Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Putting up barriers to a free and open internet
Options
-
17-04-2010 11:48am#1HE GOVERNMENT has had extensive private discussions on introducing internet blocking – barring access to websites or domains – according to material obtained under a Freedom of Information (FOI) request.
The approach is used by some internet service providers (ISPs) and mobile network operators to block access to child pornography. But increasingly, governments and law enforcement agencies are pushing for much broader use, ranging from blocking filesharing sites to trying to tackle cybercrime and terrorism.
Critics say internet blocking creates many problems with little real effect on illegal activity. For example, internet users and businesses have complained about the side-effects of domain blocking, where barring access to domains can shut down hundreds of personal and business websites as well as e-mail addresses associated with them.
The exact nature of the Government discussions cannot be determined as many of the requests for key documents were refused by the Department of Justice. However, the ongoing high level of discussion on the subject is indicated in the detailed description of each refused item in the list of materials returned by the department.
The FOI request, made by privacy advocate Digital Rights Ireland and seen by The Irish Times, contains eight pages of listed documents. One refused item details a June 2009 meeting between the department and Vodafone on the “introduction of internet filtering in Ireland”. Another is an e-mail from mobile operator 3 listing filter technologies it is using.
Another refused item details minutes of a meeting between the Office for Internet Safety and the Garda “re proposed introduction of blocking technology”. Discussions on the international use of blocking and on proposed European legislation were also refused.
Possible interest in the wider use of such technologies is indicated by a refused document in which an e-mail and note on blocking child pornography sites was forwarded to the official in the Department of Justice in charge of casino gaming regulation.
Proponents of internet blocking argue that it removes offensive and illegal material from the internet and can make it more difficult for child pornographers and their customers to operate.
But critics say it is a blunt instrument that does little to combat pornography or other activities, while causing headaches for networks and ISPs. It can also cause inconvenience and costly disruptions to service for innocent companies and individuals if their websites, internet access and e-mail get cut off.
Ok so obviously this is moronic IMO as anyone with half a brain cell will get around their filters and its a bad road to go down because how soon before the government decide information that it negative about them is dangerous or falls under terrorism :rolleyes:
I don't trust the current government or any government with this and it should just not be allowed to be introduced.
Unfortunately so many people in Ireland are ignorant when it comes to technology and will probably not only allow this to happen but actively cheer that it is a good thing :rolleyes:
Child porn argument kind of falls apart IMO once looked at in real detail. Firstly lets assume the governments block does work. Why would you want to stop people going to Child porn sides when you can just track who is going to them and arrest them and then alert the authorities in those other countries to the website who can shut them down and investigate where the material actually came from.
If you just block the guys access and log it, you haven't really learned much especially since most likely nothing will be done with the logs or people who accidently clicked a link once will end up being brought down the garda station (although I'd say child porn links aren't on wikipedia or whatever but you get my point).3
Comments
-
Internet filtering in Ireland? Ye gods, do we really want to join the ranks of countries like China in controlling information to the population? Also making ISPs responsible for this is ridiculous, its like holding vodafone responsible for phone calls made by drug dealers on its networks.0
-
Amhran Nua wrote: »Internet filtering in Ireland? Ye gods, do we really want to join the ranks of countries like China in controlling information to the population? Also making ISPs responsible for this is ridiculous, its like holding vodafone responsible for phone calls made by drug dealers on its networks.
Why else are they doing it?
God knows the government wouldnt want people actually thinking.0 -
Amhran Nua wrote: »Internet filtering in Ireland? Ye gods, do we really want to join the ranks of countries like China in controlling information to the population? Also making ISPs responsible for this is ridiculous, its like holding vodafone responsible for phone calls made by drug dealers on its networks.
