Hackers going after pedophile sites.

[chayton]

I get this newsletter and there was a followup article about Anonymous (the hacker group) - I must have missed the first article, but I guess on the July 4th weekend, Anonymous made an announcement that they would be targeting pedophile sites. Speculation is that they're trying to improve their image - also there are fears they may drop innocent names in on a whim.

From the first article:

Anonymous has posted the personal details of the hundreds of users from these various pedophile Web sites alongside emails between members. Just like in past operations targeting pedophiles, Anonymous hopes that the police take care of the rest.

Side note, I read a few pages of the comments. Some people just make me sick with their rationalization that child porn should be 'ok' "Why should we be targeted for our sexual orientation?" one said. WTF? Grrr...sorry but this is an issue that always gets me seeing red.

Anyhow...personally I think that if Anonymous is keeping it clean (not dropping political names in to suit their own agenda) then more power to them. I mean, sure Anonymous are criminals, and cost a lot financially. But child pornographers are criminals who hurt children and ruin lives. Or maybe I'm blinded by my hatred for people who make and distribute child porn. What do you guys think?

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

 

[ksb11]

I get this newsletter and there was a followup article about Anonymous (the hacker group) - I must have missed the first article, but I guess on the July 4th weekend, Anonymous made an announcement that they would be targeting pedophile sites. Speculation is that they're trying to improve their image - also there are fears they may drop innocent names in on a whim.

From the first article:



Side note, I read a few pages of the comments. Some people just make me sick with their rationalization that child porn should be 'ok' "Why should we be targeted for our sexual orientation?" one said. WTF? Grrr...sorry but this is an issue that always gets me seeing red.

Anyhow...personally I think that if Anonymous is keeping it clean (not dropping political names in to suit their own agenda) then more power to them. I mean, sure Anonymous are criminals, and cost a lot financially. But child pornographers are criminals who hurt children and ruin lives. Or maybe I'm blinded by my hatred for people who make and distribute child porn. What do you guys think?

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

I personally think in our society we have become so "tolerant" that it has seeped over into arenas where nature itself teaches that certain things are just wrong. In this case child abuse.

I was listening to a morning radio (these guys are idiots, disclaimer: I was just flipping thru) show the other day on my way to work and one of them was saying something about these kids getting in trouble for reading porn. The DJ said he thought it was good because they will learn to "make love, not war". IDIOT! Sex is not love, it is something a man and woman who love each other do and can be an expression of love in the right context but the two are not necessarily synonymous.

Morality in our society is becoming dictated by extremely selfish and nefarious desires.

 

[skiny]

Pedophilia isn't a sexual organization, it's an illness. And it's one that I would never be able to trust has been cured. Hacking is illegal as well and identity theft has literally cost people they're entire lives. There are government agencies all over the world to deal with both of these crimes and both parties in this case should be prosecuted.

Besides, evidence gained though illegal means wouldn't be admissible in most courts anyway.

 

[The Dude]

...Besides, evidence gained though illegal means wouldn't be admissible in most courts anyway.

That's a key point. If these hackers are obtaining the information illegally, how well can the information be trusted? They could add to the list email addresses of a couple of congressmen, and their landlord to boot. Ddos attacking websites is one thing; it either happens or it doesn't, but to post information one claims to have acquired illegally negates its legitimacy.

 

[vinylweatherman]

If they are so concerned, why haven't they made this the FIRST thing on their agenda when they were set up. It does rather look as though this has been designed to clean up their image, perhaps among those they have attacked in the past, rather than their deep rooted concern over the growth of this material over the internet.

Of course, the same could be said of the authorities. They have poured billions into shutting down P2P and it's successors, and introducing surveillance on ordinary internet users, and this has resulted in a shrinking of this activity over the internet. Child porn, on the other hand, has been GROWING, and whilst the authorities are acting, they are being given nothing like the budget being handed out to enforcement of copyright.

It makes it perfectly clear, these big corporations and governments think copyright infringement is a MUCH bigger problem on the internet than child porn.

Some may remember last year that a member here stumbled upon one such site and forum, and posted their findings here to urge that members contact their own authorities in an effort to have it dealt with.

I contacted mine, and they couldn't even be bothered to reply, let alone take action. It shows that individuals making such reports are not heard by the authorities. Maybe forwarding the same information to anonymous would have more effect.

