How depressing and sick.

curlzy

http://www.salon.com/life/violence_against_women/index.html?story=/mwt/broadsheet/2010/09/17/rape_technology

This is just so depressing. I think perhaps this type of thing makes technology and it's advances just not worth having, like yeah facebook is get for staying in touch but at this kinda cost? This poor girl has the added humiliation of knowing that hundreds maybe even thousands of people could see this happen to her. What do you all think?

Biggins

Stupidity of the highest order in a number of ways.
One of those ways is that everything now is traceable and the gobschites passing this stuff around are assholes for not realising this.

So the culprits who transferred the footage from phone to web, etc can have all their locations and I.P. addresses as well as actual phone numbers, be traced.

I would expect definite arrests on this one.

curlzy

Yeah I agree Biggins, they're sure to get caught now but I think that the fact that this girl has to know that everyone in her life could have watched this footage is almost as bad as the crime itself, just seems to be unbelievabely harsh on top of what she's already been through.

Chaotic_Forces

Biggins wrote: »

Stupidity of the highest order in a number of ways.
One of those ways is that everything now is traceable and the gobschites passing this stuff around are assholes for not realising this.

So the culprits who transferred the footage from phone to web, etc can have all their locations and I.P. addresses as well as actual phone numbers, be traced.

I would expect definite arrests on this one.

Not really. All it takes is wi-fi and they're clean. At least I think. I'd imagine they take the photos, go to a wi-fi hotspot, upload them to a new email account and then use that account to spread them.

On a note about the thing itself... the FU*K?! I can understand if she posed willingly but I mean... the Hell does someone say "hmm, we'll drug this girl and then rape her AND VIDEO IT!"
Hope the little cun*s get caught and locked up with some nice ape like men who don't take "no" for answer.

AskMyChocolate

curlzy wrote: »

Yeah I agree Biggins, they're sure to get caught now but I think that the fact that this girl has to know that everyone in her life could have watched this footage is almost as bad as the crime itself, just seems to be unbelievabely harsh on top of what she's already been through.

They need horse-whipping.

starbelgrade

Harry Brown will sort those f*ckers out.

Izzy711

This is just so damn disgusting. It makes me absolutely sick and pissed off!

Sykk

Is this SFW?

starbelgrade

Sykk wrote: »

Is this SFW?

It's a news article - not the actual video.

Chaotic_Forces

Sykk wrote: »

Is this SFW?

I don't think so. You don't see anything or the likes (she's under 18) but there is a link in the main article about snuff films. Though again, it doesn't actually show anything.

curlzy

Sykk wrote: »

Is this SFW?

Ah come one now :rolleyes: I'm hardly likely to post a link to that, and god I really hope I'd be banned if I did!!!

stovelid

It's not often I get Daily Mail about these thing, but Jesus, what would you do to those blokes... :mad:

Hopefully they were stupid enough to upload from somewhere they can be traced so at least some good may come of it for the poor girl.

curlzy

curlzy wrote: »

Ah come one now :rolleyes: I'm hardly likely to post a link to that, and god I really hope I'd be banned if I did!!!

It's a fair question, even if the link is not directly to the NSFW content.
Some work web useage policies are so strict that even secondhand links could put your job at risk.

Sykk

curlzy wrote: »

Ah come one now :rolleyes: I'm hardly likely to post a link to that, and god I really hope I'd be banned if I did!!!

Better safe that sorry :pac:

pickarooney

Awful story, but why did they feel the need to drag child porn into it?

Chaotic_Forces

pickarooney wrote: »

Awful story, but why did they feel the need to drag child porn into it?

Does it matter? She was 16, just a kid. Regardless of that it's child porn, they're monsters.

Biggins

Chaotic_Forces wrote: »

Not really. All it takes is wi-fi and they're clean. At least I think. I'd imagine they take the photos, go to a wi-fi hotspot, upload them to a new email account and then use that account to spread them...

The transfer from the phone (which has its own identifier signal mask) via the nearest phone company mast/ariel, to another computerised system that will alone have its own i.p. address helps makes things easier.

So suspect Joe Soap is sending out graphic illegal material, if I can show by triangulation of his phone (which can be gotten upon his arrest - and examined), have his particular phone signal, link it to his location on any particular day and he don't have an alibi ("I was elsewhere your honour!"), then show that he was using the phone and at the scene of the crime (someone testifies against him that he was there), the individuals can be further gotten by evidence alone in a number of ways.

If every original one of those sick sods (sending out the stuff) are ALL using throw away phones then yes, the job is harder to track and locate but all it takes is one fool on a contract phone (get him to testify) and he can hang the rest orally or by examining his phone and/or transfers which are on data file on a phone company server anyway.

