TruthMovement an internet research-guide for students and scholars. Best viewed in Chrome Browser

Blog Search

Friday, January 30, 2015

The same people writing CP laws are themselves being arrested such as the following.

The same people writing CP laws are themselves being arrested such as the following.
The same people writing CP laws are themselves being arrested such as the following.



We Said Vague Laws Against “Terror” Would Be Used To Silence Journalism On The Path To Totalitarianism. This Was The Last Warning Bell by Rick Falkvinge.


We Said Vague Laws Against “Terror” Would Be Used To Silence Journalism On The Path To Totalitarianism. This Was The Last Warning Bell.

Repression

Repression

With Glenn Greenwald’s partner being harassed by security forces at Heathrow, the last warning bell for totalitarianism has chimed. For upwards of a decade, activists of the Pirate Party have been warning that laws that are marketed to the public as being “against terror” or “against child pornography” are so vague and so full of exceptions to due process that they don’t make sense if they’re not actually targeted at creating a totalitarian society. With family members of reporters taken away for detention and harassment, the last warning bell has gone off – there will not be another bell before they come for me and you.

David Miranda, the partner of the journalist who has been publishing and revealing the extent of the NSA’s and GCHQ’s pervasive surveillance, was detained yesterday at Heathrow for pure harassment reasons. This is the last warning bell of encroaching totalitarianism. Meanwhile, the same security forces demanded that the newspaper in question ceased reporting on the surveillance, even to the point of destroying their laptops.

The Prime Chancellor of Britain, David Sutler Cameron, was informed of this detention and harassment before it happened. That simple fact says way too much of what’s going on, right here, right now.

When societies turn fascist and totalitarian, things happen in a certain order. The first is that pervasive, sweeping, and vague powers are given to police and security forces using some bullshit excuse. Here in the West, those excuses have been child abuse imagery and terrorism. Reporters have been doing a terrible job at showing how those laws actually promote child abuse and are ridiculously badly prioritized (more than 100 times as many people die from falling down staircases than from terrorism).

But those laws did something else, and if history is a guide, did so on purpose. They eliminated the right, indeed the theoretical possibility, of reporters to protect their sources. With the advent of the Data Retention Directive in the EU, freedom of the press was essentially abolished – all leaks would be traceable after that point. And yet, practically no reporters spoke up about it. So effective was the government fear campaign using the bogeymen du jour. (In the 1950s, it would not have been child porn and terror, but communism.)

The laws allowed for sources to be harassed, and for reporters to be harassed. Looking at the many examples of history, that is the next thing that happens as a society goes totalitarian.

The last visible thing that happens as a society goes fascist totalitarian is that the reporters with an ability to report on the developments are harassed and detained. After that, reports go silent. This was the canary in the coal mine, this was the last warning bell. There will be no more warnings after this, only silence, before the same forces one day come for you. And then, it is too late.

Meanwhile, it seems people do not understand the ramifications of all their internet traffic being wiretapped. It’s as close to hostile mind reading as you can get. Consider the fact that the first one to know if you’re diagnosed with a strange disease, it used to be that the first in the world to know (before your friends and family) was Google. Now it’s not Google, but the security agents. That is not theory, that is the state of current affairs. These security forces don’t just wiretap your phone calls – they know what newspapers you read, what articles you read in them, for how long, in what order. They know every piece of information you are looking for. Why don’t people see that this is a recipe for totalitarianism?

As Consumer Watchdog sounded a false alarm about GMail the other week and its users’ expectation of privacy, it turned out that Consumer Watchdog didn’t understand that a mail server must necessarily process e-mail in order to display it to the users. This is a disastrously low understanding of the most basic information security: who can see your private information? Do they understand that when you enter your ATM PIN, you are giving your PIN to the creator of the ATM’s program code? I’ll have to conclude, “probably not”.

And the people who don’t understand that every machine that sees their private information has an owner that also sees their private information, they are going to be robbed naked of their most intimate details without even knowing it. This would not be a problem if they weren’t the overwhelming majority, and as a result, alarm bells from people who do understand basic information security have not been taken seriously.

This is not new, just depressing.

Meanwhile, in the Berlin winter of 1932, families were still going skating in the park on weekends. Their lovely country, having the most progressive capital in the West with its charming cabarets, could not conceivably go down the dark path some eccentrics were doomglooming about.

I cannot begin to describe my frustration as I was reading a proposed law aloud to people in the streets of Stockholm. The proposed law would abolish any right to secrecy of correspondence and allow – no, mandate – the government to wiretap everybody, always, in bulk and without warrant. They looked at me like I was an idiot. Some said what the others were apparently thinking: “Such a law can’t pass here. You’re making that up.” And so, the FRA law enabling bulk warrantless wiretapping passed in Sweden.

The developments that are happening – right here, right now – are too shocking for most people to comprehend. Many don’t want to absorb what is happening, because the consequences are horrifying. And I understand them completely.

There is exactly one thing that can reverse this trend. There is one thing, and only one. If politicians aren’t losing their jobs en masse over this, and fast, then we will pass a point of no return. Democracy still works, but its fundaments are becoming increasingly eroded, and one day it will fall. All of the current parties have sold out to surveillance and wiretapping. They must be kicked out, or we will have Orwell on steroids within a decade.

After all, with all that has been revealed as reality now, if the politicians responsible for this are re-elected in denial or in a shrug of the shoulders, totalitarianism beyond your nightmares is just around the corner. Re-election will send a signal that further consolidation of absolute power is a boost to their careers, and act accordingly.

Yes, that means I am advocating voting for somebody that has privacy as their number one priority. I started one such party that has spread to 70 countries. There may be others, take your pick. That is the only thing left you can do within the current crumbling framework of a democratic society, and doing so is much more important than jobs, than money, than healthcare, than schooling, than any of the usual political billboard issues.

The one remaining option after that is not a place any of us want to go.

I wish I could ask how many more warning bells people need to see what’s happening, but the question is pointless, because there won’t be another one. This was the final bell.
http://falkvinge.net/2013/08/20/we-said-vague-laws-against-terror-would-be-used-to-silence-journalism-on-the-path-to-totalitarianism-this-was-the-last-warning-bell-do-you-believe-us-now/

Wednesday, January 28, 2015

using-laws-designed-to-protect-as-a-weapon-prosecuting-minors-under-child-pornography-laws.pdf; by Amy F. Kimpel

using-laws-designed-to-protect-as-a-weapon-prosecuting-minors-under-child-pornography-laws.pdf

Congress Using Child Porn Bill As Trojan Horse To Spy On Everyone’s Internet | Alternative; by Alexander Higgens

Congress Using Child Porn Bill As Trojan Horse To Spy On Everyone’s Internet(Before It's News)

Congress has introduced a bill under the justification of stopping child porn that will allow the government to spy on everyone’s Internet usage.
Goodbye, civil liberties! The government is using a bill disguised as anti-child pornography legislation to allow them to start monitoring Web-usage of everyone.

The Protecting Children from Internet Pornographers Act of 2011 (H.R. 1981) is aiming to keep the Web safe for children, but in the process it will treat any user logging on to the Internet as a potential criminal.

Bill sponsor Lamar Smith, House judiciary committee chairman and Representative from Texas, says that pedophiles have been able to avoid prosecution in the past because vital records linking them to web usage were never required to be retained. Under H.R. 1981, Internet Service Providers would have to hold onto those records for 12 months.

Those records, however, won’t apply to just suspected child pornographers and pedophiles. Instead, ISPs will be doing data retention on all of their customers.

