nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Tonight a paedophile hides in my village

spider guardian

Was watching the 'Crimes Against Children' episode of Prime Time Investigates there on Monday night, at the end of the program they scrolled a list of places where they detected IP addresses of people who were downloading images of child porn. Up pops my village, not even a quiet little town in the wesht of ireland is safe from these deviants.

Scary thing is it could be anyone, was out there last Saturday night, for all I know I could've been unknowingly talking to the perp in question! What to do? I fear our local law enforcement with their limited microsoft word skills just aren't up to the job

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

callaway92

OP is a genius...pretending that there is some sicko in his town and making us all feel sorry for him, when really it is HE that is the pedo...well played OP, well played

spider guardian

callaway92 wrote: »

OP is a genius...pretending that there is some sicko in his town and making us all feel sorry for him, when really it is HE that is the pedo...well played OP, well played

a truly EVIL plan

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

spider guardian wrote: »

some bank that almost bankrupted the country

Thought that was whee your going, but wasn't sure because the lack of relevancy.

ColeTrain wrote: »

How would the Gardai gather their evidence then. I'm at a lose to what you're argument is. If they don't seize the computer, wouldn't the person involved not be under a 'SUSPICION of guilt' for eternity ? The whole point of them taking the computer is to find out if the person is guilty or not. I'd rather have my computer seized and found to be clean rather than your way. I like my rights being protected and all but you're defending them just for the sake of doing it.

If they can trace it to one person, then fine. yes. I'm not techie enough to know if an IP address can be traced that specifically.

What your not factoring in is the cost. My PC is used for business and if went missing for a few weeks, I'd lose that business. It's not just something I use for playing a few reords or the odd video game. Sorry if it sounds callous, but I'd rather keep my business and income, thank you very much. I'm not just defending my rights here, I'm defending my income, my well-being, my reputaion; and I'm not doing it for the sake of doing it - I'm doing it because it is THAT ****ing crucial to me.

Giselle

Mark200 wrote: »

And what exactly would you say to the local law enforcement? "Ehh I saw this thing on tv..."? If the makers of that episode could prove that these IP addresses were detected downloading child porn, then I don't see any reason why they would not have told the police already.

Obviously downloading child porn is wrong, but there's a HUGE difference between that and actually going out and sexually abusing children.

The children who feature in the porn have been abused in the production of it, for the 'enjoyment' of the deviants who consume it. If no one consumed it, there wouldn't be a market in the images of children suffering abuse.

Its not a million miles away. Children are abused to provide those images. By downloading them, you're perpetuating that abuse or causing it.

Its the difference between shooting someone yourself, or paying someone else to do it, either way you're still guilty of murder.

ChippingSodbury

I remember seeing a programme on Channel 4 or BBC about how they caught the ring leaders of what led to Operation Amethyst in Ireland. One of the main guys was living on a fairly large family farm. There were a good few people in the house who had access to the PC that was suspected of sharing the images. The police staked (stook?!) out the house until they saw someone using the PC (through the window) to share images (detected on web) before they moved in to make an arrest and take the hard drive. This is the only way to catch people and put together a solid case. IP addresses are definitely not evidence on their own: if someone hacked into your wireless network from outside your house/ next door/ nearby, would you be happy to have your PC taken? I know I certainly wouldn't! If investigations are done properly and professionally, there are perfectly good ways of collecting evidence without bothering the normal Tom, Dick and Harrys.
From being on the inside on more than one occasion where Prime Time "investigated", I've learned to take their information with more than a grain of salt. As a quick example, the investigation they did on the Port Tunnel was a load of rubbish on almost ALL of the safety concerns. They reported that the Vehicle Doors joining one bore to the other were "blocked with cones filled with water" and went on at length interviewing people as to how they couldn't move them manually. They found an "expert" from God knows where stating that this was totally unacceptable and a real danger in an emergency. The truth was that the tunnel was designed specifically to not open these doors during normal operation. If a fire occurred in one bore, the air pressure is increased in the "safe" bore so that the smoke doesn't get into it and people could safely escape throught the small doors into the safe bore: if the large doors were opened, it wouldn't be possible to keep the smoke out of the safe bore. The Chief Fire Officer for Dublin City Council ordered that these doors be blocked so that they couldn't be opened in an emergency by accident. But Prime Time "forgot" to ask him what he thought....