Thats what happen when you make the:
state > citizen
the state tramples all over citizens liberty and starts doing retarded things like this, i suppose you will blame anarcho capitalists for this next0 -
Want to bet that private corporate interests protecting IP are involved in this, playing the old think of the children card?Thats what happen when you make the:
state > citizen
the state tramples all over citizens liberty and starts doing retarded things like this, i suppose you will blame anarcho capitalists for this next
They are certainly aiming for exactly this in ACTA. 0 -
It feels like it should be illegal for them to do it. Anyone good on european legislation able to comment on it (sorry for being so lazy)?0
-
Advertisement
-
its typical governmental spin ..... lets do this and tell everyone it will stop child porn, but lets not tell them that in the future we wont allow them to hear about bad things we do.0
-
The European Parliament already knocked out the three strikes law the corporations were trying to introduce, hinted at in the article by the mention of businesses getting their connections cut, so its unlikely to be allowed. The blocking of the pirate bay may have given them the idea that it was feasable however.It feels like it should be illegal for them to do it. Anyone good on european legislation able to comment on it (sorry for being so lazy)?0 -
Whilst I agree that internet censorship in general is bad, in the case of child pornography it's required. I think that we should approach it the same way that Norway does: They have a block list, but they have agreed specifically that it applies only to child pornography and they will not use it against sites, for example, that offer illegal downloads of copyright material.
Norway is a similar size to Ireland, and per day they block around 4,500 requests for child exploitation material. 1,642,000 requests per year, quite a figure.
BT also blocks this material in the UK.
The issue with 'tracing' people is that it is extremely difficult to do, these sites are extremely difficult to shut down (largely the 'site' hosts no material whatsoever, it is hosted in places like Russia, Ukraine and Thailand, and CP sites are set up in 5 minutes using pre-arranged code that hosts no CEM in the 'local' market), and I can't see the Gardai chasing 4,000 or so people per day for this kind of gear.
Yes, people really determined will get their hands on it. But you can block the majority of people looking for it.
Also, every time CEM is viewed, it is (in the eyes of the law and victims groups) a crime, a repeat offense against the victim, no matter how old they are (if they survived into adulthood), and so there is a real reason, for victims, to block as much of this gear as possible.
So, why not a simple agreement to work blocking for CEM alone, and explicitly ring fence it from any discussion of any other type of content?0 -
LOL who on earth puts up child porn on an open website?Whilst I agree that internet censorship in general is bad, in the case of child pornography it's required. I think that we should approach it the same way that Norway does: They have a block list, but they have agreed specifically that it applies only to child pornography and they will not use it against sites, for example, that offer illegal downloads of copyright material.
Norway is a similar size to Ireland, and per day they block around 4,500 requests for child exploitation material. 1,642,000 requests per year, quite a figure.
BT also blocks this material in the UK.
The issue with 'tracing' people is that it is extremely difficult to do, these sites are extremely difficult to shut down (largely the 'site' hosts no material whatsoever, it is hosted in places like Russia, Ukraine and Thailand, and CP sites are set up in 5 minutes using pre-arranged code that hosts no CEM in the 'local' market), and I can't see the Gardai chasing 4,000 or so people per day for this kind of gear.
Yes, people really determined will get their hands on it. But you can block the majority of people looking for it.
Also, every time CEM is viewed, it is (in the eyes of the law and victims groups) a crime, a repeat offense against the victim, no matter how old they are (if they survived into adulthood), and so there is a real reason, for victims, to block as much of this gear as possible.
So, why not a simple agreement to work blocking for CEM alone, and explicitly ring fence it from any discussion of any other type of content?0 -
Whilst I agree that internet censorship in general is bad, in the case of child pornography it's required. I think that we should approach it the same way that Norway does: They have a block list, but they have agreed specifically that it applies only to child pornography and they will not use it against sites, for example, that offer illegal downloads of copyright material.
Norway is a similar size to Ireland, and per day they block around 4,500 requests for child exploitation material. 1,642,000 requests per year, quite a figure.
BT also blocks this material in the UK.
The issue with 'tracing' people is that it is extremely difficult to do, these sites are extremely difficult to shut down (largely the 'site' hosts no material whatsoever, it is hosted in places like Russia, Ukraine and Thailand, and CP sites are set up in 5 minutes using pre-arranged code that hosts no CEM in the 'local' market), and I can't see the Gardai chasing 4,000 or so people per day for this kind of gear.
Yes, people really determined will get their hands on it. But you can block the majority of people looking for it.
Also, every time CEM is viewed, it is (in the eyes of the law and victims groups) a crime, a repeat offense against the victim, no matter how old they are (if they survived into adulthood), and so there is a real reason, for victims, to block as much of this gear as possible.
So, why not a simple agreement to work blocking for CEM alone, and explicitly ring fence it from any discussion of any other type of content?
