It's why some of this crap is so hard to get rid of. You basically have subservient computers liking this crap, and worms/viruses/trojans collecting more fresh victims. Malware "companies" do it all of the time, often using browser or java exploits.

they are disseminating kiddie porn.

I posted about this below. And "accidentally downloaded" or "didn't know it was there" is not a defense so if it was a worm or a bot that clicked "like" for you, it will matter not to the prosecutor.

other than being sickos. but those who spread it about may have committed serious felonies.

Videos and images get cached on your computer, thus making the viewer "in possession of child porn".

if they viewed it and it wasn't cached, it wouldn't be illegal. but if it gets cached it is possession, according to a lawyer friend I ran this by. she said there is no law against looking at anything, but if it gets cached on your machine, you are in possession.

anyone that even viewed it. I kind of find that hard to believe. That it got that much attention and was clearly kiddie porn.

They probably posted "Look at this sick person, he should never get out of prison!" In that case, the charges probably wouldn't be brought up. Although they still would look into it.

if I came across such a thing I would forward it to the FBI.

Were the shares and likes hacked as with Romney?

what sick people would distribute something like that and what vile animal would do such a thing. omg. I'm not sure I want to read the link.

The reports are often practically ignored, though.

This time a child was involved, so at least it took less than a day.

From the link

of kids and asked for us to report it. Well i did report it and remember that it took quite some time for it to be removed.

The damage that can be done with slow policing of a website is scary.

A few of my facebook friends will ask for help reporting such things sometimes, and that time, because of the subject matter, I was desperate enough to ask for help here.

There should be a way to complain about child abuse specifically so it can be dealt with quickly.

I appreciated what you did and wish more people would involve themselves directly where the well being of others is concerned.

It takes too long, but the number of reports seems to help.

I know of vile racist crap that stayed for days after multiple reports.

to 'normal' porn and want to go a step further, and further to satisfy their sick needs.

they had to have started somewhere and I doubt highly that it was with this kind of sick shit right off the top.

I always thought it was violent porn that was escalated to.

I don't know how shit like that is rationalized... cartoons of animals and aliens and monsters raping women. WTF. Obviously 'rape porn' is rationalized with the excuse that 'some women like it'

Pedophilia is a mental disorder. You can't "catch" it by reading Playboy or browsing TGP porn sites. Most people are horrified at the very idea of having sex with a prepubescent child. A small portion of the population is not. The difference is in the way the brain is wired...not in their reading material.

The suggestion that all porn viewers can become pedophiles, or that legal porn is some sort of gateway to pedophilia, is complete nonsense.

but thanks for your interest, come again.

And that's absurd. Look up the research yourself. The brains of pedophiles are different enough from non-pedophiles that the differences can be detected on an MRI. It's a structural difference in the brain itself.

You're either wired to be a pedophile or you aren't. Looking at legal adult porn isn't going to change that one bit.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/10/19/can-science-spot-a-pedophile-research-zeroes-in-on-brain-abnormalities.html

that are addicted to porn.

Got to get more gross to satisfy.

Not saying that leads to being a pedo, but watching a pedo just may turn some cranks.

I can't imagine a non-pedophile getting off watching a video of a toddler being screwed. That would be like you or me watching two dogs humping on the lawn...not attractive at all. If you're not attracted to the subject of the video, where does the eroticism come from?

If a person gets off watching little kids get molested, that person is a pedophile. If it turns their cranks, they were already wired for that sort of thing. I simply can't envision any non-pedophile being aroused by the sight of a small child being sexually abused.

And if they're already a pedophile, it wasn't porn that made them that way.

but I know for a fact that some very gross things like nuns and donkeys, for an ugly example, have been around for a long time. That doesn't mean the viewer is interested in doing that act to a donkey him/herself, does it?

I mean, if these people "need" to broaden their cieling to include stuff that they're not normally turned on by, wouldn't that make sense?

