Becoming Sweetie, The Computer-Generated Girl Who Took On Child Predators(fastcocreate.com)
fastcocreate.com
Becoming Sweetie, The Computer-Generated Girl Who Took On Child Predators
http://www.fastcocreate.com/3031676/anatomy-of-a-cannes-contender-becoming-sweetie-the-little-girl-who-took-on-child-predators
17 comments
I can see how being in a financial tight spot might lead me agree to commit a theft that I would not otherwise commit.
I'm having trouble figuring out what kind of spot I could find myself in that would let me be enticed into paying money to have children sexually abused.
I'm having trouble figuring out what kind of spot I could find myself in that would let me be enticed into paying money to have children sexually abused.
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 a father of two.
I am personally troubled by this approach for the simple reason it's very binary approach (no pun intended) to a very complex issue.
The articles language alone (predators) a formulation which will ensure that no matter what these guys did it will be understood in the worst possible way and inform public opinion.
I fact I believe that FastCoCreate is guilty of a form of sensationalism something we last saw during the Spanish inquisition.
And yes if someone did something like this to my kids I would want to worst possible sentence to those people, which is why it's good that we have a system where I am not going to be the judge.
I am personally troubled by this approach for the simple reason it's very binary approach (no pun intended) to a very complex issue.
The articles language alone (predators) a formulation which will ensure that no matter what these guys did it will be understood in the worst possible way and inform public opinion.
I fact I believe that FastCoCreate is guilty of a form of sensationalism something we last saw during the Spanish inquisition.
And yes if someone did something like this to my kids I would want to worst possible sentence to those people, which is why it's good that we have a system where I am not going to be the judge.
It's probably the same principle as offering to kill someone for a cop; even though they didn't really have you kill someone, it still is enough to put you in jail. Here, the perverts thought they were trying to get a little girl to take her clothes off, even though there wasn't a real little girl.
Now, if they knew it was just a computer-generated image, I think you might have a point; they'd still be perverts, but maybe (IANAL) not criminals.
Now, if they knew it was just a computer-generated image, I think you might have a point; they'd still be perverts, but maybe (IANAL) not criminals.
Can you be charged with anything further than "Conspiracy to do X" if all they have is intent?
And yet no crime were actually committed. There are no victims.
There are no victims.
In the specific instance involving "Sweetie", sure.
Please don't tell me you think that Bob, aged 51, had never before in his life propositioned a child — a child who is in all likelihood an actual slave — to perform sex acts over the internet, until he happened innocently to be hanging out in #dirtylittlegirls, and propositioned Sweetie.
In the specific instance involving "Sweetie", sure.
Please don't tell me you think that Bob, aged 51, had never before in his life propositioned a child — a child who is in all likelihood an actual slave — to perform sex acts over the internet, until he happened innocently to be hanging out in #dirtylittlegirls, and propositioned Sweetie.
Then we should catch Bob propositioning an actual child. Surely we don't want to have a justice system based on assumptions and probabilities? Either we have hard evidence or we don't. Chatting to a virtual avatar is not hard evidence of anything in my opinion.
I don't know for certain, but I don't believe the police are making arrests based solely on an alleged perp's interactions with Sweetie. If you ask me, however, Bob's propositioning Sweetie creates sufficient Probable Cause to obtain a warrant to search his computer for evidence of other, similar, interactions, with actual children. Then he can be prosecuted for the cases where there was a victim.
Whether or not you believe a victim other than society in general (or the sovereign) ought to be required for a crime, that's not an actual requirement.
Fair point.
If this group had openly advertised Sweetie as a computer-generated little girl avatar for sale, and then nailed anyone who responded, I would be a lot more conflicted. But all of these people believed that they were taking advantage of an actual child.
Attempted murder is a crime. Trying and failing to steal a car is a crime. I see no reason why attempted child abuse shouldn't also be a crime.
Attempted murder is a crime. Trying and failing to steal a car is a crime. I see no reason why attempted child abuse shouldn't also be a crime.
I don't think attempted murder of a person that doesn't exist or failing to steal a car that doesn't exist is a crime.
Attempted child abuse should be a crime, but for that, there'd have to be a child.
Attempted child abuse should be a crime, but for that, there'd have to be a child.
>>Attempted murder is a crime. Trying and failing to steal a car is a crime. I see no reason why attempted child abuse shouldn't also be a crime.
