AW: [LINK] more shonky stats

[Craig Sanders]

On Thu, Feb 12, 2004 at 02:45:22PM +1100, David Goldstein wrote:
> Yes well Karl et al... it just never ceases to amaze me about
> the lack of recognition on this list that people have regarding
> the abuse of kids online. 

so, what you're saying is that LINK is a list with numerous subscribers who are
long-term experienced & clued-up internet users who don't see online
child-abuse as being a major problem.  that our consensus assessment is that
the problem is greatly exaggerated and supported by extremely dodgy statistics.

don't you think that fact alone is telling you something?

perhaps you should be amazed - but not at our ignorance, rather at the brazen
misuse of statistics and blatant fear-mongering by organisations with a barrow
to push.

> > It is *entirely* appropriate to question statistics.
> 
> Agreed, but there is not even a discussion on this list about how to go about
> dealing with the problem.

that's possibly because there is little to no evidence that there actually IS
any significant problem.  as many of us have stated several times already, the
figures and stats being pushed are not very credible.  

BTW, until a few years ago, i wouldn't have belived there was any problem AT
ALL - but the existence of child-porn spam has convinced me otherwise...there
wouldn't be spam if there wasn't product (or at least fake product) and
customers willing to buy it.  but even long before there was *any* supporting
evidence, there was constant stream of mass media stories & articles crying
wolf, as well as companies, politicians, police, censors, etc jumping on the
bandwagon - but no actual evidence.

at the time, i remember being outraged that the child-porn issue was being
hyped and abused to pass ridiculously draconian laws that do nothing to
actually protect children - e.g laws against fictional depictions of "underage"
people having sex (which could be applied against even classic works of
literature, _Romeo & Juliet_ for instance) or computer-generated images
(personally, i reckon that if no actual, real child was involved in creating
the picture in any way, i honestly dont understand where the crime is...how can
there be a crime when there is no victim(*)? yes, it's sick to want to look at
it, but sick doesn't neccessarily imply a crime - there are many 'sick'
behavious which are not crimes).   as you can tell, i still think that some of
the laws went too far.


(*) i don't accept the validity of victim-less crimes at all.

even now i still see little evidence for the problem, certainly no evidence
that it is a large or significant problem.  mostly it seems to exist in the
imaginations of those with a bee in their bonnet about it, with just barely
enough real-world evidence to keep the issue alive.


> > especially critically scrutinised.  Your comment quoted above falls
> > squarely in to the category of "if you aren't for us, you're against us" -
> > rhetoric, not argument.  Damaging rhetoric at that, because it chills
> > intelligent discussion.
> 
> If you want to use analogies like 'you're either with us or against us' I'll
> use another one. This list uses rhetoric like those who deny the holocaust
> ever happened. Trying to rewrite history to suit your needs/beliefs.

his point was that YOU were the person saying 'you're either with us or against
us'.  i.e. he was calling you on your bogus line of argument.

> Unfortunately the interests of some on this list mean a denial of the issues. 

what 'interests' would they be?

> A shame there wasn't intelligent discussion. This is what I find 'chilling'.
> I'd welcome a debate here that deals with the issues, 

then come up with some verified facts, rather than over-hyped rubbish.

> and doesn't fall back on only leaving up to the parents, 

like it or not, controlling online child abuse inherently falls back to the
parents.  they are the ones who have a responsibility to monitor and control
their child's internet access, they are the ones who have a responsibility to
educate their child about privacy and internet safety issues.  parents do not
have any right at all to pass the buck on this issue (IMO, a desire to pass the
buck on this is indicative of at least neglect in itself). 

craig