If passed, the bill will keep the names, addresses, phone numbers, credit card numbers, bank account numbers and temporarily-assigned IP addresses of everyone on the Internet on file for a full year.

Smith says that the law is similar to what telephone companies are currently required to do by keeping phone records of their customers. Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), however, says it’s just an attempt to pry even deeper into the public lives of citizens.

“This is not about child porn. It never has been and never will be,” Issa said. “This is a convenient way for law enforcement to get what they couldn’t get in the PATRIOT Act.” Issa further added that he is “offended” that lawmakers would use the issue of child pornography to gain leverage in passing the law.

Fellow California Democratic Representative Zoe Lofgren shared the same sentiments as Issa. “This is among the most astounding increases in the power of the federal government to gain access to private information,” she said.

“The bill is mislabeled,” Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) tells CNET. “This is not protecting children from Internet pornography. It’s creating a database for everybody in this country for a lot of other purposes.”

Rep. Bobby Scott (D-Va.) proposed an amendment to H.R. 1981 which would limit the data retention to only cases involving child pornography or terrorism. Despite that being why backers claim the bill exists, it ended up being withdrawn. When he tried another amendment to reduce the time that data is retained from one year to 180 days, it failed to win on the voting floor.

Rep. Smith responded that doing so could undermine current cases regarding other issues.

In a statement issued by the Center for Democracy & Technology out of Washington DC, the non-profit advocacy group says that the passing of H.R. 1981 would “fundamentally violate users’ rights to privacy and free expression.”

The CDT adds that telephone companies that offer Internet service to customers will be faced with an enormous burden of handling the request of data retention, which will be a costly mandate to wireless carriers.

“In other words, the data retention provisions in H.R. 1981 would threaten our civil liberties, create significant economic burdens for small businesses and wireless carriers, and put consumers at a greater risk for identity theft and other privacy invasions,” writes the DCT.

In addition to receiving backing from Rep. Smith, H.R. 1981 is also receiving praise from Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL), the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, the National Center for Victims of Crime, the National Sheriff’s Association, the Major County Sheriff’s Association, the International Union of Police Associations and the Fraternal Order of Police.

Source: Congress Using Child Porn Bill As Trojan Horse To Spy On Everyone’s Internet © 
Copying or redistribution of this material requires that this license must remain intact with attribution to the content source.






To Catch Government Workers With Ties to Child Porn, Call the IRS; by Lori Handrahan, Ph.D. – Forbes

To Catch Government Workers With Ties to Child Porn, Call the IRS by Lori Handrahan, Ph.D. – Forbes

Last week the IRS decided to award Bradley Birkenfeld his $104 million dollar share for helping bust UBS bank. Senator Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) and his staff were instrumental. Senator Grassley vowed to delay pending Department of Treasury nominations if the IRS Whistleblower Program, he wrote the legislation in 2006, continued to be mismanaged.

This powerful voice from Iowa has been a beacon in the storm during an Obama Administration that has targeted whistleblowers and prevented accountability as never before. The Pentagon is also under Senator Grassley’s fire for failing to examine 1,700 of the 5,200 reports of employees doing child porn. The Pentagon claimed it “wasn’t a priority.” Senator Grassley and his staff have made it one. The closed investigation into wide-spread use of child porn at the Pentagon is now re-opened.

There is a national crisis of federal employees engaged in the child porn industry and a related epidemic at the state level. I’ve documented two states, Vermont and Maine, that appear to be running state protected child trafficking rings with evidence of cops, judges, lawyers, clergy and government employees covering for each other. This kind of racketeering creates powerful, and extremely profitable, pedophile rings.

Money drives the crime. It is estimated that a criminal willing to molest a child in front of a live webcam can earn $1,000 a night. In Kittery Maine, at the “Danish Health Club,” one bust yielded $6.1 million in “door fees” over a five year period with “prostitutes” earning $12 million. Pimps’ earnings were not reported. The “door man” was a retired police officer whose wife worked in back. This bust happened because of one hard-working IRS agent, Rod Giguere.

An estimated $1.4 billion has been collected by the IRS’s Whistleblower program since 2006; $464 million collected in 2010 but only $48 million in 2011. Half of all global child porn is produced in America. Ten new images of children are posted daily. Estimates of the global profits from child porn range from $3-20 billion. Imagine what the IRS Whistleblower program could collect if they focused on child trafficking as Agent Rod Giguere did in Maine.

The Department of Justice (DOJ)’s Child Exploitation and Obscenities unit has been, by many accounts, totally disabled under US Attorney General Eric Holder. Mr. Holder even refused to prosecute his own Assistant United States Attorney caught doing child porn on DOJ computers. The IRS wants 4,000 new agents and a $300 million budget to enforce ObamaCare. Instead, these resources should be allocated, entirely, for an IRS Child Exploitation & Trafficking Unit.

With so many police, judges, clergy, state and federal employees across America involved in the child porn industry Americans should be able to turn to the IRS’s Whistleblower program. Richard Weber, Chief of IRS’s Criminal Division in Washington DC, is one point of contact. Apparently, the IRS cares about trafficked children. That’s good news because America’s Attorney General, Eric Holder, does not.

Child trafficking and porn are the fastest growing crimes in America. With billions being laundered in black money it makes solid economic sense for the IRS to focus on the child porn industry. Eric Holder’s Department of Justice has demonstrated they have no interest in prosecuting pedophiles, not even their own. The IRS should be given substantial resources to compensate for DOJ’s disgraceful failure. American tax-payers, not to mention America’s children, will reap huge rewards.

Perhaps Senator Grassley will raise his powerful voice in support.
_______________

Lori Handrahan, Ph.D., is a professor at American University’s School of International Service researching the national and international security ramifications of America’s child porn industry. She can be reached at handraha@american.edu

Paedophilia used as an excuse to snoop on internet users - again | Big Brother Watch by Andrew Tait

Paedophilia used as an excuse to snoop on internet users – again

Once again those who wish to impose the “Surveillance Society” upon us are trying to do so by exploiting public fears about online paedophilia.

Members of the European Parliament are being asked to sign a written declaration that will, ostensibly, “set up a European early warning system for paedophiles and sex offenders”. In reality, it will extend the Data Retention Directive to search engines.

The campaign website set up to promote this initiative shows a picture of a frightened child and, inexplicably, has the URL smile29.eu. I’m quite sure most of us don’t find any humour in paedophilia or the abuse of civil liberties.

The Data Retention Directive is a controversial directive that requires EU members to store citizens’ telecommunications data so that it can be used by police and security services. This new written declaration would extend the Data Retention Directive to cover web searches – e.g. what we type into Google every day.

MEP Cecilia Wikström has written a letter to her colleagues explaining how she was misled into signing the declaration. The declaration does not explicitly refer to data retention and only refers to the Data Retention Directive using its opaque formal reference (2006/24/EC).

The written declaration contains clauses such as,


…the internet also allows paedophiles and sex offenders to enjoy freedom of action, putting them on the same footing as honest citizens and making it difficult for the authorities to trace them”

So is the implication that “honest citizens” now to be subjected to scrutiny designed to monitor paedophiles?

This is a cynical attempt to exploit politicians’ understandable desire to prevent paedophiles plying their vile trade. Unfortunately, the reality is that it’ll provide yet more monitoring of honest citizens, further undermining their online civil liberties.

There is no evidence presented that paedophiles are using Google to find child pornography. In fact, the likelihood is that they use private bulletin boards and peer-to-peer file sharing networks. I’d do some more research into this, but I really think it would be ill-advised of me to type “distribution of child pornography” into Google, don’t you?