So should stabbing a mannequin should also be treated as murder, if the person doing the stabbing was 100% convinced that it was a real person? Or an attempt to break into a car made out of cardboard treated as an actual robbery,if the thief was 100% convinced it was a real thing before trying it?
I want all child molesters to rot in prison forever. I really do. But there was no children present here.
So should stabbing a mannequin should also be treated as murder, if the person doing the stabbing was 100% convinced that it was a real person? Or an attempt to break into a car made out of cardboard treated as an actual robbery,if the thief was 100% convinced it was a real thing before trying it?
I want all child molesters to rot in prison forever. I really do. But there was no children present here.
Yes and yes.
There should be nothing wrong with thinking about crime. Openly discussing and planning a crime...well, that depends on a lot of factors, but there's certainly situations where it should be fine, e.g. kids idly fantasizing about blowing away a school bully without any real means or intention to do so.
But when someone honestly and to the best of their ability attempts to commit a serious crime like murder or child abuse, then yes, absolutely they should be prosecuted. If someone attempts to kill me but screws it up, I don't want them walking free to try again and again until they get it right.
Also bear in mind that, at least in the US, "murder" and "attempted murder" are different crimes, and I'm okay with that.
There should be nothing wrong with thinking about crime. Openly discussing and planning a crime...well, that depends on a lot of factors, but there's certainly situations where it should be fine, e.g. kids idly fantasizing about blowing away a school bully without any real means or intention to do so.
But when someone honestly and to the best of their ability attempts to commit a serious crime like murder or child abuse, then yes, absolutely they should be prosecuted. If someone attempts to kill me but screws it up, I don't want them walking free to try again and again until they get it right.
Also bear in mind that, at least in the US, "murder" and "attempted murder" are different crimes, and I'm okay with that.
Yes, that's basically the legal argument being made (by, I assume, people who aren't lawyers).
It's controversial, but it's definitely accepted in some jurisdictions. Police have, in fact, nabbed car thieves using honeypot "broken down cars" on the sides of freeways.
Personal opinion: someone stabbing a mannequin with the intent to murder a real person should be charged with attempted homicide. IANAL. ;)
It's controversial, but it's definitely accepted in some jurisdictions. Police have, in fact, nabbed car thieves using honeypot "broken down cars" on the sides of freeways.
Personal opinion: someone stabbing a mannequin with the intent to murder a real person should be charged with attempted homicide. IANAL. ;)
If you try to pay a police officer costumed as a prostitute, do they let you go on the same technicality?
Which then, if you never offer to pay, leaves such a costumed officer frustrated - what if these webcam viewers literally just wanted to chat? (Treat that as a statistical experiment) Where they disconnected? Or entrapped?
Which then, if you never offer to pay, leaves such a costumed officer frustrated - what if these webcam viewers literally just wanted to chat? (Treat that as a statistical experiment) Where they disconnected? Or entrapped?
I would argue that there is a difference between having an undercover officer posing as a prostitute, and having a virtual prostitute. In the former case, by paying the officer, you are -- in a sense -- engaging a prostitute. In the latter case, you are paying for what amounts to a virtual service.
... a virtual service that the perpetrator believed was real.
Past sting operations in the narcotics space have involved fake drugs---flour in plastic bags. Perpetrators who either bought or attempted to steal the fake drugs were convicted. One can debate the morality of stings in general, but I think the question of intent vs. reality is a settled question regarding legal precedent.
Past sting operations in the narcotics space have involved fake drugs---flour in plastic bags. Perpetrators who either bought or attempted to steal the fake drugs were convicted. One can debate the morality of stings in general, but I think the question of intent vs. reality is a settled question regarding legal precedent.
I don't know much about the american legal system but where I live the question of intent and the act itself are separated.
In this specific case, as I understand it, the persons were chatting with what they believed was a real child. I think it's ok to judge based on intent in this case.
If there were a site where legally adult people posed as children using virtual avatars and voice-altering software selling sexual services and the site was advertised as such, then the issue becomes a lot more complex.
My opinion is that as long as a person doesn't show clear intent (and this is a very slippery slope, I realise) to cause harm to a minor, they should not be persecuted for their actions. And if intent is clearly determined, but no harm was actually done, I'd prefer that the individual be not punished (including not having their communications monitored, though this might only be acceptable for first offenders), but asked to attend a form of therapy. On the other hand, if harm was done, the measures to be taken should depend on presence or absence of intent, as is in other cases.
