Slashdot Mirror
Child Porn Arrest For Cameron Aide Who Helped Plan UK Net Filters
An anonymous reader writes "A senior aide to David Cameron resigned from Downing Street last month the day before being arrested on allegations relating to child abuse images. Patrick Rock, who was involved in drawing up the government's policy for the large internet firms on online pornography filters, resigned after No 10 was alerted to the allegations. Rock was arrested at his west London flat the next morning. Officers from the National Crime Agency subsequently examined computers and offices used in Downing Street by Rock, the deputy director of No 10's policy unit, according to the Daily Mail, which disclosed news of his arrest."
Cold porn is significantly less arousing than hot porn, so you would presumably get less potent erections.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
Because actual kids are being filned/photographed performing such acts? Since minors can't legally give consent for sex, they are the victims in this crime.
Here in the UK, drawings classify (which is not something I agree with), so I defy you to find the victim in that.
That said, Cameron has one hell of a time destinguishing fiction from reality.
he was just testing the filters!
Is it possible to make something illegal if you don't know what it is? How can you fight something if you don't know how widespread it is? How do you find something if you don't try to look for it? If the law requires child porn blocking, then someone has to be trawling the internet actively looking for child porn in order to know what to block. I wouldn't wish that job on anyone.
How is the possession or viewing of child porn a crime at all? I dare someone to prove the harm in possessing/viewing cold porn
There are a lot of problems with many child pornography laws, but there are also very good cases to be made for banning possession and viewing of it.
1. If there is a market for child pornography there is a stronger incentive to abuse children. People will produce more of it where it is actually legal to produce (or the legal system is too weak to stop it).
2. There is a strong stigma connected to being presented in pornography. This stigma and the associated injury does not decrease with time. Those who have experienced it describe it as a form of constant, ongoing, abuse that they have to live with their whole life. While you may not mind people jacking off to pictures of children, it is not something the children in the picture can consent to.
I don't think laws should be passed based on what victims would like or dislike. That's not exactly the same as justice, the point of laws. In my humble opinion, justice is about preventing people from becoming victims, and trying to make it right when there are victims. People viewing the abuse and masturbating to it isn't the main reason why victims of child porn are victims. It's the abuse, not the viewing, that is the problem.
The second line about creating demand, I also disagree with. Prohibition seems to work only in very limited contexts, like preventing individual citizens from buying material useful for making nuclear weapons. Drugs, porn, sex, alchohol, cigarettes etc, prohibition only seems to increase the value of the stuff that is sold. And, I suppose, prevents the government from profiting off of the sale through taxes, which come to think of it might be an argument in favor of keeping child porn illegal.
Lastly, legalizing the sale or distribution of child porn which is already out there, while coming down extremely hard on the producers could in theory change the economics such that it's no longer profitable to make new child porn.
(Obligatory disclaimer that I'm completely fine with child porn continuing to be completely illegal, just that I think the rationale for it is questionable. My rationale too: I've failed to even convince myself with this post.)
This guy was controlling the internet for an entire country, and when I added Porn Expert to *my* resume, I didn't even get a call back.
Sig. Sig. Sputnik
Violence is associated with cocaine largely because of its contraband status. If you remove the crime part of cocaine, you greatly reduce the incidence of victims.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
Half the law book is victimless crimes, so what is your point?
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
PS. I would be royally pissed if the law were changed right now for this censor. Or if they do change it, censorship like this asshole did should be punishable by death.
Sounds just like alcohol abuse to me.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
It's a common pattern. Someone has a dark secret and they end up persecuting those who have the same impulses. They simultaneously engage in behavior they see as evil while doing the same thing themselves. It's why we continuously hear about virulent ant-gay politicians and religious leaders who have a secret gay life. Just look for the people who are screaming loudly about a specific sin, and there you will find a greater then average concentration of sinners.
Why is Snark Required?
What does Scotland have to do with anything?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman
Is this, like, "You need a thief to catch a thief"?
This is messed up.
