Only a matter of time before you get jailed for merely having a dirty thought... :o

T-K-O · 26-06-2009 01:45PM

walshb wrote: »

I disagree, if we apply this, then what about ads on tv showing
naked babies? Can we be prosecuted for this?

If we solicit and pay, then this is the difference. The material is there and some
choose to view it. How are they criminals for viewing something and NOT
soliciting or paying?

Apple and Oranges.

Without being graphic were is the crime on the TV ad ? I can tell you were the crime is in these pics

A baby in, lets say a pampers ad is completely different to this material as you well know.

Crime and internet crimes require separate legislation you cannot have a one fits all law.

walshb · 26-06-2009 01:46PM

thelordofcheese wrote: »

I

I'm sorry i can't take this seriously at all. It's almost disgustingly childish. Peoples jobs (especially in law enforcement) can place them in situations where in order to do their job they must view illegal material. This does not in any way give you the right to view said materials themselves, because thats not your damn job.

"It's not fair?" cry me a river.

I am talking about censorship and viewing material, not bloody shooting people dead!

Do you agree with persons censoring films for ADULTS here in Ireland?

Do you think it's okay that a bunch of people can sit and view material and
then tell the rest of the adult populatuion that NO, they cannot view it?

And, all because its' part of my job?

Nehaxak · 26-06-2009 01:47PM

walshb wrote: »

Did I say they showed child porn on tv, however, if you want to get technical, how about the tv ads for pampers etc which do show naked babies?

They don't show naked babies. There's guidelines and so on in place now and believe me if there were an advert showing naked children it'd soon be taken off air, if it even managed to get that far in the first place. There'd be hell to pay for any TV exec who allowed a naked child advert to be shown on TV.

Now, if it's okay for that to be allowed, how can the law then prosecute persons for viewing images of children online?

...but it's not ok for that to be allowed and it's not allowed ?

In the PAST there were some dubious adverts showing naked children, including that which was shown by charities. It's not right, it's wrong, it was wrong then and it's wrong now and there have since been guidelines put in place to stop this from happening and it should not happen in the future. If it does then report it, either to hotline.ie or whatever broadcasting regulation authorities to have it acted upon.

"Well your belief is wrong, both morally and in the eyes of the law."

Eh, I distinctly said that paying for, soliciting and participating is wrong; it is heinous.
However, seeing or viewing is IMO not a crime, and if it is, then we commit crime every day of our lives by witnessing crime

Look dude, it's as simple as this, it is a crime whether you like it or not to look at child pornography. If you happen to accidentally get some images up on your screen while searching for "tits" on google images then I would not think you could be prosecuted for that (though THAT is where the law is an arse as I'm sure you probably COULD be prosecuted even though you did NOT explicitly search for child porn images).

The law is not clear enough and it can be misinterpreted I'm sure and that is also wrong. The laws themselves should be clear-cut enough that they are easily understood and policed but far as I can tell they are not. It is though clear enough to know that viewing child porn, including that of cartoon or drawn depictions of child pornography is/are illegal.

K-9 · 26-06-2009 01:47PM

walshb wrote: »

How is it OK for them and not us?

That's what bugs me. If ONE adult is allowed view, then all adults being equal, should be allowed view and that is what censorship bugs the crap out of me.

Catch the scum committing the crime and the scum soliciting!

This country is insane with it. We have a bunch of people who can legislate and tell us
what is and is not to be viewed, AFTER they themselves have viewed it.

Eh, Because the Guards have to view the images to see what they have viewed?

Is that interfering with your rights?

walshb · 26-06-2009 01:48PM

T-K-O wrote: »

Apple and Oranges.

Without being graphic were is the crime on the TV ad ? I can tell you were the crime is in these pics

A baby in, lets say a pampers ad is completely different to this material as you well know.

Crime and internet crimes require separate legislation you cannot have a one fits all law.

I don't well know as I have never deliberately viewed child porn, but if naked children
is an example of child porn, then I have viewed this on tv. So, if it's blatantly
on tv, then how can it be a crime to view it online?

Karl Hungus · 26-06-2009 01:50PM

K-9 wrote: »

Have never just happened to find child porn myself though I'm sure it can happen.

The thing is, the definitions of child porn can be extremely broad, and in the witch hunt, innocent people can be prosecuted for what may extremely loosely fall under an already loose definition. As Mike pointed out earlier, this kind of thing.

