Pentagon Workers Tied To Child Porn

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Pentagon Workers Tied To Child Porn

Posted by Soulskill on Friday July 23, 2010 @09:26AM from the your-tax-dollars-at-work dept.

finalcutmonstar tips a Boston Globe report on details released today of Operation Flicker (PDF), an investigation of subscribers to child porn websites, which seems to have implicated a number of government employees in sensitive positions. Quoting: "Federal investigators have identified several dozen Pentagon officials and contractors with high-level security clearances who allegedly purchased and downloaded child pornography, including an undisclosed number who used their government computers to obtain the illegal material, according to investigative reports. The investigations have included employees of the National Security Agency, the National Reconnaissance Office, and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency — which deal with some of the most sensitive work in intelligence and defense — among other organizations within the Defense Department. The number of offenders is a small percentage of the thousands of people working for sensitive Pentagon-related agencies. But the fact that offenders include people with access to government secrets puts national security agencies 'at risk of blackmail, bribery, and threats, especially since these individuals typically have access to military installations,' according to one report by the Defense Criminal Investigative Service from late 2009."

41 of 253 comments (clear)

No Story here by bobwrit · 2010-07-23 09:29 · Score: 4, Insightful

So, the ones who are looking for child porn all day are keeping it/are attracted to it. Who would have thought...

--
-- (this is a sig) My Computer Programming Forumhttp://www.programers.co.nr/
1. Re:No Story here by Garridan · 2010-07-23 13:30 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Did you rtfa? The government loves child porn!
2. Re:No Story here by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-23 14:42 · Score: 3, Informative
  When you say "No story here", you should actually have said "no CHILD PORNOGRAPHY story here", because, if you (or anybody else) would have bothered to read the PDF of the case, it is evident that the government and law enforcement were not investigating child pornography, but SUSPECTED child pornography. This is evident by the fact that:
  investigators could not tell if the images involved were actual children (i.e. people under the age of 18. In the think-of-the-children moral panic that is on-going, teenagers are often referred to as children.
  it was noted that the images involved what, in the opinion of the investigators, were provocative poses (i.e. not preteens engaging in sexual intercourse)
  the PDF mentions "child pornography" and "child exploitation" a lot, but (conveniently) never defines these terms, or gives any verbal descriptions or pictorial examples. This is of course the usual propaganda tactic of Right Wing child advocacy evangelists: use loaded terms with obfuscated meanings.
  no images were found to be in the National Child Victim Identification Program (NCVIP). It is of course interesting that prosecutors need a third party (NCVIP) to establish if "child pornography" has taken place, which puts more FUD into the whole concept of "child pornography" that this whole story is about.
  disclaimer: I've only so far read 25% of the PDF, but it seems to be rather redundant; going over several cases with the same criteria over and over again (in 94 pages). I certainly may have missed some more juicy and relevant information, but my point here is to point out my observations of the FUD of the article and investigation. What I think is more relevant and should be pursued is what one prosecutor stated as "extensive misuse of government time and resources" (like playing video games, downloading non-child pornography, and spending " three hours a day during his work day" playing online video games), etc, instead of perusing a moral panic issue.
3. Re:No Story here by TruthSauce · 2010-07-23 19:38 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Personally, I think the issue with celebrities is not one of some sort of conspiracy cabal of rich and powerful, but one of human nature.
  Someone who is famous and well known is a HUMAN. Their fans and friends identify with them and recognize their humanity.
  Some guy from the news doing exactly the same thing is very very easy to dismiss as "DISGUSTING MONSTER".
  It's a simple fact that in child sex cases, the family of the offender often feels the trial and sentencing are too harsh, but it is much less known that the victim often feels the same way.
  Some people file this under something strange like Stockholm Syndrome, but in my opinion, it's simply the fact that the victim almost always knows the offender and sees him as a human. It is then hard to demonize him to the extent that society at large is capable of doing.
  Think about it, if your brother/cousin/bestfriend were found tomorrow with 600 images of naked children on his computer, could you really feel the world was a better place if he was given 18 years in prison?
  No, you would probably like to see him punished, but in a humane and justifiable way... say... with a year's house arrest.
  In my opinion, that's what's happening here, not some right-wing conspiracy junk.
4. Re:No Story here by erroneus · 2010-07-23 23:52 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Probably quite right in some ways, but it is interesting because just yesterday I was reflecting on the "Peewee Herman" incident where he was identified at an adult theater. Now whether or not he was touching himself was a detail I care little about... or even the fact that he was watching legal adult porn in a theater properly designated as such. What I found most astounding was that people were all over the fact that much of his work is for the entertainment of children.
  How ODD is it that people who work with children or for children are somehow supposed to not have any sexual interests of their own? I guess we should all freak out if someone has more than one child! After all, after having a child they engaged in SEX! What perverts!
  No, the realities here are still not quite sorted out because people don't know how to put them into perspective or rank them in terms of severity. So we see crimes where none exist and little to nothing where it does. We have contextual bubbles of stupidity all over... yet another point I was meditating over the other day. (How people can be very sensible and logical in their every day lives except when certain context comes into play... say their religion for example. Then exceptions galore come into play... no critical thinking, no questioning for truth.)
  And yes, it is most definitely easier to condemn someone you don't know than it is to do it to someone you do. It's all relative... friends and relatives.
Wow by Renraku · 2010-07-23 09:29 · Score: 4, Funny

