P2p Porn Child
🛑 ALL INFORMATION CLICK HERE 👈🏻👈🏻👈🏻
P2p Porn Child
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I laughed myself silly at Brass Eye. I think this should be deleted. This is not a "free speech" issue at all. Let's face it - some things simply don't belong on Wikipedia. Removal of material may make total-free-speech people uncomfortable, but they're missing an important point: Wikipedia is certainly not required to carry somebody else's message. If somebody finds it oh-so-important that pedophiles can find their fix, they should pay to host this page themselves.
Kirun 19:23, 10 Oct 2003 (UTC)
I don't mind general information about where kiddie porn comes from, laws about it, police efforts to derail it, or free speech issues surrounding it. What I object to is the information that spells out how to get it . I believe that Wikipedia's reputation would eventually suffer if such information remains in the encyclopedia. -- Cyan 20:44, 10 Oct 2003 (UTC)
The article is not about the distinction between US and German law and whether pictures of consenting youths ought or ought not to be illegal, all of which can and should be discussed under paedophilia or child pornography . The article (and let me repeat this) is about how to find pictures of "child pornography" - pictures which must, by definition, involve a real child being sexually abused, sometime, somewhere. An encyclopaedia has no business acting as an enabler for child abuse, even if the information is in some abstract sense "interesting" to some other readers. If anyone disagrees, I will post an article on How to lure your neighbour's six-year old son into your basement and rape, strangle and dismember him without getting caught (and with a bit of research I could write such an article), and see what we think of the informational value of that. Adam 14:34, 11 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Well, is this "an article we don't want to have"? Clearly some people want to have it; otherwise it would never have appeared in the first place, and nobody would be opposing its deletion now. Personally, I found it very informative. I was surprised by quite a lot of its content, which might mean that (a) I lead a very sheltered existence, or (b) this is not very widely available information, or (c) it's made up. Assuming that the answer isn't (c), I think it should be kept, so that others may be similarly informed, if they want to be. Of course, the article needs some work, most importantly to stop it from sounding like a "How-to" article. (I think that any article which tells people to do anything is POV, because that implicitly endorses the activity in question.) But Martin has already made an excellent start at NPOVing, and I'm sure that eventually that particular problem will be well and truly sorted out.
Of course, as well as being NPOV, we have to make sure it's all verifiable. To me, that means that all the information should be found in publically available sources. And I think we had better make that legally available sources, by the way! (Legally in the countries where most of those working on the English-language Wikipedia live, I mean.) Some of the content sounds like original research to me; for example, the bit about finding a strangely-named JPEG file on a P2P network sounds like a personal recollection. I hope that User:Paranoid will see this discussion and remove those sections that are from personal experience, and provide references for those bits that aren't. If everything in the article comes from references available elsewhere then I think we are on safe ground, because we are only summarising what is already public knowledge, and not adding to it. That's what an encyclopaedia should be anyway. (See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not - the bit about "Primary research".) -- Oliver P. 09:12, 12 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Well, in case anyone was still doubting my early position that procedural (HOW-TO) information has a dangerous tendency to be POV, I think this is an excellent example case. I have no objection to rewriting this article in a fashion in which it explains the origins and distribution of child pornography neutrally instead of giving advice on how to obtain it. The current article is not only procedural, it is grossly POV in its tone and lacks references. For a good example of how to write about child pornography neutrally, see the 1992 article The Trade in Child Pornography by Jan Schuijer and Benjamin Rossen.
Our general policy in cases like these has been: If the article is not rewritten to be useful and NPOV within the deletion period (7 days), dump it. So if Paranoid thinks this is useful information, then he should do the work of getting it into a useful form. That means: Instead of giving advice how to obtain child pornography, describe neutrally, with references, how child pornography is obtained. Vocabulary like "low hanging fruits" is of course entirely inappropriate for such an article.
