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.
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!
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
Do you have any evidence to suggest that viewing child porn (or, more specifically, cg child porn) increases crimes against children?
That reminds me of Ken Thompson's argument that video game violence increases real-world violence.
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
What? That conclusion doesn't follow from the premises you gave.
The justification for making the production of child porn illegal is that it harms children. The justification for making owning child porn illegal is that it encourages producing child porn (and thus encouraging more harming of children).
CG child porn doesn't harm children in its production, because its production doesn't actually involve children. And following the analogy, consumption of CG child porn would encourage the production of more child porn, but given the fact that you can produce it without running afoul of the law, you'd get more CG than real child porn produced.
How does producing images that look like child porn without actually abusing children encourage crimes against children?
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
Ok, if there seems to be a link, support that assertion with something besides what comes out of your ass.
I agree, I wouldn't say those are harmless. However, I also wouldn't say that those examples are comparable to the kiddie porn/child molestation link.
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!
On video games:
From here: WASHINGTON - Playing violent video games like Doom, Wolfenstein 3D or Mortal Kombat can increase a person's aggressive thoughts, feelings and behavior both in laboratory settings and in actual life, according to two studies appearing in the April issue of the American Psychological Association's (APA) Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Furthermore, violent video games may be more harmful than violent television and movies because they are interactive, very engrossing and require the player to identify with the aggressor, say the researchers. Of course, these are psychologists, so take it with a grain of salt. I'm sure that
I'm afraid you'll have to do your own googling for pornography and rape or whatever as I'm at work and don't want "Porno" showing up on my google search list on the our proxy servers.
Of course, you will find many articles showing both sides, so take with a grain of salt.
Disclaimer: I like porn and violent video games as much as the next guy, but there is research that shows that it does have negative consequences to the weak minded.
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
Tofo encourages the slaughter of chickens?
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
That's clearly not the argument. The connection is that, in order to view child porn, you have to acquire child porn, which means you are on the demand side of a trade, raising the price for child porn and thereby increasing the incentive for producing child porn. The only remaining question is: Does demand for CG child porn cause more actual child porn to be produced because the consumers are indifferent about the source of the pictures or does it not because real child porn and CG child porn are consumed by different people?
There may be an argument for legalizing and strictly controlling CG child porn, so that people who are aware of their sexual disorder and do not want children to get hurt have the option to stay legal, but I think this is not like computer games: The barrier between games and the real world does not need to hold up against one of the most basic drives. Also, the often-touted assumption with computer games is that people might transfer their game behavior to the real world, whereas with child porn there would only be the hope that a suppressed real world behavior stays suppressed as long as a surrogate is available. That is a very slim hope.
But you see....a weak or weak minded individual can be susceptible to most anything....but, is that reason to remove the choice to view pr0n or play vi0lent video games? Some people are going to get addicted to any number of things, and abuse any number of things...some of those acts are criminal. But for the majority of us that are 'normal'...why should our freedom to indulge in pleasurable things, as long as they don't physically harm REAL people (ok, a little leeway on the S&M people who enjoy being hurt, but, that's a side topic) be infringed upon. If someone gets off on watching rape videos, why not let them...if the act (which is illegal in real life) is simulated by actors or CGI...what's the harm?
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
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
Still better, ban work!
:(){
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
I won't speak to the technical issues with this. They're not my concern.
As someone who owns several cameras and does a lot of photography -- I kinda worry about anything which will make images tied to the photographer. If I photograph a crime, or evidence or police misbehaving, or a protest march, or what have you
Also, I'm not going to pay for the technology in the camera so that at some point I can prove that it's a real photo and not CG -- it would add costs to my camera and no benefit whatsoever.
Besides, a hell of a lot of digital photography goes through at least some post-processing. It's part of the worklfow, peoples grannies can now use red-eye removing software, or cropping, or what have you -- "altering" an image isn't nearly as nefarious as you seem to think in the overwhelming majority of photos.
The only cameras I can see this idea being viable for would be surveillance, police, or other things that need to establish their evidentiary pedigree. For the rest of us, proving it's a real photo isn't necessary.
Cheers
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
How does producing images that look like child porn without actually abusing children encourage crimes against children?
It doesn't, in the same way that producing images that look like Natalie Portman encourages crimes against Natalie Portman.