If there were a site where legally adult people posed as children using virtual avatars and voice-altering software selling sexual services and the site was advertised as such, then the issue becomes a lot more complex.
My opinion is that as long as a person doesn't show clear intent (and this is a very slippery slope, I realise) to cause harm to a minor, they should not be persecuted for their actions. And if intent is clearly determined, but no harm was actually done, I'd prefer that the individual be not punished (including not having their communications monitored, though this might only be acceptable for first offenders), but asked to attend a form of therapy. On the other hand, if harm was done, the measures to be taken should depend on presence or absence of intent, as is in other cases.
I'm with you - But in the US I believe this depends on the state. The "To catch a predator" show was specifically done in areas where the law included "intent" as a crime, rather than the actual crime IIRC.
The arrests on that show also usually result in dropped charges or even the suicide of an alleged predator. We shouldn't be condoning these kinds of tactics anywhere.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/To_Catch_a_Predator#Criticism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/To_Catch_a_Predator#Criticism
I think the generated avatar only serves as a 'honeypot', so to speak. A colleague of mine provided me with some interesting information in a discussion quite a while ago: His company a few years back provided text-only chatrooms for their customers. Being an ISP, and the fact that they also marketed it, led to quite a huge audience (also, the Internet 'rush' began).
'Predators', though not yet known under this moniker, became a problem quite soon. So what did they do? They set up automated bots, which had just enough logic to fool a human into thinking it's speaking to it's own kind. If someone engaged them in a conversation, and IIRC, asked for some sensitive information (though I'm not sure of the latter), they generated an alert and a real, human police officer took over the bot.
But either an avatar or other human being - I'm still not sure about the legality of the whole thing; a long time ago I learned something along the lines that law enforcement is not allowed to 'bait' someone into doing something illegal; as the whole situation could be doctored to force somebody to do something they wouldn't have done otherwise. I think it's related to your question; but unfortunately I can't recall what the concept is called, or if I'm completely off-track here anyway.
Though in the end; the person still did something illegal, and I can't think of this line of reasoning to work well in court.
'Predators', though not yet known under this moniker, became a problem quite soon. So what did they do? They set up automated bots, which had just enough logic to fool a human into thinking it's speaking to it's own kind. If someone engaged them in a conversation, and IIRC, asked for some sensitive information (though I'm not sure of the latter), they generated an alert and a real, human police officer took over the bot.
But either an avatar or other human being - I'm still not sure about the legality of the whole thing; a long time ago I learned something along the lines that law enforcement is not allowed to 'bait' someone into doing something illegal; as the whole situation could be doctored to force somebody to do something they wouldn't have done otherwise. I think it's related to your question; but unfortunately I can't recall what the concept is called, or if I'm completely off-track here anyway.
Though in the end; the person still did something illegal, and I can't think of this line of reasoning to work well in court.
"I'm still not sure about the legality of the whole thing; a long time ago I learned something along the lines that law enforcement is not allowed to 'bait' someone into doing something illegal; as the whole situation could be doctored to force somebody to do something they wouldn't have done otherwise. I think it's related to your question; but unfortunately I can't recall what the concept is called, or if I'm completely off-track here anyway."
The concept is "entrapment".
The concept is "entrapment".
If you know it's an avatar, maybe not. But if you think it's a real girl, then yes, absolutely it should be.
So...it's a crime to think about something? Is it a crime to think about murdering someone? Or about stealing a purse, but without actually doing any of these things?
No, you are twisting the accusation. It is not a crime to think, it is a crime to act. The law here is about the act of proposing sexual actions to a child over the internet, which has been made illegal by the UN.
Under debate is whether it is still illegal when the victim of your action does not actually exist as a person.
Under debate is whether it is still illegal when the victim of your action does not actually exist as a person.
> made illegal by the UN
The UN is not a government.
The UN is not a government.
Haven't you done more than think by participating in the conversation?
I'm all for discussing this and thinking about it, but actually chatting with the person on the other end demonstrates intent.
I'm all for discussing this and thinking about it, but actually chatting with the person on the other end demonstrates intent.
Then they should be tried for intent. And it is my understanding,that they are being accused of actually molesting a child,even though there was no child present on the other side.
> And it is my understanding,that they are being accused of actually molesting a child
That would certainly change things—where did you get that data from?
That would certainly change things—where did you get that data from?
The crime isn't thinking about abusing a child, it's intending to abuse a child. It's still somewhat in a grey area since they haven't actually harmed anyone, but it's a lot darker grey than just the having the idea to do it.
