has mrz encountered high level attacks

Societal problems, economics, etc.



Well right now although I'm sufficiently secure as to withstand any application layer attack from the federal police that has ever been seen in the wild, and although I've numerous times in the past had a sufficiently secure system to withstand any attacks I may or may not have been exposed to by the attacker, I would not currently assess my configuration as sufficient to prevent a motivated and well funded attacker from penetrating through it. However, upon the completion of my Qubes + Alpine configuration, I will be among the most securely configured people in the world in terms of resisting application layer proxy bypass attacks and general application layer fuckery. Even in such a state I would not imagine that I couldn't be hacked though, only that my attacker would likely be an intelligence agency rather than federal police, I've not yet heard of a case in which the federal police demonstrated anywhere near the application layer hacking competency required to compromise such a configuration with a bypass attack, though of course the RELAY_EARLY style attacks could deanonymize with signals intelligence even the most hardened imaginable application layer configuration. Furthermore there is a concern with remote hardware faults and so on, I mean I cannot ascertain the security of my hardware, other than knowing that my RAM resists all known variants of row hammer.

My primary weakness is almost certainly the large amount of biographical data points I've leaked, which could be intersected by an attacker capable of enumerating the individual fuzzy crowds I've placed myself in, though I've attempted being slightly inaccurate and avoiding placing myself in any crowds that are trivially enumerable or too small. Actually there is another avenue of concern as well, which I will not mention.

Truly valuable to read your insights, tnx. Though, you should give us some tips how to minimize different data point leakages (as much you feel that is good to share here).

I mean ideally you would not socialize, that would optimally restrict the leakage of data points. In addition to this you would obfuscate your stylometric writeprint adequately, when socialization is required. You really need to threat model what you're doing though, in some contexts socialization is required to gain trust and move upwards in a hierarchical organization, such as an assortment of underground forums that use reputation and trust to allow people to progress to more restricted layers of them, or to more exclusive forums. This has been less required in modern times though, with the advent of the public darknet markets and so on. Though accumulating reputation still has advantages on these open sites, seeing as more exclusive sites someone with reputation could end up invited to will have better deals, more bulk deals, and more content, the benefits of gaining reputation are counterposed with the risks of socializing.

In the event that you do socialize, you should simply take great care in the tidbits of information you release about yourself. Remember, everything you say biographically places you into a crowd of people, even saying that you have brown eyes for example immediately places you into the crowd of people with brown eyes. Think how easily could an attacker enumerate this crowd? Well, an intelligence agency or the federal police may have a database of identification documents, and thereby be able to enumerate a large collection of people with brown eyes, but this will result in a sufficiently large crowd that it will not deanonymize you. However, say you also went to a certain University, the attacker may be able to enumerate the students that went to said university through school records, and then they can further narrow this down to the students with brown eyes, which is a biographical intersection attack whereby they took two large crowds they suspected the target was in, intersected them, and then placed the target in the intersection, itself a potentially much smaller crowd. So everything you say, think of if this is placing you into any crowds, how easily could the attacker enumerate these crowds, how large would the crowds be, and so on. In general, you want to avoid placing yourself into any crowds, and therefore you should avoid all self referential information that could place you into a group. You will likely fail at this with more than trivial amounts of socialization, which is why socialization is a large weakness, but you can take measures to make it hard to compromise you still. Another thing is that to the extent you do leak self referential information, you should introduce inaccuracies to create a fuzzy crowd, perhaps lie about your age rather than giving an exact age (though ideally you wouldn't reveal any age at all), essentially you want to introduce a lot of false crowds to the attacker to lessen the value of the real crowds you expose.

Another measure is to unlink your accounts to the extent possible. Have higher risk accounts that you do things such as place orders with on a darknet market, but then socialize with another account that is unlinkable to it, to try to unlink your social information from incrimination to the extent possible. Actually successfully unlinking two accounts can be a challenge though, but you can at least make it less trivial for the attacker to link them. This is a form of compartmentalization.

If you are a massive target such as the administrator of a darknet site, you should not only avoid socializing to any extent, but should also avoid even using an account that can be identified as administrative to the extent possible. You don't want an identifiable hierarchy associated with your darknet site, you want all accounts to appear as the same sort of members, and to have any actions taken in an administrative capacity to be as brief as possible, and not possible to link to any of the user accounts.

On some sites it would be advantageous to allow anonymous access as well, people are retarded in some contexts by forcing pseudonymity that persists over sessions, it would be better to allow and encourage everyone to post with the same pseudonym 'anonymous', such that the information they present, and their general behavioral profile and so on, blends together into a large composite identity, necessitating the attacker to link actions to a single entity themselves rather than relying on the built in linkability provided by a pseudonym system, which could be challenging on a popular forum, though they would likely use writeprints to do this, though forums should be open access at least this provides strong benefits to those who don't leak writeprints.



Panopticlick actually covers this but I actually think I know it well enough to explain from memory rather than linking you to their write up which I would need to hunt down. In any case, you can think of the human population as consisting of a key space, and you as being a single key in the total anonymity set size of all humans. That means there is a key space of 33.067277855 bits, because log2(human_population) is 33.067277855 with a human population of 9,000,000,000. The first crowd you place yourself in reduces your identity entropy to that of the crowd your placed yourself in. For example, assuming a constant year of 365 days, and a uniform distribution of days of birth, 9,000,000,000 / 365 = ~24,657,534 people born on a given day in the year, log2(2,4657,534) = 24.555525187 bits of entropy in the crowd of people born on a given day out of the year. By reducing your entropy from 33.067277855 to 24.555525187, you reduce your anonymity set size from 2^ 33.067277855 to 2^24.555525187, or from 9,000,000,000 to 24,657,534, and you would say that your birthday reduced your identity entropy by 8.511752668 bits. When your identity entropy reaches 0 you are biographically deanonymized, because 2^0 = 1, you are the only one in all of the intersections. Of course having one bit of entropy is hardly any better, because 2^1 is only 2, and it is not hard to put two people under surveillance. It not even hard to put 2^5 people under surveillance, this is only 32 people. But 2^10 is 1,024 people, perhaps too large of a crowd to monitor all of them trying to determine which one is you. The crowd your identity hides in is known as your anonymity set size, a concept that also plays in traffic analysis, I mean in a sense network traffic analysis is a very pure form of investigative theory, and the attacks are similar particularly intersection attack which is a staple of innumerable domains of security, forensics, intelligence, and so on, but perhaps is most purely expressed in traffic analysis as far as security is concerned, though of course it is from math and set theory I believe. You want your anonymity set size to be sufficient that it is infeasible for the attacker to use concentrated surveillance effort on your crowd to identify you out of it, toward this goal keeping all 33.067277855 bits of entropy is ideal. Of course you don't even really have 33.067277855 bits of entropy though, I mean the attacker already can assume you're older than say 8 years old, you are not really in the crowd of all humans. The attacker can know the language you speak if you speak to the attacker at all, though even if they cannot see you speak they may be able to fingerprint you based on language characteristics leaked from your software and so on. Even if they only see encrypted voice from you they can fingerprint the language you speak through the encryption with classifiers with some accuracy, there are just all kinds of ways the attacker can start to place you into crowds or suspected crowds toward reducing the bits of entropy your identity is hidden in (in other words, reducing your anonymity set size).

