General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsTen boys arrested for child porn distribution connected to Snapchat
Ten teenage boys were arrested Thursday in Quebec in connection with their use of the app Snapchat, according to CTV Montreal. All of the boys are suspected of producing and distributing child pornography, thanks to photos obtained via Snapchat.
CTV reports that the boys allegedly lured seven girls into sending pornographic photos to them, using the fact that Snapchat messages self-destruct as bait. What the girls apparently did not know (or trusted would not happen) is that there are a slew of ways to preserve Snapchat messages. Would-be preservers use secondary devices, other apps, or fairly simple hacks to recover the photo files from the receiving phones flash storage.
http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2013/11/ten-boys-arrested-for-child-porn-distribution-connected-to-snapchat/
No matter what anyone tells you... No matter how an app advertises itself... Once you put it out electronically, it's out there forever. Sheesh.
Benton D Struckcheon
(2,347 posts)if someone like Facebook buys the thing.
tblue37
(65,490 posts)1000words
(7,051 posts)Furthermore, wasn't it "distribution" when they put those images out themselves?
Ohio Joe
(21,763 posts)Fuckin disgusting.
1000words
(7,051 posts)In no way do I condone the behavior.
Ohio Joe
(21,763 posts)Read the article. The boys convinced the girls the photos would be temporary and then saved them and distributed them. What you are doing is as disgusting as what they did.
1000words
(7,051 posts)Some of us can objectively analyse a story without there being some nefarious scheme for you to "root out."
This issue is fairly new given the technology and these questions should be asked for further protection of all.
Ohio Joe
(21,763 posts)And yes... Trying to put any kind of blame on the girls is defending the boys... So very fucked up.
1000words
(7,051 posts)etherealtruth
(22,165 posts)(remembering the "child" in child pornography)
1000words
(7,051 posts)I raised some questions with regards to the charges the boys are facing, which by the way, I support whole-heartedly. Technically, the girls likely broke the same law.
NickB79
(19,274 posts)It's harder to call the girls victims when they voluntarily posted selfies of themselves online/sexted to another kid. Sort of like calling Anthony Weiner a victim after all his selfies were put out there for the world to see.
And young girls HAVE been charged with child porn for distributing self pics: http://www.nbcnews.com/id/28679588/
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)we have these supposed newbies that come right in where they left off. this would be one.
Response to 1000words (Reply #3)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Ohio Joe
(21,763 posts)You are also being as disgusting as the boys that did this. More MRA bullshit DU does not need.
Response to Ohio Joe (Reply #8)
Name removed Message auto-removed
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)In your haste to excuse the virtual sexual violation of young girls, you kind of overlooked that part.
NickB79
(19,274 posts)If the girls had consented to their photos being distributed by the boys to every other boy in the school, it's STILL child porn that they voluntarily participated in creating.
Teenage girls HAVE been charged with creating child porn of themselves, so there is case law to back it up.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)the actions of victim-blaming prosecutors in isolated incidents don't establish the general legal consensus
NickB79
(19,274 posts)And you were right (see post 42).
Apparently Canada's laws on this issue are far more sensible than those I was familiar with here in the US.
Sorry bout that
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Ohio Joe
(21,763 posts)Are you going to try pass bullshit like this off?
Did you miss the part where the boys distributed these pictures without the girls consent? Where they fooled the girls into believing the pictures would be gone in a few seconds... And did it with the intent of distributing them later? Are you just going to ignore that and then try and pass these acts off as something innocent?
Really?
MRA bullshit and victim blaming... So very fucked up.
Response to Ohio Joe (Reply #22)
Name removed Message auto-removed
uppityperson
(115,681 posts)of the stupid girls.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)without the girls permission because you're:
A) Dishonest
B) Semi-literate; or
C) A misogynist victim-blamer; or
D) A combination of the above.
NickB79
(19,274 posts)leftstreet
(36,116 posts)If you want to charge the girls with something, those won't work
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Yuck.
BainsBane
(53,072 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Response to geek tragedy (Reply #21)
Name removed Message auto-removed
etherealtruth
(22,165 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)what what you say in opposing those views cause you will be hidden every time.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)accomplices?
Oink oink oink.
HijackedLabel
(80 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Rape culture thrives, even at DU.
haele
(12,681 posts)Don't they do stupid things just to prove "you aren't the boss of meeee?" or because someone cute tells them "I love you and want to make you feel special, so would you do this for me?" - even after their parents have done their best to teach them to respect themselves, or that having a boyfriend or girlfriend isn't the most important thing in the world, and all the other warnings that go in one ear and out the other because their hormones are screaming at them and they don't know which way is up?
As for distribution of pornography - who initiated the distribution?
Distribution of Pornography follows intent - someone who gives a personal picture or image to a lover or friend with the understanding that the picture is to remain between them is not distributing pornography. Otherwise, a parent's "first bathtime for baby picture" sent to grandma can be distributing child pornography.
If the image is no longer a personal transfer and someone broadcasts the image with the intent to benefit from the broadcast, then that's distribution of pornography.
The girls did not initate, they did not consent, nor did they benefit.
Haele
In_The_Wind
(72,300 posts)How would you feel if one of those girls was your daughter?
BainsBane
(53,072 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)uppityperson
(115,681 posts)Can you see the difference between consent and non-consent?
NickB79
(19,274 posts)Vashta Nerada
(3,922 posts)NickB79
(19,274 posts)In a few posts in this thread, I asked what consent had to do with this case; I didn't think it had any bearing because a sexual naked pic of a kid is a sexualy naked pic of a kid, case closed.
Apparently, consent DOES make a big difference in Canada: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/the-fine-line-between-sexting-and-child-pornography-1.1367613
Writing for majority, Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin, stated that if the photo or video was taken by one of the people involved, and if it was consensual and kept private, then the image is not considered child pornography.
The images in question would show teenagers under 18 years old but over the age of consent, which ranges from 12 to 16, depending on their partner's age.
So cases in Canada usually involve the non-consensual and/or malicious distribution of these kinds of images.
So mea culpa, I didn't do my homework on this case as I didn't know such a ruling existed.
1000words
(7,051 posts)Thank you for actually addressing the issue, and helping me to gain a better understanding.
rrneck
(17,671 posts)but even if they "produced" the images since they were under age that aspect of the law probably doesn't apply to them.
CFLDem
(2,083 posts)Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)I would, indeed, be terrified.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)Good riddance.
calendargirl
(191 posts)That app seems like it was designed to share child and teenage porn. Instantly deleted (my butt.) I won't let my children near it.