Using Technology To Battle Webcam Child Sex Tourism

They can render a sweet 3d model but their computer is overwhelmed in chat windows?
 
Countdown until this technology is used to create virtual child porn...
 
I am asking this question.... how are these kids being manipulated? Are "pimps" on the other end of the line forcing these kids to engage in such tactics?(I am guessing?) or are these kids randomly going into chatting rooms LOOKING for sex?

I can't tell which this is? Anyone shed some light on this?
 
wait until furrys can get a hold of this software package and make virtual furry webcam sex bots. they already do the 3d models anyway. import click done.
 
"Sweetie" looked kind of creepy when you saw her whole face, like she was a Grey alien. Although I have to say they did a damn good job on her lips having them look like she's 'peakin' like a pillipino"

I wonder if this would really do anything though, or if it's like police going after Johns who solicit sex but not really going after the prostitutes. Sure you embarrass and potentially ruin the lives of some people who obviously have a mental illness, but are you really stopping the problem when there' hundreds of thousands if not millions of other people out there who's doing it? If anything you'll simply have an escalation of technology. Yeah they catch a few, word gets out when they go all over the news, then they start masking their IP address, making fake facebook accounts, stop telling personal information, they already use prepaid credit cards.

I too would like to know if these are bad men in the Phillipines (or wherever) who are making these children do this, or if the children in these poor areas simply found out that they can make money to feed themselves or maybe buy something nice for themselves by chatting with horny foreigners.
 
sfsuphysics said:
..............I too would like to know if these are bad men in the Phillipines (or wherever) who are making these children do this, or if the children in these poor areas simply found out that they can make money to feed themselves or maybe buy something nice for themselves by chatting with horny foreigners.
Click to expand...

Exactly! Anyone have an answer for this?
 
I have to say I'm rather proud of some of these responses, indicating that (unlike most of society) a few here haven't completely abandoned reason and rationality when the topic of potential child abuse comes up.

As others have said, I think a lot of this is misdirected. If anyone is at fault, it should be any adults in the Philippenes etc...that are coercing the kids to do this for money. I don't think I buy the notion of being able to be "sexually abused" on the Internet in the circumstances described here. On the net, there is always the choice to close a window, turn off the PC, or block someone. There is no implied threat that some guy on a webcam thousands of miles away is going to do something I don't want to my body.

When I was a kid (though definitely male and first-world) I would occasionally run into people who wanted pictures, too much personal information, sexual stuff etc... but since I had parents that taught me well and gave me guidance, I knew that I could always tell them no and just leave. If I would have chosen to reveal myself, especially for money, that would have been a bad choice, but it would have been voluntary - far away from being "virtually raped" (which as a concept I feel is insulting to those who have actually been abused or raped).

If the argument is that these kids are abused because they're being coerced to do this, then fine, go after the parents or whomever is coercing them. If the argument is that the kids do this voluntarily but don't have the mental faculties to consent, then where are their parents or guardians? They should be monitoring what happens to a 10 year old online and they're responsible to restrict access, monitor, and/or give their kids the information to be safe online. If the argument is that because these people are poor and being taken advantage of because of it, that's a whole different issue that could relate as easily to adults as to children. In any event, I think we have to look at this in terms of, if coercion is not in play, then why these kids are making these choices, who should be stopping them, and so on and so forth.
 
QwertyJuan said:
Exactly! Anyone have an answer for this?
Click to expand...

I seriously doubt the kids doing this making a business out of this for themselves. :mad: That's not to say there are not minors out there who "get off" by "getting off" online. But I won't be the one that gets off with them. How we treat kids directly today will affect who they are as adults.

Children only get one childhood. They shouldn't be robbed of it by forcing them into sex acts. Studies have proved time and time again that they suffer from depression, anxiety, suicidal idealations, and drug abuse.

There's a rule anybody should live by: You can do whatever you want with your life as long as it doesn't hurt another's life.
 
Questions:
1) What is considered a child? If 16 and 17 year olds are children, then yes of course many are webcam sluts, and I don't think any are being forced
2) If we're talking about kids kids, like prepubescent, I just don't buy that this is a big industry. You always hear about it, but it usually turns out to be a 17 year old or something that lied about their age doing porn. I've been around since AOL and have never once stumbled upon anything remotely linking to kid porn and I've seen every other sick thing imaginable out there.

Not going to click the link at work, but I have seen so many money/attention grabs about fighting kiddie porn which as far as I know is a virtually non-existent problem in the first place. IMO we have a handle on it already.
 
Ducman69 said:
Questions:
1) What is considered a child? If 16 and 17 year olds are children, then yes of course many are webcam sluts, and I don't think any are being forced
2) If we're talking about kids kids, like prepubescent, I just don't buy that this is a big industry. You always hear about it, but it usually turns out to be a 17 year old or something that lied about their age doing porn. I've been around since AOL and have never once stumbled upon anything remotely linking to kid porn and I've seen every other sick thing imaginable out there.

