Facebook Subpoena / Search Warrant Guidelines

Facebook Subpoena / Search Warrant Guidelines

Everytime you use a service such as Facebook, MySpace, Stickam or Hotmail all of those companies log your IP and record your personal details as well as data of those who have been comunicating with you, email address, time and date, etc. – See more at: http://www.privacylover.com/other-personal-privacy/law-enforcement-data-compliance-guides-leaked/#sthash.mxEDIqjm.dpuf

It is clear that things have changed in America and much of it is due to two wars!

Paramilitary Police in America: How Did It Happen?

Share Tweet Share Share Email
It is clear that things have changed in Americaand much of it is due to two wars: the War on Drugs and the War on Terror. These ongoing conflicts have brought about major changes in the way law enforcement does business with Americans every day.
Because of the so-called war on drugs, SWAT teams began springing up across the land, tactically armed and ready to do whatever became necessary to overcome the drug problem that this country faces. The fight against terrorism has also been added to the picture and because of it, the same SWAT teams can be seen herding people out of their homes (without warrants), searching them (illegally), and then the homes they just vacated (also illegally), as was done recently in the aftermath of the Boston Marathon bombing. Amazingly, nearly 90% of people polled believed that the police did a great job. This of course, is in spite of the use of force and restriction of rights.
AP photo shows large gathering of Tea Party protesting the IRS.
Even today – May 21, 2013 – with Tea Party protests against the IRS occurring throughout America, DHS Police have been stationed at IRS facilities as a means of protecting those facilities and employees. This is in spite of the fact that there has not been a case of Tea Party-related violence with any person officially connected to the Tea Party movement, unlike the Occupy Movement.
The fact that Obama has used the DHS to create his own national police force is likely meant to be intimidating. Frankly, I’m not sure how such a force is Constitutional, but lawyers are probably better equipped to respond to that question than I am.
DHS Police Officer
In the meantime, we have members of the DHS police force who are very likely not hampered by state boundaries. This is reminiscent of the FBI, but on a different scale. Sadly, as time moves on, we can assume that the DHS police force will likely be given greater authority by the Obama administration.
In the meantime, Radley Balko has written several white papers and books on the subject of the militarization of America’s police. The problems associated with this are often chilling.
“On August 5, 2005, at 6:15 a.m., a SWAT team converged around the Sunrise, Florida, home of Anthony Diotaiuto. They came to serve a search warrant based on an anonymous tip and an informant’s purchase of a single ounce of marijuana from the 23-year-old bartender and part-time student.”
Forty-five minutes later, Diotaiuto was dead from ten bullets to his head and body. How did that happen?
It should be noted that Diotaiuto legally owned guns and also had a permit to carry concealed weapons. Police say they announced themselves prior to breaking down his front door, though neighbors say they heard no such announcement before the raid began. The police also claim that because Diotaiuto had a concealed weapons permit, that made him dangerous. How? For someone to obtain a concealed carry permit in Florida(as in most states), paperwork needs to completed, fingerprints need to be checked and a background check finished. Surely, if Diotaiuto had been dangerous, that information would have come out? Obviously, in spite of his potential possession of marijuana, he had never been in trouble with the law before, or he would not have been granted a concealed weapons permit.
Police say Diotaiuto pointed a gun at police leaving them no choice but to fire on him. They modified that later on and to date, no one really knows exactly what happened. It’s the word of the police against a dead suspect.
In Hawaii, tactically-armed police broke into a home occupied by an elderly couple who had their grandchildren staying with them. The police were searching for a box that was said to contain marijuana.  They never found it, though they roughly manhandled the couple, throwing them face down on the floor, holding guns to their heads. Turns out the police had the wrong address. They made the same mistake again with another residence before they finally got it right.
This type of mistake happens too often because many of these raids take place based on the word of some street informant. The militarized demeanor of our police forces have become the norm. If one stops to consider the fact that in many cases, the police are going after minor drug offenses, the question of why such force is used becomes even more important to answer.
Radley Balko points out that until the 1980s, SWAT “were used sparingly, only in volatile, high-risk situations such as bank robberies or hostage situations.” Obviously, in situations where lives are at risk by the criminal element, a response provided by a highly trained SWAT team makes sense. But when the person(s) being tracked down is being sought because of marijuana usage, we are left wondering why that type of force was necessary?
SWAT changed during the administration of Ronald Reagan. More money became available, allowing better tactical equipment to be purchased. More training became the norm. Under Reagan, the War on Drugs became official and the services of many SWAT teams began to play a large and normal part in how this war was fought.
Under Reagan’s administration and “During the next 10 years, with prodding from the White House, Congress paved the way to widespread military-style policing by carving yawning drug war exceptions to the Posse Comitatus Act, the Civil War–era law prohibiting the use of the military for civilian policing. These new exceptions allowed nearly unlimited sharing of drug interdiction intelligence, training, tactics, technology, and weaponry between the Pentagon and federal, state, and local police departments.”
We have since seen the Posse Comitatus Act – the act that protects American people from military being used as police within America’s borders – all but set aside. Bush signed the Patriot Act into law (2001) that reduced restrictions on law enforcement and Congress passed a Defense Appropriations Act (2006) allowing the president to use federal troops within the US whenever thought necessary. Both whittled away at the Posse Comitatus Act.
This introduces how law enforcement in the United States started to become militarized. We will be back with more detail about what our government has created and how they created it in our next installment. We’ll then look at problems associated with paramilitary raids, as well as what we can expect in the future since it appears as though Obama is deliberately building his national police force that may ultimately have powers equal to the military on foreign soil.
In our previous article – the first of three parts on this subject – we discussed how the paramilitary approach to law enforcement began in earnest under Daryl Gates’ LAPD in 1967 and grew from there. SWAT teams – as they came to be called – were originally used for highly dangerous situations, but over time have come to be used in routine situations as the norm. There has been a wholesale increase in use of these tactical forces over time that should be cause for concern.
One report notes, “criminologist Peter Kraska found that as of 1997, 90 percent of cities with populations of 50,000 or more had at least one paramilitary police unit, twice as many as in the mid-1980s.” Kraska notes that the increase is even more stark with cities below 50,000.
To show the type of increase that American cities have been experiencing in SWAT-related events, “By the early 1980s there were 3,000 annual SWAT deployments, by 1996 there were 30,000, and by 2001 there were 40,000.” What does this mean for the average citizen? Because of the increased number and intensity of tactical-style events, it means that law-abiding citizens have something to be concerned about with potential problems related to excessive force, violations of rights, and even deaths of innocent people.
We can see that as SWAT-style police units become the norm, unintended results appear to be part of the picture. In too many cases, innocent people are shot and killed by overzealous police units who treat every situation as if it was part of a war. In fact, many SWAT members believe they are fighting a war (War on Drugs, War on Terror). The trouble with that mentality is there is also an unspoken take no prisoners motto as well. It’s shoot first, then worry about results later, like the foreign battlefield.
In 1998, a SWAT team shot and killed a security guard in Virginia Beach, VA during a gambling raid. In 2006, in Fairfax, VA a SWAT team was used to serve a warrant on an individual for another gambling infraction. As the suspect came out of the house, one of the SWAT team officers’ gun accidentally went off fatally wounding the suspect. Apparently, using the SWAT team to serve warrants is the norm in that area of Virginia.
In yet another situation, a SWAT team in Albuquerque, NMwas called to the scene because a man was threatening suicide. After seeing the tactical unit, the man fled in fear for his life and was cornered behind a tree. At that point a SWAT member shot the man to death from 43-feet away. But wait, weren’t they sent to try to save the man’s life? Maybe they didn’t get that memo.
The biggest problem with the growing use of SWAT teams is “introducing the military culture, military equipment, and the military mindset even to parts of the civilian police force not involved in SWAT teams or like paramilitary units.”
Armored vehicle seen in Nashua, NH
In a speech by Obama in July of 2012, he stated, “AK-47s belong in the hands of soldiers, not in the hands of criminals; that they belong on the battlefield of war, not on the streets of our cities.” He obviously did not mean law enforcement, did he? What we are seeing on many of our streets throughout America is the use of the type of military-style equipment that is routinely used in Iraq or Afghanistan. We have light tanks or armored vehicles that roll through city streets.
We also see what appears to be soldiers with those dreaded “assault” weapons. During the aftermath of the Boston Marathon bombing, we know that police also went door to door removing people from their homes and then searching them and their homes illegally. They were in full tactical gear and used military-style vehicles as well. This type of reaction by law enforcement may make some people to feel safe, but it makes my blood boil, frankly.
Soldiers, police…or the same thing?
I have both friends and relatives in law enforcement. I understand the job they do is very difficult and dangerous. The problem though is that because of certain acts of Congress (as well as funding), law enforcement is turning America into a militarized zone. That does not make me feel safe. It makes me feel as though my rights are on the verge of being stripped at any moment…all in the name of “national security.”
It smacks of martial law in the making. SWAT teams do not need to be sent out on suicide calls, neither do they need to be sent out on normal warrants or even minor drug offenses. They should be used as a last resort, not the automatic response. This is America and we have rights. Those rights are in effect and no SWAT team or other tactically-trained and armed law enforcement unit has the right to come into a neighborhood and simply eradicate people’s rights because someone says they can and has given them the money to own military-style weaponry and gear.
Put simply, “soldiers are ‘trained to vaporize, not Mirandize’.” This happens too often, either by overzealous SWAT members with a trigger finger or by blasting into the wrong house. “Given that civilian police now tote military equipment, get military training, and embrace military culture and values, it shouldn’t be surprising when officers begin to act like soldiers, treat civilians like combatants, and tread on private property as if it were part of a battlefield.”
This is the biggest problem that results from the militarization of law enforcement. Cops acting like soldiers and seeing average citizens as the enemy. We’ll be back soon with our third installment by trying to figure out what may be completely obvious. Where does it all lead?
It’s 4:30 in the morning. You are sound asleep, as is the rest of your family. Someone is breaking through your front door. You have absolutely no idea what is happening, but you have enough wherewithal to reach for your loaded .45 sitting on the nightstand next to the bed.
You fly out of bed and move down the hall. You see what appears to be two individuals dressed in black, with ski masks over their faces. They also have weapons. They point theirs at you and start yelling. You wisely drop your weapon and hit the floor. You have no idea who these people are or what they want.
Turns out, it’s just SWAT and they’ve come to serve a “no-knock” warrant on you and your home because an informant says you have illegal drugs. Your family is herded into the living room and handcuffed, with SWAT members training loaded weapons on all of you.
While you, your spouse, and your children are on the floor, other SWAT team members go through your home ransacking it trying to find the drugs that their informant swears you have. What the SWAT team fails to realize until they have turned up nothing is that they have accidentally chosen the wrong home. Your rights have been violated but it’s all for a good cause, right?
They quickly remove the cuffs and without so much as a word of an apology except maybe noting (more to each other than to you), “Wrong house, things happen,” they leave. They exit the front of the house where the door used to be, regroup, then move onto what is hopefully the correct home leaving you with their mess to clean up and emotions to sift through.

We all know this type of situation happens. What many of us are not aware of is just how often this scenario is repeated. Radley Balko’s book “Overkill: The Rise of Paramilitary Police Raids in America” highlights no less than 130 incidents of problems related to SWAT team searches, from the wrong home, to plants in question turning out to be tomatoes (instead of pot), to people being mildly injured to murdered. Research shows, “between 1989 and 2001, at least 780 cases of flawed paramilitary raids reached the appellate level, a dramatic increase over the 1980s, where such cases were rare, or earlier, when they were practically nonexistent.” In other words, it’s becoming a huge problem that people continue to disallow.
In many ways, the overkill (no pun intended) has become epidemic. Too often, police units involved in these types of searches get away with little more than a slap on the wrist, if that. Some locales have taken tough measures to ensure that people’s rights are not overthrown by overzealous SWAT teams, but this is rare.
The reality is that if the law was strictly followed, these situations would likely not occur, at least not with the frequency in which they have been happening. SWAT units seem to be under the impression that blasting their way into someone’s home in the middle of the night and treating occupants as though they are guilty (often physically and verbally abused in the process) is something that the Constitution allows.
The militarization of law enforcement has been occurring for some time and shows no signs of letting up. In fact, with Obama’s DHS in the picture, the DHS presence is becoming more obvious as witnessed in the most recent Tea Party protests against the IRS. During these peaceful events, law enforcement helicopters were seen overhead, DHS ground police units, as well as ICE agents were present in a show of force. It is also interesting to note that there was not one single regular police officer to be seen. The situations were controlled by federal Homeland Security police, Obama’s “national police force” at work.
Tea Party protestors at various IRS buildings were told to move away from the entrance. One individual related, “My lawyer told me as long as I didn’t block passage we were OK…I stayed at IRS entrance telling Homeland Security it is my right to be there.”
The same person relates that at one point, a woman got out of her car and yelled “I am with ICE!” to which the person responded, “I am with Laguna Patriots!”
ICE is Immigration and Customs Enforcement and one can only wonder why ICE was there at all, but apparently, Homeland Security felt it best to use as much force as possible in attempts to intimidate those protesting peacefully. I could be wrong, but I don’t recall DHS or ICE being at Occupy protests. I’ll have to research that.
If it is not clear to you that there is a growing (and irrational) belligerent attitude whereby many in law enforcement see average citizens as enemy combatants, then you’re not awake. I would suggest you take the red pill.
If the situation continues as it is, there is only one place that it can lead to and that is martial law. The terribly tragic part of this is that in some places, this has already been done without actually calling it martial law (Boston Marathon bombing, Katrina in New Orleans). Because of that, the government has learned that the populace affected by law enforcement’s overbearing (and illegal) posture hasn’t generated complaints. Of course the government has taken note.
One panel of experts stated, “Elite military units shouldn’t be training civilian police, and civilian police shouldn’t be using military tactics and weaponry on U.S.citizens.” But this is exactly what has happened in much of America and it continues seemingly unabated.
Radley Balko has some strong recommendations at the end of his book that are well worth noting. If governments – local, state, and federal – would put these recommendations in place, Americawould be safer for average law-abiding citizens. Our rights would be upheld. Without these recommendations, we are destined to move closer and closer to a police state.
·                                 End the Pentagon giveaways – stop giving military equipment to police units throughout America
·                                 Set a Good Example – Branch Davidian compound, raid on family of Cuban refugee Elian Gonzales, DEA abuses, ATF abuses – all wrong by federal government
·                                 Recommit to Posse Comitatus – military belongs on the battle field, not the streets of America
·                                 Return SWAT policing to its Original Function
·                                 Rescind Asset Forfeiture Policies
·                                 Pass Legislation Protecting Right to Home Defense
·                                 Strict Liability (for SWAT abuses)
·                                 Tighten Search Warrant Standards
·                                 More Transparency
·                                 Civilian Review Boards
·                                 No Intimidation
·                                 More Accountability
If these common sense recommendations are not enacted – and soon – America will become a full-fledged police state. That, coupled with this administration’s desire to take away weapons is all that is needed to lay waste to the Constitution and Bill of Rights.


J. Edgar Hoover occupied a unique position of moral authority

J. Edgar Hoover occupied a unique position of moral authority. As this nation’s, “top” law enforcement cop he had extensive influence over a large network of journalists, broadcasters, movie studios, and authors extending over 50 yrs. He had the dope on ever corporate head and he got what he wanted, and if he didn’t get his way the person getting in his way suffered through media or jail. He even had it out for Charlie Chaplin a 1920’s screen comedian who enjoyed the company of young woman.

From the 1930s to the 1960s, J. Edgar Hoover personally led repeated publicity campaigns known as “stranger danger.”. Hoover was reportedly an admirer of Anthony Comstock who dedicated his life to the ideas of Victorian morality; Hoover studied his tactics which are still employed by Law Enforcement. He also played an important role in fueling the national hysteria and channeling it into support for a stronger commitment too law enforcement. In one of Hoover’s high profile articles published September 26 of 1937 in newspapers nationwide entitled,“War on the Sex Criminal” Hoover announced, “The sex fiend, most loathsome of all the vast army of crime, has become a sinister threat to the safety of American childhood and womanhood.”.

I have written it before and I’ll say it again it is ALWAYS the ONE that CRIES the LOUDEST. Hoover having a vested interest in dispelling his own demons project them on the public. (http://www.kinseyinstitute.org/library/Pdf/sex%20offense%20resourcesB.Lane.pdf) So it seems, or at least it does to me that it’s always the one that cry the most about a specific issue they themselves posses. Hoover through transference channeled that hate onto others. He most likely hated the fact he was attracted to the same sex and was sexually promiscuous; However that was against the Comstock values he allegedly admired so he like law enforcement today lashes out at perceived injustice. People like Hoover project their problems with sex on others and hide behind their so called righteousness. They are the ones that do the most harm to society as a whole as they hide in plain sight.

