Teens Face Child Porn Charges... For Taking Nude Photos Of Themselves

from the victimizing-themselves dept

There was just that report noting that 20% of teens admitted to sending around sexually explicit photos of themselves -- and now, six high school students in Pennsylvania are facing child porn charges because the three girls took naked photos of themselves and sent them to some boys (thanks to everyone who sent this in). The girls are charged with manufacturing, disseminating or possessing child pornography, while the boys who received the photos are charged with possession. Now, it's pretty clear that the girls did something dumb here -- but teens do an awful lot of dumb things. It's part of growing up. Getting charged with child porn for taking photos of yourself and then being labeled a sex offender for the rest of your life seems... a bit extreme. This is why we've pointed out that laws, like the one in Georgia, that require sex offenders to hand over not just their emails, but passwords to all their accounts, are so ridiculous. If someone is actually found to be dealing in child porn, that's one thing -- but casting such a wide net is clearly overkill.

152 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Did You Know Caching Is How Perverts Avoid Downloading?

from the say-again? dept

We all know that child porn is a terrible problem -- and I have absolutely no problem with severely punishing anyone involved in the production or distribution of it. However, where things get tricky is when you start punishing anyone merely for possession. Sure, if it's a situation where someone is discovered with a ton of it, that might be a different scenario (though, I would think it's more of an issue to be handled with psychiatric help, rather than criminal prosecution), but mere possession in the digital age is problematic. Anyone can send someone an email with a pornographic picture attached, and suddenly the recipient is guilty of possessing child porn through no fault of his own. Or, you could get some malware that pops up such images. There are plenty of ways that people could unwittingly have such images on their computer, and making them criminally liable could result in some pretty awful scenarios.

Apparently, the guy the Irish government put in charge of dealing with the child porn problem hasn't thought about any of this, however. He's recommending that Irish laws be strengthened to make merely viewing child porn a criminal offense, claiming that viewing it drives demand for more such images.

Of course, if you read the article linked above, it sounds even worse. I'm hoping it's because the reporter, rather than the guy who wrote the report, is clueless, but it implies that the guy's report to the government said that child porn viewers are purposely using "caching" to avoid downloading child porn to protect them from legal liability. Except... caching is downloading. The way something is cached is that it's downloaded. So, if you accidentally go to a website that includes child porn, the images are most likely cached, meaning you're now guilty of a committing a crime. Yet, the article (which claims to be repeating what's in the report) suggests that caching is actually a nefarious technique used by technologically sophisticated folks to avoid legal liability. Apparently, the fact that almost everyone uses caching when they browse wasn't explained to someone.

Fighting back against child porn is important, but technologically clueless people going on a witch hunt isn't going to help things very much.

36 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Andrew Cuomo Threatens To Sue Comcast If It Doesn't Sign Up For His Plan To Pretend To Fight Child Porn

from the grandstanding dept

Last month, New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo made some news by pressuring a bunch of ISPs to agree to block certain sites in a totally misguided effort to fight child porn. It will actually do the opposite, because it merely hides the issue, driving it further underground, rather than attacking at the source. At the same time, it opens up a very questionable door: having ISPs blocking any content that they feel is "objectionable" in some manner. It's not hard to predict where this goes, in terms of ISPs blocking other types of content as well.

Comcast was one of the companies that agreed last week to a similar proposal with a bunch of state attorneys general, but apparently that's not enough for Andrew Cuomo. He's now threatening to sue Comcast within five days if it doesn't sign the more stringent "code of conduct" that Cuomo wrote up. Apparently Cuomo doesn't think last week's agreement goes far enough.

Of course, what's odd is that nowhere does Cuomo explain how Comcast's actions violate the law. He just threatens to sue over it -- and even makes a veiled threat that the lawsuit alone will be damaging to Comcast, because Cuomo will position it as Comcast protecting child porn:

Comcast's unwillingness to sign the code of conduct and purge its system of child pornography puts Comcast at the back of the pack in the race to fight this scourge, and would likely be surprising to Comcast's millions of customers across the country.

The reason Cuomo doesn't explain what the legal rationale for any lawsuit, is because there isn't one. Comcast as a connectivity provider is not responsible for what content goes across its network. Cuomo (one would hope) knows this -- and is bullying Comcast into signing his "Code of Conduct" by threatening to paint the company as protecting child porn. That's a rather sickening abuse of power -- and the end result will only be to make it more difficult to stop child pornography, while opening the door to widespread content blocking by ISPs.

48 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Why ISP's 'Stand' Against Child Porn Is Actually Not A Stand Against Child Porn

from the let's-try-this-again,-shall-we? dept

Following NY Attorney General Andrew Cuomo's success in getting ISPs to turn off Usenet access and pretend it was a victory against child porn, a bunch of cable providers under the umbrella of the NCTA have announced an agreement with 45 attorneys general, claiming that they, too, are taking a "stand against child porn." This "stand" is the same as what Cuomo pressured ISPs to do: officially it's to block any newsgroup or website that is "known to host child pornography." Taking a stand against child pornography would be a good thing -- but this is not actually a stand against child pornography. This is trying to sweep a problem under the rug so that some politicians and some companies can get some good headlines.

Taking a stand against child porn wouldn't be overly aggressively blocking access to internet destinations that may or may not have porn (and there's no review over the list to make sure that they're actually objectionable). Taking a stand against child porn would be hunting down those responsible for the child porn and making sure that they're dealt with appropriately. Blocking access to some websites doesn't solve the problem. Those who still produce and make use of child porn will still get it from other sources -- but it will be more underground, making it more difficult for authorities to track down. Also, this sets an awful precedent in that the ISPs can point out that it's ok for them to block "objectionable" content where they get to define what's objectionable without any review. For those folks who support network neutrality, this is highly questionable, because it's clearly going against the basic principles of network neutrality -- but in a way no one will protest because they don't want to be seen as siding with child pornographers. But the truth is this "stand" against child pornography won't do anything to stop child pornographers other than making them harder to track down -- and it sends these ISPs down the slippery slope of getting to decide what they think is objectionable content that should be blocked.

53 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Supreme Court Says Telling People You Have Child Porn Is Illegal... Even If You Don't Have It

from the something-doesn't-seem-right-there dept

I certainly have absolutely no problem with the government going after folks involved in child pornography. However, they shouldn't stretch the laws so far as to make it ridiculous. Unfortunately, however, it looks like the Supreme Court is allowing them to do so. In a recent decision, the Supreme Court okayed a law that makes it illegal to simply try to convince someone else that child pornography is available -- even if it is not. That is, merely telling someone that there is child pornography at a certain link could be considered illegal. Two justices dissented, but seven said the law was fine. The lower court seemed to have it right, noting how problematic it was that this law would apply to "any promoter -- be they a braggart, exaggerator, or outright liar -- who claims to have illegal pornography." However, the justices, led by Justice Scalia, seem to say that the law would only be used in cases where it made sense. Of course, given how often we see laws twisted beyond their original purpose, this seems difficult to believe.

66 Comments | Leave a Comment..