Beta
×

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!

Department of Justice: FBI Too Focused On Child Porn

Soulskill posted more than 3 years ago | from the perhaps-not-the-wording-they-would-have-chosen dept.

Government 487

itwbennett writes "The Department of Justice has issued a scathing report (PDF) on the ineffectiveness of the FBI in investigating and countering cyber attacks. The shortcomings are partly attributed to lack of training and lack of communication, but the biggest issue is the allocation of effort. From the report: 'Overall, we determined that in FY 2009 the FBI used 19 percent of its cyber agents on national security intrusion investigations, 31 percent to address criminal-based intrusions, and 41 percent to investigate online child pornography matters."

cancel ×

487 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

PLEASE!!! (4, Funny)

ganjadude (952775) | more than 3 years ago | (#35978682)

Won't someone think of the FBI agents!

Re:PLEASE!!! (5, Funny)

oliverthered (187439) | more than 3 years ago | (#35978738)

Yeh, they need access to kiddie porn'o too. So they can think of the children of-course.

Re:PLEASE!!! (1)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | more than 3 years ago | (#35979064)

Go for what you know.

Re:PLEASE!!! (-1, Offtopic)

vrmlguy (120854) | more than 3 years ago | (#35978836)

Won't someone think of the FBI agents!

Some people will blame John Ashcroft [wikipedia.org] for this allocation of resources, but really it's all Janet Reno's [wikipedia.org] fault [wikipedia.org] .

Re:PLEASE!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35979112)

Asscroft didn't refocus their efforts though.

Bureaucrats (1)

mr1911 (1942298) | more than 3 years ago | (#35978692)

It's for the children, except when the children take up too much time and we need to do something else.

Re:Bureaucrats (5, Insightful)

Sprouticus (1503545) | more than 3 years ago | (#35978772)

ORRRRRR

someone @ te DoJ realizes that 41% of the resources being used on theoretical pedobears was a waste of money compared to people who could actually hurt the underlying infrastructure and cause millions if not billions of dollars in damage.

I know its not popular, but pedophiles dont do much harm in the big picture.

Re:Bureaucrats (5, Insightful)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 3 years ago | (#35978888)

Moreover, people who view or collect child pornography may do no harm whatsoever. The overwhelming majority of people who watch child pornography are not paying for it, and most of what gets "traded" are old pictures and videos. Some guy who is sitting in his home masturbating to images of child abuse may have some psychological problems, but that in and of itself does not cause harm and it is a waste of law enforcement time and resources to arrest such a person.

Of course, the FBI has released official statements in the past that promote the idea that, in fact, just by looking at images of child abuse, a person is harming children, even if the children have been rescued and their abusers have been put in prison (unless, one is looking at those images as part of their job as an FBI agent, in which case it is not harmful).

Re:Bureaucrats (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35978978)

Of course, the FBI has released official statements in the past that promote the idea that, in fact, just by looking at images of child abuse, a person is harming children, even if the children have been rescued and their abusers have been put in prison (unless, one is looking at those images as part of their job as an FBI agent, in which case it is not harmful).

In a sense, they're right.

If there exists a demand for a good, eventually someone will fill that demand. If there is a "healthy" "market" for child pornography then some people will go out and get fresh product for that market. This is how children are harmed by viewing it.

Re:Bureaucrats (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35979068)

In a sense, they're right.

If there exists a demand for a good, eventually someone will fill that demand. If there is a "healthy" "market" for child pornography then some people will go out and get fresh product for that market. This is how children are harmed by viewing it.

Except in this case the pornography is shared on the intartubes for free. No "content producer" (i.e. child abuser with a camera) would go and sue for copyright infringement - because if he did he would admit to a somewhat worse crime...

There may be a market for illegal goods, but there certainly is no real market for illegal information - it cannot be "used up", it can be reproduced for free and you cannot prevent reproduction using a legal construct like copyright.

Re:Bureaucrats (5, Insightful)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 3 years ago | (#35979084)

>>>If there is a "healthy" "market" for child pornography then some people will go out and get fresh product for that market. This is how children are harmed by viewing it.

Your logic is lacking. If it made sense, we should also outlaw:
- murder photos
- snuff videos (like animals set on fire)
- accident scenes
- and so on. Because the distribution of this material will cause an "industry" of murder to create new photos/films! The horror!!!

Or not.

Your logic is flawed. Just like most religious nutcases (think Jim Baker or Pat Robertson). Stop trying to suppress free people from exercising "thoughtcrimes" like pornography, smoking weed, chewing tobacco (sin tax), and so on. Victimless crimes are NOT crimes.

Re:Bureaucrats (2, Insightful)

postbigbang (761081) | more than 3 years ago | (#35979212)

But there are victims: kids. Somebody makes these photos, domestically or internationally. The exploitation of children for sexual gratification is plainly evil. Some adults are addicted to it. They need help. By chasing them down, you reduce the harm to children; you may never be able to eliminate it.