Wait, you mean people with high security clearances that work for the government can also be disgusting perverts??
Quick, we need to revise the process to make it to where only god fearing Christians that have sex for procreation only can get government clearances!

--
Job? I don't have time to get a job! Who will sit around and bitch about being broke and unemployed then?
1. Re:Wow by xaxa · 2010-07-23 09:34 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  Wait, you mean people with high security clearances that work for the government can also be disgusting perverts??
  They try and avoid this. A friend-of-a-friend recently applied for full UK security clearance (or whatever it's called). A man in a smart suit visited my friend for a "background check". Every other question was about the guy's sex life -- number of girlfriends, whether he ever cheated, if he looked at porn, what kind, and so on. The defence guy said he didn't care what the answers were, but they needed to know whether someone might try and blackmail the friend into revealing secret details. A person with many partners but who's open about it is fine, someone with a very secret hidden relationship isn't.
2. Re:Wow by TheMeuge · 2010-07-23 09:41 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  They were just thinking of the children. Isn't that what you want your government officials to do?
3. Re:Wow by MozeeToby · 2010-07-23 09:41 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  The problem isn't that people with security clearances are disgusting perverts, the problem is that people with security clearances are security risks. As an example, you'll find it difficult to get a clearance if you've declared bankruptcy or even just have a lot of unsecured debt because it makes you more susceptible to bribes. The same thing is true here. If a foreign interest were to find out you were downloading child porn, an offense where just being accused can cause your life to crumble around you, it would be trivial for them to blackmail you into revealing secrets.
4. Re:Wow by cdrguru · 2010-07-23 09:42 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  Certainly appropriate for the UK, who has been burned many times by closeted gays that are hooking up on the side. All Russia had to do was get a nice pretty boy to sit next to their target and they had a solid lock on the target. You would be surprised the lengths these folks went to in an effort to try to keep their secret live a secret.
  Not sure how much the US has been burned by this sort of blackmail, but several UK incidents managed to make it out into the tabloid press.
5. Re:Wow by Hatta · 2010-07-23 09:51 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  disgusting perverts??
  god fearing Christians that have sex for procreation only
  What's the difference? The guy who claims not to be perverted is many times the biggest pervert of all.
  
  --
  Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
6. Re:Wow by HungryHobo · 2010-07-23 09:55 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Have a read of "The leaky establishment" it's got some entertaining musings on the subject.
  essentially anything secret can be used as blackmail fodder.
  In fact there should be no set list of things which forbid security clearance since anything on the list automatically adds a risk.
  lets say ... drinking Russian vodka was considered grounds to loose security clearance tomorrow.
  Some foreign agent gets a photo of you with a bottle... well now they have blackmail material.
  etc
7. Re:Wow by dgatwood · 2010-07-23 10:11 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  If a foreign interest were to find out you were downloading child porn, an offense where just being accused can cause your life to crumble around you, it would be trivial for them to blackmail you into revealing secrets.
  On the other hand, if, as you say, merely being accused could cause your life to crumble around you, all someone has to do is threaten to accuse any random person. It isn't really relevant whether that person actually committed the crime in question if the mere threat of an accusation is enough to cause someone to turn traitor.
  Thus, one could reasonably argue that stigmatizing child porn in the way our society does is, in and of itself, a national security risk. Indeed, paranoia in any form is a security risk, whether it's fear of the kiddie porn boogeyman, the fear of the terrorist boogeyman, the fear of the "Big Brother" boogeyman, or any other such thing. FDR had it right when he said that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself.
  
