Virtual pedophilia
November 4, 2013 2:35 PM Subscribe
"Virtual girl 'Sweetie' snares 1000 paedophiles trying to engage her online sex"
"A DUTCH rights group said it had identified over 1000 paedophiles around the world by offering online sex with a computer-generated 10-year-old Filipina girl called Sweetie."
"A DUTCH rights group said it had identified over 1000 paedophiles around the world by offering online sex with a computer-generated 10-year-old Filipina girl called Sweetie."
My understanding is that they didn't create any simulated porn.
posted by Chocolate Pickle at 2:38 PM on November 4, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by Chocolate Pickle at 2:38 PM on November 4, 2013 [1 favorite]
Yeah, they say that they ended every exchange after an offer of money was made.
posted by Bookhouse at 2:39 PM on November 4, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by Bookhouse at 2:39 PM on November 4, 2013 [1 favorite]
Let the pedophile hysteria begin! Patrol the chatrooms, bug the internet! Those pedophiles are everywhere and they are going to get your kids!
posted by psycho-alchemy at 2:39 PM on November 4, 2013 [11 favorites]
posted by psycho-alchemy at 2:39 PM on November 4, 2013 [11 favorites]
How many of those pedophiles were computer-generated?
posted by kewb at 2:42 PM on November 4, 2013 [30 favorites]
posted by kewb at 2:42 PM on November 4, 2013 [30 favorites]
For some reason this makes me uneasy. Why not spend some of this money, time and effort on trying to help people with pedophilic urges before they offend?
posted by showbiz_liz at 2:43 PM on November 4, 2013 [13 favorites]
posted by showbiz_liz at 2:43 PM on November 4, 2013 [13 favorites]
Honest question: has that approach ever been used with any success anywhere?
(I am in fact hoping the answer is "yes" — but I wouldn't even know where to begin looking for a non-bullshit source of information on the question.)
posted by Now there are two. There are two _______. at 2:46 PM on November 4, 2013 [2 favorites]
(I am in fact hoping the answer is "yes" — but I wouldn't even know where to begin looking for a non-bullshit source of information on the question.)
posted by Now there are two. There are two _______. at 2:46 PM on November 4, 2013 [2 favorites]
My understanding is that they didn't create any simulated porn.
Right, and I believe them, but I wonder if some of these laws are more sensitive than people realize. Anyway, I was just wondering.
For some reason this makes me uneasy. Why not spend some of this money, time and effort on trying to help people with pedophilic urges before they offend?
Yep, more or less seconded. Even if we're not talking about rehabilitating pedophiles, there's still a big wide world out there, as far as defeating human trafficking, or addressing the vast majority of child abuse, which happens between people who already know one another.
It's fun to set up a virtual honeypot, and I'm all for creepos getting in trouble, but there's a difference between "this effort goes towards helping people" and "it is fun to catch despicable crooks".
Besides, if To Catch A Predator is any indication, there's every possibility that any evidence they do collect could be easily thrown out at trial. "We use the same procedures as the police" is a meaningless statement.
posted by Sticherbeast at 2:49 PM on November 4, 2013 [2 favorites]
Right, and I believe them, but I wonder if some of these laws are more sensitive than people realize. Anyway, I was just wondering.
For some reason this makes me uneasy. Why not spend some of this money, time and effort on trying to help people with pedophilic urges before they offend?
Yep, more or less seconded. Even if we're not talking about rehabilitating pedophiles, there's still a big wide world out there, as far as defeating human trafficking, or addressing the vast majority of child abuse, which happens between people who already know one another.
It's fun to set up a virtual honeypot, and I'm all for creepos getting in trouble, but there's a difference between "this effort goes towards helping people" and "it is fun to catch despicable crooks".
Besides, if To Catch A Predator is any indication, there's every possibility that any evidence they do collect could be easily thrown out at trial. "We use the same procedures as the police" is a meaningless statement.
posted by Sticherbeast at 2:49 PM on November 4, 2013 [2 favorites]
It's a pity you can't put a virtual rhino on the web and catch poachers that way.
posted by George_Spiggott at 2:51 PM on November 4, 2013 [40 favorites]
posted by George_Spiggott at 2:51 PM on November 4, 2013 [40 favorites]
"The biggest problem is that the police don't take action until child victims file reports, but children almost never report these crimes," said head of campaigns Hans Guyt.
That's why it doesn't feel like this will be of much use. It's good to highlight the sheer numbers of paedophiles online - 20,000 approaches in 10 weeks, and that's just to 1 "child" - but the police are hardly going to act on it. Actual question - is it a crime to attempt to solicit an act even if it doesn't happen?
posted by billiebee at 2:52 PM on November 4, 2013 [1 favorite]
That's why it doesn't feel like this will be of much use. It's good to highlight the sheer numbers of paedophiles online - 20,000 approaches in 10 weeks, and that's just to 1 "child" - but the police are hardly going to act on it. Actual question - is it a crime to attempt to solicit an act even if it doesn't happen?
posted by billiebee at 2:52 PM on November 4, 2013 [1 favorite]
Possibly a derail, but it occurred to me recently: I attribute a good portion of the growth of the early internet to the ability to have the sorts of conversations we couldn't have in real-life. To some extent, that meant that technical conversation was no longer geographically limited; I could talk about the minutiae of polygon rasterization on X86 architectures with people who weren't whitewater guides in Chattanooga TN, but another large portion was about the conversations outside of the social mores of that time and place.
alt.sex.bondage was a hell of an eye-opener to a boy living in the buckle of the Bible Belt trying to figure himself out.
I currently hang out with some of the "Internet Identity" crowd, and the "Personal Clouds" folks, and was a "social media" pioneer back when "weblogs" were called "micro portals", and there's a lot of talking about how we're going to take the net back from the FaceTwitSpacePlus centralization forces, and privacy, and all of that.
So I look at what's driven the technological conversion in the past, and I see porn and conversations that we couldn't have in real life. And I look to what porn and conversations that we can't have in real life on the modern media, and I think...
... I think that the next technological and media revolution may very well be the first one that's not driven by those things. Because it's clear that the dark net is out there, it's simple for me to start to participate in it, but aside from a few of us who are saying "NSA snooping: bad", the only other reason to participate in the dark net is frankly pretty odious.
I'm not sure what that means for predicting the future, and I don't think that cracking down on virtual pedophilia is a good thing because it didn't take a whole lot of browsing of the more creepy pedo stuff on alt.sex.stories for my brain to go from "adolescent interested in anything sexy" to "eeew, the world doesn't work this way, squicked", and I think being able to explore those fantasies and see that they don't match the real world is a useful tool, but I think that notion that the primary driver of new technology is going to change radically is something worth considering.
posted by straw at 2:53 PM on November 4, 2013 [9 favorites]
alt.sex.bondage was a hell of an eye-opener to a boy living in the buckle of the Bible Belt trying to figure himself out.
I currently hang out with some of the "Internet Identity" crowd, and the "Personal Clouds" folks, and was a "social media" pioneer back when "weblogs" were called "micro portals", and there's a lot of talking about how we're going to take the net back from the FaceTwitSpacePlus centralization forces, and privacy, and all of that.
So I look at what's driven the technological conversion in the past, and I see porn and conversations that we couldn't have in real life. And I look to what porn and conversations that we can't have in real life on the modern media, and I think...
... I think that the next technological and media revolution may very well be the first one that's not driven by those things. Because it's clear that the dark net is out there, it's simple for me to start to participate in it, but aside from a few of us who are saying "NSA snooping: bad", the only other reason to participate in the dark net is frankly pretty odious.
I'm not sure what that means for predicting the future, and I don't think that cracking down on virtual pedophilia is a good thing because it didn't take a whole lot of browsing of the more creepy pedo stuff on alt.sex.stories for my brain to go from "adolescent interested in anything sexy" to "eeew, the world doesn't work this way, squicked", and I think being able to explore those fantasies and see that they don't match the real world is a useful tool, but I think that notion that the primary driver of new technology is going to change radically is something worth considering.
posted by straw at 2:53 PM on November 4, 2013 [9 favorites]
I'm not really sure what they were expecting. They went looking for people willing to do depraved things in the places that those people would hang out and then they were *shocked* when they found some of those people. And 1,000 people out of "the internet" is really not that many.
Also, they caught people who were willing to pay money to watch children perform solo sex acts, which is disgusting, but I can't really look at it quite the same way as, say, raping your niece when you're supposed to be babysitting her.
posted by tylerkaraszewski at 2:55 PM on November 4, 2013 [1 favorite]
Also, they caught people who were willing to pay money to watch children perform solo sex acts, which is disgusting, but I can't really look at it quite the same way as, say, raping your niece when you're supposed to be babysitting her.
posted by tylerkaraszewski at 2:55 PM on November 4, 2013 [1 favorite]
I think the 750,000 number they throw out is ridiculously inflated. While I do not doubt that there are children in the world being exploited via webcams, I always have to come back to Chris Morris' Brass Eye: Paedogeddon episode, which scathingly lampoons the related hysteria.
posted by Catblack at 2:57 PM on November 4, 2013 [6 favorites]
posted by Catblack at 2:57 PM on November 4, 2013 [6 favorites]
It says she was "deployed" in Internet chat rooms, it doesn't say which ones. They could have been ones for kids.
Also, they caught people who were willing to pay money to watch children perform solo sex acts, which is disgusting, but I can't really look at it quite the same way as, say, raping your niece when you're supposed to be babysitting her.
They are on a continuum. I'm not saying I agree with the approach, but you don't know that someone capable of asking a child to perform a solo sex act is not also capable of worse forms of abuse.
posted by billiebee at 2:59 PM on November 4, 2013
Also, they caught people who were willing to pay money to watch children perform solo sex acts, which is disgusting, but I can't really look at it quite the same way as, say, raping your niece when you're supposed to be babysitting her.
They are on a continuum. I'm not saying I agree with the approach, but you don't know that someone capable of asking a child to perform a solo sex act is not also capable of worse forms of abuse.
posted by billiebee at 2:59 PM on November 4, 2013
The men involved were "fathers, musicians, an architect", Mr Van Santbrink told AFP.
Wait, how do they know that the people involved in an illegal, immoral, and secretive act on the Internet are who they say they are?
posted by FJT at 3:00 PM on November 4, 2013 [1 favorite]
Wait, how do they know that the people involved in an illegal, immoral, and secretive act on the Internet are who they say they are?
posted by FJT at 3:00 PM on November 4, 2013 [1 favorite]
Out of curiosity, why is "DUTCH" in all caps in the post?
posted by zarq at 3:05 PM on November 4, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by zarq at 3:05 PM on November 4, 2013 [1 favorite]
For some reason this makes me uneasy. Why not spend some of this money, time and effort on trying to help people with pedophilic urges before they offend?
I've talked about this before, but a couple years ago, one of the tenors in my church choir abruptly stopped showing up to rehearsal; turned out he had been arrested driving to Colorado to meet someone whom he thought was the willing mother of a willing six year old. My own daughter was four at the time, and he used to play peekaboo with her at coffee hour at church every Sunday, and I never got even vaguely creepy vibes off him at all. This was after a multi-month-long sting, they had REAMS of horrifying chat logs with him. I came home and cried and cried and cried with relief that he was caught. He pled guilty and has been sentenced to dozens of years in prison.