There's a tremendous amount of ceiling-broadening material out there for your average hetero dooodbro that is legal and readily available.

So, have you noticed this phenomenon? Heard about it in anyanecdotal the porn-sky-is-falling Wheelock College memos? Hetero men getting bored with regular old naked women or two adults of different genders having sex, and then suddenly stocking up on gay porn?

Or vice-versa, do gay people who enjoy porn get so sick of the regular gay stuff they start watching hetero porn?

Fascinating. I'd really like to hear about that research.

Or vice-versa, do gay people who enjoy porn get so sick of the regular gay stuff they start watching hetero porn?

For a variety of reasons.

But I'm totally stymied how needing more kink translates to children. Pedophilia isn't a kink. It's (and watch me get clobbered for this word) an orientation.

The practical result being, there doesn't seem to be any answer except to separate those folks from society. I don't think they're "repairable".

It's a fucking ludicrous assertion, but it serves to illustrate (again) the total bankruptcy of the people whose hobbies include railing against consensual adult fucking in front of a camera (or, pretty much any consensual adult behavior objected to on "morals" grounds)... rather than argue against the thing itself, there's always a straw man ready to ride the red herring down the spooky slippery slope.

Pot smoking LEADS TO HEROIN! ...Same reason right-wing asshats can't argue against gay marriage itself; without bringing in the scary spectre of people marrying box turtles.

Sure! Let em do this, and before long they'll do that!

Every. God. Damn. Time.

Uber-bullshit.

Loving to see sick shit and doing that same sick shit are two different things.

have a hoot over that one

Demonstrating her point. Not that they become pedophiles, but that people who watch a great deal of porn find it increasingly difficult to be sexually satisfied and tend to escalate in kinkiness.

Oh, right, but consenting adults watching other consenting adults screw in front of a camera- as usual, that's the problem.

"this kind of porn is for those who have been desensitized to 'normal' porn and want to go a step further, and further to satisfy their sick needs."

"this kind of porn" refers to child porn-pedophilia.
poster is more than implying that too much porn leads to pedophilia.

Nice of you to move the goalposts.

But you seem more interested in picking a fight, so enjoy yourself.

the poster posted bullshit and you know it so you try to move the goalposts.

you seem more invested in hostility than a discussion.

The goal posts: a discussion board means people discuss. That someone doesn't answer in the way you demand isn't moving the goal post. You insisted she was digging herself in deeper. I pointed out to you that there is evidence to support her general point that you ignored. But instead you prefer ridicule. So by all means, proceed.

Unfortunately, you wanna change the discussion because you know you are defending a bullshit statement.
Carry on.

LOL is discussing? "Digging yourself in deeper"? Really? That's the best you can do? Yeah, I changed the terms. There is no way anyone over 7 can respond to that kind of post without changing the terms. Sorry that you're so aggrieved by my suggestion you might consider some additional information. You were so enjoying dumping all over another poster for kicks. And here I come along and suggest an actual point of discussion. That was very inconsiderate of me.

Does too much porn lead to pedophilia?
That's the discussion, so what's your answer?

People who make excuses for it, especially for the absolute SHIT that is called "porn" these days, are pathetic.

Think about the people who are used and abused in this "consensual" industry and then you will think twice before getting off on it.

you are in trouble now duff, .... duck. lol

though, with the shit out today, maybe it is the using and abusing that does the trick.

meh

who the fuck knows.

And I have absolutely NO desire to view child porn or to ever distribute it. It's sick and wrong on every level.

WTF is wrong with you to make such a statement?

Here, put your hair on fire out.




calm down. Breathe deep.

I was merely stating that SOME PEOPLE get addicted to porn and in order to satisfy their increasing needs for seeing nastier and nastier and grosser stuff, they could VIEW child porn like this and get their fix. That does not mean they themselves 'become' pedophiles and go out and stalk kids for assaulting.

thing as rape or child abuse!

