Child porn now legal in New York

Masteroid

Stiffler2 wrote: »

Child porn has been vlanned to Tor & Freenet and is hosted on the private web, not the world wide web which is untrackble to the FBI, CIA, Homeland, Scotland Yard and I believe the gardaí are only finding out about the internet this week.

The thing is Freedom is hosted in the USA so it's the USA's problem.
If they can't take it down and Anonymous failed at taking it down then it will never really dis-appear because the paedo's are always 2 steps ahead of the authorities.

It's utterly disgusting, google the subject and educate yourself if you don't already know about it.

Have you forgotten that the internet and world wide web are just bolt-ons to Spynet which was developed by the CIA, I believe?

Just because the CIA or FBI haven't closed a paedophile operation doesn't mean they can't. It could be that there is more profit, or blackmail opportunities, in letting them operate.

I am in mind of an FBI operation that took place over three years some years ago. They watched the sites for three years and were able to obtain the transaction details of visitors to the site. They ended up with a list of thousands of prominent people many of whom were subject to prosecution.

I remember thinking at the time how easy it would be to set someone up for child-porn offences. Especially given the relatively technical ignorance of the judiciary regarding computer technology.

But more importantly I thought, for three years the FBI stood by and watched as hundreds of children were raped and abused and all they were doing was gathering the names of the visitors.

I say that if the FBI were able to intercept tranaction detail to and from the site then they were 'tracking' it. And if they were tracking it, why didn't they concentrate on catching the 'doers' rather than the voyeurs?

And anyway, if what you say is true then the fact that a bunch of perverts have the technology to stay '2 steps ahead of the authorities' (FBI, CIA, Homeland, Scotland Yard) has sinister implications as far as the war on terrorism is concerned.

TBH, it seems to me that child-abuse is acceptable at the very highest level of society. It's a power thing.

I think that more can be done to protect children but rounding up voyeurs appears to be more lucrative.

The real world sucks.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Masteroid wrote: »

Have you forgotten that the internet and world wide web are just bolt-ons to Spynet which was developed by the CIA, I believe?

Just because the CIA or FBI haven't closed a paedophile operation doesn't mean they can't. It could be that there is more profit, or blackmail opportunities, in letting them operate.

I am in mind of an FBI operation that took place over three years some years ago. They watched the sites for three years and were able to obtain the transaction details of visitors to the site. They ended up with a list of thousands of prominent people many of whom were subject to prosecution.

I remember thinking at the time how easy it would be to set someone up for child-porn offences. Especially given the relatively technical ignorance of the judiciary regarding computer technology.

But more importantly I thought, for three years the FBI stood by and watched as hundreds of children were raped and abused and all they were doing was gathering the names of the visitors.

I say that if the FBI were able to intercept tranaction detail to and from the site then they were 'tracking' it. And if they were tracking it, why didn't they concentrate on catching the 'doers' rather than the voyeurs?

And anyway, if what you say is true then the fact that a bunch of perverts have the technology to stay '2 steps ahead of the authorities' (FBI, CIA, Homeland, Scotland Yard) has sinister implications as far as the war on terrorism is concerned.

TBH, it seems to me that child-abuse is acceptable at the very highest level of society. It's a power thing.

I think that more can be done to protect children but rounding up voyeurs appears to be more lucrative.

The real world sucks.

Sounds a bit sonspiracy theory-ish to me. Not disagreeing with you, but would love to see the source on that.

The last bit is down to one simple factor: children have no power and can't vote. Democracy is not diesigned to care for children.

frozenfrozen

first time i went on 4chan i saw CP and instantly closed it and was scared that my house would be raided. Then the grifter got me :'[

Killer Wench

Keep in mind, this is New York. Each state will have their own laws on child exploitation videos and they will have their own set of precedents and interpretations. In some states, even having images in cache will still be considered possession.

Masteroid

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

Sounds a bit sonspiracy theory-ish to me. Not disagreeing with you, but would love to see the source on that.

No mention of Spynet but this shows the military connection to the internet:

http://www.computerhistory.org/internet_history/

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

The last bit is down to one simple factor: children have no power and can't vote. Democracy is not diesigned to care for children.

Ain't that the truth.

Run_to_da_hills

It wouldn't take forensics long to find out who downloaded what material onto a computer or media device if anyone had any inclination that this was a loop hole.

WatchWolf

Masteroid

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

It wouldn't take forensics long to find out who downloaded what material onto a computer or media device if anyone had any inclination that this was a loop hole.

How could forensics tell the difference between a delibarately saved .jpg file and a .jpg file that was committed to the hard drive by malware which then deletes itself?

eth0

If the FBI wanted to plant child porn on someone's computer they'd just do it after they take the computer off them. Shower of bastards that they are

Masteroid

eth0 wrote: »

If the FBI wanted to plant child porn on someone's computer they'd just do it after they take the computer off them. Shower of bastards that they are

I agree. The law as it stands allows for unsafe convictions.

AudreyHepburn

OP if you are going to post stories like this will you at least try to introduce them accuratly?

What that article describes is a measure innocent people are not prosecuted as paedophiles because they clicked on links they genuinely believed were legit.

And that can only be a good thing imo.

I've had times where I've been trying to look up movies online and ended up looking at adverts for escorts sites through no fault of mine.

I can see only positives to this article.

Child porn HAS NOT been made legal....less of the hype please.