Researchers Use Computer-Generated 10-Year-Old Girl To Catch Online Predators

mrspoonsi writes "Dutch researchers conducted a 10-week sting, using a life-like, computer-generated 10-year-old Filipino girl named 'Sweetie.' During this time, 20,000 men contacted her. 1,000 of these men offered money to remove clothing (254 were from the U.S., 110 from the U.K. and 103 from India). Charity organization Terre des Hommes launched a global campaign to stop 'webcam sex tourism.' It has 'handed over its findings to police and has said it will provide authorities with the technology it has developed."

Comments

profile = evidence?

[MonkeyDancer]

Researchers used evidence including profiles on Skype and social media to identify the suspects.

These guys probably deserve what's coming to them but to say that a profile is evidence is a bit extreme.

Re:profile = evidence?

[i kan reed]

Well, Europol thought that they exceeded the appropriate investigative behavior for civilians. So you might not be the only one to think so.

Re:profile = evidence?

[Anne Thwacks]

What are they charged with? "Molesting under age pixels"?

Re:profile = evidence?

[Joining Yet Again]

*[13 today]:-O :==8

OH GOD IT'S ASCII CP ART! Quick, put me on the sex offenders' register!

Re:profile = evidence?

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean AGAIN?

Re:profile = evidence?

[Em Adespoton]

What are they charged with? "Molesting under age pixels"?

No need to charge them with anything... publicizing their real names and locations would do as much damage as charging them with anything would. Of course, there lies the lynch mob....

Re:profile = evidence?

[AK Marc]

"Evidence" is anything that supports a premise. An IP address or profile is "evidence" as is an eye witness and DNA evidence.

Re:profile = evidence?

[Notabadguy]

20,000 men contacted a piece of software.

1,000 of those men expressed interest in either having a piece of software remove it's clothing, or utilizing its interface port in a method not intended by most software developers, but apparently intended by these developers.

Questions of entrapment aside, let alone questions of intent, I'd think the obvious defense to this would be, "I thought it was an interesting chat program and was testing it's capabilities and responses."

More scary are the ramifications if any of these people are prosecuted. Unwrapping software has never been illegal, but these Dutch apparently think that not only should it be illegal, but that its actionable to even request to unwrap software. Does that mean when I buy a new game and rip off the cover, it's non-consensual rape?

Re:profile = evidence?

[seededfury]

Can anyone tell me how I can contact sweetie? Please provide link. I am interested in for research purposes.

Re:profile = evidence?

[Anonymous Coward]

Right. It's evidence; shitty evidence, but still evidence.

Re:profile = evidence?

[MonkeyDancer]

IP Address is probably permissible but a profile is not "evidence".
My profile name is "MoneyDancer" but that is not my real name. I was not born in 1950 as specified in my profile.

Re:profile = evidence?

[Anonymous Coward]

Does that mean when I buy a new game and rip off the cover, it's non-consensual rape?

That depends. Are you male or female? If the former, then YES.

Re:profile = evidence?

[Anonymous Coward]

my mind can't render this porn... does that mean i am off the hook?

Re:profile = evidence?

[dragon-file]

"Evidence" is anything that supports a premise. An IP address or profile is "evidence" as is an eye witness and DNA evidence.

Yes and no. You've listed 3 types of evidence with varying degree's of accuracy.

DNA is the most accurate, with dependencies mostly occurring in attempts to tell twins apart from one another.

An eye witness is good but the memory of an event starts to deteriorate over time and even initial accounts can vary from witness to witness.

IP address evidence is the least accurate. I can't disguise my DNA and if someone sees me steal a car they will at least be able to identify me as a Caucasian male. An IP address just tracks the culperate to the residence, it doesn't not account for people cracking WEPs and accessing networks that are not theirs or friends you may have given access to your network. Both of these examples don't track down the actual culprit. Just a residence.

Re:profile = evidence?

[BitterOak]

What are they charged with? "Molesting under age pixels"?

In many countries, including the U.S., it is unlawful to attempt to solicit sex or sexual activity from a minor, and it is not a defense if the target is in actuality not a minor, as long as the accused believes him or her to be such. Since it is impossible to prove a belief, a reasonable person test is usually employed: would a reasonable person, under those circumstances, believe they are communicating with a minor. This is how adult police, masquerading as children online, are able to conduct sting operations against potential predators. In this case, they merely substitute computers for police.

Re:profile = evidence?

[Joining Yet Again]

It means you're repressed. Report to the nearest police station and declare your resolved demons.

Re:profile = evidence?

[TheCarp]

> Does that mean when I buy a new game and rip off the cover, it's non-consensual rape?

Please that "wrapper" was practically see-through. That game was asking for it!

Re:profile = evidence?

[snookerdoodle]

Questions of entrapment aside, let alone questions of intent, I'd think the obvious defense to this would be, "I thought it was an interesting chat program and was testing it's capabilities and responses."

If any of these go to trial, then they may certainly present that as their defense at their trial.

It will be up to the judge and/or jury to decide if they believe them. A variation of your defense could also be used in attempted rape or murder cases. "I was just trying to see how hard (s)he would fight. I'd never have actually gone through with it."

Oh, and Clinton didn't inhale, either.

Re:profile = evidence?

[Teun]

These Dutchies know that in their jurisdiction it's the intent of the perpetrator that can be actionable.

For the courts entrapment is generally not acceptable but there is this rather clear line, if the perpetrator volunteered to come into the chat room and it was his and not the 'victim' that initiated the illegal parts of the conversation.

Your software argument is rather weak if not outright shitty.

Re:profile = evidence?

[dgatwood]

The curious thing is that if you solicit sex from someone who a reasonable person would believe was not a minor, but actually is, I'm pretty sure that's still illegal, which is sort of a double standard. I guess the bottom line is to treat sex like cigarettes: if she's under 35, ask for three forms of ID.

BTW, it is not necessarily impossible to prove a belief, or at least to prove it with enough certainty that it qualifies as evidence. For example, it would be interesting to see how a jury would rule if the defendant in such a case provided diary entries that indicated that he or she was reasonably certain that the person on the other end was not actually a minor. Certainly that doesn't prove that the defendant really believed it, but it does at least present reasonable doubt.

Re: profile = evidence?

[cefek]

My thought exactly. Isn't that, i don't know, victimless crime? Do pixels dream of electronic sheep or is it like smoking weed, you get prosecuted for making good to you and not harming anyone in the process? I meam, come on, will a 3d animator that models naked underage children get sentenced as soon as his 3dmax or blender or whatever finishes rendering?

Re:profile = evidence?

[Trepidity]

This kind of "would have happened if it were real, therefore this person can legitimately be charged" counterfactual is also why the part about the other parties contacting "her" and initiating an offer is important. The investigators would like to be able to show that, absent the sting operation, the person would have initiated the same contact in a real situation (and maybe even did so in the past). But if the sting is too aggressive, initiates contact, etc., it can end up convincing people to do something they wouldn't have actually done without police intervention, which becomes entrapment. So for example with drugs, an undercover cop can stand on a street corner that's well-known for selling drugs and wait for people to come up and try to buy drugs from him (legitimate sting operation), but can't start going around to various social events and whispering "want some weed?" in people's ears, since that could result in selling drugs to people who, absent the police operation, would never have actually bought any (therefore, entrapment).

Admittedly, cops sometimes tread pretty close to that line, and courts arguably let them cross it.

Re:profile = evidence?

[Trepidity]

That will almost certainly be a defense if it comes up in court: that the defendants never really believed this was a real person, and knew all along they were offering money for harmless "virtual stripping" of a computer simulation. That becomes a factual dispute at trial, about whether it's plausible that they really recognized this as CGI, or if they are lying and really thought the girl was real.

Kind of an interesting testcase for computer graphics realism: is this simulation good enough to be Legally Realistic?

Re:profile = evidence?

[interkin3tic]

And if you've ever watched to catch a predator, the guys they catch aren't exactly the James Bonds of pedophilia. One guy for instance brought a birthday cake saying "Happy 13th birthday."

Had to stop watching after that. Depressing on so many levels.

Re:profile = evidence?

[fatphil]

Hence the "but she was in a pub/bar/club, so she *must have been* over 18/21" defence, which does actually work on occasion. I'm not sure exactly how it's been worded, but the gist is that the defendent could reasonably believe the age of the other party was what he/she claimed.

Re:profile = evidence?

[nbauman]

They've established that online web-cam pornography with digital images of imaginary under-age girls is possible and commercially feasible.

In the U.S., and other jurisdictions, it would be legal.

It's waiting for the next Internet entrepreneur to come along and make a fortune.

Re:profile = evidence?

[bitt3n]

What are they charged with? "Molesting under age pixels"?

It'll be even more interesting when they're able to simulate the rest of the 10-year and mass produce the results. Would that be an unspeakable abomination or a means of preserving real 10-year-olds from predators?

Re:profile = evidence?

[mrspoonsi]

There is the whole 'conspiracy to commit', often terrorists are charged with that. There is also probable cause that said man (or woman, lets not be sexist, I am sure there are women pedophiles) has evidence on their computer of wrong doing, a visit from the police to take away computers for inspection might highlight crimes that person can be charged with.

Re:profile = evidence?

[Jane Q. Public]

"The curious thing is that if you solicit sex from someone who a reasonable person would believe was not a minor, but actually is, I'm pretty sure that's still illegal, which is sort of a double standard."

Not necessarily. I know of at least one state in which if you are 14 years old or more, and represent yourself to be older, YOU are responsible for the outcome. In other words, if you deliberately fool an adult into thinking you are over 18 (which for some 14- or 15-year-olds is quite possible), the other party is not guilty of any crime.

Of course, establishing that someone misrepresented their age is not always easy. But sometimes it can be demonstrated. A record of a chat session, for example.

In that state, or any others with similar laws, if the "fake girl" were 14 or older rather than 10, someone on the other end would be committing no crime.

Re:profile = evidence?

[nbauman]

The defendant could bring in witnesses who would testify that they were about to have sex with him but when they told him their age, he said, "What? You're under 18? I can't have sex with you."

Re:profile = evidence?

[Jane Q. Public]

"Hence the "but she was in a pub/bar/club, so she *must have been* over 18/21" defence, which does actually work on occasion. I'm not sure exactly how it's been worded, but the gist is that the defendent could reasonably believe the age of the other party was what he/she claimed."

See my reply above. I know that in at least one state, if you are 14 or over and misrepresent your age, no crime has occurred.

This is actually quite reasonable. I probably could not have passed for 21 when I was 14 or 15, but I knew some who could. It is NOT reasonable to expect everyone on the street to be a forensic pathologist, and be able to tell someone's age from clues about bone ossification or whatever.

Re:profile = evidence?

[David_W]

Please that "wrapper" was practically see-through. That game was asking for it!

Plus it hugged every curve. It was pretty much skin tight!

Re: profile = evidence?

[Jane Q. Public]

"My thought exactly. Isn't that, i don't know, victimless crime?"

It really is an interesting question.

A few years ago, in the United States, the Supreme Court ruled that in order for something to be prosecuted as child pornography, it had to [1] involve a real child (not just an artificial "depiction" of one), and [2] be real pornography... in other words, something that would be judged pornography even if it didn't involve a child.

Therefore, bathtub pictures of the kids playing don't qualify, for example. But before the Supreme Court ruled on it, there were some pretty outrageous claims and prosecutions in a few states.

So what about this? Is it soliciting from a minor if it isn't a real minor? Where is the line between an actual crime with an actual victim, and "thought crime"?

Re:profile = evidence?

[Obfuscant]

Does that mean when I buy a new game and rip off the cover, it's non-consensual rape?

If the game is less than 17 years old (18 in some jurisdictions), consent is not an issue. It will be statutory.

Once the game is 17 years old, yes, it has to consent to you unwrapping it. However, the fact that the game was selling itself on the store shelves provides implied consent to completion of the act. At that point you and the game will both be open to charges of prostitution and related.

That means you can bonk Duke Nukem and Zelda all you want, if they agree and you didn't pay for them. I'm waiting until next year when Lara Croft becomes legal...

Re:profile = evidence?

[Jane Q. Public]

"DNA is the most accurate, with dependencies mostly occurring in attempts to tell twins apart from one another."

Common myth. Corrected: DNA can be the most accurate, but is often not.

The main problem with DNA evidence is that it is far too easily contaminated. Hell, strew some semen around a crime scene from a used condom, and it's "solid" evidence the guy did it, eh?

DNA can be very solid evidence, but only under very narrow and specific conditions. It would be ridiculously easy to kill somebody and leave some skin scrapings under a couple of fingernails, for example.

And witnesses are notoriously unreliable. In fact, in at least one study, police who were "trained witnesses" proved to be far less reliable at reporting incidents accurately than people off the street.

And IP addresses don't even necessarily track a culprit to "a residence". I maintain an open WiFi connection ("guest" network) as a public service. It has a good signal and it is available to my whole neighborhood, including people walking by with a cellphone and even cars driving through the area.

Re:profile = evidence?

[Jane Q. Public]

"If any of these go to trial, then they may certainly present that as their defense at their trial."

That rather begs the question. Trial for what? What would the charge be?

Re:profile = evidence?

[ElectricTurtle]

More like report to 4chan and hang around /b/, /d/ and /f/ for a while. After that no sexual allusion will be inscrutable.

Re:profile = evidence?

[Penguinisto]

No need to charge them with anything... publicizing their real names and locations would do as much damage as charging them with anything would. Of course, there lies the lynch mob....

...unless they 'borrowed' their neighbor's wifi and used their neighbor's name.

TL;DR: One would hope there was at least some due process involved.

Re:profile = evidence?

[TapeCutter]

Oh, and Clinton didn't inhale, either.

As Gore Vidal (who knew Clinton at collage) explained. Clinton is one of those people who can't inhale smoke, so he ate his share. In other words Clinton was technically correct, which we all know is the best kind of correct..

Re:profile = evidence?

[Anonymous Coward]

I was actually thinking about this earlier today when I first started seeing articles about this simulated minor. It occurred to me if a predator wanted to cover their ass, what if they recorded a statement something to the effect that "I know the person with whom I am conversing is not a minor, but I'm doing it anyway because the simulation/pretense gets me off" or whatever. And then has like a notary sign that they observe the statement being put in a safe deposit box or whatever on a certain day (i.e. they don't actually have to read the statement, they would attest that they saw an envelope containing the statement put in a certain place at a verified time).

So, then if some LEA busts the hypothetical person, they can just say, 'lol, joke's on you, I have proof that I didn't think it was a minor' and then presumably they have no case. Now the thing with this is it could be done whether the hypothetical perve knows it is a fake or a real minor. If real, it's probably not a sting and they have as much chance as they would ever have, if fake, they're potentially totally safe.

Re:profile = evidence?

[fatphil]

Thanks for confirmation. My perspective, as you can probably deduce from my language, was from a European perspective, and the case that came to mind was from the UK. It indeed is quite reasonable.

I wonder if in defence one could demand not a "reasonable person" test, but a "reasonable drunk person" test. "She was so hot I had to go and throw up, and then came back to chat to her! She seemed really intelligent, way smarter than me, so she had to be at college, like she said she was!"

Re:profile = evidence?

[Teun]

If there was no crime

In some jurisdictions the challenge of crime committed, attempting illegal acts with a minor, was met.

Re:profile = evidence?

[BronsCon]

The problem with the reasonable person test is that it's typically carried out by unreasonable people. Not saying that applies in this case, as a 10 year old girl isn't reasonably going to look 18, no matter what, but I'm sure you see the point I was trying to make.

Re:profile = evidence?

[AdamThor]

???

Attempted crimes are prosecuted routinely. Google "Attempted Murder" or "Attempted Robbery" and you'll see some.

Which isn't to say that there aren't other issues with this "sting operation".

Re:profile = evidence?

[Em Adespoton]

No need to charge them with anything... publicizing their real names and locations would do as much damage as charging them with anything would. Of course, there lies the lynch mob....

...unless they 'borrowed' their neighbor's wifi and used their neighbor's name.

TL;DR: One would hope there was at least some due process involved.

...which is why policing agencies would prefer this kind of thing be left to specialized police task forces. This is one of those issues where public opinion tends to be binary, but the truth tends to lie in shades of grey.

Re:profile = evidence?

[digitig]

"Evidence" is anything that supports a premise. An IP address or profile is "evidence" as is an eye witness and DNA evidence.

Yes and no. You've listed 3 types of evidence with varying degree's of accuracy.

I suspect that was the OP's point. "Evidence" does not mean "proof". A profile is evidence -- very weak evidence, sure, a long way from proof, but it's still evidence.

Re:profile = evidence?

[Aryden]

and you open your organization up to hundred of millions of dollars in law suits.

Re:profile = evidence?

[Jane Q. Public]

I wonder if in defence one could demand not a "reasonable person" test, but a "reasonable drunk person" test. "She was so hot I had to go and throw up, and then came back to chat to her! She seemed really intelligent, way smarter than me, so she had to be at college, like she said she was!"

I know that in the states I have lived in, intoxication is not a defense against the "reasonable person" standard.

Re:profile = evidence?

[Aryden]

The courts dont let them arguably cross the line, they let them trample all over it. The example you provide of the cop going around asking if you want to buy drugs happens all the time and is allowed, all the time by courts. I have watched them do it to college kids in my neighborhood at events.

Re:profile = evidence?

[digitig]

As it was reported in the UK, there is nothing that these people can be charged with on the basis of their interactions with the software, but the police will be looking closely at those people. It probably means they will be considered to have reasonable grounds to go rooting around their hard drives and so on.

At least the story seems to have been reported accurately on slashdot. The UK media represented everybody who interacted with the software as being a pedophile, with the charity only being able to identify about 1000. Great. So now if a 10-year-old asks for help, anybody who tries to help must be evil. Oh well, so long H. sapiens, we've had a good run...

Re:profile = evidence?

[digitig]

That will almost certainly be a defense if it comes up in court: that the defendants never really believed this was a real person, and knew all along they were offering money for harmless "virtual stripping" of a computer simulation.

In the UK, that "virtual stripping" would be illegal.

Re:profile = evidence?

[Aryden]

Your examples aren't relevant. In both instances, the person committing the crimes actually attempted to murder or steal from another person or persons. In this instance, no crime was committed against a person or business or state.

Re:profile = evidence?

[Mashiki]

No need to charge them with anything... publicizing their real names and locations would do as much damage as charging them with anything would. Of course, there lies the lynch mob....

Congratulations, and welcome to the world of sexual harassment. Even if you're innocent, you're screwed forever.

Re:profile = evidence?

[vux984]

The curious thing is that if you solicit sex from someone who a reasonable person would believe was not a minor, but actually is, I'm pretty sure that's still illegal, which is sort of a double standard

Not at all. It's illegal to attempt to solicit sex from a minor (hinges on intent to commit the crime). And its illegal to actually solicit sex from a minor (hinges on the actual act of commiting the crime )

This is not unusual.

In the same way that "attempted murder in the first degree" is illegal, whether you succeed or not, and involuntary manslaughter is one of several possible crimes that applies when you succeed without intending to. Along with a whole raft of other variations covering various levels of success and/or intent.

For example, it would be interesting to see how a jury would rule if the defendant in such a case provided diary entries that indicated that he or she was reasonably certain that the person on the other end was not actually a minor.

Yeah, the old "my kink is to cyber with police officers pretending to be minors" defense?

Re:profile = evidence?

[Anonymous Coward]

"raises" the question.

Re: profile = evidence?

[Anonymous Coward]

Your information is true, but incomplete and misleading.

Immediately after that Supreme Court ruling, the lawmakers rushed through a new law (worded a bit differently) making it all illegal again. And the new law was never challenged and still exists.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PROTECT_Act_of_2003

Re:profile = evidence?

[noh8rz10]

you can't do tldr on a single sentence. meme fail.

Re:profile = evidence?

[AdamThor]

In this case, the person attempted to get naked images of a real little girl. The fact that these contacting individuals were wrong about the status of the realness of the girl doesn't change what was attempted.

That is why my examples are relevant. A real crime was really attempted by a real person. That is sufficient. The target (real and naive? real and bait? not even real?) doesn't matter.

To quote: "Should it be a crime to "sexually abuse" software, even if you don't know it was software?"

The crime is attempting to abuse a real child. That's what the contacting individual was attempting.

Re: profile = evidence?

[Jane Q. Public]

"Immediately after that Supreme Court ruling, the lawmakers rushed through a new law (worded a bit differently) making it all illegal again. And the new law was never challenged and still exists."

So I see:

"Prohibits computer-generated child pornography when "(B) such visual depiction is a computer image or computer-generated image that is, or appears virtually indistinguishable from that of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; (as amended by 1466A for Section 2256(8)(B) of title 18, United States Code)."

So Congress subverted the Supreme Court's clear intent, and made "thought crime" a crime after all. Goddamned politicians.

This isn't the America I signed up for. I'm all for actually protecting actual children, but that provision has nothing to do with protecting children at all. It's "thought crime", pure and simple.

The Supreme Court case, as I recall, was over an artist and his "controversial" paintings.

Re:profile = evidence?

[noh8rz10]

And IP addresses don't even necessarily track a culprit to "a residence". I maintain an open WiFi connection ("guest" network) as a public service. It has a good signal and it is available to my whole neighborhood, including people walking by with a cellphone and even cars driving through the area.

dumbs. do you also provide dark alleys and money changing as a public service?

on the other hand, it makes sense to provide guest wifi so you can scrape the plaintext packets...

Re:profile = evidence?

[noh8rz10]

i think if you get the accounts you can get access to their hard drives, then really see what their intentions are.

Re:profile = evidence?

[AK Marc]

The fact that they link it to a real person makes it evidence. If they link it to you, and moneydancer posted illegal threats against the president, then moneydancer's profile would be used against you.

Re: profile = evidence?

[Jane Q. Public]

"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PROTECT_Act_of_2003"

Holy crap. Take a look at this provision:

"Authorizes fines and/or imprisonment for up to 30 years for U.S. citizens or residents who engage in illicit sexual conduct abroad, with or without the intent of engaging in such sexual misconduct."

WTF? This makes it a felony for a U.S. citizen to engage in "illicit sexual conduct" while out of the country??? How outrageous can a law get?

Some countries have some pretty outrageous laws. This is in effect saying you can't engage in "illicit" conduct in any country, at any time, or you might face as much as 30 years in a U.S. jail, even if it's something legal in the U.S. but illegal in that other country!?!? Could the law possibly be more bizarre?

Just what is "illicit", anyway? Not just bizarre, but bizarrely vague.

That reminds me of the Federal law that makes it illegal to break the laws of any other country when importing goods. Some poor importer got put in prison because he accepted some lobster tails, which was perfectly legal, but the country he got them from had a law against exporting seafood in plastic bags.

Jesus. Some of these politicians should be taken out and shot. This is beyond ridiculous.

Re:profile = evidence?

[noh8rz10]

What was the crime committed? If there was no crime, there will be no trial. You can't presuppose a trial, much less a defense, until you have first established that a crime has taken place.

in civil court you can sue anybody for anything. I could sue you for being a secret alien. i probably wouldn't win, and you may have recourse for wasting your time, but I could still get the issue in front of a judge (at least long enough for him to dismiss it).

criminal court is the same way - they can charge you with anything at any time. the judge may throw it out right away, and you may have recourse for wrongful prosecution. but they can still charge you with a crime and haul you before a judge.

Re: profile = evidence?

[Eskarel]

The wording is a bit bad, but presumably it's a means of combating sex tourism. In terms of illicit, I would suggest that you're odds of getting a jury to convict on any offence sexual or otherwise that isn't actually illegal in the US is somewhere between slim and none, so whether that's what they intended or not that's the likely de facto definition of illicit.

Re:profile = evidence?

[Eskarel]

As much as I'm sure you believe all cops are corrupt and out to get you, I think it's a bit more complicated than that. DNA isn't some magically interchangeable and ubiquitous term, the lab can and would be required to tell you what the DNA came from. If you're being investigated for a murder or even a sexual assault and they find your semen scattered all over the room a jury might question why in the hell that was so(leaving aside where the cops are getting a condom full of your semen). Even blood is going to have to appear in a manner which is actually consistent with the fact. Evidence can certainly be planted, but there are much easier and more effective ways to achieve that. Blood or semen spatter which makes no damned sense is something your attorney is going to have a field day with, a piece of paper with your name or fingerprint on it, some possession of yours which just happens to have been dropped in the middle of a crime scene is going to be much harder to fight.

I'd also suggest that if you don't want to end up in federal PMITA prison you stop providing free wifi to the neighbourhood, even leaving that aside it will 100% be a violation of your ISP's TOU.

Re:profile = evidence?

[Jane Q. Public]

"dumbs. do you also provide dark alleys and money changing as a public service?"

Is the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) dumb too? They strongly endorse the practice.

Re: profile = evidence?

[Jane Q. Public]

"The wording is a bit bad, but presumably it's a means of combating sex tourism."

"A bit bad"?? It's atrocious. It's overly vague and overly broad.

In terms of illicit, I would suggest that you're odds of getting a jury to convict on any offence sexual or otherwise that isn't actually illegal in the US is somewhere between slim and none, so whether that's what they intended or not that's the likely de facto definition of illicit.

If it wouldn't result in a prosecution, then there's no point in the law.

A law that is not intended to be enforced as written is one of the worst kinds of law, because it allows people to ignore it, and leave it unchallenged, until WHAM!!! it is used against someone the government doesn't like.

Re:profile = evidence?

[noh8rz10]

They endorse *other people* doing the practice. Have you ever found anything good with a packet sniffer?

Re: profile = evidence?

[Anonymous Coward]

"up to 30 years for U.S. citizens or residents who engage in illicit sexual conduct abroad, with or without the intent of engaging in such sexual misconduct."

I would say the wording leaves open interpretations that are even WORSE than the examples you guys put forward.

If interpreted literally, this law could conceivably subject someone (a U.S. citizen) who was forcefully RAPED to serving 30 years in prison.

After all isn't sodemy still considered "illicit" in many U.S. jurisdictions?

Re:profile = evidence?

