Child sexual abuse material could be going undetected because of ‘false reports’(iwf.org.uk)
iwf.org.uk
Child sexual abuse material could be going undetected because of ‘false reports’
https://www.iwf.org.uk/news/thousands-of-images-and-videos-of-child-sexual-abuse-could-be-going-undetected-because-of-
140 comments
People who consume child pornography have severe mental health issues. They need counseling and treatment. This idea is not what they need and is repugnant.
Also, who in their right mind would build, QA, or market such a soul crushing product.
Some Taboos will remain Taboos despite “hurting no one”.
Also, who in their right mind would build, QA, or market such a soul crushing product.
Some Taboos will remain Taboos despite “hurting no one”.
I don't know...if everyone who's sexually aroused by children is mentally ill that basically includes the entire population of Inkbunny.
I wouldn't be surprised if you knew a lot of pedophiles personally, you just don't know they are pedophiles because they never told you, don't engage in illegal activity, and are otherwise indistinguishable from the rest of society.
I wouldn't be surprised if you knew a lot of pedophiles personally, you just don't know they are pedophiles because they never told you, don't engage in illegal activity, and are otherwise indistinguishable from the rest of society.
If it materially reduced harm to human beings, that's a theoretical benefit. Regardless, by insulting the parent's idea ("this idea ... is repugnant"), you've presented yourself as unreceptive to good faith discussion.
Manufacturing child porn IS repugnant, even if it is a deep whatever. Is that so controversial?
> Manufacturing child porn IS repugnant, even if it is a deep whatever. Is that so controversial?
I think your parent is asking the question: why is it repugnant?
Is it repugnant because children were harmed in the manufacture of the images, or is it repugnant ipso facto?
And if it is repugnant ipso facto, is that worth having a strict liability crime on the books, when no people are actually being harmed (in the case of fake child porn)?
In other words, why should it be illegal to have fake porn of children, but not illegal to keep spiders as pets?
I think your parent is asking the question: why is it repugnant?
Is it repugnant because children were harmed in the manufacture of the images, or is it repugnant ipso facto?
And if it is repugnant ipso facto, is that worth having a strict liability crime on the books, when no people are actually being harmed (in the case of fake child porn)?
In other words, why should it be illegal to have fake porn of children, but not illegal to keep spiders as pets?
While it is repugnant, whether or not it is immoral is another matter. If it is immoral, it likely deserves being criminalized, whereas if it is not immoral, democratic liberal ideals suggest that the law should protect such manufacture from unjust censure instead.
The case against filmed CP is straightforward: minors are harmed in the process. But what is being harmed in generated imagery? If nothing is harmed, what is the basis for it being immoral?
The case against filmed CP is straightforward: minors are harmed in the process. But what is being harmed in generated imagery? If nothing is harmed, what is the basis for it being immoral?
Unintended consequences abound.
Once Pandora's Box of deep fakes is open, are we going to permit racists to generate genocidal imagery to slake their hatred for $ETHNICITY ?
I mean, as long as only fake Elbonians are dying unspeakably, it's OK, no?
Because the same people who just gotta have that stuff would never want to operationalize that ickniness, would they?
How about just "no"?
Once Pandora's Box of deep fakes is open, are we going to permit racists to generate genocidal imagery to slake their hatred for $ETHNICITY ?
I mean, as long as only fake Elbonians are dying unspeakably, it's OK, no?
Because the same people who just gotta have that stuff would never want to operationalize that ickniness, would they?
How about just "no"?
Why is GTA OK, then? And what about Command & Conquer, or Mafia?
Yet just "no" would be an immoral act itself, since it is discrimination against an act that is morally neutral. Let us leave aside the question of the morality of the act that you hypothesize we might eventually decide to commit, and assume it is immoral. (I phrase it this way since these "unintended consequences" don't follow as a matter of fact but require people to decide to perform them.) Even if we in future might end up deciding to commit an immoral act, that is no justification to continue committing the present immoral act.
I'm sincerely confused as to whether you're rejecting or embracing activities that could lead others astray.
> are we going to permit racists to generate genocidal imagery to slake their hatred for $ETHNICITY ?
Umm... yes?
Umm... yes?
There is enough demand that people not only pay lots of money but risk jail time to view these images.
Repugnant or not, it’s a lot less repugnant than the underground crime circles that exploit and traffic real live human children. The demand is there regardless of how they get it, so it’s worth at least discussing if synthetic images would result in a reduction of real live children being involved in pornography and/or being trafficked.
Repugnant or not, it’s a lot less repugnant than the underground crime circles that exploit and traffic real live human children. The demand is there regardless of how they get it, so it’s worth at least discussing if synthetic images would result in a reduction of real live children being involved in pornography and/or being trafficked.
Is manufacturing such material more repugnant than allowing more children to get raped, because you find faking such images too repugnant?
Lets try to put a number on it. How many children would you allow to be raped, to prevent someone from making or viewing fake child porn? Ten? A hundred? More?
A commenter linked https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/11/101130111326.h..., in case you think this scenario is unlikely.
Lets try to put a number on it. How many children would you allow to be raped, to prevent someone from making or viewing fake child porn? Ten? A hundred? More?
A commenter linked https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/11/101130111326.h..., in case you think this scenario is unlikely.
There was a study in the Netherlands or Denmark which came to the conclusion that such people viewing this content or exercising their creativity in producing it can help to divert them from attacking children.
>Some taboos will remain taboos despite 'actually decreasing abuse'
Most every study we have shows a decrease in real sexual activity linked to an increase in available pornography. We have no reason to believe child pornography would be any different. This was of course irrelevant as we had a duty to protect real people.
