Federal Cybersecurity Official Convicted on Child Porn Charges

Federal Cybersecurity Official Convicted on Child Porn Charges

Department of Health and Human Services 310x

Former fed caught in FBI's Operation Torpedo sting.

Timothy DeFoggi was once near the top of the IT food chain in the U.S. government's Department of Heath and Human Services.

Now DeFoggi is a convicted felon, guilty of conspiracy to solicit and distribute child pornography, among other charges.

DeFoggi is one of several suspects to be successfully convicted after being caught in Operation Torpedo, an FBI sting that uncovered child porn sites within the Tor anonymous Internet network. The op started with Aaron McGrath, an IT worker in a Nebraska server farm who was hosting two such websites on servers within the facility.

After the FBI arrested McGrath, they operated his sites for several weeks, using the time to collect IP data from visiting pedophiles. This led to the eventual arrest of DeFoggi, who logged into the sites, solicited pornographic images, and exchanged messages with other members.

Tracking site members was done by "drive-by downloads," which the FBI uses after secretly taking control of an illegal site to track its active users.

According to a statement obtained by Business Insider, DeFoggi started working at the HHS in 2008 as a Supervisory IT Specialist then moved to the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration as a Lead IT Specialist in 2012.

Source: Wired | Business Insider

Permalink

Is 'Operation Torpedo' a deliberate pun or is it just by chance that they found a paedophile on Tor (a Tor P(a)edo)?

Does anyone else feel kind of disturbed that they didn't immediately shut down the sits? I mean, I understand the concept of a sting, but usually those are victimless crimes: prostitution, drug dealing, online piracy, etc. The children depicted in the images/videos on those sites ARE victims! That's why child porn is illegal in the first place! Isn't that kind of like letting someone get robbed a few more times (without compensation) just so they can catch more thieves? Seems kind of fucked up.

Fappy:
Does anyone else feel kind of disturbed that they didn't immediately shut down the sits? I mean, I understand the concept of a sting, but usually those are victimless crimes: prostitution, drug dealing, online piracy, etc. The children depicted in the images/videos on those sites ARE victims! That's why child porn is illegal in the first place! Isn't that kind of like letting someone get robbed a few more times (without compensation) just so they can catch more thieves? Seems kind of fucked up.

I understand your point, but if they just shut down the sites without waiting to find/arrest those involved, they're just going to create new sites, so it doesn't really stop the problem

And Man:

Fappy:
Does anyone else feel kind of disturbed that they didn't immediately shut down the sits? I mean, I understand the concept of a sting, but usually those are victimless crimes: prostitution, drug dealing, online piracy, etc. The children depicted in the images/videos on those sites ARE victims! That's why child porn is illegal in the first place! Isn't that kind of like letting someone get robbed a few more times (without compensation) just so they can catch more thieves? Seems kind of fucked up.

I understand your point, but if they just shut down the sites without waiting to find/arrest those involved, their just going to create new sites, so it doesn't really stop the problem

The greater good concept makes sense, but it seems wrong that the authorities are allowed to make that call without the consent of the people being exploited. I don't really have any kind of solution in mind for that... it's just... icky.

Fappy:

And Man:

Fappy:
Does anyone else feel kind of disturbed that they didn't immediately shut down the sits? I mean, I understand the concept of a sting, but usually those are victimless crimes: prostitution, drug dealing, online piracy, etc. The children depicted in the images/videos on those sites ARE victims! That's why child porn is illegal in the first place! Isn't that kind of like letting someone get robbed a few more times (without compensation) just so they can catch more thieves? Seems kind of fucked up.

I understand your point, but if they just shut down the sites without waiting to find/arrest those involved, their just going to create new sites, so it doesn't really stop the problem

The greater good concept makes sense, but it seems wrong that the authorities are allowed to make that call without the consent of the people being exploited. I don't really have any kind of solution in mind for that... it's just... icky.

I was just playing through the single player of Battlefield 4. You meet a spook who routinely lets people die, saying a few for tens of thousands.

These people are bastards, but Bastards with a Purpose. Lawful Neutral. You make the tough and unsettling decisions because the outcome serves your goal. Thank God that these people exist so I don't have to be one of them.

Fappy:

And Man:

Fappy:
Does anyone else feel kind of disturbed that they didn't immediately shut down the sits? I mean, I understand the concept of a sting, but usually those are victimless crimes: prostitution, drug dealing, online piracy, etc. The children depicted in the images/videos on those sites ARE victims! That's why child porn is illegal in the first place! Isn't that kind of like letting someone get robbed a few more times (without compensation) just so they can catch more thieves? Seems kind of fucked up.

I understand your point, but if they just shut down the sites without waiting to find/arrest those involved, their just going to create new sites, so it doesn't really stop the problem

The greater good concept makes sense, but it seems wrong that the authorities are allowed to make that call without the consent of the people being exploited. I don't really have any kind of solution in mind for that... it's just... icky.

Well, they already had whatever thing was done to them on camera already, so if anything it's something positive coming out of it. I get why you feel weird about it, though. Realistically, it'd be difficult to find these kids to compensate them somehow (and apparently a bunch of them are straight up murdered after anyway), but it would be nice if they could do something.

More OT: Glad that they got these people, and it's pretty interesting to hear how the FBI catches these guys, since the two groups evolve over time because of one another. Although, it seems more like they were going after the demand rather than the supply side, and I'm not sure that gets the best results.

I actually remember reading that one study found that areas where it was easier to get 'child porn' (including hentai and 3D comics) actually saw lower rates of sexual assaults against minors, but I've yet to see anybody reproduce that result. Given how sensitive the subject is, I doubt we're going to get much research in that field. Kind of a shame, since I think we'd benefit knowing the enemy, but given all the legal redtape and cultural taboo involved, I totally understand why this isn't exactly a hot field.

Fappy:

And Man:

Fappy:
Does anyone else feel kind of disturbed that they didn't immediately shut down the sits? I mean, I understand the concept of a sting, but usually those are victimless crimes: prostitution, drug dealing, online piracy, etc. The children depicted in the images/videos on those sites ARE victims! That's why child porn is illegal in the first place! Isn't that kind of like letting someone get robbed a few more times (without compensation) just so they can catch more thieves? Seems kind of fucked up.

I understand your point, but if they just shut down the sites without waiting to find/arrest those involved, their just going to create new sites, so it doesn't really stop the problem

The greater good concept makes sense, but it seems wrong that the authorities are allowed to make that call without the consent of the people being exploited. I don't really have any kind of solution in mind for that... it's just... icky.

Yeah, there doesn't seem to be a "right" answer

And Man:

Fappy:

And Man:

I understand your point, but if they just shut down the sites without waiting to find/arrest those involved, their just going to create new sites, so it doesn't really stop the problem

The greater good concept makes sense, but it seems wrong that the authorities are allowed to make that call without the consent of the people being exploited. I don't really have any kind of solution in mind for that... it's just... icky.

Yeah, there doesn't seem to be a "right" answer

The problem lies when they keep the site open after it is in their possession. That funny little thing called entrapment, breaking the law to catch others also breaking the law means the majority of cases will just be thrown out. That makes for alot of court time tied up and a nice headline but nothing much actually accomplished.