But -- he was 76. He had children, and grandchildren, and the ICE agents who caught him assured our pastors that they did not think he had ever harmed an actual child, he had basically been escalated into this interstate trip by the conversations he'd had online. What if he'd spent two hours a day, not with someone who was encouraging him to offend, but with someone who was helping him avoid it? Wouldn't that have been better?
posted by KathrynT at 3:08 PM on November 4, 2013 [48 favorites]
I've talked about this before, but a couple years ago, one of the tenors in my church choir abruptly stopped showing up to rehearsal; turned out he had been arrested driving to Colorado to meet someone whom he thought was the willing mother of a willing six year old. My own daughter was four at the time, and he used to play peekaboo with her at coffee hour at church every Sunday, and I never got even vaguely creepy vibes off him at all. This was after a multi-month-long sting, they had REAMS of horrifying chat logs with him. I came home and cried and cried and cried with relief that he was caught. He pled guilty and has been sentenced to dozens of years in prison.
But -- he was 76. He had children, and grandchildren, and the ICE agents who caught him assured our pastors that they did not think he had ever harmed an actual child, he had basically been escalated into this interstate trip by the conversations he'd had online. What if he'd spent two hours a day, not with someone who was encouraging him to offend, but with someone who was helping him avoid it? Wouldn't that have been better?
posted by KathrynT at 3:08 PM on November 4, 2013 [48 favorites]
Out of curiosity, why is "DUTCH" in all caps in the post?
The first words of newspaper articles are often in all caps.
That, or there was a lot of enthusiasm for the 1991 film of the same name, starring Ed O'Neill.
posted by Sticherbeast at 3:11 PM on November 4, 2013 [4 favorites]
The first words of newspaper articles are often in all caps.
That, or there was a lot of enthusiasm for the 1991 film of the same name, starring Ed O'Neill.
posted by Sticherbeast at 3:11 PM on November 4, 2013 [4 favorites]
Out of curiosity, why is "DUTCH" in all caps in the post?
Decent Users Taking Childporn Hyperbolically?
Driving Unique TCP/IP Clicks for Harvesting?
Diddling Underage Theoretical Children Hurts?
posted by Homeboy Trouble at 3:16 PM on November 4, 2013 [8 favorites]
Decent Users Taking Childporn Hyperbolically?
Driving Unique TCP/IP Clicks for Harvesting?
Diddling Underage Theoretical Children Hurts?
posted by Homeboy Trouble at 3:16 PM on November 4, 2013 [8 favorites]
Well, at least this semi-solves one of the issues I have with the semi-entrapment aspect of these stings, which is choosing an actress to pretend to be underage.
posted by Samizdata at 3:17 PM on November 4, 2013 [2 favorites]
posted by Samizdata at 3:17 PM on November 4, 2013 [2 favorites]
What if he'd spent two hours a day, not with someone who was encouraging him to offend, but with someone who was helping him avoid it? Wouldn't that have been better?
I don't disagree with that, but how do you encourage people to avail of that? People don't like admitting they have a problem especially one that society despises.
I would say, though, that the remoteness of Internet chat or photos means that people see it as not "real" abuse. They are still real children and real damage is done. In the case of the man you mentioned, what was their motivation for going after him? Did they just pick a random man or had there already been conversations with children? Because if so, they were "actual children" and we don't know what damage was done to them. And it would take a hell of a lot of "encouragement" to make a guy who had no interest in hurting children drive across state to have sex with a 6 year old. So how do you get him to admit that and seek help, even if it was there?
posted by billiebee at 3:27 PM on November 4, 2013 [5 favorites]
I don't disagree with that, but how do you encourage people to avail of that? People don't like admitting they have a problem especially one that society despises.
I would say, though, that the remoteness of Internet chat or photos means that people see it as not "real" abuse. They are still real children and real damage is done. In the case of the man you mentioned, what was their motivation for going after him? Did they just pick a random man or had there already been conversations with children? Because if so, they were "actual children" and we don't know what damage was done to them. And it would take a hell of a lot of "encouragement" to make a guy who had no interest in hurting children drive across state to have sex with a 6 year old. So how do you get him to admit that and seek help, even if it was there?
posted by billiebee at 3:27 PM on November 4, 2013 [5 favorites]
They have a YouTube account where you can see the simulacrum in action.
posted by EmGeeJay at 3:27 PM on November 4, 2013
posted by EmGeeJay at 3:27 PM on November 4, 2013
Actual question - is it a crime to attempt to solicit an act even if it doesn't happen?
Funny, this question is actually answered in the very next Mefi post.
posted by sour cream at 3:31 PM on November 4, 2013 [1 favorite]
Funny, this question is actually answered in the very next Mefi post.
posted by sour cream at 3:31 PM on November 4, 2013 [1 favorite]
Yeah, it seems to me we are getting closer and closer to a practical application of precrime everyday.
posted by Samizdata at 3:44 PM on November 4, 2013 [2 favorites]
posted by Samizdata at 3:44 PM on November 4, 2013 [2 favorites]
"But OK, we are not prosecutors, we are not judges, it will be for them to decide what to do with the elements we gave them," Mr Guyt said.
And the elements are men willing to pay for online sex with a computer-generated avatar. I suppose they will be apprehended right after all those gamers who have killed computer-generated avatars in online games.
(I'm not saying that trying to bring attention to online pedophelia is a bad thing - but the "evidence" produced by this seems to be pretty much useless.)
posted by sour cream at 3:44 PM on November 4, 2013 [3 favorites]
And the elements are men willing to pay for online sex with a computer-generated avatar. I suppose they will be apprehended right after all those gamers who have killed computer-generated avatars in online games.
(I'm not saying that trying to bring attention to online pedophelia is a bad thing - but the "evidence" produced by this seems to be pretty much useless.)
posted by sour cream at 3:44 PM on November 4, 2013 [3 favorites]
Let the pedophile hysteria begin! Patrol the chatrooms, bug the internet! Those pedophiles are everywhere and they are going to get your kids!
I suppose you're the kind of person who can't locate Cambodia on a map.
posted by KokuRyu at 3:45 PM on November 4, 2013 [5 favorites]
I suppose you're the kind of person who can't locate Cambodia on a map.
posted by KokuRyu at 3:45 PM on November 4, 2013 [5 favorites]
Every time a pedophilia scandal hits a major news source, enough that spreads back to me, I watch Chris Morris's Paedogeddon instead of learning what scary new thing is supposed to've happened. Because the part where Simon Pegg (playing a pedophile) tells Morris that he "doesn't fancy" Morris's 5-year-old child and Morris throws a hissy fit is still one of the funniest things I've ever seen a TV show get away with.
posted by Rory Marinich at 3:47 PM on November 4, 2013 [4 favorites]
posted by Rory Marinich at 3:47 PM on November 4, 2013 [4 favorites]
we are getting closer and closer to a practical application of precrime everyday.
We're already there when it comes to terrorism. You can be jailed for discussing a plan, not even making an actual plan.
posted by billiebee at 3:49 PM on November 4, 2013 [1 favorite]
We're already there when it comes to terrorism. You can be jailed for discussing a plan, not even making an actual plan.
posted by billiebee at 3:49 PM on November 4, 2013 [1 favorite]
For some reason this makes me uneasy. Why not spend some of this money, time and effort on trying to help people with pedophilic urges before they offend?
I read an article probably a decade ago, a feature in... I want to say the Boston Globe, but I could be wrong. It was an eye-opening lengthy interview with a pedophile, who was at pains to distinguish 'pedophile' from 'child molester,' the one being the innate wiring, the other the reprehensible criminal act. This guy talked about how he had no more choice in his sexual orientation than anyone else; however, he knew his were potentially harmful and he struggled with these urges which he spent his entire life keeping under control and avoiding any situation where he might give in, because he couldn't condone the thought of hurting a child. He and his mother (also interviewed for the piece) expressed their views that child molesters should be punished to the fullest extent of the law. It was thought-provoking, and it made me more careful not to conflate the two things. Unfortunately, the mention of either term often short-circuits logical thought.
posted by ricochet biscuit at 3:51 PM on November 4, 2013 [11 favorites]
I read an article probably a decade ago, a feature in... I want to say the Boston Globe, but I could be wrong. It was an eye-opening lengthy interview with a pedophile, who was at pains to distinguish 'pedophile' from 'child molester,' the one being the innate wiring, the other the reprehensible criminal act. This guy talked about how he had no more choice in his sexual orientation than anyone else; however, he knew his were potentially harmful and he struggled with these urges which he spent his entire life keeping under control and avoiding any situation where he might give in, because he couldn't condone the thought of hurting a child. He and his mother (also interviewed for the piece) expressed their views that child molesters should be punished to the fullest extent of the law. It was thought-provoking, and it made me more careful not to conflate the two things. Unfortunately, the mention of either term often short-circuits logical thought.
posted by ricochet biscuit at 3:51 PM on November 4, 2013 [11 favorites]
The Woodsman is a great film about a paedophile struggling to live a normal life. There is definitely a difference between a compulsion, and a desire to exert power and control (which most sexual abuse is really about.)
posted by billiebee at 3:54 PM on November 4, 2013 [4 favorites]
posted by billiebee at 3:54 PM on November 4, 2013 [4 favorites]
What if he'd spent two hours a day, not with someone who was encouraging him to offend, but with someone who was helping him avoid it? Wouldn't that have been better?
It sounds nice, but what is the evidence that this works?
posted by melissam at 3:56 PM on November 4, 2013 [1 favorite]
It sounds nice, but what is the evidence that this works?
posted by melissam at 3:56 PM on November 4, 2013 [1 favorite]
It sounds nice, but what is the evidence that this works?
sound similar to how AA works, and there's a lot to look at there.
posted by philip-random at 4:01 PM on November 4, 2013 [1 favorite]
sound similar to how AA works, and there's a lot to look at there.
posted by philip-random at 4:01 PM on November 4, 2013 [1 favorite]
psycho-alchemy: "Let the pedophile hysteria begin! Patrol the chatrooms, bug the internet! Those pedophiles are everywhere and they are going to get your kids!"
Just a friendly reminder that there are many of us here for whom this is not some abstract academic question, to be hand-waved away as being less relevant than whatever is in the next thread, but lived experience. It is clear that the PEDOPHILE HYSTERIA, that is the escalating refusal to keep sweeping this shit under the rug, has since the 70s at least been correlated with a dramatic decrease in the number of people who have fallen prey to pedophiles. While I can sort of see how some of the ridiculousness associated with the increased awareness might seem laughable and absurd in an abstract sense, please at least understand that this is a luxury of ignorance.
posted by Blasdelb at 4:06 PM on November 4, 2013 [34 favorites]
Just a friendly reminder that there are many of us here for whom this is not some abstract academic question, to be hand-waved away as being less relevant than whatever is in the next thread, but lived experience. It is clear that the PEDOPHILE HYSTERIA, that is the escalating refusal to keep sweeping this shit under the rug, has since the 70s at least been correlated with a dramatic decrease in the number of people who have fallen prey to pedophiles. While I can sort of see how some of the ridiculousness associated with the increased awareness might seem laughable and absurd in an abstract sense, please at least understand that this is a luxury of ignorance.
posted by Blasdelb at 4:06 PM on November 4, 2013 [34 favorites]
the escalating refusal to keep sweeping this shit under the rug, has since the 70s at least been correlated with a dramatic decrease in the number of people who have fallen prey to pedophiles.
