Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Computer-Edited Photos Lead To Child-Porn Locale

timothy posted more than 9 years ago | from the creepy dept.

The Internet 806

Leilah writes "Toronto police have found a new application for computerized photo editing. The police released edited photos on Feb. 3 from a series of child pornography pics in an attempt to locate where the photos may have been taken. Two days later, they have identified the Port Orleans hotel in Disney World as being the location. This seems to be the first time photo editing has been used in law enforcement this way and strikes an interesting line between protecting the victims and being able to get public tips. It looks like it may be used quite heavily in the future given this success."

cancel ×

806 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

penis? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11586808)

GNAA?

Double-Edged Sword? (4, Interesting)

fembots (753724) | more than 9 years ago | (#11586809)

Will criminals take this as a warning and digitally edit out the background (or replace it with vanila ones)?

Re:Double-Edged Sword? (3, Funny)

AddressException (187785) | more than 9 years ago | (#11586819)

Is that what you did? ;)

Re:Double-Edged Sword? (2, Insightful)

Kohath (38547) | more than 9 years ago | (#11586840)

Why don't they just take pictures of the backgrounds and draw in the people? That would work out better for everyone.

Re:Double-Edged Sword? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11586954)

Because then there's a known potential paedophile at location X at time Y. Whose door will they be knocking on when the crimes actually happen?

Re:Double-Edged Sword? (2, Informative)

NitsujTPU (19263) | more than 9 years ago | (#11587002)

I think that the point of the parent was that you wouldn't have to sexually abuse a kid to get the "art."

Re:Double-Edged Sword? (3, Funny)

frankthechicken (607647) | more than 9 years ago | (#11586870)

The more important question is whether police will start to trawl fark/something awful/etc photoshop contest participants for would-be employees.

Though seeing Akbar appear on police help websites would be somewhat surreal.

Re:Double-Edged Sword? (5, Insightful)

miu (626917) | more than 9 years ago | (#11586888)

I don't think you can dismiss a useful approach just because criminals might eventually get wise and start taking precautions against it. That might be a reasonable argument if the approach required invasive laws to implement, but that doesn't seem to be the case here. Also, I imagine the majority of these pictures are not taken with wide distribution in mind.

Re:Double-Edged Sword? (4, Funny)

AndyL (89715) | more than 9 years ago | (#11587062)

Why replace it with a vanilla background? If you're good you could replace it with someone else's living room.

lol (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11586811)

nothing for you to see here move long... wtf?

fp (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11586813)

fp

Sex (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11586817)

Is sexual abuse the same with boys as with girls? I mean, if yur a 14 yo boy and you get some of that older girl tail, maybe even best friends mom tail, is it bad? Sure I see how chicks can be abused by guys, but really, if yur a 14 or 15 yo guy, puss is good. Right? Slam that thing in and out!

Re:Sex (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11586841)

Further proof that linux users are dumb. "omg i use teh linucks and post on slashdot n im 13 hahaha"

Idiot.

Re:Sex (2)

JNighthawk (769575) | more than 9 years ago | (#11586857)

Sometimes. I'm replying to a troll, I know... but.

A lot of statitory rape cases are bullshit. The parents get angry at the 19 year old having sex with the 16 year old or whatever. But then, there's always the cases of older women, in a very real way, sexually abusing younger children. It is a problem, but if some 15 year old gets with a MILF? I don't see a problem.

Re:Sex (2, Informative)

WhatAmIDoingHere (742870) | more than 9 years ago | (#11586908)

There's a story my boss told me, I don't know if it's true or not.

A 16 year old male is at a party and has sex with a 19 year old female. 3 months later she calls him and tells him she's pregnant, but not to worry about it. A few years down the road, he's about to graduate from college and her lawyer calls him up asking for child support, including back child support. As it turns out, the statutory rape statute of limitations had passed, and she waited until that time to ask for the child support. The guy had to drop out of school and get a job to pay the back child support.

Re:Sex (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11586978)

Maybe he should have been a little more careful with his sperm, then. No sympathy from me.

Re:Sex (1)

NitsujTPU (19263) | more than 9 years ago | (#11586923)

This is true. I know the parent was talking about 14 and 15 year olds, but a 9 year old (4th grade) is a little different.

That said, in my school district, kids started screwing around with each other in fruition in 6th grade, so you know that there are kids intentionally messing around with each other in 4th.

