Website provides pictures of young girls for pedophiles

I read about, a site where contributors pretend to be children between the ages of 10 and 15 and bait pedophiles into giving out personal information, which is shared on the site.

I used to do some baiting myself, and I quit because of some moral issues with it that were raised on this board when I talked about it - you may make it harder for law enforcement officers to catch the perverts, and by continuing to talk to them after they start getting nasty you may contributing to their behavior. These issues aren’t my problem with what does, though.

They claim to have a pool of photos of young girls that they give the pedophiles when they ask for a photo. They will not disclose the source of these photos, but they just recently stopped including the pictures they send in their ‘busts’, for reasons they will not explain. They say they do not want to reveal where they get their pictures because if the pedophiles found out, they would be able to tell when they are being baited. I don’t buy that last explanation.

I can’t think of many situations where using a childs photo for these purposes would be moral - the only way I could see it happening is if they had the permission of the child and their parents after letting them know exactly what they were using their picture for. I suspect that they took down the pictures because someone wasn’t happy with finding out their picture was given to a pedophile.

What is the SDMBs opinion on this?

Well, is ti possible that the pictures are fake or in some other way have a loop hole which makes them legal?

I once heard a DA argue in open court that "No one should look at material like this except for law enforcement personel. "

Of course he added “in the normal course of their duties.”

Is it possible that they have some sort of dispensation?

I don’t have any idea if such things are possible.

Faked pics are still illegal.

However nudist or art pics are not. (though they can’t be ‘sexually explicit’) my bets are on that.

I’m not implying the pics are pornographic, though some of them are apparently of girls in swimsuits, shorts, etc. My problem is that the pics they are sending these guys are those of real girls.

Here’s a hypothetical situation - it may be inaccurate, as they aren’t saying where they get their pictures, but let’s say they are using pictures of child models who have signed photographers releases that they find on the internet as opposed to just random picture of girls. They bait a pedophile in Yahoo Messenger, and send him a picture of some girl. He wants to come see her and they give him the address of a police station (something they do a lot). Pedophile gets very angry after being fooled and mocked online. Then, next week, that pedophile happens to see in person the girl whose photo was used, and attacks her, thinking she was the one who humiliated him.

It would be an unlikely coincedence, but not an impossible one - I have met people at random on the internet who happen to be from the same neighborhood I live in. It doesn’t even have to be that unlikely a coincedence for things to end up bad. What if the guy sees a picture of the same girl on the cover of YM magazine, and starts stalking her with the information he obtains?

Even if you completely remove the unfairness of someone using your picture while having a sex chat with a potential child molestor, there’s a lot of real danger issues here.

Do you have a cite for that? IIRC, the Supreme Court threw out the law that made fake child porn pictures illegal. (Note, pics made by cutting and pasting a kid’s head onto an adult body are still illegal, but wholely computer generated/hand drawn or adult models dressing as children are perfectly legal.)

I think I mis read your OP. I agree that the only way they can use ANY picture morally, is with the permision of the person in it (or his legal guardian).

Please don’t hijack this - my thread has nothing to do with child pornography. My problem is these people are pretending to be sexually promiscuous children and using the pictures of real kids to build a believable persona.

Here’s an example from one of their logs…

‘chrissy2kewl4school’ is an adult trolling chat rooms for pedophiles using the picture of some unknown young girl as his chat pic. What if the picture he was using was of your daughter? In one of the logs another guy says he ended up sending pictures of three different girls to this one guy because he kept requesting pictures (and commented on how he did not seem to notice that it was a different girl in each one).

OK, but are you only upset that they don’t seem to have permision? I’m not sure that using real girls for this purpose would be OK even if they did have permision.

When I refered to ‘fake’ pictures I was indeed refering to ones of kids faces pasted on.

I tried to google up a site but needless to say I didn’t find anything of value. I did find nearly every hentai site that came up had a huge disclaimer about everyone depicted is 18 or older (yeah right) though that info hardly holds up in GD.

carry on nothing of value here.

The site linked in the OP did not work. Perhaps the http:// is missing.

I got to the site, when manually typing it in.

I don’t know about these people. It seems like they’re having a bit too much fun in posing as little girls/boys. And what pictures exactly are they sending out ? I doubt they’re using their own children.

After reading around that site for a few minutes, it’s apparently easy for anybody to pose as a minor.

all u have 2 do is type like dis, isnt it kewl ?

I wouldn’t exactly call what these people are doing as baiting, but they’re certainly not playing hard to get, and the picture thing is fishy. Better left for law enforcement.

Correction: The first link does not work - - - - -extra “,” added
The second link works


They could easily get pictures donated. I’d donate a picture of myself as a kid to help the cause. There are plenty of legitimate ways they could get pictures.

And I buy the idea that they have a limited stock of images, and don’t want them to be instantly recognizable to would-bes.

Ah, yes, these guys. Salon magazine thinks they’re evil. Salon also considers pedophelia to be a “thought crime”, with the implication that only some sort of Orwellian totalitarian would ever oppose it.

If they are using pictures with permission, I don’t have a problem with that in and of itself, but they really should offer an explanation of where they get their pictures, and I don’t see how it would hurt if it is one of the few legitimate sources described above - if they have a pool of donated pictures, how would knowing that help pedophiles avoid them? There would be no reason to make the pictures available on the internet, they have a limited list of contributors to the site (they don’t accept baits from just any old person who signs up) so the pictures could be provided to the couple of dozen people who actually do the baiting.

Their story doesn’t add up. Here’s what can be gleaned from their site.

