I spend ages trying to find a video that is either enlightening, amusing or that fits the day’s post. However, I think I’ve run out of any originality, so I’ve had to repeat an old one. I have been tempted to place a couple of exclusive pictures in the blog somewhere and as usual, there’s two sides pulling me. One side says ‘Go for it! Commit some sort of blog hara-kiri and publish illegal pics’. The other side says ‘Don’t lower yourself to the level of the average journalist’.
Anyways. Prepare for a long blog post. There’s a recent piece just published that some people may think worth a read.
There’s only a couple of points I would complain about. Firstly, it seems to want to turn itself into one of those ‘it’s all the fault of men’ contributions. In a way, I think that’s fair enough. However, recent articles tend not to take one important aspect into account: men are far less likely so speak up. Statistics can never really be trusted.
Secondly, I would really cast doubt on any cases blamed on hacking. Yes, it’s true that webcams can be hacked, but I would allege that the vast majority haven’t been. In the same way, I would definitely eliminate many of the cases because the kids are canny enough to use the ‘I was blackmailed’ card to cover their asses.
From the article:
About Mijangos: ‘But all emails came from the same IP address in Santa Ana’. All these computer geniuses don’t seem very clever when it comes to hiding their IP.
‘In all, federal investigators found more than 15,000 webcam-video captures, 900 audio recordings, and 13,000 screen captures on his computers. Mijangos possessed files associated with 129 computers and roughly 230 people. ‘. Holy moley! Where do these people get the time for all this?
About teens: ‘They often “sext” one another. They sometimes record pornographic or semi-pornographic images or videos of themselves. And they share material with other teenagers whose cyberdefense practices are even laxer than their own. Sextortion thus turns out to be quite easy to accomplish in a target-rich environment that often does not require more than malicious guile.’ At least we get a more honest approach here. There’s no denial when it comes to teens producing the videos themselves, and the authors admit that it’s a ‘target-rich environment’. It reminds me of my saying from way back when: ‘without prey, there can be no predators’.
‘the problem of sextortion has not received sustained press attention or action in numerous state legislatures, in part because with few exceptions, sextortion victims have chosen to remain anonymous, as the law in most jurisdictions permits’. I’m not sure if this is true. Sextortion is a difficult subject as it plays well into victim-blaming territory. People read the news report and just blame dumb kids, dumb women or even dumb men for getting their tits/clits/dicks out. And who, really, wants people to know that they got caught out online, even if they have been tricked? And to be honest – sextortion certainly isn’t the clickbait it used to be. The Press will only make a meal of what people want to see, and cybercrime has had its day.
‘But don’t let the problem’s invisibility fool you’. Ouch! Always a risky path to take. I’ve seen too much of this recently, along the lines of ‘Just because there’s no proof, doesn’t mean it’s not true’.
‘”You just can’t put a portable porn studio in the hands of every teenager in the country and not expect bad things to happen’. I quite like that quote.
‘On the other hand, most sextortion victims in this sample are children, and a sizable percentage of the child victims turn out to be boys’. Oh dear. OK. All the SJWs will no doubt shout something about me being a misogynist or a rampant MRA, but at least this hints at the sexist attitude towards online sextortion. If we believed the media, it would only ever happen to Amanda Todd. Boys don’t make the headlines – they’re not pretty or cute. I’d best move on.
‘At least two cases involve either a father or stepfather tormenting children living in his house’. Norm??!!
‘The reason for this decision is that the primary phenomenon we seek to define here is the remote coercion of sex’. I feel this is a cop-out. Limiting the research to coercion of sex is bound to skew the results towards making all men guilty. It would have been better if they had included sextortion for money, which would have made it more gender-balanced. Having said that, examples shown later make it appear a lot, lot worse for young boys.
‘Every single perpetrator in the cases we examined is male. The vast majority of the victims, by contrast, are female. Among the adult victims, nearly all are female. The picture is more complicated among the child victims, where a significant minority of victims is male. In 13 cases (17 percent) involving minor victims, all identified victims in court documents are male. In an additional eight cases (10 percent), the victims include both males and females. Several truly brutal cases focus on young boys. So it’s a mistake to think of sextortion as purely a problem of violence against women. There is clearly a problem with respect to boys as well’. This oddly contrasts with the earlier ‘a sizable percentage of the child victims turn out to be boys’ remark. What exactly is ‘sizable’?
The most ‘oh my God’ part of the article features the descriptions of some of the worst offenders. Just a word of advice: DO NOT read any of the Finkbiner stories if you’re easily upset.
Recommendation #9: Victims need to be enabled to come forward and, to the extent they wish, speak up. Current victims of sextortion may or may not understand that the person victimizing them may also be doing the same thing to literally hundreds of other people and will not stop until someone gets law enforcement involved. Past victims have a role to play in making current victims understand that they are experiencing something that is both common and not their fault. Yet it can be extremely difficult for victims to come forward, especially in the absence of assurances that the law will protect them and that law enforcement will treat them with respect and dignity. In this context, it is especially troubling that child pornography laws in many jurisdictions have been used to punish minors for creating images of themselves—a reality that means that minor victims potentially put themselves in legal jeopardy by coming forward. Only by making it possible to talk about sextortion will society lessen the power of those who engage in it.
This simply won’t happen, and it’s mainly down to how dumbass adults have responded to sextortion. Even the authors admit it: ‘a reality that means that minor victims potentially put themselves in legal jeopardy by coming forward’.
Let’s for one minute – please, just for one minute give me a break and face facts – take the truthful Amanda Todd story as our template. Given all the new legislation, this is what might have happened:
When Amanda first went online and did her little cheerleading dance with Bianca, both of them, had they been caught, would have been charged in Court with creating and distributing child pornography.
Think for one minute. This makes the chances of sextortion even worse. In Amanda’s time it would have been ‘we’ll tell Ma and Pa’. Nowadays, it’s ‘we’ll tell the feds and you’ll be arrested’.
Why do you think that the RCMP were so powerless? When Amanda first performed, she might have got away with it if she had claimed some sort of juvenile ignorance. She might have had a chance of avoiding trouble in the December BlogTV flash if she had shouted blackmail there and then and finished with it. But when she upped the stakes on Dialogoo, she would have not stood a chance. Crikey, she even made a promise to the cops not to do it again.
That’s part of the reason why I stick to this cursed blog. If law makers are so completely stupid that they don’t understand that making criminals of the kids who flash online only puts them more at risk, then Heaven help us.
If Carol Todd spoke the truth now, or if she had done so in the past, proper action could have been planned like the stricter control of teen chat rooms, the control of the sites showing the capped videos, creative legislation to protect children. Instead, what have we got? Some 15 year old girl in Canada prosecuted for child porn, a 14 year old boy put on the Sex Offenders Register in the UK for sending a dick pic to his girlfriend.
So hey, kids. You once thought that flashing might get you grounded for a week. Nah. Now you’ll end up stigmatised for the rest of your life. So next time someone threatens to show your webcam wanking, give in to them. It’s that or juvenile court.
Really, you couldn’t make it up if you tried.
Laters, folks. Don’t have nightmares.