According to Susan L. Rosenstiel former wife of Lewis S. Rosenstiel, chairman of Schenley Industries Inc.. In 1958 said she was at a party at the Plaza Hotel where Hoover engaged in cross dressing in front of her then husband and Roy Cohn, former counsel to Senator Joe McCarthy. Susan claimed Cohn introduced Hoover to her as, Mary with Hoover allegedly responded, “Good evening”. She said she saw Hoover go into a bedroom and take off his skirt. There,”young blond boys” worked on him in bed. Later Hoover and Cohn watched, Lewis Rosenstiel have sex with the young boys (http://hnn.us/article/814).

Historian Aaron J. Stockham stated, “Beginning in 1937 and continuing until 1977, the FBI investigated gays as potential security risks who could be blackmailed. Numerous men and women were removed from their government and non-government positions because of the information Hoover’s bureau dug up. Only Communists were more systematically investigated by the FBI”. In 1951, Hoover took another step creating a,”Sex Deviates” program. He sought to identify gays and lesbians working in government and expanded that effort in 1953 after Dwight Eisenhower’s presidential order making federal employment of homosexuals illegal. The program targeted alleged homosexuals from any position in the federal government, from the lowliest clerk to the more powerful position of White house aide.

In 1981, Kenneth Lanning an FBI agent who is now a paid consultant for crimes against children joined the Behavioral Science Unit at the FBI Academy in Quantico. He specialized his study to all aspects of the sexual victimization of children. Lanning in his report, “Child Molesters: A Behavioral Analysis.” said pedophiles often take jobs dealing with children and “may often become a Scout leader, Big Brother, foster parent or Little League coach,”. In a 58 page report Lanning the FBI agent told us what “pedophiles” are like by playing a social role defining, for public consumption, this new form of demon.

The FBI shifted its rhetorical approach away from Comstock’s language of puritan judgment and toward German born Krafft Ebing’s science, in his “Psychopathia Sexualis: A Medico-Legal Study” to fuel the madness.( http://www.gutenberg.org/files/24766/24766-h/24766-h.htm) Lanning was highlighting facts that many in his field felt too uncomfortable to mention, such as the fact that it is possible “for a 5-year-old child to be sexually promiscuous.” but his book he called such children, “compliant victims.”. I guess he felt it necessary to call those children victim because If there is a victim there is a study to be done and that way you have job security; I imagine.

Lanning went on to say most acquaintance exploitation cases, included those involving computers where involved compliant victims that could be seduced. Although applicable statutes, investigative techniques, and persecutive priorities vary, individuals investigating sexual exploitation cases must generally start from the premise that the any sexual activity is not the fault of the child. By calling children victims, even if the child is a willing participates they are victims. Remember even if you are looking at what seems to be an adult it can in fact be a 17yo child the day before they turn 18.

Ernie Allen was a Jefferson County Kentucky Judge Executive, director of the Louisville/Jefferson County Crime Commission and that commission was the first of its kind to bring police officers and social workers together on behalf of kids. Just one innovation Ernie came up with back then was to make a fingerprint card for as many Kentucky kids as possible, and send that card home to the child’s parents in the awful event their child ever went missing. I still have my daughters card in a box somewhere.

Ernie also was the one that led the effort to lobby Congress to establish laws so that police could talk to each other across boundaries about missing kids. When President Ronald Reagan signed the bill creating the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children(NCMEC) as a public-private partnership Allen stated, “In 1984, we proposed the creation of a kind of national resource center; a place that would tie together, create a national response to these kinds of cases like the highly sensationalized Adam Walsh case. My vision, candidly, was that it should be a wing of the FBI, and it was the president of the United States, Ronald Reagan, who said if this going to work it needs to be a private organization working in partnership with government. So on June 13, 1984, the president of the United States officially announced the opening of a new national center for missing and exploited children.”(http://www.fbi.gov/news/podcasts/inside/inside_071211.mp3/view).

Ernie Allen former director of NCMEC has become master fabricator of the Big Lie providing resources and assistance to entrepreneurs seeking to follow Ernie Allen’s footsteps and get into the “non-profit” child saving business. In addition there is no reference on their website to the “causes” of parental abduction or runaway/throwaway teens or any other social problem for that matter. 

This brings me to “Information laundering” which is when anyone makes a statement and that statement keeps getting quoted until no one knows the origin where it came from, but they take that statement as fact. Statistical laundering is when the author ties down false and fantastic figures to sources of often wrong statistics about the preponderance of child pornography(CP) findings most claims to be inaccurate, misquoted or simply made up. So how can we stop something like CP if we don’t have accurate data and not out of date, false or misleading “statistics” concerning the prevalence of CP material on internet web sites. Sensationalism sells even when it has been proven that we don’t know the facts about the real threat level. Mr. Allen also stated that he has many supporters. A few years ago, Wal-Mart became a strong supporter of Allen’s’ effort created the Missing Children’s Network, partnering with NCMEC to create bulletin boards with photos of missing children in all of their 3,000+ Wal-Marts and Sam’s Clubs. Wal-Mart says that children are home safely today as a direct result of the Wal-Mart bulletin boards and they claim over 100 cases but I was unable to find any specific cases that prove that to be a fact.


The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children(NCMEC) is advancing on a global scale and by conducting strong secret lobbying activities it has become a major influence on virtually all European governments including the EU, and in particular the UK. This U.S. based organization has also become very important by their strong aggressive political agenda in many nations. NCMEC also works frequently with foreign government entities, including the formally designated Central Authorities of Hague Convention Contracting States, on cases of international family abduction. Many interesting articles on the topic are at your fingertips when you search for NCMEC on Google. (check it out; prove me wrong)

After conduction a search you will soon notice the immense power this U.S. Organization has in other nations. I for one have come to realize that people should not be afraid of terrorists but of the child protection lobby which is much more ominous, insidious, and is directly linked to the interests of Christian religious fundamentalists. NCMEC is, moreover, also intertwined with the American broadcaster NBC which has broadcast the series “To Catch a Predator” which was a prime-time show where alleged child abusers were caught in a sting in front of the camera. In the show the police officers impersonate children and suggest meetings with the adults who were tackled to the ground and arrested after leaving the camera sting house.(http://www.nbcnews.com/id/10912603/) Are there child preditors? YES unfortunately, but not to the extent law enforcement would have us believe; stranger abduction accounts for less than 1% of missing or abducted children.

Looking at alleged CP (anyone under 18) is not the same as actually causing injury of any kind to a child (anyone under18) in the photo, video or both and to say otherwise is voodoo. In fact know one seems to know exactly what constitutes CP other than, Child pornography is the visual representation of minors under the age of 18 engaged in sexual activity or the visual representation of minors engaging in lewd or erotic behavior designed to arouse the viewer’s sexual interest.

CP Voodoo logic; Someone possesses a photo of a child, in the form of 0′s and 1′s in a computer file. When s/he looks at the photo, the individual depicted in the photo gets victimized and hurt. While I can appreciate that creating child porn victimizes children, I cannot agree that looking for, viewing, or collecting child porn actually victimizes anyone. If you were to apply the same reasoning to any other crime, then looking at a photo of any crime would be re-victimizing someone. Use that same voodoo logic and the same reasoning law enforcement uses and apply it to murder and terrorism. If anyone looks for, views images or video footage of 9/11, nazi war crimes, or autopsy photos, etc, they would be guilty of having re-victimized people viewed in that medium being a photo, video or both. If the simple act of viewing an image of someone is harmful perhaps an appropriate punishment would be to simply take a photo of the perpetrator in jail, then set them free, but have some look at the photo that was taken while they were in jail.


NCMEC says there are 850,000 missing and exploited children cases a year; However they drew upon those numbers by including runaway teens and parental abductions to justify the large amounts of federal spending on the alleged problem. Those funds in turn are funneled into a range of programs whose purpose is to, “raise awareness” about, “child sexual abuse.”. These programs WRITE STUDIES which help to develop a range of inflated statistics to describe sexual abuse as a huge national problem requiring even more resources. As for the children and teens who have left or been thrown out by their families, the NCMEC website offers nothing but a couple of links to other organizations. They seem to say to kids who find their families unbearable that its, “Not my problem,”.

NCMEC’s job is simply too evidential to be entrusted to a nonprofit. The task requires a fully trained, funded law enforcement agency which is subject to the Freedom of Information Act(FOIA), congressional oversight, and constitutional requirements for due process. However Congress given the sensitivity of the issue believe the inflated statistics, and pseudo scientific studies on the issue of child protection presented to them by NCMEC. Congress is unlikely to address the problem of NCMEC’s accountability. NCMEC is a gargantuan creature of government with a 2007 $42 million dollar TAX PAYER budget. Government control over NCMEC’s internal decisions is not clear. The lack of government control over the organization allowes NCMEC to essential regulate the Internet and impose criminal sanctions that follow a person for life and would by itself be is enormous problem.

Given what NCMEC actually does it obviously qualifies as an “agency”. The only public oversight of NCMEC required by law is the requirement that NCMEC a non-profit file a Form 990 each year disclosing basic information about its finances. That report does not list NCMEC’s donors who have a First Amendment right to remain anonymous, but a more transparent organization would at least identify its major donors. NCMEC’s 2006,and 2007 Form 990’s do reveal a few interesting things, about what NCMEC does with its budget (70% of which comes from the taxpayer) is subject to FOIA under the “functional equivalence factor,”.

NCMEC have tied the knot, shut the world out, so now to even talk about CP one can be construed as breaking the law with no First Amendment rights, no rights at all; NONE! It has created the perfect corporate crime; that can take away someone constitutional rights, take away their freedom leaving the person mote and then placing that person in an over inflated prison system that is sucking this nation dry. So keep in mind while you dissing someone on the nightly news arrested for CP that every cent that is being spent on the prison system is borrowed money. If incarcerations keep up half of the USA will be in jail and the other half will be watching them. If you like watching the prison shows on TV just wait you may be next. There is absolutely nothing you can do about it under the Patriot act that was made law to address terrorists and is now being turned against the American public causing terror. NCMEC has people so scared they do not even talk about CP. If you have children and they are just being kids having fun with other kids using their electronic toys. If they happen to take a naked picture of themselves or even decide to have safe sex via video with another mate that is considered CP and your kids will go to jail. If law enforcement can they will even arrest you for collusion.

The National Children’s Alliance Center, was founded in 1985 in the wake of NCMEC by Alabama Democrat congressman Bud Cramer who began to funnel federal money directly into NCMEC fueling their sex panic promotion. The problem of missing children was inventive and it included a range of vastly different phenomenon under one umbrella term. This allows a huge amount of room to manipulate statistics, professionals, and the public at large; also since 1984, has disseminated 28,762,912 free publications.

According to their IRS 990 form, they made $40,000 selling publications vs giving them away for free just in 2001 alone. Considering that NCMEC revenue for that year was $32,386,780. At the end of the year NCMEC had a net of $12,385,095 they did not spend so they could have just given the publications away for free. I guess they needed to make up the more than $30,000 they lost due to investments, because it sure didn’t make a dent in the $1,868,228 they spent on travel or the $646,683 on conferences, conventions, and meetings that year.

It is no wonder NCMEC wants to exploit child abuse on their own it’s a cash cow. This is how Southern Christians Fundamentalist get to inflict their morals on the rest of the nation; Hollywood can afford lobbyists to thwart them. Thats how screen TV movies get away with what they do. When you talk about children and Appeal to emotion (argumentum ad passiones) one seems to be able to manipulation a persons emotions rather than valid logic, to win their argument. The appeal can be used to justify why something should, or should not, be done and it is used as a plea for pity. They appeal to emotion because the numbers and statistics do not add up can and does in this particular case constitutes a logical fallacy. I know it hard to believe when you been had, tricked, cheated, deceived.

Our government is much like anyone else. When we want something done about missing children and we don’t know exactly what to do we throw money at it in hopes it will go away but It won’t. Creating a “catch-all” bureaucracy for every missing child program or idea that comes along is not the answer. It is like when you get software that has like 100 different functions but it never works better than the software you have that only does one function. The same rule applies here. In order to continually increase it’s funding each year NCMEC has to convince our government they should add new programs instead of funding another organization who probably created the idea in the first place. Big government doesn’t work and neither does a bigger NCMEC (http://www.kidsearchnetwork.blogspot.fr/2005/09/ncmec-myths-and-facts.html)

What’s even more peculiar is that there are missing “adults” listed on the NCMEC’s website who went missing as adults not children! One woman on NCMEC website went missing at the age of 36 in 1973 well before the establishment of the NCMEC. There are other abnormal condition as well; for example, in Maine NCMEC reports only 3 missing children. The most recent missing since 1986 and the other two since 1971 again, well before NCMEC was even formed so the last child to have gone missing in the State of Maine was in 1986, 28 years ago.


A state by state search shows that according to NCMEC, the total number of missing children right now in the USA is a mere 2,482. Of course that number will change in a fluid society but it easy enough with the click of the mouse or a tap on the screen. There is a wealth of real information on the web after you filter through all the NCMEC malarkey. For Christs’ sake some missing children cases posted on NCMEC website go back as far as 1949. In Arizona 73 children missing, Wisconsin, and Texas (TX) which has at least 5 missing children listed with “No Name”, also absent is a photograph of these “No Names” all that is provided is a sketch. If there are no names or pictures for these children who are they and how do they know they are missing?


If NCMEC updates there web site to prove me wrong those figures can be found , “ON the internet “wayback machine”.(http://archive.org/web/)

NCMEC statistics are often publicly quoted by its former President and CEO Ernie Allen and current CEO John D, Ryan who have said that 2,000 children go missing every day equaling about 800,000 each year, but that cannot be possibly correct; can it? The figures clearly don’t add up and if they do please, please set me straight.

If their statistics are “somehow” correct and or we are to believe their often quoted statistics, why are there only 2,482 children listed as currently missing in the U.S.? NCMEC is the National Clearinghouse for Missing Children and gets well over $30 million every year in Federal taxpayer funding. Why are there only 2,482 children listed on their website going back as far as 1949 when there have been and according to their quoted statistics over 19.2 Million children missing since NCMEC’s inception?

In addition according to their 2007 Annual Report the organization had a surplus of over $29 million at the end of the year. If they aren’t using it then why isn’t it being returned to the taxpayers or at least distributed to cold case file law enforcement agencies? NCMEC claims that 94 cents of every dollar goes into programs that help find missing children.( http://www.missingkids.com/) Well, lets take a look at the figures from NCMEC 990 filed with the IRS for year 2002, the most recent one offered as far as I can find. It’s a good sample year.(http://www.treasury.gov/tigta/auditreports/2007reports/200740029fr.html) 66% of NCMEC’s 2006 and 2007 revenues went to salaries. Thats right, as always follow the money!


Look at this Honey Pot!!!!!

Gross Revenue, $32,386,780, with $25,838,215 all coming from your tax dollars. The Radical Right snuck in the back door saying, if I can’t do it with the vote I’ll do it this way and either way I win.

Management costs $466,114

Fund-raising costs $880,448

Officers and Directors $543,438

Other salaries/wages $8,980,018

Pensions $510,637

Employee benefits $1,045,578

Payroll Taxes $691,971

Accounting $49,640 reasonable to find an accountant who can make this look like 94 cents of every dollar going into programs.

Legal Fees $163,080

Travel $1,868,228

Office $1,540,820

Conferences, Conventions, Meetings $646,683

Net Assets $23,820,725. They could almost last a year without new funding.

Ernest Allen CEO was paid $359,191 plus $411,636 in benefits in 2006 and $409,821 plus $426,540 in benefits in 2007 a total of $1.6 million in two years or $800,000/year

Michael Lynch CFO $154,678 and $10,345 in bennies

John Rabun Jr. $166,643 and $11,118 in benefits

Rick Minicucci CTO $137,692

NCMEC held an auction in Palm Beach, Florida, taking in $415,574 but claimed they only netted $249,560 do you think Ernie Allen told the donors that 94 cents of every dollar goes to help find missing children? Do you think they mentioned spending almost a million dollars per year for fund raising? Do you think it’s ok that they didn’t? A New York Auction they held that same year a $455,616 was raised, but only $269,870 netted after expenses are you still wondering about the 94 cents thing? In 2001 there were less than 250 missing children in the state of California. And today there are 266 unsolved cases. Last year in Florida, during August there were 132 unsolved missing child cases, and today there are 152. This is gathered from the NCMEC website I kid you not but what I will do is ask you where is the impact for that amount of tax dollars and donations being spent?

