• Child Porn Site Kept Running in FBI Operation
    184 replies, posted
[QUOTE=johnsten;40829268][url]http://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1257613&p=40160973&viewfull=1#post40160973[/url] i hate to "strawman" but i think someone who wants to fuck a 10 year old isn't a very good judge of... anything.[/QUOTE] That's not a strawman argument, but being a pedophile doesn't make him not "a very good judge of anything". That falls into a [URL=https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/genetic]different range of fallacious reasoning.[/URL]
[QUOTE=Rocko's;40829312]So, how many times do you hear of a cop using a CP site to catch criminals, or the FBI? As far as we can know, this may be the first time the FBI did it, and they used a site THEY seized rather than hosting their own site and using CP they get. It's a site where the owner is caught, now they just need the customers. Sure, it's a bit fucked up, but these people also need to be caught rather than them saying "well shit, let me just move on to another site, them feds ain't gettin' me"[/QUOTE] ok so it is alright to cause harm as long as the benefit outweighs the harm done? because that can justify a load of things that you probably would not agree with as well.
[QUOTE=johnsten;40829268][url]http://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1257613&p=40160973&viewfull=1#post40160973[/url] i hate to "strawman" but i think someone who wants to fuck a 10 year old isn't a very good judge of... anything.[/QUOTE] Then how about using real arguments or leaving it to the people who are actually carrying a real discussion here? I don't mind you posting these things but it's off topic and not a way to discuss something. [QUOTE=Rocko's;40829254]Doing something illegal to catch people doing the same thing with the INTENT of HARMING people is different. If a cop went undercover, joined a group of people planning on robbing a bank, then arrested them before they could cause harm, would that be an issue? Same thing goes for buying and selling drugs, more than likely the drugs they use to catch customers were seized from dealers, not drugs a cop has bought.[/QUOTE] Alright, it makes sense. Blending in with to-be robbers and preventing the robbery. But they don't actually commit the robbery! They stop it before the actual harm happens. That's again very different from the drugs and child porn situation, where they're doing the exact same thing that a 'real criminal' would be doing. Surely the consequences and harm caused must be the same when a cop does it. You do agree with that, right? It's just that when a cop does it, there are positive effects that outweigh the harm. Right?
[QUOTE=Neo Kabuto;40829337]That's not a strawman argument, but being a pedophile doesn't make him not "a very good judge of anything". That falls into a [URL=https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/genetic]different range of fallacious reasoning.[/URL][/QUOTE] i worded that badly, i'm just saying i think someone who is emotionally stunted enough to be attracted to a 10 year old is probably pretty BIASED about the subject of pedophilia.
[QUOTE=johnsten;40829388]i worded that badly, i'm just saying i think someone who is emotionally stunted enough to be attracted to a 10 year old is probably pretty BIASED about the subject of pedophilia.[/QUOTE] Maybe. If I'm biased that means I could end up making faulty arguments and coming to false conclusions. In those arguments and conclusions there should be mistakes and errors. If you want to discuss, normally one thing you can do is look for those mistakes and errors and then point them out. Just calling me emotionally stunted (pretty big assumption to just equate pedophilia with being emotionally stunted) and then saying that that's why I must be wrong, is wrong. Try to look into my actual arguments. Emotionally stunted and biased or not, I [I]can[/I] say true things once in a while.
[QUOTE=johnsten;40829388]i worded that badly, i'm just saying i think someone who is emotionally stunted enough to be attracted to a 10 year old is probably pretty BIASED about the subject of pedophilia.[/QUOTE] It doesn't matter. All what matters are his arguments.
They're pedophiles and child rapists. The FBI actually did it's job for once, operating within the scope of what they're allowed to do. They got some nasty motherfuckers out of society and put them where they belonged. Why argue? This is a huge success.
