PDA

View Full Version : Sweetie


Dak Man
5th Nov 2013, 16:04
BBC News - Computer-generated 'Sweetie' catches online predators (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24818769)

I find this disturbing on a number of levels, 2 in particular.

1. The sheer number of sick perverts out there, I have 3 daughters and I am now minded to be a little more vigialant with their online activity.

2. How it's now for all intents and purposes practically impossible to tell CGI from reality - the potential for abuse is enormous, it goes way past an Orwellian State.

Ref point 2, I've heard software developers talking about how they have to dehumanise game characters in order to maintain the look of a game as it's too disturbing when they are allowed to apply the full force of technology to human animation. I thought that it was somewhat of a braggadocious claim, I no longer think so.

tony draper
5th Nov 2013, 16:09
Watched the item on the news,you would have to be pretty dim witted or desperate not to spot that as CGI unless they used a different one for the scam.
:uhoh:

Alloa Akbar
5th Nov 2013, 16:25
Bit of an ethical one this.. On one hand it's entrapment, and where does entrapment end?

On the other hand, I am happy for any methods to be used to identify and rid the planet of paedo scumbags.

UniFoxOs
5th Nov 2013, 16:45
I've heard software developers talking about how they have to dehumanise game characters in order to maintain the look of a game as it's too disturbing when they are allowed to apply the full force of technology to human animation

A big mistake, IMHO, which softens the results of hurting somebody in a game, as they are not "real people". Surely this leads to kids being so used to shooting/knifing/clubbing the characters that they can do it on auto-pilot in real life with real victims. Similarly, of course, with lunatic driving games, get used to doing it on the screen then try it for real, but in reality you don't walk away from it so easy.

Mac the Knife
5th Nov 2013, 17:39
"I am now minded to be a little more vigialant with their online activity."

If you think that they are likely to take off their clothes and perform simulated sex-acts for strangers then you may have other problems...

CGI now allows you to maim and slaughter, in graphic detail, hecatombs of people, innocent and otherwise and the realism will only get better.

Cinema, from Georges Méliès "Le voyage dans la lune" in 1902 down to it's CGI descendants has always been about "Let's pretend".

Since real child-sex is, quite rightly, severely discouraged/punished, folks who are into such stuff will turn to the synthetic, just as the socially inept or timid turn to paid phone-sex now (and simulacra in the future).

We cannot (yet) police people's thoughts, no matter how repellent we find them (though not through lack of trying) and rightly so - mens rea alone can never be a crime.

A person may fantasise as much as they like about lynching negroes or beating Jews (or diddling little girls) and we cannot intervene - there are always going to be sick minds around. The sticking point is when they attempt to transform their fantasies into reality.

Is CGI reality? Obviously not. Are there limits to "let's pretend"? I'm not sure, but I suspect that whatever they are they are unenforceable.

Do representations have rights? Cartoon characters (hentai/manga) almost certainly don't, sentient robots (a la "Blade Runner") probably do, so where does that leave CGI animations? Could 3D re-creations have more rights than 2D?

So it goes...

Mac

[Edited for speeling....]

lomapaseo
5th Nov 2013, 17:45
Not sure about entrapment based solely on the image.

Can't you just say it looked like a 40 year old to you?

pvmw
5th Nov 2013, 17:55
I'm not in any way defending the identifed culprits but I'm slightly at a loss to understand what can be done to them.

I don't imagine they can't be done for grooming, as the target wasn't a real child. Is soliciting a sex act with a computer graphic a prosecutable offence? Perhaps the biggest plus is that they have effectively declared themselves, so a close eye can be kept on them in the hope of catching them should they try anything in the "real" world.

vulcanised
5th Nov 2013, 19:53
Plain and simple exercise in entrapment which should be nipped firmly in the bud before it is applied to other areas.

Effluent Man
5th Nov 2013, 20:38
I don't quite get the thinking behind what they have done.As TonyD ob served earlier in this thread the only people who think that this is real think Doctor Who exists.I have seen no mention of prosecution either,Was it perhaps an attempt to scare paedos into mending their evil ways?

Capetonian
5th Nov 2013, 20:45
This particular example is pretty pathetic and almost pointless since anyone who fell for it would have to be of such limited intellect that they could use that as a defence.

On the other hand, if entrapment catches perverts and paedophiles who abuse children, I'm happy to see some of my tax money going towards it. Unlike many others, I don't have a moral problem with the use of entrapment to catch criminals.

VP959
5th Nov 2013, 21:47
I'm not sure this is really effective at getting intelligence about those who pose real threats to children.

I've mentioned before on here a problem a friend of mine had a few years ago. I went around to help him get his wireless network working. In the course of checking that all PCs in the house could connect we found that his 13 year old daughter's PC was on standby, when it fired up it was connected to a web chat service (his daughter was out aat the time).

A bit of quick (and rather worrying) researching revealed that my friends daughter had been sharing intimate videos with several others on the web. The school got involved, as it was clear that some of those sharing video clips were from the same school. The police were also involved, but as far as I know they weren't able to do more than inform the affected parents that some of the videos that these children had been sharing had been recorded and were being spread around the web.

Were paedophiles involved? I don't think anyone ever found out for sure. The general conclusion by both the school and the police was that this was the modern version of playing "doctors and nurses", or "you show me yours and I'll show you mine". There was a fair bit of evidence that some of the kids themselves had been the instigators.

The very sad end to this story is that my friends daughter, now at uni, has had a pretty traumatic few years, as she knows that there are still videos of her floating around the web, even all these years later. For years she'd be taunted by other children who had copies of these videos, she was even blackmailed by one girl who threatened to copy the videos she had to a social networking site unless my friends daughter did this girls bidding.