Now we are in a strange situation where effectively; 'virtue signaling' maybe causing child abuse.
Most every study we have shows a decrease in real sexual activity linked to an increase in available pornography. We have no reason to believe child pornography would be any different. This was of course irrelevant as we had a duty to protect real people.
Now we are in a strange situation where effectively; 'virtue signaling' maybe causing child abuse.
What if it reduced the rates of actual sex crimes against children?
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/11/101130111326.h...
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/11/101130111326.h...
Thanks for sharing this research! My hunch is that it is a local optimization. Perhaps if we focused on de-stigmatizing mental health issues and making access to mental health care easier, that could also reduce rates. It is a universal and much less problematic strategy.
That reads like you are simply ignoring any information you disagree with. For the sake of argument let’s assume it’s the best possible option on any scale you choose, now what do you feel should be done?
It's worth noting that the authors here do not claim that it reduced rates, only that it coincided with such a reduction, i.e that the material did not cause an increase in child sex crimes. The catharsis effect has very little empirical support.
As such, this paper does dispute the argument that porn leads to higher rates of sexual assault. It does not provide evidence for porn being an outlet that prevents crimes. The distinction is important.
As such, this paper does dispute the argument that porn leads to higher rates of sexual assault. It does not provide evidence for porn being an outlet that prevents crimes. The distinction is important.
Are you speaking from professional psychiatric authority that generated CP cannot be useful at all? For example, that it cannot be useful as part of a plan in helping a pedophile (in state of mind, not in action toward others) cope and adjust to become a useful, integrated, and satisfied member of society?
Please don't conflate repellent behaviour with mental illness.
Mental illness is a broad category of people. Some types are more serious than others. Some exhibit repulsive behaviors, some don't.
Sure, some are more serious because some forms of mental illness make it so the afflicted have serious trouble doing normal things in normal society.
You can have schizophrenia that is well controlled and work a job - or be on disability, for example.
You can have thoughts and not act on them, though. If someone realizes that their attraction is to children, yet understands that it is something that hurts them and therefore, doesn't act on it and doesn't view child porn because people are hurt in it... I'm not entirely sure they are doing anything wrong. Not only that, but I don't think we help this category of folks either.
It isn't that I agree at all, but not everyone with ill thoughts act on them. I'm not entirely convinced that fake porn is going to hurt anything. Sure, I find it absolutely disgusting, but no one asked me.
If you are going to dig into this, though, I fully suggest you go off on "barely legal teen" porn, a good amount of manga, and every image that makes young folks into sexual beings, though you are going to have issues around puberty since folks are becoming sexual beings themselves and it is generally good to have trial periods on things like clothing and makeup and hairstyles.
You can have schizophrenia that is well controlled and work a job - or be on disability, for example.
You can have thoughts and not act on them, though. If someone realizes that their attraction is to children, yet understands that it is something that hurts them and therefore, doesn't act on it and doesn't view child porn because people are hurt in it... I'm not entirely sure they are doing anything wrong. Not only that, but I don't think we help this category of folks either.
It isn't that I agree at all, but not everyone with ill thoughts act on them. I'm not entirely convinced that fake porn is going to hurt anything. Sure, I find it absolutely disgusting, but no one asked me.
If you are going to dig into this, though, I fully suggest you go off on "barely legal teen" porn, a good amount of manga, and every image that makes young folks into sexual beings, though you are going to have issues around puberty since folks are becoming sexual beings themselves and it is generally good to have trial periods on things like clothing and makeup and hairstyles.
It's a very specific body type. The age range depends on the person.
It sounds like you're restating the parent's point.
Viewing child pornography is not a symptom of mental illness
The people who view it would like to think that. But one can certainly make the case that it's not mentally healthy, and as such is indeed symptomatic of mental illness.
Which mental illness or illnesses are you claiming that it is symptomatic of?
Pedophilia is considered a mental illness under DSM-5 and ICD-11. Although admittedly someone can view child pornography without being a pedophile.
The DSM is a bit vague and outdated. Until fairly recently, a number of conditions which were similar but different were lumped in as one thing in research and the media.
Some people have an OCD which makes them obsess over children but they're not interested in them per say.
Some people insert themselves as children. This could happen due to abuse and neglect in their childhood or other factors. Some people are into certain aesthetics and media like cartoons and are not so interested in actual children.
There are two proper types. Exclusive and non-exclusive.
One is the exclusive who are alien in thinking. Instead of thinking of adults as romantic or sexual partners, they're wired to think of children. Without adequate socialization, they may even think of it as harmless to do. Education is vital.
They will be very lonely and depressed throughout their lives as it is impossible for anyone to allow them to do such a thing. I can't imagine someone going their entire life without ever fantasizing or looking at some sort of porn. Even as an escape. It isn't healthy not to do so either. It would only serve to make them more frustrated and to adopt an antagonistic relationship with society.
The non-exclusive aren't just attracted to children.
Some people have an OCD which makes them obsess over children but they're not interested in them per say.
Some people insert themselves as children. This could happen due to abuse and neglect in their childhood or other factors. Some people are into certain aesthetics and media like cartoons and are not so interested in actual children.
There are two proper types. Exclusive and non-exclusive.
One is the exclusive who are alien in thinking. Instead of thinking of adults as romantic or sexual partners, they're wired to think of children. Without adequate socialization, they may even think of it as harmless to do. Education is vital.
They will be very lonely and depressed throughout their lives as it is impossible for anyone to allow them to do such a thing. I can't imagine someone going their entire life without ever fantasizing or looking at some sort of porn. Even as an escape. It isn't healthy not to do so either. It would only serve to make them more frustrated and to adopt an antagonistic relationship with society.
