Reply
Thread Tools
Internet Virus Frames Users For Child Porn None
Old 05-01-2012, 02:03 PM   #1
Savagelight
Veteran Member [56%]
 
MBTI: INTJ
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 2,280
 
What if pedophilia is a virus and the death penalty is the treatment?

I say pedophilia is now a virus because that is how we treat it legally, at the point where possession of child pornography is seen as being infected with pedophilia and equal to being a pedophile.

Now for the example of the virus in technical form:

 
Of all the sinister things that Internet viruses do, this might be the worst: They can make you an unsuspecting collector of child pornography.

Heinous pictures and videos can be deposited on computers by viruses – the malicious programs better known for swiping your credit card numbers. In this twist, it's your reputation that's stolen.

Pedophiles can exploit virus-infected PCs to remotely store and view their stash without fear they'll get caught. Pranksters or someone trying to frame you can tap viruses to make it appear that you surf illegal Web sites.


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

If someone uploads child porn to your computer or if you download it by mistake and the police find it on your computer you're automatically a pedophile even if you've had no interaction with children.

Once infected with child pornography or once assumed to be a pedophile the only way out is to commit suicide. The sex offender database, watch lists, etc can make it so life is un-liveable for all "suspected" pedophiles.

So the question is why do we punish possession of child pornography? Logically it does not protect children as the viewer of the pornography itself didn't victimize the child. What it does is it gives governments the power to police our thoughts to try and determine who thinks in a certain way and arrest them before they act. The interesting thing about this is child porn is the only kind of information or thought that we treat like this.

 
An Associated Press investigation found cases in which innocent people have been branded as pedophiles after their co-workers or loved ones stumbled upon child porn placed on a PC through a virus. It can cost victims hundreds of thousands of dollars to prove their innocence.

Their situations are complicated by the fact that actual pedophiles often blame viruses – a defense rightfully viewed with skepticism by law enforcement.

"It's an example of the old `dog ate my homework' excuse," says Phil Malone, director of the Cyberlaw Clinic at Harvard's Berkman Center for Internet & Society. "The problem is, sometimes the dog does eat your homework."

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

For instance if we talk about someone who possesses bomb making information we don't declare them a terrorist. Or if we talk about someone who possesses videos of assassinations, suicides or beheadings we don't arrest them for terrorism. If someone possesses or expresses racist views we don't arrest them. So how does child pornography as a type of information end up in a special category where possession of it is so illegal that just being caught with it for any reason makes a person an instant pedophile?

 
CAN DELETED PORN BE USED IN A POSSESSION OF CHILD PORNOGRAPHY CASE?
The First Amendment having been thoroughly dismissed, it naturally follows that this prohibition against in-home child pornography includes images or material received and ultimately deleted. The defendant in Fridell the defendant was convicted of aggravated sexual assault of a child and possession of child pornography. The defendant voluntarily surrendered his computer to the police in June 2003 and gave them consent to search it. The state’s computer forensic expert testified at Fridell’s trial that there was no evidence, such as defendant’s name, to link him to or to show that he created the recovered files depicting images of child pornography.

The State, however, relied upon another computer forensic expert who testified that his investigation of Fridell’s computer hard drive showed the term “Lolita” 5,000 times and the term “teen” some 10,000 times. He also found numerous internet search queries with terms such as “preteen,” “naked,” and “young female.”

Fridell testified that he remembered seeing several of the photographs but not most of them. He said he saw some of the images because they would “pop-up” while he was using his computer. Saying he did not intend to have child pornography, he tried to get rid of the images by deleting them to the recycle bin. And while he said others had access to his computer and he did not use the search term “teen girls” on his web browser, he could not offer any evidence as to who at his home might have used the computer or had an interest in child pornography.

The appeals court rejected Fridell’s testimony, saying:

“The numerous photographs recovered, the extensive use of appellant's computer in searching for child pornography, and the appellant's attempts to erase material from the computer all show that appellant's possession of child pornography was knowing or intentional.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Technically it's a thought crime if someone is thinking like a pedophile and gets arrested for it. The reason child porn is a special category which people use as an exception is because laws are typically made not to accomplish any real goal but to satisfy emotions.

Laws are made out of either fear, or anger. Parents generally fear for the safety of their children and will support any law even if there is no victim or logic behind the law because the fear is intense enough to shut down logic and reasoning in many parents. The effectiveness of the law isn't calculated, the only that that matters is satisfying the emotion of fear by passing any law necessary to make parents feel less scared.

Anger is another example which results in laws being made. Parents were angry at Casey Anthony and it resulted in Caylee's law. Any time a child goes missing or a pedophile is caught more laws get passed some which aren't well thought out and which do not have the intended effect.

Because emotions are the guide to the law, child pornography is effectively a virus because of the effect it has on emotions rather than the effect it has on security. Child porn has not been proven to be the cause of pedophilia, just as violent movies and games have not been proven to be the cause of violence. Child porn possession is not the same as child molestation when considering which activity endangers children.

But in the minds of parents it feels the same, it becomes the same. Pedophiles are disgusting, anyone who harms children will be seen as sick or evil. As a result you have technical viruses such as the one above which utilizes a concept of spreading the infected blood around. Going after everyone caught possessing child porn helps law enforcement look like they are combating the problem and protecting children as these arrests are easy to make.