ColeTrain

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

Thought that was whee your going, but wasn't sure because the lack of relevancy.

If they can trace it to one person, then fine. yes. I'm not techie enough to know if an IP address can be traced that specifically.

What your not factoring in is the cost. My PC is used for business and if went missing for a few weeks, I'd lose that business. It's not just something I use for playing a few reords or the odd video game. Sorry if it sounds callous, but I'd rather keep my business and income, thank you very much. I'm not just defending my rights here, I'm defending my income, my well-being, my reputaion; and I'm not doing it for the sake of doing it - I'm doing it because it is THAT ****ing crucial to me.

You would rather keep your computer then stop people from thinking that you look at naked children online?. What would be the point ? I doubt your business would have a surge in profits if people thought you were that way inclined but each to their own I say.

Btw I'm sure you can back up files on a computer, just in case the POPO kick down your door or a volcano erupts

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

ColeTrain wrote: »

You would rather keep your computer then stop people from thinking that you look at naked children online?. What would be the point ? I doubt your business would have a surge in profits if people thought you were that way inclined but each to their own I say.

Btw I'm sure you can back up files on a computer, just in case the POPO kick down your door or a volcano erupts

Exactly why would people think I was looking at naked children online? I'm pretty sure police don't announce their intentions to the public ahead of time.

Not just a case of backing up files (which, I assume, would also be taken). It's the communicability I have as well. I do a lot of networking on here as well. If the police are willing to give me a computer, mobile phone free of charge for the duration they keep this one and let me make a complete copy of my hard-drive before they take it, then sure - no problem.

spider guardian

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

Nooo idea what you're talking about. Who's Anglo?

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

Thought that was whee your going, but wasn't sure because the lack of relevancy.

So you did know who (or what) anglo was?

I made the point about anglo because you seem to think that the right of a business to keep their computers takes precedence over an investigation into illegal activity conducted with the use of its computers. Anglo are suspected of making dodgy deals, gardai check their computers. A person is suspected of downloading child porn, gardai check their computers, do you understand?

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

Doesn't answer the question. If you were self emplyed and had your entire business on the PC in question, would you be willing to have 1) be able to do NO business for a few weeks, and 2) be under just as much scrutiny as everyone else in the house? Especially if people know you're under investigation.

If someone's business really depended that much on their computer than they would be prudent enough to make backups. It's not that hard to do.

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

If they can trace it to one person, then fine. yes. I'm not techie enough to know if an IP address can be traced that specifically.

Yes, it would be wonderful if computer-based crime could be definitively tracked to one person but technology doesn't work like that. Investigation is required.

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

What your not factoring in is the cost. My PC is used for business and if went missing for a few weeks, I'd lose that business. It's not just something I use for playing a few reords or the odd video game. Sorry if it sounds callous, but I'd rather keep my business and income, thank you very much. I'm not just defending my rights here, I'm defending my income, my well-being, my reputaion; and I'm not doing it for the sake of doing it - I'm doing it because it is THAT ****ing crucial to me.

Yes, i'm sure a criminal in your situation would love to keep their income and business but tough luck eh?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

spider guardian wrote: »

So you did know who (or what) anglo was?

I made the point about anglo because you seem to think that the right of a business to keep their computers takes precedence over an investigation into illegal activity conducted with the use of its computers. Anglo are suspected of making dodgy deals, gardai check their computers. A person is suspected of downloading child porn, gardai check their computers, do you understand?