[QUOTE=Sherow_Xx;40828710]If there were money involved that gave the producers incentive to produce more, then, although the methods used are dubious, I think it's good that it was dealt with. But if they're catching consumers who merely saved images from the forum then they're catching individuals for harmless acts (read: bold part) that they are committing themselves. [B]EDIT:[/B] I think illegal things should be harmful. Child pornography and drugs are two examples of this and I think it is ridiculous. Neither of those should be prohibited; the fact that people can't own them but the FBI can is hypocritical. If it was really that bad to possess CP and to possess and buy drugs, the police wouldn't be allowed to do it either. The police isn't allowed to reproduce other crimes like rape and murder so why are they allowed to reproduce these two?[/QUOTE] Ahaha holy shit the ignorance is just mind blowing WOW STOP "I think illegal things should be harmful. Child pornography is an example" Umm yeah it is harmful. The children unwillingly are made to become sexualized and distributed and that harms them because they have naked pictures of themselves being jerked off to. I'm sure you wouldn't mind if a ton of people jerked off to you without your consent but 99.99% of people don't. Also, "Drugs are not harmful" Jesus What a Joke of a statement..
[QUOTE=GameDev;40828223]In their defense, it caught over 5k pedos. The website was [B]not created by the government, it was seized by the government but continued to run to catch the users.[/b][/QUOTE] Your avatar makes me laugh.
What if somebody happens to stumble upon that CP? Like with that retard who posted it in FP's public subforum. That shit isn't fair. I'm not saying paedos should be allowed a free chance, but think about people who just happened to walk into the crossfire.
[QUOTE=Genericenemy;40828498]This whole thing reminds me of that little lacy surprise pageant website in GTA 4.[/QUOTE] I love how it gave you a 5 star wanted level :v:
I'm gonna step back from here. First off, I'm not sure how I see the [I]"the ends justify the means"[/I] idea. Maybe this can be clarified. [QUOTE=yawmwen;40829367]ok so it is alright to cause harm as long as the benefit outweighs the harm done? because that can justify a load of things that you probably would not agree with as well.[/QUOTE] Do you have any examples of what those things could be? And secondly, I think I've been convinced / I realized that there has to be some things that the police can do that others can't. For example carrying guns around and breaking some laws that normal people can't. One thing that resonates with me is that people have pointed out that the world isn't black and white like that. I still don't know how I feel about it. It's indeed grey, but I can't continue to argue that the authorities must be held up to the same standards as everyone else, for every crime.
[QUOTE=don818;40829512]What if somebody happens to stumble upon that CP? Like with that retard who posted it in FP's public subforum. That shit isn't fair. I'm not saying paedos should be allowed a free chance, but think about people who just happened to walk into the crossfire.[/QUOTE] Yeah they just happened to stumble upon it and then make a user account with it and shared images completely innocently. Also to a lot of the people in the thread who say that the people they are arresting are just customers missed out on this line near the beginning [quote]Following a lengthy investigation, Nebraska-based agents raided the large child pornography service in November hoping to catch [B]users who shared thousands of images[/B] showing children being raped, displayed and abused.[/quote]
[QUOTE=don818;40829512]What if somebody happens to stumble upon that CP? Like with that retard who posted it in FP's public subforum.[/QUOTE] I don't think the FBI regularly prosecutes people (except for the people posting it) when incidents like that happen, as long as it's deleted quickly (and then it would be Garry in trouble, not random FP users). [QUOTE=don818;40829512]That shit isn't fair. I'm not saying paedos should be allowed a free chance, but think about people who just happened to walk into the crossfire.[/QUOTE] I really doubt anyone stumbled into that site and signed up accidentally. It had "24,000 posts, nearly all of which related to child pornography", so probably no one is getting caught in the sting without actually having willingly joined the site.
