×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Senators OK $1 Billion for Online Child Porn Fight

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 5 years ago | from the blinded-by-the-children dept.

The Internet 529

A bill that could allocate more than $1 billion over the next eight years to combat those who trade in child pornography has been unanimously approved by a Senate panel. "The Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday voted to send an amended version of the Combating Child Exploitation Act, chiefly sponsored by Sen. Joe Biden (D-Del.), to the full slate of politicians for a vote. [...] An amendment adopted Thursday also adds new sections to the original bill that would rewrite existing child pornography laws. One section is designed to make it clear that live Webcam broadcasts of child abuse are illegal, which the bill's authors argue is an "open question." Another change is aimed at closing another perceived loophole, prohibiting digital alteration of an innocent image of a child so that sexually explicit activity is instead depicted."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

529 comments

thought crime (5, Insightful)

opencity (582224) | more than 5 years ago | (#23439492)

a billion here, a billion there, pretty soon you're talking about real money

> "Another change is aimed at closing another perceived loophole, prohibiting digital alteration of an innocent image of a child so that sexually explicit activity is instead depicted."

So it's the image that would be illegal as well as the act.

Re:thought crime (2, Interesting)

AxemRed (755470) | more than 5 years ago | (#23439538)

a billion here, a billion there, pretty soon you're talking about real money

Sadly, you would think that $1 billion IS real money. Sadly, our government doesn't always see it that way...

Re:thought crime (4, Funny)

nbert (785663) | more than 5 years ago | (#23439690)

Given the current trend in exchange rates the government seems to be ahead ;)

Re:thought crime (0, Redundant)

Firehed (942385) | more than 5 years ago | (#23439872)

I take it you're from Europe, or else that would read:

Given the current trend in exchange rates the government seems to be ahead :(

Re:thought crime (5, Interesting)

moderatorrater (1095745) | more than 5 years ago | (#23439556)

So it's the image that would be illegal as well as the act.
Yes, yes it would be. As it stands they prosecute people who have the image but didn't commit the act. Those who seek sexual gratification from these images are likely the ones who are going to pursue the actual act in the future, or so goes the reasoning.

What I find interesting about that is that a similar law was struck down in the supreme court a few years back. I'm surprised they'd pass a law so similar, seeing as how it's likely to get struck down in the future. Does anyone know what the differences are between this one and the one that was struck down?

Re:thought crime (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23439636)

Does anyone know what the differences are between this one and the one that was struck down?

This one makes it illegal and throws money at various corporations and government departments, the last one just made it illegal.

Re:thought crime (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23439646)

It doesn't matter if it sticks or gets struck down. By doing this they LOOK like they are doing something useful and thats all it's really mean to accomplish.

Re:thought crime (4, Insightful)

PitaBred (632671) | more than 5 years ago | (#23439648)

And black people are more prone to rob a store or do drugs than white people (if you think the prison populations are a good indicator). Let's just proactively lock them up, too.

ridiculous straw man (3, Insightful)

moderatorrater (1095745) | more than 5 years ago | (#23439846)

That arguments ridiculous. There's nothing inherent in being black that makes them more likely to commit crimes, the root cause is in society and culture. Also, they don't actively seek out being black, whereas you're not born with a thumb drive full of kiddie porn. This is closer to speeding laws, where a certain behavior hasn't harmed someone else yet, but it's increasing the probability of you hurting someone in the future.

Besides, these people aren't just being put into prison because they might abuse children, they're actively supporting and distributing these acts to other people. Putting someone in jail for kiddie porn is completely reasonable to me, although I do think the process is emotionally charged to the point that it's hard for justice to be done in these cases. It ends up smelling like more of a witch hunt than anything, but, as CS Lewis said, witch hunts are completely reasonable if witches exist.

Re:ridiculous straw man (1)

y86 (111726) | more than 5 years ago | (#23439972)

That arguments ridiculous. There's nothing inherent in being black that makes them more likely to commit crimes, the root cause is in society and culture.
All you need to do is look at the prison population to see where the problems are. The majority of poor in the USA are white, about 80% of people who make less than 20 grand are white.

You are ignoring statistics. Once you ignore the numbers you don't operate on reason. You operate on emotion.

Once you leave logic for emotion you lose objectivity and credibility.

Re:ridiculous straw man (2, Insightful)

bennomatic (691188) | more than 5 years ago | (#23440106)

ah, but if you ignore emotion altogether, you're missing half the picture. no credibility there either.

Re:ridiculous straw man (4, Insightful)

SatanicPuppy (611928) | more than 5 years ago | (#23440142)

80% of the people are white too. But the median household income for whites is ~48,000 and the median household income for blacks is ~30,000, and for hispanics, it's ~34,000. All according to WP [wikipedia.org]

Don't pretend there is no difference in relative incomes. And don't pull statistical bullshit to cover your prejudice.

What is porn? Shes a witch? shes made of wood! (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23440072)

God i hate that old CS Lewis line.