The main problem is in their publishing lists of names, and if they could drop that aspect, they will gain even more support. The problem is the quailty of the information, as users of such sites will expect the police to eventually find them and shut the site down, and so would take steps to cloak their true identity. Most likely, they will use made up details, or even the stolen identity of someone else. Politicians are bound to be on these sites, but by publishing their details, anonymous leave themselves wide open to accusations that they are naming these politicians because of their agenda, rather than because they really have found their names on such a site.

 

[chayton]

Anonymous has done this before - I was just reading that in 2011 they shut down over 40 pedophile sites and published 1500 names. Which in itself is heartbreaking, who knew there was that much of this stuff out there?

I suppose the justification is that if you DDOS the sites, more will spring up as long because the market is still there. If the people who are visiting the sites get caught out as well then it's taking away part of the market. On the flip side, if the sites have been hacked, who's to say that email addresses and other info wasn't planted...?

Seems a shame though - believe me I've felt like bombing those places myself. Actually Vinyl, it was me who stumbled across that one and reported them.

 

[vinylweatherman]

Anonymous has done this before - I was just reading that in 2011 they shut down over 40 pedophile sites and published 1500 names. Which in itself is heartbreaking, who knew there was that much of this stuff out there?

I suppose the justification is that if you DDOS the sites, more will spring up as long because the market is still there. If the people who are visiting the sites get caught out as well then it's taking away part of the market. On the flip side, if the sites have been hacked, who's to say that email addresses and other info wasn't planted...?

Seems a shame though - believe me I've felt like bombing those places myself. Actually Vinyl, it was me who stumbled across that one and reported them.

Is it still around, if so, maybe forward your report to Anonymous.

The authorities should be the ones shutting these sites down, not a group of hackers running DDOS attacks. A law making it illegal to "knowingly host a child porn site" should encourage the right thing to be done, as no sooner is a site reported to it's hosting service, they can be deemed as "knowingly" allowing it to remain operating if they decide to do nothing.

If they are shut down frequently, it will fragment the pervert community, and this will make it harder for them to get comfortable with any new site they set up. It's all down to "divide and conquer". Rather than publish the lists of members, anonymous should send them to every enforcement authority they can think of, and then publish a list of which authorities have the information, and follow it up a year later by a list of those sites still operating, along with a list of those authorities that were sent the information, and had jurisdiction to shut it down. A "name and shame" list of authorities who didn't act should sharpen them up, making it easier to get reports dealt with effectively.

 

[chayton]

Is it still around, if so, maybe forward your report to Anonymous.

The authorities should be the ones shutting these sites down, not a group of hackers running DDOS attacks. A law making it illegal to "knowingly host a child porn site" should encourage the right thing to be done, as no sooner is a site reported to it's hosting service, they can be deemed as "knowingly" allowing it to remain operating if they decide to do nothing.

If they are shut down frequently, it will fragment the pervert community, and this will make it harder for them to get comfortable with any new site they set up. It's all down to "divide and conquer". Rather than publish the lists of members, anonymous should send them to every enforcement authority they can think of, and then publish a list of which authorities have the information, and follow it up a year later by a list of those sites still operating, along with a list of those authorities that were sent the information, and had jurisdiction to shut it down. A "name and shame" list of authorities who didn't act should sharpen them up, making it easier to get reports dealt with effectively.

I'm not sure if they are or not - I can't remember now what it was even called. Although I posted about it here so I should be able to find it if I go through my zillion posts.

A lot of those types of sites are allowed to remain because they say stuff like "We don't host any pictures or videos. We just give the perverts a safe place to congregate and fuel their fantasies and if they want to exchange email addresses or share links through private messages then that's got nothing to do with us." So really what can the law do? I suppose they could go undercover as a 'member' and catch the bad guys that way - I think that's what they've been doing so far, usually when a story like that hits the news where they catch a bunch and seize all sorts of stuff it's 'the result of a year long undercover operation.'

 

[vinylweatherman]

I'm not sure if they are or not - I can't remember now what it was even called. Although I posted about it here so I should be able to find it if I go through my zillion posts.

A lot of those types of sites are allowed to remain because they say stuff like "We don't host any pictures or videos. We just give the perverts a safe place to congregate and fuel their fantasies and if they want to exchange email addresses or share links through private messages then that's got nothing to do with us." So really what can the law do? I suppose they could go undercover as a 'member' and catch the bad guys that way - I think that's what they've been doing so far, usually when a story like that hits the news where they catch a bunch and seize all sorts of stuff it's 'the result of a year long undercover operation.'