Biggins

pickarooney wrote: »

Awful story, but why did they feel the need to drag child porn into it?

Boils down to the legal statutes of the country and what age they have allocated/attached as a legal definition of "child porn" in their country.

Chaotic_Forces

Biggins wrote: »

The transfer from the phone (which has its own identifier signal mask) via the nearest phone company mast/ariel, to another computerised system that will alone have its own i.p. address helps makes things easier.

So if suspect Joe Soap of sending out graphic illegal material, if I can show by triangulation of his phone (which can be gotten upon his arrest - and examined) and link it to his location on any particular day and he don't have an alibi ("I was elsewhere your honour!"). Show that he was using the phone and at the scene of the crime (someone testifies against him that he was there), the individuals can be further gotten by evidence alone in a number of ways.

If every original one of those sick sods (sending out the stuff) are ALL using throw away phones then yes, the job is harder to track and locate but all it takes is one fool on a contract phone (get him to testify) and he can hang the rest orally or by examining his phone and/or transfers which are on data file on a phone company server anyway.

Well I doubt they'll be caught. Although... technically if it's a small enough rave, shouldn't all the boys be able to be idenified, I think they should be caught quite easily through good aul fashioned searching.

Biggins

Chaotic_Forces wrote: »

Well I doubt they'll be caught. Although... technically if it's a small enough rave, shouldn't all the boys be able to be identified, I think they should be caught quite easily through good aul fashioned searching.

They can't and won't go after everyone down the digital chain but the initial ones that were there at the scene of the crime, they will (I hope).
All it will take is to get one or two identified, get them to talk (lesser jail terms on offer, etc).
There is the possibility too of security cameras also there being able to back-up their presence at the general location too (it all adds weight to a court case in front of a jury), add that to testimony, phone records, DNA(?), etc... and there is a case for catch a good few of them.

I hope the original scumbags do too get all caught.

Chaotic_Forces

Biggins wrote: »

They can't and won't go after everyone down the digital chain but the initial ones that were there at the scene of the crime, they will (I hope).
All it will take is to get one or two identified, get them to talk (lesser jail terms on offer, etc).
There is the possibility too of security cameras also there being able to back-up their presence at the general location too (it all adds weight to a court case in front of a jury), add that to testimony, phone records, DNA(?), etc... and there is a case for catch a good few of them.

I hope the original scumbags do too get all caught.

It's funny, in this day and age I wasn't even thinking that maybe it would just be easier to check the rave, ask people, look at cameras. All I knew was "the internet and texts spread it".

curlzy

pickarooney wrote: »

Awful story, but why did they feel the need to drag child porn into it?

I think they brought it up so that they could use the example of a famous case where the victim stated that having sickos jack off to her abuse was like the abuse happening over and over. I know where you're coming from though, it's sensationalist now to mention child porn and that takes away from the issue at hand.

Biggins

Chaotic_Forces wrote: »

It's funny, in this day and age I wasn't even thinking that maybe it would just be easier to check the rave, ask people, look at cameras. All I knew was "the internet and texts spread it".

Well thankfully, both ways now are even more effective for crime fighting (not perfect but every little bit helps).
Lord knows the police of every nation, need all the help they can get. Whatever method works, good!

pickarooney

They should be caught by promising amnesty to any of them that comes forward and names the others. If they chose to renege on the deal afterwards that would be too bad.

It's funny, because if you saw any other crime - robbery, beating, murder even - taking place and took a picture of it, you'd be praised for helping solve a crime, but if you did the same thing in this situation you'd cack yourself because you'd immediately be assumed to be guilty.

Chaotic_Forces

Biggins wrote: »

Well thankfully, both ways now are even more effective for crime fighting (not perfect but every little bit helps).
Lord knows the police of every nation, need all the help they can get. Whatever method works, good!

Don't get me wrong, I agree. It's just odd how the first thing the kids from this generation think about techology first instead of logic.

Biggins

Chaotic_Forces wrote: »

Don't get me wrong, I agree. It's just odd how the first thing the kids from this generation think about technology first instead of logic.

O' I hear you too and agree 100%.
They press that "send" button before letting their brains kick even into gear!

Even if one didn't send anything, just by being there, if they were captured on footage and/or recorded in the background as oral sound, they are possibly up the creek and could be charged with any number of crimes (possible aiding and abetting, failure to report a crime, etc...).

Links234

holy hell that is sick! :eek:

I only hope that posting the pictures online makes sure and certain these people are locked up good.

up for anything

curlzy wrote: »

I think they brought it up so that they could use the example of a famous case where the victim stated that having sickos jack off to her abuse was like the abuse happening over and over. I know where you're coming from though, it's sensationalist now to mention child porn and that takes away from the issue at hand.