Once the attacker starts placing you in multiple individual crowds they can use intersection against you by seeing the commonality between the crowds and assuming you exist in the commonality between two crowds that you are suspected of being in. For example, crowd one may consist of X people, and crowd two may consist of Y people, but the number of people that exist in the intersection of the two crowds could be only 1 . I mean, there may be many people with an uncommon feature, and being in this crowd alone may not be damning, say you have a certain recognizable genetic condition that isn't very rare, but you're the only one with that condition who ever worked at a certain factory or something, even if the factory had tens of thousands of employees, and even if there are tens of thousands of people with your condition, it's entirely possible that you're the only with the condition that worked at that factory. This area is quite mathematical in nature and I'm not particularly good at math, I mean it's probability and statistics and set theory I believe, and you can do even more precise calculations and modeling than this but this is the general theme of the underlying primitive.

In general, you rapidly reduce your anonymity set size when you socialize and place yourself into crowds, and in the grand scheme of things your anonymity set isn't very large to begin with, I mean the attacker will use stylometry against your text to try to identify everything from your gender to the rough geographical area you live in, like you don't just speak English but speak English in such a way that they can stylometrically place you to a certain region. As you can see, socializing is quite bad for security and it should be avoided and unlinked from incrimination to the extent possible. Keep your incriminated accounts compartmentalized fully away from any social accounts, be very concise in your talking if any is required, take care in your writing style to make it different from your own (look into say anonymouth, not sure how that is progressing), and don't let any other accounts you use in a less secure context to be linked to your more sensitive business accounts, and don't incriminate yourself to any significant extent on any social accounts. Otherwise, simply don't socialize at all, in some threat models there is no need to, like if you go to forums to get digital content there is no need to talk with the people there, indeed if they enforce pseudonymity you will be better off making new accounts every session if possible toward unlinking your pattern of behavior and only giving the attacker one session, though as I previously said these forums would be better off using fully 'anonymous' accounts and not requiring people to register to access them even.

This is particularly concerning for drug vendors because they leak two crowds inherently, one being that they're in the crowd of people who use Tor, and the other being the crowd of people in a certain geographical region, which can be determined by postmarks on the packages they ship. There may be a lot of people that live in the general area they do, and there may be a lot of Tor users, but how many Tor users live in the general area they do? Then you need to start asking yourself questions like, how easily can the attacker enumerate these crowds? How large are these crowds, are they large enough that I can maintain anonymity in them? If you live in rural area with only a few hundred or thousand people in it, and the attacker can place you into this area, are you the only Tor user in this area? Can the attacker get the local ISP to enumerate the Tor users and thereby with high probability deanonymize you? Should you use membership concealment techniques such as bridges with obfuscated traffic via pluggable transports? Will this actually work for you, I mean these membership concealment systems are not really that good against even mildly powerful attackers, but is the attacker going to attempt that? And if you live in a large urban area with millions of people, will there be sufficient Tor users for you to blend in with, or should you use bridges and pluggable transports and try to conceal your membership in the Tor network still? What if the attacker can enumerate people using bridges and pluggable transports, and you inadvertently place yourself in the small crowd of people using such techniques, which indicate your suspected threat model, when you could have otherwise sufficiently resisted detection simply by blending in with the local Tor user base? Should you additionally simply never use Tor from your own Internet and rather always use open WiFi from random locations? There are a great many questions to ask yourself, ideally this would be an intelligence driven process as you determine the techniques and abilities and knowledge of the attacker, though it may be hard to determine this information because the attacker keeps it secret, in some cases using open source intelligence will allow you to learn information about the attacker though I mean they leak bits and pieces of information as well, but then you need to ask yourself are they actually leaking information that is real or are they trying to confound you by leaking bad information as they sometimes do, they've gotten a lot better at countering open source intelligence it seems to me, which is unfortunate.

Here is the write up on the topic from EFF:

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/01/p ... nd-privacy


A Primer on Information Theory and Privacy

If we ask whether a fact about a person identifies that person, it turns out that the answer isn't simply yes or no. If all I know about a person is their ZIP code, I don't know who they are. If all I know is their date of birth, I don't know who they are. If all I know is their gender, I don't know who they are. But it turns out that if I know these three things about a person, I could probably deduce their identity! Each of the facts is partially identifying.

There is a mathematical quantity which allows us to measure how close a fact comes to revealing somebody's identity uniquely. That quantity is called entropy, and it's often measured in bits. Intuitively you can think of entropy being generalization of the number of different possibilities there are for a random variable: if there are two possibilities, there is 1 bit of entropy; if there are four possibilities, there are 2 bits of entropy, etc. Adding one more bit of entropy doubles the number of possibilities.1

Because there are around 7 billion humans on the planet, the identity of a random, unknown person contains just under 33 bits of entropy (two to the power of 33 is 8 billion). When we learn a new fact about a person, that fact reduces the entropy of their identity by a certain amount. There is a formula to say how much:

ΔS = - log2 Pr(X=x)

Where ΔS is the reduction in entropy, measured in bits,2 and Pr(X=x) is simply the probability that the fact would be true of a random person. Let's apply the formula to a few facts, just for fun:

Starsign: ΔS = - log2 Pr(STARSIGN=capricorn) = - log2 (1/12) = 3.58 bits of information
Birthday: ΔS = - log2 Pr(DOB=2nd of January) = -log2 (1/365) = 8.51 bits of information

Note that if you combine several facts together, you might not learn anything new; for instance, telling me someone's starsign doesn't tell me anything new if I already knew their birthday.3

In the examples above, each starsign and birthday was assumed to be equally likely.4 The calculation can also be applied to facts which have non-uniform likelihoods. For instance, the likelihood that an unknown person's ZIP code is 90210 (Beverley Hills, California) is different to the likelihood that their ZIP code would be 40203 (part of Louisville, Kentucky). As of 2007, there were 21,733 people living in the 90210 area, only 452 in 40203, and around 6.625 billion on the planet.

Knowing my ZIP code is 90210: ΔS = - log2 (21,733/6,625,000,000) = 18.21 bits
Knowing my ZIP code is 40203: ΔS = - log2 (452/6,625,000,000) = 23.81 bits
Knowing that I live in Moscow: ΔS = -log2 (10524400/6,625,000,000) = 9.30 bits
How much entropy is needed to identify someone?

As of 2007, identifying someone from the entire population of the planet required:

S = log2 (1/6625000000) = 32.6 bits of information.

Conservatively, we can round that up to 33 bits.

So for instance, if we know someone's birthday, and we know their ZIP code is 40203, we have 8.51 + 23.81 = 32.32 bits; that's almost, but perhaps not quite, enough to know who they are: there might be a couple of people who share those characteristics. Add in their gender, that's 33.32 bits, and we can probably say exactly who the person is.5
An Application To Web Browsers

Now, how would this paradigm apply to web browsers? It turns out that, in addition to the commonly discussed "identifying" characteristics of web browsers, like IP addresses and tracking cookies, there are more subtle differences between browsers that can be used to tell them apart.

One significant example is the User-Agent string, which contains the name, operating system and precise version number of the browser, and which is sent every web server you visit. A typical User Agent string looks something like this:

Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-GB; rv:1.8.1.6) Gecko/20070725 Firefox/2.0.0.6

As you can see, there's quite a lot of "stuff" in there. It turns out that that "stuff" is quite useful for telling different people apart on the net. In another post, we report that on average, User Agent strings contain about 10.5 bits of identifying information, meaning that if you pick a random person's browser, only one in 1,500 other Internet users will share their User Agent string.