Because they totally are the same thing.

but if you watch too much porn, you become desensitized and turn to pedophilia.
First it's PLAYBOY and the next thing you know...kid fucking!

if this 'phenomenon' was really such a real thing, wouldn't it make sense that your rapidly-brain-desensitized porn viewers would go through other legal, easily accessible types of smut first? Like, Bob gets sick of hetero porn, so he bursts through the gay male stuff on his quest for ever-increasingly more outrageous stimuli? And similarly, wouldn't bored Gay porn viewers start watching hetero stuff for the ever-more-difficult-to-obtain rush of "extreme" material?

I'm sorry, I just haven't actually seen this phenomena play out in, you know, reality.

but I wonder if they can trace this back to the original sender to be arrested?

this and list the people what posted "like" in reference to this disgusting crap.

isn't it possible that at least some of the people who apparently clicked it, "liked" it, or shared it actually didn't? (I am glad now that I hardly ever even log on to Fb--only occasionally to view a pic a friend or family member has posted. It would totally freak me out to come across something like that!)

at all. Signed up one day, looked at what was being posted, and unsigned an hour later. Some things are so personal and then to be put out on such a public site - I just don't instinctively like it. Plus it is used in a lot of unpleasant ways to boot. And it less personal than sending an email, which of course, is less personal than sending something in the mail, etc. Not condemning those who do use it, it is just not for me.

And to answer your statement, I suppose it is possible for someone to "like" something on someone else's facebooky thing.

I'm not computer savvy at all but is it impossible to trace the origins of something that appears on Facebook? While the person who made it may not be the one who posted it, is it impossible to establish a computer chain of custody?

1 - They usually aren't in this country, and jurisdiction laws / corrupt and inadequate police forces / powerless governments cause a real mess.
2 - The video is usually everywhere, and one you find what you think is an origin, that "origin" actually originated from somewhere else, so you're basically chasing your tail.
3 - Often software is what posts it, usually from some bot-subservient computer or a shady network somewhere.

The sad reality is, the person that did this will probably never be found. Doesn't mean we shouldn't try, though.

Oh my God. That is a case for "alert" and "alert" only.

That is some fucked up shit.

It's the internet, though. Nothing surprises me anymore.

"grown man sexually abusing an infant girl" - WTF?

and a major felony? the likes are just sick, but probably protected as free speech since it is just their (sick, but protected) opinion. Now the ones who shared may have violated the law.

people actively went out seeking others to file complaints with FB. took at least 24 hours to get it off with community effort. 32k likes?

for gang rape.

And their victims should be allowed to wear the skins as cloaks.

I don't think victims would would want to wear the flayed skins of their rapists.

Stuff it and mount it as a trophy, display it at the courthouse as an example of what happens to child molesters.

I think public floggings for various offenses would be a good way to discourage future would be offenders. Sick bastards.

Julie

On another forum I go to one member suddenly & without warning emailed a bunch of us with this kind of thing. He was immediately reported to the forum owner, who deleted the member and then reported him to his local authorities - some of the posters over there knew who he was in real life and shared that info.
Sharing it with someone else? That's a criminal offense. Facebook needs to inform its members in no uncertain terms of this, and it needs to be way more on top of it than it apparently is.
I don't use Facebook by the way. I find it seriously annoying. This is another good reason to avoid it.

I just received a spam e-mail from someone near and dear to me who would never, ever send such an e-mail to me. The spam was sent to everyone on that person's e-mail list. Fortunately, it was relatively harmless spam. At any rate, my e-mail contact found out that their account had been hacked.

Also, there was a famous case a couple of years ago about a man in Montreal who figured how to hack Facebook accounts to send loads of spam to everyone on the victims' Friends lists.

So anyone can be the victim of malevolent hackers without even knowing it.