But that's not the point, is it? The fear underlying all this legislation is that someone "might" want to view such images, and "might" want to do something after viewing them. Given the current hysteria, any degree of "might" (in any context) is considered unacceptable. That's where the thinking starts and stops.
Forget the logic, or that most all real abuse happens in the home or by a close relative, or that child porn, with few exceptions, and in the sense of traditional porn, doesn't and never has existed on the internet or elsewhere, that there is no industry or corresponding market, or that most people interested in this stuff are closet types who, if given the choice, would happily stay in their basements and talk to no one.
Complicating the matter is that kids are maturing earlier, sex is everywhere (whatever that means), and there's no one at home or with the time to watch over them (both parents are working). This shifts the responsibilities and obligations to everyone else. But since few want such a role, legislation is required to force us, however indirectly, into taking on those responsibilities. And to make it easier, we need to create a bogeyman to justify things.
Remember, "abuse" is whatever Dr. Phil says it is, so with everyone being "abused" these days, our legislators are only too happy to pass more laws. Law enforcement, of course, are equally happy, but most often for very different reasons.
Correlation != Causation.
I really wish people would understand this. Correctly, it's "Correlation is not necessarily Causation." Too many people think this is some magic mantra that proves (or disproves) something. Correlation may, and very often does, lead to conclude Causation. Correlation is evidence.
And if you think porn isn't harmful to some people, you are just delusional. Porn is similar to alcohol. In moderation it's not harmful, but excessive exposure can be damaging.
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
95% of rapists have viewed porn. 100% of rapists were given milk as a child. Clearly we should also ban milk.
Sheesh, what passes for a math and logic education these days...
I was taught to respect my elders. The trouble is, it's getting harder and harder to find some.
Ah, but I didn't make any assertions, I merely challenged someone who was making assertions to back them up.
Or, to put it another way, this study doesn't in any establish a causal link between pornographic exposure and child molestation, nor does even hint at your suggestion that a lack of exposure to child pornography might prevent a person from acting on their sexual desires for child.
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
In moderation it's not harmful, but excessive exposure can be damaging.
;-)
Um, sez who? You and your baptist minister? Perhaps you can look to Denmark for evidence - porn is freely available, has been for a long time. Perhaps their low sex crime rates are evidence of porn causing a harmful repression of initiative, or...?
I would submit that anyone that pornogrpahic material can 'harm' has already been harmed by some other cause. People with anything resembling a healthy mental state are not moved to violent acts by pictures. I further submit that children are not harmed by porn. Having had a certain amount of exposure from the time I was 12, I feel qualified to comment that until you are old enough to care about sex, porn is uninteresting, and then once you -are- old enough, it tends to lead to fairly predictable behavior. If masturbation strikes you as illegal and dangerous, perhaps porn is harmful. But few will agree with you, I'm afraid.
I was taught to respect my elders. The trouble is, it's getting harder and harder to find some.
and in actual life, according to two studies... Does that qualify as harm? I would think so. However, since you seem to value my own opinion over that of trained psychologists, I'll answer that question for you with another question. Is the damaged caused by violent video games greater than the harm caused by the gov't stepping in trying to regulate such things? Then ask yourself the same thing about child molestation and child porn. Be sure to recognize that while violent video games are not illegal, child porn is. Also, be sure to consider if your opinion would change if you had been a victim of either crime.
There are TONS of things that are harmful...and proven harmful to adults, that are perfectly legal. Alcohol and smoking are two great examples. Let's target booze. It is proven to be harmful if abused in humans. It provably DOES change and alter behavior, with many cases linked to violent and/or sexual behavior that is illegal. Yet...do we ban booze? No...we make the person responsible for their actions, whether under the influence or not.
Same with violent video games and pr0n, (which have much less concrete data behind their influence on behavior than alcohol)...you are responsible for your actions after being exposed to them.
Bottom line, IMHO, as an adult, you should be allowed to do pretty much what you want UNTIL it violates anothers freedoms or harms them.
Viewing CGI depictions of crime causes no harm to a victim...whether it be simulated murder, incarceration, or sexually deviant behavior. So, what is the harm? Seems pretty much like playing some video games actually...just more realistic, and some people get their jollies off on it.
I don't think it is the govt.'s place to tell you as an adult what you can do, use, view or participate in unless it harms another person directly. It is not the place of the govt to protect you from yourself....do what you will, but, face the consequences if you fsck up....THEN the govt steps in.