EFF's Panopticlick project is a privacy research effort to measure how much identifying information is being conveyed by other browser characteristics. Visit Panopticlick to see how identifying your browser is, and to help us in our research.

nope
mrz is paranoid about the fbi monitoring him
he don't realized yet that the fbi is looking for fat fish like Snowden not innofensives incels which just know how to run linux



Fabie wrote:nope
mrz is paranoid about the fbi monitoring him
he don't realized yet that the fbi is looking for fat fish like Snowden not innofensives incels which just know how to run linux

You know that incels got arrested for looking at CP, right? Happened countless times.
Once you have taken the red pill there is no way back.

ihateallwomen wrote:
Fabie wrote:nope
mrz is paranoid about the fbi monitoring him
he don't realized yet that the fbi is looking for fat fish like Snowden not innofensives incels which just know how to run linux

You know that incels got arrested for looking at CP, right? Happened countless times.


yes and they are well arrested, watching cp they are contributing in some way to the children abuse
(If there were no spectators there would be no cp)

Fabie wrote:
ihateallwomen wrote:You know that incels got arrested for looking at CP, right? Happened countless times.


yes and they are well arrested, watching cp they are contributing in some way to the children abuse
(If there were no spectators there would be no cp)


If there were no CP there would be no spectators, the notion that random fucks viewing pictures on the Internet leads to child sex abuse is completely invalid and contradicted by the scientific evidence, it's like saying if there were nobody watching ISIS decapitating people they would stop being terrorists. Sorry but the entire rhetoric on CP is fraudulent bullshit from a band of pathological liars, you would be well suited to purge your brain of all of the lies they've indoctrinated into you, forget all of the slogans and phrases they said, they are fraudulent pathological liars and nothing they have ever said was true.

https://www.springer.com/about+springer ... -1042321-0

Could making child pornography legal lead to lower rates of child sex abuse? It could well do, according to a new study by Milton Diamond, from the University of Hawaii, and colleagues.
Results from the Czech Republic showed, as seen everywhere else studied (Canada, Croatia, Denmark, Germany, Finland, Hong Kong, Shanghai, Sweden, USA), that rape and other sex crimes have not increased following the legalization and wide availability of pornography. And most significantly, the incidence of child sex abuse has fallen considerably since 1989, when child pornography became readily accessible – a phenomenon also seen in Denmark and Japan. Their findings are published online today in Springer’s journal Archives of Sexual Behavior.
The findings support the theory that potential sexual offenders use child pornography as a substitute for sex crimes against children


http://unh.edu/ccrc/pdf/CV204%20CP%20possessors.pdf

One concern is that the accessibility of online CP has caused increases in child
sexual abuse. Some research suggests that CP may trigger sexual abuse by activating
and validating sexual urges in CP viewers that were previously suppressed or con-
trolled (Beech et al., 2008; Quayle & Taylor, 2003; Wilson & Jones, 2008). There is no
evidence of increasing abuse in the United States, however. In fact, rates of child sexual
abuse have declined substantially since the mid-1990s, a time period that corresponds
to the spread of CP online. Statistics from U.S. child protective service agencies show
that from 1992 to 2007, child sexual abuse declined 53% (Jones & Finkelhor, 2009),
including interfamilial abuse (Finkelhor & Jones, 2006). Evidence of this decline also
comes from victim self-report surveys and U.S. criminal justice system data (Finkelhor
& Jones, 2008; Finkelhor, Turner, Ormrod, & Hamby, 2010), as well as the child pro-
tective services data collection system. The fact that this trend is revealed in multiple
sources tends to undermine arguments that it is because of reduced reporting or changes
in investigatory or statistical procedures.


In before your entirely predictable rationalizations, and yes you will rationalize the war on CP viewing as they all do, with their creationist tier arguments that are completely fucking nonsensical and range into manifestations of clinical psychosis.

http://www.counselheal.com/articles/249 ... dicted.htm

The children might feel like being raped time and again when someone watches it.


https://www.dailyherald.com/article/201 ... 701169906/

"... every time somebody looks at that image it's like the crime is taking place all over again…"


Sorry buddy but I've just heard every single argument of the CP crusaders, and the verdict is that they are pathological lying pieces of shit without a single shred of legitimacy and they're practically a fucking religious movement even, they invented a make believe story about a non-existent multi bazillion dollar CP industry, and on and on and on, like they are completely intellectually bankrupt fraudulent charlatans and their moral panic actually caused more children to be sexually abused they are fucking pieces of garbage.

They're a God Damn religion and it is unconstitutional for them to have power in the legal system of the USA, plain and simple, even if they are not violating the first amendment in terms of freedom of speech, which they are but which the cowardly supreme court allowed them to do, they are sure as god damn fuck violating separation of church and state.

http://www.eagletribune.com/news/new_ha ... 9c7b5.html

Phinney, aided by Assistant County Attorney Sarah Warecki, also said society needs
deterrence because "predators such as Curry provide the motivation to this multibillion-dollar
industry," Conway said.

"The possession of child sexual abuse images is both disturbing and serious because
every time a perpetrator looks at one of these images, a victim of child sexual abuse
is re-victimized," Conway said.

"That is why," she added, "the County Attorney's Office treats possession of CSAI
crimes seriously and demands swift and harsh punishment."


Sorry but your religion isn't real, there is not a multi billion dollar CP industry, there is not revictimization it's a delusion, your sex hysteria is an illegal infringement of the first amendment of the constitution and it's about god damn time someone called them on it, get that fucking religion the fuck out of the criminal justice system. I do not believe in your religion, I have a constitutional right to view CP regardless of your insane religious beliefs about magical pictures, a mythological industry, and your mountain of fraudulent studies and so on, fuck the criminal justice system and their illegal, unconstitutional, counterproductive moral panic, they are pieces of literal garbage and they have the sexual abuse of countless children on their hands as well. Nobody gives a flying fuck if the anti vaccination movement has "good intentions", your "good intentions" led to the rape of children and mass incarceration of people for doing things that are not even bad you stupid fucking retards.

Seriously honest people who actually have legitimacy don't need to invent an elaborate fantasy world. They know as well as anyone else that the multi billion dollar CP industry is make believe. How can they even say with a straight face that looking at CP causes the children to feel raped all over again? Have they not read the research showing CP substitutes for child sex abuse and lowers child sex abuse rate? Like what the actual fuck is mentally wrong with these people? They are a god damn religious cult! Nothing they believe is real! Nothing they say is true! They can't support themselves with the truth, because the truth is completely counter to their fucking fantasy world, their religious fantasy world. Guess what fuckers:


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Ame ... nstitution

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.[1]


Go ahead, arrest me for looking at CP fuckers, my family has millions of dollars at their disposal, I will take that shit to the god damn supreme court and draw media attention to your mass fraud, because the undeniable fact is I have the actual truth on my side and you have nothing but a bunch of lies and fraud. Let's get some god damn media attention on their make believe multi billion dollar CP industry promulgated from their courts, their rhetoric about magical revictimization and so on, let's make a big god damn spectacle out of it and force the media to report on it, I will expose your god damn fraud I will bring in experts on religion to testify that you meet all of the criteria of a religion and that it is a violation of the first amendment to have CP laws based on your elaborate fantasy world you delusional fucks, as soon as the truth about your elaborate fraud is exposed to society your entire god damn scam will collapse and you fucking know it, people only believe in your lies because it's all they ever have presented to them, I can chew up and shit out all of your delusional creationist tier arguments, I have actual science in support of me you have internal prison industry studies that were laughed at in academia you fucking retards.