  --
  Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
8. Re:Wow by chill · 2010-07-23 10:37 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Go pro and enter the priesthood?
  
  --
  Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
9. Re:Wow by straponego · 2010-07-23 10:41 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  I think this explains the prevalence of closted gays (and diaper wearers) in the Republican Party. I think they're encouraged, because it's easy to keep them in line that way. You'll notice that when the Larry Craigs, David Vitters, and Mark Sanfords of the world are exposed by people outside of their own party, they are never forced to resign, and they rarely do. While the Dummies, when caught (Spitzer), almost always step down immediately (Clinton is the rare exception). Dems shouldn't be as vulnerable to criticism on this front, because they're not as hypocritical-- but they are pussies, and the media does apply different standards to them.
  
  And yet the GOP purports to be hardcore family values... and maybe they are, in the raunchier sense of "hardcore". But when push comes to shove, it clearly means nothing to them. As long as they toed the party line up until then, they're fine.
  
  Now, one wonders how this ties in with warrantless wiretapping. I said the Dems aren't as vulnerable on the sex front-- not that they're not blackmailed, extorted, or bribed in other ways. In all of Congress there are perhaps as many as three Senators and a handful of Representatives willing to seriously annoy the national security industry when it matters.
10. Re:Wow by Kjella · 2010-07-23 10:51 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Thus, one could reasonably argue that stigmatizing child porn in the way our society does is, in and of itself, a national security risk. Indeed, paranoia in any form is a security risk, whether it's fear of the kiddie porn boogeyman, the fear of the terrorist boogeyman, the fear of the "Big Brother" boogeyman, or any other such thing. FDR had it right when he said that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself.
  Come on, this is nonsense. Every person that breaks the law fears being exposed, if we wanted to avoid that we'd have to either not have criminals or not have laws. What if one of the guys at Pentagon is secretly a murderer, wouldn't that be blackmail material? Would you like to strike that law too? Have a mistress/child on the side your wife doesn't know about? You just expect everyone to be cool about adultery? That quote is nothing but armchair-quarterback psychology, reality is that there's plenty people and things you should fear and defend yourself from, including war. It's been roughly 65 years since the last world war, the Romans pulled off 207 years of Pax Romana before decending into war and chaos. It's way, way too early to call off WWIII and that we'll all live happily forever after.
  
  --
  Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
11. Re:Wow by dgatwood · 2010-07-23 11:13 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Every person that breaks the law fears being exposed, if we wanted to avoid that we'd have to either not have criminals or not have laws.
  You misunderstand me. What I'm saying is that being accused of having kiddie porn is so stigmatized that even people who DO NOT have kiddie porn could be blackmailed by the threat of being accused of having it. Unlike all those other crimes you mention, the burden of proof in the mind of the public when it comes to child porn is remarkably low. It pretty much boils down to "Somebody said he/she did, so he/she did". That degree of stigmatization is inherently dangerous. Period.
  
  --
  Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
12. Re:Wow by PolygamousRanchKid+ · 2010-07-23 11:33 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Brilliant! Here's your prize, a gem quote in The Economist from Vladimir Putin about not deporting British spies from his country, when they were caught, "using a transmitter hidden in a rock":
  "Mr Putin argued there was no need to extradite them: 'If these spies are sent out, others will be sent in. Maybe they'll send some clever ones that will be hard for us to find.'"
  
  --
  Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
13. Re:Wow by Marful · 2010-07-23 12:32 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Child Porn is like toxic / nuclear waste. Once you touch it, you are contaminated forever.
  
  There is a grandmother on the east coast who took pictures of her grandchild playing int he tub, a common occurrence. She was charged and convicted of child porn when she took the pictures to be developed. The DA didn't care about the details.
  
  There is a girl in her early 20's who was caught sending naked pictures of her self to her boyfriends cell phone when she was 15 or 16. She was convicted of manufacturing and distributing child pornography and is now labeled as a sexual offender, was forced to drop out of school due to laws against sexual offenders and proximity to children and couldn't go to college (who would accept her?) and generally had her life fucked up because she took naked pictures of herself and shared them.
  
  Child Porn and the zeal to which people combat it is zealotry at it's worst. All one would have to do is send such a picture to someone's phone or email and it doesn't matter how it got there, congratulations, your life is going to get ruined.
  