It's crime to plan to do something, no?
Right, but it's a separate crime than actually doing it, and from what I understand, the law does not separate these two in this case. The law treats it as if they were chatting to an actual child, which they weren't.
But they thought they were.
If they thought they were selling illegal drugs but they were just selling sugar they would be convicted. (In England if you sell sugar as illegal drugs you will be convicted of a drugs offence even if you know you are selling pure sugar).
If they thought they were selling illegal drugs but they were just selling sugar they would be convicted. (In England if you sell sugar as illegal drugs you will be convicted of a drugs offence even if you know you are selling pure sugar).
IANAL, and this depends on jurisdiction, but it generally requires planning plus an overt act towards the plan.
If I plan to kill my boss, saw him into pieces with a chainsaw, and put the pieces in triple-mylar garbage bags, when I go to the store to buy garbage bags I've crossed the legal threshold.
In many states, if the prosecutor can prove to the jury 1) I planned to kill my boss, saw him into pieces with a chainsaw, and put the pieces into garbage bags, and 2) bought garbage bags, I'm toast and will go away for several years. NB there is nothing wrong with just buying the garbage bags.
If I plan to kill my boss, saw him into pieces with a chainsaw, and put the pieces in triple-mylar garbage bags, when I go to the store to buy garbage bags I've crossed the legal threshold.
In many states, if the prosecutor can prove to the jury 1) I planned to kill my boss, saw him into pieces with a chainsaw, and put the pieces into garbage bags, and 2) bought garbage bags, I'm toast and will go away for several years. NB there is nothing wrong with just buying the garbage bags.
OK, but if the "offender" in this case a) spoke inappropriately to someone they believed was underage and then b) arranged a time and place to meet them, that would count, no?
Yep. Sounds like it should be easy to prove having a plan and the overt act towards the plan.
Incidentally, this is why you should always get a lawyer before talking to the cops.
Incidentally, this is why you should always get a lawyer before talking to the cops.
Is it a crime to think about murdering someone?
It's certainly a crime to plan to murder someone. These guys have gone beyond thinking about it; they have actually planned and tried to execute on the idea. What about that is different than conspiracy to murder?
Now,if these people are being accused of anything more than intent I think it is going too far.
It's certainly a crime to plan to murder someone. These guys have gone beyond thinking about it; they have actually planned and tried to execute on the idea. What about that is different than conspiracy to murder?
Now,if these people are being accused of anything more than intent I think it is going too far.
No, it's a crime to actually try to murder someone. It's a crime to grab your purse strap, try to yank it away, then give up and run. This isn't hard.
Nice false dilemma.
Of course it's not a crime to think about something. But that's not what happened here. The alleged perps propositioned a child for sexual acts. That it happened not to have been an actual, breathing child in the specific instance involving Sweetie is incidental; I'll bet you real money it was every other time...
EDIT: Or do you somehow actually think that for all 1000 people found via this "honeypot", it was the first time they ever thought, "I know what I'll do today! I'll pay a naked 8-year-old to touch herself over the internet!" and that they were just "lucky" enough to get a fake kid their first time out?
Of course it's not a crime to think about something. But that's not what happened here. The alleged perps propositioned a child for sexual acts. That it happened not to have been an actual, breathing child in the specific instance involving Sweetie is incidental; I'll bet you real money it was every other time...
EDIT: Or do you somehow actually think that for all 1000 people found via this "honeypot", it was the first time they ever thought, "I know what I'll do today! I'll pay a naked 8-year-old to touch herself over the internet!" and that they were just "lucky" enough to get a fake kid their first time out?
This is not how any justice system ever works. And I bet that you do not want it to work that way.
You're thoroughly mistaken. If you proposition a police officer masquerading as a prostitute, you will be arrested and successfully prosecuted.
Meta: What's with the tendency on HN to downvote people saying demonstrably true things? Do you somehow think that your downvote will alter the parts of reality you don't like or something?
Yes,but based on that one act,not on the "assumption" that you do it regularly and have done it a thousand times before,as the previous commenter was suggesting.
You seem to think we're advocating arresting and prosecuting people based solely on their interactions with Sweetie. That's patently untrue, and (in my case, at least) easily refuted by my reply to you else-thread, where I said:
If you ask me, however, Bob's propositioning Sweetie creates sufficient Probable Cause to obtain a warrant to search his computer for evidence of other, similar, interactions, with actual children. Then he can be prosecuted for the cases where there was a victim.
