's not hard to ensure authenticity of digital images: cameras can digitally sign the images they create, and the integrity of the camera data path itself can also be protected. If the images aren't signed, then you can't prove they're real.
Digital SLRs, webcams, surveillance cams, cell phones, and other digital cameras should all have the option of producing signed (and geo-tagged) images.
Back in the 80's it used to be the difference between analog and digital. Under close examination if the image contained any square pixels then it was assumed to have been "computer-generated." An analog film image like that from a 35mm camera wouldn't have any pixels at all and would've been assumed to have been "real." Although this was not always the case, usually the negatives from that 35mm film would have also been required for forensic purposes before any images could be used as evidence.
__________________________________
Free your mind - Flush your toilet
Still scrolling for those pictures?
If video games influenced behavior the Pac Man generation would be eating pills and running away from their problems.
I believe that adults having sex with little kids are perverted and that these kids are not old enough to make up their minds so they need to be protected (I am not sure the same can be said about a 17-year old teenager though with their 22-year old partner).
The question is this:
-Why is it so different to watch a 40 year old woman sexually abuse a 12 year old boy, than watching one adult killing another?
-Why is it illegal at all to watch that, and is it still illegal when it is examined as evidence against these people in court?
-What if someone in the courtroom or police station where the material is examined gets aroused? Murder and pederastia are both crimes, and there are laws against those crimes. I don't see what is so special about watching them, and if someone can be sexually satisfied by watching crimes why are they a threat to society?
11001001010011 is legal whereas 00110110101100 is not. Thought crimes.
-[d]-
Send it to ooo@biodef dot org
echo '[q]sa[ln0=aln80~Psnlbx]16isb572CCB9AE9DB03273snlbxq' |dc
IANAL.
I think here is a broad, fundamental problem. If a judge or jury is unable to tell the difference between a GC and real photo, then all photo evidence in any prosecution of any crime would likely not ever prove anything.
"You can get anything you want at Alice's Restaurant" - remember Obie, the judge and the seeing eye dog? http://www.arlo.net/resources/lyrics/alices.shtml
I am curious, was this guy actually doing anything gross to little kids or was he just indiscreet with his homemade porn collection?
The cost of that cleanup, of course, will be borne by taxpayers, not industry.
Finally, image forensics aren't just for spotting "real" naked pictures of Natalie Portman anymore!
Since 1984, porn has become a lot wider available. Not that it didn't exist before, but now you don't even have to drive and rent a VHS cassette. A majority of men has seen a lot more than six weeks worth of porn in their lives, and the numbers for women are rising too. (I wonder what porn causes in those, then. They start thinking rape is OK too?) Look around you at the mall, and at least half the people you see are viewing porn regularly, or did at some point.
If there were that big an influence, we'd see the effects all over the bloody place. I mean, seriously, you if you have causation you must have correlation too. Not the other way around, duly noted, but causation => correlation every single time.
Did the number of rape offenses rise signifficantly? No, I don't think so. In fact, it seems to decline with the availability of internet porn. Hmm.
Did it cause widespread mis-treating and demeaning attitudes towards women? I don't know about the USA, so feel free to fill in the blanks, but at least in the less-prudish continental western Europe I see not much of that. You see naked boobs even on billboards and on ads on busses here in Germany (no hardcore stuff, though), and brothels are all over the place, but it's also one of the most equal minded countries. IIRC, it's got one of the most equal women/men ratios in tech jobs, and in a lot of other jobs too. And I just don't see that callousness towards women all around me by now. Do you?
If it causes an appetite for more deviant, bizarre, or violent kinds of pornography, then there must be a cap to that slope. Because we haven't had any "breakthrough" in extreme porn since 1984. All those guys watching porn for all these years, should by now be at the stage of raging lunatics that don't get off on anything short of Death By A Thousand Cuts by now. And it just didn't happen. Most people barely progress a bit past missionary position in their taste for perversions. There are some more "extreme" niches, but the keyword is that they're niches.
And here we come to the meat of what that study's about:
Ah, heh, so that's what it's about. "Oh noes! People get as immoral as to sometimes have a mistress too! And some even have sex without marriage!!" I.e., OMFG, some people are no longer (pretending to be) models of puritan morals! The world is coming to an end! Heh. I'm sorry. You had my attention for a bit while it was about rape (a heinous crime, no doubt) and demeaning women. But if they had to pad the list with, basically, "oh noes! people are not staying monogamous!!" as teh uber-danger to humanity, it speaks volumes about the mind-set that produced it and for which audience.