Fappy:
Does anyone else feel kind of disturbed that they didn't immediately shut down the sits? I mean, I understand the concept of a sting, but usually those are victimless crimes: prostitution, drug dealing, online piracy, etc. The children depicted in the images/videos on those sites ARE victims! That's why child porn is illegal in the first place! Isn't that kind of like letting someone get robbed a few more times (without compensation) just so they can catch more thieves? Seems kind of fucked up.

Well, my big concern here is that they seemed to be spending more time on catching the downloaders, than tracking the sources of the photos. I'm guessing from the way this sounds that the guys running the sites weren't running underage porn studios (or that would be mentioned, as it's far more sensational). Getting the customers of course hurts the business by increasing the risks and lowering the demand/consumers which means less people are likely to produce this kind of stuff, but at the same time I'd think the actual producers of this stuff would be the primary target.

Of course then again it might be that a lot of the material came from overseas, and as a general rule this administration in particular just don't have the guts to go after this kind of thing to shut it down, especially when
it comes to countries where it isn't illegal. It's one of those issues where I feel some good old fashioned fascism would be positive... basically if your country has people raping 11 year olds for profit, I don't care if your a sovereign nation, Uncle Sam should still be sticking his boot up your butt (partial joke intended). There are some things I do not believe "respecting cultural differences" covers.... but then again I've always had unusually strong feelings about this kind of thing.

The point is pretty much that getting the customers tends to be a good thing, but it's fighting the symptom and not the problem itself. At the end of the day what is all the money spent on "Operation Torpedo" and it's attached prosecutions going to accomplish? It's a small feel-good victory, but in the end, just like busting drug dealers and distributors, the producers are still out there and they are still going to cultivate and deliver to customers. You can burn a billion dollars in cocaine and kill a hundred dealers, but at the end of the day unless you actually go into the countries producing it and assault the nations and cultures on a fundamental level, your going to achieve nothing. A kiddie porn cartel is likely to care as much as a drug cartel after a bust like this, it's annoying, but really... just a cost of doing business, and of course now they can demand higher prices due to being able to point to the customers that got busted and saying the risks have increased. At the end of the day you've still got little kids caged up in sex dungeons, and fapping pervs paying for the photos and videos.

harlok:

And Man:

Fappy:

The greater good concept makes sense, but it seems wrong that the authorities are allowed to make that call without the consent of the people being exploited. I don't really have any kind of solution in mind for that... it's just... icky.

Yeah, there doesn't seem to be a "right" answer

The problem lies when they keep the site open after it is in their possession. That funny little thing called entrapment, breaking the law to catch others also breaking the law means the majority of cases will just be thrown out. That makes for alot of court time tied up and a nice headline but nothing much actually accomplished.

Yes and no, entrapment is a very touchy subject. Something like this is just like an undercover operation, basically watching who comes and goes from a crackhouse and what they are doing. For it to be entrapment the police would actively have to solicit people to commit crimes. Basically if a cop was to pull out a bunch of Oxy with one hand and say "hey, want to buy some pills" and then talk the person into it, before slapping on the cuffs with the other hand, then it's entrapment. On the other hand if the cop is sitting there pretending to be an enforcer for a drug dealer who doesn't know the guy is a cop, and he watches a bunch of people buy and sell drugs, that's absolutely fine, a good bust.

With a site like this the equivalent would be if the police say actively solicited for the site, say going around chat rooms and saying "come watch hawt 11 year olds be raped and tortured" then that could be entrapment, but if they just leave the site there and watch people come and go of their own accord, that's just like the undercover guy watching the dealer sell to people.

My big question though is why with a website they would need to do this, I might be missing something, but I'd assume being online that a lot of people are paying with credit cards and such, and I believe they should be able to get a client list, and basically force credit card companies and such to give up their records (Card Holder IDs and such) under these kinds of circumstances. I of course could be wrong, but to me this seems to mostly make sense if your hoping to catch/trace the content producers.

Therumancer:

My big question though is why with a website they would need to do this, I might be missing something, but I'd assume being online that a lot of people are paying with credit cards and such, and I believe they should be able to get a client list, and basically force credit card companies and such to give up their records (Card Holder IDs and such) under these kinds of circumstances. I of course could be wrong, but to me this seems to mostly make sense if your hoping to catch/trace the content producers.

Cryptocurrencies. Why do you think bitcoin was invented? It wasn't just because digital currency is for funsies, it was for the Internet black market.

Where there's a will, there's a way, yaknow? People will go to serious lengths to cover their tracks to get what they want.

Therumancer:

Fappy:
Does anyone else feel kind of disturbed that they didn't immediately shut down the sits? I mean, I understand the concept of a sting, but usually those are victimless crimes: prostitution, drug dealing, online piracy, etc. The children depicted in the images/videos on those sites ARE victims! That's why child porn is illegal in the first place! Isn't that kind of like letting someone get robbed a few more times (without compensation) just so they can catch more thieves? Seems kind of fucked up.

Well, my big concern here is that they seemed to be spending more time on catching the downloaders, than tracking the sources of the photos. I'm guessing from the way this sounds that the guys running the sites weren't running underage porn studios (or that would be mentioned, as it's far more sensational). Getting the customers of course hurts the business by increasing the risks and lowering the demand/consumers which means less people are likely to produce this kind of stuff, but at the same time I'd think the actual producers of this stuff would be the primary target.

Of course then again it might be that a lot of the material came from overseas, and as a general rule this administration in particular just don't have the guts to go after this kind of thing to shut it down, especially when
it comes to countries where it isn't illegal. It's one of those issues where I feel some good old fashioned fascism would be positive... basically if your country has people raping 11 year olds for profit, I don't care if your a sovereign nation, Uncle Sam should still be sticking his boot up your butt (partial joke intended). There are some things I do not believe "respecting cultural differences" covers.... but then again I've always had unusually strong feelings about this kind of thing.

The point is pretty much that getting the customers tends to be a good thing, but it's fighting the symptom and not the problem itself. At the end of the day what is all the money spent on "Operation Torpedo" and it's attached prosecutions going to accomplish? It's a small feel-good victory, but in the end, just like busting drug dealers and distributors, the producers are still out there and they are still going to cultivate and deliver to customers. You can burn a billion dollars in cocaine and kill a hundred dealers, but at the end of the day unless you actually go into the countries producing it and assault the nations and cultures on a fundamental level, your going to achieve nothing. A kiddie porn cartel is likely to care as much as a drug cartel after a bust like this, it's annoying, but really... just a cost of doing business, and of course now they can demand higher prices due to being able to point to the customers that got busted and saying the risks have increased. At the end of the day you've still got little kids caged up in sex dungeons, and fapping pervs paying for the photos and videos.

I agree that it would be more productive to hurt the production side, but there would still be demand. (Also I've heard that drug cartels also make CP to supplement their incomes, so they might be one in the same). Although, I'd rather they fap to CP than to go out and actually hurt a child themselves. Some people want to decriminalize downloading it (but still make it illegal to produce), and I kind of get that argument, even if I don't wholly agree with it.

Cultural differences and jurisdiction really do play a huge part in it though, especially since the age of consent is lower in other countries (IIRC the lowest in the world is 9). Forming some kind of international task force to deal with this would get bogged down in that kind of thing. Especially since Europe and the US already have bad reputations for coming in and stomping over everyone's culutral beliefs.