Yep, but they'll need more than an IP address to get Anglos PCs. Also, the evidence against Anglo may well be stronger. Assuming Angl have acted illegally.

If someone's business really depended that much on their computer than they would be prudent enough to make backups. It's not that hard to do.

See the answer I gave to ColeTrain above.

Yes, it would be wonderful if computer-based crime could be definitively tracked to one person but technology doesn't work like that. Investigation is required.

I would imagine so. Which is why I would hope said investigation is carried out BEFORE the show up at the doorstep.

Yes, i'm sure a criminal in your situation would love to keep their income and business but tough luck eh?

So it's okay to ruin someone on a hunch then?

ColeTrain

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

Exactly why would people think I was looking at naked children online? I'm pretty sure police don't announce their intentions to the public ahead of time.

Not just a case of backing up files (which, I assume, would also be taken). It's the communicability I have as well. I do a lot of networking on here as well. If the police are willing to give me a computer, mobile phone free of charge for the duration they keep this one and let me make a complete copy of my hard-drive before they take it, then sure - no problem.

Go back and read the posts, You said that you would rather keep your business, income etc then have your innocence proved. Your arguing with yourself now.

2 stroke

Remember that just because childporn was accessed from an ip address does not mean it was downloaded by an adult.
Some time ago I was asked to try rescue a school project from a teenagers computer, no computer literate adult in the house, but the internet history was so shocking, that I didn't dare connect it to the web from my own house.

Mike 1972

Statistically any village with a population of more than a couple of hundred is likely to have at least one paedophile. On the other hand there are all manner of ways in which someone can unknowingly or unwittingly download child porn via their IP address.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

ColeTrain wrote: »

Go back and read the posts, You said that you would rather keep your business, income etc then have your innocence proved. Your arguing with yourself now.

We were arguing about the possibility of someone else in the house doing the downloading. Police show up and say, "we don't know who's doing it, so we're just going to take everyon'e PC for a few weeks. Tough **** on the inncoent ones."

spider guardian

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

Yep, but they'll need more than an IP address to get Anglos PCs. Also, the evidence against Anglo may well be stronger. Assuming Angl have acted illegally.

Assuming they have acted illegally? You have to investigate to know for sure.

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

See the answer I gave to ColeTrain above.

You made the point to ColeTrain that it is difficult to maintain 'communicability' but I say it isn't. Fair enough you mightn't be an IT guru but it is definitely possible to keep your computer state backed up. It needn't cost much either.

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

I would imagine so. Which is why I would hope said investigation is carried out BEFORE the show up at the doorstep.

I would hope so too.

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

So it's okay to ruin someone on a hunch then?

No. But if they have reasonable suspicion and need to look at the computer to confirm guilt then so be it. It needn't ruin them if they are innocent.

fizzynicenice

minidazzler wrote: »

Oh, I actually really dislike the little runts, they are actually not good for anything TBH.

except ridin'.....oops

ColeTrain

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

We were arguing about the possibility of someone else in the house doing the downloading. Police show up and say, "we don't know who's doing it, so we're just going to take everyon'e PC for a few weeks. Tough **** on the inncoent ones."

I think i've already tried to explain this to you already.

You're saying that because you are innocent, you're PC should not be taken?

How the hell are the Gardai going to know who's innocent unless they investigate and gather evidence. Kid detective films cover this concept..

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

spider guardian wrote: »

Assuming they have acted illegally? You have to investigate to know for sure.

You made the point to ColeTrain that it is difficult to maintain 'communicability' but I say it isn't. Fair enough you mightn't be an IT guru but it is definitely possible to keep your computer state backed up. It needn't cost much either.

I would hope so too.

No. But if they have reasonable suspicion and need to look at the computer to confirm guilt then so be it. It needn't ruin them if they are innocent.

You're obviously not self-employed and have no idea how much work it takes, even when you do have your own equipement.