This is how it is usually done, but this is intensive and expensive work. Now take copyright infringement. No intensive and expensive undercover work there, big corporate bleats, and down comes the offending site or content, and it is up to the site to prove they have NOT violated the complainant's copyrights. Such "takedowns" have been in the news, and the common complaint is that innocent content is affected because of the "shoot first, ask questions later".

Perhaps these pedo sites should come under the same rules, someone complains about content, it is looked at by the authorities, and if they believe it is a pedo site, down it comes there and then, and the site's owner then has time to show that there is an innocent explanation before the site is deleted permanently.

In the anonymous article, they also mention a campaign that was bourne from a new Japanese law that could see 2 years in jail just for watching a youtube clip that had been put there in violation of copyright. Surely it should also be 2 years just for looking at a pedo forum, let alone exchanging information, videos, photos, etc. I don't know whether this law was implemented in that ridiculous form, or whether more than merely watching the clip would be needed. This was, after all, the version of the story on the anonymous blog.

Perhaps the authorities could "turn a blind eye" to anyone thought to be attacking a pedo site using means that are considered illegal, such as DDOS

 

[Seventh777]

Weird, I have recently gave a link twice to paedophile rape by soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan and not once has it been commented on, or is this okay because they are children of the so called enemy?.

 

[vinylweatherman]

Weird, I have recently gave a link twice to paedophile rape by soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan and not once has it been commented on, or is this okay because they are children of the so called enemy?.

It matters, but other scandals there have been hard to prosecute due to the "closing ranks" attitude among some elements of the forces.

So arrogant were some that they even took pictures of the abuse meeted out to enemy detainees, and it was only this arrogance that nailed this scandal. The rape allegations are just another part of this scandal, but not one where there is much in the way of substantive evidence other than testimony from those already classed as enemies.

When the conflict is finally over, and things return to some kind of normality out there, these scandals should begin to emerge into the open.

 

[Nifty29]

I don't care what anyone does to kiddy fiddlers.

AFAIC, they have no human rights and should tarred, feathered, castrated and permanently imprisoned. Pedos can NOT be cured, so they must be segregated from the rest of society. Problem is, our weak gutless politicians and judges (among whose ranks pedos have been found and likely still hide) allow them back into the world to ruin another innocent child's life. Never has there been a greater waste of oxygen in the world.

If my child had been a victim, I would have slain the bastard without a thought. Same for my grandkids when they materialize.

I hate these mongrels more than fraudsters.....that should tell you something.

 

[skiny]

I don't care what anyone does to kiddy fiddlers.

AFAIC, they have no human rights and should tarred, feathered, castrated and permanently imprisoned. Pedos can NOT be cured, so they must be segregated from the rest of society. Problem is, our weak gutless politicians and judges (among whose ranks pedos have been found and likely still hide) allow them back into the world to ruin another innocent child's life. Never has there been a greater waste of oxygen in the world.

If my child had been a victim, I would have slain the bastard without a thought. Same for my grandkids when they materialize.

I hate these mongrels more than fraudsters.....that should tell you something.

Well, I think we can all agree that molesting a child is far worse than creating multiple accounts at a casino. Having any kind of sexual attraction to a child would require some sort of mental instability. I don't think anyone with a normally functioning brain could even fantasize about these acts, much less perform them. The problem is releasing a convicted pedophile back into the public is as dangerous as imprisoning them forever is expensive. It's one of the many problems that our civilized society has yet to find a solution for.

There is an endless list of brain disorders that we have no idea how to fix and it might be decades or centuries before we know enough about the human brain to even think about fixing one. Of course when that day comes we will need to worry about what other anti-social behaviours we will be able to "fix." In fact if being anti-social in itself was something that needed to be fixed, I'd probably be up on a hoist as we speak. I might even have multiple personalities but it's hard to tell 'cause they're all jerks and I wouldn't BE paranoid if everyone wasn't out to get me... I don't know... The voices in my head keep telling me I'm crazy but what do they know? They're not psychiatrists.

Ok, now I'm rambling.

You know, if the jail systems were a little more lucrative they could be a little more self sustaining. I think that might be part of the temporary answer. Jails that don't cost us tax payers an arm and a leg to keep in operation. Then we could "invite" people to stay there for much longer and it would cost us much less.