I don't dispute this. I also recall hearing that the more sex ed a child has received, the less likely they are to suffer abuse. They're just not that easily fooled. So I wonder, is it the hysteria that's getting results or just solid education?
posted by philip-random at 4:12 PM on November 4, 2013 [3 favorites]
I don't dispute this. I also recall hearing that the more sex ed a child has received, the less likely they are to suffer abuse. They're just not that easily fooled. So I wonder, is it the hysteria that's getting results or just solid education?
posted by philip-random at 4:12 PM on November 4, 2013 [3 favorites]
Cue "Sweetie"/sweet tea "To Catch A Predator" joke here...
posted by Huffy Puffy at 4:20 PM on November 4, 2013
posted by Huffy Puffy at 4:20 PM on November 4, 2013
is it the hysteria that's getting results or just solid education?
What hysteria? When is it "hysteria", and when is it "reporting that this stuff was and is hugely prevalent"?
posted by billiebee at 4:23 PM on November 4, 2013 [5 favorites]
What hysteria? When is it "hysteria", and when is it "reporting that this stuff was and is hugely prevalent"?
posted by billiebee at 4:23 PM on November 4, 2013 [5 favorites]
Errr... Doesn't this blow her cover?
posted by milkwood at 4:26 PM on November 4, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by milkwood at 4:26 PM on November 4, 2013 [1 favorite]
In the case of the man you mentioned, what was their motivation for going after him?
I haven't read the whole indictment, but I believe they picked him up in a chat room of some kind. He had an enormous amount of child pornography on his hard drive at home when they picked him up (it was a coordinated arrest, at the moment they got him in colorado a SWAT team in Seattle broke into his house and seized every computer in the home, including his Tivo and his wife's smartphone) -- I don't want to give the impression that he was an innocent man railroaded into the charges. He had committed several other crimes, mailing items and such, also associated with this case. Here's a brief news story about the situation.
As for evidence that it works -- I don't have any, at least not any solid evidence. All I have is the word of the ICE squad that although he harmed many, many children through supporting the industry of child pornography, which is a crime and an evil that I really do not want to minimize or wave away, he didn't take the steps of moving towards actual physical contact with a child until he was urged to do so by a federal agent. I don't believe he was entrapped, I don't believe he was coerced, I don't believe he deserves to be anywhere other than where he is -- because, as you say, there is no amount of encouragement that you could give most people that would lead to them driving across the country to have sex with a 6 year old, this isn't like taking a sack full of money or having an affair or doing drugs. I just wish that we had a social structure in place that would make it possible to pour this kind of effort into de-escalation and therapeutic rehabilitation.
posted by KathrynT at 4:29 PM on November 4, 2013 [2 favorites]
I haven't read the whole indictment, but I believe they picked him up in a chat room of some kind. He had an enormous amount of child pornography on his hard drive at home when they picked him up (it was a coordinated arrest, at the moment they got him in colorado a SWAT team in Seattle broke into his house and seized every computer in the home, including his Tivo and his wife's smartphone) -- I don't want to give the impression that he was an innocent man railroaded into the charges. He had committed several other crimes, mailing items and such, also associated with this case. Here's a brief news story about the situation.
As for evidence that it works -- I don't have any, at least not any solid evidence. All I have is the word of the ICE squad that although he harmed many, many children through supporting the industry of child pornography, which is a crime and an evil that I really do not want to minimize or wave away, he didn't take the steps of moving towards actual physical contact with a child until he was urged to do so by a federal agent. I don't believe he was entrapped, I don't believe he was coerced, I don't believe he deserves to be anywhere other than where he is -- because, as you say, there is no amount of encouragement that you could give most people that would lead to them driving across the country to have sex with a 6 year old, this isn't like taking a sack full of money or having an affair or doing drugs. I just wish that we had a social structure in place that would make it possible to pour this kind of effort into de-escalation and therapeutic rehabilitation.
posted by KathrynT at 4:29 PM on November 4, 2013 [2 favorites]
The YouTube video only shows Sweetie in short bursts, and even then she looks pretty clearly computer-generated to me. Of course I knew she was fake before looking at her, so I can't be sure, but I don't see how it could fool anyone who looked at her for more than a few seconds.
posted by Bookhouse at 4:35 PM on November 4, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by Bookhouse at 4:35 PM on November 4, 2013 [1 favorite]
Blasdelb: "psycho-alchemy: "Let the pedophile hysteria begin! Patrol the chatrooms, bug the internet! Those pedophiles are everywhere and they are going to get your kids!"
Just a friendly reminder that there are many of us here for whom this is not some abstract academic question, to be hand-waved away as being less relevant than whatever is in the next thread, but lived experience. It is clear that the PEDOPHILE HYSTERIA, that is the escalating refusal to keep sweeping this shit under the rug, has since the 70s at least been correlated with a dramatic decrease in the number of people who have fallen prey to pedophiles. While I can sort of see how some of the ridiculousness associated with the increased awareness might seem laughable and absurd in an abstract sense, please at least understand that this is a luxury of ignorance."
As someone else who has lived this experience, I find the whole Metafilter attitude towards this subject to be bizarre and, frankly, disgusting. There really are terrible people in this world who really do terrible things. There are a lot of them, some of whom use the internet to feed their sick desires and hurt real children who really exist in the real world, all of whom are someone's child.
Since we can't institute my preferred solution of waving a magic wand and vaporizing these animals, catching them and hauling them off to jail seems like an acceptable second choice.
posted by double block and bleed at 4:46 PM on November 4, 2013 [19 favorites]
Just a friendly reminder that there are many of us here for whom this is not some abstract academic question, to be hand-waved away as being less relevant than whatever is in the next thread, but lived experience. It is clear that the PEDOPHILE HYSTERIA, that is the escalating refusal to keep sweeping this shit under the rug, has since the 70s at least been correlated with a dramatic decrease in the number of people who have fallen prey to pedophiles. While I can sort of see how some of the ridiculousness associated with the increased awareness might seem laughable and absurd in an abstract sense, please at least understand that this is a luxury of ignorance."
As someone else who has lived this experience, I find the whole Metafilter attitude towards this subject to be bizarre and, frankly, disgusting. There really are terrible people in this world who really do terrible things. There are a lot of them, some of whom use the internet to feed their sick desires and hurt real children who really exist in the real world, all of whom are someone's child.
Since we can't institute my preferred solution of waving a magic wand and vaporizing these animals, catching them and hauling them off to jail seems like an acceptable second choice.
posted by double block and bleed at 4:46 PM on November 4, 2013 [19 favorites]
And in other news, a British man, Bijan Ebrahimi, was burned to death by people who thought he was a pedophile. (He was not).
posted by nooneyouknow at 4:48 PM on November 4, 2013 [13 favorites]
posted by nooneyouknow at 4:48 PM on November 4, 2013 [13 favorites]
All the more reason to ensure our criminal enforcement is taking care of this instead of letting child abuse be a fact of life that leaves rage in the hearts of anyone who seen the aftermath of child abuse. Child abuse is not a "fact of life", any more than slavery is a "fact of life".
posted by xarnop at 4:54 PM on November 4, 2013 [3 favorites]
posted by xarnop at 4:54 PM on November 4, 2013 [3 favorites]
...the ICE agents who caught him assured our pastors that they did not think he had ever harmed an actual child...
...he had an enormous amount of child pornography on his hard drive at home...
Then he did harm children. Anyone who purchase and/or watches child porn enables the porn makers to make more, thus ensuring the propagation of the subculture and more children being drawn in and getting hurt.
I'm with Blasdelb, there appears to be a luxury of ignorance here that grates a bit on those of us who have been too close.
I would be all in favor of rehabilitation if it has been shown to be affordably effective--something the literature and personal experience hasn't proved to my satisfaction. There appears to be an extremely high rate of recidivism.
By affordably effective, I mean that funds poured into a program to rehabilitate offenders would be better spent on psychological help for the victims. They are absolutely deserving of help. In a perfect world we would have social services for all, but this world is far far from perfect when it comes to assisting victims or offenders.
posted by BlueHorse at 4:55 PM on November 4, 2013 [4 favorites]
...he had an enormous amount of child pornography on his hard drive at home...
Then he did harm children. Anyone who purchase and/or watches child porn enables the porn makers to make more, thus ensuring the propagation of the subculture and more children being drawn in and getting hurt.
I'm with Blasdelb, there appears to be a luxury of ignorance here that grates a bit on those of us who have been too close.
I would be all in favor of rehabilitation if it has been shown to be affordably effective--something the literature and personal experience hasn't proved to my satisfaction. There appears to be an extremely high rate of recidivism.
By affordably effective, I mean that funds poured into a program to rehabilitate offenders would be better spent on psychological help for the victims. They are absolutely deserving of help. In a perfect world we would have social services for all, but this world is far far from perfect when it comes to assisting victims or offenders.
posted by BlueHorse at 4:55 PM on November 4, 2013 [4 favorites]
And in other news, a British man, Bijan Ebrahimi, was burned to death by people who thought he was a pedophile
That's horrible. It reminds me of the mob who attacked a Welsh pediatrician's office a couple of years back.
You have the real thing, and you also have hysteria. The assumption that people who have cameras in public have them because they are pedophiles who want to take pictures of children would be the latter, it seems to me. I think there was a post here about a photographer who was badly beaten by a mob for this reason, a year or two ago.
posted by thelonius at 4:57 PM on November 4, 2013 [4 favorites]
That's horrible. It reminds me of the mob who attacked a Welsh pediatrician's office a couple of years back.
You have the real thing, and you also have hysteria. The assumption that people who have cameras in public have them because they are pedophiles who want to take pictures of children would be the latter, it seems to me. I think there was a post here about a photographer who was badly beaten by a mob for this reason, a year or two ago.
posted by thelonius at 4:57 PM on November 4, 2013 [4 favorites]
It's funny how it's hip to rage against anti-vaxers who are The Evil, and yet it's very important to be calm and collected about child abusers and have a calm rational and compassionate response to them.
If you think it's hard to rehabilitate anti-vaxers consider the task of trying to impart an ethical system into someone who finds enjoyment from torturing children.
I will add, by metafilters response about "hysteria" metfilter is hysterical about vaccinations. I see where the priorities are.
In truth I wonder if people suspect their use of porn is not necessarily all that ethical, and they partake of exploiting the young and vulnerable who have pehaps past 18 in number but likely have reasons for being in your porn video you don't want to think about.
Is that part of why the restrained response about the heinous nature of this? Clearly it's acceptable to get pissed on metafilter we see it all the time but with child abuse it's interesting the desire for being careful not to generate hysteria by being too emotional about the abuse of children.
Why not more discussion about kind rehabilitative means of working with anti-vaxers, why is it ok to resort to hatred and insults and sneers? But please be kind to the child porn consumers and don't be hysterical.
posted by xarnop at 5:04 PM on November 4, 2013 [9 favorites]
If you think it's hard to rehabilitate anti-vaxers consider the task of trying to impart an ethical system into someone who finds enjoyment from torturing children.
I will add, by metafilters response about "hysteria" metfilter is hysterical about vaccinations. I see where the priorities are.
In truth I wonder if people suspect their use of porn is not necessarily all that ethical, and they partake of exploiting the young and vulnerable who have pehaps past 18 in number but likely have reasons for being in your porn video you don't want to think about.
Is that part of why the restrained response about the heinous nature of this? Clearly it's acceptable to get pissed on metafilter we see it all the time but with child abuse it's interesting the desire for being careful not to generate hysteria by being too emotional about the abuse of children.
