It should also be pointed out that reports of child porn can also be referring to cartoon/animated depictions as well, depending on what local laws are in place and how specific the reporter wants to be.
There’s certainly a lot of underage cartoon stuff out there, including a ton of Japanese stuff that would be very easy to accidentally download.
My ex-husband was into the “barely legal” type of porn (like girls who were 18 but didn’t really look 18). This was eight or ten years ago, but we used to get horrible icky spam sometimes of young kids, boys usually. We had an email program then where the first message would automatically be open when you opened the program, so sometimes it was like “GAAAAH!” I always forwarded them to the postmaster, but I was kinda concerned that the FBI or someone would come arrest us.
It’s also true that when the news media reports someone’s been busted for possessing “thousands and thousands” of kiddy porn images, not all of them are explicitly pornographic or even feature children. David Westerfield, for example, had 1000+ porn images on his computer, but most of them were legal adult stuff.
Created? Not a chance.
Distributed? IME, that’s not true either. Actual sting sites are quite rare.
It’s a common myth, though.
This looks like a particularly prestigious institution!
How many non-paedophiles do you know who’ve been arrested for downloading and possessing paedophile material? It’s at least one who got convicted, you say?
Just so we’re all clear, that’s not really a defiant position. In the US (and many other countries) images of nude children are not illegal. What’s illegal under US law are images of minors “engaging in sexually explicit conduct.” I’ll link to what constitutes that, for those who want to be informed, but I’ll refrain from posting it for decorum’s sake.
This is illegal in the United States (and I believe also in Canada and Australia, since there have been recent convictions reported).
That’s 100% baloney.
Frankly, I didn’t believe him either.
Your link refers to the obscenity statute, not the child porn statute (hence the requirement of “lacking serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value” – which is the defense given for most forms of underage virtual porn.)
There are viruses that plant child pornography on your computer for various purposes.
One forum I visit has banned-and-erased a few people in the past for posting child porn or links to it as a “joke” or out of spite. It could accidentally get in your cache at least that way too I’d think.
If that’s their idea of a “joke”, that’s seriously fucked up. I hope they reported these assbags.
Heck, it could get in your cache by visiting a blog w/dozens of innocuous photos at the top, and you never bother to scroll down to the bottom…or a Google image search, since the images pre-load before you scroll down.
That’s why I can’t believe this guy merely had a few jpgs in his browser cache; that kind of charge would get thrown out almost immediately.
I am not going to do the google searches. But, at one point, I received not just one, but several emails pointing to what sounded to me like it could very well be underaged children.
I did not click on these links, and I deleted the emails and freaked out.
Now we all know you have to be an idiot to click on those kinds of things, but this was around 2001-2002, and I could see someone innocently doing that. Specifically, at the time I had teenaged sons in my house, and who knows what they might have been searching for.
There are also ways for people to maliciously send it do you, so you don’t even know you have it on your computer.
This site–US Dept. of Justice Child Exploitation & Obscenity Section–has some FAQs about what to do to stay safe and what procedure to follow should you run across child pornography. So, apparently, it can happen.
Back in the days of ICQ I had a spam message come through from a user I didn’t know and didn’t have on my friends list. That wasn’t uncommon at the time. I did what I usually did to trace and report it and in the process I clicked on the link. It took me to a site with an explicit pornographic image of a young child.
I was horrified and spent the next 24 hours reporting the link to anyone I could think of - the police, the site host, and their upstream, the Australian telecommunications watchdog, any American agencies I could find that appeared to investigate child porn, etc. I checked the site a few times with a finger over the stop button so I could stop it loading further before any images downloaded (dial up was good for something), and after a day or so the site vanished, and then I emptied my cache repeatedly and considered a format and reboot - some brain bleach would have been nice too.
So, yes, I have accidentally found child porn on the internet while engaged in a completely innocent activity - not P2P, not surfing porn sites, just sitting on ICQ chatting to my friends and reporting the odd spammer to their site host.
I trust that you wouldn’t link to anything horrific, but I can’t work up the nerve to click, and the hover-over is not enough information to reassure me. What does it mean?
Regards,
Shodan
It’s a cartoon drawing of a bear.