As for those at NCMEC who would like to dispute my opinions here please bring it on; However I have a question. Why, with all that money coming in and all that travel being paid for, hasn’t your staff, directors, or anyone from NCMEC, ever been to the house where the parents are missing a child right now? There are organizations that have barely any budget and they been there many times.

One author stated they have an 18 year old girl that will tell you how she was abducted by a two time registered sex offender but was found with absolutely zero help from the police or NCMEC and there are more cases like that. All the statistic, impact studies, technical support and training can never equal showing up and helping the parents find their missing child. (http://www.kidsearchnetwork.blogspot.fr/2005/09/ncmec-myths-and-facts.html)

NCMEC has distort facts and plan old LIEd; they state, “850,000 children (or about 2,329 every day) are reported missing every year in the United States. According to their 2007 Annual Report which can be viewed here(http://www.missingkids.com/Publications), they also state that in the 24 years that they have been in business they have assisted in the recovery of 121,000 children. Let’s use basic math 850,000 children “missing” every year; 2,329 children missing every day? In the 24 years NCMEC been around their figures amount to, 19.2 MILLION missing children.

NCMEC should be applauded for the recovery of 121,000 children but, when compared to over 19 MILLION quoted as missing, their recovery rate appears alarmingly low. Let’s put these numbers into perspective. Taking the current population of the entire state of New York being 19.4 million; if we are to believe NCMEC’s claims about the number of missing children that would be tantamount to the entire population of the state of New York missing, gone, vanished!

If we compare these numbers to the Vietnam War where a total of approximately 2.6 Million U.S. troops were sent to served in Vietnam. I personally know at least a dozen Nam vets; most everyone knows a Vietnam veteran or knows someone who knows a Vietnam veteran but can the same be said for a missing child? Given these numbers and the analogies above, how many people actually have a missing child or know someone that does? The majority of missing children are runaways and or noncustodial parental abductions.

How Can We Avoid Believing Things That Aren’t True?(http://www.truthpizza.org/main.htm)

Unchecked and operating with only shadowy oversight, NCMEC’s quasi-law enforcement portfolio concerns many including the Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT). “We have very significant concerns about the outsourcing of proprietorial and investigative functions to a non-government entity,”, says John Morris, CDT’s general counsel. He believes those functions should only be done by those subject to the First and Fourth Amendments, the Privacy Act, and The Freedom Of Information Act. Morris said NCMEC’s job is just too important to be made to operate without accountable oversight, The author Soghoian says we should “Nationalize NCMEC, make all of its workers federal employees, with good health care and job security, and perhaps even expand its budget after all, it does good work, right?” Soghoian went on to say that move would, of course, make the organization fully responsive to Freedom of Information Act requests. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Soghoian)

We have a Drug czar, Intelligence Czar, and a “Car Czar” is a “Child Porn Czar” in our future, too? (https://www.cdt.org/)(https://www.cdt.org/blogs/brock-meeks/maybe-its-time-child-porn-czar) That was from an article written in 2008 and the only thing that has changed since then in the incarcerations.

There are numerous organizations dedicated to the protection of the child too numerous to mention. Their administration, programs and staff must be funded which means many job opportunities and I for one am particularly worried about the relationships between large and politically important global organizations such as the NCMEC. Www.obscenitycrimes.orgis an organization operated by Morality in Media, Inc. and is an essential partner of the Center. I quote here a few of the interesting arguments that this organization wants to spread and enforce; below is a collection of arguments from various pages on that web site.

a)The police must do God’s work (ie. the police becomes the executive branch of the Bible)
b)Pornography leads to violence and must be banned
c)Pornography leads to homosexuality and child abuse
d)Sexuality in marriage must be regulated (oral, anal and masturbation are against nature and are punishable)
e)Criminalize homosexuality
f)Adultery must be punishable and
g)Adulterers are predetermined to abuse children

I stop here because otherwise I would burst with anger and issue a bloodthirsty cry. I noticed that these are the same religious fundamentalists that welcomed cruel punishment on children with rods, whips, etc. based on Bible verses such as Heb 12:6-7 or 1 Book of Kings 12:13-14 and 12:18. The Western world hardly has to worry about the terrorists but more about Christian fundamentalists crawling in through the back door of “Child protection”. I myself am a Christian and I know as a Christian we all fall short of the glory of God. What Radical Right Christians fail to realize is Jesus himself was a middle Easterner(Arab) with middle Eastern thinking; there is no white blue eyed Jesus. God became man his name Jesus; sent to die for my sins.



American photo labs are arresting parents as child pornographers

Is this child pornography?

American photo labs are arresting parents as child pornographers for taking pictures of their kids in the bath.

Is this child pornography?

Picture this: A photo of a boy and girl — unmistakably naked, posed and giggling — holding two very large sausages (Italian?). The boy is maybe 8, the girl maybe 6. They are not touching each another, nor does the camera seem especially interested in their genitals. What catches the eye are those sausages, but not that they are involved in anything you or I would call, right off, sexual: They are not being licked, stroked or inserted. They are more atmospheric, I guess you could say.
Is this child pornography? Well, if you are a photo lab manager in Burbank, Calif., you follow the in-store policy and ask the store manager. The store manager, noticing the nudity and the meat, follows what he takes to be the law and calls the Burbank police. The police send two undercover cops out with instructions to nab the photographer. The cops then order the photo lab manager to phone the customer, tell him his prints are ready and instruct him to come pick them up right away.
The customer agrees to drop everything and run over, but then doesn’t show, forcing the undercover police to cool their heels for six hours before giving up. Later the cops do nab the suspect, who says the photos were taken by the kids’ uncle who thought the children’s play with the sausages was “funny.” The Burbank police decide to let it go with a warning laced with disgust: There’s nothing “funny” about photos like these, photos that are indecent, degenerate and, next time, criminal.
As a script written for the Keystone Kops, this much ado about sausages scenario would be funny. But it is a true story. It is a sorry saga about our confused desires when it comes to kids and sex, and the way these collective desires are reflected in our failure to clearly define and execute the laws governing child pornography. This black comedy set in Burbank proves a scary point: At this time there is no way to differentiate — legally — between a family snapshot of a naked child and child pornography.
Not that photo labs don’t try. They do, and every now and then they light upon (or concoct) what they take to be a case of child pornography. There are about 10 cases in the last dozen years that have emerged in the press. Some are worthy of mention here, mostly because they weren’t worthy of attention when they occurred:

  • William Kelly was arrested in Maryland in 1987 after dropping off a roll of film that included shots his 10-year-old daughter and younger children had taken of each other nude.
  • David Urban in 1989 took photos of his wife and 15-month-old grandson, both nude, as she was giving him a bath. Kmart turned him in and he was convicted by a Missouri court (later overturned).
  • A gay adult couple in Florida decided to shave their bodies and snap their lovemaking, convincing a Walgreens clerk that one of them was a child. They are suing the Fort Lauderdale police.
  • More recently, Cynthia Stewart turned in bath-time pictures of her 8-year-old daughter to a Fuji film processing lab in Oberlin, Ohio. The lab contacted the local police, who found the pictures “over the line” and arrested the mother for, among other things, snapping in the same frame with her daughter a showerhead, which the prosecution apparently planned to relate somehow to hints of masturbation.
Even though the number of arrests is not large and the circumstances seem ridiculous, this photo lab idiocy is a serious matter: It puts all of us at risk, and it significantly erodes free speech protection by insisting that a photograph of a child is tantamount to molestation. Since it is what is outside the frame (the intention of the photographer, the reaction of the viewer) that counts legally, we are actually encouraged to fantasize an action in order to determine whether or not this is child pornography.
Every photo must pass this test: Can we create a sexual fantasy that includes it? Such directives seem an efficient means for manufacturing a whole nation of pedophiles.
The laws, whether state or federal, are inevitably firm-jawed when it comes to meting out punishment to child pornographers. But they seem uncertain both in what it is they want to put an end to and how far they want to reach into our home photo albums to do it.
In the great sausage caper, the photo lab operator and the Burbank police acted as our representatives to decide whether pictures of children and sausages constitute child pornography. This suggests that they have a clear idea of what a child is and that they know porn when they see it. What this also means is that we have a system that allows criminal conduct to be determined by just about anybody.
So, how do I know which kid pictures I can take to Wal-Mart, and how does the Wal-Mart photo guy know when to call the police about my pictures? The short answer is that there is no way I can know because there is no way he can know.
Some states require that photo labs report any photo that they deem suspicious to the police while others do not, but none give much help in explaining what suspicious photos of children actually look like. State law on child pornography is murky at best, and it varies from state to state. And when a photo lab sends its material to another state for developing, federal laws (which may differ from the state laws, but are equally murky) come into play.
In the absence of clear jurisdictional authority, much less clear laws, anyone snapping pictures of kids and wanting to avoid the slammer might decide to simply ask about the policies of their local labs and the corporations that direct them. How do they separate those who are simply charmed by their naked kids from those who seek to charm others for profit?
I expended no little energy trying to unearth the guidelines from the corporate headquarters of photo developing giants. I may as well have tried to get to the bottom of Cosa Nostra rub-out policies by making a few calls. I did discover that the world of photo developing is surprisingly small and, perhaps not so surprisingly, secretive.
When one talks to people at the top, as I did, one finds a penetrating and pervasive fear of public exposure. My sources promised to speak only on guarantee of anonymity. Too many lawsuits are pending and too many threats of others simmer to allow policy issues to be made public, said a top lawyer at one of the nation’s largest photo developing companies.
Still, according to all my sources (which include executives on the corporate level and also five local photo-lab people incautious enough to spill the beans), the correct procedures for handling questionable photographs are never clear and they vary — even within the same corporation — according to state law. They do not pertain to erotic pictures of adults unless they appear to depict rape or some other illegal activity. (Or unless one of the adults could be mistaken for a child.)
Kids are different. Naked kids under the age of 5 or 6 are probably OK, so long as nothing else in the picture invites suspicion. Nudity in older children may be a problem — or maybe not. It is up to the lab person or a supervisor to consult his or her own sense of propriety and moral sensitivities, as well as any rough-and-ready training that has been given in how to determine whether a photo constitutes child pornography.
Actually, given that the focus of the law has shifted from the photo to the reaction of the viewer, the wise technician will consult his or her loins: A turn-on means porn.
In any case, it seems obvious that only a society under great stress, wanting to look at kids’ bodies and blame it on somebody else, would tolerate dissemination of its policing functions to photo development clerks. We put photo labs in the position of resolving a massive cultural confusion that is both vicious and duplicitous.
No one, of course, is allowed to say that improper snapshots are not a problem — much less that child pornography in all forms is nothing but an urban legend. Nevertheless, according to state police officials in California, there is no commercially produced child pornography in this country and hasn’t been for some time. The risks of making it, they say, are simply too great.
Several speakers at an L.A. police seminar I attended a few years back laughingly admitted that the largest collection of child porn in the country is in the hands of cops, who edit and publish it in sting operations. There is at most, they say, a small cottage industry among civilians in which pictures (most of them vintage) are traded.
Even so, one might argue that amateurs are pros-in-the-making and that the problem of distribution is not solved by such a distinction. But as Philip Stokes, a photographer and senior research fellow at Nottingham Trent University, points out, although it may be true that somebody guilty of assault on a child has nude photos of children, that does not allow us to reverse the argument and say that possession of such photos means someone is contemplating the act. One might as well assume, he says, that anyone possessing antique magazines is on the road to burglary.
The truth is that true research in this area is impossible, given that it’s illegal to look at anything that is or might be child pornography. As a result, nobody knows exactly what child pornography is, what forms it takes, where it is, how much of it exists — or even if it exists. We seem happy that nobody knows: That way we can take our fantasies, project them onto phantom demons (the child pornographers) and feel righteous.
As for kiddie porn developed by mainstream photo labs, I would bet that it hardly exists at all. Oh sure, you may be able to find a case or two, but, allowing for a certain hyperbole on my part, I would say that we are off on another loud ride into fairyland, duplicating our earlier trips into satanic ritual abuse and recovered memory accusations.
We know that kids are not harmed by family snapshots or any other kind of photography this side of snuff films and photographs that document actual cases of assault, rape and other forms of violent coercion. So when was it, exactly, that the law lost the ability to tell the difference between a family snapshot and kiddie porn?
The latest wave of confusion comes from two developments in the ’80s and early ’90s: New laws were passed to differentiate child porn from unapologetic adult hardcore porn, and a new philosophy of pornography emerged that insisted that a potentially lurid photo can be considered not just illegal but a criminal assault on its subject.
We owe the latter assertion to the lamentably influential anti-porn feminists Catherine MacKinnon and Andrea Dworkin. They argued that porn (originally adult heterosexual porn) constituted not just image but action — action identical to sexual assault that is repeated each time the photo is distributed or viewed. (They did not, however, bother to define “pornography”; they assumed we all knew it when we saw it, which, in turn, ensured that we could never really know when we were not seeing it.)
Child protection experts used these arguments to redefine activities that looked vaguely pedophilic as criminal actions. Child pornography became tantamount to murder. Lloyd Martin, the infamous LAPD officer who was considered a national expert on the dangers to children throughout the ’80s, popularized the equation. Any form of pedophilic activity, he announced, is “worse than homicide.”
I think I’d rather my uncle take a picture of me with any number of sausages than kill me, but the real question is: Why would we make such comparisons? Why does a nude kid with a sausage make us think of murder? What leads us to feel that family photos of naked kids might demand attention? What are we criminalizing? What are we protecting? Can’t we tell the difference between a photo and an action? Even if the photos seem, to some people and to some degree, erotic, so what? Can’t we sense the erotic without acting on it? Why do we pretend that photo lab operators and cops are experts in the interpretation of images and the erotic impulses of those who record them and those who look at them?
The law provides no answers. In fact, we have made the key terms in operative legal statutes so vague that we can hardly be certain that any photo is clearly pornographic or, more to the point, not pornographic.
In 1982 (N.Y. vs. Ferber), child pornography, as yet undefined, was declared

to have no artistic significance and to be indefensible on those grounds.

In 1984, child pornography was, for the first time, distinguished from adult

pornography in federal law and defined as the “lascivious exhibition of genitals” in an underage subject.