A witch hunt is generally defined, in it's normal emotive context, by the prosecution and identification of witches with a complete and utter lack of regard for any standards of evidence, justice, fairness or internal consistency.

It reminds me of the old monty python skit.

(I paraphrase from memory)


She's a witch!
how do you know?
Because she burns!
What else do we burn?
Wood!
So she is made of wood!
Yes, and wood floats!
aha! what else floats?
ducks!
Yes! Therefore witches are lighter than ducks!
(puts the witch on a broken scale which shows she is lighter than a duck)
Burn her!!!


What is child porn exactly?

Most attorneys will tell you that in most US states, that question is nonsensical when you approach the "border line".

It used to be defined (the first child porn laws came about in 1976, before which it was entirely legal in every way).... that child porn was a child "engaged in sexual contact". That was very shortly later amended to "or showing obvious arousal".

That's a pretty simple definition and the border-cases are rare.

But today, child porn in most states is defined as

"any image of a child, or someone appearing to be a child (or fictionally created to represent a child) which is viewed with the intent to cause arousal or sexual satisfaction"

There are a number of men in prison for things like.... owning a collection of boys underwear catalogs. Or taking photos of girls in bathing suits.

What it comes down to, and the issue that I have with these laws, is that it is impossible to know whether you are possessing child pornography BEFORE the jury reaches a verdict.

In fact, a given image can both be simultaneously porn and not-porn depending on who is looking at it.

In fact, the jury is instructed to divine the "intent" of the viewer of the image, often years after the actual "viewing" took place.

Obviously, there are plenty of cases with dudes downloading videos of 5 year olds being penetrated and I guess there's no argument in that case, but the cultural climate which allows laws that allow statements to enter a US court room such as "jury divined intent", "illegal fiction" and "simultaneous porn and not-porn" are the sort of things that lead us hand-in-hand toward the collapse of our fundamental structures of justice and freedom.

The fact that laws are allowed with these sorts of phrases are a travesty to our judicial and government systems and represent a black-eye to the framing of the constitution and modern law.

That's just my opinion, but I'm sticking to it.

Re:thought crime (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23439652)

The difference is.... this one hasn't been struck down yet.

Unless there is some PENALTY for writing laws that are blatantly unconstitutional, they will continue doing it.

There is a lag time between the law taking effect and it reaching the supreme court again, during which they can use it to hunt down a number of people. The neat trick is that they use this law to arrest someone, but then can convict them on other laws that aren't likely to be struck down, so even if it is, they still remain in prison.

It's a neat way to completely ignore the constitution and get re-elected for it.

Quit waving that damn constitution in my face, it's just a piece of paper (Or I think that's how the reasoning goes)

Re:thought crime (4, Insightful)

SpecBear (769433) | more than 5 years ago | (#23439730)

Given the frequency with which this has been attempted and failed over the years, I've come to the conclusion that Congress WANTS these laws to be challenged and struck down.

If it becomes a matter for the courts, then it's something that can be dragged on for years, repeatedly used as a diversion, and perhaps even used in a campaign. And when it fails, they can try again and again paint themselves as Tireless Protectors of the Children.

Voter Exploitation (5, Insightful)

Jafafa Hots (580169) | more than 5 years ago | (#23439926)

They don't give a shit if it fails, they don't even give a shit if it is signed into law in the first place.

All that's important to them is a nice headline like this one during an election year. Beats doing any REAL work. Oversight? Investigations? Fuck that, that's hard work. Budgets? Infrastructure appropriations? Screw that, makes voters yawn.

It's just a BS game, happens every election year. Voter Exploitation. "Fighting Child Abuse" gets more votes than fighting executive abuse of power.

Re:thought crime (5, Insightful)

Mordok-DestroyerOfWo (1000167) | more than 5 years ago | (#23439852)

My question is how do they prove that the person in the picture is a minor (yes I know that in extreme cases it's easy). I dated a very tiny girl a few years ago. She was 22 and yet still got carded every time we went out, even got stopped by the cops once wondering why she wasn't in high school. So now are you telling me that some of my mementos from our relationship could now be illegal?

Re:thought crime (1)

Duradin (1261418) | more than 5 years ago | (#23440040)

That would probably fall under the image manipulation bit. Or would be treated as a loophole in the next go-round (analog manipulation or intentional staging).

So ya, you'd probably have kiddy porn if this passes. /sigh I swear soccer moms will be the downfall of western civilization.

Re:thought crime (2, Insightful)

moderatorrater (1095745) | more than 5 years ago | (#23440062)

There's a difference between telling the age of a girl with clothes on by an amateur and telling the age of a naked girl with doctors there pointing at physiological signs that are very reliable (distribution of fat, proportions, etc). That said, I would hope that if there's any doubt at all that the girl would have to be found first so that her age was without question.

Just wait (1)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 5 years ago | (#23440054)

Soon, if you look at a underaged teen the wrong way, even if by accident, you will get picked up and tossed in the can.

