[e12e]

Are all the network carriers (who arguably profited from carrying the traffic) also charged?

I'd very much like to see some protection for carriers, be they network operators, or "softer" Tor etc operators.

Yes the most heinous things on the Internet will crawl through. I'm not a supporter of child pornography -- but shouldn't we focus on finding those making porn, actively abusing kids, rather than those distributing it?

Is there even a real economic incentive to distribute that filth?

[csense]

> Is there even a real economic incentive to distribute that filth?

I'm not a predator, and I'm not really trained or experienced in criminal justice or psychology, so everything I say about how they think is pure speculation.

But I'd suppose that there is economic incentive:

(1) Direct payment. I'm sure some people are probably willing to buy such content. I'm also sure that, if somebody else can figure out how to charge buyers and receive money, without leaving a trail back to themselves, some people are willing to sell such content.

(2) Reciprocation/barter. Instead of trading money for content, they could trade content for content between individuals. For people who publish to message boards and the like, I assume they're trying to reciprocate for value they receive from others' posts. Or encourage others to post more, perhaps even saying they'll post an image from their collection for every image posted by someone else.

(3) Enjoyment of the act of posting itself. One of the reasons people choose a criminal lifestyle -- or any extreme lifestyle, really -- is the pleasure of taking risks. Distributing illegal content is risky and some people may enjoy it for that reason.

[e12e]

I suppose a more sinister (and perhaps) real profit is that it serves as commercials/advertisement for child sex rings/human trafficers. If by nothing else boosting demand.

But then that would have to be conclusively proved (another possibility is that paedophiles are less likely to prey on real children if they have access to child porn. Based on studies of porn in general, I'd doubt that, however).

[VMG]

> shouldn't we focus on finding those making porn, actively abusing kids, rather than those distributing it?

False dichotomy.

Regardless on how you stand on distributing child pornography, a person actively distributing it from their connection and a person allowing others to route CP via their connection are logically equivalent in my opinion.

[wwwtyro]

> a person actively distributing it from their connection and a person allowing others to route CP via their connection are logically equivalent

False equivalence.

Someone can simultaneously support anonymous communication without supporting CP (philosophically, if not practically).

They're not specifically allowing distribution of CP, they're allowing distribution of all anonymous communication.

[baak]

That makes it totally okay then. Whew, I was worried they were specifically allowing Child Pornography. Thankfully, the distribution of pictures of naked kids is just a byproduct of their freedom.

[Tipzntrix]

The distribution of illegal drugs to greater distances is just a byproduct of public transit or automobile sales.

[mistercow]

I like how you say "logically equivalent" as if that magically makes it a rational position.

[pi18n]

Then it is fine to charge the ISPs with distribution as well. Oops, now you broke the internet.

[VMG]

ISPs keep track of who does what on their connection and will tell law enforcement if somebody does something dodgy. If they didn't, it would break the internet.

[anonymous]

You can't be serious. There's no civilized country where ISPs are even allowed to look at their users traffic. Observing traffic for suspicious behavior would also be completely over their head from a technical perspective. The only instance where ISPs are taking action by themselves is when network abuse occurs (as in DoS attacks).

[jrabone]

Try again. That is exactly what is happening in the UK with deep packet inspection to "traffic shape" torrents, Phorm to inject targetted adverts, various child-porn filtering systems which route traffic to second-level firewalls based on suspicious IP addresses. See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleanfeed_(content_blocking_sys...

http://www.thinkbroadband.com/news/4841-bt-given-14-days-to-...

http://www.techweekeurope.co.uk/news/isps-defend-new-porn-fi...

[anonymous]

I'm well aware of these things and none of them has anything to do with ISPs proactively snitching on individual users for the purpose of reporting suspicious activity to law enforcement, which was what my parent and my comment was all about.

(Though I agree that Deep Packet Inspection and Ad Injection may technically be considered a form of "looking at users traffic", albeit an automated one.)

[svachalek]

In the US, the ISPs responsibilities and actions in this regard are considered a state secret.

http://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security/government-confir...

[smokeyj]

Lol. Break the Internet?!?

[Hannan]

Do you feel the same way about someone operating an open wifi access point? To me the active distributor is quite a bit worse than someone operating an open wifi connection or a Tor exit node.

[e12e]

I didn't mean to set them up as mutually exclusive -- but surely what we want to stop is the abuse of kids? While I don't have a problem with banning child porn (which would be what? Younger than 21 in the US, younger than 16 in Norway and younger than 12 in the Netherlands? Who would decide? Does it include all pictures of naked kids? Artists renditions ?).

The real offence is the making of porn that involves kids.

Also; I think it is really weird that possessing (or distributing) any media file can carry a minimum 6 year sentence. That's more than manslaughter. If for no other reason that it pretty much renders everyone vulnerable to blackmail by very easily planting evidence.

[TheAmazingIdiot]

Might I remind everyone that trading in snuff films (where someone is murdered and taped) is legal.

The act of murder is illegal.

Why is this different for child molestation films? I think we can put both murder and child abuse as horrible crimes.

[DanBC]

"Trading in snuff films" is not legal in all regions. But, even ignoring that, there's a difference.

Murder is rare. Films of actual murder are even rarer. Brutal snuff type films can be faked.

Child sexual abuse is not rare. Films and photographs of child sexual abuse are not that rare. Films and photographs of children being abused are hard to fake.

People who are caught with images of child sexual abuse tend to have large collections - tens of thousands of images. People need images to trade with other collectors. Researchers think that the collecting aspect drives creation of images of child sexual abuse.

[TheAmazingIdiot]

This topic needs merged out.

What is a picture of child exploitation? Perhaps, a picture of a baby naked? Or how about a kid doing somewhat lewd acts fully clothed? Or how about pictures by others of those child beauty pageants?

Who actually describes lewd? Or is it in the eyes of the beholder of the picture for those gray areas?

Next, "child porn" pictures are a possess-only crime, no mens rea required. So, how do we tell if a picture is a legal 18 yr old, instead an evil completely morally corrupt (but legal to fuck) 17 year old?

[darkarmani]

Even better, sending CP to every single politician should automatically make them all felons. Possession is what is illegal, so I'm just waiting for an internet virus that spreads CP onto millions of computers.

[lotharbot]

According to US courts, "possession" requires knowledge.

via http://www.nycourts.gov/ctapps/Decisions/2012/May12/70opn12.... and quoted in more depth elsewhere in this thread.

[DanBC]

To echo lotharbot, English law requires "knowledge" for a offence to have been committed.

[SageRaven]

Part of the US legal theory is that each viewing of the offending media is an affront to the victim(s), causing them further harm.

I personally don't agree with this line of thought, as that line of thinking leads down a dark road. I think Jessie Slaughter, the Star Wars Kid, and relatives of those beheaded/executed publicly abroad likely suffered measurable emotional damage from the spread of those videos, but we'd be idiots make that illegal. The mass media in general profits immensely off of the embarrassment and emotional suffering of individuals, and while the practice is abhorrent, censoring such media is not the right thing to do.

So far as I know, there has been at least once case where the victim of child porn successfully sued a person for damages because he was in possession of her photos and videos. I don't know the case name, but I read about it on the "cyb3rcrim3" blog, which I highly recommend for people wanting/needing to know about the law plays out with regard to such issues.

[btilly]

I am personally OK with the laws as they are.

Why? Because I don't see viewing bad stuff as a crime. But I believe that most people who want to see a snuff film are not murderers, while I believe that most people who are interested in child porn are pedophiles who likely offended.