The non-exclusive aren't just attracted to children.
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
The deep-fake has to be trained on something.
Would it really be ethically un-encumbered if the fake videos were created by a NN trained on images/videos of real children?
You can transfer faces from non-pornographic videos onto pornographic videos.
What if you train the NN using data generated from a NN that was trained on images/videos of real children?
Alternatively, how many layers down do you have to go of NNs training other NNs before it's ethically okay? If your answer is "infinite" then that is the ethical equivalent of homeopathy where a solution of a bunch of random chemicals is diluted to the point that there is 0% of the original left in the sold product. Interesting question.
Alternatively, how many layers down do you have to go of NNs training other NNs before it's ethically okay? If your answer is "infinite" then that is the ethical equivalent of homeopathy where a solution of a bunch of random chemicals is diluted to the point that there is 0% of the original left in the sold product. Interesting question.
It's not homeopathy because you're not diluting it by mixing ethical inputs, you're just doing a bad job of training from a wholely unethical source.
It's all fruit of a poisoned tree.
It's all fruit of a poisoned tree.
Law enforcement has been known to continue running seized child pornography sites in order to collect data on the user-base, the justification being that overall rates of viewing child pornography are reduced through additional arrests.
It's an difficult ethical dilemma. How are we categorizing the harm done to victims of child pornography? Is it based on how many different people see the same image or just the number of times the images was viewed in general? Obviously the victim isn't getting some sort of electric shock every time somebody sees the image.
Do we include it additional harm if the identifying features of the child in question are unavailable? What if the victim doesn't know they were part of the training model or that there are even images of them on the Internet? Would it be ethical if training data from children in non-pornographic situations was used? What if somebody had child pornography made of them but allow their image to be used (donated?) after they were 18?
I'm not claiming to know the answers.
It's an difficult ethical dilemma. How are we categorizing the harm done to victims of child pornography? Is it based on how many different people see the same image or just the number of times the images was viewed in general? Obviously the victim isn't getting some sort of electric shock every time somebody sees the image.
Do we include it additional harm if the identifying features of the child in question are unavailable? What if the victim doesn't know they were part of the training model or that there are even images of them on the Internet? Would it be ethical if training data from children in non-pornographic situations was used? What if somebody had child pornography made of them but allow their image to be used (donated?) after they were 18?
I'm not claiming to know the answers.
Non-pornographic situations are complicated.
The incident with YouTube was a sign that some people are a little disconnected from society. They went around random videos uploaded by children posting flirtatious comments and highlighting timestamps of them in compromising positions.
You could argue them viewing the videos alone was immoral. But their conduct was just atrocious. I don't know how it got into their heads that something like that is acceptable. I really hope we could teach them a thing or two about common sense, regardless of whether viewing images is moral or immoral.
Training models is complicated. Whoever it is is going to want to have the rights to their likeness. This would be after they are of age. In theory, you may be able to teach an AI with many images how to produce a generic person.
They will never find out is a bad mindset. It is true in many cases they won't find out and they may be better off not knowing what someone is doing. But when and if they find out, it will happen in the worst possible way at the worst possible time and it will blow up really badly.
The incident with YouTube was a sign that some people are a little disconnected from society. They went around random videos uploaded by children posting flirtatious comments and highlighting timestamps of them in compromising positions.
You could argue them viewing the videos alone was immoral. But their conduct was just atrocious. I don't know how it got into their heads that something like that is acceptable. I really hope we could teach them a thing or two about common sense, regardless of whether viewing images is moral or immoral.
Training models is complicated. Whoever it is is going to want to have the rights to their likeness. This would be after they are of age. In theory, you may be able to teach an AI with many images how to produce a generic person.
They will never find out is a bad mindset. It is true in many cases they won't find out and they may be better off not knowing what someone is doing. But when and if they find out, it will happen in the worst possible way at the worst possible time and it will blow up really badly.
[deleted]
The data already exists, or will exist when such distributions are caught -- is it unethical to use it?
In the extreme, to produce better models, your business would eventually be incentivized to create new data... but if you limit yourself to the usage of data collected as a byproduct of stopping criminal activities, it's not clear to me what the morality case should be.
A historical example might be the nazi human experiments -- the experiments themselves were horrendous, but now that they've been done and we have the results, is it unethical to use that as the basis for further, ethical, research? That is, would it be unethical for me to read the outcomes?
In the extreme, to produce better models, your business would eventually be incentivized to create new data... but if you limit yourself to the usage of data collected as a byproduct of stopping criminal activities, it's not clear to me what the morality case should be.
A historical example might be the nazi human experiments -- the experiments themselves were horrendous, but now that they've been done and we have the results, is it unethical to use that as the basis for further, ethical, research? That is, would it be unethical for me to read the outcomes?
https://theconversation.com/is-it-ethical-to-use-data-from-n...
It's a very complex issue. My read of the linked article is that, at a minimum, the victims whose likeness is used should consent to its use. Even given that, I'm not sure that our society would tolerate such an endeavor.
It's a very complex issue. My read of the linked article is that, at a minimum, the victims whose likeness is used should consent to its use. Even given that, I'm not sure that our society would tolerate such an endeavor.
This is a very ethically complicated issue. Although, one I hope we can resolve with advances in technology without having to consider this.
Assuming this is a course people would agree to take, would it faster to convince society to adopt a new mindset or would it be faster to create ethical alternatives?
Assuming this is a course people would agree to take, would it faster to convince society to adopt a new mindset or would it be faster to create ethical alternatives?
Here in Canada that would still be child pornography.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_pornography_laws_in_Ca...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_pornography_laws_in_Ca...
