East Midlands Broadband Consortium (EMBC) Thread, EMBC and Sparklebox in Regional Broadband Consortiums (RBC); I suspect that people on here with family would make no difference between viewing and creating if it was there ...
10th January 2010, 04:29 PM #31
Yes, in that scenario I'm pretty sure I'd struggle to maintain my principles. But in a civilised, rational society there are clearly limits in how far you should accomodate a victim's wishes (which for a bunch obvious, excusable reasons are not always entirely rational). It's a factor to consider, not the entire case.
I suspect that people on here with family would make no difference between viewing and creating if it was there child/brother/sister or cousin who was abused.
Says who? I'm not saying escalation doesn't happen, but without evidence I'm not prepared to accept it as a general rule.
Each time they get away with it each time it escalates until they start creating abuse photos.
Last edited by PiqueABoo; 10th January 2010 at 04:41 PM.
Reason: Says who?
IDG Tech News
10th January 2010, 04:44 PM #32
From CEOP Training ... there is clear evidence that the acceptability barrier is broken down in a downward spiral by the viewing of CP and sexual stimulation. If you want to see the stats and so on for yourself then go on the training. It is a real and dangerous issue. The same issue is created due to pseudo-images, hence why that is now illegal too.
There is a radical difference in CP images and images of children used for sexual stimulation in the eyes of the law. The first involves the violation, assault and sexualisation of children. The latter can be holding and trading of images of children which the person has not right to, and is used for sexual stimulation. Some might say the latter is victimless, but if privacy has been intruded on then is it truly victimless?
Again, back to CEOP training ... the question was raised at the event I was on about the link between accessing CP images / material (including literature) and going on to commit physical acts ... and whether it was, as you suggested, a possible release? The answer was that there was no evidence to show that someone who subsequently went on to be directly involved in assaulting children would have been prevented by release through viewing materials, in fact many offenders who were willing to work with criminologists and psychologists said the reverse, that they went on to committing acts *after* viewing materials.
One of the difficulties is accessing the psych evaluations of some of this ... it is a tad hard to search for on the internet after all ... what are you going to do? Put 'child pr0nography psychology' in the search engiine (with correct spelling)?
My notes were 'borrowed' by a teacher from my last school and mislaid, but I will be doing a refresher later in the year. I would whole-heartedly recommend people to become Think You Know ambassadors (and gain the ability to train others in delivering the CEOP eSafety materials) ... as well as the materials you also cover a number of other areas that clear up some common myths and misconceptions, help remove some of the media brain-washing and also gives a sense of perspective in how harrowing it all is.
It doesn't look like CEOP are at BETT this year (Last year's stand was a bit last minute I think but a good effort) but I am sure they would be happy to get some materials out to folk interested.
10th January 2010, 06:40 PM #33
I think the quote from Sparklebox imprisonment - BrendenisTeaching.com is a good one to pass onto heads and teachers.
The site may well continue to remain online as it is, as it will continue to provide Sam (Kinge) with an income indefinitely with its current set of resources and advertisements.
10th January 2010, 09:28 PM #34
Been a lot of research on the subject of criminal profiling and the fact that criminals as rule escalate from small time to large crimes. This is especially true of crimes where involve sadistic, abusive or murderous nature.
Originally Posted by PiqueABoo
12th January 2010, 11:53 PM #35
Would that set off alarm bells at your local nick then?
what are you going to do? Put 'child pr0nography psychology' in the search engiine (with correct spelling)?
Adding big long feasible academic-ish words to searches has been landing me in safe waters e.g. "recividism", "desensitization" and so on. The main problem doing this for any subject is how often you end up at a summary of a research paper where you need a paid subscription to read the full thing. The summary might tell you a bit, but it's just bound to end with something like "Finally, we discuss possible reasons for those counter-intuitive results" which for all I know could say "..so we concluded that our experimental design was inherently flawed".
One of my interesting finds was that (now Prof.) Yaman Akendiz published a book 18 months ago. Can't read that without shelling out either but a review had this to say:
Specifically, the author calls for informed debate as to the nature of CP related crimes and offenders and cautions against public and government distortion of the meaning of pedophilia. For example, he contends that those who solely view or download (i.e. “possess”) CP should not be necessarily cast as a sexual predator because no causal link has been shown to exist between viewing CP and active molestation.
The latter does not mean there is not a causal link i.e. one might yet be clearly demonstrated and perhaps it subsequently has. This of course, although it's only just dawned on me(!), must be a difficult area to research - you can't, for instance, attempt to measure responses to illegal images.
I'm still sticking with my "[basic facts] + inappropriate for an organisation.." thing. You wouldn't really need to wheel out the "income" argument as well to persuade someone would you?
I think the quote from Sparklebox imprisonment - BrendenisTeaching.com is a good one to pass onto heads and teachers.
But I might pass this quote on too because some sparklebox content consumers may wonder: "The court heard that even though images of young people could be uploaded onto sparklebox.com, there was no suggestion that Kinge had been distributing pornography through it."
Last edited by PiqueABoo; 12th January 2010 at 11:59 PM.