Regarding the investigating - if the investigating means that they are following the guilty person, yes. If they can only narrow it down to three or four what then? To take the Anglo comparison into account, what if they knew it was a banking corporation, but didn't know which one? Do the take the PCs from EVERY bank to be sure? Or do they hav to keep on investigating?

If there is strong evidence and it pointed at me and only me, fair enough, but that is not the case you've brought forward. You said "assuming" they have acted illegally... that opens a whole different can of worms, if the guards can act on assumption.

christina_x

yeah two of the towns near me were mentioned, scary to think that kids we know could be under the watchful eye of these people.

geeky

At the risk of derailing a splendidly circular discussion, best thread title ever. I can see a blackly comic play of the same name emerging in the next few years. Primarily because I intend to write it.

LukeQuietus

What's an OP? Old Paedophile?

spider guardian

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

You're obviously not self-employed and have no idea how much work it takes, even when you do have your own equipement.

Backing up your computer can be automated. Once you have it set up it takes no work at all.

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

Regarding the investigating - if the investigating means that they are following the guilty person, yes. If they can only narrow it down to three or four what then? To take the Anglo comparison into account, what if they knew it was a banking corporation, but didn't know which one? Do the take the PCs from EVERY bank to be sure? Or do they hav to keep on investigating?

If the investigation follows the guilty person?! Are you serious? How do they know someone is guilty unless they investigate?

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

If there is strong evidence and it pointed at me and only me, fair enough, but that is not the case you've brought forward. You said "assuming" they have acted illegally... that opens a whole different can of worms, if the guards can act on assumption.

Man we are debating semantics here. For the last time, to ascertain guilt, people who are presumed innocent under law and who are suspected of committing crimes are investigated to see if they did commit the crime, sometimes this involves seizing evidence from the presumed innocent to determine if they can be proved guilty. It doesn't matter if this evidence is essential to the running of their business or whatnot.

I will not debate this with you again.

spider guardian

geeky wrote: »

At the risk of derailing a splendidly circular discussion, best thread title ever. I can see a blackly comic play of the same name emerging in the next few years. Primarily because I intend to write it.

Please donate some of the royalties to our local vigilante group, the price of liberty is a few dead suspected paedophiles!

LukeQuietus

...but what if you're self-employed? Then you are innocent no matter what!

Fighting Irish

Giselle wrote: »

The children who feature in the porn have been abused in the production of it, for the 'enjoyment' of the deviants who consume it. If no one consumed it, there wouldn't be a market in the images of children suffering abuse.

Its not a million miles away. Children are abused to provide those images. By downloading them, you're perpetuating that abuse or causing it.

Its the difference between shooting someone yourself, or paying someone else to do it, either way you're still guilty of murder.

That's a little bit different, unless the people who download this **** actually pay for it

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

ColeTrain wrote: »

I think i've already tried to explain this to you already.

You're saying that because you are innocent, you're PC should not be taken?

How the hell are the Gardai going to know who's innocent unless they investigate and gather evidence. Kid detective films cover this concept..

You don't read the posts you're replying to do you? Here it is again with the important bit highlighted.

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

We were arguing about the possibility of someone else in the house doing the downloading. Police show up and say, "we don't know who's doing it, so we're just going to take everyon'e PC for a few weeks. Tough **** on the inncoent ones."

spider guardian wrote: »

Backing up your computer can be automated. Once you have it set up it takes no work at all.

If the investigation follows the guilty person?! Are you serious? How do they know someone is guilty unless they investigate?

Man we are debating semantics here. For the last time, to ascertain guilt, people who are presumed innocent under law and who are suspected of committing crimes are investigated to see if they did commit the crime, sometimes this involves seizing evidence from the presumed innocent to determine if they can be proved guilty. It doesn't matter if this evidence is essential to the running of their business or whatnot.

I will not debate this with you again.

You're missing the key word "evidence" - before police go to someone they must have evidence that said person is doing somethign illegal. SUSPICION IS NOT ENOUGH. Again - THEY CAN NOT DO IT IF THEY CAN ONL;Y NARROW IT DOWN TO THREE OR FOUR PEOPLE. Go back and re-read that bit again, because you missed it the first time.

