If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(WTOP)   Bad: But for a lack of funding, some 19,000 child porn offenders in Virginia would be arrested. Worse: Virginia's numbers put them in 8th place overall   (wtop.com) divider line 135
    More: Sick  
•       •       •

6836 clicks; posted to Main » on 07 Feb 2008 at 4:05 PM (6 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



135 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2008-02-07 12:07:50 PM  
So I have always been curious how is it exactly that the authorities know that you have the kiddy porn?

Do they track ip address that visit certain sites, emails...

I am genuinely curious how its done
 
2008-02-07 12:48:43 PM  
Like this

/reports nkanofolives

/the answer is, these idiots use their credit cards to sign up for sites, those sites get busted and the whole customer list is toast
 
2008-02-07 01:16:28 PM  
I volunteer.

Gimme a gun and a badge and I'll spend the next year knocking on doors and "accidentally" shooting men in the groin.

/You know why?
//Because I love America.
///And kids
\But not like that
 
2008-02-07 01:18:11 PM  
nkanofolives: I am genuinely curious how its done

img122.imageshack.us
 
2008-02-07 01:25:26 PM  
ThatGuyGreg: nkanofolives: I am genuinely curious how its done

i190.photobucket.com
 
2008-02-07 01:32:28 PM  
So we can't afford to catch these predators, we can't afford to fix our bridges, we can't afford to keep all the prisoners that are in our jails, we can't afford to secure our borders, we can't afford the cost of the retirement of the baby boomers, we can't afford a serious space program (something I know well), we can't afford to upgrade our highway system, BUT the border between North and South Korea is secure and bridges in Iraq are restored and, with all the troops we have in Japan and Germany, we don't have to worry about the Nazis or the Soviets.
///Priorities, we has them.
 
2008-02-07 01:47:01 PM  
Officers have identified 1,956 computers containing child pornography in Virginia Beach _ the most of any Virginia locality. The problem exists even in the state's small towns, with tiny Pound in far southwest Virginia being home to 53 unique hard drives containing child porn.

Pound has 1,089 people according to the last census.

So it's either 53/1089 people in the town are pedos, or you have one really nerdy pedo with 53 hard drives full or porn.
 
2008-02-07 02:36:09 PM  
Ask them to DEFINE child porn.

They'll never give you the same answer twice.
 
2008-02-07 03:04:18 PM  
MasterThief: Pound has 1,089 people according to the last census.

And only 455 households, which makes that 53 drives seem even worse.

Interestingly, the main thing Pound, VA seems to have come to the web's notice over is being run by religious nutjobs who banned dancing as "being enticing".
 
2008-02-07 03:15:49 PM  
To be fair, it's kind of expensive to build cages for that many Pedo Bears.
 
2008-02-07 03:25:41 PM  
abb3w: And only 455 households, which makes that 53 drives seem even worse.

You're right. Holy crap, it's like Deliverance, but with eight year olds.

Kyosuke: Ask them to DEFINE child porn.

I'd also want to know what their definition of a "unique hard drive" is. I'm thinking that somebody's trying to puff up statistics...
 
2008-02-07 04:05:45 PM  
lordargent: /the answer is, these idiots use their credit cards to sign up for sites, those sites get busted and the whole customer list is toast

TFA said they're tracking based on P2P file sharing data.
 
2008-02-07 04:10:13 PM  
Bullets aren't expensive.
 
2008-02-07 04:11:45 PM  
nkanofolives: So I have always been curious how is it exactly that the authorities know that you have the kiddy porn?

lordargent: /the answer is, these idiots use their credit cards to sign up for sites, those sites get busted and the whole customer list is toast

I doubt it.

Really though, I would guess that the vast majority of these 'offenders' currently stand as IP (And possibly MAC) addresses of downloaders on sharing programs. It's very easy to get IP addresses of someone sharing a file, and you can use an IP to track to locality with nothing more then a trace route. Finding the MAC address of the modem or connected user in question would allow them to track a user across multiple IP addresses, and would also strengthen a criminal case.