So the question is should child porn be treated as a virus legally, technologically?
Does child pornography possession make the person who possesses it a pedophile by default?

If we treat child porn as a virus then we can solve it technically and could program virus scanners to look for and delete all child porn. This is a necessary step and makes more sense.

Savagelight is offline
Reply With Quote

Old 05-01-2012, 05:25 PM   #2
INTJRyan
Core Member [131%]
Now I am become death; the destroyer of worlds.
MBTI: INTJ
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 5,275
 

  Originally Posted by Savagelight
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
What if pedophilia is a virus and the death penalty is the treatment?

I say pedophilia is now a virus because that is how we treat it legally, at the point where possession of child pornography is seen as being infected with pedophilia and equal to being a pedophile.
Now for the example of the virus in technical form:
If someone uploads child porn to your computer or if you download it by mistake and the police find it on your computer you're automatically a pedophile even if you've had no interaction with children.

Ok. I'll take a stab at some of this.

I'm not sure this is true. The suspect lacks intent (mens rea) to possess CP. It would make one's life hell, no doubt, but if it's legitimately a virus that downloads CP unbeknownst to the user, a good lawyer beats that rap. I'm not sure how one "accidentally" downloads CP, so I'm skeptical, and I assure you if that happened to me, I'd be phoning the authorities to report it rather than waiting for them to kick my door in and trying to plead "accident."

  Originally Posted by Savagelight
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Once infected with child pornography or once assumed to be a pedophile the only way out is to commit suicide. The sex offender database, watch lists, etc can make it so life is un-liveable for all "suspected" pedophiles.

Actually, you need a conviction to be on the lists, so "suspect" in this case is misplaced. I will agree that sex crime laws need to be able to distinguish between true sexual predators and some dude taking a leak in an alley after leaving a bar.

  Originally Posted by Savagelight
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
So the question is why do we punish possession of child pornography? Logically it does not protect children as the viewer of the pornography itself didn't victimize the child. What it does is it gives governments the power to police our thoughts to try and determine who thinks in a certain way and arrest them before they act. The interesting thing about this is child porn is the only kind of information or thought that we treat like this.

Bullshit. By possessing child porn you are enabling the pornographers who cause direct harm to the kids. If there were no market, the amount of CP would be greatly reduced. Since children cannot consent, the law must presume harm anyway.

  Originally Posted by Savagelight
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
For instance if we talk about someone who possesses bomb making information we don't declare them a terrorist. Or if we talk about someone who possesses videos of assassinations, suicides or beheadings we don't arrest them for terrorism. If someone possesses or expresses racist views we don't arrest them. So how does child pornography as a type of information end up in a special category where possession of it is so illegal that just being caught with it for any reason makes a person an instant pedophile?

That's actually not true. There are cases of terrorism charges in those exact instances. And being racist isn't a crime, so bad example.

  Originally Posted by Savagelight
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Technically it's a thought crime if someone is thinking like a pedophile and gets arrested for it. The reason child porn is a special category which people use as an exception is because laws are typically made not to accomplish any real goal but to satisfy emotions.

Laws are made out of either fear, or anger. Parents generally fear for the safety of their children and will support any law even if there is no victim or logic behind the law because the fear is intense enough to shut down logic and reasoning in many parents. The effectiveness of the law isn't calculated, the only that that matters is satisfying the emotion of fear by passing any law necessary to make parents feel less scared.

Anger is another example which results in laws being made. Parents were angry at Casey Anthony and it resulted in Caylee's law. Any time a child goes missing or a pedophile is caught more laws get passed some which aren't well thought out and which do not have the intended effect.

Because emotions are the guide to the law, child pornography is effectively a virus because of the effect it has on emotions rather than the effect it has on security. Child porn has not been proven to be the cause of pedophilia, just as violent movies and games have not been proven to be the cause of violence. Child porn possession is not the same as child molestation when considering which activity endangers children.

But in the minds of parents it feels the same, it becomes the same. Pedophiles are disgusting, anyone who harms children will be seen as sick or evil. As a result you have technical viruses such as the one above which utilizes a concept of spreading the infected blood around. Going after everyone caught possessing child porn helps law enforcement look like they are combating the problem and protecting children as these arrests are easy to make.

So the question is should child porn be treated as a virus legally, technologically?
Does child pornography possession make the person who possesses it a pedophile by default?

If we treat child porn as a virus then we can solve it technically and could program virus scanners to look for and delete all child porn. This is a necessary step and makes more sense.

CP is an outlet for pedos, no question, so there is at least a presumption of pedophilia towards those that knowingly possess it, and frankly, it's not that outlandish. One might argue that pedos viewing CP is preferable than pedos acting out their sick fantasies on actual children, but that does not change the fact that real children were exploited to make the CP orginally. I personally despise pedos and if any of them were honorable, they'd voluntarily eat a bullet or castrate themselves. That way, only one life is wasted.

INTJRyan is offline
Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2012, 07:07 PM   #3
Savagelight
Veteran Member [56%]
 
MBTI: INTJ
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 2,280
 

  Originally Posted by INTJRyan
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Ok. I'll take a stab at some of this.

