Recently there was an undercover ATF operation near my neighborhood that failed rather spectacularly and, thanks to the local newspaper, publicly. In the final analysis one of the things that came out of it was the observation that very few of the folks who were arrested over the course of this operation were known to have been engaged in any serious (say, worse than just being a pot smoker) criminal activity outside of whatever the ATF agents had enticed them to do as part of the sting operation. Oftentimes this took the form of singling out people who weren't too bright, or were in a financial tight spot, and applying a lot of social pressure to encourage them to commmit crimes.<p>In other words, the vast majority of the criminal activity people were being arrested for were crimes that the ATF had manufactured in the first place. The real burglars and drug dealers knew enough to stay away.<p>I can't help but worry there might be a similar situation going on here. I'd be curious to know how many of the 1,000 individuals caught in this operation have any prior history of abusing children, and I'd be curious to know if the folks running this operation were using this child persona to actively solicit people. It's not just that I worry about police entrapment (which I do); it's also that I worry that these operations might ironically make life easier for the child pornography and trafficking industries because the investigators are trapping themselves in their own honeypot.
This is going to be an extremely unpopular opinion,but I would like to actually have some meaningful discussion about this - am I the only one to think that chatting/flirting/talking about sex with a generated avatar, no matter what is it of, should not be a crime?
I am really surprised at all the negative reactions in here. Let's get some things straight:<p>() Entrapment is when the police induce someone to commit a crime they were not otherwise predisposed to commit. That did not happen here. The only reason anyone would have to visit these chat rooms in the first place (other than to see what was going on in there, as the author did) is to buy child webcam sex.<p>() The individuals caught in this sting thought they were talking to a real child and had every intention to solicit a real child for sex. We are not talking about a thought-crime here.<p>() They had almost certainly done it before, and will continue to do it until stopped.<p>There are no difficult questions here. This is a <i>good thing</i>.<p>EDITED to add: By the way, I don't think artwork -- drawings, paintings, computer animations, whatever -- should ever be illegal <i>per se</i>, no matter what it depicts. I don't think that artwork of any kind should be illegal to produce or to view, for any purpose including sexual stimulation, so long as no actual children or other unwilling victims were involved in its production.<p>But that's not what we're talking about here. This isn't just about viewing synthesized materials. This is about people offering to pay for what they think is a real child to perform sex acts on camera.
I wonder if, instead of using this technology to catch pedophiles it might be used to treat them instead. If computer-generated avatars are good enough to provide sexual gratification, maybe that would be enough to redirect their attention away from real kids. There is some evidence that pornography can reduce the incidence of (adult-on-adult) rape, so it seems not entirely implausible that it might reduce pedophilic abuse as well.<p>[1] <a href="http://freakonomics.com/2011/08/04/porn-and-rape-the-debate-continues/" rel="nofollow">http://freakonomics.com/2011/08/04/porn-and-rape-the-debate-...</a>
Why do these stories always bring out the white-knight nerds crying about "entrapment" or questioning if a crime was truly committed?<p>Entrapment would be if undercover agents stopped you on the street and hassled you to come inside and proposition a kid for sex and refused to let you leave, or even just kept getting in your face over and over. Or maybe even more subtly, if they kept messaging and pestering you in online chat, suggesting you could see "them" (fake kid) naked for money, even though you expressed reluctance about it. <i></i>That did not happen here, these were just the super easy people who jumped easily and quickly at the opportunity to pay to have a child perform sex acts on video<i></i><p>Secondly, in every jurisdiction that I know of, this is the crime of Intent to Commit. It doesn't matter that the avatar was virtual, it's no different than an adult cop using picture of a model as bait. You aren't interacting with a virtual chat bot, you're interacting with an adult human being who happens to be using a computer-generated avatar. Again, this is no different than buying fake cocaine from an undercover cop, or attempting to steal a bait car.<p>Let us not forget that it is statistically improbable that even half of these 1000 people are doing this for the first time. Which means most of them have paid money to someone to force a kid to perform sex acts on camera, and so enjoyed the experience they went and sought it out again.<p>I think more police departments should have officers on staff and hackers as consultants to engage in consistent and ongoing honeypot operations, not just for these sorts of crimes, but also for things like online fraud, etc.
