Running a Dark Web pedophile honeypot

I agree. Pedophilia is a sexual preference for pre-pubescent children, not an act. The vast majority of pedophiles are likely sad and lonely people condemned by a freak of nature to live with the burden of a sexual preference that in Western society carries the ultimate stigma.

Even discussing pedophilia calmly and reasonably opens one to the charge of being a pedophile or a "pedophile apologist." Taboos can reveal a lot about a society but I'll leave that discussion for another time.

I don't completely trust the motives of guys like the author of the linked article. Others have already pointed out technical errors in the article and questioned the soundness of his methodology. His irrationally labeling Tor as "the devil" is a bit odd too (and highly illogical), to say the least. He even admits he has an irrational hate-on for pedophiles.

What is this guy actually achieving with his "honeypot" other than wrestling with his own demons (more on this later)? He set out to entrap ostensible pedophiles and gather their IP addresses etc. Not child abusers or child pornographers but people that clicked on his link offering a "community of like minded individuals." He explains in detail the technical aspects of his operation and what he learned about the people he interacted with and draws some very dubious conclusions. (Such as "Many visitors to the site were active pedophile predators." Maybe this is the case, but he offers no compelling evidence other than a few lines of a chat room transcript. Not once does he mention even contemplating contacting the FBI or his local PD or any other LEA. Rather, this seems to be mostly about him.

There have been a few high-profile cases over the years where crusaders dedicated to fighting things they found morally reprehensible (e.g. prostitution, narcotics, pornography, homosexuality, child pornography) were outed as being voracious consumers and/or practitioners of that which they vehemently opposed in public at every opportunity. One of them was a DA who made a name for himself with his aggressive prosecution of alleged prostitutes and child pornographers. There is a term for this in psychology which I can't recall at the moment. Basically, there are some people who deal with the cognitive dissonance and the associated shame and guilt of being attracted to something society or their religion condemns morally by venting against it publicly while indulging in it privately. A guy who has an anti-porn website, say, and publishes anti-porn literature for distribution in schools who travels the country speaking out against porn and attending and organizing anti-porn conferences while fapping himself raw to internet porn every night after work.

I am *not saying I think the guy in the article is a pedophile or harms children. I am saying that I don't think his prime motive for doing this project is empathy or compassion for victims of child abusers and predators. He sets up a "honeypot" that serves no practical purpose. No suspected child abusers were investigated, no children saved from harm, police and LE don't even get a mention. Nothing new and useful was brought the table.

Yet based on his two-week escapade "Tor is the devil." That seems like a very odd statement, especially coming from an engineer. Is his computer the devil's sidekick? He does admit that he is motivated by personal reasons and it very much shows. After reading his piece I don't know what the take away is supposed to be. Pedophiles use the internet? Tor is used for illegal activities? Anyway, it's late and this is going in circles. I mean no disrespect to the author but I am left feeling very puzzled.

> Maybe it's just me but I don't really like the tendency to treat pedophiles as if they are the devils themselves.

People don't know what the prevalence of paedophilia is, or the ratios of paedophiles that never act on that vs paedophiles who do act on it.

If someone commits multiple offences it's easier to catch them, so the statistics of convicted offenders are probably skewed towards frequent offenders. That may make paedophile offenders appear to be riskier.

It's important to remember that child abuse does cause very real, often severe life-limiting, harm. We've come a long way from the 1970s thinking of "making a fuss is what causes the harm" to recognising that it's the abuse that causes most of the harm.

> If you're watching game of thrones, you are watching people kill each other

No, you're watching fictional people pretend to kill each other.

You would have an argument if you used snuff films as an example. And yes, if watching a child being raped is illegal, than watching a real murder should be.

Interesting point. Society can change though - and networks like Tor may be come increasingly important in the future.

Having done a small amount of volunteer work with children, I've had some exposure to child protection issues. Often, its a spiral downwards (IIRC its typically called the spiral of abuse), where the person in question erodes mental barriers so that they see the behaviour as normal. I don't accept the "just watching" argument - it is child abuse.

What you must understand is that it normalises the behaviour in that persons mind and then we're onto other barriers to be eroded - i.e. the person moves onto physical acts.

The blasé attitude on this thread is beyond belief.