Judging by the way this article was worded, and the choice examples of child porn they described, my guess is this is standard bullshiat journalism, complete with totally misrepresented figures.


/not for child molesters, but find the legal vagarities and witch-burning mentality... troubling.
 
2008-02-07 04:12:49 PM  
This wreaks of bullshiat to me.

I'm sick of slutty 17 year olds taking pics, putting them online, and thus being the cause of 18,000 of the 19,000 child porn offenders.
 
KIA
2008-02-07 04:13:21 PM  
Kyosuke: Ask them to DEFINE child porn.

They'll never give you the same answer twice.


TFA says "infants" and says the files have headings like "3yo gets..."

It doesn't sound like they're claiming the subjects of the vids are seventeen and a half. I hope there is a consensus that committing sexual acts upon a three year old is pretty vile.
 
2008-02-07 04:14:27 PM  
abb3w: MasterThief: Pound has 1,089 people according to the last census.

And only 455 households, which makes that 53 drives seem even worse.

Interestingly, the main thing Pound, VA seems to have come to the web's notice over is being run by religious nutjobs who banned dancing as "being enticing".


Yay, Footloose 2: This Time With Child Porn
 
2008-02-07 04:15:03 PM  
KIA: Kyosuke: Ask them to DEFINE child porn.

They'll never give you the same answer twice.

TFA says "infants" and says the files have headings like "3yo gets..."

It doesn't sound like they're claiming the subjects of the vids are seventeen and a half. I hope there is a consensus that committing sexual acts upon a three year old is pretty vile.


Are we talking about committing sexual acts upon a three year old, or looking at a picture of sexual acts being committed upon a three year old?

/or is it the same now
 
2008-02-07 04:15:30 PM  
KIA: Kyosuke: Ask them to DEFINE child porn.

They'll never give you the same answer twice.

TFA says "infants" and says the files have headings like "3yo gets..."

It doesn't sound like they're claiming the subjects of the vids are seventeen and a half. I hope there is a consensus that committing sexual acts upon a three year old is pretty vile.


What if you're 4?

/romeo and juliet exemption?
 
2008-02-07 04:15:34 PM  
I like to think I'm somewhat open minded and tolerant, but I will never understand the appeal of this shiat, and am constantly amazed at how many guys actually enjoy it. The "catch a predator" show will never run out of asshats to entrap.

That makes me sad.
 
2008-02-07 04:15:42 PM  
Addendum: the 'offenders' would stand as IP / MAC addresses only at the moment because getting names and actual addresses would require a subpoena or suchlike to the ISP in question, and if they don't have enough money to prosecute I doubt they're spending money collecting names.
 
2008-02-07 04:16:26 PM  
tekjansen: Are we talking about committing sexual acts upon a three year old, or looking at a picture of sexual acts being committed upon a three year old?

/or is it the same now


Aren't both equally vile?
 
2008-02-07 04:16:27 PM  
The first sentence of that article makes me weep for humanity.
 
2008-02-07 04:16:42 PM  
tekjansen: KIA: Kyosuke: Ask them to DEFINE child porn.

They'll never give you the same answer twice.

TFA says "infants" and says the files have headings like "3yo gets..."

It doesn't sound like they're claiming the subjects of the vids are seventeen and a half. I hope there is a consensus that committing sexual acts upon a three year old is pretty vile.

Are we talking about committing sexual acts upon a three year old, or looking at a picture of sexual acts being committed upon a three year old?

/or is it the same now


Yeah, it is the same since a 3 year old had to be abused in order to produce the picture.
 
2008-02-07 04:17:55 PM  
RevLovejoy: tekjansen: Are we talking about committing sexual acts upon a three year old, or looking at a picture of sexual acts being committed upon a three year old?

/or is it the same now

Aren't both equally vile?


Yes, which is why the police officers looking at these pics are sick farks.
 
2008-02-07 04:18:18 PM  
That number seems insanely high. I'm wondering whether they are using some really loose definition of porn, or someone is just inflating the number to get attention.
 
