This was the threat:
"Once he had coerced Alice into sending intimate images, Fordyce convinced her that she was complicit in making and sharing child sexual abuse material. Fearing arrest, she kept everything secret from her family and friends."
Given that some US states are so fucking crazy to brand a 15 year old, who sends a sext of herself as a kiddie pornographer and a sex offender for life you may be on to something here.
It seems ridiculous, but very possible.
That doesn't excuse Facebook's despicable treatment of their contractors who have to wade through that filth.
For all those who are practically demanding this be turned over to them, here's a quote from a recent article (about Telegram):
Filing a charge is pointless, says Ezra. Since two years, she's being harassed on Telegram. It started when she was sixteen: photoshopped nudes with her snapchat account were circulated. They had taken selfies from her social media, and those of her family, and combined them with porn fragments. She doesn't know the perpetrator, but that person takes a lot of trouble to ruin her. "Nowadays, the boys have so many ways to make it look real." [1]
If you read that, and think all these tools should be released, you're part of the problem.
> It's pretty disgusting how he morally grandstands after digging out the fetish content of a really troubled 15 year old
Not sure if linking profile archives here would count as doxxing, but the troubling content continues into at least 2018, when she would have been in her 20s.
There would have to be a lot of conspirators involved, that first decided to plant child pornography on this guy's encrypted hard disks and his laptop, and then somehow coerced him into defending himself with the proclamation that it's a 'victimless crime'.
Given how unlikely this is, it's almost certainly the case that he is a pedophile who has trafficked in child pornography with other pedophiles. I don't know about you, but my sympathy level for such people is approximately zero.
> Briefly, in around 1999, the victim, Amy, was raped as an eight-year-old girl by her uncle. The uncle was caught and convicted. Amy received psychological counseling and the uncle was ordered to pay the cost for her treatment up to that time, a few thousand dollars. By the end of her treatment in 1999, Amy was (as reflected in her therapist’s notes) “back to normal” and engaged in age-appropriate activities such as dance. Sadly, eight years later, Amy’s condition drastically deteriorated when she learned that her child sex abuse images were widely traded on the Internet. The “Misty” series depicting Amy is one of the most widely-circulated sets of sexual abuse images (i.e., child pornography) trafficked in the world. According to her psychologist, the global trafficking of Amy’s child sex abuse images has caused “long lasting and life changing impact[s] on her.” As Amy explained in her own, personal victim impact statement, “Every day of my life I live in constant fear that someone will see my pictures and recognize me and that I will be humiliated all over again.”
> In tweets reviewed by NBC News, the accused adult identified as a “map” — a common online abbreviation for “minor-attracted person.”
I'm both amused and horrified at how open people are about this stuff.
No longer do we have to divine intent from lists of ambiguous red flags, they'll just outright broadcast their proclivities without fear of consequence. I also love the "I'm mentally 13" nonsense from people old enough to know better.
There was a bone-chilling moment when my (very young) kids were playing with toys together and when asked what they were doing, they responded with "role-playing."
I keep seeing reports that online enticement cases sharply increased thanks to COVID. Can't say I'm surprised. Somewhere along the way, [something] got kids to normalize the very verbiage the groomers use to steer online conversations in sexual directions. They can't see it coming.
I don't even try to teach mine to look for warning signs anymore and just tell them to assume everyone on the internet is Philip Garrido escaped from prison.
> For years, a California man harassed and terrorized young girls, extorting them for nude photos and videos and threatening to kill and rape them or shoot up their schools. Much of this abuse took place on Facebook, and now, months after the man, Buster Hernandez or “Brian Kil,” pleaded guilty,
From Engadget coverage [1], I feel a bit of context is missing in TFA.
The text was certainly crafted to go viral (what in the world is Pete providing security against?), but the claim they're making is still very troubling. If a typical 11 year old girl is getting multiple messages from pedophiles every time she posts a picture on Instagram, that doesn't fit my understanding at all and has very serious implications.
We shouldn't rule out that they're being substantially misleading, but I don't think we should just assume that either.
> For years, a California man systematically harassed and terrorized young girls using chat apps, email, and Facebook. He extorted them for their nude pictures and videos, and threatened to kill and rape them. He also sent graphic and specific threats to carry out mass shootings and bombings at the girls' schools if they didn't send him sexually explicit photos and videos.
> raises difficult ethical questions about when—if ever—it is appropriate for private companies to assist in the hacking of their users.
I am happy Facebook did this. They made the world a better place.
> These are the stories fearmongers tell because it happened to one or two people many years ago.
Here's a recent one:[0]
> Gibson’s arrest grew out of an ongoing probe of the “Freenet” — an online network that allows users to anonymously share images, chat on message boards and access sites, the probable cause statement says.
> Emails and text messages contained in his court record show Glant arranging through online communication to meet “Hannah,” a police officer posing as a mother, to engage in sex acts with her two daughters, ages 6 and 11.
Not a very good defense of Net Nanny. This is reminiscent of the Prenda Law case, in which a law firm shared pornography (that it produced) on BitTorrent, and then threatened legal action against individuals who pirated the films. Those individuals may very well be willing to pirate other films, but they would have never pirated Prenda Law's films if Prenda Law had not uploaded them in the first place.
While I won't justify anything this person allegedly did.. it seems open to speculation whether the child pornography stuff was actually legitimate, or some sort of targeted attack. (whether to destroy his character/career or keep him under judicial watch / within the country)
He didn’t deny he had the child porn though did he? Hardly seems like a frame up job if he admits it was there, hidden behind 3 encryption layers. I thought his excuse was someone uploaded it to his server “back in college”.
Even ignoring his troubling sexual history and the chat logs, it sounds pretty legitimate.
> Foster said the case began when the teen’s 15-year-old girlfriend sent photos of herself to the 17-year-old, who in turn sent her the video in question.
He possesses the photos of his girlfriend, and he manufactured the photos of himself.
And it's especially horrifying because she got convicted because she wanted to try to stop someone else from spreading it all over the school. It was just supposed to be seen by a few close friends.
It's horrible that this happened and obviously I'm glad the pedophile is in jail, but how exactly was she "coerced"? And how is any of this Omegle's fault?
It's a pretty big risk to make any kind of conclusions off of shared images like this, not knowing what the earlier prompts were, including any possible jailbreaks or "role plays".
> [In 2018, Facebook Messenger] was responsible for nearly 12 million of the 18.4 million worldwide reports of child sexual abuse material, according to people familiar with the reports.
"She added: “I’ve also had a lot of terrified men message me things along the lines of, ‘Hey, I think I may have written you something sort of weird seven years ago. I’m really sorry about that.’ They’re scared I’m going to post their old messages.”"
This is the biggest takeaway from the article for me, because it implies that HN user corysama's prediction that attaching a small amount of risk to the activity will have a significant impact on its incidence is essentially correct:
And it is a pretty credible threat: https://slate.com/technology/2019/08/maryland-sk-court-case-... https://www.wnyc.org/story/9114-sexting-teens-legal-straits-...
Curiously enough, no one even thinks of holding the government/legal system responsible.
reply