5 ms·

New scanners break child porn laws

4 points by prat 17y ago

sailormoon 17y ago
It's a sad comment on our society that such an utterly ludicrous notion ever even raised its ugly head. We've all seen kids naked. Who cares.
- timthorn 17y ago
  The pictures are only illegal if they are deemed indecent by a jury - a picture of a naked child is not of itself indecent unless they think it is. However, the public view of indecency has changed greatly though, "thanks" to media campaigns, so there's a real risk that such pictures could be deemed indecent.
  - semanticist 17y ago
    "What is clear is that you had no base motive, no sexual motive and there was not any question of deriving sexual gratification from what you were doing." That's what a judge said before passing down sentence for a guy who took 'fairy' pictures of children at the request of their parents. He got 150 hours community service, which I guess was the lightest sentence the judge could hand down. Story on it here: http://tinyurl.com/69ew9w http://tinyurl.com/69ew9w He pled guilty, probably to keep the case short and after being pressured to by the CPS. That means no jury was involved.
    - sailormoon 17y ago
      .. well I guess he'll never do that again. You know, hearing things like that makes me determined to never, ever have anything to do with kids no matter what. If you're below 18 I won't even look at you, let alone talk, let alone help. It's just too risky. To me, this outcome is more perverse than any picture could be.
      - axod 17y ago
        I think that's the reason why most teachers in the UK are now female. Which is a sad state of affairs. I think it should be compulsory for schools+nurserys to have the same ratio of female:male in staff, as there are in pupils.
        sailormoon 17y ago
        Absolutely right. And child care workers are 100% female, almost without exception. update: I think it should be compulsory for schools+nurserys to have the same ratio of female:male in staff, as there are in pupils. Man you got no idea. Rationality has completely departed. I know someone who recently completed a child care qualification. She was instructed that it was the law to ask the baby's permission to pick them up prior to doing so. They are babies. They cannot understand, let alone answer. And yet the students were instructed to go through the motions anyway. It is totally insane. This is in NSW, Australia, but don't gloat, all the western democracies copy and try to one-up each other - if it's not like this there, it will be soon.
        semanticist 17y ago
        Not that being female guarantees anything: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/dec/15/vanessa-george-jailed-child-sex-abuse http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/dec/15/vanessa-george-jail...
        deleted 17y ago
        [deleted]
    - ErrantX 17y ago
      Nude pictures of children are usually "allowed" if they are for "artistic purposes" and dont depict them in a sexual way. I think the way they do it is grade them Level 1 but dont prosecute for it if there is no sexual context. (this is.. shaky... Im unsure of the law because I have only seen foreign cases/examples in this area) So this case is strange; it's not something I would have expected to see go to trial. The only thing I can think of is that there doesn't appear to have been any need to photograph them actually topless/nude in order to create the photo's - and so they might be judge gratuitous. 150hrs community service is light for a child sex offence - it's just above an official slap on the wrist I would say. So it could be the judge wanted to impress on the guy to be careful in future (or something). Ultimately the CPS were at fault there, IMO, in taking it to court.
  - sailormoon 17y ago
    Sigh. The worse thing is, I reckon this idea that seeing children naked is "forbidden" encourages people to seek them out. It's the old, utterly predictable story - people want what they've been told they can't have. Anyway, that's getting off topic. Yeah, I suppose a hyper-media-brainwashed jury might reach the conclusion that some fuzzy grey image of a child is "porn". God help us all.
tumult 17y ago
It's so beautiful when two different sets of reactionary fear mongers collide -- in this case, the save-the-children-by-introducing-insane-legislation-that-protects-nobody group and the terrorists-will-blow-us-up-unless-everybody-surrenders-privacy group. Brings a tear to my eye.
ErrantX 17y ago
Previously posted from the Telegraph: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1032700 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1032700 My comments there still stand: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1032821 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1032821
- DenisM 17y ago
  Under what law? UK laws are different from US. I read a story in some news paper where UK cops were not allowed to maintain a database of abused children because while viewing the pictures by cops in line of duty was ok by the law, storage was not explicitly allowed.
flashingpumpkin 17y ago
I'd really want to know which technology powers these scanners. After a quick googling I couldn't come up with any relevant information. :(
- semanticist 17y ago
  The ones being planned for deployment in the UK use Millimeter wave scanning. The description on this BBC News article matches that technology: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8438355.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8438355.stm
axod 17y ago
I wonder if there's a study into how successful internet child porn laws are at actually preventing crime. I'd guess they are absolutely not effective at all. I don't understand the rationale behind making viewing certain images illegal :/ Obviously I'm not someone who wants to view such images, but I can't see why doing so should be a crime. It's verging on 'thought police'. We're living in an age where you can view videos of beheadings, people send around youtubes of some guy being electricuted on top of a train. Death? Hey sure that's fine, but post a pic of your baby enjoying bathtime and you'll be hunted down and burned as a witch. It's perverse.
- sailormoon 17y ago
  I think that's the first time I ever voted you up axod :D I agree. The idea of making certain strings of bits illegal is perverse and, long term, utterly unenforceable, and will only promote contempt for the law - well deserved contempt.
  - axod 17y ago
    law of averages means I have to be 'right' at some point in the history of HN ;) The other culprit here of course is the media who whip up hate campaigns, scare parents and generally enforce the idea that pedophiles are worse than serial killers, and that there a thousands of them ready to strike on YOUR kids when you least expect it.
    - sailormoon 17y ago
      Even a stopped clock is right twice a day .. ; ) I believe it is a systemic problem. Yes, the media is involved, but they're just giving the public what they want. The institutions we have were formed in the mid-20th century to stop what was then legitimate child neglect/abuse. They succeeded in the 70s, but they didn't disband. They merely redefined abuse, and continue to do so, and today they are part of the government itself. They are the ones who feed the media, and with the credibility of government encourage the fear epidemic, as it's in line with their interests. The institutions in our government are out of control and this is happening everywhere. It's not a USA or UK or AU problem; we all have the same cancer.