Re:thought crime (1)

Sylver Dragon (445237) | more than 5 years ago | (#23440078)

What I find interesting about that is that a similar law was struck down in the supreme court a few years back. I'm surprised they'd pass a law so similar, seeing as how it's likely to get struck down in the future. Does anyone know what the differences are between this one and the one that was struck down?

It's an election year. I didn't RTFA, and didn't need to. This is all about grandstanding and having the appearance of "doing something to protect the children".

This will probably face the same beat-down the last one got at the SCOUTS. And they will pass it again and again and again. They won't change anything, but they will look like heroes every time they do.

Re:thought crime (2, Insightful)

Hankapobe (1290722) | more than 5 years ago | (#23439578)

a billion here, a billion there, pretty soon you're talking about real money

And of course, they will have to have the convictions to justify their budgets. And when a bureaucrat's budget is in jeopardy, his scruples become, let's say, flexible.

Re:thought crime (4, Insightful)

SatanicPuppy (611928) | more than 5 years ago | (#23439624)

So who are they trying to protect, exactly? I thought the whole rational basis for the prohibition of child pornography is the very legitimate concern over the children that are abused to make it.

If there is no abuse, and, indeed, no actual children involved, then what the hell is the justification?

Not to mention the whole, "Whoops I clicked on a non-descriptive link, and my browser cached the imagine and now I'm in jail for kiddie porn" issue.

Re:thought crime (5, Insightful)

robbblack (995732) | more than 5 years ago | (#23439876)

So who are they trying to protect, exactly?
Themselves and their ability to get re-elected.

Re:thought crime (5, Interesting)

Threni (635302) | more than 5 years ago | (#23439668)

> So it's the image that would be illegal as well as the act.

It could be worse. In the UK our moral guardians are trying to protect us from harm by criminalising the writing of descriptions of violent sexual acts. Violent sexual acts between consenting adults, of course, is not illegal under most circumstances (there have been a few cases brought, but generally involving disgusting homosexuals, not us fine upstanding god fearing straight folk), but as soon as you put it into writing you'd be arrested and charged.

Re:thought crime (4, Informative)

tinkerghost (944862) | more than 5 years ago | (#23439902)

"Another change is aimed at closing another perceived loophole, prohibiting digital alteration of an innocent image of a child so that sexually explicit activity is instead depicted."

Um, if I remember correctly, SCOTUS already shot down one law that dealt with 'pseudo' child porn - if it's not a real child doing real porn, it's not child-porn. Of course this is congress, passing good laws is so much harder than 'thinking of the children'.
The other problem is that they are budgeting $125M/year - but not, evidently, using it to put more FBI into cubicles. It looks like they are throwing the money at whoever promises to solve the problem without adding cops.

Re:thought crime (1)

camperslo (704715) | more than 5 years ago | (#23440060)

a billion here, a billion there, pretty soon you're talking about real money

You'd think they'd be able to revise the laws if needed to cover webcams etc, and skip spending another billion dollars. With all of the money already spent on homeland security and law enforcement it seems like we ought to have enough infrastructure in place to deal with the problem.

With an economy hurting for a variety of reasons it seems like it's time to be much more careful with spending. Just exactly what is it these conservatives conserve anyway?

Revenge? (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23439506)

So some bored kid using photoshop to cut a kid he hates head onto gay pron is going to be committing child porn crimes..... Damn revenge is getting harder every year

Oh My, (4, Funny)

Gat0r30y (957941) | more than 5 years ago | (#23439508)

My initial reading of the title left off the "Fight" part - anyone else?

Well... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23439514)

... This is great news! Oh wait... fight I thought it said night.

alteration illegal?? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23439544)

prohibiting digital alteration of an innocent image of a child so that sexually explicit activity is instead depicted."

As repugnant as child pornography is, this seems to be overstepping the realm of protecting children. Why should the alteration of an image, even to a repugnant end, be illegal? Possession of child porn is illegal, so it's in the interest of the "alterer" not to create fake child porn. I know we find it morally reprehensible, but there is no harm coming to anyone in and of the act of alteration itself. This seems a tad intrusive, and an undesirable precedent if nothing else.

Re:alteration illegal?? (5, Interesting)

Jafafa Hots (580169) | more than 5 years ago | (#23439684)

You haven't heard? The photoshopping of cocks into where ice cream cones used to be is a huge national problem!

I mean, it's not like there's a war on, or an economic problem, or anything else worth doing right now...

Re:alteration illegal?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23440082)

So are you advocating to fully resolve the war and the economic problem, before everything else?

Re:alteration illegal?? (1)

Fuzzums (250400) | more than 5 years ago | (#23439696)

I'm sure no parent would like to see their child in a digitally altered porn picture.
Although this probably wouldn't apply to those who are sick enough to put their dicks in places where they don't belong.

Re:alteration illegal?? (2, Insightful)

Uncle Focker (1277658) | more than 5 years ago | (#23439948)

I'm sure no parent would like to see their child in a digitally altered porn picture.
Well that clearly makes it fine to send them to jail for it.

Although this probably wouldn't apply to those who are sick enough to put their dicks in places where they don't belong.
Yeah, lord knows we need to lockup these hardcore photoshoppers. How can they live with themselves abusing pixels?

