| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/27/2005 07:17:03 PM · #26 |
Originally posted by Riggs:
Originally posted by rebelo:
I hate to be the devil's advocate in this situation, but someone has to.......... |
She said it was a known porno site so I doubt all the pictures there are sweet and innocent, even if the photos of her boys were. |
You're probably correct. And if there are indeed photos of an illegal nature being hosted on the site in question, she should report it to the police so that a proper investigation can be done and hopefully someone persecuted. However, you and I are both just making assumptions about the content of that site because neither of us know the facts at this point and if action were to be taken made under assumptions we'd end up with things like the war in iraq. |
|
|
|
04/27/2005 07:17:17 PM · #27 |
If this is your reaction to Laurie, Rebelo, don't comment on mine either
Originally posted by rebelo:
Originally posted by laurielblack:
Look, I said that nothing could be done about the situation. I am not out to "get" anyone. I just wanted to make everyone aware. I am certainly within my rights to find out who is responsible and let them know what I think, though. I never said anyone should be punished for their thoughts, nor did I imply that an Orwellian-type rule would make things better. All I did was post an FYI message. I know there are sickos. I said that in my post. My reality is in check just fine. |
Calm down. I wasn't even addressing you, really. My comments were directed at the army of bloodthirsty people who came out in response to your message. I am fully aware that your message is quite logical and realistic in your expectations. If that's how you handle feedback, though, I'll be sure and not comment on your photos. |
|
|
|
|
04/27/2005 07:18:59 PM · #28 |
Laurie, this makes me very sad. I can only imagine your shock and horor. Thank you very much for the heads up. I think we can all learn something from this. be careful, this world is not what we think it is or want it to be. You take great pics of your kids. It is a shame that you will are not able to share them more freely because of monsters.
your friend
drake |
|
|
|
04/27/2005 07:23:02 PM · #29 |
Thank you so much for posting this... I never would have thought about this type of thing.. gotta keep your eyes wide open in this sad world
red |
|
|
|
04/27/2005 07:28:26 PM · #30 |
I am distressed over this issue.
Because of the ease of use of technology and communication in our world today, feeding the sick with there evil is easier than ever.
Rebelo, Laurieblack is just doing what any mother would do. Please give her the room to vent.
I know this for a fact, and please use this in court for my defense, if anything like this ever happens to any of my three children... if ever they are exploited, touched inappropriately, or worse, I will not hesitate to fight for my child, and get rid of the scum sucking verman.
|
|
|
|
04/27/2005 07:35:06 PM · #31 |
The sad thing...is it's very likely a member of DPC is involved. Not definitely, because obviously there are search engines out there that might have cataloged the photos.
But there are thousands of photo sites. And someone probably at one time posted a photo to said site. Or a member of said site....
In truth, I hope that it is just the first and not the latter. |
|
|
|
04/27/2005 07:39:14 PM · #32 |
Originally posted by theSaj:
The sad thing...is it's very likely a member of DPC is involved. Not definitely, because obviously there are search engines out there that might have cataloged the photos.
|
How do links and comments on a smugmug site implicate someone from DPC? |
|
|
|
04/27/2005 07:46:21 PM · #33 |
| It's easy enough to go to the various photo storage sites and do a keyword search for whatever you want to find. Pbase, smugmug, webshots etc. You can even do a google image search and find websites that way. |
|
|
|
04/27/2005 07:48:20 PM · #34 |
Yes, Laurie, thank you for sharing your situation with us. I too am not naive about the world and it's ways but what has happened to you has really made me think about my family and sons. And though I love sharing photos of them I doubt it will happen again. At least not in a public forum and if so I will be VERY selective. May seem drastic to some, but when it comes to our children we must do all we can to keep them safe.
Again, thanks so much for bringing this to light. I'm sorry you've had to go what you're going through. I honestly don't know what I'd do.
|
|
|
|
04/27/2005 07:48:26 PM · #35 |
"How do links and comments on a smugmug site implicate someone from DPC?"
[[[Doesn't implicate but statistically and based on observations of the web in such cases they're usually links. Most porn is posted and cross posted by individuals. Who usually have some link back to the image or original site it was posted on. So I said it's not definite, nor does it implicate a specific individual, but the probability is fairly high.