Reason: Swapped irksome amazon link for another
13th January 2010, 12:28 AM #36
- Rep Power
both Manchester & east cheshire have blocked it
13th January 2010, 01:03 AM #37
13th January 2010, 08:24 AM #38
All of the above long arguments seem a little moot, unless I misunderstand, when "the defendant admitted making indecent images of children." The intent is obvious, the harm may/has already been done, albeit psychologically.
13th January 2010, 09:41 PM #39
Ok, unless I'm misunderstanding you, this is an area of computer relevant law I think all professional computer geeks should become at least vaguely acquainted with, alongside DPA, CMA, copyright and so on. In this context the word "making" has special legal meaning that probably runs to several chapters since it was originally news and debated to death on at least one mail list.
unless I misunderstand, when "the defendant admitted making
indecent images of children."
AIUI in a nutshell: The original CP relevant law was largely focused on production not consumption i.e. "making" was closer to the usual dictionary sense. Then PCs and the net introduced new problems but the law lagged behind, so around the turn of the century the existing legal meaning was stretched a bit : Viewing an existing image on a computer screen is an example of "making", so is copying say a JPG file from one computer to another.
But the offence is really about knowingly making, otherwise network admins could have a few problems e.g. when they throw 27 trillion files (that other people 'own') from here to there or even just run a backup, they might be innocently copying a indecent image.
This leads into what you do if in the course of your normal duties you stumble across a image like that or suspect, say because of file names, that some images might be like that. If you now knowingly view them or copy them anywhere then in principle you break the law, and you also also muddy the forensic evidence. Ultimately I think it's in your best interests to try and stop doing everything with that computer/laptop and discreetly pass the buck to the official local experts ASAP, and if you don't know who they are then ask your LA.
13th January 2010, 09:51 PM #40
If in the eyes of the law any of the above is classified as "making" then we truly are living in an entirely mentally deficit society run by below average IQ'd idiots hiding behind their own red tape.
It may be my own mental deficiency that gives me the black and white behind it - to make = to manufacture. The people who want to add the grey areas into it want shooting just as much as the offenders. I have been seething about this news, and if I had the pleasure of bumping into the offender in question I'd have happily set about his testicles with a sharp pencil, cheese grater and soldering iron. If indeed the charge is ACTUALLY just "viewing" said images with some dictionary-skewing moron changing the word "make" to suit their own perverted needs, I'd do away with the grater and hot iron.
I know I'm an odd fella sometimes but quite frankly when someone is taking pictures of children being abused by others or themselves, or viewing pictures of children having been photographed and abused by others remotely, the grey areas need to be forgotten and that someone needs to be hanged.
13th January 2010, 10:04 PM #41
In the event of coming across inappropriate images (stuff most would consider run of the mill pr0n) then you should stop doing what you are doing, contact your line manager (or at least a second person) and only continue with a witness present, documenting what you are doing. You need to make sure the witness is aware of what the images may contain and that they agree to be a witness. There is no legislation covering this, but the above is good practice, based on investigation procedures followed by many areas including police forces.
If you come across items that you think are illegal (involving children, the use of physical force, animals, etc) then you should pull contact the police immediately, inform the child protection officer at the school and follow the *police* instructions ... *they* will want to preserve as much evidence as possible and may ask you to do things like remove the power *without shutting down* by pulling the adapter out / pulling the battery / pulling the power lead out.
Important things not to do no matter how much others in the school say otherwise ...
Do *not* copy the files to another location.
Do *not* attempt to delete the files
Do *not* take an image or try to re-image the machine.
Do *not* remove the hard drive
Do *not* continue to look at the other files.
Do *not* discuss this with anyone other than the Child Protection Officer and the Head, unless instructed to do by the investigating officer.
2 Thanks to GrumbleDook:
sparkeh (13th January 2010), synaesthesia (13th January 2010)
13th January 2010, 10:11 PM #42
Most of us can only hope we never have to do that at all, but it's good advice - and importantly it could cease the further abuse of more children down the line.
13th January 2010, 10:22 PM #43
Can I just say from personal experience where someone did not follow the correct procedure, please please do this, it makes a hell of a difference to the outcome.
Originally Posted by GrumbleDook
13th January 2010, 10:52 PM #44
I see it a quite simple:
There is Producing, Distributing, Storing and Viewing,
And in that order the offences should carry lesser penalties (but still months). In many cases distributing, storing and viewing could be done without knowledge and they should be investigated.
That nursery worker recently would come in under three and quite rightly got a much heavier sentence.
As for the pictures of children on the website, yes I feel sick thinking about 'how' he is viewing them, but wasn't the content user generated?
Computing has made a lot of our laws obsolete, not just copyright ones!
By Roopert in forum Educational Software
Last Post: 23rd January 2013, 02:07 PM
By TechSupp in forum Yorkshire & Humberside Grid for Learning (YHGfL)
Last Post: 26th January 2010, 11:14 AM
By danielson81 in forum Educational Software
Last Post: 5th January 2010, 07:14 PM
By danielson81 in forum Internet Related/Filtering/Firewall
Last Post: 9th November 2009, 06:29 PM
By madcyryl in forum Internet Related/Filtering/Firewall
Last Post: 21st September 2009, 01:05 PM
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)