Slashdot Mirror
Department of Justice: FBI Too Focused On Child Porn
itwbennett writes "The Department of Justice has issued a scathing report (PDF) on the ineffectiveness of the FBI in investigating and countering cyber attacks. The shortcomings are partly attributed to lack of training and lack of communication, but the biggest issue is the allocation of effort. From the report: 'Overall, we determined that in FY 2009 the FBI used 19 percent of its cyber agents on national security intrusion investigations, 31 percent to address criminal-based intrusions, and 41 percent to investigate online child pornography matters."
Won't someone think of the FBI agents!
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
...instead of focusing on child pornographers.
The subhead of TFA: "Cyberattacks are at an all time high; FBI spends twice as much effort fighting porn."
According to the report, though, 41 percent of its effort was spent on child pornography, leaving 59 percent for cyber-attacks. "Twice as much"?
Also, would you prefer the FBI not go after child porn? I personally think it's a pretty odious thing, and the Internet is making it easier for pedophiles to indulge (where, for example, in the past they might have had to order magazines or videos from shady overseas sources or something). 41 percent of the FBI's effort sounds like a lot -- I'm not sure there's that much child porn out there -- but it's definitely within the FBI's bailiwick.
TFA seems to argue that the FBI should be doing more to conduct "cyber-warfare" and combat attacks by the Chinese military. But last I heard, the FBI was a law enforcement organization, not a military one. If the CIA wants to run a cyber-war, let it. I'd rather my federal police do what it was created to do: Lock up criminals.
Breakfast served all day!
This shows a very unhealthy obsession at the FBI for prurient titillation... Seek therapy, guys!
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
ORRRRRR
someone @ te DoJ realizes that 41% of the resources being used on theoretical pedobears was a waste of money compared to people who could actually hurt the underlying infrastructure and cause millions if not billions of dollars in damage.
I know its not popular, but pedophiles dont do much harm in the big picture.
If you want to see child porn, join the vice squad!
Very easy to falsify, prosecute, and get convictions. People count conviction rates. They don't care what 'crime' it is. It's like the cops spending time issuing speeding tickets, while just up the street somebody's being shot. These people don't serve justice, they serve their department or boss.
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
Can they seize an accused pornographer's house and property like they do a drug dealer? If so, I can see the focus. My local police department doesn't go after street level dealers, only mid and top level ones who have cars, electronics and property for the State to seize.
http://www.stopacop.so -- You have rights. How about standing up for them before they go away?
Why do all the hard work tracking down serious fraud when you can link a honeypot image on some pervy website, do a reverse DNS lookup, call the ISP, get a warrant, and bust the perp? Easy way to boost your conviction rate, with very little man power, and the people will love you for protecting the children. Plus, you get all the kiddie porn you want... you know, for the investigation.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
like people who smoke weed or download metallica music.
Moreover, people who view or collect child pornography may do no harm whatsoever. The overwhelming majority of people who watch child pornography are not paying for it, and most of what gets "traded" are old pictures and videos. Some guy who is sitting in his home masturbating to images of child abuse may have some psychological problems, but that in and of itself does not cause harm and it is a waste of law enforcement time and resources to arrest such a person.
Of course, the FBI has released official statements in the past that promote the idea that, in fact, just by looking at images of child abuse, a person is harming children, even if the children have been rescued and their abusers have been put in prison (unless, one is looking at those images as part of their job as an FBI agent, in which case it is not harmful).
Palm trees and 8
Screw the DoJ. They're busy laying the smack down on online poker. How about they stop with calling the kettle black and instead work on busting some real criminals of their own. Fuckers.
Fun with Anagarams! LADS HOST, SHALT DOS. HAS DOLTS. AD SLOTHS, HATS SOLD. ASS HO, LTD.
>would you prefer the FBI not go after child porn?
I'm responding as a parent with two young children of my own...
That depends. if a load of tax payers' dollars are going to be wasted on someone who looks at a picture of child porn - then no, don't waste tax payers' money on it. If you're talking about targeting perpetrators or sellers of child porn, then go your hardest.
