[LINK] .uk - Net blamed for rise in child porn

[Craig Sanders]

On Tue, Jan 13, 2004 at 05:12:52PM +1100, David Goldstein wrote:
> Once again Linkers are unable to see the problem with child pornography
> online. And if people had read the articles they would have seen:

no, we can see the problems.  we're just sick of seeing brain-dead articles
blaming every objectionable thing under the sun on the internet.

it's not the internet's fault that people do depraved things.  it's not the
internet's fault that depraved people trade disgusting images.

these activities can no more be blamed on the internet, than they can be blamed
on the camera or the postal service.

>  * "research has shown the activities of internet paedophiles have recently
>  changed significantly"

well, duh!  they have a new medium they can use to exchange their images over.

>  * "police efforts to deal with offenders are seriously impeded by a lack of
>  resources" - one of the main issues raised

how exactly can that can be blamed on the internet?

because the 'net makes the problem more visible, preventing the
out-of-sight,out-of-mind effect from reducing police workload?

>  * "549 people were charged or cautioned with child pornography offences in
>  2001 compared to just 35 in 1988" with "figures for 2002 are expected to
>  rise even higher with the impact of Operation Ore" 

the false conclusion you are leaping to is that this is because the internet
turns people into paedophiles, rather than the far more likely theory that the
internet makes these crimes far more visible, coupled with the fact that most
people are stupid and ignorant, and are completely unaware of the fact that
their activities on the net can be traced very easily unless they have the
skill and dedication to hide their tracks.  very few people are capable of
that.

also significantly, child porn spammers spew their garbage out
indiscriminately, enraging people who would otherwise prefer to know nothing
about it.  some of them are technically skilled enough to trace the origin of
the spam and provide a detailed report to police.

> and the comment about child pornography being legal before 1988 is
> undoubtedly wrong.

i have no idea when the law was changed, but it was relatively recently.

> But then, reading the entire articles may mean people are informed. Why not
> sensationalise what suits our purpose...

i read the entire article before commenting on it.

i still wasn't impressed - it was sensationalist rubbish with the key words
'child porn' and 'internet'.  good for the ratings, i suppose..


craig