Of course, there's a big difference between a college guy coming home and hooking up with a girl who he grew up with, and an adult trolling the playgrounds.

Fruition? (1)

Grendel Drago (41496) | more than 9 years ago | (#11587008)

What the heck does "in fruition" mean? Bearing jam-faced sprogs?

I'm never sure if my finding sixteen to eighteen year olds sometimes hot is a sign that I'm normal, or a sign that I'm a disgusting perv on my way to a short but painful stay behind bars before being violently raped to death.

I suppose it doesn't matter, since I can't fucking stand teenagers. Annoying little buggers, all of 'em.

Where does that fit in on your grand scale of evil?

--grendel drago

Re:Sex (1)

ian rogers (760349) | more than 9 years ago | (#11587019)

Of course, there's a big difference between a college guy coming home and hooking up with a girl who he grew up with, and an adult trolling the playgrounds.

Yeah, but if he was trolling around the playground, he would just get modded -1, and all the parents would just set their kids' thresholds at +1 or something, and they wouldn't go near him. ;)

Re:Sex (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11587029)

When I was 16 or so... I didn't see a problem either. But then you reach the same age they were and it dawns on you that you were with a fucking pevert.

But keep in mind that the subject is "Child-Porn"... not Teen sex or statitory rape. Mid to older teens are at the very least sexualy mature if not emotionaly mature. Child, as in ages under 13, is just sick and wrong.

Re:Sex (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11586858)

Ask Mary Kay Letourneau (sp?)

Yes, but? (-1, Flamebait)

kaustik (574490) | more than 9 years ago | (#11586818)

Anyone have a link to the originals?

Countdown to flame war in 3, 2, ...

Re:Yes, but? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11586886)

Here are the originals.
1 [goat.cx] 2 [lemonparty.org] 3 [tubgirl.com] 4 [oralse.cx]

Re:Yes, but? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11586898)

What kind of sicko would mod this Funny? It's in pretty poor taste if you ask me. There's a young girl out there being abused. What's so funny about that?

Re:Yes, but? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11586907)

Who says shes being abused? I know plenty of 12-17 year olds that would do it purely for the attention, on their own free will.

Re:Yes, but? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11586928)

She was nine when some of the photos were taken. And even if they were doing it willingly it's still abuse, adults should know better than that.

Re:Yes, but? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11586975)

even if they were doing it willingly it's still abuse

Up is down! Black is white! War is peace! Freedom is slavery! Ignorance is strength!

Re:Yes, but? (5, Insightful)

Total_Wimp (564548) | more than 9 years ago | (#11587039)

There's a term called "informed consent". Even if a child gives their consent, the developmental stage of the child prevents them from fully understanding what it means to give consent and thus negates any consent they may give, even if it's given quite willingly.

Have you ever spent time relating to a nine-year-old child? They dont know what the hell they're doing. If they did, we'd let them vote, drink and buy property, as well as give their consent to engage in sexual activity. But they don't. Thats why we love them and protect them instead of subjecting them to situations that will give them nightmares as their lives progress.

People who believe like you do want it both ways. You want both to be able to manipulate children into doing things they don't understand, and at the same time you want to call it "consent" because they said "ok" when you asked them if they wanted candy and led them away to your house of pain. Or maybe that's not really you, just the guys you're defending... in either case you seriously need to re-examine what it means to hurt another.... and stay to your own kind until you find the right answer.

TW

Re:Yes, but? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11586987)

But what proof do they have that it was an adult that took them rather than her friend, or a camera with a timer? Judging by the edited pictures, it all looks like she was solo in the pictures

Re:Yes, but? (1)

Total_Wimp (564548) | more than 9 years ago | (#11586929)

This one was 9 years old. Any witty comments about that?

TW

Re:Yes, but? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11586993)

what's the best part of having sex with a 9 year old...

Re:Yes, but? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11587043)

the body is easy to hide when you kill them after fucking every tight orifice on their little prepubescent bodies.

Nope, not funny or witty. Too bad for me.

Sorta relevant. (2, Funny)

Grendel Drago (41496) | more than 9 years ago | (#11587021)

Why does Michael Jackson like twenty nine year olds? ...

Because there are twenty of them!

See, I can make a joke about abusing nine year olds. And it's a pretty funny one. Neener.

--grendel drago

Re:Sorta relevant. (1)

Total_Wimp (564548) | more than 9 years ago | (#11587055)

Interesting... you call it a "joke" yet I'm not laughing. Must be because of some difference between me and you.... hmmmm.