;) We have stuff like Holy Roman Emperor Sigismund thanking the city of Konstanz in writing for providing some 1500 prostitutes for the Council of Constance. (You know, the famous one where they burned Jan Hus at the stake and thus started the Hussite Wars.) We have such civilizations as the ancient greeks, which were as close to amoral sexually as it gets, even by the standards of a modern hardcore addict. Etc
And never mind that they did so before porn too. I hate to be the one who breaks your (or their) fantasy bubble, but we have a stretch of some thousands of years where people had lovers and mistresses and premarital sex, long before porn movies. We have renaissance authors writing such things as that the unmarried women of their time being saits from the front, and martyrs from the back. A reference as thinly veiled as it gets to anal sex. (I know, buggrit, and here we were enjoying a nice fantasy in which only porn causes people to get such perverted ideas
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
One thing to consider is: How much of the stuff out there is pro-quality photo-shoots, and how much is muddy-coloured, fuzzy, or poorly-lit?
I know that in terms of regular porn (and indeed, "amateur" photos or videos in general), there's a lot of the latter. So if you've already got a picture that's only of decent quality, you photoshop some "evidence" in, and then make the whole thing of lower quality - enough to make the additions seem to fit in nicely - how easy is that to distinguish?
Perhaps Darth Maul agrees with the majority of Red-Blooded-Americans that the injustice of this law is that thoughtcrime is not a capital offense.
The cost of that cleanup, of course, will be borne by taxpayers, not industry.
Ruby: Oh, quit knocking humans, I'm sick of it! Everyone in this damn galaxy likes to poke fun at us. So we're stupid; but we're trying, okay?
Monet: Okay... well, we also made mistakes...
Ruby: No... oh really?
Monet: We didn't foresee the massive unemployment computer minds would create. Also, we thought unemployment was a "disease" that needed to be "cured". So we agreed to slow down total computerization. But eventually we realized unemployment is not a disease, it's not something to be "cured" by creating employment.
Ruby: Why not?
Monet: Because most employment was totally meaningless work. It was work that could be done better by computers, it was work that no one was happy doing, it was meaningless, a waste of potential, no one enjoyed it. It was working for a wage and having to have a job to survive. It was "wage slavery". A highly un-enlightened way to run a planet.
Ruby: So you figured out another way?
Monet: Yes. You see, creating more meaningless work was not the cure. Unemployment was the cure. So we devised a better system. When we could no longer hold back computerization, we devised a system where everyone owned shares in the planet and received dividends.
Ruby: Oh yeah? What about all those people who don't know what to do with their lives? You know, get bored, cause problems...
Monet: That is the main objection to a workless society.
Ruby: Yeah, I know.
Monet: It meant training people how people how to think. In fact, we encourage people to invent machines that can replace them.
Ruby: Oh...
Monet: You earthlings fail to realize that art and life is the same...
Ruby: Yeah...
Monet: Politics without aesthetics is unthinkable. You aliens believe we are all artists, all we do is think creatively. You earthlings and your work ethic, forcing people to be consumers. The profit motive has caused you to consume your whole planet almost.
Ruby: What about the individual?
Monet: Our system does not limit the individual. Our system allows individuals to realize their creative potential. Once a society realizes that wage slavery is not the answer-- unemployment is not a disease, it is the cure-- then mental evolution is possible. The mind is the planet's most important resource.
Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
Scene: Murder trial, 2019:
Officer: "The victim's wife gave us his camera a day after the shooting. She recovered it from the scene. As you can see from picture #153, the defendant is holding the gun and pointing it at the victim."
Defense attorney: "Objection your honor, the camera was in the victim's home, unattended, overnight between the shooting and the next day. We believe the picture is a fake and was planted by someone intending to frame my client. Furthermore, we introduce these photos to show that at the time of the murder our client was walking in the park on the other side of town. Our expert will testify that the angle of the sun and shadows fixes the time as the time of the murder."
Prosecuting attorney: "Objection...."
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
That is, until their own thoughts are exposed. Me thinks he doth protest too much.
It's taken years of therapy to be able to talk about it openly, but violent video games used to take my lunch money. Mortal Kombat, in particular would regularly shake me down for my loose change.
The since-overturned 1990s thinkofthechildren law that prohibited virtual child porn was because it was thought to be a "gateway" much like some drugs are thought to be "gateways" to harder stuff.
We know now that some drugs are gateways and some are not, but saying "this drug is a gateway" doesn't make it so. Only scientific studies can ferret out the truth.
What we need are scientific studies to show whether wide availability of "I can't believe it's not a real child" virtual-kiddy-porn will 1) turn people into child molesters or 2) turn child molesters into porn addicts who don't need real kids to get off.
If it's #1 almost across the board, then the courts will probably allow restrictions on it or maybe an outright ban.
If it's #2 almost across the board, then shrinks should be prescribing it for their pedophile clients.
The truth is probably somewhere in between: For some people, real or virtual child porn is probably a
"gateway drug." For others, it is probably a calming substitute. For a third group of pedophiles, it will neither increase nor decrease the likelihood they will actually abuse a child.