By 1989 (Mass. vs. Oakes), “nudity with lascivious intent” was added to the definition. (All of this, I should add, is a part of federal law, which comes into play only in cases of interstate activity. Otherwise it functions as no more than a set of suggestions for state laws, which vary widely and wildly.)
The inclusion of “intent” shifted attention from the photo itself to the motives of the photographer and even the receiver of the photo. As a result, more laws were needed to list the elements that might provide clues to the photographer’s intentions. Now such things as a “visually suggestive setting or pose,” “inappropriate attire considering the child’s age,” a suggestion of “sexual coyness,” an intent “to elicit sexual response in viewer” or the use of a photo, regardless of the photographer’s intent, are specified “factors” in making the determination as to whether or not a picture of a child can be considered pornographic.
And that’s not all. The subject need not be naked for a photograph to qualify as child pornography. In 1994, Janet Reno decreed: “Neither nudity or [sic] discernability of genitals through clothing is a required element of the offense.” It is also not clear whether child pornography needs to involve actual children.If the photo conveys the impression that a child is involved in lascivious photos, that may be good enough. So morphed and simulated photos may still be judged to have a devastating “secondary effect” by stimulating the public appetite for such photos.
The law leaves us in a fog surrounded by murk enveloped in blackness. Sometimes adults who look like kids are photographed lasciviously. Other times, what are clearly kids are pictured in what some regard as lascivious attire. New York Mayor Rudy Guiliani and many others were deeply shocked by a proposed Times Square billboard showing small boys in expensive underpants bouncing on a suitably expensive couch. He thought it might encourage lascivious thoughts — not in him but in pedophiles. Calvin Klein backed down and allowed the furor to give him the publicity the billboards were aimed at.
Makes one wonder. What would it take to produce a picture of a child that was indubitably not pornographic? Put another way, why do we declare some things innocent and some criminal, some cute and others disgusting?
Consider this: Within the same cultural climate that sees sausages, showerheads and sofas as erotic props, “Naked Babies,” a book of photographs of the same by Nick Kelsh with text by Anna Quindlen, is not just acceptable — it’s in its second printing. Quindlen’s prose — full of treacle and truism, bathos and balderdash — provides a sentimental counterpoint that negates any suspicions aroused by Kelsh’s rain of naked bodies: “Adults in the presence of a naked baby reach out their hands,” she oozes, “as though to warm themselves at the fire of perfection.”
But how exactly is it that nakedness is divine at one point and the desire to touch it an act of flat-out reverence when, a few years later on in the child’s life, nakedness becomes shameful and any adults reaching out hands to warm themselves at the fire of perfection will find themselves in manacles? According to Quindlen, a naked baby is “androgynous,” “sensual as anything but not sexual at all,” while “a boy, a girl — well, they are something else.”
I agree that children are at risk — but not from cameras. Children are put at risk by neglect, emotional and physical abuse, bad health care, lousy education, lack of hope. Even sexual abuse, which ranks low among their torments, is not a problem of stranger abductions, child pornographers, priests or scout masters; it’s a family problem. And we all know that. It’s so well-known it can, it seems, be ignored.
Even sexual abuse, though it commands our attention, is not, statistically, a highly significant form of child abuse. The National Committee to Prevent Child Abuse reports that 11 percent of reports to child protective agencies involve sexual abuse (a little higher than “other”), far below physical abuse (30 percent) and neglect (47 percent).
One almost wishes that what we call “abuse” were the only nightmare kids have to face. For instance, 500,000 kids a year are classified as “throwaways” by the FBI. They are not foster children nor runaways (there are even more of those), but kids who really are set adrift, kids who would like to stay somewhere if someone would let them. But nobody will.
And yet we hurl our outrage and our resources and our art-critic police headlong into solving the non-problem of improper snapshots. It’s a little like starting a campaign for flossing in the midst of the Black Death.
Our alarm at abuse through camera lenses is a clear instance of the way we substitute a trivial problem for a perilous one. It is also a clear instance of the confusion that drives us to do just that. We seem so obsessed by the need to distinguish sharply between kids and eroticism that we inevitably stir them together; meaning to put them in separate rooms, we provide secret passageways so they can visit. We say so often and loudly that there’s nothing erotic about kids that we cement the association.
We are so obsessed by the bodies of children and are so devoted to protecting those bodies that we construct a world where very nearly everyone (but us) is driven wild by the sight of a child. Though we treat people who are sexually aroused by children as monsters possessed by feelings altogether unknown to the rest of us, we also act as if they were everywhere.
We like to say that the child pornography business is enormous, a multibillion-dollar industry; that the Internet is crawling with pedophiles distributing kiddie porn as they go; that millions of children are sexually molested by adults.
At the same time, we act as though these predators are not of us, are none of us, are as unknowable and rare as werewolves. Pedophiles are everywhere and nowhere, common and freakish; above all, they act as scapegoats for our own confused desires. We enter into heated mock battles with them at the oddest places: day-care centers, Satanic sites, schoolrooms and now photo labs.
We would not find ourselves in the midst of such a collective mess if we did not, on many levels, collectively want to be there. We all gain from sideshows like photo lab stings. And what we gain is immunity from thinking our own feelings. If we blame others loudly enough, we need not look at our own hearts and desires. It is a Gothic world we create with simple villains (the pedophiles) and equally simple rescuers (us).
Jock Sturges, the art photographer who has spent years in court for his photographs of children, analyzes all this very clearly for us: “I had to pretend to be something that, quite frankly, I’m probably not, which is a lily-white, absolutely artistically pure human being. In fact, I don’t believe I’m guilty of any crimes, but I’ve always been drawn to and fascinated by physical, sexual and psychological change, and there’s an erotic aspect to that. It would be disingenuous of me to say there wasn’t.”
So shines an honest man in a weary world. We all should be drawn to and fascinated by the beautiful and the arresting, including beautiful and arresting children, without being terrified by the erotic aspect in our fascination. Admitting to an erotic attraction is not the same thing as admitting to rape or assault: We do not commonly attack what we love and we do not feel the need to act on every impulse. Finding something erotic does not drive us irresistibly to mount it. We could use more complexity in our thinking on this subject, more tolerance for difficulty. And a lot more honesty.
The price we allow our children to pay for our scapegoating cowardice is enormous. Our kids, caught in the middle of all this, don’t mind our snapping lenses, but they do mind the ghastly world we picture for them. It is a world filled with dangers around every curve, with safety only in non-pedophilic adults and our friends, the police. We ought to examine more searchingly if we are really doing all this for their good, if we really need to see the world this way, if we aren’t the ones afraid of the demons. Especially the demons inside us.

An insight into child porn

An insight into child porn

February 26, 2009
10 years inside the international child porn industry with our confidential source.
By Mr. X (translation from original article in German).
Ladies and Gentlemen,
It is not really proper to send anonymous letters. Given the contents of this letter, everyone will understand my wish for anonymity. Nevertheless, I hope that you will read this letter completely and think about it.
In recent months, I have followed closely the debate on the topic of filtering of child pornography in Germany. There have been various suggestions about how the Internet should be censored and filtered – not only by the Federal Government (Mrs. von der Leyen and Mr. Schaeuble) but also by federal countries (such as in Lower Saxony from Mr Schünemann).
Discussions on this topic have lasted for months and have triggered a strong polemic which is also reflected in various forums. For the first time ever, I will present the “flip side” of the issue and give you an insight from the other side. I will describe controversial and possibly – from today’s perspective – immoral things and technologies.
Before we begin, I want to say a few words about the legalities and myself: I will be as accurate as possible to describe the background and my involvement in this (if any) so that my statements can be verified (we know it would be illegal to give links to files or email accounts). I have included an excerpt from PCPro from the year 2007 on the Landslide case. I recommend everyone to read this report. A few words about myself: I am German, but have lived about 20 years abroad, have a background in the telecommunications sector and later a second training in the field of education. In my current country there are no laws relating to surfing, viewing, downloading and saving any type of files. For this reason, I know very precisely what is happening in the Internet because I am fully able to follow what happens. Also, I am in an unfavourable position: earlier, I was for a while strongly involved in the field of children models. From this time period I know of hundreds of pedophiles and have virtual contact with designers, programmers and operators of the sites that operate today’s CP [Child Pornography]. I have even got to know personally some of the girls (and their families) in the famous CP sets.
In order to systematically describe the situation, I decided to do this in a theme-oriented fashion:

Small reflection on the history of the industry

In the Middle Ages, when the life expectancy was still significantly lower, the puberty began later than today and adolescents in the age range 12-18 years were set up for marriage. This changed increasingly. Naked, erotically depicted boys and girls have always been in the center of the art. As photography became popular at the end of the 18th Century, also erotic act descriptions with children and young people were made. At the end of the 60s there was a magazine called Lolita, produced by the Danish company “Color Climax”, that had sex between children and between children and adults as the subject.
This magazine was sold everywhere – sometimes from under the counter. Only in the 80s the magazine was discontinued due to new laws set. From the 90s, the notion of child pornography expanded ever further. In the 70s and 80s, nudist magazines such as “Young and Free,” “Sunshine Friends”, etc. were still perfectly legal to buy. Even artists such as David Hamilton, Jock Sturges and Sally Mann published images of naked children and adolescents, which was at the time was considered an art – even though the first voices reported this as child pornography to blame. The photographer Jacques Bourboulon got special attention because of the very erotic pictures of Eva Ionescu he made.
As the Internet age in the ’90s began, pictures were initially exchanged via specific NNTP newsgroups. Specifically zealous fathers began even to abuse their own children and to share the pictures with others. This was nothing commercial – it was on grounds of seeking approval – these people wanted to be the biggest and got plenty of encouragement from lurkers (people that use the material in newsgroups without contributing anything themselves). Between 1996 and 1999 the first commercial offerings of nude act pitures of children and adolescents emerged. Some of these sites had quite an artistic approach, while others lacked in this regard completely. In addition to NNTP, forums emerged as a social meeting place and as a means to exchange plenty of files and links. From 2002 LS Studios was founded – a group of Ukrainian businessmen and professional photographers. Within 2 years, LS Studios had 1500 children and young people who posed naked – with the consent of their parents. The models were even recruited through TV and newspaper ads. The photo quality and professionalism exceeded anything previously published. LS Studios published over half a million images and hundreds of videos on dozens of websites. In 2004, under the pressure of and with the help of the FBI, LS Studios was closed. The prosecution was discontinued and there was no one convicted. Since 2003 was also the heyday of a man from St. Petersburg who was known under the pseudonym Fly, Hook and Scorp. This time the pics were in much worse quality and much harder. He has a lot of models approximately between 11 and 14 years of age in front of the camera masturbating and pleased with the dildo. These images were being published in – no longer existing – sites like MyLola, Hotlols, Goldenlols, etc. In specific cases the girl even had sexual intercourse in front of a recording videocamera. What is special about this production was that he himself started very young. Being a son of a high Russian official, he had shortage of nothing. When he was still a minor he falsified documents to claim that he was an adult and with his male and female friends as models, he began the business. First he started with provocative but miserable nude act pictures that he produced for other operators (such as Pedolola, etc.) and then proceeded to defloration in front of the camera. Only at the end of 2008 he gave up the business. No, not because the police put a stop but because someone stole his money and everyone (he, the photographer and his models) lost interest as a result – since for all of them it was only a matter of money.
The CP producer from St. Petersburg was the one who in the last year flooded the Internet with masturbation pictures and videos. I have no problems finding contacts to his models. I will only say this: there is an interesting Naturist Club in St. Petersburg called Holynature (reachable under holynature.ru). Interestingly, there are pictures of young people in Holynature.ru sometimes posing with models who are also seen in the harsh CP photos and videos … So as I am able to successfully investigate this, the authorities should also be cabable of the same … However, I speak many languages and have an extraordinarily good education, in particular in the technical field.
At this point I have to mention the so-called Child and Non Nude Teen Modeling Sites that have been existing since the 90s. These are websites that market images and videos of children or youngsters. The quality of the images varies hugely and ranges from Webcam quality to absolute professional quality. Initially, these sites were usually run by parents and later came more and more professional operators into the picture. The pictures range, depending on the operators, from pictures in conservative clothes to very provocative poses with legs spread and erotic lingerie. About the Non Nude scene it is known that much happened behind closed doors. Many customers make offers for so-called Custom shootings – in other words pictures by request. Customers wrote scenarios, poses, and sometimes even sent clothes to them so that they can produce images specifically for this customer – at a good price. In most cases such requests also included the desire for naked pictures in unique poses – however true sexual abuse or rape was an absolute exception.

Differing legal positions

Child pornography – the word is used everywhere and nonetheless it is totally unclear what it actually describes. This is where the problem begins: there are totally different legal situations. What is considered CP in one place can be in another place perfectly legal. Even the legal description of CHILD is not regulated. In a country you are a child until you are 18 years old, in another the limit is 16 years, or as in Germany one is legally a child until one is 14 years old, after that he/she is called a young minor until he/she becomes an adult. In practice this leads to constant conflicts. Law is by no means uniform. A few years ago there were these kinds of problems with the magazine “Seventeen” in the Netherlands. When the Internet emerged, the company produced entirely legal pornography with young people aged 16. As long as this was sold in the Netherlands, it was no problem. But with the advent of the Internet Seventeen wanted to sell the pictures and videos on the internet as well. It was not long until it hit the headlines everywhere for “child pornography”, especially in the USA. This became a huge political pressure on the Dutch authorities. A very similar problem seems to be, soon, with Switzerland, where this minor protection ends at the age of 16. Not to mention countries such as Japan where the age limit in some places is 13 years (the same applies in Spain). There are countries where there is no minimum age but one is entitled to have sex when married (this is often the case in Muslim countries). So here is again the question: what is child pornography? The answer may vary.

The business model

Authorities and the media write sensational reports about the proportions, the alleged threat and trillions of transactions made by the child porn industry. I will give you for the first time very accurate figures on retail sales. These figures are very accurate and I have got them from the people responsible for the bills. But first a few details about the course and consequences.
As the real Internet business emerged in the late 90s, it was very easy to enter into this business. I remember the people of Site-Key.com from St. Petersburg that did much business in 2000. They had a Delaware Corporation in the United States, a Visa and MasterCard merchant account with Card Service International in California, and they ran all the payments via the U.S. through a gateway link from Linkpoint. But there were not only Site-Key but still a lot of other vendors. One of them provided services particularly for the distributors of hardcore child pornography (CP was mostly scanned images of Lolita magazines of the 70s, nudism, nudist pictures doctored to show them pornographic, as well as pictures of fathers abusing their daughters that they had posted in newsgroups or forums). This second company (IWest) had their headquarters in Israel and did their billing through Israeli banks which were aware of the scheme (until Visa withdrew the license from some Israeli banks, some have even settled for CCBill for whom it did not matter what was paid for, the main focus being that money was moving. Some Russian / Israeli citizens were never particularly choosy…). There was no problem to bill for any kind images, and the hosting of nude images was not a particular problem for these companies – let alone for the Non Nude Models. At this time almost 100% of the websites were hosted in the United States because it was the only place where it was affordable. The Web sites have generated such traffic, that a human being can hardly imagine how big the interest really is. I have the 2001 statistics of a website containing naked pictures of children and adolescents. During the month of June 2001, a total of 200 million visits to the site took place (this is not page views, but unique visitors but on a daily scale – it is likely that a good part of visitors this month visited the site on many days and have been counted multiple times. My estimate is that there were about 15 million unique visitors during this month). The ratio between visitors and buyers, however, is very small. The same site in June 2001 a turnover of approximately U.S. $ 60,000 made at a price of about $ 30 which is approximately 2000 customers. Even Web sites that still exist, such as Met-Art.com bought productions in 2000 with 11-14 year old girls, and everything was billed through the very serious CCBill (this series are no longer at Met-Art Journal).
After 11 September 2001, the United States was becoming increasingly unattractive for foreigners because there were so many bureucratic hurdles that it was no longer worthwhile. Billing-companies oriented themselves incresingly towards Eastern Europe and found partners such as the Alfabank that took care of the necessary Merchant contracts for a price. It must be said that groups from Belarus – specialized for years on the Internet billings – have built up systems, which can be used to invoice all this stuff (perfect money washing facilities). As LS models came onto the market, they have developed their own credit card payment system.LS was in 2003-2004 the world’s biggest studio providers of photographs and videos from erotica with children and young people including close-ups of genitals and breasts (but no sex) – typical for Softcore pornography. The girls were from all walks of life, participated completely voluntarily, and usually with the blessing of the parents to take photographs. The most popular girls have been posing repeatedly for years (some even until 2007, long after the collapse of LS Studios) and everyone who has seen these pictures can see that these girls like to be in the pictures and have had fun during the recordings (it is finally time time that someone says this as it really is, even if it seems to disturb some). LS studios had countless sites such as LS Land, Fantasy LS, LS Magazine, etc., and sold to the best studios around 1500 LS entrances on the day for about 40 USD. That makes a daily turnover of approximately USD 60,000 and a monthly turnover of approximately USD 1.8 million, annual sales of approximately 21.6 million USD. Mind you, this is the total turnover. For the payment of the 1500 models, personnel, the various sites, their own studios to create clothes and backgrounds, shares of the Bank and the crazy traffic costs and the server accounted for about 1 to 1.3 million monthly costs. The operator got the profit, about half a million per month. SOURCE:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Ukrainian_child_pornography_raids
The money could be perfectly washed through Riga or Vilnius. Today mostly English offshore LTD’s are used with bank accounts in offshore banks such as the Griffon Bank (an example). Until today, many operators have their accounts at banks such as Parex under false names to which they receive money transfers and from which they can withdraw money by credit card at any ATM. The commercial supply of child pornography is very limited. There are tens of thousands of child pornographic websites. Many of these sites serve as advertising and lead to the same commercial site. There are a plethora of free sites that always post the same pictures, very often from the ’70s or known sets that perverted fathers have done with their children and then published. No sign of an uncomprehensibly large business, let alone of alleged trillion USD of revenues.
Also in the field of Non Nude Modeling there were sensational reports of sales by millions. Again, I had direct access behind the scenes. One of the largest operators in 2004 was AMS or AModelShop. These websites were from Salt Lake City operated by … a TV-celebrity called Matthew Duhamel with his server administrator Charles Graner that had a hosting company and carried out the operations and billings for the whole Non Nude Modeling Webmaster. Duhamel produced images of some models himself but he bought most productions all over the world. They were mostly girls from 9 to 13 years in sexy, erotic clothes such as Pumps, High Heels, Hotpants, etc. In case the website of Sierra Model (which ultimately brought down the case Duhamel) was a pubescent girl whose mother made and offered very provocative pictures on a site. End users also have ordered specific sets of the daughter directly from the mother where practically nude pictures were taken in exciting poses. With the pictures they made good money and even the daughter was so thrilled that she started skipping school. Thus, the ball got rolling: the school alerted the authorities, etc. At that time AMS was one of the largest shops in the area of Non Nude Modeling, and provocative images with the most customers. The turnover was around 35’000-40’000 USD per month, and generated a monthly profit of approximately 20,000 USD.
Approx. 2003 and especially 2004, the business became more difficult to operate. In Germany jugendschutz.net and the Telemedia Act were created to protect children and adolescents. The first countries such as Denmark began to censor sites, hosting providers were immediately alerted and servers closed. Domain Registrars began to simply close domains – when the contents of a website was objectionable – despite the fact that the domain was paid for properly (which I believe to be an outrageous breach of the law because the domain registrar closed domains on its sole discretion and without judicial order and proper proof even when they did not contain any illegal material – one of the worst is GoDaddy.com). Many countries have introduced laws which made such sites illegal. The result was that more and more such sites went into the underground.
Back in 2000 in Russia there was a forum called DARKMASTERS (earlier darkmasters.com, then darkmasters.info) where all parties involved in the porn shops did business with each other. You have to treat this as a marketplace where anyone could offer his/her services. In the course of that time all those involved in the Russian Internet business got there together. It does not matter what kind of business one was involed in, everything was welcome. Of adult porn to animal and child porn, everything was sold and marketed on this platform. Everyone offered their services: photographers, webmasters, programmers, designers and job applicants. Certain groups such as the so-called Lolita webmasters were ostracized by the Adult Webmasters – there were conflicts. Since pornography is illegal in Russia and all Eastern Bloc countries, it played no role in whether you are a only ittle bit illegal or a little bit more. Over the years, a combination of individual skills took place. Due to the increasing problems caused by censorship, hosting, billing and marketing, the various groups became more specialized and began working together. The best programmers and server administrators from Eastern Europe came together, mixed with the best document falsifiers, Carders (credit card fraud specialist), spammers and hackers who wrote and distributed the rootkits, viruses and trojans for years. And for special cases, the Russian organized crime was called to help in exceptional cases where one wanted the authorities to be more active to push an unwanted competitor out of the way, or to kill an idiot who couldn’t keep their mouth shut. Even if the reality between webmasters was sometimes very dangerous, I was not aware of any violence against children and adolescents.
During the years this combination of skills has resulted in the most ingenious schemes I have ever seen in my life. It is beyond the skills of BKA, FBI, and certainly politicians who don’t even know of such systems, let alone understand them. It is outrageous naiveté with which politicians speak of things of which they do not have the slightest clue. All the more frightening, however, is how much they use child pornography as a tool to write headlines and create populist slogans and as a means to justify more monitoring even though it is clear that the system established will very quickly be used for very different purposes than (unsuccessful) child porn filtering. Among the operators, there are two types: those mostly from Western Europe and North America are catched relatively quickly because they don’t have the slightest clue. These are the people who appear in big headlines when they are caught. But there are, however, other varieties comprising the best-trained server administrators, programmers and hackers. There is a direct collaboration between programmers who write the special Trojans and rootkits, hackers who command the Bot Nets and infected computers (zombies) as well as spammers who send their mail via the Bot Nets of the hacker.