There are a lot of businesses that can be run from inside a prison. The only problem we have then is private businesses complaining that they can't compete with the free labour. A problem that solves another problem. That's what we need. Prisons that operate farms to feed the poor. Something like that would keep people from complaining.... No it wouldn't.

 

[vinylweatherman]

Well, I think we can all agree that molesting a child is far worse than creating multiple accounts at a casino. Having any kind of sexual attraction to a child would require some sort of mental instability. I don't think anyone with a normally functioning brain could even fantasize about these acts, much less perform them. The problem is releasing a convicted pedophile back into the public is as dangerous as imprisoning them forever is expensive. It's one of the many problems that our civilized society has yet to find a solution for.

There is an endless list of brain disorders that we have no idea how to fix and it might be decades or centuries before we know enough about the human brain to even think about fixing one. Of course when that day comes we will need to worry about what other anti-social behaviours we will be able to "fix." In fact if being anti-social in itself was something that needed to be fixed, I'd probably be up on a hoist as we speak. I might even have multiple personalities but it's hard to tell 'cause they're all jerks and I wouldn't BE paranoid if everyone wasn't out to get me... I don't know... The voices in my head keep telling me I'm crazy but what do they know? They're not psychiatrists.

Ok, now I'm rambling.

You know, if the jail systems were a little more lucrative they could be a little more self sustaining. I think that might be part of the temporary answer. Jails that don't cost us tax payers an arm and a leg to keep in operation. Then we could "invite" people to stay there for much longer and it would cost us much less.

There are a lot of businesses that can be run from inside a prison. The only problem we have then is private businesses complaining that they can't compete with the free labour. A problem that solves another problem. That's what we need. Prisons that operate farms to feed the poor. Something like that would keep people from complaining.... No it wouldn't.

Well, pay the prisoners the going rate..... BUT only so that the victims can claim compensation, and actually have the chance to get it. Anything left is held back until a prisoner is released, a strong incentive to behave over the course of a long sentence with a prospect of getting parole.

When released, prisoners will not be dumped "penniless" onto society, so would have their own resources to secure somewhere to live. They would also have far more to lose should they revert to crime upon release.

As for pedos, unlikely they will have anything over after compensating their victims, but also equally unlikely they will be fit for release.

Strangely, were they to be accepted as mentally ill, they could be "sectioned", and then locked up for an indeterminate period of time, rather than a tariff imposed by a judge after which they could be released. Under a mental health "section", you are only supposed to be released when medical experts determine that you are effectively "cured", in that you are no longer a danger to the public.

If your pet is a "sex pest", you take it to a vet and get it neutered, after which it can be let out again. The same may well work for rapists, even pedos, but it is considered an infringement of their rights to compel them to have this treatment.

Society too is a problem. Since the 1970's we have had one campaign after another against so called morality laws, many of which are tied to holy writings such as the bible. As such taboos have fallen, leading to "gay rights", followed by "gay marriage" and equal treatment in law to that received by those in heterosexual union, we have opened the door to ever more obscure minority groups seeking to have their beliefs and practices enshrined as a right granted by law. No surprise therefore that pedos have grasped at the opportunity to justify their own actions as those of just another minority group that will eventually achieve the rights now claimed by gay couples after a long and hard struggle.

The Roman Catholic church has been very forward thinking when it comes to the rights of pedos to exist on a par with the rest of main stream society Whilst other churches still wrestle with the issue of gay clergy, the Catholics have had a long tradition of pedo priests that is only recently coming to light. This church problem arose because those at the top feared embarrassment to the church more than the suffering of the victims, so issues were constantly buried, and priests just moved from parish to parish.

It is a shame it had to be anonymous doing this as an attempt to clean up it's image. What we needed was a hacker group solely dedicated to attacking such sites, and making life as tough as possible for their users, but one that had no other agenda, political or otherwise, that could be used as an argument that their actions had an ulterior motive apart from cleaning up the internet.

 

[Seventh777]

It matters, but other scandals there have been hard to prosecute due to the "closing ranks" attitude among some elements of the forces.

So arrogant were some that they even took pictures of the abuse meeted out to enemy detainees, and it was only this arrogance that nailed this scandal. The rape allegations are just another part of this scandal, but not one where there is much in the way of substantive evidence other than testimony from those already classed as enemies.

When the conflict is finally over, and things return to some kind of normality out there, these scandals should begin to emerge into the open.