Why not more discussion about kind rehabilitative means of working with anti-vaxers, why is it ok to resort to hatred and insults and sneers? But please be kind to the child porn consumers and don't be hysterical.
posted by xarnop at 5:04 PM on November 4, 2013 [9 favorites]
There appears to be an extremely high rate of recidivism.
I'm not overly fond of terming things "hysteria" for multiple reasons, but the fact that this view prevails despite absolutely massive amounts of evidence to the contrary is an indication that American society's approach is...I'll say "not evidence-based."
posted by dsfan at 5:04 PM on November 4, 2013 [6 favorites]
I'm not overly fond of terming things "hysteria" for multiple reasons, but the fact that this view prevails despite absolutely massive amounts of evidence to the contrary is an indication that American society's approach is...I'll say "not evidence-based."
posted by dsfan at 5:04 PM on November 4, 2013 [6 favorites]
Then he did harm children. Anyone who purchase and/or watches child porn enables the porn makers to make more, thus ensuring the propagation of the subculture and more children being drawn in and getting hurt.
Yes, I agree. I misspoke if I gave any other impression.
posted by KathrynT at 5:31 PM on November 4, 2013 [2 favorites]
Yes, I agree. I misspoke if I gave any other impression.
posted by KathrynT at 5:31 PM on November 4, 2013 [2 favorites]
It's funny how it's hip to rage against anti-vaxers who are The Evil, and yet it's very important to be calm and collected about child abusers and have a calm rational and compassionate response to them.
Those who are anti-vaccine can get slots on primetime shows, have softball questions to answer, and heaps of celebrity endorsements. It's hard to communicate just how much harm they could do to children when they're seen as so mainstream. It's also rather frustrating to take the conversation forward and into a more rational frame.
Child sex abusers, on the other hand, we already know to be harmful and are treated accordingly. There's no need to demonize them because that's exactly how they're already seen. Calling for a more reasoned and measured response is seeking to take that conversation forward in its own way.
Nobody begins a war with a call for mercy, nor ends one with a call to arms.
posted by Thing at 5:49 PM on November 4, 2013 [2 favorites]
Those who are anti-vaccine can get slots on primetime shows, have softball questions to answer, and heaps of celebrity endorsements. It's hard to communicate just how much harm they could do to children when they're seen as so mainstream. It's also rather frustrating to take the conversation forward and into a more rational frame.
Child sex abusers, on the other hand, we already know to be harmful and are treated accordingly. There's no need to demonize them because that's exactly how they're already seen. Calling for a more reasoned and measured response is seeking to take that conversation forward in its own way.
Nobody begins a war with a call for mercy, nor ends one with a call to arms.
posted by Thing at 5:49 PM on November 4, 2013 [2 favorites]
Mod note: Please don't turn this into an anti-vaxer discussion. Total derail. Not cool.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 6:00 PM on November 4, 2013 [6 favorites]
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 6:00 PM on November 4, 2013 [6 favorites]
Yeah, it seems to me we are getting closer and closer to a practical application of precrime everyday.
posted by Samizdata at 6:44 PM on November 4 [+] [!]
Hmmm, I have very strong feelings about this. Let's say someone is trying to hire a person to murder their wife. Do we have to wait until the wife's life is actually halfway ended? Let's say a person is walking into a bank to commit a robbery, and there is evidence of that intent, say, chat logs, gun purchase, draft of the note for the teller somewhere visible?
I don't know that the two people who sexually assaulted me when I was a kid would have had any dealings with internet porn, and I was a victim of convenience, being family and all, so there's not much that could have been done to protect me in this way. But if there is anything that can be done to protect kids from what I went through, I'm interested in fact based approaches.
Not witch hunts, but actually tested interventions. And you know what? Putting people in jail keeps them away from children, but it doesn't keep them away from children forever. So I'm with the people who agree that early intervention is a really good thing, and needs more research.
Especially given the number of offenders who were themselves victimized as children in ways that were systemically covered up, aided and abetted by other adults.
Starting from the vantage point of "look at these monsters" doesn't admit to the humanity of victims or agressors. The label of monster doesn't allow people to seek help before things become a huge problem. What it does is perpetuate a cycle of shame and abuse that is hard enough to stop when people can talk about it in therapeutic environments, but pretty much impossible when people will not.
posted by bilabial at 6:01 PM on November 4, 2013 [5 favorites]
posted by Samizdata at 6:44 PM on November 4 [+] [!]
Hmmm, I have very strong feelings about this. Let's say someone is trying to hire a person to murder their wife. Do we have to wait until the wife's life is actually halfway ended? Let's say a person is walking into a bank to commit a robbery, and there is evidence of that intent, say, chat logs, gun purchase, draft of the note for the teller somewhere visible?
I don't know that the two people who sexually assaulted me when I was a kid would have had any dealings with internet porn, and I was a victim of convenience, being family and all, so there's not much that could have been done to protect me in this way. But if there is anything that can be done to protect kids from what I went through, I'm interested in fact based approaches.
Not witch hunts, but actually tested interventions. And you know what? Putting people in jail keeps them away from children, but it doesn't keep them away from children forever. So I'm with the people who agree that early intervention is a really good thing, and needs more research.
Especially given the number of offenders who were themselves victimized as children in ways that were systemically covered up, aided and abetted by other adults.
Starting from the vantage point of "look at these monsters" doesn't admit to the humanity of victims or agressors. The label of monster doesn't allow people to seek help before things become a huge problem. What it does is perpetuate a cycle of shame and abuse that is hard enough to stop when people can talk about it in therapeutic environments, but pretty much impossible when people will not.
posted by bilabial at 6:01 PM on November 4, 2013 [5 favorites]
That all sounds impressive, until you think about the fact that you could create an anthropomorphic eggplant, and there would be a thousand people on the Internet who'd want to have sex with it.
posted by sourcequench at 6:03 PM on November 4, 2013 [8 favorites]
posted by sourcequench at 6:03 PM on November 4, 2013 [8 favorites]
When people Otherize sex offenders, you wind up with crap like Megan's Law, which costs millions, and does nothing - literally nothing [PDF] - to help children. Or, anyone. You might as just steal millions of dollars from child welfare groups.
posted by Sticherbeast at 6:10 PM on November 4, 2013 [5 favorites]
posted by Sticherbeast at 6:10 PM on November 4, 2013 [5 favorites]
bilabial: "
Starting from the vantage point of "look at these monsters" doesn't admit to the humanity of victims or agressors. "
I wish I were a better person. I wish I had it in my my heart to forgive and I really, really wish that I could forget, but I can't do either of those things. It is too bad that these people have a sickness but unfortunately, that sickness causes them to harm children, the people in this world who are least able to defend themselves.
I cannot put whatever compassion I would have for them and their illness ahead of their victims and the pain that they inflict.
posted by double block and bleed at 6:11 PM on November 4, 2013 [2 favorites]
Starting from the vantage point of "look at these monsters" doesn't admit to the humanity of victims or agressors. "
I wish I were a better person. I wish I had it in my my heart to forgive and I really, really wish that I could forget, but I can't do either of those things. It is too bad that these people have a sickness but unfortunately, that sickness causes them to harm children, the people in this world who are least able to defend themselves.
I cannot put whatever compassion I would have for them and their illness ahead of their victims and the pain that they inflict.
posted by double block and bleed at 6:11 PM on November 4, 2013 [2 favorites]
That's understandable, but when that anger leads to counterproductive policy, then we have to make a choice. What's more important, helping children, or hurting pedophiles? If the former is more important, then we do have to look at those policy changes which involve rehabilitation and intervention. Yes, it seems weird to be "nicer" to pedophiles, but being "meaner" doesn't always help.
posted by Sticherbeast at 6:15 PM on November 4, 2013 [10 favorites]
posted by Sticherbeast at 6:15 PM on November 4, 2013 [10 favorites]
Like I said, I wish I was a better person. It would probably be best if cooler heads than mine made these decisions.
posted by double block and bleed at 6:29 PM on November 4, 2013 [2 favorites]
posted by double block and bleed at 6:29 PM on November 4, 2013 [2 favorites]
That all sounds impressive, until you think about the fact that you could create an anthropomorphic eggplant, and there would be a thousand people on the Internet who'd want to have sex with it.
What makes you think it would have to be anthropomorphic?
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 6:34 PM on November 4, 2013 [4 favorites]
What makes you think it would have to be anthropomorphic?
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 6:34 PM on November 4, 2013 [4 favorites]
crap like Megan's Law
Any law named for a person is terrible - you can count on it
posted by thelonius at 6:35 PM on November 4, 2013 [4 favorites]
Any law named for a person is terrible - you can count on it
posted by thelonius at 6:35 PM on November 4, 2013 [4 favorites]
Thelonius' Law: Any law named for a person is terrible - you can count on it
posted by Sticherbeast at 6:37 PM on November 4, 2013 [13 favorites]
posted by Sticherbeast at 6:37 PM on November 4, 2013 [13 favorites]
I did not originate this piece of practical wisdom, sadly
posted by thelonius at 6:38 PM on November 4, 2013
posted by thelonius at 6:38 PM on November 4, 2013
they should make massive google-like server farms to host Sweetie's. get so many that the likelihood of a pedophile actually contacting a real child sufficiently small. you could argue that it's creating child pornography, but not really any more than what this group has done if you just repeat their procedure. something like that couldn't stop and organized crime set-up, but it could sap the demand such an organization would need.
is it possible to run the numbers in a back of the envelope way?
posted by cupcake1337 at 6:46 PM on November 4, 2013
is it possible to run the numbers in a back of the envelope way?
posted by cupcake1337 at 6:46 PM on November 4, 2013
it sounds like they missed a grand opportunity for the virtual girl to suddenly morph into some sort of terrifying and realistic lovecraftian horror, inflicting deep emotional trauma onto those who truly deserve it
posted by maus at 7:04 PM on November 4, 2013 [12 favorites]
posted by maus at 7:04 PM on November 4, 2013 [12 favorites]
"It sounds nice, but what is the evidence that this works?"
sound similar to how AA works, and there's a lot to look at there.
But AA has a very low success rate.
posted by melissam at 7:13 PM on November 4, 2013 [5 favorites]
sound similar to how AA works, and there's a lot to look at there.
But AA has a very low success rate.
posted by melissam at 7:13 PM on November 4, 2013 [5 favorites]
But AA has a very low success rate.
From that link ...
Added Dr. David Sack, chief executive of Promises Treatment Centers and an addiction psychiatrist, AA's success stats, if they compile them, may not be what the group wants to share or emphasize: "AA is a self-help support group, it wasn't designed as a treatment," he says.
What AA offers is important, Sack adds: "One of the core features of AA is getting a sponsor, a peer who has had more time in recovery and can teach you about the AA approach to addiction. In studies that have looked at AA, having a sponsor significantly improves the likelihood of long-term abstinence."
posted by philip-random at 7:32 PM on November 4, 2013 [2 favorites]
From that link ...
Added Dr. David Sack, chief executive of Promises Treatment Centers and an addiction psychiatrist, AA's success stats, if they compile them, may not be what the group wants to share or emphasize: "AA is a self-help support group, it wasn't designed as a treatment," he says.