In the meantime, 99% of society will have to choose between avoiding it or throwing up at the sight of it.
One thing that is for sure:
There will be regulations to keep "virtual child porn" out of the hands of actual minors. People shown to be trading virtual child porn with people who they haven't done age-verification on will go to jail. When the cops start arresting traders who don't collect their client's driver's licenses, it will send a lot of people to jail. When clients start using identity theft to avoid a paper trail, they will go to jail. While such a regime will be a "police state" it will likely be constitutional and will likely not have much political opposition.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
For giving us this CG depection of theft, because it encorages crimes againt casinos? OR maybe we should arrest him for doing it again, and again, ad-nauseum?
Really, what kind of bullshit justification is this?
Man is the animal that laughs.
And occasionally whores for Karma.
Well, now we have the ultimate nightmare:
Evil child molester films his poor kids being abused.
Evil child molester takes faces of adults and children from magazines.
Evil child molester feeds that video plus the pictures into a program that analyzes the film and uses that as the basis for a from-scratch CGI, in much the same way that a painter creates a realistic photograph from a painting.
Evil child molester destroys the original video and all intermediate work.
Evil child molester spreads film around the Internet.
All his friends watch very-real-looking virtual porn that appears to show adults and children having sex.
FBI gets ahold of it.
FBI tracks down the adults and children in the pictures.
Until they realize it's not real, the FBI makes life rough on the adults and the parents of the children, resulting in people losing their children, their freedom, their jobs, and a not insubstantial amount of money on lawyers before the FBI backs off.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
On a charge of "manufacturing child porn" this case is begging for jury nullification.
If he disseminated the photographs without a signed model release by the parents, then the appropriate action would be privacy-related charges in civil or criminal court, assuming any such laws are on the books. If they aren't now they will be as soon as juries start tossing out cases like yours.
Expect laws that prohibit disseminating such pictures without a signed model release, and expect states to prohibit parents from signing photographic releases that allow the child to be used in such a manner without approval by a licensed psychologist attesting that the child will not be harmed by the availability of such photos.
As long as he kept the pictures to himself and didn't tell anyone, then quite literally no child was harmed, either in their making or the embarrassment that comes from knowing that such pictures existed.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Has anyone seen the computer generated CP shit that's out there? It's awful quality. I'd much rather have the good old japanese-style hand drawn lolicon. ;-)
Just not for sex.
Every teenager who is old enough should get a summer job and contribute at least a small fraction of his income to the household expenses.
Just make sure the summer job is legitimate, like flipping burgers.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Virtual child porn should be kept out of the hands of minors, just like real adult porn is supposed to be unavailable to minors.
Of course, teenagers will hunt down and find such material behind their parents' back but they'll know that
1) they aren't supposed to
2) most people aren't porn stars
3) their parents don't approve
4) society tolerates it but doesn't endorse it
The same perverted 25 year olds who illegally show 14 year olds real porn will do so with VPC. The same too-young-to-fully-grasp-the-consequences-of-the-laws 14-year-olds who show their little brothers real porn will do so with VPC.
In either case, the problem is exposing children and teens to porn, and the solution is to hit the perpetrators with the appropriately-sized clue-stick. In the case of the man, this means jail and a psych evaluation, in the case of the youth, it means a psych evaluation and counseling.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
If you sell a white powder that looks like cocaine and after taking it it "feels" like cocaine, then it will encourage me to abuse whatever I can get ahold of more easily: Your powder or the real thing.
If it-looks-real fake CP is harder to get ahold of than real CP, then it might encourage people to use real CP. If it's easier to get the fake stuff, then if someone sees the real thing and gets an appetite for it, it will encourage him to buy the fake stuff.
When the fake stuff gets "good" - if anything this bad can be called "good" - enough, and the fake stuff gets cheap enough in terms of producing, disseminating, and not risking arrest or public humiliation, then it will drown out the market for the real thing.
The only real worries will be:
1) Will the overall market for both grow so much that even the residual market for the real thing is more than it is today, i.e. more kids being harmed than today?
2) Will the fact that the combined market for both is bigger than the "combined" market today mean more men abuse real children?
If the answer to either is yes, then society has a legitimate reason to take action. If the answers to both are no, then it's probably good to let this happen.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
I thought everybody knew that.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
If there were no laws regulating kiddie porn and sex with minors, a lot more men would be sleeping with B-cup 14-year-old girls and filming the experience.
On the comment of "mentally unstable" people, do you mean "pathological" people?
Unstable usually means changeable or subject to changing at the slightest provocation, like people who are "normal" for 30 years then "go postal."
You can be "stable and pathological" which is actually worse than being unstable and pathological.
If you are stable and pathological, you are resistant to changing your thought patterns and it's hard to fix you.