Instead of blocking child pornography and giving those who would look at it no other choice but to go elsewhere to get their jollies is definitely not the answer in my opinion. Instead we should pursue people who access the stuff more vigorously and get dangerous people off the streets and into rehabilitation centers before they have a chance to act on their urges.
I remember seeing a Louis Theroux doc about such a center in California where the inmates simply can't leave until they are declared better. That is what we need for sex offenders.
Blocking of certain aspects of the internet should be seen as similar to the government putting big walls up around your house so that you may only access what they want you to. The internet is an amazing place, full of ideas and great thinkers. You can't mess with it's liberty...it's one of the best things we've ever done as a species.0 -
Advertisement
-
I'd imagine these sites are being run for profit though, its a lot easier to track the money trail, and thats something that international police force cooperation is very good at.The issue with 'tracing' people is that it is extremely difficult to do, these sites are extremely difficult to shut down (largely the 'site' hosts no material whatsoever, it is hosted in places like Russia, Ukraine and Thailand, and CP sites are set up in 5 minutes using pre-arranged code that hosts no CEM in the 'local' market), and I can't see the Gardai chasing 4,000 or so people per day for this kind of gear.0 -
Which is why we see so many of these rings getting taken down? Police in Eindhoven (I believe) had to set up a sting operation to nab one of the guys running the technical back end of a CP ring. They had to camp out in the apartment across the street to him and monitor his screen with a telescopic lense (a common practice where tracing through sniffers is not feasible. Old fashioned coppery for new fangled crimes.) When, one day, they managed to film him accessing the material, they had to burst into his apartment and put a gun to his head to restrain him from wiping the machine.Amhran Nua wrote: »I'd imagine these sites are being run for profit though, its a lot easier to track the money trail, and thats something that international police force cooperation is very good at.
The people behind the money are quite serious and technically proficient, and for the most part the people caught (financially) are idiots who punch in their credit card details to sites or fall into police honey pots. They are consumers, not producers, of material.
There are even CP sites out there now with 'customer service' lines.
There are many different layers of users. The vast majority of people seeking to view CEM have no technical background and are not involved in any rings or similar. They are simply Joe Idiots behind their PC's, and there is a market there to satisfy their needs. One hosts the images on a server off in the ether, and then codes into a free web hosting service or similar the instructions to pull down these images. View the site without the images, and it's blank. It's quite difficult to trace, time consuming to shut down and simple to start back up again.LOL who on earth puts up child porn on an open website?
Whilst I agree that dealing with the people who view this material is a good question to ask, the majority of consumers will not touch a child. Those that would, do, regardless.Instead of blocking child pornography and giving those who would look at it no other choice but to go elsewhere to get their jollies is definitely not the answer in my opinion. Instead we should pursue people who access the stuff more vigorously and get dangerous people off the streets and into rehabilitation centers before they have a chance to act on their urges.
I remember seeing a Louis Theroux doc about such a center in California where the inmates simply can't leave until they are declared better. That is what we need for sex offenders.
Blocking of certain aspects of the internet should be seen as similar to the government putting big walls up around your house so that you may only access what they want you to. The internet is an amazing place, full of ideas and great thinkers. You can't mess with it's liberty...it's one of the best things we've ever done as a species.0 -
We do see these rings being taken down all the time.Which is why we see so many of these rings getting taken down?
Exactly, these credit card details go somewhere, and there aren't any credit card companies that accept payment for child pornography. The money trail is clear and fairly easy to follow.The people behind the money are quite serious and technically proficient, and for the most part the people caught (financially) are idiots who punch in their credit card details to sites or fall into police honey pots.
So how would anyone know which site has the images?One hosts the images on a server off in the ether, and then codes into a free web hosting service or similar the instructions to pull down these images. View the site without the images, and it's blank.0 -
Amhran , INTERPOL and other organisations with an interest, have identified over 1 million individual children in CEM images. They have managed to recover or identify a handful. I don't care about credit cards, I care about the victims. Victims who, like in any industry with supply or demand, are exploited more or less depending on the amount of consumption in their 'industry.' If less people paid for porn, there would be less adult porn stars. If less people paid for less child pornography, there would be less children abused.
Find me an instance where a building full of children being exploited has been cracked? Very few.
