
Becoming Sweetie, The Computer-Generated Girl Who Took On Child Predators - ozh
http://www.fastcocreate.com/3031676/anatomy-of-a-cannes-contender-becoming-sweetie-the-little-girl-who-took-on-child-predators
======
bunderbunder
Recently there was an undercover ATF operation near my neighborhood that
failed rather spectacularly and, thanks to the local newspaper, publicly. In
the final analysis one of the things that came out of it was the observation
that very few of the folks who were arrested over the course of this operation
were known to have been engaged in any serious (say, worse than just being a
pot smoker) criminal activity outside of whatever the ATF agents had enticed
them to do as part of the sting operation. Oftentimes this took the form of
singling out people who weren't too bright, or were in a financial tight spot,
and applying a lot of social pressure to encourage them to commmit crimes.

In other words, the vast majority of the criminal activity people were being
arrested for were crimes that the ATF had manufactured in the first place. The
real burglars and drug dealers knew enough to stay away.

I can't help but worry there might be a similar situation going on here. I'd
be curious to know how many of the 1,000 individuals caught in this operation
have any prior history of abusing children, and I'd be curious to know if the
folks running this operation were using this child persona to actively solicit
people. It's not just that I worry about police entrapment (which I do); it's
also that I worry that these operations might ironically make life easier for
the child pornography and trafficking industries because the investigators are
trapping themselves in their own honeypot.

~~~
tzs
I can see how being in a financial tight spot might lead me agree to commit a
theft that I would not otherwise commit.

I'm having trouble figuring out what kind of spot I could find myself in that
would let me be enticed into paying money to have children sexually abused.

------
gambiting
This is going to be an extremely unpopular opinion,but I would like to
actually have some meaningful discussion about this - am I the only one to
think that chatting/flirting/talking about sex with a generated avatar, no
matter what is it of, should not be a crime?

~~~
JasonFruit
It's probably the same principle as offering to kill someone for a cop; even
though they didn't really have you kill someone, it still is enough to put you
in jail. Here, the perverts thought they were trying to get a little girl to
take her clothes off, even though there wasn't a real little girl.

Now, if they knew it was just a computer-generated image, I think you might
have a point; they'd still be perverts, but maybe (IANAL) not criminals.

~~~
johnchristopher
And yet no crime were actually committed. There are no victims.

~~~
rosser
_There are no victims._

In the specific instance involving "Sweetie", sure.

Please don't tell me you think that Bob, aged 51, had _never before in his
life_ propositioned a child — a child who is in all likelihood _an actual
slave_ — to perform sex acts over the internet, until he happened innocently
to be hanging out in #dirtylittlegirls, and propositioned Sweetie.

~~~
gambiting
Then we should catch Bob propositioning an actual child. Surely we don't want
to have a justice system based on assumptions and probabilities? Either we
have hard evidence or we don't. Chatting to a virtual avatar is not hard
evidence of anything in my opinion.

~~~
rosser
I don't know for certain, but I don't believe the police are making arrests
based solely on an alleged perp's interactions with Sweetie. If you ask me,
however, Bob's propositioning Sweetie creates sufficient Probable Cause to
obtain a warrant to search his computer for evidence of other, similar,
interactions, with _actual_ children. Then he can be prosecuted for the cases
where there _was_ a victim.

------
ScottBurson
I am really surprised at all the negative reactions in here. Let's get some
things straight:

() Entrapment is when the police induce someone to commit a crime they were
not otherwise predisposed to commit. That did not happen here. The only reason
anyone would have to visit these chat rooms in the first place (other than to
see what was going on in there, as the author did) is to buy child webcam sex.

() The individuals caught in this sting thought they were talking to a real
child and had every intention to solicit a real child for sex. We are not
talking about a thought-crime here.

() They had almost certainly done it before, and will continue to do it until
stopped.

There are no difficult questions here. This is a _good thing_.

EDITED to add: By the way, I don't think artwork -- drawings, paintings,
computer animations, whatever -- should ever be illegal _per se_ , no matter
what it depicts. I don't think that artwork of any kind should be illegal to
produce or to view, for any purpose including sexual stimulation, so long as
no actual children or other unwilling victims were involved in its production.

