In a maximum security mental health facility in Montreal is a "cave-like" virtual reality vault that's used to show images of child sexual abuse to sex offenders. Patients sit inside the vault with devices placed around their penises to measure signs of arousal as they are shown computer-generated animations of naked children.
"We do develop pornography, but these images and animations are not used for the pleasure of the patient but to assess them," said Patrice Renaud, who heads up the project at the Institut Philippe-Pinel. "It's a bit like using a polygraph but with other measurement techniques."
The system, combined with other psychological assessments, is used to build up a profile of the individual's sexual preferences that can be used by the court to determine the risk they pose to society and by mental health professionals to determine treatment.
[...] The patients sit on a stool inside the chamber wearing stereoscopic glasses which create the three-dimensional effect on the surrounding walls. The glasses are fitted with eye-tracking technology to ensure they aren't trying to trick the system by avoiding looking at the critical content.
Source: The Guardian
(Score: 3, Insightful) by DannyB on Thursday June 08 2017, @06:12PM (9 children)
Maybe they avoid looking at something because they don't want to see it. That may seem like a radical and novel idea.
Young people won't believe you if you say you're older than Google. (born before 1998-09-03)
(Score: 2, Disagree) by DeathMonkey on Thursday June 08 2017, @06:36PM (8 children)
If they don't want to look at it then they probably won't get a hard-on if they're forced to look at it.
(Score: 4, Funny) by DannyB on Thursday June 08 2017, @06:58PM
That may or may not be true about the hard on. But not wanting to look at it, once you've glanced it, recognized what it is, and refuse to look, is a valid response.
Someone who finds such material appealing may be unable to resist looking at it. That is probably who you are looking for. "I just can't help myself. It's like a magnet. I have to just grab them by the covfefe and kiss them. They'll let you do anything if you're a president."
Young people won't believe you if you say you're older than Google. (born before 1998-09-03)
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Thursday June 08 2017, @07:13PM (2 children)
Looking at the images in TFA (sorry), I'd assume most people, pedophile or not, would not be turned on.
There's a market for creepy CGI porn. I'm not sure this kind of research is its sweet spot.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Thursday June 08 2017, @07:19PM (1 child)
Looking at the images...
Hey now! Not falling for that one again!!
I'd assume most people, pedophile or not, would not be turned on. There's a market for creepy CGI porn. I'm not sure this kind of research is its sweet spot.
Helps to reduce false-positives?
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Thursday June 08 2017, @07:25PM
Very true. You can easily believe you DO have to worry about guys who get excited by that.
Or maybe not, because they're more likely to find a hot dog exciting than a real kid.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by edIII on Thursday June 08 2017, @08:18PM (2 children)
I have serious issues with forcing them to look at it. Unless these are people convicted of actual sexual assault against non-virtual children that are willingly cooperating with the research, that's akin to torture. We have stories about people that've been destroyed by taking shit jobs with Google/Facebook in the hopes of becoming regular employees, only to leave as husks after seeing the filth of the Internet for 8-10 hours a day.
It's completely fucking ridiculous too. We're testing if somebody can get hard (which means men only) to virtual reality porn. I can't. Hentai is kinda funny to me to watch, but beyond the amusement factor, there is no sexual arousal. So the test only works against people sexually attracted to children, that can also be sexually attracted to a fucking cartoon.
If it has any chance at success, it needs to be real pictures, and that's a problem too. VR isn't there yet. That uncanny valley is simply insufficient at this point to get hard. We'd need holodeck grade pussy for that.
As another posted stated, this is an example of insane people running the asylum.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 08 2017, @08:44PM
You are assuming that your definition and understanding of arousal matches that of the people who would inflict this on you.
They could measure blood flow to your penis and detect any hint of what they want to call arousal. They could show you a hundred regular porn pics and then one scantily clad child. They could train your brain into being attracted to children.
Today it's researchers and CGI. Tomorrow it's CIA with real porn they produced. And you will love it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 08 2017, @09:05PM
What if someone is only sexually attracted to cartoons? I guess your previous conditions (having assaulted real children before) should take care of that. But then there are also child rapists who are not really pedophiles and merely acted opportunistically.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by mojo chan on Friday June 09 2017, @07:26AM
In previous experiments it was found that men who said they found gay sex disgusting actually got aroused a little when seeing it. Turns out that the body is so hard wired for reproduction that even when the conscious mind is not into it, the body will try to get ready anyway.