AC
"we can cut defense spending "
I love this argument, "just cut defense spending!" You do realize we're the World Police, right? All the other countries come to us for help when shit goes down, we keep the entire world in line, without us their would be a constant world war. And do we buy tanks or fighter jets from other countries? No, but the entire world turns to us to buy our jets and tanks.
It's easy to say cut defense when we haven't had a war on our soil in 150 years, and even that was us fighting ourselves. What do you think would happen if we cut our defense to, say, the level of Canada's defense budget? Think we'd be fine? Think other countries wouldn't try something? Who would come to help us when we need it?
my karma will be here long after I'm gone
41% devoted to online child porn, 59% for EVERYTHING else. Cyber attacks are not the primary mission of the FBI. As a matter of fact, they are supposed to be the counter-intelligence arm of the US security apparatus, which would mean that I would expect that to be the largest part of their effort. Instead, it is a mediocre 19%.
Also, would you prefer the FBI not go after child porn? I personally think it's a pretty odious thing, and the Internet is making it easier for pedophiles to indulge (where, for example, in the past they might have had to order magazines or videos from shady overseas sources or something).
Bullshit. Sorry, but you drank the Koolaid that online pervs are the biggest risk to kids. Never mind that the biggest risk of plain old abuse comes from parents and family members, the biggest risk of abduction comes from parents and the biggest risk of abuse comes from family members and friends of the family. Online pervs are a drop in the bucket in that list. Online posting of child porn is a) just proof of a crime that has happened in the past, and b) catching the posters or downloaders does little to nothing to help solve that particular crime. So yes, it is part of their mission, but it's not 41% of their mission. If anything, I'd peg it at about 1%-2%.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
So I'm suporting the MPAA by downloading movies from a torrent and watching them?
Why do they seem to not like it then?
I think this is a red herring, The child pornography industry, while heinous is relatively small, say compared to the forgein woman transported here for prostitution, or identity theft or bank robbery or White Collar crime. It pains me to see people being sold this fear which is way out of proportion to the problem. Case in point, the way Halloween used to be vs what it is today. Parents have to escort their kids and only during daylight, and all because of urban ledgends and maybe one or two incedents in the country. Again an over reaction. Trying to live in a riskless world. It ain't goina happen.
Now I wonder what the effect on your kids are going to be if your identity is stolen and all your money taken and you loose your home and maybe your job and have to live homeless. That would have an sever impact on your children as well, and probably long term and far reaching.
>>>If there is a "healthy" "market" for child pornography then some people will go out and get fresh product for that market. This is how children are harmed by viewing it.
Your logic is lacking. If it made sense, we should also outlaw:
- murder photos
- snuff videos (like animals set on fire)
- accident scenes
- and so on. Because the distribution of this material will cause an "industry" of murder to create new photos/films! The horror!!!
Or not.
Your logic is flawed. Just like most religious nutcases (think Jim Baker or Pat Robertson). Stop trying to suppress free people from exercising "thoughtcrimes" like pornography, smoking weed, chewing tobacco (sin tax), and so on. Victimless crimes are NOT crimes.
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
I wonder what percent of that 41% are qualified to handle information security jobs. It's a whole different ballgame that tracking down porn. InfoSec jobs are in high demand and the government can't fill them fast enough. Why do you think im getting a full ride + $18,000 /yr to get a masters for only a 1:1 education:work obligation.
They're desperate, and I doubt very much of those 41% could fill security roles.
But there are victims: kids. Somebody makes these photos, domestically or internationally. The exploitation of children for sexual gratification is plainly evil. Some adults are addicted to it. They need help. By chasing them down, you reduce the harm to children; you may never be able to eliminate it.