I'd be very curious to see the dpc site logs and to see how many hits by said site were made and to what additional photos. And also to see where the first hits came from and what pages. It'd be very revealing.
]]]
"I certainly don't condone exploitation of children, but what exactly do you intend to "get" them for? They haven't broken any laws."
[[[Actually, I'll bet you $100 that many viewers of said site are in fact breaking the law. Many of said individuals probably are under "convicted sexual offender" category. For many of which, have a longstanding sentence, parole, probation and to visit such a site that is focused on such is oft considered a breech and can lead to their imprisonment.]]]
"You can't suggest that linking to a photo on a website can somehow become a punishable offence."
[[[Depending on how it's deep linked and portrayed it can be a legal violation.]]]
"but if you seriously think people should be punished for their thoughts, you seriously need to think about the negative ramifications of such possibilities."
[[[this goes beyond thoughts Rebelo...and into active deed.]]]
"I hate making parallels to George Orwell when discussing this sort of topic, but it's just all too appropriate here. "
[[You probably think it is wrong to have websites that track convicted pedophiles. Too Orwellian. Even though almost every murder/rape/pedophilia case in the news recently has been a prior convicted sexual offender. Let me ask you this question. If one of these harms my son or daughter (if I had such) are you going to stand back as I castrate or murder him? Are you also able to ensure the rest of the government/society will stand back in that case? If not....then please....don't go Orwellian on me. Cause to say "protecting" myself and family is Orwellian but forbidding me from harming perpetrators of the worst crimes imaginable is wrong. Well guess what. I will take Orwellian and murder any day over a society that does not punish horrendous crimes and delivers no justice but will still punish one seeking justice for said crimes.]]]
"It's only a few steps further and you're being policed for your thoughts."
[[[Might you explain to me...what ideas you get from reading photos en masse of little children in a sexual context? Look....I can't say "Jesus Christ" in schools but I am supposed to tolerate pedophiles?]]]
" Anyone can take that image and do whatever they want with it."
[[[Yup and suffer the consequences. So are you saying since you park your car outside where anyone in the world might see it...that they can take it and do whatever they want with it?]]]
|
|
|
|
04/27/2005 08:05:28 PM · #36 |
i host my own pages
& up until 8 months ago i had our collection of images (4000+) nearly 100% family stuff open for public view /
my wife who teaches at a local U. had our site linked to from her work page - & we occasionally had students looking at much to much of our lives and our two young girls ..
when it openly available, occasionally i would see very bizzar things in the logs for the from last page log, (sexysuziestrippersecrets.com & that ilk) and trawling (trying to grab the wholesite, 6 gig of it ) .. we passworded it shortly after -
now a couple dozen images with no faces & passwords required for family & friends not serious protection but the logs are alot cleaner ...
i believe the only way you can protect your images is to host them yourself (or have low resolution images on something like dpc )
|
|
|
|
04/27/2005 08:18:27 PM · #37 |
|
|
|
04/27/2005 08:28:40 PM · #38 |
Originally posted by theSaj:
I'd be very curious to see the dpc site logs and to see how many hits by said site were made and to what additional photos. And also to see where the first hits came from and what pages. It'd be very revealing. |
The site in question didnt have links but had text urls. People cut and paste the urls and so there is no reference URL of where it comes from. This way if people do check their site stats they wont see the offending url and think bad things. |
|
|
|
04/27/2005 08:32:23 PM · #39 |
Laurie if you remember helping me set up my smugmug then you will remember me stating that my wife had some issues with everyone seeing photos of our kids. Well you advised me on the password stuff. Now I am glad I talked to you about that and have kept them private. There is nothing in there except snapshots of my kids riding their bikes etc. But now I am glad I listened to her and thanks for posting to warn everyone about this.
Message edited by author 2005-04-27 20:32:52.
|
|
|
|
04/27/2005 09:42:51 PM · #40 |
theSaj, you make a lot of comments which deserve clarification/explenation, I will address each in the order they were presented after the quotation.