[QUOTE=Sherow_Xx;40829536]I'm gonna step back from here. First off, I'm not sure how I see the [I]"the ends justify the means"[/I] idea. Maybe this can be clarified. Do you have any examples of what those things could be? And secondly, I think I've been convinced / I realized that there has to be some things that the police can do that others can't. For example carrying guns around and breaking some laws that normal people can't. One thing that resonates with me is that people have pointed out that the world isn't black and white like that. I still don't know how I feel about it. It's indeed grey, but I can't continue to argue that the authorities must be held up to the same standards as everyone else, for every crime.[/QUOTE] idk how you felt about hiroshima and nagasaki, but those were done for a "greater good". fire bombings in japan, the dresden bombings, etc. if i may use another hypothetical example...let's say you have 3 people. one of them is absolutely 100% a murderer and will murder 5 people as soon as he is freed. you don't know which one it is, and have no way of knowing. would it be morally acceptable to kill or indefinitely imprison all 3 with the hopes of saving 5?
[QUOTE=J!NX;40829473]Ahaha holy shit the ignorance is just mind blowing WOW STOP "I think illegal things should be harmful. Child pornography is an example" Umm yeah it is harmful. The children unwillingly are made to become sexualized and distributed and that harms them because they have naked pictures of themselves being jerked off to.[/QUOTE] The point with it was that if possessing CP definitely causes harm, then the police will be causing the same harm when they possess it. But you have a point. What do you feel about the arguments that were previously used in this thread in favor of the FBI doing this; That since the images had already been created and the damage was already done, it causes no further harm? And is the harm specifically about being jerked off to? I mean the molestation is a different thing which is definitely harmful, but the further harm from CP is from being jerked off to? What about those cases where kids or young teenagers, or even just teenagers, create it themselves? Is it still the same? [QUOTE=yawmwen;40829615]idk how you felt about hiroshima and nagasaki, but those were done for a "greater good". fire bombings in japan, the dresden bombings, etc. if i may use another hypothetical example...let's say you have 3 people. one of them is absolutely 100% a murderer and will murder 5 people as soon as he is freed. you don't know which one it is, and have no way of knowing. would it be morally acceptable to kill or indefinitely imprison all 3 with the hopes of saving 5?[/QUOTE] Thanks. So we're straight up inside an example of that good old moral dilemma that's interesting to think about but which doesn't have a real conclusion. Let's hope nothing comes out of Hiroshima being mentioned...
[QUOTE=yawmwen;40829615]idk how you felt about hiroshima and nagasaki, but those were done for a "greater good". fire bombings in japan, the dresden bombings, etc. if i may use another hypothetical example...let's say you have 3 people. one of them is absolutely 100% a murderer and will murder 5 people as soon as he is freed. you don't know which one it is, and have no way of knowing. would it be morally acceptable to kill or indefinitely imprison all 3 with the hopes of saving 5?[/QUOTE] The damage has been done, the images were already uploaded. The FBI was doing nothing more than not shutting down a site with child pornography and using it to locate new and old users. They didn't do anything to distribute the content, they didn't promote it or try and get people to go to the website themselves, they simply allowed the users to do what they did for a while until they could locate all of the users. Whats the problem? If they immediately shut it down they most likely wouldn't catch more than a handful of offenders if any. If the police find a crack house and immediately shut it down instead of waiting a few weeks to identify the producers and dealers, the criminals would just move on to another crack house.
[QUOTE=JCDentonUNATCO;40830236]The damage has been done, the images were already uploaded. The FBI was doing nothing more than not shutting down a site with child pornography and using it to locate new and old users. They didn't do anything to distribute the content, they didn't promote it or try and get people to go to the website themselves, they simply allowed the users to do what they did for a while until they could locate all of the users. Whats the problem? If they immediately shut it down they most likely wouldn't catch more than a handful of offenders if any. If the police find a crack house and immediately shut it down instead of waiting a few weeks to identify the producers and dealers, the criminals would just move on to another crack house.[/QUOTE] if the harm was already done why not just leave it up indefinitely then? why bother pursuing it?
[QUOTE=yawmwen;40830256]if the harm was already done why not just leave it up indefinitely then? why bother pursuing it?[/QUOTE] Because in the two weeks they left the site up they were able to gather information on users who both use and share those images.
So does this mean that the FBI has a child-pornography database?
