5 ms·

> "The organisations that do the investigations are so under funded and under staffed that the only issues they are able to investigate are those where the chil

> "The organisations that do the investigations are so under funded and under staffed that the only issues they are able to investigate are those where the child's life is in immediate danger. Anything less just falls off the radar." This is complete nonsense ----- Ridiculous that this was downvoted. You understand OP is saying crimes likes rape and kidnap are not being investigated?

gigaftp 7y ago
I would imagine that the acts of rape and kidnapping fall into the category of 'life in immediate danger'.
- JoeSmithson 7y ago
  No they don't...? Most rapes are discovered or reported by the victim after the fact.
  - BLKNSLVR 7y ago
    Mandatory reporting, I think, is intended to flag the potential that this is happening or may be likely to happen in the future. It doesn't become a crime until it happens though. Maybe I've answered my own question / outrage? As a rule, I don't support "pre-crime" ideology. What are the definitions of 'abuse'? What household situations point towards the likelihood of future 'abuse' and is this just 'pre-crime'...?
solarengineer 7y ago
When you said “This is complete nonsense”, I presume you intended to convey “My goodness!! That means even rape and kidnaping may not be investigated!!”
- JoeSmithson 7y ago
  I'm a detective who actually investigates these crimes so, no, I meant exactly that what OP said is complete nonsense
  - arczyx 7y ago
    Maybe OP was living in different country than yours? I don't think you can dismiss their statement as 'complete nonsense' before confirming what exactly are they talking about.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - BLKNSLVR 7y ago
    Utmost respect for what is one of the most difficult jobs imaginable. Do you think the anti-encryption / communications surveillance would help to stop these things from happening? Are most of the crimes perpetrated by relatives of the children? If Child Services visited these people prior to an incident occurring, in what percentage of cases would there have been cause to intervene? Do you have the resources to investigate all the cases you feel worthy of investigation? What political decisions would help minimize these incidents from occurring? I want my commentary to be hand-wavey and wrong. I'd be very happy to hear that it is.
    - JoeSmithson 7y ago
      The vast majority of contact offences are committed by people abusing a position of trust e.g. relative, teacher, coach etc. I don't there are grounds to intervene until they have committed at least some offending, or at the very least indicated a desire to offend e.g. in forum messages. You wouldn't even necessarily lose access to your own children even after being convicted of a CSAE offence, e.g. if you were convicted of downloading IIOC and not suspected of anything else you would probably not lose access to your own child. Surveillance in the general sense definitely stops offending from happening because it allows on-going offenders to be identified. This article is about client-side prevention of distributing known IIOC, which is more a method of preventing a crime before it happens (the crime being Distribution of IIOC, not the sexual assault/rape the imagery depicts). Loads of things "worthy of investigation" are closed off due to resourcing issues but what you said was that only cases where there is an _immediate threat to life_ are investigated which is completely false.
shkkmo 7y ago
It's hard to understand exactly what you mean when you don't explicate what you disagree with and provide the reasons why you disagree. If this is a field you have experience with, you should have knowledge of information sources that can help dispel the incorrect information that is being spread. Without any of this, your comment comes across as low value and will attract downvotes.
BLKNSLVR 7y ago
I'm up-voting in order to support dissenting opinion. My comments are based on what I know of teachers performing their mandatory reporting and frustration at the impotence of the system from their viewpoint. There is room to argue against my point just based on the fact that if a kid is going to school, that implies a certain amount of 'care' by the parent / guardian already, so maybe my argument's subset is already flawed. However, rape and kidnap are actual crimes whether against children or not, so these aren't really under the auspices of Child Services - that's precisely where police and detectives do come in. It's not an easy area to work with, which is why politics probably tries to ignore it. Certain scales of abuse may actually be preferable, in the long term, to removing the child from the situation and putting them into the hands of the state. Removal from parents is psychologically damaging in itself. It's a very fine line, and one that pretty much all humans should be squeamish about.
tlrobinson 7y ago
> This is complete nonsense "When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3."" > Ridiculous that this was downvoted "Please don't comment about the voting on comments. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html’ https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html’
- dependenttypes 7y ago
  > "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3."" It's even worse than that imo. It basically says "That is idiotic", skipping over the "1 + 1 is 2, not 3" part. The amusing part is not that this was downvoted, but rather that it gains a positive number of votes every few hours.

gigaftp 7y ago

I would imagine that the acts of rape and kidnapping fall into the category of 'life in immediate danger'.

