

 New scanners break child porn laws - prat
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/jan/04/new-scanners-child-porn-laws

======
tumult
It's so beautiful when two different sets of reactionary fear mongers collide
-- in this case, the save-the-children-by-introducing-insane-legislation-that-
protects-nobody group and the terrorists-will-blow-us-up-unless-everybody-
surrenders-privacy group.

Brings a tear to my eye.

------
ErrantX
Previously posted from the Telegraph:
<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1032700>

My comments there still stand: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1032821>

~~~
DenisM
Under what law? UK laws are different from US. I read a story in some news
paper where UK cops were not allowed to maintain a database of abused children
because while viewing the pictures by cops in line of duty was ok by the law,
storage was not explicitly allowed.

------
axod
I wonder if there's a study into how successful internet child porn laws are
at actually preventing crime.

I'd guess they are absolutely not effective at all.

I don't understand the rationale behind making _viewing_ certain images
illegal :/ Obviously I'm not someone who wants to view such images, but I
can't see why doing so should be a crime. It's verging on 'thought police'.

We're living in an age where you can view videos of beheadings, people send
around youtubes of some guy being electricuted on top of a train. Death? Hey
sure that's fine, but post a pic of your baby enjoying bathtime and you'll be
hunted down and burned as a witch. It's perverse.

~~~
ErrantX
we've had this argument before I recall ;)

> I wonder if there's a study into how successful internet child porn laws are
> at actually preventing crime.

I dont know of one. The trouble is work in that area is actually classified (I
cant remember to what level). So we can only work with the data we know of
(i.e. ours) - same for every company/force working on such cases. Second
problem is that it is usually quite a fragmented field from detection through
investigation and to trial that collating accurate stats is even harder.

I might try to put something together though.

In terms of:

> We're living in an age where you can view videos of beheadings, people send
> around youtubes of some guy being electricuted on top of a train.

I actually agree the law is a bit wierd here. For example if those images or
video's also included something class able as pornography it become extreme
porn and hence illegal (at least here in the UK). Im not really sure where I
stand on that (apart from the fact that the point is the viewer is more likely
"getting off" on the porn or something)

> but post a pic of your baby enjoying bathtime and you'll be hunted down and
> burned as a witch

If you post it on a pedophile network well, then, probably you will be :) On
other sites? Highly unlikely. And if you are investigated someone like me will
prove the negative.

Please dont forget; the VAST majority of people are caught in 3 ways:

\- by actively downloading from known and watched pedophile networks

\- by being caught IRL by someone and reported to the police

\- by grooming youngsters on the web and the victim / victims parents
reporting it (sort of like #2 but more pro-active)

As to the legality or morality of viewing these images; I choose not to
comment. Because I suspect we differ entirely there.

With all of that said:

> and that there a thousands of them ready to strike on YOUR kids when you
> least expect it.

I could not agree more with such a sentiment. It really annoys me (along with
my colleagues) that the media/govt. persist these attitudes. It actually
damages our efforts too.

~~~
axod
>> "As to the legality or morality of viewing these images; I choose not to
comment. Because I suspect we differ entirely there."

Are you saying you believe simply viewing particular light patterns should be
a crime? It's just bizarre. But as you say, I guess we disagree on that point.

Should "thinking inappropriate thoughts about minors" be a crime also? Should
we develop brain monitors and all wear funny hats?

If you believe viewing such images should be illegal, then even law
enforcement officers should not be able to view them - otherwise how do we
know if they secretly 'enjoy' looking at them. The whole sorry exercise is one
of thought policing.

~~~
ErrantX
> Are you saying you believe simply viewing particular light patterns should
> be a crime?

I think your deconstructing too far. And I think your not equating the act of
viewing with the effect further up the chain; aka the abuse.

> Should "thinking inappropriate thoughts about minors" be a crime also?

No, clearly not. But I think there isn't a single line in the sand regarding
this. Would you be comfortable with someone interacting with your kids who
goes home and uses them in his/her sexual fantasies? There is a hazy line and
we must use common sense to ensure minors are protected.

In the case of thoughts, no I dont think they should be illegal. But if
someone admits to having such thoughts I think it should be legal to say "I
dont want to around my kids".

> If you believe viewing such images should be illegal, then even law
> enforcement officers should not be able to view them

This is where your missing the point entirely; the whole issue is context.

Think of it this way; viewing the images is, perhaps, impossible to define as
illegal. However viewing and distributing these images feeds the cycle of
abuse and so the viewers are directly or indirectly perpetrators.

If XYZ person viewed an officially indecent image with no sexual motive
(either accidentally, in the course of their job or for whatever reason) do I
think they should be prosecuted? No!

~~~
axod
>> "And I think your not equating the act of viewing with the effect further
up the chain; aka the abuse."

I know there's a multitude of complexities here, but I think 'viewing images'
should never be illegal. _Paying_ for someone to obtain images that involve
illegal activities should definitely be illegal.

So maybe we sort of agree after all...

------
flashingpumpkin
I'd really want to know which technology powers these scanners. After a quick
googling I couldn't come up with any relevant information. :(

~~~
semanticist
The ones being planned for deployment in the UK use Millimeter wave scanning.
The description on this BBC News article matches that technology:
<http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8438355.stm>

------
sailormoon
It's a sad comment on our society that such an utterly ludicrous notion ever
even raised its ugly head.

We've all seen kids naked. _Who cares._

~~~
timthorn
The pictures are only illegal if they are deemed indecent by a jury - a
picture of a naked child is not of itself indecent unless they think it is.
However, the public view of indecency has changed greatly though, "thanks" to
media campaigns, so there's a real risk that such pictures could be deemed
indecent.

~~~
semanticist
"What is clear is that you had no base motive, no sexual motive and there was
not any question of deriving sexual gratification from what you were doing."

That's what a judge said before passing down sentence for a guy who took
'fairy' pictures of children at the request of their parents. He got 150 hours
community service, which I guess was the lightest sentence the judge could
hand down.

Story on it here: <http://tinyurl.com/69ew9w>

He pled guilty, probably to keep the case short and after being pressured to
by the CPS. That means no jury was involved.

~~~
sailormoon
.. well I guess he'll never do that again.

You know, hearing things like that makes me determined to never, ever have
anything to do with kids no matter what. If you're below 18 I won't even look
at you, let alone talk, let alone help. It's just too risky.

To me, this outcome is more perverse than any picture could be.

~~~
axod
I think that's the reason why most teachers in the UK are now female. Which is
a sad state of affairs.

I think it should be compulsory for schools+nurserys to have the same ratio of
female:male in staff, as there are in pupils.

~~~
semanticist
Not that being female guarantees anything:

[http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/dec/15/vanessa-george-
jail...](http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/dec/15/vanessa-george-jailed-child-
sex-abuse)