TW

Re:Yes, but? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11586899)


Yes you can download the orginals from here [torontopolice.on.ca]

Re:Yes, but? (3, Insightful)

Jnickraz (683267) | more than 9 years ago | (#11586926)

I think its pretty sad that some of the first few comments on this article are supposed to be funny. This is a serious issue, and I think even joking about it is bad for the morale of people who are trying to stop this sort of thing from happening. But then again this issue hits closer to home for me... My younger brother was sexually assualted many years ago, and honestly if I found the guy that did it, I would probably take his life.

Boo humor is the work of the devil. (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11587046)

Everyone who thinks they're a comedian should be raped in the ass by islamic, nubian, HIV invected robots.

You know what, take two bullets, you are a part of the problem, and by following my recommendation you'll reduce it's efficency.

You're not the fucking victim in any case, and I don't think your hypothetical victim would appreciate your leeching of her well deserved compasion.

There are holocaust jokes, 9/11 jokes, the first of which I heard just one day later. Get over yourself, you worthless, buzzkilling, humorless, overly empathetic sack of shit.

People ARE mean, instead of sobbing uncontrollably and doing nothing but making other people miserable with your insufferable presence how about we laugh at the incongruities in the darkness on our way over to kill the ass-hats and comfort the victims.

Again, because you deserve it, "FUCK YOU." Now go die.

Re:Yes, but? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11587048)

Humor is a way for sane people to deal with an insane world.

Re:Yes, but? (1)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 9 years ago | (#11586963)

Dude that is just wrong. I know it was meant as a harmless joke but like making fun of the Holocaust some things are just not funny.

How many jews can you fit into a VW Beatle? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11587023)

30,000, 2 in the front, 3 in the back and 29,995 in the ashtray.

Come, on , its funny! Offencive, wrong, and crass, but funny.

Personaly I think there is no tragety so sever that it should be barred from the realms of jokes. Jokes, indeed, to me at least, help make sence of the tragety and put it in perspective, one way or another. If the minister at my funeral doesn't crack at least a one-liner, I'm comming back to haunt him.

Fark. (5, Funny)

asdfasdfasdfasdf (211581) | more than 9 years ago | (#11586825)

Man, the toronto police dept. seriously needs to hire a farker or two. Even the mediocre photoshoppers there do a better job than they did.

Of course, one of those photos would probably end up with Admiral Ackbar, Wil Wheaton or that over-endowed squirel.

Re:Fark. (1)

dioscaido (541037) | more than 9 years ago | (#11586905)

Agreed! I'm consistently awed by the 'blanks' some farkers submit for people taking part in photoshop contests.

You can clearly make out where the people used to be in the edited photos on this story. And quite frankly the outline still visible on the bed freaks me out a bit.

Re:Fark. (1)

Sinus0idal (546109) | more than 9 years ago | (#11586909)

Indeed, all they needed to do on the bed picture for example, was to duplicate the pattern from a different area with a clone brush. Instead it seems as though they've used some sort of airbrush/smudging technique which is pretty poor..

Then again, this isn't about the image quality.. still, this is slashdot!

Re:Fark. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11587007)

You're not kidding. These were not done very well.

Unless of course the original bedspread really is that filth encrusted, and there really is supposed to be a ghostly image above the Hot-Tub.

Re:Fark. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11587033)

And this accomplishes what?

Great, now you know it was some random hotel room in a specific hotel in a very popular vacation spot. Now you only have to narrow it down to the year and you'll be able to refine your search to about 500 individuals that used that room in that given year. Congratulations!

I'm sorry, but I have a hard time taking any of this seriously when politicians go around raping 14 year old girls in this country without retribution (Kennedy babysitter a couple years ago, anyone? - Neil Goldschmidt, anyone? countless school teachers and police personel anyway?).

Of course, it's only child molestation if you're middle or lower class - or you're black. If you're somebody important or rich, fucking little kids just makes you "eccentric".

Re:Fark. (2, Insightful)

srjames (849628) | more than 9 years ago | (#11587044)

Let's see, we have photographs of a nine year old girl being molested, what's the first concern, the quality of the editing job, or the privacy of the victim?

Did they use photoshop? Or the Gimp? (0, Offtopic)

Predflux (851314) | more than 9 years ago | (#11586834)

If they DID use photoshop? Was it an illegal copy? =P

They used PSP (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 9 years ago | (#11586839)

If they DID use photoshop?