This sounds like total bunk to me, no better than a polygraph.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 08 2017, @06:12PM (11 children)
What they say is true: The ones who are insane are the ones who run the asylums.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 08 2017, @06:21PM (10 children)
Along the same idea that hot or cold enforced baths would cure people.
The problem is not if people get excited. It's if they act in a detrimental way to it.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Thursday June 08 2017, @06:38PM (5 children)
The problem is not if people get excited. It's if they act in a detrimental way to it.
These folks have already been convicted of acting in a detrimental way...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 08 2017, @06:46PM (3 children)
Already convicted but the goal of the program seems to be rehabilitation. So they may still get excited but not act upon it. When measuring it's important to measure the relevant parameters. I'll see several women I'll like to bone every day, doesn't mean I'll initiate mating on the street.
Just like a computer with power supplied and OS installed doesn't equals to a working system ;)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 08 2017, @06:49PM (2 children)
If a person doesn't act detrimentally to having a device placed on his penis, then there's something wrong with him.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Thursday June 08 2017, @07:12PM
What? Saying "Thank you, may I have some more" is considered detrimental now?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 08 2017, @07:13PM
Researchers might choose to skew the results by using devices similar to this: http://www.askmen.com/dating/product_guide/39_product_review.html [askmen.com]
Not researchers with integrity of course but with all that "publish or perish" don't be surprised if there are fewer and fewer of these...
;)
(Score: 2) by YeaWhatevs on Thursday June 08 2017, @08:24PM
But without a control it makes for a rather poor experiment does it not? Or do we just make that data?
(Score: 2) by tfried on Thursday June 08 2017, @08:29PM (3 children)
That's true, and I don't want to hand those researchers a free pass. But accepting that they really are trying to find a solution to an existing (aka convicted) problem, it seems reasonable to try to assess the root cause of the problem. For one thing, it is known that child abuse does not necessarily have a strong relation to actual paedophile tendencies. "Power" is another important motive to consider, for instance.
Not sure if the method described here is better than a plain standardized questionnaire, or - gasp - a face-to-face interview, but the idea itself is not necessarily evil at all.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 08 2017, @10:08PM (1 child)
Do you realize how much I want to godwin this thread right now? But I'll hold off and simply say that the researchers know (or should know) the implications of what they are doing, and they should be held to account.
"We are trying to create a better way of preventing child molestation." That's good.
"We are creating something with huge false-positive ratings and huge false-negative ratings. Moreover, if it catches on, it will effectively make certain thoughts illegal." That's horrible, and they deserve all the criticism they get.
Do we want to live in a society where desires and thoughts are punishable? What's to stop a Minority Report dystopia from forming? "You show show a tendency to shoplift, off to jail with you before you actually commit a crime."
(Score: 3, Insightful) by tfried on Friday June 09 2017, @07:22AM
You assume that they will act on the results in a particular way. You assume they will keep those who do get aroused locked in forever (or something along these lines). Unfortunately, that assumption is not entirely baseless, but it is still an assumption.
Now consider for a minute that they could be trying to actually help. That they might think of themselves not just as highly educated prison guards, but are actually trying to help the inmates get out, eventually. That they could be trying to help the inmates to understand and control whatever got them into jail/hospital. Wouldn't that imply, very, very naturally trying to understand to what degree their patients have real paedophile tendencies, and to what degree they'll have to look elsewhere? Their job is to deal with those who were convicted - for good reasons or for bad. How exactly are they supposed to do their job?
This method is a tool. I'm not so sure it is a good tool, but a tool like this is definitely needed.
This method is a tool. A tool with a high potential for abuse, but that's because the topic is toxic, not the tool.
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Thursday June 08 2017, @10:24PM
Considering the fucked up state of US laws and their application. These people may simply be two underage persons convicted of having a relationship or the horror of sexting. So even the fallacy of assuming correct conviction goes away.
As for the power issue. Maybe some clear and pedagogical education of adult courting and relationships right in school before puberty would be beneficial. That way adult relationships seems less intimidating and there will not be a fallback to the easy and abusive way out.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Thursday June 08 2017, @06:23PM (7 children)
What is the added value of VR, in the process of asserting excitement?
