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

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

[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

[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

[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

[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]

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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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.

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

[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

[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:profile = evidence?

[Anne Thwacks]

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

Turing test...

[Arkh89]

...21st century style!

This is the internet

[Guppy06]

A computer-generated, ten year-old goldfish would get thousands of propositioning messages.

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....

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.

The Internet

[Ambitwistor]

where the men are men, the women are men, and the 10-year-old girls are FBI agent-bots.

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

[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

[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.