Computer-generated child 'Sweetie' catches online predators

FigTree

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2013
Messages
3,476
Reaction score
375
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.


_70917195_019865599-1.jpg

The charity identified 1,000 adults from 71 countries who solicited Sweetie
 
I saw this on the news. 71 countries. Disgusting! I think this is brilliant way to get these creeps.
 
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. :(
 
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 *advertiser censored* 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 *advertiser censored* laws. But if no child is involved, what, exactly, is the crime? Thought?
 
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 *advertiser censored* 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 *advertiser censored* 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.
 
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 *advertiser censored* 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 *advertiser censored* 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 *advertiser censored* is 6 people (I think this is a Euro stat). Apparently the hardest part in charging anyone was 'evidence'.


.
 
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.
 
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 *advertiser censored* 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 *advertiser censored* laws. But if no child is involved, what, exactly, is the crime? Thought?
Excellent post, Nova.
 

Staff online

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
126
Guests online
2,315
Total visitors
2,441

Forum statistics

Threads
589,996
Messages
17,928,856
Members
228,037
Latest member
shmoozie
Back
Top