By Andrew Tait

Privacy Groups Upbraid MPAA For Trying To Bring SOPA Back At The State Level; by Alex Wilhelm


Privacy Groups Upbraid MPAA For Trying To Bring SOPA Back At The State Level
After Three Years, Turner Shuts Down Its Media Camp Accelerator Program


The ongoing struggle between Google and the Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood has new players this week, as a number of privacy groups waded into the mix, dinging the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) for, in their words, a “coordinated campaign to shut down and block access to individual websites through backdoor methods resoundingly rejected by the public and federal lawmakers.”

They are talking about SOPA, the Stop Online Piracy Act, which lost in Congress. Undeterred, the MPAA, one of the original bill’s advocates, is trying to exert its influence on smaller stages. (For more on the Google v. Hood struggle, a rough history is here. For Hood’s response to Google suing him, this is for you.)

The letter — signed by the EFF, Freedom Works and Demand Progress among others — is worth reading in its entirety. Here are the key excerpts [Bolding: TechCrunch. Letter via Politico.]:

Publications including the New York Times, the Huffington Post, and The Verge are reporting that the MPAA responded to the failure of the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) in 2012 by quietly searching for alternate means to accomplish key provisions of the bill, such as website blocking and search filtering. It is our understanding that those efforts include developing legal theories and even drafting civil investigation demand letters for state attorneys general to facilitate actions against websites and search engines. The goal of these efforts mirrors the goal of SOPA: to create new legal tools that will compel online service providers to remove content from the Internet with little, if any, meaningful due process.

Despite these risks, you told the Huffington Post you agreed with the methods of the ill­fated SOPA legislation. We beg to differ, as do the engineers who created the Internet, the organizations and businesses that depend upon a secure and robust Internet infrastructure, and the legions of Internet users who spoke out against SOPA in 2011 and 2012. […] SOPA was a bad idea at the federal level, and any SOPA revival on a state level is an equally bad idea.

So here we are again.

Happily, Google, by making its displeasure public, has taken a private effort by the MPAA and made it part of the larger discussion about copyright law. We should expect the next Congress to take up that issue.

Privacy Groups Upbraid MPAA For Trying To Bring SOPA Back At The State Level | TechCrunch by Alex Wilhelm...................child porn law History


Using child porn to catch child porn collectors
It's hard not to sympathize with the FBI. It's impossible to go after purveyors of child pornography one by one, and the bureau doesn't have the time or resources to full enforce the law. Where it can, it focuses on big traffickers — the owners and operators of private websites who cater to the (mostly) men who view the images and videos for sexual gratification. From there, it uses service records, including credit cards, IP addresses, and other content obtained from its seizure of a site's hard drives to identify the people who trade the porn. 


Recently, some enterprising FBI agents took the next logical step. It did what the CIA regularly does with websites catering to jihadists: It secretly took it over, ran it as if nothing were amiss, and quietly collected information about its users and the way they used it. To date, there's been one prosecution arising from that operation. Others, presumably, are on the way. The FBI likes big public stings where dozens of kiddie porn collectors are arrested all at once.

If you're a victim — a kid who has been exploited — or you're a parent of kid who has been exploited, is the FBI's transient and controlled exploitation of you or your loved one worth the goal of potentially putting a larger number of collectors and traders of material in jail? In a sense, once you've been victimized, then every subsequent time someone uses an image of yours for sexual gratification, a part of your soul may be further corrupted. If whatever happened to you was controlled by the original owners of that website, and the FBI, as soon as it was able, did not erase or completely remove the media from circulation, would you feel morally betrayed somehow? Are the interests of justice served by these means?

It's a hard question. To my mind, the technique is like the "Fast and Furious" gun-running effort by the A.T.F., which (ostensibly) would track "controlled" guns as they moved from drug gang to drug gang. In this case, unless the FBI had warrants to monitor and collect the outgoing Internet traffic from every user on the site, something we know they did not have because they did not know who the users were at first, then some of the images the FBI allowed criminals to distribute probably ended up outside the confines of its net.

It's telling that the FBI is no longer employing this particular ruse. It certainly makes it easier for defense attorneys to poke holes in one of the FBI's core argument for going after people who simply collect images of kiddie porn — that the victimization is in the act of viewing and perpetuating the demand for exploitation. Apparently, the victimization wasn't that bad... or not bad enough to warrant its immediate end. If the bureau winds up arresting a thousand people for knowingly possessing kiddie porn and can prove it, maybe I'd feel better about the ends justifying the means.

What I'd like to know is whether Main Justice — that is, the Department of Justice's Criminal Division — vetted this technique before the FBI used it. At the same time, I can't blame the FBI for trying something novel. There is a sickening amount of child porn out there, and in the absence of any enforcement, potential traffickers might feel even more emboldened.

SOPA replacement uses child porn as excuse to spy on 99.7 percent of Americans; COREIT By Kevin Fogarty

SOPA replacement uses child porn as excuse to spy on 99.7 percent of Americans
The SOPA and PIPA bills that went down in flames earlier this year for their unbearable intrusiveness, used content piracy as an excuse to give the government powerful tools with which to censor Internet content.

For 2012 the primary author of those bills has switched to a fallback tactic: using child porn as an excuse to create a vast surveillance network from which the government can demand data on every email sent, site visited or link clicked on by all but a fraction of one percent of the U.S. population.

Internet anti-censorship advocates including Anonymous are calling for the ouster of Texas Congressman Lamar Smith, who is following his co-sponsorship of the failed Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) with a bill critics call "Big Brother" disguised as an effort to curb child porn and sexual abuse.

Last May Smith, a Texas Republican credited as primary author of both SOPA and PIPA, the Senate version, also introduced H.R. 1981, a bill called the "Protecting Children From Internet Pornographers Act of 2011″ (PCFIPA).

The anti-child-porn provisions in the bill are a "fig leaf for its true purpose: A sweeping data retention requirement meant to turn Internet Service Providers and online companies into surrogate snoops for the government’s convenience," according to Julian Sanchez, Internet privacy and censorship researcherat the center-right Cato Institute.

Smoke and mirrors concealing observers watching you from behind the smoky mirrors

The bill amends existing laws empowering the U.S. Marshals Service to issue subpoenas and chase fugitives.

The amendments expand the Marshals' ability to issue subpoenas and adds online pornographers to their list of top targets.


The important, though administrivia-looking part of the bill is this: "A provider of an electronic communication service... shall retain for a period of at least 18 months the temporarily assigned network addresses the service assigns to each account... records retained pursuant to section 2703(h) of title 18, United States Code..." – FCPIFA, H.R. 1981

ISPs are already required to keep some customers' activity records for 180 days, so this doesn't look like a big change.

Except, PCFIPA, HR 1981, requires ISPs keep track of every single IP address they assign (except to wireless users) and all the activity flowing across that link.

It doesn't limit itself to just ISPs, either. By addressing the bill to cover any company providing "electronic communications" or "remote computing" services, the bill effectively covers any site offering services online. 

PCFIPA, HR 1981, reverses that point of view (as did PIPA and SOPA), to create a vast database of every action of ever American online – a deep pool of data on the activity of millions of Internet users, through whose private activity they can sift at will until they find something that looks like evidence of a crime.