Case in point, the Irish laws as quoted by Seamus:

(ii) that shows or, in the case of a document, relates to a person who is or is depicted as being a child and who is or is depicted as witnessing any such activity by any person or persons, or

With that definition, Watchmen could be considered child porn because of the part where the young Walter Kovacs walks in on his mother having sex with a client.

You might not just happen to come across child porn as you define it, but the laws are so vague and scattershot, you could very well own child porn as the state defines it.

walshb · 26-06-2009 01:51PM

Nehaxak wrote: »

They don't show naked babies. There's guidelines and so on in place now and believe me if there were an advert showing naked children it'd soon be taken off air, if it even managed to get that far in the first place. There'd be hell to pay for any TV exec who allowed a naked child advert to be shown on TV.
llegal.

I have seen docs on tv where children were naked and I thought it quite inappropriate.

Hey, here is a better one. In some gyms here in Ireland, children openly change in the adult changing room and are completely naked amongst many other adults, and nobody bats an eyelid. It's not illegal, but when someone clicks
an image of a naked child online, then it becomes illegal?

K-9 · 26-06-2009 01:51PM

walshb wrote: »

So a garda or judge or social worker can use the whole, "I googled out of research"
But I or others cannot?

Guards and judges have been prosecuted AFAIK so that rules that out. It would only be a defense if they where actively involved in a case. The research point could be used by somebody who was doing a course related to it.

thelordofcheese · 26-06-2009 01:52PM

walshb wrote: »

I am talking about censorship and viewing material, not bloody shooting people dead!

Do you agree with persons censoring films for ADULTS here in Ireland?

Do you think it's okay that a bunch of people can sit and view material and
then tell the rest of the adult populatuion that NO, they cannot view it?

And, all because its' part of my job?

What has your issues with IFCO got to do with child porn, because up until now your position seems to have been "if people can view child porn because they it's part of their job then so should anyone".

If you're arguing about film censorship, that's another topic, if you're arguing what i think you're arguing then everything i said was valid.

Dennis the Stone · 26-06-2009 01:55PM

K-9 wrote: »

Have never just happened to find child porn myself though I'm sure it can happen.

I know, it's very, very unlikely that child porn will present itself if you're not looking for it. Most of the people who claim that are just bullshi*ting, they go and look for it.

"Your honour, I was simply looking up a historical document concerning the Great civil uprising of Guineau-Buisseau when I was suddenly presented with pictures of little girls and horses in compromising positions. I was so shocked and disgusted that I immediately shut down my computer after 10 minutes and retired to the bathroom, where grunting and muffled noises were to be heard."

If those cartoon-porn images and women dressed as young girls is classified as child porn then it would be very easy to come across (pardon the pun) as you see thumbnails on legitimate porn sites, warez sites, etc. all the time. The Milhouse being screwed by Doctor Zoidberg industry makes billions a year I suppose.

walshb · 26-06-2009 01:57PM

thelordofcheese wrote: »

What has your issues with IFCO got to do with child porn, because up until now your position seems to have been "if people can view child porn because they it's part of their job then so should anyone".

If you're arguing about film censorship, that's another topic, if you're arguing what i think you're arguing then everything i said was valid.

It relates to my simple point that 'viewing' should not be a crime.

And, if it okay for ONE to view, then any adult should be able if they want, to view.

The crime is the participation, paying for and soliciting!

T-K-O · 26-06-2009 01:58PM

walshb wrote: »

So a garda or judge or social worker can use the whole, "I googled out of research"
But I or others cannot?

There was something I heard where people were encouraged to report
inappropriate material on the net, incl child porn.
Would report it? No way, because who is to say that I then do not become
a target for investigation.

That's the problem here.

Here's another thought. Murder is to many the most heinous of all crimes. How come nobody was pursued for downloading and watching the beheadings of persons in
Iraq and Afghansitan?

Anyone who would like to research the topic, should contact the authorities and request some kind of permission / research permit, call it what you will.

The beheading video is a great point. We could get bogged down here and analyze how the brain works and how it processes words like rape, pedophile etc and how different people react differently to such words.

We are also naturally curious beings while a beheading video is not day time TV I don't think it compares to child abuse.

T-K-O · 26-06-2009 01:59PM

walshb wrote: »

It relates to my simple point that 'viewing' should not be a crime.

And, if it okay for ONE to view, then any adult should be able if they want, to view.

The crime is the participation, paying for and soliciting!

OK, what if these websites had advertisements, by visiting the site you are directly paying for its up keep ??

T-K-O · 26-06-2009 02:01PM

walshb wrote: »

I don't well know as I have never deliberately viewed child porn, but if naked children
is an example of child porn, then I have viewed this on tv. So, if it's blatantly
on tv, then how can it be a crime to view it online?