I'm not sure this is true. The suspect lacks intent (mens rea) to possess CP. It would make one's life hell, no doubt, but if it's legitimately a virus that downloads CP unbeknownst to the user, a good lawyer beats that rap. I'm not sure how one "accidentally" downloads CP, so I'm skeptical, and I assure you if that happened to me, I'd be phoning the authorities to report it rather than waiting for them to kick my door in and trying to plead "accident."

The question is why should we care enough to have to go through all this legalese? It's a technical problem which requires a technical solution.

  Originally Posted by INTJRyan
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Actually, you need a conviction to be on the lists, so "suspect" in this case is misplaced. I will agree that sex crime laws need to be able to distinguish between true sexual predators and some dude taking a leak in an alley after leaving a bar.

Being a suspected terrorist is the same thing as being a convicted terrorist. Being a suspected pedophile is the same thing as being a convicted sex offender.

  Originally Posted by INTJRyan
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Bullshit. By possessing child porn you are enabling the pornographers who cause direct harm to the kids. If there were no market, the amount of CP would be greatly reduced. Since children cannot consent, the law must presume harm anyway.

By possessing a gun you're enabling violent car jackers who use guns. By possessing a snuff film you're enabling serial killers. By possessing the communist manifesto you are enabling communism. Where does it end?

I do not believe that possession of anything enables the behavior of anyone else.
Does hardcore pornography enable rapists? By your logic it does. By my logic there is no evidence to reach that conclusion and some people even believe more pornography is correlated with less rape.

  Originally Posted by INTJRyan
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
That's actually not true. There are cases of terrorism charges in those exact instances. And being racist isn't a crime, so bad example.

But having racist thoughts inevitably leads to hate crimes by your own logic. So if someone is reading racist literature they are exactly the same as someone who has child porn on their computer and we should arrest them before they hurt an innocent minority.

  Originally Posted by INTJRyan
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
CP is an outlet for pedos, no question,

Just as violent video games are outlets for school shooters, racist literature, films and songs are outlets for hate criminals, hardcore pornography are outlets for rapists etc. What you haven't explained is why some people consume this information and never become school shooters, never go on racist rampages, never become rapists.

If most consumers of these other types of information aren't violent criminals why make an exception for child pornography? And if you truly believe that child pornography causes child molestation then you also logically believe that hardcore pornography causes rape and racist literature causes hate crimes. Possession of any of these things therefore must be equally bad and so it should be a crime to possess any of it, so why make exceptions?

  Originally Posted by INTJRyan
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
so there is at least a presumption of pedophilia towards those that knowingly possess it, and frankly, it's not that outlandish. One might argue that pedos viewing CP is preferable than pedos acting out their sick fantasies on actual children, but that does not change the fact that real children were exploited to make the CP orginally. I personally despise pedos and if any of them were honorable, they'd voluntarily eat a bullet or castrate themselves. That way, only one life is wasted.

It's not outlandish to believe that if I hack into your computer and find communist literature on it that you're a communist. If I find hardcore pornography on it that you're a rapist, or if I find racist literature on it you're a hate criminal. After all if you think about it then that's what you've done and what you are?

Logically any suspicious or obsessive thoughts of violence means you're violent. So if you Google about poisons, how to murder your wife, how to murder your boss, how to get away with murder, it's equal to Googling for child pornography right? If we can arrest on possession of child pornography alone why not arrest anyone who searches for it under the exact same pretenses? And if we can arrest those who search for child pornography why not arrest anyone who searches for anything else we consider obscene?

Savagelight is offline
Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2012, 11:31 PM   #4
INTJRyan
Core Member [131%]
Now I am become death; the destroyer of worlds.
MBTI: INTJ
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 5,275
 

  Originally Posted by Savagelight
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
The question is why should we care enough to have to go through all this legalese? It's a technical problem which requires a technical solution.

It's my personal opinion, and I think experience bears this out, that any technical measure is immediately met with a technical counter-measure. You're already dealing with people with no respect for the law, not to mention humanity. It's not going to work. Possession means the people have met their burden; better have a damned good reason for having CP.

  Originally Posted by Savagelight
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Being a suspected terrorist is the same thing as being a convicted terrorist. Being a suspected pedophile is the same thing as being a convicted sex offender.

Agreed.

  Originally Posted by Savagelight
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
By possessing a gun you're enabling violent car jackers who use guns. By possessing a snuff film you're enabling serial killers. By possessing the communist manifesto you are enabling communism. Where does it end?

Gun analogy is poor. CP requires a crime to be committed in order to be created. It's very existence is a crime. Lawfully owning a gun is not a crime, obviously, so the analogy fails. Snuff film is more on point. Both the filming and possession of snuff films are illegal. And obviously, the manifesto is speech, so no, possession is not enabling.

  Originally Posted by Savagelight
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
I do not believe that possession of anything enables the behavior of anyone else.
Does hardcore pornography enable rapists? By your logic it does. By my logic there is no evidence to reach that conclusion and some people even believe more pornography is correlated with less rape.

Again, hardcore porn is not a crime. CP is. See the difference? At a minimum, the interwebz makes it easier to distribute and collect CP. Society is thus justified in treating the presence of CP on computers extremely seriously.

  Originally Posted by Savagelight
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
But having racist thoughts inevitably leads to hate crimes by your own logic. So if someone is reading racist literature they are exactly the same as someone who has child porn on their computer and we should arrest them before they hurt an innocent minority.