The resources used, if the data is correct however, is way too high of a portion. Porn is otherwise largely a victimless crime, barring child porn, or those held in "white slavery". Not every porn actor did what they did of free will, altho many do.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
If there exists a demand for a good, eventually someone will fill that demand. If there is a "healthy" "market" for child pornography then some people will go out and get fresh product for that market. This is how children are harmed by viewing it.
Pew Research Center’s Internet & American Life Project found that 4% of cell-owning teens ages 12-17 say they have sent sexually suggestive nude or nearly nude images or videos of themselves to someone else via text messaging, a practice also known as “sexting". The same survey also found that 75% of all American teens ages 12-17 own a cell phone. According to Wolfram Alpha, there are 22,410,000 teens between 15 and 19, which is likely close enough for these calculates. this means that roughly 672,000 images classifiable as CP are generated by teens during the 5 years that cell-owning teens are between the ages of 12-17. This works out to 134,000 images per year produced by teens for other teens.
Nothing for 6-digit uids?
Somebody makes these photos, domestically or internationally.
And looking at a picture will change nothing. It won't somehow make the situation worse. If people are so afraid of them, for some reason, beginning to buy child porn, despite the fact that most people apparently don't (if that's true), then why don't they also ban murder photos and the like?
The exploitation of children for sexual gratification is plainly evil.
That depends on your definition of "evil."
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
"...and 41 percent to investigate online child pornography matters."
Something tells me with all the bullshit hype in the media with underage teenagers sending dirty pics to their 18-year old boyfriend/girlfriend, sexting is what is getting the main focus right now, and not going after true pedophiles.
If there exists a demand for a good, eventually someone will fill that demand.
Not at no cost; were you not paying attention in your economics course? Most of the "consumers" of child pornography are paying nothing for it -- they are not paying for it with money, they are not paying for it with new images of child abuse, they are just leeching off the small minority who are fueling the production.
My understanding of the economics of child pornography is this: at the highest levels of production and distribution, pedophiles are trading new and unseen images and videos with each other. The market is based on barter, not money, to thwart efforts at tracing the participants.
Eventually this material is somehow leaked to lower level forums which are more easily accessible, and from there the images are reposted again and again. Below a certain level in the distribution chain, the incentive for the producers to keep producing is entirely lost; the material is reposted on various forums at no cost. The overwhelming majority of people who view child pornography are viewing it at a level that is far below this point, and are contributing nothing to its production.
In simpler terms, arrested the "low hanging fruit" is nothing more than showmanship; it has little affect on the people who are actually abusing children. Every few years we hear about some big deal arrest, where law enforcement agencies manage to gain access to a high level production network, and those are good things in terms of thwarting child abuse. Unfortunately, the overwhelming majority of child pornography arrests are not in that category.
Palm trees and 8
That is completely irrelevant. Nobody is arguing that exploiting children is right, they're arguing that the demand for it isn't causing supply. A pervert is going to do perverted things whether someone views it or not, since almost always, the pervert doesn't know who sees the material or how it it shared.
Big difference between someone abusing children and making material and someone who is viewing material.
while(1) attack(People.Sandy);
In a sense, they're right.
If there exists a demand for a good, eventually someone will fill that demand. If there is a "healthy" "market" for child pornography then some people will go out and get fresh product for that market. This is how children are harmed by viewing it.
Which is why, I think, it is important to distinguish in law between purchasing child pornography and possessing child pornography. The former should be a crime, since you are providing the means and incentive for further child abuse and are in some sense an accessory to that crime, but the latter should not be, and yet people are arrested for mere possession of child pornography all the time.
If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
It's evil because children are exploited. There is a choice, exploit or not. Exploit is the wrong choice; children are vulnerable, where adults can make informed decision. That's why sex with a mentally incompetent person has the same evil: they can't make an informed decision that we would call adult or mature.
Looking at the picture gives vicarious gratification. The process of getting the picture was one of exploitation, see the above statement. A picture of a murder wasn't taken for the sexual gratification of the murder-- altho there are such things as snuff films-- also plainly evil.