It's possible, but in the case I cited pretty clearly not the case. If an account is hacked, it's pretty easy for an engineer to figure out via some pretty simple clues.
Of course the guy who did it in the case I cited claimed he was hacked, but the tracking of the message didn't show any evidence of it (tracking down the ISP showed the same point of origin as all of his other messages, with a few transparent attempts to mask some later ones), one, and two, coincidentally the only people receiving the offensive stuff were people he disagreed with on the forum. Between those two pieces of damning evidence, it was enough to report him to the police. What became of the case I don't know.

Either way, if you receive this kind of thing, the things to do are to report it to the folks who own the email account you received it on (or purportedly sent it on if you were hacked, which is of course a possibility), and then delete it once you've reported it. Sharing it with others via your own email without having been hacked into doing it is a criminal offense, regardless of the message you accompany it with. This is something Facebook has to make crystal clear to its members.

Hackers can be very sophisticated, as this recent case in Japan clearly demonstrates-- 4 innocent people were arrested, based on IP addresses, before the real (?) perpetrator was arrested.

The hacker in the Japanese case was able to take over others' computers remotely, without them knowing it, and send e-mails from the victim's IP addresses.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/02/25/how-japan-s-cyber-terrorist-lost-game-of-cat-and-mouse.html

Relying on an IP address in a case like this is like relying on the return address of an envelope containing a death threat.

There was enough to warrant forwarding to the police.

Was there actually any physical, non-computer evidence? Or was it that the guy suddenly emailed everyone on his list suspicious material without warning? Mass e-mailing of bizarre material sounds like it could easily be a hacker job to me.

...so the first question you have to ask is, why did only the folks he didn't like get the mail but not anyone else?
Then, as I said, there was a transparent and clumsy attempt to mask subsequent offensive emails.
There were some other details that I don't remember anymore, but all in all when you put them all together it was a pretty damning set of evidence.
Either way, as I keep pointing out, it didn't occur to any of us on the recieving end to send the mails on to someone else with an "eewww" or something like that. We deleted the mails, reported it to the forum admin and owner, and helped him track down who sent it. The behavior of the Facebook recipients was shockingly the opposite of what you're supposed to do.

Wouldn't sharing something like that be the same as distributing underage pornography?

I can see how they might share and comment about their disgust. There should be more education about the report feature in incidents like this.

I know i would be so sickened i would be shaking and in quite a state of shock.

You can get rich writing potent Facebook malware that creates like feeding-frenzies and wall spam-a-thons. It's a great way to give your hungry Worm some Facebook profiles to munch on.

Those shares were largely by people who seemed to share them out of dismay over what they had just seen. Their comments conveyed as much.

No one should be able to sign up for an account without some form of government-issued ID.

People from countries all over the world use facebook. And its not hard to fake an ID.

If that image or even the cached link to that image exists on your computer, you are guilty of possession, receipt, and distribution of child pornography. Those are all three separate crimes. If you use a utility to clean your cache and temp folders, that is considered to be the use of computer skills to destroy evidence and will add significantly to your sentence.

There is no defense. Even if you did nothing wrong, the investigation and accusation alone will destroy your life. You have to be in the 1% to have the resources to fight a CP charge. Most--like 98%--will take a plea.

It would not surprise me in the least to find out that these images are being tossed out there as bait for anyone who would be naive enough to click on it. This is the nasty, deep, and very dark underbelly of the private prison system that must keep itself fed.

I have seen posts from you, for some time, suggesting these laws are simply for entrapment. How about you suggest an alternative method to catch child abusers and pornographers instead of always criticizing the system that is currently attempting to do that job.

What would YOU recommend?

Those laws WERE in place to protect children. Now, they have been completely overwhelmed by technology. The current iteration of laws with a few adjustments along the way, were made in a time when if someone had child porn, it was either printed or on tape and that person either got it directly from the producer or knew who did.

Now it is entirely possible of course to have it on your computer and not even know. And because of the federal mandatory sentencing guidelines, it is almost the norm now that someone who is convicted of CP possession will spend more time in prison than the person who actually committed the act.