The law in Canada regarding child pornography is so broad that a depiction including stick figures having sex with an arrow pointing to it and the caption "children having sex for my gratification" would count as child pornography.
Canada has both juries and common law; I can't imagine a conviction for something so lacking in obvious criminal intent.
It all depends on how outraged the populace is about the subject matter. criminal intent is secondary.
This is true. Some countries allow less realistic content but not more realistic content despite it being a wholly arbitrary differentiation.
Many filters censor all of it, regardless of legality and boast 99% abuse detection rates with a low false positive rate. Some filters only the more realistic content.
Realistic content does admittedly have a problem where it may become difficult for a human to differentiate it from unlawful content. Although in that particular case, it is hoped it would end up competing with unlawful content and drive demand for it down.
People with some degree of awareness to the children harmed to produce the content will not want to contribute to it when there are other avenues which are virtually indistinguishable. It may be possible to do outreach in legal outlets to raise awareness of harms or provide resources to prevent them from committing serious crime.
Many filters censor all of it, regardless of legality and boast 99% abuse detection rates with a low false positive rate. Some filters only the more realistic content.
Realistic content does admittedly have a problem where it may become difficult for a human to differentiate it from unlawful content. Although in that particular case, it is hoped it would end up competing with unlawful content and drive demand for it down.
People with some degree of awareness to the children harmed to produce the content will not want to contribute to it when there are other avenues which are virtually indistinguishable. It may be possible to do outreach in legal outlets to raise awareness of harms or provide resources to prevent them from committing serious crime.
Canada has the rule of law, not the mob, and protected expression.
Relevant:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Sharpe
Relevant:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Sharpe
In the English parliament, when the English were deciding to b an cartoons too, one MP asked precisely this question: would it be illegal to create such a stick figure cartoon under the proposed law? Another MP answered that it would be. The law was passed unchanged.
> I wonder, with the rise of deep fakes and CGI, why a company hasn't come up with a business model offering professional rendered synthetic child pornography. It seems to me that there would be demand for it, and if an ethically un-encumbered product is indistinguishable from the real thing, much of the demand of child sexual abuse imagery would evaporate.
I suppose law enforcement could use it in sting operations. but if it proliferates wouldn't it still be illegal otherwise? seems legally and morally fishy to me.
I suppose law enforcement could use it in sting operations. but if it proliferates wouldn't it still be illegal otherwise? seems legally and morally fishy to me.
Even animated child porn is illegal because the theory goes, it drives demand for the real thing. Someone who flies flight simulators eventually would welcome the chance in a real airplane. Besides, getting off on children sexually is beyond reprehensible. If we are to have any laws at all, I vote for the one that doesn’t encourage or support exploiting children, real or otherwise.
>Even animated child porn is illegal because the theory goes, it drives demand for the real thing. Someone who flies flight simulators eventually would welcome the chance in a real airplane.
And people who play Grand Theft Auto inevitably go out and run over hookers with their car or seek out videos where such things happen in real life. Oh wait...
And people who play Grand Theft Auto inevitably go out and run over hookers with their car or seek out videos where such things happen in real life. Oh wait...
In this case there is a lot of research on this specific point demonstrating that consumption of CP drives and even induces demand in pedophiles.
So it's nothing at all like playing GTA.
So it's nothing at all like playing GTA.
I have no idea how a researcher is supposed to show that CP induces demand in pedophiles without running into some pretty massive fundamental issues. There are already troubles getting people to admit who they're going to vote for anonymously, so getting people to admit that they are using child pornography anonymously seems like an extremely tall task.
I've also seen studies trying to show the opposite, or trying to show that there is no causation either way, so I don't think there is anything resembling a consensus on this issue at all.
I've also seen studies trying to show the opposite, or trying to show that there is no causation either way, so I don't think there is anything resembling a consensus on this issue at all.
What research? The research with correlations that people who look at that are statistically more likely to do things?
Sure. If you take a sample of people with absolutely no interest and a sample with people who do have interest you would find the sample with interest would be more likely to attack someone.
Does the consumption of CP drive the desire or does the desire lead to the consumption and subsequent unwanted behavior in some people? Is punishing people for their desires and driving them underground really helpful? All to sate our sense of disgust? Is this even compatible with due process?
Ideally, you would advance technology such as to make artificial alternatives indistinguishable from reality and produce robots. Or whatever it takes. Disgusting? Sure. But, it is better than the alternative and it preserves the high standards we set for our liberal democracy.
You keep out of other people's business and they keep out of yours. No one tells you how to live your life, so long as you don't bother them.
Sure. If you take a sample of people with absolutely no interest and a sample with people who do have interest you would find the sample with interest would be more likely to attack someone.
Does the consumption of CP drive the desire or does the desire lead to the consumption and subsequent unwanted behavior in some people? Is punishing people for their desires and driving them underground really helpful? All to sate our sense of disgust? Is this even compatible with due process?
Ideally, you would advance technology such as to make artificial alternatives indistinguishable from reality and produce robots. Or whatever it takes. Disgusting? Sure. But, it is better than the alternative and it preserves the high standards we set for our liberal democracy.
You keep out of other people's business and they keep out of yours. No one tells you how to live your life, so long as you don't bother them.
>So it's nothing at all like playing GTA.
It probably is at least somewhat. Violent video games have also been shown to increase feelings of aggression in lab settings and in some cases even foster sexist attitudes. I mentioned this to you in another comment, but Gary Young's The Gamer's Dilemma book is a very good book-length treatment on the issue of virtual violence vs "virtual pedophilia".
