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.
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
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!
I'd rather my federal police do what it was created to do: Lock up criminals.
Shit.. There goes at least half of your politicians and CEOs.. and police officers
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
The FBI should go after producers of child porn. The ones actually harming the children, not the spectators. Sure, bust the spectators if you happen to catch one anyway. But actively setting up stings to catch people who aren't actively going out and harming children is a bit of a waste.
I'd really rather have the FBI collecting evidence against Goldman Sachs.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
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
Tho I agree, playing devil's advocate I'd have to point out they are trying to remove the market for the kiddie porn. Remove the market and the producers will dramatically drop off. Only a minor percentage are paying for it, but there are also a lot more that are funding the producers/distributors indirectly with banner impressions and clicks, and with zip files of KP with botnet/spyware sprinkled in.
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
I think that the identify theft and other breakins as well at the botting of innocent peoples computers for illegal or just monitary purposes is a far larger area of crime. If you look at the statistics of how many child pornographers there are vs, say the theft from Sony of tens of thousands of credit cards. It is not a size nor a severity issue but someones decision that this crime is worse than say stealing all of someones money, or killing them, or kidnapping them. I think this is an ideological aberation from those in the FBI. Methinks they protest too much.
Tho I agree, playing devil's advocate I'd have to point out they are trying to remove the market for the kiddie porn. Remove the market and the producers will dramatically drop off. Only a minor percentage are paying for it, but there are also a lot more that are funding the producers/distributors indirectly with banner impressions and clicks, and with zip files of KP with botnet/spyware sprinkled in.
Why not? It's been working so well to shut down the drug trade.
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"
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?
When you see some of these news stories about some of these people having hundreds of thousands of images, if not millions, it really must be on a rather large scale.
You can see the math at http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2115012&cid=35979298, but basicly 134,000 images are produced per year by teens sexting each other. True, not all of them get posted to the internet, but it's quite possible for some people to have hundreds of thousands of images produced by underage teens of themselves.
Nothing for 6-digit uids?
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.
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 problem with your "younger and younger" argument is that the slope is slippery in every direction, and not just the direction that you cherry picked. Older and older.. Fatter and fatter.. Thinner and thinner.. Whiter and whiter.. Blacker and blacker.. Hairier and Hairier.. Uglier and uglier.. Shorter and shorter.. taller and taller.. Flatter and flatter.. Overbites.. Underbites.. we could go on and on..
So, do pictures of shirt girls turn people into midget fetishists?
"His name was James Damore."
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!
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.
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.
Your totally unfounded and unsupported suspicion is a very good reason to try to get kiddie porn off the internet and a specious "if x then y" train of thought? Really? No wonder our country is in the toilet.
You don't "create" a pedophile with pornography. You create one by having someone subjected to an abnormal childhood and distorted understanding of sexuality and growth *cough*childpageants*cough*, or various other developmental issues. Just as you can't make a straight man gay by having him look at pictures of naked men, you cannot make a non-pedophile a pedophile.
Young porn is arousing to most men because that's the age the girls were when they started having sexual feelings, and attach those feelings to women around that age. Almost all of the young porn I've seen has still been of sexually mature girls who just look young. Pedophilia is not just liking young models that are sexually mature (regardless of the law), pedophilia is being sexually attracted to the pre-pubescent.
My blog. Good stuff (when I remember to update it). Read it.
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