Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by LaminatorX on Monday January 26 2015, @03:25AM   Printer-friendly
from the nothing-funny-to-say dept.

The Independent reports that hacktivist group Anonymous, in a project named Operation DeathEaters, is calling for help in its fight against international pedophile networks, or what it calls the “paedosadist industry” and has issued a video instructing activists on how they can aid in the operation. The Anonymous project is intended to break what it says is a conspiracy of silence among sympathetic politicians, police and mainstream media to downplay the full extent of the online child sex industry. “The premise behind OpDeathEaters is to expose high level complicity, obstruction of justice and cover-up in the paedo-sadist industry in order to show the need for independent inquiries,” says Heather Marsh, an online activist who is helping to co-ordinate the operation and describes herself as an “old friend” of Anonymous. The Anonymous database, which will be hosted on the GitHub online repository, promises to collate cases from all around the world, cross-referencing connections within sub-groups including the police, armed forces, schoolteachers, politicians, media, academics and religious organisations. The database’s ultimate purpose has yet to be fully determined, but in the first instance the group says it wants to shut down the child-sex industry by “dismantling the power structure which held it there” and by “educating to create a cultural change”.

The group is calling on volunteers to help with the ongoing work, which has been divided into three steps. The first is about collecting “all the factual information,” second is to “share that information as widely as possible,” and the third step is “to set up an independent, internationally linked, inquiry into all the areas which do not appear to have been investigated properly.” Activists point to the muted media coverage given to a recent case in Washington DC in which Michael Centanni, a senior Republican fundraiser, was charged with child sex offences after investigators traced transmissions of child pornography to his computers in his basement. The case was not covered by The Washington Post or the New York Times, and was only picked up by a local NBC affiliate state and The Washington Examiner, a small conservative paper in the city. According to the court filings, Centanni was found in possession of 3,000 images, many apparently filmed in his own bedroom, including one showing a man raping a five year old girl.

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by bradley13 on Monday January 26 2015, @07:13AM

    by bradley13 (3053) Subscriber Badge on Monday January 26 2015, @07:13AM (#138103) Homepage Journal

    No mod points yet - maybe they'll come with the site update in a few hours...

    This is an incredibly important point: child abuse is criminal, but criminalizing the images was always a stupid idea. As the AC points out, one of reason is that criminalizing the images actually helps protect the actual child abusers. I don't know how successful Anonymous will be, but if nothing else, perhaps they will re-open the dialog on this important issue.

    If you want further reasons why outlawing the images is stupid, try these:

    - "Tough on crime" law enforcement takes any law and carries it to ridiculous extremes. Like outlawing cartoons. [dailytelegraph.com.au] There was also the truck driver crossing the US/Canada border who was prosecuted for having a printed, fictional story (no pics) involving underage sex, though I can't find the link just now.

    - Just like tossing a packet of weed in your car, these laws open the door to the police [plymouthherald.co.uk] planting images on your computer. Alternatively, maybe after Crypolocker we will get ransomware that plants images on victim's computers - wouldn't that be fun?

    - There is ample evidence that a sexual attraction to children is hardwired in the brain. Allowing those affected to have some safe outlet (cartoons, stories, computer graphics, etc.) would make sense? Instead, current laws drive those affected to illegal behavior, which is surely not in anyone's interest.

    --
    Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +2  
       Insightful=2, Total=2
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   4  
  • (Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Monday January 26 2015, @09:49AM

    by hemocyanin (186) on Monday January 26 2015, @09:49AM (#138125) Journal

    In the interest of harm reduction, making cartoons illegal is just stupid. There is evidence that pedophilia may be an organic condition ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia#Causes_and_biological_associations [wikipedia.org] ) and if so, it isn't something you get hooked on by exposure like chocolate or cigarettes in which case banning drawings or stories is counterproductive because it isn't going to stop anyone from becoming a pedo. On the other hand, if the use of wholly made up stuff, like cartoons, helps a pedo satisfy his urges without supporting actual child rape by purchasing porn, or worse, abusing kids himself, then that is a good thing which would lead to less actual abuse, because paper and ink just don't care what gets done to them, but if the cartoon is just as illegal as anything else and the stakes are the same whether a real child or a cartoon is involved, it is easy to see that more children will be harmed because there is no disincentive between choosing real humans over drawings.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 26 2015, @10:20AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 26 2015, @10:20AM (#138134)

      It doesn't matter if a study can prove that cartoons and drawings are a "gateway" to real abuse. It's still thoughtcrime. Arguably the prosecution of the real thing (possession, not production) is the same.