Fappy:

And Man:

Fappy:
Does anyone else feel kind of disturbed that they didn't immediately shut down the sits? I mean, I understand the concept of a sting, but usually those are victimless crimes: prostitution, drug dealing, online piracy, etc. The children depicted in the images/videos on those sites ARE victims! That's why child porn is illegal in the first place! Isn't that kind of like letting someone get robbed a few more times (without compensation) just so they can catch more thieves? Seems kind of fucked up.

I understand your point, but if they just shut down the sites without waiting to find/arrest those involved, their just going to create new sites, so it doesn't really stop the problem

The greater good concept makes sense, but it seems wrong that the authorities are allowed to make that call without the consent of the people being exploited. I don't really have any kind of solution in mind for that... it's just... icky.

Calm down Batman.

I am all for the greater good, we both know that getting images off the net is damn near impossible, so them images are staying on the net ... you might as well use them to catch peado's than to knee jerk react and shut them down. I mean, them sites should be shut down (obviously!) but make use of them first!

Like Batman, you're already a rich emo kid, how much worse is killing a few evil people going to make you feel? Instead of being a selfish bitch, kill Joker and stop any future danger posed by the guy ... what has locking him up and beating the snot out him done so far?

harlok:

And Man:

Fappy:

The greater good concept makes sense, but it seems wrong that the authorities are allowed to make that call without the consent of the people being exploited. I don't really have any kind of solution in mind for that... it's just... icky.

Yeah, there doesn't seem to be a "right" answer

The problem lies when they keep the site open after it is in their possession. That funny little thing called entrapment, breaking the law to catch others also breaking the law means the majority of cases will just be thrown out. That makes for alot of court time tied up and a nice headline but nothing much actually accomplished.

That's not quite how entrapment works. Police are perfectly entitled to pretend to be criminals to catch real criminals provided they're not actively encouraging the activity.

Here's two examples of a drug sting:
1. A police officer, in plain clothes, hangs around a known dealing location with drugs on hand.
The officer says nothing and does nothing except stand there until someone comes up and asks if they can buy some drugs. The officer proceeds with transaction until it is complete and then arrests them.

This is not entrapment, the person was clearly looking to buy drugs and would have done so regardless of the police officer's involvement.

2. The same scenario except this time, when someone comes by the police officer actively shouts to the person "Hey, you wanna buy some drugs?"

This is entrapment because the officer has no evidence that the person was trying to get drugs. Without the police officer's interference the person might never have tried to get the drugs at all and only did so because of the officer's actions.

It's a subtle difference, but important.
Now, of course, the law isn't always the same in every situation and because the difference is subtle sometimes cases get judge the "wrong" way, but that's the basic gist of it.

So, in this particular case it's not entrapment for the police to run the site, because everyone going there would have gone there regardless of if the police ran it or the original owners. It would only become entrapment if the police ran adverts for the site trying to encourage new members to join before arresting them.

omega 616:

Fappy:

And Man:

I understand your point, but if they just shut down the sites without waiting to find/arrest those involved, their just going to create new sites, so it doesn't really stop the problem

The greater good concept makes sense, but it seems wrong that the authorities are allowed to make that call without the consent of the people being exploited. I don't really have any kind of solution in mind for that... it's just... icky.

Calm down Batman.

I am all for the greater good, we both know that getting images off the net is damn near impossible, so them images are staying on the net ... you might as well use them to catch peado's than to knee jerk react and shut them down. I mean, them sites should be shut down (obviously!) but make use of them first!

Like Batman, you're already a rich emo kid, how much worse is killing a few evil people going to make you feel? Instead of being a selfish bitch, kill Joker and stop any future danger posed by the guy ... what has locking him up and beating the snot out him done so far?

It would do plenty if the staff in the Gotham Dept. of Justice were not either A) bent, B) incompetent or C) a combination of bent and incompetent. Gotham IA must drink themselves to sleep every night.

Oh, irony... Well then, it seems that they're doing their job, because they catch their own people!

Wasn't aware rhe Department of Health and Human Services was part of the FBI.

FalloutJack:
Oh, irony... Well then, it seems that they're doing their job, because they catch their own people!

Except it's barely their own people. An IT specialist working for the department of Health and Human services being a paedophile is hardly newsworthy. But, give him the clickbait title of 'Federal Cyber-security Official' and you've got yourself a trending article my friend!

Fsyco:

Therumancer:

My big question though is why with a website they would need to do this, I might be missing something, but I'd assume being online that a lot of people are paying with credit cards and such, and I believe they should be able to get a client list, and basically force credit card companies and such to give up their records (Card Holder IDs and such) under these kinds of circumstances. I of course could be wrong, but to me this seems to mostly make sense if your hoping to catch/trace the content producers.

Cryptocurrencies. Why do you think bitcoin was invented? It wasn't just because digital currency is for funsies, it was for the Internet black market.

Where there's a will, there's a way, yaknow? People will go to serious lengths to cover their tracks to get what they want.

Therumancer:

Fappy:
Does anyone else feel kind of disturbed that they didn't immediately shut down the sits? I mean, I understand the concept of a sting, but usually those are victimless crimes: prostitution, drug dealing, online piracy, etc. The children depicted in the images/videos on those sites ARE victims! That's why child porn is illegal in the first place! Isn't that kind of like letting someone get robbed a few more times (without compensation) just so they can catch more thieves? Seems kind of fucked up.

Well, my big concern here is that they seemed to be spending more time on catching the downloaders, than tracking the sources of the photos. I'm guessing from the way this sounds that the guys running the sites weren't running underage porn studios (or that would be mentioned, as it's far more sensational). Getting the customers of course hurts the business by increasing the risks and lowering the demand/consumers which means less people are likely to produce this kind of stuff, but at the same time I'd think the actual producers of this stuff would be the primary target.

Of course then again it might be that a lot of the material came from overseas, and as a general rule this administration in particular just don't have the guts to go after this kind of thing to shut it down, especially when
it comes to countries where it isn't illegal. It's one of those issues where I feel some good old fashioned fascism would be positive... basically if your country has people raping 11 year olds for profit, I don't care if your a sovereign nation, Uncle Sam should still be sticking his boot up your butt (partial joke intended). There are some things I do not believe "respecting cultural differences" covers.... but then again I've always had unusually strong feelings about this kind of thing.

The point is pretty much that getting the customers tends to be a good thing, but it's fighting the symptom and not the problem itself. At the end of the day what is all the money spent on "Operation Torpedo" and it's attached prosecutions going to accomplish? It's a small feel-good victory, but in the end, just like busting drug dealers and distributors, the producers are still out there and they are still going to cultivate and deliver to customers. You can burn a billion dollars in cocaine and kill a hundred dealers, but at the end of the day unless you actually go into the countries producing it and assault the nations and cultures on a fundamental level, your going to achieve nothing. A kiddie porn cartel is likely to care as much as a drug cartel after a bust like this, it's annoying, but really... just a cost of doing business, and of course now they can demand higher prices due to being able to point to the customers that got busted and saying the risks have increased. At the end of the day you've still got little kids caged up in sex dungeons, and fapping pervs paying for the photos and videos.

