5 ms·

Sharing unlimited copies of child abuse videos is a new kind of crime, which whispering would not have aided.

by hashkb 7y ago

ryanlol 7y ago
Why should anyone give a shit? Sharing unlimited copies of child abuse videos does not actually hurt anyone. I for one am not willing to give up any freedoms in order to prevent the sharing of such vile material. Perhaps the creation, but not the sharing.
- selectodude 7y ago
  >Sharing unlimited copies of child abuse videos does not actually hurt anyone. I'm sure some of the kids in those videos would have something to say about that.
  - ryanlol 7y ago
    Do you regularly run into child porn on the internet? I don't. I don't see those kids getting hurt any further unless they happen to be the sort of people that go out of their way to seek out child abuse material. It's hard to imagine anyone ever accidentally running into images of themselves being abused. You can't possibly be re-victimized if you don't know. I don't mean to sound heartless, obviously these are horrific acts which hurt people deeply. I simply don't think banning encryption or otherwise eroding our rights to go after distributors and consumers is really going to have much practical effect on how the victims end up feeling. E: HN doesn't let me reply to selectodude below >the mere knowledge that pictures of you being abused on the internet is extraordinarily difficult to deal with I absolutely agree with this. I just know that nobody can ever go tell the victim that now those pictures are forever gone off the internet.
    - selectodude 7y ago
      I don't disagree. We catch child pornographers all the time and they are on the bleeding edge of encryption. There's no practical benefit to banning encryption. The .gov just doesn't feel like going through the effort and would rather enjoy, say, the ancillary benefits to being able to read all of our messages forever. But yes, the mere knowledge that pictures of you being abused on the internet is extraordinarily difficult to deal with. Maybe not the best direction to go in when arguing.
    - michaelmrose 7y ago
      If you don't see a reply link below on the main comments page try clicking their comment link which looks like "7 seconds ago" and you should find a reply to link there. I think hacker news is designed to make it harder to have a quick back and forth discussion for some reason.
  - michaelmrose 7y ago
    How many thousands of people would you kill to save your own child? For many people the answer might well be all of them. Turns out emotional response isn't a reasonable way to come to a logical conclusion for how we ought to order society. I'm sympathetic to those people's plight but ultimately I place a very high valuation on not only my privacy but everyone's privacy, A much lessor but still very great valuation on preventing such evil happening to the victims, and only a small valuation on preventing the ultimate sharing of those images between perverts except insofar as it serves to lead us to people doing the wrong. I believe that via a substantial effort we can work to reduce the abuse of children, I think we can via a lot of work take down the groups of people sharing such data by infiltrating such groups and taking down the people participating. I believe that outright stopping all such sharing is probably impossible and I'm unwilling to implement 1984 to try.
- hashkb 7y ago
  The sharing creates demand. Producers increase supply. You should read more about this issue. NYT just did a bunch of great articles that will give you perspective.
  - concordDance 7y ago
    Sharing only creates demand if money or other videos (or other things of interest to the original perpetrator) are given in exchange. And honestly, I expect the vast majority of abusers to be doing it either for fun (so they'd stop sharing videos, but keep raping) or for the money. Sometimes I wonder if what people really want is just to stop the transmission of child porn so they can go back to pretending it doesn't exist... Child porn piracy is an essentially victimless crime. Note: In the above I am considering the generic example of "child porn" to be broadcasting the forcible rape of prepubescents, not 17 year olds sending each other naughty pictures, which is what most content matching the US legal definition is (the UK one is just stupid as it includes drawings).
    - claudiawerner 7y ago
      >And honestly, I expect the vast majority of abusers to be doing it either for fun (so they'd stop sharing videos, but keep raping) or for the money. This runs contrary to the fact that people share things not just for monetary profit, but for other videos/pictures in exchange, and voyeuristic/exhibitionist reasons.
- claudiawerner 7y ago
  >Sharing unlimited copies of child abuse videos does not actually hurt anyone. This is contradicted by the evidence we have to the contrary, in particular the model of supply and demand identified in child porn markets.