It probably is at least somewhat. Violent video games have also been shown to increase feelings of aggression in lab settings and in some cases even foster sexist attitudes. I mentioned this to you in another comment, but Gary Young's The Gamer's Dilemma book is a very good book-length treatment on the issue of virtual violence vs "virtual pedophilia".
Another theory goes that people who attack children would have done it either way. You punish the innocent for the crimes of someone else.
> Even animated child porn is illegal because the theory goes, it drives demand for the real thing.
Not in the US it isn't.
Not in the US it isn't.
One of the easiest ways to fall into medieval behavior is to convince yourself that the property of being reprehensible, or disgusting, plays any part, even small, in "deserving" to suffer punishment by the state. It's the antithesis of civilization, and a dire evil.
>I vote for the one that doesn’t encourage or support exploiting children, real or otherwise.
Forgive me if I'm interpreting this incorrectly, but are you really saying that you'd vote for a law (which, usually means prison time) for people who 'exploit' non-real children? You need to go into more detail as to your definition of exploitation, or clarify what you mean by 'real or otherwise'.
Forgive me if I'm interpreting this incorrectly, but are you really saying that you'd vote for a law (which, usually means prison time) for people who 'exploit' non-real children? You need to go into more detail as to your definition of exploitation, or clarify what you mean by 'real or otherwise'.
Computer generated images of children in sexual situations are illegal in a lot of countries, and any country a company like this started to operate in would start to legislate once people make noise.
Sex bots are after that. Westworld asks "If you can't tell, does it matter?"
These violent delights have violent ends
Daz3D exists. That has models of all ages for character rendering. Third parties have add-ons for models. This is a thing and has been for ages. Poser is another character rendering program.
much of the demand of child sexual abuse imagery would evaporate.
It would not. Sexual crimes are not (only) about sex, they are about exercising power over a victim. Downloading real images of abuse is driven by exercising that power vicariously. If anything images like those you suggest would only fuel demand for the "real thing".
It would not. Sexual crimes are not (only) about sex, they are about exercising power over a victim. Downloading real images of abuse is driven by exercising that power vicariously. If anything images like those you suggest would only fuel demand for the "real thing".
Public outrage. Legality in some jurisdictions. Chance of employees getting harassed.
Cartoons are already illegal and how the hell are you going to defend this in court? Just because its completely "innocent" and absolutely zero child are harmed, its still illegal.
>Cartoons are already illegal
depends on the jurisdiction. at least in the us they're not illegal per se.
> U.S. law distinguishes between pornographic images of an actual minor, realistic images that are not of an actual minor, and non-realistic images such as drawings. The latter two categories are legally protected unless found to be obscene, whereas the first does not require a finding of obscenity.
depends on the jurisdiction. at least in the us they're not illegal per se.
> U.S. law distinguishes between pornographic images of an actual minor, realistic images that are not of an actual minor, and non-realistic images such as drawings. The latter two categories are legally protected unless found to be obscene, whereas the first does not require a finding of obscenity.
I had to see for my social media website (similar to tumblr) (tiblar.com) if it was legal or not. At least in Delaware lolicon/shotacon and cartoon child porn is illegal. It varies on which state it is, some states it is legal, others it is not. Federally it is legal.
The Supreme Court has repeatedly struck down state laws banning fake child porn. Since the 2010s a few people have been convicted for it, but only alongside convictions of real images. They probably saw no point in appealing if the other charges would stick.
States have obscenity laws that restrict sale and advertisement of this content, but possession cannot be banned by obscenity laws. Think about the mess that would be enforcing this law. You can't objectively determine the age of a fake character, unlike a real person.
States have obscenity laws that restrict sale and advertisement of this content, but possession cannot be banned by obscenity laws. Think about the mess that would be enforcing this law. You can't objectively determine the age of a fake character, unlike a real person.
> Think about the mess that would be enforcing this law. You can't objectively determine the age of a fake character, unlike a real person.
It is certainly a mess, but that doesn't stop jurisdictions outside the United States from prosecuting it.
It is certainly a mess, but that doesn't stop jurisdictions outside the United States from prosecuting it.
The parent commenter seemed to be referring to the US, given that they referred to Delaware (a US State).
I know; they were saying that this law wouldn't be enforced in a U.S. state because it's a mess to do so. That's not a strong argument because there is evidence of such laws being enforced despite the difficulty in assigning ages to a fictional character.
Child porn carries very steep mandatory minimums. It is common for defendants to settle for a plea deal under the minimum.
[deleted]
‘false reports’ - what percentage of those are malicious is a question they should be asking themselves. False claims like that are bad as in such crimes, the mentality is guilty until proven innocent in the eyes of the public at large.
Child pornography accusations are often a bell you cannot unring. There is often no “proven innocent” step.
Someone making 8300 reports over six months is making 43 reports per day.
You don't stumble upon that many images of child sexual abuse in normal web browsing.
You don't stumble upon that many images of child sexual abuse in normal web browsing.
It is either wholly fraudulent or a vigilante.
The law does not discriminate between someone pursuing images for their own usage or to report them. If it did, every criminal would be able to use reporting them as a defense in court and look at them for decades.
Possession / viewing / downloading is illegal because it is very difficult to get probable cause for distribution. Some of them encourage distributors as-well. If viewing was legal and it led to more reports and content being taken down, that would be positive but it could go the other way with it being harder to pursue.
The law does not discriminate between someone pursuing images for their own usage or to report them. If it did, every criminal would be able to use reporting them as a defense in court and look at them for decades.
Possession / viewing / downloading is illegal because it is very difficult to get probable cause for distribution. Some of them encourage distributors as-well. If viewing was legal and it led to more reports and content being taken down, that would be positive but it could go the other way with it being harder to pursue.