The resources used, if the data is correct however, is way too high of a portion. Porn is otherwise largely a victimless crime, barring child porn, or those held in "white slavery". Not every porn actor did what they did of free will, altho many do.

Re:Bureaucrats (5, Insightful)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | more than 3 years ago | (#35979308)

Somebody makes these photos, domestically or internationally.

And looking at a picture will change nothing. It won't somehow make the situation worse. If people are so afraid of them, for some reason, beginning to buy child porn, despite the fact that most people apparently don't (if that's true), then why don't they also ban murder photos and the like?

The exploitation of children for sexual gratification is plainly evil.

That depends on your definition of "evil."

Re:Bureaucrats (5, Insightful)

O('_')O_Bush (1162487) | more than 3 years ago | (#35979360)

That is completely irrelevant. Nobody is arguing that exploiting children is right, they're arguing that the demand for it isn't causing supply. A pervert is going to do perverted things whether someone views it or not, since almost always, the pervert doesn't know who sees the material or how it it shared.

Big difference between someone abusing children and making material and someone who is viewing material.

Re:Bureaucrats (5, Informative)

vrmlguy (120854) | more than 3 years ago | (#35979298)

If there exists a demand for a good, eventually someone will fill that demand. If there is a "healthy" "market" for child pornography then some people will go out and get fresh product for that market. This is how children are harmed by viewing it.

Pew Research Center’s Internet & American Life Project found that 4% of cell-owning teens ages 12-17 say they have sent sexually suggestive nude or nearly nude images or videos of themselves to someone else via text messaging, a practice also known as “sexting". The same survey also found that 75% of all American teens ages 12-17 own a cell phone. According to Wolfram Alpha, there are 22,410,000 teens between 15 and 19, which is likely close enough for these calculates. this means that roughly 672,000 images classifiable as CP are generated by teens during the 5 years that cell-owning teens are between the ages of 12-17. This works out to 134,000 images per year produced by teens for other teens.

Re:Bureaucrats (5, Insightful)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 3 years ago | (#35979330)

If there exists a demand for a good, eventually someone will fill that demand.

Not at no cost; were you not paying attention in your economics course? Most of the "consumers" of child pornography are paying nothing for it -- they are not paying for it with money, they are not paying for it with new images of child abuse, they are just leeching off the small minority who are fueling the production.

My understanding of the economics of child pornography is this: at the highest levels of production and distribution, pedophiles are trading new and unseen images and videos with each other. The market is based on barter, not money, to thwart efforts at tracing the participants.

Eventually this material is somehow leaked to lower level forums which are more easily accessible, and from there the images are reposted again and again. Below a certain level in the distribution chain, the incentive for the producers to keep producing is entirely lost; the material is reposted on various forums at no cost. The overwhelming majority of people who view child pornography are viewing it at a level that is far below this point, and are contributing nothing to its production.

In simpler terms, arrested the "low hanging fruit" is nothing more than showmanship; it has little affect on the people who are actually abusing children. Every few years we hear about some big deal arrest, where law enforcement agencies manage to gain access to a high level production network, and those are good things in terms of thwarting child abuse. Unfortunately, the overwhelming majority of child pornography arrests are not in that category.

Re:Bureaucrats (1)

Dr Herbert West (1357769) | more than 3 years ago | (#35979032)

First, let me say I agree with you... but my understanding of the argument for prosecuting/persecuting the lone fapp'er goes something like this:

If you CONSUME child porn (no matter if it's images that are a hundred years old) you are by extension SUPPORTING the "industry" that manufactures it. Therefore... THOUGHT CRIME! MUST GO TO JAIL NOW!

Re:Bureaucrats (5, Insightful)

nedlohs (1335013) | more than 3 years ago | (#35979066)

So I'm suporting the MPAA by downloading movies from a torrent and watching them?

Why do they seem to not like it then?

Re:Bureaucrats (1)

ae1294 (1547521) | more than 3 years ago | (#35979268)

If you CONSUME child porn (no matter if it's images that are a hundred years old) you are by extension SUPPORTING the "industry" that manufactures it. Therefore... THOUGHT CRIME! MUST GO TO JAIL NOW!

Here are some sick illegal movies for you:

Pretty Baby [imdb.com]
Rambling Rose [imdb.com]
The Warzone [imdb.com]
Kids [imdb.com]

Have fun committing federally approved thought crimes. Just don't pirate them!

Re:Bureaucrats (1)

b4upoo (166390) | more than 3 years ago | (#35979292)

Anytime you promote any activity by doing it it can cause harm by making it more acceptable to others. Foe example the occasional use of illegal drugs promotes drug use in others as well as supporting smuggling and violence. The yet to become addicted person looks and thinks that some others who play with dope don't become addicts and his path to self ruin is made easy.

Re:Bureaucrats (1)

hrvatska (790627) | more than 3 years ago | (#35979052)

I know its not popular, but pedophiles dont do much harm in the big picture.

Poor parenting does a lot more harm than pedophiles.