They used Paint Shop Pro.

On a PlayStation Portable.

Re:They used PSP (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11586872)

Probably used the Gimp.

It was Adobe ImageReady (4, Informative)

tepples (727027) | more than 9 years ago | (#11586867)

Hex-editing arcade.jpg (the first of six photos) shows JFIF ... Ducky ... Adobe. Ducky is the code name for Adobe ImageReady.

Fine Line? What Fine Line? (2, Insightful)

purduephotog (218304) | more than 9 years ago | (#11586851)

They needed information. Rather than blur out the subject (which then becomes the focus) they repaired, to the best of their ability, the scenes and posted them.

Frankly that's no different then sending out 'awards' to criminals and when they show up, arresting them.

There is no 'interesting line' between privacy and law enforcement. Law Enforcementis paid to lie to GET the 'bad guy'. And anyone that says sexually assaulting a 9 year old girl (or boy) isn't bad needs to post their home address.... so that that tip can be forwarded onto the appropriate authorities (or anyone else that owns a baseball bat).

Privacy of the victim is 100%, assuming they didn't include a 'thumbnail' of the original image embedded in the jpg.

Re:Fine Line? What Fine Line? (1)

GigsVT (208848) | more than 9 years ago | (#11586933)

I agree that this use of technology is completely ok, and doesn't violate anyone's privacy, but your later comments are scary. When thoughtcrime becomes a reality we are all fucked, no matter how repulsive the thoughts.

Re:Fine Line? What Fine Line? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11587060)

And anyone that says sexually assaulting a 9 year old girl (or boy) isn't bad needs to post their home address.... so that that tip can be forwarded onto the appropriate authorities (or anyone else that owns a baseball bat).

You fucking moron. Here's an address for you:

1600 Pennsylvania Avenue Washington, DC 20520

There you go. I promise a child abuser lives there. Looks a bit like a monkey. Go nuts with your damn baseball bat.

Vigilante justice is WRONG. Vigilante justice is NOT JUSTICE. Suggesting it in response to child abuse just makes you look like yet another flaming THINK OF THE CHILDREN panic attack kneejerker.

I fully support using these measures to track down sex offenders and bring them to justice. But I'd rather they go free than we throw away the right to due process.

Creepy pictures (5, Interesting)

Lisandro (799651) | more than 9 years ago | (#11586860)

...the ones the police edited to leave only the background, that is - you can still see silhouettes here and there. For some reason they made me extremely uneasy.

Re:Creepy pictures (1)

WhatAmIDoingHere (742870) | more than 9 years ago | (#11586874)

I noticed that, too and thought "That's not a very good editing job" and at the same time I shivered.. It is very creepy.. almost like the photos from The Ring.

Re:Creepy pictures (5, Insightful)

TheCabal (215908) | more than 9 years ago | (#11586917)

That's because you have a conscience. It's distrubing to see the pics, even with the victim removed because you can still sort of see the silhouettes and such, and you can see that things like this are happening at places that aren't some pervert's basement.

Re:Creepy pictures (1)

fussili (720463) | more than 9 years ago | (#11586957)

I had exactly the same feeling. There's one where the blurry silhouette can be seen partially reclining on a bed and I was horrified at the thought of what might have been its subject. Blacking out a large arbitrary square would have actually been more comforting.

Re:Creepy pictures (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11586962)

Yes, my impression too. It's almost like one of those historical tours: "And in this locale, a child was tortured for hours..."

...which may be what's happening to them right at the moment you read this.

Damn, I hope they catch that bastard soon.

Re:Creepy pictures (1)

mikael (484) | more than 9 years ago | (#11586984)

It would have been more ethical to simply black out the individuals in the picture than to "create" a new background.

Re:Creepy pictures (1)

wwahammy (765566) | more than 9 years ago | (#11587013)

I don't know about that but I know it would be less useful. Having a large black outline in pictures make it pretty distracting when you want someone to recognize the background.

Re:Creepy pictures (2, Interesting)

binarybum (468664) | more than 9 years ago | (#11586990)

Agreed. An artist actually did a display like this at my university - the reconstructions were much much better (almost completely unnoticable) - granted she got to choose her photos (good old fashion 18+ regular porn-all from the internet). My response to that exhibit was firstly - dammitt! why didn't she post the "before" pictures next to her edited versions. wish I could recall her name.