But that's not what we're talking about here. This isn't just about viewing
synthesized materials. This is about people offering to pay for what they
think is a real child to perform sex acts on camera.

~~~
avalaunch
You're making some assumptions that simply aren't backed up in the story. The
story doesn't go into detail about where Sweetie was setup online or who
initiated contact first or how the alleged pedophiles knew that Sweetie was
only 10 years old. So entrapment may have occurred. And I have no idea why you
believe that the alleged pedophiles had almost certainly done it before as
that also wasn't mentioned anywhere in the story.

What we're dealing with here is a vigilante organization running sting
operations where they may or may not be operating in a diligent law abiding
manner. As much as I would like to catch pedophiles, I don't think that's the
sort of thing we should be encouraging.

~~~
ScottBurson
The article is maybe not as explicit about some of these things as it should
be, but I've read about this operation before. My understanding is that they
set Sweetie up in a chat room, just like the room that the author describes.
The people they caught had to come to that room intentionally. I am reasonably
certain Sweetie's operators were well aware of entrapment concerns and
structured their interactions carefully to avoid them. (It certainly would
have been a phenomenal waste to have gone to all the trouble involved in
creating Sweetie and then to have blown everything by doing something stupid
in the chat rooms. I don't think these people are anywhere near that stupid.)

> And I have no idea why you believe that the alleged pedophiles had almost
> certainly done it before

Then you know nothing about child sexual abuse. Perpetrators who are not
caught are extremely likely to keep doing it. Even among those who are caught
and prosecuted, recidivism is extremely high.

"Vigilante organization"? All they did was collect information and turn it
over to the police. A "vigilante" is someone who attempts to enforce the law
themselves, by violence. The term does not apply here.

~~~
dllthomas
_" > And I have no idea why you believe that the alleged pedophiles had almost
certainly done it before

Then you know nothing about child sexual abuse. Perpetrators who are not
caught are extremely likely to keep doing it. Even among those who are caught
and prosecuted, recidivism is extremely high."_

The initial statement was that "because (A) they are attempting it now, (B)
they had probably done it before".

That is, a high P(B|A).

You are asserting that a high P(A|B) (which is well established, I believe)
implies a high P(B|A). I'm not certain that's true even as a generality, much
less as a strong logical implication. Certainly, there could still be a high
P(B) in this case, but I don't think it's well demonstrated.

~~~
ScottBurson
I think there is good reason to believe that the population divides into a
large majority who have never done this and a very small minority who have
done it repeatedly. You would be right in general, but with such a bimodal
distribution the correlation goes both ways. If most of the people who have
ever done it have done it several times, and hardly anyone else has done it at
all, then the odds are small that anyone you catch is doing it for the first
time.

~~~
dllthomas
I think you also need an assumption that the criminal population is not
growing (or is growing sufficiently slowly). Of course, that also seems
plausible.

------
lisper
I wonder if, instead of using this technology to catch pedophiles it might be
used to treat them instead. If computer-generated avatars are good enough to
provide sexual gratification, maybe that would be enough to redirect their
attention away from real kids. There is some evidence that pornography can
reduce the incidence of (adult-on-adult) rape, so it seems not entirely
implausible that it might reduce pedophilic abuse as well.

[1] [http://freakonomics.com/2011/08/04/porn-and-rape-the-
debate-...](http://freakonomics.com/2011/08/04/porn-and-rape-the-debate-
continues/)