IWF, the shady company that has near 100% control over the UK internet and blocked wikipedia?
Seems some simple filters on their reporting tools could help them more easily deal with inaccurate reports.
They note: "Do report only once for each web address – or URL. Repeat reporting of the same URL isn’t needed and wastes analysts’ time."
Well, surely they could implement a filter to only allow reporting the same URL once.
Further they note: "non-criminal adult material from pornographic websites"
Surely, there could a be a whitelist for major legitimate porn sites with an automated response that those sites are legitimate businesses not hosting illegal material.
They note: "Do report only once for each web address – or URL. Repeat reporting of the same URL isn’t needed and wastes analysts’ time."
Well, surely they could implement a filter to only allow reporting the same URL once.
Further they note: "non-criminal adult material from pornographic websites"
Surely, there could a be a whitelist for major legitimate porn sites with an automated response that those sites are legitimate businesses not hosting illegal material.
> Surely, there could a be a whitelist for major legitimate porn sites with an automated response that those sites are legitimate businesses not hosting illegal material.
That probably only works for sites that are run by producers. They're already required to keep extensive documentation of the actors' ages. The content is also curated (i.e. it is only their own catalog).
That doesn't work for the YouTube style sites where videos are uploaded by random people, with (I'm guessing) no verification of age.
As an aside, I am curious how much of the CP they can actually check just from a URL. I know nothing of the practice, but I would have assumed most of it was locked behind private forums or the like where you need a username and password to actually see anything. Maybe CP opsec is just much worse than I imagined
That probably only works for sites that are run by producers. They're already required to keep extensive documentation of the actors' ages. The content is also curated (i.e. it is only their own catalog).
That doesn't work for the YouTube style sites where videos are uploaded by random people, with (I'm guessing) no verification of age.
As an aside, I am curious how much of the CP they can actually check just from a URL. I know nothing of the practice, but I would have assumed most of it was locked behind private forums or the like where you need a username and password to actually see anything. Maybe CP opsec is just much worse than I imagined
>Surely, there could a be a whitelist for major legitimate porn sites with an automated response that those sites are legitimate businesses not hosting illegal material.
Pornhub is currently in hot water over allegations that they have been negligent in keeping child porn off the site. I don't know whether or not those allegations have merit, but it is certainly the case that child porn crops up on mainstream sites from time to time.
Here's one relevant article:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/stories-51391981
Pornhub is currently in hot water over allegations that they have been negligent in keeping child porn off the site. I don't know whether or not those allegations have merit, but it is certainly the case that child porn crops up on mainstream sites from time to time.
Here's one relevant article:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/stories-51391981
While that article references an incident from 10+ years ago, agreed, CSAM can be on any website with UGC. I’m sure a large amount of false reports is from legal adult performers that appear to look young though.
If the blotters of our local PDs are any kind of guide, I'm wondering if there's any crime that's reported with an accuracy rate higher than 25%.
That's what I thought too, 25% accuracy for public reports? That's crazy high! They just don't want to hire more people or improve their process.
Why is this submission[0] flagged, yet this is not? Because of the word "black"?
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23950661
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23950661
I don't know. Possible duplicate post?
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23927223 was the same story and not flagged a day or so earlier, but only had 1 comment
Why are volunteer, non LE groups doing this in the first place? And how do they screen their "volunteers"? And how do these people get dispensation to view illegal pornography? The whole thing smells rotten to me.
I tried calling the FBI to report an uploader on one of my sites who had posted child porn. They wouldn't take the info and instead directed me to NCMEC - a volunteer non-LE corporation.
I don't know why this is standard practice in the US but it rubbed me the wrong way. LE should be taking the lead on this.
I don't know why this is standard practice in the US but it rubbed me the wrong way. LE should be taking the lead on this.
NCMEC works with law enforcement once they determine that a crime has likely been committed. NCMEC is an excellent org and such public-nonprofit partnerships help free up LE agencies to pursue arrests and prosecutions. The sheer volume of reporting would overwhelm most agencies. They’ll wait until they have more concrete leads before getting involved.
Well that's just it: I had IP addresses and public posts from the perpetrators and NCMEC never called me back.
You may have already found this link, but in case you didn't or anyone else reading is interested, you should send in an online report to CyberTip (https://report.cybertip.org/), which is the legally-mandated reporting website if you encounter child porn / abuse material. Reports sent there pass through NCMEC and are eventually forwarded on to law enforcement.
I thought this was a pretty good video that gives some insight into what they do: https://youtu.be/TLPzK4vrxo8
Also this NYT story: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/09/28/us/child-sex-...
Also this NYT story: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/09/28/us/child-sex-...
Many criminals are prosecuted under State Law IIRC. NYT covers Federal statistics.
NCMEC is the U.S. hotline.
IWF is the British hotline.
They exchange information with each other and pass information through to law enforcement after reviewing it.
Different hotlines may differ in what reports they're willing to take depending on what's banned locally. IWF is legally mandated to take reports on cartoons. NCMEC isn't in theory but they might take it and pass it onto the user's country due to lack of manpower.
IWF is the British hotline.
They exchange information with each other and pass information through to law enforcement after reviewing it.
Different hotlines may differ in what reports they're willing to take depending on what's banned locally. IWF is legally mandated to take reports on cartoons. NCMEC isn't in theory but they might take it and pass it onto the user's country due to lack of manpower.
It's not uncommon. Sadly, their role and remit and legal obligations don't include keeping you informed and can include specifically not informing you.
As a comparison, CERT operate the same model: informing them of an attack can lead to them becoming bound into LEA activity which requires them not to disclose.
As a comparison, CERT operate the same model: informing them of an attack can lead to them becoming bound into LEA activity which requires them not to disclose.