[Anonymous Coward]

The bottom line is not to have sex with anyone other than your spouse.

Re:profile = evidence?

[Anonymous Coward]

What if you believed she was a youthful looking girl but of legal age? For example you ask the "FBI agent" playing the real/virtual young girl how old she was and the reply was a legal age, and you believed it would you still go to jail? What if it was a real minor and she lied (but it was consensual, except of course for the deception)?

There are young people who look older and there (fewer) older people who look really young... Many people also seem to have difficulty judging the age of people of other/some races.

Re:profile = evidence?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's easier to chop someone else's neck.

Re: profile = evidence?

[Anonymous Coward]

True or not but the wiki also says:

For the purposes of this law, illicit sexual conduct includes commercial sex with anyone under 18,[6] and non-commercial sex with persons under 16 when there is at least a four-year age difference or the person is under 12 years of age.

The actual text is a bit different, but yes there is a definition of illicit: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-108s151enr/pdf/BILLS-108s151enr.pdf

By the way it seems that judges are still free to pick and choose which laws and clauses to enforce: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/18/AR2007011801777.html

Re:profile = evidence?

[Jane Q. Public]

Yes indeed. I have packet sniffers (in fact an entire pen testing OS on USB stick) and a super-duper high-power wifi adapter. I can and have broken WEP and WPA-PSK passwords on some of my neighbors' networks for fun.

I say good luck to anybody trying to crack my setup. They'll need it.

But on the other hand, they can just hook up to my open guest network, and use it as they please. If I notice inordinate traffic, I may investigate or block them.

Only once did I ever catch anyone doing anything "not allowed" on my open wifi. I saw that a neighbor girl was downloading music. I put a .mp3 file where she would find it, disguised as a popular tune. Instead, it was a voice recording, calling her by name and telling her that downloading was not allowed on my public network, and that if I caught her at it again I would ban her. (It was easy to know her name because her network adapter was broadcasting it: "K____'s Computer".

I think it scared the hell out of her. In any case, I never saw her downloading again.

Re:profile = evidence?

[Anonymous Coward]

The bottom line is not to have sex with anyone other than your spouse.

What if you live in Tennessee and your spouse is a minor? Or live in Kentucky and your spouse is a miner?

Re:profile = evidence?

[Anonymous Coward]

What if the FBI agent believes that she is a minor?

Re:profile = evidence?

[noh8rz10]

wow, that's a douchey thing to do! you probably made her feel really bad. how was she to know it wasn't allowed on your public network - you have a toc?

Re:profile = evidence?

[dryeo]

There was a case in Canada, back in the '50's I believe, where a guy picked up a woman at the bar (drinking age was 21 back then), went back to her place and was having sex when her parents came home. He ended up charged with statutory rape and the Judge very apologetically convicted him and sentenced him to 5 years as the way the law was written he was guilty.
Shortly after this the law was changed to reasonable believe.

Re:profile = evidence?

[Aryden]

not a prima facie argument, you do not know what the person's thoughts were and why they made contact, you are assuming they made contact for a reason that you have placed into the equation which may not be their reason.

Re:profile = evidence?

[Aryden]

additionally, you also do not know whether or not they knew that it was or was not a real child.

Re:profile = evidence?

[dryeo]

When the former Canadian PM Paul Martin was asked if he ever smoked marijuana, his answer was something like "I don't smoke anything, but the wife used to make these wonderful brownies"

Re:profile = evidence?

[ko7]

"...which is why policing agencies would prefer this kind of thing be left to specialized police task forces. This is one of those issues where public opinion tends to be binary, but the truth tends to lie in shades of grey."

Yeah... Fifty shades of Grey

Re:profile = evidence?

[Anonymous Coward]

And IP addresses don't even necessarily track a culprit to "a residence". I maintain an open WiFi connection ("guest" network) as a public service. It has a good signal and it is available to my whole neighborhood, including people walking by with a cellphone and even cars driving through the area.

What's your address? I have a few emails I need to send, and I hear there's this cute Filipino girl online who wants to talk to me.

Re:profile = evidence?

[Jane Q. Public]

"wow, that's a douchey thing to do! you probably made her feel really bad. how was she to know it wasn't allowed on your public network - you have a toc?"

You like talking down to people, don't you?

Yes, I probably made her feel bad, but she had it coming. How would she know she was not supposed to download music via BitTorrent? Simple: a broadcast network name of Keep It Legal, and a warning message when you log in to the effect of: "Please keep this community network alive by not doing anything naughty."

Gee, do you really think she misunderstood?

Re: profile = evidence?

[myowntrueself]

How about putting the shoe on the other foot.

A Saudi woman goes to the USA, is raped there. Goes back to Saudi Arabia and is thrown in jail for having been raped (had sex outside marriage).

Re:profile = evidence?

[noh8rz10]

obv she knew she wasn't supposed to be doing it, but it's douchey when an adult plays a prank on a teen girl to make her feel bad.

Re:profile = evidence?

[myowntrueself]

wow, that's a douchey thing to do! you probably made her feel really bad. how was she to know it wasn't allowed on your public network - you have a toc?

Could have been worse. Could have used a transparent squid proxy to turn all images on web pages into goatse or tubgirl and all videos to 'two girls one cup'

Re:profile = evidence?

[myowntrueself]

The problem with DNA evidence, as its actually used in practice, is that there is a FAR higher chance of a false positive than there is with fingerprints. They don't compare the ENTIRE damn genome, they compare a few markers and then the court ASSUMES that if the markers match it MUST be you. Whereas in fact it could match thousands of people around just the UK alone.

Re:profile = evidence?

[pne]

Can anyone tell me how I can contact sweetie? Please provide link. I am interested in for research purposes.

From FTA: "Sweetie will not be used again. She has done her job[.]"

You'll have to find a new sting.

Re:profile = evidence?

[Anne Thwacks]

Would that be an unspeakable abomination or a means of preserving real 10-year-olds from predators?

Be careful - In many jurisdictions, you could probably get life imprisonment just for asking this question! (Asking questions is definitely considered an unspeakable abomination in many countries).

Re:profile = evidence?

[myowntrueself]

As it was reported in the UK, there is nothing that these people can be charged with on the basis of their interactions with the software, but the police will be looking closely at those people. It probably means they will be considered to have reasonable grounds to go rooting around their hard drives and so on.

At least the story seems to have been reported accurately on slashdot. The UK media represented everybody who interacted with the software as being a pedophile, with the charity only being able to identify about 1000. Great. So now if a 10-year-old asks for help, anybody who tries to help must be evil. Oh well, so long H. sapiens, we've had a good run...

I am pretty sure that, in the UK, masturbating over any image of an underage person, a person who 'appears' to be underage (ponytails, plaid skirt), a cartoon or a computer generated image which 'a reasonable person would assume is intended to represent an underage person' would get you on the sex offenders register.

In fact I guess anything but granny porn. "If it has fewer than 10 wrinkles, nick him!"

Re:profile = evidence?

[Anonymous Coward]

It looks to me as though this was attempted sexual abuse of the paedophiles.

Re: profile = evidence?

[Anonymous Coward]

In actual police sting operations they do not leave to chance that the perp may think the girl is not actually a minor. Quite the opposite, they make sure that the perp confirms he knows the girl is a minor by having her say something like "I'm only 13, I don't want to get in trouble with my parents" to which a true pedo would then try and convince her to meet him anyway.

They don't want people who think they are meeting someone legal but is mistaken, that's a waste of time. They are specifically targeting people who prey on girls they actually know are 13 or less.

Re:profile = evidence?

[Hognoxious]

Sentence? You mean the thing that begins with a capital letter?

Re:profile = evidence?

[severn2j]

You know, that might actually be a safer outlet for these peoples urges.. It might even prevent real children being abused.

Re: profile = evidence?

[BranMan]

| A Saudi woman goes to the USA, is raped there. Goes
| back to Saudi Arabia and is thrown in jail for having been
| raped (had sex outside marriage).

      That's ridiculous. She'd be stoned! or is it set on fire? I can never remember.

Re: profile = evidence?

[Anonymous Coward]

Huhrrr! Thought crime! Thought crime! Thought crime!

The difference between this and thought crime is that one involves thinking about doing it and one involves doing it.

Idiot.

Re:profile = evidence?

[nbauman]

Let's take it to Kickstarter.

Re: profile = evidence?

[nbauman]

"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PROTECT_Act_of_2003"

Holy crap. Take a look at this provision:

"Authorizes fines and/or imprisonment for up to 30 years for U.S. citizens or residents who engage in illicit sexual conduct abroad, with or without the intent of engaging in such sexual misconduct."

WTF? This makes it a felony for a U.S. citizen to engage in "illicit sexual conduct" while out of the country??? How outrageous can a law get?

This law is a prosecutor's dream. If he (or she) doesn't have enough evidence to convict for a crime, it lets them prosecute for the intent.

All our laws these days seem to be written for the prosecutors. It's up to the prosecutor to charge you with a crime that has a penalty of 5 days in jail or 30 years.

One of the guys who got caught in his own trap was New York State governor Eliot Spitzer, who made his career prosecuting prostitution and got caught with an escort himself.

The Spitzer case shows you how arbitrary, unfair and politicized it is. Republican prosecutors going after a Democratic governor decided to make a deal to drop the charges against him if he agreed to resign his office to be replaced by his lieutenant governor that everybody agreed was a nice guy who couldn't handle tough fights with the Republicans. They almost got a Republican governor.

Re: profile = evidence?

[Jane Q. Public]

"The difference between this and thought crime is that one involves thinking about doing it and one involves doing it.

Idiot."

No shit, Sherlock.

The situation *I* was referring to, was making it a crime to possess "artificial depictions" of children as though it were really somehow harming children.

Precisely the difference between thinking about it, and actually doing it.

So take your "idiot" comment and stuff it up your own idiot ass.

The numbers

[i kan reed]

The numbers there are roughly proportional to the number of internet users from each country(just under 1 per million). So... sick-fuckitude crosses all races and cultures.

Re:The numbers

[znanue]

Suggests we could do more to manage the problem of child molestation than just crime and punishment. In that vein, maybe we can drop the disgust and stigma long enough to figure out something that works better?

Re:The numbers

[i kan reed]

Well, no. It's okay to be disgusted with crimes that harm others. Wanting an empirical approach to addressing crime doesn't mean the crime itself is intrinsically more OK.

Re:The numbers

[Anonymous Coward]

While I'm all for these sick bastards being behind bars before they abuse/harass/exploit (another) child, I'm wondering if something like this would actually stand up in court. This isn't like that TV show where they had some bait teenager and a sting operation, there's no real kid here. Granted this robot is special purpose, but I fail to see how this is significantly different than someone trying to flirt/bribe cleverbot.

Does it count as a Turing test if the "offenders" can't tell if it is a real kid or not?

Re:The numbers

[i kan reed]

Well, I don't think anyone involved has been formally indicted, and, if you read Europol's statement regarding it, it seems unlikely anyone will be.

Re:The numbers

[Sarten-X]

What's considered "harm"? To some folks, a 17-year-old hearing the word "penis" is a disgusting crime that should be prosecuted. The way I've seen it most often handled, it's the parents of the child who get to decide whether something's harmful. Usually, the minor has no input on the matter at all.

Almost all law involving minors is based around the ancient notion that people don't start thinking until someone else tells them to. Until that time, the father/owner/king knows best, right?

Re:The numbers

[i kan reed]

Laws about minors revolves around the fact that, by necessity, not all of them are capable of rational consent, and any line used would be arbitrary, so an arbitrary one is used. It's not tyranny to seek limitations on those who would take advantage of naivete.

I mean, it's almost like your arguing against the existence of childhood.

Re:The numbers

[Anonymous Coward]

Creates a rather slippery-slope, though, in that you calling them "sick fucks", given there was no child in this scenario, means your statement is the only act that actually has harmed others.

I assume you think being prosecuted yourself on the basis of your own criteria, wouldn't be particularly desirable. Maybe it's a bit more complex than is suggested on the surface.

Re:The numbers

[qbast]

Would you agree that parents generally know better what is good for 2 year old than the child? If yes, then it is matter of setting minority age right and/or make acquiring legal rights and responsibilities more gradual. Notion that people don't have full capacity for rational thinking right from birth may be ancient, but it also happens to be right.

Re:The numbers

[i kan reed]

Oh wah, a stranger on the internet judged people for taking advantage of a seeming child. How ever will society live this injustice down?!?!?!

Re:The numbers

[TheCarp]

Funny thing is, I have heard the AG of my state on the radio being absolutely chewed out by a parent about the fact that our age of consent is 16 (and no there is no age gap law here either), and all she could say was "Well the law is the law". So that 17 year old would be fair game for real sex here.... just don't take any pictures, or sell them any porn..... but stick your dick in as much as they let you...because that is legal.

> Almost all law involving minors is based around the ancient notion that people
> don't start thinking until someone else tells them

I thought it was based on the idea that they are property sold off at time of marriage and thus having sex with them could potentially ruin the value to prospective future buy....er husbands. Then again, maybe I am just....old fashioned :)

Re:The numbers

[Anonymous Coward]

That's missing the point. The point is that we aren't quite rational about this and this is preventing us from coming up with more constructive ways than what's happening now.

This is quite understandable because as a species it behooves us to protect our young and so all sorts of instincts kick in. But it does mean that most people appear to be unable to drop the hysteria and look for more effective ways than frantic attacking of symptoms, and causing a lot of collateral damage in the process.

Re:The numbers

[i kan reed]

No, I think this is not the place to have yet another extended debate about how wrong neo-liberalism, consumerism, or corporatism are as an approach to economics.

Re:The numbers

[crutchy]

Creates a rather slippery-slope, though, in that you calling them "sick fucks", given there was no child in this scenario, means your statement is the only act that actually has harmed others.

no worse than calling anyone who speaks out against the USA a "terrorist"... and then blowing that person up with a missile launched from a drone

Re:The numbers

[crutchy]

i hate child abuse (including emotional and psychological abuse by ignorant and apathetic parents) but this case is bordering on entrapment

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entrapment

Re:The numbers

[i kan reed]

Humans: not rational. Absolutely a reasonable assertion. We spend more effort on trying to prevent pedophilia than other crimes per incident being wasteful is also a reasonable assertion. That said it's not being hysterical to say the crimes themselves are bad and should be prosecuted. It's just the rule of law.

Re:The numbers

[Anonymous Coward]

And there is the answer. Whenever someone proposes that rational discourse and thinking about solving the problem rather than punishing what's already been done ought to be more effective, someone else comes along and tries to push an agenda by alluding that people trying to have online-sex with 10-year-olds is somehow similar to someone saying "penis" in the presence of a 17-year-old. So no, there's not going to be a rational discussion. Society must protect people from predators. Helping the predators recognize their guilt and overcome their urges is a distant second.

Re:The numbers

[Anonymous Coward]

"Helping the predators recognize their guilt and overcome their urges" IS "protecting people from predators"

Re:The numbers

[cheekyjohnson]

Laws about minors revolves around the fact that, by necessity, not all of them are capable of rational consent

Not all adults are capable of rational consent. In fact, I'd say that most adults aren't anything resembling "rational."

Re:The numbers

[Anonymous Coward]

It won't live it down. The same pattern of assailing the pariah-of-the-hour, the question of whether they are actually guilty of anything or not being an inconvenient distraction, has reliably been repeated over and over for thousands of years. It won't end soon.

On the other hand, if an actual child had been actually harmed, I'd be right with you.

Re:The numbers

[Anonymous Coward]

Not in the dichotomy presented, because that's a dichotomy of intent, not of result.

Re:The numbers

[DiscountBorg(TM)]

This shouldn't even be the least bit surprising if you've spent any time at all looking at the current research in the field, suggesting a combination of both environmental and neurological factors. It's like any other 'variation' in human sexuality, statistically you will find it anywhere given a large enough sample. Yet our solutions are entirely reactive rather than preventative. The solutions the experts propose repeatedly are simply never going to happen. This is a field where people assume getting really angry is the only way to fix things, and stopping to understand the problem and break it down into its components is somehow condoning it. Understanding criminal behavior with prevention in mind is 'hugging a thug' instead of getting tough on crime and we must operate under that false dichotomy.

If we fixed electronics like we treated society's ills, we'd take a sledgehammer to them accompanied by 'die MOFO die!' (a la office space) every time there was a problem. And we'd have a pile of wasted and broken things, and even more problems to deal with as a result... And well, that's what we are seeing, and will continue to see, until we get smart about this problem and start listening to what experts are saying.

A very small start, just the tip of the iceberg:

http://www.salon.com/2013/05/15/our_approach_to_pedophilia_isn%C2%B4t_working/

Re:The numbers

[i kan reed]

Demonstrated willingness to commit a crime=the same kind of person who would actually commit a crime.

If a pickpocket takes a wallet full of fake cash and a tracking device from my back pocket, he still wanted to steal from me. He still had no moral qualms where he should have.

Re:The numbers

[i kan reed]

You're right. Not all adults are, and we do have laws to protect them too. That's not a valid justification.

Re:The numbers

[Sarten-X]

...alluding that people trying to have online-sex with 10-year-olds is somehow similar to someone saying "penis" in the presence of a 17-year-old

I think you found my point there. In some jurisdictions (namely any jurisdiction with a hard-line age of majority set at 18), they aren't just similar, but legally they're exactly the same. A high-school Romeo is, in legal terms, just as much a predator as anyone found by this bot, and I think that's wrong.

I worry that in the rush to "protect people from predators", we'll forget to check first whether the "predators" are actually dangerous.

Re:The numbers

[i kan reed]

Boiling down your core argument: Dumb people hold back democracy. It's undeniable, but none of the solutions to that problem are going to take either.

Re:The numbers

[Sarten-X]

I mean, it's almost like your arguing against the existence of childhood.

I argue against the existence of a magical moment that ends childhood, after which any interaction across that boundary is cause for panic.

Re:The numbers

[ZombieBraintrust]

Suggests we could do more to manage the problem of child molestation than just crime and punishment. In that vein, maybe we can drop the disgust and stigma long enough to figure out something that works better?

Impossible to drop disgust and stigma. Your better off asking that the sun not rise in the east. If parents can't get justice(execution or imprisonment) through judicial system your going to have lynchings and mob justice.

Re:The numbers

[Anonymous Coward]

Suggests we could do more to manage the problem of child molestation than just crime and punishment. In that vein, maybe we can drop the disgust and stigma long enough to figure out something that works better?

You mean like giving them a life-like computer animation to play with, rather having them harm actual children? Just a thought.

Re:The numbers

[Anonymous Coward]

That said it's not being hysterical to say the crimes themselves are bad and should be prosecuted. It's just the rule of law.

Not true. To say: "the actions are illegal and should be prosecuted", would be just rule of law. Saying "the crimes themselves are bad" is politics and moralizing. Whether it counts as hysteria or not depends on the amount of moralizing, and how loudly one speaks.

Re:The numbers

[DiscountBorg(TM)]

Yes. I think two researchers summarized the problem well.. the 'Dunning-Kruger' effect.

Re:The numbers

[Anonymous Coward]

No, that was not your point. Your point was to question the harm. You even put it in quotes. And in your response you did it again: "check first whether the 'predators' are actually dangerous." All this in response to a story about grown-ups trying to have online-sex with 10-year-olds. Of course these people are dangerous.

story: grown-ups try to have online-sex with 10-year-olds.
i kan reed: sick-fuckitude crosses all races and cultures
znanue: drop the disgust and stigma long enough to figure out something that works better [than the current way of dealing with pedophiles]
i kan reed: It's okay to be disgusted with crimes that harm others.
you: What's considered "harm"?

Re:The numbers

[Archangel Michael]

Humans are both "not rational" and "highly rational" often minutes apart from each other. The "not rational" side is almost always emotionally tied "reaction" (fear, happiness, horny) and tied to uncontrolled impulses. The rational side is much more cerebral and happens once a person has gained a good grasp of their emotions.

Some people let their lives be ruled by their emotions, without any forethought into anything "I want _________" and then they rationalize any reason why later. And by rationalize, I have seen humans rationalize some really horrific acts because it gets the results they are looking for.

People who live by acting on their emotions scare the crap out of me.

Re:The numbers

[Anonymous Coward]

I like my buddies mom's idea. Put the offender in the deep end of an empty pool, the victims families on the steps with baseball bats. Tell them both the same thing, if the offender can get up the stairs and out of the pool, they are free. My little addition is to record and televise it. Humans can learn from the mistakes of others.

Re:The numbers

[Anonymous Coward]

The logic is flawed. This is how we end up in a police state. There is no justification for taking away the rights of the masses for the protection of a few.

Re:The numbers

[i kan reed]

Semantics. Generally things are illegal because they cause harm, which is morally objectionable. I don't want to debate the exceptions(there are plenty) because modern psychology understands abuse of minors to be very damaging, therefor judgement is reasonable.

Re:The numbers

[CanHasDIY]

...alluding that people trying to have online-sex with 10-year-olds is somehow similar to someone saying "penis" in the presence of a 17-year-old

I think you found my point there. In some jurisdictions (namely any jurisdiction with a hard-line age of majority set at 18), they aren't just similar, but legally they're exactly the same. A high-school Romeo is, in legal terms, just as much a predator as anyone found by this bot, and I think that's wrong.

I worry that in the rush to "protect people from predators", we'll forget to check first whether the "predators" are actually dangerous.

Yea, this.

Saying, "oh, but we're protecting children!" probably doesn't offer a lot of comfort to people such as an associate of mine, who was, at the age of 18, convicted of child molestation after his 17 year old girlfriend's parents called the police on him, and is now a registered sex offender for the rest of his life.

Re:The numbers

[i kan reed]

You're arguing for the rights of pedophiles to abuse minors against the protection of children. How can you possibly think that's a valid interpretation of basic human rights?

Re:The numbers

[Archangel Michael]

It isn't entrapment. No solicitation from the "girl" of any sort, implied or explicit. Is it entrapment to leave a car unlocked in a parking lot with a package in it at Christmas time and wait for someone to take it?

This kind of logic leads to "blame the victim" mentality. "She was asking for it, where that short skirt".

Please understand what entrapment is. It includes ENTICING someone to commit a crime they normally wouldn't commit. Normal people would NOT steal a package out of a car, and NORMAL people won't solicit sexual acts to or from a ten year old.

Re:The numbers

[i kan reed]

Sorry. There's a difference between me not necessarily being wise about my sexual indiscretions, and a 5 year old having no idea what's going on.

There is such a thing as childhood. This shouldn't be a point of debate. At all.

Re:The numbers

[Anonymous Coward]

So religious people shouldn't be allowed to reproduce?

Re:The numbers

[Anonymous Coward]

Your argument is weak. Here's an analogy.

Some adults are not mentally capable of thinking, therefore, i'm enacting a law that anyone that takes advantage of an adult will face life imprisonment and permanently be put on a public "sex offender" list, which won't do much with a 25 year sentence taking most of their life anyway. We're making these rules up because we need to draw an arbitrary line in the sand that could destroy people's lives.

If people would accept that some adults have sexual urges for young children, and try to manage, rather than vilify, isolate and humiliate, you'd have a much better chance at dealing with this issue. Your "torch and pitchfork" mentality should have died long ago, but society is still unjust, cruel and barbaric when it wants to be.

For the record, I've always preferred women older then me (even my wife), so i'm really commenting on what a "just" society would do. I am VERY happy to see several highly rated comments that reflect something other than "torch and pitchforks"...

Re:The numbers

[cheekyjohnson]

Not all adults are

I'd argue that most adults aren't.

and we do have laws to protect them too.

What protects normal people are laws against rape.

That's not a valid justification.

I don't think something should be banned merely because it could be abused, or because there's a potential for harm. People make mistakes. People do things they later regret. Deal with it.

Re:The numbers

[Anonymous Coward]

Whatever that moment is for an individual, grown-ups and 10-year-olds are on different sides of it. You're arguing that there exists a gray area even though the topic of discussion is nowhere near it.

Re:The numbers

[Anonymous Coward]

well, apparently, u kant reed, wickless...

Re:The numbers

[Sarten-X]

I'm arguing that there is a grey area that must be recognized before we just assume it's okay to be "disgusted by crimes that harm others". How about we just be disgusted by harming others, regardless of whether it's a crime or not? Or how about we acknowledge the grey area with a matching grey area of punishment, letting our disgust scale according to how much actual harm was done?

Re:The numbers

[dissy]

If you wish to pay out of your own pocket to fund the creation, validation, and application of a test that can be applied to each child individually in order to determine the "real" line for that child, that gesture will no doubt make many people and groups very happy!

Short of that however, unfortunately not many other people or groups wish to pay what it would cost.

Cheaper measures mean less reliable results with more noise. That's why we have the imaginary line of your Xth birthday. It's as cheap as a validated ID card (which most places is govt/state issued anyways, so already an expected and required cost)

No one, including the lawmakers, are claiming or believe a person magically changes from a child to an adult at midnight of the magic day, if that is what you meant.
It's just the best you get when no effort or money is being allocated for a better way.

Plus, looking at the percentage of the population that has kids, I'd imagine the majority of that majority* actually have had the thought occur that they could use the existing system as a form of "legal club" against other adults whom do anything to them or their child that they dislike.
I doubt that group would want to change the existing system to anything better, as it removes a powerful weapon from their hands.

* I'm assuming the child-having percentage of our population is larger than the childless percentage, but admit I don't actually know. Apologies if that is incorrect.

Re:The numbers

[Anonymous Coward]

well, there you go again...

you ASSUME any/all sexual behavior of virtually any sort involving 'minors', is ABSOLUTELY HARMFUL without proving any harm...

that is absurd on so many levels as to be retarded...
but that is EXACTLY the mindset we are highlighting as non-thinking, knee-jerk reactionism rather than rational thought...
that would be you...
but -gosh- ain't you just a savior of children above all others...

Re:The numbers

[ShanghaiBill]

Funny thing is, I have heard the AG of my state on the radio being absolutely chewed out by a parent about the fact that our age of consent is 16

The parent was an idiot. AGs enforce the law, they don't make them. The parent's complaints should have been addressed to the legislature.

and all she could say was "Well the law is the law".