Re:Bureaucrats (1)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 3 years ago | (#35979228)

More importantly, there isn't a powerful lobbying group or a cabal of rich corporations to object to the sorts of things that these people are passing around amongst themselves. There's no one actively lobbying congress and handing out bribes to everyone to ensure that the penalties for these people become more severe or that more resources be aligned against them.

There's no megacorp to keep pressing the issue.

Re:Bureaucrats (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35979332)

Poor parenting does a lot more harm than pedophiles.

Define "poor parenting" in a way that is enforceable thru laws. Remember that laws can not force change in any behavior that is religious in nature. Unless a court can do something to fix poor parenting, there is no benefit to outlawing it. Jail and fines won't make parents better, and you can't send any significant fraction of all children in the US into foster care.

Poor parenting may do more harm, but there is little the legal system can do about it. There are actions that can be taken against pedophiles which will stop them from molesting children.

Re:Bureaucrats (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35979172)

If you want to crack down on pedophiles, crack down on the church for shielding them. I don't understand why the Government hasn't made arrests up in the hierarchy for that.

Re:Bureaucrats (2)

chemicaldave (1776600) | more than 3 years ago | (#35979200)

I wonder what percent of that 41% are qualified to handle information security jobs. It's a whole different ballgame that tracking down porn. InfoSec jobs are in high demand and the government can't fill them fast enough. Why do you think im getting a full ride + $18,000 /yr to get a masters for only a 1:1 education:work obligation.

They're desperate, and I doubt very much of those 41% could fill security roles.

Re:Bureaucrats (1)

b4upoo (166390) | more than 3 years ago | (#35979244)

Maybe we could give computers to the molesters already behind bars and give them bonuses for tracking down under age kids in porn sites. They would love it and research the area with great eagerness.

Re:Bureaucrats (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35978990)

Any resources spent on hunting down people looking at porn is resources not spent on hunting down actual child molesters. If you hate the porn viewers so much that you don't care about children getting molested, perhaps your priorities are not very sane.

FBI Too Focused On Child Porn (5, Insightful)

SockPuppetOfTheWeek (1910282) | more than 3 years ago | (#35978716)

...instead of focusing on child pornographers.

Re:FBI Too Focused On Child Porn (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#35978872)

I think the point there is that they can't be sure who is producing and who is trading until they investigate, at which point they've typically got the goods to send people to prison for just trading in the stuff.

I've got several other issues with it, they don't seem to care much about getting it correct, there isn't a mens rea requirement covering possession and 41% is unlikely to be justifiable given the other things which FBI is supposed to be dealing with.

Re:FBI Too Focused On Child Porn (1)

mr_mischief (456295) | more than 3 years ago | (#35978924)

I think the counterpoint is that at the point it's being traded the harm to the child is done.

Re:FBI Too Focused On Child Porn (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35978986)

I think you're too busy looking at child porn yourself to be posting here. Get the fuck back in your cave, diddler.

Re:FBI Too Focused On Child Porn (3, Insightful)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#35979060)

And your point is? By trading it your encouraging it. From what I gather there are definitely places where one would go that operate like the old ratio servers for MP3s.

Even if it is true that no further harm is being done at that point, the person that's been sexually abused is still being used for such purposes, I wouldn't personally want footage or pics of something like that happening to me or a close relation being distributed. There should be consequences of some sort, and I'm not sure that this is really an appropriate area to make civil rather than criminal.

The main issue is why they're spending that much time on that rather than other serious crimes and why we still don't have any mens rea requirements for conviction. Convicting the innocent is hardly something that's going to help the survivors of such abuse.

Re:FBI Too Focused On Child Porn (0)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 3 years ago | (#35979236)

the person that's been sexually abused is still being used for such purposes, I wouldn't personally want footage or pics of something like that happening to me...
>>>

Following this reasoning, Brooke Shields' mom should be thrown in prison for allowing her 13-year-old daughter to make a film about a brothel, as well as anybody who views the movie "Pretty Baby". They deserve to be punished, according to you.

On the other hand:
I think your reasoning is not logical, and indicates a fear of the human body (i.e. you think nudity and/or sex is evil?). I'd recommend psychotherapy because your belief is unhealthy.

Re:FBI Too Focused On Child Porn (5, Insightful)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 3 years ago | (#35979122)

I think the point there is that they can't be sure who is producing and who is trading until they investigate

Somehow, I doubt this -- the FBI has agents who search for and patrol pedophile forums, and has a large database of known child pornography images. Someone who is producing or is higher in the distribution chain would stand out like a sore thumb when they start posting new material. What is the point in going after someone who is just collecting the images?

The real problem the FBI faces, as far as I understand it, is that people involved in the production of child pornography are paranoid and technically sophisticated. Unlike the drug trade, which people generally become involved with out of desperation, being a pedophile is a psychological problem that can affect people at various levels of society. Pedophiles actively exchange information on remaining anonymous and avoiding police attention, encrypting evidence, etc. At the higher levels of production and distribution, the paranoia and the operational security measures increase drastically, and it can take many years of work for law enforcement agents to gain access to groups that operate at the highest levels.