Maybe it was one of their own...
To avoid running afoul of the Fourth Amendment but a court ruled NCMEC a government entity in the end.
We don't really have the concept of "common carrier" in the UK. So, an ISP that carries images of child sexual abuse (maybe in Usenet newsgroups) is potentially liable for carrying those images.
IWF was set up to allow ISPs to find and remove that content without being criminalised for taking action on it, and then to safe-guard the children who were in those images and videos.
Expansion into computer-generated imagery follows from changes in UK law that made computer generated images of child sexual exploitation, (and also images involving sex with corpses, realistic depictions of rape, and realistic depictions of acts that harm genitals) illegal.
> In 1996 the Metropolitan Police notified the Internet Service Providers Association (ISPA) that some newsgroup content being carried by UK internet service providers (ISPs) were indecent images of children. The police believed this may have constituted a publication offence under the Protection of Children Act 1978 (England and Wales) by the ISPs. Efforts were then made to find a way to combat the hosting of such content in the UK whilst protecting the internet industry from being held criminally liable for providing access to the content.
> Following discussions between the former Department of Trade and Industry (DTI), the Home Office, the Metropolitan Police, some ISPs and the Safety Net Foundation (formed by the Dawe Charitable Trust) an R3 Safety Net Agreement regarding rating, reporting and responsibility was created by ISPA, the London Internet Exchange (LINX) and the Safety Net Foundation. A key outcome of the Agreement was the formation of the Internet Watch Foundation (IWF).
> The IWF was established to fulfil an independent role in receiving, assessing and tracing public complaints about child sexual abuse content on the internet and to support the development of website rating systems. Since we were set up in 1996 we have been operating a Hotline service for the public to report potentially criminal content and we have been issuing ‘takedown notices’ to UK ISPs in partnership with the police so they can remove the content.
> The Hotline was formally launched in December 1996 to combat child sexual abuse images and criminally obscene adult content hosted in the UK. Since then we have been continually improving our practices and developing unique services for the internet industry to help them make their services safer for their users.
IWF was set up to allow ISPs to find and remove that content without being criminalised for taking action on it, and then to safe-guard the children who were in those images and videos.
Expansion into computer-generated imagery follows from changes in UK law that made computer generated images of child sexual exploitation, (and also images involving sex with corpses, realistic depictions of rape, and realistic depictions of acts that harm genitals) illegal.
> In 1996 the Metropolitan Police notified the Internet Service Providers Association (ISPA) that some newsgroup content being carried by UK internet service providers (ISPs) were indecent images of children. The police believed this may have constituted a publication offence under the Protection of Children Act 1978 (England and Wales) by the ISPs. Efforts were then made to find a way to combat the hosting of such content in the UK whilst protecting the internet industry from being held criminally liable for providing access to the content.
> Following discussions between the former Department of Trade and Industry (DTI), the Home Office, the Metropolitan Police, some ISPs and the Safety Net Foundation (formed by the Dawe Charitable Trust) an R3 Safety Net Agreement regarding rating, reporting and responsibility was created by ISPA, the London Internet Exchange (LINX) and the Safety Net Foundation. A key outcome of the Agreement was the formation of the Internet Watch Foundation (IWF).
> The IWF was established to fulfil an independent role in receiving, assessing and tracing public complaints about child sexual abuse content on the internet and to support the development of website rating systems. Since we were set up in 1996 we have been operating a Hotline service for the public to report potentially criminal content and we have been issuing ‘takedown notices’ to UK ISPs in partnership with the police so they can remove the content.
> The Hotline was formally launched in December 1996 to combat child sexual abuse images and criminally obscene adult content hosted in the UK. Since then we have been continually improving our practices and developing unique services for the internet industry to help them make their services safer for their users.
Seems expected, since there is a fixed line for the age, varying by jurisdiction. People want to do the right thing, so false accusations seem normal.
Imagine bikeshedding TFA with an argument over "Uber, but for deepfake child pornography."
From their website (https://report.iwf.org.uk/en/report):
>We take reports on UK-hosted non-photographic images of child sexual abuse, such as computer-generated images. The images we can take action on must be of children, pornographic, grossly offensive, and focus on a child's genitals or depict sexual activity involving or in the presence of a child.
More detail here: https://www.iwf.org.uk/what-we-do/how-we-assess-and-remove-c...
It's rich to complain about people wasting time that could be spent on "real abuse imagery" when this organization is also going after cartoons. Maybe they should sort that out first?
Also, the HN title is inaccurate. The article claims these reports are mistaken, but does not say they are fraudulent. In fact, I do not see fraudulent reports mentioned in the article at all.
>We take reports on UK-hosted non-photographic images of child sexual abuse, such as computer-generated images. The images we can take action on must be of children, pornographic, grossly offensive, and focus on a child's genitals or depict sexual activity involving or in the presence of a child.
More detail here: https://www.iwf.org.uk/what-we-do/how-we-assess-and-remove-c...
It's rich to complain about people wasting time that could be spent on "real abuse imagery" when this organization is also going after cartoons. Maybe they should sort that out first?
Also, the HN title is inaccurate. The article claims these reports are mistaken, but does not say they are fraudulent. In fact, I do not see fraudulent reports mentioned in the article at all.
There's a potential good use for fake images.
Virtual, or well photoshopped, images could be used to lure dealers into distribution, so that a known trace can be followed, hopefully helping to bust them.
While I've learned to not give a shit about being downvoted, since it happens more and more often out of personal taste than objective thinking, still It just amazes me how some users hit the button without even thinking why they are doing it.