Seriously come arrest me for CP FBI I cannot wait to go to court just so I can argue the true fact that your sex hysteria is a religion and therefore unconstitutional under the first amendment, I will get a god damn team of people to collate all of the ridiculous shit your prosecutors, judges, and agents have said:


“These cases involve real-life abuse and assault of children. Every time an image is viewed, it’s like the assault happened again,” said Andrew M. McLees, special agent in charge of the Newark office of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement's Homeland Security Investigations.


Seriously I cannot wait to get you fucking fraudulent charlatans on the stand so you can be interrogated about why exactly it is you believe in an elaborate fantasy world, I will make a mockery out of all of you and you fucking know it, because that is what you are, a sick fucking joke.

Seriously I cannot wait to call congress members to the witness stand to ask them why they believe in a multi billion dollar CP industry that has never existed

http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/local/ ... 03286.html

commercial child porn is a $20 billion a year industry -- a figure cited in a 2006 congressional hearing


Like I'm just super excited I wish you would just come and arrest me now so I can make complete fucking fools of your subhuman asses.

Seriously let's have a quick review of the sex hysteria, not even covering everything, just a sample:

Remember their make believe rapidly growing CP industry?

http://libertus.net/censor/resources/st ... html#s3bfg

"child pornography is one of the fastest growing online businesses generating approximately $US3 billion ($3.43 billion) each year"
This '$US3 billion' figure has no credibility and even if it was factual as at January 2008, (when it appeared in an opinion article by Bernadette McMenamin, CEO of Child Wise/ ECPAT in Australia, with citing a source), then it could be regarded as 'good news' because it would mean (based on previously promulgated 'statistics') that there had been no increase at all in the five years to 2008, therefore 'child pornography' could not be one of the fastest growing online businesses.
The '$US3 billion' figure has been promulgated far and wide since at least mid 2003, when Utah-based Jerry Ropelato commenced publishing it, without citing a source, on his web site InternetFilterReview.com, which has since become part of his TopTenReviews.com. According to Texas-based Red Orbit News (5 Nov 2006) Ropelato was formerly chief operating officer of ContentWatch, a Salt Lake City-based developer of Internet filtering and virus protection software. He is also known locally as a speaker and presenter on Internet safety issues, and as a crusader against online pornography.[44]
The fastest growing online businesses claim originated with the U.S. NCMEC, in August 2005, which based its claim on the then two-year old US$3 billion 'statistic' promulgated by Ropelato. (The U.S. NCMEC has a long history of promulgating exaggerated/false statistics[45].)
The origins and history of '$US3 billion' and 'fastest growing' claims is outlined below.


http://libertus.net/censor/resources/st ... s20billion

"child pornography is a $20 billion industry worldwide"
This out-of-date/discredited $20 billion 'statistic' was given new life in March 2008 when it appeared in Australian media reports as a result of a joint media release between the Australian Federal Police and Microsoft. The statistic was disowned in April 2006 by the organisations to which it had been, and still is being, attributed (i.e. the FBI and Unicef).
The history of this number is outlined below.


http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/local/ ... 03286.html

commercial child porn is a $20 billion a year industry -- a figure cited in a 2006 congressional hearing


http://www.eagletribune.com/news/new_ha ... 9c7b5.html

Phinney, aided by Assistant County Attorney Sarah Warecki, also said society needs
deterrence because "predators such as Curry provide the motivation to this multibillion-dollar
industry," Conway said.


http://www.alternet.org/media/digital-p ... s-among-us

Booming Cross-Border Business

According to a frequently mentioned statistic, the child pornography industry generates $50 billion every year; other sources speak of a $20 billion industry. In other words, the CAM industry is not a select club of old perverts roaming the web in the privacy of their musty apartment—it’s a multibillion-dollar business of global magnitude, with thriving demand and supply.


http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/143067/ ... -handrahan

Half of all child porn now originates in America. The profits are massive. Estimated porn profits in 2006 exceed combined revenues of Microsoft, Google, Amazon, eBay, Yahoo, Apple, Netflix and EarthLink ranging from $3-$20 billion annually.


http://womensenews.org/2005/12/child-po ... ction-web/

$3 Billion in Annual Sales

Allen says that global sales of illegal pornography that exploits children--including those under 4 years old--are about $3 billion a year.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mary-l-pu ... 94430.html

Child pornography is one of the fastest growing businesses online, with estimated annual revenue of $3 billion.


http://www.wtok.com/news/headlines/2470381.html

Child pornography is among the fastest growing businesses on the Internet, a $20 billion per year enterprise.


http://www.nbcnews.com/id/32880508/ns/t ... increases/

More than 4 million Web sites worldwide show images of children being sexually exploited, said the U.N. investigator on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography, Najat M'jid Maalla.
....
Maalla urged international cooperation to stop the child pornography industry, which she estimated to be worth between $3 billion and $20 billion. She recommended countries share information on sites containing child pornography in order to block them faster.





Remember their delusional mythology about magical pictures?


“These cases involve real-life abuse and assault of children. Every time an image is viewed, it’s like the assault happened again,” said Andrew M. McLees, special agent in charge of the Newark office of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement's Homeland Security Investigations.


http://fox8.com/2012/05/21/former-pasto ... n-charges/

"we hear that in court that they feel like they are victimized every single time someone downloads their videos or looks at their videos they feel like they are being raped all over again,” said Canonico


https://www.dailyherald.com/article/201 ... 701169906/

"... every time somebody looks at that image it's like the crime is taking place all over again…"


http://www.counselheal.com/articles/249 ... dicted.htm

The children might feel like being raped time and again when someone watches it.


http://www.staradvertiser.com/breaking- ... aphy-case/

Attorney General Doug Chin said in a news release: “Child pornography is child abuse. Victims of child pornography are abused when the images are first taken and they are abused again each and every time these horrendous images are viewed. Our department will continue to investigate and prosecute anyone who possesses or disseminates child pornography.”


Remember their fraudulent and fabricated research?

https://jezebel.com/5785245/the-trouble ... statistics

"It's now clear [anti-trafficking groups] used fake data to deceive the media and lie to Congress," the story charges. "And it was all done to score free publicity and a wealth of public funding."

What's the meat behind those claims? The story details how the Women's Funding Network commissioned a study from a political consulting group run by Beth Schapiro, which devised a totally unscientific method for determining how many online classified ads depicted children. It entailed having a group of adults guess, by looking at a picture in an ad, how old the person depicted was, and then doing it again over time to fuel the charge of explosive growth. Experts interviewed by City Pages point out that this is ridiculous from a methodological point of view — among the many criticisms, there's no way of knowing how old someone is from a picture, there's no way of knowing when the picture was taken, and there's no way of knowing if the picture is even of someone behind the advertised service.