That's exactly the opposite of the intent of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution. The Fourth Amendment prevents police from searching, questioning, holding or otherwise harassing suspects unless a judge agrees there's a good reason to investigate a specific person for a specific crime.
Going beyond child pornographers to treat everyone like a criminal 

Accusations that PCFIPA is a universal surveillance bill in disguise cite two specific problems with the bill:
The first is language in the existing federal law, which requires ISPs to provide, under warrant: all of a customer's Internet activity, including email, web browsing, downloads, IM, social networking and anything else done across the public Internet;
the customer's name address, phone number and IP address;
a list of all local and long distance phone calls;
a list of all electronic communications;
means of payment – all credit-card, bank account or other method the customer used to pay;
silence – ISPs under warrant or subpoena to give up private records aren't allowed to alert the customer.


The second is the phrase "unregistered sex offenders" and the power it gives the U.S. Marshals Service to issue its own subpoenas to investigate 99.762 percent of the U.S. population.

By addressing "unregistered sex offenders," Lamar Smith's PCFIPA expands its powers of comprehensive surveillance over everyone in the U.S. who has not already been convicted of a sex crime.

According to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children's Map of Registered Sex Offenders (PDF) there are about 748,000 registered sex offenders in the United States and territories.

That's an average of 238 offenders per 100,000 who are not sex offenders – approximately .238 percent of the total U.S. population.

Since it is empowering U.S. Marshals to investigate people who have not yet been convicted, under PCFIPA, the only thing required to get a valid subpoena to examine all the online activity 99.762 percent of the U.S. population, is an investigating officer willing to say the subpoena has something to do with investigation of online child porn.

They don't even have to accuse a specific person or limit themselves to a specific geographic area. Geographically surveillance targets have to be within 500 miles of a specific target of investigation.

Online the bill allows for usage connections – anyone you called, who called you, any sites you may have visited or spammers who might have sent you email.
Not only are you a criminal; every web site you ever visit has to collect 'evidence' on you

The requirement that ISPs and essentially every site on the Internet keep 18 months worth of records on every visitor would create a complete record of every site visited, every email sent, every link clicked on by every resident of the U.S. and its territories – a vast and comprehensive database of everything any American does online, into which curious cops can dip almost at will, whether they have a good reason to do so or not.

"The data retention mandate in this bill would treat every Internet user like a criminal and threaten the online privacy and free speech rights of every American," according to Kevin Bankston, an attorney for the Electronic Frontier Foundation. "Requiring Internet companies to redesign and reconfigure their systems to facilitate government surveillance of Americans' expressive activities is simply un-American."

“The bill is mislabeled,” Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) told CNET in July, when PCFIPA went through brief review in the House judicial committee. “This is not protecting children from Internet pornography. It’s creating a database for everybody in this country for a lot of other purposes.”

Smith argued in committee that the bill involved investigation only of those suspected of the sexual abuse of children.

No so, countered the ACLU, which argued it would actually impact "hundreds of millions of individuals who have no connection to the sexual exploitation of children whatsoever. ..There is nothing in the bill that would limit the use of these records to child exploitation cases," countered the American Civil Liberties Union, which sent a letter carrying protests from it and 29 other civil rights groups to Smith last summer, without result.

"In fact, the records would involve all internet users everywhere and they would be available to law enforcement for any purpose. This new mandate is a direct assault on the privacy of internet users," the letter said.
So what's the upshot?

There is no conclusion to this story yet.

PCFIPA, H.R. 1981, is on the House legislative calendar to be debated, changed, approved or denied sometime during the coming year.

Oddsmakers rate its chances as good, considering it sailed through committee by a vote of 19 to 10.

SOPA and PIPA had similarly good odds before being brought down in flames.

PCFIPA, HR 1981, should have much worse chances, considering that powers it grants are much more sweeping than those of either Internet censorship bill and that it adds a huge burden to both ISPs and anyone providing content or software services across the web.

Together the constituency opposing PCFIPA should be at least as large as that opposing SOPA and PIPA.

Opposing those two bills took a lot of effort and unity among independent-minded Internet users.

Both unity and the ability to project opposition appear to have dissipated in the weeks since.

Especially given the effort of Lamar Smith and his backers to conceal unconstitutional powers of surveillance and censorship behind child pornographer straw men, it's entirely possible HR 1981 will come up for a vote without nearly as much outcry for the 'net.

If that happens, all the complaining about privacy done by anyone online until now will be moot. PCFIPA requires your ISP to keep track of what you do when it can see you and requires other sites to keep records of what you do when it can't.

By comparison, losing your email password to a keylogger or having your iPhone give away your location data are small potatoes.

Lamar Smith wants to know more than a password or location. He wants to know what sites you click on, what spam you get, what sites you visit that you delete from your history cache so no one else can see them.

Lamar Smith wants to know who you email, who you text and what links you click on in blogs complaining about his irrational, insatiable need to spy on Americans who have done nothing wrong and nothing to arouse suspicion that they have.

Lamar Smith doesn't believe in innocent until proven guilty. Lamar Smith doesn't believe in innocent at all.

He only believes in "unregistered offenders" – meaning "those who haven't been caught yet.

Give Lamar Smith his way and every site on the Internet will have to keep records to turn over to Lamar and his cronies, so people who don't like you can sift through everything you do, looking for something you've done wrong.

Putting unconstitutional limits on the freedom of 99.7 percent of Americans is a fair exchange for a law that might give cops a slightly greater advantage in chasing the .238 percent of Americans who may actually be involved in child pornography.

Isn't it?

Read more of Kevin Fogarty's CoreIT blog and follow the latest IT news at ITworld. Follow Kevin on Twitter at @KevinFogarty. For the latest IT news, analysis and how-tos, follow ITworld on Twitter and Facebook.

Senator: Let's monitor P2P for illegal files; by Anne Broache..........History of P2P investigations

Senators OK $1 billion for online child porn fightDemocrat Joe Biden at Capitol Hill hearing urges more police to be trained in software developed by agent specializing in searching for child pornography.


Bill, which awaits floor vote, would encourage investigators to comb peer-to-peer networks for illegal images and would rewrite laws to ban Webcasts depicting child abuse.

A U.S. Senate panel has unanimously approved a bill that would encourage federal, state, and local police to use and create special software designed to nab child pornography swappers on peer-to-peer file-sharing networks.

The Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday voted to send an amended version of the Combating Child Exploitation Act, chiefly sponsored by Sen. Joe Biden (D-Del.), to the full slate of politicians for a vote.

All told, the bill would allocate more than $1 billion over the next eight years for a broad array of efforts aimed at tackling Internet crimes against children. It calls for hiring 250 new federal agents at the FBI, the Immigrations and Custom Enforcement Agency, and the U.S. Postal Service dedicated to child exploitation cases; for beefing up personnel, equipment, and educational programs designed to combat Internet crimes against children; and for creating new forensics laboratories if the attorney general deems it necessary to deal with a "backlog" of online child exploitation cases.

"We need to give law enforcement the funds and the tools to pull the plug on Internet predators," Biden said in a statement.

An amendment adopted Thursday also adds new sections to the original bill that would rewrite existing child pornography laws. One section is designed to make it clear that live Webcam broadcasts of child abuse are illegal, which the bill's authors argue is an "open question." Another change is aimed at closing another perceived loophole, prohibiting digital alteration of an innocent image of a child so that sexually explicit activity is instead depicted.

It's unclear whether the changes are necessary. The Justice Department in the past, for instance, has netted guilty pleas in cases related to live Webcam recordings involving minors engaged in sexual acts.

The bill's passage follows a hearing last month at which Biden and other senators suggested they saw considerable promise in software designed to detect child pornography sources--specifically a tool called "Operation Fairplay." The so-called "comprehensive computer infrastructure" was developed two years ago by Special Agent Flint Waters in the Wyoming Attorney General's Office, where the system is still housed, and is currently being used by online child exploitation investigators nationwide.