Re:alteration illegal?? (2, Insightful)

deanoaz (843940) | more than 5 years ago | (#23440012)

At least they aren't photoshopping the kids to look dead. Then we'd have to execute them for digital murder.

Re:alteration illegal?? (3, Insightful)

Bryansix (761547) | more than 5 years ago | (#23440004)

Then don't put pics of your kids online. There is no difference between the image being altered in real life and somebody altering it in their mind.

Re:alteration illegal?? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23439750)

Child pornography laws serve two major functions: to protect children from actual exploitation and to protect children from mental harm caused by the publication of pornography including them. This clearly falls into the second realm. The child could easily suffer irreversible mental anguish from this. I see no reason not to prohibit this.

Re:alteration illegal?? (1)

Hankapobe (1290722) | more than 5 years ago | (#23439762)

It's a way to punish and stop the consumption. In a politician's vote grubbing little brain, by stopping any form of child porn they'll be stopping the consumption by those degenerate sub human folks who like it. Of course, actually addressing the problem of why these folks like child porn in the first place is out of the question - even though it would be cheaper to treat those people than spend the billions in law enforcement.

Demonizing and punishing folks show "strength" and that "they're doing something about it." Considering rational and cheaper ways to actually stop the problem is considered "pandering" and "weak". Just look at our drug laws and legal system regarding that. Nothing has been accomplished and in the meantime, we have one the highest incarceration rates in the World.

Re:alteration illegal?? (4, Informative)

grahamd0 (1129971) | more than 5 years ago | (#23439856)

Nothing has been accomplished and in the meantime, we have one the highest incarceration rates in the World.

No, not "one of", *the* highest in the world.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisons_in_the_United_States [wikipedia.org]

Re:alteration illegal?? (1)

Jeff DeMaagd (2015) | more than 5 years ago | (#23440136)

Where's China in that mix? I thought China had a bigger prison population, even if the per capita might be lower. It's nowhere on that chart.

Re:alteration illegal?? (1)

Gat0r30y (957941) | more than 5 years ago | (#23439800)

Probably just to combat the claim some who do this deplorable atrocity would put forth - "i just altered an image which wasn't bad". On a completely unrelated note - what exactly is the 1 billion going toward? 250 new hires - and

beefing up personnel, equipment, and educational programs designed to combat Internet crimes against children; and for creating new forensics laboratories if the attorney general deems it necessary to deal with a "backlog" of online child exploitation cases.
that costs a billion dollars? 250 new hires and some new equipment? On the plus side of this - I hope at least some of that money is going toward computer image learning programs. Image recognition could get a long way with even a small portion of that sort of money.

Re:alteration illegal?? (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 5 years ago | (#23439920)

It's "only" $125 million a year if you average it over the 8 years. So they "only" have $100 million to spend on whatever after they pay for the new hires.

It isn't all that ridiculous if you figure that they are pushing a good deal of the funds out to the state level and so forth.

Re:alteration illegal?? (1)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 5 years ago | (#23439812)

I don't know if it is victim less crime. Altering someones picture without there permission probably should be illegal. Some 16 year old finds a modded picture of them when they where 10 doing something very gross could cause at least embarrassment if not other issues. It could also lead to someone going to jail for something they didn't do. Like the kids parents or a babysitter.
Is this law a good one? I don't know yet I have not looked into enough yet. Is this clearly a victimless or harmless act. I really don't think so.
 

Re:alteration illegal?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23439860)

Are you arguing that a child seeing their own image which was altered to depict them as being abused would not be harmful to them?

Re:alteration illegal?? (1)

Jeff DeMaagd (2015) | more than 5 years ago | (#23440112)

I think part of it is to make prosecution easier, because the chance of alteration means that the prosecution has to prove the image wasn't just a photoshop.

Uhuh... (4, Insightful)

bsDaemon (87307) | more than 5 years ago | (#23439552)

Because, you know... rebuilding bridges and roads and stuff like that wouldn't be a better use of the money than on combating some fuzzy crime (17 year old makes a tape with her boyfriend and it gets shared? they just molested each other!!! kiddy pr0n!!!), the definition of which seems to keep shifting constantly.

back in the 80s its like all they talked about was satan worshipers and commies... now its kiddy diddlers and terrorists.

Meanwhile, the people who aren't doing anything wrong get no attention AT ALL, when we could actually use a thing or two to get done around here, but NOOOOOOOOOOOO... they'll just take our money to go fight Russian criminals through the inner-tubes.

Re:Uhuh... (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23439602)

Because, you know... rebuilding bridges and roads and stuff like that wouldn't be a better use of the money

Um, thanks to Dubya and Dick, you won't need bridges and roads for very much longer...no one can afford to drive on them

Re:Uhuh... (4, Interesting)

grahamd0 (1129971) | more than 5 years ago | (#23439882)

Um, thanks to Dubya and Dick, you won't need bridges and roads for very much longer...no one can afford to drive on them

Ending a century of cheap oil prices may end up being the only good thing the Bush administration accomplished.