The technology of today

An essential part of today’s commercial child pornography is now hosted in Germany and distributed from Germany. If this is for you a shock, then I will explain how this works, and the authorities can do absolutely nothing except for the stupid ideas people muck:
Today’s schemes are technologically very demanding and extremely complex. It starts with the renting of computer servers in several countries. First the Carders are active to obtain the credit cards and client identities wrongfully. These data are then passed to the falsifiers who manufacture wonderful official documents so that they can be used to identify oneself. These identities and credit card infos are then sold as credit card kits to operators. There is still an alternative where no credit card is needed: in the U.S. one can buy so-called Visa or MasterCard gift cards. However, these with a certain amount of money charged Visa or MasterCard cards usually only usable in the U.S.. Since this anonymous gift cards to buy, these are used to over the Internet with fake identities to pay. Using a false identity and well-functioning credit card servers are then rented and domains purchased as an existing, unsuspecting person. Most of the time an ID is required and in that case they will simply send a forged document. There is yet another alternative: a payment system called WebMoney (webmoney.ru) that is in Eastern Europe as widespread as PayPal in Western Europe. Again, accounts are opened with false identities. Then the business is very simple in Eastern Europe: one buys domains and rents servers via WebMoney and uses it to pay.
As soon as the server is available, a qualified server admin connects to it via a chain of servers in various countries with the help of SSH on the new server. Today complete partitions are encrypted with TrueCrypt and all of the operating system logs are turned off. Because people consider the servers in Germany very reliable, fast and inexpensive, these are usually configured as HIDDEN CONTENT SERVERS. In other words, all the illegal files such as pictures, videos, etc. are uploaded on these servers – naturally via various proxies (and since you are still wondering what these proxies can be – I’ll explain that later). These servers are using firewalls, completely sealed and made inaccessible except by a few servers all over the world – so-called PROXY SERVERs or FORWARD SERVERs. If the server is shut down or Someone logs in from the console, the TrueCrypt partition is unmounted. Just as was done on the content servers, logs are turned off and TrueCrypt is installed on the so-called proxy servers or forward servers. The Russians have developed very clever software that can be used as a proxy server (in addition to the possibilities of SSL tunneling and IP Forwarding). These proxy servers accept incoming connections from the retail customers and route them to the content Servers in Germany – COMPLETELY ANONYMOUSLY AND UNIDENTIFIABLY. The communication link can even be configured to be encrypted. Result: the server in Germany ATTRACTS NO ATTENTION AND STAYS COMPLETELY ANONYMOUS because its IP is not used by anyone except for the proxy server that uses it to route the traffic back and forth through a tunnel – using similar technology as is used with large enterprise VPNs. I stress that these proxy servers are everywhere in the world and only consume a lot of traffic, have no special demands, and above all are completely empty.
Networks of servers around the world are also used at the DNS level. The DNS has many special features: the refresh times have a TTL (Time To Live) of approximately 10 minutes, the entries usually have multiple IP entries in the round robin procedure at each request and rotate the visitor to any of the forward proxy servers. But what is special are the different zones of the DNS linked with extensive GeoIP databases … Way, there are pedophiles in authorities and hosting providers, allowing the Russian server administrators access to valuable information about IP blocks etc. that can be used in conjuction with the DNS. Each one who has little technical knowledge will understabd the importance and implications of this… But what I have to report to you is much more significant than this, and maybe they will finally understand to what extent the public is cheated by the greedy politicians who CANNOT DO ANYTHING against child pornography but use it as a means to justify total monitoring.
But how, specifically, child pornography is sold? As the operators cannot resort to door to door knocking and market their sites this way, they had to work out other ways to sell. There used to be links in forums, toplist, advertisements in newsgroups, etc. Today, the answer is SPAM. The revenue from the child porn business are divided into 40-60% for the payment processor and the bank (percentage rate will depend on how hard the material is), 20% of the operator and 20% of the marketers (in this case, spammers). Spammers use millions of email addresses of interested people – the lists of earlier payment processors they have. But hackers have also obtained huge client lists of large companies and sold the email addresses to spammers.In order to send spam trojan-infected (zombie) computers are used. But zombie computers have yet another use: it will be used in a targeted fashion to steal identities. They even use the computer of the user whose identity is stolen to conduct credible transactions such as purchase of domains, etc. But that is not everything: the installed Trojans are sometimes used as a SOCKS proxy to upload CP. The Russians have even worked out a schema to use infected computer as a network combing these infected computers (each computer would be part of a huge, redundant cluster) as a kind of huge, distributed and remote servers can be (a kind of Freenet Project, however, by using infected computers as the nodes). I want to make one thing clear: if you have an email address, there is a possibility that there is child pornography on your computer because you have received CP advertising. And if your computer is not 100% safe against Trojans, viruses and rootkits, there is the possibility that your computer is part of the vast child pornography network.
Same as for the content servers, logging is turned off on the proxy and forwarding servers, residing in Truecrypt containers. The Russians have developed very clever software for proxy servers (in addition to the possibility of SSL tunneling and IP Forwarding). This proxy accepts incoming connections from the customers which are then tunneled to the Content Server in Germany – completely anonymous and unidentifiable. The link can even be configured for encryption. Result: the server in Germany NEVER APPEARS PUBLICALLY AND STAYS completely anonymously because he never appears with its IP except to the proxy servers that are configured to send the traffic back and forth like through a tunnel – using similar technology like large enterprise VPNs. I stress that this proxy servers are installed everywhere in the world and only consume a lot of traffic, have no special demands, and above all are completely unused.
At the DNS level there also is a network of servers around the world. The DNS has many special features: the refresh times have a TTL (Time To Live) of approximately 10 minutes, the entries usually have multiple IP entries in a round robin procedure, and at each request rotates the visitor to any of the forward proxy server. But the real specials are the different zones of the DNS with extensive GeoIP databases linked to it … Also, there are pedophiles in authorities and hosting providers, allowing the Russians server administrators access to valuable information about IP blocks that was built into the DNS database. For everyone with a little technical knowledge it is extremely important to understand the implications of this… But what I will have to report is much more significant than this, and maybe they will finally say to what extent the public is being twitted and cheated by the greedy politicians against child pornography that can not do anything about it, but make into the means to an end, justifying State surveillance.
But how, specifically, is child pornography sold? As the operator cant go knocking door to door and these sites cannot be readily sold, other means had to beworked out ways to sell. There used to be links in forums, toplists, advertisements in newsgroups, etc. Today, the answer is SPAM. The revenue from the child porn business are divided into 40-60% of the payment processor and the bank (percentage rate will depend on our hard the material is), 20% of the operator and 20% of the known candidates (in this case, spammers). Spammers dispose of millions of email addresses of interested people – the lists are compiled also of earlier payment processings. But hackers have also had a huge client list of large companies of interest and sold the email addresses to spammers. In order to send spam, computers infected by trojans (zombie) are used. But zombie computers have yet another use: whole identities are targetedly stolen by hackers. They even use the computer of the user with the stolen identity to move credibility in respect to the perpetration of criminal transactions such as purchase of domains, etc. But that is not everything: the installed Trojans are sometimes used for his computer as a SOCKS proxy to use for upload of child pornography. The Russians have even worked out how to use schemes of infected computer in a network and can combine these computers (each computer would be part of a huge, redundant cluster) that can be used as kind of a huge, distributed and remote server network (a kind of Freenet Project, however, by making use o the infected computers through Trojans nodes). I want to make one thing clear: if they have an email address, there is a possibility that there is child pornography on the computer because the owner possess the child pornography from the advertising provider, maybe in his spam directory. And if your computer is not 100% safe against Trojans, viruses and rootkits, there is the possibility that your computer is part of the vast child pornography network.
In recent years I have watched as authorities – due to a lack of knowledge (and motivation) – and judges (due to ignorant shirtsigtedness) have wrongly suspected and very often also convicted thousands of people. There were fathers destroyed, families ruined, and people event committed suicide. Masses of accused people have even admitted guilt (although innocent) in order to avoid public humiliation in a court and additional damages resulting from it. One of the first big story was the alias of Landslide Operation Ore case. Allegedly 70,000 users had purchased child pornography from Landslide. The only ones that were really pleased were the Russians. Landslide had nothing to do with child pornography. But because Landslide developed a portal where also money was transferred, the Russian operators had opened accounts frequently and then tried to sell child pornography under these accounts. The manager of Landslide was extremely naive and did not have enough control over the accounts, payment processing and fraud. He did not notice that several credit cards were charged more than once, that client IPs did not match with the issuing bank, etc. – the CEO of Landslide was himself the victim of a gigantic fraud. The fact is that the CP operators had made a deal with the Russian Carders who got their credit cards and identities from the U.S. mafia (more specific information is given in the accompanying article from PC Pro). Under these CP accounts thousands of scammed and stolen (with the help of a trojan) credit cards were used so they brought the company Landslide insane revenues. But they were all stolen credit cards. Since it was already too late for Landslide and for thousands of innocent people, this meant the end of family life, loss of employment and even the end of any hope that led to a subsequent suicide. Much worse is that the U.S. police manipulated the website of Landslide AFTERWARDS (this is best described in PCPro).

Where and how abuse happens

I have pretty much faced everything what is happening on the Internet regarding this theme. But the gruesome images of crying, raped and even tortured children do not come from commercial producers. They come not from third parties but from bestial fathers and mothers of the children that do this to them. Most are fathers with incestuous tendencies who meet in forums and chats. One begins to make and distribute images, perhaps initially only depicting the naked child – Then, the masturbating child, then the child being raped, and perhaps the child in a forced Sadomaso game. Each parent goes always a little further because he/she always has to offer a little more than the predecessor. In other words, the violent abuse takes place almost always in the family. By publication of these pictures they end up in the Internet. Again the Russians collect the material and publish it on commercial websites.
I see and make a clear distinction between violent and voluntary even though it may sound outrageous. But one who has ever seen the images, can quickly distinguish them. Ever since child pornography has been exchanged on the Internet, pictures that were the cruelest have originated from people that belong to the family circle. They publish the images out of self-promotion and totally free – it is simply an “outbidding” for the atrocities one can do to their own child. The Russians fish pretty much everything on the internet and then publish those images along with images from the 70s into commercial sites. The productions were made by third parties for commercial purposes (such as the LS Studios pictures, etc.) are always made voluntarily. You see the kids grinning a big fun in front of the camera. I know some of these children are now teenagers or have even reached the age of majority. Many regret that they no longer can be models and did not understand why they suddenly no longer were photographed. Even tougher pictures from St. Petersburg show girls in their first voluntary sexual experimentation. Also there you can see that for the girls it is a game and that they had fun. I know that in most cases the mother was informed and that she allowed the daughter to participate. Nobody has suffered, no one has been forced and these were free decisions – why cannot the society simply accept this fact? Even money was not always the driving force. There were certainly girls from very good homes that had no shortage of money. But they had a passion for voyeurism, naked posing, etc. at a very young age (which you can see today with the phenomenon of “Sexting” where children and young people share very provocative pictures with each other, according to reports up to 20% of young people make and share this kind of pictures)
It is first and foremost the media that writes sensational headlines about child pornography and sexual abuse. The most qualified clinical psychotherapists know that the public fuss is often much worse than any actual experience (children and young people are practically conditioned to be victims even though they have very different feelings about the experience). Approx. 15-20% of my female acquaintances had first sexual experiences at age 11 to 13 years, many of them with a much older partner. By law, this was absolutely illegal but by her feelings it was absolutely correct and remained in the best memories. But if such a story was presented in public, then a victim would be fabricated even though the “victim” does not perceive herself as such (but he/she MUST feel like a victim to live up to social norms – which is what the psyche is really made to do). A now-deceased Belgian psychoanalyst has also analyzed the phenomenon of so-called White marches and reactions of the public on child abuse. He came to very interesting results. Could it be that each of us harbours an unconscious, dark and unbearable desire for the child that one can “unload” by expressing and projecting anger towards a pedophile monster? Why is the public so eager to know EVERYTHING about cases of child abuse? The public leeches every perverse detail of such a story and the sensational media makes an excellent business. The most insidious of the whole subject of child pornography is the public discussion about things the speaker only has ideas about but has never seen. Each sensationalist presentation is allowed and there are no limits to it, and these presentations can be abused to achieve various objectives. It is not acceptable to tackle the issue with facts without getting charged for a criminal offense in Germany. It is like the ultimate indictment where no defense is allowed. It can be used for everything and every purpose.