The bill approved Thursday allocates $2 million for the attorney general to build upon that software by creating a "National Internet Crimes Against Children Data System," which would make information about ongoing cases--particularly high-priority ones--accessible to investigators nationwide and coordinate development of new software tools designed to detect alleged child predators in real time.

Through the existing Fairplay system, investigators log onto peer-to-peer file-sharing networks as any other person would and search for files containing certain keywords that are likely to indicate child pornography is involved. Then they download files--frequently videos, sometimes as long as 20 to 30 minutes, with names like "children kiddy underage illegal.mpg" and much more obscene--to their own machines. The Fairplay software allows the investigator to obtain the IP address of the file's sender and, in some cases, display its geographic location in map form.

Once armed with an IP address and date and time of the download, investigators can subpoena the Internet service provider for more information, such as name and address of the subscriber who was assigned it at that moment. It's not clear whether any wiretaps are also conducted to monitor ongoing file-swapping.

Through that process, investigators have identified more than 600,000 unique computers allegedly trafficking in child pornography and traced them to the United States. But Biden and others have voiced dismay that they're only equipped with the resources to investigate about 2 percent of those potential cases.


Senators OK $1 billion for online child porn fight; by Anne Broache

Senators OK $1 billion for online child porn fight

Bill, which awaits floor vote, would encourage investigators to comb peer-to-peer networks for illegal images and would rewrite laws to ban Webcasts depicting child abuse.

A U.S. Senate panel has unanimously approved a bill that would encourage federal, state, and local police to use and create special software designed to nab child pornography swappers on peer-to-peer file-sharing networks.

The Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday voted to send an amended version of the Combating Child Exploitation Act, chiefly sponsored by Sen. Joe Biden (D-Del.), to the full slate of politicians for a vote.

All told, the bill would allocate more than $1 billion over the next eight years for a broad array of efforts aimed at tackling Internet crimes against children. It calls for hiring 250 new federal agents at the FBI, the Immigrations and Custom Enforcement Agency, and the U.S. Postal Service dedicated to child exploitation cases; for beefing up personnel, equipment, and educational programs designed to combat Internet crimes against children; and for creating new forensics laboratories if the attorney general deems it necessary to deal with a "backlog" of online child exploitation cases.

"We need to give law enforcement the funds and the tools to pull the plug on Internet predators," Biden said in a statement.

An amendment adopted Thursday also adds new sections to the original bill that would rewrite existing child pornography laws. One section is designed to make it clear that live Webcam broadcasts of child abuse are illegal, which the bill's authors argue is an "open question." Another change is aimed at closing another perceived loophole, prohibiting digital alteration of an innocent image of a child so that sexually explicit activity is instead depicted.

It's unclear whether the changes are necessary. The Justice Department in the past, for instance, has netted guilty pleas in cases related to live Webcam recordings involving minors engaged in sexual acts.

The bill's passage follows a hearing last month at which Biden and other senators suggested they saw considerable promise in software designed to detect child pornography sources--specifically a tool called "Operation Fairplay." The so-called "comprehensive computer infrastructure" was developed two years ago by Special Agent Flint Waters in the Wyoming Attorney General's Office, where the system is still housed, and is currently being used by online child exploitation investigators nationwide.

The bill approved Thursday allocates $2 million for the attorney general to build upon that software by creating a "National Internet Crimes Against Children Data System," which would make information about ongoing cases--particularly high-priority ones--accessible to investigators nationwide and coordinate development of new software tools designed to detect alleged child predators in real time.

Through the existing Fairplay system, investigators log onto peer-to-peer file-sharing networks as any other person would and search for files containing certain keywords that are likely to indicate child pornography is involved. Then they download files--frequently videos, sometimes as long as 20 to 30 minutes, with names like "children kiddy underage illegal.mpg" and much more obscene--to their own machines. The Fairplay software allows the investigator to obtain the IP address of the file's sender and, in some cases, display its geographic location in map form.

Once armed with an IP address and date and time of the download, investigators can subpoena the Internet service provider for more information, such as name and address of the subscriber who was assigned it at that moment. It's not clear whether any wiretaps are also conducted to monitor ongoing file-swapping.

Through that process, investigators have identified more than 600,000 unique computers allegedly trafficking in child pornography and traced them to the United States. But Biden and others have voiced dismay that they're only equipped with the resources to investigate about 2 percent of those potential cases.


Report: NSA, Pentagon officials linked to child porn; Boston Globe reports

Report: NSA, Pentagon officials linked to child porn
Boston Globe reports dozens of NSA, DARPA, and other Pentagon workers downloaded child porn, a federal crime, but not all were prosecuted.

Dozens of National Security Agency, DARPA, and other Pentagon officials purchased and downloaded child pornography over the Internet, according to a report in The Boston Globe on Friday.

The newspaper said it obtained more than 50 pages of documents revealing that the government workers identified in an internal probe included NSA contractors with top secret clearances, one of whom has fled the country and is believed to be hiding in Libya.

Another involved a person working at the supersecret National Reconnaissance Office, which operates the military's spy satellites, who was transferred to a field office and has not been charged with a crime.

In the United States, it is legal to possess obscene materials, which are generally defined as hardcore pornography involving consenting adults. It is also legal to posses non-obscene pornography.

But the knowing possession of child pornography is a federal felony. In the last few decades, the definition of child pornography has been expanded to include not only depictions of minors being sexually abused, but even images of clothed girls in leotards and, as CNET reported in 2006, photographs of clothed minors in what prosecutors claim were overly "lascivious" poses.

Some, but not all, of the Pentagon workers were charged as a result of the internal investigation, which had not previously been made public. In one 2007 case, the Globe said, a national security official possessed 8,400 pictures, and 200 movies "that were evidence of receipt of child pornography" and was sentenced to five years in prison.

After a series of other recent reports highlighted how federal employees were using taxpayer-funded computers to watch porn at work, the House of Representatives voted 239 to 182 earlier this month to require federally-funded networks to block the viewing or downloading of pornographic materials.

No, Department of Justice, 80 Percent of Tor Traffic Is Not Child Porn

No, Department of Justice, 80 Percent of Tor Traffic Is Not Child Porn

Tuesday, January 27, 2015

Child Sacrifice Ceremonies at the Bohemian Grove Serve a Secret Agenda that few will want to Believe. Belief is an actual government Agenda; RobertsCourt.com

Child Sacrifice Ceremonies at the Bohemian Grove Serve a Secret Agenda that few will want to Believe. Belief is an actual government Agenda
Child Sacrifice Ceremonies at the Bohemian Grove Serve a Secret Agenda that few will want to Believe. Belief is an actual government Agenda


The Latest Trend In Child Sexual Exploitation By JOANNE MARINER

Mariner: The Latest Trend In Child Sexual Exploitation

THE LATEST TREND IN CHILD SEXUAL EXPLOITATION: Rape In Adult Prisons By JOANNE MARINER

Rehabilitation, as a criminal justice ideal, has gone so far out of style in the United States that many Americans are apparently quite willing to relegate even young offenders to the ranks of the irredeemable. The passage last year of California's Proposition 21, which expanded the number of children who will be tried as adults and sent to adult prisons, was just the latest blow to the traditional distinction between juvenile delinquents and adult criminals.

Mesmerized by visions of the rampaging "youthful predator," legislators at both the federal and state levels have enthusiastically promoted these legal changes. Indeed, over the past several years, nearly every state has revised its juvenile justice laws to facilitate prosecuting minors as adults.

