On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 17:15:32 GMT, Palindrome wrote:
>> So let me get this straight. The parent of a child purchases child
>> .ography, recognises a child, and this will prompt him to admit to
>> people that he has purchased child .ography?
>Of course not. He will never give that reason for behaving differently
>to the child and demanding that his children behave differently. Then a
>few invented reasons why.
If he is a person who is interested in child .ography, why would he
be likely to *want* to behave differently to the child (except, as I
said, to get better acquainted).
>> No, Sue. People who purchase child .ography are not going to start
>> bragging about it just because one of the images contains a child they
>> recognise, nor will they want to invite a child protection
>> investigation of a local child by letting it out that the child is
>> being used to create .ography.
>No need to brag. It would start with forbidding your children from
>playing with the child in question.
Why would a paedophile not want his children to play with kids who
have been .ually abused or who are .ually promiscuous? ISTM that
paedophiles are the least likely people to be worried about that.
>> There *is* a danger - that the
>> paedophile will be prompted to approach the child he has seen in the
>> .ography and get in on the act. But realistically such a risk is
>> extremely small, and is far outweighed by the probability that child
>> protection workers are more likely to find the child because of the
>> .ography than a paedophile will.
>Only if the circulation of kp and its possession is kept illegal. The
>numbers prosecuted to date can only be a tiny tip of the iceberg of
>demand, should it be made legal.
There is no "demand" in the marketing sense of the word. Don't think
in terms of of the distribution of adult .ography, think of the
distribution of MP3s instead. Make it legal to possess but *not* to
create and the number of people downloading it will increase - but not
the amount that is produced. Because there is no connection between
the two. Rip your latest CD and put it for distribution on P2P or a
newsgroup and you won't even *know* how many people have downloaded
it, so that cannot possibly influence whether you rip more or less CDs
in future.
Try to *sell* your ripped MP3 files on the Internet however, and you
will get caught.
>>> Or, simply the suspicion by the child that the above has happened. Being
>>> convinced that they do know..
>> That will happen with or without any actual purchases, so is not an
>> example of how a purchase would increase the abuse.
>If it was made available to purchase, legally, more would be in people's
>homes. There are many people that won't download from the internet, or
>visit dubious sites, because of the risk of trojans, viruses, etc. Many
>of those would buy kp, if it was available for sale.
But I have stated that I don't have a problem with having the
production of KP illegal, and banning the sale of the material would
be justified on pragmatic grounds (at least the sale of images where
child abuse was more likely than not involved). It is the mere
*possession* that I object to.
>>> Oh, and later, thinking that you are being treated strangely when taken
>>> to "meet the parents". Has he seen the videos and pictures too? Has he
>>> recognised me? Will he tell the son? He is bound to warn him off...
>> As above. And in reality of course, the parent who has seen the
>> .ography has a bigger secret to keep than the victim (though I
>> agree that the victim may not see it that way).
>Oh, he wouldn't give /that/ reason for the son/daughter to keep away.
As said, why should a paedophile think any less of the child?
>> Of course, the adults that such a child is likely to meet who have the
>> highest probability of having seen the images are those involved in
>> child protection.
>How? Will they be going around schools looking for people that they have
>seen on film?
Yes, I believe that sort of thing is done. I have read that forensic
detectives examine any new child .ography in great detail, looking
for clues as to location and year. A rough year can be obtained from
the type and apparent age of objects in the shot - furniture, TV set,
clothes etc. Commercial consumables such as food and drink containers
usually have a design that changes year on year and so a fizzy drink
can or an ink cartridge box could narrow the date to within a year or
two, and foliage might reveal the season. Location may be revealed by
several things. For the country there's the type of electrical
fittings and architectural style, and the language of any writing that
appears in the image. Then to narrow it to a town or city, perhaps a
store logo on a plastic bag. A local newspaper that happens to be in
the shot. If it is a video, the radio station that can be heard in
the background, the logo on the side of a delivery van going past a
window - and of course any licence plate or school uniform that
happened to be captured in a shot would be an almost certain giveaway.
I'm sure you can think of plenty more possibilities. A single image
would probably not contain sufficient clues, but if the same child
appears in a large number of images the probability becomes an almost
certainty unless the photographer was forensically aware and took
care.
Then they do indeed go and hang around the schools and other likely
spots in the area identified to try to spot the child seen in the
.ography. They may also cruise the area to try to identify places
seen in the images.
> The chances of having a child protection officer as a
>neighbour are much lower than having someone with an interest in kp, I
>would imagine.
I was rather thinking the other way about - that a child who was being
abused and featuring in .ography would have a far higher chance of
attracting the attentions of a child protection worker than of having
a neighbour who has seen samples of the .ography.
>> And one case I saw that I thought was stupid of the authorities was
>> where a suitably pixillated image of a child involved in .ography
>> was shown on national (US) TV, with an appeal for anyone who
>> recognised the child to contact the authorities so that she could be
>> rescued from her abuser. Sounds OK on the surface - but if the child
>> saw the broadcast, she would have known that all her friends and
>> neighbours would now know what she had done. It could very well have
>> resulted in a suicide rather than the rescue of an abused child.
>Yep. The circulation of images of children being abused can be very
>damaging. I am glad that you agree.
If done over the national media, yes. As could many other images that
are are innocuous when kept within a relatively closed circle.
--
Cynic
|