For the very 1st time in History I have to disagree with you 100%, there are many so called organisations out there whose soul purpose is to help/aid/stand up for the needy especially when their human rights have been infringed, from the top of my head a few of these agencies.......

NSPCC. OXFAM, Amnesty International, The Red Cross, The Church (Missionary`s).

Where are they?.

Nelson Mandella`s vague and unlawful imprisonment term has been very well publicised and rightly so, I will mention two words - Guantanamo Bay.

 

[Nifty29]

Well, I think we can all agree that molesting a child is far worse than creating multiple accounts at a casino. Having any kind of sexual attraction to a child would require some sort of mental instability. I don't think anyone with a normally functioning brain could even fantasize about these acts, much less perform them. The problem is releasing a convicted pedophile back into the public is as dangerous as imprisoning them forever is expensive. It's one of the many problems that our civilized society has yet to find a solution for.

There is an endless list of brain disorders that we have no idea how to fix and it might be decades or centuries before we know enough about the human brain to even think about fixing one. Of course when that day comes we will need to worry about what other anti-social behaviours we will be able to "fix." In fact if being anti-social in itself was something that needed to be fixed, I'd probably be up on a hoist as we speak. I might even have multiple personalities but it's hard to tell 'cause they're all jerks and I wouldn't BE paranoid if everyone wasn't out to get me... I don't know... The voices in my head keep telling me I'm crazy but what do they know? They're not psychiatrists.

Ok, now I'm rambling.

You know, if the jail systems were a little more lucrative they could be a little more self sustaining. I think that might be part of the temporary answer. Jails that don't cost us tax payers an arm and a leg to keep in operation. Then we could "invite" people to stay there for much longer and it would cost us much less.

There are a lot of businesses that can be run from inside a prison. The only problem we have then is private businesses complaining that they can't compete with the free labour. A problem that solves another problem. That's what we need. Prisons that operate farms to feed the poor. Something like that would keep people from complaining.... No it wouldn't.

I would gladly pay extra tax if it meant that molesters were imprisoned permanently, and I'm certain there would enough like minded citizens to well and truly cover the cost.

What you're saying is that saving money is more important than protecting innocent children, and that to me is abhorrent.

 

[Nifty29]

For the very 1st time in History I have to disagree with you 100%, there are many so called organisations out there whose soul purpose is to help/aid/stand up for the needy especially when their human rights have been infringed, from the top of my head a few of these agencies.......

NSPCC. OXFAM, Amnesty International, The Red Cross, The Church.

Where are they?.

Mostly in non-muslim areas AFAIK.

 

[Seventh777]

Mostly in non-muslim areas AFAIK.

Every single time there is a war these organisations are there, making sure the UN keep within the protocols of the Geneva Convention.

 

[skiny]

Society too is a problem. Since the 1970's we have had one campaign after another against so called morality laws, many of which are tied to holy writings such as the bible. As such taboos have fallen, leading to "gay rights", followed by "gay marriage" and equal treatment in law to that received by those in heterosexual union, we have opened the door to ever more obscure minority groups seeking to have their beliefs and practices enshrined as a right granted by law. No surprise therefore that pedos have grasped at the opportunity to justify their own actions as those of just another minority group that will eventually achieve the rights now claimed by gay couples after a long and hard struggle.

First of all no religion should have any say in making law. If people want to believe that human beings can come back to life, snakes can talk to people and the Grand Canyon was caused by a single flood then be my guest but what they can't say is a supreme being that we have no proof exists is going to decide what is lawful in our society whether anyone else believes in it or not. These campaigns against morality laws are not campaigns against morality. They are campaigns against what the church deems to be moral and we have found time and time again, century after century that what the church deems moral is not always in our best interest and quite often none of their damn business.

With or without the church's so called morality I think we would still all agree that rape is a clear violation of the victim's basic rights and just like pedophilia is physically, emotionally and mentally harmful to innocent and defenseless victims. The only way homosexuality can be harmful in itself is if it's really bothering you that someone is doing something that you don't like. And that is how the church makes law. "We don't like it so you shouldn't do it." If anything doesn't fit the church's view of how a moral and ethical society should be run they simply say you're not allowed to do it. And then quite often they come back decades or centuries later and apologize for being completely wrong and making ridiculous demands.

In 1992, the Vatican apologized to Galileo Galilei for making him publicly state that the sun moves around the earth and then imprisoning him for the rest of his life for teaching otherwise.