Originally posted by theSaj:
\"How do links and comments on a smugmug site implicate someone from DPC?\"
[[[Doesn\'t implicate but statistically and based on observations of the web in such cases they\'re usually links. Most porn is posted and cross posted by individuals. Who usually have some link back to the image or original site it was posted on. So I said it\'s not definite, nor does it implicate a specific individual, but the probability is fairly high.
I\'d be very curious to see the dpc site logs and to see how many hits by said site were made and to what additional photos. And also to see where the first hits came from and what pages. It\'d be very revealing.
]]]
\"I certainly don\'t condone exploitation of children, but what exactly do you intend to \"get\" them for? They haven\'t broken any laws.\"
[[[Actually, I\'ll bet you $100 that many viewers of said site are in fact breaking the law. Many of said individuals probably are under \"convicted sexual offender\" category. For many of which, have a longstanding sentence, parole, probation and to visit such a site that is focused on such is oft considered a breech and can lead to their imprisonment.]]]
\"You can\'t suggest that linking to a photo on a website can somehow become a punishable offence.\"
[[[Depending on how it\'s deep linked and portrayed it can be a legal violation.]]]
\"but if you seriously think people should be punished for their thoughts, you seriously need to think about the negative ramifications of such possibilities.\"
[[[this goes beyond thoughts Rebelo...and into active deed.]]]
\"I hate making parallels to George Orwell when discussing this sort of topic, but it\'s just all too appropriate here. \"
[[You probably think it is wrong to have websites that track convicted pedophiles. Too Orwellian. Even though almost every murder/rape/pedophilia case in the news recently has been a prior convicted sexual offender. Let me ask you this question. If one of these harms my son or daughter (if I had such) are you going to stand back as I castrate or murder him? Are you also able to ensure the rest of the government/society will stand back in that case? If not....then please....don\'t go Orwellian on me. Cause to say \"protecting\" myself and family is Orwellian but forbidding me from harming perpetrators of the worst crimes imaginable is wrong. Well guess what. I will take Orwellian and murder any day over a society that does not punish horrendous crimes and delivers no justice but will still punish one seeking justice for said crimes.]]]
\"It\'s only a few steps further and you\'re being policed for your thoughts.\"
[[[Might you explain to me...what ideas you get from reading photos en masse of little children in a sexual context? Look....I can\'t say \"Jesus Christ\" in schools but I am supposed to tolerate pedophiles?]]]
\" Anyone can take that image and do whatever they want with it.\"
[[[Yup and suffer the consequences. So are you saying since you park your car outside where anyone in the world might see it...that they can take it and do whatever they want with it?]]] |
The first bit about implying someone on DPC is involved wasn\'t from me, so I\'ll leave it alone. It\'s not relevant at this point, anyways.
\"Actually, I\'ll bet you $100 that many viewers of said site are in fact breaking the law.\"
Your second point that \'many of the viewers...are \"probably\" breaking the law anyways\' again relies on probability and assumptions. You just can\'t go trying to persecute people on hunches. That\'s what the gestapo did. And there\'s a reason why I think this is furthermore irrelevant which I will address shortly.
\"Depending on how it\'s deep linked and portrayed it can be a legal violation.\"
That\'s very true. Though as I understood it, the site simply linked to the gallery in question. If there images were actually copied onto another host and linked that way, or embedded without permission, certainly there are copyright law concerns here, but I am addressing the sexual nature of the use of the images, not so much the right of use, here.
this goes beyond thoughts Rebelo...and into active deed.
Not really. I don\'t believe anyone can be charged for viewing an image of a dressed child. The photo was taken by the child\'s parent and there\'s no exploitation going on. The problem is the reason why he/she is viewing the image. And it really comes down to thought policing.
\"You probably think it is wrong to have websites that track convicted pedophiles.\"
Well, that\'s the kicker. While you may all think I\'m a hardcore liberal all about rights crusading, I am not. I am actually very conservative and, while I feel very strongly about a certain level of rights and freedoms for people, I also feel that transgressions should be handled much more seriously than they currently are. In my world, there would be no \"repeat offences by convicted child molesters\" because conviction of molesting children would mean live incarceration (for the less serious ones) and execution for the worse cases. I live in Canada and we don\'t have a death penalty but I am a strong supporter of it for particular cases.