2008-02-07 04:18:53 PM  
well, if they can't catch their own bogeymen, i really don't care about the "problem"

sounds more like a bunch of excuses to get more funding.

terror, child porn, yadda yadda

*yawn*
 
2008-02-07 04:19:52 PM  
That 3 yr old bathtime thing spurned immediate rage in me...

Fark the badge, give me a gun, and some names and addys. I'm your huckleberry...

/has a 3 yr old daughter, 1 yr old boy
//Nah, rather be with them than in prison
///Can the gun, names, and addys also include a preemptive federal pardon?
 
2008-02-07 04:21:12 PM  
Not defending pedos by any means, but I suspect a lot of the pedophile hysteria is like the anti-drug hysteria. A relatively small group of hardcore pedos (and the sick farks who produce and sell the stuff, who are worse, in my opinion) and then a much larger group of people who probably aren't pedos, but are stupid enough to download a pic of an underaged kid, just to see what it is, and get caught in some fed dragnet.

Seriously, hate pedos as much as anyone, but defining it so loosely that it creates such a large class of criminals that you literally can't investigate most of them, does not sound like good strategery to me.
 
2008-02-07 04:21:18 PM  
tekjansen: KIA: Kyosuke: Ask them to DEFINE child porn.

They'll never give you the same answer twice.

TFA says "infants" and says the files have headings like "3yo gets..."

It doesn't sound like they're claiming the subjects of the vids are seventeen and a half. I hope there is a consensus that committing sexual acts upon a three year old is pretty vile.

Are we talking about committing sexual acts upon a three year old, or looking at a picture of sexual acts being committed upon a three year old?

/or is it the same now


It's pretty much the same now. If you live in a community where law enforcement is all into find child porn, I'm guessing juries and penalties are almost as stiff there as if you made the porn yourself.

Finding out that someone has been downloading/sharing child porn files (sometimes put out there as bait by LE-IT departments - ours does that, here) - is the first step in identifying whose computer it is, for which you need a warrant and therefore probable cause. I'd like to see success rates in prosecutions of this sort, but even if they're not successful, it's always fn-fun to have law enforcement come to your door with a warrant and take your computers away for examination, especially in broad daylight with the neighbors watching.

Do they automatically send the SWAT team too, these days?

I'm guessing that compared to some crimes, this one is cheaper to investigate and prosecute than some might be. What I want to know is how that French dude got the 7.2 billion dollars from the bank without them knowing it or finding the trail.
 
KIA
2008-02-07 04:22:27 PM  
tekjansen: or is it the same now

The law deems it to be the equivalent of supporting the sick perverts by paying or sponsoring them. It would be like saying "Well, sure, I paid $20.00 to Bonnie and Clyde to see a video of them robbing a bank, but I didn't aid and abet them in the robbery." You're still effectively an accomplice after the fact because you give the money to them.

No, I don't know whether the file-sharing is free, but prior commen-taters have suggested this stuff is from pay sites, so, yes, I think the prosecutors can say there is material support being provided for the accomplice statutes.
 
2008-02-07 04:23:05 PM  
RevLovejoy: tekjansen: Are we talking about committing sexual acts upon a three year old, or looking at a picture of sexual acts being committed upon a three year old?

/or is it the same now

Aren't both equally vile?


Are you kidding me? Are you seriously equating taking a little girl and raping her, most times repeatedly and often involving some degree of physical abuse and kidnapping, to looking at a picture (no matter how reprehensible)? Look, child porn is vile, but this idea that all sex crimes are created equal is incredibly dangerous. If I look at a picture of a murder...if i collect snuff films, am I as bad as a murderer? Of course not. Hell, looking at pictures of an adult woman getting raped isnt illegal either, nor would anyone in their right mind claim it's as bad as actually going out and raping someone.
 
2008-02-07 04:23:21 PM  
tekjansen: RevLovejoy: tekjansen: Are we talking about committing sexual acts upon a three year old, or looking at a picture of sexual acts being committed upon a three year old?