I won't go into detail, sufficed to say that BT in the UK blocks this material by themselves, and they block 58,000,000 a year. Look and you will find it without issue.So how would anyone know which site has the images?
According to NCMEC, one fifth of all pornography on the internet is child pornography.0 -
I think, also, that it is worth bearing in mind two things: The guidelines in UK courts for legally defining the 'class' of images; and the age profiles of victims.
Image 'levels' used by UK courts as a guidelines:- Images depicting erotic posing with no sexual activity.
- Non-penetrative sexual activity between children or solo masturbation by a child.
- Non-penetrative sexual activity between children and adults.
- Penetrative sexual activity involving a child or children, or both children and adults.
- Sadism or penetration of or by an animal.
Age profile of victims:
Aged 0 -2 : 4%
Aged 3 -6 : 20%
Aged 7 -10 : 45%
Aged 11 -15 : 30%
Aged 16 -17 : 1%
Aged 0-2, 4%, some of which is Class 5.
You and I have a choice as to our position on this issue. The victim has no choice. And the more CEM is accessed, the more is paid for, and the more is produced.0 -
Yes, people really determined will get their hands on it. But you can block the majority of people looking for it.
The majority of people don't look at kiddie porn to start with. Those that do have learned to cover their tracks and get around technological limitations or they'd have been caught already.
This is just DRM en masse. Screw the regular user in the hope to catch a few people that are too smart to walk into your net.
The content most likely isn't even hosted on a publicly viewable website so this is really for pure censorship of information by the government. Use kiddie porn as justification and then widen the criteria for what gets blocked.I think, also, that it is worth bearing in mind two things: The guidelines in UK courts for legally defining the 'class' of images; and the age profiles of victims.
Image 'levels' used by UK courts as a guidelines:- Images depicting erotic posing with no sexual activity.
- Non-penetrative sexual activity between children or solo masturbation by a child.
- Non-penetrative sexual activity between children and adults.
- Penetrative sexual activity involving a child or children, or both children and adults.
- Sadism or penetration of or by an animal.
Age profile of victims:
Aged 0 -2 : 4%
Aged 3 -6 : 20%
Aged 7 -10 : 45%
Aged 11 -15 : 30%
Aged 16 -17 : 1%
Aged 0-2, 4%, some of which is Class 5.
You and I have a choice as to our position on this issue. The victim has no choice. And the more CEM is accessed, the more is paid for, and the more is produced.
I'd question the statistics when you look at nonsense like this:
http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/teen-girl-posted-herself-nude/story-e6freo8c-12257008014440 -
This is just DRM en masse. Screw the regular user in the hope to catch a few people that are too smart to walk into your net.
Firstly, I agree with you that blocking anything bar CEM is not the thing to do. We're in agreement on this issue, and I believe we should do as they have in Norway and make a specific agreement between lawmakers and law enforcement that the only content to be blocked in CEM. If the law enforcement people come across a website with anything else, be it copyright material for download or sites promoting racial hatred or whatever, they do not touch it.
I think that is an ideal way to approach it, where all concerned detach the issue of CEM, which we all believe to be black and white illegal, from more contentous areas of online censorship where - as I say - I agree completely with you.The content most likely isn't even hosted on a publicly viewable website
That assertion is quite simply not true.
I'm afraid I have very little answer to your assertion here bar to point to the credibility of sources such as INTERPOL versus anecdotal examples. There is simply no question as to the nature of the majority of the content displayed in the images in which over 1 million individual children have been pictured, but not identified.I'd question the statistics when you look at nonsense like this:
http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/t...-1225700801444
A dog being placed onto the back of a nude and distressed 4 year old by an adult for sexual intercourse with the child while another video tapes it is not ambigious.
Nor is a boy, between 11 and 13, being strangled and buggered by an adult while another takes photographs an ambigious example.
And so forth.0 -
Firstly, I agree with you that blocking anything bar CEM is not the thing to do. We're in agreement on this issue, and I believe we should do as they have in Norway and make a specific agreement between lawmakers and law enforcement that the only content to be blocked in CEM. If the law enforcement people come across a website with anything else, be it copyright material for download or sites promoting racial hatred or whatever, they do not touch it.
I think that is an ideal way to approach it, where all concerned detach the issue of CEM, which we all believe to be black and white illegal, from more contentous areas of online censorship where - as I say - I agree completely with you.