4 points by prat 17y ago

It's a sad comment on our society that such an utterly ludicrous notion ever even raised its ugly head. We've all seen kids naked. Who cares.

timthorn 17y ago
The pictures are only illegal if they are deemed indecent by a jury - a picture of a naked child is not of itself indecent unless they think it is. However, the public view of indecency has changed greatly though, "thanks" to media campaigns, so there's a real risk that such pictures could be deemed indecent.
- semanticist 17y ago
  "What is clear is that you had no base motive, no sexual motive and there was not any question of deriving sexual gratification from what you were doing." That's what a judge said before passing down sentence for a guy who took 'fairy' pictures of children at the request of their parents. He got 150 hours community service, which I guess was the lightest sentence the judge could hand down. Story on it here: http://tinyurl.com/69ew9w http://tinyurl.com/69ew9w He pled guilty, probably to keep the case short and after being pressured to by the CPS. That means no jury was involved.
  - sailormoon 17y ago
    .. well I guess he'll never do that again. You know, hearing things like that makes me determined to never, ever have anything to do with kids no matter what. If you're below 18 I won't even look at you, let alone talk, let alone help. It's just too risky. To me, this outcome is more perverse than any picture could be.
    - axod 17y ago
      I think that's the reason why most teachers in the UK are now female. Which is a sad state of affairs. I think it should be compulsory for schools+nurserys to have the same ratio of female:male in staff, as there are in pupils.
      - sailormoon 17y ago
        Absolutely right. And child care workers are 100% female, almost without exception. update: I think it should be compulsory for schools+nurserys to have the same ratio of female:male in staff, as there are in pupils. Man you got no idea. Rationality has completely departed. I know someone who recently completed a child care qualification. She was instructed that it was the law to ask the baby's permission to pick them up prior to doing so. They are babies. They cannot understand, let alone answer. And yet the students were instructed to go through the motions anyway. It is totally insane. This is in NSW, Australia, but don't gloat, all the western democracies copy and try to one-up each other - if it's not like this there, it will be soon.
      - semanticist 17y ago
        Not that being female guarantees anything: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/dec/15/vanessa-george-jailed-child-sex-abuse http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/dec/15/vanessa-george-jail...
        deleted 17y ago
        [deleted]
  - ErrantX 17y ago
    Nude pictures of children are usually "allowed" if they are for "artistic purposes" and dont depict them in a sexual way. I think the way they do it is grade them Level 1 but dont prosecute for it if there is no sexual context. (this is.. shaky... Im unsure of the law because I have only seen foreign cases/examples in this area) So this case is strange; it's not something I would have expected to see go to trial. The only thing I can think of is that there doesn't appear to have been any need to photograph them actually topless/nude in order to create the photo's - and so they might be judge gratuitous. 150hrs community service is light for a child sex offence - it's just above an official slap on the wrist I would say. So it could be the judge wanted to impress on the guy to be careful in future (or something). Ultimately the CPS were at fault there, IMO, in taking it to court.
- sailormoon 17y ago
  Sigh. The worse thing is, I reckon this idea that seeing children naked is "forbidden" encourages people to seek them out. It's the old, utterly predictable story - people want what they've been told they can't have. Anyway, that's getting off topic. Yeah, I suppose a hyper-media-brainwashed jury might reach the conclusion that some fuzzy grey image of a child is "porn". God help us all.