>I don't think laws should be passed based on what victims would like or dislike.
They're not. They're passed based on what David Cameron, Soccer Moms or the Daily Mail dislike.
And just to make sure I'm covering my bases here: are a lot of people arrested for that?
Drugs are a rather different issue - the associated violent crime is pretty much a direct result of being provided through the black market. Legalize the drugs and the violence goes away. Just look at what happened during alcohol prohibition in the US, and how fast the violence dried up after it was repealed.
Child porn (real, not drawn) on the other hand pretty much requires the sexual molestation of a child. We could change the economics by legalizing possession, but unlike drugs the problem isn't the side effects of the black market, it's the act of creation itself.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
A perfect child-porn filter that only filters child porn would be wonderful, but that is fairy magic.
In reality we cannot trust those who wish to filter our internet, and this is why.
There is no substitute for proper discipline and compassion in upbringing.
Being forced to learn to fight crudely at school to protect myself (and fight my own battles) has caused me crippling psychiatric issues in adulthood.
Being forced to porn act to make daddy money (this did NOT happen to me) is an even worse evil.
Children need to grow, learn and play, and be free from influences such as sexuality and violence, but must be taught proper discipline about both so that as they reach maturity these things are no longer a fascination and do not cause the grown up child to turn to unhealthy sex and violence as a crutch. Society needs fixing.
John_Chalisque
How is the possession or viewing of child porn a crime at all? I dare someone to prove the harm in possessing/viewing cold porn
If you were a victim of child abuse, you wouldn't find anything wrong with movies of that abuse being legally distributed for peoples pleasure?
Yeah, right...
- Don't do what I do, it's probably not healthy nor safe. -
Have you? Many people can control their alcohol intake, just like many can control their cocaine use.
I for one, am much more out of control under the influence of alcohol.
Furthermore, the knowledge that much more alcohol can be consumed without permanently damaging my body convinces me to drink more under the influence of alcohol.
Likewise, the knowledge that a cocaine binge will severely risk my chance of a heart attack/overdose, as well as permanently damage the septum in my nose, prevents me from continuing to use cocaine to a point where my senses become out of tune with reality.
Alcohol is worse, more accessible and much cheaper.
"but I know it when I see it," says the US Supreme Court. Rock is obviously a diligent researcher...
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
Except there already is a market, otherwise there wouldn't be a problem. All that making it illegal does is drive the market (more) underground and probably increase the prices (and therefore financial incentives) for the pedellers. If people could get their rocks off without having a real child in front of them (rather, an old photo or cartoon, or whatever), perhaps the actual incidents of abuse would drop?
It seems to me that most politicians are more concerned with hiding the symptoms than stopping the problem.
But that speaks nothing to the theory that exposure leads to escalation.
Hey, I don't really know about that 99.99999% and I don't think that you do either. Unless you can identify yourself enforcement hotshot I don't believe you. What I do know is that now and then some guy at a day care center gets busted, always for having the real deal, not some hentai pictures, or so new sources and police claim.
(Posting AC due to unpopular facts below.)
Actually, pesky science says says the opposite. CP gives pedophiles an 'outlet' to relieve their sexual tension, and they are less likely to go after actual children.
If you could actually support your statement with some links to that "pesky science" you speak of, you probably wouldn't have to post as AC. Perhaps you wish to remain anonymous because you performed the research yourself? Or maybe you were a test subject?
Its different. I never did coke but a friend had a habit for a short time. He described it as having the biggest set of balls on the planet without the drunken haze and motor impairment along with a shit load of energy.
Good thing all of them like passing laws based on what they like, otherwise the paradox would probably destroy the UK.
What goes around comes around. No, wait...
I mean: He got his comeuppance.... NO!
Er, that is to say: For every action there is an equal and opposite erection... ah fuck it.
What does Scotland have to do with anything?
Because you obviously can't find a True Scotsman in England and you seem to be looking for one.