What AA offers is important, Sack adds: "One of the core features of AA is getting a sponsor, a peer who has had more time in recovery and can teach you about the AA approach to addiction. In studies that have looked at AA, having a sponsor significantly improves the likelihood of long-term abstinence."
posted by philip-random at 7:32 PM on November 4, 2013 [2 favorites]
I did not originate this piece of practical wisdom, sadly
Ah, that would be Stigler's law in action.
posted by Now there are two. There are two _______. at 7:57 PM on November 4, 2013 [2 favorites]
Ah, that would be Stigler's law in action.
posted by Now there are two. There are two _______. at 7:57 PM on November 4, 2013 [2 favorites]
In truth I wonder if people suspect their use of porn is not necessarily all that ethical, and they partake of exploiting the young and vulnerable who have pehaps past 18 in number but likely have reasons for being in your porn video you don't want to think about.
I wonder if you have stopped beating your wife/husband, by which I mean it is both assumptive and rude to assume the worst of people because they express a different opinion to you.
posted by jaduncan at 12:21 AM on November 5, 2013 [1 favorite]
I wonder if you have stopped beating your wife/husband, by which I mean it is both assumptive and rude to assume the worst of people because they express a different opinion to you.
posted by jaduncan at 12:21 AM on November 5, 2013 [1 favorite]
Any law named for a person is terrible - you can count on it
*cough* Miranda
posted by ShutterBun at 1:39 AM on November 5, 2013 [1 favorite]
*cough* Miranda
posted by ShutterBun at 1:39 AM on November 5, 2013 [1 favorite]
Exactly. If Congress had passed "Miranda's Law", they would have found a way to create some kind of disaster.
posted by thelonius at 2:05 AM on November 5, 2013 [2 favorites]
posted by thelonius at 2:05 AM on November 5, 2013 [2 favorites]
And yet instead of talking about how this is a new tool that could be used to stop child abuse, there have been a huge number of comments already discussing how any measures that are used to ACTUALLY STOP CHILD ABUSE are all part of a hysteria based on nothing in particular. That presumption is itself beyond rude and dehumanizing of child abuse survivors who deserve human beings to be passionate about stopping child abuse.
I am a fan of making it possible for pedophiles to get help but the problem of allowing known pedophiles to interact with children becomes an issue of liability for anyone in attempting to help them and it does beg the question of how to measure success rate.
I am a fan of making prison's a much more humane place, having an understanding of the causal factors in the development of criminal behavior and urges, and creating more possibilities for supervised living designed not for punishment but to allow pedophiles and people with disordes that make them a genuine hazard for people around them a safe place to live a decent life and have some measure of involvement in the community.
Mental/personality disorders that make a person unable to control their behavior (and anyone who has actually offended has demonstrated they've lost that control) might require supervised living and I think we need to get less worried about the freedom of pedophiles and remain committed more to the people they harm, despite that I care deeply about the welfare of every human.
So in a sense, I think, yes we need more mental health access, more preventative measures and all those things are good, but catching people who are doing these things IS ALSO PART OF THAT. It is not part of "hysteria" and calling the work of finding people who use child porn part of hysteria is itself... "rude". Beyond rude, as it demonstrates a disregard for the humanity of child abuse survivors.
Retracting anything related to anti-vax, the point of that statement remains valid, which is that certain crimes that cause life long suffering and death seem to matter, while certain people destroyed by crimes don't matter as much. Calling people doing the work of ending child abuse hysterical and calling for a more relaxed approach essential does say that we shouldn't do the work of stopping what's happening alongside any preventative measures, instead we should just do preventative work and let child abusers get away with it-- those children are collateral damage in have a relaxed and enlightened view about child abuse.
I think child abusers are human beings. I know them in my every day life and I care about some of them. I also think child welfare comes before their feelings, their freedom, and at times, their general welfare. Making prison systems more human, and making it more ok to have people housed in prison would make it easier to get actual convictions for the huge amount of abusers who are never reported because people love them and don't want to hurt them. I have seen what it looks like up close in person when people value child abuser freedom and welfare over children and it's not pretty. Asking them nicely to stop will not make them stop. Going to counseling doesn't make them stop.
I like all these nice ideas and think we should use them, but I still think we need to stand behind people doing the actual work of catching people who are abusing children and putting them in jail instead of calling the work of doing this hysteria.
Demeaning children's rights to be protected from this is more than just rude.
posted by xarnop at 2:14 AM on November 5, 2013 [8 favorites]
I am a fan of making it possible for pedophiles to get help but the problem of allowing known pedophiles to interact with children becomes an issue of liability for anyone in attempting to help them and it does beg the question of how to measure success rate.
I am a fan of making prison's a much more humane place, having an understanding of the causal factors in the development of criminal behavior and urges, and creating more possibilities for supervised living designed not for punishment but to allow pedophiles and people with disordes that make them a genuine hazard for people around them a safe place to live a decent life and have some measure of involvement in the community.
Mental/personality disorders that make a person unable to control their behavior (and anyone who has actually offended has demonstrated they've lost that control) might require supervised living and I think we need to get less worried about the freedom of pedophiles and remain committed more to the people they harm, despite that I care deeply about the welfare of every human.
So in a sense, I think, yes we need more mental health access, more preventative measures and all those things are good, but catching people who are doing these things IS ALSO PART OF THAT. It is not part of "hysteria" and calling the work of finding people who use child porn part of hysteria is itself... "rude". Beyond rude, as it demonstrates a disregard for the humanity of child abuse survivors.
Retracting anything related to anti-vax, the point of that statement remains valid, which is that certain crimes that cause life long suffering and death seem to matter, while certain people destroyed by crimes don't matter as much. Calling people doing the work of ending child abuse hysterical and calling for a more relaxed approach essential does say that we shouldn't do the work of stopping what's happening alongside any preventative measures, instead we should just do preventative work and let child abusers get away with it-- those children are collateral damage in have a relaxed and enlightened view about child abuse.
I think child abusers are human beings. I know them in my every day life and I care about some of them. I also think child welfare comes before their feelings, their freedom, and at times, their general welfare. Making prison systems more human, and making it more ok to have people housed in prison would make it easier to get actual convictions for the huge amount of abusers who are never reported because people love them and don't want to hurt them. I have seen what it looks like up close in person when people value child abuser freedom and welfare over children and it's not pretty. Asking them nicely to stop will not make them stop. Going to counseling doesn't make them stop.
I like all these nice ideas and think we should use them, but I still think we need to stand behind people doing the actual work of catching people who are abusing children and putting them in jail instead of calling the work of doing this hysteria.
Demeaning children's rights to be protected from this is more than just rude.
posted by xarnop at 2:14 AM on November 5, 2013 [8 favorites]
As someone else who has lived this experience, I find the whole Metafilter attitude towards this subject to be bizarre and, frankly, disgusting. There really are terrible people in this world who really do terrible things. There are a lot of them, some of whom use the internet to feed their sick desires and hurt real children who really exist in the real world, all of whom are someone's child.
Since we can't institute my preferred solution of waving a magic wand and vaporizing these animals, catching them and hauling them off to jail seems like an acceptable second choice.
The question is how much overlap is there between the people who would respond to these online stings and the actual bad people who would hurt children. Hysteria says it is 1:1, but in reality, I doubt highly that it is.
It's also not clear whether these people wanted to have sex with an actual child, or merely wanted to play some kind of creepy virtual reality game.
posted by gjc at 2:24 AM on November 5, 2013
Since we can't institute my preferred solution of waving a magic wand and vaporizing these animals, catching them and hauling them off to jail seems like an acceptable second choice.
The question is how much overlap is there between the people who would respond to these online stings and the actual bad people who would hurt children. Hysteria says it is 1:1, but in reality, I doubt highly that it is.
It's also not clear whether these people wanted to have sex with an actual child, or merely wanted to play some kind of creepy virtual reality game.
posted by gjc at 2:24 AM on November 5, 2013
It's also not clear whether these people wanted to have sex with an actual child, or merely wanted to play some kind of creepy virtual reality game.
Acting upon pedophilic urges amounts to a disturbing, disgusting and a heinous crime, which should be severely punished.
However, I wonder about the ethics and efficacy of this and other such "honey traps," and particularly one where the "honey" is not even a real human being. The same kind of entrapment is used to lure terrorists from the internet to proceed along some "overt act" like buy fertilizer or meet a would-co-conspirator, and troubles me.
What is troubling is that in the absence of such a honey trap, would men (it's typically men!) be in fact trying to find parents who participate in the abuse of their children? Or trying to actually find someone with whom to commit a terrorist act? I would bet that in most cases, a conversation in a chat room that starts off as harmless (but twisted) banter would never result in the plan to commit a heinous crime, without the entrapment of the officer. In which case, what is the service to society that is being provided? Someone who goes to chat rooms dealing with terrorism or child abuse is pushed over the edge to agree to commit an illegal act by someone who is setting them up to trap them. I am not sure where the social utility in that is, since the question that rankles me is whether that person would even go down that route in the absence of entrapment, some of which may years to set up and be quite elaborate.
As for someone who wishes to have sex with a virtual child, I don't see how that can be illegal. A virtual child is not real and would be a fitting substitute for any pedophile as therapy. Prosecuting internet surfers for having sex with an obviously virtual child is like outlawing inflatable dolls that may look like they are underage.
Neither thought, nor role play of the most creepy kind can be or should be considered a crime.
posted by Azaadistani at 3:07 AM on November 5, 2013
Acting upon pedophilic urges amounts to a disturbing, disgusting and a heinous crime, which should be severely punished.
However, I wonder about the ethics and efficacy of this and other such "honey traps," and particularly one where the "honey" is not even a real human being. The same kind of entrapment is used to lure terrorists from the internet to proceed along some "overt act" like buy fertilizer or meet a would-co-conspirator, and troubles me.
What is troubling is that in the absence of such a honey trap, would men (it's typically men!) be in fact trying to find parents who participate in the abuse of their children? Or trying to actually find someone with whom to commit a terrorist act? I would bet that in most cases, a conversation in a chat room that starts off as harmless (but twisted) banter would never result in the plan to commit a heinous crime, without the entrapment of the officer. In which case, what is the service to society that is being provided? Someone who goes to chat rooms dealing with terrorism or child abuse is pushed over the edge to agree to commit an illegal act by someone who is setting them up to trap them. I am not sure where the social utility in that is, since the question that rankles me is whether that person would even go down that route in the absence of entrapment, some of which may years to set up and be quite elaborate.
As for someone who wishes to have sex with a virtual child, I don't see how that can be illegal. A virtual child is not real and would be a fitting substitute for any pedophile as therapy. Prosecuting internet surfers for having sex with an obviously virtual child is like outlawing inflatable dolls that may look like they are underage.
Neither thought, nor role play of the most creepy kind can be or should be considered a crime.
posted by Azaadistani at 3:07 AM on November 5, 2013
gjc: "The question is how much overlap is there between the people who would respond to these online stings and the actual bad people who would hurt children. Hysteria says it is 1:1, but in reality, I doubt highly that it is."
I think the number of people who would respond to this sort of online sting are vastly outnumbered by pedophiles who hurt children in more "effective" ways.
Hysteria is a troubling word here. I know we've all been burned by the hysterical bullshit endless wars against drugs and terror. Many of us are to the point where we trust nothing our governments tell us about bad things. If you don't believe your government, believe me as a victim and a witness. Getting molested was the worst thing that ever happened to me and has had far-reaching effects in my life, none of them good.
I'll do everything in my power to save others from the suffering that I've experienced. If that somehow makes me hysterical, then so be it. Better for me to be seen as hysterical than for one more child to suffer at the hands of an adult.
posted by double block and bleed at 3:15 AM on November 5, 2013 [4 favorites]
I think the number of people who would respond to this sort of online sting are vastly outnumbered by pedophiles who hurt children in more "effective" ways.
