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."
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!
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
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
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?
"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?
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.
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.
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....
That is France.
No, it isn't:
Article IX
Tout homme étant présumé innocent jusqu’à ce qu’il ait été déclaré coupable, s’il est jugé indispensable de l’arrêter, toute rigueur qui ne serait pas nécessaire pour s’assurer de sa personne, doit être sévèrement réprimée par la Loi.
Watch this Heartland Institute video
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.
Innocent *unless* proven guilty. "Until" implies that you are guilty (before the fact), but you haven't been caught yet.
"Wait. Something's happening. It's opening up! My God, it's full of apricots!"
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
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.
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.
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?
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
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