I don't see how the "No True Scotsman" logical fallacy applies here. The AC was pointing out that kiddie porn laws (in both the US and UK) are overly broad, and outlaw not only porn involving actual children, but adults posing as children, animation, and even abstract sketches. These laws would make some sense if there was any evidence that such artwork induces behavior that harms children. But no such evidence exists. Pointing that out is not illogical and not a fallacy. It also would not be illogical to point out the "child porn possession" is one of the safest and easiest ways to frame innocent people and destroy their careers.
Yes; and no that didn't happen at all. Actually, the experience was kinda bland. I distinctly remember thinking that a coke habbit would get expensive just in the amount of pot I would need to smoke to relax my jaw.
Overall it was kind of like drinking way too much coffee but a little stronger on the focus, with a little less jitter. It was pretty enjoyable for a little while but nothing I ever went back and did again.
Like anything, I am sure it effects different people differently, I know people who act like you describe from alcohol too.
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
It seems to me that in many jurisdictions, "possession" is something that can be abused. Hack someone's machine, place files, inform the police. Since "possession" is mostly a passive thing, how often (if ever) does police even attempt to check how the "possession" came into being? Catching someone actually selling or buying controlled or prohibited substances or items is one thing, but what actually happens in real world seems like a slippery slope to me.
Ezekiel 23:20
What does Scotland have to do with anything?
Uh...have you just quoted official British government policy? ;-)
Ezekiel 23:20
At least one known arrest and conviction, and conviction confirmed on appeal:
https://web.archive.org/web/20...
Of course, that was cartoon based on the Simpsons characters, maybe that's a lot more realistic than your naked children in manga etc....
You are implying that producing child pornography is always abuse. Following that logic if someone masturbates over a children's swimwear catalogue those children were abused. That doesn't seem right.
There are mainstream films featuring child nudity. They are not generally considered to be child abuse, even if some people may gain sexual gratification from them. I submit that it is possible to make child pornography without actually abusing the subject. Indeed, in the case of actors who were paid there would seem to be a great benefit to them.
I don't buy your argument about stigma either. Will Wheaton gets a lot of abuse for playing a shit character in a beloved TV show, and I'm sure many other irritating child stars do to. On the other hand it doesn't seem to have harmed the careers of others, including Brooke Sheilds who famously appeared nude as a child in a mainstream film and subsequently in magazines.
Nobody argues that 9/11 was a victimless crime, but I don't feel that I'm in any way contributing to that crime by watching the footage. I don't think even the jihadists who were celebrating it were doing anything illegal, even though I'm sure the victims and their families strongly disapproved of people cheering for the death of their beloved ones. And the idea that there is a demand for this kind of terror and destruction in the first place. Watching it was victimless. Killing 3000 people obviously wasn't. It only happened once though, no matter how many times they show it in replay. Should these people sue CNN because they're being "revictimzed" every time the footage is shown? Just admit it, the logic is unique and doesn't apply anywhere else.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Not validating the 99.9999% but I'd say it's a matter of quantity... Japan churns out so much hentai it would pretty much HAVE to minimise the child porn out there (as a ratio)... and plenty seem to involve drawn children.
Oh, I also remembered this.
They want to make textual depictions illegal. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-19574487 [bbc.co.uk]
So, "It'll be our little secret." whispered Daddy, would be illegal.
I don't see how the "No True Scotsman" logical fallacy applies here.
The OP hasn't kept a constant definition of KP.
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
Why do you suppose he was picked in the first place. The boss says, "I have an assignment for one of the staff. We need someone who knows something about child porn."
Have gnu, will travel.
Don't forget NetMums!
Prohibition seems to work only in very limited contexts, like preventing individual citizens from buying material useful for making nuclear weapons. Drugs, porn, sex, alchohol, cigarettes etc, prohibition only seems to increase the value of the stuff that is sold.
Prohibition of alcohol in the US cut per capita consumption significantly. Even after prohibition ended consumption was much lower than it had been previously, and it took about 40 years to return to pre-prohibition levels.