Whether you share the porn or buy it, you're part of the chain that started with exploitation, brought on the ecosystems around porn. Somewhere, someone made money, or did it to share the exploitation. Either motivation exploits children.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
Bullshit. Go to Wikileaks and type in child porn and you'll find a nice long article by a guy that actually used to make the Lolita model style crap and one read of that will let you know you can't stop it on the user side anymore than busting the junkie on the street has stopped the flow of Coke. If they actually cared about the children they'd be making more deals with the third world (where the majority of the stuff is produced) and be getting more boots on the ground there.
No instead what they and the states do is waste fricking wheelbarrows full of money chasing the socially retarded. I have a buddy that works in the state crime lab on this very subject and he says the ONLY ones they catch anymore on the net are social retards. For those that don't know a study was done awhile back (I'd try to find a link but I have NO idea how to type that into Google without the risk of finding CP) that showed that the social retards would follow the same pattern every time. First they would gorge on regular porn til it wouldn't get them off, then shemales/anal/gangbangs until that wouldn't work, then BDSM and animals, and finally torture porn and CP.
The problem is these guys are NOT THE PREDATORS and in fact if you were to lock them in the room with a kid they'd go hide in the corner. Most are to some degree agoraphobic and they have NO social skills so they sit in their little hole and watch porn all day.
Want to know what the REAL predators use? USPS. According to my friend they have a nice little darknet that NO cop can ever join (because the price of admission is you abuse a kid in the way they tell you with a prop they tell you to have in the shot and you have only X amount of time to deliver or forget it) that is only used to set up the initial meet and after that everything is encrypted DVDs sent to mail drops. He says the only way they catch one of these bastards is that one of their victims turn them in. Even he would prefer they spend their time chasing the actual predators instead of the retards but big busts make headlines and catching the actual rapists is hard so instead they chase social retards.
So sadly in the end what we have is another case of security theater, made to make it look like they are really making a difference when they are not. The ones having sex with kids would do so whether there was money involved or not so saying it would increase the amount of kids raped is bullshit, it would be like saying "Oh well, nobody wants my CP so I'll stop raping little Suzy and go back to having sex with adults". These guys trade amongst themselves, then one uploads it to some P2P or backroom server somewhere, and there you go. And the amount of time we stick on the social retards (many looking at 40 plus according to my friend) simply means we'll have to let more vicious criminals go to put up some guy who sits in his basement and jacks off. yep, smart plan we have there.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
Do you mean the National Association of Marlon Brando Look-Alikes?
Mess not in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and good with ketchup.
Not a Christian, Jew, or Muslim, or any branch. Rape is rape. You can give consent, and it's not rape. Children can't give consent. Ask any therapist-- any of them. You'll see that I'm not talking God and Satan and Hell.
I'm talking about the fact that children are exploited in child porn. Adults can do what they want-- you, too.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
The FBI found something they can easily win, inexpensively, and remain extremely relevant. Thanks to the witch hunt, they've been given the role of thought police and it is a very easy thing for the fearful public to back up. I look back at that and think for a moment I'm being ridiculous, but am I really?
"Most people, I think, don't even know what a rootkit is, so why should they care about it?"
It's evil because children are exploited.
Which isn't "evil" to all individuals. Whether something is "good" or "bad" is subjective, really. Personally, I think it's evil, but that does not make it a fact.
Looking at the picture gives vicarious gratification.
And? How does it logically do any further harm? Looking at the picture can't harm the child anymore than they have already been harmed.
Whether you share the porn or buy it, you're part of the chain that started with exploitation
The difference is that, more often than not, the people who made it won't even know that the people who didn't give them money, but still viewed it, even exist.
Either motivation exploits children.
Why does the same not apply to murder pictures and the like? People who like that type of stuff are supporting the behavior, according to you, right (even if they don't give anyone any money for the pictures)?
The people who hurt the children are the ones who actually hurt the children, anyway. Not random people who merely view images anonymously, I believe.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
(This is also common sense for most reasonable people.)