To all those who express moral outrage, I would however add this: The definitions of child pornography internationally vary greatly. It would be completely legal for me to own pictures of 14-year-olds having sex, even with older persons, because this is not child pornography in Germany (the age of consent is 14). I personally own a copy of the sex ed book "Show Me!" by Will McBride which includes photos of under-10-year-olds exploring each others' genitalia. This book, while surrounded by controversy, is completely legal (because it does not show sexual abuse, which is the definition of child pornography in Germany) and continues to be used in progressive sex-education in Europe.
Aside from that, few would argue that there is no difference between pictures of youths engaging in consensual sex and those of children being raped with older persons (these latter pictures being, by general admission, a small minority in the world wide corpus of child pornography). Yet, US law makes no difference here (in Germany it would be the interpretation of the judge whether the children were abused), and in fact juveniles have been prosecuted under child pornography laws. There are good arguments that can be made for and against possession laws, as well. Child pornography is an issue far too complex to treat it with the emotional moral simplicity that is commonly found when children are involved. —Eloquence 00:12, Oct 11, 2003 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page . If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page .
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Tor
.onion domain
Tor2web
*Maintains additional presence on the surface web
Playpen was a notorious darknet child pornography website that operated from August 2014 to March 2015. [1] [2] The website operated through a hidden service through the Tor network which allowed users to use the website anonymously. After running the website for 6 months, the website owner Steven W. Chase was captured by the FBI . After his capture, the FBI continued to run the website for another 13 days as part of Operation Pacifier .
When it was shut down in March 2015, the site had over 215,000 users and hosted 23,000 sexually explicit images and videos of children as young as toddlers.
The shutdown operation, called Operation Pacifier, involved the FBI hijacking the site and continuing to serve content for two weeks (from February 19, 2015 until March 4, 2015). During this time the FBI used a malware -based " Network Investigative Technique " to hack into the web browsers of users accessing the site, thereby revealing their identities. The operation led to the arrest of 956 site users and five prison sentences.
While the FBI claimed to have knowledge about the existence of the website right from its beginning, it was unable to track down the servers locations or the site owner. The reason for their struggle was the fact that Playpen was hosted as a hidden service via Tor . Only a mishap of the site owner revealing his IP address finally allowed the law enforcement to track down both page and personnel. [1]
The investigation led to the sentencing of Steven W. Chase, a 58-year-old from Florida who created the website, to 30 years in prison in May 2017. His two co-defendants pleaded guilty and were sentenced to 20 years each earlier in 2017 for their involvement in Playpen. [1]
All people that used this site had their Google and Microsoft accounts deleted.
In 2017, charges were dropped against one member of the site, after the court demanded that details of the hacking tool be released. The FBI preferred to keep the NIT ( network investigative technique ) malware a secret for future investigations. [3] [4] [5]
The investigation was criticized by the Electronic Frontier Foundation because, after having taken control of the website, the FBI continued for nearly two weeks to operate the website and thus distribute child pornography, i.e. exactly the same crime the bureau sought to stop. [6] The lawyer of a defendant in the case stated that the FBI not only operated the website, but improved it so its number of visitors rose sharply while it was under their control. [7]
Challenges were raised about the FBI's possibly severe misuse of the initial search warrant, leading to the likely dismissal of much of the gathered evidence against one defendant. [8] [9] On August 28, 2019, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the warrant was invalid but that the evidence obtained was not required to be excluded due to the good-faith exception doctrine. [10]
By TERRY SPENCER September 27, 2022 GMT
Connect with the definitive source for global and local news
All contents © copyright 2022 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.
BIRMINGHAM, Ala. (AP) — An attorney who worked on the staff of Gov. Kay Ivey pleaded guilty to a child pornography charge and faces a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison, federal prosecutors said Tuesday.
CHICAGO (AP) — R. Kelly's former business manager asked a federal judge to award him $850,000 in attorneys fees after a jury acquitted him during the same trial in Chicago at which the R&B singer was convicted of child pornography charges.
BOSTON (AP) — A 65-year-old Massachusetts man who admitted to filming the sexual abuse of two children and producing or attempting to produce child pornography by secretly recording 11 other children has been sentenced to 60 years in prison, federal prosecutors said.
