Yikes.... an article in the Fairfax Times about a recent investigation into child pornography. The investigation found more than 20,000 computers in Virginia that contained child porn, many of them right here in good ol' Fairfax. The article gives out specific data on towns around here.... I'm sure glad I don't live in Herndon....

Pretty creepy... I'm surprised a story like this isn't covered by one of the more mainstream local media outlets.

http://www.fairfaxtimes.com/news/2008/feb/26/child-porn-found-20000-computers-virginia/

I find this disturbing as well, but probably for a different reason. I find it truly disturbing that another government agency is spying into American homes and privacy on the pretext of 'searching for criminals' Are they going to go door-to-door next and search people's personal possessions for naked baby pictures?

Because 70% of those computers are just normal people (the articles stipulate that only 30% of people who possess 'child pornography' victimize children). And yes, those pictures you took of your baby naked is CHILD PORNOGRAPHY! Check it out, it counts. And it's even worse if the pictures show more than one child naked together. (Imagine the bubble bath scene with young siblings-PORNOGRAPHY under their criteria.)

The American people need to wake up and realize that the government is full of people who aren't necessarily looking out for the good of the country, their looking out for how they can get ahead. We're in another McCarthy-like era except most of the public is still burying their heads in the sand. Dateline's To Catch a Predator is a perfect example of luring people into a trap, and yes many of those caught really are sick, but then they were actually chatting with people in their twenties, they lied and said they were younger, but they had the maturity and vocabulary of a twenty-something. Shocking that a twenty or thirty year old man would make a connection with a twenty-something woman. Truly shocking and disgraceful. (sarcasm, for those that need the clarification)

I wonder how many post on this site???

TheMeeper Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yikes.... an article in the Fairfax Times about a
> recent investigation into child pornography. The
> investigation found more than 20,000 computers in
> Virginia that contained child porn, many of them
> right here in good ol' Fairfax.


My first thought was, "How many computers does Gravis own?"

Here is Gravis

http://www.familywatchdog.us/ViewOffenderDetails.asp?oID=VAX000089377&aID=88736640&at=1&sid={74EC56A4-5EC3-48C5-A168-BFB5F9952DC1}&lat=38.903656&long=-77.45106&clr=%23ff0000

Suburbanite- I agree 100% with you on the personal privacy rights of US citizens. It appalls me when I see our "leaders" abuse our fundamental rights as if they don't really exist (i.e. illegal wiretapping, traffic checkpoints, etc.). However, the article says that they are finding these offending computers on peer-to-peer file sharing networks, which means they are open to the public and can be accessed without a warrant. I'd be outraged too if the govt. thought they could just secretly access someone's computer under the guise of public safety, but that is not the case here.

Quote
[url
http://www.fairfaxtimes.com/news/2008/feb/26/child-porn-found-20000-computers-virginia/[/url] ]Using a national online system that enables them to remotely download incriminating images directly from a suspect's computer, members of the Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force have identified nearly 20,000 computer hard drives in Virginia that they say contain hardcore child pornography.

just a note: they are talking about "hardcore child pornography," not the pictures of when billy was born. oh, on that note, the age of consent is lower in europe so it's _possible_ some people could be downloading european porn and get busted for something they dont know about.


"the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/27/2008 01:08PM by Gravis.

See, Gravis knows about downloading all types of p*rn.

gravis,

not true about europe in the us.

its is a crime in virgina to possess in physical or electronic form nude pictures of anyone who IS under 18 y/o or who the user has good reason to believe is under 18 y/o.

there is no european exception in america.

I'm always skeptical of statistics that come from activists that have an interest in it. I'm sure some people have it, but it's possible there are people who just downloaded 1,000 pictures of porn and there's something illegal in with it. You can't know what something is until you've opened it. I don't use P2P, but I think as soon as you start downloading it your computer also makes it available to others. I think torrents work that way at least. I've been afraid to use file-sharing stuff for this reason.

Oh, and as for just nude pictures of under 18, that's bullshit. I can go into any video store and buy American Beauty.

It's frightening that people can be sent to prison for electronic data. All it would take would be one person with a few minutes alone with a computer to frame somebody. Then again, I guess the same goes for drugs.

european exception... moron... think harder.

and theres no nudity in american beauty.

thinkb4upost Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> gravis,
>
> not true about europe in the us.
>
> its is a crime in virgina to possess in physical
> or electronic form nude pictures of anyone who IS
> under 18 y/o or who the user has good reason to
> believe is under 18 y/o.
>
> there is no european exception in america.


ok dumbass, read the post again. i never said their was an exception i said it could happen on accident, not that it was allowed. stop being so fucking stupid.


"the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."

Suburbanite Wrote:
> I find it truly disturbing that
> another government agency is spying into American
> homes and privacy on the pretext of 'searching for
> criminals' Are they going to go door-to-door next
> and search people's personal possessions for naked
> baby pictures?

I'm pretty sure the pictures were found on people's computers because they were using P2P file sharing. The "national online system" is most like BitTorrent. Since these files were being offered up to anyone, they were hardly 'spying'.