~~~
jarin
While it could work, it would never ever be socially accepted as a form of
treatment.

~~~
lisper
Maybe not in the U.S. But the U.S. does not have a monopoly on pedophiles.

------
xenadu02
Why do these stories always bring out the white-knight nerds crying about
"entrapment" or questioning if a crime was truly committed?

Entrapment would be if undercover agents stopped you on the street and hassled
you to come inside and proposition a kid for sex and refused to let you leave,
or even just kept getting in your face over and over. Or maybe even more
subtly, if they kept messaging and pestering you in online chat, suggesting
you could see "them" (fake kid) naked for money, even though you expressed
reluctance about it. __That did not happen here, these were just the super
easy people who jumped easily and quickly at the opportunity to pay to have a
child perform sex acts on video __

Secondly, in every jurisdiction that I know of, this is the crime of Intent to
Commit. It doesn 't matter that the avatar was virtual, it's no different than
an adult cop using picture of a model as bait. You aren't interacting with a
virtual chat bot, you're interacting with an adult human being who happens to
be using a computer-generated avatar. Again, this is no different than buying
fake cocaine from an undercover cop, or attempting to steal a bait car.

Let us not forget that it is statistically improbable that even half of these
1000 people are doing this for the first time. Which means most of them have
paid money to someone to force a kid to perform sex acts on camera, and so
enjoyed the experience they went and sought it out again.

I think more police departments should have officers on staff and hackers as
consultants to engage in consistent and ongoing honeypot operations, not just
for these sorts of crimes, but also for things like online fraud, etc.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
Of course its different - the avatar isn't a real person, not in any
meaningful sense. So what if they witness a person propositioning a poster, or
a blow-up doll, or a DVD on pause with a sexy actress on screen? Its not a
crime, period.

I don't apologize for criminals; just counseling caution when painting
everything with the crime brush.

------
johnchristopher
When I was younger (a late teen) I used to hang out on IRC and forums. I got
in touch with many nicknames, few I ever got to know anything more about them
than their music preferences or opinions on trivial stuff (games, arts,
politics, etc.). And some, I used to play on-line game with them.

Fast forward ten years later (which is 2 years ago) and there is that 14 years
old Norwegian girl popping up in my MSN list. I never added her, I think we
somehow got into each other's buddy list because of those multi-chat layers
some tried to implement over MSN.

In my country, Belgium, we got a huge scandal over abducted girls in the 90's.
That changed a lot of things for some of my friends who were chief of boyscout
and the like: they couldn't handle children the same way as before and every
physical contact was suspicious, some told me they didn't take children in
their arms anymore when they were crying because they feared people might
misinterpret it.

Back to that Norwegian teenager: Had I been a teen I guess I would have
chatted a bit more with her (aah those days when some random nicks on the
deftones forum would send us postcard of his european trip.. on our REAL PO
Box) but all I was concerned about was:

    
    
        Am I being targeted as an on-line pervert by some agency ? If I keep on answering her "who are you ? how did you get in my list ?"... will that be turned against me later for god knows what ?
    

So I told her to not contact me because she doesn't know who I am which is the
adult thing to do but at the end of the day I am sad that the internet land
isn't as open and as welcoming as before.

But it's the same in the real world: One day I am at the mall and there is
that 4 years old crying and asking "mama ?". I asked here "are you lost ?"
"yes" "Well, can you see your mom around you ?" "No". So I told her "Well,
come with me at the information desk and we'll ask them to tell your mom to
meet you there". As _she_ grabbed my hand I saw a woman cashing her groceries
2 meters away and of course she was the mom. That was awkward and it shouldn't
have been.

------
clubhi
I'm so happy these computer generated little girls are now safe.

~~~
fixermark
I'm happy the real flesh-and-blood children who were accessible one screen
name over from Sweetie are now marginally safer.

~~~
dllthomas
They're probably not. Unfortunately, I don't expect that enslaved little girls
whose associated revenue stream dries up typically wind up safe little girls -
the perverts on the other end of a bunch of wires aren't their biggest threat.
I'm happy that there's less inducement to enslave _new_ little girls...

------
DominikR
I don't think it is right for a state to bait people into committing crimes.

Not that I'd ever defend sex offenders, but by creating an opportunity that is
strong enough you could get anyone to commit some kind of crime.

That doesn't have to be a sex offense, it could also be tax evasion,
prostitution, gambling, illegal file sharing (music/films), hate speech,
speeding with a car or consuming illegal drugs.

Most people have some weakness that could be exploited.

------
aroch
I wonder if, had this been done by the police instead of a private charity, if
this would constitute inducement or if any arrests would hold. And if a
affirmative defense could be mounted -- often there is nothing overtly illegal
about text or computer generated imagery.

It would have been fascinating to be the fly on the wall at the various
meetings to decide the legality of arrests based on this information.

------
patcon
Interesting, to say the least. One of my first concerns is whether this tactic
might eventually weaken the ability to prevent child abuse.

To clarify, this is arguably an effective honeypot right now because it
supposedly would not occur to a predator that the child is digital, and so
they can be presumed guilty of engaging with a real child... But what about
when body-scanning gets cheaper, and a foreign website claims to be offering
the services of digital avatars, but is actually sourcing real children. Would
this not give predators plausible deniability, and greatly challenge the
prospect of prosecution?

This feels cynical of me to say, but I don't see this as an omen of future
technological solution to social ills, but rather of uncomfortable future
ambiguity

------
dublinben
Is it really a crime to proposition a virtual child?

~~~
tinco
No, but if it is clear you do not know the child is virtual then it is clear
evidence that you are the sort of person who would proposition a real child.
That information can make cases against predators easier, and might even be
valuable for the police to get a search warrant.

~~~
dublinben
So we're OK with raiding and arresting the "sort of person" we find
undesirable on their _potential_ to commit a crime?

I'm not sure if thought crime or pre-crime are more abhorrent concepts, but
here we are.