What you seem to be suggesting is that make the accusation first, then get the evidence and hope it's right. Justice doesn't work that way - if it did, everyone would be under suspicion.

Please do not debat again. Unless you openly state that you ACCEPT that police need sufficent evidence BEFORE they investigate a SPECIFIC PERSON. They can NOT go fishing for it or do it on a hunch.

InTheTrees

Did you check the church?

Nijmegen

The discussion regarding Gardai investigation is rather circular, in an "If my auntie had balls, she'd be my uncle" kind of way. The Gardai are not out there taking PC's off the innocent public left and right to see what we're all up to. They don't have the resources for one...

The company Prime Time got the IP addresses from, if you watched the show (it's on RTE's iPlayer, make your own mind up about it), is in the US, they tracked P2P downloads over a 30 day period of content you cannot mistake as being anything other than childporn unless you were very serious about looking for a film adaptation of "Lolita" and thought you'd remembered some rather strange and sexually explicit portions of the book involving daddy, dogs or 4 year olds. They identified 1,035, of whom the majority were looking for this stuff 2 or more times, so hardly all accidents.

This company works with the FBI, with Interpol and other police agencies.

As to CP in general, according to ChildWatch (crowd behind a Barnardos report last year into this stuff):

99%The portion of child pornography collections containing images that go beyond nudity

80%The portion of child pornography collections seized by authorities that contain images of child rape

21%The portion of child pornography collections with images of torture of children

55%The amount of child pornography estimated to be produced in the United States

59% Likelihood that a child pornography collector is married

41%Likelihood that a child pornography collector has children

The COPINE scale in the UK outlines the different 'levels' of CP images for courts to decide sentencing for someone found with CP. They're worth a read:

1. Images depicting nudity or erotic posing, with no sexual activity
Nudist (naked or semi-naked in legitimate settings / sources)Erotica (surreptitious photographs showing underwear/nakedness)Posing (deliberate posing suggesting sexual content)Erotic posing (deliberate sexual or provocative poses)Explicit erotic posing (emphasis on genital area)

2. Sexual activity between children, or solo masturbation by a child
Explicit sexual activity not involving an adult

3. Non-penetrative sexual activity between adult(s) and child(ren)
Assault (sexual assault involving adult)

4. Penetrative sexual activity between child(ren) and adult(s)
Gross assault (penetrative assault involving adult)

5. Sadism or bestiality
Sadistic / bestiality (sexual images involving pain or animal)

If 21% of the images, 1 in 5, involves torture then I assume that it's level 5. After the PT show I asked a Garda friend of mine who works in HQ if he knew anything much about it. He told me that from what the people involved in this area of enforcement say, it's not unusual to, for example, find movies of kids of any age from 4 to 14 sucking off a dog. That seems fairly sadistic to me.

They also reckon, from what I'm told rather than something I've seen a statistic written down - so take it or leave it - that 4% of the kids being raped in these videos are aged 0-2.

I think people are a bit too quick to consider this a light crime. Watching child pornography is creating further demand for it for one, and is furthering the degredation of a victim.

ColeTrain

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

You don't read the posts you're replying to do you? Here it is again with the important bit highlighted.

http://skepticalteacher.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/facepalm1.jpg

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

ColeTrain wrote: »

http://skepticalteacher.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/facepalm1.jpg

Is that supposed to be an arugument or you hiding?

minidazzler

spider guardian wrote: »

Please donate some of the royalties to our local vigilante group, the price of liberty is a few dead suspected paedophiles!

This is quite literally the most retarded post I have ever read.

A few dead suspected paedophiles, killed by vigilantes, when vigilante groups tend to be retarded people.

There was a woman in England, who had her house attacked because she is a paediatrician.

Do you know what a Paediatrician? I kinda doubt it.