I do wonder how they verified the 20,000 images were child porn. My guess is they searched for filenames which they knew were illegal, but didn't spend the time to verify that the files were the same.

Skeptic Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I do wonder how they verified the 20,000 images
> were child porn. My guess is they searched for
> filenames which they knew were illegal

MD5 checksum.


"the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."

Gravis Wrote:

> MD5 checksum.

I suppose that's possible, but wouldn't that require them to download at least 20,000 files?

Brian Moran is outing people with sick porn? I installed a ceiling fan in his townhome about 14 years ago...when he was the DA and lived near Fairlington. I had to look for the breaker panel to shut off the circuit, opened his closet in the hallway and found all kinds of freaky porn!

Kinda like the pot calling the kettle black, isnt it?

No Joke. I can even tell you who he was dating at the time.

Skeptic Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Gravis Wrote:
>
> > MD5 checksum.
>
> I suppose that's possible, but wouldn't that
> require them to download at least 20,000 files?

20,000 files isnt that many.


"the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."

The part of this that bother me is the part where people are being arrested for what the government beleives they are thinking. Getting back to having a picture of someone who is under 18....or a picture of someone they "believe" is under 18. Exactly how do they determine what a person believes?


Seems to me we have the beginnings of the thought police.

Vince(1) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Seems to me we have the beginnings of the thought
> police.

oh come on, you've got to be kidding me.


"the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."

Vince(1) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The part of this that bother me is the part where
> people are being arrested for what the government
> beleives they are thinking. Getting back to
> having a picture of someone who is under 18....or
> a picture of someone they "believe" is under 18.
> Exactly how do they determine what a person
> believes?
>
>
> Seems to me we have the beginnings of the thought
> police.

Don't worry, Vince. As a person completely devoid of any thought whatsoever, you have nothing to fear.

Anti-Vince Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Vince(1) Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > The part of this that bother me is the part
> where
> > people are being arrested for what the
> government
> > beleives they are thinking. Getting back to
> > having a picture of someone who is under
> 18....or
> > a picture of someone they "believe" is under 18.
>
> > Exactly how do they determine what a person
> > believes?
> >
> >
> > Seems to me we have the beginnings of the
> thought
> > police.
>
> Don't worry, Vince. As a person completely devoid
> of any thought whatsoever, you have nothing to
> fear.


Another example of trying to shout down rather then express and defend your opinions! You youngsters certainly do have a thin skin.

Vince(1) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The part of this that bother me is the part where
> people are being arrested for what the government
> beleives they are thinking. Getting back to
> having a picture of someone who is under 18....or
> a picture of someone they "believe" is under 18.
> Exactly how do they determine what a person
> believes?
>
>
> Seems to me we have the beginnings of the thought
> police.

Would I kid you Gravis? Using the instance you provided...two people recieve the same x-rated picture. The authorities come to the conclusion that one person believes the picture is of an 18 year old girl..the other believes it is a picture of a 16 year old girl. How do they come to that conclusion? Just because a person plays along in a sexaul role playing e-mail exchange with someone pretending to be 16...doesnt mean they actually think the person is 16. Seems to me we are getting to the point that any exchange of sexually oriented e-mail you need to include a warning....

"Nothing contained in or attached to this e-mail suggests that I believe you or any of the materiel attached to this e-mail is of persons under the age of 18. This materiel is entended for the enjoyment of two adults...reading and downloading is solely intended for adults...which I beleive you to be."

Hey...I like it!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/02/2008 10:28AM by Vince(1).

Suburbanite Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I find this disturbing as well, but probably for a
> different reason. I find it truly disturbing that
> another government agency is spying into American
> homes and privacy on the pretext of 'searching for
> criminals' Are they going to go door-to-door next
> and search people's personal possessions for naked
> baby pictures?
>
> Because 70% of those computers are just normal
> people (the articles stipulate that only 30% of
> people who possess 'child pornography' victimize
> children). And yes, those pictures you took of
> your baby naked is CHILD PORNOGRAPHY! Check it
> out, it counts. And it's even worse if the
> pictures show more than one child naked together.
> (Imagine the bubble bath scene with young
> siblings-PORNOGRAPHY under their criteria.)
>
> The American people need to wake up and realize
> that the government is full of people who aren't
> necessarily looking out for the good of the
> country, their looking out for how they can get
> ahead. We're in another McCarthy-like era except
> most of the public is still burying their heads in
> the sand. Dateline's To Catch a Predator is a
> perfect example of luring people into a trap, and
> yes many of those caught really are sick, but then
> they were actually chatting with people in their
> twenties, they lied and said they were younger,
> but they had the maturity and vocabulary of a
> twenty-something. Shocking that a twenty or thirty
> year old man would make a connection with a
> twenty-something woman. Truly shocking and
> disgraceful. (sarcasm, for those that need the
> clarification)


Surbanite...I agree with the thrust of what you are saying even though it is difficult to discuss this issue in the terms of child pornography. In todays's Washington Post there is an article entitled "Bush Moves to Shield Telecommunications Firms". As I understand it...the Bush Administration wants to exempt these firms from lawsuits based on them breaking privacy laws because they broke those laws at the request of the current administration. In my words...the theory is if the current administration comes to you and asks you to break the law and you do...you should not be held accountable for those actions. This is an incredible expansion of the executive powers and will lead to the concerns you expressed. So...bad example..but your point is still well taken.