The study, which was funded with public money, was subsequently uncritically picked up nationwide in headlines trumpeting a massive rise in the trafficking of children.


https://rsoresearch.files.wordpress.com ... ng_kit.pdf

Nevertheless, Dr. Hernandez privately
distributed his study widely, without peer review or any
other oversight, and thus bypassed normal opportunities for
either scientific validation or refutation by experts in the field
of sexual offender diagnosis and treatment. He distributed his
study to a limited but very receptive audience nationally
(and later internationally, specifically Great Britain), including
law enforcement officials and agencies, the Federal Bureau of
Investigation (FBI), the Department of Justice (DOJ), and state
and federal prosecutors.
But it was the policy makers who especially welcomed the
study‘s implications.


http://jaapl.org/content/42/4/404

From both a clinical and an actuarial statistical perspective, an early retrospective study conducted at a Federal Civil Commitment Facility in Butner, North Carolina, inferred an association between accessing child pornography and hands-on sexual offending.3 That study has been criticized regarding its methodology and lack of scientific rigor.4 More recent prospective data have questioned the contention that there is a correlation between accessing child pornography and hands-on offending.5 For example, one such study found that less than one percent of 231 men who had viewed child pornography (but with no evidence of a prior hands-on sexual offense) had gone on to commit a hands-on sexual offense.6 From a purely statistical standpoint (all else being equal) individuals with no history of a hands-on sexual offense against a child, but who have accessed child pornography, are at low risk as a group of committing a hands-on sexual offense in the future.5


https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the ... detention/

McKune provides a single citation to support its statement “that the recidivism
rate of untreated offenders has been estimated to be as high as 80%”: the U.S.
Dept. of Justice, Nat. Institute of Corrections, A Practitioner’s Guide to Treating
the Incarcerated Male Sex Offender xiii (1988). Justice Kennedy likely found that
reference in the amicus brief supporting Kansas filed by the Solicitor General,
then Ted Olson, as the SG’s brief also cites it for the claim that sex offenders
have this astonishingly high recidivism rate. This Practitioner’s Guide11 itself
provides but one source for the claim, an article published in 1986 in Psychology
Today, a mass market magazine aimed at a lay audience. That article has this
sentence: “Most untreated sex offenders released from prison go on to commit more
offenses– indeed, as many as 80% do.” But the sentence is a bare assertion: the
article contains no supporting reference for it. But perhaps the author was merely
offering an estimate based on his training and expertise. The problem there is
that he had little of either.

He is a counselor, not a scholar of sex crimes or re-offense rates, and the cited
article is not about recidivism statistics. It’s about a counseling program for
sex offenders he then ran in an Oregon prison. His unsupported assertion about the
recidivism rate for untreated sex offenders was offered to contrast with his equally
unsupported assertion about the lower recidivism rate for those who complete his
program.


http://libertus.net/censor/resources/st ... html#ncm40

"40 per cent of arrested child pornography possessors sexually abused children"

According to an opinion article by Bernadette McMenamin, CEO of Child Wise (ECPAT
in Australia), published in the The Australian on 8 January 2008: "In 2005 the
United States National Center for Missing and Exploited Children revealed that
40 per cent of arrested child pornography possessors sexually abused children."[77]

The 40% number was in a report distributed by the NCMEC in 2005 and the percentage
concerned research findings in relation to a total of 429 cases during the 12 months
beginning 1 July 2000. However, insofar as the phrasing of the assertion quoted
above appears to imply that 40% of persons arrested for possession of child
pornography were found to have sexually abused children, it does not accurately
reflect the research findings.






Remember their bullshit human trafficking rhetoric?

http://www.popsci.com/man-who-lit-dark-web

More than 1 million are children. Nearly one-quarter are bought and sold as sex
slaves. Only 1-in-100 victims of human trafficking is ever rescued. It’s a booming
business.
High profits and low risk make human trafficking one of the fastest-growing
and most lucrative crimes on the planet; the U.N. recently estimated that trafficking
nets $150 billion a year.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fac ... ed-states/

But there’s a bigger problem. Shared Hope’s graphic gave as its source a 2005
International Labour Organization report on human trafficking. But that report
contains no mention of a $9.8 billion figure for human trafficking in the United
States.







Remember their elaborate melodramas?


https://reason.com/blog/2014/06/12/eden ... alls-apart

It's a pretty good summary of the standard narrative on sex-trafficking these days: it's everywhere, all the time, and we don't even know it; the only way to combat it is to keep throwing cops and money and laws at it; and anyone who questions any of this is only aiding the evildoers. It's almost impossible to argue with people who buy this narrative, because the more evidence you present challenging sex trafficking's pervasiveness, the more they see proof that sex trafficking is so under the radar we need to throw more cops and money and laws at it.


We regretfully want to inform everyone the results of a year long investigation by our highly experienced investigative unit, that Chong Kim whom has claimed to be a survivor of human trafficking is not what she claims to be.

After thorough investigation into her story, people, records and places, as well as, many interviews with producers, publishers and people from organizations, we found no truth to her story. In fact, we found a lot of fraud, lies, and most horrifically capitalizing and making money on an issue where so many people are suffering from.


Image



Remember when they incited a genocide against hebephiles with the incitation of a panic via a tabloid publication?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Maide ... rn_Babylon

"The Maiden Tribute of Modern Babylon" was a series of highly controversial newspaper articles on child prostitution that appeared in the Pall Mall Gazette in July 1885.

Written by crusading editor W.T. Stead, the series was a tour de force of Victorian journalism. With sensational crossheads, such as "The Violation of Virgins" and "Strapping Girls Down", the Maiden Tribute threw respectable Victorians into a state of moral panic, and achieved, as a consequence, the implementation of the Criminal Law Amendment Act of 1885, which raised the age of consent for girls from 13 to 16, and also re-criminalised homosexual acts.

[hr]
Remember when they rejected the actual science regarding the relation to CP and child sex abuse rates?

https://www.pathtojustice.com/blog/mash ... y-victims/

Therefore, as these graphic sexual images populate and spread, we can unfortunately predict there will be more child sexual abuse.


https://www.springer.com/about+springer ... -1042321-0

Could making child pornography legal lead to lower rates of child sex abuse? It could well do, according to a new study by Milton Diamond, from the University of Hawaii, and colleagues.
Results from the Czech Republic showed, as seen everywhere else studied (Canada, Croatia, Denmark, Germany, Finland, Hong Kong, Shanghai, Sweden, USA), that rape and other sex crimes have not increased following the legalization and wide availability of pornography. And most significantly, the incidence of child sex abuse has fallen considerably since 1989, when child pornography became readily accessible – a phenomenon also seen in Denmark and Japan. Their findings are published online today in Springer’s journal Archives of Sexual Behavior.
The findings support the theory that potential sexual offenders use child pornography as a substitute for sex crimes against children


http://unh.edu/ccrc/pdf/CV204%20CP%20possessors.pdf

One concern is that the accessibility of online CP has caused increases in child
sexual abuse. Some research suggests that CP may trigger sexual abuse by activating
and validating sexual urges in CP viewers that were previously suppressed or con-
trolled (Beech et al., 2008; Quayle & Taylor, 2003; Wilson & Jones, 2008). There is no
evidence of increasing abuse in the United States, however. In fact, rates of child sexual
abuse have declined substantially since the mid-1990s, a time period that corresponds
to the spread of CP online. Statistics from U.S. child protective service agencies show
that from 1992 to 2007, child sexual abuse declined 53% (Jones & Finkelhor, 2009),
including interfamilial abuse (Finkelhor & Jones, 2006). Evidence of this decline also
comes from victim self-report surveys and U.S. criminal justice system data (Finkelhor
& Jones, 2008; Finkelhor, Turner, Ormrod, & Hamby, 2010), as well as the child pro-
tective services data collection system. The fact that this trend is revealed in multiple
sources tends to undermine arguments that it is because of reduced reporting or changes
in investigatory or statistical procedures.