That he interacts with a virtual child in an inappropriate way is strongly suggestive that has engaged in that behavior at other times, with other, real children. The issues that cause people to act on their pedophilia tend not to result in isolated incidents, and this has been repeatedly demonstrated by years and years of study of hundreds, if not thousands, of individuals.
If the police find no evidence that he's done this before — whether because he actually hasn't (vanishingly unlikely), or because he's too good at hiding his aberrance — then we may or may not be able to prosecute him, depending on the jurisdiction.
But, for my money, Sweetie isn't per se about prosecution. It's about helping surface individuals that warrant further scrutiny, subject to due process, and then quite possibly prosecution.
If you ask me, however, Bob's propositioning Sweetie creates sufficient Probable Cause to obtain a warrant to search his computer for evidence of other, similar, interactions, with actual children. Then he can be prosecuted for the cases where there was a victim.
That he interacts with a virtual child in an inappropriate way is strongly suggestive that has engaged in that behavior at other times, with other, real children. The issues that cause people to act on their pedophilia tend not to result in isolated incidents, and this has been repeatedly demonstrated by years and years of study of hundreds, if not thousands, of individuals.
If the police find no evidence that he's done this before — whether because he actually hasn't (vanishingly unlikely), or because he's too good at hiding his aberrance — then we may or may not be able to prosecute him, depending on the jurisdiction.
But, for my money, Sweetie isn't per se about prosecution. It's about helping surface individuals that warrant further scrutiny, subject to due process, and then quite possibly prosecution.
I think it turns on the fact that Sweetie was being run by an NGO; I would not expect prosecutions solely on the basis of their evidence. If "she" were being run by the police directly, on the other hand, I wouldn't be surprised at all if some of the people they caught were prosecuted solely on the basis of this one act.
[deleted]
[deleted](1)
I am really surprised at all the negative reactions in here. Let's get some things straight:
() 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.
() 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.
() They had almost certainly done it before, and will continue to do it until stopped.
There are no difficult questions here. This is a good thing.
EDITED to add: By the way, I don't think artwork -- drawings, paintings, computer animations, whatever -- should ever be illegal per se, 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.
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.
() 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.
() 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.
() They had almost certainly done it before, and will continue to do it until stopped.
There are no difficult questions here. This is a good thing.
EDITED to add: By the way, I don't think artwork -- drawings, paintings, computer animations, whatever -- should ever be illegal per se, 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.
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.
You're making some assumptions that simply aren't backed up in the story. The story doesn't go into detail about where Sweetie was setup online or who initiated contact first or how the alleged pedophiles knew that Sweetie was only 10 years old. So entrapment may have occurred. And I have no idea why you believe that the alleged pedophiles had almost certainly done it before as that also wasn't mentioned anywhere in the story.
What we're dealing with here is a vigilante organization running sting operations where they may or may not be operating in a diligent law abiding manner. As much as I would like to catch pedophiles, I don't think that's the sort of thing we should be encouraging.
What we're dealing with here is a vigilante organization running sting operations where they may or may not be operating in a diligent law abiding manner. As much as I would like to catch pedophiles, I don't think that's the sort of thing we should be encouraging.
The article is maybe not as explicit about some of these things as it should be, but I've read about this operation before. My understanding is that they set Sweetie up in a chat room, just like the room that the author describes. The people they caught had to come to that room intentionally. I am reasonably certain Sweetie's operators were well aware of entrapment concerns and structured their interactions carefully to avoid them. (It certainly would have been a phenomenal waste to have gone to all the trouble involved in creating Sweetie and then to have blown everything by doing something stupid in the chat rooms. I don't think these people are anywhere near that stupid.)
> And I have no idea why you believe that the alleged pedophiles had almost certainly done it before
Then you know nothing about child sexual abuse. Perpetrators who are not caught are extremely likely to keep doing it. Even among those who are caught and prosecuted, recidivism is extremely high.
"Vigilante organization"? All they did was collect information and turn it over to the police. A "vigilante" is someone who attempts to enforce the law themselves, by violence. The term does not apply here.
> And I have no idea why you believe that the alleged pedophiles had almost certainly done it before
Then you know nothing about child sexual abuse. Perpetrators who are not caught are extremely likely to keep doing it. Even among those who are caught and prosecuted, recidivism is extremely high.
