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."
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.
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!''
Well, Europol thought that they exceeded the appropriate investigative behavior for civilians. So you might not be the only one to think so.
What are they charged with? "Molesting under age pixels"?
Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
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.
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?
So it's an advanced, immaterial sex doll. Probably the adult industry will move on to employ similar creations in live web shows.
*[13 today]:-O :==8
OH GOD IT'S ASCII CP ART! Quick, put me on the sex offenders' register!
"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.
Technically it isn't a crime to chat up under age computers.
No crime has occurred or been proven and there is zero evidence.
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.
...21st century style!
You should try out for the Olympics, that's one hell of a leap.
A computer-generated, ten year-old goldfish would get thousands of propositioning messages.
There's a Max Headroom joke in here somewhere, but I'm still too creeped out to make it.
Maybe some of them could tell by the pixels that it was computer generated.
Am I the only one to see immediatly that this is 3D Computer Graphics ??
It's very realistic but still computer generated...
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....
"Evidence" is anything that supports a premise. An IP address or profile is "evidence" as is an eye witness and DNA evidence.
Learn to love Alaska
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.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
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?
where the men are men, the women are men, and the 10-year-old girls are FBI agent-bots.
Can anyone tell me how I can contact sweetie? Please provide link. I am interested in for research purposes.
is what should be given them so they dont use real ones.
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.
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...
"Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
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?
> 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!
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
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.
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.
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
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.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
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?
Plain old sigh.
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.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
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.
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.
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?
how many pairs of boxer shorts should you own?
"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.
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.
"Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
Please that "wrapper" was practically see-through. That game was asking for it!
Plus it hugged every curve. It was pretty much skin tight!
"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"?
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...
"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.
???
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".
-- "Oh. This guy again."
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.
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.
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
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.
-- "Oh. This guy again."
"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.
"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.
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?
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).
In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
Damn it! I can't help myself, it must be said!
The cake is a lie!
Gaaah.... that felt good.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
"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.