For an AG, that is the appropriate response.

Re:The numbers

[Sarten-X]

...and you lost it again.

Before we're "disgusted with crimes that harm others", we should realize that different amounts of harm are lumped into the same criminal label. The disgust and stigma applies its heavy weight to all cases, not just the most heinous. In the name of "thinking of the children", we push for ever-tougher laws

I know someone who has to explain a "sex offender" label every time he applies to a job, because his high-school sweetheart's parents didn't like him. They even had him arrested and charged without their daughter's knowledge. Does he have "sick-fuckitude" for not breaking off a relationship during the three months they were on different sides of an arbitrary boundary? That's what disgusts me: that the panic about the crime can sometimes cause more harm than the crime itself. It's a treacherous domain indeed.

Re:The numbers

[rmstar]

I'm arguing that there is a grey area that must be recognized before we just assume it's okay to be "disgusted by crimes that harm others". [...] how about we acknowledge the grey area with a matching grey area of punishment, letting our disgust scale according to how much actual harm was done?

The laws in most civilized countries reflect that to some degree. There is necessarily a degree of arbitrarieness, but laws tend to be different for kids less than 16, for kids between 16 and 18, and for those adults 18 and over. And the penal code in those countries reflects that.

Re:The numbers

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem here is that "guilt by analogy" is pretty dangerous as a concept.

For instance, let's say one rents the movie "Fast Times at Ridgemont High", hearing that Sean Penn was quite funny in it (and he was)... but, wait, Jennifer Jason Leigh's character is clearly stated to be a Sophomore (hence, 14-15 years of age), and is present in multiple scenes in which she is nude.

Let's say you then rent it again another time. Are you then engaging in seeking out child porn? Can we infer from your rental you are likely to go out and actively sexually victimize an actual minor?

The problem with analogies is some are more analogous than others. And it seems like a method fraught with risks of unfairly persecuting people based on what some, not all, people would consider "the same".

Re:The numbers

[Teun]

A notion that these predators were dangerous was in this experiment made clear, these guys were clearly prepared to overstep the moral and legal lines drawn to protect minors.

The fact they took an artificial bait is not relevant, they were convinced this was a real child and would behave similar if they met your or my daughter.

Re:The numbers

[mrspoonsi]

And even then, you have cases where the FBI set up a terrorist sting, even supply the plans and the weapons, the bad guys are rounded up and it goes to court.

Re:The numbers

[Anonymous Coward]

Look, maybe you or your friend wants to fuck an almost legal girl, but that's not the topic here. The topic is grown-ups trying to have online-sex with 10-year-olds. Thas doesn't fit into any reasonable gray area. If you can not acknowledge that that is indeed despicable and, at least if done to an actual child, harmful and illegal, you're part of the problem. Besides, if you're "disgusted by harming others, regardless of whether it's a crime or not" then you're clearly also "disgusted by crimes that harm others", because the latter is less inclusive.

Re:The numbers

[TheCarp]

Fully agree on both points, that and, I personally feel the law is about right. If your kid is 16 and you haven't prepared them enough to have sex, when biology has their hormones raging as young as 12, you fucking failed.

I mean, its not like we are talking about paedophiles here, 16 is definitely physically pretty adult, if not mentally.... and many adults who date 16 year olds (at least according to the one practicing psychologist I have amongst my circle of friends) are not mentally much more advanced than 16 year olds anyway....in fact, the one such relationship I saw first hand ended when the girl was about 20 and decided she was far too mature for her then 32+ year old companion

Re:The numbers

[i kan reed]

Ok, I get it, you think you're capable of rational logic, but others aren't. Aren't we special.

Re:The numbers

[cheekyjohnson]

It's not that they're not capable of it; it's that I believe them to be shortsighted and mostly irrational. I said nothing about myself.

Aren't we special.

I think even an idiot could make such an observation. I may be an idiot in some people's minds; who knows?

Re:The numbers

[Anonymous Coward]

See, it's exactly as I wrote it: You have an agenda and you're trying to latch onto a different discussion to push your agenda. The question was why we can't have a rational discussion about how society could "manage the problem of child molestation than just crime and punishment". And you immediately derailed that discussion by trying to change the topic from "how to deal with child molestation" to "fucking an almost legal teen should be sort-of OK." And that's why the hysteria will always win. Every attempt to deal with the problem on a more rational level makes people like you appear, who are not interested in dealing with the problem except to have their own little niche rehabilitated.

Re:The numbers

[nbauman]

During the debate over the Communications Decency Act, one of the uptight lobbyists said that a minor seeing a nude picture would be harmful per se. Therefore, we have to keep nudity off the Internet, where children could see it.

So if Sister Wendy Beckett, the British nun, were to continue her art classes online, she would have broken the law.

Fortunately, the stupid side lost this one, for a change.

Re:The numbers

[cheekyjohnson]

Thas doesn't fit into any reasonable gray area.

That seems rather subjective.

you're part of the problem.

The almost nonexistent problem, you mean? Rapists aren't hiding behind every corner, you know.

Re:The numbers

[Anonymous Coward]

In this situation, the character in question did not offer anything that the perpetrators did not solicit themselves.

captcha: hedonist

Re:The numbers

[Joining Yet Again]

Rape and corporatism are two different forms of the creed of exploitation.

Re:The numbers

[cheekyjohnson]

It's just the best you get when no effort or money is being allocated for a better way.

But I think there is a better way: Do nothing. We'd save money by not putting as many innocent people in prison, at least.

Re:The numbers

[ultranova]

It's okay to be disgusted with crimes that harm others.

The problem is the disgust with pedophilia tends to reach levels where it actually hinders doing anything effective to stop it, as such action often requires carefully thought-out measures, as well as threatens harm to innocents in the tradition of witch hunts.

There's another, related effect: outrage is addictive, so it's easy to get stuck on needing targets to hate, in the exact same way a crackhead needs crack but with the caveat that this crack is made from human blood and tears. That has a personal and social cost, and is behind many of the more irrational historical atrocities and current politics. It's unwise to feed that kind of habit, no matter how vile and deserving a target might be.

Re:The numbers

[nbauman]

You're arguing for the rights of pedophiles to abuse minors against the protection of children. How can you possibly think that's a valid interpretation of basic human rights?

I would argue for the rights of 18-year-old pedophiles to abuse consenting 17-year-old minors against the protection of children.

I think 17- and 18-year olds have a basic human right to have consentual sex any way they want.

Re:The numbers

[Anonymous Coward]

... and we do have laws to protect them too.

I think the point was that not all adults are protected by said laws, as the laws often recognise people as rational when they are distinctly irrational. Try living with someone who has a severe bipolar disorder sometime - they can be absolutely irrational and yet not recognised as such.

This comes from the child of one of those people who set fire to a rental property in order to move out of it, and repeatedly beat herself up to frame her ex-husband for assault.

Re:The numbers

[brantondaveperson]

I don't think that's what Entrapment really means. Entrapment covers the case where the accused wouldn't have committed the offences if it weren't for the actions of the officers and/or agents of the officers. I don't think that actually applies here.

Now the article isn't all that clear, but I infer from the language it used that the computer-generated girl logged onto chatrooms and was effectively propositioned by large numbers of men. We'd have to see the transcripts to know - and I for one have no desire to see them - but on the face of it I don't believe it's entrapment.

If an undercover cop dresses up as a dealer and hangs around on corners, then it's not entrapment to arrest people who try to buy drugs from them. And likewise, if the cops send kids into stores to buy alcohol, it's not entrapment either. I'm not suggesting that either of those cases represent effective law enforcement, and I don't believe either of them do, but I don't think that they're technically entrapment either.

Re:The numbers

[MozeeToby]

Yes this. There is mounting evidence that attraction to children has it's roots in malformation and/or damage to the human brain. For instance, if someone experiences a dramatic head injury as a child they are much more likely to be attracted to children in that age range later in life. Looking at pedophilia in a merely legal light does not expose even half of the full picture.

Re:The numbers

[Anonymous Coward]

They are if you set the bar for defining 'rapist' low enough. Which we seem to be doing pretty well.

Re:The numbers

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, um, I view "some adults have sexual urges for young children" the same way as I view "Some adults like to rape people" or "some adults enjoy cutting up other people and eating them". I don't accept it, I find this whole relativistic "but, but, they're people too" to be simpleminded, and some people are just plain broken.
In other words, They're dangerous to society as a whole and should simply be eliminated.

Re:The numbers

[DocSavage64109]

What do you do when the offender grabs a bat and wins the brawl? Do you really want the victim's families to be beaten with a bat?

Re:The numbers

[Jane Q. Public]

"It's as cheap as a validated ID card (which most places is govt/state issued anyways, so already an expected and required cost)"

I don't think there is a State in the country that requires presenting a State ID before having sex.

It is -- by necessity -- based on the "reasonable person" concept. Would a reasonable person believe that this person was of age?

Of course, ID is one way to find out. But it isn't the only one, or even the only "reasonable" kind of evidence.

Re:The numbers

[Joining Yet Again]

Perhaps we should execute hysterical parents of abuse victims?

Re:The numbers

[dissy]

That only sounds arguably better at face value, and perhaps only balancing out the original+actual problem. I'm not sure either option could claim to be the best one.

I agree that too many people have been prosecuted under such laws after being twisted for situations they were never intended for, and I agree that really needs to stop.

I also see the majority of the problem being "at home" as well which seems to be mostly ignored, which is very wrong too.
I even seem to remember some reports and studies out there claiming a child is much more likely to be abused (sexually or otherwise) by a family member or other trusted individual.
It may just be a reporting of it type of issue, but even so it seems that is not addressed nearly enough.

The remaining cases however I don't think should be completely ignored. Granted, at least in the US we've seem to gone too far the other direction, and I don't claim to have any answers or better solutions, but I'm convinced there are.

At least in this particular case, in the way presented in the summary and this one article, this isn't that bad of a solution to a small part of the problem.
Used as stated, there isn't much room to abuse it, and leaves pretty much no question about the people it is catching.

Of course it can be twisted into something that can be abused. But if the fake child being simulated here actually is just a profile online and initiates nothing, it's pretty open and shut.

Anyone initiating a sexual situation with a 10 year old without provocation is someone I wouldn't want to have any opportunity to be around real children.
They clearly would sexually abuse real children, because they have proven that's exactly what they would do in that situation, because they were in that situation and did exactly that.

I would even argue that, used in the current form, this would even be an improvement for police to directly use. Whatever time and money they are spending on real police to pretend to be a child online is saved with the computer doing that, and those cops time can be better spent elsewhere now.
In fact my only reason for not encouraging exactly that, is that the police don't have the best track record when it comes to not abusing things given to them. The cynic in me pretty much expects someone to find a way.

But compared with what is currently being done, and including the potential abuses this system could still be used for, it's still a net gain in my opinion.
I would easily choose slightly less abuse over the current lots of abuse, and choose never initiating conversation software over the current real humans doing it that just may.

Re:The numbers

[cheekyjohnson]

That only sounds arguably better at face value

It sounds better to me overall, because freedom is my prime concern, not safety.

They clearly would sexually abuse real children

Talking to someone and actually abusing them are two different things.

because they were in that situation and did exactly that.

They weren't and didn't.

Re:The numbers

[s.petry]

You should have chosen a term other than "penal code" when discussing minors and sex law....

Re:The numbers

[Anonymous Coward]

>figure out something that works better? ... making computer-generated girls for them to chat with instead of real girls seems like a start.

Re:The numbers

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes! It will teach future victim-families to train properly! School of hard knocks was good enough for me as a kid, it oughta be good enough for you young whippersnappers! Trial by motherfucking combat! The only reason to ever break the cycle of violence is so we can inject more violence!

Re:The numbers

[Anarchduke]

Funny, I've been calling the problem of dumb people in democracy the palin effect.

Re:The numbers

[NotSanguine]

Sorry. There's a difference between me not necessarily being wise about my sexual indiscretions, and a 5 year old having no idea what's going on.

There is such a thing as childhood. This shouldn't be a point of debate. At all.

Yes. There is such a thing. In fact, there are quite a few people who act like children their whole lives. This issue is so emotionally charged for you, that you aren't able to step back and understand the point these other folks are trying to get across.

I agree that those who are emotionally and intellectually unable to give informed consent (regardless of age, but children are the largest group that fits that description) need to be protected from those who would take advantage of such people. It is certainly *possible* (perhaps even likely) that someone incapable of consenting to sexual activity could be harmed by it.

I also agree that it would be much too onerous on our legal system to take each case and evaluate all those involved to determine whether or not consent is possible. As such, arbitrary age limits are applied, just as we do WRT driving and purchasing alcohol or tobacco. However, I suspect that *most* of us would agree that the overwhelming majority of pre-pubescent kids are generally too immature emotionally and intellectually to give consent. This is the issue addressed by TFA. Whether using an AI to entrap folks is appropriate is a difficult question.

AFAICT, the points that many folks who are up in arms about this are trying to make are valid as well.
1. Viewing fictional depictions, reading or talking about sexual contact with those unable to consent should be protected expression. Ideas should not be criminalized.
2. Teenagers have sex with each other all the time. And do other things like send each other explicit photos and videos of themselves. Criminally prosecuting teenagers for doing what teenagers do, and them branding them as predators for the rest of their lives is both cruel and counterproductive.

Can you get your head around those concepts? Feel free to disagree, but if you are going to disagree, please provide some reasoned arguments. And "herp derp, think of the children" or "herp derp, there is such a thing as childhood you know" don't qualify, IMHO.

Screw it. I'm going to blow my mods on this thread for this. Hopefully not posting as AC will give you more incentive to respond intelligently.

Re:The numbers

[s.petry]

You have seen all of the chat logs and pertinent data to ensure that there was no entrapment?

Like the person you responded to, I find the concept of sex with children to be revolting. That said, they claim her profile was of a 10 year old. The picture looks a bit younger than 10 in my opinion, but we know from the Treyvon Martin case that they don't always show reality. Perhaps this picture was only somewhere in the profile, and not the main picture. What if the profile picture was a scantily dressed 18 year old? What if the police posing as the kid started offering sex? Offered to pose naked? I believe that a reasonable person seeing the picture they gave in the article would leave the site. With a different picture I find it easy for someone to convince themselves that the listed age was a mistake.

On the surface I agree with them arresting the alleged criminals. That said, I have seen enough to make me distrust what media and certain agencies release as automatically true. There is no evidence given for or against entrapment, so it should not be dismissed without facts.

Re:The numbers

[Anonymous Coward]

So, what do we do now that you've demonstrated yourself dangerous to society as a whole with your euthanizing, guilty-by-definition thought process?

You're arguing for "pre-crime" without even the advantage of statistical evidence a crime is going to happen. Maybe you can't differentiate between "I like money" and "I'll do absolutely anything for money", or between urges and rapes, but most rational people can differentiate the moral distinction between thoughts and actions.

Unless you've actually done something wrong, you are innocent. You aren't guilty for mere thoughts, or genetic predispositions. These do not entitle people to kill you because they feel like it. This isn't, fortunately, 1930's Germany.

Re:The numbers

[phantomfive]

You don't understand entrapment. To get a feel for entrapment, consider these two examples:

If a policeman holds a gun to your head and tells you to buy drugs or you will die, THAT is entrapment.

If a Vegas undercover woman dressed in a skimpy dress, talks to you, dances with you, brings you back to her room, begins to undress you then asks for $100 to keep going, the police come in and arrest you, that is NOT entrapment.

The police are legally allowed to lie, manipulate, and trick you. That is part of why you shouldn't talk to police.

Re:The numbers

[dissy]

I don't think there is a State in the country that requires presenting a State ID before having sex.

Neither do I. I simply said that with our current system of "You are legally an adult at midnight of your Xth birthday" it is very simple and straight forward to verify and confirm this.
The ID will say you are over X years old, and lack of ID (or an ID that says otherwise) means you are not over X years old.

That is the entire basis why the "your Xth birthday" is simple and cheap, compared to what the GP claimed was better (individually judging each individual as competent as an adult, at the time they actually are)

It is -- by necessity -- based on the "reasonable person" concept. Would a reasonable person believe that this person was of age?

If we were to switch to a per child based metric, as the GP stated should be the requirement, how would the reasonable person test even work?
If legal adulthood was no longer based on age, but instead was based on a certificate you got after being deemed fit to handle adult responsibility, what kind of reasonable person test would even work except "I need to see your adult certificate please" ?

I would assume a reasonable person would think a 10 year old is not a sexual object, however under the GPs system that 10 year old just might have been granted a "You are an adult legally" certificate. (In this case I would be thinking that person is a sick fuck, despite they are having sex with a legal adult)

I would also assume a reasonable person would think a 40 year old is able to handle sex, but again under the GPs system that 40 year old might not have got their "You are an adult" certificate, and thus it would be criminal to have sex with them.
That's a lot of reasonable people in prison for child molestation!

With the current standard of "midnight of your 18th birthday", it's very simple to apply the reasonable person test. Do they look 10? If so, you fail, plz go to jail. Do they look 40? Easy enough, get your unz on.

I still stand by my statement that using Xth birthday is simpler, easier, and more efficient than judging adulthood on a person by person basis, even if it is less accurate and with a higher chance of being incorrect.

While I dislike hearing of the "18 year old arrested on his birthday because of 17 year 11 month 15 day old girlfriend" stories, nor feel passing out in a park and pissing your pants warrants being on the sexual offenders list, these are more problems with abuse of existing laws for purposes they were not intended, and not problems with the spirit of the original laws.
Specific to this case, I am perfectly OK with any law saying its illegal for an adult to have sex with a 10 year old. Despite abuses of such laws, the laws themselves are still a good idea (IMNSHO)

Short version:
I disagree we should stop prosecuting all sexual abuse cases like the GP said.
I also disagree it would be simpler to individually judge adult capability on a per-person basis instead of using a simple "Your Xth birthday" metric as the GP said (While also not saying the Xth birthday method is more accurate.)
I also feel your argument only reenforces mine, in that the reasonable person test would be useless if we change to judging adulthood by a metric that one couldn't readily and easily prove.

Re:The numbers

[TapeCutter]

Almost all law involving minors is based around the ancient notion that people don't start thinking until someone else tells them to. Until that time, the father/owner/king knows best, right?

Yep, that's right. Except the word is "teach" not "tell". Methods of teaching have improved enormously in the last century or two, for example Tomas Edison's father disciplined him with a public beating in the town square. It was not an uncommon punishment for misbehaving children. I grew up in the 60's, a time when both teachers and parents would regularly punish children with a cane or a strap.

I don't agree with either "teaching method" but I still love my dad dearly. Even as a child I knew he did not enjoy disciplining his kids with the cane, however he believed with all his heart he was doing the "right thing". It was a reflection of how he was raised (near Manchester UK, during WW2), "anything that doesn't kill you will make you stronger".

The thought of abandoning Tomas to the law of the jungle would horrify Edison's father, When you have kids of your own you'll understand that in most cases it has nothing to do with "ownership" and everything to do with wanting the best future possible for your child. The rock spiders crawling all over the honey pot in TFA did not go there with best interests of the "child" in mind, they went there for sexual-gratification.

OTOH, once a child hits puberty then morality and intent becomes very fuzzy which is why arbitrary post-pubescent age limits never really work as advertised. Such laws are intended for use by the parents and guardians as a legal weapon against predators, but are often used against a slightly older boyfriend the parents simply think is "not good enough".

Re:The numbers

[Aryden]

You're also assuming that everyone that contacted this "Sweetie" would also drag a child into an alley and molest them. Which may not and probably isn't the case given the propensity of people to do things and act differently on the net than they would in reality. For all we know, 19000 of the 20000 people knew it was a piece of software and wanted to see what it could do.

Re:The numbers

[dissy]

It sounds better to me overall, because freedom is my prime concern, not safety.

Then shouldn't one factor in the 10 year old girls freedom to not have undesired sex forced upon her? How is the girl free if she has no option but to submit to sex she never claimed to have wanted?

Talking to someone and actually abusing them are two different things.

Exactly. Adult people showing up to the "girls" posted address, and sending pictures of their penis to without saying in advance thats what the picture is, is very far from "talking"

Perhaps you're thinking of other unrelated situations where child abuse laws were themselves being abused?

They weren't and didn't.

As it turns out they weren't, but they didn't know that at first.
At first, they fully thought they WERE in that situation, and proceeded to try having sex with her.

I see little difference in showing up at the profile address of a bot or cop that you thought was a 10 year old girl, and showing up at the profile address of a 10 year old girl.

In both cases they thought they would be having sex with a 10 year old girl.

There are also only a small number of situations, mainly where the adult chances their mind and doesn't want to do so in the end, that would factor in.
If their intent is to have sex with a 10 year old, they clearly have intentions to have sex with a 10 year old.
It doesn't matter if the reason they were prevented from doing so was that the girl wasn't real, or they got in a car accident on the way over, or what have you.

This bot did not reach out to anyone. The entire conversation was initiated by the adult, it was escalated to sex by the adult, and it was the adult that pursued the sex.

Now if the police see a chat transcript where the adult finally asks the girls age, she says 10, and the adult replies "uhhh, seriously? Yea sorry that's not the age difference I was looking for. Bye" and then proceed to make arrests and press charges, THEN I will grant you the adults freedom was infringed.

But that wouldn't be the case at hand. So to me the freedom of the child outweighs the adults freedom to fuck a 10 year old.

Re:The numbers

[Anonymous Coward]

The OP is a bit "generalistic" but the reality is that until someone commits one of those acts, unless there is mandatory psychological testing across society (yeah that would go down well), there is going to not be a way to get these people totally off the streets. Hell I'd love to get them off the streets, but when you go down that avenue, where do you draw the line? major crime, sociopath, self centered asshole, obliviousness, cannot drive for shit?

That being said, some people may know that they are "broken" and know and acknowledge that their urges are wrong and do everything in their willpower to not give in to them. Some of these individuals do well in controlling their urges and society never knows about them. Others may honestly try to control the urges but ultimately fail in their efforts to hold out on those urges and they do something which leads to a personal disaster for someone else. Others may just have a blatant disregard for other people and happily indulge in their personal preferences/urges with blatant disregard for the impact on others. The latter two situations are the defining points we have to wait for before we deal with people and the consequences of their actions.

Although I think what they are dangling the virtual bait out to catch is a disgusting thing and needs to be stamped out. It may well be that some people may only be in the first category and are mildly curious about these desires and if they were ever faced with someone physically being in front of them, would never ever consider crossing the line anywhere near as willingly as others would in the same circumstance. So it's great in the fact that it takes some nasty individuals out of society, but there will be some collateral which although good in a way, kind of makes criminals out of people whom would otherwise never ever consider doing such an action.

p.s. I don't condone the behaviour in any way, I'm just having a go at playing devils advocate here.

Re:The numbers

[Jane Q. Public]

"I would also assume a reasonable person would think a 40 year old is able to handle sex, but again under the GPs system that 40 year old might not have got their "You are an adult" certificate, and thus it would be criminal to have sex with them. That's a lot of reasonable people in prison for child molestation!"

More on this below. But I wanted to get this out of the way first:

"With the current standard of "midnight of your 18th birthday", it's very simple to apply the reasonable person test."

It's not as black and white as you make it out to be. It's only a "current standard" where you live. In the U.S., not all states have 18 as the age of consent. In at least one state in my local "group" of states, the age of consent is 16, and not all 16-year-olds have driver's licenses.

In a state next to that, the age of consent is 18. So it would be very easy for someone to cross the border into another town, forget where they are, and commit statutory rape, when what they did would be perfectly legal 5 miles away.

Also, in some states "age of consent" is not absolute: there are conditions placed on it.

I am not sure what the age of consent is in all states. I think some might still have an age of consent lower than 16. I do know that not very many years ago, in a couple of Southern states the age of consent was 12. I think that's changed, but what did it change to? 14? 15? I have no idea.

But back to the main topic:

Your objections to an "adult test" are exactly the same objections many people have to a "firearms proficiency test" in order to get a concealed weapons permit. Who decides what is competent or proficient? The State? If so, is their decision objective or politically motivated? Who is to say the standard won't change over time, or why?

Etc.

The whole point is: if you want a nanny state, please go elsewhere. That's not the kind of country America was ever intended to be, and most of us don't want it.

Re:The numbers

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm a bit surprised here. Where I am (Australia) there is that arbitrary boundary of 17/18, however there is a bit of leniency when the individuals involved are within a certain age gap. I don't remember the specific range of ages, but if the younger of the two is sixteen or above (i think) and the older is no more than two or maybe three years older, then there is a legal grey area where sexual interaction between the two is permitted.

That being said, photos and videos for under 18's are still a nono and is considered paedo material, regardless of if it is an individual sending pictures of themselves. So a 17y/o can be done for distributing kiddy material for sending a snapchat photo of her own boobs to her long term boyfriend. There have been some articles in papers about teenagers getting in trouble for this very thing recently but I think everyone is too damn afraid of rocking the boat for anything to ever change for the better from a criminal act to maybe a misdemeanor (from the perspective of under-age people caught up in this, not from the perspective of dirty old bastards looking for under-age poon).

Re:The numbers

[cheekyjohnson]

I seriously don't think the 'for the children' crowd cares about such things.

Re:The numbers

[dissy]

I'm guessing (hoping) there is a miscommunication here, since you literally restated my original point as correct, and are implying I am stating what the GP I first replied to said when I was arguing against him.

The whole point is: if you want a nanny state, please go elsewhere. That's not the kind of country America was ever intended to be, and most of us don't want it.

So if you do agree with the original poster and think I am wrong, you agree with him that a 30-40 year old should have the right to have sex with a 10 or younger year old... and that is "America"

Really?

The rest of your post basically boils down to, using age to determine if a person is ready to handle sex is bad (you argued against me saying it's not bad twice now)

Using age, yes there are areas where it's hard to tell, but there are MORE areas where it is not.