Hysteria is a troubling word here. I know we've all been burned by the hysterical bullshit endless wars against drugs and terror. Many of us are to the point where we trust nothing our governments tell us about bad things. If you don't believe your government, believe me as a victim and a witness. Getting molested was the worst thing that ever happened to me and has had far-reaching effects in my life, none of them good.
I'll do everything in my power to save others from the suffering that I've experienced. If that somehow makes me hysterical, then so be it. Better for me to be seen as hysterical than for one more child to suffer at the hands of an adult.
posted by double block and bleed at 3:15 AM on November 5, 2013 [4 favorites]
American society's approach is...I'll say "not evidence-based."
I blame Law and Order: SVU. Seriously, though, it would be nice if you could provide us with some links to the pertinent literature so that everyone could have a look at it.
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 4:03 AM on November 5, 2013
I blame Law and Order: SVU. Seriously, though, it would be nice if you could provide us with some links to the pertinent literature so that everyone could have a look at it.
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 4:03 AM on November 5, 2013
And yet instead of talking about how this is a new tool that could be used to stop child abuse, there have been a huge number of comments already discussing how any measures that are used to ACTUALLY STOP CHILD ABUSE are all part of a hysteria based on nothing in particular.
What? Who is saying anything like "any measures that are used to actually stop child abuse" are actually just hysteria, etc.? I am not seeing what you are talking about.
So in a sense, I think, yes we need more mental health access, more preventative measures and all those things are good, but catching people who are doing these things IS ALSO PART OF THAT.
Who in this thread is saying anything like this? Could you please be specific?
posted by Sticherbeast at 4:13 AM on November 5, 2013
What? Who is saying anything like "any measures that are used to actually stop child abuse" are actually just hysteria, etc.? I am not seeing what you are talking about.
So in a sense, I think, yes we need more mental health access, more preventative measures and all those things are good, but catching people who are doing these things IS ALSO PART OF THAT.
Who in this thread is saying anything like this? Could you please be specific?
posted by Sticherbeast at 4:13 AM on November 5, 2013
Demeaning children's rights to be protected from this is more than just rude.
Sure, if that were happening. I'm just not sure what it has to do with a non sequitur accusing people of watching ethically dubious porn, which is what I'm saying was rude.
I thought that would be clear from the 'are you still beating your wife/husband' non sequitur in response.
posted by jaduncan at 4:19 AM on November 5, 2013 [1 favorite]
Sure, if that were happening. I'm just not sure what it has to do with a non sequitur accusing people of watching ethically dubious porn, which is what I'm saying was rude.
I thought that would be clear from the 'are you still beating your wife/husband' non sequitur in response.
posted by jaduncan at 4:19 AM on November 5, 2013 [1 favorite]
Is there any evidence that most pedophiles are fundamentally decent people who are battling uncontrollable urges that they wish to, but can't, control?
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 4:32 AM on November 5, 2013
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 4:32 AM on November 5, 2013
MisantropicPainforest: Is there any evidence that most pedophiles are fundamentally decent people who are battling uncontrollable urges that they wish to, but can't, control?
Is there any evidence that most aren't? It sounds to me as though you are advocating the presumption of guilt rather than the presumption of innocence.
posted by syzygy at 4:43 AM on November 5, 2013 [1 favorite]
Is there any evidence that most aren't? It sounds to me as though you are advocating the presumption of guilt rather than the presumption of innocence.
posted by syzygy at 4:43 AM on November 5, 2013 [1 favorite]
Define "fundamentally decent", I guess? More generally about these kinds of sex offenders, this 2010 article from Harvard Medical School walks through some very interesting points, but it it also takes pains to walk through the "known unknowns".
Overall, it's a false dilemma to say that we have to choose between a) the identification and capture of pedophiles and b) non-punitive measures to reduce the number of assaults in the first place.
We already do a), and it basically works. Nobody (outside of NAMBLA, etc.) is saying to stop identifying and catching pedophiles. That option is not under threat.
The trick is figuring out how to get more of b).
posted by Sticherbeast at 4:49 AM on November 5, 2013 [2 favorites]
Overall, it's a false dilemma to say that we have to choose between a) the identification and capture of pedophiles and b) non-punitive measures to reduce the number of assaults in the first place.
We already do a), and it basically works. Nobody (outside of NAMBLA, etc.) is saying to stop identifying and catching pedophiles. That option is not under threat.
The trick is figuring out how to get more of b).
posted by Sticherbeast at 4:49 AM on November 5, 2013 [2 favorites]
gjc: "The question is how much overlap is there between the people who would respond to these online stings and the actual bad people who would hurt children. Hysteria says it is 1:1, but in reality, I doubt highly that it is.This sting was selecting from a population of men who were actively seeking out real children to virtually assault online and concluded when the men made an explicit offer of cash in exchange for sexual acts being performed for them on camera. Whether they are 'bad people' is irrelevant to the naked fact that they are people actively fostering an environment where children are assaulted who need to be stopped. There is indeed a 1:1 relationship between men who make payments to those they believe are grooming children for sexual assault via webcam and men who would hurt children.
It's also not clear whether these people wanted to have sex with an actual child, or merely wanted to play some kind of creepy virtual reality game."
If being not ok with children being exploited via webcam means that I may be suffering from a swollen and troublesome uterus having fallen prey to feminine sensitivity, then I am ok with that making me hysterical.
posted by Blasdelb at 5:01 AM on November 5, 2013 [8 favorites]
As has been noted above, there is a difference between those who are struggling with a compulsion and those who abuse children for reasons of power and control, in the same way that rape is about violence rather than sexual gratification alone. They have previously been categorised as fixated, regressed and other offenders. The recidivism rate is different for each. I would hazard a guess that those genuinely struggling with an attraction to pre-pubescent children is less than those who rape and abuse children for other reasons. Those reasons are related to b) and partly involve living in a society which has historically viewed women and children as objects.
posted by billiebee at 5:05 AM on November 5, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by billiebee at 5:05 AM on November 5, 2013 [1 favorite]
I haven't phrased that well, so not to abuse the edit button further a better way of writing it is situational and preferential, with sub-groups for each.
posted by billiebee at 5:11 AM on November 5, 2013
posted by billiebee at 5:11 AM on November 5, 2013
Azaadistani: "What is troubling is that in the absence of such a honey trap, would men (it's typically men!) be in fact trying to find parents who participate in the abuse of their children?"In this case, you know one that is actually real, the 'honey traps' were not laid out where some hapless hero struggling with an addiction could just happen to stumble across, but in chat rooms specifically established for the exploitation of children in the third world. They found their way there, discovered systematic child abuse and, instead of trying to address it, decided to participate in it. Traps like this do not create demand they just dip into the pool of what is already there and drag these bastards up into the light.
More than that though, I'd ask you to consider how in shifting the agency for the child abuse that these men believe they were committing from them onto their, in this case supposed, victims; you also shift the agency for the real deal in ways that are horrifically common. Where instead of a logical narrative of adult men who care more about getting their rocks off than the well being of children hurting children, who have an absolute right to expect the adults around them to protect them that is in no way dependent on their socioeconomic status or location or harm already caused by other adults, you get a strange and perverted one where the agency is shifted onto children who have zero business carrying it. Child abuse is not something that the adults who do this just somehow stumble into or somehow get dragged into, it is something they actively seek and create. Their actions are indeed their responsibility.
posted by Blasdelb at 5:26 AM on November 5, 2013 [3 favorites]
Sticherbeast: "We already do a), and it basically works. Nobody (outside of NAMBLA, etc.) is saying to stop identifying and catching pedophiles. That option is not under threat."The topic of this thread exists because "option a)" is not currently being done for the protection of children in the third world who are currently being exploited pedophiles in rich western nations. We don't already "do a)" for them, and we should.
posted by Blasdelb at 5:34 AM on November 5, 2013 [3 favorites]
It's funny how it's hip to rage against anti-vaxers who are The Evil, and yet it's very important to be calm and collected about child abusers and have a calm rational and compassionate response to them.
One thing to consider is that maintaining a little bit of calm about child abusers helps maintain the distinction between actual child abusers and men who urinated outside, or people who had 16 year old boy/girlfriends when they were 19, or minor teenagers who sexted their boy/girlfriend, and so on, when the laws surrounding sexual abuse often resolutely fail to do so.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 5:34 AM on November 5, 2013 [2 favorites]
One thing to consider is that maintaining a little bit of calm about child abusers helps maintain the distinction between actual child abusers and men who urinated outside, or people who had 16 year old boy/girlfriends when they were 19, or minor teenagers who sexted their boy/girlfriend, and so on, when the laws surrounding sexual abuse often resolutely fail to do so.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 5:34 AM on November 5, 2013 [2 favorites]
The topic of this thread exists because "option a)" is not currently being done for the protection of children in the third world who are currently being exploited pedophiles in rich western nations. We don't already "do a)" for them, and we should.
Fair enough, but this sorta-sting would not help that at all. Campaigning for sane legal reform (and enforcement) in those jurisdictions would.
I'm all for anyone getting caught by this sting, but I reiterate my concern from above that it could be very difficult to get a conviction off of the evidence collected here.
posted by Sticherbeast at 5:42 AM on November 5, 2013
Fair enough, but this sorta-sting would not help that at all. Campaigning for sane legal reform (and enforcement) in those jurisdictions would.
I'm all for anyone getting caught by this sting, but I reiterate my concern from above that it could be very difficult to get a conviction off of the evidence collected here.
posted by Sticherbeast at 5:42 AM on November 5, 2013
men who urinated outside, or people who had 16 year old boy/girlfriends when they were 19, or minor teenagers who sexted their boy/girlfriend, and so on, when the laws surrounding sexual abuse often resolutely fail to do so.
Did any of those people get implicated in this sting?
posted by Elementary Penguin at 5:52 AM on November 5, 2013 [4 favorites]
Did any of those people get implicated in this sting?
posted by Elementary Penguin at 5:52 AM on November 5, 2013 [4 favorites]
Did any of those people get implicated in this sting?
> super drunk
> pissing on a wall
> the wall turns into a vidscreen with the face of a 10-year-old on it
> I try to turn it off
> instead, I accidentally offer money in exchange for sexual favors
> stupid Windows 8
> police erupt from the sky and arrest me 400 times in a row
> I am now the world's most noble political prisoner
posted by Sticherbeast at 5:55 AM on November 5, 2013 [6 favorites]
> super drunk
> pissing on a wall
> the wall turns into a vidscreen with the face of a 10-year-old on it
> I try to turn it off
> instead, I accidentally offer money in exchange for sexual favors
> stupid Windows 8
> police erupt from the sky and arrest me 400 times in a row
> I am now the world's most noble political prisoner
posted by Sticherbeast at 5:55 AM on November 5, 2013 [6 favorites]
Sticherbeast: "Fair enough, but this sorta-sting would not help that at all. Campaigning for sane legal reform (and enforcement) in those jurisdictions would.Umm, what? This whole campaign is pretty much exactly what you wish it was, word for word. It is a campaign for sane legal reform (and enforcement) in western jurisdictions, that is exactly what it is. The goal was never to produce evidence for trial but to demonstrate to Western governments that this is a huge problem, that this is their problem through pressure from social media, and that it is trivially addressable with resources already available to them.
I'm all for anyone getting caught by this sting, but I reiterate my concern from above that it could be very difficult to get a conviction off of the evidence collected here."
