Sparklebox on Inside Out (BBC)

[Michael]

You expect MPs to have morals?

 

I really do, especially for the people of tomorrow, but that's just me and why I am not an MP!

[PiqueABoo]

If it were up to me all toolbars would be banned from the school.

 

Me too.. you've had one of those IE upgrade disasters or maybe just a CC3 system where RMMC stops working, haven't you?

 

--

 

We have no idea who is really running the site.

 

Or the other 100 zillion unblocked web-sites out there. Yes the use of this one is quite prevalent in schools and obviously of more immediate concern, but I strive for a world that's a bit more logically consistent: Will any of the "rules" rounded up for this one ever be applied to the rest, or will they just be reserved for sites people want rid of?

 

there is still a question over the position of a site with the facilities to upload pictures of students with no clear guidance about protecting pupils.

 

Eh? Why is that the responsibility, rather than a voluntary kindness, of any site where you can upload stuff? I think it's the teacher's employers jobs to warn them against doing that (plus take action if ignored, well assuming they can squeeze that in before the parents torch the school).

 

--

 

As it stands there's nothing in law to stop an offender of this nature to continue to deliver services to education and I think there should be.

 

Act in haste, repent at leisure. I think we've had enough rushed/open-ended-law for a while, and unless someone can put up a compelling argument explaining how this scenario puts kids at risk, I don't see the case for it. There's some serious ethical issues in play here and I don't think the answers are clear cut.

 

Did you catch the comment in the video about the Home Office not commenting? Could be wrong, but I guess that's about the ECHR challenge to a couple of folk (who want off) being kept on the sex offenders register. Perhaps we'd better see which way that goes before inventing more post-time-served conditions for people.

Edited January 26, 2010 by PiqueABoo

[Michael]

unless someone can put up a compelling case explaining how this scenario puts kids at risk

 

Well it's quite simple really. With money generated by the website he's going abroad and pretending to have the best interest of children at heart, when in fact it's something I don't wish to put into words other than disgusting.

To prove a point further why have LAs around the country added it to filter lists? It's all about risk assessment and although we're all pro IT here in children's interests, child safety will always be no.1.

[PiqueABoo]

With money generated by the website

 

Money can be generated in a zillion ways, so should we stop people like this ever earning any? A more satisfactory answer to this predicament was given by the police in the video.

 

This is just the concerned truth AIUI not deliberate argument: What you said next in that sentence looks a teensy bit defamatory and you don't have any evidence for a defence.

[Michael]

Money can be generated in a zillion ways, so should we stop people like this ever earning any?

 

This is what I want to clarify. Someone who is convicted of an offense of this nature (in this example) is banned from schools and banned making contact with children. This should be extended further to include services to education in any capacity.

 

As you put it, there are a zillion ways to make money operating a website. Don't you find it a little coincidental SB is aimed specifically at education? He's basically exploiting weaknesses in the law so police are unable to close SB at the current time.

[PiqueABoo]

Don't you find it a little coincidental SB is aimed specifically at education?

 

What do you do when you've been kicked out of teaching, probably the only profession you've known, and have served time for a sexual offence? Sign on for long enough until they send you on a fork-lift truck driving course (be very lucky to get a job, so repeat ad infinitum)? Or use a transferable skill and employ yourself? OTOH perhaps there was some wicked motive as well, but I don't have a clue about that. Does anyone?

 

This should be extended further to include services to education in any capacity.

 

This could be a big extension e.g. SB produces stuff that people go and get then put on school walls, so does a paint factory.

 

No one will be harmed by an SB resource. The actual problem as I see it: When some people see an SB logo in a school they will unavoidably be reminded of this story and whatever associations that brings them, which is absolutely not what you want happening in a school, especially when a small fraction of those people might get a bit aggravated. I agree with GD that it's not a good thing to be seen to "endorse" it either. So fine, filter the site and at the very least get the stuff with the logos off the walls.

[LeMarchand]

What do you do when you've been kicked out of teaching, probably the only profession you've known, and have served time for a sexual offence? Sign on for long enough until they send you on a fork-lift truck driving course (be very lucky to get a job, so repeat ad infinitum)? Or use a transferable skill and employ yourself?