At present, more juveniles than ever before are incarcerated in adult prisons and jails in the United States. And, given the proven link between youth and vulnerability to prisoner-on-prisoner rape, these juveniles are also at much greater risk of violent sexual assault.

It is ironic, to say the least, that our society — so concerned with preventing child pornography, and protecting children themselves from material with sexual content — sets the scene for children to be sexually exploited in prison.

Youthful Offenders' Vulnerability to Prison Rape

I gained a personal awareness of this problem when, as part of Human Rights Watch's research into prison rape, I began receiving the occasional letter or collect call from a sixteen-year-old held in an adult prison in Arkansas. I had contacted him after a woman whose young son had been raped in prison told me that his even younger friend, whom I'll call Tom, had also been raped there.

Tom's letters, written in a truly childish scrawl, gave me a sense of what it is like to be a boy in a prison for men. They described the older inmates' continuing harassment and the correctional staff's indifference. One letter complained of an inmate that "wouldn't leave me alone when I was asleep," and said: "The [housing unit] I'm in now had 2 people come to me and put an ink pen to my neck and tell me that if I didn't let them jack off on me they were going to rape me. I told the officers but they didn't do any thing about it."

A Nebraska inmate, writing to me about juveniles like Tom, described their situation even more bluntly: "The kids I know of here are kept in the hospital part of the prison until they turn 16. Then they are placed in general population. At age 16, they are just thrown to the wolves, so to speak, in population. I have not heard of one making it more than a week in population without being 'laid.'"

Federal Efforts to Blur the Distinction between Juvenile and Adult Offenders

The 106th Congress, which ended in 2000, saw the introduction of several bills designed to subject juveniles to the same criminal procedures and penalties as adults. In a grim irony, some of the same co-sponsors of these bills also sponsored legislation to encourage states to incarcerate persons convicted of "child molestation," among other serious crimes. Apparently, to these legislators, child molestation is no longer a crime if it happens to occur in prison.

These bills' titles are crowded with code words like "accountability," meant to resonate with a public tormented by the belief that criminals have been getting off easy. Prominent among federal legislators enlisted in this crusade was then-Senator John Ashcroft, now in the spotlight as President Bush's choice for attorney general.

The "Protect Children From Violence Act," a cruelly misnamed bill introduced by Ashcroft in 1999, aimed to use federal block grants to encourage states to move juveniles into the adult system of criminal justice. As noted above, for many children such changes would be more likely to subject them to violence — in particular, to violent rape — than to protect them from it.

Why the Ashcroft Bill and Others Like It Are Wrong to Treat Children as Adults

The Ashcroft bill scapegoated the juvenile justice system, implying that its separation from the adult system was itself a cause of violent youth crime.

In fact, juvenile violent crime statistics have fallen in recent years, just as adult crime statistics have. Moreover, there is no evidence that treating children as adults reduces crime. A study comparing Connecticut, whose juvenile-to-adult transfer rate was the highest in the United States, with Colorado, which had the lowest rate of such transfers, found that the juvenile crime rate was the same in each state. Similarly, studies of violent juvenile crime in Idaho, Florida, and New York have found that making it easier to try youths as adults does not prevent violent juvenile crime.

Laws Treating Juvenile Offenders like Adults Should Be Repealed.

Regrettably, Ashcroft has had ample company in his misguided quest to roll juvenile justice norms back to those of a century ago. No doubt the 107th Congress, even without Ashcroft's participation, will persevere in such efforts — and Ashcroft, if he is attorney general, will harshly enforce the laws that are passed — unless the public finally begins to question the wisdom of these anti-rehabilitative policies.

One can only wonder when this will happen. In the minds of many Americans, child pornography and child sexual abuse represent perhaps the ultimate evil. Nothing triggers hysteria, or prompts special legislative remedies (such as Megan's Law), the way crimes against children do.

Child sexual abuse outside of prison ruins lives, as society has often recognized. But we seem to be blind to the fact that inside prison, it does the same — making rehabilitation all the more difficult for a young person who still has, but can lose, the capacity to change. Trying and incarcerating youthful offenders as if they were hardened adult criminals may be a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Joanne Mariner, a FindLaw columnist, is deputy director of the Americas division of Human Rights Watch. She is also the author of Human Rights Watch's upcoming report on prisoner-on-prisoner rape in the United States.

Labeling Theory and Deviance by Kate Monson

 Labeling Theory and Deviance


Deviance is behavior (how people act), ideas (how people think), or attributes (how people appear) that some people in society—though not necessarily all people—find offensive, wrong, immoral, sinful, evil, strange, or disgusting" (Newman 242). Deviant acts in our society can range from smoking in a public place, getting into fights, and cheating on a significant other, to murder, child abuse, rape and drug dealing. The last three labels clearly have more severe implications and, in most cases, will result in greater punishments. A person who is labeled a "deviant" not only suffers from the initial penalties of doing something others consider to be wrong, but from the stigma that may follow. Committing an act that is considered deviant can drastically impact the reputation of a person, and these reputations can be extremely difficult the shed depending on the severity of the offense. 

The labeling theory in sociology characterizes a deviant person as someone to whom the label "deviant" has been successfully applied (Newman 252). When a person is singled out and defined as deviant, it changes the way that others view and act towards them as human beings and can also change the way the so called deviant views him or herself. Labels inevitably bring along with them stereotypes and overgeneralizations, and can be very misleading. Once labeled a "deviant," you are often automatically assumed to possess the undesirable characteristics attached to that label even though those characteristics may not be accurate. As a result, others in that society may start to treat the deviant with fear, disrespect, distrust, and suspicion forcing them to become outcasts of that society. The labeling effect can cause major harm to people, and also act as a self fulfilling prophecy, causing the deviants to take on the roles of their label. 

Reading this chapter made me think of the Mankato State football coach, Todd Hoffner. In August of 2012, Hoffner was accused of one of the most heinous crimes considerable after one of his colleagues found naked videos of his children on his work cell phone. The videos were interpreted to be sexual and inappropriate, and caused immediate concern. After the videos were brought to the attention of authorities, Hoffner was escorted off of the football field during practice and taken into custody under the suspicion of using underage people in a sexual performance and possessing child pornography (publicly shamed). Hoffner and his wife objected to these charges and called the felony child porn charges a "rush to judgement," saying the clips found on her husband's cell phone are just "normal, typical family videos" of their kids "in all their craziness." The coach was on paid leave throughout the investigation and trial, as he awaited the possibility of being sent to prison. A search of his home computer found no evidence of child porn, and social workers found no evidence that the couple's children had been abused. He eventually was cleared of these charges in late December after the judged ruled the videos as children simply acting silly after their baths.

These allegations will, most likely, haunt Hoffner and his family for many years to come. One innocent mistake has changed the way people view him as a person. Labels like "child molester" "child abuser", and "child predator" cause deep hatred within our society. Todd Hoffner has been publicly shamed and humiliated for his actions. He will probably be considered a deviant in the eyes of many for the remainder of his life even though his intentions may have never been what they were interpreted as. 

This case clearly shows how societal norms can be blurred, disagreed upon, and misinterpreted. While the Hoffners viewed the naked videos of their children as "normal, typical, family videos," others interpreted them as the disgusting sexualization of minors and charged him with the monstrous crime of child pornography. Even though his name has been cleared by authorities, his name will forever be tainted by the misinterpretation of an innocent family video gone awry. As stated in Newman's book, "All ex-offenders experience the stickiness of labels to some degree, despite the legislative efforts to help them" (Newman 253).