Not going to click the link at work, but I have seen so many money/attention grabs about fighting kiddie porn which as far as I know is a virtually non-existent problem in the first place. IMO we have a handle on it already.
Click to expand...

I am not sure we have a "handle" on it already, but I want to know how this is happening in the first place? Are there "sites" out there being run that for money you can chat with little kids that are being forced into this by adults? Or are we talking about some young teens that like to strip in front of random men on the internet? If it's the former, they need to be in SERIOUS trouble... not just the guys watching the kids but ESPECIALLY those forcing these kids to perform these acts. IF it's the latter, and these kids are VOLUNTARILY jumping into chat rooms and chatting with random men because "they like it", then that is an ENTIRELY difference story.

I just wish the video made this more clear. It "appears" that it's some sort of child porn "pay" site that people use to pay for "live" children to talk to. If so... wouldn't you just completely SHUT these sites down instead of "joining in" and trying to get people arrested?

I am just wanting to know more info before I can make an informed decision on how/why/what is going on. :confused:
 
devil's advocate time:

First question: was there ANY actual porn in this equation here? I'm at work and can't watch till later tonight the report.

It sounds as if it might have been a site where it's just kids cam-chatting with people. Very creepy indeed, but that's a totally different thing than actual child porn.

The trend in society (and as I single male in his early 30s i can back this up) is that it's frowned upon anytime, anywhere, in any situation to have any interaction with a child or young girl. Me personally? I hate kids, and want to be as far away from them as possible.

What's next? walking down the street men between the ages of 21 and 80 will be required to avert their eyes from any children that happen to be out and about?

If there was indeed some sort of sexual abuse going on where the kids are forced to cam chat, then shut down the business, if they do it of their own free will... well then punish the parents. It's a slippery slope argument when it comes to just how "out there" law enforcement is going when it comes to busting people for stuff like this.

If some old pervert wants to cam chat with a virtual person and is willing to pay money, I say let them. Because IT"S NOT A REAL PERSON. When you cross the realm into the real and physical, then slap some cuffs on them and throw them into GenPop.
 
I don't know what is more disturbing, the problem or the number of people in some of these comments inching towards the idea its ok to exploit desperate children who are too young to understand what they are doing and how it will hurt them.
 
if there are actual children being exploited.... lock them up.

If they are sex chatting with a CGI virtual person... who the hell cares? There are much better things to do with our money in terms of combating crime.
 
According to USA, 3d child pornography is child pornography. 2nd child pornography, it's not. Unless it's changed or something.

No kid are being exploited in this. It's a 3d render of a supposed 10 year old philipino kid that does sexual acts if they get paid.

That said, whatever, if they are giving into you willingly and knowingly. Cuz if they are, then they are choosing to do so. Of course, if you're one of those guys that'll go around raping kids..? Not cool, but it's not cool if you're raping adults either.
 
I haven't seen the link but IIRC virtual depictions of child pornography constitutes Child Pornography for Phillipinan law.

So, even though it is CGI it would be illegal over there with all the weight of it.
 
QwertyJuan said:
Exactly! Anyone have an answer for this?
Click to expand...

Revdarian said:
I haven't seen the link but IIRC virtual depictions of child pornography constitutes Child Pornography for Phillipinan law.

So, even though it is CGI it would be illegal over there with all the weight of it.
Click to expand...

Too bad the servers are in Europe somewhere. Not the Philippines.

Depictions ARE allowed far as I'm aware in the USA. If it weren't they would have to lock up every person who likes to have smex in diapers. And the supreme court ruled on this a couple years ago along similar lines.
 
collegeboy69us said:
if there are actual children being exploited.... lock them up.

If they are sex chatting with a CGI virtual person... who the hell cares? There are much better things to do with our money in terms of combating crime.
Click to expand...

The point of this is, The Men Thought they were chatting with a real girl this is no different than soliciting a prostitute that oops, is actually a cop.



and let just get it out of the way, anyone who thinks chatting up a 10 year old is ok in any way shape or form, is a sick fuck that needs the crap kicked out of them. These people just caught 1000 of them that I'd love to try out my water boarding techniques on. after all, it's not torture according to the CIA, so it's ok.
 
Hmm actually the guy that mentioned the Soliciting has a great point, and i didn't know that it was a european thing, dunno why i thought that it was somewhere else.
 
BladeVenom said:
So they are protecting CGI cartoons.
Click to expand...

No, it's about the intent of the accused in cases like these.

If the guys knew that they were talking to an adult using a CGI cartoon, then it's really no different from any one of us shooting a realistically depicted person in a modern FPS. We know it's fake, and it's just a fantasy.