JoeSmithson 7y ago
No they don't...? Most rapes are discovered or reported by the victim after the fact.
- BLKNSLVR 7y ago
  Mandatory reporting, I think, is intended to flag the potential that this is happening or may be likely to happen in the future. It doesn't become a crime until it happens though. Maybe I've answered my own question / outrage? As a rule, I don't support "pre-crime" ideology. What are the definitions of 'abuse'? What household situations point towards the likelihood of future 'abuse' and is this just 'pre-crime'...?

solarengineer 7y ago

When you said “This is complete nonsense”, I presume you intended to convey “My goodness!! That means even rape and kidnaping may not be investigated!!”

JoeSmithson 7y ago
I'm a detective who actually investigates these crimes so, no, I meant exactly that what OP said is complete nonsense
- arczyx 7y ago
  Maybe OP was living in different country than yours? I don't think you can dismiss their statement as 'complete nonsense' before confirming what exactly are they talking about.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- BLKNSLVR 7y ago
  Utmost respect for what is one of the most difficult jobs imaginable. Do you think the anti-encryption / communications surveillance would help to stop these things from happening? Are most of the crimes perpetrated by relatives of the children? If Child Services visited these people prior to an incident occurring, in what percentage of cases would there have been cause to intervene? Do you have the resources to investigate all the cases you feel worthy of investigation? What political decisions would help minimize these incidents from occurring? I want my commentary to be hand-wavey and wrong. I'd be very happy to hear that it is.
  - JoeSmithson 7y ago
    The vast majority of contact offences are committed by people abusing a position of trust e.g. relative, teacher, coach etc. I don't there are grounds to intervene until they have committed at least some offending, or at the very least indicated a desire to offend e.g. in forum messages. You wouldn't even necessarily lose access to your own children even after being convicted of a CSAE offence, e.g. if you were convicted of downloading IIOC and not suspected of anything else you would probably not lose access to your own child. Surveillance in the general sense definitely stops offending from happening because it allows on-going offenders to be identified. This article is about client-side prevention of distributing known IIOC, which is more a method of preventing a crime before it happens (the crime being Distribution of IIOC, not the sexual assault/rape the imagery depicts). Loads of things "worthy of investigation" are closed off due to resourcing issues but what you said was that only cases where there is an _immediate threat to life_ are investigated which is completely false.

shkkmo 7y ago

It's hard to understand exactly what you mean when you don't explicate what you disagree with and provide the reasons why you disagree. If this is a field you have experience with, you should have knowledge of information sources that can help dispel the incorrect information that is being spread. Without any of this, your comment comes across as low value and will attract downvotes.

BLKNSLVR 7y ago

I'm up-voting in order to support dissenting opinion. My comments are based on what I know of teachers performing their mandatory reporting and frustration at the impotence of the system from their viewpoint. There is room to argue against my point just based on the fact that if a kid is going to school, that implies a certain amount of 'care' by the parent / guardian already, so maybe my argument's subset is already flawed. However, rape and kidnap are actual crimes whether against children or not, so these aren't really under the auspices of Child Services - that's precisely where police and detectives do come in. It's not an easy area to work with, which is why politics probably tries to ignore it. Certain scales of abuse may actually be preferable, in the long term, to removing the child from the situation and putting them into the hands of the state. Removal from parents is psychologically damaging in itself. It's a very fine line, and one that pretty much all humans should be squeamish about.

tlrobinson 7y ago

> This is complete nonsense "When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3."" > Ridiculous that this was downvoted "Please don't comment about the voting on comments. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html’ https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html’

dependenttypes 7y ago
> "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3."" It's even worse than that imo. It basically says "That is idiotic", skipping over the "1 + 1 is 2, not 3" part. The amusing part is not that this was downvoted, but rather that it gains a positive number of votes every few hours.