Does the racist lit show violence being perpetrated or make obvious calls to violence? Yeah, I'd say that probably warrants a closer look. Otherwise, see above.

  Originally Posted by Savagelight
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Just as violent video games are outlets for school shooters, racist literature, films and songs are outlets for hate criminals, hardcore pornography are outlets for rapists etc. What you haven't explained is why some people consume this information and never become school shooters, never go on racist rampages, never become rapists.

It's not the fact it's an outlet that makes it objectionable; it's raping kids, a crime by it's very nature. This fact seems to be lost on you.

  Originally Posted by Savagelight
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
If most consumers of these other types of information aren't violent criminals why make an exception for child pornography? And if you truly believe that child pornography causes child molestation then you also logically believe that hardcore pornography causes rape and racist literature causes hate crimes. Possession of any of these things therefore must be equally bad and so it should be a crime to possess any of it, so why make exceptions?

CP is molestation dude. Rape, molestation and flat out psychological murder. Crimes.

  Originally Posted by Savagelight
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
It's not outlandish to believe that if I hack into your computer and find communist literature on it that you're a communist. If I find hardcore pornography on it that you're a rapist, or if I find racist literature on it you're a hate criminal. After all if you think about it then that's what you've done and what you are?

Logically any suspicious or obsessive thoughts of violence means you're violent. So if you Google about poisons, how to murder your wife, how to murder your boss, how to get away with murder, it's equal to Googling for child pornography right? If we can arrest on possession of child pornography alone why not arrest anyone who searches for it under the exact same pretenses? And if we can arrest those who search for child pornography why not arrest anyone who searches for anything else we consider obscene?

I don't think you know what logic means, cause you aren't comparing similar things. Googling how to murder your wife and then following through would be evidence of premeditation. As far as I know, no one has been arrested for googling anything in the US, maybe China. So you've dragged this analogy behind the barn, shot it, set it on fire, and pissed on its ashes. CP is made because there is a demand. By viewing, collecting and sharing, more demand is created; more demand means more exploitation. That's why possession is treated so harshly as opposed to your examples.

INTJRyan is offline
Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2012, 05:13 AM   #5
Savagelight
Veteran Member [56%]
 
MBTI: INTJ
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 2,280
 

  Originally Posted by INTJRyan
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
It's my personal opinion, and I think experience bears this out, that any technical measure is immediately met with a technical counter-measure. You're already dealing with people with no respect for the law, not to mention humanity. It's not going to work. Possession means the people have met their burden; better have a damned good reason for having CP.

You claim to know who we are dealing with based merely on what files they have on their computer? Most computers have viruses. Most computer users want that stuff deleted or stored temporarily. These child pornography cases where they bust someone for having deleted the files in the past or for having accessed the files is not evidence that they are a threat to humanity. Possession equals instant conviction in your mind unless they give a damn good reason. My question is why do you care what people are thinking about and why do they have to give you any reason?

  Originally Posted by INTJRyan
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Agreed.

If that is your logic then you can see the logical conclusion it's going to lead to will be negative for us when the technology allows for literal policing of thoughts. It will be if you think like a pedophile you're instantly a pedophile and arrested for it without any history of being a sex offender. If you think like a terrorist you're instantly convicted of it, etc.



  Originally Posted by INTJRyan
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Gun analogy is poor. CP requires a crime to be committed in order to be created. It's very existence is a crime. Lawfully owning a gun is not a crime, obviously, so the analogy fails. Snuff film is more on point. Both the filming and possession of snuff films are illegal. And obviously, the manifesto is speech, so no, possession is not enabling.

Child pornography possession however does not victimize anyone except the individual who possesses it.

  Originally Posted by INTJRyan
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Again, hardcore porn is not a crime. CP is. See the difference? At a minimum, the interwebz makes it easier to distribute and collect CP. Society is thus justified in treating the presence of CP on computers extremely seriously.

But if we follow the logic which says CP possession must be a crime then hardcore porn must be a crime as well on that same logic. If you watch videos of hardcore pornography which simulates rape then you're a rapist.


  Originally Posted by INTJRyan
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Does the racist lit show violence being perpetrated or make obvious calls to violence? Yeah, I'd say that probably warrants a closer look. Otherwise, see above.

Let's say it's a racist video portraying skinheads beating up jews or blacks in Moscow, should it be banned?


  Originally Posted by INTJRyan
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
It's not the fact it's an outlet that makes it objectionable; it's raping kids, a crime by it's very nature. This fact seems to be lost on you.

Child molestation is not the same crime as possession of child pornography. Child pornography is just 1s and 0s on a computer which displays the rape of the child. The 1s and 0s did not rape the child and the computers which copy those 1s and 0s did not rape the child. This becomes an issue of speech at this point.

There is a difference between the producers of child pornography who we all agree are pedophiles who should go to prison and people who merely access the evidence of the abuse. You haven't made the case why accessing any kind of information for any reason should result in instant criminalization.


  Originally Posted by INTJRyan
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
CP is molestation dude. Rape, molestation and flat out psychological murder. Crimes.

Child pornography is film evidence of molestation. Child pornography itself is not what molested the children, the child pornographer who created the video molested the child and anyone else merely copied the file from somewhere. If you're saying we should go after child molesters you'll only receive agreement from me, or anyone with common sense really.

