Slashdot Mirror
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."
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.
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).
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.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
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.
If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
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.
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