Vince(1) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Would I kid you Gravis?

no, you would make radical assumptions on what "believe is underage" means. my thought is that the "believe is underage" is a reference to the image being advertised as being someone that is underage, nothing more. so when they download "hardcore_14yr_old_sluts.rar" i think it's safe to assume they are under the impression that the people in the images are under the age of 18. so, before you make wild assumptions please do some research on the matter.


"the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/02/2008 12:23PM by Gravis.

Am I imagining something or didn't Dateline To Catch a Predator start out with a sting in Herndon? What did they know then that we are just finding out?

Research? You gave your opinion of what the law means....prosecutors and ultimately jurors decide what the "believe" means. I personnaly think it is too wide a net they are casting to catch the "believers".

I also have a "problem" with the Dateline example..of the authorities pretending to be someone underage...in actuality no minor was approached for sex...so it is the assumption that the guy thought the girl was a minor...in reality he might have thought it was an adult female or male he was cybering with in a game of sexual role play.

Now I know that might discust a lot of people...but any female/wife who ever dressed up as a cheerleader was using the underage fantasy as a means to have fun!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/02/2008 01:10PM by Vince(1).

It all gets back to what the meaning of the word is, is.

So, Vince how many 14 year olds do you chat with, while telling yourself they're probably 25 year olds pretending to be 14 for your fantasy world?

What is the racial or cultural makeup of Herndon? Is there any correlation to the demographics?

Vince(1) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Research? You gave your opinion of what the law
> means....prosecutors and ultimately jurors decide
> what the "believe" means. I personnaly think it
> is too wide a net they are casting to catch the
> "believers".

so, you have read the laws on this topic? the law may be more specific.


> I also have a "problem" with the Dateline
> example..of the authorities pretending to be
> someone underage...in actuality no minor was
> approached for sex...so it is the assumption that
> the guy thought the girl was a minor...in reality
> he might have thought it was an adult female or
> male he was cybering with in a game of sexual role
> play.

oh bullshit. do you even know what they say in the online chat? your situation is unlikely... who pretends to be a retarded (literally) 13 year old boy and makes sexual advances on people online?


> Now I know that might discust a lot of
> people...but any female/wife who ever dressed up
> as a cheerleader was using the underage fantasy as
> a means to have fun!

because there are no adult cheerleaders for say... the NFL.


"the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."

Also you have to wonder how much "child porn" might be pictures that teenagers are trading amongst themselves.

From the Washington Post December 15, 2007

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/14/AR2007121402257.html?nav=rss_technology/techpolicy

Many defendants obsessively collect huge numbers of images -- the FBI recently seized a computer with 1.5 million images suspected to be child pornography -- and many have molested children, officials say. People who download the images once or twice, possibly by accident, are unlikely to be prosecuted, officials said.

"You can't wrap your brain around what we're talking about here," said Bonnie S. Greenberg, a prosecutor in the U.S. attorney's office in Maryland. "We're not talking about a 16-year-old who looks like she could be 19. We're seeing prepubescent children who are being raped, babies, toddlers being tied up."

This sounds to me the "believe" part comes down to "they HAD TO know".....

Gravis..do you go out of your way to miss a point being made? The fact is a lot of sexual fantasies involve two adults pretending to be younger then they are...perhaps even underage. Under the concept of prosecuting people for what they "believe" the case could be made that a person thought someone was underage when in reality they didnt. A prosecutor wanting to get someone for any reason could use that logic to persecute a person for unrelated reasons.

This board is filled with Pedophiles!

Vince(1) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Gravis..do you go out of your way to miss a point
> being made? The fact is a lot of sexual fantasies
> involve two adults pretending to be younger then
> they are...perhaps even underage.

and "a lot" of people get off on dressing up in costumes, so what?


> Under the
> concept of prosecuting people for what they
> "believe" the case could be made that a person
> thought someone was underage when in reality they
> didnt.

unless you have ANY evidence to support something remotely like this, i think you are incorrect.


> A prosecutor wanting to get someone for
> any reason could use that logic to persecute a
> person for unrelated reasons.

yes, they could and they could also bust down your door and put a hatchet in your head. anything is possible, whether it happens or not is a different matter.


"the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."

Gravis...it's done every day. Guys talking to adult females and males on here pretending to be underage. In reality the person has committed no crime with a minor. They catch these people saying they "thought" the person was underage. How the heck does anyone know what another person is thinking?

Vince(1) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Gravis...it's done every day. Guys talking to
> adult females and males on here pretending to be
> underage. In reality the person has committed no
> crime with a minor. They catch these people
> saying they "thought" the person was underage.
> How the heck does anyone know what another person
> is thinking?

which is exactly why they throw out cases based on that kind of assumption.


"the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."

I might have known where I would find GRavis making the most comments! Land sakes boy-take yourself a cold shower and stop bothering people with your defense of deviate lifestyles!