In the end, though, someone still has to post new material on pedophile boards. The FBI should not waste time with people who are reposting the same old images, they should go after the new material. The person who has new material is the person who is connected to sources higher in the distribution chain. I doubt that it would take 41% of the FBI's Internet crime resources to track those people down.

Re:FBI Too Focused On Child Porn (0)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 3 years ago | (#35979162)

>>>got the goods to send people to prison for just trading in the stuff.

Possession of nude photos of kids or teens is not a crime ignorant. If it were, Borders, Barnes & Noble, and Amazon executives would now be in prison (they sell nude photo books of minors). It's called free speech, free expression, and freedom of lifestyle (nudism). Read Amendments 1, 9, 10, and 14 of the Union Constitution, as well as your local Member State's constitution, which provides additional liberties.

Re:FBI Too Focused On Child Porn (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35979342)

Alright, there IS a law against possession of child *pornography*. Nude photos are not necessarily equivalent to child pornography, though indeed there are cases where this becomes touchy, which is how Barnes and Nobles "get away" with it. Quote me all the amendments you want, the law's there.
 
Also, "freedom of lifestyle" is not a guaranteed right under the constitution, even if it should be.

Re:FBI Too Focused On Child Porn (2)

jkauzlar (596349) | more than 3 years ago | (#35978876)

or, more likely, instead of protecting the copyrights of our corporate overlords or spying on government watchdog organizations.

Re:FBI Too Focused On Child Porn (1)

Mashiki (184564) | more than 3 years ago | (#35979030)

Meh it's just like the war on drugs for you guys. You go after the people smoking it, or selling it to a few buddies instead of going after the major growers/sellers. Yeah it's harder, but it has much larger results. That's the general way we deal with both problems in Canada. Much better results.

Sadly this type of prosecution is the result of crowns and DA's wanting to get their name in lights for 'doing something'.

Re:FBI Too Focused On Child Porn (1)

Fulcrum of Evil (560260) | more than 3 years ago | (#35979038)

Exactly how many kiddie pornographers do you think there are in this country? Also, 41 percent?! Don't we have actual murders to solve?

Re:FBI Too Focused On Child Porn (2)

MimeticLie (1866406) | more than 3 years ago | (#35979108)

I know this is Slashdot, but at least read the goddamn summary. 41% of their agents working to solve "cyber" crimes are working against child pornography.

Re:FBI Too Focused On Child Porn (3, Interesting)

Fulcrum of Evil (560260) | more than 3 years ago | (#35979286)

Okay, 41% chasing neckbeards on 4chan. Is ID theft and CC fraud a cyber crime?

v& (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35978720)

You're killing the v& jokes here.

RE: FBI (0)

JohnVanVliet (945577) | more than 3 years ago | (#35978728)

maybe the second time is a charm
my first post disappeared
------------
But we have to "save" the children !!!!!
or the world will end .

ho no the sky is falling

United Nations International Children's Education (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35978732)

"Are you now, or have you ever been, a member of NAMBLA?"

Someone's math is wrong (2, Insightful)

PCM2 (4486) | more than 3 years ago | (#35978740)

The subhead of TFA: "Cyberattacks are at an all time high; FBI spends twice as much effort fighting porn."

According to the report, though, 41 percent of its effort was spent on child pornography, leaving 59 percent for cyber-attacks. "Twice as much"?

Also, would you prefer the FBI not go after child porn? I personally think it's a pretty odious thing, and the Internet is making it easier for pedophiles to indulge (where, for example, in the past they might have had to order magazines or videos from shady overseas sources or something). 41 percent of the FBI's effort sounds like a lot -- I'm not sure there's that much child porn out there -- but it's definitely within the FBI's bailiwick.

TFA seems to argue that the FBI should be doing more to conduct "cyber-warfare" and combat attacks by the Chinese military. But last I heard, the FBI was a law enforcement organization, not a military one. If the CIA wants to run a cyber-war, let it. I'd rather my federal police do what it was created to do: Lock up criminals.

Re:Someone's math is wrong (3, Funny)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 3 years ago | (#35978822)

I'd rather my federal police do what it was created to do: Lock up criminals.

Shit.. There goes at least half of your politicians and CEOs.. and police officers

Re:Someone's math is wrong (5, Insightful)

Hatta (162192) | more than 3 years ago | (#35978874)

The FBI should go after producers of child porn. The ones actually harming the children, not the spectators. Sure, bust the spectators if you happen to catch one anyway. But actively setting up stings to catch people who aren't actively going out and harming children is a bit of a waste.

I'd really rather have the FBI collecting evidence against Goldman Sachs.

Re:Someone's math is wrong (3, Insightful)

v1 (525388) | more than 3 years ago | (#35978948)

Tho I agree, playing devil's advocate I'd have to point out they are trying to remove the market for the kiddie porn. Remove the market and the producers will dramatically drop off. Only a minor percentage are paying for it, but there are also a lot more that are funding the producers/distributors indirectly with banner impressions and clicks, and with zip files of KP with botnet/spyware sprinkled in.