Just my $0.02...
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
* developed an increased sexual callousness toward women
* began to trivialize rape as a criminal offense or no longer considered it a crime at all
* developed distorted perceptions about sexuality
* developed an appetite for more deviant, bizarre, or violent types of pornography (normal sex no longer seemed to do the job)
* devalued the importance of monogamy and lacked confidence in marriage as either a viable or lasting institution
* viewed nonmonogamous relationships as normal and natural behaviorxi the actual study is Baron, Larry; Straus, Murray. (1984). Sexual stratification, pornography, and rape in the United States. In Neil Malamuth and Edward Donnerstein (Eds.), Pornography and Sexual Aggression (pp. 185-209). New York: Academic Press. (can't find on web)
And here
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
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.
Censorship is evil. No matter what. But we have to be honest here. When I see the effect that mass media has on adults, specifically during election season (which never seems to end anymore). I have to come to the conclusion the its effect is very powerful. And it's much more powerful on children with brains of mush. Not that many adults don't also have mushy brains. And the problem is not lack of censorship. It's a lack of adequate counterpoints.
What?
Hello Mr. Pot meet Mr. Kettle.
95% of people lung cancer smoked 100% drank milk. So milk and not smoking causes lung cancer.
Please that is the old line that a bunch of hippies came up with when trying to say pot didn't doesn't lead to other drugs.
Your math and logic are just as bad as anyone you are trying to criticize.
In my original post I did make a statment leaving open that it may not have to be a cause. However don't you think that throwing away the very idea that the easy availability of constant sexual stimulation might have an effect on sexual behavior as just a bit silly?
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
Um, sez who? You and your baptist minister?
I'm an atheist. But nice bigotry.
People with anything resembling a healthy mental state are not moved to violent acts by pictures.
I didn't say it moves people to violent acts. But is often damaging to forming healthy relationships.
Having had a certain amount of exposure from the time I was 12, I feel qualified to comment that...
You are qualified to comment about yourself. That's like saying, "Having consumed alcohol since I was in High School, I feel qualified to conclude that alcohol is never harmful."
If masturbation strikes you as illegal and dangerous, perhaps porn is harmful.
Search for "porn addiction" and be educated. A lot of our brain wiring is devoted to seeking orgasms. Taken to excess, certain people basically can't get what they need anymore in real life and start living in a porn-fueled fantasy world that real life can never live up to, and that makes it very difficult to form real attachments. Porn is a relationship with all frosting and no cake.
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
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.
No comments and already both sites are down? Wow.
Just add a 'disturbing' and the slashdot crowd actually reads TFA, I second the 'wow'.
Sorry, try again. I'll look for the studies mentioned, but so far, I still have squat. Here is one study (PDF Warning). However, it's a study that shows that there is evidence that supports both sides, and there is. Also keep in mind that many of these studies were published on printed paper rather than digital HTML format.
If you can't find the actual articles listed in the reference page from this article, then I suggest you google the author's names and/or the title of the publication.
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
Umm, weren't the Japanese as a culture already pretty screwed up with regards to how men historically treated women, before widespread porn? Isn't Japanese porn instead a statement about what these men have always wanted from their women?
"There is so much comedy on television. Does that cause comedy in the streets?"
(Dick Cavett)
Utter bullshit.
Now, show us a study of people NOT CONVICTED OF SEX CRIMES indicating how many look at porn, how many look at violent porn, how many look at child porn - how many find images of children "pleasurable" in some way, how many find images of teens arousing, etc.
Find one. Just one.
What difference does it make how I view monogamy? Does it make me a rapist or a child molester because I think monogamy is a stupid, impractical idea that few (even among those who claim it) actually practice? Does my having fantasies about rape make me a criminal? I've fantasized about killing people, does that make me a murderer?
This "study" is from the same folks who claim spanking kids cause sexual problems later in life - Straus, for one, is a "domestic violence" ACTIVIST who has campaigned for decades on this agenda. You might as well be citing Andrea Dworkin.
Finding a needle in a haystack isn't a difficult challenge at all when you move the haystack to a needle factory.
On that last part... I'd like to point out that porn is also much cheaper than dating. It's good to balance these positive aspects with the negative, especially when there's not much of a chance of getting a date worth spending money on. I'm sure my observation would resonate with most Slashdotters.
The trick is to forget the porn when you date, or better yet, share...
