I saw this in the USA Today this morning.
The unsavory part is that they did keep it open with pictures of assaulted children.
It turns out they don't need to break encryption to do police work.
Anything else?
2 Likes
What fucking retards.
137 charges. 137 fucking charges.
100,000 supposed subscribers in 2 weeks, and only 137 charges. Mind you these charges have yet to be prosecuted.
So lets get this straight. We now have a whole new batch of pictures up on the internet circulating around because these guys wanted to catch more pedophiles?
Yeah, because fueling the fire for god knows how many people is such a great fucking idea when you can charge 137 people.
9 Likes
disgusting....
... like a much worse case of an unmarked cop car rev'ing next to you at a light trying to get you to race so he can ticket you.
1 Like
They don't need to catch the people looking at child porn, or at least they don't need to break the law by running a child porn site in order to do it. They should focus on finding the people making the child porn. At the end of the day the only reason why it's illegal to view child porn is because children are abused in the making of it. Once it's made the damage is done, the focus should be on preventing more from being made.
I'm not saying legalise the viewing of child porn, just that it's not worth taking extreme measures to hunt down the people who are only viewing it.
3 Likes
It does not work that way.
It takes some form of money to keep those servers running. That money is going to come from the viewers.
The site itself coaxes people into making the porn to post to the site. I am not saying all of it comes from the existence of the site, but some of it definitely does.
So the viewers are keeping the site running which in turn coaxes people into making more porn.
That is the whole business model of porn hub and everyone else.
2 Likes
Right, makes sense.
They gotta do something with those images they raided from pedo sites and people. A good way to trap people whom are into it. Thing is I don't think pedophilia pictures should be illegal. The act should be. We should work out a plan to extradite pedos to Japan at least they are more welcoming of that culture. That way people whom are "gay" to pedophilia can feel at home on some island or foreign soil. I mean the way gays have rights and able to rear children, I don't see why in the near coming decades pedophilia, necrophilia and bestiality be illegal.
being gay does hurt children. being a pedophile hurts children.
the big question is are you a troll?
1 Like
You sound like a complete idiot. The Japanese government has a zero tolerance policy on sex crimes and drugs. Pedophilia doesn't once come up in Japanese culture as a socially acceptable norm, not sure where you are basing your information from.
More to point on the original topic, this is just insidious. Those involved in creating this entrapment scheme need to be prosecuted at the fullest extent of the federal law. Entrapment is illegal, plain and simple. But it's your word vs the word of the "authorities".
3 Likes
How can you exactly sue someone from fapping alone in his home? Like thats how I'm reading this wall of story.
“what the government did in this case is comparable to flooding a neighborhood with heroin in the hope of snatching an assortment of low-level drug users.”
1 Like
Yes it's a form of entrapment, causing crime that would never have existed in the first place. Most people who actually know the law can get this sort of shenanigans thrown out in a court of law usually if there is strong evidence pointing against the authorities.
wouldn't this be considered the "ye ole honeypot?"
its a sensitive subject for true,
but ive got to say from a logic only standpoint
the creation of such a content is in my eyes farr worse then simple distribution or consumption,
although consumption inevitably leads to creation
for the honeypot trap to work you do sadly in this case need some honey...
id have to assume, the 130 something cases that they actually caught people
were accounts on this site in which they were uploading their shit.
but who knows?
what is the ethical choice here?
take down the servers and catch the owners.
or let the servers stay up and log everything you can on its network activity?
if you can get a read on the pulse of this type of thing, you might be able to track down someone uploading this shit, and rescue a child from a basement somewhere
where as simply removing the website and servers will only end the site.
TLDR: in my own opinion,
if the operation of this smut ring was able to rescue or prevent even one child from this type of shit,
then id say it was worth it.
tracking the up-loaders and likely creators of this would be the logical way to the rescue efforts of the victim
3 Likes
ethically you have to look at not just the gains but the cost. those 23k+ images were of child abuse of the worse kind. that's quiet a few victims, and the justice department itself has said sharing those images is and should be illegal since it harms the victims. did they ask the victims first? no because they care more about catching the criminals then protecting the innocent.
just because you're working for the government, doesn't mean the laws no longer apply to you.
and on the ethical standpoint, harming the victims to catch the criminals is wrong.
1 Like
Catching hundreds of criminals viewing the child porn probably looks better in the statistics than actually protecting the children by stopping the distribution.