What a waste of money (4, Insightful)

ebuck (585470) | more than 5 years ago | (#23439974)

One billion dollars to fight something we can't consistently or accurately define.

Assuming there's a thousand of these illegal acts performed this year, that's a million dollars per act. This is nearly 7000 houses that could be bought outright and then given away in my neighborhood.

What a waste of money. It's nearly $3.32 of every man, woman, and child in the U.S.A (from 2007 population estimates). Somehow I don't think child pornography is so widespread that it requires this kind of money.

Sure, there will be people saying it's worth $3.32 to know that no child is being molested, but that's not what we're buying here. At best we're buying that people will fight children being exploited; something that we've been paying for already.

Re:What a waste of money (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23440064)

Assuming there's a thousand of these illegal acts performed this year, that's a million dollars per act. This is nearly 7000 houses that could be bought outright and then given away in my neighborhood.

Dude, your neighborhood is huge!

- T

But Liberals LOVE Child Porn (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23439558)

particularly the gay ones. ...because that is somehow free speech.

Sickos.

whom exactly is this part meant to protect? (4, Insightful)

spazdor (902907) | more than 5 years ago | (#23439580)

prohibiting digital alteration of an innocent image of a child so that sexually explicit activity is instead depicted.


Whoa there. Photoshopping up child porn is going to be a crime, even if no child abuse occurs?

I could see if *distributing* such an image was a crime (because of the use of a kid's likeness), but producing it in the first place? If the law says what TFA says it does, this is constitutionally VERY shaky.

Re:whom exactly is this part meant to protect? (4, Insightful)

jandrese (485) | more than 5 years ago | (#23439678)

Yeah, but try being the senator that brings that up in committee. It's going to look great for your re-election campaign when your opponent plasters ads all over the place about how you're pro-kiddy porn and perverts.

Re:whom exactly is this part meant to protect? (4, Insightful)

spazdor (902907) | more than 5 years ago | (#23439816)

A good argument can be made that ethically-produced child erotica helps pedophiles to live abuse-free lives.

Others will argue that the porn creates its own market, and might give people creepy sexual appetites that they wouldn't otherwise have.

Of course this is controversial, but a decent rhetorician should at least be able to argue the former point without sounding like a kiddy fiddler.

Maybe I'm giving legislators way too much credit.

Re:whom exactly is this part meant to protect? (1)

scipiodog (1265802) | more than 5 years ago | (#23439896)

Maybe I'm giving legislators way too much credit.

You're giving legislators way too much credit.

I'm sure a good rhetorician would be able to argue this point.

But, no matter how good his argument, the ONLY thing on the evening news will be "Senator supports child porn as therapy... pictures at 11."

And they know it.

Re:whom exactly is this part meant to protect? (1)

Firehed (942385) | more than 5 years ago | (#23440024)

Depends whether voters are rational. You can spin that as your competitor spewing lies and desecrating the constitution, and you're doing your best to defend it. While it may not seem that nobody cares about the constitution anymore, all we know for sure is that the people we elect are damned liars and they don't care, and most people are getting fairly sick of that.

Re:whom exactly is this part meant to protect? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23439738)

exactly what constitutional right do you think this impinges upon?

your right to photoshop? your right to digitally alter images?

seriously, which right?

Re:whom exactly is this part meant to protect? (4, Insightful)

Qzukk (229616) | more than 5 years ago | (#23439894)

exactly what constitutional right do you think this impinges upon?

The constitution does not give rights, it limits the power of government.

Which constitutional power gives the government the ability to decide what someone can and cannot do with Photoshop?

While we're at it, who decides whether the result is "sexual" or "explicit", and are we going to get a comprehensive and exhaustive list ahead of time, or is it going to be another blatantly unconstitutional position of "I know it when I see it and can decide that it's illegal after the fact".

Re:whom exactly is this part meant to protect? (3, Interesting)

eln (21727) | more than 5 years ago | (#23440048)

Freedom of speech? I know that might not be that important to some people, but there must be some reason the Founders decided to make it the first one of those amendment thingies in the Bill of Rights.

It could be considered a piece of art, much like pictures of the Virgin Mary smeared with feces could be considered art, and art has over and over again been held up as something worthy of protection under that amendment. You and I might find it distasteful, but no one was directly harmed in its creation, so why should it be illegal?

Re:whom exactly is this part meant to protect? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23439870)

Whoa there. Photoshopping up child porn is going to be a crime, even if no child abuse occurs?

In Canada the simulation of child porn is a crime. So no matter how you make it, even if it is made only with adults, if the end result is child porn, it's illegal.

Re:whom exactly is this part meant to protect? (1)

witherstaff (713820) | more than 5 years ago | (#23439890)

I wonder if this includes using a program that makes a photorealistic images from scratch. So no actual person was involved in the picture, it's entirely CG that looks real.

more punishment for victimless crimes (4, Insightful)

Danny Rathjens (8471) | more than 5 years ago | (#23439610)

One section is designed to make it clear that live Webcam broadcasts of child abuse are illegal, which the bill's authors argue is an "open question." Another change is aimed at closing another perceived loophole, prohibiting digital alteration of an innocent image of a child so that sexually explicit activity is instead depicted.