That assertion is quite simply not true.
I'm afraid I have very little answer to your assertion here bar to point to the credibility of sources such as INTERPOL versus anecdotal examples. There is simply no question as to the nature of the majority of the content displayed in the images in which over 1 million individual children have been pictured, but not identified.
A dog being placed onto the back of a nude and distressed 4 year old by an adult for sexual intercourse with the child while another video tapes it is not ambigious.
Nor is a boy, between 11 and 13, being strangled and buggered by an adult while another takes photographs an ambigious example.
And so forth.
And how is blocking the site in Ireland alone going to stop kids being abused like that?0 -
Ok so obviously this is moronic IMO as anyone with half a brain cell will get around their filters and its a bad road to go down because how soon before the government decide information that it negative about them is dangerous or falls under terrorism :rolleyes:
I don't trust the current government or any government with this and it should just not be allowed to be introduced.
Unfortunately so many people in Ireland are ignorant when it comes to technology and will probably not only allow this to happen but actively cheer that it is a good thing :rolleyes:
Child porn argument kind of falls apart IMO once looked at in real detail. Firstly lets assume the governments block does work. Why would you want to stop people going to Child porn sides when you can just track who is going to them and arrest them and then alert the authorities in those other countries to the website who can shut them down and investigate where the material actually came from.
If you just block the guys access and log it, you haven't really learned much especially since most likely nothing will be done with the logs or people who accidently clicked a link once will end up being brought down the garda station (although I'd say child porn links aren't on wikipedia or whatever but you get my point).
Prevention is better to cure, especially when it comes to sex crimes.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
I suppose if you assert that nobody in Ireland has ever paid for CEM then we have no impact on the industry and it would have no effect.And how is blocking the site in Ireland alone going to stop kids being abused like that?
What fundamental issue is there in ring fencing child porn, as they have done in Norway, and blocking it?
That's how they made in work up there: By specifically ring fencing it.0 -
I suppose if you assert that nobody in Ireland has ever paid for CEM then we have no impact on the industry and it would have no effect.
What fundamental issue is there in ring fencing child porn, as they have done in Norway, and blocking it?
That's how they made in work up there: By specifically ring fencing it.
Because it won't be limited to child porn because this is Ireland and when the government can exploit a situation for party gain they have done so in the past and there is no evidence they'll behave honestly in this situation.
They don't have morales either so why trust them. The traffic from Ireland is minimal and it doesn't stop the crime, better to track down the individuals viewing the site and interview them to get whatever information you can from them with no censorship required.Prevention is better to cure, especially when it comes to sex crimes.
We aren't preventing sex crimes, we are blocking websites that feature sex crimes and its a short step from there to expanding to include anything any lobby group or the government themselves wants blocked. Lobby groups like the fanatical religious groups etc... which is why we have blasphemy laws in the country right now.It blocks some of the demand for it. It's like all crime. If there's no demand for it it is less likely to occur.
If you arrest the people who are viewing the sites by ISP's reporting people going to those sites to the authorities then you achieve the same thing without blocking content. There is little difference between one or two views and zero on a website but there is a massive difference between censorship and reporting from ISP's of customers viewing sites with child porn on it for investigation by the relevant authorities.0 -
Because it won't be limited to child porn because this is Ireland and when the government can exploit a situation for party gain they have done so in the past and there is no evidence they'll behave honestly in this situation.
They don't have morales either so why trust them. The traffic from Ireland is minimal and it doesn't stop the crime, better to track down the individuals viewing the site and interview them to get whatever information you can from them with no censorship required.
We aren't preventing sex crimes, we are blocking websites that feature sex crimes and its a short step from there to expanding to include anything any lobby group or the government themselves wants blocked. Lobby groups like the fanatical religious groups etc... which is why we have blasphemy laws in the country right now.
If you arrest the people who are viewing the sites by ISP's reporting people going to those sites to the authorities then you achieve the same thing without blocking content. There is little difference between one or two views and zero on a website but there is a massive difference between censorship and reporting from ISP's of customers viewing sites with child porn on it for investigation by the relevant authorities.
You aren't really getting my point. You are hanging on to the big-brother fear. Would you be more comfortable if there was a published list of the banned domains and websites?