Let's use some numbers.
A 10 year old girl, or younger, is very clearly going to look "young"
A 30 year old girl, or older, is very clearly going to look "adult"

In those cases, it is very simple to determine age and if it's a good idea to have sex with them.
No, that doesn't address people between 15-20 who could look either way, but it addresses some.
It certainly addresses more than zero, as the original poster wants, which I repeatedly objected to.

You are arguing a person MUST get a certificate from the government that deems them an adult, and this certificate can not be based on age.
(That is the exact argument the original poster made, and I argued against to him and to you)

Again, I quote

The whole point is: if you want a nanny state, please go elsewhere. That's not the kind of country America was ever intended to be, and most of us don't want it.

and

Your objections to an "adult test" are exactly the same objections many people have to a "firearms proficiency test" in order to get a concealed weapons permit. Who decides what is competent or proficient? The State?

That isn't my objection. I argued against that very thing three times now against two people.
I pointed out the state is clearly NOT qualified to determine sexual maturity, and that is exactly why they do not do so and set an arbitrary line of "Xth birthday"
Only the original poster (and now you) are saying I am wrong, the state IS qualified and MUST issue certificates on a per-individual basis because that is the only method to be factually correct.

So to answer your question, who decides who/what is competent or proficient?
You are, since I claimed the state can't possibly do this, which is why they use the current system of age that clearly doesn't reflect if a person is able to handle adult situations like sex or not.

Re:The numbers

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not that they're not capable of it; it's that I believe them to be shortsighted and mostly irrational. I said nothing about myself.

Capability alone is sufficient in this case. If adults capable of rational thought choose not to exercise it (or even deliberately choose to impair it, i.e. getting drunk*) that is their decision and therefore their problem. Society doesn't need to protect people who deliberately choose to make irrational decisions, only those who are incapable of doing so.

*Note: I am not encouraging people to exploit drunk people for sex, merely saying that once you willingly choose to remove your capability to make rational decisions, whatever follows is at least partly your responsibility. Hence why drunk drivers are prosecuted for their actions.

Re:The numbers

[Anonymous Coward]

People like you are the reason why no sane person will ever try to find a better way of dealing with the edge cases of the law. A reasonable discussion is impossible when it is derailed by people who try to turn a discussion about grown-ups trying to have online-sex with 10-year-olds into a discussion about personal freedom. You are proof-positive that there are people out there who are inaccessible to rational discourse.

Re:The numbers

[JesseMcDonald]

Would you agree that parents generally know better what is good for 2 year old than the child?

I don't know about where you live, but around here we don't ration authority over people's lives on the basis of who is most likely to know what's good for them. We let people choose what they think is best for themselves.

The real standard is whether a person takes responsibility for the consequences his or her choices have on others. Two-year-olds don't take responsibility for hardly anything, but it is certainly possible to reach that point well before you're 18, or 16, or even 14. At any age, your freedom should correlate with your willingness to accept responsibility.

Of course, for the topic under discussion the effects on others are minimal; ergo, so is the level of responsibility required. Any attempt to limit relationships between individuals of different ages should take place through social channels, not legal ones. If the contact is truly non-consensual (by adult standards) then treat it as such; otherwise the law has no place here.

Re:The numbers

[Anonymous Coward]

And it's good to know you have the full story - not just what your friend said.

Before you say you are certain you know the whole story, just re-read your words! Maybe it's as simple as you make out .. but ... do you really think so? Really?

Re:The numbers

[cheekyjohnson]

Capability alone is sufficient in this case.

Everyone is capable of rational thought.

Re:The numbers

[cheekyjohnson]

A reasonable discussion is impossible when it is derailed by people who try to turn a discussion about grown-ups trying to have online-sex with 10-year-olds into a discussion about personal freedom.

"reasonable" is subjective to begin with.

And why put that in bold? Do you honestly believe that I care about the age of the imaginary child? If so, well, I don't. Just because the situation is black-and-white to you doesn't mean it is to me.

You are proof-positive that there are people out there who are inaccessible to rational discourse.

I'd say the 'for the children' crowd serve as better proof of that.

Re:The numbers

[Jane Q. Public]

So if you do agree with the original poster and think I am wrong, you agree with him that a 30-40 year old should have the right to have sex with a 10 or younger year old... and that is "America" Really?

Um... what? No, not really. I don't see how you got that from what I wrote.

By "you" I didn't mean YOU personally. Pardon me if I wasn't clear. I agree that an "adult standard" other than age is probably unworkable. I was simply saying that there are other kinds of "standards" that would also be unworkable, for some of the same reasons.

"The rest of your post basically boils down to, using age to determine if a person is ready to handle sex is bad (you argued against me saying it's not bad twice now)"

No it doesn't. Not even close. I was simply stating (and I stated it pretty explicitly, in plain English) that the age situation is not as black-and-white as you made it out to be. The "standard" age is not the same everywhere. But that doesn't mean I disagree that it should be based on age. Just that the particular age is (and should be, in my opinion) up to each State.

So, to be clearer: yes, I feel age is the correct standard. But different places have decided on different ages.

"You are arguing a person MUST get a certificate from the government that deems them an adult, and this certificate can not be based on age. (That is the exact argument the original poster made, and I argued against to him and to you)"

I argued nothing of the sort. You seem to be imagining that I am arguing with you, when I am not. Probably a misunderstanding somewhere.

"I pointed out the state is clearly NOT qualified to determine sexual maturity, and that is exactly why they do not do so and set an arbitrary line of "Xth birthday" Only the original poster (and now you) are saying I am wrong, the state IS qualified and MUST issue certificates on a per-individual basis because that is the only method to be factually correct."

YES!! Except for the "now you" part. I was agreeing with you. I simply pointed out that the same objections apply to other areas too.

So to answer your question, who decides who/what is competent or proficient?
You are, since I claimed the state can't possibly do this, which is why they use the current system of age that clearly doesn't reflect if a person is able to handle adult situations like sex or not.

There is no argument about that here, and I know what caused you to imagine one. Again, I suspect that you misunderstood something in what I wrote. The question was rhetorical. Asking the State to decide who is competent to do these things creates obvious problems.

Re:The numbers

[Jane Q. Public]

Correction: "and I know what caused you to imagine one" should have read "and I DON'T know what caused you to imagine one".

Re:The numbers

[Eskarel]

I haven't seen the CGI so I don't really know, but your metaphor is off.

Reasonably speaking this is the difference between kicking a tin can and kicking a person. Not between and empty wallet and a full one. IF the people involved believed that they were kicking a person then yes, they may potentially be guilty of some form of crime of intent. If they believed they were kicking a tin can however, the situation is very different.

Imagine for a moment that you posted a CGI ten year old girl simulation onto some place like Reddit or even Slashdot and everyone knew what it was. What kind of stuff do you think people would send to that simulation? People are weird like that.

You're probably right and they probably thought it was a real girl, but given I haven't seen or interacted with said simulation I can't say if there was intent or not.

Re:The numbers

[Anonymous Coward]

And smart/sociopaths can really fuck it up too.

Re:The numbers

[dissy]

That's like saying "Then shouldn't we factor in people who don't want to be blown up by terrorists?" to people who argue that the TSA needs to be abolished.

Well, if the odds of being blown up by a terrorist were above 0.1%, and the effectiveness of the TSA was above 0.1%, then actually yea I would say that question should be asked and those variables factored.

I mean, if the odds were pretty high that you would actually fall to harm from a terrorist, then it does make sense to ask if solutions to that problem are high in effectiveness and low in abusiveness.

If the odds of a terrorist attack were actually high like 50%, and the TSA caught 95% of the attacks while abusing no rights of individuals other than a slower line, then I might actually not be upset with them.

Of course reality isn't anywhere near that, unfortunately.

But it's still a fair question to ask. I do ask "If the odds of a terrorist attack are below a tenth of a percent, and the TSA catches zero terrorists, the cost-benefit answer is this is a poor solution that should not be used."

And I stand by the answer to that question :P

There is a difference between criminals abusing people and the government, which I think should be a just entity, abusing people. What I meant is that I do not believe that something should be banned merely because it could be abused or could prove harmful in certain circumstances, at least in general.

In general neither do I. The act should be what is criminal, not the thing(s) being used.

The act of killing someone should be the crime. A type of gun used to kill someone (or just "guns" in general) should not be banned, as the goal shouldn't be to stop people from having guns but to stop people from killing others.

But in a similar line, just because a law is abused similarly does not justify getting rid of laws.
People just need held accountable for abusing laws. (Easier said than done I know)

Re:The numbers

[Anonymous Coward]

You're arguing for the rights of pedophiles to abuse minors against the protection of children. How can you possibly think that's a valid interpretation of basic human rights?

And you're making a mistake in assuming that anyone who is legally a minor is still a child. You stop being a child once you pass puberty and are physically mature enough to reproduce, although in most countries you do not gain the legal status of adulthood until several years later.
A pedophile is a person who has sexual desires for someone who is not biologically mature, the arbitrary age of legal adulthood has nothing to do with it.

Re:The numbers

[Eskarel]

People are capable of acting rationally, when provided with sufficient information which is phrased in a means they can understand or after receiving sufficient education and experience to understand the information and if they are in a frame of mind where rational decisions are possible and if they're given enough time to weigh the evidence.

Unfortunately people almost never have complete information, generally don't understand all the information they do have(usually because it's been deliberately phrased to confuse them), are constantly in situations where due to time or other constraints they don't have the capacity to make rational decisions, and on top of that people value different things so even if they are being rational they might not choose the same way you do.

Hell, I've seen thousands of supposedly intelligent people on the internet constantly harping on about how if we just eliminate all government regulation rationality will stop people from being evil when to me that's flying in the fact of both centuries of recorded history and every experience of human nature I've had in my life. As far as I can see the people who are most gung ho about rationality are actually the least rational people I've ever met.

Re:The numbers

[Khashishi]

If you are poor, it is rational to accept money in exchange for baring one's body.

The problem isn't that children aren't capable of rational thought. It is that there exists a huge difference in power between two parties, and consensual agreements can be unfair or wrong when there exists a power differential. Money is power, and instead of attacking the root of the problem, we as society choose to put various restrictions on what money is allowed to do.

Re:The numbers

[cheekyjohnson]

Well, if the odds of being blown up by a terrorist were above 0.1%, and the effectiveness of the TSA was above 0.1%, then actually yea I would say that question should be asked and those variables factored.

Then I'm done with you. Freedom is what matters to me.

Re:The numbers

[Anonymous Coward]

Yea, this.

Saying, "oh, but we're protecting children!" probably doesn't offer a lot of comfort to people such as an associate of mine, who was, at the age of 18, convicted of child molestation after his 17 year old girlfriend's parents called the police on him, and is now a registered sex offender for the rest of his life.

Serves him right for fornicating! If he wanted sex so bad, he should have got married!

Re:The numbers

[righteousness]

I second that! People should be made to realise that sex outside of marriage is evil and should be outlawed!

Re:The numbers

[righteousness]

You thought wrong! Sex outside marriage is not a basic human right! Fornication is a sin and should be outlawed!

Re:The numbers

[dissy]

Desiring to rape 10 year olds is not freedom. It is in fact slavery.
Your desire of lack of freedom and slavery will be much better catered to in other countries.

Re:The numbers

[Anonymous Coward]

Cheap & non-arbitrary?

A child is a responsible adult when the parent(s) say so in a legal document. A child who disagrees can take it to a judge or arbiter asking to be declared an adult. All filed in the same department that handles marriage licenses. No artificial lines or magic birthdays.

Very cheap, simple process in vast majority of cases, with no more exception processing than we already have.

Re:The numbers

[cheekyjohnson]

Desiring to rape 10 year olds is not freedom.

Merely desiring it is indeed an example of freedom if you do not believe in thoughtcrime. If you're talking about acting on it, that's a mere straw man; that just wasn't part of the discussion.

Re:The numbers

[dissy]

Taking only part of my sentence and leaving off qualifiers changing its meaning then putting it in a quote block as if that's what I said wasn't supposed to be part of the discussion either, but hey it happened anyway. So did run-on sentence, so take that.

I said long ago that thinking about it or wanting it is not the problem.
It's the doing it that is the problem, and laws that are to stop people from harming others are not any infringement on freedom, which I wish I could get you to understand.

But I give up.

Re:The numbers

[cheekyjohnson]

Taking only part of my sentence and leaving off qualifiers changing its meaning then putting it in a quote block as if that's what I said wasn't supposed to be part of the discussion either, but hey it happened anyway.

Well, the very next sentence in my previous comment acknowledged the more likely possibility that you were talking about actual rapists.

and laws that are to stop people from harming others are not any infringement on freedom

To say that I've been criticizing laws that merely seek to ban actions that necessarily harm people is incorrect.

Re:The numbers

[righteousness]

Is it entrapment to leave a car unlocked in a parking lot with a package in it at Christmas time and wait for someone to take it?

Yes.

Re:The numbers

[qbast]

Would you agree that parents generally know better what is good for 2 year old than the child?

I don't know about where you live, but around here we don't ration authority over people's lives on the basis of who is most likely to know what's good for them. We let people choose what they think is best for themselves.

Sure you do. 2 years old decides to play in the middle of busy street - no problem, that's what he decided for himself after all.

The real standard is whether a person takes responsibility for the consequences his or her choices have on others. Two-year-olds don't take responsibility for hardly anything, but it is certainly possible to reach that point well before you're 18, or 16, or even 14. At any age, your freedom should correlate with your willingness to accept responsibility.

Umm, no. The real standard is whether person is capable of taking responsibility. 5 years old may be quite willing to take responsibility for things way beyond his abilities to handle. On the other hand adult is required to take responsibility for his actions even if he does not want it. Age is not ideal indicator of capability, but at least simple one to implement,

Of course, for the topic under discussion the effects on others are minimal; ergo, so is the level of responsibility required. Any attempt to limit relationships between individuals of different ages should take place through social channels, not legal ones. If the contact is truly non-consensual (by adult standards) then treat it as such; otherwise the law has no place here.

That's very black and white view. Border between consensual and not is quite blurred in case of contacts between kids and adults, especially when adult is in position of trust or authority.

Re:The numbers

[bfandreas]

Pedophilia is the issue that requires therapy. Child molestation on the other hand is a crime that requires repercussions.

As long as we do not distinguish between those two we will never be able to cope with the problem since they are not the same and require different action.

Re:The numbers

[Anonymous Coward]

But it's so much worse than what you portray that the person whose point you are arguing against sees things better (IMHO) than you do. In fact, this reality is hard-coded into the U.S. constitution, in that it is not just a single adult/child line at 18, but rather, an 18/21/25/30/35/40 thing (the latter numbers for various high leadership positions). In fact, the reality is so much worse than even that, that it is not funny. I personally have chosen a life where I won't swear oathes of secrecy to any secret or non-secret societies. I think I'm proving my point that we live in a pretty completely f-d up system of secret police. This parent article is in fact part of that. When I hear about these entrapment things, I don't think of all the children being saved from abuse, but rather I think about what society might be like if the secret police, instead of trying to entice people with things like virtual child porn, actually tried to reach out and help the people that they are trying to persecute. Fundamentally the division is between those who believe that sinners can be helped, and those that believe that sinners should be punished. Interestingly enough I suspect it is those who consider themselves sinners that tend to have the belief that other sinners should be helped instead of persecuted. But quite seriously, it seems to be the latter group that ends up as the secret (and non-secret) police. Generally. There were good reasons for those concepts such as "due process" and "right to confront your acuser" and "jury of one's peers". I've made assassination threats against Hillary Clinton. I don't wish to end up in prison, but if a jury of my peers decides, upon hearing my evidence in a fair trial where I have the rights of proper discovery and due process, and the ability of confronting all the evidence that has been used against me in my prosecution (*cough* parallel discovery *cough*), then... well, that's my pony.

Re:The numbers

[Anne Thwacks]

Think of the pixels! (perhaps you better not - it could lead to a lengthy jail sentence).

Re:The numbers

[Anonymous Coward]

Outside of Texas, some people do not subscribe to your ideas of marriage, sin and fornication. You may be in the minority here,

"Look what the Bible says" only counts as an argument if (a) you can read the original Hebrew/Greek/Latin (b) the person you are asking to do this can also, and (c) both of you are Christians.

Those of us that belong to the cargo cult think you are a foolish degenerate.

Re:The numbers

[gweihir]

The thing is this emotional, irrational approach is also completely ineffective and leads to significantly more children being harmed. That is a real tragedy.

The way I see it, every child less that has to suffer through abuse is a real gain, regardless of punishment for those that do it. If, hypothetically, letting all child abusers go free would significantly reduce child abuse, I would be all for it. Revenge is particularly wrong when it makes the problem significantly worse. And revenge does not balance out the harm done before. That stays just the same. Any moral and sane approach will make prevention (i.e. protection of the children) the overriding priority. What we currently have is making the revenge part the overriding priority, and that is just plain immoral and unacceptable as revenge is always reactive (i.e. the harm has been done) and often the threat of revenge makes prevention hard or impossible.

In a sense, people making revenge the priority are responsible for a significant part of the child abuse going on. That may be one of the reasons why there seems to be so much of it.

Re:The numbers

[drinkypoo]

I don't think there is a State in the country that requires presenting a State ID before having sex.

Actually, even checking ID will not protect you from the courts.

Better check that they have a valid BC matching their ID if you like to fuck teens

Re:The numbers

[drinkypoo]

I do know that not very many years ago, in a couple of Southern states the age of consent was 12. I think that's changed, but what did it change to? 14? 15? I have no idea.

Welcome to the internets. You must be new here. TL;DR there's a couple of states which are 14 by parental consent, but in no state is it lower than 16 without it.

Re:The numbers

[drinkypoo]

Would you agree that parents generally know better what is good for 2 year old than the child?

Sure, but when does that change? I moved out of the house when I was fifteen and in with my girlfriend, who was twenty. My mom was a crazy psycho bitch. My girlfriend was no more mature than I. What we did was illegal for both of us by the laws of the state of California.

I don't think anybody is arguing that people should be fucking two year olds. I think the argument is that if this is about maturity, there should be a test. And the test should be whether you're wiser than your parents, because they're the ones that get to make your decisions if you don't. That is the only test which should matter! Not "IS $AGE > $NUMBER" because let's face it, that is bullshit.

Re:The numbers

[drinkypoo]

I know someone who has to explain a "sex offender" label every time he applies to a job, because his high-school sweetheart's parents didn't like him.

This is easily the stupidest thing I've seen this morning. You don't get on the sex offender list because someone's parents don't like you. They don't call up the PD and say "Hey, I don't like Sarten, put him on the offenders list." First, you have to be convicted of a crime. What is the crime of which he was convicted? Put up, or shut up.

Re:The numbers

[drinkypoo]

Screw it. I'm going to blow my mods on this thread for this. Hopefully not posting as AC will give you more incentive to respond intelligently.

Obligatory You must be new here.

Re:The numbers

[Anonymous Coward]

... So that 17 year old would be fair game for real sex here?

You mean that's a problem because 17 years of life and 5 years of menstruation hasn't taught her what her very own vagina does? I am perpetually disgusted by the whinger who never, ever brags that she was once-upon-a-time, a 17 year-old virgin. They only demand another woman's sexuality fit their rules.

... just don't take any pictures ...

So we can take pictures of your wife naked? Old enough to fuck equals old enough to be public property. Why don't we just automatically give all 17 year-old girls a license to drive a car? The difference between driving and fucking is simple: You don't go to school to learn to fuck (that's a discussion in itself) and you don't need a parent/cop/bureaucrat to give you a vagina. Similarly, being old enough to fuck does not make you old enough to share your life with 3 billion perverts and prudes.

Back on the driving analogy: 16 is also the age that most girl's practice driving. That means a virgin girl is controlling a 1-ton weapon. It means that virgin is responsible for the safety and even the lives of other people in the car. But two-faced parents then claim she can't be responsible for her own vagina.

How about parents teach responsibility to their offspring for having a vagina: Like, 'carry a condom', not 'the world has to babysit your virginity'. The second problem with such babysitting is the 'line in the sand'. Whatever rule is chosen, someone will whinge it is inadequate while others, once again point-out that girls don't need your permission to have a vagina.

Talk about gender discrimination: Why is nobody demanding more virgin schoolboys?

Re:The numbers

[Anonymous Coward]

You are missing the point about (sex) crimes. The crime is not that someone experienced pleasure, but that someone was abused. That distinction is crucial for this case. Because of that, it makes all the difference in the world whether the abused was human and whether she could not legally consent.

This case resembles watching child pornography much more than child molestation, because in this process, no child got hurt.

They should research what the effect of such virtual reality interaction has on actual crimes against children. Don't be surprised if it turns out it reduces actual crime.

Re:The numbers

[AmiMoJo]

That is the entire basis why the "your Xth birthday" is simple and cheap

It's also very harmful to children. Say the age is 16, like it is in the UK. Before that day young people will still get horny. They will still want to have sex with each other, and because it's illegal they will want to keep it a secret. It would be better if they could be more open about it and get support, e.g. free condoms and access to sexual health clinics. Even just basic advice and being able to discuss it with someone without the fear or being criminalized or forced to stop seeing their lover.

The other problem is that parents tend to put off talking to their children about sex and relationships, thinking that they are still young and age 16 is a long way off, and by then the school will have told them everything they need to know. That means most of them will be unprepared for the responsibility. In one moment they go from "must have no sexual contact, even heavy kissing" to "can create a child, risk catching deadly diseases, screw up their entire lives".

I'm afraid that this is not a simple problem and no simple/cheap solution will ever work well. Note that originally the age of consent was devised as a way to prevent parents forcing their children into prostitution, the theory being that by age 16 could they resist.

Re:The numbers

[xenobyte]

Of course not! - If they believe enough, God will find a way...

Re:The numbers

[AmiMoJo]

You are looking at it backwards. It is normal for adults to be attracted to fairly young children. Not all of them, obviously, in the same way that not all adults are attractive. Marriage to very young girls used t be common, the most famous case being Mohammed who married Aisha at age 7 and got her pregnant by age 9 or 10.

Of course most adults understand that it is morally wrong to have sex with a child that young. It harms the child. Society has made most adults somewhat disgusted by their natural feelings, although attraction to slightly older and more developed girls is widely tolerated (so called jailbait).

I'm not saying there is anything wrong with this, just that paedophilia as a perversion or mental health issue really only applies to people who are attracted to very young children, not 10 year olds. Of course, people trying to pay for sex with a 10 year old are still bastards.

Re:The numbers

[Sarten-X]

I think the one that stuck (out of about a dozen charged) was "molestation". The long story made short is that my friend, and secretly his girlfriend, are not particularly religious, her parents are strongly. When he turned 18, the mother took the girlfriend on a college-visiting tour while the father called the cops. The short investigation showed that there was an obvious relationship, and the father ever-so-helpfully gave a statement on his daughter's behalf. The guy was arrested and charged just before the girl came back. She made her own statement asserting that the relationship was consensual, but thanks to the hard-line laws in force, her consent didn't actually matter.

Apart from the continued existence of unfair laws, the story does have a happy ending. They're happily married and expecting their third kid soon, now living about a thousand miles away from her parents.

Re:The numbers

[Anonymous Coward]

Not boarding on... is.

Re:The numbers

[Hognoxious]

people who set fire to a rental property in order to move out of it

I'm pretty good with mechanical things, but if I couldn't unjam the door myself I'd call a locksmith.

Re:The numbers

[Anonymous Coward]

"Look what the Bible says" only counts as an argument if (a) you can read the original Hebrew/Greek/Latin

Aramaic, you fucktard.

Re:The numbers

[i kan reed]

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that that was the only problem.

Re:The numbers

[Anonymous Coward]

On top of the fact that I'm pretty sure there are less pedophiles than children. Hardly "the few".

Re:The numbers

[drinkypoo]

I've heard all kinds of horrible stories about people's parents, so that doesn't surprise me in the least.

I imagine I'd take her with me on the rounds around the neighborhood, with a nice color glossy of the kids :p

Re:The numbers

[DiscountBorg(TM)]

It's the paraphilia I'm talking about, not what normal adults may or may not be attracted to. The latter is typically exclusive (think, as child hits mid to late teens, child discovers an inability to be attracted to his peers. However, child is unable to seek counselling for obvious reasons of social stigma). It is at least from what I have read manageable with therapy and coaching, even if, similar to other and far less harmful paraphilia, it is not -curable-.

Re:The numbers

[DiscountBorg(TM)]

I think that justice should be what benefits society the most in the long run, but that's not how it seems to work in practice.

Re:The numbers

[Archangel Michael]

The "picture" to me is right in the "uncanny valley". It doesn't look right.

Re:The numbers

[Archangel Michael]

How is that? Explain your logic? Do you even know what entrapment is?

Re:The numbers

[gweihir]

Indeed.

Re:The numbers

[NotSanguine]

Screw it. I'm going to blow my mods on this thread for this. Hopefully not posting as AC will give you more incentive to respond intelligently.

Obligatory You must be new here.

Ummm. No. Not obligatory at all and I'm not new here. As you could easily find out, friend.

I usually post as an AC when I'm moderating on a thread.

Re:The numbers

[Anonymous Coward]

That sounds sane, rational, and civilized. Definitely.

Re:The numbers

[sergueyz]

In former Soviet Union there were two lines: the age until which minor does not understand anything (the probability of him/her understand is small) and the age after which man or woman completely understands everything (again, there can be exceptions). The ages were about 14 and 18, I don't remember correctly.

When there was sexual behavior of adult towards minor, which can constitute a crime, special commission was employed to determine whether minor understood what was going on. If minor didn't then it was a crime.

I believe it is a better system than one single arbitrary line, after which everything is possible and nothing is possible before that.

Re:The numbers

[jc42]

"Look what the Bible says" only counts as an argument if (a) you can read the original Hebrew/Greek/Latin

Aramaic, you fucktard.

Actually, you'd have to be able to read all four of them, and probably several dialects of each.

Also, you'd have the problem of even finding the original texts. What texts we have, that people mistakenly call "original", date to centuries after the events described. The usual legal term for such long-after-the-facts texts is "hearsay", not "original".

But it's all good as a source of humor, at least until the true believers come looking for you.