\"Might you explain to me...what ideas you get from reading photos en masse of little children in a sexual context?\"
I\'m not sure what you are implying with this line of questioning and I am reluctant to even respond. That said, however, I feel I had better defend myself because so many people seem to be against my way of thinking. I am personally sickened by pedophiles and I am not of the opinion that it is a \"disease\" which can be treated. I think it\'s a predisposition which can only be controlled through methods such as emasculation or indefinite incarceration. I don\'t think pedophiles should ever be allowed back into society after comitting such an offense. But, I have already covered this.
[i]\"So are you saying since you park your car outside where anyone in the world might see it...that they can take it and do whatever they want with it?\"[i]
You disappoint me without your outrageous exaggerations to my arguments. You\'ve discussed the issue quite reasonably so far, don\'t discredit yourself with such methods of argument. I am not saying it should be allowed for people to steal photos and misuse them. I am saying that, like it or not, whether right or wrong, when you put a photo on the internet, *YOU KNOW* full well that it could be taken and misused by someone else. That\'s why so many artists watermark their images to help deter copyright violations. Laurie has unfortunately learned a hard lesson and it\'s good of her to report it in to everyone because reading this report will undoubtedly discourage a lot of people from posting images of their families who might have otherwise thought it safe to do so.
Personally, I would never post my children\'s photos online because I would be worried about the same thing happening to me. And please, understand me here, people. I am not passing off what happened to Laurie as not a big deal. If it was my child, I would certainly be enraged, but I expect that goes without saying. Anyone would react strongly in the same boat.
I have a 5yr old step son and I don\'t hesitate to say that if anyone did anything wrong to him I wouldn\'t think twice about taking the most extreme form of justice into my own hands, whatever the consequences. |
|
|
|
04/27/2005 10:00:25 PM · #41 |
I'm sorry. You might want to report the site though. You're pictures may not be pornographic, but if you report the site maybe the government can find something else and shut it down.
Governmental Links to report internet crimes and child pornography |
|
|
|
04/27/2005 10:02:28 PM · #42 |
Well, it's all rather scary, this thread. Not far down this line is a place where you start to worry about going out in public.
e |
|
|
|
04/27/2005 10:04:28 PM · #43 |
Originally posted by justine:
'army of bloodthirsty people'
....would be an understatement of a mother bear when her cub is in danger.
With all that is going on today with kids missing, dead, and abused it's a normal reaction. |
I'm not bloodthirsty, but if anything were to happen to my daughter i'd be...death-thirsty. |
|
|
|
04/27/2005 10:16:12 PM · #44 |
I have reported the incident to the Internet Fraud Complaint Center, the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, smugmug administration, and the local FBI office. I know that the site in question has covered their tracks well and is not going to suffer much, but it makes me feel a hell of a lot better by reporting their actions. I am trying now to find a way to have the text url removed from their site, but the site has no "contact us" or other link to post to, other than their guestbook. I'm not signing that.
I apologize for sounding so defensive, or downright bitchy...but these are my children. I would take on a speeding locomotive for them if need be. If you have children, you understand. If you don't have children yet, you will understand the first time you hold your child in your arms. I promise.
|
|
|
|
04/27/2005 10:18:29 PM · #45 |
| Lauriel: sad to hear about your experience. These things leave a lingering uncomfortable state of mind. Stay alert and remain as wise as you sound. I know the feeling. |
|
|
|
04/27/2005 10:19:21 PM · #46 |
Originally posted by laurielblack:
I apologize for sounding so defensive, or downright bitchy...but these are my children. I would take on a speeding locomotive for them if need be. If you have children, you understand. If you don't have children yet, you will understand the first time you hold your child in your arms. I promise. |
Don't apologize Laurie. What you did was good and what you've stated above is so very true.
|
|
|
|
04/27/2005 10:23:52 PM · #47 |
Originally posted by laurielblack:
I have reported the incident to the Internet Fraud Complaint Center, the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, smugmug administration, and the local FBI office. I know that the site in question has covered their tracks well and is not going to suffer much, but it makes me feel a hell of a lot better by reporting their actions. I am trying now to find a way to have the text url removed from their site, but the site has no "contact us" or other link to post to, other than their guestbook. I'm not signing that.