  1. They have a pool of pictures of young girls they use for baiting

  2. The pictures are somehow available to the general public (which is why they won’t tell where they get them)

  3. They used to post the pictures of the girls they use for their baiting personas on their site, but changed the policy, and will not explain why they stopped

Here’s my thread regarding it on their forums - you have to register, but it’s free.

If you don’t want to register, here’s the last couple of posts

Been thinking, about the only acceptable source of pictures of young girls for this purpose would be if they were old photographs of contributors - but in that case, they would not be coming from some readily accessible pool that pedophiles could use to screen their victims…

My guess? They are using pictures without the permission of the children or their guardians. They have probably found a site with lots of pics of children, and the link is provided to their contributors.

If I’m wrong, I’m wrong, but if they have a legit source of pics, they should make that clear on their site. There are a lot of people who try to do what their contributors do, and you can bet not all of them care about the girl whose picture they use as they say ‘i love to give bjs’ to random sickos in chat rooms.

It seems like a creepy and wierd form of vigilantism. More like they’re having a grand old time rather than actually fighting child abuse and kiddie porn. What the hell are they trying to accomplish?

Look I despise pedophiles and have aquaintances who are recovering victims. If any of you beat the crap out of one I’m not going to turn you in. But it seems like this internet baiting is much better left to the authorities, who know the law and know what they’re doing. (hopefully). You’d be better off donating to the center for missing and exploited children. (They do good work)

And using pictures like that is just…so very wrong. No matter if its with permission or not.

I was hanging around on another forum when they busted this one guy. They got him on a Friday and had him begging for mercy all weekend. He confessed, talked to his wife, signed up for counseling, and asked them to take his pic off their site. They just recorded everything he said and made an archive of it.

Monday morning, they emailed the local news, his job, his wife, his coworkers, and everybody else they could think of.

It was on the Detroit news that day, with his picture up and the whole thing.

By Monday night he had a shotgun in his mouth, and I can’t remember why he didn’t blow his own head off. Did the gun jam? I can’t remember.

He’s fired, his wife is done with him, he’ll never work again in his profession (he’s a teacher), and he’s completely suicidal.

And, he didn’t do anything illegal.

Our justice system probably would have been much more merciful than these vigilantes.

We have a justice system in this country. I hope the assorted whack-jobs who are out to punish would-be pedos would keep that in mind, and maybe try to work with law enforcement.

Are you assuming these photos are of females who are still children?


Are they photos of females when they were children?

If the latter, then I see no problem. Adult women donate photos with their consent. Maybe female police officers, agents, etc.

Even though…sounds a little close to entrapment, if the law is initiating these “relationships”.

Sorry I missed this earlier.

I am still not sure how I feel about pedophile baiting by amateurs in general, aside from the picture aspect. It seems to have several pros and cons.

NOTE I’m going to keep using the word ‘pedophiles’ to refer to adults who want sex with young girls, even though most of the baiters are not pretending to be pre-pubescent and it’s not quite clinically accurate.


Every minute one of these guys is chatting with a fake 13 year old is a minute he’s not chatting with a real one.

Some guys are probably scared away from actually meeting a child they chat to after being ‘busted’ by amateur baiters.

Sites like these publicize how common internet pedophiles, and may make some people more cautious. This kind of stuff is terrifyingly common, back when my AIM profile said I was a 13 year old female I would get dozens of IMs from strangers a night, most of them wanting to talk about sex, most of them 18 or over. If a site like this convinces their parents to restrict their children’s internet use, it may do some good.

Sites like this may educate children as to the tactics of these guys, and make them less likely to get involved in conversation with them.


Every minute one of these guys is chatting with an amateur baiter is a minute he’s not chatting with an actual police officer who could actually put them in jail.

These pranks they play on the guys may make them more cautious and less likely to get caught - ‘Ha ha, we had him drive by the police station!’ - the pedophile may get a big enough scare that he learns not to give out real information about himself, to double-check information given to them by girls, and to take more steps to make sure they are actually talking to a real girl. This may be making these guys more effective predators, and probably makes them harder to get caught by the police.

On the forums they try to find out as much personal information as possible about the people they bait, and provide names, addresses, phone numbers, and other contact information about the person they bait - AND suspected family members, local churches and businesses, etc. Not only does this encourage vigilantism, I saw a thread where they were doing this to a person that many people on the board suspected was lying about being an adult. What if your teenage kid chats up some 14 year old, says he’s 18 to impress her, and gives her his phone number - and next thing you know everybody with the same last name in your town are getting phone calls and emails from random strangers telling them a pedophile lives there?

A couple of guys on the board seem to be real psychos themselves. Several have given me the impression that they may be pedophiles themselves. One has posted repeatedly about a 14 year old that’s a real good friend whose parents don’t want her talking with them.

I also worry that by indulging their fantasies they may be making them worse, even if they give them a scare at the end. I find it hard to believe that there would be that many 13 year old girls who would be willing to talk about sex with a stranger within minutes of meeting them online, but these baiters will. Just read through some of the logs.

Anyway, that’s what I think about what they are doing. There is another kind of baiting that I have read about some groups doing which I don’t see any problem with - they pretend to be young girls, but they avoid talking about anything sexual, and don’t try to scare or report the pedophiles - they just try to waste their time by keeping them talking with fake teens as much as possible. It’s probably not fun to turn down the advances of some horny guy for hours on end, but it’s for a good cause.

All this is aside from the use of pictures of real girls. Yes, I would have problems with it even if they were given permission to use the pictures for that purpose. I’m not sure why exactly, but it gives me a creepy feeling.

Was that Brian Graves from He was a teacher too.