HardOCP News
[H] News
- Joined
- Dec 31, 1969
- Messages
- 0
It is amazing to see how technology is being used to battle webcam child sex tourism. Due to the content, the video may not be safe for work, but we highly recommend taking the time to watch it.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
They can render a sweet 3d model but their computer is overwhelmed in chat windows?
Occulus Rift with orifice addon.
..............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.
Exactly! Anyone have an answer for this?
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.
Exactly! Anyone have an answer for this?
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.
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.
So they are protecting CGI cartoons.
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.
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.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.
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.
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.
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.
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.