I disagree. She is a child in Canada and a child by law here. I think that so many of you are here are so young yourselves that you forget just what a 'baby' a 16 year old is. Not your fault as it is human nature to feel when you are 20+/- a bit that you were nearly as mature at 16 as you are now. It is porn because it is showing sexual action I presume and not just pretty pictures of a girl.

If I had the power I would hang everyone who had anything to do with the actual rape and the filming of it and the initial passing around of the photographic evidence and I would ban anyone who viewed it from having a mobile phone for a couple of years or accessing the Internet and the same for anyone who on hearing about it went to a search engine to see could they find it it to view and be outraged then upon viewing it. :mad:

jackiebaron

This story, if true, is sickening. But what's going to happen with this is that right-wing nutjobs in Canada are going to use it to justify putting surveillance cameras everywhere and tell you it's for your protection....just the same was as you taking off your shoes and belt at the airport is for your own safety.

Procasinator

They have the photographer already according to a linked article (http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Photos+teen+rape+gang+viral+Internet/3537298/story.html#ixzz0zpTc0YP8) and will probably be able to identify some of the attackers (between 5 and 7 of them) from the photos.

It's a horrific crime and absolutely disgusting behaviour.

curlzy

up for anything wrote: »

I disagree. She is a child in Canada and a child by law here. I think that so many of you are here are so young yourselves that you forget just what a 'baby' a 16 year old is. Not your fault as it is human nature to feel when you are 20+/- a bit that you were nearly as mature at 16 as you are now. It is porn because it is showing sexual action I presume and not just pretty pictures of a girl.

I see what you mean but this was a gang of knackers date raping a girl at a rave, not really child porn as people would understand that term if you see what I mean, like this wasn't an adult taking advantage of a child in their care. I do think that child porn has been used to sensationalise things and that in itself is really crap because it takes the shocking aspect away because people just get desensitised to it. Also I'm 28 so I don't think my view is based on my age.

curlzy

Procasinator wrote: »

They have the photographer already according to a linked article (http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Photos+teen+rape+gang+viral+Internet/3537298/story.html#ixzz0zpTc0YP8) and will probably be able to identify some of the attackers (between 5 and 7 of them) from the photos.

It's a horrific crime and absolutely disgusting behaviour.

See now I'm glad I posted the link, so glad that it seems that they will get caught. Personally I'd love to leave "justice" in the hands of her family (or if they're too nice whoever they nominate) and the form of justice to involve blow torches, pliers, hungry dogs, acid and so forth. Ah not really, I'm a pacifist, but they should defo be put in jail for a very very very long time (I think 20 years minimum) and made to share cells with much bigger guys

Simple law change.

-You recieve picture of rape/kiddie porn.

-you may pass on to law enforcement only.

-if not, you are charged as an accessory.

Dudess

up for anything wrote: »

I disagree. She is a child in Canada and a child by law here.

She's a minor, not a child - biologically she is a woman. Please don't think I'm defending this in any way - of course I'm not - but I agree it's not child pornography, which features pre-pubescent, often small, children. This is repulsive and upsetting and enraging the way child porn is, but it's still not the same. And 16 is half my age so I'm not coming from the perspective of someone who's not much more than 16 and thinks it's practically adulthood. It's not comparable to a small kid playing with toys either though.

pickarooney

Actually, on Biggins' suggestion, I looked up the legal definition in Canada (bit nervous typing that in, I can tell you!) and it's defined as any act involving someone under-18.
So, I suppose technically it is child porn, but not as we know it, Jim.

marco_polo

Dudess wrote: »

She's a minor, not a child - biologically she is a woman. Please don't think I'm defending this in any way - of course I'm not - but I agree it's not child pornography, which features pre-pubescent, often small, children. This is repulsive and upsetting and enraging the way child porn is, but it's still not the same. And 16 is half my age so I'm not coming from the perspective of someone who's not much more than 16 and thinks it's practically adulthood. It's not comparable to a small kid playing with toys either though.

I agree with your viewpoint, however In fairness to the original article they are not just sensationalising, as according to the Vancover Sun article the photographer is being charged with the production and distribution of child pornography.


EDIT: Or I could have just read one more post down

pickarooney wrote: »

Actually, on Biggins' suggestion, I looked up the legal definition in Canada (bit nervous typing that in, I can tell you!) and it's defined as any act involving someone under-18.
So, I suppose technically it is child porn, but not as we know it, Jim.

Killer Pigeon

Deactivate Facebook!

Deactivate! Deactivate! DEEEAACTIIIVAAATE!!

