Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Canada police arrest ‘pedophile hunting’ group over child abuse images

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–15 of 15 posts

Re: Canada police arrest ‘pedophile hunting’ group over child abuse images

#11

Post by guilhas »

duxup wrote: post #7

I ran across some groups on Reddit who seemed to portray themselves as vigilantes in search of pedophiles. They had all sorts of conspiracy theories and ideas intertwined with their “research”. But at some point it seemed that’s all it was. Conspiracy theories, and their activities that honestly seemed indistinguishable from just describing trading child porn… Always hard to know if it was real but it was a weird cro…

Are you talking about the FBI?

How the FBI became the world’s largest distributor of child sex abuse imagery https://thenextweb.com/news/how-the-fbi-became-the-worlds-la...

Re: Canada police arrest ‘pedophile hunting’ group over child abuse images

#12

Post by matbilodeau »

DoItToMe81 wrote: post #10

Wow. They sent legal porn but claimed it was an underage persona, which made it legally the same as real child abuse and molestation. That's a very strange law.

It's to tackle potential defense strategies. - No harm done, just drawings... - No harm done, the person actually waiting in the motel room was of legal age. etc.

Re: Canada police arrest ‘pedophile hunting’ group over child abuse images

#13

Post by YourDadVPN »

matbilodeau wrote: post #12
DoItToMe81 wrote: post #10

Wow. They sent legal porn but claimed it was an underage persona, which made it legally the same as real child abuse and molestation. That's a very strange law.

It's to tackle potential defense strategies. - No harm done, just drawings... - No harm done, the person actually waiting in the motel room was of legal age. etc.

The drawings one is weird. In the case of the "decoy" being of age, it doesn't matter because the person intended to abuse a child. But a drawing? It's disgusting but I don't see why it should be a crime.

Re: Canada police arrest ‘pedophile hunting’ group over child abuse images

#14

Post by duxup »

guilhas wrote: post #11
duxup wrote: post #7

I ran across some groups on Reddit who seemed to portray themselves as vigilantes in search of pedophiles. They had all sorts of conspiracy theories and ideas intertwined with their “research”. But at some point it seemed that’s all it was. Conspiracy theories, and their activities that honestly seemed indistinguishable from just describing trading child porn… Always hard to know if it was real but it was a weird cro…

Are you talking about the FBI? How the FBI became the world’s largest distributor of child sex abuse imagery https://thenextweb.com/news/how-the-fbi-became-the-worlds-la...

No I’m talking about a group on Reddit.

Re: Canada police arrest ‘pedophile hunting’ group over child abuse images

#15

Post by matbilodeau »

YourDadVPN wrote: post #13
matbilodeau wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's to tackle potential defense strategies. - No harm done, just drawings... - No harm done, the person actually waiting in the motel room was of legal age. etc.

The drawings one is weird. In the case of the "decoy" being of age, it doesn't matter because the person intended to abuse a child. But a drawing? It's disgusting but I don't see why it should be a crime.

Here are excerpts from a Canadian Supreme Court decision explaining the reasoning in a much better way than my previous summary. Reasoning is the same.

P38 The first issue is important because it governs whether the prohibition on possession is confined to representations of actual persons, or whether it extends to drawings from the imagination, cartoons, or computer generated composites. The available evidence suggests that explicit sexual materials can be harmful whether or not they depict actual children (...)

P43 (...)The question is this: would a reasonable observer perceive the person in the representation as being under 18 and engaged in explicit sexual activity?

P51 Family photos of naked children, viewed objectively, generally do not have as their “dominant characteristic” the depiction of a sexual organ or anal region “for a sexual purpose”. Placing a photo in an album of sexual photos and adding a sexual caption could change its meaning such that its dominant characteristic or purpose becomes unmistakably sexual in the view of a reasonable objective observer(...)

https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2001/2001scc2/2001scc2....

Post reply on HN