In other words, 17 year old highschool kids flashing their boobs on webcams or bored people modifying photos will now have their lives destroyed by these witchunts and blacklists even though they haven't abused anyone at all. Brilliant progress our society is making in the 21st century.

Re:more punishment for victimless crimes (4, Insightful)

PitaBred (632671) | more than 5 years ago | (#23439698)

Bushieism is the new McCarthyism. Instead of commies and homos you have terrists and kiddie rapists.

We've always gotta have an enemy, don't you know? And damned if the real one isn't almost always ourselves.

Peter Gibbons (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23439628)

Peter Gibbons: What would you do if you had a billion dollars?
Senate: I'll tell you what I'd do, man: Online Child Porn Fight.
Peter Gibbons: That's it? If you had a million dollars, you'd have an online child porn fight?
Senate: Damn straight. I always wanted to do that, man. And I think if I were a billionaire I could hook that up, too; 'cause child porn fighters dig a dude with money.
Peter Gibbons: Good point.

Not illegal? (1)

R2.0 (532027) | more than 5 years ago | (#23439634)

"One section is designed to make it clear that live Webcam broadcasts of child abuse are illegal, which the bill's authors argue is an "open question.""

WTF - there's visual evidence of a crime being committed, right in front of everybody. Does making a live webcast of it relieve the perpetrator of the crime?

Or is the purpose to punish those who watch live webcasts? Lets' clue these dumbfucks in - if it's a webcast, A FILE IS BEING TRANSMITTED!. It's just not automatically saved on the computer in a readily accessible format. If the watcher is technically astute, he will erase what little evidence there is. If he is not, then that leaves files on the computer, which is already covered. I guess they are going after IP addresses, then.

Re:Not illegal? (2, Insightful)

wattrlz (1162603) | more than 5 years ago | (#23439756)

IANAL, but AFAIK there's no law against transmitting footage of a crime being committed. Though, in most jurisdictions I'm aware of, if you didn't report it to the proper authorities you'd become an accessory after the fact.

My guess is they're tacking this on so there's no dispute about going in and seizing all the equipment used in the production and broadcast of the video even if the actual owner of the that equipment wasn't involved in the crime.

Re:Not illegal? (1)

idontgno (624372) | more than 5 years ago | (#23439958)

IANAL, but AFAIK there's no law against transmitting footage of a crime being committed.

I'd guess not, given the rampant popularity of public surveillance in many cities. After all, the camera's transmitting live footage of crimes being committed every time crime's being committed within its angle of view. Otherwise, can you imagine the scene at police HQ crimewatch media center? "Cor blimey, turn off the cam, there's a tourist being mugged!"

My guess is they're tacking this on so there's no dispute about going in and seizing all the equipment used in the production and broadcast of the video even if the actual owner of the that equipment wasn't involved in the crime.

See also "pretext". As in "incredibly thin" and "amazingly shallow".

Politicians! (2, Interesting)

Hankapobe (1290722) | more than 5 years ago | (#23439638)

One section is designed to make it clear that live Webcam broadcasts of child abuse are illegal, which the bill's authors argue is an "open question."

OK, child abuse is illegal for one thing, so if they're broadcasting an illegal act, what's the point of making the broadcast itself illegal. I guess so the prosecutor can add another charge to the list and eliminate it in the plea negotiation?

Fucking politicians....

For the children (4, Insightful)

stox (131684) | more than 5 years ago | (#23439672)

is getting to be the cry of the modern fascist. Are out children really in more danger than they used to be? Is it worth throwing away our freedom and privacy to give them more protection? Does this "protection" actually serve our children's best interests?

1 BILLION DOLLARS??? (2, Insightful)

scipiodog (1265802) | more than 5 years ago | (#23439692)

OK, I try not to gripe about most of what the government wastes my tax dollars on, but seriously. Mod me down for redundant crybabying, but...... What on god's green earth could they actually need $1 Billion for? OK, I know that's redundant, in that they almost never need these amounts, and that it's mostly waste, but I am truly mystified as to how they can even PRETEND to need it. I RTFA and I can't even tell what they're planning to spend it on. 250 new agents beefing up the monitoring system, and a new "forensics" lab for past crimes (read: data mining)? That's not $1 Billion. I'm sure there are privacy threats in this too, but I have to say that one of the things that offends me most about this is that they're using MY tax dollars for this... and I get essentially no say in it whatsoever.

Re:1 BILLION DOLLARS??? (1)

scipiodog (1265802) | more than 5 years ago | (#23440028)

- 1 Redundant?

I know I said "mod me down for redundant crybabying" but I though on Slashdot that meant:

"Please don't mod me down, I'm a redundant crybaby, you insensitive clod!"

This is really whacked...typical of Congress (5, Insightful)

PortHaven (242123) | more than 5 years ago | (#23439706)

How many pedophiles and child porn addicts are there in the USA?