Re:Someone's math is wrong (5, Insightful)

Samedi1971 (194079) | more than 3 years ago | (#35979010)

Tho I agree, playing devil's advocate I'd have to point out they are trying to remove the market for the kiddie porn. Remove the market and the producers will dramatically drop off. Only a minor percentage are paying for it, but there are also a lot more that are funding the producers/distributors indirectly with banner impressions and clicks, and with zip files of KP with botnet/spyware sprinkled in.

Why not? It's been working so well to shut down the drug trade.

Re:Someone's math is wrong (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35979048)

And prostitution. I think they've just about gotten that one all wrapped up.

Re:Someone's math is wrong (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35979340)

Remove the market and the producers will dramatically drop off.

That's not going to work for one simple reason: this commercial "market" is actually so tiny that it doesn't matter in reality.

The whole "CP is million dollar industry" argument has been shown again and again to be bogus, circle-quoting of censorship proponents or outright fraudulent lies. We had to endure all those arguments in Germany and Europe in the course of various law initiatives for more censorship infrastructures. Quite a few organisations have proven all those fancy numbers politicians love to quote to be total and utter bullshit.

Re:Someone's math is wrong (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35979156)

I suspect the following is true: People surfing the net looking for regular porn find a lot of very diverse stuff. There's a huge supply of teen and 'barely legal' stuff and sometimes the difference with real kiddie porn stuff is very small (in the Max Hardcore films, young looking actresses behave like childish school girls, these films are popular). It's unlikely that (many) men's preferences for young girls suddenly stop at 18. They may continue looking for even younger stuff in the illegal channels. There the preference for even younger girls is reaffirmed by masturbating to young girls, and presto you have a pedophile where before there was just a guy interested in teen movies. My point is, the availability of teen and kiddie porn is probably *creating* pedophiles.

And that, gentlemen, if true, would be a very good reason to try to get kiddie porn off the internet and to make possession and trading illegal.

Re:Someone's math is wrong (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35979368)

But actively setting up stings to catch people who aren't actively going out and harming children is a bit of a waste.

I would expect that statistics show that a large number of the people trafficking in child porn are, in fact, actively harming children. At some point, it's like speeding or running a red light--sure, you may be able to run the light safely this time, but there is a definite link between running red lights and causing fatal accidents.

Re:Someone's math is wrong (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35978904)

Also, would you prefer the FBI not go after child porn? I personally think it's a pretty odious thing, and the Internet is making it easier for pedophiles to indulge (where, for example, in the past they might have had to order magazines or videos from shady overseas sources or something).

Nice straw man you've got there - I don't think anyone in TFA is implying any such thing. This report is essentially equivalent to discovering that your local cops are spending 40% of their time busting people for jaywalking.

Re:Someone's math is wrong (4, Insightful)

StillNeedMoreCoffee (123989) | more than 3 years ago | (#35978996)

I think that the identify theft and other breakins as well at the botting of innocent peoples computers for illegal or just monitary purposes is a far larger area of crime. If you look at the statistics of how many child pornographers there are vs, say the theft from Sony of tens of thousands of credit cards. It is not a size nor a severity issue but someones decision that this crime is worse than say stealing all of someones money, or killing them, or kidnapping them. I think this is an ideological aberation from those in the FBI. Methinks they protest too much.

Re:Someone's math is wrong (2, Insightful)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 3 years ago | (#35979012)

I'm not sure there's that much child porn out there

I'm sure you'd be horribly wrong.

When you see some of these news stories about some of these people having hundreds of thousands of images, if not millions, it really must be on a rather large scale.

About a 15+ years or so ago, back when we all used the alt.binaries.pictures* tree in usenet I stumbled on some. This was before people were largely aware of it, so it was less known and publicized. I reported it, and then felt the need to rinse my brain out with bleach ... I really wish I could get that fully out of my head. It's not something you can 'unsee'. It skeeves me out to think of it, really. If one or two images are seared into my head forever, then I can only pity the poor bastards who have to do this as part of law enforcement. I shudder at having to look through vast quantities of it to try to identify victims or perpetrators.

I agree that 41% of all of the FBI work done for "cyber" crime for child porn is a huge percentage. But, I don't think I'd want to downplay the scope of it or the damage it does. I guess if people want it to be pursued in that proportion, fine. But, I guess it's like breast cancer vs the other cancers -- everybody focuses on breast cancer, and it proportionally gets a lot more funding.

Re:Someone's math is wrong (1)

medv4380 (1604309) | more than 3 years ago | (#35979016)

No their math isn't wrong you're just not picking up on what they are calling cyber-attacks. They are clearly considering the 19% national security intrusion as cyber attacks. The other part is cyber crime which some people may consider cyber-attacks but they aren't when they are saying they are spending twice as much on child porn.