Re:The numbers

[isorox]

...and you lost it again.

Before we're "disgusted with crimes that harm others", we should realize that different amounts of harm are lumped into the same criminal label. The disgust and stigma applies its heavy weight to all cases, not just the most heinous. In the name of "thinking of the children", we push for ever-tougher laws

I know someone who has to explain a "sex offender" label every time he applies to a job, because his high-school sweetheart's parents didn't like him. They even had him arrested and charged without their daughter's knowledge. Does he have "sick-fuckitude" for not breaking off a relationship during the three months they were on different sides of an arbitrary boundary? That's what disgusts me: that the panic about the crime can sometimes cause more harm than the crime itself. It's a treacherous domain indeed.

So your law is broken. There's a big difference between a 12 year old having sex with a 40 year old, and a 15 year old having sex with a 16 year old. Canada recognises this, Finland recognises it.

Re:The numbers

[isorox]

Funny, I've been calling the problem of dumb people in democracy the palin effect.

Really? I can think of lots of effects to name after respected ex-Pythons that travelled the world educating, informing and entertaining us, but "dumb people in democracy" isn't one of them.

Re:The numbers

[Areyoukiddingme]

There is such a thing as an emancipated child. Under 18 but legally an adult. The criteria and procedures for becoming emancipated vary fairly substantially from state to state, but most states have them. The very specific case of a crazy psycho parent is one of the criteria making it possible to become emancipated. In theory, what you did could have been legal. Not easily or cheaply, but a path exists. The option should be more widely publicized, in my opinion.

Re:The numbers

[drinkypoo]

I was raised poor and didn't learn to succeed until I got out of the house. Emancipation was not an option for me. And to make it dependent on money is just another prejudiced, classist example of bullshit.

Re:The numbers

[righteousness]

I don't live in Texas, I don't read the Bible, and I'm not a Christian.

Re:The numbers

[crutchy]

If a policeman holds a gun to your head and tells you to buy drugs or you will die, THAT is entrapment.

no, actually that is coercion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entrapment
"Sting operations are fraught with ethical concerns over whether they constitute entrapment."

Re:The numbers

[crutchy]

i didn't say corporations were right to, just that they would

i'm also libertarian

dateline

[Anonymous Coward]

Hi... I'm Chris Hansen... would you have a seat right over BALEETED!

Does anyone know where you can download her?

[Anonymous Coward]

You know, for research purposes.

Why..

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't you have a seat over there.. http://i.imgur.com/AzkgpTx.jpg

Re:Why..

[Anonymous Coward]

There aren't really brownies! *BANG*

Entrapment

[Vanderhoth]

Seems on awful lot like entrapment to me and could also give some people a defence, ie. "I thought she was one of those fake girls, I'd never think of asking a real child to do that!''

Re:Entrapment

[i kan reed]

This wasn't the police. How can you have police entrapment with no police involvement?

I wish people would stop claiming entrapment for stings. They're completely distinct.

Re:Entrapment

[SuricouRaven]

Yep. Entrapment by police and entrapment by well-intentioned vigilante investigators are completely different things. Though if they have done their research, they'll know the importance of never leading the suspect on or enticing them to any action.

Re:Entrapment

[gstoddart]

These guys probably deserve what's coming to them but to say that a profile is evidence is a bit extreme.

Except the article points out that they made sure to never actually suggest anything unless it was asked of them (OK, in fairness this one isn't as clear on that point, but I've seen quite a few covering this already).

It's not entrapment when you initiate contact and are the first one to offer to pay to see an underage girl naked.

They just had a fictional 10 year old join a chat room. That a bunch of them immediately started making contact with her ... well, that's their actions. It's not like they went in and said "hey, I'm a 10 year old girl willing to get naked for old men".

And, remembering ICQ ... a/s/l and other immediate responses to the apparent presence of a female, I find this entirely plausible.

Re:Entrapment

[smooth wombat]

Seems on awful lot like entrapment to me

Except it's not since these people would have done this anyway. They were not forced into doing this.

This web site gives a good description of what is and is not entrapment.

Re:Entrapment

[Anonymous Coward]

Did the predators get entrapped to sign online? Or tricked into joining a chat room? Did they get tricked into replying to a 10 yr old girl? Did they get tricked into asking the girl to cam? did they get tricked into asking the girl to undress or telling the girl they will pay for them? These are pedophiles, nothing more nothing less. No entrapment.

Re: Entrapment

[Anonymous Coward]

Indeed this is incitement legally isn't it?

Re:Entrapment

[Anonymous Coward]

What happens if I write a bot that interacts with, and propositions another bot?

Re:Entrapment

[Anonymous Coward]

The principle of entrapment doesn't change just because the employer of those executing it differ.

Re:Entrapment

[ebno-10db]

Yeah, entrapment depends on the details of how you do it. I don't know what the laws are regarding underage pixels, but in the US the minimum is probably life.

One legitimate use though would be to find out who is interest in such things, and use that as a basis to get a warrant (I'm old-fashioned about those things). Then you could track them to actual crimes.

Of course this overlooks that the 4th Amendment is now toilet paper, you can get everything from the NSA, and one accidental click on a site like that is something that grandstanding prosecutors take as equivalent to being a distribution kingpin. But as a theoretical exercise in the legitimate pursuit of justice, I stand by what I said.

Re: Entrapment

[i kan reed]

Still no. The sting/entrapment distinction would still apply. Incitement means actively encouraging an illegal behavior. Otherwise we'd arresting attractive rape victims.

The public/private distinction is only one of the two mistakes the OP made.

Re:Entrapment

[SJHillman]

I don't think you know what entrapment means in a legal capacity.

Not Entrapment: An undercover cop selling cocaine, then busting people that buy it.
Entrapment: Cops busting into your house and destroying stuff until you agree to buy cocaine, then arresting you for it.

Re:Entrapment

[i kan reed]

I think that you'll find that it does.

From wikipedia:
Entrapment arises when a person is encouraged by someone in some official capacity to commit a crime.

A private citizen completely lacks the ability to have official capacity. Police posing as civilians are also not entrapping anyone. To be entrapment, there must be a reason for the suspect to falsely believe their actions are legal on the part of someone associated with law enforcement(it doesn't have to be police).

Re:Entrapment

[GrumpySteen]

8-bit porn music starts playing.

Re:Entrapment

[scott9693]

Note sure about entrapment, but given that in Australia Animated/Cartoon child porn is illegal that wouldn't be a defence.

Re:Entrapment

[bobbied]

Given that the people doing this where not doing law enforcement and where not sanctioned by a law enforcement entity, legally entrapment is not an option here. The main reason is that nobody will get charged with a crime where they can use entrapment as a defense.

What these folks are doing is trying to embarrass the nut cases that walk into their trap. Nobody is going to jail based on their efforts, although they might be accused of defamation by the people they choose to name.

Re:Entrapment

[Anonymous Coward]

Um, no. Entrapment is when the cop selling the cocaine brings up the topic first. If you ask to buy, it's not entrapment. If he approaches you and ask if you want to buy some, that's entrapment.

Re:Entrapment

[Anonymous Coward]

The civilian risks becoming complicit, though.

Re:Entrapment

[artfulshrapnel]

Also, entrapment only applies if they are encouraged to commit the act by someone in some official capacity. Providing a target for a crime =/= encouraging someone to commit a crime.

For example: in theory a person should be allowed to leave their car sitting anywhere in any city with the doors unlocked and valuables in plain view. The fact that they haven't secured their possessions against crime doesn't make theft of the car or its contents legal. So, if the cops parked a car and left it unlocked with a wallet in the front seat, they could arrest anyone who tried to steal it without running afoul of entrapment, because they aren't actually encouraging anyone to commit a crime, they're simply providing an opportunity for the person to decide to commit a crime.

If by contrast they were to put up a sign that says "steal the wallet or a sniper will shoot you", or had an officer standing nearby telling people to steal the wallet, they'd be guilty of entrapment because they're encouraging the person to act.

Re:Entrapment

[bobbied]

Yep. Entrapment by police and entrapment by well-intentioned vigilante investigators are completely different things. Though if they have done their research, they'll know the importance of never leading the suspect on or enticing them to any action.

I don't think they are on firm legal ground here. Nobody is going to get charged with a crime and when they start naming names they run the risk of being sued for defamation.

I don't like child predators and I want them caught and locked up, but this kind of activity doesn't help that much.

Re:Entrapment

[artfulshrapnel]

Then the liberals win, dammit.

Re:Entrapment

[Anonymous Coward]

To me a sting would be to set up at 7-11 wait for robber catch him dead bang you provided nothing.
Entrapment is you set up a 7-11 provided hookers busted people for getting a hooker or say left 100 bills on the ground then arrest them for stealing.

Only time it is not entrapment is when you provided nothing more than the recording device.

Just because that is not the way things are it is the way they should be in free countries. What there is not enough crime for them to bust without making it up.

Re:Entrapment

[Alef]

To be entrapment, there must be a reason for the suspect to falsely believe their actions are legal on the part of someone associated with law enforcement [...]

Just a note: That isn't how the laws are written in all countries, though. In Sweden, for instance, it is illegal for the police to "provoke" someone to commit a crime, regardless of what the subject of the action believes or not. The idea is that it is not the job of the police to prosecute anyone with a potential to commit a crime, as that would probably include a large portion of the entire population, most of which would otherwise live peacefully their entire lives. Their job is only to step in when a crime is actually at hand; about to be committed or in progress. They are however allowed to actively facilitate an ongoing crime in order to gather more evidence, but that's where the line is drawn.

Re:Entrapment

[i kan reed]

Actually, I'd make the case "do x or I will shoot you" is simultaneous a crime of actionable threat, and a plausible affirmative defense on the part of the threatened, without necessarily being entrapment. "Do x or I will arrest you" is.

Re:Entrapment

[bobbied]

Did the predators get entrapped to sign online? Or tricked into joining a chat room? Did they get tricked into replying to a 10 yr old girl? Did they get tricked into asking the girl to cam? did they get tricked into asking the girl to undress or telling the girl they will pay for them? These are pedophiles, nothing more nothing less. No entrapment.

You are right, but for the wrong reasons. There is no entrapment because the people posing as the 10 year old girl are not law enforcement and NOBODY is being charged with a crime so NOBODY has been enticed to commit a crime, even if they did all the things you say they didn't...

Re:Entrapment

[AK Marc]

Most stings are entrapment. Telling someone they won a boat, and to come to the showroom to collect it to round up people with outstanding warrants is not entrapment. It's a sting. Going online and asking for money in exchange for "anything you want" is borderline. Posting "sex for cash" on Craigslist is entrapment. "entrapment" as a non-legal term includes when it's done by anyone for any reason. As a legal term, it only includes when done by the authorities, or agents of the authorities, and it could be argued that the group here was acting on behalf of the authorities (though the specifics foe this would tend to indicate that argument wouldn't be successful in court).

Re:Entrapment

[Anonymous Coward]

"Entrapment by police and entrapment by well-intentioned vigilante investigators are completely different things. "

Indeed. One is a well executed sting operation with new methods and the other one is an illegal wiretap over state lines with a prison sentence.

Re:Entrapment

[Anonymous Coward]

"They just had a fictional 10 year old join a chat room. That a bunch of them immediately started making contact with her ... well, that's their actions. It's not like they went in and said "hey, I'm a 10 year old girl willing to get naked for old men"."

      They entered her into the chat room knowing that was what it was largely used for and that she was designed and sent, in particular, to be hit on. So yes they did say "hey, I'm a 10 year old girl willing to get naked for old men".

The internet is for adults. Parents keep your little spawn from public view and it's none of your damn business what we do with our connection that we pay for.

Re:Entrapment

[nospam007]

"A private citizen completely lacks the ability to have official capacity. "

And the official capacity to conduct an international wiretap.

Re:Entrapment

[SJHillman]

Entrapment is being induced to do something you would not normally do. Just approaching you on the street and asking if you want to buy cocaine isn't enough by a long shot. The only time you could claim entrapment in that case is if the subject was the kind of person who buys from every mail-order catalog and door-to-door salesman he comes across.

Re:Entrapment

[AK Marc]

Entrapment: A cop posting "spouses killed, $10,000 or 30% life insurance" and arresting anyone who contacts them. Not entrapment: A cop who sees a posting for "contract killer needed" and arresting the person who meets with them.

When the cop encourages the illegal behavior before any action is taken by the "suspect", it is entrapment.

Re:Entrapment

[lbalbalba]

Exactly. Also 'entrapment' (seducing people into committing a crime) is illegal in Holland. So the pedophiles found in the Netherlands in this way will likely not be prosecuted. However, I get the feeling that this was not the intention of the project. I think they just wanted to show how widespread this issue is, and get attention for it. So that 'legal' (whatever that is in your country) measures can be taken to stop this.

Re:Entrapment

[SJHillman]

Entrapment is inducing someone to do something they would not normally do. Setting up bait is fair and legal and it should be. Forcing people to take that bait is neither fair nor legal (nor should it be). If an undercover cop poses as a drug dealer and busts people who buys from him, that's not creating crime - those people would have found a dealer to buy from anyway. The crime would have happened anyway.

Re:Entrapment

[i kan reed]

No, sorry, the "language evolves" trump card doesn't apply to the legal system.

Re:Entrapment

[spintriae]

There was no solicitation, therefore, no entrapment. If you really think that being 10 years old on the internet is in and of itself enticement or solicitation of sex, it's time for some serious self-evaluation.

Re:Entrapment

[uncqual]

I think your 'entrapment' example is way beyond what is needed to qualify as entrapment.

A better example might be...

Entrapment: Undercover police officer approaches you on the street and offers to sell you a white powder. "You say no, I'm not interested". Police officer asks again, you say "No, I'm not interested, I don't use any drugs including cocaine - and it would be illegal for me to buy it anyway." and you walk away. The police officer follows you and tells you "Actually, this substance is psuedo cocaine and is perfectly legal, the government allows it because it lacks the negative health impacts even though it provides the same high as cocaine does. Here's a news report [fake of course] from AP that describes this substance and shows it's legal." You buy a bit of her product (which may really be cocaine) - judge throws out case after you spend $20K on lawyers.

In this example, the police officer enticed you to buy something that you clearly were not seeking and did so by lying about what you were buying. Actually, even my example is well into "entrapment" land -- the police officer following you and pestering you to buy might be enough after you had explicitly refused to buy her product multiple times.

Of course, different jurisdictions have different definitions of entrapment and have different standards as to who must prove it is/isn't entrapment.

Re: Entrapment

[Anonymous Coward]

Otherwise we'd arresting attractive rape victims.

So rape is not funny, of course, but I can't help laughing at the idea of a woman getting off the incitement charge because she was dog-ugly.

"It is the opinion of this court that the defendant fell from the ugly tree..."

Re:Entrapment

[Em Adespoton]

What happens if I write a bot that interacts with, and propositions another bot?

Actually, this raises a good point... what happens if you write a bot designed to interact with and proposition other bots... and one of those "bots" turns out to be a human minor? Do YOU get the pedophile laws slapped on you? Is it suddenly OK for you to possess those images because they were acquired by your bot, and not by you?

What about any adult who monitors the activity between two bots programmed to behave like children? What if the first person to discover the images is the officer sent to investigate? Is (s)he the pedophile?

I know in most cases the courts are intelligent enough to sort this stuff out -- but I also know of people who were sacrificed on the alter of public opinion to prove a point and "make an example".

Re: Entrapment

[wisnoskij]

Well a 10 year old fillipeano girl with a webcam and the name Sweetie.

Seems to me that they actively tried to imply that she was looking for some men with money.

Re: Entrapment

[i kan reed]

I think you might want to look up the definition of "actively"

Re:Entrapment

[Em Adespoton]

I don't think you know what entrapment means in a legal capacity.

Not Entrapment: An undercover cop selling cocaine, then busting people that buy it.
Entrapment: Cops busting into your house and destroying stuff until you agree to buy cocaine, then arresting you for it.

Not Entrapment: An undercover cop challenging you to a drag race and then ticketing you for speeding and reckless driving.
Entrapment: An acknowledged officer telling you it's OK to drag race on a street and then ticketing you when you do it.

Re: Entrapment

[wisnoskij]

So standing on a street corner in lingerie, with a sign saying "I am a prostitute, pay me money for sex", is not entrapment?

You can change the sign to employ more cloudy euphemisms, or select different clothing without changing how "active" the prostitute is being.

Re: Entrapment

[i kan reed]

So standing on a street corner in lingerie, with a sign saying "I am a prostitute, pay me money for sex", is not entrapment?

Hooray, that's correct. Whoever told you otherwise was a liar.

Re:Entrapment

[MysteriousPreacher]

Exactly. Also 'entrapment' (seducing people into committing a crime) is illegal in Holland. So the pedophiles found in the Netherlands in this way will likely not be prosecuted. However, I get the feeling that this was not the intention of the project. I think they just wanted to show how widespread this issue is, and get attention for it. So that 'legal' (whatever that is in your country) measures can be taken to stop this.

I'm not seeing how this case would be entrapment in any sense. Entrapment seems to require more than the passive approach used by the researchers. I don't see solicitation or any inducement to criminal behaviour. It doesn't seem the researchers had robololita join a chat room and begin offering nude pictures for cash. If I stand in a subway, late at night, with the intention of making myself a potential victim, would this be illegal? It's pretty similar in principle, and perfectly legal. It'd be a different matter if I were yelling at passers by - daring them to take a pop at me. Even if I were goading people, would my attacker have magical immunity from prosecution due to entrapment? Fuck no. It'd be a different matter if it were a police officer doing the goading.

The police were not involved in the operation. I'll grant that the existing evidence may not be useable, yet how would this mean no prosecution. Wouldn't a search warrant be in order and entirely justifiable when a person is strongly suspected to be soliciting sex acts from minors? This is similar to the situation that'd arise if a burglar were to discover a coke factory in your basement, and had alerted the police. The police can't necessarily wheel you off to court on that alone, but wouldn't they have decent grounds for a warrant that would then lead to a prosecution?

Re:Entrapment

[cusco]

Unless it's a terrorism show trial. Then the FBI informant can recruit the participants, create the plan, convince everyone to agree to participate, and then be the only one to go free.

Re:Entrapment

[Anonymous Coward]

It used to be a thing back in the day to 'receive anonymous phone calls' that would give probable cause for searches. "We're searching your house because of an anonymous tip that someone smelled marijuana smoke coming out of your house a while ago...despite the fact that your nearest neighbor is half a mile away and the wind doesn't blow that way." At some point later it also became popular to use informants to perform illegal searches of people's possessions if they got the chance. So maybe the police can't rifle through your bed table drawer without probable cause, but your 'friend' you're hanging out with can excuse themselves to the bathroom while at your place, sneak away to your bedroom, and then report to the police that they found some contraband. This is pretty much changing as it turns out it's almost always the police that put them up to it, and so it's a police mandated search. That kind of thing.

Re:Entrapment

[Anonymous Coward]

so-o-o-o, the people who set this up with the CGI girl are the real scumbags ? ? ?
i'm okay with that, i think BOTH groups are scumbags...

Re:Entrapment

[geekoid]

" Posting "sex for cash" on Craigslist is entrapment. ""
nope.

It has to be done in a way where the person is enticed to do something they otherwise wouldn't do.

Re:Entrapment

[Anonymous Coward]

However, if the cop is pressuring you to buy cocaine by repeatedly telling you to do it to be cool, etc, etc, then the entrapment claim still stands. Entrapment is basically a corrupt sting operation where they've decided you're guilty and just need something to prove it.

Re:Entrapment

[fatphil]

In some ways, the vigilante investigators are on very shaky ground legally, if they do anything to feed the fire. If the researchers/fake-kid did anything apart from the equivalent of just running away from any kind of advances (i.e. completely blunt statements, or just terminating the chat, immediately), I'd say they've poisoned the fruit. Even a "what do you mean" is encouraging them. The various links to various news sites around the world really don't give me enough information to know how much of a mess these researchers made of things, alas, but I fear they did something that might invalidate any of the findings. I'm pretty sure they found a thousand slimeballs, but they should have assisted a law enforcement agency in doing this sting, rather than doing it themselves.

Predators are just going to start doing things like reverse-visual CAPTCHAs (i.e. the subject has to provide the visual answer, given a textual/verbal request). If all they've done is build a physics model for the upper torso, then "Show me your shoes" is gonna be a killer request. And even then, "Pull a funny face" or "blow a raspberry" is likely to break all but the most complex of models. ILM can barely do that offline, what hope has something with a less-than-9-figure budget in real time?

Re:Entrapment

[Anonymous Coward]

entrapment is more like a female undercover cop taking a guy who had never thought of stealing in his life and becoming his girlfriend and building him up to committing the crime.

Re: Entrapment

[Joining Yet Again]

Are you serious? You can't think of why anyone would wear shorts except to titillate you?

Also it looks like she's sharted herself. No sexy.

Re:Entrapment

[nbauman]

Actually we don't know. There was a story in I think Wired about how the police in a town were running stings, pretending to be underage girls, and when you read the transcript, they clearly manipulated and tricked the men into breaking the law, when they might never have done so without the manipulation and trickery. But if you asked the prosecutor whether they enticed the guy, the prosecutor would say the same thing that Terre des Hommes did -- no, we didn't solicit anything.

We haven't seen the evidence, we'll never see the evidence, because Terre Des Hommes has not and will not release it, and the police have said that they're not going to prosecute.

BTW, Terre des Hommes has had its own problems with child molestation -- the real thing, not the fantasy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terre_des_hommes#Ethiopian_paedophilia_allegations Are they concerned with the online sexual molestation of children -- or are they just setting up a smokescreen to make themselves look good in spite of the charges against them?

Re:Entrapment

[nbauman]

When the cop encourages the illegal behavior before any action is taken by the "suspect", it is entrapment.

Not true. A cop can go around the park asking people to sell him drugs, and then arresting anyone who takes him up on it. Not entrapment.

Re:Entrapment

[nbauman]

You might bet a better idea of the intention of the project if you read their Wikipedia entry. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terre_des_hommes#Ethiopian_paedophilia_allegations

Re: Entrapment

[Anarchduke]

However, when the person declines to hire a prostitute and the prostitute pressures him otherwise, such as "just give me 10 bucks so my pimp doesn't kill me, we don't have to do anything" then arresting him when he hands over 10 dollars would most likely be considered entrapment.

Re:Entrapment

[Anonymous Coward]

This wasn't the police.
Correct.
But given the number of law enforcement 'cyber' centers out there looking for child pRon/molesters...how many of these customers were undercover cops that thought they were on to something big.
It's not like the group would be able to pull this 'sting' if they tip off ALL of law enforcement of the planet.
"Hey Sarge! Have I got a live one here...out of the Phillipines"

Re:Entrapment

[AK Marc]

The person that says "ok" to that and sells him some on the spot already took the action to take illegal drugs to the park, so the cop didn't take the first illegal action. If you reversed it and the cop was selling the drugs by propositioning everyone in the park for a $20 hit for $5, the people taking him up on it would have been entrapped.

Re:Entrapment

[AK Marc]

It counts in places like Slashdot where people use technical and vernacular definitions interchangeably.

Re:Entrapment

[AK Marc]

Everyone on Craigslist wants free sex, not paid for, it's the pay that's illegal, not the sex.

Re:Entrapment

[Anonymous Coward]

Yep. Entrapment by police and entrapment by well-intentioned vigilante investigators are completely different things. Though if they have done their research, they'll know the importance of never leading the suspect on or enticing them to any action.

If we accept the argument that attempting to setup a sexual encounter with a virtual child is a sex crime, then that same logic would consider the people running the virtual child to be guilty of pimping out children and also a sex crime. In fact, it would be considered a larger crime as they would be guilty of child trafficking.
So ya, if it's an outside group they should be legally in worse trouble than those who took the bait.
But that assumes equal enforcement of the law, which isn't going to happen in the real world.

Re:Entrapment

[Anonymous Coward]

I disagree. I have a buddy who is a church going god fearing christian. He was busted for giving a an undercover cop who was pretending to be a hooker money. He did get out of it when they went back to the tape however. Reason he gave her the money was so she didnt have to hook. But when he said "here take this money and get dinner and a hotel room so you can get a good night sleep" she arrested him for solicitation. I also had another buddy who was arrested for giving the hooker money so she would leave him alone. He refused to pay and she kept harassing him saying shit like "well do you have 10 bucks? Or how about 5 I'll do stuff for 5!" he eventually got fed up with being hassled so he gave her a 5 and before he could say "get lost" he was on the ground being read his rights. So that's just 2 examples of crimes that were not only falsely accused but the situation would never of happened has there not been undercover cops pushing to get the arrest.

Re:Entrapment

[Anonymous Coward]

If we accept the argument that attempting to setup a sexual encounter with a virtual child is a sex crime, then that same logic would consider the people running the virtual child to be guilty of pimping out children and also a sex crime. In fact, it would be considered a larger crime as they would be guilty of child trafficking.

That reminds me of this old anecdote:

A Charlotte, North Carolina man, having purchased a case of rare, very expensive cigars, insured them against (get this) fire! Within a month, having smoked his entire stockpile of fabulous cigars, and having yet to make a single premium payment on the policy, the man filed a claim against the insurance company.

In his claim, the man stated that he had lost the cigars "in a series of small fires." The insurance company refused to pay, citing the obvious reason that the man had consumed the cigars in a normal fashion. The man sued -- and won! In delivering his ruling, the judge stated that since the man held a policy from the company in which it had warranted that the cigars were insurable and also guaranteed that the cigars would be insured against fire, without defining what it considered to be unacceptable fire, it was obligated to compensate the insured for his loss.

Rather than endure a lengthy and costly appeal process, the insurance company grudgingly accepted the judge's ruling and paid the man $15,000 for the rare cigars he lost in the fires. After the man cashed his check, however, the insurance company had him arrested on 24 counts of arson. With his own insurance claim and testimony from the previous case being used as evidence against him, the man was convicted of intentionally burning the rare cigars and sentenced to 24 consecutive one-year terms.