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 08 2017, @06:58PM
Good point. A simple bullet to the base of the skull would offer a more certain and cost-effective "treatment" for this lot.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Thursday June 08 2017, @07:06PM
Because it just does. Can't you understand? Because technology. VR sprinkles the pixie dust of credibility and respectability. Emit a tachyon pulse with modulated frequency and inverted polarity.
Back in the day, if those numbers came out of the line printer on green and white striped pinfeed paper, then it is absolutely gospel truth! No matter how incompetent the programmer whose idiot program calculated those numbers.
Young people won't believe you if you say you're older than Google. (born before 1998-09-03)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 08 2017, @07:15PM (4 children)
Almost certainly to avoid problems with non-virtual kiddy porn (assuming Canada has similar laws as in the USA). While any trace of real-world kiddy porn is a risk for the cops to bust down your door and drag you away (don't talk to strange links!), virtual kiddy porn is "protected speech" ala "art".
(Score: 4, Interesting) by kaszz on Thursday June 08 2017, @10:40PM (3 children)
In France, virtual child porn is forbidden. And in the US the law says that any realistic appearing computer generated depiction that is indistinguishable from a depiction of an actual minor in sexual situations or engaging in sexual acts is illegal under 18 U.S.C. § 2252A. The Australian state of Victoria also seems to have some screwed laws.
This is borderline thought crime. Just consider that if you wrote a formula that produced a illegal picture, would that be illegal to write it on a blackboard? and in any case you may not plot what the formula because the resulting output would be illegal. And if you would think of it, now is that illegal?
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 08 2017, @10:57PM
If a machine learning algorithm creates a realistic appearing computer generated depiction of a nude minor, who gets arrested?
(Score: 2) by linuxrocks123 on Friday June 09 2017, @03:17AM
Re US law: computer-generated child pornography is only illegal if it's also obscene. There was a Supreme Court case on this, Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition.
This is not a trivial distinction: obscenity under US law is very strictly defined, and it is very hard to get a court to find something with any artistic component whatsoever to be legally obscene. The US may have its faults, but we're serious about our free speech.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 09 2017, @07:57AM
Which sends a loud and clear message that molesting a child and taking pictures of it is just as bad as molesting a pencil.
(Score: 2) by Snotnose on Thursday June 08 2017, @06:30PM (1 child)
Having sensors on Moby, not only being watched by people but being videorecorded, nope. They could show a naked Taylor Swift and Kati Perry going at it and they wouldn't get a reaction.
Relationship status: Available for curbside pickup.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 08 2017, @07:56PM
Your new fetishes will awaken in that very moment and you will be imprisoned forever.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 08 2017, @06:33PM (1 child)
Using the same logic then those who are aroused by normal porn should be locked up too as potential rapists?
Perhaps the researchers and their supporters should masturbate for real rather than with their research.
See also: https://www.japandict.com/%E8%B3%A2%E8%80%85%E3%82%BF%E3%82%A4%E3%83%A0 [japandict.com]
If you want to reduce their sexual desire, cut their balls off (I know there are some female offenders but they're a minority).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 08 2017, @06:49PM
It's possible to cut females balls off too. It's just they are located on the inside.
Male and female anatomy is actually quite similar it's just proportions and locations that has been skewed heavily.
(Score: 0, Offtopic) by cafebabe on Thursday June 08 2017, @07:00PM
Computing becomes increasingly surreal and especially when BoingBoing [boingboing.net] reports that Russian malware communicates by leaving comments in Britney Spears's Instagram account [boingboing.net]. This is, apparently, a real problem and not something from a random headline generator or Brass Eye [wikipedia.org].
A further report describes the use of malware communication over broadcast satellite [boingboing.net]:
To re-use an Ariana Grenade [sickipedia.net] joke [sickipedia.net]: This appears to be the work of a music fan.
1702845791×2
(Score: 4, Interesting) by hendrikboom on Thursday June 08 2017, @07:36PM (2 children)
As in the Clockwork Orange movie
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 08 2017, @08:59PM
Beethoven's 9th, my droogs?
(Score: 2) by wonkey_monkey on Thursday June 08 2017, @09:11PM
Actually life imitates life. I forget which country used it, but a similar system was used in decades past to identify homosexuals.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 08 2017, @07:58PM
VR child porn test becomes mandatory for all citizens, even if they haven't committed a crime. Failing the test leads to reeducation or termination.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by AthanasiusKircher on Thursday June 08 2017, @08:30PM (2 children)
The abused children.