I think it is very important to recognize the affects labeling deviance can have on people and society. We live in a world where labeling is automatic and of second nature. Labeling is quick, easy, and holds a great power that is used to keep societies in order by upholding and reinforcing social norms. Although the labeling of deviance can be beneficial to society, we must also be sure to recognized the negative outcomes that can occur when powerful labels are falsely applied in order to avoid cases like the one above. 

Works Cited:
Newman, David (2012). Sociology: Exploring the Architecture of Everyday Life: 9th Edition. SAGE Publications. 
http://blogs.citypages.com/blotter/2012/08/todd_hoffners_wife_says_her_husband_is_innocent_of_child_porn_charges.php
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/8765090/minnesota-state-mankato-coach-todd-hoffner-no-longer-leave
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/21/todd-hoffner-college-football-coach-child-porn_n_1820324.html

Bruce Rind Study: Scientific Publications Condemned and Repressed by US Congress and Senate

Bruce Rind Study: Scientific Publications Condemned and Repressed by US Congress and Senate
One of the most prestigious peer reviewed research journals of the American Psychological Association published a meta-research (an overview of lots of other research papers) with disturbing findings. Result: the US Senate and US congress condemned the Research. After all, the preconceived notions behind our criminalization of Teenage Sexuality must not be disturbed.

Disclaimer: The issue here is repression of research and denial of the truth. One still may defend the laws as they are, but should not repress free research that could challenge one’s personal political opinions.


Another clash between highly charged political rhetoric and scholarly discourse concerned Associate Professor of Psychology Scott Lilienfeld. It began with a 1998 paper in Psychological Bulletin, a journal of the American Psychological Association (APA). Temple University’s Bruce Rind and two colleagues had conducted a review of quantitative literature, finding a weak link between childhood sexual abuse and later psychopathology. Radio talk show host Laura Schlessinger blasted the article as an effort to normalize pedophilia. Both houses of Congress passed resolutions condemning it, and finally, the chief executive of the APA wrote that the findings “should have caused us to evaluate the article based on its potential for misinforming the public policy process. This is something we failed to do, but will do in the future.”

Lilienfeld submitted an article to another APA-sponsored journal, American Psychologist, criticizing the apa’s capitulation to political pressure. The protests and their impact, he argued, detract from scientists’ ability to report their findings without undue interference, undermining all research on controversial topics.

Lilienfeld’s article, titled “When Worlds Collide,” was reviewed and accepted for publication following revisions to “tone it down.” It was slated to appear in the June 2001 issue. On May 10, however, Lilienfeld received a letter from the journal’s editor. “My article had now been unaccepted for publication,” Lilienfeld says. “He asked me to write an entirely new article removing all material dealing with the Rind et al. article and its aftermath, which amounts to about 60 percent of my article.”

Facing strong protests from the psychology community and some negative press, American Psychologist agreed to publish the article in a special section, along with several commentaries, in the December 2001 issue, at the earliest. “The APA never acknowledged that something was seriously amiss, even though it was clear that this action was politically motivated,” Lilienfeld says.

See also the excellent article by Wikipedia on Bruce Rind controversy


The authors’ stated goal was “…to address the question: In the population of persons with a history of CSA [child sexual abuse], does this experience cause intense psychological harm on a widespread basis for both genders?” Some of the authors’ more controversial conclusions were that child sexual abuse does not necessarily cause intense, pervasive harm to the child;[3] that the reason the current view of child sexual abuse was not substantiated by their empirical scrutiny was because the construct of CSA was questionably valid; and that the psychological damage caused by the abusive encounters depends on whether the encounter was consensual or not.[1]

Rind et al. concluded with a statement that even though CSA may not result in harm, this does not mean it is not wrong or morally repugnant behavior and denied that their findings implied current moral and legal prohibitions against CSA should be changed.[1] Numerous pro-pedophile advocacy organizations have quoted the paper in support of their efforts to lower or rescind age of consent laws, and defense attorneys have used the study to argue for minimizing harm in child sexual abuse cases.[4][5] Wikipedia on Bruce Rind

Share with your friend, if you like it, or if you hate it.

The Child Sex Trauma Myth. #1: You must be a pedophile, if you defend child porn and pedophiles We are not pedophiles.

The Child Sex Trauma Myth. #1: You must be a pedophile, if you defend child porn and pedophiles
We are not pedophiles. We have no interest in children or their indecent depictions.
We make extreme efforts to not run afoul of any law, not even by mistake or accident 1 2 3 .
We are interested in truth, free academic research, in protection and happiness for children 5.
We are against unnecessary witch hunts that demonize and imprison people with unnecessary rigor and that criminalize a huge percentage of the (male) population.
The biggest of all taboos: to research, study or discuss adult-child sexuality.


We have been warned. We will be called pedophiles. We may suffer vigilante action. We may suffer government prosecution. We should not mess with the topic adult-child sex.

Yes we are talking about real children under 12 years of age, not just 17 year old adolescent young adults, re-defined as "children" by feminist dogma and by the *United Nations.

The Rind Study serves as a warning: a prestigious, peer reviewed meta analysis, published in one of the most prestigious journals of the American Psychological Association: probably the only piece of peer reviewed academic research condemned by unanimous vote by both the United States Senate and Congress.

The authors’ stated goal was “…to address the question: In the population of persons with a history of CSA [child sexual abuse], does this experience cause intense psychological harm on a widespread basis for both genders?” Some of the authors’ more controversial conclusions were that child sexual abuse does not necessarily cause intense, pervasive harm to the child;[3] that the reason the current view of child sexual abuse was not substantiated by their empirical scrutiny was because the construct of CSA was questionably valid; and that the psychological damage caused by the abusive encounters depends on whether the encounter was consensual or not. Wikipedia on Bruce Rind

The US Senate and Congress have decided, once and for all, by dogmatic fiat: "child sexual abuse" is is extremely traumatic under all circumstances. Academic research must not arrive at any different conclusions.

Such a shocking interference of religious and moral zealots with scientific truth has not happened since Galileo Galilei: a few centuries ago, the catholic church decreed the "scientific truth" that the sun revolves around the earth.


The Trauma Myth

Susan Clancy inadvertently stumbled over the unpopular truth, as published in



All hell broke loose. I was bombarded with accusations that I was hurting victims even more than they already had been and that I was a friend of pedophiles. I was also vilified by many in my own scientific community. Some colleagues and graduate students stopped talking to me. A well-meaning professor told me to pick another research topic because I was going to rule myself out of a job in academia. Some felt my research had a political agenda, one biased against victims. I was invited to give a talk about my research at Cambridge Hospital—home of the tremendously influential sexual abuse treatment program Victims of Violence. No one from the program showed up. Clancy (pp. 77-78).

Researchers refuse to discuss issues in a seminar?! The most convinced adversaries never counter with true research, with true arguments?

This is the sad state of affairs. A dogma does not need to be discussed scientifically. The Bible has the definite answer. The US senate made the scientific decision.

And Human-Stupidity has the insanity to question and analyze the dogma.
Human-Stupidity is open to science. Just prove me wrong, using science.
If unbiased free academic research can show that 17 year olds get traumatized for life for having sex with older people, we will support age-of-consent laws.

If the Rind study, and Susan Clancy can be proven wrong, by free unbiased academic research, we will support draconian decade-long punishments for all childhood sexuality. 