In the name of the child

For years, I hear and read how kids supposedly are so immature. I have worked close to children and youth for many years and found that children and young people know much better what they want (or not) as is ascribed to them. The entire discussion concerning [criminal?] accountability is a testimony to this. In Germany, this is at 14 years. When one wants to blame children and young people, then they are never too young to be held responsible. When it comes to the ability to make sexual decisions, then they are never old enough. This is an incredible impudence and discrimination in the political debate. When a child is old enough to accept responsibility for an offense, then it is also old enough to accept responsibility for his feelings and his body. What a child needs is a strong protection against violence. And usually it comes not from strangers and pedophiles but from parents that are – despite the prohibition of corporal punishment – quick to use the belt [to beat the child]. The real figure of beaten and physically abused children in Germany is much higher than that of any victims of sexual abuse. By the way, you have to really think about the word abuse. The term abuse cannot exist without the notion of “proper use”. Is there a sexual “proper use” of children and adolescents?
Child protection has become a real industry. There are numerous organizations dedicated to the protection of the child – their administration, programs and staff must be funded – which means many job opportunities. I am particularly worried about the relationships between large and politically important global organizations such as the National Center for Missing & Exploited Kids and fundamentalist-totalitarian-oriented religious groups. If you visit their website (www.missingkids.com) there is a CYBERTIPLINE. There is an opportunity to select a REPORTING CATEGORY. Under “Unsolicited Obscene Material Sent to a Child”, there is a link to http://www.obscenitycrimes.org. This organization is, in turn, operated by Morality in Media, Inc. and is an essential partner of the Center. I quote here a few of the interesting arguments that this organization wants to spread and enforce (below, I have collected arguments from various pages in http://www.obscenitycrimes.org):
  • The police must do God’s work (ie. the police becomes the executive branch of the Bible)
  • Pornography leads to violence and must be banned
  • Pornography leads to homosexuality and child abuse
  • Sexuality in marriage must be regulated (oral, anal and masturbation are against nature and are punishable)
  • Homosexuality should be criminalized
  • Adultery must be punishable
  • Adulterers are predetermined to abuse children
I stop here because otherwise I would burst with anger and bloodthirst. I noticed that these are the same religious fundamentalists that welcomed cruel punishment on children with rods, whips, etc. based on Bible verses such as Hebra 12:6-7 or 1 Book of Kings 12:13-14 and 12:18. The Western world hardly has to worry about the Talibans but more about Christian fundamentalists crawling in through the back door of “Child protection”.
The National Center for Missing & Exploited Kids (NCMEC) is almost globally conducting strong, secret lobbying activities and has a major influence on virtually all European governments, including the EU and in particular the UK. This organization is becoming more and more important and is strongly pushing a political agenda in Europe, although the organization is located in the U.S. There are interesting articles on the topic which come up when you search for NCMEC in Google. You will soon notice the immense power this organization has received – even outside the USA. I am not afraid of terrorists but of the child protection lobby. This is much more ominous, insidious, and is directly linked to the interests of Christian religious fundamentalists. The NCMEC is, moreover, also intertwined with the American broadcaster NBC which has broadcasted the series “To Catch a Predator” – a prime-time show where alleged child abusers are caught in front of the camera. In the show the police officers impersonate children and suggest meetings with the adults…
But that’s not all. A few months ago, I stumbled upon a new web site, hosted at DreamHost Web Hosting California. It showed suggestive images of Masha Allen, a Russian girl adopted by an American pedophile. Over the years, she was not only his daughter but also his lover. The photos made rounds around the globe. The father was finally identified and jailed and the girl was readopted by a woman from Georgia. Masha Allen has massively greedy lawyers. They have left up this website with suggestive pictures of Masha. They offer the option to purchase a subscription to get access to more pictures … Whoever was lured by this stunt, not only received an immediate visit by the police but also was threatened by a civil action in the American style – in other words faced multi-million claims so that the person has to spend rest of their life paying to the lawyers of Masha Allen who charge enourmous fees and give the rest to Masha Allen. A nice business model, isn’t it?
But it gets worse: the New York state prosecutor Cuomo has started negotiations with the private company Media Defender (Anti-P2P Piracy Solutions) in California to look for people that exchange child pornography via the P2P networks. The aim, therefore, is to give the task of evidence collection and denunciation of Internet users to a company in the private sector. According to U.S. law, the company itself is not allowed to search specifically for child pornography, but this does not bother the U.S. prosecutor – ultimately it is for a good cause, isn’t it? Media Defender is also a company with strong connections to film and music industry – it is the same company that pushed the conviction of children downloading music illegally on the Internet.
The United States is a respected democracy that over the years has permitted the use of torture – all this for a good cause and for the protection of the society. A prison society is growing quickly and is operated by the private sector. Approximately 2% of the population is serving a sentence, most of them in a prison. Private prison operators are even traded on the stock market and they are known to be very profitable and sustainable as more and more prisons are built and more and more people are put into prison (the amount of people in prison increases each year by 4%). “Producing” convicted criminals HAS BECOME A HIGHLY PROFITABLE INDUSTRY and more and more criminals have to be produced so that the money keeps coming. There are credible rumors of bribes from operators of the prison to the judges and prosecutors – they pay premiums for so-called new convictions that result in a prison stay. So you don’t have to be so picky in any investigation, let alone employ qualified officers – this way there is always sufficient supply of people to put in prison – AND ESPECIALLY YOU HAVE TO CRIMINALIZE A LOT OF THINGS. Now, at this point, the reader should pause and do a little reflection on their part, and let this go once more through their brain. Beautiful, great democracy. SOURCE:http://www.reuters.com/article/bondsNews/idUSN0727506220071007
And because everything is pushed in the name of protecting the child, these children and young people feel better. Or do they? Oh, I forgot to mention something: the laws for the protection of children and adolescents are now used against them in many countries. Exactly, you did not misread that. This happens especially in the Ango-Saxian countries like the USA and the UK. Children who discover sexuality are arrested, convicted as pedophiles (!). Young lovers send pictures in which they wear nothing but underwear or even less – the so-called SEXTING. If the images end up in the public domain, this usually becomes disastrous for the youngsters. There are countless documented cases where both young people were convicted because of CHILD PORNOGRAPHY. There are also relations of minors with adults: a 17-year-old girl with a 18-year-old boy, for example. One such case is known to me from Ohio, where a 15-year-old girl was arrested and put in the prison was because she refused to testify against her 18-year-old boyfriend so that he could be convicted as a child abuser (because the parents of the girls have denounced him – he did not fit the taste of Mom and Dad. In one comment the parents said it is right that their daughter is sitting in prison because she did not want to charge his boyfriend). The laws allegedly made for protection of children and adolescents are increasingly used to criminalize and control the sexuality of children and adolescents – with the prosecution used even against the children and young people themselves. Interestingly, we come again to my earlier observation: children and young people are good enough to be punished, even convicted. But sexually they are totally immature and dumb. SOURCE:http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28679588/
In Great Britain the situation is not much better. Based on the theory that abuse victims become abusers themselves, the British government launched a database to identify all victims with the purpose of putting such persons under monitoring because they are under general suspicion, as former victims of abuse sometimes become abusers. The victims are now suspects themselves and are monitored as potential criminals. Since the end of 2008 there is (again) a new database with the purpose of collecting information about every child in the UK and their development in order to observe signs of abuse. I wonder just how long it will take until one of these databases leaks somewhere, or even gets lost in traffic – as has already happened with other UK databases. Should such a database fall into the hands of the Russians, they would again have solid content for new websites.

The reality of filtering and censorship

Based on my descriptions so far it should be clear to anyone sensible reading this that filtering and censorship make absolutely no sense. The Russians are well-informed about countries such as Denmark and Sweden and know which sites are on the blacklists and how the filtering systems work. A few weeks ago, a strictly secret blocking list appeared on the Internet at:http://scusiblog.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/dkfichse_15012009txt.sorted
It is the blacklist of 15 January 2009 from Denmark. As you can see, these lists are very confidential … If you are looking for child pornography is, you should send the Danish police a thank-you letter for the hot tips. But what is immediately obvious is that this list does not contain only illegal child pornography sites. I have not, of course, checked all domains. Most of these have been defunct since times immemorial (but they are still listed – this will surely make next owner of the domain happy if the domain is ever purchased again). It is worth noting that some sites with flat-chested adult models are blocked. Even some gay sites are listed, or sites that have adult models that look young (even sites participating in a proof-of-age program and operating within the EU). I wonder, therefore, on what legal basis these adult sites with verifiably adult (but young-looking) models are put on the blocklist and even more how the discrimination of these models as adults is justified. Since it is not justifiable, only mendacious arguments can be used: A job for the anti-constitutional Mrs. von der Leyen, Mr. Schaeuble or Schünemann. They use the tax money for this purpose and to pay themselves big fat pensions in the future.
As I have written so far, the whole promotion of child pornography is done via spam (or publisheded list of domains blocked by the police :-). The spam mails sometimes also come with images. Even if you do not read the emails and everything ends up in junk folders there is still the possibility that child pornography images are saved on the hard drive. A different situation is when the computer has become infected and is a zombie – then all doors are, so to speak, open and the computer can even be used for the active dissemination of child pornography. Those who buy child pornography find links in the spam ads – most of them will lead to portals. On these portals, but also in forums and newsgroups, there will be advertisements for security solutions that enable you to evade tracing AND FILTERING. There are commercial offerings for foreign, uncensored DNS servers but also for VPN solutions (eg http://www.strongvpn.com). In these VPN solutions an encrypted tunnel is established between the client and a server without logs, and under a false identity somewhere in the world – the connection may even go through more countries. Even if the (impossible) suggestion of Mr. Schünemann was implemented, there would be absolutely simple methods to circumvent it. Since Server 2008 Microsoft came out, there is virtualization. There are commercial offers where no child pornography is actually bought but a virtual workstation is a leased on which there is a great gift: a workstation full of videos and files … The connection can be established very quietly via Windows Remote Desktop or VNC. No files are trasmitted between the computer of the customer and the server – only keyboard commands and screen content – usually in encrypted form and without the slightest trace about what you have viewed. Since the screen of a computer located e.g. in Russia can be displayed on a PC in germany, the customer will automatically bypass any filtering, censorship and surveillance by the German government. Well, the distributors of child pornography can even calmly sell virtual machines – against which Visa and MasterCard certainly will have nothing … When the customer then connects to the virtual computer, he finds a nice file that is nothing else than a TrueCrypt Container for which he also received the password to open it. The container can also calmly sit on his home computer after transfer and because nobody knows what it is, he remains just a user like millions of others. The Russians have been producing complete solutions for about 4 years. In these case the business will not run dry. But the German government will spend the money of taxpayers and the economy for the irrational and expensive systems.
If you still haven’t noticed: Technology is not the solution to child pornography. No filters, no censorship and no total monitoring can change this.

Effective prevention measures

To find prevention measures you should finally throw moralities out of the window and think about this question: WHY IS CHILD PORNOGRAPHY CONSUMED?
I have 10 years of experience with the topic, I have talked with incredibly many people about it. What comes out is that about 1% of men have strong pedophile (pre-puberty children) or ephebophile (pubertal children and adolescents) fantasies that do not allowed for a normal life because they have clear sexual preferences. Many report to me being even sexually disgusted by adults even if they are otherwise socially fully integrated. Moreover, up to 29% men (depends on the culture) have occasional fantasies about young people. These fantasies never come up and the people usually lead a normal, inconspicuous life. It is not entirely coincidental that films like “Confessions of a Sixth Form Girl” [original: “Schulmaedchenreport”], etc. were extremely successful …
The sexuality belongs to the psychological basic needs according to Maslow. I don’t consider pedophilia and especially ephebophilia a disease but simply a sexual preference – this is controversial because my opinion is still shared by only a few scientists (but that was a few decades ago the case with homosexuality – whose prosecution did not have an effect, did it? ). However, I have the advantage to know of the intimate lives of many pedophiles.Many of them have come into conflict with the law (which is almost inevitable with the current legal situation) and were sentenced to compulsory treatment. I AM NOT AWARE OF A SINGLE CASE WHERE A PEDOPHILE WAS HEALED AS A RESULT OF THERAPY (and I can assure you that I know of incredibly many). The only thing that has been achieved for some pedophiles is a postponement of the target age to which they felt attracted. Pedophiles often report that they attach their interest in younger children to stressful situations. Good stress management causes the pedophile’s target age to go up a few years. Just as earlier with homosexuals, many have integrated into society, married, discreetly, and have sometimes even children they love and never abuse. Most live a deceptive double life, suffering from permanent fear for one’s existence that their sexual orientation could be detected. If discovered, they could lose everything in an instant. They suffer more or less severe depression because they have hide it from the society to survive. Instincts always win, sooner or later. Whether you travel to Cambodia, have a CP archive or have an affair with the daughter of the neighbors: it is constantly a Russian roulette which a pedophile can hardly escape.
The question we should ask is: what kind of a decent life can the society provide for the pedophiles? It is a mistake to believe that pedophiles are monsters. If one is heterosexual, he does not fall over every woman. One is also not in love in every woman. A gay man does not rape every man he sees on the street. It is similar for the pedophiles, they do not feel attracted by every child and even find children sometimes antipathic. The media is world-class in undifferentiating reports. People like Dutroux are considered pedophiles even though I see him rather as a dangerous psychopath who targets not only children but also young women. Representatives of child protection organizations want to make us believe that pedophiles have a power problem with adult women. Although this part is quite possible (that pedophiles unconsciously fear adults and children are safe and therefore preferred), I’ve found out with a large number of pedophiles that they have an absolute REVULSION against adult women. They have also often a collection-, enforcement- or control-related obsessions. Then there are those with a Lolita complex, a strong attraction to virginity and innocence (often happens when people have been brought up religiously strict with strong repression of sexuality, they idealize chastity and usually have a violent, authoritarian mother).
So, what kind of life options does the society provide for a pedophile? The ostracism, stigma and castration for life with permanent GPS monitoring? Perhaps a new Ausschwitz with gas chambers should be built for the pedophiles to get rid of them? It is a little brutal, but death syringe soundst much better. Perhaps even life-long detention in prison, or encouragement of psychiatry at the Swiss Dignitas [?] just to report a dignified failure at a high price tag [very unsure of translation]? Today, there are no decent living perspectives for a pedophile. To lead a happy life pedophiles CAN AND MUST BE CRIMINALS.
If you want to reduce abuse and child pornography, you must start at the right place: major funds must finally be put in the research flow in order to offer for pedophiles a hope for a decent life (among others in the preference structure education [?] whose understanding is essential for any sexual preference). There must be radical work on stigma. No one will show his true sexual orientation if this can lead to the loss of what he loves and possibly possesses in life. Under such circumstances it is rather a laborious double life to live until he one day perhaps makes a mistake and everything goes public. Pedophiles have been reported to me that they have visited doctors to ask for advice. Some were thrown away and never again asked to appear to their family doctor that had known them for years. I do not know how these doctors and psychotherapists understand the Hippocratic oath but it clearly shows how strong the stigma is. Media and authorities do much to targetedly support this stigma and to tear this thema in a populistic fashion. In Anglo-Saxian countries sexual offenders are only permitted to live in certain areas that are always getting smaller. Many cannot even live in an apartment because of the laws. And thanks to publicly searchable databases, when they live somewhere the entire neighborhood is soon filled with posters and warnings about these sinners so he is automatically ostracized and no longer can make connections there. Often, he will then fall victim to violence, “group lynching trials”, that often does not reach the true offenders… [assumed to mean the consumers of CP, not the bad parents who produce the worst stuff]
Pedophiles come from all social strata, there are workers, unemployed people, clerks, technicians, teachers, headmasters, lawyers, doctors, artists and judges. They are found mostly in sectors with children and young people where they usually do unobtrusively excellent work. It is wrong to accept that pedophilia and Ephebophilie are only issuses of men. Anyone who has seen child pornography will be surprised how often there are other adult females in the pictures. Mothers can also have incestuous affairs pedophile inclinations as much as women may have (many times mothers have sadistic feelings towards their daughters, especially when they come into puberty – this also has something to do with the emergence of a rival and jealousy). Many years ago I knew a case of a remedial teacher which left her husband because they she had a lesbian relationship with a girl from the home. Later, the girl moved in to the remedial teacher’s home and they lived together. No one can control which sexual preference one develops and sexuality is a basic drive of human beings. The question is: if you are heterosexual, how long would it[?] endure without sexuality? How would you shape your sexuality if no woman would let you to touch them? You have to ask the same question concerning pedophiles and think about how a pedophile can lead a happy and decent life.
The criminalization of child pornography is one of the most stupid decisions ever made – for various reasons. First, the costs of prosecution for possession of child pornography are enormous for the state and often very little results are achieved and after all nothing can be changed about the actual fact that the crime has been committed. A friend’s home was searched and had all his computers and 4500 video cassettes – on which he for years had recorded movies – taken. It took 2 years to work through them all and in the process a huge sum of taxpayers’ money was spent FOR ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. Because he had recorded TV movies on the video tapes! Germany is very rich, making expensive proceedings for child pornography. Put those who write horror stories and one-sided descriptions in the jail so that it becomes really expensive to the taxpayer [?]. Germany has enough money, so let’s just do it.
Secondly, it is justified by the argument that viewing of a child porn picture harms the child. How? The actual exploitation has happened a long time ago!
Thirdly, by now it should be crystal clear to everyone that child pornography is the perfect weapon to ruin the lives of people (even those who are not pedophiles). Many innocent people already saw their existence get destroyed (one case among many is Landslide). I hope that soon these cases are brought before the European Court for Human Rights in Strasbourg and that the governments should be held accountable and financially bleed for the filth they have caused. Many have child pornography on their computers without knowing it (because of spam, or Trojans used to make the computer a proxy). CP is the perfect means to cause huge problems and social ostracism to an unpleasant person. And the government (and the child protection lobby) will use it as THE argument to decieve a totally unsuspecting population (and even parliamentarians). You have seen how the terrorism-argument has been misused. You can at least collect evidence and come up with counterarguments, etc. against terrorism. But child pornography is THE WEAPON against which one cannot give counter-arguments because it is totally illegal to do research in order to form a clear opinion. It can thus lead to wrongdoings, limit our civil rights and be used to push total monitoring of citizens. I suspect very strongly that the relevant government officials have at last dropped the penny. Child pornography can not really be stopped or the producers and operators cannot really be identified. So we filter it away so that the general population believes that something has been done. In the process the monitoring technology is set up and soon used for other purposes. Then it does not take much longer until it used for the prosecution of copyright violations and for controlling critical views. We can also send some love to Deutsche Telekom and Deutsche Bundesbahn. To me China is soon more secret than Germany.
The possession of child pornography should be decriminalized, and only its production and distribution should remain a criminal offense. Physical violence against a person, no matter what age, should be drastically and severely punished. From puberty onwards, should a person be allowed to make voluntary decisions about their body and to determine freely with whom they want to have a voluntary sexual relationship. Drawings, stories and other art products should never have been criminalized because the mind is free, and such products have not harmed indivudal humans (I know of a case from New Zealand where in a house search a diary was found where the person described their sexual fantasies – among them were even fantasies with minors, and he was ultimately convicted for writing these descriptions). The whole discussion about clothed model children on the Internet is totally superfluous. Many people, mostly poor families, had an additional revenue source through such Web sites and it provided considerable help against poverty. Where, I ask kindly, is the difference whether a pedophile masturbates now in front of a computer, in front of an Otto catalog [a well-known German clothing store] or thinking about a girl on the beach? That certainly sounds very immoral to everyone but if one wants to understand the essence of the problem, you have to finally take on the reality. Everything else is window dressing and stupid chatter that leads to nothing and completely misses the target. Why do today’s children and teenagers take sexy pictures, sometimes completely naked – even keenly? Nobody forced them! They don’t earn money from it. It is exactly what I learned during my talks with Eastern European girls involved in such productions: many had financial interests. However, many did so but also because was fun and financial aspects had no bearing. And many operators simply gave cameras to girls. They made the photos without the influence of adults. The pictures were then published by the operator and the money divided. There were no victims but partners, even if the partners were minors.
Instead of spending more and more money in irrational censorship, filtering and witch-hunts for possession of child pornography, this money could be invested in programs that aim to provide a better future and, above all, a better quality of life and the necessary education for poor children and young people. This would already eliminate the families whose motivation is financial. There will, however, always be the models posing provocatively as well as a sympathetic families that allow them to do this. In brief: voluntarily involved children and young people who are having fun – in my opinion, these are not victims. Those who are violently forced into things they do not want are the real victims. From puberty onwards, young people should be allowed to decide about their own feelings and their bodies.
This whole discussion about morality and sexuality is an incredibly stupid thing to which religions have contributed significantly … One hears different theories from various sources. What is actually harmful for children and adolescents? In the U.S., the sight of a naked human is allegedly harmful to the poor child. Well, in Germany, the Bravo magazine has for decades reprinted pictures of naked girls and boys for the purpose of sexual enlightenment. In Germany, there should therefore be a lot of injured children and adolescents. When I was child, we went with the school to collect waste paper. Here we found the most exciting magazines in the wastepaper… I know very well how this has awakened my interest. On that account, I was really deeply shocked as a child when I had to go to the butcher and saw how animals were handled and killed. Until today, this remains a traumatic experience for me. Today more and more violence is shown freely and at the same time people are lobbying about sexual self-control. It is allowed for everyone to form an opinion about the situation. But it is hardly possible to form an objective view because the access to information is prohibited by the Government. I hope that in this sense I have – though perhaps sometimes with immoral statements – shown another side that so far has remainied strictly confidential. I wish very strongly that I have given enough food for thought. Without radical rethinking nothing will change.
With kind regards, Mr. X
Another note: The PCPro article mentioned in the text is available athttp://www.pcpro.co.uk/features/74690/operation-ore-exposed.html The English-language Wikipedia has a page on the case at:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ore
Thanks to Mr. X for covering these documents, and http://hack.fi/ for principle translation to English.