I agree that it would be more productive to hurt the production side, but there would still be demand. (Also I've heard that drug cartels also make CP to supplement their incomes, so they might be one in the same). Although, I'd rather they fap to CP than to go out and actually hurt a child themselves. Some people want to decriminalize downloading it (but still make it illegal to produce), and I kind of get that argument, even if I don't wholly agree with it.

Cultural differences and jurisdiction really do play a huge part in it though, especially since the age of consent is lower in other countries (IIRC the lowest in the world is 9). Forming some kind of international task force to deal with this would get bogged down in that kind of thing. Especially since Europe and the US already have bad reputations for coming in and stomping over everyone's culutral beliefs.

Well, the thing is I have no problem with stomping all over people's cultural beliefs when it comes to things like this. In my mind if you basically want to have a party and wear a funny hat a few times a year to celebrate your culture that's fine, I'm all for leaving that alone as long as it doesn't go along with behaviors or beliefs that bother other people. If your culture is raping 9 year olds and claiming it's not rape, then as far as I'm concerned your culture, or at least those aspects of it need to go.

The big problem is that the US and Europe largely developed a bunch of moral standards about human and cultural rights while involved in a bunch of rotary back patting, and looking largely at each other. They weren't thinking of arguments ever being made that say a bunch of Muslims are right to oppress women or seek to establish a global theocracy. As a result we wind up with people pointing to the letter of the laws as they were written, totally missing the context when say some woman educated overseas is stoned to death because she refused to marry the guy who raped her or whatever. We basically created laws against discrimination that don't take into count when serious discrimination is needed.... and really, as far as I'm concerned I don't give a crap about your culture if your raping kids and selling the videos and photos on the global marketplace. Half our problem, and one of the reasons why I tend to oppose the left wing, is specifically because I believe we should be stomping all over these cultures, and judge those who object accordingly
and get ready to stomp all over them too. In my mind not raping children trumps cultural rights. What makes me and my culture able to decide things like that? Well ignoring the metaphysical, the bottom line is standards have to exist and order is always maintained by force, he with the biggest guns pretty much makes the rules, and history judges it later. Personally I can't see future historians saying "gee, those Americans sure were evil because they stopped people from molesting children".

The problem of course comes down to other issues which I mention with some frequency. Killing ideas and cultures is not an easy thing to do. As a general rule your targeting a people themselves, as opposed to a particular infrastructure, group, or military. Basically you need to eradicate everyone that thinks a specific way, after al if they continue to do so on any large scale, eventually you see more fighters produced, and the behaviors your trying to stop continue. This generally amounts to a slaughter, and a big part of the problem is that the western world has become too moral to see the big picture. You basically line up 200 people in a trench and shoot them all and people tend to get queasy just witnessing the act, without ever bothering to consider why it needed to be done or the greater principles involved. A big part of why we don't invade to say stop child molestation, the drug trade, etc... is because we wouldn't just be targeting the cartels and such, but the people that make such cartels possible, and will themselves create new cartels as long as the central ideas exist. If you say fly a bunch of jets over poppy fields and start dropping daisy cutters people will scream about all the poor, innocent, workers who aren't involved in the business at a high end. Not considering that those people themselves (who probably use drugs) don't object to the business on principle, and eventually some of those guys will likely start the next syndicate as soon as you take out the current kingpin. Meaning you wipe out one group of people, and the culture keeps existing, so another group of people doing the same thing appear, and this goes on endlessly until your willing to target the culture itself and pretty much wipe out towns, villages, cities, right down to the women and older children. Not having the stomach for that is why countries like the USA and a lot of our European allies rarely if ever get anything done, we'll say go in and attack The Taliban, Al Queda, and The Republican Guard, and kick their butts, but since we didn't cut out the roots it just means the people with those ideas reform into groups like ISIS/ISIL and we're literally back to square one (losing a of the progress we made). It applies all across the entire spectrum... basically the US and it's allies get crap for stomping all over everyone, but the funny thing is that we don't really do that, at least not to the extent we need to, which is why we rarely if ever accomplish anything. We've become so civilized we've lost the ability to deal with barbarians (so to speak).

The point here being I get why we don't deal with the problem when it comes from other countries, but I think we should. It sounds brutal but basically if you don't bat an eye at killing 100,000 civilians to get one guy or syndicate, it pretty much ensures that even if the culture doesn't change they are going to damn well be sure to avoid bringing it into your territory or getting your attention. Even a brutal cartel lord can't force people to make and sell drugs or porn in the US, if they are more afraid of the US, after all the Cartel guy can have you shot or murdered by a psycho with a machete, on the other hand the US will kill you too, but in doing so everyone your even remotely familiar with will probably also die. Given that alternative most people will choose to be shot by the cartel lord given the option, and at the end of the day he's not going to wind up with anyone working for him... or if he does, he's going to be damn sure to stay clear of the US. All the firepower in the world means nothing if nobody thinks you will pull the trigger.

As far as Crypto Currencies go, I'm well aware of why they were invented, but I do not think they are in wide-spread use right now, especially given the scandals that have already erupted among some of the biggest backers. I'd be very surprised if this operation had everyone using an E-currency, I suppose it's possible though. Sites like "Silk Road" were infamous because they took this kind of currency, and there weren't many places that did, and it lead to it's downfall.

One of the downsides to this is also that criminals want to know who they are dealing with, not just out of concern over the police, but because of rival criminals. Basically if you make a "hot" video out of raping and torturing some little girl you kidnapped, you don't mind selling copies to a perv for personal use, but you don't want another rival pornographer to get it and then make money running off copies or streaming it, and thus cutting into your action. Especially when that other guy didn't have to kidnap or otherwise get their hooks into the kid, set up a "studio", and of course presumably keep the kid locked up somewhere, unless they kill her, at which point your talking about the complications of body disposal. Basically the guy making the video has to cover his costs and make enough profit to make it worth while, some dude who sells copies for half the price without having incurrent those expenses is a problem to say the least. Ditto for people selling drugs, you don't want rivals using proxy accounts to buy your product and then re-sell it for more in another territory. If you say have a good pipeline that let's you get stuff cheap, and build up a good clientele, you want to make sure that clientele is using the stuff, not re-selling it.

Buyers of course want to be anonymous, but I'd imagine with a big operation like this apparently was, that they probably had some mechanism of tracking who was who, and that's part of why they did what they did after the bust.

Gordon_4:

omega 616:

Fappy:

The greater good concept makes sense, but it seems wrong that the authorities are allowed to make that call without the consent of the people being exploited. I don't really have any kind of solution in mind for that... it's just... icky.

Calm down Batman.

I am all for the greater good, we both know that getting images off the net is damn near impossible, so them images are staying on the net ... you might as well use them to catch peado's than to knee jerk react and shut them down. I mean, them sites should be shut down (obviously!) but make use of them first!

Like Batman, you're already a rich emo kid, how much worse is killing a few evil people going to make you feel? Instead of being a selfish bitch, kill Joker and stop any future danger posed by the guy ... what has locking him up and beating the snot out him done so far?

It would do plenty if the staff in the Gotham Dept. of Justice were not either A) bent, B) incompetent or C) a combination of bent and incompetent. Gotham IA must drink themselves to sleep every night.