Okay, let's say there 10,000. We could simply off $100,000 and amnesty (only for viewing not creating or abusing children) for them to turn themselves in to receive help.

Okay, so maybe there are more than 10,000 in the USA. Let's say there are a 100,000. In which case we could offer them all $10,000.

Heck, even if there were 1,000,000 we could offer them a $1,000 each. Of course, realize if there are that many in the USA we have a problem because that means 1 in 250 of us are the targets of this.

***

War on Drugs
War on Terror
War on Transfats
War on Child Porn

Not saying child porn is not insidiously evil. But it seems to be an extremely high ticket price. I'd really like to know how thought out this is.

Now if this is supposed to be against global child porn. Are we ready to invade Thailand and the rest of Asia in order to stop the child porn industries over there?

 

Re:This is really whacked...typical of Congress (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23440030)

According to TFA, there are 600,000 "unique computers allegedly trafficking in child pornography." Besides, handing out cash would create an incentive to view child porn, which would in turn discourage neither its creation nor viewing.

Re:This is really whacked...typical of Congress (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23440128)

I'm quite certain that the bulk of this money will be spent on harassing legitimate pornographers who wouldn't think of doing child porn.

Adding "child" to the legislation just gets them around all the "First Amendment" crap and makes them sound like defenders of youth and not pathetic prudes and raging hypocrites.

Good luck with that... (5, Insightful)

R2.0 (532027) | more than 5 years ago | (#23439720)

"Another change is aimed at closing another perceived loophole, prohibiting digital alteration of an innocent image of a child so that sexually explicit activity is instead depicted."

Altering a picture digitally to show a crime being perpetrated on someone is protected under the first amendment - Ask Hollywood. Although some shoot-em-up movies are crimes against taste.

uh oh (1)

ILuvRamen (1026668) | more than 5 years ago | (#23439788)

And I'm sure they won't look for ANY copyrighted or potentially dangerous material in the process. Oh no, this is 100% child porn *rolls eyes* talk about a low down, dirty way to ID terrorists and sue people in the name of helping children. What do you really think would happen when they come across all those people who make "how to make a bomb" vids on p2p networks and all the copies of new movies floating around after they get funding for advanced p2p watching technologies. Btw I know it's part web, part p2p too so I'm sure they'll put a few extra terrorist and copyright keywords in that billion dollar web crawler too.

I would like to know. (1)

Hankapobe (1290722) | more than 5 years ago | (#23439806)

What do those of us who are into Federal Law Enforcement porn? You know, two agents going at it.

In the meantime, we Americans are continually seeing politician anal porn. You know, they keep shoving it up our ass!

On a less serious note... (1)

wattrlz (1162603) | more than 5 years ago | (#23439814)

Where do I apply to become an FBI Child Porn Downloader?

Regarding your application (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23440036)

Where do I apply to become an FBI Child Porn Downloader?
Your now in our files. Your level of experience in this field is being investigated. Don't call us, we will call you.

Federal Bureau of Instigators

War on Pedos (2, Funny)

Jaysyn (203771) | more than 5 years ago | (#23439822)

Well, if the War on Drugs or the War on Terrorism are any indication then 1/4 of the population of the US will be fucking / abusing minors in 4 years.

600,000? (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23439842)

I would wager than MOST pedophiles recognize the extreme stupidity of having child porn on Kaazaa.

But apparently there are 600,000 of them identified on Kaazaa in the US alone.

To me, that would imply there are probably 4-5x that many in the population.... which leads to a number of around 2.4 million people in the US have strong pedophile tendencies (on a low end).

Need I point out that this is a full 1% of the population?

Perhaps the approach of hunting them like they're cattle isn't the right one. I know the US is fully prepared to toss several percent of their population in prison (they already do that), but it also points out the concept that this battle is more akin to the "war on drugs" than most people are willing to admit.

In other words, there are simply too many to ever make a significant "dent" in the population with ad-hoc arrests and prosecutions.

So perhaps the approach is flawed?

I don't have any suggestions, but that's how it seems to me.

While we're on the concept of numbers, don't a bunch of wacko victim-advocate types parrot the idea that the average offender carries out 300-some assaults in their life.

With 2.4 million in the population if the US, wouldn't that come out to 720 million different children in the US subject to sexual assault? (o wait there are only 30 million of them in the US).

So one of the numbers is blatantly false.... probably the concept that every pedophile molests a kid is false. I would bet they run a whole spectrum from sorta good folks who hate being into kids... all the way to the sicko perverts who abduct and kill little girls in the night.

But wait.... Isn't the standard line in child-porn legislation the assumption that child porn creates real abuse? Isn't that the justification for some of the "virtual" porn laws and the "fictional porn" laws, etc?

Now seeing that there are 600,000 people with porn on Kaazaa (they must represent the stupider portion of the population who views child porn).... wouldn't that suddenly imply that either there should be more sexual assault.... or, the common assumption is false?

