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: 2) by mojo chan on Monday January 26 2015, @01:05PM

    by mojo chan (266) on Monday January 26 2015, @01:05PM (#138157)

    It's overly simplistic to say that we tolerate people looking at murder victims. Generally speaking we don't, we cover the body and don't publish photos because it would degrade the victim, turning their murder into something used for entertainment or to satisfy curiosity. Of course there are counter-arguments, such as news organizations showing victims of war instead of sanitising it. What I'm saying is that it isn't straight forward for murder, and neither is it for child pornography. If the image is of a child being abused then the victim may not want that image distributed or used for sexual gratification, and I'd argue they have a right to control that image. On the other hand if there was no abuse and the agreed to the image being distributed (difficult as children can't make contracts, but there are ways children can work as models and actors so in theory it could be possible) then yeah, maybe we shouldn't be criminalizing those people.

    --
    const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 1) by Anal Pumpernickel on Wednesday January 28 2015, @02:54PM

    by Anal Pumpernickel (776) on Wednesday January 28 2015, @02:54PM (#138882)

    It's overly simplistic to say that we tolerate people looking at murder victims.

    We should tolerate it in the sense that government thugs shouldn't punish people who do manage to get pictures and such.

    because it would degrade the victim

    The "victim" is now merely a lump of meat; there's nothing to degrade.

    If the image is of a child being abused then the victim may not want that image distributed or used for sexual gratification, and I'd argue they have a right to control that image.

    Getting offended or sad is not a good reason to allow government thugs to censor information. There is no right to not be offended; once the information is out there, that is too bad. In the US, these policies are unconstitutional, even if the authoritarian courts try to modify the first amendment with invisible ink.