Did Prohibition Really Work? Alcohol Prohibition as a Public Health Innovation
Now that marijuana use is being legalized in various US states it appears that consumption is significantly rising.
Lastly, legalizing the sale or distribution of child porn which is already out there, while coming down extremely hard on the producers could in theory change the economics such that it's no longer profitable to make new child porn.
A lot of it is generated out of personal interest, so that isn't going to help. If anything it will likely make the problem worse.
This is likely to be a growing issue in the future. There are various cultures in the world that accept sex between adults and children, and there are elements in Western society chipping away at the taboo. Pedophilia seems to be nearing the state that homosexuality was in the US in the 1950s. Abuse taking place in schools is a much bigger problem than many people realize. Society is rapidly dispensing with ideas of traditional morality, and it is unlikely that what remains will be able to stem the tide.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
so I defy you to find the victim in that.
Well that all depends on your model of human nature. If you believe in a hydraulic model of emotions (and emotions motivate behaviour), then synthetic pictures are *good* in that they can reduce the chance of a real living breathing victim. On the other hand, if you believe that indulging in behaviour promotes similar behaviour, or (orthogonality) if you believe that societal structure prevents crime, then synthetic pictures are *bad* because they would increase the likelihood of a real living breathing victim.
The hydraulic model of emotions has not credibility, and clinical psychologists *and* buddhists are likely to tell you that enacting an emotional state will increase the likelihood and intensity of similar future states. (The Dalai Lama says "like begets like" or something like that. Neurologists may make an argument based on the dark side of brain plasticity.)
Now, I don't believe any of that. (For real, my model of human nature is actually quite different to anything listed above.) But the point is that the world is more complex than: "I defy you to find the victim in that".
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
I agree that is different; in fact, more dangerous. But I disapprove of the overreaching government machine that has been constructed to deal with controlled substances and the criminal enterprise it spawned in turn.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
What are the odds of this being a frame-up? Motivated by any number of reasons involving political competition, dislike of the law/system, personal vendetta?
How about any legitimate claims of acquisition resulting from research on how easy/hard it is to find child porn?
Of all the people who could possibly make either claim, this guy seems like he is in the position to do so.
Although it also seems to fit that someone who was secretly into child porn might also be want to be in a position where they might believe they are above suspicion or close to the source.
Listen, I get that rape is a horrible thing and everything, but I don't think possessing the images should be illegal.
Child pornography is the only crime I'm aware of were possessing images of the crime is illegal.
Even distributing images of murder isn't illegal as far as I'm aware; and since it's impossible for the child to know when someone is fapping to it, how is it being victimized again and again?
Unless the child imagines that someone is fapping the it constantly, in which case banning child porn doesn't help anyway.
I think that raping the child should be illegal (as it is) and distributing the material should be illegal, but not because it is rape.
It should be illegal to sell it because it was created without consent.
Before you start modding this troll or whatever, this is what I actually believe. I think that having this single crime as the only category where possessing the footage is a crime is stupid. So either make it legal, or make all footage of crimes illegal.
The OP hasn't kept a constant definition of KP.
The OP's description encompasses the legal definition. According to the law, KP that harms specific children, and KP that appears to harm no one, is treated the same. If that is inconsistent, it is not the fault of the OP.
According to at least a few sources, the decrease was in beer, not wine or hard alchohol. Which makes sense: the overlap between beer drinkers and alcoholics is less than alcoholic beverages with higher ABV. Furthermore, the thriving beer industry in America was crippled by prohibition and didn't recover until recently.
Citation needed on pot consumption rising. Could easily be an artifact: if it's legal, it no longer is hidden.
Citation also needed on the pedophilia rising. "Seems to be nearing the state of homosexuality" sounds like it was taken straight from some televangelist shithead's rantings.
I've been offered cocaine, both for free and for a price, much more often then the zero times I've been offered child porn.