There is way too much of this to go into now. If you are really interested, the USSC just released a 500 page report to Congress in December that analyzes these sentencing disparities, looks at the level of risk to the community and recommends changes and improvements. http://www.ussc.gov/Legislative_and_Public_Affairs/Congressional_Testimony_and_Reports/Sex_Offense_Topics/201212_Federal_Child_Pornography_Offenses/index.cfm

Having recently had the rather unfortunate opportunity to watch a undeserved conviction up close and personal I have done a lot of research. Many of the people now being convicted of child porn have never and would never hurt a kid. They are on file sharing sites where child porn is among what's traded and they get caught. Yet the sites stay up--the files stay out there. A sheriffs deputy someplace logs on and looks for a particular file, your computer happens to have a snippet of it and the search warrant is issued. It is an easy conviction, as I said there is no possible defense, the private prisons get another customer and the feds can say "look and all the kids we are protecting". I think child porn is being used--at least in part--to get to groups like Anonymous.

Yes, there are bad people who rape kids, and they should be in jail, but that is not what is happening.

what is the better way? Short of doing nothing, how do we now, in this day and age, with this technology, protect vulnerable kids? Because, in the absence of a better solution, the current one is going to have to suffice.

As it stands now there is little distinction between actual production of child porn and someone who has done noting more than look at a picture. Usually what happens is the actual sexual assault is prosecuted at the state level where the system works quite differently from the federal system. And federal judges have almost no discretion because of mandatory minimum sentences.

There is an automatic assumption that someone who has child porn is a sexual predator, or is on their way to becoming one. That gets into the area of prior restraint and thought crimes. There is the legal theory that every time someone looks at a picture of an underage sexual assault, the victim is re-victimized, which is an idea I believe is demonstrably false, and definitely needs to be revisited within the legal community.

An immediate step that can be taken to improve the situation is for congress to implement the sentencing commission's recommendations which updates the laws. But that means that congress would actually have to DO something and we all know what the chances of that happening are.

So you favor putting people in prison for looking at pictures of crimes that might commit in the future. Puritans like you are why we live in fascist police state.

We are done here; you're mind is so closed that rational discussion is impossible. Good day.

against children.

Curious about that, because my assumption is an economic one; demand drives production. Or are you talking individuals, and not the whole of abused children? The dissemination of pictures to countries where it is not illegal seems to argue against your point.

You seem to be saying, in general child pornography laws are a mess and need to be clarified on a number of different areas. Correct?

Like those parents recently that got arrested and kids taken away because they took pictures of their kids in the bathtub. No sex involved. No abuse involved. No harm in any way. Yet police and prosecutors considered it child porn.

how many children are saved from real pedophiles and child pornographers? I will take my chances, as a parent, with the extremely rare misapplication of the law so that exploited and abused children can be protected from harm. When a better system is found that will still protect these vulnerable children AND decreases the possibility of error i will fully support it.

So far, no suggestions seem to be forthcoming.

It was a reprehensible act that happened on a tiny percentage of Facebook accounts, many of which were probably inactive and already hacked.

There are one billion people on Facebook. Many studies suggest that somewhere between 3% and 5% of the population may have pedophilic tendencies. If the estimates and averages hold, that means there may be 30-50 million potential pedophiles on Facebook.

Think about that when your 10 year old kid or grandkid asks whether they can have a Facebook account, or when you're considering posting some toddlers bathtub photo!

There is Evil out in the world, and strangers walk among us.

However, they ought to be able to trace it back to where it started. If there's at all a silver lining in this, maybe the perps will be caught sooner and a kid saved.

Reading through the comments here is interesting. Pornography, I notice, has many, many sites devoted to 'teens'. Now of course this isn't a baby. But a perusal of these sites will show pictures of very young appearing 'girls' and sometimes 'boys', some appear child-like. This is common, especially porn picturing 'Asian' females--who are often in school girl like skirts.