Whenever I see real numbers on child sex and child porn, my eyes glaze over and cross because they're all so contradictory.

But if someone asks questions they get branded "pedophile sympathizer"..... you can lose your job with that brand following you around...

So which is it.... pedophiles are drooling lunatics with no self-control? Or... there are millions of pedophiles in the US.

You have to pick one, you can't have your pie and eat it too.

Here's a thought (1)

MikeRT (947531) | more than 5 years ago | (#23439844)

Just execute people who produce it for profit on their first offense.

Stop.
Don't pass go.
Firing squad.

Get Thailand and few of the other offending countries in on it.

If you think I'm being inhumane by suggesting execution, then please explain how living life as a social leper is any less inhumane or exposing them to the general prison population for life isn't basically asking for them to be raped repeatedly and murdered. See, from where I'm standing, people who joke about prison rape and murder don't exactly have moral standing to say that a clean execution is inhumane.

As to why I said "for profit," it's because they'll never take things like two teens making a sex tape off the books as a serious felony. I don't want to give them license to execute teens for getting it on.

their example seems a little off to me... (4, Insightful)

AxemRed (755470) | more than 5 years ago | (#23439848)

From the article:

Then they download files--frequently videos, sometimes as long as 20 to 30 minutes, with names like "children kiddy underage illegal.mpg" and much more obscene--to their own machines.

It doesn't seem like someone would name a file "children kiddy underage illegal.mpg" if they were really trying to share child pornography on a P2P network, especially if they were planning on not getting caught. I mean, that file name tells you nothing about the file other than that it's illegal and involves children. It doesn't even actually mention sex, although I guess it kind of implies it. Although I definitely don't have any first hand experience, I would imagine that pedophiles, like other people, would have specific preferences in their pornography and would want to know at least a little bit about the content before they download a file. I mean, I'm not going to download a file that's simply called "hardcore adult.mpg" when I'm looking for porn. What if it's two dudes? What if it's 2 girls 1 cup? Anyway, the example file name they gave sounds more like a file shared by someone who is trying to catch pedophiles than an actual pedophile trying to share child pornography.

Look out! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23439858)

Somebody keep an eye on Fark and SomethingAwful. I'll bet the next Photoshop challenge that has anything to do with children will give the FBI plenty of evidence... like that one about board games with the kids playing "Scat Orgies".

What else? (4, Insightful)

peipas (809350) | more than 5 years ago | (#23439922)

So what kind of riders will be on this bill? Adding them to a child porn bill is a slam dunk.

wrong (1)

vuffi_raa (1089583) | more than 5 years ago | (#23439988)

One section is designed to make it clear that live Webcam broadcasts of child abuse are illegal, which the bill's authors argue is an "open question
this has to be wrong- how do you get funding to pay for promotion to push a bill- the bill should be voted on on it's own otherwise anyone can get $ allocated for an agenda

Damn. Another Billion wasted... (1)

kabocox (199019) | more than 5 years ago | (#23439996)

I'd like to be able to have exit polls and if they get a high enough disapproval rating there is the death penalty for being stupid in office. It would take something drastic like that to at least make them think a tad before passing this crap.

Actually, it would take something even more drastic. Any government official submitting/making/altering any new laws/rules can and will instantly have the death penalty applied by any citizen though government officials are allowed to remove laws/rules.

Child Pron... (2, Insightful)

ZenDragon (1205104) | more than 5 years ago | (#23440122)

I'm all for fighting child pornography, as I have a child myself. However, these unanimous approvals of such HUGE amounts of money ALWAYS end up lining some corrupt politicians pockets. Please, fight child porn! Just make sure this money isn't going to end up paying for some guys Ferrari.

Honestly, what do they need to make something like this happen in reality? Or is it even possible? How do they expect to control the flow of millions upon billions of images floating around the internet and filter out only child porn? Let alone investigate and prosecute every single instance that they find? No amount of money is going to make this any more effective than it already is or can be, with the funding they already have, in my opinion.

If they are going to be allocating funding like this based on their own personal feelings on the topic, then they need to make sure that the agencies using this money aren't paying 10 times more for equipment that would otherwise be much cheaper in the real world.

Am I implying corruption?? Why yes, yes I am, because I have worked for the Government before and I have seen it happen. The agency that worked on the floor right below my office got in trouble for similar reasons. Millions of dollars were allocated to improve safety across the state, but instead went to buy things like "company cars" that cost twice as much as they should, and computer equipment that never even made it out in to the field and disappeared immediately upon delivery.

The only reason I rant is because that is a BILLION freakin dollars! Most people cant even fathom that amount of money. And the senate is just throwing it around like our hard earned, reluctantly paid taxes simply fall out of the sky. And yet, somehow, they still cant seem to find money for more simple and obvious necessities.

So what about the (1)

OldFish (1229566) | more than 5 years ago | (#23440124)

penalty for digitally altering an otherwise innocent picture of a senator to depict taking bribes or other sexually depraved bahavior?

Pathetic. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23440140)

Take this money and fund fusion, you stupid beast!
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...