And while raping children should obviously be illegal, should the poor people who are attracted to children but never act on it be criminalized? I like women, like looking at them but have never raped one and can't imagine forcing myself on a non-willing woman. Then there are the edge cases such as the 19 year old having sex with a 17 year old. Come to think of it I played doctor as a child, officially child abuse in some jurisdictions even though the girl was older then me and initiated it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
Who Watches the Watchers ('batin)? Or does that require another filter?
If there is a market for child pornography there is a stronger incentive to abuse children. People will produce more of it where it is actually legal to produce (or the legal system is too weak to stop it).
Child porn is advertising for child sex tourism. If advertising didn't work we wouldn't have billboards.
Puff of sulphery smoke, devil's advocate appears.
Paying for it is certainly contributing to a crime, but what if you pirate it? Isn't piracy supposed to be strangling everything it touches?
And what of laws that treat 'artistic' renderings of child porn the same as actual pictures?
More smoke, advocate disappears.
How's he supposed to find anything there? It's been squished down to 2 pixels.
So 'Fast Times at Ridgemont High' is child porn in England? 'Porkeys'? 'Trainspotting'? 'Eyes Wide Shut'?
All those films contain adults portraying 'children' in sexual situations.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
WTF? Cocaine leaves you feeling like you got hit by a truck and dragged a half mile.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
There have been some court decisions that disagree with you. Perhaps it depends on which circuit court you are under. IANAL, so/and I don't know the details.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
There are also state laws against child pornography in the US, and it wouldn't surprise me to find that many of them were way overreaching.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
History of human societies indicates that when cocaine is not illegal, there is much less violence associated with it. This does not mean that it is not destructive, but the destructiveness is turned in a more inwards direction. You could read Freud on his experiences with cocaine, but he was more controlled than are most people.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Given the legal definition of "child porn", I am unable to accept this defense of the legal process. If they were to remove drawings, anime, manga, and similar from the category I would be much more willing to accept it. I *do* agree that actual children should not be exploited for sex, including pictures. But even pictures of actual children aren't automatically fit subjects for legal control. Most parents either take or took nude photos of their children. And drawings, unless from life, or "photoshopped images" of exploitative images, should never merit censorship...though perhaps it should be illegal to use them in advertisements.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
First plausible defense I've heard. Now the question: Are there any grounds for assuming that GCHQ wanted his head?
If they did, then that's a plausible scenario. Or, plausibly, if they wanted his boss' head. Otherwise it's quite unlikely.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Because actual kids are being filned/photographed performing such acts? Since minors can't legally give consent for sex, they are the victims in this crime.
I think you misread the parent's post. It said "I dare someone to prove the harm in possessing/viewing cold porn" [emphasis added]. By "this crime" you seem to mean the sex or the kids being forced into sex to be photographed. I agree that should definitely be a crime and the perpetrators should be punished. By your logic though, possessing photographs of someone being murdered should be a crime, since the victim clearly lost their life.
If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
First, sort of reverse projection - I suspect some of the people who are REALLY obsessed with the subject have a not-so deeply buried yen for the forbidden fruit, and sally forth to find and punish the bad people who are likewise obsessed. Denial and reverse projection.
Who the hell else has opportunity to collect but the people who search for people with such images? Where else you gonna get it? Bust a collector, you get the collection.
Since such stuff is hard to find, and harder still to put up on the web, the usual suspects putting the stuff out there... are the cops. Honey pots and the like. And you will find cops who have images and *are immune from suspicion* because of their position. A number of them have to be such. Non-zero number.
If you want to find a witch, look among the witch hunters. That's where the smart witches hide.
Final thought: how damned easy it must be to set someone up. A script to download from a honey pot, or just secret sneak-and-peek to place files on a hard drive. Who would ever believe that the accused pedophile was framed?
Everyone knows the stuff is everywhere.
How do we know this?
They tell us it is.
If no one is looking for the stuff, because laws, how do we know the stuff is everywhere? No one can research it. I certainly don't.
Is it possible it is now so rare that it exists at all because cops and task forces are posting it?
Is it possible this "war" is as real as the one on The Terror? The war is the war because war?