I apologize for sounding so defensive, or downright bitchy...but these are my children. I would take on a speeding locomotive for them if need be. If you have children, you understand. If you don't have children yet, you will understand the first time you hold your child in your arms. I promise. |
Agreed with the above poster. Don't apologize, it's a natural reaction.
As for getting stuff removed from their site. Your best tactic you have available currently is to find out where the site is actually hosted and then contact the owners of the servers. In most cases, sites which are in violation of copyright (or other) laws, go on running simply because the people who host them don't know what's going on. In a server farm which thousands of sites being hosted, it's unrealistic to expect a large scale internet host to monitor every single site at all times.
There are various tools on the internet such as "whois" lookup tools. You can use these to look up the domain name of the site which did this and hopefully can dig deeper to find out where it is hosted and who owns the actual hardware/internet line. From there, it's pretty easy to get them in trouble.
If you threaten an internet host to have them investigated for carrying illegal material, you can be sure they will jump on the client very quickly and have the infringing material removed or just ban the site altogether.
One such whois tool can be found at //dmrf.net/whoisr.html |
|
|
|
04/27/2005 10:24:20 PM · #48 |
"You just can\'t go trying to persecute people on hunches."
[[[Difference we have IP logs, etc. And it's easy for those to be traced and to then see if they potentially go to those on the sexual offenders list. Then if any do, you can send an investigator.
This is far more serious than downloading of music (which a $1 CD is sold at $10-$20) which gets tons of pursuit.
]]]
"I don\'t believe anyone can be charged for viewing an image of a dressed child."
[[[No but a sexual offender who's been on a site dedicated to small boys can be viewed as a violation of probation or watch.]]]
"In my world, there would be no \"repeat offences by convicted child molesters\" "
[[[I'm with you...sadly, it's not our world. And bleeding hearts feel soft for the poor criminals and little children die for it.]]]
"I am saying that, like it or not, whether right or wrong, when you put a photo on the internet, *YOU KNOW* full well that it could be taken and misused by someone else."
[[[Good clarification and i totally agree. I recently made such a comment to a DPC'er on their challenge. ;) That was more so a devil's advocate/slippery slope argument.]]] |
|
|
|
04/27/2005 10:27:31 PM · #49 |
I would like to say thanks for the warning. I have kids; their images posted and because of you making me aware I am removing them..
A sick-o is a sick-0 and we must protect our kids. Thats what parent do.
Again THANK YOU |
|
|
|
04/27/2005 10:43:11 PM · #50 |
Originally posted by rebelo:
They haven't broken any laws. You can't suggest that linking to a photo on a website can somehow become a punishable offence. The people who did this are free to link to anything they want and for any purpose they like. ...., but if you seriously think people should be punished for their thoughts, you seriously need to think about the negative ramifications of such possibilities.
......I don't need to explain that I disagree with what they did, because that should be a given, but if you seriously think people should be punished for their thoughts, you seriously need to think about the negative ramifications of such possibilities.
My two cents. |
OK this is where I believe you are wrong. If the person(s) linked a photo to a site like that, which is illegal in most contries or at least hope so. If they are from America they have committed a crime it's is called aiding and abetting in that type of crime. You may say i'm wrong, don't hold your breath.
Aiding and Abetting/Accessory
A criminal charge of aiding and abetting or accessory can usually be brought against anyone who helps in the commission of a crime, though legal distinctions vary by state. A person charged with aiding and abetting or accessory is usually not present when the crime itself is committed, but he or she has knowledge of the crime before or after the fact, and may assist in its commission through advice, actions, or financial support. Depending on the level of involvement, the offender's participation in the crime may rise to the level of conspiracy.
And as far as I am concerned they should be put under the jail and I don't give a sh*t about the ramification.......
NOW THATS MY 2 CENTS WORTH
EDIT: Had to cool off this kind of stuff makes me sick.
Laurie, I am so sad to here about what happened. Thank you for taking the time to post.
Message edited by author 2005-04-27 22:49:59. |
|