 

Sounds like a great idea. Why didn't he do just that in a way that wasn't going to directly involve education?

 

This could be a big extension e.g. SB produces stuff that people go and get then put on school walls, so does a paint factory.

 

The difference being that a paint factory isn't aimed specifically at schools. Mr Kinge chose to create a service directly aimed at schools. I don't think that anyone would object if S/D K went to work for Viking (Office Supply peeps) but alarm bells would be raised if he chose to work for Supplies for Schools. (Chosen purely because their catalogue is on my desk).

 

No one will be harmed by an SB resource.

 

Not directly, but the monies raised by the site were used to harm children.

[PiqueABoo]

The difference being that a paint factory isn't aimed specifically at schools.

 

Agreed, but I was addressing "any capacity" not "aimed specifically at". Regardless, this appears to be a relatively unique scenario, I don't see the risk to children and I don't think it's worth throwing truckloads of dwindling public dosh at making some new law for it. Wouldn't it be better to chuck it at something like CEOPs education/awareness stuff instead?

 

monies raised by the site were used to harm children.

 

How so? I don't recall anything in the post-sentencing media reports about that.

[Dos_Box]

This is what I want to clarify. Someone who is convicted of an offense of this nature (in this example) is banned from schools and banned making contact with children. This should be extended further to include services to education in any capacity.

 

As you put it, there are a zillion ways to make money operating a website. Don't you find it a little coincidental SB is aimed specifically at education? He's basically exploiting weaknesses in the law so police are unable to close SB at the current time.

 

When you're banned from driving the last thing you do is get a job as a taxi driver!

[Michael]

When you're banned from driving the last thing you do is get a job as a taxi driver!

 

Hehe indeed

[PiqueABoo]

When you're banned from driving the last thing you do is get a job as a taxi driver!

 

When I run the universe I'll be criminalising motoring analogies. That just about works for say putting someone in charge of an orphanage.

[LeMarchand]

Agreed, but I was addressing "any capacity" not "aimed specifically at". Regardless, this appears to be a relatively unique scenario, I don't see the risk to children and I don't think it's worth throwing truckloads of dwindling public dosh at making some new law for it. Wouldn't it be better to chuck it at something like CEOPs education/awareness stuff instead?

 

How so? I don't recall anything in the post-sentencing media reports about that.

 

Part 1: I agree, but surely a judge could/should add some sort of codicil to the sentencing of people like Mr Kinge to prevent his involvement in businesses that involve children/child education? If it can be specified that he has to have police monitoring for net activity (not sure how they plan to do that - what's to stop him visiting a friend/relative and using their machine?) then why not that he has to run any business plan etc past the police or some other suitable body/person?

 

Part 2: Sparklebox was Mr Kinge's source of income. Mr Kinge is a paedophile. Even if you argue that the pictures he collected were from free sources (highly unlikely) and think that his trips to orphanages in a third world country were purely altruistic (the police don't seem to be happy about his visits), at the very least the site financed his net connection. He used this to obtain child abuse pictures and to visit a child abuse website. He also created photos, so even if there were no other costs involved the money from Sparklebox financed the equipment used.

[russdev]

To be honest there is one big issue with SB and that is the site allows students to upload profiles and pictures which he as owner had access to ALL.

 

This gives me a big head start when grooming kids if he has got some information on it.

 

Russ

[AyatollahPies]

Wouldn't it be better to chuck it at something like CEOPs education/awareness stuff instead?

 

 

I think having CEOP accreditation would work a treat for such sites. Quite why the other staff at Sparklebox haven't already created their own new site and asked for the likes of CEOP to accredit them to reassure users is puzzling me.

[SimpleSi]

Its been Youtubed

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8kliX6NCBY]YouTube- Sparklebox Report[/ame]

 

I'm going to take a copy into my schools and see if it changes any minds of people who just want it unblocked again.

 

regards

 

Simon

[PiqueABoo]

the police don't seem to be happy about his visits

 

If you're part of the system that helps prevent someone having contacts with kids in this country, I can't see you being happy with them doing that elsewhere. You're either concerned about their conduct everywhere, or just paying lip service. I don't think you can reasonably read anything else (e.g. we think he did X), into that unhappiness.