I'd be careful of "common sense" - "common sense" is that information which we take for granted and assume is true, whether it is or isn't.
Not having conducted any studies myself I'd say your arguments do make sense to me - but I think it's important to be clear about what's truly reliable information and what merely seems right.
Bow-ties are cool.
Statutory rape and child molestation are a crime; viewing it makes you part of the production process as an end (ab)user.
How so? What if you don't pay for it and they don't even know you exist? Apparently, most of them share it on completely irrelevant websites.
Pictures after-the-fact
That's what child pornography is.
That's why the laws are written the way they are.
Or it could be that they're faulty.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
No, not faulty.
Child exploitation may have a long disconnection between the event and a viewer, but the photos weren't made to put in a family album.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
What about the 16 year old girl who sent a sexual nude pic of herself to her boyfriend who then went and shared the pic with the whole class getting the 16 year old girl arrested for creating and distributing child porn?
She is now a registered sex offender and can't go to school or college. Her life is destroyed because of some blind application of a law that was not intended to target her but because of overzealous DA's who want a notch on their political belt go after such easy crimes because of the emotional appeal to people like you.
http://www.watoday.com.au/wa-news/sexting-teens-makes-sex-offender-list-20110121-19zwu.html
http://articles.cnn.com/2009-04-07/justice/sexting.busts_1_phillip-alpert-offender-list-offender-registry?_s=PM:CRIME
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-20001082-504083.html
Or how about the grandmother who took pictures of her naked grandchildren (under the age of 3) in a bathtub and then took the pics to walmart to get prints? Another overzealous DA went and prosecuted her. She was sentenced to 3 years in prison.
http://reason.com/blog/2009/05/04/grandma-arrested-for-child-por
It is evil that children are getting exploited. The problem is, the ones getting punished by the application of the laws due to the political and emotional fervor such application engenders for those leading the crusade, are not the ones exploiting the children.
Both those who download decade old pictures, or pictures of jailbait teens who voluntarily post their own pics on the net, or of innocent grandmothers who take pictures of their infant children, these are not the people being exploited nor are they the one's exploiting others, yet they are the people being targeted by the current application of the law.
Because a DA with 10 "Child Porn convictions" under his belt has an emotional appeal to mindless cosmic space zombie followers and that emotional appeal will get him elected / re-elected.
I'm guessing organisations like Perverted Justice. Do-gooders who decided it is their duty to rid the world of child porn and those who distribute it. Perhaps well-intentioned, but like most vigilantee organisations there is a tendency for them to get carried away at times - their over-eagerness to use flimsy evidence and lack of legal knowledge often make it impossible to convict those suspects they accuse, and they have been known to dish out 'justice' themselves without trial by DDoSing websites or publicly identifying suspects when they judge the police to have failed.
If you pay someone to do a contract murder, you'll never see it, but you're a murderer in the same way as someone pulling the trigger.
And if you don't pay them to do a contract murder -- in fact, you never speak to the person or communicate anything to him in any way -- you'd have a very hard time convincing anyone that you committed a murder. Not even conspiracy.
Yes, if you buy kiddie pr0n from someone, you're a part of the chain. No question. Your money funds the system.
If you are just surfing free adult pr0n sites and come across a site with what looks like CP, you have not participated in any way in the creation of those images and should not be guilty of anything. Consent is not relevant because at no time did you do anything that required consent from someone who could not give it. You are not funding the system because you are paying nothing. If anything, whatever advertisers are on the site are, but you aren't.
Other porn is done (usually) with consenting adults, who make an informed choice. Children can't do that.
When you say "done", you mean "created". With that correction, yes, I agree fully. Children cannot consent to the creation of pr0n of themselves legally. (In actuality, yes, some of them probably have sufficient development to make a reasoned judgement, but the law assumes none of them do. I question the intelligence of a 14 year old who sexts a picture of herself to her boyfriend, but I wouldn't charge her with distribution of CP like some have.)
But going two steps further (from creation to distribution to simple posession) leaves the consent issue in the dust.