Remember when they lied and said it's pathological to be attracted to JBs?

https://forensicpsychologist.blogspot.f ... three.html

APA rejects "hebephilia," last standing of three novel sexual disorders

To hear government experts on the witness stand in civil detention trials in recent months, the novel diagnosis of "hebephilia" was a fait accompli, just awaiting its formal acceptance into the upcoming fifth edition of the influential Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM).

They were flat-out wrong.
In a stunning blow to psychology's burgeoning sex offender processing industry, the Board of Trustees of the American Psychiatric Association rejected the proposed diagnosis outright, not even relegating it to an appendix as meriting further study, its proponents' fall-back position.


https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Ka ... 1e948e.pdf


In a subsequent study, Freund confirmed the normalcy of sexual arousal to
adolescents. His subjects were 48 young Czech soldiers, all presumed to be ‘‘normal’’
and heterosexual in orientation. He showed the men pictures of children (ages 4–10
years old), adolescents (ages 12–16), and adults (ages 17–36). As expected, most of the
heterosexual men were sexually aroused by photos of both adult and adolescent
females. They were not aroused by pictures of males of any age, and were aroused at an
intermediate level by pictures of children (Freund & Costell, 1970).



https://philiaresearch.wordpress.com/20 ... ent-girls/

A new study of Bulgarian men has replicated a previous 2013 experiment on British men. In both studies, the same photographs of adolescent girls (Tanner stages 3-4) were shown to one group of men labelled as age 14-15, and a different set of men labelled as age 16-17. Subjects reported more sexual attraction when the photographs were labelled as 16-17. The researchers conclude:

[T]he consistent finding that the same photographs of younger females, but with different age labels, were assigned significantly different levels of attractiveness suggests that cognitive factors beyond biologically driven sexual attraction were involved in making these ratings. In all the three samples, apparently younger girls were rated as less attractive than older girls despite being the same photographs. We hypothesize that this difference reflects some self-censoring mechanism involved in making such judgments. This may involve a form of comparison between participants’ own sexual attraction to the individual girl and the likely social norms surrounding this judgment.

This finding has now been replicated across four samples, including one that is yet to be reported.





Remember when they lied about the harms of sex to JBs?


https://books.google.ch/books?id=YqLr5z ... et&f=false

The official view is that teens have sex only for bad reasons: because of enticing
media images, peer pressure, hormones, limited brains, and other misguided compulsions.
In such a climate, researchers who find teens expressing positive attitudes about
sex and their sexual experiences often feel compelled to slant their results in a
negative manner--and if they do not, media reports will.

For example, Web MD reported a University of California study of 619 teens, 275
of whom had intercourse or oral sex during their ninth or tenth grade years, under
the headline, "Teen sex may take emotional toll. Girls especially vulnerable to
negative emotional aftereffects." Web MD's headline and article were not fair
characterizations of the 18-month study published in the February 2007 pediatrics.
In fact, the study found teens aged 15 and 16 were quite positive about their sexual
experiences. Directly contradicting those who claim teen sex inexorably leads to
regret, depression, and even suicide, only 2 percent (among teens who had both oral
sex and intercourse) to 4 percent (for those who had only oral sex) said their
experiences had been entirely negative. In contrast, an astounding 61 percent (oral
sex), 86 percent (intercourse), and 96 percent (both) said at least one aspect of
the sex had been positive. Even though researchers gave teens only half as many
positive as negative options to choose from, 8 to 20 times more felt their experience
had been entirely positive. Most reported both positive experiences (led by pleasure,
feeling good about oneself, and making one's relationship better) and negative ones
(led by much lower levels of feeling used, feeling bad about oneself, and feeling
regret).

Web MD's headline, then, should have been "Teenagers generally report positive
experiences from sex." That most sexually active teens could think of at least
one negative consequence, as defined by the researchers, not only failed to negate
their generally positive reactions, it indicated a healthy ability to recognize the
complexity of sexual experience. What sexually active adult has not experienced some
bad results (remember the famous "Hite Report" of yore?)?


Remember when they lied about when full fertility is reached in females through deceptive misinterpretations of research?

books.google.ca/books?id=0HqB94NETbEC&pg=PA4&lpg=PA4

Female sexual development:

Full fertility is usually reached within 2 years of menarche, between 14 and 15 years of age on average.



books.google.com/books?id=0BUZvZ3SWO0C&pg=PA146&lpg=PA146

But many of the initial cycles are associated with failure of ovulation of a mature egg and so the periods may be irregular for a year or so and fertility is low for about one to two years before full reproductive competence is reached


patient.info/doctor/normal-and-abnormal-puberty

Stage 5
Adult breast contour with projection of papilla only (mean age 14.5 years).
Adult with spread to medial thigh but not up linea alba (mean age 14.6 years).




Remember when they lied about the risks of pregnancy to adolescents?


http://www.mamaye.org/en/evidence/mater ... -countries

In most regions, the age distribution of maternal mortality follows a J-shaped curve, with a slightly increased risk of death in adolescents as compared to women between 20 and 24 years old

...

In addition, adolescents in some countries were found to be at lower risk of death than women in their early 20s and even than women in all other age groups

...

In contrast to the overall results, the MMR for 15-19 year-olds in Tanzania was the same as for women aged 20-24, and much lower than for women aged 25 and over, indicating that there is no excess risk of maternal death associated with adolescent pregnancy.






Remember when they said the children of adolescents had learning disabilities and so on?

http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/154/3/212.full

when maternal education, marital status, poverty level, and race are controlled, the detrimental effects [on the cognitive functioning of the children of teenage mothers] disappear and even some protective effects are observed. Hence, the increased risk for educational problems and disabilities among children of teenage mothers is attributed not to the effect of young age but to the confounding influences of associated sociodemographic factors. In contrast to teen age, older maternal age has an adverse effect on a child's educational outcome regardless of whether other factors are controlled for or not.




Literally nothing they say is ever true.

Seriously we even have an established history for your mass insanity:

https://psmag.com/satan-has-no-interest ... a3e12ca4d2

Victorian-style devil outrage reached a fever pitch in the family-values 1980s. In his 2015 book We Believe the Children: A Moral Panic in the 1980s, author Richard Beck tells the story of a series of allegations of ritualized Satanic child abuse in daycare centers around the country. Through painstaking elicitation, police, prosecutors, and investigators managed to get children to testify to all sorts of unthinkable violations. Not just sexual assault: There were allegations of gamified animal torture and vast networks of child porn production and distribution. And, of course, the devil.

I asked Beck if in all his exhaustive research he had been able to track down a single instance of verified Satanic ritual child abuse. “No,” says. “My editor and I joked that the book would sell better if I could find an actual case, but as far as I could find it never happened.” Since they didn’t occur in reality, the infernal elements had to be products of adult interpretation and suggestion. Yet whole municipalities managed to convince themselves that there were hidden networks of devil worship and child abuse in their own backyards. How did they accomplish such a feat?



https://reason.com/blog/2014/06/12/eden ... alls-apart

And now we are seeing so many of these horror stories fall apart. First it was Somaly Mam, the activist whose own sex trafficking story, as well as those of some of her star "rescues," turned out to be false. After years of international support and acclaim, Mamâ a favorite of The New York Times' Nicolas Kristofâ was exposed by Newsweek as a fraud.