MAXIMUM DEACTIVATION!!!

some_dose

From my daily spin around the interwebs it appears that there now appears to be increasing evidence that there was no rape and indeed it was consensual. Apparently the 16 year old girl in question was heard to be quite enjoying herself during the act (please bear in mind that this is still only speculation as are the claims of rape that she is making). Apparently a girl who was at the same party as the girl in question who knows her said that is was consensual until her parents found the pictures the next day when she then made the claim that she'd been raped.

For those who dismiss that these false allegations could be made please be aware that stuff like this has happened before

In October 2005, at a Delta Delta Delta formal, drunken sorority girls careened through the host’s house, vomiting, falling, and breaking furnishings. One girl ran naked through a hallway; another was found half-naked with a male on the bed in the master suite. A third had intercourse with her escort in a different bedroom. On the bus back from the formal, she was seen kissing her escort; once she arrived home, she had sex with a different male. Later, she accused her escort of rape. The district attorney declined to prosecute the girl’s rape charges. William and Mary, however, had already forced the defendant to leave school and, even after the D.A.’s decision, wouldn’t let him return until his accuser graduated. The defendant sued his accuser for $5.5 million for defamation; the parties settled out of court.

The incident wasn’t as unusual as it sounds. A year earlier, a William and Mary student had charged rape after having provided a condom to her partner for intercourse. The boy had cofounded the national antirape organization One in Four; the school suspended him for a year, anyway. In an earlier incident, a drunken sorority girl was filmed giving oral sex to seven men. She cried rape when her boyfriend found out. William and Mary found one of the recipients, who had taped the event, guilty of assault and suspended him

Link: http://www.city-journal.org/2008/18_1_campus_rape.html

However, it still doesn't change the fact that it is, legally, child porn

curlzy

some_dose wrote: »

From my daily spin around the interwebs it appears that there now appears to be increasing evidence that there was no rape and indeed it was consensual. Apparently the 16 year old girl in question was heard to be quite enjoying herself during the act (please bear in mind that this is still only speculation as are the claims of rape that she is making). Apparently a girl who was at the same party as the girl in question who knows her said that is was consensual until her parents found the pictures the next day when she then made the claim that she'd been raped.

For those who dismiss that these false allegations could be made please be aware that stuff like this has happened before


Link: http://www.city-journal.org/2008/18_1_campus_rape.html

However, it still doesn't change the fact that it is, legally, child porn

Well now I'm confused, am I glad that this awful thing didn't happen to a 16 year old girl or am I mad that people are saying it didn't happen when it did or am I angry at the girl for making false allegations and thereby making it harder for other victims to come forward? Hmmmm I think I'll wait for further info before I settle on what to think!!!

Chaotic_Forces

Dudess wrote: »

She's a minor, not a child - biologically she is a woman. Please don't think I'm defending this in any way - of course I'm not - but I agree it's not child pornography, which features pre-pubescent, often small, children. This is repulsive and upsetting and enraging the way child porn is, but it's still not the same. And 16 is half my age so I'm not coming from the perspective of someone who's not much more than 16 and thinks it's practically adulthood. It's not comparable to a small kid playing with toys either though.

You've got a point but come on, the world is too PC today. If I recorded a 17 year old girl (10 minutes before she was 18) naked and well... dancing suggestively, the media is going to label me a monster and the girl should be sent of to get therapy for her "abuse".

It's not child porn exactly but to me it is; they drugged her. She was about as harmless as a child could be, they knew what they were doing, they knew she wasn't able to defend herself. And then they video it.
She might be a woman biologically but to me (I'm only 22) till I get around 26/27 I don't think I'll have grown up yet.
Kids her age can go out and get hammered/stoned really easily, there's a reason we have laws for minors; to protect them. Besides, she is a woman but if you (hypothetically, I pray this never happens to anyone) where drugged, wouldn't you want your friends to do anything they could to get you safely home? Even if that means treating you like a child though you clearly an adult?

curlzy wrote: »

Well now I'm confused, am I glad that this awful thing didn't happen to a 16 year old girl or am I mad that people are saying it didn't happen when it did or am I angry at the girl for making false allegations and thereby making it harder for other victims to come forward? Hmmmm I think I'll wait for further info before I settle on what to think!!!

That can both ways. If there were traces of drugs in her it was still rape; she wasn't in the mind to give consent, regardless if she took them willingly or not (assuming she took enough she couldn't give consent). But come on, even if she was raped, a lot of people won't tell others. Besides how do we know her friend didn't see her drink being spiked or something and just assumes it was "fun" for her?
I'm not attacking for either argument, just making some valid points.