We would stand corrected if the voodoo theory could be proven true, by free unbiased academic research: if it were proven that looking at photos of lightly clothed 15 year olds, downloaded for free from the internet does irreparable harm to the minors depicted. If that harm is so perverse that looking at the photos ruins the model’s life forever. And that downloading free photos truly stimulates the rape and abuse of innumerous children. Then we might agree that life in prison without parole is a proper punishment for possession of a few hundred photos, which are nothing else then 0’s and 1’s in files on a computer hard drive.

But against all odds, Milton Diamond, in peer reviewed research, proved the opposite: freely available child pornography reduces sex crimes against children, because many pedophiles can satisfy themselves merely by perusing pictures.

Certainly, scientific research should not be manipulated and repressed by religion, feminism, or personal feelings. It is relevant to understand Robert Kurzban‘s description of how people invent non-existing victims to justify their pre-conceived opinions.

You creep! Adult-child sex is disgusting and wrong! Period.

I don’t disagree. You have all right to protect your children. Or to promote laws that criminalize adult child sex. BUT

Don’t falsify academic research to further bolster your claim and to justify an absurd police state with extreme draconian punishment. Base your policy on free unbiased science.

And don’t break the law engaging in vigilante action.

And don’t prosecute and punish thought crimes like manga drawings of child sex, or possession of Homer Simpson cartoons. Nor persecute and harm law abiding pedophiles like Jack McClellan.

And join me in my fight against the dangerous child obesity epidemic that kills and sickens Millions of children and adults every year. Let us fight REAL child endangerment that truly hurts children, instead of protecting children from trumped up imaginary voodoo theories.

Why do you obsess, or even care about adult child sexuality and child pornography?

We were born and trained in scientific method and curiosity. 

We learned the scientific research method: form hypotheses, test them, find alternative explanations, devise tests to verify or disprove these alternative explanations.

We have a firm belief that it is important to know the truth. Positive illusions, false beliefs, and religion are often useful for individuals, but not as a method of science.

We have compassion. 

We see the damage that is being done by the child and teenage sexuality witch hunt and the child porn insanity.

Similarly to the war on illicit drugs, thousands go to jail unnecessarily and hundreds of millions get criminalized

Yes, a considerable percentage of adolescents have sex before 18 year of age. In states without Romeo and Juliet laws, every single instance of such sex is a felony * Girl 13, charged as sex offender and victim at the same time

We are in favor of respect for the law. Few, clear, necessary laws that are respected. How can one respect senseless laws that make a large percentage of the Californian population felons. 99% of them go unpunished while a small percentage gets their life ruined with draconian prison sentences followed by life long sex offender registrations for crimes like having sex with his future wife.

Yes, forensic analysis could find suspicious child porn on almost any computer, especially by the European and Australian rules of "apparently underage" child porn which includes barely legal young looking 18 year olds and small breasted 23 year olds with pony tails.

This spreads fear and terror in the populace

It might be a civil rights issue, an undue restriction of children’s liberty, that it is a felony for children and adolescent to to engage in consensual sexual behavior, or simple doctor play

Most accusations against teachers in Wales are dropped : this is why we obsess with this. To prevent innocents from being terrorized. If true non-forcible child abuse is not very traumatizing, then abuse accusations would not be so extremely serious. The potential abuse would be treated as a medium transgression, not as worse then murder. Then teachers would not be so terrorized by a simple accusation, be it true or false.

There is a limit to truthfulness: 

we do believe that the ‘Armageddon’ Super Virus Recipe Should Be Kept Secret – For Years.Here knowledge itself is deadly. This is very different. Here knowledge gives power to terrorists.

We believe that neither the Bible nor the US senate or US congress are sources to scientific knowledge and truth

We at Human-Stupidity are fanatically interested in the truth.
We don’t accept dogma, even if the dogma supported and enforced by the US Congress and Senate . Even when threatened with prosecution for thought crimes, our curiosity and quest for truth does not stop.

We are driven by curiosity. We want to know the truth. At any price.

Admit it you pervert: you are a pedophile, you want to abuse our pre-pubescent children! Why else would you defend pedophilia and child pornography?

We have absolutely no interest in pre-pubescent children.

We are not even "law abiding pedophiles" like Jack McClellan. Jack McClellan is a self professed pedophile who admits sexual attraction to 8 year olds, but explains that he does not act on his attraction because he is a law abiding citizen. This was enough for him to get restraining orders, threats, humiliation and aggression at the Steve Wilkos talks show. His naïve honesty pretty much ruined his life.

We are normal healthy people that have no sexual interest whatsoever in pedophilia. No sexual interest whatsoever in pre-pubescent children.

Only those who don’t engage in illicit behavior can afford to publicly defend Child Porn or child sexuality

If we were engaging in any illegal child sexual pursuits, or even just interested in collecting child pornographic images, we would be wise enough to shut up.

Nambla (North American Man Boy Love Organization) members have suffered arrests and prosecution. Many of Nambla members actually engaged in actual pedophilia, or consumed child porn and thus were vulnerable to arrest and prosecution. Now they wisened up and keep a low profile. Even their web site nambla.org is not easily accessible (Google is your friend if you want to try). I will refrain from linking to it, though Nambla.org actually has some interesting articles.

We take extra precautions to stay away from all underage minors

To avoid any potential misunderstanding, trouble, or intentional CP entrapment, we ID check any friend, visitor, or client that looks under 35 years of age. Thus nobody under 18 years of age would ever get close to us. Except when accompanied by a responsible parent, with proper ID. Yes it is embarrassing when I have to kick out a friend’s underage brother or sister. Yes it is sad that we refuse to teach professional skills by tutoring a bright 16 year old boy, even with parental consent. Self preservation is important, especially when outing ourselves with such heretic writings.

Why would one "defend" pedophilia if one is not a pedophile?

Why would one oppose medieval witch hunts, if one is not does not believe in sorcery and is not interested in witchcraft? 
Why would high ranking police and law enforcement be in favor of liberalizing drugs if they don’t consume drugs? 
We oppose imprisonment of harmless people for victimless crime

We would like to keep prisons free for violent dangerous criminals. We don’t see the need to cruelly lock up for non-violent people who copy files in the privacy of their home. We oppose overcriminalization.

Free scientific research from emotional and religious barriers
We don’t need to falsify science to prohibit the sale of dog meat

Is it necessary to falsify and prevent scientific research to justify penalties for indecency with children? Are people afraid they can not justify the draconian laws if the truth be known? Why are people afraid that damage will be done if academic researchers are allowed to say the truth, without political interference (see Rind Study and Susan Clancy),

We prohibit the sale of dog and horse meat. We don’t need to invent false science about the terrible danger of eating dog meat. We can prohibit dog meat for sentimental reasons, without hiding behind junk science. But there are no decade-long prison sentences for illegally selling dog meat.

We believe if the lies get uncovered, the manipulative language removed, punishments should be much less severe.

Child porn laws prescribing punishment for possession of pictures or possession of drawings should be revised. Or rather unceremoniously scrapped. Let freedom of expression and freedom of press prevail.


We want science to inform us how to best protect the well being of children

We want to protect children: Legalizing child pornography reduces child sexual abuse, as Milton Diamond has proven conclusively. We are more concerned with child food porn, junk food promotion that really leads to chronic disease and premature death in hundreds of million people world wide.

Lots of child pornography is nothing more then adolescent erotica(copine scale, Knox vs. USA) with 17 year old "children". Children get victimized not so much by child porn itself, but by child pornography and sexting prosecution.

People get punished with years, decades 1, or life in prison for having copies of computer files that consists of 0’s and 1’s. While pictures of child mutilation, child murder, shaking babies to death are common staple on YouTube.

Share with your friend, if you like it, or if you hate it.