  The problem with our Child Porn laws and pursuit of justice thereof, is that even Law Abiding citizens who do not deal with Child Porn fear even the accusation of it because whether actually guilty or not, merely having pictures of their children, other innocuous evidence such as porn with college teens in it, or no evidence at all, is enough to destroy their lives. In addition to the fact that jury's are completely ignorant and harsh against alleged perpetrators.
14. Re:Wow by JoshuaZ · 2010-07-23 12:57 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  In "The Atrocity Archives" by Charlie Stross, a top-secret British agency solves this problem by allowing gays but only if they are open about it. So in order to keep their security clearance gays are required to publicly attend at least one Pride parade a year. And that's one of the less weird things in the book.
15. Re:Wow by N0Man74 · 2010-07-23 13:03 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Even with no evidence? Even when the accusations are false?
  Are you one of the masses that keeps their head up their ass, only to pop it out long enough to watch highly sensationalized news stories warnings us about all the pedophiles and terrorists out to get you and your children.
  Maybe it's time that you actually become informed and apply some critical thinking. The person who said that it's the equivalent of yelling "fire" is dead wrong. It's more like yelling "witch!" Terrorists and pedophiles are our new boogeymen. The US has a long tradition of making "witches", whether they were legitimate concerns or not. Communists, homosexuals, socialists, satanists, drugs, illegal aliens, rock 'n' roll, and now the sex criminals and terrorists.
  I hate to say it about my fellow Americans, but we're a bunch of paranoid, over-judgmental, overreacting, intolerant, lynch-mob forming loonies sometimes. In the names of protecting freedom and protecting our children, we're on a path of insanity.
  Don't get me wrong here, I believe in protecting the children from abuse, but what I don't believe in is making this issue so emotionally charged that it becomes absolutely devastating for someone to even become *falsely* charged with it.
  It's like "sex criminals" in general. Whenever you hear stories about sex offenders, the media always tries to blow it up to be that sex offenders are a bunch of child rapists. It's bullshit. They completely gloss over the fact that the whole sex criminal registry system is broken, and does not make any distinction between the real dangers and those guilty of minor offenses that should have never gotten them on the registry! Where are the sympathetic news reports about what a rough time sex offenders have in today's society? Nowhere, because people would revolt at such an idea. They'd have a hissy fit about sympathizing with the offenders, even when these are sex offenders who were put on the list for things like mooning someone during an argument, public urination when they were drunk, being nude in a place that they believed they were not being observed, having consensual sex with a minor who had misled them into believing they were older than they were, having consensual teen sex with someone 2 years younger than them or sexting eachother. We don't want to believe that though. We want to believe that they are a real danger that we've on the a leash. Now we can sleep soundly.
  Sadly, similar things happen in the realm of child pornography. I've read of a grandmother who was prosecuted for creating child pornography when she took what she thought was a cute picture of her grandchild who happened to have been nude at the time. People have been prosecuted for having works that courts previously had determined was legal, based not on the legality of the work, but what the court *believed* the person was a pervert based on other legal behavior such as owning a copy of the novel Lolita.
  And don't get me started with the fear of terrorists and prosecuting prankster kids for making "bottle bombs" now....
  So, yes, some things are so horrible they deserve a stigma, but not everyone that has been a victim of this stigmatization has done something horrible. Did the people in this story do anything horrible, or could these cases be exaggerated and essentially be a witchhunt. Honestly, I suspect it's a little of each, but that really doesn't matter because our justice system likes to apply as much punishment as we can to people.
  We seem to be stuck in the mindset that all of our problems can be solved if we just cast a bigger net.
16. Re:Wow by JordanH · 2010-07-23 15:08 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Huh? Of the 3 Republicans you mentioned, there was one alleged gay and two men with women on the side. These are your examples of closted gays and "diaper wearers" in the Republican Party? Mark Sanford resigned. Larry Craig actually resigned, but took it back.
  I'm surprised you didn't mention Mark Foley, but then, he did resign, so I guess that wouldn't fit with your theme.
  Spitzer resigned, true. He had lots of powerful enemies on Wall Street, he was seriously weakened by "Troopergate" and was under investigation for financial misdeeds surrounding the prostitutes (bribery, misuse of campaign funds) he was procuring that it's hardly surprising that he had to go. Note that Patterson suffered not a bit when he admitted to infidelity.
  It's pretty surprising, actually, that Clinton survived. He was caught in a clear case of harassment, it doesn't matter a whit if it's consensual, the difference in power between a President and an Intern would have been harassment in a reasonable world. There was also that little matter of lying in open court. Martha Stewart goes to Prison for lying to an investigator and Clinton skates on lying in open court?
  What other Democrat had to resign? Are you saying the Democrats are pure on this account and Spitzer and Clinton are the only examples?
  I agree that the media applies different standards to Democrats when it comes to scandal. Like the blackout on the stories about Gore that have been known to reporters for years and are just now coming out.
How they did it by russotto · 2010-07-23 09:35 · Score: 4, Funny