Yes and no.
This largely invalidates your previous point. These people are the worst type of people. They abuse the trust of their relatives in sexually deviant ways. As such, they are likely to do so whether they are making pornography and sharing it with other people or not.
For that matter, one could legitimately argue that having a broader market for child pornography actually makes children safer by bringing it out in the open so that the sorts of people who make this stuff get caught. After all, if they're just doing it in the privacy of their own homes, most of them won't ever do jail time. If they put it out on the internet because other people are encouraging them to share, there's documented proof, and they might actually get what they deserve.
Again, evidence needed. By this exact same standard, merely the idea of our government as a bunch of incompetent bureaucrats who are just in it for the money is highly unhealthy for society. Therefore, political thought, and particularly political thought that is negative towards the current administration must be stamped out. Not to mention every movie that ever showed the violent overthrow of a despotic regime.
People either can or can't separate fantasy from reality. Those who can are not encouraged to rape children after seeing kiddie porn any more than they are encouraged to mow down their coworkers after watching a violent movie or to beat their wives after watching the Honeymooners.
*shrugs* Statistically, the worst gay bashers have a high probability of coming out. I wonder if the same also applies for the worst pedo bashers. Just saying.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
And the amount of time we stick on the social retards (many looking at 40 plus according to my friend) simply means we'll have to let more vicious criminals go to put up some guy who sits in his basement and jacks off. yep, smart plan we have there.
Not only is it the cost of incarceration, and the loss of productivity going into society during the incarceration, but the cost of that person not working anymore for the rest of his life. Convicted sex offenders are pretty much unhirable.
If the idea was to get that person to stop looking at child porn, slap him a fine and use that fine to pay for a shrink that might help him move on. But no, it's not about that at all, it's about vengeance and "righteous" wrath.
And, I think, a need to distance oneself from ones own attraction to teenagers by violently and publicly opposing it.
Hint: Being attracted to teens is normal. Sleeping with teens (unless you're one) isn't.
We need to differentiate the two. Stop going after guys who wank off to teens, and stop going after pedophiles unless you intend to help them. Start going after child molesters, whether they wear uniforms or frocks.
viewing it makes you part of the production process as an end (ab)user
How? Since when is observing an act, or in this case a record of it, comparable to committing it? If I watch news footage of a clash between protesters and police, am I a protester? Or am I part of the police force? Is the severity of a crime dependent on the number of observers?
Also, you seem not to understand how wide the child porn definition is. A 17-year old girl snapping a nude picture of herself with a cellphone camera and sending it to her boyfriend has committed the crime of manufacturing and distributing child porn (since the model is under 18 years) and her boyfriend can in turn be charged with possession of child porn. Do you want those two to end up on the sex offender register, or do you want the FBI to focus on stopping actual child abuse instead? Chasing after the fluttering images does not help the victims, it just creates more prisoners.
Where men are MEN! Women are MEN! and the children are the FBI!
I want to be retired when I grow up.
He was found to have quite a few photographs of naked children, both just nudes and of sexual activity.
The ages of the kids in the pictures were from 3 to 15.
It might be possible to mistake a 15 year old with an 18 year old, especially by just looking at a picture.
There is no way you can mistake a 3 year old for a consenting adult.
The law is binary, and that works out as a bad thing.
30 year old banging a 17 year old the day before her 18th birthday should not be the same thing as a 20 year old raping a 3 year old.
But in the eyes of the law, the crime is the same.
I also am offended by the sexual offenders list. If the SOB is so dangerous he needs to be on a list, his ass needs to be in prison.
Child exploitation may have a long disconnection between the event and a viewer, but the photos weren't made to put in a family album.