I'm not getting into it. We are not talking pampers ad - we are talking child porn.

thelordofcheese · 26-06-2009 02:02PM

walshb wrote: »

It relates to my simple point that 'viewing' should not be a crime.

And, if it okay for ONE to view, then any adult should be able if they want, to view.

I'm calling total bullshit on this.

You're actually equating people viewing illegal material as part of their job with some sort of denial of rights. That's fucked up.

walshb wrote: »

The crime is the participation, paying for and soliciting!

I argue that viewing is soliciting. Paying or not, people will supply the demand, either for cash or for kudos within the community (Don't believe me? then explain why people seed torrents for no monetary gain)

Karl Hungus · 26-06-2009 02:03PM

BigMentalDisease wrote: »

I know, it's very, very unlikely that child porn will present itself if you're not looking for it. Most of the people who claim that are just bullshi*ting, they go and look for it.

4chan tbh. It's been known to crop up there from time to time.

mike65 · 26-06-2009 02:04PM

walshb wrote: »

I have seen docs on tv where children were naked and I thought it quite inappropriate.

Hey, here is a better one. In some gyms here in Ireland, children openly change in the adult changing room and are completely naked amongst many other adults, and nobody bats an eyelid. It's not illegal, but when someone clicks
an image of a naked child online, then it becomes illegal?

A first point might be that the shortcommings in changing room policy by certain boxing clubs do not make it right if viewed as an image online, the second might be that context is all If you did have such images online what type of search engine terms would one use to find them? On what type of sites would such images be most likely to be found? Boxing fansites? I imagine such images would be cropped or not used. So if you were looking at naked children in the company of adults in an intimate setting such as changing rooms (even if the original context was innocent) it would almost certainly be on "pervert-friendly" sites.

seamus · 26-06-2009 02:04PM

Walshb, read the bit of the legal document I posted up again.

Pictures of naked children are not illegal or child porn in and of themselves.

Viewing pictures of naked children is not illegal.

Pampers ads showing naked babies are not illegal.

Documentaries showing a child running around a house naked are not illegal.

Again, images of naked children are not illegal.

Unless the image depicts sexual activity or puts primary focus on the genitalia.

K-9 · 26-06-2009 02:06PM

BigMentalDisease wrote: »

I know, it's very, very unlikely that child porn will present itself if you're not looking for it. Most of the people who claim that are just bullshi*ting, they go and look for it.

"Your honour, I was simply looking up a historical document concerning the Great civil uprising of Guineau-Buisseau when I was suddenly presented with pictures of little girls and horses in compromising positions. I was so shocked and disgusted that I immediately shut down my computer after 10 minutes and retired to the bathroom, where grunting and muffled noises were to be heard."

If those cartoon-porn images and women dressed as young girls is classified as child porn then it would be very easy to come across (pardon the pun) as you see thumbnails on legitimate porn sites, warez sites, etc. all the time. The Milhouse being screwed by Doctor Zoidberg industry makes billions a year I suppose.

Has there been any cases in Ireland like that though? Teen girls type stuff?

I think the law is there to not be restrictive and probably to try and adapt as the internet evolves. As long as there is a bit of cop and no extreme cases like Karl Hungus referenced, there really shouldn't be a problem in Ireland.

Child porn is the issue here, not some law that may be misinterpreted.

T-K-O · 26-06-2009 02:06PM

BigMentalDisease wrote: »

Well, if a person views it, don't they possess it at the same time? People who actively seek this stuff don't really fare well in court by arguing that they were only viewing and not in possession as most people now are aware of caches and the like. Although, if it comes onto your screen through no fault of your own, they would hardly prosecute. The thing is, those cases are rare as they nearly always find that the person is searching and returning to this type of content.

I think there have been cases in the US where people have been done for possession even though they deleted their cache. The very fact they deleted their caches after every visit was proof that they knew and understood that they were downloading as well. So repeated visits to those sites, added to deleting the cache afterwards, added to a very simple recovery of thousands of what-you-thought-were-deleted images by the law enforcement, you could well be in trouble then.

It would really go against you if you were very computer literate as then they could argue that you were aware that everything leaves a trace on a hard drive, and technically you were knowingly possessing it even though it was actually deleted.

I have a degree it IT, unless you know what you are doing the majority of files can be recovered. Also in cases of a pop up or something like that you came follow the trail and find out if these guys sought the info or by some:rolleyes: witch craft if appeared on the computer.