[QUOTE=Valnar;40830281]Because in the two weeks they left the site up they were able to gather information on users who both use and share those images.[/QUOTE] so? the harm was already done anyways. why arrest those people? they aren't harming anyone by having the images are they? unless you want to argue that possessing and distributing child pornography is harmful, in which case the fbi caused a lot of harm as well.
[QUOTE=ewitwins;40830294]So does this mean that the FBI has a child-pornography database?[/QUOTE] They (well, the DoJ) do. It's called the National Child Victim Identification Program.
[QUOTE=Derp Y. Mail;40828240]Well... it worked. Maybe not the most ethical method to do it, but still.[/QUOTE] To be fair, as said above by another user [quote]The website was not created by the government, it was seized by the government but continued to run to catch the users.[/quote] The users/customers already had the images, so you may as well continue to let the site run so you can get all the info you need on these people and take them down for good. A 5,000 person bust/round up is fucking great, it is more then likely a large percent of that 5k are some type of offenders and violated their terms of patrol/release.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;40830256]if the harm was already done why not just leave it up indefinitely then? why bother pursuing it?[/QUOTE] They left it up long enough to locate the users. Maybe they shut it down because there was no more purpose in keeping it up. Maybe they weren't okay with having it up indefinitely either. [editline]29th May 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=yawmwen;40830297]so? the harm was already done anyways. why arrest those people? they aren't harming anyone by having the images are they? unless you want to argue that possessing and distributing child pornography is harmful, in which case the fbi caused a lot of harm as well.[/QUOTE] Users were still actively distributing and downloading the images. The FBI DID NOT distribute them, I don't understand. I guess they are semi-responsible for what occurred while the website was still up for the short time since they didn't immediately shut it down, allowing more things to be posted, but they weren't actively distributing them. They seized the site, spent enough time with it to capture the users, and then closed it down.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;40830297]so? the harm was already done anyways. why arrest those people? they aren't harming anyone by having the images are they? unless you want to argue that possessing and distributing child pornography is harmful, in which case the fbi caused a lot of harm as well.[/QUOTE] Except any harm they cause is minimal compared to what they stopped. Two weeks of lifetime of that website being up compared to the catching thousands of people who use and share those images. Also the FBI wasn't actually distributing the porn.
The very definition of Jailbait
[QUOTE=yawmwen;40830297]so? the harm was already done anyways. why arrest those people? they aren't harming anyone by having the images are they? unless you want to argue that possessing and distributing child pornography is harmful, in which case the fbi caused a lot of harm as well.[/QUOTE] Possessing and distributing child pornography is absolutely harmful and the people at the FBI involved in this should be charged with the distribution of child pornography
[QUOTE=Zeke129;40830816]Possessing and distributing child pornography is absolutely harmful and the people at the FBI involved in this should be charged with the distribution of child pornography[/QUOTE] that's pretty much what i'm trying to get at.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;40830859]that's pretty much what i'm trying to get at.[/QUOTE] If you're saying that what the FBI did, which was getting the list of users who was viewing, uploading, and downloading the pictures on the site, is distributing...then I really don't know anymore. Where are you getting that the FBI also uploaded CP on to that site? Cause the only thing the FBI did was just leaving the site up for a certain amount of time, then taking it down and cracking down on the users, I don't see that as terribly harmful. I don't see it as totally fine, but what it did was get more then what they wanted in the first place.
[QUOTE=Rocko's;40831029]If you're saying that what the FBI did, which was getting the list of users who was viewing, uploading, and downloading the pictures on the site, is distributing...then I really don't know anymore. Where are you getting that the FBI also uploaded CP on to that site? Cause the only thing the FBI did was just leaving the site up for a certain amount of time, then taking it down and cracking down on the users, I don't see that as terribly harmful. I don't see it as totally fine, but what it did was get more then what they wanted in the first place.[/QUOTE] They "knowingly received" it. [URL=http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2252A]That's one thing the law prohibits[/URL].
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.