Re:Entrapment

[sjames]

There is a bit of a dodge in that. Although ignored, the moment someone in their official capacity acts on that, they effectively attach that action to themselves and turn it into entrapment. No paying private corporations to vbiolate constitutional rights, for example.

However, from the description, this wasn't entrapment even if the police did it themselves.

Re:Entrapment

[sjames]

That depends. If they just stand there looking dealer like until approached, fine and dandy. But if they attempt to hawk their 'wares', its entrapment.

Re:Entrapment

[Anonymous Coward]

Laws differ from country to country, but e.g. in Germany you could be arrested and charged for the possession of child-pornographic texts if your bots created some dialogues that could be interpreted that way - regardless of whether humans would be at play or not. Not very likely that the prosecution would bring you to court, though.

Re:Entrapment

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think they are on firm legal ground here.

The ground they're on is Dutch, which is not the same as me, or I'm guessing you. If so, then I expect they have far greater knowledge of the locally applicable statutes and case-law, than either of us. We might live on a connected planet, but not under a homogenous legal system.

Re:Entrapment

[Anonymous Coward]

This is actually vary good reasoning. It's not the polices job to put out baits and see what they catch, but to prevent crime, help the public, and catch criminals, that they didn't make themselves.

Re:Entrapment

[DoctorBonzo]

In the US, at least, there's a legal conceit called "attractive nuisance". This is used as the basis of prosecution of, say, the owner of a swimming pool that's not securely fenced. If a child happens to drown in such an un-fenced pool, the owner can be prosecuted for manslaughter.

I don't see much difference here. Call it "enticement" rather than "entrapment" if you wish since it's not conducted by someone with criminal authority, but it's very much like the un-fenced swimming pool. The "enticer" pretty clearly bears some responsibility.

On top of which, it's also clear that no actual crime is involved since there's no actual child. What's the charge? Abuse of computer graphics? Unless perhaps we're talking about "thought crimes".

This whole sting enterprise seems to me to be just as ethically scummy as pedophilia itself, if not more so.

Re: Entrapment

[i kan reed]

Maybe. There's always, if you press hard enough, something that qualifies as a gray area. But that's just begging, which is different.

Re: Entrapment

[Anonymous Coward]

Doesn't Craigslist delete illegal postings such as that?

Re:Entrapment

[alexo]

You forgot to mention that the definition you quoted applies only to England and Wales.
Other jurisdictions have different laws.

The police are passing up a gem

[Frobnicator]

In the article the police agencies from several nations are mentioned, asking the group to stop their work and let the police do it all.

They should be partnering with the group, giving them guidance at how to report the crimes of attempted sex crimes to the right agencies and getting iron-clad evidence to the courts. The group could work wonders in avoiding child sexual exploitation globally, or at least making predators think twice.

Instead the cops are telling them, "Let us do our job, go away." They are throwing away a gem just because they didn't do it all themselves.

Re:The police are passing up a gem

[Anonymous Coward]

It is not a 'gem', it is entrapment. You can set up a 'hologram cheese' in display buy can't prove that anyone taking a bite is a thief. In fact, the only crime committed is you that is doing extortion by publicly shaming stranger. Very a like to the pornography 'piracy' accusation scam that happened recently. It is not surprising to me that the police want no part in this.

TLDR; You are an idiot, and a fascist.

Re:The police are passing up a gem

[Anonymous Coward]

Or, the police agencies know that, as is often the case, "clever vigilantism" is not useful for legal prosecution given what their laws actually say.

"We're considering charging these guys with child sexual exploitation."

"Who was the child?"

"Oh, there was no actual child."

"In this jurisdiction, nothing to prosecute that is child sexual exploitation, then."

Re:The police are passing up a gem

[cheater512]

Technically it isn't a crime to chat up under age computers.
No crime has occurred or been proven and there is zero evidence.

Re:The police are passing up a gem

[ebno-10db]

Instead the cops are telling them, "Let us do our job, go away."

Probably because too many cops got snared. Personally I want a list of the politico visitors.

Re:The police are passing up a gem

[Mr. Slippery]

They should be partnering with the group...

You're assuming that the group is sane and competent and honest. When it comes to anti-pornography activists, evangelical fervor often overwhelms all other considerations as people fly off into a moral panic -- especially when children are involved. "OMG won't SOMEONE think of the CHILDREN!!1!"

I'd need to see something far more rigorous -- especially when the group in question has been accused of covering up for real child abusers and used a criminal defamation suit to silence the accuser.

That said: there are creeps on the net and you should not let ten-year-olds out there unsupervised. (Duh.)

Re:The police are passing up a gem

[firex726]

So it's entrapment by way of having the person initiate contact and make the request to see CP, by third party not affiliated with any police organization?

The article does say the researched never suggested anything, and waited to be asked first.

Also police depts do have cyber crimes divisions like this which do the same deal, but with officers conversing with these people.

Re:The police are passing up a gem

[Anonymous Coward]

It has to do with evidence, there need to be a confirmed chain. There are some legal issues when the evidence is nothing more than chat logs, and requires a lot of work and admissions by the accused. There are fortunately digital tracks of evidence but still would require a search warrant but we come back to the first part of evidence whether its enough for a search warrant.

There would have to be some law changes, where parts of police work would be privatized to "mercenaries". I don't know about you, it'll probably work in USA but where I live I do not think it's such a good idea, we rather keep our freedoms.

Re:The police are passing up a gem

[Sique]

It is not entrapment. Entrapment means that someone intending to bust you or to arrest you gets you to do things you wouldn't have done otherwise. This is not the case here. 20,000 men were voluntarily starting to chat to that artificial girl, and about 1000 of them were starting to make sexual advances. None of them was begged to talk to her, no one was forced to talk to her, and not a single one was asked to offer cash for sexual favors. In the same way that an open door is no entrapment for theft, an artificial girl just sitting in a chatroom is no entrapment for sexual abuse.

Re:The police are passing up a gem

[amicusNYCL]

It's virtually the same as a sting operation involving agents sitting behind profiles showing underage female pictures. They aren't talking to the program, they are talking to an agent. The agent is showing them pictures of what they think is a young girl with the intention of making them think that they are talking to a young girl. I don't think it's really relevant that in one case it is a profile with static images vs. an animated movie. It doesn't even need to be a reactive "real-time" animation, it might as well just be a pre-rendered scene. You would get much better detail and realism if it was pre-rendered, anyway.

My friends who visit online porn websites tell me that sometimes they show ads for webcam sites, where there is someone sitting there looking at a computer and typing as if they were interacting with you when in fact they aren't reacting to you at all. Sounds like that.

Re:The police are passing up a gem

[artfulshrapnel]

Sorry, doesn't really fly. If the person had no way to know they were buying cornstarch in a cocaine sting, it doesn't indemnify the person who said "I want to buy some cocaine" and handed over money for it. They attempted to purchase drugs and went through with the transaction in the belief they were getting actual drugs.

Same thing here. If they thought it was an actual person and acted accordingly, they are just as guilty as if it was a real person. Same reason that police stings using agents impersonating children allows them to arrest people. If your logic held up, they could say they were innocent because it was actually a 35 year old FBI agent on the other end.

Re:The police are passing up a gem

[cusco]

He's also assuming that the police are sane, competent and honest. Probably also an error.

Re:The police are passing up a gem

[geekoid]

Technically you are wrong.

You should actually study up.
It's no different then an officer logging in with a profile of a 10 year old to see if he gets random solicitations.

Re:The police are passing up a gem

[geekoid]

" there are creeps on the net and you should not let ten-year-olds out there unsupervised. (Duh.)"

yeah, it's the victims fault! They shouldn't have been there.

Re:The police are passing up a gem

[nbauman]

It seems from some of the comments here that it would be entrapment in many European countries, and therefore could not be prosecuted, and in fact they may not have broken European laws.

Perhaps the European cops have better things to do with their time, like stopping real child abuse, which takes a lot of work, rather than on-line fake child abuse, which just takes an investigator sitting on his ass eating donuts and pretending to be a 14-year-old.

They may have decided that filling up the jails like the U.S. and former Soviet Union does more harm than good.

They may know more about Terre des Hommes than you do, and they may have decided not to get involved with an organization that has its own problems with child sex abuse. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terre_des_hommes#Ethiopian_paedophilia_allegations

Re:The police are passing up a gem

[Mr. Slippery]

yeah, it's the victims fault! They shouldn't have been there.

Young children should not be on the internet unsupervised. If they are, they is faulty and unwise behavior on the part of the parents/caregivers.

If such unsupervised net use leads to abuse, the abuse is faulty and criminal behavior on the part of the abuser.

Neither is faulty behavior on the part of the young child.

Re: The police are passing up a gem

[Anonymous Coward]

The 1000 people weren't the ones that initiated sexual advances, they were the ones (of the 20,000) that the researchers were able to personally identify and get (what they presumed to be) real names, addresses, etc.

In other words, they were able to identify about 1 in 20 people who contacted them under the impression that they were talking to a 10 year old girl.

Re:The police are passing up a gem

[Anonymous Coward]

What victim?

eww.

[Anonymous Coward]

i'm going to take a shower after reading the article.

Re:eww.

[Anonymous Coward]

... and some vigorous fapping

I don't see the downside so far

[chuckugly]

Asking a 10 year old to get naked isn't a gray area, this isn't a case where a 16 or 17 (or even 15) year old "looked old enough"; this is absolutely a (virtual) child these turkeys are trying to use for their own thrills. More like this and fewer child porno cases against cartoons are what is needed.

Re:I don't see the downside so far

[Anonymous Coward]

But this is also not a real child, which is probably the same argument you'd bring against child porno cases about cartoons.

Re:I don't see the downside so far

[Conspiracy_Of_Doves]

The point is that they thought it was a real child. The whole issue here is intent.

Re:I don't see the downside so far

[BitterOak]

Asking a 10 year old to get naked isn't a gray area, this isn't a case where a 16 or 17 (or even 15) year old "looked old enough"; this is absolutely a (virtual) child these turkeys are trying to use for their own thrills. More like this and fewer child porno cases against cartoons are what is needed.

I see you put the word "virtual" in parenthesis, perhaps hoping we wouldn't notice it, or if we did, think it really isn't relevant. But if you remove the word "virtual" entirely, then you're making a blatantly false statement, if you remove the parentheses, then you're making a true, but ridiculous statement. Very clever of you, but I doubt it will work on most Slashdot readers.

Re:I don't see the downside so far

[Anonymous Coward]

We all know the Prophet Mohammad is perfect, and we should follow his life as a model. I, for one, am trying to find my 9 yrs old Aisha.
Allahu Akbar!

Re:I don't see the downside so far

[Anonymous Coward]

Not really.

With regards to drawings, there is no victim and no way to solicit said victim. (I'm against the banning of victimless thoughtcrimes.)

But what people were doing here was trying to engage in a sexual conversation with an underage person (or what they thought was an underage person), which is already against the law.

Re:I don't see the downside so far

[phantomfive]

To the guys doing it, there was no difference between the virtual and a real girl. Your point is meaningless in the context of the comment you are replying to.

Re:I don't see the downside so far

[Anonymous Coward]

More like this and fewer child porno cases against cartoons are what is needed.

This animated, computer generated girl was a cartoon too. One just has to look at her to see how fake she is.

Re:I don't see the downside so far

[Vitriol Angst]

I'd say that if we allow for the punishment of people for thought crimes based on their romantic intentions with a virtual girl, wouldn't it also be appropriate to arrest the investigators for pimping a virtual girl?

I know it's offensive to think about nasty old men taking advantage of little girls -- and I want a world where that doesn't happen. Why not just allow for virtual girls to fill the demand and no real person need be abused?

I don't want an internet full of "honey pots" where one wrong click leads people to commit a crime -- without real damages to real people. It's damage I'm worried about, not intent nor thoughts.

Re:I don't see the downside so far

[Khashishi]

What's the difference between this and a cartoon?

Re:I don't see the downside so far

[BitterOak]

To the guys doing it, there was no difference between the virtual and a real girl. Your point is meaningless in the context of the comment you are replying to.

I guess it depends on what you think a criminal justice system should be for. If it's to put away people who have bad thoughts, then I would agree with your point; if it's to put away people who have actually done harm, then I think my point is valid. I happen to believe it should be for the latter.

Re:I don't see the downside so far

[Anonymous Coward]

Asking a 10 year old to get naked isn't a gray area[]

It may well be grey. What I know of law enforcement, police, gossip girls, and news headlines is that they lie quite a bit about what they've done and what's been done in response. Everything is exaggerated and distorted by each intermediate source until what appears in the news is inflammatory and single-sided.

The lies I'm most interested in are what chat rooms this girl went to, how she presented herself, how she initiated communication at all with older men, how the men perceived her, how much was obvious sarcasm coming from their disbelief of a fake persona, how much is because it's common for older persons to lie about their own ages and genders online, how much was meant jocularly.

I think best thing to do is to not mix small children with adults. Adults like sex. Children are forbidden from it.
Is the problem that men whose culture is based around sex treat an interloper the way they treat everyone else or that (fake) children are impersonating adults, engaging in communications with a foreign cultural group, and then acting as if they don't expect standard responses?

Re:I don't see the downside so far

[phantomfive]

You are wrong, you've forgotten that it is also to put away people who tried to do harm. If I try to kill you, I can go to jail, even if I failed, and rightfully so.

Re:I don't see the downside so far

[sjames]

If they believe it to be an actual 10 year old, they had intent to commit the crime. If they know it's virtual then they didn't. PROVING that they didn't know would be hard.

Re:I don't see the downside so far

[hweimer]

I see you put the word "virtual" in parenthesis, perhaps hoping we wouldn't notice it, or if we did, think it really isn't relevant.

From a legal point of view, it is mostly irrelevant and this is not limited to the US or even common law jurisdictions. Factual impossibility is not a valid defense when charged with the attempt of a crime.

Re:I don't see the downside so far

[Anonymous Coward]

What if I tried to kill Donald Duck?

Not the guy in the suit in Disneyland, the real, ink on paper Donald Duck. Who is just as real as the girl these men tried to harm.

Re:I don't see the downside so far

[david_thornley]

Why would asking a 10-year-old to get naked necessarily be illegal? Nudity is not pornography per se.

Re:I don't see the downside so far

[alexo]

This is not a thought crime since the perpetrators believed they were interacting with a real 10yo girl.

Let's review a hypothetical case.

There's suspicion that an assassination attempt will be made on a person.
So we put a manikin, dressed in that person's clothes on the sofa near a window, clearly visible from outside.
Sure enough, a sniper puts a bullet through the dummy's head.

By your logic, the guy should not be prosecuted for attempted murder since he only shot a piece of plastic.

Re:I don't see the downside so far

[Flere Imsaho]

How does the virtual part make the statement ridiculous? If the guys didn't know it was a virtual child then the intent is to exploit a child.

This sort of semantic nit-picking bullshit on /. annoys the fuck out of me, and your post getting modded up makes me wonder about the crowd here.

Re:I don't see the downside so far

[Flere Imsaho]

They didn't know it was virtual - the intent was the same as if it were a real child.

Downside?

[Mr D from 63]

A possible unintended consequence of this approach could be that future peda-wannabees could claim they believed they were talking to a virtual victim and not a real one, even if the potential victim is real.Basically, a game to see if they could pick out the virtual being. They would, of course, want to verify they are really talking to a virtual victim, thus the reason for a visit. Who could prove it wasn't just a game?

Re:Downside?

[erroneus]

Nice thought, but many jurisdictions have already outlawed even fictitious depictions of children.

Re:Downside?

[Anonymous Coward]

How about those 10 year old boys getting all exited about talking to an exotic 10 year old Filipino girl, only to get their hearts ripped out when they find out that she's only an automation.

Re:Downside?

[Anonymous Coward]

What's the name of that disease that will have an adult looking like a child? Why don't they claim that they thought a child was an adult suffering from that disease. Talking to a child, real or virtual and asking them to get naked on cam is enough probable and reasonable cause to arrest anyone.

Re:Downside?

[Anonymous Coward]

Depictions where, in the mind or tangible medium? Outlawing thoughts would be an interesting step for countries that delude themselves into thinking of themselves as "free".

Re:Downside?

[Anonymous Coward]

Some have, most notably the UK.

If a US jurisdiction (who the majority was) has, please enlighten us.

Re:Downside?

[MysteriousPreacher]

Such a defence would be incredibly difficult to pull off outside of very compelling contexts. E.g. the wrongcock was browsing a website where it was reasonable to expect they would be chatting with robochild.

It's up there with fighting a speeding ticket with the claim that the perfectly normal speed limit sign looked kind of fake.

Re:Downside?

[Anonymous Coward]

In some european countries even faked pedophilia is illegal. I.e. pornstars cannot pretend to be preteen, nor can you create comics where preteen engage in sexual behavior (even if it's not a rape). So that defense wouldn't work in i.e. Sweden.

Re:Downside?

[Anonymous Coward]

Really? Asking someone to do something is enough probable and reasonable cause to arrest them? No free country would do such a thing, but then again, there are no free countries.

Re:Downside?

[Valdrax]

A possible unintended consequence of this approach could be that future peda-wannabees could claim they believed they were talking to a virtual victim and not a real one, even if the potential victim is real.Basically, a game to see if they could pick out the virtual being. They would, of course, want to verify they are really talking to a virtual victim, thus the reason for a visit. Who could prove it wasn't just a game?

Not a good tack to take. If they were willing to voluntarily take the risk that they were speaking to a child, they'd qualify for "reckless" mens rea. Many sex crimes do not require "intentional" or "knowing" behavior; some, like possession, are even strict liability, with no mens rea requirement at all.

If you're curious, you can check your state laws on the matter. Anyone engaging in this sort of behavior may evade the "knowingly" requirements of statutes like 18 USC 1470 & 2422, but cannot evade 18 USC 2251(a) or 18 USC 2252 whose mens rea requirements do not attach to knowing the age (or existence) of the child.

You can find a pretty comprehensive list of federal statutes governing this issue here. Personally, I hope pedos use those kinds of arguments, because they can't use them without admitting to all the other relevant elements of those charges. Attempt is still a crime, even if a child isn't real.

Re:Downside?

[Anonymous Coward]

Violent sex offenders. Get them in prison and on the freedom list before they grow up and exploit a real miner. Or underage child.

Re:Downside?

[MysteriousPreacher]

It's most likely a growth hormone condition.

The condition itself is pretty rare. On top of this, you'd be talking about an adult who has a rare condition for which they've not sought the available treatment, preferring instead to spend their money on a computer and a webcam.

If this defence was in any way not batshit crazy, it'd be used quite often when paedophiles get caught with their photos of kids in the nip.

Re:Downside?

[nbauman]

A virtual porno Turing test.

Re:Downside?

[AK Marc]

The point was that it could end up cracking down on CP selfies, but increase pedo meetings. If it's illegal to see a nude, then try to meet them. If it's a 45 year old guy at the other end, claim you just wanted to verify the identity of the child to inform the parents, with the sole intention of protecting them, not exploiting them. Receiving a selfie is a crime. So don't go for pictures, go for the real thing.

These such laws always have unintended consequences.

Re:Downside?

[Anonymous Coward]

Really? Asking someone to do something is enough probable and reasonable cause to arrest them? No free country would do such a thing, but then again, there are no free countries.

Otherwise Mafia bosses could not be arrested: They didn't do the crimes, they just asked some of their people to do them ...

Re:Downside?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd like to point out my other post: http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=4414147&cid=45342633

From what I understand, virtual or not, if it's obscene, it's illegal in the U.S. Obscene or not, if it's real, it's illegal.
virtual & obscene = illegal
virtual & !obscene = legal?
!virtual & obscene = illegal
!virtual & !obscene = illegal

I am not a lawyer. None of what I said should be construed as advice

Re:Downside?

[Anonymous Coward]

People who excavate coal for a living are often exploited by violent sex offenders?

The lure of illusions

[jovius]

So it's an advanced, immaterial sex doll. Probably the adult industry will move on to employ similar creations in live web shows.

Re:The lure of illusions

[Anonymous Coward]

They make a Real Doll that looks like a child, I believe.

But you're right. This was a demo for tech that would make massive profits in the webcam porn industry. Displaying what appeared to be 18 year old legal girls, of course. Like running a car wash or storage unit. Pure profit with little work and no employees. Just infrastructure.

Re:The lure of illusions

[gweihir]

What I wonder is how they fixed the age. In legal "teen porn", the age bracket is 18 to something like 35 (at least some look that old). Does a 35 year old claiming to be 16 make that underage porn or not? What if the 35 year old is actually a computer generated picture claiming to be underage? What about characters in cartoons that claim to be children but have been around for decades and thereby are clearly not children?

This is a slippery slope. At least stick to punishing crimes where there actually has been a victim, everything else is insane.

Re:The lure of illusions

[Anonymous Coward]

They already do. Kink.com apparently has a video game where you control a bondage model if I recall correctly. Of course, they weren't pioneers of it. So-called "dating sims" are kind of like that already. Perhaps with dumber AI.

Defense

[Anonymous Coward]

Based on the photo in TFA, its pretty obviously CGI*. So are we busting all the people viewing loli websites? Where is the line to be drawn? If they knew, or say they knew it was CGI and we don't have a clear demarcation line (perhaps based upon a 'common person' test), where's the justification for legal action?

*Testable by presenting some PG rated versions to test and control groups along with real human pix under proper double blind conditions.

Re:Defense

[Conspiracy_Of_Doves]

Are you talking about the one at the top of the article? That's a still from a video where it's showing the rendering in test mode with some of the textures and lighting effects turned off. Scroll down and look at the photo at the bottom of the article with the black background.

Re:Defense

[Anonymous Coward]

Lower image with black background. Looks CGI to me. It could fool some people if the motion masks image characteristics. But then a lot of animated CGI looks artificial due to the unnatural movement. So I'd have to see that as well (PG version, of course) to judge.

State of the art animation is coming close to real. But its not there yet. And it isn't done in real time, so I'm not certain that animation capable of responding to real time requests would be very convincing.

Re:Defense

[Anonymous Coward]

Still looks incredibly fake, with uncanny valley in full effect.

Of Course!

[erroneus]

"We believe that criminal investigations using intrusive surveillance measures should be the exclusive responsibility of law enforcement agencies," spokesman Soren Pedersen told the Reuters news agency.

People in political or law enforcement power are at least as prone to this sort of activity (and often more considering the typical mental/emotional profile of such child predators) as everyone else. So of course they want to control any investigative activity so that they can filter out the protected 'elite' from those caught in the sting.

Re:Of Course!

[PPH]

This.

We had a pedo case in our town a couple of years back. The local cops were doing nothing*, so the complaint was filed in a nearby jurisdiction. It even made the local news, with a reporter shoving a camera in the chief of police's face and asking what was up. Deer in the headlights reaction.

*It involved a popular church elder, IIRC. The banjo music is powerful in these parts.

Making an underage sex bot

[Joining Yet Again]

Will these researchers be convicted for developing an under-age sex bot?

Or does it not count because they were giving paedos sexual titillation "for research purposes"?

I fucking hate child sex abuse. I'm one of those bleeding heart feminists. But this is NOT child sex abuse - and if the authorities spend one moment on it, they are deliberately redirecting resources away from catching criminals, i.e. choosing to take a path which will increase the number of abused children.

Re:Making an underage sex bot

[chuckugly]

Very good question.

Re:Making an underage sex bot

[scott9693]

Child abusers are the lowest form of life. These guys had the intent to commit the crime, possibly believing it was a real 10 year old girl. They should in my opinion be in prison.

What if it had been a real girl?

Re:Making an underage sex bot

[Anonymous Coward]

I think that this sting was well-calculated to make the pervs feel safe, because they thought that what they say to a young girl in the Philippines could never come back to bite them. They're thinking: The worst thing that can happen is that her parents find out and then contact the Filipino police. Are they going to move heaven and earth to trace my identity to my computer in England, and get me in trouble? No way.

But now that the sting is public, I have a feeling that a couple of pervs will at least hesitate before propositioning another young girl, aware that she might be a part of the follow-up sting.

You're right that what they're doing isn't child sex abuse. But leaving this kind of pervy behavior completely unsanctioned does probably contribute indirectly to child sex abuse. There needs to be a "This is not OK" signpost visible to all these men, even at this point. I'm not saying they belong in handcuffs, but they do deserve to get a form letter from the cops, letting them know that they've been caught propositioning children for pornography, and that their names are on some list now.

Re:Making an underage sex bot

[Joining Yet Again]

"Possibly believing" something isn't proof of intent. And this all assumes I trust the word of these vigilante self-promoters about the content of the messages to the bot.

Regardless, someone who intends to abuse children isn't a child-abuser. Nor are one-off inappropriate remarks necessarily child abuse. It is harmful and insulting to the victims of abuse to classify everything bad which MIGHT happen to children in this way.

Re:Making an underage sex bot

[Anubis IV]

What? They didn't make a sex bot. They simply made a CG girl that appears to show up on a webcam, fully clothed, then waited for people to proposition "her" and offer to pay money to take off her clothes. Nothing else. Neither the summary nor the article nor the video accompanying the article suggest anything about actually taking off her clothes. Why you thought otherwise is beyond me. The solicitation itself is criminal behavior on the part of the child predators, and sufficient to get them investigated or locked up, so there isn't any sort of need for her to unclothe herself at any point.

Re:Making an underage sex bot

[wangmaster]

The article wasn't clear on how people "found" sweetie. But I have to say that without further info, the "possibly believing" part is stretching it.

This is the internet. That girl is very obviously CG. How many people have randomly had fun with computer AIs?
I recall the old MUD'ing days and Zork games asking to do stupid sexual things just to get a laugh out of you and your friends sometimes.

Modern day version = Siri. How many silly youtube videos have you seen of people asking Siri to do stupid sexual things.

Just because the CG is of what appears to be a 10 year old girl doesn't mean people aren't going to revert to the same silly behavior just to see what happens, especially if they KNOW it's CG and figure hey, it can't hurt.