  Originally Posted by INTJRyan
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
I don't think you know what logic means, cause you aren't comparing similar things. Googling how to murder your wife and then following through would be evidence of premeditation. As far as I know, no one has been arrested for googling anything in the US, maybe China. So you've dragged this analogy behind the barn, shot it, set it on fire, and pissed on its ashes. CP is made because there is a demand. By viewing, collecting and sharing, more demand is created; more demand means more exploitation. That's why possession is treated so harshly as opposed to your examples.

It's very similar. When you Google you're thinking about doing something just as if you watch a pornography video you're thinking about doing something and if we can say if you watch cp video X that you're a pedophile then we can say if you Google search for cp that you're a pedophile. Why wait for them to find the video when we can have Google turn over their search records to the authorities and arrest them for attempted possession of child pornography?

Do you see the logic now? BTW your argument that child porn is made because of demand, this argument would be logical and make sense if we are talking about websites where people are paying money in some way or if we are talking about a child pornography ring where people are trading files they created with other child molesters. In these instances I'd agree with you and say take down the whole ring.

But in instances where child porn is uploaded to 4chan and passerbys download it it's not at all the same situation. You could argue that by going to the wrong section of 4chan that they were searching for child porn, you can argue that they have sick thoughts for even wanting to view it, but you cannot argue that they are child molesters because they didn't make the files they downloaded.

So where we can agree is that we should go after the producers with the full force of the law. Where we disagree is how to deal with the consumers. I'm not entirely convinced that the producers are molesting children merely for their consumer base, I think they generally are sick people who enjoy doing what they do and who would do it for free. I think in the case where money is exchanged such as if there is a child porn website and people are dumb enough to pay it, this would make an excellent sting operation because it would show that the consumers in this case actually are trying to support the production of child pornography.

I don't think we should shutdown 4chan, backspace, and try to use child pornography as an excuse to police all adult behavior on the internet. I think if child pornography is a problem for us we should solve it by technical means which I've explained to you in another thread and simply delete it off users harddrives automatically or give users the chance to delete it themselves as a way to avoid prosecution. This way if someone uploads something to 4chan instantly infecting all computers who access it they will have the opportunity to store it in such a way that it automatically self destructs or permanently wipes.

This is a technological compromise which shouldn't effect investigations into child pornography production or effect sophisticated stings to take down child porn rings but it would protect people who stumble upon it. I believe only technical solutions can preserve free speech while also allowing investigations. This is why I say child pornography should be treated as a virus, where if you possess a computer virus you aren't committing a crime but if you are distributing a computer virus then you're committing a crime as the people who receive it have to lose time and money disinfecting their computer from contamination.

Savagelight is offline
Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2012, 08:16 AM   #6
Ghostwheel
Veteran Member [50%]
MBTI: INTJ
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 2,016
 
The thought that something like this might occur is chilling. I could write a great thriller about it:

Harrison Ford plays "Sam Erikson," a crusader for civil liberties. He gets hold of evidence that the NSA is breaking the law and prepares to release it. An evil deputy director triggers the child-porn virus, and the FBI is notified. Will Sam escape capture and find a way to clear his name?

In all seriousness, though ... pretty scary thought. Especially if the prosecutor offers to plea-bargain: plead guilty and do probation but become a registered sex offender or go to trial and end up in the rape factory Americans call prison....

Scary shit.
Ghostwheel is offline
Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2012, 09:39 AM   #7
Savagelight
Veteran Member [56%]
 
MBTI: INTJ
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 2,280
 

  Originally Posted by Ghostwheel
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
The thought that something like this might occur is chilling. I could write a great thriller about it:

Harrison Ford plays "Sam Erikson," a crusader for civil liberties. He gets hold of evidence that the NSA is breaking the law and prepares to release it. An evil deputy director triggers the child-porn virus, and the FBI is notified. Will Sam escape capture and find a way to clear his name?

In all seriousness, though ... pretty scary thought. Especially if the prosecutor offers to plea-bargain: plead guilty and do probation but become a registered sex offender or go to trial and end up in the rape factory Americans call prison....

Scary shit.


These sort of scenarios are happening outside of movies and that is why it's time to have these sorts of discussions. The laws in place are so irrational that they can be abused in all sorts of creative ways. Here are some examples:

 
An assistant school caretaker who planted child porn on his boss's computer in a 'wickedly evil' plot is facing jail today.
Neil Weiner, 39, framed 'exceedingly grumpy' colleague Edward Thompson, 61, to get him sacked and win promotion.
Weiner also anonymously sent a CD featuring hardcore adult porn and vile pictures of children being abused to the police.


Pornographic plot: Neil Weiner, left, was found guilty of perverting the course of justice and possessing child pornography in a bid to frame Edward Thompson
In a scribbled note he claimed they had been downloaded from Thompson's laptop, which was locked in a cupboard at Swanlea secondary school in Whitechapel, east London.
Mr Thompson was stunned when a 'posse of coppers' turned up on his doorstep to arrest him after more than 400 child pornography images were found on his £1,200 laptop.


Read more:
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

400 images produces a posse of choppers at someones doorstep? Hackers call this "
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
", that is when they frame someone for a crime knowing the police tend to over react to certain kinds of crime like drugs and child pornography. And it's as easy as
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
.