Are we being lied to on a drug-war scale?
Are people being set up?
Why do you assume anyone is making new KP for the web? Who tells us this? I'm serious. Who in hell would put it up anywhere? We assume the cops know what they are talking about. But we can't check their claims, because illegal. Is this the commie/witch hunt again, in the sense that no one questions the premise?
Check these out.
(.)(.)
These are the titties of a 17 year old girl. If you downloaded this post you are a pedophile. The average pedophile isn't Gary Sandusky. The average pedo is a drunk guy peeing on the side of the street who is withnessed by a 17 year old girl. The average pedo is a mother who is breast feeding her child. The average pedo is a dude who is 18 and haves sex with a 17 year old. The mother who takes pictures of her naked kids because she mistakenly believes it is cute is a pedo. Pedophilia is the Mc Carthysim (sp) of the early 21st century. The harder we look the more pedophiles we find.
As long as there's peadophiles they'll be peadophiles who need an outlet. The details of that outlet could change. For example, if there were robots that make suitable sexual partners for humans, the majority of pedophiles would probably stay within that safe territory, especially since children often have bad hygiene and are so tempermental.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
That's nonsensical. Taking the pictures down doesn't do anything, and is, in fact, futile (as censorship often is). Merely looking at the pictures doesn't cause harm, unless you believe in voodoo. It's funny how many 'supporters' of free speech suddenly beg for censorship when they want to 'save' the children.
Thank you Dave Raggett
I don't even think it matters if someone pays for it, as I think our targets should always be the rapists, should they exist in specific cases.
Thank you Dave Raggett
It's not about like or dislike
Yes, it is. Now stop trying to justify censorship.
Thank you Dave Raggett
You ask if I would "consider it censorship," as if there's any room to question that it is censorship. Tell me, what do you think it is when government thugs take down a website or censor information, if not censorship?
As for the actual question, what I would or would not think in such a situation is irrelevant to whether or not my current arguments are valid. When people are personally affected by something, they can change their tune quite quickly, but that doesn't mean that that position is the correct one; they're just as biased as anyone else, and they're just looking out for their own interests. So your question is irrelevant, and I don't know what I would think in such a situation.
Thank you Dave Raggett
He has embarrased the current government. So there is a reason to implicate him.
I for one don't believe off the bat that these charges are legitimate.
Asking to put yourself in the position was to highlight the fact that distribution of such a video would and should be a crime that in no way whatsoever is "victimless".
You didn't highlight anything. Many things are physically victimless, and yet cause emotional 'harm'. Emotional 'harm' does not make a victimless crime suddenly have a victim; it's entirely subjective, and people's hurt feelings shouldn't be enough to ban something.
I find that saying this is a victimless crime show amazing lack of empathy.
It's victimless in the sense that it causes no one physical harm. If we banned things based on people's hurt feelings, everything would be banned. In reality, emotional 'harm' is your own damn problem, no matter the subject.
What I care about is freedom, not safety (of this kind, or of being 'safe' from terrorists, etc.). That's what it means to aspire to be free and brave. If you wish to sacrifice fundamental freedoms (free speech, etc.) and promote censorship in exchange for this sort of safety, then you're an insect.
Also, since you talk about censorship, it shows a blatant disregard for the right to privacy.
When something is put out there, I no longer believe it's private, whether or not you put it there. Be that a naked picture of someone, a social security number, or what have you. If your 'solution' is censorship, then you do not care about free speech.
Thank you Dave Raggett
That's a good point. I'm not sure what about my post made you think I accepted the government's reasoning for gaining new powers to fight KP, but you make a good point nonetheless. It was not the most thought-through of proposals, it was really more of a counter argument to the argument that we need to stop KP at all costs, including the liberties of people who have nothing to do with child molesting.
If it did it wasn't coke. Most likely it was cut with something else that made you feel bad,
"The space elevator will be built about 50 years after everyone stops laughing." - Arthur C. Clarke ~1980