I was thinking of making this much more in depth video that explains their goals into an FPP before this FPP popped up but there is a pretty big SIGN MY PETITION focus towards the end that would have been a handy excuse for canning this thing we don't generally do well.
posted by Blasdelb at 6:02 AM on November 5, 2013 [1 favorite]
Umm, what? This whole campaign is pretty much exactly what you wish it was, word for word. It is a campaign for sane legal reform (and enforcement) in western jurisdictions, that is exactly what it is.
I can't watch the video right now. Could you please summarize? From what I'm reading, it sounds like they want Western jurisdictions to do more webcam stings, which is of course fine, but that's not legal reform. At most, that's a push for greater and more effective enforcement of existing laws.
What I was referring to was your invocation of third world countries. In the US and other places, there are already laws against child porn, solicitation of this kind of activity, sex tourism, etc. You can't protect these children until enforcement also exists in their own jurisdiction.
posted by Sticherbeast at 6:10 AM on November 5, 2013
I can't watch the video right now. Could you please summarize? From what I'm reading, it sounds like they want Western jurisdictions to do more webcam stings, which is of course fine, but that's not legal reform. At most, that's a push for greater and more effective enforcement of existing laws.
What I was referring to was your invocation of third world countries. In the US and other places, there are already laws against child porn, solicitation of this kind of activity, sex tourism, etc. You can't protect these children until enforcement also exists in their own jurisdiction.
posted by Sticherbeast at 6:10 AM on November 5, 2013
Catblack: "I think the 750,000 number they throw out is ridiculously inflated."What a truly embarrassingly ridiculous thing to say. Did your gut tell you this? Was it especially truthy? Are you even capable of finding much less engaging with the sources that Terre des Hommes cites? To save you some time,
UN Human Rights Council. (2009). “Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Sale of Children, Child Prostitution and Child Pornography, Najat M’jid Maalla.PDF” Geneva.
posted by Blasdelb at 6:28 AM on November 5, 2013
The linked report says that the "number of predators connected to the Internet at any one time is estimated to be 750,000," but there's no source within the document. Where did they get this number?
posted by Sticherbeast at 6:34 AM on November 5, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by Sticherbeast at 6:34 AM on November 5, 2013 [1 favorite]
Is there any evidence that most aren't?
Well for one, they have the desire to do massive harm to other human beings, so there's that.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 6:35 AM on November 5, 2013
Well for one, they have the desire to do massive harm to other human beings, so there's that.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 6:35 AM on November 5, 2013
Did any of those people get implicated in this sting?
Of course not, but those people really are swept up as if they were pedophiles, and have their lives ruined as if they were pedophiles. It's part of the larger problem that laws and anti-sexual-abuse programs seem to be built around the very rare crime of stereotypical abduction by strangers instead of the distressingly common abuse by relatives, other people in (pseudo-)custody like ministers and teachers, and so on. We'd better protect children with a lot less "Megan's Law" and a lot less "stranger danger" and a lot more "What should you do if your grandpa/uncle/priest/dad asks you to do something to his penis?"
In the case of Sweetie, the obvious worry is that the people they identified as pedophiles weren't actually those people. Since the group doesn't have NSA powers or subpoena authority, it's hard to imagine that their identification program went beyond "This is who they said they are" and "Their IP is plausible for that name."
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 6:39 AM on November 5, 2013 [3 favorites]
Of course not, but those people really are swept up as if they were pedophiles, and have their lives ruined as if they were pedophiles. It's part of the larger problem that laws and anti-sexual-abuse programs seem to be built around the very rare crime of stereotypical abduction by strangers instead of the distressingly common abuse by relatives, other people in (pseudo-)custody like ministers and teachers, and so on. We'd better protect children with a lot less "Megan's Law" and a lot less "stranger danger" and a lot more "What should you do if your grandpa/uncle/priest/dad asks you to do something to his penis?"
In the case of Sweetie, the obvious worry is that the people they identified as pedophiles weren't actually those people. Since the group doesn't have NSA powers or subpoena authority, it's hard to imagine that their identification program went beyond "This is who they said they are" and "Their IP is plausible for that name."
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 6:39 AM on November 5, 2013 [3 favorites]
"Of course not, but those people really are swept up as if they were pedophiles, and have their lives ruined as if they were pedophiles."This is a completely separate problem divorced from anything actually related to the FPP, which is about pedophiles in developed countries exploiting children in the third world with impunity.
"In the case of Sweetie, the obvious worry is that the people they identified as pedophiles weren't actually those people. Since the group doesn't have NSA powers or subpoena authority, it's hard to imagine that their identification program went beyond "This is who they said they are" and "Their IP is plausible for that name.""Worry about what? The goal of this program was not to target people for vigilante justice, or even build cases for prosecution, but to demonstrate that this is a problem and that it can be addressed by people who do have subpoena authority. Even in your absurd scenario of someone who uses their neighbors information, and also just happens to look just like them on a webcam, then that would still demonstrate everything the program was intended to while being perfectly addressable with tools available to real law enforcement.
posted by Blasdelb at 6:59 AM on November 5, 2013 [1 favorite]
Worry about what?
Innocent people facing reputation-ruining public investigation as pedophiles. Less innocent people having their lives ruined because public investigation for pedophilia turned up unrelated contraband in their house.
The goal of this program was not to target people for vigilante justice, or even build cases for prosecution
No, they explicitly said they were passing their information on to law enforcement. I wouldn't care very much if American prosecutors were strongly ethical actors who care about the consequences of their actions for innocent people and worry more about the correct application of the law than their next election. But they aren't.
Even in your absurd scenario of someone who uses their neighbors information, and also just happens to look just like them on a webcam
There's nothing in the FPP that suggested that webcams were pointed at anyone except the virtual child, but I can see from other news articles that this might not be the case. I have no objection to identification based on not-obviously-spoofed webcam video of the pedophiles.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 7:32 AM on November 5, 2013
Innocent people facing reputation-ruining public investigation as pedophiles. Less innocent people having their lives ruined because public investigation for pedophilia turned up unrelated contraband in their house.
The goal of this program was not to target people for vigilante justice, or even build cases for prosecution
No, they explicitly said they were passing their information on to law enforcement. I wouldn't care very much if American prosecutors were strongly ethical actors who care about the consequences of their actions for innocent people and worry more about the correct application of the law than their next election. But they aren't.
Even in your absurd scenario of someone who uses their neighbors information, and also just happens to look just like them on a webcam
There's nothing in the FPP that suggested that webcams were pointed at anyone except the virtual child, but I can see from other news articles that this might not be the case. I have no objection to identification based on not-obviously-spoofed webcam video of the pedophiles.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 7:32 AM on November 5, 2013
Huh? Identifying people who take active steps to watch child porn is important. Virtual or not, these people are trying to access real child porn. The result is the same, to me - identifying dangerous people. Even if they do nothing but watch, they are increasing demand for child abductions and rapes.
posted by agregoli at 7:44 AM on November 5, 2013 [3 favorites]
posted by agregoli at 7:44 AM on November 5, 2013 [3 favorites]
No, they explicitly said they were passing their information on to law enforcement. I wouldn't care very much if American prosecutors were strongly ethical actors who care about the consequences of their actions for innocent people and worry more about the correct application of the law than their next election. But they aren't.
Since all of this is going on in the Netherlands, I'm not sure what the American justice system has to do with anything.
posted by Elementary Penguin at 7:49 AM on November 5, 2013 [1 favorite]
Since all of this is going on in the Netherlands, I'm not sure what the American justice system has to do with anything.
posted by Elementary Penguin at 7:49 AM on November 5, 2013 [1 favorite]
This FPP is not about innocent men whose lives are being ruined because of a hysterical witch-hunt. It's about men who deliberately offered money to a child (as far as they knew) to perform sex acts. A group is trying to identify them, and opinions on whether their tactics are misguided or not is one debate. But this is not about a man urinating in public or two teenagers dating. I don't see the use in conflating the two debates.
posted by billiebee at 7:51 AM on November 5, 2013 [6 favorites]
posted by billiebee at 7:51 AM on November 5, 2013 [6 favorites]
Since all of this is going on in the Netherlands, I'm not sure what the American justice system has to do with anything.
They identified some pedophiles as being in the US, so those people would eventually face American prosecutors and juries, not Dutch.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 8:44 AM on November 5, 2013
They identified some pedophiles as being in the US, so those people would eventually face American prosecutors and juries, not Dutch.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 8:44 AM on November 5, 2013
Yeah, it gets super hinky when your sting is international. Even if this was just meant to be a proof of concept, there are still serious problems with evidentiary and procedural concerns.
...
The CG person angle makes this newsworthy, but it doesn't even address a real problem. With greater ease, and much lower cost, you could use a flesh and blood decoy. Many people could pass for a 10-year-old, or even just a 13-year-old, with the right makeup, costuming, and lighting.
No, getting the decoy is not the hard part. Indeed, one would think that the police would love a relatively cheap and easy way to catch the most loathsome criminals around.
It would be constructive to read about what law enforcement officials think about these kinds of stings. There might be frustratingly understandable reasons why it's not so simple to simply have a decoy catch pedophiles, like flypaper.
I would love for it to be so easy to have these people just get caught in this way, but many things are not so easy, and that is why they are not done as often as we think they should be.
posted by Sticherbeast at 9:10 AM on November 5, 2013
...
The CG person angle makes this newsworthy, but it doesn't even address a real problem. With greater ease, and much lower cost, you could use a flesh and blood decoy. Many people could pass for a 10-year-old, or even just a 13-year-old, with the right makeup, costuming, and lighting.
No, getting the decoy is not the hard part. Indeed, one would think that the police would love a relatively cheap and easy way to catch the most loathsome criminals around.
It would be constructive to read about what law enforcement officials think about these kinds of stings. There might be frustratingly understandable reasons why it's not so simple to simply have a decoy catch pedophiles, like flypaper.
I would love for it to be so easy to have these people just get caught in this way, but many things are not so easy, and that is why they are not done as often as we think they should be.
posted by Sticherbeast at 9:10 AM on November 5, 2013
than for one more child to suffer at the hands of an adult.
I remember as a young man, some decades ago, watching a TV debate about drugs and teens, and whether the police should have more or less free reign in high schools (ie: searching lockers without warrants etc). At some point, in spite of all the reasoned, rational, constitutionally sound counterarguments put forth, one audience member stood up and said, "If these searches save just one child from becoming a drug addict, then they're worth it." And she got a standing ovation.
Call it a dark epiphany.
Because ever since then, the phrasing"... than for one more child to" or "just one child from becoming" has been one of my "triggers" that somebody is suffering from dissonance, and yes, probably hysteria. I wouldn't say they're not listening, but I would say they're not capable of comprehending all the information being put to them. They're in some form of panic and thus, utterly manipulable. Which is why, in a so-called democracy, hysteria about anything is, if not always the wrong response, it is 99.99 percent of the time.
Because the rational goal is to solve a particular harm without causing all manner of other arguable far worse harm in the process (ie: not what we've seen over the past forty plus years with the War On Drugs). Which gets us to ...
We'd better protect children with a lot less "Megan's Law" and a lot less "stranger danger" and a lot more "What should you do if your grandpa/uncle/priest/dad asks you to do something to his penis?"
If your concern is predatory sexual monsters preying on children, this should be your #1 focus. Because it works. Call it Sex Education, and start it at a very early age.