Re:Someone's math is wrong (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35979020)

"Also, would you prefer the FBI not go after child porn?"

are they going after 'stick figure' child porn too? not my idea. or perhaps they should go after the 'coppertone' girl or the 'simpsons' seriously i realize most 'developed' societies make laws against it, still i personally only shake my head as it is yet another war to cost tax payers much money. should we make home robots to bath children because we don't know if the pedophile married to have sick thoughts of their own children?

at some point technology is going to fail and we'll be back in subsistence farming and sick pedophiles will have and easier time getting away with it.so there. i would never ever hurt a child, not even a virtual child in a video game. at least not of my own doing. i might someday have an accident trying to cook and watch kids at the same time and accidentally scald my child with soup but nothing intentional.

still it is acceptable that the feds try to fight child porn, but we don't need a new supply of pedophiles just to fuel a war on pedophilia. trust me, i needed to insert that comment,

Re:Someone's math is wrong (1)

Fulcrum of Evil (560260) | more than 3 years ago | (#35979050)

Also, would you prefer the FBI not go after child porn?

No, we'd prefer they not spend nearly half their time going after it.

The math is right. (5, Informative)

NeutronCowboy (896098) | more than 3 years ago | (#35979056)

41% devoted to online child porn, 59% for EVERYTHING else. Cyber attacks are not the primary mission of the FBI. As a matter of fact, they are supposed to be the counter-intelligence arm of the US security apparatus, which would mean that I would expect that to be the largest part of their effort. Instead, it is a mediocre 19%.

Also, would you prefer the FBI not go after child porn? I personally think it's a pretty odious thing, and the Internet is making it easier for pedophiles to indulge (where, for example, in the past they might have had to order magazines or videos from shady overseas sources or something).

Bullshit. Sorry, but you drank the Koolaid that online pervs are the biggest risk to kids. Never mind that the biggest risk of plain old abuse comes from parents and family members, the biggest risk of abduction comes from parents and the biggest risk of abuse comes from family members and friends of the family. Online pervs are a drop in the bucket in that list. Online posting of child porn is a) just proof of a crime that has happened in the past, and b) catching the posters or downloaders does little to nothing to help solve that particular crime. So yes, it is part of their mission, but it's not 41% of their mission. If anything, I'd peg it at about 1%-2%.

Re:Someone's math is wrong (0)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 3 years ago | (#35979318)

>>>Also, would you prefer the FBI not go after child porn?

Yes.
Just I don't want the FBI arresting people for watching Snuff films. The FBI should be going after the CRIMINALS who are raping/killing citizens, not wasting time on mr. loner poundng his pud to sixteen magazine. That's just stupid.

Conclusion? (2)

Frosty Piss (770223) | more than 3 years ago | (#35978754)

This shows a very unhealthy obsession at the FBI for prurient titillation... Seek therapy, guys!

Jello Biafra said it best (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35978774)

If you want to see child porn, join the vice squad!

Re:Jello Biafra said it best (1)

tmosley (996283) | more than 3 years ago | (#35979170)

The ONLY appropriately named police organization in our Orwellian society.

'kiddie' porn is a political crime (3, Insightful)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 3 years ago | (#35978778)

Very easy to falsify, prosecute, and get convictions. People count conviction rates. They don't care what 'crime' it is. It's like the cops spending time issuing speeding tickets, while just up the street somebody's being shot. These people don't serve justice, they serve their department or boss.

Too much money involved? (2)

stopacop (2042526) | more than 3 years ago | (#35978780)

Can they seize an accused pornographer's house and property like they do a drug dealer? If so, I can see the focus. My local police department doesn't go after street level dealers, only mid and top level ones who have cars, electronics and property for the State to seize.

Re:Too much money involved? (1)

smelch (1988698) | more than 3 years ago | (#35979022)

Well to be honest, I would rather go for the guy making enough money to have nice shit, he's clearly moving more product. It could be things other than just seizing stuff for money.

Low hanging fruit (5, Insightful)

Hatta (162192) | more than 3 years ago | (#35978784)

Why do all the hard work tracking down serious fraud when you can link a honeypot image on some pervy website, do a reverse DNS lookup, call the ISP, get a warrant, and bust the perp? Easy way to boost your conviction rate, with very little man power, and the people will love you for protecting the children. Plus, you get all the kiddie porn you want... you know, for the investigation.

Re:Low hanging fruit (1)

blueg3 (192743) | more than 3 years ago | (#35978908)

The reverse DNS lookup is unnecessary; you can identify the ISP just by IP address.

Also, this isn't nearly as efficient as the preferred method. Fire up a modified copy of LimeWire, search for CP, find people that have CP files, download and verify that it's illicit, log IP addresses, call up the ISPs, get some warrants, make some arrests. The whole first couple of steps can be almost entirely automated so that your system churns out a list of IPs that are sharing CP every day.

Re:Low hanging fruit (1)

tmosley (996283) | more than 3 years ago | (#35979184)

Because no-one, and I mean NO-ONE can spoof an IP address.

Re:Low hanging fruit (3, Insightful)

jewelises (739285) | more than 3 years ago | (#35979270)

It's easy to spoof, but it's hard to establish a TCP connection by only sending outgoing packets. (Spoofing is the most useful for attacks on UDP protocols.)