Source documents

How the False Claims of the Child Abuse Industry Have Harmed America

How the False Claims of the Child Abuse Industry Have Harmed America

Those who profit from the Child Abuse Industry must convince both us and their victims that everything is abuse. News media, therapists, prosecutors, judges, lawyers and sex police. Thousands of jobs depend on maximizing claims of abuse.
The Heritage Foundation estimates that welfare costs US taxpayers $360 billion per year, and it is now clear that this underwrites a large portion of the high US divorce rate—the highest in the world—and one of the highest illegitimacy rates. The Coalition of Parents estimates that the child abuse industry costs US taxpayers $285 billion per year. This is a case in which the medicine did more damage than the disease—more children were damaged by their resulting fatherlessness than were protected by these efforts. “Child support” may be only $14 billion per year, but the psychological effects on family dynamics contribute more to family breakup than just the dollar incentives would imply.
Thus about 41% of the $1.6 Trillion national budget is wasted on programs which do little other than to undermine family unity, with terrible consequences. As the following ROFF (Rate of Fatherlessness Factor) suggests, for each $12.5 billion increase in the last 3 decades in the annual expenditure for welfare, the rate of fatherlessness rose 1%, and for each 1% increase in the rate of fatherlessness SAT scores declined 3 points, and the prison population increased by 41,296 inmates.
It seems that the cure is worse than the disease. In child abuse, each child taken into custody by government is “worth” between $150,000 and $300,000 in federal funds to a state or county agency, providing a huge incentive for social workers to cut corners and ignore the consequences of their actions. So they do this to increase their own job security.

In an absurd allocation of power, social workers have been given legal immunity and presently cannot be held legally accountable for their mistakes. These people act as agents of the government, and in a democracy, no government agent is allowed power without accountability. These legal gods have been allowed unparalleled leeway in rampaging over parents’ rights, and they often totally ignore the rights of the children they are supposed to be protecting.

 
Any parent who challenges them is threatened by the removal of their own children under the most bizarre charges. And children who are removed are used as hostages to negotiate even more bizarre terms.
 
 

 

The impact of unsubstantiated charges alone on families’ finances and morale may cost more than the hundreds of billions of direct federal expenditure. Funded through more than 300 federal programs, the child abuse industry costs the taxpayer more each year than national defense. The Mondale Act of 1973 made this business a growth industry, increasing child abuse reports more than 4 fold to 2.9 million per year, and increasing unfounded sexual abuse reports more than 28 fold to 210,460. It is counterintuitive and plain un-American to charge 3 times as many parents of an unsubstantiated, financially and emotionally devastating crime, as those accused of “substantiated” charges. The population increased by 19% and the rate of fatherlessness increased considerably during this time, but could this alone account for an overall 166% increase in substantiated charges?
A quick estimate of the number of children murdered each year provides a bit of a beacon into this shady area. The Department of Justice estimates that 2,475 children were murdered last year. In every war the UShas fought the ratio of wounded:killed is a fairly constant 3:1. Applying the same logic to this war on families and fatherhood, we would have expected 7,425 “wounded” children, rather than the 1,194,460 actual cases of “substantiated” child abuse. Is it reasonable to believe that the real wounded:killed ratio is 483:1 just because highly funded, under trained, unregulated social workers say so? What percent of these charges of child abuse cross the line between child discipline and actual abuse, particularly when a 10 year old boy today who is told to do his homework is more likely to reply “I’ll call 911 if you do that,” rather than “OK.”
If the education system had improved during this time, the managers of the child abuse industry could argue that such overkill is worth an extra $285 billion per year. But this muddling of the distinction between student discipline and child abuse in the last 3 decades led to SAT scores plummeting 77 points, and the US Department of Education reports that in international math competition the US is almost at the bottom of the list, with only Jordan lower, and in language only Poland is lower. The success of the child abuse industry in breaking up families, and in lowering child discipline in intact families, must be considered when calculating its overall impact, and must be called to account.
What is abuse today? The Burbank City Council defines spousal abuse as “giving the woman the silent treatment” in an official government publication. And in a recent forum on Intimate Violence sponsored by Dr. Richard Gelles, which included the very social workers who are responsible for identifying and filing abuse charges, merely pointing out to them that mothers are reported by the Department of Justice to be 55% of the perpetrators of child murders resulted in their almost immediate unanimous consensus that:
“The male lobby is really a batterers lobby. It’s really a rapists lobby. It’s really a child sexual abusers lobby. It’s trying to make everyone believe that it’s advocating for men, but it’s really advocating for batterers and rapists—allowing them to continue, condoning their violence. It’s trying to divert attention from the victimization of women and children so that the batterers and rapists can continue to get away with controlling, abusing and hurting women and children.”
“This new—or continuing—assailants’ lobby is still trying to do the same thing—discredit the shelters and battered women’s movement by calling them anti-male. (They still calls us lesbian.) In this way, they can continue to batter and rape their partners—and once again, there will be no help.”
The entire transcript of this forum is available for your perusal, and in it you will find not a single “male lobbyist” [their term] who advocated any act of violence, or in fact made any anti-female comment.

If this is their response to someone who even questions their view that “men commit 95% of abuse,” when merely presented with the facts as represented by statistics collected by the Department of Justice, then how objective could they possibly be in analyzing “child abuse”?

If a father questions their statistics while they have custody of his children, how WOULD they react? How responsible is it for society to entrust its children with such emotional “public servants” who are motivated by a $153,000 stipend for every child they remove from a family, and not by the welfare of that child? These are the people who are now making life and death decisions for your children.
Consider what the experts say—Ralph Underwager & Hollida Wakefield, authors of The Return of the Furies wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
On page 63 of The Return of the Furies we state: “There are numerous reports [in the literature] indicating that many people perceive their childhood sexual experiences with adults as neutral and even that some people report they were positive.” [We then list 19 such references]
They go on to say:
Even though the data seem to suggest otherwise, we maintain that sexual abuse is always harmful, though it may not be recognized as such by the individual and though there may be no obvious psychological effects. To say that it is always harmful is not the same thing as saying it is necessarily traumatic. But we do not believe sexual contact between an adult and a child can be acceptable or positive. We wrote in our 1988 book, Accusations of Child Sexual Abuse: “We do not agree that the effects of childhood sexual experiences with older partners are ever likely to be positive, as is sometimes claimed. Rather, the effects are apt to range from neutral to seriously damaging.” We have regularly dealt with sexual abuse and have never approved a sexual offender’s behaviors or said that sexual contact between an adult and a child can be beneficial. (“Furies,” pp 63-64). We go on in the next three pages to explain our reasons for maintaining that sexual contact between adults and children can never be positive.
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
It should be noted that a polite request for clarification of these data sources was met first by grandstanding touched with sarcasm, a subtle suggestion to essentially drop the question, followed by the list administrator banning any further posts from us to this listserve.
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
1) You have 19 references which say it was neutral or positive? How many which say it was harmful?
2) “Even though the data seem to suggest otherwise, we maintain that sexual abuse is always harmful.” Even though the subjects themselves disagreed with you?
3) “it may not be recognized as such by the individual and though there may be no obvious psychological effects.” If there are no “obvious” psychological effects, then what do you perceive as the harm?
4) “We do not agree that the effects of childhood sexual experiences with older partners are ever likely to be positive, as is sometimes claimed.” What is the basis for this giant leap of faith? Not the literature. Not the subjects themselves. Not the “obvious” psychological effects. What?
Wow. At what point do you “feel” you abandoned science and switched to sorcery? Do you have any statistical summaries of these cases summarized by “neutral,” “positive,” and “seriously damaging,” or does this get too close to science for your comfort?
If you do have them, I respectfully request that you post them, or their cites.
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
From under006@gold.tc.umn.eduTueMar 19 15:14:20 1996 Date: Tue, 19 Mar 96 16:54:05 -0600 From: Underwager & Wakefield To: fathers , Witchhunt
Now we are being criticized for saying that child sexual contact is harmful!!!
Who would have believed it?
For those who are interested in our reasoning on this, please send your snail-mail address and we will send you the relevant pages from our book.
Holly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
to which fathers9@idt.liberty.com replied:
Apparently you did not understand the question, so please allow me to restate it.
WHAT DATA DO YOU HAVE TO SUPPORT YOUR CONCLUSION?
This is not a “criticism.” This is not a statement of my opinion, nor that of anyone else’s. This is not an analysis of your methodology. This is not even to be construed as questioning your source of data. You do not need to draw any conclusions from this simple request, nor do you need to grandstand in order to avoid answering the question.
This is an objective inquiry regarding your objective data above which YOU yourself originally posted. Nothing more, nothing less. If you fail to answer the question, it is only YOUR own data which goes unsupported.
I trust that you will send the “relevant part of your book by snail mail” if requested. But is there any reason you can’t express in your own words for the benefit of this forum WHAT your data is, and how and/or why it conflicts with your above conclusions?
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
This question was never answered, and the list administrator failed to post the question, providing the following “explanation” instead:
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
Date:         Thu, 21 Mar 1996 11:16:13 -0500 From: BITNET list server at MITVMA To: fathers9@IDT.LIBERTY.COM Subject: Rejected posting to WITCHHNT@MITVMA
You are not authorized to mail to list WITCHHNT from your fathers9@IDT.LIBERTY.COMaccount. You might be authorized to post to the list from another of your accounts or under a slightly different address, but LISTSERV has no way to associate this other account or address with you and is thus rejecting your message. Your message is being returned to you unprocessed. If you have any question regarding authorization to use the WITCHHNT list, please contact the list owner, whose name and address is listed below:
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
That doesn’t suggest that this forum is interested in the “open discussion” which they claim to be, and it doesn’t provide much information on how to measure the long term benefits of preventing some forms of child abuse. If the subjects themselves don’t know they were harmed, if there are no “obvious psychological effects,” and if social workers and psychologists have to work that hard to convince the subjects that they were harmed, or that they do have adverse psychological effects, then what is gained? But let’s give them the benefit of the doubt and make a grand gesture for these hard working public servants by assuming that they increased the annual incomes of each of those substantiated child abuse subjects by $10,000 per year. This would make the total benefit to society 1,194,460 subjects times $10,000 each, or about $12 billion.
That makes the cost/benefit of spending $285 billion to gain an almost inconceivable $12 billion an unacceptable 23:1.
The number of cases INCREASED after the Mondale Act was passed. Can we assume that the number of substantiated cases of child abuse would have increased even more WITHOUT this $285 billion expenditure? Would the number of cases have increased by 200% instead of only 166% — which is 151,490 more cases? It would be inconceivable to suggest that, but if so, what was the benefit to society of spending almost $2 million each to prevent a case of child abuse, and how does that balance with the damage done?
While these victimization groups are destroying families and bashing fathers in “the best interests of the children,” children are being severely disadvantaged by being removed from their fathers’ care, and we know it. It does not take a raft of statistics to know this, but consider what the statistics show:
Juveniles committed to juvenile prisons (Texas):
·         1% are from single father homes
·         20% are from 2-parent homes
·         79% are from fatherless homes
At the time they were growing up, single father homes constituted 4% of households, single mother homes 37%, and two parent homes 59%. This illustrates that the children of single mother households were 8.5 times more likely to end up in juvenile prisons than children of single father households, and the children of single father households were 35% LESS likely than the children of two parent households to end up in juvenile prisons.
The vital importance to society of children living with their fathers goes beyond instilling the morality and discipline necessary to keep them from going to prison. It affects every aspect of their lives.