Re:Making an underage sex bot

[Joining Yet Again]

The problem is that there is no, "It looks like you probably did something bad, so we're going to give you a summary telling-off!" standard of criminal justice. The police gather evidence, but they don't convict. It's bad enough with the accusations of people downloading pirated material, except a false accusation of being a child sex abuser is way more harmful.

I have no problem with wide publication of the information that some "Filipina girls" are in fact European bots logging everything. I have no problem with the publication of the chat logs - although pseudonymised, because chat logs are way too easy to fake, or take out of context, or to misattribute (e.g. someone using another person's account). Let everyone know that evidence WILL be collected, and should you try anything for real, it'll all be there to use against you.

Re:Making an underage sex bot

[Anonymous Coward]

If it has been a real girl, then it would be a crime.

Imprisoning someone for propositioning a fake 10-year-old girl over the Internet sounds dangerously close to thoughtcrime. "But he totally would've done it for real" doesn't cut it.

Re:Making an underage sex bot

[Joining Yet Again]

I think you're quibbling over definition of "sex bot", because to me a "CG girl that appears to show up on a webcam" with the intention of eliciting sexual solicitations is a type of sex bot.

And messaging a bot transmitting a computer generated image isn't soliciting an underage girl, is it?

Re:Making an underage sex bot

[Anonymous Coward]

The Netherlands is listed by the UNODC as a top destination for victims of human trafficking... may be the researchers could look into that

Re:Making an underage sex bot

[Anonymous Coward]

These guys had the intent to commit the crime

What crime? Asking someone to do something over the Internet? No... in this case, it was a mere bot. You're one of those 'for the children' lunatics. How about going after real rapists?

Re:Making an underage sex bot

[CanHasDIY]

.

What if it had been a real girl?

Conversely, what if the 'suspects' knew it wasn't a real girl, and that knowledge is the only reason they engaged in an activity they otherwise might not have?

Re:Making an underage sex bot

[MysteriousPreacher]

I think you're quibbling over definition of "sex bot", because to me a "CG girl that appears to show up on a webcam" with the intention of eliciting sexual solicitations is a type of sex bot.

You're technically right, only because you've defined a slightly esoteric phrase to mean what you want it to mean. That's not a very useful for of being right. I consider a sex bot to be a mechanical contrivance with which a man can empty his nuts in to a well greased brass receptacle. For the same reasons you're right, I'm also right in saying that "Sweetie" is not a sex bot.

And messaging a bot transmitting a computer generated image isn't soliciting an underage girl, is it?

Is soliciting an undercover policewoman not a crime unless she's a real hooker? It's not quite the same situation, and I'm pretty sure this wouldn't be a crime in itself in most places. What I'd hope is that plod goes and looks a bit deeper to see if there are grounds for investigating these people.

Re:Making an underage sex bot

[dmbasso]

I'm one of those bleeding heart feminists.

You don't have to be a feminist to have empathy for your fellow human beings, whichever gender they are.

Re:Making an underage sex bot

[Anonymous Coward]

This is sexual abuse in the same way that drawings of children are child porn.
It's a CG girl, it's not real. Maybe they should give these people CG girls so they can act out their urges.

Re:Making an underage sex bot

[Anonymous Coward]

It would only be the case if this digital creation had fully formed digital genitalia underneather her digital clothes. In this case it would definately be child porn.

An old joke but (.)(.). These are the digital ascii girl. These are OK to look at.

These brest belong to a 14 year old girl. (.)(.). If you looked at them you are a child molester and will be rounded up and put into a concentration camp thanks to law enforcement.

Re:Making an underage sex bot

[Anonymous Coward]

Slippery slope, bud. You want to imprison everyone for thought crimes now?

Re:Making an underage sex bot

[Joining Yet Again]

Anubis IV was going for some No True Sexbot argument, by choosing a definition of sexbot so he could then base his argument on this thing not being a sex bot.

The point is that the sexbot's creators want its users sanctioned on the basis that they intended sexual activity.

But the creators also intended sexual activity.

Re:Making an underage sex bot

[mrspoonsi]

>and if the authorities spend one moment on it, they are deliberately redirecting resources away from catching criminals,
> i.e. choosing to take a path which will increase the number of abused children.

and if the authorities ignore the evidence collected then one of these people might go on to abuse a real person. What you have here is a collection of people who have expressed an interest in abuse, even if it was not a real child.

Re:Making an underage sex bot

[Anubis IV]

So, let me see if I have this straight. You started this thread by calling for the criminal conviction of the researchers because they created a virtual, underage girl that merely sits in a chatroom while doing nothing sexual at all. And now you're arguing that the pedophiles that tried to solicit sex from this virtual girl should be let off the hook because the girl wasn't real, which means that they weren't actually soliciting sex.

I'm fairly certain I'm not alone in encouraging you to slither back into whatever dark hole you came from.

I think you're quibbling over definition of "sex bot", because to me a "CG girl that appears to show up on a webcam" with the intention of eliciting sexual solicitations is a type of sex bot.

I don't think it's quibbling to demand that a definition of "sex bot" includes "engages in some form of sexual behavior", since that's the foundational idea of the term. By your definition, a virtual character on a screen that is not doing anything sexual is a "sex bot" merely because someone wants to see if people will try to solicit sex from it. With that logic, if I grabbed a CG model of a kid from Toy Story and dropped it into a chatroom to see if anyone would solicit it, it would magically be a "sex bot", simply because I was working "with the intention of eliciting sexual solicitations". If I dropped ELIZA in a chatroom as a joke to see if anyone would try to solicit it, would ELIZA be a sex bot too? Would I be a criminal if I tweaked ELIZA to say that she was 12 years old? Come on.

And messaging a bot transmitting a computer generated image isn't soliciting an underage girl, is it?

Yes, it is, at least as far as the law is concerned. By your logic, people that accidentally hire undercover cops instead of real hitman should be let off the hook since they couldn't possibly be soliciting murder if the cop wasn't an actual hitman that had plans to go through with the hit, right? Same for undercover cops posing as prostitutes. Or, hell, the same would apply to undercover cops that pose as 10 year old girls in online chat rooms. By your logic, none of those would be valid sting operations since the cops were not actually what they claimed to be, and so no actual crime could be committed.

Re:Making an underage sex bot

[Joining Yet Again]

I have "an interest in abuse", but not in the sense that I want to abuse anyone - especially not a real child. For example, I play computer games in which people are punched, shot, stabbed, harpooned, bombed, etc.

I'm not quite sure what you're getting at, unless you're suggesting that anyone who thinks about anything with criminal associations should be investigated as a likely (potential) criminal.

Re:Making an underage sex bot

[Anubis IV]

Anubis IV was going for some No True Sexbot argument, by choosing a definition of sexbot so he could then base his argument on this thing not being a sex bot.

You've invented your own definition for the word and are trying to claim that I'm the one engaging in a No True Scotsman fallacy? That fallacy hardly comes into play when there is a well-understood definition for a phrase that is simply being ignored by one of the participants in the conversation (i.e. "a bot that engages in some form of sexual behavior" would be the one everyone else is using, I'd bet). Moreover, your definition is a lousy one, since it can be applied to ANY bot whatsoever, due to the fact that you've predicated your definition on the intentions of the user, rather than the nature of the bot itself. If I made a bot that answered "3" to any response whatsoever, it could be a "sex bot" by your definition if someone intended to use it in the way you described, which is utter nonsense.

You can't just make up your own, overly broad definitions that fly in the face of the commonly accepted ones and then accuse everyone else of a No True Scotsman fallacy. Well, okay, you can, but that doesn't make you correct by any stretch of the imagination.

Re:Making an underage sex bot

[mrspoonsi]

>" I play computer games in which people are punched, shot, stabbed, harpooned, bombed, etc."

You play those games in full knowledge that these games are not real, the characters being killed are not real. This cannot be said for this sweetie bot, these people would have thought it was real, because if they thought it was a trap they would not have let their personal identification (ie switched on the web cam so a photo could be taken) be known.

Re:Making an underage sex bot

[Anubis IV]

And undercover officers posing as hitman, prostitutes, or underage kids? Is it not solicitation in those cases either?

The fact is, the "but he totally would've done it for real" argument DOES cut it. If you want to argue that it shouldn't, fine, but it currently does.

Re:Making an underage sex bot

[Joining Yet Again]

Are you being deliberately obtuse?

The intention of the bot was to lure men into sex chats. It was set up and installed in a way which researchers thought would be alluring to paedos. The purpose of the CGI created of the 10 year old girl was to elicit physical sexual attraction in paedos. That's pretty fucking creepy, if you ask me.

Re:Making an underage sex bot

[Joining Yet Again]

Err, I haven't interacted with the sex bot myself, but looking at the pics on the BBC web site, this is obviously CGI. The men may have thought that it was role-playing no more real than, well, any other role-playing game (sexual or otherwise) which occurs online.

Re:Making an underage sex bot

[Anubis IV]

I'm simply finding it difficult to fathom how anyone can consider something that does nothing sexual at all a "sex bot", let alone believing that its creators should be prosecuted for criminal behavior.

I'm perfectly fine with them setting this bot up and acting as a honeypot for the scum of the earth to get trapped in, just as I'm fine with undercover cops posing as kids while waiting for the pedos to come to them. I don't see how the two are any different. They're both simple honeypot traps, they're both devoid of any creepy behavior on the part of the cop/researcher, and they're both perfectly legal and morally permissible.

Re:Making an underage sex bot

[Joining Yet Again]

No, I'm stating that these guys' actions are at least as creepy as anyone who tried to titillate themselves with the sexbot, and I do not see why any criminal justice system would sanction those messaging the sexbot but not those creating it. Because while the men who talked to it were (looking at the BBC news images) probably just thinking they were engaging in paedophilic role-play - itself creepy - the "researchers" endeavoured to create the CGI form of a sexually appealing and accessible child. Either paedophilic role-play is legal or it is not. If it is not, the creation of a sexbot for the purpose of such role-play (and that WAS the purpose, remember) would surely be illegal.

If you doubt this, find out whether a random 10 year old girl on the Internet has been messaged by 20,000 men and sexually propositioned by 1,000 men.

By your definition, a virtual character on a screen that is not doing anything sexual is a "sex bot" merely because someone wants to see if people will try to solicit sex from it.

A bot which is deliberately designed with features to attract the sexual advances of paedophiles (and, clearly, installed somewhere that paedophiles hang out - because nobody just randomly receives 20,000 messages) is a sexbot for paedophiles. This is not at all the same thing as just putting a random bot somewhere random to see what happens.

You're essentially arguing that an undercover policewoman who stands on a street corner trying to appear like a prostitute is not playing the role of prostitute because she's not actually going to go ahead and entrap anyone: IOW, she's not going to come onto anyone with sexually explicit language. But, of course, that's exactly what the policewoman is doing - she's playing the role of prostitute. Similarly, this bot is playing the role of a child who would be exploited by paedophiles, IOW is a sexbot for paedophiles.

Hiring an undercover cop as hitman implies you want to kill another *real* person. Engaging a sexbot implies does not imply anything about a real person.

Re:Making an underage sex bot

[Joining Yet Again]

"...scum of the earth..." Well, sadly, I think you've already betrayed your kneejerk feelings.

What is sexually attractive? If this bot were to include a picture of a scantily clad adult woman and comments about how big her breasts are in the profile, you'd say it was sexual, and thus might satisfy the criteria for a sexbot, right? These are the things which are sexually attractive to many heterosexual males. But they're not sexually attractive to gay men. But we still say it's a sexbot, because it's set up to titillate heterosexual men, even if it doesn't titillate all humans.

Well, what is sexually attractive to a paedophile? If the researchers considered this question, created a bot which satisfies the criteria, and thereby managed to titillate paedophiles, it's a sexbot. It doesn't matter whether the picture and description isn't attractive to you or me, because we're not paedophiles - what matters is whether it's intentionally attractive to paedophiles. And it was. So it's a sexbot for paedos.

Alles klar?

Re:Making an underage sex bot

[Anubis IV]

The locations mentioned in the article all have laws that prohibit depictions of realistic underage sex. Soliciting those depictions would constitute a criminal activity, even if the pedos were well aware of the fact that the girl was actually a CGI. Whether they believed it was roleplay or were aware that it was CG has no impact on that. Put differently, it doesn't matter if she's real or not. The legal ramifications are still the same in a number of jurisdictions.

As I said in another comment, I find the actions of the researchers no more creepy than those of undercover police officers who pose as underage children in chat rooms. That they're magnets for the creeps does not, in and of itself, make them creepy. It just means they're surrounded by creeps. For the same reason, I wouldn't consider a spam honeypot to be a spammer or worthy of pursuit for anything illicit.

It still seems like you're trying to have your cake and eat it too: you're arguing that the pedos should be let off because it's not a real child, yet saying that the creators of the bot should be held accountable by being criminally prosecuted because they created something that fills the same role as a real child. Which way is it? Ignoring my first paragraph for the moment, if the bot's fictitiousness means that anything the pedos do with it is legal, then what criminal behavior would the creators of the bot be guilty of, exactly, given that nothing illegal is going on?

And I still think you're playing fast-and-loose with the definition of "sex bot", but that's just a superficial issue between our two lines of thought. Clearly, we disagree on some much more fundamental levels.

Re:Making an underage sex bot

[Anubis IV]

I make no bones about the fact that I have a low tolerance for folks pursuing these sorts of activities. Even so, we're not talking about morality or specific cases here. We're just speaking in broad terms about this case as a whole, and while the honeypot may catch scum, that doesn't mean that everyone who talked to it was scum, of course.

Anyway, I'm clear on your definition, and I can understand where you're coming from, but I still disagree with it and think it's overly broad. At best, I think you could make an argument for saying that it was being used as a sexbot, even if that's not what it would typically be considered, in much the same way that most of us would define cucumbers as a food or vegetable (or is it a fruit?), rather than as a sex toy, even though it can be used in the latter manner.

Also, worth saying: I apologize for my earlier statements aimed your way. I was way out of line and should have given you more of an opportunity to explain what you had intended to say, rather than responding as I did. Again, I apologize. You didn't deserve that from me.

Re:Making an underage sex bot

[Anonymous Coward]

Um, duh? The fake girl just sat there showing her fake face. She doesn't even have a body.

Re:Making an underage sex bot

[brit74]

Your argument is awful. This is not a sexbot (and yes, I read your arguments in this thread). Not only is a CGI of a child not a sexbot (because the CGI child is not engaging in any sexual talk or behavior whatsoever), but if you believe that, then I guess you'd also believe that a sting operation involving a cop dressed like a prostitute means "the police are making prostitutes!" - as if the cop was actually engaging in sexual acts for money. Similarly, if your argument held any weight, it would mean that parents should be held liable if a pedophile is attracted to their child - because they brought their child out in public or some nonsense.

> "I fucking hate child sex abuse. I'm one of those bleeding heart feminists."
I don't understand what those sentences have to do with each other, unless you think that only feminists hate child abuse.

Re:Making an underage sex bot

[Joining Yet Again]

My argument is that sexuality is defined by the person exhibiting that sexuality, or in the case of a sexbot by the person creating it. It is not defined by whether YOU find its behaviour sexual. IOW, I see sexual behaviour as something defined by the subject, not by an observer objectifying another person.

You say, "The CGI child is not a sexbot because I don't see anything sexual about it." I say that the CGI child was designed with the very purpose of attracting paedos, therefore projects the creators' idea of a sexually appealing child, therefore is a sexbot.

I believe that when a cop dresses as a prostitute, they are playing the role of a woman who is sexually appealing to hetereosexual men, even though the cop would never actually do anything sexually explicit. Similarly, I believe that this CGI child is playing the role of a girl who is sexually appealing to paedophiles, even though the CGI child never actually does anything sexually explicit.

There is no liability for the parents, just as there's no liability for the cop. A child and a prostitute are allowed to present themselves sexually - it's the adult man who is not allowed to respond to that presentation.

I don't understand what those sentences have to do with each other, unless you think that only feminists hate child abuse.

Explaining the angle from which I hate child sex abuse. Of course other people can hate child abuse.

Re:Making an underage sex bot

[Anonymous Coward]

Will these researchers be convicted for developing an under-age sex bot?

I think it a much more interesting question, will they release said under-age sex bot to be used by pedophiles in lieu of actually children? Because there's an inherent implication in their research that there's plenty of said pedophiles who (a) troll the internet and (b) are spending a lot of their time on said internet. It would make more perfect sense, in a sort of twisted way in inverse to your following statements, to do their best to make the best under-age sex bot they can so said pedophiles will be so tied up, time wise, with it to never engage in any activity with an actual child--Futurama reference for the win.

I mean, sure, it might make people more desensitized. And the same is probably true for horror films and video games. But, again, (a) horror films and video games are culturally accepted enough with a relatively small cost and no real punishment and (b) they eat up so much time (bread and circuses) that most people would have to spend a lot of time--idle hands are the devil's pawn--to do something real. Of course, the above presumes that such bots could be accepted enough by society--which is more or less out in America, where busy-bodies win out over the Libertarians/Liberals--to actual be visible enough to function for those with the desire.

It also does nothing to try to "fix" pedophiles, even presuming that's at all possible. As others have mentioned, the war on pedophiles is little different than the war on drugs--or more, that it was. That is, to take drugs was viewed as a severe moral failing and drug users were scorned as evil. But, as time has passed and thuggery by police/the Feds has escalated, more people have revealed they're closet drug users and the war is mostly lost. I don't think the same will happen with pedophilia, as it's not something one does "recreationally". And the sex drive towards some end, no matter how wrong (as viewed by whoever), is not something one can readily break. That's the real parallel with the drug addiction, except that the drug is endorphin and made by the brain, so you can't really get rid of it.

In any case, I guess I think it'd be nice if we just accepted that some (most?) pedophiles would prefer a virtual sex doll to the real thing, anyways because children don't make good sex partners on a practical level, they don't want to harm children, and they'd still like to safely and legally burn through their lust without condemnation on a private thing that, in such a circumstance, would literally involve no one else. But, then, that's probably asking too much for most people because it sounds like allowing a person to experience a short-term thrill on their own is some how condoning the most extreme, perverse act they can imagine upon a real person. The thought police live.

Re:Making an underage sex bot

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't worry, an answer will come faster once this software shows up on your favorite torrent site.

Re:Making an underage sex bot

[giorgist]

There is a reason they publish this. To get these guys scared, and second guess and by extension save some children. This is a good thing, even if it was CGI and entrapment.

Re:Making an underage sex bot

[Anonymous Coward]

I know! They should have given her a niqab!

Re:Making an underage sex bot

[MysteriousPreacher]

I was thinking the same. I'd assume they'd keep the dimensions low and apply filters to make it appear more realistic. Some of the still pictures are pretty realistic, which I'd imagine was the main calling card used.

Re:Making an underage sex bot

[Joining Yet Again]

Agreed that unlawfulness of even CG depictions muddies the waters further, and of course it depends exactly how the laws are written, but I would say then that creating this visual bot for the purpose of titillation shows far more of a guilty mind than merely role-playing. Does, "Take your clothes off," mean, "You - adult role-player behind this image - please take your clothes off"? Does it mean, "Describe taking your clothes off without really doing it"? Or does it mean, "Please redraw your obvious CG avatar as unclothed" (would people really assume this is even possible?)?

I don't find human honeypots which *prompt* criminal behaviour to be appropriate - I think they're a thoroughly lazy ways to police, and create a very easy arms race in which your objective becomes not to avoid the criminal behaviour but to identify the cop in plain sight. Spam honeypots are different, as they're merely identifying the automated behaviour of a bot, already set into motion by the human - IOW the crime was already taking place before the honeypot arrived. This said, I don't think this is like e.g. a police vice operation, because:

1) (at least in much of Europe) It is regarded that various methods of soliciting a prostitute are the (bigger) problem, not being a prostitute - indeed, prostitution is often legal. There's nothing wrong with (a cop) pretending to be a adult prostitute because there's nothing inherently wrong with adult prostitution - but there is something wrong with pretending to be a child prostitute because there is something inherently wrong with child prostitution. As for the comparison, to quote my other post:

I believe that when a cop dresses as a prostitute, they are playing the role of a woman who is sexually appealing to hetereosexual men, even though the cop would never actually do anything sexually explicit. Similarly, I believe that this CGI child is playing the role of a girl who is sexually appealing to paedophiles, even though the CGI child never actually does anything sexually explicit.

2) The police are (comparitively) well-regulated, audited and built as far as possible without a profit motive. They reflect, via democratic process, the wishes of society. But these researchers are prompting paedophilic role play, then trying to sell a product based on it. The behaviour was unsolicited - so blatantly that Europol's immediate response was, "No, this is not appropriate". They could have found this out before beginning the whole project with a short meeting with relevant representatives of law enforcement.

Re:Making an underage sex bot

[gweihir]

Indeed. As long as real children are getting abused, deviating resources to catching people that do not actually abuse children is clearly highly immoral. In fact, deviating any resources to victim-less crimes as long as there are crimes _with_ victims can only be regarded as extremely problematic.

But things like this give easy "wins" for a law enforcement establishment that does not seem to care about victims or about reducing crime at all. As long as they can report their numbers, they are fine. Even if it means calling people engaging a chat-bot "child rapists" and ignoring people that actually do rape children, as doing something about them takes more effort.

Re:Making an underage sex bot

[Joining Yet Again]

Well, I'd say that it was designed to be used as a sexbot, and was used as a sexbot. Yes, it's a cucumber, but one carefully selected for relevant dimensions, then made available (how else would it get 20,000 responses, 1,000 of which are explicit?) in a sex shop.

I think I understand where you're coming from - this is not like those spammy sexbots which sometimes pop up on Skype and ask you whether you're horny and bla bla, and if you tell them to go away they seem to respond with random sexually explicit remarks. It's not "entrapment". If this were a real girl, there'd be no room for a "she was asking for it" defence to the explicit requests - not because it's wrong to merely request sexual things in general (as long as you can take "no" for an answer), but because it's wrong to request sexual things from a child.

And no worries re the earlier remarks.

Re:Making an underage sex bot

[Anonymous Coward]

These people who sexually propositioned this virtual child are likely to do it to a real child. While I don't think people should be prosecuted for "crimes" against a virtual person, having the police investigate these people further may turn up some real cases of child abuse. In other words this could be a useful tool for finding child abusers if used properly.

Re:Making an underage sex bot

[Anonymous Coward]

No. Why is it so hard to understand that this isn't a sex bot? It's a bunch of people ("researchers") posing as a child in a chatroom, using a CGI image of a 10-year-old girl. They didn't proposition the adults, and no, it's not child abuse because no children were involved. But in many countries (at least including the US), it's illegal to solicit sex from a minor, when you know fully well that the person is a minor. Who said they were providing "sexual titillation"?

Re: Making an underage sex bot

[Anonymous Coward]

Hi. Get this through your thick fucking skull: clothed children are not illegal, and if it bothers you that someone might be titillated by a video of a clothed child, TOO FUCKING BAD.

It's not illegal to make a bot that pedophiles find stimulating just because it appears to be a 10-year-old girl; for the bot itself to be illegal, it'd have to actually simulate something illegal, i.e. nudity.

Re:Making an underage sex bot

[Anonymous Coward]

What? They created an avatar of a child. If the avatar removed clothes or other random polygons it would be wire-frame underneath. There's nothing sexual about it. Nor is there anything sexual about a bot saying it's actually a 10 year old human. which is all that it does.

Your imagination is getting ahead of you here.

Turing test...

[Arkh89]

...21st century style!

Re:Turing test...

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a digital puppet. BFD.

hi i'm chris hansen

[Joe_Dragon]

and we are doing a story about people who like to have on line sex with kids.

Re:hi i'm chris hansen

[Capt.DrumkenBum]

I love watching the To catch a Predator specials.
I nearly broke something when they caught a guy for the second time.
As I recall his reaction was "Oops."

Re:Photography from turn of the century - 19 th ce

[firex726]

You should try out for the Olympics, that's one hell of a leap.

I hope the authorities can make use of the info

[rs1n]

that was given to them. I find that any number (of people who enjoy the exploitation of children) higher than 0 to be too high.

Re:I hope the authorities can make use of the info

[pla]

I find that any number (of people who enjoy the exploitation of children) higher than 0 to be too high.

Oh, come now - Someone has to thread those bobbins, the crawl-space doesn't fit an adult, and midgets have become increasingly scarce thanks to modern medical science.

/ Handbasket, please.

sweetiebot

[Anonymous Coward]

Sweetiebot is from ponyville not the phillypines!

Big advancement over previous method in catching..

[madhatter256]

Prior to computers we had to use pull-string dolls.

Our methods were presented in this documentary:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1194017/

but during the course of filming we had to use live bait and then the operation went down the tubes.

This is the internet

[Guppy06]

A computer-generated, ten year-old goldfish would get thousands of propositioning messages.

Re:This is the internet

[broknstrngz]

From a guy called Guppy, by any chance?

Re:This is the internet

[Anonymous Coward]

A GILF?

Re:This is the internet

[Anonymous Coward]

Bruce: We're having FISH TONIGHT!

Re:This is the internet

[HnT]

Rather from a guy named "Klaus", claiming to be a German spy in a gold fish body!

Re:This is the internet

[Anonymous Coward]

Nope, that would be Marlin

Network 23

[tag]

There's a Max Headroom joke in here somewhere, but I'm still too creeped out to make it.

Re:Network 23

[93 Escort Wagon]

Theora Jones was somewhat older than ten, though.

Re:Network 23

[Anonymous Coward]

Okay, how 'bout...

Max: "Somebody wanna check my ratings, here? I seem to have an audience of one thousand. And they're all wanking."

Even better (worse?)...

Max: "Kiddie porn. The very thing you don't want squeezed into a blipvert!"

Been a while since I've seen the show.

Re:Photography from turn of the century - 19 th ce

[Anonymous Coward]

That's why American' definition of pedophilia is rampant in europe and especially France. but of course, child sex slaves is also very rampant and vibrant in that part of the world...

Uncanny valley

[Russ1642]

Maybe some of them could tell by the pixels that it was computer generated.

Re:Uncanny valley

[PPH]

Yeah. I've seen quite a few pixels in my day.