D/Ling CP should be legal imo (not perv or insane) (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35979062)

To the people I talked to who are in the field as volunteers, even d/l child porn accidentally is highly illegal and can land you in jail. It reminds me of British law (at least during WW2) where you were not allowed to listen to radio signals "not meant for you".

I don't like the idea that people can be thrown in jail and the rest of their lives on mere possession of HIGHLY repugnant items. Especially as a computer can a) be so complex that malware/viruses/bots/etcetera can control them without people knowing and b) even when surfing yourself, the truth is you don't know what you are always downloading until after the fact.

Now in certain countries they are going after mere drawings, no longer do they feel bound by the argument that consuming child porn creates victims by increasing demand of creation.

Here is what should be illegal: child abuse and producing said content, intentional distribution of said content, intentional paying for said content, and displaying said content publicly. I think that will cover it.

I would treat intentional viewing and collecting like decriminalized drugs, send them into rehab, put them on a watch list, etcetera.

We have gotten to a point in this country where we often punish the ones we seek to protect. Stories of children on sex offender lists themselves are not uncommon - from acts such as peeing in bushes and sending their classmates pictures of themselves. As a society, we have gone completely insane and lost all common sense.

Re:Low hanging fruit (2)

Animats (122034) | more than 3 years ago | (#35979142)

Easy way to boost your conviction rate, with very little man power, and the people will love you for protecting the children.

That's the real reason. Real online fraud investigations are hard. The trail may lead through multiple countries, and serious investigative work is required. Even then, the investigation may dead-end.

Still, devoting 41% of FBI computer resources to kiddie porn, compared to 4% on online fraud, is way out of line. That's probably contributed to the growth in online fraud.

Not in the article (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35978794)

The RIAA is outraged with the FBI's priorities of spending 10% more of their time on child pornography than on anti-piracy investigations.

Re:Not in the article (1)

mr_mischief (456295) | more than 3 years ago | (#35978960)

It's the RIAA. They're probably upset that there's not more investigation into the copyrighted backing tracks used in the child porn.

Emotional Impact (1)

Baby Duck (176251) | more than 3 years ago | (#35978802)

By safeguarding children, one may indirectly feel they are safeguarding their own children. When taking down these offenders, the officers involved can easily sense a direct impact they've had in rescuing someone from emotionally intense and distressing situations.

Let's look at the other two categories. National Security Intrusions. OK, some Chinese hackers got through and stole some anti-missle plans. The ramifications won't be felt for years, if ever, even though it has the potential to deliver much more devastating harm to many more people.

Criminal Intrusions. They stole your identity. Ruined your credit. Racked up some bills. But hey, you want to know what, you're children are probably for the most part still OK. Sure, there might be financial struggle for a few years, but nothing that will require years of psychological therapy and cause all your kids' interpersonal relationships to suffer.

Re:Emotional Impact (4, Interesting)

StillNeedMoreCoffee (123989) | more than 3 years ago | (#35979078)

I think this is a red herring, The child pornography industry, while heinous is relatively small, say compared to the forgein woman transported here for prostitution, or identity theft or bank robbery or White Collar crime. It pains me to see people being sold this fear which is way out of proportion to the problem. Case in point, the way Halloween used to be vs what it is today. Parents have to escort their kids and only during daylight, and all because of urban ledgends and maybe one or two incedents in the country. Again an over reaction. Trying to live in a riskless world. It ain't goina happen.

Now I wonder what the effect on your kids are going to be if your identity is stolen and all your money taken and you loose your home and maybe your job and have to live homeless. That would have an sever impact on your children as well, and probably long term and far reaching.

Indeed, spend time hunting down real criminals (2)

makubesu (1910402) | more than 3 years ago | (#35978846)

like people who smoke weed or download metallica music.

Re:Indeed, spend time hunting down real criminals (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35978892)

This!

They're the real criminals!

child abuse bigger problem than fake terrorism (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35978858)

fbi is correct in pursuit of body mind & spirit murderers. the real bad guys evade surveillant endeavors. now if they'd investigate the weather?

It's only because.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35978882)

....too many senators, congressmen and judges were being caught....

~hrb

I'm okay with that (1)

bigsexyjoe (581721) | more than 3 years ago | (#35978884)

Businesses can take care of themselves. Money protecting children is well spent. If we need more money, we can cut defense spending and subsidies to oil companies

Re:I'm okay with that (2)

iamhassi (659463) | more than 3 years ago | (#35979036)

"we can cut defense spending "

I love this argument, "just cut defense spending!" You do realize we're the World Police, right? All the other countries come to us for help when shit goes down, we keep the entire world in line, without us their would be a constant world war. And do we buy tanks or fighter jets from other countries? No, but the entire world turns to us to buy our jets and tanks.

It's easy to say cut defense when we haven't had a war on our soil in 150 years, and even that was us fighting ourselves. What do you think would happen if we cut our defense to, say, the level of Canada's defense budget? Think we'd be fine? Think other countries wouldn't try something? Who would come to help us when we need it?