"Vigilante organization"? All they did was collect information and turn it over to the police. A "vigilante" is someone who attempts to enforce the law themselves, by violence. The term does not apply here.
"> And I have no idea why you believe that the alleged pedophiles had almost certainly done it before
Then you know nothing about child sexual abuse. Perpetrators who are not caught are extremely likely to keep doing it. Even among those who are caught and prosecuted, recidivism is extremely high."
The initial statement was that "because (A) they are attempting it now, (B) they had probably done it before".
That is, a high P(B|A).
You are asserting that a high P(A|B) (which is well established, I believe) implies a high P(B|A). I'm not certain that's true even as a generality, much less as a strong logical implication. Certainly, there could still be a high P(B) in this case, but I don't think it's well demonstrated.
Then you know nothing about child sexual abuse. Perpetrators who are not caught are extremely likely to keep doing it. Even among those who are caught and prosecuted, recidivism is extremely high."
The initial statement was that "because (A) they are attempting it now, (B) they had probably done it before".
That is, a high P(B|A).
You are asserting that a high P(A|B) (which is well established, I believe) implies a high P(B|A). I'm not certain that's true even as a generality, much less as a strong logical implication. Certainly, there could still be a high P(B) in this case, but I don't think it's well demonstrated.
I think there is good reason to believe that the population divides into a large majority who have never done this and a very small minority who have done it repeatedly. You would be right in general, but with such a bimodal distribution the correlation goes both ways. If most of the people who have ever done it have done it several times, and hardly anyone else has done it at all, then the odds are small that anyone you catch is doing it for the first time.
I think you also need an assumption that the criminal population is not growing (or is growing sufficiently slowly). Of course, that also seems plausible.
They did more than collect information. They went to great lengths to create information to be collected. A vigilante is someone who takes the law into their own hands. Violence is often a part of that but not required. While they may not be taking on the judgement part of law they are taking on the policing part by organizing a sting operation which is why I labeled them a vigilante organization. You're painting it as if they're simply some sort of community watch program that collects information and turns it over to the police. In truth they're somewhere in between.
You're right. I don't know much about child sexual abuse. I don't doubt that sexual perpetrators are extremely likely to continue being sexual perpetrators. But I worry that the alleged perpetrators caught in this sting operation might not all be pedophiles, that the completely unsupervised, unregulated sting operators may have been so overzealous in their pursuit of pedophiles that they may not have made absolutely certain that everyone knew they were talking to a '10 year kid'. I read in another article that the age was in the fake user's profile. Is that the only place the age was listed? Are we sure every perpetrator knew the fake user's age?
And what about the quality of graphical rendering of Sweetie? Are we positive that all of the alleged perpetrators thought it was a real person and not a computer generated avatar they were talking to? Maybe some of them realized that it was an avatar. Should it still be a crime then?
As for how much trust you have in the operators behind Sweetie, I just don't get it. Intelligent people do extremely stupid things all the time. Perhaps they initiated the sexual advances because that's what they experienced with the 8 year old boy. Perhaps they initiated the advances because in some countries entrapment isn't a concern. The article stated that the alleged offenders were from 71 different countries. I find it hard to believe the Sweetie operators would be well versed in that many different countries' laws. Or perhaps they carefully worded everything exactly as you believe. I have no idea because the article didn't go into it. I've looked for articles that provide more detail but haven't found any. If you have any links, I'd appreciate it.
You're right. I don't know much about child sexual abuse. I don't doubt that sexual perpetrators are extremely likely to continue being sexual perpetrators. But I worry that the alleged perpetrators caught in this sting operation might not all be pedophiles, that the completely unsupervised, unregulated sting operators may have been so overzealous in their pursuit of pedophiles that they may not have made absolutely certain that everyone knew they were talking to a '10 year kid'. I read in another article that the age was in the fake user's profile. Is that the only place the age was listed? Are we sure every perpetrator knew the fake user's age?
And what about the quality of graphical rendering of Sweetie? Are we positive that all of the alleged perpetrators thought it was a real person and not a computer generated avatar they were talking to? Maybe some of them realized that it was an avatar. Should it still be a crime then?
As for how much trust you have in the operators behind Sweetie, I just don't get it. Intelligent people do extremely stupid things all the time. Perhaps they initiated the sexual advances because that's what they experienced with the 8 year old boy. Perhaps they initiated the advances because in some countries entrapment isn't a concern. The article stated that the alleged offenders were from 71 different countries. I find it hard to believe the Sweetie operators would be well versed in that many different countries' laws. Or perhaps they carefully worded everything exactly as you believe. I have no idea because the article didn't go into it. I've looked for articles that provide more detail but haven't found any. If you have any links, I'd appreciate it.