      • (Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Monday January 26 2015, @04:46PM

        by hemocyanin (186) on Monday January 26 2015, @04:46PM (#138209) Journal

        I'm ok with prosecution for possession of actual photographic or videographic materials because demand is an important component in supply -- I don't know if punishment would reduce supply but it seems fair to punish those who encourage abuse of others as well as the abusers. The punishment for production should be more severe than that for possession however.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 27 2015, @01:12AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 27 2015, @01:12AM (#138377)

          -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
          Hash: SHA1

          You are saying that demand is an important component of supply, but you have made the standard mistake of conflating the child abuse with the production of violent and/or pornographic imagery. In your mind, the demand for imagery magically creates a supply of abuse, which is nonsense. Industrial child abuse is mainly fueled by the same mechanism as any illegal trade: prohibition (not of abuse, but of imagery). Just as with cocaine and heroin, the world-wide ban on production and consumption of certain imagery creates sky-high margins, and criminals step in to satisfy the demand. Because they are both criminals and businessmen, they chose the cheapest way to produce the said imagery, and here the actual child abuse begins. If we are genuinely interested in reducing the incidence of child abuse, then we must attack their margins by regulating the market of violent pornographic imagery. We could insists on "child abuse" pornography being produced without any involvement of children or any acts of violence. It could be drawn, digitally altered, or shot with adult actors who are able to give consent. We could insist on our right to share any imagery non-commercially, and that would saturate the imagery market, cutting the pornographers' margins even further. Abusing children does not pay, and no "respectable businessman" will run a child abuse factory at a loss. As for the public, we can be confident it will choose the art over the real thing every time, just like it prefers movies to the security camera footage... Or simply consider this: does the demand for murder imagery create the supply of murders? Or does it sustain film factories in LA? ~Anonymous 0x9932FE2729B1D963
          -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
          Version: GnuPG v2

          iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJUxuUqAAoJEJky/icpsdljXxwP/3nD+SDUf9t+00GO85fvCA1x
          2HiMnFTnjGUhrQEDwwDDUZWK61RiU2ZAM37R9hT04dszV92iHSDM3fbulG3wPu0K
          o15/kXE0oKxN1omE/MWV4hn7/Pzv8RwPXAgDWoDXKu0v+qCRnAip4b63zTEMYueW
          PWR6QkeN78f+soAWum5JoIRhpPFEvzpsGhWjNGB47ZZvChr6GOFLtHFBtq/av6N3
          GltFQsLC6cjQt6xivEva04QMy3ojTwvC9bgACvyS2ITE/+LQ0kjzatR+CSbgOzEj
          40skBfcqE19E+BoU6i4/OtanldHfdM1+Laawn8cTHk2tVMjqZm+dqRMApPM4EaIP
          i0zsvP2itUoPCwXMsCE2eymWP+3l36eorUhsP6tapuSMNZxEbNOKGOSeHva8nf6u
          8tC54qMVdl+v7a3+ocw6BaiHew/B1EQ6S/mnPWw421joNRn7+TkU2hChHKYSGk+y
          ZlbD0Mgw1uw5OQ8aOh0Nw7T/ZUNw14eaoNhHWb3H2EN74EhDi8BWhxl+Lg/Wc8P6
          OfKkgO9MZ9FZnUItgbH9VcKWdX/EbO+XTLVmQJHV9jX2vSSXY2Wc6MjAinocY1XH
          3ueOHadkFlZZLoPdDNMePFjtCxATvdK/XRhqyY/fiack7txXuCqn50j5fZ/dZ73A
          jdvhzb9HQrnrpf5cUmtj
          =eEJd
          -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

        • (Score: 1) by Anal Pumpernickel on Wednesday January 28 2015, @02:51PM

          by Anal Pumpernickel (776) on Wednesday January 28 2015, @02:51PM (#138879)

          Freedom of speech is far more important than stopping child porn. Furthermore, if someone acts based on supposed demand, *their actions are their own*, and no one else's. You can't blame anyone except the rapists, so your reasoning is flawed.

          Government thugs shouldn't be in the business of censoring anything. I oppose all government censorship.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 26 2015, @11:26PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 26 2015, @11:26PM (#138352)

    Sheesh, so now I can't even read Vladimir Nabokov without getting arrested?