1139 users online (244 members and 895 guests)  



Websleuths News


Results 1 to 8 of 8
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    In the Lost & Found
    Posts
    3,246

    Computer-generated child 'Sweetie' catches online predators

    Meet Sweetie, the girl catching online predators

    Article One: BBC NEWS. Read More...

    Dutch researchers say 1,000 men from around the world made contact with a 10-year-old 'girl' in the Philippines during a 10-week investigation, many of whom wanted to pay her to take off her clothes in front of a webcam.
    Article Two: BBC NEWS. Read More...
    Terre des Hommes carried out a 10-week sting near Amsterdam, posing on video chat rooms as "Sweetie", a 10-year-old Filipina girl.
    Some 20,000 men contacted her, with 1,000 found to have offered her money.
    The names of these men - including 110 Britons - were passed to police.


    The charity identified 1,000 adults from 71 countries who solicited Sweetie

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    17,687
    I saw this on the news. 71 countries. Disgusting! I think this is brilliant way to get these creeps.
    Justice for Holly Bobo🎀

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    In the Lost & Found
    Posts
    3,246
    Quote Originally Posted by ~n/t~ View Post
    I saw this on the news. 71 countries. Disgusting! I think this is brilliant way to get these creeps.
    Pity it was an experiment, but it did it's job - to highlight the amount of people out there are trying to source children for exploitation. The numbers were incredible.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Palm Springs
    Posts
    19,098
    I'm glad they used a computer-generated image and not a pic of a live girl, of course.

    But I am puzzled and concerned by the legality of trying to charge viewers with child porn when they haven't seen a child. (I take it this was an experiment and no charges resulted, so I'm speaking hypothetically.)

    I have always agreed that the threat to the child overcame free-speech protections in the case of child porn laws. But if no child is involved, what, exactly, is the crime? Thought?

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    2,001
    Quote Originally Posted by Nova View Post
    I'm glad they used a computer-generated image and not a pic of a live girl, of course.

    But I am puzzled and concerned by the legality of trying to charge viewers with child porn when they haven't seen a child. (I take it this was an experiment and no charges resulted, so I'm speaking hypothetically.)

    I have always agreed that the threat to the child overcame free-speech protections in the case of child porn laws. But if no child is involved, what, exactly, is the crime? Thought?
    Well if police can go online undercover and pose as a child to arrest people, this should be no different.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    In the Lost & Found
    Posts
    3,246
    Quote Originally Posted by Nova View Post
    I'm glad they used a computer-generated image and not a pic of a live girl, of course.

    But I am puzzled and concerned by the legality of trying to charge viewers with child porn when they haven't seen a child. (I take it this was an experiment and no charges resulted, so I'm speaking hypothetically.)

    I have always agreed that the threat to the child overcame free-speech protections in the case of child porn laws. But if no child is involved, what, exactly, is the crime? Thought?
    I think the target was to highlight the live on-line sex performed by children for money and the rate it is increasing by the demand for it.
    I dont think anyone was charged - the names were handed to INTERPOL and it was up to them as to what they wanted/could do with the information.
    It was more the statistics gathered - and I think that was how they managed to bypass the soliciting and the bating.

    One of the reasons they stated that they also conducted the experiment was because the rate of arrest so far for online Porn is 6 people (I think this is a Euro stat). Apparently the hardest part in charging anyone was 'evidence'.


    .

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Palm Springs
    Posts
    19,098
    Quote Originally Posted by Brightbird View Post
    Well if police can go online undercover and pose as a child to arrest people, this should be no different.
    I have the same issue with those arrests. But I don't think our courts have the guts to really confront the paradox.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Pumpkin Hollow
    Posts
    28,646
    Quote Originally Posted by Nova View Post
    I'm glad they used a computer-generated image and not a pic of a live girl, of course.

    But I am puzzled and concerned by the legality of trying to charge viewers with child porn when they haven't seen a child. (I take it this was an experiment and no charges resulted, so I'm speaking hypothetically.)

    I have always agreed that the threat to the child overcame free-speech protections in the case of child porn laws. But if no child is involved, what, exactly, is the crime? Thought?
    Excellent post, Nova.



Similar Threads

  1. Online Predators
    By Dex in forum A CALL TO ACTION! Calif. DMH Illegally Releases 17,000 Sex Offenders
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: 06-28-2006, 07:50 PM
  2. Profiles of Online Predators
    By BillyGoatGruff in forum Crimes-Spotlight on Children
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 05-23-2006, 05:00 PM
  3. Ewww, man's online sweetie is his own mother!
    By Mabel in forum Bizarre and Off-Beat News
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 12-13-2005, 12:18 AM