~~~
EpicEng
Yes,I'm ok with it,as long as the charge is one of intent. Do you also think
that we should allow people to plan murders, robberies, etc. with no penalty
as long as they do not follow through before they are caught?

~~~
aroch
> Do you also think that we should allow people to plan murders, robberies,
> etc. with no penalty as long as they do not follow through before they are
> caught?

Yes, there's nothing illegal or "wrong" with thinking. That's why every
`conspiracy to X` charge necessarily requires a proof of intent. It isn't
illegal to think about killing someone, if it was 99% of the world would be in
jail.

Put it this way, should it be illegal for whitehat hackers to test a program,
on their home computer, for bugs? There's no intent to do harm but what
they;re doing could cause harm if they intended to.

~~~
EpicEng
Planning != merely thinking. Planning implies intent. And how could white hats
harm anyone by practicing a hack on their own system? There's also a benefit
to this sort of thing. Where is the benefit in planning a murder or searching
for children to abuse? Poor analogy.

~~~
aroch
I can plan a trip to Italy, complete with finding best flights, hotel, etc
with no intention of traveling to Italy. Where's the benefit?

The level of thinking you do should not and does not automatically cause you
to have a certain level of intent.

How could "predators" harm anyone if they're talking to a computer model?

~~~
EpicEng
You could, but that would be a stupid thing to do, as would planning a murder
that you have no intention of committing just "for fun". If you do that, well,
hope no one finds your plans.

Jurors aren't mind readers. We have have a practical way to determine there
was intent. Creating a plan to commit a crime shows intent. If you were doing
it just because you're an ass-hat then you may pay the price for being an
idiot.

No reasonable person is going to document a plan for a crime they have no
intention of committing. You're living in a theoretical fantasy land.

~~~
aroch
Plenty of people fantasize, to great lengths, about killing some one who has
wronged them. Under your view 99% of the population should be in jail because
they've thought about killing someone.

~~~
EpicEng
You're obviously not reading what I write. I'm not talking about fantasizing,
I'm talking about _planning_. not the same thing.

What would you suggest that we do with someone caught with plans to bomb a
building? Let them go until they actually do it and then arrest them?

------
milesf
With a conviction rate of less than %0.000005 of those committing these acts,
this is something governments ought to be pursuing.

Signing the petition [http://youtube.com/sweetie](http://youtube.com/sweetie)

------
z3t4
These losers wouldn't even dare to touch a RL girl. Even though it would be
perfectly legal to have sex with someone as young as 16 or even 12 in many
countries.

So why make their lives any more miserable?

Those who abuse girls IRL should burn in hell though.

------
gress
I'm in no way defending anyone who takes advantage of anyone who's age they
are unsure of (or really anyone who is vulnerable), but I notice that nowhere
do they talk about the age of the person they are modeling.

I'd be curious to know what age a randomized blinded panel would rate their
avatar at. If this was a psychological test, that would be a requirement for
it to be considered valid.

~~~
fixermark
"My name is Sweetie. I am 10 years old. I live in the Phillipines."

~ from the video

~~~
gress
Thanks. That answers part of it, but it doesn't answer the question of what
age people would rate the Avatar at. The two should be consistent.

~~~
fixermark
Yes and no. I haven't seen the whole video, so I'd really have to know what
their procedure was for engaging (suspects/victims/potential predators,
depending on one's [apparently wide-ranging in this thread ;) ] view). "She
said she was 10 but she looked 18" isn't really a tenable defense, as far as
I'm aware.

In every US jurisdiction I'm familiar with, at least, if the honeypot declares
"I'm 10 years old," that's it. Game over if the predator continues to engage
sexually; the honeypot's face-value declaration of age is enough to get the
predator on the hook for intent.

FYI, while Sweetie is a next step in that it has an audio-visual component,
the standard operating procedure in text-only fora for years has been adult
male F.B.I. agents roleplaying as a young male or female child to nab
predators. The declaration of age is part of that standard operating procedure
to make it easy to prove intent ("the chatter even _said_ he was 10 and the
perpetrator still went on with it!").

~~~
gress
I'm not saying it's a defense - it's clearly not. There just seems to be
something creepy about using a representation that looks older and calling it
a younger age.

------
alayne
Why is some non-government agency organizing stings?

~~~
tinco
Because they could. Why wouldn't they?

~~~
alayne
Because it sounds like a witch hunt with an added smell of entrapment instead
of due process.

~~~
fixermark
What would you consider due process to be in this circumstance, vs.
entrapment?

------
moheeb
So how do they prove how old the virtual child is?

~~~
rosser
"My name is Sweetie. I am 10 years old. I live in the Phillipines."