No, the other ones.
I'm not opposed to systems that actually help to treat pedophiles or determine those who are a greater danger. But I do think our society has become a bit obsessed with them.
In the U.S., child maltreatment stats [cdc.gov] say that only 9% of reports for children who were maltreated involved sexual abuse. 78% are neglect cases (some of them quite serious), 18% are physical abuse, and the rest are various other issues.
But even that's misleading in some ways, because sexual abuse of "children" stats frequently involve all kids under 16 or even 18. And the vast majority of "sex offenders" are those who abused POST-pubescent teens, not little kids. And I think you'd see a lot of adults having sexual arousal responses to post-pubescent teenagers, even if they're 17 or even 15.
So, what we're really talking about here is the small fraction of "sexual abusers" who are TRUE pedophiles attracted to pre-pubescent kids, where sexual abuse is also only a small fraction of actual child maltreatment cases. Do we have a device we can wrap around someone's penis to measure whether they're likely to smack a kid until they bleed or break a young child's arm in anger? Do we have a device we can wrap about someone's penis to measure whether someone is likely to criminally neglect children by locking them in a basement or whatever?
Again, sexual predators are scary, and we should obviously try to find ways to avoid trauma that could be inflicted by them. But when I read stories like this, I can't help thinking -- "Are they as obsessed with finding such measures and methods to stop people from hitting kids or neglecting them?" Or are we just feeding a growing paranoia about the prevalence of sex offenders (which generally doesn't match reality)?
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Thursday June 08 2017, @10:53PM
It's probably a manifestation of a moral law of triviality [wikipedia.org] attention focus on problem prioritization. Maybe a better test would be emotional dysfunctionality?
But then sex seems to make people loose all reality check and proportions.
(Score: 2) by cubancigar11 on Friday June 09 2017, @06:30AM
Let us just stop and ponder on this: most child abuse is done by women, specially mothers. This "research" is all about measuring penis. How long before this is used to talk about toxic masculinity?
(Score: 2, Informative) by nitehawk214 on Thursday June 08 2017, @09:10PM
This is some kind of Milgram Experiment level stuff here.
"Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Lagg on Thursday June 08 2017, @09:23PM (2 children)
I'm not sure if i'm supposed to be okay with it because haw those gross kiddy tiddlers, but this is actually pretty disturbing. I'll ignore whatever ethical issues may be present for children and adults alike and start out with how bizarre it is that they seem to think violently exposing a pedophile to their own nature is a good thing? The article talks about forcing them to experience it in this fashion with a tone of some kind:
So what happens if they get a fear boner and try to divert their vision? And before people go on saying that's a silly concept: Article itself says that it's a "cave-like vault for showing child pornography". That's fuckin scary [guim.co.uk]. Is this like what they used to do to gays to ungay them in asylums?
Article itself states that they're using an alternative to the BDSM genital cuffs (seriously I can't see those as anything else, which I'm sure makes it hard for people with that fetish /or the fear boner). Which is basically a helmet so you don't have to have anything on your other helmet. However I'm not sure why measuring the same spots that create the fear boners directly will make it any more reliable. But whatever.
P.S. This is fuckin' creepy too. [guim.co.uk]
Of course, trying to look at it by the same standards as the guy being treated for OCD or self-destructive fetishes is not allowed. Cause again those filthy child murderers and rapists and murderrapists.
http://lagg.me [lagg.me] 🗿
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 08 2017, @09:31PM
Human rights do not exist when pedophilia becomes involved. Think of the children! But not too hard!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 09 2017, @07:37AM
how does one manage to get it up with those deeply unsettling 3D models
Like hot damn, that's right in the middle of the uncanny valley.
Being forced to look at them in a VR rig seems like some kind of punishment from a horror film or something.
(Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Friday June 09 2017, @05:16AM
-- Russian Child Pornography Movie Studio
Chiild pornography is as illegal there as here but the laws are not enforced.
The homepage of the site had a photo of a smiling 14 year old girl and 15 year old boy who conceived a child while being filmed. Their baby also resides at the "orphanage".
Now really - won't someone think of the children?
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]