Fathers’ Absence

·         85% of all children that exhibit behavioral disorders come from fatherless homes.
·         90% of all homeless and runaway children are from fatherless homes.
·         71% of all high school dropouts come from fatherless homes.
·         75% of all adolescent patients in chemical abuse centers come from fatherless homes.
·         63% of youth suicides are from fatherless homes.
·         80% of rapists motivated with displaced anger come from fatherless homes.
·         70% of juveniles in state-operated institutions come from fatherless homes.
·         85% of all youths sitting in prisons grew up in a fatherless home.
·         Californiahas the nation’s highest juvenile incarceration rate and the nation’s highest juvenile unemployment rate.
·         Juveniles have become the driving force behind the national increase in violent crime; the epidemic of youth violence and gangs is related to the breakdown of the two-parent family.
·         71% of teenage pregnancies are to children of single parents. Daughters of single parents are 2.1 times more likely to have children during their teenage years than are daughters from intact families. Daughters of single parents are 53% more likely to marry as teenagers, 164% more likely to have a premarital birth, and 92% more likely to dissolve their own marriages. All these intergenerational consequences of single motherhood increase the likelihood of chronic welfare dependency.
·         In 1983, a study found that 60% of perpetrators of child abuse were women with sole custody. Shared parenting can significantly reduce the stress associated with sole custody, and reduce the isolation of children in abusive situations by allowing both parents’ to monitor the children’s health and welfare and to protect them.
·         18 million children live in single-parent homes. Nearly 75% of American children living in single-parent families will experience poverty before they turn 11. Only 20% in two-parent families will experience poverty.
·         The feminization of poverty is linked to the feminization of custody, as well as linked to lower earnings for women. Greater opportunity for education and jobs through shared parenting can help break the cycle.
·         Kidnapping: family abductions were 163,200 compared to non-family abductions of 200 to 300, attributed to the parents’ disenchantment with the legal system.
Reestablishing fatherhood is not just a minor issue to the Signatories to theFathers’ Manifesto. It is the only way to rid this world of its current social pathology, and they know it. Any and every plan for doing this must be presented and carefully scrutinized, regardless of its “political correctness.” There is too much at stake to ignore any possible solution.
The Constitutional right to freedom of religion clearly requires the preservation of families—and this requires strong fatherhood.
Attachment A
The ROF (rate of fatherlessness) between 1965 and 1995 increased by 27 percentage points, from 9% to 36%. Using the ROF as a unit of measure to characterize our progress or lack thereof provides a revealing peek into our social and economic pathology.
The first column is the quantity or percent in 1965, the second is for 1995, the third is the factor or percent by which that item changed, the fourth column is the increase or decrease in that factor for EACH percentage point increase in the rate of fatherlessness, and the fifth column is the total amount of that change in the units used.
Using “fatherlessness” as a standard, welfare spending increased $22.4 billion for EACH 1% increase in the rate of fatherlessness, giving it a Positive ROFF (Rate of Fatherlessness Factor) of $22.4 billion.
Similarly, the Dollar measured against the Japanese Yen has a Negative ROFF of 12 Yen, and GNP per US Worker has a Negative ROFF of $433, and SAT Scores have a Negative ROFF of 3 Points.
CATEGORY
1965
1995
factor
ROFF
Amount of change
Fatherlessness
9%
36%
4X
1X
27%
Welfare Spending
$22.4B
$360B
16.1X
$12.5B
$337B
$ per oz. Gold
$34
$418
12.3X
$14.22
$384
Yen/$
400
80
5X
12 Yen
320 Yen
GNP/Worker
$56K
$44K
-21%
$433
$11,680
SAT Scores
984
902
-11%
3 Pts
82 Pts
Hrs/day children TV
4
7
+75%
7 Min
3 Hours
Public Debt
$314B
$4.8Tr
15.3X
$166B
$4,486B
US % World Auto Market
60%
20%
-3X
1.5%
-40%
Child Abuse—unsubstantiated
241K
2,490K
10.3X
83,294
2,249K
Child Abuse—substantiated
449K
1,094K
2.44X
23,919
645,810
Illegitimate Teen Births
15%
69%
4.6X
2%
54%
Nat. Healthcare Costs
$52B
$884B
17X
$31B
$832B
Cancer Deaths
273K
514K
1.9X
8,926
241,000
Incarceration Rate
385K
1,500K
3.9X
41,296
1,115,000
Criminal Justice Employees
442K
1,825K
4.1X
51,222
1,383,000
 
 

 

Copyright © 1996, 2008 
Fathering Enterprises. All rights reserved.

Child Porn as a WEAPON from conspiracy theory too reality

Child porn is a weapon, a proven fact, and tips on how to avoid the sex offender record causing weapon

Satire photo of Luke Rudwkoski being almost set up with child porn under the theme of a online magazine called

Satire photo of Luke Rudkowski being almost set up with child porn under the theme of a online magazine called “Set Up!!!”. However this satire is of a real and verified event that happened to him.
Author: Ben. Franklin
As we are now witnessing, and maybe have been witnessing for years, that child porn is now a weapon and there is evidence mounting which is giving credibility to a fact that many wish they rather not think is possible, that the government, powerful corporations, and regular pro big government wannabes is setting people up with child pornography. Entrapment against teenagers and preteens are also now a reality in America.
First of all let’s first start up with CBS You Suck activist website that hasdocumented the fact that Mediadefender emails were leaked proving that they were aware of tens of thousands of possible child pornography files were being shared all over different P2P file sharing networks yet offered no filter nor any way or method for removal of these files yet the federal government(Operation Flicker, Porngate) has encouraged law enforce and the Internet Crimes Against Children task force to start sharing hundreds to thousands of child porn images and videos. However they blame P2P and acting like we shouldn’t download anything copyrighted on P2P file sharing when it is clear many do it for non commercial and even educational purposes such as using excerpts of pirated material in homemade political documentaries. P2P file sharing is not the problem, it is these mega corporations that have bribed our politicians and controlled the media putting out lies and social engineering points without putting out all the facts.

Child porn has been a weapon and is now a political weapon by the FBI, ICAC, ICE, and the DHS.

Child porn has been a weapon and is now a political weapon by the FBI, ICAC, ICE, and the DHS.
Now what is Porngate: It is a term that definitely a few people have coined up including me on FederalJack. Porngate is the practice of a new scandal that has been hidden for decades during the boom of the internet and during the rise of P2P file sharing such as Napster on up to Bittorrent and Darknet. The purpose of Porngate is regarding the easy entrapment and set up of any person involved in politics that has become any kind of political threat to any corrupt politician or staff of the federal, state, county, and municipal governments which also includes all levels of law enforcement that is parasitic. Porngate is all about setting up your political enemies with child pornography and using the taboo of the very subject to get juries and judges to blanket-convict countless individuals even when there is reasonable doubt that the person is guilty of child porn, like for example why the six jurors in the George Zimmerman case had to find Zimmerman not guilty because they didn’t find enough of a reason to convict him, that the evidence was sufficient and credible enough to charge George with second degree murder. Same with the child porn charges, simply finding images and videos on your computer is now becoming insufficient to credibly prove the person is guilty of sexual exploiting children as anyone can put pornographic images and videos of children on a computer especially if the anti-virus was outdated or when there is no anti-virus at all at the time. Some of the best internet hackers out there have been caught breaking into the most secured computers in the world and that is by the Pentagon, DOD, NSA, FBI, and other various government agencies. Even police department records can be easily hacked by those whom various skills in advanced computer hacking. There are programs that scan port numbers from wide random varieties of IP Addresses and upon finding one with any backdoors open(ports open, misconfigured uPNP) the hacker can then send child porn files or even send in a computer program to start setting up a encrypted proxy node that only the hacker can access then route the nodes through different computers to share and download child porn then the average person is held as accountable as a possible child molester for the police detecting the child porn transfers. Porngate is all about major corporations, government, and regular pro big government maniac individuals and trolls with big egos setting people up with child porn.
Now what is Operation Flicker: Operation Flicker is a joint operation between the criminal investigations division of the Immigrations and Customs Enforcement, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. This joint operation is responsible for finding and entrapping those whom seek and distribute images and videos of sexual child pornography.  Various teenagers, young adults, older adults, and even preteens have all been caught in child porn sting operations and have been thrown into criminal prosecution by federal agencies, agents, and even by the Internet Crimes Against Children task force. They care not whom gets entrapped but that they respond by saying this is a serious crime is being accused of then off to prison you go, despite the intent and facts. Andrew Rose was one of them and hundreds to thousands of other normal families. Teens across the country are also being thrown into child porn charges and given a pedophile sex offender record all for merely downloading a image or video of another person under the age of eighteen. Sexting is also a big trend with teens and tweens but however are under the scrutiny of law enforcement with the look of felonies and sex offenders on their mind.
Now first of all what proof do I have right now that child porn was a weapon. I have s slew of good information for everyone whom researches for truth to look into. First of all I will present my first article link on the very subject of my anonymous source, whom was a alternative media head being set up with child porn after he was targeting a corrupt state politician for criminal violations of state law, then forced to shut down his website after he was set up with the eMule virus. Luke Rudkowski another alternative media head and political activist received a trick news tip email which was actually full of child porn images, and the email sender attempted to persuade him to distribute and download these images which would have been two criminal felonies and a permanent sex offender record for Mr. Luke, not to mention looking like a pedophile child molester freak all over the mainstream news media to which David Rockefeller and others would pull no punches at using this child porn set up as a way to demonize Luke as a pedophile monster beast whom preaches 9/11 truth conspiracy theories. It has also been reported on USWGO Brian Hill’s public facebook post that Madison Ruppert admitted to receiving one of these trick emails which is editor at EndTheLie alternative media website which still would have been a serious blow if Madison had fell for the trick email, however the link will not be posted as USWGO Brian Hill made many of his newer posts disappear off his public profile likely due to some kind of threat or fear of posting this kind of information. We are investigating whether any other alternative media heads are also being set up with child porn as it is likely many will still be cautious as whether to speak out or keep quiet on the matter. There are two slashdot articles talking about people whom have got years in prison for using child porn as a weapon to gain a higher status in their career or as a political or personal weapon of war. One is titled Child porn as a weapon, and the other is titled Man Gets 12-Year Jail Sentence For Planting Child Porn On Enemy’s Computer. Even the San Bernardino County Sun reported that a political activist “who was working as an aide to Rep. Joe Baca, D-San Bernardino, at the time of his 2009 arrest., was accused of child porn charges and was found innocent after three years of fighting to clear his name. Three years of his life were taken away battling these crazy child porn charges not to mention having to pay thousands of dollars for a private forensics investigator since you can’t really trust government forensics investigators however poor defendants whom cannot afford private forensics investigators are forced to usually plead guilty since it costs money to fight criminal charges in court, and hey fighting criminal accusations are not cheap so it easier to plead guilty and serve your prison sentence despite whether you are innocent or guilty it doesn’t matter. Even a former Military police officer is ranting at how children are being used as a political weapon and how child porn raids are traumatizing people, don’t believe me then read his own blog post and do your own research.
Because of what all is happening various alternative media organizations and former alternative media organization hosts are all investigating and fighting this new child porn weapon and are trying to find ways to stop the entrapment and set ups by the feds. One method is that a internet filter software development might soon be in place by one of the heads of the “Public Support 4 Andrew Rose-Victim of FBI Flicker Sting” facebook group along with the former USWGO Alternative News head and possibly Luke Rudkowski as they all see the danger of child porn being a weapon that can destroy any political activist at any time. Of course this filter could be open source which one of the alt media heads recommends that it be open source so that it is easily adaptable for other platforms and can even be implemented into file sharing software such as Azereus, eMule, open source version of Bittorrent, and other file sharing systems which child porn is rampant on. So once a software grant and organizational basis has been made, and a PR guy or woman has been selected then a article on FederalJack will keep the public updated in the current process for a software filter that will especially block all suspected child porn files through the MD5 hash which the FBI and National Center for Missing Exploited Children are also using as an entrapment operation. However these hashes are all listed by the FBI/ICE which makes them the biggest child porn suspected files database listing in the world. However getting these file hash lists which could help the filter block these sick perverted files may not go so well with the FBI as they have been entrapping, setting people up, and watching political groups for decades now. However this person whom wishes to organize this filter plans on filing a FOIA request to get all the MD5 hash tag lists to addapt to be used by this open source filter project, and if the FBI rejects the FOIA request a court trial may be needed for a judge to force the FBI to hand over the documents and suspected child porn ahs tag identification lists in order to adapt to the filter to block all child porn files from being transferred into any person’s computer. Because the corrupt police detectives, corrupt police chiefs/sheriffs, corrupt state senators/representatives, corrupt town/city/metro council-people might read this article we are not revealing the names nor will we if we were interrogated even under court order, we will just go to jail and not reveal the names of people rebelling against the wrongful child porn set up and entrapment operations set by the corrupt out-of-control federal and state agencies to guarantee private prison occupancy, and going to war with, and even killing political enemies in state sanctioned police raids. There are many American patriots underground people now resisting the corrupt federal agencies to prevent this kind of abuse from ever happening again and one of the methods is getting Edward Snowden to leak out government documents from the NSA that reveal thast the US Government is setting up people and their political enemies with child pornography. More articles on the abuse of child porn laws are coming up under yours truly Ben Franklin. Luke Rudkowski of We Are Change was a set up victim and may get involved with fighting the FBI and taking part in this filter software development in regards to Public Relations for the alternative media, former alternative media head whom shut his website down in September of 2012 whom had got on Infowars, and even Activistpost,which even stood up to a corrupt senator which got himself set up with child porn, and several other different organizations whom again wishes to remain anonymous, are now actively planning fighting attempts to stop the FBI which all rely on internet filters which block child porn files, mobilizing alternative media support of awareness, and exposing both Operation Flicker and Porngate. The best tool that can be made is a filter to block all child porn entrapment files from the news reporters computer. If law enforcement doesn’t accept the American public’s need for a filter to block just child porn photos and videos, then the police clearly want every American to download child porn so that they can blackmail any american they wish or even set them up.
There are a few tips as of right now until this filter can be made. These are tips on how to avoid the child porn set up. These tips are important if your are a alternative news reporter, political activist, private detective, or anyone involved in the political arena which can make you a target.
  1. Until the filter has been adapted into eMule/eDonkey, Bittorrent, Gnutella, and any other file sharing network or medium, do not use P2P file sharing applications at all and if you do attempt to use one then use a P2P file sharing friendly VPN service that doesn’t log their users activities and then make sure to check every little thing you download to ensure that child porn files did not sneak into your downloads which would then get you targeted even if your using a non-logging VPN as a wiretap order can be used to then find out what you are downloading then they can trick you into being nabbed.
  2. Be careful of any emails you open up as what happened to Luke Rudkowski can happen to you. People can trick you into downloading and opening of child porn through email attachments. So be careful when looking through emails and when forwarding it to any friend, comrade, coworker, or anybody.
  3. Always erase your TEMP folders which are Temporary Internet Files, History, Temp, recent items, etc etc. It is recommended you use CCleaner as it can erase up to 35 overwrites. Also it is recommended after you confirm there are no suspicious files nor any indication that child porn was slipped into your computer, that at least every month you erase your computers free space at least 7 overwrite passes every month to make sure that any planted evidence remains erased from the hard drive. Even if forensics is able to recover it with Magnetic Force Microscopy, it can be used in your case that you clearly erased those files measning you didn’t want to possess any of these images and thus proves you innocent of the crime. Hey why is erasing child porn images wrong? Isn’t the law meant to criminalize possession? Isn’t erasing any suspected child porn images keeping with obeying the law? So what is the problem? The FBI cannot get their entrapments or set ups so they argue people need to download child porn images on public websites and forums including P2P, even if preteens get into these filthy images, so that we can catch these supposed pedophiles which now includes preteens and little kids. I guess preteens that accidentally get ahold of these images are the future pedophiles so we gotta convict kids as young as 12 years old then make them sex offenders for life, great job FBI for going after little kids and teens in America.
  4. If you stumble onto a image just erase it and ignore it, and never look for it again. If you report it, as much as it is good to do so, chances are reporting a child porn image may get you raided by the FBI and put on a sex offender registry, so even reporting it can get you in trouble, awwww isn’t that wonderful oh great and wise FBI let’s make people afraid to report child porn to the police. Let’s just let people be abused because if we get involved we may become suspects just for doing the right thing.
There is a lot of things that needs to be changed in the FBI but you can’t expect a criminal overlord government addicted to power, drugs, sexual abuse, torture, murder, peeping tom surveillance, and Orwellian 1984 supporters to be weaned from their crimes and addictions. It is going to take a peaceful revolution against the government through protests, resolution suggestions signed by Constituents, and major political rallies demanding that the US Government follow the rule of law and that power be restricted throughout the government the way government was suppose to be according to the founding fathers of America.