If you are unstable, the shrinks can take advantage of your malleability to form you into something socially acceptable, then work on stabilizing the new you.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
I heard that was true before digital cameras got cheap. Last I heard was a few years ago. At that time, some cop said most stuff is either pre-mid-70s or post-mid-90s, with more and more modern stuff showing up every day.
More recently I heard on TV that the rate of never-before-seen-before victims is slowing down a bit. It's slow enough that when a new victim shows up, the cops scramble to try to find and rescue her.
Combine the two and it indicates a trough in new material from the mid-70s to the mid-80s and a peak in new material in the early- to mid-2000s.
Anyone have more updated info?
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
If tofu costs $5/lb and chicken costs $1/lb and I've never tasted either, and you feed me tofu and I like it, I'll be looking for anything that taste like tofu at the lowest possible price.
On the other hand, if the prices are reversed and you feed me chicken, I'll be a new tofu consumer.
This assumes I don't care about the non-taste differences between tofu and chicken.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Swans, eagles, wolves, and some species of doves all exhibit monogamy. Many species practice serial monogamy - having one mate per season - bird species where the male helps tend the young usually fall in this category. Birds where the female raises the chicks alone are often promiscuous. Harem behavior is common in primates - gorillas principally - and felines - Lions being the most obvious example.
Whoot, only cost me about 40K to learn that :)
2) The images were manufactured. They included real faces of his daughters and kids on his soccer team that he coached.
How in your mind did cutting and pasting meet the definition of "manufacturing"? These were just as damaging as any other "child porn" you can think of.
Err...damaging to who, exactly? Did he print them out and start giving people really bad papercuts?
I'm lactose intolerant, so I support this ban!
"Quote me as saying I was mis-quoted." -Groucho Marx
Where ever there is money, there will be someone trying to get it.
I tell you that there is $$$ in CG pr0n. You make it CG and make $$$.
Someone else decides that it is cheaper to take real images and touch them up.
They want to be more profitable. How do you keep them from abusing kids and
touching up the photos?
I really dont care about the effects on adults psyche.
There should not be economic incentive to abuse children.
And dont even start on Kate Moss.
Look at the levels in Photoshop or Gimp.
An altered image often has gaps in the histogram, or sudden spikes The original flows smoothly. Both look very real, but one is not. Even small lighting adjustments cause the histogram to betray the meddler.
Film photographs can be doctored. Fingerprints can be altered. Evidence can be planted. Like any evidence that has the potential to be falsified, digital images need to be corroborated. It's interesting the technology is able to produce indistinguishable fake images from real ones. But that's nothing new. If the only evidence is just an image with nothing corroborating it, it has to be presumed unreliable.
That picture doesn't look like a computer generated image. It looks like a sculpted baby.
How do you actually tell if something, not photoshoped, but actually crafted our of thin air in Blender + GIMP?
... If It's 100% CGI or hand-draw, or whatever, they have to shut the fuck up.
... I'm not into child porn, I think child porn is a crime, and I'm not defending it or anybody making it/downloading it.
So, then, Hentai showing underage girls should also be Ilegal?
What is the threshold, how realistic such a draw has be to be considered Ilegal?
This is Stupid. If they are taking a face of an actual kid and then photoshoping that into CGI-porn, it's still a crime, because they are using the photo of an underage. But
Get this straigth
All I'm saying is that Anybody should be free to Imagine, Write, Say or Draw ABSOLUTELY ANYTHING, using any tool, including a computer.
WTF am I doing replying to an AC at 5 A.M on a Friday night?
How you gonna link fake kiddie porn. JEEZ. No tags or mention of kiddie porn. Slow down with the linking there man, NSFW doesn't cut it as a description of child porn, fake or not. Clean up your act dude.
I know the Slashdot crowd does not want to hear this, but the guy who looks at CG kiddie porn has pretty close to a 50/50 chance of going one step further and seeking out real kiddie porn. And he then has a 50/50 chance of going a step further and saying, "to hell with the pics, I want the real thing next time..." Balancing that against the right to look at fake kiddie porn pictures. And before you instinctively hit the "Reply" button to tell me there is no proof of this, remember that the Slashdot world is not reality. Go ask any sex crimes detective, or look into the profile and background of any real convicted sex offender (the bad ones) and you'll see two trends: 1. it always starts out small, and 2. recidivism.
The argument about child porn and images commonly reports how the images incite offences against children. The facts commonly left out is that a significantly high number of paedophiles were themselves abused as children, and quite commonly come from single-parent families - usually without fathers. Anyone interested in this side of the discussion might look up PAS (parental alienation syndrome)which is becoming more common. This is not in any way a defence or justification, just a point that requires consdieration.
When I was getting into 3d software a few years ago I found this site which I always though was a bit weird. Seems it's the pron of the future.
I have excellent Karma and I am not afraid to Troll it.