A better question in my mind has always been why the state hasn't executed "The Joker" yet. See, I can sort of get behind Batman's thing about turning people over to the authorities rather than killing them. However the authorities not doing anything then becomes a problem. I mean sure, some people can argue that The Joker killing people is Batman's fault for not killing him, but at the same time it could also be said that the bleeding heart liberals who won't let this dude be executed after thousands of murders are getting what they deserve and are responsible for unleashing this guy on themselves. Let's not forget that you can't even blame whatever state Gotham is in for potentially being a "No Death Penalty" state (which I think would have changed just for The Joker and his ilk), The Joker has literally been a federal prisoner before, and the government put him in "Suicide Squad" and granted him immunity at one point, this was when he beat Jason Todd to death. One has to wonder about the competence of a government that would have not put this guy out of the world's misery long ago, and of course of the people who support that government, since you generally don't see people pressuring public officials by saying "I won't vote for you, unless you promise to execute The Joker, and everyone else in Arkham that has more than a dozen bodies to their name for that matter...". I mean sympathy for the mentally ill is one thing, but they take it to a whole new level in comics at some points when you have guys screaming about how much they love doing evil, and kill more people than The Black Plague, and yet nobody ever seems to execute them when they are in custody. I mean look at the riots in Ferguson and imagine what Gotham would look like if The Joker was real and in custody, and nobody wanted to kill him... after a single gas attack for that matter, never mind the dozens he's performed (sometimes filling the streets with bodies).

More on topic, a big part of the problem is of course finding the people being exploited to get their consent, or dealing with cases (which I've been rambling about) where say the kids being exploited might actually be being used in a legal enterprise in the country they are from. In my mind some third world banana republic thinking it's okay to force an 11 year old to make porn movies does not make it okay, but one has to consider that if we actually made an inquiry it's not likely we'd get much support... which is a big part of the problem, and the lack of will to deal with things like that, is a big part of why we need to deal with the customers that we can catch within our own jurisdictions.

In the scope of Batman though, a big part of the problem is we allow these things to perpetuate due to not wanting to get our hands dirty and do what we have to in order to
stop them. The sad thing is, at the end of the day a lot of people in the US would rather see thousands of years of child molestation, than to deal with some of the cultures and problems at the root of the problem. We don't have the willpower to pull the trigger on some of these cultures, any more than the authorities in DC are willing to pull it on The Joker, which on some levels makes us complicit in what's going on.

Bobic:

FalloutJack:
Oh, irony... Well then, it seems that they're doing their job, because they catch their own people!

Except it's barely their own people. An IT specialist working for the department of Health and Human services being a paedophile is hardly newsworthy. But, give him the clickbait title of 'Federal Cyber-security Official' and you've got yourself a trending article my friend!

If you really thought 'This is nothing but a clickbair article!' you wouldn't post in it. This is not an effective use of disapproval, since it simply adds to the traffic. Now, I disagree with your statement, but in future you'll want to be thinking 'I have nothing invested in this and therefore won't give it my time' if you really mean it.

FalloutJack:

Bobic:

FalloutJack:
Oh, irony... Well then, it seems that they're doing their job, because they catch their own people!

Except it's barely their own people. An IT specialist working for the department of Health and Human services being a paedophile is hardly newsworthy. But, give him the clickbait title of 'Federal Cyber-security Official' and you've got yourself a trending article my friend!

If you really thought 'This is nothing but a clickbair article!' you wouldn't post in it. This is not an effective use of disapproval, since it simply adds to the traffic. Now, I disagree with your statement, but in future you'll want to be thinking 'I have nothing invested in this and therefore won't give it my time' if you really mean it.

Actually, I didn't know the title was misleading until I read the article. And I think it is important to point out that the escapist is divulging in shoddy journalism, to show my disapproval. Yeah, it won't make a difference, but you know, welcome to the white noise that is internet commenting. And, you'd also note that I used the phrase 'clickbait title' and not 'clickbait article', as the actual meat of the article, the FBI sting operation (and even that one of those convicted worked for a government agency), is news, as you can tell by the fact that that's what most people have chosen to discuss (well, that and batman). It's just the use of evocative language to immediately create a more exciting, false image in the reader's mind to draw them in that I found annoying, and that's why I posted a sarcastic complaint.

I quoted you specifically, because you referred to him as 'their own people', which to me sounded like you'd just read the title. If you didn't, fair enough, but the fact he's in a completely unrelated department to anything to do with the FBI doesn't make him 'one of their own' in my eyes.

Bobic:
Snip

I count it because all the poo-pooing on government practices are going on and they effectively get hooked by their own line. I was speaking of government as one cohesive entity of which I am not a member. Anyway, I don't want to start an argument about this. I just figure...feedback message. They're not gonna read this one.

Therumancer:

Gordon_4:

omega 616:

Calm down Batman.

I am all for the greater good, we both know that getting images off the net is damn near impossible, so them images are staying on the net ... you might as well use them to catch peado's than to knee jerk react and shut them down. I mean, them sites should be shut down (obviously!) but make use of them first!

Like Batman, you're already a rich emo kid, how much worse is killing a few evil people going to make you feel? Instead of being a selfish bitch, kill Joker and stop any future danger posed by the guy ... what has locking him up and beating the snot out him done so far?

It would do plenty if the staff in the Gotham Dept. of Justice were not either A) bent, B) incompetent or C) a combination of bent and incompetent. Gotham IA must drink themselves to sleep every night.

A better question in my mind has always been why the state hasn't executed "The Joker" yet. See, I can sort of get behind Batman's thing about turning people over to the authorities rather than killing them. However the authorities not doing anything then becomes a problem. I mean sure, some people can argue that The Joker killing people is Batman's fault for not killing him, but at the same time it could also be said that the bleeding heart liberals who won't let this dude be executed after thousands of murders are getting what they deserve and are responsible for unleashing this guy on themselves. Let's not forget that you can't even blame whatever state Gotham is in for potentially being a "No Death Penalty" state (which I think would have changed just for The Joker and his ilk), The Joker has literally been a federal prisoner before, and the government put him in "Suicide Squad" and granted him immunity at one point, this was when he beat Jason Todd to death. One has to wonder about the competence of a government that would have not put this guy out of the world's misery long ago, and of course of the people who support that government, since you generally don't see people pressuring public officials by saying "I won't vote for you, unless you promise to execute The Joker, and everyone else in Arkham that has more than a dozen bodies to their name for that matter...". I mean sympathy for the mentally ill is one thing, but they take it to a whole new level in comics at some points when you have guys screaming about how much they love doing evil, and kill more people than The Black Plague, and yet nobody ever seems to execute them when they are in custody. I mean look at the riots in Ferguson and imagine what Gotham would look like if The Joker was real and in custody, and nobody wanted to kill him... after a single gas attack for that matter, never mind the dozens he's performed (sometimes filling the streets with bodies).

More on topic, a big part of the problem is of course finding the people being exploited to get their consent, or dealing with cases (which I've been rambling about) where say the kids being exploited might actually be being used in a legal enterprise in the country they are from. In my mind some third world banana republic thinking it's okay to force an 11 year old to make porn movies does not make it okay, but one has to consider that if we actually made an inquiry it's not likely we'd get much support... which is a big part of the problem, and the lack of will to deal with things like that, is a big part of why we need to deal with the customers that we can catch within our own jurisdictions.