/or is it the same now

Aren't both equally vile?

Yes, which is why the police officers looking at these pics are sick farks.


Your trolling sucks. If by some chance you are serious may I suggest seeing a psychiatrist because you really need one.
 
2008-02-07 04:24:33 PM  
KIA: Kyosuke: Ask them to DEFINE child porn.

They'll never give you the same answer twice.

TFA says "infants" and says the files have headings like "3yo gets..."

It doesn't sound like they're claiming the subjects of the vids are seventeen and a half. I hope there is a consensus that committing sexual acts upon a three year old is pretty vile.


Yeah-- because those wouldn't be the cherry picked examples used to get the lynch mob riled up or anything.


Probably most of the 19k had titles like 'high school teen getting nekkid'.
 
2008-02-07 04:24:41 PM  
firefly212: That number seems insanely high. I'm wondering whether they are using some really loose definition of porn, or someone is just inflating the number to get attention.

Probably inflating the number to get attention.

A town of 1,089 people with 53 "unique hard drives" containing child porn means that if "unique hard drive" really means "unique computers" you have about 5% of the population of that town with child porn on their computer. That doesn't sound right. Especially if Virginia is ranked 8th.
 
2008-02-07 04:25:27 PM  
KIA: tekjansen: or is it the same now

The law deems it to be the equivalent of supporting the sick perverts by paying or sponsoring them. It would be like saying "Well, sure, I paid $20.00 to Bonnie and Clyde to see a video of them robbing a bank, but I didn't aid and abet them in the robbery." You're still effectively an accomplice after the fact because you give the money to them.

No, I don't know whether the file-sharing is free, but prior commen-taters have suggested this stuff is from pay sites, so, yes, I think the prosecutors can say there is material support being provided for the accomplice statutes.


Ok, so if they don't pay for it they shouldn't get in trouble?
 
2008-02-07 04:25:43 PM  
When I used to file share, I'd notice plenty of music files had names like "kiddie 8yo animal sex jizz whore britney Aerosmith - Sweet Emotion.mp3", and picture files were similarly tagged for some reason. If you did a search for "Sweet Emotion", this would come up - more often than not it was exactly that, and the keywords had nothing to do with anything.

I'm wondering if they're counting all of these as "child porn" hits, because they're stupid and don't know how comptuers work...
 
2008-02-07 04:26:27 PM  
Having said the above (previous comment), anyone stupid enough to download anything that looks or sounds (by description) to be child porn just out of curiosity probably deserves to be classified as a pedophile. I've heard of "2 girls, 1 cup," have no need to see it to know what it is.

Yeah, I'm saying that some expressions in and of themselves should be criminalized, when the production of them necessitates sexually abusing an actual child.
 
2008-02-07 04:27:29 PM  
alberto gonzales was an avid child porn watcher, he even had to go so far as to describe, in detail, the plot lines to said child porn vids.

/total arrests and prosecutions made by USAG in name of said child porn problem? (anyone know?)
 
2008-02-07 04:27:48 PM  
Its a grey area because sometimes you Download a Tu Pac Video and you end up with something you wish you didn't. Is that illegal?

Vice Versa: If you want do DL something bad, and you end up with Tu Pac - are you guilty?

Who can possibly judge that?
 
2008-02-07 04:29:31 PM  
VoiceofGod: Its a grey area because sometimes you Download a Tu Pac Video and you end up with something you wish you didn't. Is that illegal?

Yes, you just raped a child.
 
2008-02-07 04:31:50 PM  
FTFA: The problem exists even in the state's small towns, with tiny Pound in far southwest Virginia being home to 53 unique hard drives containing child porn.

Heh...comedy gold.

/Window seat
 
2008-02-07 04:32:26 PM  
tekjansen:
Ok, so if they don't pay for it they shouldn't get in trouble?