 
Lying on his family room floor with assault weapons trained on him, shouts of "pedophile!" and "pornographer!" stinging like his fresh cuts and bruises, the Buffalo homeowner didn’t need long to figure out the reason for the early morning wake-up call from a swarm of federal agents.

That new wireless router. He'd gotten fed up trying to set a password. Someone must have used his Internet connection, he thought.

"We know who you are! You downloaded thousands of images at 11:30 last night," the man's lawyer, Barry Covert, recounted the agents saying. They referred to a screen name, "Doldrum."

"No, I didn't," he insisted. "Somebody else could have but I didn't do anything like that."

"You're a creep ... just admit it," they said.

 
A man who informed police when he found child abuse images on his computer has not been allowed to be alone with his daughter for four months.

Nigel Robinson from Hull said he called police after trying to download music but instead finding pornographic images on his laptop last November.

As a result social services said he "should not have unsupervised access with his own or other children".

He said he was "totally innocent". No arrests or charges have been made.

Mr Robinson, 43, recalled how on discovering the images he discussed the situation with his wife and immediately called police to report the incident.


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Yes it's a crime to report child porn on your computer. This is why I said it has to be treated as a virus because if you try to do the right thing they arrest you on the spot for possession of child pornography. The technical solution is the only solution available and that is to wipe your hard drive with the Gutmann process so that not even the NSA can recover what has been deleted. It sounds paranoid but authorities have a history of undeleting child porn files and charging suspects.

Savagelight is offline
Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2012, 09:40 AM   #8
Polymath20
Core Member [694%]
MBTI: ENTP
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 27,792
 
Is it a Windows specific virus?
Polymath20 is offline
Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2012, 09:45 AM   #9
Savagelight
Veteran Member [56%]
 
MBTI: INTJ
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 2,280
 
Polymath that's just it, any hacker can break into your wifi and download something. Anybody can plant something on one of your computers and inform the authorities, could be an ex girlfriend. Or you could go to the wrong part of the internet and stumble upon a website which infects and contaminates your computer.

My advice is if you ever encounter child pornography by accident wipe your computer using file shredder software. Make sure you use the Gutmann process. Do not report the incident to the authorities, they are not your friend in this regard and will either arrest you on the spot as a "pedophile" or try to turn you into a confidential informant.
Savagelight is offline
Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2012, 10:01 AM   #10
Ghostwheel
Veteran Member [50%]
MBTI: INTJ
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 2,016
 
I seem to recall the claim that, after "Osama Bin Laden" was assassinated (as if we can ever know with no body), a stash of child pornography was "found."

Nothing ever came of this, and it sort of got swept away with the various versions of the story that were told. But it seems to indicate our government understands that that accusation can be a powerful weapon.

It's kind of the perfect control mechanism, when you think about it. If Ralph Nader or Naomi Klein stir things up a bit too much, hey, download a little kiddie porn onto their computer. Then cut a deal. The government sits on the charges, they shut the hell up and live a quiet life in seclusion at home.

Very efficient.
Ghostwheel is offline
Reply With Quote
Old 07-09-2014, 02:02 AM   #11
fima1959
New Member [01%]
 
MBTI: intj
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 3
 
Very interesting article on this topic.

Browser hijackers ruining lives

search google
fima1959 is offline
Reply With Quote
Old 07-09-2014, 02:26 AM   #12
pip
Veteran Member [73%]
Does this look like a fucking choice to you?
MBTI: INTj
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 2,954
 

  Originally Posted by Savagelight
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
But in instances where child porn is uploaded to 4chan

It gets taken down and scrubbed within 2-3 minutes (at the worst), and the uploading user gets banned and permanently IP blocked.
Doesn't do anything against proxies etc. but 4chan is not a fan of CP. At all.

 
You could argue that by going to the wrong section of 4chan that they were searching for child porn

No you can't. Don't make shit up, it makes you look like an arse.

pip is offline
Reply With Quote
Old 07-09-2014, 03:47 PM   #13
Ray9
Veteran Member [86%]
MBTI: intj
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 3,475
 
You have to download something for it to be on your computer. If you have decent protection your internet security should notify you that something is being downloaded and scan it. I can't even plug in my GoPro camera without my security trying to scan it.
Ray9 is offline
Reply With Quote
Old 07-09-2014, 05:37 PM   #14
PTD
Member [41%]
MBTI: INTJ
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,675
 
There is a problem with the way pedophilia is prosecuted, but that doesn't mean people who watch or own pedophile material shouldn't be prosecuted. The solution is not an 'antivirus' that deletes pedophile material, that's virtually impossible, but rather the entire burden of proof lying on the law enforcers. If they can't prove you weren't an Internet victim, then the prosecution should follow accordingly.
PTD is offline
Reply With Quote
Old 07-09-2014, 05:41 PM   #15
LeeRoy
Veteran Member [58%]
power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely
MBTI: INTJ
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 2,347
 

  Originally Posted by Savagelight
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
What if pedophilia is a virus and the death penalty is the treatment?

I say pedophilia is now a virus because that is how we treat it legally, at the point where possession of child pornography is seen as being infected with pedophilia and equal to being a pedophile.