In the scope of Batman though, a big part of the problem is we allow these things to perpetuate due to not wanting to get our hands dirty and do what we have to in order to
stop them. The sad thing is, at the end of the day a lot of people in the US would rather see thousands of years of child molestation, than to deal with some of the cultures and problems at the root of the problem. We don't have the willpower to pull the trigger on some of these cultures, any more than the authorities in DC are willing to pull it on The Joker, which on some levels makes us complicit in what's going on.

It would in my mind make for a compelling Batman story to have Bruce Wayne back a legal reform in Gotham that would allow the authorities to execute the Joker, bypassing the usual rule of not doing so to the mentally ill. In the final panel, just as the injection is taking effect, he'd lean in and say "I'm Batman".

Devin Connors:
Tracking site members was done by "drive-by downloads," which the FBI uses after secretly taking control of an illegal site to track its active users.

See, stuff like this just proves that they don't need to go around tracking the activity of every single person in the world like the NSA seems to believe; just find the bad sites and catch whoever's using them.

Therumancer:

Gordon_4:

omega 616:

Calm down Batman.

I am all for the greater good, we both know that getting images off the net is damn near impossible, so them images are staying on the net ... you might as well use them to catch peado's than to knee jerk react and shut them down. I mean, them sites should be shut down (obviously!) but make use of them first!

Like Batman, you're already a rich emo kid, how much worse is killing a few evil people going to make you feel? Instead of being a selfish bitch, kill Joker and stop any future danger posed by the guy ... what has locking him up and beating the snot out him done so far?

It would do plenty if the staff in the Gotham Dept. of Justice were not either A) bent, B) incompetent or C) a combination of bent and incompetent. Gotham IA must drink themselves to sleep every night.

More on topic, a big part of the problem is of course finding the people being exploited to get their consent, or dealing with cases (which I've been rambling about) where say the kids being exploited might actually be being used in a legal enterprise in the country they are from. In my mind some third world banana republic thinking it's okay to force an 11 year old to make porn movies does not make it okay, but one has to consider that if we actually made an inquiry it's not likely we'd get much support... which is a big part of the problem, and the lack of will to deal with things like that, is a big part of why we need to deal with the customers that we can catch within our own jurisdictions.

Is it actually a legal enterprise anywhere? Countries known for their child sex trafficking still crack down on that kind of thing. I know that South and Central American drug cartels apparently produce alot of this stuff, and then just up and kill off the kids when they're done, but that's not exactly a legal enterprise. Countries like Thailand might have alot of child prostitutes, but it's still very illegal there (even if it generates a ton of money).

Therumancer:
-snip-

Genocide and cultural cleansing are slippery slopes, mate, and I think the issue is a little more complicated than you're making it to be. Are there any actual cultures that are okay with pedophilia? Some might be less squicked by it, and people in third world countries might feel forced into making CP/trafficking child prostitutes to make some money, but I don't think that being a kiddy-fiddler is considered a normal, everyday part of life anywhere in the world. Some cultures might be more accepting of being born with that urge, but acting on it is still a very big no-no.

Unless you know about some magical land of nonces that I've never heard of.

Fsyco:

Therumancer:

Gordon_4:

It would do plenty if the staff in the Gotham Dept. of Justice were not either A) bent, B) incompetent or C) a combination of bent and incompetent. Gotham IA must drink themselves to sleep every night.

More on topic, a big part of the problem is of course finding the people being exploited to get their consent, or dealing with cases (which I've been rambling about) where say the kids being exploited might actually be being used in a legal enterprise in the country they are from. In my mind some third world banana republic thinking it's okay to force an 11 year old to make porn movies does not make it okay, but one has to consider that if we actually made an inquiry it's not likely we'd get much support... which is a big part of the problem, and the lack of will to deal with things like that, is a big part of why we need to deal with the customers that we can catch within our own jurisdictions.

Is it actually a legal enterprise anywhere? Countries known for their child sex trafficking still crack down on that kind of thing. I know that South and Central American drug cartels apparently produce alot of this stuff, and then just up and kill off the kids when they're done, but that's not exactly a legal enterprise. Countries like Thailand might have alot of child prostitutes, but it's still very illegal there (even if it generates a ton of money).

Therumancer:
-snip-

Genocide and cultural cleansing are slippery slopes, mate, and I think the issue is a little more complicated than you're making it to be. Are there any actual cultures that are okay with pedophilia? Some might be less squicked by it, and people in third world countries might feel forced into making CP/trafficking child prostitutes to make some money, but I don't think that being a kiddy-fiddler is considered a normal, everyday part of life anywhere in the world. Some cultures might be more accepting of being born with that urge, but acting on it is still a very big no-no.

Unless you know about some magical land of nonces that I've never heard of.

Well, it's like this, in some countries the age of consent can apparently be as low as 9. Personally the lowest I can verify is Chile where it's 12 (another poster mentioned 9). As a general rule the age of consent for most of the civilized world is 16-18 years old. The thing here is that if your dealing with a country where say someone is making porno and the age of consent isn't being violated, your not likely to see much in the way of action if you complain. The authorities just don't care because it's not illegal. What's more in a lot of countries like that the porn industry thrives, I can't remember where it was for example, but the whole "Swap.avi" thing was a custom porn movie ordered for comparative peanuts from outside the country (though nobody in that one was underage). That said there are plenty of countries with ages of consent that tend to be below the 16-18 years mark.

That said, this is apparently a common problem when it comes to persecuting child pornography and other things, which is why it's come up.

When it comes to the issue of "breaking cultures" and such I want to say flat out that I do not advocate true genocide. Genocide, despite how the UN has tried to define it, is the eradication of a genotype, or an ethnicity. Say killing all Koreans, all Blacks, all Whites, all Hebrews, or whatever else. At the end of the day someone's physical appearance doesn't make a difference, everyone is human and has he same basic range of abilities. The thing about this kind of equality though is that it also means that the same level of behavior and civilization can be expected from all human beings. There is no genetic block or limitation in any "race" of mankind that forces them to behave a specific way. It's ironic because in many cases not being a racist can actually make you seem more racist to people that haven't thought it through. One of my problems with the left wing has oftentimes been that they seem very racist and patronizing, with an undercurrent that it's unfair to expect certain things from group X or group Y and that it's discrimination to hold
them to the same standards as everyone else. It all comes down to beliefs, culture, and behavior, and all of those things can be changed albeit when humans are involved, especially large social constructs, it can be a very large, and hugely unpleasant undertaking. The principle being similar to teaching a child how to behave, albeit the scale is much larger, and a lot uglier when your dealing with societies that might have been misbehaving for thousands of years, as opposed to some kid who is simply being taught not to steal things. This is an intentionally simplistic analogy so don't pick on it too much.

See, as a general rule I don't care about people being different as long as they do so within permissible bounds that don't intrude on other people. If your culture is to say wear funny hats and have an ethnic festival a couple of times a year, hey, more power to you, your not bothering anyone. On the other hand if your culture is say demanding that women be treated as property and be stoned to death at the drop of a hat, or saying that people like you should subvert and rule all other people, or that it's okay to have sex with little kids, well then I have a problem, these cultures are hurting people.

As a general rule the spread of ideas can do a lot, but at a certain point you run into cultures that just aren't going to change to conform with civilization and co-exist with the rest of the world. Your going to have countries that manufacture and smuggle drugs into countries where they are prohibited, your going to have ones that will insist on their right to have sex with kids as they have been doing for thousands of years, and of course cultures that are going to oppose equal rights for women. When you tell them to stop, they say "no", and when you try and reason with them they do not listen, or you find they were governed by spiritual principles that render reason irrelevant (ie it is our divine destiny to rule the world, we believe god told us so). At that point your left with few options. Sure you can try and ignore it, but when these countries are threatening you with terrorism, and drug smuggling, it's kind of difficult. What's more it's hard to be a civilized nation and promote human rights and civilized behavior when you have entire cultures keeping 50% of their people as slaves basically (such as in cultures where women do not have equal rights) or raping children. In the context of this discussion if you say find videos from a second or third world country where some little kid is being made to have sex, and the country where it's made refuses to do anything or acknowledge a problem your dealing with a double jeopardy situation of both a human rights issue and of course them violating your sovereign rights through criminal acts, by letting this stuff be pushed into your country.

Now your correct that where this ultimately goes is a VERY slippery slope, but at the end of the day you can't just let these things go. It comes down to making the people doing this stop, but the question comes down to how you can accomplish this. If diplomacy has failed, and the spread of ideas hasn't been working, your pretty much looking at force being used. If you go into a country and target the offenders, and it works fine, but if you try that and you just see more of the same coming up to replace them, then your in a position where you can either go in and try and occupy the country, which rarely if ever works, and just breeds resentment, or you can break the culture.

Now, as psycho as I seem to some people, it's noteworthy that we've tried all kinds of things when it comes to large criminal cartels, cultures breeding terrorists, etc... all options I agree should be tried first. However when those options have failed, what are you left with? Do you just say "we're hypocrites, since we're NOT going to force basic human rights" which makes it hard to sell those positions conceptually even at home. Basically if people are insistent enough we'll abandon women to slavery and ritual execution when it becomes too inconvenient, women's rights are not an absolute principle? We're not going to defend the rights of children if it becomes too messy or complicated? If people want to badly enough we'll let them bang pre-sexual humans en-masse, the children themselves be damned?

Of course don't get me wrong, burning down a culture to it's roots also means killing people of the sort your there to save who have been indoctrinated. Breaking a culture tends to be a big picture kind of thing, based on the idea of what is going to happen centuries or thousands of years down the road. If you say kill millions now it's ugly, but you save 10s of millions in the scope of all time to come by getting rid of the institutions in question.

I understand a lot of people hate everything I have to say on this subject (and transfer that hate onto me) but it's a chain of thought that I've evolved over a very long time. Perhaps my attitudes will change again, but the bottom line is the world sucks. Any positive, major, change can only come at huge cost.

On the subject we're mostly discussing here which is child molestation, I was attacked by an older kid when I was like six in a residential facility. An experience I have personally blocked out, and let's just say I've had other unpleasant experiences since. A lot of my thought comes down to the simple question of what would I be like if society was not there for me, and nobody cared at all. When it comes to an issue like this, my basic thought is that by not acting we're pretty much saying "the solution is too big, and too ugly, so we're going to leave you to endure this" to kids in this kind of situation with societies that endorse it. The same can basically be said of situations like with women in The Middle East, I'm not a big *political* supporter of feminism, but basically we're here in the most powerful country in the world #1 in military spending, we've got weapons so powerful we're afraid to use them, we tell the world men and women are equal, and women are to be respected, yet when some girl is getting stoned because some dude raped her or whatever, we choose to do nothing "sorry lady, you, and people like you, aren't worth it, because we'd have to put too much blood on our hands to change things". It also comes down to security issues as well, when we let cultures produce terrorist group after terrorist group, without addressing the central problem. These journalists and workers that get decapitated, soldiers that die, etc... none of that means anything because we refuse to act to end the problem, meaning that all these people die now, and more people will die again, deaths and terrorist acts that could be prevented but aren't because we refused to take action because the problem was just too big and ugly once we exhausted the easier solutions.

In the context of this discussion, if you were some little kid who hadn't even developed sexually yet (or heck, even if you have), and someone was forcing you to make porno, and nobody was going to help you because it was legal, wouldn't you want someone to help you? I can say for a fact, I know I would. Here we are in the USA, the biggest military monster of a country the world has ever seen, the guys who make a big show out of saying we won't let stuff like this happen, and yet what do we do? Nothing. See, the thing is honestly we might not be able to help that kid, but by acting we can prevent the situation from happening in general in a lot of these cultures, we simply choose not to. Just as when drugs flood the streets and cause all kinds of problems, it's not like we couldn't stop that, but we choose not to because we simply can't stomach what it would take.

Not long ago someone who really didn't like me send me a private message with a disposable account on this site saying they hoped I died alone and in pain. The thing is on a lot of levels stopping that from happening to a lot of people, by destroying a lot of the institutions and cultures that cause it, is what I'm all about, even if I seem really messed up to people.

So yeah, it's a slippery slope, but it's one I think we need to traverse... of course a lot of people disagree with me.

The whole point of this though is not so much what I'd like to see happen, so much as me talking about the viability of catching uploaders/contributors to a site like the one that was busted. If they happen to be operating out of a civilized country (which happens) it's doable, but if they are operating out of the second or third world, there isn't anything the government/law enforcement will do about it if those countries don't acknowledge it as a crime. That's one of the big problems with a lot of things nowadays, the world is connected, and can spread around a lot of information which can include stuff like this, con schemes, and other things, but there is no kind of universally empowered law enforcement that can take action, or any kind of world government that could run one or set laws for it for that matter, which is one of the reasons why I actually support the idea of a New World Order/One World Government unlike a lot of people. As bloody as that might be to set up under any terms, I think the lives it would save, and the problems it would solve in the scope of history to come would be well worth it.... but that's another entire discussion. All my opinions aside, I know nothing I suggest is going to happen, or be seriously considered by the powers that be. I also admit I have been ranting a bit because certain subjects (terrorism, child molestation, etc...) get me rather upset and I tend to go a bit overboard even for me.

Therumancer:
-snip-

I don't think you can just up and get rid of all the pedophiles, since pedophilia is inherently just funny wiring in the brain, and there's no real way to spot it besides someone confessing to having those urges. There's also the distinction between true pedophilia (before puberty), hebephilia (early puberty), and ephebophilia (late puberty). While our legal system you can't bone someone until a certain age (16-18), the human body prepares itself to deal with reproduction kind of early (11-13), and to me, it's really not -that- weird, since at that age they have some defining sexual characteristics.

If you actually want to solve that problem, you need to give these people a healthy outlet (like, hentai/comics depicting their fantasies) and therapy. Wanting to just remove them from society is sort of along the same lines as solving world hunger by giving people more food. There's a whole lot of logistics involved that's much easier said than done. Trying to 'uproot' the problem might make it worse, since you'll probably miss some, and the survivors will find very crafty ways of doing what they want to without getting caught, making your job harder. Not to mention that in order to do that kind of thing successfully, you'd have to get every single person in the 'civilized' world on board, or else you just look like a dick. And even if you did, it's not like the native inhabitants are just going to line themselves up against a wall and wait to be shot. You'd have to dump a ton of money and manpower for even just one country, and it would take years. Plus you'd have to find something new for the kids to do, or they'll go right back to being exploited.