When I was younger (a late teen) I used to hang out on IRC and forums. I got in touch with many nicknames, few I ever got to know anything more about them than their music preferences or opinions on trivial stuff (games, arts, politics, etc.). And some, I used to play on-line game with them.<p>Fast forward ten years later (which is 2 years ago) and there is that 14 years old Norwegian girl popping up in my MSN list. I never added her, I think we somehow got into each other's buddy list because of those multi-chat layers some tried to implement over MSN.<p>In my country, Belgium, we got a huge scandal over abducted girls in the 90's. That changed a lot of things for some of my friends who were chief of boyscout and the like: they couldn't handle children the same way as before and every physical contact was suspicious, some told me they didn't take children in their arms anymore when they were crying because they feared people might misinterpret it.<p>Back to that Norwegian teenager: Had I been a teen I guess I would have chatted a bit more with her (aah those days when some random nicks on the deftones forum would send us postcard of his european trip.. on our REAL PO Box) but all I was concerned about was:<p><pre><code> Am I being targeted as an on-line pervert by some agency ? If I keep on answering her "who are you ? how did you get in my list ?"... will that be turned against me later for god knows what ?
</code></pre>
So I told her to not contact me because she doesn't know who I am which is the adult thing to do but at the end of the day I am sad that the internet land isn't as open and as welcoming as before.<p>But it's the same in the real world: One day I am at the mall and there is that 4 years old crying and asking "mama ?". I asked here "are you lost ?" "yes" "Well, can you see your mom around you ?" "No". So I told her "Well, come with me at the information desk and we'll ask them to tell your mom to meet you there". As <i>she</i> grabbed my hand I saw a woman cashing her groceries 2 meters away and of course she was the mom. That was awkward and it shouldn't have been.
I don't think it is right for a state to bait people into committing crimes.<p>Not that I'd ever defend sex offenders, but by creating an opportunity that is strong enough you could get anyone to commit some kind of crime.<p>That doesn't have to be a sex offense, it could also be tax evasion, prostitution, gambling, illegal file sharing (music/films), hate speech, speeding with a car or consuming illegal drugs.<p>Most people have some weakness that could be exploited.
I wonder if, had this been done by the police instead of a private charity, if this would constitute inducement or if any arrests would hold. And if a affirmative defense could be mounted -- often there is nothing overtly illegal about text or computer generated imagery.<p>It would have been fascinating to be the fly on the wall at the various meetings to decide the legality of arrests based on this information.
Interesting, to say the least. One of my first concerns is whether this tactic might eventually weaken the ability to prevent child abuse.<p>To clarify, this is arguably an effective honeypot right now because it supposedly would not occur to a predator that the child is digital, and so they can be presumed guilty of engaging with a real child... But what about when body-scanning gets cheaper, and a foreign website claims to be offering the services of digital avatars, but is actually sourcing real children. Would this not give predators plausible deniability, and greatly challenge the prospect of prosecution?<p>This feels cynical of me to say, but I don't see this as an omen of future technological solution to social ills, but rather of uncomfortable future ambiguity
With a conviction rate of less than %0.000005 of those committing these acts, this is something governments ought to be pursuing.<p>Signing the petition <a href="http://youtube.com/sweetie" rel="nofollow">http://youtube.com/sweetie</a>
These losers wouldn't even dare to touch a RL girl. Even though it would be perfectly legal to have sex with someone as young as 16 or even 12 in many countries.<p>So why make their lives any more miserable?<p>Those who abuse girls IRL should burn in hell though.
I'm in no way defending anyone who takes advantage of anyone who's age they are unsure of (or really anyone who is vulnerable), but I notice that nowhere do they talk about the age of the person they are modeling.<p>I'd be curious to know what age a randomized blinded panel would rate their avatar at. If this was a psychological test, that would be a requirement for it to be considered valid.