Legally speaking, according to U.S. statutes, they’re the same thing. Are they treated the same in practice? Apparently not. According to wiki:
Legal definitions of child pornography generally include sexual images involving both prepubescent and post-pubescent teenage minors and computer-generated images that appear to involve them.[16] Most possessors of child pornography who are arrested are found to possess images of prepubescent children; possessors of pornographic images of post-pubescent minors are less likely to be prosecuted, even though those images also fall within the statutes.[16]
Wells, M.; Finkelhor, D.; Wolak, J.; Mitchell, K. (2007). “Defining Child Pornography: Law Enforcement Dilemmas in Investigations of Internet Child Pornography Possession” (PDF). Police Practice and Research 8 (3): 269–282. doi:10.1080/15614260701450765. Defining child pornography: Law enforcement dilemmas in the investigations of Internet child pornography possession | Crimes against Children Research Center. Retrieved 2008-07-01.
The Sun and other British tabloids have also provoked controversy by featuring girls as young as 16 as topless models. Samantha Fox, Maria Whittaker, Debee Ashby, and many others began their topless modeling careers in The Sun at that age, while the Daily Sport was even known to count down the days until it could feature a teenage girl topless on her 16th birthday, as it did with Linsey Dawn McKenzie in 1994, among others. Although such photographs were legally permissible in the United Kingdom under the Protection of Children Act 1978, critics noted the irony of Murdoch’s Sun and News of the World newspapers calling for stricter laws on the sexual abuse of minors, including the public identification of released paedophiles, while publishing topless photographs of girls whom many other jurisdictions would legally classify as underage minors.[10] Controversy over these young models ended when the Sexual Offences Act 2003 raised the minimum age for topless modeling to 18.
Hoge, Warren (August 7, 2000). “Britain Fights Tide of Anti-Pedophile Attacks”. The New York Times. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B0CE5D9133CF934A3575BC0A9669C8B63.
I have been professionally involved in a case. The person sought it out. It’s out there. That’s all I’m going to say on the matter.
Some government agency does set up sting operations. A few years ago someone in my office was caught by one. He didn’t tell anybody, but I happened upon a local newspaper article about it (I can’t find it any more, so I really don’t have a cite). I also recall reading a magazine article (I think it was Playboy) that talked about it back in the 70’s (again, no cite). I recall them making the statement that the Post Office at the time owned the world’s largest collection of child porn (and no, they did not create it). I don’t know if the Post Office is still involved since it does not generally go through the mail, but they were the ones operating the stings at the time.
Nowadays, most sting operations don’t involve any genuine child porn at all, since U.S. law only requires criminal intent to convict someone. Therefore, a typical FBI sting will involve a faux webpage (perhaps with some technically legal naturist or modeling photos) with a link saying, “Click here to see 5yo girls having sex!” When a pervert clicks the link, the FBI tracks his IP address and dispatches a police car. No children are put at risk, another sick bastard goes to jail, it’s a win-win situation. 
I just retired from the FBI after 25 years and heck I will be a wistle blower.
There is a difference beetween CHILD PORNOGRAPHY and POROGRAPHY INVOLVING MINOS UNDER 15. Child pornography ( up until 9 years ago, child pornography could be googled ) At that time spam was running rampid and you could recive uncoliceted advertisments. In America KP is controled and only accesable by the FBI and DOJ. We did not have the tecnology to automaticlly searh for these site at time. Sadley to say Child Pornography could not be blocked. For ever site that is shut down there are 10 new sites. Most of the sites originated in RUSSIA JAPAN UKRAIN and some other forign countys. America had no legal coperation from russia at the time. Also due to the number of people that where counsomers ( millions ) It was impossible to enforce it… The industry was a gold mind catering to many consumers all over the world. USA had the most consumers. And it was impossible to arrest the tens of thousands of counsumers.
Only a small fraction of counsumers who where selectet targets where arrested and
often would not be convicted of recie a week sentance… Unless there is a particular site that deplicts pre pubesent children ( not tenagers ) that diplicked
Absue tourcure movies and trading ( that is ring ) LEA wount bother most of the time. There are existing sites in forighn countrys. They are not accessable in the USA. My advice to you if you know how to access these sites - Is get help, for one your hacking into govt servers and - not many people know how to do this. Also your information goes directly to the DOJ and ICE. So those are just some facts…
To access and join a site in a foriegn county - you must go through the Law Enforcment and you will be caught.