Now Kim's story, too, may be coming apart. Last week Breaking Out, a nonprofit organization that fights human trafficking of all forms, posted the following message on Facebook:


https://reason.com/archives/2016/09/09/ ... rafficking

With the death of his mother last summer, Sigurds Zitars, a retired accountant, was the only family member left in University Place, Washington. Since 2006 "Sig" had been the clan's caregiver, after his mother developed dementia and his father and sister both took ill. In January, Zitars was fixing up the family home for sale when police broke down its door, arresting the 62-year-old at gunpoint. According to the state, Zitars was one of at least a dozen bad guys associated with an elite league of sexual predators and a multi-state sex-trafficking ring.

News of the bust played perfectly into the growing narrative from both activists and officials that sex trafficking—the use of force, fraud, or coercion to trap people in prostitution—is rampant in America, a pernicious form of what Barack Obama described in 2012 as "modern slavery." According to political lore, both girls-next-door and women smuggled across U.S. borders are at risk, their exploitation aided by online tools and the indifference of lusty patrons.

On January 7, Washington officials unveiled a perfect storm of such horrors: Women lured from South Korea under false pretenses and "held against their will" at local brothels. A website where deviant men promoted and reviewed these enslaved women. "Because they had money," said King County Prosecutor Dan Satterberg at a televised press conference, these men "gained access to sexually abuse these vulnerable young women, then put their energies toward a campaign to encourage many more men to do the same."

"The systematic importation of vulnerable young women for sexual abuse, exploitation, and criminal profiteering has been going on for years and it came to a stop this week," Satterberg added. "This is what human trafficking looks like."

But as more information about the case has become available, Satterberg's narrative starts to break down. The reality—as evidenced by police reports, court documents, online records, and statements from those involved—is far less lurid and depraved. Instead of a story of stark abuse and exploitation, it's a story of immigration, economics, the pull of companionship and connection, the structures and dynamism that drive black markets, and a criminal-justice system all too eager to declare women victims of the choices they make.



http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/2876 ... cking-ngos

Transparency and Post-Recession Funds

In all, 50 of the most prominent anti-trafficking organizations in the United States are estimated to share around $686 million - an amount that would place them approximately 184th on the UN's ranking of nations by GDP, right above Samoa. And that, as we will see, could be a very low estimate.

The organizations included three types of anti-trafficking groups: standard not-for-profits, in which organizations have 501©(3) status and are tax-exempt, or work under tax-exempt umbrella organizations; faith-based organizations (those affiliated with churches may have tax-exempt 501©(3) status, but are not required to file annual returns); and public-private partnerships. The former two may also have non-governmental organization (NGO) status if they operate internationally; a public-private partnership may consider itself an organization and use the language of nonprofits to describe its mission, vision and service, but may not have tax-exempt status (a fact which is supposed to be disclosed if the organization is soliciting donations). Tax-exempt organizations that are affiliated with public-private partnerships are bound by financial disclosure laws.


Hard Numbers and Malleable Data

Numbers throughout the murky world of human trafficking are notoriously hard to verify. How many traffickers? Uncountable! How many victims? So many! How old are they? Too young! How much money changes hands? Zillions upon gajillions of dollars, daily! "Scarily lucrative," Time declared it in a May 2014 headline. Sound unbelievable? It is, and aid groups will claim it's because the unvarnished truth of human slavery is incomprehensible to most living Americans today.



They're a god damn religious cult, the laws based on their religion are unconstitutional, I would love to even go to prison forever just to be able to have a long drawn out legal battle with the fuckers that could have media attention drawn to it honestly, I want to spread the truth about their mountain of fraudulent lies and their nature as being a cult of pseudoscientific charlatans.


Hey guess what you fucking retards your sex hysteria is already collapsing as it should and we will make god damn sure the same thing happens in the USA and around the world:

http://thefreethoughtproject.com/uk-pol ... arresting/

UK Police Announce There Are So Many Pedophiles, They Will Stop Arresting Them



Because police “cannot cope” with the “huge” influx of reports on child abuse, they now say pedophiles whose ‘only’ crime is viewing child pornography should undergo rehabilitation — instead of going to prison.

In a mere three years, child abuse reports have skyrocketed in volume by 80 percent; and, as Chief Constable Simon Bailey of the National Police Chiefs’ Council and head of Operation Hydrant, “which is investigating multiple allegations of historic sexual abuse across the UK,” the BBC reports, “knew his view would cause nervousness and draw headlines.

“But he said the numbers of reports of abuse were at ‘huge proportions’ — an NSPCC study in late 2016 used figures which suggested the number of individuals looking at such images could exceed half a million.”

Child pornography, indeed an incredibly serious crime from any standpoint, seems to have erupted in popularity — Bailey told BBC Radio 4’s Today program around 400 people each month are arrested by police working with the National Crime Agency for viewing indecent images.

“There are undoubtedly tens of thousands of men that are seeking to exploit children online with a view to meeting them,” he continued, “with a view to then raping them and performing the most awful sexual abuse upon them.

“That’s where I believe our focus has got to be. They are the individuals that pose the really significant threat.”

Bailey’s stance isn’t unfamiliar to the dark realm of child sexual abuse, but it’s exceedingly unusual for a police official of such high rank to advocate re-prioritizing criminality — particularly given the murkier crime at hand perpetuates and fuels the cycle.



Without providing statistics or references, Bailey championed referrals to rehabilitation for viewing child porn, saying they “increasingly are effective” — as would be vacating the court system of these cases, to “speed things up.”

Because the child abuse and exploitation is so rampant, the overwhelmed chief constable believes the imperative to target the worst pedophile offenders far outweighs the severity of the crime of viewing explicit images — despite the latter being a serious, repeat transgression against the victim.

“Every time an image is viewed, the victim is being victimised again and there is nothing as abhorrent. But we have to be able to manage the totality.”

Besides police operations, a spokesperson for the Home Office told the BBC it had allotted £20 million (over $24.8 million) to the National Crime Agency, specifically for battling child sexual exploitation on the web.

“Alongside ensuring we have a tough law enforcement response to bring offenders to justice, we are also committed to preventing offending in the first place,” the spokesperson said.

Prison terms and harsh punishment can be efficacious as deterrents, but, a spokesperson from the NPCC noted, “We cannot arrest our way out of the situation. If we are to protect more children we must make prevention and rehabilitation a priority.”

Resources across the U.K. have been stretched to the breaking point recently, after a series of high-profile cases of child abuse and sexual exploitation involving prominent figures had commandeered headlines for weeks. Such astonishing scandals might have provided public awareness and a platform for victims, but reports to police and pleas to charitable organizations for help have created an enormous backlog.

Lisa Thornhill, a senior practitioner at the Lucy Faithfull Foundation, “which works with people who have sexually harmed or fear they may harm a child,” said the center is not only full to capacity, but has had to turn away hundreds asking to be rehabilitated.

“Most people who commit these offences have some idea what they are doing is wrong,” Thornhill told the BBC. “We appeal to the brave and responsible part of those people to get in touch with us and stop, and stay stopped.”

According to the station, “Calls to the helpline are over capacity – about 800 people each month call, but about 2,500 calls are unable to be taken due to demand.”