NSA just copied the child porn whenever anyone sent it over the net. The NRO took the pictures themselves, as the original pornographers were setting up the shots. And DARPA set up a contest in which they got teams from the best universities in the country to compete to make child porn meeting their criteria.
1. Re:How they did it by Kjella · 2010-07-23 09:54 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  And DARPA set up a contest in which they got teams from the best universities in the country to compete to make child porn meeting their criteria.
  Ah, the lesser known XXX-prize.
  
  --
  Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
What percentage of the workforace? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-23 09:36 · Score: 4, Insightful

The only way that this would really be interesting is if the number of people caught, as a percentage of those employed at said facilities, was greater than that for the greater population of the country.
New angle by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-23 09:41 · Score: 3, Interesting

Since ordinary child porn stories don't capture the public's attention as much as they used to, sensationalists must now seek a fresh new angle: Child porn is so prevalent it can even be found at the highest branches of our government! Never mind that it's only a small number of employees, and that being a government employee doesn't make you an inherently good person. Just look in this direction... this is what we want you to see.
Not that I want the gory details but... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-23 09:42 · Score: 5, Insightful

...anything from a glamour shot of a naked 17-year-old girl to a child being sexually abused could be classified as "child porn".
And whilst I don't consider either to be particularly healthy in a civilised society (if it's consenting adults doing stuff to each other that other adults look at then let them get on with it), there's clearly a great difference between the two extremes.
1. Re:Not that I want the gory details but... by Kjella · 2010-07-23 10:57 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  ...anything from a glamour shot of a naked 17-year-old girl to a child being sexually abused could be classified as "child porn". And whilst I don't consider either to be particularly healthy in a civilised society
  That 17 year old, you know in most of the world you could legally be banging her right? Just don't take the glamour shot...
  
  --
  Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Re:Child porn laws by HungryHobo · 2010-07-23 09:51 · Score: 3, Insightful

Unless they actually abused children that is.
Anything that is forbidden/taboo/illegal/embarrassing is blackmail fodder.
Even if it was made legal it would still be socially unacceptable and almost as good for blackmail.
there are arguments to be made but that's a weak one.
Is it endemic to a certain type of person? by linzeal · 2010-07-23 09:53 · Score: 5, Interesting

After reading the article, I'm left in a lurch on whether I should be concerned or not. On the one hand, there are some personality types who work in those 3-letter agencies being associated ostensibly with some pretty shady business but without more information on the positions these people had, we will be left making fallacious assumptions. From the 2 instances I have had to turn in people for child porn on their computers to the FBI, I noticed that both seemed normal and likable enough most of the time, but gave off a secretive vibe when they brought their laptops down for repairs, or we had to do a manual upgrade.
One got caught when he forgot to bypass the VPN login when he was away on a business trip. I got paged at 3 am after a long night partying at a rave and it kept going off till I got up 20 minutes later and I was still receiving pages when I arrived on site along with the CIO of the company. The FBI arrested him when he flew back into Phoenix the next morning.
The other one was less dramatic, we were getting ready to partition all of our laptops to dual boot W98 and 2000 because we could not get some legacy software for our inventory system to work in 2000. When we wrested it physically from his hands after him telling us as HR he did not need to check inventory we discovered 5 Gigs of unallocated space that shouldn't be there because we used Norton Ghost, suspicious we made a FAT partition in the space non-destructively and proceeded to recover 10's of thousands of images of child porn.

--
An Education is the Font of All Liberty
1. Re:Is it endemic to a certain type of person? by linzeal · 2010-07-23 11:45 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  He deleted the partition without first wiping the free space. All the files were there all you had to do was create a new partition and use a file recovery tool. Deleting a partition does not automatically scrub the drive clean of any files all it does is remove the entry in the MBR.
  