Now for the example of the virus in technical form:



If someone uploads child porn to your computer or if you download it by mistake and the police find it on your computer you're automatically a pedophile even if you've had no interaction with children.

Once infected with child pornography or once assumed to be a pedophile the only way out is to commit suicide. The sex offender database, watch lists, etc can make it so life is un-liveable for all "suspected" pedophiles.

So the question is why do we punish possession of child pornography? Logically it does not protect children as the viewer of the pornography itself didn't victimize the child. What it does is it gives governments the power to police our thoughts to try and determine who thinks in a certain way and arrest them before they act. The interesting thing about this is child porn is the only kind of information or thought that we treat like this.

For instance if we talk about someone who possesses bomb making information we don't declare them a terrorist. Or if we talk about someone who possesses videos of assassinations, suicides or beheadings we don't arrest them for terrorism. If someone possesses or expresses racist views we don't arrest them. So how does child pornography as a type of information end up in a special category where possession of it is so illegal that just being caught with it for any reason makes a person an instant pedophile?

Technically it's a thought crime if someone is thinking like a pedophile and gets arrested for it. The reason child porn is a special category which people use as an exception is because laws are typically made not to accomplish any real goal but to satisfy emotions.

Laws are made out of either fear, or anger. Parents generally fear for the safety of their children and will support any law even if there is no victim or logic behind the law because the fear is intense enough to shut down logic and reasoning in many parents. The effectiveness of the law isn't calculated, the only that that matters is satisfying the emotion of fear by passing any law necessary to make parents feel less scared.

Anger is another example which results in laws being made. Parents were angry at Casey Anthony and it resulted in Caylee's law. Any time a child goes missing or a pedophile is caught more laws get passed some which aren't well thought out and which do not have the intended effect.

Because emotions are the guide to the law, child pornography is effectively a virus because of the effect it has on emotions rather than the effect it has on security. Child porn has not been proven to be the cause of pedophilia, just as violent movies and games have not been proven to be the cause of violence. Child porn possession is not the same as child molestation when considering which activity endangers children.

But in the minds of parents it feels the same, it becomes the same. Pedophiles are disgusting, anyone who harms children will be seen as sick or evil. As a result you have technical viruses such as the one above which utilizes a concept of spreading the infected blood around. Going after everyone caught possessing child porn helps law enforcement look like they are combating the problem and protecting children as these arrests are easy to make.

So the question is should child porn be treated as a virus legally, technologically?
Does child pornography possession make the person who possesses it a pedophile by default?

If we treat child porn as a virus then we can solve it technically and could program virus scanners to look for and delete all child porn. This is a necessary step and makes more sense.

If we say that pedophiles are a virus and we cure it by killing them that means we could use that logic to kill people with aids or herpes. Are you sure you want to go there? I am so not defending pedophiles but you need to realize what results this would have. Also child-porn can only be made by abusing children. Its completely different from Video-games and violent movies because in violent video games and movies no one is really being hurt. Legal pornography is generally done by consenting adults. Children cant consent and its too easy to force children to commit sexual acts by withholding stuff they might need, and those sort of things. So saying Child porn is ok is saying child molestation is ok. If mommy says "I wont feed you dinner unless you have sex with your sister" than guess what the children have to do? They might not want to but we as adults have far too much influence over children to really give them a right to consent to us adults in a sexual way.

LeeRoy is offline
Reply With Quote
Old 07-10-2014, 01:18 AM   #16
BlackOp
Veteran Member [98%]
 
MBTI: INTJ
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,937
 
The premise is interesting....I was working with guy, and he was watching a Mexican Cartel execution. It was easily the most violent thing I have ever seen. A beheading of a female snitch with a hunting knife..I was actually pissed he showed it to me. It was horriying..

So if you have in your possession, a video of an actual murder....by watching/owning it, are you a murderer by association? Is an actual crime being committed by witnessing a digital media crime someone else committed... that you have never met or had any involvement in? Its like a proxie sensory crime...I think the case of child exploitation obviously is a delicate theme. But is a digital pixel representation of a crime..actually a crime when the receiver hasn't harmed anyone? I think the only way the label could be justified would be if there was proof of a transfer of commerce to acquire...

By the way...read a government memo where planting porn was a political strategy to defame opponents and opposition.
BlackOp is offline
Reply With Quote
Old 07-10-2014, 01:48 AM   #17
fima1959
New Member [01%]
 
MBTI: intj
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 3
 
I came to US as political refugee on human rights violations in former USSR
I am russian jew, and I got a lot of discrimination in USSR
My parents are Holocaust survivors.
But I got the worst thing in USA, never possible in communist country.
I was set up with my computer, convicted as a s..x offender for computer p..rn.
Now I do not have job and can hardly survive under police database
supervision, named s..x offender registration. Nobody want to hire me,
I think because of police database.
And I have family. Who cares? Dirty polititians are playing their
dirty games for more power.
I would like to send you some links to publications about my criminal
case. I was forced to confess to the
possession of internet digital pictures of p..rn in deleted clusters
of my computer hard drive. My browser was hijacked while I was
browsing the web. I was redirected to illegal sites against my will.
Some illegal pictures were found on my hard drive, recovering in
unallocated clusters, without dates of file creation/download.

