EMBC and Sparklebox

[PiqueABoo]

The result according to the Mail "On Friday [08-01-2010] Kinge was jailed for 12 months at Worcester Crown Court after admitting downloading 424 indecent images of children."

 

You cannot take Person A and Person B as vastly separate.

 

Yes I can. You could have caught me drinking a beer in a restaurant last night which puts me on an alcohol-dependency spectrum, so would you subsequently file me, and everyone else who has ever done that, under "not vastly different from an violent alcoholic"?

 

I'm no expert on any of this and I'm willing to be corrected, but I doubt that "spectrum" (is it?) of yours is a steady slope. I suppose there will be some with sufficiently screwed up "wiring" to just breeze past it, but for most people the psychological barrier between getting off on CP in private and any related activity out in the real world has got to be a significant one, surely?

 

Perhaps it's there, but I need to see some research on the risks of Person A advancing to actual harm. And given that this particular offence is relatively new, we can't know about the long term risks i.e. in principle they will end up higher than any numbers you can find now.

 

but they thought about it ... they were stimulated by it ... is that as bad as actually doing it?

 

Only if you want to live in Nineteen Eighty-Four, but perhaps we can gain some further insight into that from one of the gamers who get their adrenaline kicks from running around with BFGs maiming and murdering virtual people?

 

Are people who enjoy that generally accepted activity more likely to be violent in real-life? Or are they model citizens in real-life because they've got the dark stuff out of their systems in those virtual worlds?

 

I don't know the answer, but is the availability of CP via the net satisfying some "urges" and reducing the risk of people going out and doing actual harm to real children. Or is it helping drag people further away from reality, making child abuse more "normal" and acceptable and increasing the risk?

 

Basically I don't know what to think, but I'm not going to fix that with anything that doesn't have some credible supporting evidence.

Edited January 10, 2010 by PiqueABoo

[AyatollahPies]

The result according to the Mail "On Friday [08-01-2010] Kinge was jailed for 12 months at Worcester Crown Court after admitting downloading 424 indecent images of children."

 

 

 

Yes I can. You could have caught me drinking a beer in a restaurant last night which puts me on an alcohol-dependency spectrum, so would you subsequently file me, and everyone else who has ever done that, under "not vastly different from an violent alcoholic"?

 

I'm no expert on any of this and I'm willing to be corrected, but I doubt that "spectrum" (is it?) of yours is a steady slope. I suppose there will be some with sufficiently screwed up "wiring" to just breeze past it, but for most people the psychological barrier between getting off on CP in private and any related activity out in the real world has got to be a significant one, surely?

 

Perhaps it's there, but I need to see some research on the risks of Person A advancing to actual harm. And given that this particular offence is relatively new, we can't know about the long term risks i.e. in principle they will end up higher than any numbers you can find now.

 

 

 

Only if you want to live in Nineteen Eighty-Four, but perhaps we can gain some further insight into that from one of the gamers who get their adrenaline kicks from running around with BFGs maiming and murdering virtual people?

 

Are people who enjoy that generally accepted activity more likely to be violent in real-life? Or are they model citizens in real-life because they've got the dark stuff out of their systems in those virtual worlds?

 

I don't know the answer, but is the availability of CP via the net satisfying some "urges" and reducing the risk of people going out and doing actual harm to real children. Or is it helping drag people further away from reality, making child abuse more "normal" and acceptable and increasing the risk?

 

Basically I don't know what to think, but I'm not going to fix that with anything that doesn't have some credible supporting evidence.

 

If they are viewing pictures then a child has already been harmed, otherwise there wouldn't be any pictures to look at.

[LeMarchand]

If they are viewing pictures then a child has already been harmed, otherwise there wouldn't be any pictures to look at.

 

Exactly!

 

News report at 02:03:35 on iPlayer. May be worth playing to some staff!

[PiqueABoo]

If they are viewing pictures then a child has already been harmed, otherwise there wouldn't be any pictures to look at.

 

Maybe next millenium...

 

I get that bit and it's nothing like an answer to the questions you highlighted.

 

And your answer can be wrong e.g. innocent (no harm done, from Next catalogues or whatever) images can become indecent ones if they're in a child sex abuser's possession. Across the pond the US Supreme Court disagreed, but here but pseudo-images that were created without anyone being harmed are apparently considered like real ones.

 

Let's try the question again from a different angle: Has the number of people directly "interfering" with children increased, decreased or stayed the same since everyone and their dog got hooked up to the internet?

[russdev]

I think the key here as was in ep of CSI I was watching last night. The point was made everyone went on about the suspects and people caught doing the crime but the victim gets lost.

 

You have to remember these are photos of child abuse not pornography. There is a very good talk on NACE (I think) from Jim Gamble of CEOP that if we give it name child pornography we give it an element of 'approval' . You have to think of it like this.

 

I should also make point that people do not go from nothing to abusing a child (or any crime) as a rule. People start of with something such as they start looking at photos of child abuse then the kick they get off it is no longer is there so they have to up the game. So then it goes to something small scale like flashing at a child. Each time they get away with it each time it escalates until they start creating abuse photos.

 

Thing to remember is that people create abuse photos not to create content but so they can relive the enjoyment they got first time around abusing the child. I will accept there are few people who create purely for financial gain but they are few and far between.

 

Also remember that people who are abused as children (or as adults) live with that till the day they die.

 

A child was sexually abused to give the person viewing it some kind of enjoyment. 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?

Edited January 10, 2010 by russdev

[PiqueABoo]

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.

 

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.

 

Each time they get away with it each time it escalates until they start creating abuse photos.

 

Says who? I'm not saying escalation doesn't happen, but without evidence I'm not prepared to accept it as a general rule.

Edited January 10, 2010 by PiqueABoo
Says who?

[GrumbleDook]

@PiqueABoo

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.

[SimpleSi]

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.

 

I think the quote from Sparklebox imprisonment - BrendenisTeaching.com is a good one to pass onto heads and teachers.

 

regards

 

Simon

[russdev]

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.

 

 

 

Says who? I'm not saying escalation doesn't happen, but without evidence I'm not prepared to accept it as a general rule.

 

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.

[PiqueABoo]

what are you going to do? Put 'child pr0nography psychology' in the search engiine (with correct spelling)?

 

Would that set off alarm bells at your local nick then?

 

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 think the quote from Sparklebox imprisonment - BrendenisTeaching.com is a good one to pass onto heads and teachers.

 

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?

 

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."

Edited January 12, 2010 by PiqueABoo
Swapped irksome amazon link for another

[Boon72]

both Manchester & east cheshire have blocked it

[synaesthesia]

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.

[PiqueABoo]

unless I misunderstand, when "the defendant admitted making indecent images of children."

 

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.

 

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.

[synaesthesia]

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.

[GrumbleDook]

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.

[synaesthesia]

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.

[sparkeh]

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

 

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.

[Mr.Ben]

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!