In 2008, the church apologized for vilifying Charles Darwin for suggesting that all species evolved from common ancestors.

In 2000 the Pope actually asked God to forgive them for damn near everything in the last 2000 years including the crusades, indignities against women and ethnic groups and lord knows what else. (Wasn't it God that told them to do this stuff in the first place?)

All of this was BEFORE heading down to Africa which happens to be where about 2/3 of the planet's HIV victims live and telling them not only is it wrong to wear condoms but the use of condoms would make the spread of the disease worse. I wonder how many decades or centuries we'll have to wait for an apology for that.

I realize I went off on a bit of a tangent here but there is a reason why there are campaigns against laws made to suit the "morality" of the church. People can believe in whatever supreme beings they like but what they can't do is tell me I have to believe it or I have to live under the rules of an entity that I don't even believe exists. That does not by ANY means mean that I would give rights to a pedophile just because I don't really care if Bill wants to sleep with Bob and maybe have him share the benefits of his dental plan.

 

[skiny]

I would gladly pay extra tax if it meant that molesters were imprisoned permanently, and I'm certain there would enough like minded citizens to well and truly cover the cost.

What you're saying is that saving money is more important than protecting innocent children, and that to me is abhorrent.

What I'm saying is what everyone has been saying for decades. We have more prisoners than we can support. It's not a problem we can just keep raising taxes and throwing more money at. That's not a solution.

 

[Nifty29]

What I'm saying is what everyone has been saying for decades. We have more prisoners than we can support. It's not a problem we can just keep raising taxes and throwing more money at. That's not a solution.

What you're doing it putting a price on a child's innocence. I find that disgusting.

As long as there is no "cure" for paedophilia, the only thing society can do to protect it's most vulnerable members i.e. kids is to totally segregate these monsters where they cannot harm anyone apart from themselves.

The law should be looking for ways to avoid sending petty criminals to jail and put money into REAL rehabilitation....then there would be more room for the child molesters. In the meantime, you are quite happy to have them roaming about interfering with children because you don't care enough to dig a little deeper to protect them. I really can't believe that you're taking that stance.....it seems I got you all wrong. I'm actually hoping I have got the wrong end of the stick.

The choice at present is either throw more money at the problem and permanently imprison these animals, or sentence them to a few years and let them out to destroy some more kids. I don't know how anyone who thinks the latter is the way to go can sleep at night.

 

[skiny]

How in the hell do you get from knowing there is a problem with the judicial system to being happy to let pedophiles roam the streets?

I think you might be stretching this one just a little.

It is a well known economic fact that constantly raising taxes to solve an constantly increasing problem simply will not work. My heart goes out to all victims but it's an emotional problem that has to be solved intellectually. Of course society has to be protected from sexual predators just like it has to be protected from murders and terrorists and it would be great if we could simply take all the people who we don't feel should ever be a member of our society and lock them up for the rest of their lives. The problem is the rest of their lives is a bloody long time and that population is growing faster than we can afford to support it.

This is compounded with the problem we face supporting a rapidly aging population with a growing number of elderly requiring medical treatment after retirement.

I fully agree and have said myself for years that not imprisoning non-dangerous offenders would alleviate some of the problem and there must be a better way to punish people who are not a direct threat to the population than locking them up and paying for their upkeep. At the very least "house arrest" would allow them to continue working and paying taxes rather than living off the taxes we pay and contributing nothing. These are the types of solutions we need to look at. Self sustaining jails with a population that we know can never be a part of our society and minimizing the percentage of the population that does not contribute to the country's income as best we can.

There is no simple solution and knowing this does not mean anyone condones pedophilia.

 

[vinylweatherman]

What you're doing it putting a price on a child's innocence. I find that disgusting.

As long as there is no "cure" for paedophilia, the only thing society can do to protect it's most vulnerable members i.e. kids is to totally segregate these monsters where they cannot harm anyone apart from themselves.

The law should be looking for ways to avoid sending petty criminals to jail and put money into REAL rehabilitation....then there would be more room for the child molesters. In the meantime, you are quite happy to have them roaming about interfering with children because you don't care enough to dig a little deeper to protect them. I really can't believe that you're taking that stance.....it seems I got you all wrong. I'm actually hoping I have got the wrong end of the stick.