I do not know how courts can widely press these charges on people to
convict them, while the whole Internet is a mess.
fima1959 is offline
Reply With Quote
Old 07-10-2014, 02:31 AM   #18
bawb
Member [15%]
MBTI: ixtj
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 619
 

  Originally Posted by Ray9
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
You have to download something for it to be on your computer. If you have decent protection your internet security should notify you that something is being downloaded and scan it. I can't even plug in my GoPro camera without my security trying to scan it.

I think download is a loosely used term. I believe your browser has a cache of images from websites you've visited. You may say you did not download the images, but they are still on your computer.

Most of us could not tell reg porn from child porn, meaning a nude 16 year old girl from a 18 year old. If you see tits on the internet, how do you tell the born on date?

A 15 year old girl took pics of her tits, thus produced child porn. So is she both the victim and producer of porn? She sends the pic to 17 yo boyfriend also a minor, and commits another crime. Her boyfriend sends back dick pic, another victim producing porn.
Now the police want to get him for possession of child pornography and manufacturing child pornography, which could lead not only to incarceration until he’s 21, but inclusion on the state sex offender data base.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


I've read that much of child porn is just teens sexting, which in my mind is far different than molestation, but carries the same penalty.

bawb is offline
Reply With Quote
Old 07-10-2014, 03:50 AM   #19
thod
Restricted [forum rules]
 
MBTI: INTP
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 12,235
 
It is like the old police tactic of placing a small bag of heroin in a trouble causers car.
thod is offline
Reply With Quote
Old 07-10-2014, 04:33 AM   #20
Daoist
Core Member [127%]
MBTI: INTP
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 5,108
 

  Originally Posted by bawb
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
I've read that much of child porn is just teens sexting, which in my mind is far different than molestation, but carries the same penalty.

It's really scary to me that probably upwards of 50% of people have committed sex offenses of some sort, which could ruin lives if convicted, at some point in their past.

Daoist is offline
Reply With Quote
Old 07-10-2014, 05:04 AM   #21
Tocsin
Core Member [232%]
MBTI: INTJ
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 9,300
 
The more things change, the more they stay the same.

This paranoia and witch hunt hysteria reminds me of the eighties, with the
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
(barely a stones throw from where I live), along with
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
and
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
hysteria.

People with rigid moral systems will eventually fail them in some way, producing guilt. And one of the best ways to overcome guilt is to project the blame onto some other available scapegoat. The more more morally abhorent and perverse the displaced crime is, the more cathartic the purge value.

Back then, child testimony and DNA evidence was assumed to be incorruptable, now it is the contents of your computer hard drive. In either event, the actual evidence is irrelevant, if the charge is considered so heinous that merely being accused is the same as being guilty.
Tocsin is online
Reply With Quote
Old 07-10-2014, 09:50 AM   #22
fima1959
New Member [01%]
 
MBTI: intj
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 3
 
Virginia authorities want photo of teenage child porn suspect's erect penis


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


---------- Post added 07-10-2014 at 08:52 AM ----------

You may read my story written by Irish writer Brian Rothery


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


Here is article from Wired Magazine written after interview with me


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


I wrote this comparison:


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
fima1959 is offline
Reply With Quote
Old 07-10-2014, 12:19 PM   #23
vedera
Restricted [forum rules]
 
MBTI: iNxj
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 6,394
 

  Originally Posted by Savagelight
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
So the question is why do we punish possession of child pornography? Logically it does not protect children as the viewer of the pornography itself didn't victimize the child. What it does is it gives governments the power to police our thoughts to try and determine who thinks in a certain way and arrest them before they act. The interesting thing about this is child porn is the only kind of information or thought that we treat like this.

This was actually a hilarious question - but many think this way and legitimately don't understand the answer to it, so I'll explain it.

Possession of child pornography must be punishable by law, because if the government were to legalize such content, they would retroactively, yet implicitly be condoning past production of content, as well as any future production of content, which would effectively legalize the exploitation of children in arguably the most traumatic way possible. And for what? For the sexual paraphernalia of certain adults to either view or possibly engage in such behaviors.

You may be thinking that the legality of possession of child pornography and its production are two different things - as well as the content itself varying in severity as well as "participants."

The production of such content would be explicitly allowing the exploitation of children, who do not yet maintain the physical, mental or emotional capability needed for proper legal consent. The production of such material, and engaging in this exploitation are obviously directly linked, as the production of content would necessitate the child's exploitation.

Furthermore, the content itself can vary - but the exploitation is very much the same, regardless of context, which is the core problem.

In short, there really is no way to explicitly legalize the possession of child pornography without also legalizing sexual exploitation of minors. I don't generally believe this is a concept that is foreign to many individuals.

vedera is offline
Reply With Quote
Old 07-10-2014, 12:59 PM   #24
BlackOp
Veteran Member [98%]
 
MBTI: INTJ
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,937
 

  Originally Posted by fima1959
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Virginia authorities want photo of teenage child porn suspect's erect penis


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Being that he is 17...and the overall insanity of these charges..there has to be an ultertior motive.

"If convicted, the boy could face imprisonment until he is 21"....do they have profit prison quotas in Virginia?

BlackOp is offline
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:26 AM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, Myers-Briggs, and MBTI are trademarks or registered trademarks of the
Myers-Briggs Type Indicator Trust in the United States and other countries.