 

He also created photos

 

This is what I said in an earlier SB thread when someone else was quite reasonably misled by this: 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.

 

the site allows students to upload profiles and pictures

 

Where can they do that or has that functionality been disappeared? Again, who actually used the site given that it's a teacher's favourite and would any kid of grooming age ( Yahoo Kids! says it's around 11-15 yrs because that's when they get to go places by themselves) want to hang around with lots of Primary teachers on a Primary resources site? Did any students ever upload ther photos?

 

I think that's a perfectly credible argument if you have a blanket policy to deny student access to those kind of features on any site where you find them. But if you have that then why wasn't it blocked already?

 

I think having CEOP accreditation would work a treat for such sites.

 

I agree. Do they (or anyone else) do that?

[pooley]

The scare mongering has begun throughout the country, our HT had an email from a "professional" in another lea, who said that a friend of her mums who is a teacher (i kid you not) said "it had been rumored that by accessing this website and downloading free resources the owner could then access any images on your computer"

 

I agree that the site should not be accessed etc but how long before we cant see the wood from the trees and teachers start running around saying the "sky is falling" as they have used sparklebox on their home pc's?

[GrumbleDook]

That is why a consistent message needs to be sent out. I've already outlined the points that I raise with any schools who call in for more information (not included in LA / RBC guidance).

1 - The lack of registration for data protection

2 - The lack of contactability for those working on / running the site

3 - The lack of knowledge about the plans for the site including any content shared by the school (ie IPR, copyright, etc)

 

This is before the 'moral' aspect of the site ... but if that is what people are confused around then all I would personally say is that I would not use the site directly but access the resources via one of the mirrors. This avoids the issue about whether people believe they are contributing to the lifestyle of the S/D K, and personally, until I get a bit more info about how the company is run I really can't start talking about whether this means the staff at the site will lose their jobs due to lack of revenue ...

[LeMarchand]

If you're part of the system that helps prevent someone having contacts with kids in this country, I can't see you being happy with them doing that elsewhere. You're either concerned about their conduct everywhere, or just paying lip service. I don't think you can reasonably read anything else (e.g. we think he did X), into that unhappiness.

 

So why do you think that he was banned from contact with children as part of his first sentence? Is he less likely to try to abuse kids in a country where for a few dollars you can probably do whatever the hell you want without fear of the law?

 

This is what I said in an earlier SB thread when someone else was quite reasonably misled by this: 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.

 

Without a transcript of what was said in court (is there one available?) we're unlikely to find out which definition was in use, but the reporting of "possessing" x images and "making" y images suggests that there is some differentiation made between the two. Even if there isn't, my point is still valid: he had to pay for the equipment on which to view/create pictures of children being abused, and his income was from the Sparklebox site. Therefore money made by Sparklebox was used to harm children. I don't see why you have such a problem with this fact.

[PiqueABoo]

So why do you think that he was banned from contact with children as part of his first sentence? Is he less likely to try to abuse kids in a country where for a few dollars you can probably do whatever the hell you want without fear of the law?

 

You can say things like that until the cows come home, but I will *not* treat it as evidence that he actually did something bad to a child in another country.

 

The individual risk is anyone's guess but he's in a category that represents a higher threat to children than normal. I obviously don't want someone like that in a trust relationship with my child and it's a very short ethical hop to not wanting them in a trust relationship with any child anywhere on the planet. Because there is some evidence of him seeking contact with children when abroad, the police believe they may be able to restrict his future travel - I don't think there is anything else worth saying on this aspect of this story.

 

Without a transcript of what was said in court (is there one available?) we're unlikely to find out which definition was in use

 

I don't need one - look at the charges, look at the sentence, look at the quotes from the judge's little speech. Failing that, if it were making=creating originals, wouldn't the media have been **all over it**?

 

Therefore money made by Sparklebox was used to harm children. I don't see why you have such a problem with this fact.