Why should they? In what other situation is looking at a picture of a crime a crime itself? If they pay for it, sure, then you can bust them for providing material support...but unless there is evidence of payment, what should they be arrested for (other than perhaps failure to report a crime)? Where does the line get drawn after that? Will people eventually get arrested for looking at bestiality? Necrophilia? Snuff films? Watching vandalism posted on YouTube? It's all essentially the same thing: a viewer who had nothing to do with the commission of a crime watching a crime being committed.
 
2008-02-07 04:34:33 PM  
If there's no grass in the field, then flip it over and play in the mud.

It's a no brainer.
 
2008-02-07 04:37:05 PM  
tekjansen: VoiceofGod: Its a grey area because sometimes you Download a Tu Pac Video and you end up with something you wish you didn't. Is that illegal?

Yes, you just raped a child.


I guess we should shut down the internet!

All Downloads have the potential of being encoded with a fake name - regardless of the site or person you are downloading it from. I would hate to arrest My grandmother for charges because she downloaded a file called "Hits from the 40s.zip" and ended up with questionable material.
 
2008-02-07 04:37:27 PM  
We've gone past Pedo Bear, and into Pedo Grizzly territory here.

/Yikes.
//Gonna download GILF-O-Rama for the sake of balance and Zen.
 
2008-02-07 04:37:37 PM  
Is that why SVU keeps mentioning us?


/The frequency of VA articles disturbs me.....
 
2008-02-07 04:37:56 PM  
mikeandeichmann: tekjansen:
Ok, so if they don't pay for it they shouldn't get in trouble?

Why should they? In what other situation is looking at a picture of a crime a crime itself? If they pay for it, sure, then you can bust them for providing material support...but unless there is evidence of payment, what should they be arrested for (other than perhaps failure to report a crime)? Where does the line get drawn after that? Will people eventually get arrested for looking at bestiality? Necrophilia? Snuff films? Watching vandalism posted on YouTube? It's all essentially the same thing: a viewer who had nothing to do with the commission of a crime watching a crime being committed.



I see your point to an extent but I wonder about something.

If someone gives me a video that I had nothing to do with and I charge you to watch it, does that mean I am committing a crime? Is the viewer committing one?
 
2008-02-07 04:39:01 PM  
We haven't had the money to act on child predators because we have a Moran in the legislature.

Bad pun, i know.
 
2008-02-07 04:39:48 PM  
GeekTheMighty: nkanofolives: So I have always been curious how is it exactly that the authorities know that you have the kiddy porn?

lordargent: /the answer is, these idiots use their credit cards to sign up for sites, those sites get busted and the whole customer list is toast

I doubt it.

Really though, I would guess that the vast majority of these 'offenders' currently stand as IP (And possibly MAC) addresses of downloaders on sharing programs. It's very easy to get IP addresses of someone sharing a file, and you can use an IP to track to locality with nothing more then a trace route. Finding the MAC address of the modem or connected user in question would allow them to track a user across multiple IP addresses, and would also strengthen a criminal case.

Judging by the way this article was worded, and the choice examples of child porn they described, my guess is this is standard bullshiat journalism, complete with totally misrepresented figures.


/not for child molesters, but find the legal vagarities and witch-burning mentality... troubling.


It's not only bullshiat journalism, but bullshiat politics andpolice work. Not only do the numbers not add up, there's no indication for how they're tracking these numbers, how they were alerted to these supposed files, how they even know the files are actually child porn (names can be misleading), how they're counting individuals and hard drives, etc.

It reads like a giant scare tactic: "OMG LOOK AT ALL THESE PEOPLE LOOKING AT CHILD PRON! (IGNORE THE FACT THE NUMBERS DON'T MAKE SENSE!) AND 523.71% OF THEM REPORTEDLY HAVE CONTACT WITH MINORS! PASS ALYSSA'S LAW (NOTICE HOW IT SOUNDS LIKE MEGAN'S LAW? I CARE ABOUT THE CHILLUNS!)! IF YOU DON'T, YOU'RE A CHILD RAPING MURDERER! RE-ELECT JOE DOUCHEBAG!"
 
Displayed 50 of 135 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report