All in all, I don't think that kind of effort is worth saving some kids. I mean, I've met kids, and they're pretty obnoxious.

Fsyco:

Cryptocurrencies. Why do you think bitcoin was invented? It wasn't just because digital currency is for funsies, it was for the Internet black market.

Actually most cryptocurrencies were created for funsies, as a concept. then other people took it and actually implemented it. Its just that they are so useful for illegla matters due to being untracable to a person. Even then, research shows that only 10% of it is used for illegal dealings, so black market is still a minority user.

Therumancer:

Well, it's like this, in some countries the age of consent can apparently be as low as 9. Personally the lowest I can verify is Chile where it's 12 (another poster mentioned 9). As a general rule the age of consent for most of the civilized world is 16-18 years old. The thing here is that if your dealing with a country where say someone is making porno and the age of consent isn't being violated, your not likely to see much in the way of action if you complain. The authorities just don't care because it's not illegal. What's more in a lot of countries like that the porn industry thrives, I can't remember where it was for example, but the whole "Swap.avi" thing was a custom porn movie ordered for comparative peanuts from outside the country (though nobody in that one was underage). That said there are plenty of countries with ages of consent that tend to be below the 16-18 years mark.

Thats not paedophilia though. Paedophilia explicitly needs sexually undeveloped children, and wast majority of people sexually develop at 11-13 years of age. So it would not fit this case whether you want it to be whatever age. Having age of consent bellow 18 years is nothing to get in arms around.

Fsyco:

Therumancer:
-snip-

I don't think you can just up and get rid of all the pedophiles, since pedophilia is inherently just funny wiring in the brain, and there's no real way to spot it besides someone confessing to having those urges. There's also the distinction between true pedophilia (before puberty), hebephilia (early puberty), and ephebophilia (late puberty). While our legal system you can't bone someone until a certain age (16-18), the human body prepares itself to deal with reproduction kind of early (11-13), and to me, it's really not -that- weird, since at that age they have some defining sexual characteristics.

If you actually want to solve that problem, you need to give these people a healthy outlet (like, hentai/comics depicting their fantasies) and therapy. Wanting to just remove them from society is sort of along the same lines as solving world hunger by giving people more food. There's a whole lot of logistics involved that's much easier said than done. Trying to 'uproot' the problem might make it worse, since you'll probably miss some, and the survivors will find very crafty ways of doing what they want to without getting caught, making your job harder. Not to mention that in order to do that kind of thing successfully, you'd have to get every single person in the 'civilized' world on board, or else you just look like a dick. And even if you did, it's not like the native inhabitants are just going to line themselves up against a wall and wait to be shot. You'd have to dump a ton of money and manpower for even just one country, and it would take years. Plus you'd have to find something new for the kids to do, or they'll go right back to being exploited.

All in all, I don't think that kind of effort is worth saving some kids. I mean, I've met kids, and they're pretty obnoxious.

We strongly disagree on whether it's worth it or not. Besides the point is the behavior being legal and accepted in those societies which is ultimately because it's what the people there want to practice. If it wasn't a social phenomena there, there wouldn't be laws defending it.

I doubt we'll agree on this subject, and really everything that can be said has been said.

Strazdas:

Fsyco:

Cryptocurrencies. Why do you think bitcoin was invented? It wasn't just because digital currency is for funsies, it was for the Internet black market.

Actually most cryptocurrencies were created for funsies, as a concept. then other people took it and actually implemented it. Its just that they are so useful for illegla matters due to being untracable to a person. Even then, research shows that only 10% of it is used for illegal dealings, so black market is still a minority user.

Therumancer:

Well, it's like this, in some countries the age of consent can apparently be as low as 9. Personally the lowest I can verify is Chile where it's 12 (another poster mentioned 9). As a general rule the age of consent for most of the civilized world is 16-18 years old. The thing here is that if your dealing with a country where say someone is making porno and the age of consent isn't being violated, your not likely to see much in the way of action if you complain. The authorities just don't care because it's not illegal. What's more in a lot of countries like that the porn industry thrives, I can't remember where it was for example, but the whole "Swap.avi" thing was a custom porn movie ordered for comparative peanuts from outside the country (though nobody in that one was underage). That said there are plenty of countries with ages of consent that tend to be below the 16-18 years mark.

Thats not paedophilia though. Paedophilia explicitly needs sexually undeveloped children, and wast majority of people sexually develop at 11-13 years of age. So it would not fit this case whether you want it to be whatever age. Having age of consent bellow 18 years is nothing to get in arms around.

Well, as a general rule I care less about teenagers having sex with other teenagers than most things. I do however have problems with adults having sex with teens. For the most part I have no real problem with the 16-18 age of consent, but when you start going below that I have a problem. Whether you want to play semantics games or not, it's adults using children for sex, and honestly even if developed I do not think a serious sexual relationship can exist between an adult and a child. Exceptions may exist of course, but laws and policies are not made on exceptions.

That said, we are not going to agree here, and pretty much everything that can be said on the subject has been said. The bottom line is I very much think this is worth it, and I feel pretty much anyone who was on the receiving end would likely agree.

Therumancer:

Fsyco:

Therumancer:
-snip-

I don't think you can just up and get rid of all the pedophiles, since pedophilia is inherently just funny wiring in the brain, and there's no real way to spot it besides someone confessing to having those urges. There's also the distinction between true pedophilia (before puberty), hebephilia (early puberty), and ephebophilia (late puberty). While our legal system you can't bone someone until a certain age (16-18), the human body prepares itself to deal with reproduction kind of early (11-13), and to me, it's really not -that- weird, since at that age they have some defining sexual characteristics.

If you actually want to solve that problem, you need to give these people a healthy outlet (like, hentai/comics depicting their fantasies) and therapy. Wanting to just remove them from society is sort of along the same lines as solving world hunger by giving people more food. There's a whole lot of logistics involved that's much easier said than done. Trying to 'uproot' the problem might make it worse, since you'll probably miss some, and the survivors will find very crafty ways of doing what they want to without getting caught, making your job harder. Not to mention that in order to do that kind of thing successfully, you'd have to get every single person in the 'civilized' world on board, or else you just look like a dick. And even if you did, it's not like the native inhabitants are just going to line themselves up against a wall and wait to be shot. You'd have to dump a ton of money and manpower for even just one country, and it would take years. Plus you'd have to find something new for the kids to do, or they'll go right back to being exploited.

All in all, I don't think that kind of effort is worth saving some kids. I mean, I've met kids, and they're pretty obnoxious.

We strongly disagree on whether it's worth it or not. Besides the point is the behavior being legal and accepted in those societies which is ultimately because it's what the people there want to practice. If it wasn't a social phenomena there, there wouldn't be laws defending it.

I doubt we'll agree on this subject, and really everything that can be said has been said.

Who said anything about agreeing? I just think you're fascinating o: It's like I've made a new friend at summer camp, since you're the only other person I've met on the Internet down with large-scale death (albeit for different reasons). Keep on keepin' on, mate.

[quote="Therumancer" post="7.859137.21322648"]I do not think a serious sexual relationship can exist between an adult and a child. /quote]
I never suggested sexual relationship with a child. With a teenager however i believe there certainly can and it looks like this is where we will have to disagree.

capcha: vocal minority. Yes, yes they are.

 

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here