3D

[Spaham]

Am I the only one to see immediatly that this is 3D Computer Graphics ??
It's very realistic but still computer generated...

Re:3D

[Kaenneth]

About on par with Fallout 3 faces, still in the uncanny valley.

Re:3D

[GodfatherofSoul]

I bet if you scale down the image size it would be more acceptable.

Re:3D

[Anonymous Coward]

Uncanny Valley is the proper term for it.

Is it actually illegal?

[guruevi]

The question is: is doing/seeing something in virtual reality actually a crime? I'm sure Christians would say "Yes, it's a sin" but legally you haven't 'hurt' anyone. As this stuff gets more realistic, how much of the criminals currently exploiting children will simply buy/rent a render farm and become a legitimate business? To put it very crudely: the render farms do not involve the cost and risk of kidnapping, transporting, exploiting and maintaining people (whether they be adult or not) and they can give the same experience without putting anyone either physically or legally at risk.

At that point (if you're "into" that stuff), doing this becomes merely thought crime. I haven't done the research into whether this increases or reduces the risk of actually physical incidents (I hope it would reduce the drive for gratification in the illegal ways drastically) but it could be a boon for a host of people and move a lot of law enforcement activity to other exploitation of humans.

Re:Is it actually illegal?

[ausekilis]

At that point (if you're "into" that stuff), doing this becomes merely thought crime. I haven't done the research into whether this increases or reduces the risk of actually physical incidents (I hope it would reduce the drive for gratification in the illegal ways drastically) but it could be a boon for a host of people and move a lot of law enforcement activity to other exploitation of humans.

I think this is the crux of the issue and many will argue that it will escalate in the same way as an addiction might, that more and more is needed for a "fix". I'm sure there is a psychological term for it and it'll be the focus of many arguments.

Just look at this sick bastard. It started off with imagery and "thought crimes", then for this guy it turned more real. He started getting movies, talking to others, plotting, buying equipment. That's not saying that every person will turn out to be the same kind of nutjob, there's bound to be folks out there that are just plain curious. I'd lean toward escalation, it starts with one cigarette, ends in 2-packs a day. A crime is a crime, but exactly where do you draw that line? Is it that first communication? is it when money is brought up? is it when certain words are exchanged? is it when a time/place are set up?

Re:Is it actually illegal?

[RecycledElectrons]

Under Texas Law, YES, it is illegal to proposition a minor, where a minor is anyone You are not married to who claims to be under age. Even if You can see via webcam that grandma is old enough, the second she says she's under age You stop or You become a felon. (I don't know about computer generated characters.)

(Chapter 33 of the Texas Penal Code)

Of course, Your laws might vary. Not all of use live in Texas.

I will not touch the issue of international "commerce" not being covered by the Texas Penal Code. If they guys with guns and uniforms say it's covered, who am to argue the Supremacy Clause?

Re:Is it actually illegal?

[Anonymous Coward]

> The question is: is doing/seeing something in virtual reality actually a crime?

Yes. It was established in 2010 that Manga from Japan depicting child sex was/is child porn per the western definition.

Google it.

Re:Is it actually illegal?

[Anonymous Coward]

The gist of the below (about Michael Williams) is this. Virtual or not, if it's obscene, it's illegal (to pander it). I think that effectively makes the (obscene) images illegal. "Not virtual" and "not obscene", it's still illegal.

About that manga case, I assume you're talking about: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_status_of_cartoon_pornography_depicting_minors#2008_Iowa_case
Slightly confusing. A lower court ruled that section prohibiting "pandering" was unconstitutional. U.S. v. Williams ruled that it was constitutional. But in the case of manga depicting virtual child pornography, I imagine that post-U.S. v. Williams it would have to be declared obscene. I don't know what that exactly means when it comes to cartoon drawings.

I am not a lawyer. None of what I said should be construed as advice.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/06-694.ZO.html

"The emergence of new technology and the repeated retransmission of picture files over the Internet could make it nearly impossible to prove that a particular image was produced using real children—even though “[t]here is no substantial evidence that any of the child pornography images being trafficked today were made other than by the abuse of real children,” virtual imaging being prohibitively expensive."

"Rather than targeting the underlying material, this statute bans the collateral speech that introduces such material into the child-pornography distribution network. Thus, an Internet user who solicits child pornography from an undercover agent violates the statute, even if the officer possesses no child pornography. Likewise, a person who advertises virtual child pornography as de-picting actual children also falls within the reach of thestatute."

"The statute’s definition of the material or purported material that may not be pandered or solicited precisely tracks the material held constitutionally proscribable in Ferber and Miller: obscene material depicting (actual or virtual) children engaged in sexually explicit conduct, and any other material depicting actual children engaged in sexually explicit conduct."

"Finally, the dissent accuses us of silently overruling our prior decisions in Ferber and Free Speech Coalition. See post, at 12. According to the dissent, Congress has made an end-run around the First Amendment ’s protection of virtual child pornography by prohibiting proposals to transact in such images rather than prohibiting the images themselves. But an offer to provide or request to receive virtual child pornography is not prohibited by the statute. A crime is committed only when the speaker believes or intends the listener to believe that the subject of the proposed transaction depicts real children. It is simply not true that this means “a protected category of expression [will] inevitably be suppressed,” post,at 13. Simulated child pornography will be as available as ever, so long as it is offered and sought as such, and not as real child pornography."

Re:Is it actually illegal?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think this is the crux of the issue and many will argue that it will escalate in the same way as an addiction might, that more and more is needed for a "fix".

You mean, like with money? I mean, people who made money will soon try to make even more money, and the more their urge to money grows, the more likely they'll also use illegal or at least immoral means to get it. You know, we should forbid making money in order to protect people from themselves. Money addicted people can cause a lot of harm to others. So stop them early before they do any real harm. Best, completely forbid the possession of money. It's the first step to getting addicted to it.

Re:Is it actually illegal?

[almechist]

The question is: is doing/seeing something in virtual reality actually a crime? I'm sure Christians would say "Yes, it's a sin" but legally you haven't 'hurt' anyone. As this stuff gets more realistic, how much of the criminals currently exploiting children will simply buy/rent a render farm and become a legitimate business? To put it very crudely: the render farms do not involve the cost and risk of kidnapping, transporting, exploiting and maintaining people (whether they be adult or not) and they can give the same experience without putting anyone either physically or legally at risk.

At that point (if you're "into" that stuff), doing this becomes merely thought crime. I haven't done the research into whether this increases or reduces the risk of actually physical incidents (I hope it would reduce the drive for gratification in the illegal ways drastically) but it could be a boon for a host of people and move a lot of law enforcement activity to other exploitation of humans.

Yes, this is the critical question, isn't it? Does watching deviant sex (virtual or otherwise) in a porno increase or decrease the chances of the viewer trying out that behavior in the real world? I'm not sure, but I believe the little research that has actually been done on this subject tends to indicate either a neutral or negative influence for porn. In other words, seeing a behavior on a porno doesn't necessarily make someone want to run out and do it themselves, and may actually make them less likely to do so than if they hadn't watched porn to begin with. Of course, under current law, if the behavior being studied involves minors or child porn, you probably couldn't even do the research without risking jail time yourself. We've created a situation where even the study of this behavior becomes utterly unthinkable. We spend ridiculous amounts of time and money trying to lock up everyone involved in a certain kind of bad behavior that turns out to be pretty prevalent, but at the same time we make it impossible to study ways of actually reducing the unwanted behavior itself. As if the drug war hadn't already proven pretty conclusively the unintended negative consequences of treating a behavioral problem in strictly a legal manner, but we sure seem headed in exactly that direction with CP.

Probably saw the same book

[aepervius]

The reason it is considered art today is because there are even today photograph taking picture of young naked teenager (no sex involved) and it *is* considered art. See pornography usually involve much more than a pretty picture of a naked girl alone just in a normal position. But you can bet your ass that back in the 19th century it was considered pornography, because showing more than your ankle was.

Re:Probably saw the same book

[cusco]

it *is* considered art

Not in the US. There are families here that were accused of child pornography because they put a photo of their two year-old playing naked in the yard sprinkler on their web site.

Re: Photography from turn of the century - 19 th c

[Anonymous Coward]

Leap? You've been programmed into thinking violence is a-ok regardless of the target, yet something as nTural as nudity is Evil. and this nonsense of being arroused - really? The sex laws or anti- sex would be more accurate are something written by an adolescent who gets hard over a hole in a peice of wood. Americans are a bunch of oppressed pre- pubescent children. You people are the ones who go all gagga over bare breasted women on Carribean beaches. Children.

The Internet

[Ambitwistor]

where the men are men, the women are men, and the 10-year-old girls are FBI agent-bots.

Re:The Internet

[ebno-10db]

What are Slashdotters?

Re:The Internet

[InfiniteLoopCounter]

Sorry to tell you, but all this time you've been talking to Bonobos.

Re:The Internet

[ebno-10db]

Considering bonobos' social rituals, I might want to become one myself.

Re:The Internet

[Anonymous Coward]

Insignificant.

Re:The Internet

[Anonymous Coward]

The spoons that don't exist.

Re:The Internet

[Anonymous Coward]

verge in on the ridiculous

Seems to making ten year olds software

[ralphaostrander]

is what should be given them so they dont use real ones.

"Sweetie"? Should've called her "Uncanny Valerie"!

[Dogtanian]

Based on the photo in TFA, its pretty obviously CGI*

Bingo. Why hasn't anyone else said this- it's *exactly* what I first thought when I saw this story on the BBC!

The figure still has that very "uncanny valley" look that gives it away (even if you didn't realise, it would still likely be freaking out your subconscious at some level.) It also doesn't look like a real person in front of a webcam- not crappy enough. It'd need (e.g.) to be able to handle highlights > 100% then render them in the same way as a crap-quality webcam does under bad over-contrasty lighting. Ditto softness, lack of focus, noise... webcams are not flattering (*) but they're unflattering in a very un-CGI way.

It's quite possible that they *are* post-processing the generated image to look more "webcammish", which would reduce the "over-perfect" appearance and obscure some of the unnaturalness- but even the movement of the head shown in the video (which wouldn't be affected by the processing) looks CGI-ish.

Basically, either (a) they're lying that this is representative of the video they used, or (b) a lot of the people they "caught" are very gullible.

(*) As evidenced by seeing my own badly-lit face distorted through a crappy wide-angle lensed webcam. Of course, some people might say this is because I'm an ugly git as well...

Fake?

[Tablizer]

Blade Runner for pedophiles?

Re:Photography from turn of the century - 19 th ce

[wisnoskij]

So you are saying some of these men might just of been trying to "draw her like one or your French girls"?

criminals

[Anonymous Coward]

In many countries it is illegal to attempt to view, possess or create any renderings of children in the nude, or in indecent, or sexually explicit situations, digital or otherwise. So all private parties involved in this matter, on both sides, may have committed crimes. As I see it, the groups setting the trap in the event that they rendered these images, would certainly have some accountability for that, and the perverse people, who are knowingly petitioning, what they had reason to believe where minors, under the age of legal consent for sex or to appear in elicit images/videos, also most certainly have accountability for those actions, the real question remains, can this data be confirmed and verified in a way, that this could be used as evidence in a court of law, or since the information was collected by this third party could that fact allow these people to call the validity of the evidence into question.

Terre des hommes had its own pedophilia problems

[nbauman]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terre_des_hommes#Ethiopian_paedophilia_allegations

Ethiopian paedophilia allegations

In 2008 Terre Des Hommes-Lausanne brought a defamation suit against a teacher in Ethiopia, Jill Campbell, for accusing the branch of knowingly hiding child abuse in one of its centres in the village of Jari.[2] Mrs Campbell compiled evidence which helped to convict[3] a British paedophile who was sentenced in 2003 to 9 years hard labour in prison. Another suspect committed suicide after posting a confession on the internet.[2] However Mrs Campbell alleged that senior staff running the centre knew of the abuse, covered it up and failed to inform the authorities.[2]

Mrs Campbell faced 6 months in prison if she failed to withdraw the allegations.[2] Her husband Gary had already withdrawn similar allegations in order to avoid prison and ensure that one of the couple would be able to look after their two ten-year-old adopted children.[2] The charity eventually withdraw its suit before Campbell was due to be sentenced on 7 March, saying that her husband's apology was sufficient.[3]

In a statement the charity said that it asked the court not to sentence Mrs Campbell because her husband had made a full apology.

        “The case is now closed with the Campbells' acknowledgement of wrongdoing and promise to halt their illegal defamation campaign which has been wrongly interpreted as ‘whistle blowing'”.

        “From the First Instance Court to the Ethiopian Supreme Court the judges have upheld the Terre Des Hommes argument in this respect and ruled accordingly.”[4]

Remove your clothes...

[GuB-42]

...and show me your sexy polygons in wireframe.

Re:Remove your clothes...

[c0lo]

...and show me your sexy Bezier patches in wireframe.

FTFY

I don't understand how they feel for it

[jollyreaper]

And I'm not about to look any further into this on my own. But how realistic does the girl look in motion anyway? I saw a screenshot of the face build on another site. I would think in motion she'd still fall into uncanny valley territory. This story intrigues me more from the CGI angle than the Chris Hansen one.

NO uncanny valley - it was just an avatar, guys

[daboochmeister]

If you listen to the video, it was clear "Sweetie" was an avatar - the pedophiles involved asked "her" to turn on her webcam. The avatar's near-lifelikeness may have played some role in attracting attention initially (the writeup/video don't say), but there's no indication any of the accessors thought it was really her.

Are you sure they were men?

[Anonymous Coward]

I dont see how they verified that the people that contacted the bot were MEN and not 10 year old boys or girls, etc.
Was that part of the online profile? What underage kid doesn't claim to be older online anyway?
The whole thing seems a little sensationalized to me. No logs, sample conversations, proof of them not attempting to entrap people or real verification that the people chatting were as old or otherwise who they claimed to be!
From what I have read of other online peda sting stories, most online predators claim to be kids anyway. How do they know who they were dealing with?

Not very PC and more than a little creepy, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

Not very PC and more than a little creepy, but wouldn't it better if bunch of gross horny perverted men got their jollies from realistic artwork, which is what this CGI is, rather than from real children. Who is really harmed? I kill all sort very realistic looking humans, animals, and what have you all the time in video games. And I am not about to seek out and kill the real thing. I would never buy such a game with virtual child porn, but if some sick SOB wants to who is really harmed? Like I said not very PC and more than a little creepy but it is something to consider.

Entrapment is perfectly legal in the US

[Anonymous Coward]

Ever since the Supreme Court held that it was not entrapment for an undercover officer to approach a random man in a bar, strike up a conversation, spend the night seducing him, and offer to have sex with him but only if he paid her; entrapment is basically perfectly legal in the US.

Re:Not very PC and more than a little creepy, but.

[EmagGeek]

It's not the crime, but the thought that counts. After all, this is the USA we're talking about, where thinking about committing a crime is just as bad (or worse) than actually committing it.

It's not a real person

[Anonymous Coward]

How is this a crime if the victim is a computer generated image? Just asking.

Claims are not credible

[Anonymous Coward]

They've been sending unsolicited bulk email as 'Sweetie' for weeks now. I've seen it appearing in email honey pots all over the place, so they just scatter shot targeting. I suspect the vast bulk of the replies were (unwise) removal requests, concerned sympathetic people, or people calling them out as scammer, which is what I suspected.

Their tactics completely undermine their claims.

The body contains the subject

[Anonymous Coward]

"Pedophilia" is such a bullshit for the most part, along with "statutory rape" and "legal consent". In most cases, you woudn't be able to show REAL, MEASURABLE harm to a minor from safe, consensual (from the commonsensical, not legal POV) sex with a minor in the puberty age, however terrible this thought may seem to you. Most of the harm you can think of in this case would be either inflicted by society itself (suggesting to the victim aggressively that s/he was harmed and therefore causing real psychological harm which didn't come with the act itself) or suffered by SOMEONE ELSE than the minor (e.g. parents) in their mind.

Now go mod me down and call me a sick bastard, I don't care.

CAPTCHA: lawful

Re:The body contains the subject

[Anonymous Coward]

"Pedophilia" is such a bullshit for the most part ... In most cases, you woudn't be able to show REAL, MEASURABLE harm to a minor from safe, consensual (from the commonsensical, not legal POV) sex with a minor in the puberty age, however terrible this thought may seem to you.

1) Obviously you ARE a pedophile.

2) Children are not able to reason in the same way an adult can. This makes a child
          an easy victim compared to an adult. This is EXACTLY why children need and deserve
          protection from people like you will do anything to justify their aberrant behavior.

3) We have prisons for your kind, and if you are caught doing something heinous enough,
          you may well go into such a prison and never again be free. And for predatory adults like you,
          that is most assuredly the correct societal response, because a pedophile never quits being
          a pedophile, as professionals who study such behavior are well aware.

4) If you want to do whatever you like, you need to leave any society which doesn't
          accept your desires, and live apart from the rest of the world. If you are unwilling to do that
          then you had better be ready to face the sanctions society will impose on you when society
          catches you doing something society holds to be unacceptable.

5) All you pedophiles are the same. You have a sense of entitlement that could refloat the Titanic,
        and you have extreme narcissism which allows you to actually believe that you alone are "right'
        and virtually everyone who disapproves of you is wrong. Guess what : you are vastly outnumbered
        by people who believe that your preferences are wrong, and the mildest of those people would be
        happy to see you locked away for the rest of your life, and others would be far less kind.

Go ahead, keep being the twisted piece of shit you are, but sooner or later you will be caught and then
it will be society's turn to pay you back for what you have done against society. And this IS the real bottom
line : in this world, if you break the rules most people have agreed to follow, you will have to pay a price
whether you like it or not. For you that day is coming sooner rather than later, because I will be contacting
federal authorities who will get your IP address from Slashdot who will be only too happy to comply,
and you will be watched rather more closely from this day on. Have a nice day, you twisted piece of shit.

This is law enforcement we're talking about...

[Anonymous Coward]

Am I the only one who sees this resulting in digital models that look old enough and then claim, unbelievably, to be 10 years old snatching up otherwise innocent people?

Virtual Victims

[nuckfuts]

How can it even be a crime to molest a "virtual" person?

If it is a crime, then shouldn't we be informing the police about all the virtual people being murdered everyday in video games?

Re:Virtual Victims

[Anonymous Coward]

you tell the virtual police and spend virtual time in prison...

Re:Virtual Victims

[Patman64]

It's only a crime when sex is involved. Haven't you been paying attention to society at all?

Wrong,

[Anonymous Coward]

Wikipedia is simply wrong, no official capacity is required.

Cambridge English Dictionary : the act of causing someone to do something they would not usually do by tricking them

Computer-generated online predator

[UneducatedSixpack]

What if computer-generated online predator contacts computer-generated 10-year-old girl? Is it computer-generated crime then?

Re:Making an underage sex botFTFY

[Anonymous Coward]

"is soliciting a virtual undercover policewoman not a crime unless she's a real hooker? It's not quite the same situation, and I'm pretty sure this wouldn't be a crime in itself in most places. What I'd hope is that plod goes and looks a bit deeper to see if there are grounds for investigating these people."

i know people that kill lots of virtual men women and puppies "What I'd hope is that plod goes and looks a bit deeper to see if there are grounds for investigating these people."

No suprising...

[Martin Spamer]

Well known in anti-spam lists.

Here is the typical content of the what is know as the sweetie email

Hello sweetie.
My name is (random girls name), I saw your profile today on (random websites) and was moved and become interested in you, I will like you to send me an email so that i can give you my pictures for us to know more better and see how things will go for us.

I believed we will get to be better friends or even more and remember that color or distance does not matter but LOVE matters alot in life). Reply me back with my email address hope to hear from you soon from ...... reply at (XXXXXX@hotmail.com )

I assumed 419 scam, labelling gullible responders as paedophile is grossly irresponsible!

These Dutch seem rather sick themselves.

[Anonymous Coward]

I mean, why else would someone attempt to entrap another human being ?
There's a name for this shit : "witch hunt" is the name.

The notion that all bad people can be trapped and locked away before they
do anything wrong is more than slightly distasteful.

Let me be clear : I detest all those who would willfully do harm to a child ( or
an animal which has not presented a threat ) but this entrapment scheme
is nearly as sick as the crime it seems to attempt to prevent, and in the end
it will solve nothing.

.

Alt Headline: Pedophiles Fail Turing Test

[Sir Realist]

Alt Headline: Pedophiles Fail Turing Test.

insulating blanket statement of disbelief?

[Anonymous Coward]

could a perv record exculpatory evidence even if he secretly believes the image to be authentic by stating and recording, "I believe you are a virtually created image, and I will interact with you with that understanding...."

Virtual girls respond better

[feddas]

I agree it's sick and twisted. Yet, I wonder how many of these guys were interested just because she responded. Most girls I've chatted with don't respond, that could be what's making her special, not her age.

With the success of this...

[Anonymous Coward]

Just think if they made her 8 years old!

Ok, so where is link to chat?

[Cito]

I wanted to wet my whistle...fap the ol fertile turtle at this AI...

Bah.. Nothing like fapping to 10 year old emulated r@ygold, hussyfan, or babyshivid virtual cyber.

Tells more about the researchers / reporters.

[VortexCortex]

Dutch researchers conducted a 10-week sting, using a life-like, computer-generated 10-year-old Filipino girl named 'Sweetie.' During this time, 20,000 men contacted her. 1,000 of these men offered money to remove clothing (254 were from the U.S., 110 from the U.K. and 103 from India).

... and not a single women? Interesting. Very very interesting. I would be interested to see the age distribution of these supposed "men" as well.

Think of the cartoons!

[Anonymous Coward]

So how many cartoons were harmed by these sickos and what exactly does harming a cartoon mean? Is cartoon porn about coupling electrons or what?

Why not just let it be?

[Anonymous Coward]

Fill the sick chatrooms with a bunch of fake girls as realistic as possible and let the sickos have a field day. The money they pay can be used to go after actual sex crimes. Actual girls wandering chatrooms without parental supervision would be less likely to be messaged.

I wonder about the other 19,000

[Anonymous Coward]

If 1000 offered her money I wonder what the other 19k offered. Did some of them ask her age and then advise her beat feet as fast as possible? I just can't help but wonder about the entire spectrum of responses she got.

Lot more pedos per capita in Britain.

[RightSaidFred99]

Whether you look at total population or online population, lot more sickos in England.

Englishman: Take off yer knickers, ya jim jammy poodle ya!

That was my cockney, btw. I've decided a jim jammy poodle is a little girl.

Gnnnnaaaa must not say it, I must not say it!

[SmallFurryCreature]

Damn it! I can't help myself, it must be said!

The cake is a lie!

Gaaah.... that felt good.

Re:Predators? Call them scum or perverts

[fa2k]

Predators?

Not a good word I agree. Unfortunately it's frequently used in this context. It has a neutral ethical connotation, after all predators only hunt for food (and cats for their own amusement). This pedo thing seems to be quite big, so there should be a better word for it.

Call them scum or perverts. This is what they are.

Not in the news, too imprecise and too emotional. It would be like the papers referring to accused murderers as fucking assholes or accused scammers as lying scumbags

Researches break the law

[fa2k]

The researchers probably broke a law about generating child porn. At least in Australia it's illegal to make cartoon child porn. That just shows how screwed up the laws are though, and I hope they don't get caught. The research is interesting, but only as a preliminary study. If they wanted to gauge the size of the global online pedo population, they would have to make some kind of estimate about what fraction of that population contacted their bot. Now we have a lower limit, but it's only 0.001 % of the world internet users. Also, it's no a huge problem: their bot logged onto chat rooms and got requests. For a real 10 year old in the Philipines, how about ignoring them. It's a spam problem. If local crooks round up 10 year olds and force them to chat, we have a problem, but to crack down on those it seems like one should be posing as a pedo and not as a 10 year old.

Re:Researches break the law

[Anonymous Coward]

Good grief. This isn't child pornography because it's not ... pornography. This is about researchers masquerading as a child in a chat room, using a virtual image of a girl. How is it illegal to make a virtual image of a child?

Re:"Sweetie"? Should've called her "Uncanny Valeri

[gweihir]

Obvious CGI. The hair is faked by far too few strands. The skin is not realistic. Etc. Nobody that is not half-blind will mistake this for real. Takes less than a second to see.

That also means the numbers reported are completely meaningless because the picture was clearly not that of a child, but clearly a construct. But I guess the makers of thus "study" did not actually care about catching any predators, but wanted numbers as high as possible to ride on the current moral panic. With a clearly artificial image, the numbers will be high, because most people will assume they are _not_ talking to a child. This is pretty repulsive fear-mongering, nothing else. And, if successful, this will deviate resources from finding people that do abuse actual children, i.e. this action does lead to more children being abused. Despicable.

blah blah

[Anonymous Coward]

inb4 Blah blah entrapment blah blah fifth ammendment blah blah.

knowing vs unknowing

[Chirs]

There is a distinction. The pervs thought they were interacting with a virtual girl. In their own minds, they thought they were interacting with a real person.

The researchers knew it wasn't a real person.

Yes, if someone tried to pimp out a virtual girl *that they thought was real*, then they should certainly face consequences for that action.

It's not that one wrong click leads to committing a crime...it's more that if you knowingly click a link with the expectation that you are committing a crime (even if you actually aren't) then maybe you should be treated as though you were trying to commit a crime (because you really were) even if no crime was actually committed.

EULA!

[DarthVain]

Have you ever read a EULA? How would you know? :)

Seriously not a bad analogy, there are EULA's out there, that basically say by opening this software package you just automatically agree to the next 80 pages of legalese (which you cannot read until you open it funny enough).

It is dubiously enforceable, but that doesn't seem to stop them from trying.

Because entrapment is easier than catching real cr

[dbIII]

Because entrapment is easier than catching real criminals. It's not as if they are doing anything about some real convicted in absentia high profile child molesters such as Roman Polanski.
Going after thoughtcrime by loners that never even go near children is easier than going after the evil pieces of shit that hurt kids and it's a problem when such stuff is done INSTEAD of catching the people that are doing real damage.