I agree the indiscriminate and thoughtless use of readily available pornography can lead to desensitization of the horror of certain acts without necessarily wanting to commit such acts themselves.

In this case, I think the shares were part of a morbid fascination, the reason sites like rotten.com used to exist.

Who is 'liking' this kind of thing on Facebook, the actual demographic, would be good to know. Does this mean there are 5000 pedophiles out there watching baby rape? Or is it reactionary, a kind of immature-look-at-me and how disgusting I am--rebellion?

Or is this more common than we want to admit to ourselves?

That means that, statistically, at least 22% or so of "teens" are legally adults.

Now, does that mean I think porn full of 18 and 19 year olds is unquestionably, always a societal good? No. But 18 and 19 year olds are sexual beings, college age people are having lots of sex (they still are, as much as baby boomers who once were enthusiastic sexual people themselves at that age may now, wish to forget) and like it or not this is reflected in porn.

The fact of the matter is, there is bright legal (and moral) line for pictures of sex and people screwing, and that line is set at 18 years old. Trying, desperately, to conflate the vast majority of legal material which is by and for adults, with the universally illegal material containing anyone under that age, is a desperate and transparent tactic on the part of people who have an agenda- for whatever reason- against the legal, adult stuff. The fact is, they're very different things, the law treats them very different, and they don't have anything to do with each other, any more than adult sex is the same thing as child abuse.

The use of the word "teens" in some porn doesn't mean anything. There is overlap between "teen" and "adult", as old as that may make some of us fogeys feel.

I get it, I may not like it, but I get it when it's young attractive or even fetish type bodies, I don't get it when they look barely pubescent, if that. And there is quite a bit of it. I'm not critiquing porn here, that's for another day, but the inclusion of of quite a bit less than 'barely legal' bodies in appearance.

It made me wonder if there is crossover from the pedo sites. I suspect so, if an owner isn't moderating their site sources stringently enough. There's a lot of 'free' porn out there.




And who you calling a fogey?!

"well, if you look at porn, you have no idea if the people are of age, or not!"

For one, commercially produced porn usually includes a 2257 statement or some such deal that indicates proof of age is on file in some warehouse in Van Nuys, generally.

But that said, I don't know about you, but I can tell the difference fairly easily between a 30 year old and a 19 year old. At this point, anyone under 30- with the possible one-time exception of Mila Kunis at 29, usually looks way too young for my taste. But, everyone's MMV.

...it very deliberately skates the edge of legality and entices with words like "naughty", "forbidden", "perverted", etc.

The schoolgirl/cheerleader/babysitter motif is a common one in the teen porn genre. Props and styling are used to emphaisize the youth/ages of the performers.

Teen porn goes as far as is legally possible to give the illusion of penetration into the "forbidden" years of pubesence and certain types of dubiously legal cartoon porn clearly cross multiple boundaries of "decency".

In the sex for hire industry, legality ceases to be a major issue at all, early teen prostitutes are not that hard to find, nor are they enormously expensive.

There is no magic switch that gets thrown on an individual's 18th birthday, just an arbitrary legal one.

And not surprisingly, there are people who like to dance right up to the edge of the law, just as there are people who drive just slow enough to not get a ticket.

But as i said to ism, most of us can tell pretty easily the difference between a 30 year old and an 18 year old. personally? I find myself mostly attracted to women between 30-50, which makes sense since that is my age demographic, too. I'm sure some of the people watching 18 year old women in porn are 18 year old men. But, not all...

... still, whether something is repugnant or icky is not the same thing as it being illegal.

It's like getting mad at the freeway for someone driving like an asshole.

Still, i feel like some on this website are still adjusting to touch tone phones and color tv, never mind the interwebs.

the flip side to it being spread on the internet is, it may make it easier to track it back to where it came from.