tumult 17y ago

It's so beautiful when two different sets of reactionary fear mongers collide -- in this case, the save-the-children-by-introducing-insane-legislation-that-protects-nobody group and the terrorists-will-blow-us-up-unless-everybody-surrenders-privacy group. Brings a tear to my eye.

ErrantX 17y ago

Previously posted from the Telegraph: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1032700 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1032700 My comments there still stand: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1032821 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1032821

DenisM 17y ago
Under what law? UK laws are different from US. I read a story in some news paper where UK cops were not allowed to maintain a database of abused children because while viewing the pictures by cops in line of duty was ok by the law, storage was not explicitly allowed.

flashingpumpkin 17y ago

I'd really want to know which technology powers these scanners. After a quick googling I couldn't come up with any relevant information. :(

semanticist 17y ago
The ones being planned for deployment in the UK use Millimeter wave scanning. The description on this BBC News article matches that technology: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8438355.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8438355.stm

axod 17y ago

I wonder if there's a study into how successful internet child porn laws are at actually preventing crime. I'd guess they are absolutely not effective at all. I don't understand the rationale behind making viewing certain images illegal :/ Obviously I'm not someone who wants to view such images, but I can't see why doing so should be a crime. It's verging on 'thought police'. We're living in an age where you can view videos of beheadings, people send around youtubes of some guy being electricuted on top of a train. Death? Hey sure that's fine, but post a pic of your baby enjoying bathtime and you'll be hunted down and burned as a witch. It's perverse.

sailormoon 17y ago
I think that's the first time I ever voted you up axod :D I agree. The idea of making certain strings of bits illegal is perverse and, long term, utterly unenforceable, and will only promote contempt for the law - well deserved contempt.
- axod 17y ago
  law of averages means I have to be 'right' at some point in the history of HN ;) The other culprit here of course is the media who whip up hate campaigns, scare parents and generally enforce the idea that pedophiles are worse than serial killers, and that there a thousands of them ready to strike on YOUR kids when you least expect it.
  - sailormoon 17y ago
    Even a stopped clock is right twice a day .. ; ) I believe it is a systemic problem. Yes, the media is involved, but they're just giving the public what they want. The institutions we have were formed in the mid-20th century to stop what was then legitimate child neglect/abuse. They succeeded in the 70s, but they didn't disband. They merely redefined abuse, and continue to do so, and today they are part of the government itself. They are the ones who feed the media, and with the credibility of government encourage the fear epidemic, as it's in line with their interests. The institutions in our government are out of control and this is happening everywhere. It's not a USA or UK or AU problem; we all have the same cancer.