 

I don't have a problem with that, but my standards, especially if I were promoting an ethical argument on this notoriously emotive (and thus muddled) topic, would compel me, same as the law of the land does, to distinguish between someone:

 

a) viewing CP

b) raping a child

 

The harm in the viewing is an abstract variety[1] and not the direct molestation that probably springs to most peoples minds when you casually say someone "harmed children".

 

[1] The "to a degree complicit in" argument does work for me in the same way as buying Nike footballs back when they were made with child labour, but you can't claim it's stunningly obvious when it has apparently defeated a few judge's over the years "because they didn't have a victim" in front of them.

Edited January 31, 2010 by PiqueABoo
typo

[GrumbleDook]

The things that has sometimes been difficult to get across, without the media scare-mongering that whips up witch-hunts, is that this is not a victimless crime. This is on 3 levels.

1 - The direct assaults and violations of the victims of whom the imagery is made.

2 - The continuing requirement for this imagery and the viewing / transfer of it creates a market which means that the direct assault and violation of victims goes beyond the initial crime and turns it into a business. A significant number of those running such businesses are abusers themselves, but if you equated it to drug dealing ... that might help some people understand the seriousness of it being a business.

Please note that the victims in these cases are the the children.

3 - This one might be not be an obvious one to some people. The final 'victim' is the person who is 'normalised' to these assaults and violations by these images, possibly then going on to commit violations and assaults themselves. There is research into what triggers people to view these images and become normalised instead of repulsed but if the images were not around this might mean that the 'viewer' is a normal, balanced member of society. This is, of course, not to be seen in any way an excuse for why they do it (which papers jump on when they hear of this sort of research ... ) or even mitigation, but a view of trying to spot the problem earlier and deal with it, or even prevent it in the first place. There is a reason why there are a number of high profile abusers who were abused themselves ... and that is down to the normalisation process. If they can be counselled then it significantly reduces and removes the chance that they might be triggered to commit such offences themselves. And yes ... I also know that sections of the media call this bleeding-heart liberalism.

[SimpleSi]

It was interesting at one of my schools when one of my "Im the head - i'm right -your wrong" types was telling me that I didn't understand the situation

 

I thought - well I've been across it for last 6 months and I told my heads before Lancs sent anything out and its a complex and morally ambiguous area.

 

But as with all grey matters (and a few black and white issues as well) we all come to slightly (or widely) different opinions.

 

I believe (just my opinion) that the sites not dangerous - hes not dangerous to anyone close to me or mine but I wouldn't want any chance of him getting any monetary/physical reward with regard to children/education if he can't stick to society norms re child sex.

 

I have had family dealings with alleged child abuse and it is one of the most sickening things to deal with mentally and you wouldn't want to associate with anyone who wants to view such images (IMHO)

 

regards

 

Simon

[PiqueABoo]

The things that has sometimes been difficult to get across, without the media scare-mongering that whips up witch-hunts, is that this is not a victimless crime.

 

I could recite the words e.g. "complicit in" etc., as well as anyone, but it took me ages to construct a mental position where I had the slightest chance of justifying them. To get there I began with the following and essentially extrapolated in the less serious direction: Imagine someone paid for someone else to enact and produce a video of their favourite child abuse fantasy.

 

The continuing requirement for this imagery and the viewing / transfer of it creates a market

 

I've got some numbers at my fingertips. I looked but couldn't find anything but a zillion rehashes of the news agency release so I'm not really sure what to make of it:

 

Unicef also estimates there are more than four million websites featuring minors, including those of children aged under two years.

 

More than 200 new images are also circulated daily, according to Maala, who pointed out the production and distribution of child pornographic images rakes in between 3 and 20 billion dollars (2.04 and 13.62 billion euros) a year.

 

Truckloads of truckloads more business that I'd have imagined you could sneak past global law enforcement these days. But the new image rate (assuming it's not "images of new victims", there are multiple images of the same children etc.) is not as much as I would have imagined.

 

For perspective on the latter, last time I looked on average 25,000 children die every day from mostly preventable stuff in mostly shitty circumstances . [see also Bill Gate's mission - I would never have expected to like him, but if anyone's going to make a difference, plus that recent **10 billion** dollar commitment..]

Edited January 31, 2010 by PiqueABoo
typo