2 Likes
As far as I am concerned, this is entirely unacceptable. Running a pedo website to catch a few people (yes, 137 vs 100K subscribers is "a few", thanks @Tjj226_Angel ) -- the ethics are just not supportable. Running a pedo website to catch 100K subscribers and charge them all is not something I could personally find ethically supportable, but it would at least be better than this atrocity.
However, I disagree with @Tjj226_Angel in your next post, and agree instead with @Dexter_Kane 's first post. Ignore the economics. The War on Drugs (and the illegality of prostitution!) has taught us one major thing (and really only the one major, in my opinion); punishing those who want a service because a service is not in society's interest (supposedly, anyway, one can make an excellent compelling argument for decriminalizing prostitution by consenting adults, or even cocaine) does not stop that service being offered in defiance of the law, and does not stop it's customers from using the service in defiance of the law.
What this means is that going after the drug-users/Johns/child-porn-viewers as criminals is useless. It's a waste of taxpayer money that, in the long run, only serves to enforce that people with certain tastes are relegated to lower class criminals. They get arrested, they lose their jobs, they get to be part of our revolving-door penal system.
This is not to say in any way that I support child porn or the legalization of cocaine (though I do support federal legalization of marijuana and prostitution, and the equal rights of the LGBTQ community.) I find both of these to be scourges on society. One, because you must harm a child to produce it, and the other because, while I think that the government shouldn't regulate my right (as an adult!) to smoke pot or tobacco or take some softer recreational drugs, I also think the government should not allow the sale of harder drugs that have serious side effects & addiction possibilities (serious addiction possibilities. Think heroin.).
There should never be a legal penalty (fines or imprisonment) for being a user of these kinds of services, because, as I said above, it only leads to creating a criminal underclass making our justice system into a farcical revolving door.
I think however that dealers, pimps, child pornographers should all be treated as criminals and subject to long jail sentences.
The users, johns, and pedos, however, deserve better from us, because their actions do not directly harm anyone. They are harmed, in the case of the users, can be secondarily complicit in the harm in the case of the johns (because human trafficking and force prostitution are not victimless, but the john didn't put the prostitute in that position), and tertiarily complicit in the case of the pedos.
Yes, we need to do something about these people. I think that certified, transparent rehab programs are the best options. In certain cases, I think a court order to complete a course is appropriate.
As far as you, @LordXenu ... @Batojiri is quite correct. You are uninformed. Please, please, listen to us when we say things like "gay" is a natural sexuality and "pedophile" is empathically not. We are trying, or at least I think we are trying, to build and be part of a well-informed and progressive community here.
No one has seriously, and no one will seriously, propose a law to make pedo-, necro- philia, or bestiality legal. An adult man can consent to sex with another adult men. Two adult women can consent. A horse, sheep, or dog can not consent. A corpse can not consent. A child can not consent.
This is why your comparison of homosexual relationships to bestiality and pedophilia doesn't stand on it's own merits.
As far as two parents of one gender harming a child, no. There is a saying, that is verified by many studies (you can google them for yourself -- this post is too long as it is!): "It takes a village." Raising a child is best done by a large family with neighbors & friends. A well-raised child will have both male & female role models no matter what the gender of their parents.
And, on a personal note -- I was raised by my mother alone. She spent most of her money trying to keep my loving father out of my and my sister's lives, because of a now 20+ year personal argument between them. If I had been raised by my father (who isn't gay, but sake of example) and a theoretical husband of his, I would have had a much, much better childhood. Because my mother is an abuser and a Munchausen's by proxy individual.
It's not about the gender of your parents. It's about whether they're good fucking parents.
2 Likes
Wat?
Guys here is the only acceptable answer.
Viewers get a 9 millimeter bullet to the head.
Uploaders get a 45 acp to the stomach.
The guy who ran the website gets tied to a tree stump in a Louisiana swap and we give the locals a heads up.
4 Likes
I believe that capital punishment (i.e. execution) by any means is inherently wrong.
1 Like
This is literally entrapment.
3 Likes
No. Its closer to a sting operation.
If they were soley responsible for the creation and existance of the website, then yes it would be entrapment.
But the website already existed and they just wanted to pick up as many people as possible.
Plus, I am just fine with entrapment. A crime is a crime. If you wanna be a fucking dumb ass and fall for the trap, then fine. Survival of the fittest.
1 Like
I get what you're saying and yeah, sting operation is a much more accurate description.
The fact that they uploaded images, etc to the internet of child abuse and child porn is abhorrent, however.