I think the question you have to ask is, is anyone going to be prosecuted solely on the basis of the evidence gathered by this organization? Such a prosecution would be impossible in the US and EU, and I would hope, most other places as well. The police cannot in general trust evidence they did not collect themselves.
What can happen, though, is that they can open investigations on these individuals and get search warrants. If they find evidence of any other crimes, as I think they are likely to, they can prosecute on that basis.
What can happen, though, is that they can open investigations on these individuals and get search warrants. If they find evidence of any other crimes, as I think they are likely to, they can prosecute on that basis.
That sounds better and I'd be more likely to be on board with the program if I knew nobody was being prosecuted solely on the information gathered from the sting operation. I'd still have 2 worries: 1) that the Sweetie organizers might accidentally (or purposely) leak the information of the alleged pedophiles to the public, potentially shaming and humiliating an innocent party, and 2) that other organizations might run their own sting operations but fail to do so in an ethical, responsible manner.
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.
[1] http://freakonomics.com/2011/08/04/porn-and-rape-the-debate-...
[1] http://freakonomics.com/2011/08/04/porn-and-rape-the-debate-...
I think this is possible, and would support research into it.
Why do these stories always bring out the white-knight nerds crying about "entrapment" or questioning if a crime was truly committed?
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. 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
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.
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.
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.
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. 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
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.
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.
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.
Of course its different - the avatar isn't a real person, not in any meaningful sense. So what if they witness a person propositioning a poster, or a blow-up doll, or a DVD on pause with a sexy actress on screen? Its not a crime, period.
I don't apologize for criminals; just counseling caution when painting everything with the crime brush.
I don't apologize for criminals; just counseling caution when painting everything with the crime brush.
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.
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.
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.
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:
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 she 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.
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.
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.
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:
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 ?
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 she 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'm so happy these computer generated little girls are now safe.
I'm happy the real flesh-and-blood children who were accessible one screen name over from Sweetie are now marginally safer.
They're probably not. Unfortunately, I don't expect that enslaved little girls whose associated revenue stream dries up typically wind up safe little girls - the perverts on the other end of a bunch of wires aren't their biggest threat. I'm happy that there's less inducement to enslave new little girls...
I don't think it is right for a state to bait people into committing crimes.
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.
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.
Most people have some weakness that could be exploited.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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
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?
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
Is it really a crime to proposition a virtual child?
If you know it's a virtual child then almost certainly not (except, perhaps, in .au, which I think at least had statute defining even obviously cartoon depictions of naked minors as child porn).
The caveat here is that these (alleged) perps all believed they were interacting with a real child. In Common Law countries, at least, criminality exists in the presence of mens rea — the "guilty mind" — and actus reus, an overt action.
Virtuality or not, if you think you're chatting up an actual, breathing, 8-year-old girl, and offer money for her to remove her undergarments, you are a criminal.
The caveat here is that these (alleged) perps all believed they were interacting with a real child. In Common Law countries, at least, criminality exists in the presence of mens rea — the "guilty mind" — and actus reus, an overt action.
Virtuality or not, if you think you're chatting up an actual, breathing, 8-year-old girl, and offer money for her to remove her undergarments, you are a criminal.
No, but if it is clear you do not know the child is virtual then it is clear evidence that you are the sort of person who would proposition a real child. That information can make cases against predators easier, and might even be valuable for the police to get a search warrant.
So we're OK with raiding and arresting the "sort of person" we find undesirable on their potential to commit a crime?
I'm not sure if thought crime or pre-crime are more abhorrent concepts, but here we are.
I'm not sure if thought crime or pre-crime are more abhorrent concepts, but here we are.
Yes,I'm ok with it,as long as the charge is one of intent. Do you also think that we should allow people to plan murders, robberies, etc. with no penalty as long as they do not follow through before they are caught?
> Do you also think that we should allow people to plan murders, robberies, etc. with no penalty as long as they do not follow through before they are caught?
Yes, there's nothing illegal or "wrong" with thinking. That's why every `conspiracy to X` charge necessarily requires a proof of intent. It isn't illegal to think about killing someone, if it was 99% of the world would be in jail.
Put it this way, should it be illegal for whitehat hackers to test a program, on their home computer, for bugs? There's no intent to do harm but what they;re doing could cause harm if they intended to.