  --
  An Education is the Font of All Liberty
Idiots by md65536 · 2010-07-23 09:54 · Score: 3, Insightful

Whether or not it's acceptable to have the criminally perverted working in the pentagon, I think it's discouraging to have people that dumb working in critical positions. How can people in high-security positions be that clueless about what information is available about them?
What surprises me by Black+Parrot · 2010-07-23 09:59 · Score: 3, Interesting

What surprises me about all these child-porn-bust stories is how many people are looking at it. I would have figured less than a thousand in the whole country.

--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
1. Re:What surprises me by Hadery · 2010-07-23 10:20 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  The population of the USA is roughly 300,000,000. You thought that only 1 in 300,000 would look at cp?
2. Re:What surprises me by TruthSauce · 2010-07-23 11:13 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  I think there's reasonable evidence from a series of population surveys that around 0.5% of the population is attracted to kids, exclusively or primarily. That's about 1.5 million in the US, 35 million in the world.
  Most manage to live a pretty normal life without doing illegal stuff, but even if 10% of those people do get porn at some point, that's still 150,000.
  How many get caught? :-)
Re:Summary snipping by SydShamino · 2010-07-23 11:12 · Score: 4, Insightful

2) The next thing - is Contractors with high level security. I know they meant officials included in that, but why on Earth would you give a Contractor high level security clearance? I wouldn't trust them further than broom closet.
So you propose nationalizing Boeing, Bell, Lockheed Martin or indeed every one of the 200+ companies on this list?:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_defense_contractors
Any and every one of them likely has high level clearance for some employees for some field.

--
It doesn't hurt to be nice.
I think you are talking a different subject by sgt_doom · 2010-07-23 11:25 · Score: 3, Informative

When that occurs (and it is a horrible abomination of the law) it is due to all this privatization of prisons and the use of prison labor by corporations, etc. (Just check out BP and prison labor.)
Thanks to all those private equity firms like the Blackstone Group, who have funded and/or bought up vile organizations such as Corrections Corporation of America, Prison Realty, Geo, etc., Korporate Amerika now has a ready supply of slave labor.
Especially with the thoroughly corrupt judicial "system" and the absolutely corrupt and degenerate Supreme Court!
agreed - wrong people for security work by Baldur_of_Asgard · 2010-07-23 13:34 · Score: 3, Insightful

I am not opposed to child pornography. It is ludicrous to believe that possession of a photo inherently causes harm. We used to laugh at people who objected to being photographed because it stole their soul - now we jail not only the photographer but anyone who can be proven to have seen the image.
That said, I wonder how these guys got work in Security. I mean, everyone knows that the paysites are mostly FBI honeypots, and - incidentally - the FBI has even put new child porn into general distribution via these sites, so I wonder about the intelligence and judgement of those who paid for cp. Likewise, why on earth were they using government computers for this? They must be reckless idiots.
Anyone with even a modest understanding of security would at least be using TOR or a proxy, and only accessing this material from a non-monitored computer, preferably one with no personally identifiable information on it. The lack of even these simple steps suggests that these people are unsuited to their profession.
Of course, these are only the ones that got caught. Other evidence from a decade ago suggests that ten years ago perhaps 10 million Americans were accessing child pornography, and the true number is probably much higher - especially if one includes pictures of 16 and 17 year olds. At some point we will have to come to realize that we can't put everyone in jail for violating someone else's sensibilities.
it's common, and it's a sexual orientation by Baldur_of_Asgard · 2010-07-23 16:12 · Score: 4, Interesting

According to a document posted by Wikileaks, a company from eastern Europe that sold subscriptions to child erotica (nudity, but no sex) around 2003 was getting 15 million unique visitors to its main page per month.
It is hard to know the actual numbers, as research in this area is suppressed, but it would appear that among men:
90% are sometimes attracted to prepubescent girls.
20% to 30% are attracted to girls at least as much as to women.
3% to 10% are exclusively attracted to girls.
Figuring approximately 300 million in the USA, and roughly 50% male, this means:
120 million sometimes attracted to girls.
30 million to 45 million attracted to girls as much as or more than to women.
4.5 million to 15 million are exclusively attracted to girls.
This does not include boy lovers or female pedophiles, so the true numbers are larger.
You've got to stop believing the media and the government. They lie.
1. Re:it's common, and it's a sexual orientation by the_one(2) · 2010-07-23 20:20 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  90% are sometimes attracted to prepubescent girls.
  
  [Citation Needed].
  Not saying you are wrong but it's a bit higher than I would expect and I would really be interested in reading the source.
Re:Just wow. by stonewallred · 2010-07-24 00:16 · Score: 3, Insightful

Are they going to name their movement Islam?