ST. LOUIS (AP) — A retired St. Louis priest faces sentencing in January after admitting that he possessed thousands of images containing child pornography.
James T. Beighlie, 72, pleaded guilty Wednesday in federal court to two counts of possession of child pornography.
PORTLAND, Ore. (AP) — The former mayor of Beaverton, Oregon, has pleaded guilty to a federal charge of possessing child pornography.
The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Oregon said Dennis “Denny” Doyle, 74, entered the plea Tuesday as part of a plea agreement in which a sentence of one year and one day will be recommended.
CONCORD, N.H. (AP) — A former juvenile parole officer in New Hampshire has been sentenced to 11 years in federal prison for possession of child pornography and trying to send an explicit image to a child.
VANCOUVER, Wash. (AP) — A former manager at an Arby’s restaurant in Washington has been sentenced to more than five years in prison after admitting he possessed child pornography and urinated into a milkshake mix that might have been served to dozens of people.
FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla. (AP) — Prosecutors in the penalty trial of Florida school shooter Nikolas Cruz began their rebuttal of the defense case Tuesday by questioning whether his birth mother drank as heavily during pregnancy as some witnesses portrayed.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
^ " Pre-trial preparation in computer child pornography cases: combating the watering down of Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition in state prosecutions , Ian Friedman, The Vindicator, 12.09.2005
^ See, e.g., R. v. Sharpe
^ What's obscene in Canada?
^ US judge rules The Tin Drum is not child pornography , David Walsh, 23 October 1998, downloaded 22 April 2007
^ Jones, L., and Finkelhor, D. (2001). The Decline in Child Sexual Abuse Cases . Bulletin. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
^ Dunne, Purdie, Cook, Boyle, & Najman (2003). "Is Child Sexual Abuse Declining? Evidence from a Population-Based Survey of Men and Women in Australia," Child Abuse & Neglect: The International Journal , 27(2):141-52
^ "Internet porn 'increasing child abuse' " . Guardian Unlimited (in English ). Guardian News and Media Limited. 2004-01-12 . Retrieved 2007-06-01 . Demand for child pornography on the internet has led to an increase in sex abuse cases, {{ cite news }} : CS1 maint: unrecognized language ( link )
^ DCSF: Referrals, Assessments and Children and Young People who are the subject of a Child Protection Plan or are on Child Protection Registers, England - Year ending 31 March 2007
Discussion of the ArbCom pedophile userbox case and its repercussions for pedophiles editing Wikipedia
PetraSchelm , not to digress, but I would like to inquire into your interesting observation - so, in your opinion, pedophiles should now, all of a sudden, have a say in pedophilia-related articles? How intriguing... Well, unfortunately, ArbCom disagrees with you, whether justly or not, because self-identifying as a pedophile has been established as a sure way for an editor to get premablocked. If that's not a way to "suppress the views of pedophiles here on Wikipedia," I don't know what is. Not to say that the ArbCom is fully justified in its conduct. Would you now like to contest the ArbCom's approach? ~ Homologeo ( talk ) 21:13, 3 May 2008 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]
Pedophiles are not and have never been blocked from editing wikipedia. Nor are murderers or any kind of convicted criminals blocked from editing wikipedia, nor a re rascists or anybody of any class, colour or creed. That is stating the obvious and arbcom have never said differently21:16, 3 May 2008 (UTC). Thanks, SqueakBox
Well, I pretty sure ArbCom members and other admins that decided to block editors for self-identifying as pedophiles or for editing in a manner deemed sympathetic to pedophiles or PPAs would disagree with you. Besides, precedent has already brought this type of blocking almost to a level of uncontested procedure by admins. ~ Homologeo ( talk ) 21:22, 3 May 2008 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]
No they would not disagree with me. Dcmdevit said the same thing the other day. We block editors for self-identifying as pedophiles and for POV pushing pedophile beliefs but we most certainly do not block anybody for "being" a pedophile. If someone knew that another editor, who edited only sports articles and had only self-identified as loving cricket , was in fact a convicted pedophile he could not use that knowledge to see the editor blocked. this is self-evident. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:36, 3 May 2008 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]
If this is how you regard the situation, then there's probably little I can say to change your mind. However, there's been plenty of cases where editors were blocked for supposedly simply "being" pedophiles or PPAs, having been deemed to be such by others, or for having edited in a manner that was said to reflect sympathy for pedophiles or PPAs. Of course, you'll deny that anything of this nature has happened, but I really don't think this disagreement of ours will lead anywhere productive anyways. ~ Homologeo ( talk ) 21:58, 3 May 2008 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]
These editors were not editing on cricket or box jellyfish, though, they were editing the pedophile articles and appeared to have an agenda, its totally different. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:04, 3 May 2008 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]
^ Cite error: The named reference Onlinepred was invoked but never defined (see the help page ).