Yes, sir, in some cases, they were.
http://www.cfcamerica.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=358:woman-charged-with-possession-of-child-pornography-for-taking-photos-of-herself-breastfeeding&catid=3:news&Itemid=96
http://www.abc4.com/content/news/top%20stories/story/Innocent-family-pictures-or-child-porn-Parents/ARX1K8NqXk6yMGyVfAmueQ.cspx
http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2009/09/22/family-vacay-pics-deemed-child-porn-by-wal-mart-at-center-of-lawsuit/
Not just that. Reno pushed cases to the supreme court to establsh precedent, then the white house started lobbying for more crackdowns on "the coming plague of online child pornography."
There were lots of articles about it at the time, including warnings of the toxic effects this increased focus on child porn would have on our society.
I argue that these laws, intended to protect children from sexual exploitation, threaten to reinforce the very problem they attack. The legal tool that we designed to liberate children from sexual abuse threatens to enslave us all, by constructing a world in which we are enthralled - anguished, enticed, bombarded - by the spectacle of the sexual child.
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/ilaw/Speech/Adler_full.html
Of course, those articles were dismissed. Still are today, and yet....
http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/article5516511.ece
Therapists are a religion of their own, and their beliefs are just as nutty as those of any other religion - and nuttier than most. Their regime is one of torture and intimidation, and anyone who questions their findings they treat as a damned heretic.
If you really want to look at exploitation, follow the money. The big bucks are made by the child abuse industry - the psychologists, psychiatrists, therapists, politicians and cops that prey on the public's concern for children by pretending to protect or help children - for considerable financial gain.
Consider this recent case in which a 12 year old girl flew from New Mexico to Idaho to be with an 18 year old she liked. The girl's mother complained, and the police in Idaho interfered in the girl's affairs.
http://www.idahopress.com/news/article_b577b760-7153-11e0-b128-001cc4c03286.html
"The Nampa Police Department developed the Child Abduction Response Team (CART) plan a few months ago for cases like this, said Chief Bill Augsburger."
Apparently when they called it a Child Abduction Response Team they weren't kidding, because their Response was to Abduct a Child from the locale which she had freely chosen.
There are a multitude of examples where children's rights were not merely not honored but utterly ignored - but we seldom hear of the girls and boys who are driven to guilt and even to suicide at the thought that their older friend is in prison because of them, nor do we hear of the forced examinations to find out whether a child had consensual sex with an adult: essentially, our law enforcement agencies routinely rape children to determine whether there has been a crime.
So I have to ask, who is really exploiting children here? Who is really treating children like chattel? Who is really acting without regard to the harm they do to children?
'Cause it ain't the guys downloading pictures of children enjoying themselves.
If you accidentally stumble across child pornography, do not report it to the authorities. You can be and likely will be prosecuted if you do so.
Possession is considered a serious crime, and criminal intent is not considered relevant.
If you stumble across child pornography, immediately clear out your browser history, do whatever you can to clean up your hard drive - and hope to ghod that the site wasn't an FBI honey pot that just got your IP address.
There is no defense.
Yes, particularly photo-shopped pictures and hand-drawn cartoons, all of which are now a criminal offense in most countries, a natural and logical consequence of the "thoughtcrime" "logic" you are so fond of. And then there is the "self-inflicted" "molestation" of kids with webcams and cell-phone cameras, who "exploit" themselves, for which, according to the likes of you, they need to be punished.
The actual damage, of course, has nothing whatsoever with any pictures but with actual physical assaults on actual children, ratio of which to all the pictures in circulation is well below 1%. You of course assume, like all demagogues, that all kids are innocent "angels" and not by any chance complete perverts by age 9, an idea which as anyone who's been a kid and who is not a total hypocrite can attest to having no connection to reality whatsoever. It is just that most "holier than thou" types work hard on their selective amnesia.
But then there are extra-judicial powers to be had, billions of dollars to be wasted and cushy government careers with 6-figure salaries to be enjoyed by thousands of "cyber-crime" "investigators". Not to mention that sexual gratification from destroying all the lives of all these "undesirables" whom they randomly finger and the contents of whose decrepit, virus-infected PCs provide such a gold mine of "evidence".
And that "evil" you speak of? That's people who think like you. And you. Evil.