Creating fake illegal things has been done in the past with the purpose of analyzing their path through the so called black markets in order to discover where they travel to go from point A to point B. So, why doing the same with fake child porn images should sound so weird? I mean, they're fake, it's not like someone is being harmed in the name of justice, but simply the authorities could pose as creators and attempt to get in contact with the distributors and bust them.
I don't think they need help to collect such material when it's readily available on the internet
Sadly, it's being also produced on request, as "new material" to them has more resell value.
[deleted]
[deleted]
I welcome a title change. False is equally good at articulating the subject.
There is a specific case of deliberately fraudulent reports mentioned in the article. Or highly likely to be such. An individual who makes thousands of false reports despite being repeatedly reminded not to do so.
There is a specific case of deliberately fraudulent reports mentioned in the article. Or highly likely to be such. An individual who makes thousands of false reports despite being repeatedly reminded not to do so.
The new title is more accurate (in the sense of fraudulent) although the new terms may be less immediately recognizable to readers and it doesn't mention the sheer scale of the problem. What IWF chases goes beyond the range of actual abuse to actual people too.
I don't really mind it. I'm just clarifying my rationale for the previous one I chose. The new one is fine as it's closer to the original title of the article.
I don't really mind it. I'm just clarifying my rationale for the previous one I chose. The new one is fine as it's closer to the original title of the article.
> this organization is also going after cartoons.
Are they devoting substantial resources to that? I can see an argument maybe for the law criminalising non-photographic images so someone can't argue images were computer generated when they are in reality probably real. It isn't exactly in line with the assume-innocent principle but people get angry about skirting child abuse so I can see the pendulum might be tilted a little the other way on this issue.
If they are actually going after cartoons that seems pretty stupid. There are real problems in the world they could be working on. Like, say, child abuse.
Are they devoting substantial resources to that? I can see an argument maybe for the law criminalising non-photographic images so someone can't argue images were computer generated when they are in reality probably real. It isn't exactly in line with the assume-innocent principle but people get angry about skirting child abuse so I can see the pendulum might be tilted a little the other way on this issue.
If they are actually going after cartoons that seems pretty stupid. There are real problems in the world they could be working on. Like, say, child abuse.
> I can see an argument maybe for the law criminalising non-photographic images so someone can't argue images were computer generated when they are in reality probably real.
There are so many obvious ways to close that loophole that don't involve criminalizing provably-fake images (such as making an exception for when the images are obviously fake, or can be irrefutably proven as such), that I'm forced to conclude that criminalizing cartoons was the lawmakers intention.
There are so many obvious ways to close that loophole that don't involve criminalizing provably-fake images (such as making an exception for when the images are obviously fake, or can be irrefutably proven as such), that I'm forced to conclude that criminalizing cartoons was the lawmakers intention.
>when this organization is also going after cartoons.
It's the law that is the problem not the organization. Originally these laws where made to protect people. But over time the laws became a moral enforcement on people. For obvious reasons no politician did intervene and the people who made the law celebrated them self as the heroes who protect the most vulnerable. The same flaw in laws are made over and over again basically every time something is made illegal that does not actually hurt or put other people in danger. They just make whatever illegal and think its doing something good or even solves a problem. Whether its illegal images, videos, audio, books, games, substances or tools. Even descriptions on how to create "that illegal thing" are made illegal. On top of that the laws are sometimes conflicting like you are not allowed to store or transfer certain illegal data but at the same time you should hand it over to authorities. You may also not be allowed to delete it as it could be evidence of a crime. Or worse you may be the owner of something illegal that someone gifted to you. Sounds stupid but there are places where the content of your mailbox digital or not is considered your possession although anyone can drop in whatever they want. In the end such laws put people in danger rather than protecting people.
It's the law that is the problem not the organization. Originally these laws where made to protect people. But over time the laws became a moral enforcement on people. For obvious reasons no politician did intervene and the people who made the law celebrated them self as the heroes who protect the most vulnerable. The same flaw in laws are made over and over again basically every time something is made illegal that does not actually hurt or put other people in danger. They just make whatever illegal and think its doing something good or even solves a problem. Whether its illegal images, videos, audio, books, games, substances or tools. Even descriptions on how to create "that illegal thing" are made illegal. On top of that the laws are sometimes conflicting like you are not allowed to store or transfer certain illegal data but at the same time you should hand it over to authorities. You may also not be allowed to delete it as it could be evidence of a crime. Or worse you may be the owner of something illegal that someone gifted to you. Sounds stupid but there are places where the content of your mailbox digital or not is considered your possession although anyone can drop in whatever they want. In the end such laws put people in danger rather than protecting people.
As horrible and cynical as this is, I feel like they probably should not publish this. I think there are more people who would abuse this information, than who could do anything about it.
What kinds of abuse do you think this opens up? That DOSing the people handling this work?
I guess the perceived problem is using this fact to dismiss serious requests, or as defense in court of real criminals.
Yes, that is exactly what I'm talking about. Sadistic or Machiavellian people with an interest in it may get the idea that they can send false, marginal, or expired reports to waste their time; and equally I feel like this kind of writing is less likely to be read by people considering making a genuine report.
Maybe that’s the point... Maybe they have some information indicating that false reports originate largely from actual criminals. So this article will bring more out of the woodwork. Perhaps they let their guard down and submit without hiding their identity, to look more legit, and this is how they bait them.
It’d be a great honey pot.
It’d be a great honey pot.
I wonder, with the rise of deep fakes and CGI, why a company hasn't come up with a business model offering professional rendered synthetic child pornography. It seems to me that there would be demand for it, and if an ethically un-encumbered product is indistinguishable from the real thing, much of the demand of child sexual abuse imagery would evaporate.