Which isn't to say that it will solve all sexual abuse of children, because it's true, strangers are sometimes (if infrequently) the danger. And in this light, I find this Dutch experiment fascinating, and hope it manages to get some traction. But if you're invested in not playing to hysteria and its manipulations, then please start with proper Sex Education.
posted by philip-random at 9:15 AM on November 5, 2013 [1 favorite]
I remember as a young man, some decades ago, watching a TV debate about drugs and teens, and whether the police should have more or less free reign in high schools (ie: searching lockers without warrants etc). At some point, in spite of all the reasoned, rational, constitutionally sound counterarguments put forth, one audience member stood up and said, "If these searches save just one child from becoming a drug addict, then they're worth it." And she got a standing ovation.
Call it a dark epiphany.
Because ever since then, the phrasing"... than for one more child to" or "just one child from becoming" has been one of my "triggers" that somebody is suffering from dissonance, and yes, probably hysteria. I wouldn't say they're not listening, but I would say they're not capable of comprehending all the information being put to them. They're in some form of panic and thus, utterly manipulable. Which is why, in a so-called democracy, hysteria about anything is, if not always the wrong response, it is 99.99 percent of the time.
Because the rational goal is to solve a particular harm without causing all manner of other arguable far worse harm in the process (ie: not what we've seen over the past forty plus years with the War On Drugs). Which gets us to ...
We'd better protect children with a lot less "Megan's Law" and a lot less "stranger danger" and a lot more "What should you do if your grandpa/uncle/priest/dad asks you to do something to his penis?"
If your concern is predatory sexual monsters preying on children, this should be your #1 focus. Because it works. Call it Sex Education, and start it at a very early age.
Which isn't to say that it will solve all sexual abuse of children, because it's true, strangers are sometimes (if infrequently) the danger. And in this light, I find this Dutch experiment fascinating, and hope it manages to get some traction. But if you're invested in not playing to hysteria and its manipulations, then please start with proper Sex Education.
posted by philip-random at 9:15 AM on November 5, 2013 [1 favorite]
Please inform us as to how sex education will empower children enough to not be sexually assaulted.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 9:28 AM on November 5, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 9:28 AM on November 5, 2013 [1 favorite]
While people you know are the biggest threat irl, online predators are usually strangers. They may also be a threat to someone they know. The two are not mutually exclusive.
posted by billiebee at 9:35 AM on November 5, 2013 [2 favorites]
posted by billiebee at 9:35 AM on November 5, 2013 [2 favorites]
"Please inform us as to how sex education will empower children enough to not be sexually assaulted."
Children who don't know they are being assaulted, and don't have the vocabulary to describe what is happening, are far more vulnerable to being groomed for child abuse undetected. Children can be protected by communicating very clearly to them that they can always tell the adults in their life like parents, teachers, and doctors about child abuse described in age appropriate ways without them being blamed for it, and meaning it.
posted by Blasdelb at 9:56 AM on November 5, 2013 [12 favorites]
Children who don't know they are being assaulted, and don't have the vocabulary to describe what is happening, are far more vulnerable to being groomed for child abuse undetected. Children can be protected by communicating very clearly to them that they can always tell the adults in their life like parents, teachers, and doctors about child abuse described in age appropriate ways without them being blamed for it, and meaning it.
posted by Blasdelb at 9:56 AM on November 5, 2013 [12 favorites]
Which isn't to say that it will solve all sexual abuse of children, because it's true, strangers are sometimes (if infrequently) the danger. And in this light, I find this Dutch experiment fascinating, and hope it manages to get some traction. But if you're invested in not playing to hysteria and its manipulations, then please start with proper Sex Education.
I think this underscores how bad the comparison to the "War on Drugs" is. Drug use involves the choices of children (though rarely children, more like young adults). Sexual predators are called predators for a reason. They often threaten their victims, their victims who know more often than not that what is happening is not OK "sex-educated" or not: "I'll kill your mother," "no one will believe you," "you'll end up in foster care" etc. Of course there can be coercive pressure to use drugs, but it's rarely at this level.
While I do think removing people with these urges from positions of power over children is important, I think it can be done without hysteria. It's not ridiculous to prevent them from becoming teachers, it is ridiculous to have all kinds of rules about how many feet they can live from a school.
And I do think there are other solutions we should think about. Often abusers of children, sexual or not, will prey on the limited rights and choices of children. The fact that foster care is used as a threat is pretty telling about the protections children do not enjoy in our society.
posted by melissam at 9:56 AM on November 5, 2013
I think this underscores how bad the comparison to the "War on Drugs" is. Drug use involves the choices of children (though rarely children, more like young adults). Sexual predators are called predators for a reason. They often threaten their victims, their victims who know more often than not that what is happening is not OK "sex-educated" or not: "I'll kill your mother," "no one will believe you," "you'll end up in foster care" etc. Of course there can be coercive pressure to use drugs, but it's rarely at this level.
While I do think removing people with these urges from positions of power over children is important, I think it can be done without hysteria. It's not ridiculous to prevent them from becoming teachers, it is ridiculous to have all kinds of rules about how many feet they can live from a school.
And I do think there are other solutions we should think about. Often abusers of children, sexual or not, will prey on the limited rights and choices of children. The fact that foster care is used as a threat is pretty telling about the protections children do not enjoy in our society.
posted by melissam at 9:56 AM on November 5, 2013
Please inform us as to how sex education will empower children enough to not be sexually assaulted.
What Blasdelb just said. This in particular ...
Children who don't know they are being assaulted, and don't have the vocabulary to describe what is happening, are far more vulnerable to being groomed for child abuse undetected.
I believe this is pretty much common knowledge among those who've actually studied the issue, though I don't have any particular links I can immediately offer. Again, we need to get our heads around the fact that the vast majority of abuse comes from people the children know and, to some degree, trust. It's not some bogeyman. It's Uncle Ron, it's Peter the piano teacher, it's Coach McPherson, it's mom's new boyfriend Colin.
And it's not always men.
posted by philip-random at 10:13 AM on November 5, 2013 [6 favorites]
What Blasdelb just said. This in particular ...
Children who don't know they are being assaulted, and don't have the vocabulary to describe what is happening, are far more vulnerable to being groomed for child abuse undetected.
I believe this is pretty much common knowledge among those who've actually studied the issue, though I don't have any particular links I can immediately offer. Again, we need to get our heads around the fact that the vast majority of abuse comes from people the children know and, to some degree, trust. It's not some bogeyman. It's Uncle Ron, it's Peter the piano teacher, it's Coach McPherson, it's mom's new boyfriend Colin.
And it's not always men.
posted by philip-random at 10:13 AM on November 5, 2013 [6 favorites]
Final thought:
given the actual facts, hysteria would have us not trust any man (or even woman) that our children are in any kind of regular contact with, and go to lengths to verify the safety of our children AT ALL TIMES even if causes all manner of stress etc because if we save "just one child from becoming ...". Clearly, this is no way to live.
So we hopefully do the unhysterical thing, which is educate our children, give them the power to say NO, and the sophistication to know what to say NO to.
posted by philip-random at 10:24 AM on November 5, 2013 [1 favorite]
given the actual facts, hysteria would have us not trust any man (or even woman) that our children are in any kind of regular contact with, and go to lengths to verify the safety of our children AT ALL TIMES even if causes all manner of stress etc because if we save "just one child from becoming ...". Clearly, this is no way to live.
So we hopefully do the unhysterical thing, which is educate our children, give them the power to say NO, and the sophistication to know what to say NO to.
posted by philip-random at 10:24 AM on November 5, 2013 [1 favorite]
Sure, philip-random, but that has little to do with the topic at hand.
posted by agregoli at 10:26 AM on November 5, 2013
posted by agregoli at 10:26 AM on November 5, 2013
I agree. That's why I said final thought. Apologies for the derail.
posted by philip-random at 10:49 AM on November 5, 2013
posted by philip-random at 10:49 AM on November 5, 2013
milkwood: "Errr... Doesn't this blow her cover?"
Nope. They already have the mocap and such done. They just rename/reskin her. It's a MOD, for Pete's sake.
posted by Samizdata at 10:59 AM on November 5, 2013
Nope. They already have the mocap and such done. They just rename/reskin her. It's a MOD, for Pete's sake.
posted by Samizdata at 10:59 AM on November 5, 2013
Salon: No, this girl did not nab 1,000 predators.
posted by Sticherbeast at 9:52 PM on November 6, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by Sticherbeast at 9:52 PM on November 6, 2013 [1 favorite]
Quoting from Stitcherbeast's link:
'The report says this indicates “that predators can easily be identified using low-tech pro-active investigation techniques, even with very few resources.”'
So why isn't this happening? If the group has highlighted the explosion of webcam predators, particularly of children overseas, then I think it was worthwhile.
posted by billiebee at 4:08 AM on November 7, 2013 [1 favorite]
'The report says this indicates “that predators can easily be identified using low-tech pro-active investigation techniques, even with very few resources.”'
So why isn't this happening? If the group has highlighted the explosion of webcam predators, particularly of children overseas, then I think it was worthwhile.
posted by billiebee at 4:08 AM on November 7, 2013 [1 favorite]
Yeah, that's why I'd love to hear from law enforcement about why this kind of thing isn't more common. There may be real deficiencies that are being highlighted, but there may also be frustratingly understandable reasons why these techniques are not used more often.
Either way, the CG girl is attention-grabbing, and there's a lot to be said for grabbing attention, but "she" is not the substantive point here.
My thinking is, if you're talking about Western predators targeting Filipina web cam girls, you're talking about crimes where the jurisdiction would be either in 1) the Philippines or 2) the predators' home countries. The Philippine police need to step up their game, because it might be legally or practically hinky to have the FBI (and other countries' FBI equivalents) doxxing everybody in the chat room, even if it's just to sort out who has jurisdiction over whom.
Even if there is a seamless way for a few major Western players to nab these predators, we're still stuck with those Filipina web cam girls in the Philippines. As long as we're tracing everybody's IP addresses, why can't we figure out where they're being held? Yes, I understand that many Bad Guys will hide behind the proverbial "seven proxies", but one can hope that these Bad Guys would be often as brazen as their customers.
posted by Sticherbeast at 5:00 AM on November 7, 2013
Either way, the CG girl is attention-grabbing, and there's a lot to be said for grabbing attention, but "she" is not the substantive point here.
My thinking is, if you're talking about Western predators targeting Filipina web cam girls, you're talking about crimes where the jurisdiction would be either in 1) the Philippines or 2) the predators' home countries. The Philippine police need to step up their game, because it might be legally or practically hinky to have the FBI (and other countries' FBI equivalents) doxxing everybody in the chat room, even if it's just to sort out who has jurisdiction over whom.
Even if there is a seamless way for a few major Western players to nab these predators, we're still stuck with those Filipina web cam girls in the Philippines. As long as we're tracing everybody's IP addresses, why can't we figure out where they're being held? Yes, I understand that many Bad Guys will hide behind the proverbial "seven proxies", but one can hope that these Bad Guys would be often as brazen as their customers.
posted by Sticherbeast at 5:00 AM on November 7, 2013
Actually, the Miranda warning in the US is a consequence of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments; it gets its name from Miranda v. Arizona, the SCOTUS decision which established the necessity of the warning.
OK, fine.
How about "Murphy"?
posted by ShutterBun at 10:08 PM on November 8, 2013
OK, fine.
How about "Murphy"?
posted by ShutterBun at 10:08 PM on November 8, 2013
« Older ‘PRISM: The SIGAD Used *Most* in NSA Reports!’ | People interested in murder are a naive and... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by Sticherbeast at 2:37 PM on November 4, 2013