If the guys thought that they were talking to an child, then they had the intention of committing child abuse / sexual exploitation. An adult law enforcement official posing as a child in a chat room to catch those types of people... it's done all the time (at least in the US), sans CGI.
 
I didn't have any idea what "Webcam child sex tourism" was. I was like, "when will people learn to think of the webcam children and stop sending them on sex tours?"
 
jpm100 said:
I don't know what is more disturbing, the problem or the number of people in some of these comments inching towards the idea its ok to exploit desperate children who are too young to understand what they are doing and how it will hurt them.
Click to expand...

It is virtually impossible to have a rational debate where children are involved because parenthood tends to make one subject to the whims of hormones over reason but I will try anyways :

A 3D rendering is not a child. If you cannot tell the difference between a real child and a 3D model, stultus es. No children have been exploited because someone flashed their ding-dong to some adult running their GPU on overdrive. The last thing the internet needs is another group of thought-police vigilantes.
 
damicatz said:
It is virtually impossible to have a rational debate where children are involved because parenthood tends to make one subject to the whims of hormones over reason but I will try anyways :

A 3D rendering is not a child. If you cannot tell the difference between a real child and a 3D model, stultus es. No children have been exploited because someone flashed their ding-dong to some adult running their GPU on overdrive. The last thing the internet needs is another group of thought-police vigilantes.
Click to expand...
The soliciting example applies. You perhaps cannot get them for the direct act but activity leading up to the act is ususally on the books somewhere.

I'll give a hypothetical. Say a shooter climbs a water tower to snipe me. And he instead gets trigger happy and snipes my reflection in the mirror or a picture. At the same time I was always in a location where I couldn't be hit by a sniper from any angle. So I was never ever in danger The shooter is still going down for attempted murder even though he only shot a mirror and I was always safe.
 
As for possible entrapment. These people are looking if they didn't key in on the faked 10 year old, they would move on to a real child.
 
I understand what you are saying jpm100 for SURE.... what I was wondering was... is this a website run by "pimps" that exploit little kids into doing these things for money? If so, SHUT it down and find the people responsible!!! This is absolutely DISGUSTING if so!!! :mad:

Or are these chat rooms where little kids willingly go to because they like to show off in front of a camera?? This is STILL disgusting, both on the kids part as well as the adults involved, but at LEAST it's consensual. No one is being forced to do something they don't want to do. That is all I am trying to figure out here....

I had a mother of a girl talk to me one time that her daughter(not sure the EXACT age, but definitely under age) and said she was going to chat rooms chatting to men and watching them naked. She asked me if she should call the police... I told her that she "could" if she wanted... but that if her child was going into chat rooms LOOKING for sex and WANTING to see it (and she was) that she needs to restrict her kid's internet access or something.... what she was doing was just as wrong as what the person on the other end was doing. IMO.
 
I should mention though that this girl (in my story) was probably 16ish? And NOT 10...
 
jpm100 said:
The soliciting example applies. You perhaps cannot get them for the direct act but activity leading up to the act is ususally on the books somewhere.

I'll give a hypothetical. Say a shooter climbs a water tower to snipe me. And he instead gets trigger happy and snipes my reflection in the mirror or a picture. At the same time I was always in a location where I couldn't be hit by a sniper from any angle. So I was never ever in danger The shooter is still going down for attempted murder even though he only shot a mirror and I was always safe.
Click to expand...

But they are trying to shoot at a real person. A 3D rendering is not a real person. I fail to see how anyone could even be fooled by it; it was immediately apparent upon looking at the image that it was fake CG.
 
damicatz said:
But they are trying to shoot at a real person. A 3D rendering is not a real person. I fail to see how anyone could even be fooled by it; it was immediately apparent upon looking at the image that it was fake CG.
Click to expand...

True... but you or I would EASILY be able to tell that.... someone less "techno savvy" may have a harder time discerning that.
 
damicatz said:
It is virtually impossible to have a rational debate where children are involved because parenthood tends to make one subject to the whims of hormones over reason but I will try anyways :

A 3D rendering is not a child. If you cannot tell the difference between a real child and a 3D model, stultus es. No children have been exploited because someone flashed their ding-dong to some adult running their GPU on overdrive. The last thing the internet needs is another group of thought-police vigilantes.
Click to expand...

jpm100 said:
The soliciting example applies. You perhaps cannot get them for the direct act but activity leading up to the act is ususally on the books somewhere.

I'll give a hypothetical. Say a shooter climbs a water tower to snipe me. And he instead gets trigger happy and snipes my reflection in the mirror or a picture. At the same time I was always in a location where I couldn't be hit by a sniper from any angle. So I was never ever in danger The shooter is still going down for attempted murder even though he only shot a mirror and I was always safe.
Click to expand...

You realize that you just proved his point right? your example is so far into fantasy land that it sounds like one of Obama's promises...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top