The choice at present is either throw more money at the problem and permanently imprison these animals, or sentence them to a few years and let them out to destroy some more kids. I don't know how anyone who thinks the latter is the way to go can sleep at night.

Long ago, the UK had the solution. Rather than spend a fortune locking up our criminals, we packed them off to Australia where they could live out their lives separate from the rest of society. Although no longer viable (I am sure Nifty would object most strongly to the UK government resurrecting this old cost cutting measure), perhaps the idea of "communities" for those still considered a danger to the public after their release from prison. Here they could live and work relatively freely, making the project self funding. They would be allowed freedom to roam within the community, but not allowed out into society in general. The community would not contain anyone likely to become a victim. It would still need to be policed more intensively than outside, but should be cheaper than keeping someone locked up. Lower costs should allow expanded provision, with self sufficiency allowing unlimited provision. Only when deemed no longer a danger to society would anyone be allowed to leave and reenter society.

This does fall short of the various death penalty ideas, but these are never going to happen, so we will end up with the status quo where offenders serve their tariff, and are allowed to slip back anonymously into society, which has to trust the parole system and police to ensure that the offender obeys the terms of his release. It is the anonimity granted under UK law that really gets people wound up. Despite the failings of the parole and police in past cases, they are not allowed to know where dangerous sex offenders live within their communities. The argument put forward is that the offender has a right not to be found and attacked (or ousted) by the community at large for what they have done as it violates their human rights. A significant number have been caught reoffending after release, clearly not "cured" by their spell of detention, and aided by being able to blend into their new surroundings and gaining access to further potential victims.

It is when these perverts get together and form "rings" that they can REALLY do some damage, and why finding and shutting down their abilities to network with one another is so important. These networks existed long before the internet age, and are probably still around but out of sight because so much attention is now focussed on the internet, with anything predating this considered "dead technology".

 

[LaurieJim]

What you're doing it putting a price on a child's innocence. I find that disgusting.

As long as there is no "cure" for paedophilia, the only thing society can do to protect it's most vulnerable members i.e. kids is to totally segregate these monsters where they cannot harm anyone apart from themselves.

The law should be looking for ways to avoid sending petty criminals to jail and put money into REAL rehabilitation....then there would be more room for the child molesters. In the meantime, you are quite happy to have them roaming about interfering with children because you don't care enough to dig a little deeper to protect them. I really can't believe that you're taking that stance.....it seems I got you all wrong. I'm actually hoping I have got the wrong end of the stick.

The choice at present is either throw more money at the problem and permanently imprison these animals, or sentence them to a few years and let them out to destroy some more kids. I don't know how anyone who thinks the latter is the way to go can sleep at night.

I agree with you 100 % Nifty , children should be protected at all costs and these perverts castrated and locked up away from those that can not protect themselves.

Laurie

 

[Seventh777]

Long ago, the UK had the solution. Rather than spend a fortune locking up our criminals, we packed them off to Australia where they could live out their lives separate from the rest of society. Although no longer viable (I am sure Nifty would object most strongly to the UK government resurrecting this old cost cutting measure)

Aye you have to smirk at the irony here, nowadays you cannot enter Australia if you have a poor criminal record, whereas years ago a poor criminal record was the only way to guarantee you entry, how times change .

 

[chayton]

There seems to be several disturbing trends I've been noticing lately. First is that the child victims seem to be getting younger - in the past year there have been several cases hitting the news involving infants as young as 6 weeks old.

Second, in the past year or so there have been a lot more cases where the perpetrators of the sexual assaults have been women.

Third is that there seems to be a whole community of these scumbags online trying to legitimize or rationalize their proclivities - NAMBLA had over 80 groups on Facebook last year before the purging took place. There are support websites and communities for pedophiles where they can chat and talk about their experiences and fantasies - supposedly they're allowed to stay online because they don't post videos or pictures, it's just some 'harmless talk.'

There are websites and blogs of pedophile activists who are trying to remove the age of consent laws and protect abusers by getting rid of the sex offender registry. Like the RSOL: "A campaign to try to make the world a better place for those who sexually abuse children." They use terms like 'intergenerational sex' instead of child rape so it doesn't sound so bad - they're trying to normalize their behaviour.

There's a website called evilunveiled(dot)com that has information on these so-called legal sites, and sometimes excerpts from some of the 'harmless talk' that's absolutely sickening.

I don't have kids but if I did I'd be terrified. As it is, I'm just furious that those kinds of sites should be allowed to continue, and I for one will root for Anonymous to shut them down no matter if they're doing it illegally.