Whether or not Bailey’s appeal to lessen the severity by default for pedophiles who view child pornography will result in a change in policy or law remains to be seen, but a furious backlash from victims and their families will almost certainly ensue now.


http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/on ... er-7327754

Police are knocking on the doors of suspected paedophiles and urging them to stop viewing child pornography online as part of a controversial new scheme to combat crime.

Officers visit homes of people they believe may have downloaded or viewed indecent images of children and tell them to stop, often handing over a warning letter.

So far officers from Sussex Police, the first to try such a scheme, have visited 24 homes of suspected paedophiles since November last year.

Though viewing or downloading child porn is illegal, offenders are not arrested but are told never to do it again.



https://www.rt.com/uk/211803-radical-re ... ild-abuse/

A radical reform of how the state deals with child sex offenders who view indecent images of children is being mooted. Proposals that offenders should receive mental health treatment rather than face imprisonment are under consideration.

In an interview with The Guardian, Chief Constable Simon Bailey - the Association of Chief Police Officers’ (ACPO) head of child protection and abuse investigations - shed light on the proposed reforms.

He said thousands of offenders who source and view child abuse images on the internet should receive treatment under the National Health Service (NHS) rather than face imprisonment, because they do not pose a threat to young people.

This suggested policy shift has provoked heated debate among child protection professionals and health experts over whether such a move amounts to the decriminalization of child abuse offenses at a time when online abuse appear to be on the increase.

Bailey is an advocate of the reforms.


You know why your hysteria is collapsing? It's because the entire god damn thing was a moral panic, and you are literally psychotic to such an extent that you should be forcibly institutionalized and medicated.


https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/wi ... ublic-fear

Third, there is a great deal of fluctuation over time in the level of concern over a condition. The typical pattern begins with the discovery of the threat, followed by a rapid rise and then peak in public concern, which then subsequently, and often abruptly, subsides.



Seriously, the bulk of your bullshit is just an enacted melodrama, you are literally acting out a fucking fiction play!

http://bjc.oxfordjournals.org/content/5 ... 5.abstract

Abstract

This paper argues that a narrative lens is conducive toward a renewed understanding of moral panic. It is proposed that a melodramatic narrative frame that is central to the construction of news stories about crime is significant for conceptualizing what moral panics are and how they work. The paper will propose that moral panics can be seen as enacted melodramas, where the traditional boundaries between newsmakers, interest groups and ‘the public’ are temporarily dismantled and where everyday citizens experience the role of the suffering victim. This understanding provides insight toward appreciating why only some issues develop into moral panic in particular spaces and times and offers a new framework with which to approach the study of panic.

http://www.ipt-forensics.com/journal/volume7/j7_3_5.htm

The sex-abuse hysteria we are witnessing today is the greatest wave of hysteria that we have ever experienced in this country. It has been going on for at least a decade and, although there are some signs that people are increasingly coming to their senses, there is no question that we have a long way to go until this abomination has spent its course. Unfortunately, psychiatry is playing an active role in promulgating what is clearly a national scandal.


Get their religion out of the criminal justice system, out of congress ,out of the law. They are pathological liars, they are comparable to the anti vaccination movement, they will never ever stop making up their fraudulent studies, mutating their narratives as they are under constant bombardment by the actual evidence, and so on, they need to be isolated to a fucking church, but whatever happens they absolutely must be removed from the government, what they're doing is blatantly unconstitutional and illegal, it is unconstitutional for the government to even give them money, they are a religion, I don't want a single dime of tax money being spent on this cult to fund the construction of their pseudoscience and their elaborate fantasy narratives, it's illegal to support religious movements with tax payer money, and that is exactly what they are, I have absolutely no belief in any of their make believe bullshit, the fact is it is make believe, fictional, mythology, an actual assessment of the evidence will reveal that I am correct and they are wrong, there should be a god damn investigation into the entire thing seriously, they should be under fucking investigation right now.

mrz wrote:
Fabie wrote:
yes and they are well arrested, watching cp they are contributing in some way to the children abuse
(If there were no spectators there would be no cp)


If there were no CP there would be no spectators, the notion that random fucks viewing pictures on the Internet leads to child sex abuse is completely invalid and contradicted by the scientific evidence, it's like saying if there were nobody watching ISIS decapitating people they would stop being terrorists. Sorry but the entire rhetoric on CP is fraudulent bullshit from a band of pathological liars, you would be well suited to purge your brain of all of the lies they've indoctrinated into you, forget all of the slogans and phrases they said, they are fraudulent pathological liars and nothing they have ever said was true.



yes every degenerate that watch CP is contributing to CP yes because is obvious
ln the same way I'm contributing to normal porn when sometimes I watch the sluts in chaturbate, despite I don't give the sluts tokens yet I'm contributing to the corrupted shit to continue infesting the western world

Fabie wrote:
mrz wrote:
If there were no CP there would be no spectators, the notion that random fucks viewing pictures on the Internet leads to child sex abuse is completely invalid and contradicted by the scientific evidence, it's like saying if there were nobody watching ISIS decapitating people they would stop being terrorists. Sorry but the entire rhetoric on CP is fraudulent bullshit from a band of pathological liars, you would be well suited to purge your brain of all of the lies they've indoctrinated into you, forget all of the slogans and phrases they said, they are fraudulent pathological liars and nothing they have ever said was true.



yes every degenerate that watch CP is contributing to CP yes because is obvious
ln the same way I'm contributing to normal porn when sometimes I watch the sluts in chaturbate, despite I don't give the sluts tokens yet I'm contributing to the corrupted shit to continue infesting the western world


Looking at things doesn't magically contribute to them. You have no actual argument, what you have is called an ipsedixitism.

The people contributing to the sexual abuse of children are the retards criminalizing the millions of people viewing CP who they have absolutely no ability to arrest, therefore encouraging people to sexually abuse children if they are going to watch CP anyway, as supported by the actual evidence. The people waging a completely unwinnable war on CP viewing that makes absolutely no significant impact and never will, and that encourages every single person who watches CP to sexually abuse children, are the ones to blame for contributing to the sexual abuse of children.

They have no legitimacy to what they do, they make no impact of any significance into the viewing of CP, and in the process of doing this they cause everyone viewing CP to decide they may as well do whatever the fuck else they want as well. Then they justify themselves by creating elaborate fairytale worlds about a multi bazillion dollar CP industry they're combating, fraudulent and fabricated research papers that they internally distribute among each other, and magical abuse processes like voodoo rape. They have absolutely no legitimacy what-so-ever, they are not doing good things they are ruining people's lives for looking at pictures on the Internet and then they're rationalizing this with delusional beliefs, in the process of which they're causing more child sex abuse than otherwise would have existed.

The only reason they have the support they do, which is already not nearly a consensus agreement in society, is because the media never ever exposes people to the arguments against them, they only expose them to their delusional bullshit, and they support them 100%. If people actually had the real evidence presented to them and the situation explained to them, the support for the CP crusaders would fucking plummet, but you're not even allowed to question them as they go about the process of conducting their fraudulent research, inventing their fantasy world, and promulgating their fraudulent statistics and narrative, the reason they have so much support is similar to the reason why people believe in a religion they're exposed to in a highly religious area, it's because it's the only reality that has ever been presented to them. When actual reality is presented to them and juxtaposed with the fake reality of the propagandists, it is clear which is real.

Return to Politics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest