Hacker News Reader

Comment by kefka | Hacker News Reader

And that's what we get when simple possession of an image is a statutory crime with no means rea.

I can watch videos of people getting killed on reddit. I can watch rape videos. I can even watch videos of horrific crimes....

But how dare I watch someone under 18 get naked through a computer. Even if that someone is myself. The worst part is that, while in most other crimes, account for intentionality is considered. (Something falling in my cart while I walk out the store isn't shoplifting, yet shoving something in my pocket is.) Instead this "crime" frankly shouldn't be. It is proof a crime took place however. Its too easy to have a potential dangerous image... even from hosting a Tor gateway

Edit: at absolute minimum, there should be a mens rea requirement where possession or transmission of child pornography took place.

View on HN

Congratulations, you're now on an FBI watch list.

In honestly though, you're not wrong. Richard Stallman has his controversial stance on child porn as well and I tend to agree with him. It is really really bizarre that modern western society doesn't seem to have a problem with video of soldiers shooting up little kids in Baghdad, yet a picture of a teenager showing her breasts to her boyfriend via text is instant grounds for being locked up (in Australia there is a zero tolerance police and teenagers have gone to jail and are on sex offender registries for just that; although their sex offender databases are confidential and not as fucked up as America's).

However, sexual assault on children is a heinous crime. It's sad and destroys the lives of kids who parents hope to keep from getting tainted by the world as long as possible. It's not unjustified to hate this crime to the degree which it is, but it's also kinda bizarre we don't treat videos of kids getting shot the same way. People get off on that stuff too; sexually.

What's even more interesting about this case is that the police knew CP was downloaded from his IP address. That might because the United States has mandatory ISP reporting, or potentially his IP was found on a raided website:

http://chartsbin.com/view/q4y

I'm more interested in how that information was obtained, and whether that process involved violating the rights of individuals of people not associated at all with any crimes.

> Congratulations, you're now on an FBI watch list.

I'm not surprised. Considering I work with Tor extensively, along with cryptocurrencies and other 'interesting stuff', I guess I fit right in with the tech crowd on there.

I'm all for just punishment, from which I think pedophilia is most certainly a crime. It gets... fuzzy around a lot of areas though, especially after puberty up to 17. The law, frankly, is just a total mess. Sex- OK, sext- CP, fake license- pedophilia.... on and on.

Pedophilia is a psychiatric disorder.

Pedophilia is a sexual orientation. Nobody chooses to be attracted to kids.

Homosexuality was viewed as psychiatric disorder not too long ago as well. Although some people still think it is - are you one of them?

Whatever. If they can't control their urges, and they sexually abuse people whom can't give consent, they need to be put away.

Whether that is a mental health asylum, prison, or somewhere/somehow else, so be it.

I don't think they should be abused either, as it's a popular trend in the penal system to use rape as an informal deterrent for criminals.

So is homophilia, in many parts of the world or (even recent) history.

Um, consent? Two 'homophiliacs' can agree to have sex with each other. Not so much with the other one...

The *philia range of words do not describe physical acts, much less "having sex". They merely describe the object of one's affection.

Or do you believe that e.g. audiophiles hump their speakers, and bibliophiles use the library for public orgies?

> Or do you believe that e.g. audiophiles hump their speakers

Well, yes. But only because it's really easy to imagine after browsing their forums.

Tip of my hat to you, good sir! LOL.

The laws on child pornography are obviously formulated with pedophilia / child molesters in mind. Unfortunately, the laws ended up being a typical moral panic mess and ended up being overly harsh and broad. Minors charged with child pornography for sexting each other completely undermines the original intent of the law, in my opinion.

I'm curious what the laws / regulations would be for general social media, image hosts, and other businesses that host user content. It's pretty much a given that at some point, there will probably be some illegal content uploaded onto it (including potentially child pornography). In some ways, a Tor exit node sort of falls under that same boat: you are indirectly passing information generated / requested by users.

Now, Twitter or Facebook doesn't going to get raided / computers confiscated every time an illegal image passes through their network. But I'm sure the police may ask questions during investigations (and I'm sure the companies comply as best they can). So I honestly think what happened here is fine. (I'd think differently if the police automatically confiscated computers and trashed houses of Tor exit nodes for no reason.)

I forget where I read it, but being on the BSD mailing list also put you on said FBI list.

I'm sure I'm sitting nice and pretty on several lists.

What's even more baffling, in many countries even virtual child porn is illegal. Drawings, computer-generated graphics, adult actors pretending to be children, ... everything. Personally, if pedophiles want to jerk off, I'd prefer they used fake child porn instead of actual kids.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com