Dennis the Stone · 26-06-2009 02:21PM

Karl Hungus wrote: »

4chan tbh. It's been known to crop up there from time to time.

Yeah, they love it. But it's usually just jailbait crap isn't it, as opposed to actual CP, is that what these youngsters are getting up to nowadays? Those rambunctious ragamuffins

lmtduffy · 26-06-2009 02:22PM

consider violent computer games these depict violence and murder,

Murder is a crime.

But the images generated on the computer aren't.

These cartoons depict sexual images of children,

to take sexual images of children is a crime.

But images generated on a computer are.

I think the only difference here is how people judge these crimes base on their moral judgements, and it should be clear to anyone living in this country by now that morality and each persons own moral judgements have no place in the formation of law.

Dennis the Stone · 26-06-2009 02:23PM

T-K-O wrote: »

I have a degree it IT, unless you know what you are doing the majority of files can be recovered. Also in cases of a pop up or something like that you came follow the trail and find out if these guys sought the info or by some:rolleyes: witch craft if appeared on the computer.

Exactly, so these foolish people that go searching and then empty their cache are kidding themselves (another pun) if they think they're a step ahead.

Dennis the Stone · 26-06-2009 02:28PM

K-9 wrote: »

Has there been any cases in Ireland like that though? Teen girls type stuff?

I think the law is there to not be restrictive and probably to try and adapt as the internet evolves. As long as there is a bit of cop and no extreme cases like Karl Hungus referenced, there really shouldn't be a problem in Ireland.

Child porn is the issue here, not some law that may be misinterpreted.

Which is why the law should be clearer, it's very vague at the moment.
As for that teen girl stuff, I don't think there's a chance in hell of that ever being lumped in with CP sure it probably makes up about half of the internet. The cartoon decision in Australia or wherever it was was ridiculous in my opinion.

Elessar · 26-06-2009 02:30PM

BigMentalDisease wrote: »

Exactly, so these foolish people that go searching and then empty their cache are kidding themselves (another pun) if they think they're a step ahead.

Just to chime in here, it's not at all difficult to completely overwrite a modern hard drive making it impossible to recover anything. I wonder where that would leave the law? Not even in relation to illegal porn, but in copyright cases or pirated software. Without evidence there is no case I assume?

Dennis the Stone · 26-06-2009 02:33PM

I suppose in that case it would be survival of the fittest (paedophile)

seamus · 26-06-2009 02:36PM

Elessar wrote: »

Just to chime in here, it's not at all difficult to completely overwrite a modern hard drive making it impossible to recover anything. I wonder where that would leave the law? Not even in relation to illegal porn, but in copyright cases or pirated software. Without evidence there is no case I assume?

Correct. Though there may be tertiary ways of providing evidence, such as a showing download logs or traffic logs from an ISP which show what you downloaded and when. However, this would be a longshot and has many holes which can be exploited to present a reasonable doubt in the evidence.

T-K-O · 26-06-2009 02:38PM

BigMentalDisease wrote: »

Exactly, so these foolish people that go searching and then empty their cache are kidding themselves (another pun) if they think they're a step ahead.

Spot on, deleting files is not really deleting files - even formats can be recovered.

I don't buy for one second such material can appear on ones hardrive. Possible but very unlikely.

seamus · 26-06-2009 02:50PM

T-K-O wrote: »

I don't buy for one second such material can appear on ones hardrive. Possible but very unlikely.

Maliciously, it's definitley possible. I could write a webpage which looks like a webpage for all intents and purposes but surreptitiously contains a few hundred child pornography images.

Extreme? Absolutely, and it would require some odd form of intent on the part of the person who created the page. But it's possible and very simple to do.

One possible "use" for such a technique would be a distributed database of images - secretely stored on people's machines and used as storage for these groups. Similar to a botnet, but for porn.

T-K-O · 26-06-2009 03:54PM

seamus wrote: »

Maliciously, it's definitley possible. I could write a webpage which looks like a webpage for all intents and purposes but surreptitiously contains a few hundred child pornography images.

Extreme? Absolutely, and it would require some odd form of intent on the part of the person who created the page. But it's possible and very simple to do.

One possible "use" for such a technique would be a distributed database of images - secretely stored on people's machines and used as storage for these groups. Similar to a botnet, but for porn.

Of course that is possible but its not that easy to do. Also I don't know for certain but Im sure that traffic could be analyzed to vindicate the end user.

Only a matter of time before you get jailed for merely having a dirty thought... :o

Comments