As for what they do with them when they're caught...I don't know. But IMO it's more important to keep them from doing it in the first place - getting rid of these kinds of "what you're thinking is ok" websites is a good first step.

 

[skiny]

There are a lot of troubling activities that seem to be getting worse but then this is the information age and quite often I think it's more a case of us seeing more of it and knowing more about it than it is a case of things actually happening more often.

Only the sick and the twisted would defend or condone these sorts of activities but the internet has given the sick and the twisted an anonymous and safe place to do it. It's given these people a place to find each other and congregate.

The only hope is if they can use it to find each other, we can use it to find them. And I don't think a person should actually have to commit a sex act on a child. Inciting sex acts on children, inviting sex acts on children, fantasizing about sex acts on children should all require immediate psychological attention and that is exact what these sites would be for.

 

[vinylweatherman]

There are a lot of troubling activities that seem to be getting worse but then this is the information age and quite often I think it's more a case of us seeing more of it and knowing more about it than it is a case of things actually happening more often.

Only the sick and the twisted would defend or condone these sorts of activities but the internet has given the sick and the twisted an anonymous and safe place to do it. It's given these people a place to find each other and congregate.

The only hope is if they can use it to find each other, we can use it to find them. And I don't think a person should actually have to commit a sex act on a child. Inciting sex acts on children, inviting sex acts on children, fantasizing about sex acts on children should all require immediate psychological attention and that is exact what these sites would be for.

This is already a criminal offence in it's own right. One does not have to take part, just "incite" others to.

These sites may well be using "freedom of speech" laws to remain legal, and so long as they do not do anything illegal on the site itself, such as posting pictures or videos, or inciting others to, they can be hard to prosecute. Maybe not so hard in the EU though, where certain laws trump the right to free speech, and were introduced to combat such things as terrorism, riots, or "hate speech".

Computer misuse laws now make it a crime for someone to attack these sites and shut them down, laws that were intended to protect legitimate business from hacking and related crime. Anonymous are best placed to do this as they are experienced in not getting caught and charged. They could also launch an attack from a country with no such laws in the same way that dodgy businesses relocate to places like Liberia and Malta in order to dodge their responsibilities.

Infiltrating their communities also carries considerable risk, as if you are caught up in a police takedown of the site, you will appear to be just another perv they caught there.

The police DO infiltrate and pose either as perpetrators or potential victims, and in the US a TV crew operate a "sting" where they team up with the police and trap a perv into meeting someone he thinks is a potential victim, only to be greeted by the show presenter with a couple of cops in tow, and his face shown on TV whilst he is asked to justify his turning up at the venue, and why he has "certain items" upon his person if his intent was purely innocent.

This could even become a self funding protection measure, with TV channels charged to broadcast the perv getting their just deserts, with the money raised funding the next episode.

 

[skiny]

This is already a criminal offence in it's own right. One does not have to take part, just "incite" others to.

These sites may well be using "freedom of speech" laws to remain legal, and so long as they do not do anything illegal on the site itself, such as posting pictures or videos, or inciting others to, they can be hard to prosecute. Maybe not so hard in the EU though, where certain laws trump the right to free speech, and were introduced to combat such things as terrorism, riots, or "hate speech".

Computer misuse laws now make it a crime for someone to attack these sites and shut them down, laws that were intended to protect legitimate business from hacking and related crime. Anonymous are best placed to do this as they are experienced in not getting caught and charged. They could also launch an attack from a country with no such laws in the same way that dodgy businesses relocate to places like Liberia and Malta in order to dodge their responsibilities.

Infiltrating their communities also carries considerable risk, as if you are caught up in a police takedown of the site, you will appear to be just another perv they caught there.

The police DO infiltrate and pose either as perpetrators or potential victims, and in the US a TV crew operate a "sting" where they team up with the police and trap a perv into meeting someone he thinks is a potential victim, only to be greeted by the show presenter with a couple of cops in tow, and his face shown on TV whilst he is asked to justify his turning up at the venue, and why he has "certain items" upon his person if his intent was purely innocent.

This could even become a self funding protection measure, with TV channels charged to broadcast the perv getting their just deserts, with the money raised funding the next episode.

Dateline used to do this I think the show was cancelled a few years ago.



I think the governement agencies prefer to go after entire rings at once in one big sting.