^ Jump up to: a b Hobbs, Christopher James (1999). Child Abuse and Neglect: A Clinician's Handbook . Elsevier Health Sciences. p. 328. ISBN 0443058962 . Child pornography is part of the violent continuum of child sexual abuse {{ cite book }} : Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored ( |author= suggested) ( help )
^ Jump up to: a b c d e Cite error: The named reference doj1 was invoked but never defined (see the help page ).
This is an area of massive international importance, and yet this entire article is basically unreadable. I'd like to see some ways police around the world are combating this, some famous cases, and maybe some historical perspective.
Can someone please step up to the plate and clean up this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.10.173.234 ( talk ) 22:57, 17 January 2008 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]
Titsocus of the picture or video lewd. There was a US case where a man order a japan video of a 13ish girl, dress, but the camera zoomed in to her as she stoof there. it's a major reference case, any lawyer would know it.
a later line, "Operation Cathedral that resulted in multi-national arrests and 7 convictions as well as uncovering 750,000 images with 1,200 unique identifiable faces being distributed over the web" what is never address, is the lack, of "proof" they state how many identifiable faces there are, but they don't state how many unknowns there are. Newspapers never want to cover a store about a person being charged with images of child porn, let there is no child.
Collection by pedophiles, let's make "people who look at picture weird-o's" what lets look at the world, (if wiki is a even playing field) from http://www.coolnurse.com/teen_pregnancy_rates.htm ,
Fact: One million teens in the USA will become pregnant over the next twelve months. Ninety-five percent of those pregnancies are unintended. About one third will end in abortion; one third will end in spontaneous miscarriage; and one third will continue their pregnancy to term and keep their baby.
that's means while we go after a few 100 people for looking at images, we as america have 500,000 minors getting laid and knocked up. Why don't the police find out who the father is? there are child porn case of teenages, minors who get arrrested and changed with child porn.
MY PERSONAL NOTE: i think child porn(and for sure child having sex) should be illegal! but normally child porn is illegal because the "rights and protection" of the child, yet to me hollywood is no different in the breaking of a childs rights.
Cases: i can get frommy lawyer, many legal issues/cases. I've seen the tanner scale be used, and I know the standard process of how images on your computer are determed to be child porn, and that allow would scare anyone. I've also seen cases of being being changed with child porn, when they had main stream porn. I know a few porn stars who went to court for a person arrested on child porn to prove that they where 18 or older. Yet no one wants to "fix" the legal issues of something like this, because then they seem like pro-child porn.
FyiFoff —Preceding comment was added at 22:59, 10 June 2008 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]
Is computer generated/illustrated/animated work illegal, or is it not because it involves the exploitation of no minors? What about acts that say that an adult is a minor for the work's purpose?
Here are some bits that didn't fit anywhere: with a little more work, this could become another section in the main article.
I have added a relevant link to a relevant site, as well as expert opinion on the simulated porn aspect to the article. See diff . However an anonymous user 69.3.23
Porn Comic Getting Loud
Spanking Roughman Vk
Tamil Maid Sex Stories