Re:I'm okay with that (1)

MimeticLie (1866406) | more than 3 years ago | (#35979146)

What do you think would happen if we cut our defense to, say, the level of Canada's defense budget?

Seems like it's been working out well enough for Canada.

Re:I'm okay with that (1)

toadlife (301863) | more than 3 years ago | (#35979348)

Think other countries wouldn't try something? Who would come to help us when we need it?

No one. We'd build our defense up using our vast industrial resources and go kick some ass. Just like WWII.

Screw the DoJ (2)

TexVex (669445) | more than 3 years ago | (#35978894)

Screw the DoJ. They're busy laying the smack down on online poker. How about they stop with calling the kettle black and instead work on busting some real criminals of their own. Fuckers.

Corrupted PDF (1)

earls (1367951) | more than 3 years ago | (#35978938)

Does anyone have the MD5 hash for this PDF? It seems to be corrupt with large chunks of text missing.

Obligatory (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35978946)

ChrisHansen.jpg

Target the REAL criminals (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35978950)

>would you prefer the FBI not go after child porn?

I'm responding as a parent with two young children of my own...

That depends. if a load of tax payers' dollars are going to be wasted on someone who looks at a picture of child porn - then no, don't waste tax payers' money on it. If you're talking about targeting perpetrators or sellers of child porn, then go your hardest.

AC

Re:Target the REAL criminals (1)

sabs (255763) | more than 3 years ago | (#35979074)

Part of the goal of going after the people who watch it, is to get them to turn over on the places where they got their CP from.

Re:Target the REAL criminals (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#35979116)

The problem there is that you can't typically locate the provider without finding the people possessing. At that point, you've got the goods to prosecute people for possession and trading the materials, ignoring it at that point would be silly.

Now, if you've got some way of just getting straight to the source, I'm sure the FBI is open to suggestions.

The only issue I have with possession charges in all this is that there is no legal distinction between those that knowingly possess the stuff and those that accidentally download it, or who have it loaded onto their computer in some obscure directory by a cracker or somebody else.

To catch a predator (1)

LostAlaska (760330) | more than 3 years ago | (#35979076)

I blame "To Catch a Predator" for glamorizing the pedophile lifestyle. That's why the FBI now has to spend so much time on kiddie porn. /sarcasm

What a skewed view our justice system has.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35979098)

We care more about imaginary 1's and 0's on some meaning less devices than someone molesting children. I think the FBI is focusing their attention the the perfect direction personally.

Too busy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35979114)

Watching child porn themselves...got to wonder...

Do what you love (1)

ShogunTux (1236014) | more than 3 years ago | (#35979134)

You know what they say: If you're going to work, make it something which you enjoy. In this case, we have many agents investigating child pornography. Dunno what to think about that. ;)

Re:Do what you love (1)

ShogunTux (1236014) | more than 3 years ago | (#35979154)

Er, sorry, I mean "Do what you love, and you'll never work a day in your life", which is even more applicable than what I said originally. :P

New Agent (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35979232)

Are Chris Hansen's hours being logged now?

A Duck! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35979234)

Sir Bedevere: There are ways of telling whether he is a pedophile.
FBI Agent 1: Are there? Oh well, tell us.
Sir Bedevere: Tell me. What do you do with pedophiles?
FBI Agent 1: Burn them.
Sir Bedevere: And what do you burn, apart from pedophiles?
FBI Agent 1: More pedophiles.
FBI Agent 2: Wood.
Sir Bedevere: Good. Now, why do pedophiles burn?
FBI Agent 3: ...because they're made of... wood?
Sir Bedevere: Good. So how do you tell whether he is made of wood?
FBI Agent 1: Build a bridge out of him.
Sir Bedevere: But can you not also build bridges out of stone?
FBI Agent 1: Oh yeah.
Sir Bedevere: Does wood sink in water?
FBI Agent 1: No, no, it floats!... It floats! Throw him into the pond!
Sir Bedevere: No, no. What else floats in water?
FBI Agent 1: Bread.
FBI Agent 2: Apples.
FBI Agent 3: Very small rocks.
FBI Agent 1: Cider.
FBI Agent 2: Gravy.
FBI Agent 3: Cherries.
FBI Agent 1: Mud.
FBI Agent 2: Churches.
FBI Agent 3: Lead! Lead!
Obama: A Duck.
Sir Bedevere: ...Exactly. So, logically...
FBI Agent 1: If he weighed the same as a duck... he's made of wood.
Sir Bedevere: And therefore...
FBI Agent 2: ...A pedophile!

child porn...or sexting? (3, Interesting)

geekmux (1040042) | more than 3 years ago | (#35979328)

"...and 41 percent to investigate online child pornography matters."

Something tells me with all the bullshit hype in the media with underage teenagers sending dirty pics to their 18-year old boyfriend/girlfriend, sexting is what is getting the main focus right now, and not going after true pedophiles.

Two birds with one stone (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35979334)

Why not just infect paedos' computers with an FBI brew Botnet that tracks their behavior and fights a cyberwar against China?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?