Yes, there's nothing illegal or "wrong" with thinking. That's why every `conspiracy to X` charge necessarily requires a proof of intent. It isn't illegal to think about killing someone, if it was 99% of the world would be in jail.
Put it this way, should it be illegal for whitehat hackers to test a program, on their home computer, for bugs? There's no intent to do harm but what they;re doing could cause harm if they intended to.
Planning != merely thinking. Planning implies intent. And how could white hats harm anyone by practicing a hack on their own system? There's also a benefit to this sort of thing. Where is the benefit in planning a murder or searching for children to abuse? Poor analogy.
I can plan a trip to Italy, complete with finding best flights, hotel, etc with no intention of traveling to Italy. Where's the benefit?
The level of thinking you do should not and does not automatically cause you to have a certain level of intent.
How could "predators" harm anyone if they're talking to a computer model?
The level of thinking you do should not and does not automatically cause you to have a certain level of intent.
How could "predators" harm anyone if they're talking to a computer model?
You could, but that would be a stupid thing to do, as would planning a murder that you have no intention of committing just "for fun". If you do that, well, hope no one finds your plans.
Jurors aren't mind readers. We have have a practical way to determine there was intent. Creating a plan to commit a crime shows intent. If you were doing it just because you're an ass-hat then you may pay the price for being an idiot.
No reasonable person is going to document a plan for a crime they have no intention of committing. You're living in a theoretical fantasy land.
Jurors aren't mind readers. We have have a practical way to determine there was intent. Creating a plan to commit a crime shows intent. If you were doing it just because you're an ass-hat then you may pay the price for being an idiot.
No reasonable person is going to document a plan for a crime they have no intention of committing. You're living in a theoretical fantasy land.
Plenty of people fantasize, to great lengths, about killing some one who has wronged them. Under your view 99% of the population should be in jail because they've thought about killing someone.
You're obviously not reading what I write. I'm not talking about fantasizing, I'm talking about planning. not the same thing.
What would you suggest that we do with someone caught with plans to bomb a building? Let them go until they actually do it and then arrest them?
What would you suggest that we do with someone caught with plans to bomb a building? Let them go until they actually do it and then arrest them?
What if you are under the assumption that said child was real?
[deleted]
With a conviction rate of less than %0.000005 of those committing these acts, this is something governments ought to be pursuing.
Signing the petition http://youtube.com/sweetie
Signing the petition http://youtube.com/sweetie
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.
So why make their lives any more miserable?
Those who abuse girls IRL should burn in hell though.
So why make their lives any more miserable?
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.
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.
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.
"My name is Sweetie. I am 10 years old. I live in the Phillipines."
~ from the video
~ from the video
Thanks. That answers part of it, but it doesn't answer the question of what age people would rate the Avatar at. The two should be consistent.
Yes and no. I haven't seen the whole video, so I'd really have to know what their procedure was for engaging (suspects/victims/potential predators, depending on one's [apparently wide-ranging in this thread ;) ] view). "She said she was 10 but she looked 18" isn't really a tenable defense, as far as I'm aware.
In every US jurisdiction I'm familiar with, at least, if the honeypot declares "I'm 10 years old," that's it. Game over if the predator continues to engage sexually; the honeypot's face-value declaration of age is enough to get the predator on the hook for intent.
FYI, while Sweetie is a next step in that it has an audio-visual component, the standard operating procedure in text-only fora for years has been adult male F.B.I. agents roleplaying as a young male or female child to nab predators. The declaration of age is part of that standard operating procedure to make it easy to prove intent ("the chatter even said he was 10 and the perpetrator still went on with it!").
In every US jurisdiction I'm familiar with, at least, if the honeypot declares "I'm 10 years old," that's it. Game over if the predator continues to engage sexually; the honeypot's face-value declaration of age is enough to get the predator on the hook for intent.
FYI, while Sweetie is a next step in that it has an audio-visual component, the standard operating procedure in text-only fora for years has been adult male F.B.I. agents roleplaying as a young male or female child to nab predators. The declaration of age is part of that standard operating procedure to make it easy to prove intent ("the chatter even said he was 10 and the perpetrator still went on with it!").
I'm not saying it's a defense - it's clearly not. There just seems to be something creepy about using a representation that looks older and calling it a younger age.
Why is this downvoted to zero? Doesn't anyone else find the whole thing creepy?
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.
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.