Sharing unlimited copies of child abuse videos is a new kind of crime, which whispering would not have aided.

by hashkb 7y ago

Sharing unlimited copies of child abuse videos is a new kind of crime, which whispering would not have aided.

Why should anyone give a shit? Sharing unlimited copies of child abuse videos does not actually hurt anyone. I for one am not willing to give up any freedoms in order to prevent the sharing of such vile material. Perhaps the creation, but not the sharing.

selectodude 7y ago
>Sharing unlimited copies of child abuse videos does not actually hurt anyone. I'm sure some of the kids in those videos would have something to say about that.
- ryanlol 7y ago
  Do you regularly run into child porn on the internet? I don't. I don't see those kids getting hurt any further unless they happen to be the sort of people that go out of their way to seek out child abuse material. It's hard to imagine anyone ever accidentally running into images of themselves being abused. You can't possibly be re-victimized if you don't know. I don't mean to sound heartless, obviously these are horrific acts which hurt people deeply. I simply don't think banning encryption or otherwise eroding our rights to go after distributors and consumers is really going to have much practical effect on how the victims end up feeling. E: HN doesn't let me reply to selectodude below >the mere knowledge that pictures of you being abused on the internet is extraordinarily difficult to deal with I absolutely agree with this. I just know that nobody can ever go tell the victim that now those pictures are forever gone off the internet.
  - selectodude 7y ago
    I don't disagree. We catch child pornographers all the time and they are on the bleeding edge of encryption. There's no practical benefit to banning encryption. The .gov just doesn't feel like going through the effort and would rather enjoy, say, the ancillary benefits to being able to read all of our messages forever. But yes, the mere knowledge that pictures of you being abused on the internet is extraordinarily difficult to deal with. Maybe not the best direction to go in when arguing.
  - michaelmrose 7y ago
    If you don't see a reply link below on the main comments page try clicking their comment link which looks like "7 seconds ago" and you should find a reply to link there. I think hacker news is designed to make it harder to have a quick back and forth discussion for some reason.
- michaelmrose 7y ago
  How many thousands of people would you kill to save your own child? For many people the answer might well be all of them. Turns out emotional response isn't a reasonable way to come to a logical conclusion for how we ought to order society. I'm sympathetic to those people's plight but ultimately I place a very high valuation on not only my privacy but everyone's privacy, A much lessor but still very great valuation on preventing such evil happening to the victims, and only a small valuation on preventing the ultimate sharing of those images between perverts except insofar as it serves to lead us to people doing the wrong. I believe that via a substantial effort we can work to reduce the abuse of children, I think we can via a lot of work take down the groups of people sharing such data by infiltrating such groups and taking down the people participating. I believe that outright stopping all such sharing is probably impossible and I'm unwilling to implement 1984 to try.
hashkb 7y ago
The sharing creates demand. Producers increase supply. You should read more about this issue. NYT just did a bunch of great articles that will give you perspective.
- concordDance 7y ago
  Sharing only creates demand if money or other videos (or other things of interest to the original perpetrator) are given in exchange. And honestly, I expect the vast majority of abusers to be doing it either for fun (so they'd stop sharing videos, but keep raping) or for the money. Sometimes I wonder if what people really want is just to stop the transmission of child porn so they can go back to pretending it doesn't exist... Child porn piracy is an essentially victimless crime. Note: In the above I am considering the generic example of "child porn" to be broadcasting the forcible rape of prepubescents, not 17 year olds sending each other naughty pictures, which is what most content matching the US legal definition is (the UK one is just stupid as it includes drawings).
  - claudiawerner 7y ago
    >And honestly, I expect the vast majority of abusers to be doing it either for fun (so they'd stop sharing videos, but keep raping) or for the money. This runs contrary to the fact that people share things not just for monetary profit, but for other videos/pictures in exchange, and voyeuristic/exhibitionist reasons.
claudiawerner 7y ago
>Sharing unlimited copies of child abuse videos does not actually hurt anyone. This is contradicted by the evidence we have to the contrary, in particular the model of supply and demand identified in child porn markets.