The main thing I learned from studying psychology for six years in university is that every study apparently has an agenda, and with all the ones I participated in as a member or a researcher, they are all based on faulty assumptions about how humans work, and how people respond when they know they're being studied.
The "conclusions" below, are inherently rife with all sorts of debatable points.
* developed an increased sexual callousness toward women
Or the kind of people that will get paid/studied to watch hard core porn for weeks are the kind of people that already have sexual callousness.
What the hell is sexual callousness anyway? I'd argue that it's the default setting for males, who are not mate-for-life animals, despite what the Bride Magazine and the Bible leads us to believe.
* began to trivialize rape as a criminal offense or no longer considered it a crime at all
Or were just being more honest about what they actually thought. Few people run around telling everyone they know they trivialize rape, murder or such due to the social consequences. I'm pretty sure I'm not the first person to consider murder as a viable alternative to dealing with customers or employers or family members. In America we trivialize rape, murder, and violence constantly in our culture. Football and UFC are acceptable "alternatives" to violence that we aren't allowing ourselves to do, so we invent a rule-based sport, unless we can make a case for war somewhere on earth, then we do it with a vengence. Rape was never considered a crime in marriage, until very very recently. Women married in their early teens. Hard core porn exists because it's something we cannot acceptably do, though plenty of people want to. Porn doesn't invent the desire. We have the desire so some people like it. We don't like abused children, but B. Spears claimed to be a virgin in a schoolgirl costume and sold a whole lot of albums. I'm sure eveyone watched her videos for the music.
* developed distorted perceptions about sexuality
That's agenda all over. What is "distorted"? Anything other than missionary? Bologna. Define normal please.
* developed an appetite for more deviant, bizarre, or violent types of pornography (normal sex no longer seemed to do the job)
Normal sex rarely does the job anyway, but I'm a pervert. I'm sure oral sex is deviant and bizarre too (so silly, you'll never make a baby that way). I feel sure that this study should have concluded that wasting time trying to give the girl an orgasm is bizarre and distorted. In my biology classes they stressed that female orgasms are not relevent to procreation. The Bible we're supposed to procreate, not enjoy it, so she doesn't get one. Amen.
* devalued the importance of monogamy and lacked confidence in marriage as either a viable or lasting institution
Agenda. Monogamy is an invention from thousands of years ago to protect children and provide for women. It isn't natural at all, for men or women. I base this on the observation that almost everyone has had sex with more than one person (slashdot excepted) and many times cheat on each other. Also, we apparently have divorces from monogamy, when it get's too boring, so we don't take it that seriously.
* viewed nonmonogamous relationships as normal and natural behaviorxi
Agenda. That's because it isn't normal behavior. We lust or have sexual thoughts about other people all the time. We may emotionally have strong connections to an individual, but sexually it's normal to think of someone else now and then or appreciate a woman's assets as she walks by.
I'm a satanic clam.
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.
"If I have absolutely never seen women treated in misogynistic ways, how would I know it's an option for me to act in such a way?"
I'm not saying I necessarily agree, but you walked right into that one.
Buckle your ROFL belt, we're in for some LOLs.
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.
Alright, I did some digging and found the full text behind one of the citations in your original link on protectkids.com: http://www.obscenitycrimes.org/clineart.cfm. In order to find this, I had to dig through countless pro-family, anti-sex-ed and bible sites that were referring to it, but never showed the entire article. It's the type of study that's often referenced, as its conclusion is unequivocally anti-porn.
Here's what I found: it's actually not a study, it's an essay. Its main protagonists are single children who committed sexual crimes. There is no study, merely a description of the circumstances of certain sexual crimes, with some generalizations derived from them. Every single time I found myself asking whether the addiction or even exposure to porn caused the crime, as opposed to merely putting context to existing desires, I was left without an answer.
Here's something else I noticed: actual studies were far more circumspect in their conclusions. The closest thing I've seen to the argument that porn desensitizes is references to H.J. Eysenck's study, which is quoted as saying that people can move from soft porn to more deviant and violent porn. Note the qualifier "can" - not "will".
In short, even after some research based on the links that you provided, I find that it is only essays and anecdotes that support the idea that porn leads to sexual violence. Actual studies are unable to establish that link without significant and serious caveats. As a result, I'm forced to conclude that there is still no evidence that a reduction in the availability of porn will lead to a reduction in sexual crimes.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.