So, is this simulated video chat child really aimed at paedophiles, or is it really about educating children about the risks they may be exposed to online, using paedophilia as the bogey man to stop them doing things online they may regret for years later?

Frankly, I don't care too much whether or not it really helps catch a few weirdos, I think the real message is to teach children that nothing whatsoever on the web is ever private, and they have to assume that everything they say or do online will be recorded for posterity somewhere by something, or someone.

G-CPTN
5th Nov 2013, 21:55
everything they say or do online will be recorded for posterity somewhere by something, or someone.
Not only 'online' but also over mobile telephone networks. Everything is archived and can be recovered.

Worrals in the wilds
6th Nov 2013, 00:02
I think the real message is to teach children that nothing whatsoever on the web is ever private, and they have to assume that everything they say or do online will be recorded for posterity somewhere by something, or someone.
True, though there are also quite a few adults who need to learn that. I think this exercise showed that.
This particular example is pretty pathetic and almost pointless since anyone who fell for it would have to be of such limited intellect that they could use that as a defence.
Never underestimate how dumb some people really are. Unless you regularly deal with big groups of the public (say in customer service or government) you won't often get exposed to the real bozos. They're out there and they're stupid.

Cacophonix
6th Nov 2013, 00:22
You leave the Sweet alone...! :ok:

The Sweet- Ballroom Blitz - YouTube

Caco

SOPS
6th Nov 2013, 03:50
She doesn't look the slightest bit real to me.... I'm amazed that people thought she was, then again considering the moral standards of these said people, perhaps I'm not.

cattletruck
6th Nov 2013, 07:26
I just can't see this technique catching the smart pedophiles who seem to keep on getting away with it. No doubt they would have already been tipped off about this early on.

I've often wondered why the NSA or other phone tapping networks can't pinpoint these sophisticated pedophile rings...:rolleyes:

I ponder what big names would be revealed if only they monitored who goes on those Asian kiddie sex tours.

Effluent Man
6th Nov 2013, 07:52
Legally I would have thought that the age of the victim would have to be proved for a conviction to succeed.All it would take would be for the perp or his counsel to demand proof of age,which of course cannot be done for a CGI.I still think that this is an amateurish media attempt to scare paedos.I don't have a problem with this,apart from the fact that it is pathetic,and won't work.

VP959
6th Nov 2013, 09:02
As mentioned above, I think it's probably aimed at getting kids to be more aware of risks online, by giving out the message that things online may not be as they look.

There seems to have been a growing trend in recent years for kids to form on-line relationships, sometimes involving sexual activities (like "sexting"), without actually meeting face to face. It sounds bizarre, but the world of relationships seems to be shifting into cyber space. The sad fact is that there are now, it seems, many "mutual masturbation" web cam sites that are supposedly intended for adults only, but which, for fairly obvious reasons, are accessed by kids.

The potential for these kids being abused by weirdos on these sites is pretty high, I'd have thought, so maybe this CGI thing is, as I mentioned above, really just a way of getting a bit of media coverage about the risks.

I'll happily bet that there are an awful lot of otherwise responsible parents out there who have only the sketchiest idea of what their children really do online, just as in my day my parents almost certainly had no idea of the games that my cousin and I got up to in secret when we we both around 13.

Worrals in the wilds
6th Nov 2013, 09:11
I still think that this is an amateurish media attempt to scare paedos.I don't have a problem with this,apart from the fact that it is pathetic,and won't work. Yep. However, it got a nasty issue into the public arena and that's worth something.

I've often wondered why the NSA or other phone tapping networks can't pinpoint these sophisticated pedophile rings...:rolleyes:
I ponder what big names would be revealed if only they monitored who goes on those Asian kiddie sex tours. It's not so much about the big names, but the myriad of little names. The ordinary men (and unfortunately they are mostly men) who prey on children, either through work or personal relationships. The LEAs spend a lot of time working on this, usually with no public acclaim. Occasionally a big celeb gets busted (Saville springs to mind) but the vast number of offenders are not big and famous. They're poor and pitiful, and they get charged and convicted with no bigger fanfare than an article in the local newspaper/website.
Task Force Argos - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Task_Force_Argos)

VP959
6th Nov 2013, 09:36
It's not so much about the big names, but the myriad of little names. The ordinary men (and unfortunately they are mostly men) who prey on children, either through work or personal relationships. The LEAs spend a lot of time working on this, usually with no public acclaim. Occasionally a big celeb gets busted (Saville springs to mind) but the vast number of offenders are not big and famous. They're poor and pitiful, and they get charged and convicted with no bigger fanfare than an article in the local newspaper/website.

I think you're spot on there, the police have a near-impossible job trying to track down the seemingly large number of (mainly men) who do this stuff. The problem seems to be that often there are no outward clues as to the true nature of these weirdos.

A former colleague was arrested for child abuse a while ago and all of us who knew him thought it was a mistake, that he couldn't possibly have done what was being claimed, as we all, without exception, thought well of him. It turns out we were all wrong and he was convicted and imprisoned.

If close colleagues, friends and family, can't easily spot the secret activities of these people, what hope do the police have?

Effluent Man
6th Nov 2013, 10:21
Exactly my experience.Mrs EM is a teacher and when schools started to get computerised in the late 90's we knew the County IT man pretty well.Clearly there was a lack of knowledge about what was stored on the discs and what could be accessed retrospectively.

When this chap started to go into schools a steady trickle of teachers and even heads got called in and asked to explain what he had found.My guess is (He would never divulge details) that the majority of it was adult porn but I think there was a significant amount of child related stuff.One of her ex heads "retired" early and several others left the profession.Later under Operation Ore more went or were prosecuted and two local heads committed suicide.