Add me to the (apparently minority) group that believes that the act of creating child pornography is the source of victimization for the kids involved- not the sharing of the photos/videos (though that is detestable in its own right). The major source of trauma is already done. If you can use the existing stuff to shut down 200+ of these folks, you have my support.
The FBI did not create a child porn studio and actively produce more content, so the “If you agree, you should create material using YOUR kids to help them!” argument is a fairly despicable straw man.
Why? Why does the FBI have to stoop to *shitty, morally corrupt things to catch pervos looking *at kiddie porn? I mean, sure, nab those guys when you can, but they are not directly endangering anyone.
I’d give the FBI a pass to catch Child rapists, or those selling their kids for prostitution or anyone* actively* hurting kids, sure. But this is second hand.
well my point which I apparently forgot to ad was they used porn back then too … so its apparently somewhat known that they used seized materials from past operations … Also police have been known to raid brothels and keep them open to bust clients as another poster snarked about above
Due to the nature of the TOR network, it would be impossible to remove all the porn that was distributed. TOR traffic is routed through thousands of computers, and that data still exists encrypted in cache files.
Also, it would not be feasible to replace all the child porn with digitally altered adult porn. Even Hollywood with it’s millions can’t make actors look significantly different in age without it looking fake. Even if it was technically feasible, it would have made the site scream honey trap, and there would have been far fewer arrests as the users would have started destroying evidence.
On the moral side, I’m conflicted. Without seizing the site, they never would have caught a number of child porn consumers. If they had converted it to a honey trap just for a day or two, I’d still probably be OK with it. At two weeks, I feel they are crossing the line.
It’s a little more difficult-- in a chat, interactive session the proof is clear: “How old r u?” “14 is that ok?” “Sure but don’t tell ne1 ok?”
So it’s not impossible, but it’s not useful. The whole reason pedophiles visited the Playpen was that it reliably delivered actual child pron (before the FBI was able to find and seize it). If it then began serving up adult images labeled as underage, the change would be quickly apparent to its clientele and visits would cease; this would compromise the ability to identify more users of the site.
Yes, it’s true that this is second-hand. But the thinking is that the market that’s created for child rapists to earn money by filming their rape of kids is a direct result of these pervos that are merely “looking” at child porn. And to be clear, what they are demanding in this market is new images of child rape, fresh video of people actively hurting kids, and it is this market of consumers that the FBI action is intended to curtail.
Not to my knowledge, but I can’t claim a detailed study of the issue.
Don’t get me wrong, though: I absolutely agree that the continuing distribution of images depicting child rape is a terrible thing.
But I believe the brief instance here done with the goal of ultimate identifying traders who are otherwise hidden by Tor was of such value that the harm was justified.
There certainly has to be weighing of the advantages and disadvantages here. But the continuing distribution of these images to people who are going to be found and arrested, who may have done far worse than just viewing images, and may lead authorities to others involved would far outweigh the distribution of these images. As I stated before the re-victimization argument is rather hollow. I’m not saying the FBI should violate the law, but I think the law should find room in cases like this to allow this kind of sting operation within reasonable limits.
Can you go into the thought process that makes the duration that they run the site relevant?
It seems to me that if running the site to find and arrest its users is morally valid… well, it’s morally valid for an arbitrary amount of time.
Each time someone visits the site, they’re getting some child porn, and the FBI is getting info they can use to convict them. The first part of that is morally concerning, because the FBI is in some ways facilitating the transmission of porn. If they were to shut the site down, then those people wouldn’t be getting child porn. But if it’s outweighed by the FBI finding and catching a criminal, then it is justifiable. It shouldn’t matter how long it’s been since the FBI seized the site.
Because the morally wrong behavior is in transmitting the porn, not in hosting it for a given period of time.
The first day they run the site, every visitor is a new one, from the FBI perspective.
The next day, they have many new visitors and some returning visitors.
And the next, even more repeat visitors. So at some point, the potential to identify new targets falls below a threshold, at which point it makes little sense to continue. Without knowing what kind of traffic patterns they were seeing, though, I can’t offer a view on what that point was or whether they reached it.
Anyone who goes to an underground website specifically for child porn is fair game; this isn’t the same as sting operations such as when female cops pose as prostitutes and bate Johns into soliciting them; I have reservations with that, but this is apples to oranges, since these fellows are members of a community specifically for child porn.
Hell if anything the Feds should have the authority and means to shut the website down entirely.
They weren’t producing child porn, they were running a sting operation inside an online child porn ring.
The reason child porn is criminalized is in an attempt to reduce the amount produced, reducing demand in order to reduce supply. The actual victimization happens when the photo is taken. It’s possible there would be “revictimization” if the subject learns about their photos being out there again, but it’s far from certain, and is not the reason it is illegal.
The FBI ceased control of an existing criminal enterprise, and rather than shutting it down right away, set up a sting operation. The files being hosted were already there, and would have been downloaded anyways if they had not participated. Their involvement did not increase the number of child porn downloads.
And, since it’s not any individual download that causes the problem, allowing them for a short period of time rather than stopping them right away does not hurt anyone. And then actually catching people creates a larger deterrent.
The end result is that demand and supply are both decreased. Which is the desired goal.
Remember, it is not the downloading of child porn that is the immoral element. It is the production of child porn. The downloading is criminalized in order to stop the production.