Preventing the demand for the crime is a very good way of preventing crime. If noone bought stolen property then thefts and burglaries would go down. If noone could view child porn then the number of websites would go down. Catching them afterwards is all very good but it doesn't help the child.0 -
That our government might try and pull a fast one on us is not a good reason to not block this stuff. You need a coalition of partners in the country who can copper fasten this to apply only to CEM.
Censorship of CEM is not the same as censorship of anything else.
The traffic from Ireland is minimal and it doesn't stop the crime
Firstly, I'd say that every country has a moral obligation to do its bit in this fight, no matter their size. We contribute to the United Nations, to charities... Saying my €5 a month doesn't make a difference is missing the point that all our combined efforts, be it me giving €5 a month or you leaving €5 million in your will to an effort will have an impact.
Secondly, every time CEM is viewed it is a repeat of a heinous crime perpetrated against an innocent, defenceless victim who, if they survive (and many do not), will carry the burden forever.
1 page view of child pornography is a crime.
Also, police forces do not have the ability to hunt down everyone who ever looks at CEM. If we face facts, there's too many people accessing it.
I was wrong about the Norwegian statistics, having checked it is actually 10,000 - 12,000 clicks per day that the Norwegian ISP's report. Norway has 4.9m people, we have 4.5m.
So let's say 9,000 clicks in Ireland per day if we follow the same trend (I know we are a country with no history of child abuse whatsoever, so perhaps you feel I am over egging the figures?). 9,000 clicks onto CEM. 9,000 times multiple images are being viewed.
How degrading would you feel if you were a victim of CEM and there is a possibility that your images are being accessed up to 9,000 times per day by people pulling their plumbs to your abuse? or 1 time per day? Would that be small fry?0 -
I think there the government are spitting in the face of abuse victims.This country is turning into the USA by our corrupt "politicians" pushing us around and trying to steal our freedom.
Child abuse is a thrillion times worse than downloading a torrent song or reading non flattering news about our government.Its a bloody disgrace we have to listen to them use victims as an excuse.
I dont know how much of internet is child porn but if its 1 fifth surely they can catch thousands of people a day without internet censorship0 -
I think there the government are spitting in the face of abuse victims.This country is turning into the USA by our corrupt "politicians" pushing us around and trying to steal our freedom.
Child abuse is a thrillion times worse than downloading a torrent song or reading non flattering news about our government.Its a bloody disgrace we have to listen to them use victims as an excuse.
I dont know how much of internet is child porn but if its 1 fifth surely they can catch thousands of people a day without internet censorship
You have missed the point. Censorship reduces demand and hence reduces the occurence of the crime and helps to protect children from abuse. If you just catch the guy afterwards you're basicly using the child as bait for these people just so you can protect your right to download a movie.0 -
Baaaaa ....
My problem with "just" censoring child porn is quite simple: we cannot trust our government - or any government - to "ringfence" censorship to "just" child porn. It may have worked in Norway (and I don't know this I'm just taking another posters' word) but there is strong reason to fear that this is the exception, not the rule. Allowing censorship for "just" child porn would almost certainly be the thin end of the wedge.
The real push for censorship has come from the media industry. Has done for many years now. All this stuff about child porn is basically a distraction, a straw man. "Won't you please think of the children." Same argument is used any time someone needs to use propoganda to force an emotional response instead of a logical one. No-one here is going to argue that child porn is cool. It is also very much the case that in as much as child porn sites can be blocked, visits to them could be logged by the same system.0 -
sounds like boards.ie0
-
Baaaah. Dem govment troops gonna get me.
Works both ways. If your gonna put down my argument just because it is similar to others work away. Personally I see the opportunity to protect children as more important than being able to download a movie or song.
Even if the ban was only introduced to prevent file to file sharing it wouldn't bother me. It's just a method of enforcing the law. If you are so against the blocking of media sharing you should be trying to campaigning to change piracy laws rather than supporting ways to get around them.0 -
Advertisement
-
You have missed the point. Censorship reduces demand and hence reduces the occurence of the crime and helps to protect children from abuse. If you just catch the guy afterwards you're basicly using the child as bait for these people just so you can protect your right to download a movie.
Im not saying use children as bait im saying the government should be lookin for these criminals anyway and not using some see through lie to justify their means0
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
Advertisement