However, the combination of the subject material here, and the shoddy (yet perfectly sufficient - let's not nitpick) reconstructions here definatley give me the creeps.

Re:Creepy pictures (4, Insightful)

pnevin (168332) | more than 9 years ago | (#11587014)

It's like seeing that torture scene in Reservoir Dogs for the first time - nothing you can actually see really compares with what you can imagine is actually happening.

It still isn't proof (0, Offtopic)

MrSoundAndVision (836415) | more than 9 years ago | (#11586871)

This cannot be allowed to be considered evidence in any criminal case. We all know that software exists to place people in places they aren't.

I recently got an invitation from Guru.com to join a project that would create software that could insert a preloaded video clip into a live video stream in real time. Such software could only be used for false incrimination.

While child pornography is a terrible crime, governments must take care to ensure that such clips are not legal evidence, but used as "hints" in investigations.

Re:It still isn't proof (1)

GigsVT (208848) | more than 9 years ago | (#11586916)

The photoshopped photos will of course not be entered into evidence. Did you even look at the pictures? There are no people in them. They just want to know where the pictures were taken.

Re:It still isn't proof (1)

MrSoundAndVision (836415) | more than 9 years ago | (#11586952)

No I didn't look at the article, yet made my point nevertheless. Thanks!

Re:It still isn't proof (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11587040)

So then are you an idiot, or do you just like the attention?

Re:It still isn't proof (3, Informative)

Total_Wimp (564548) | more than 9 years ago | (#11586985)

Well, seeing as the police are using the photos exactly as you suggest, I guess they get a "two thumbs up.', eh?

More specifically, the police were only using the photos to elicit eye-witness evidence of the location of the crime with the hopes that they could then find further evidence of the assault after the location was identified. This is truly a case were everyone wins (with the hopeful exception of the assailant).

TW

Re:It still isn't proof (4, Insightful)

the pickle (261584) | more than 9 years ago | (#11587015)

It isn't being used as evidence.

It's being used as a tool to determine a location where the criminal act might have occurred. Now they can look for surveillance tapes, talk with hotel personnel, etc. to determine who was there with the victim.

This is no more "evidence" than a person calling Silent Observer and saying "I saw Mr. X with a little girl at the Acme Hotel" would be. It's a lead. Nothing more. Don't make it out to be something it's not.

p

Re:It still isn't proof (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11587037)

"Such software could only be used for false incrimination."

Could 'only'?

I can think of a dozen reasons that this would be useful for items that have NOTHING to do with incrimination. In fact, if you hadn't mentioned the ultraparanoid thought, I wouldn't even have thought off an illegal situation.

For instance, going to Disney Land / World whatever -- the haunted house has a ride where in the mirrors, ghosts are loaded into a mirror to appear to be sitting between you and the other rider. I still wonder how they've done this.

As a musician and more to the point a geek, we do a lot of video and other technology these days. One of the last things a friends band did was to kareokae themselves into the song and rerecord it (it used standard harmonization and automated dialogue replacement to tweek everything and make the user sound more professional in a bad pop sort of way)...if people are really willing to spend an extra $20 for a DVD that has this software on it, I'm sure that someone might want software that could throw these same musicians seamlessly into their home movies. People are crazy willing to pay for this stuff...I couldn't believe it until I realized what the ROI was for the artist doing this (it was much cheaper licensing the kareokae shit that it was recording a single song).

Past this, how about sports? You know that reporters and otherwise cannot walk onto the field / court while a game is going on. Being able to load up a clip that had been preedited to appear seamless while action is going on around them in real time would be killer. Imagine being Nike and doing advertising during the superbown that accurately reflected the conditions around it -- you wouldn't cut into the game time and you'd be able to 'salvage' a perfectly good span of 30 seconds that might have only been used to watch overpaid players have another timeout -- all the while the viewer is still entertained.

I have DOZENS of this...and none involve anything illegal like false incrimination. Honestly, I don't know how this would work...a bank robbery is going on and someone's image is put in -- while at the same time his cell phone is being recorded halfway across the city and the lawyer suppoenas every camera in the vacinity and find his client on even ONE within a time frame that would make it impossible to be there -- and then every video after this would be scrutinized for obvious or not so obvious (but shows up under the slightest analysis). I can't imagine anyone but an idiot using this for false incrimination...besides, it would be just as easy (or actually EASIER) to do this under non-realtime video.

You sir are a paranoid...but you are right at home with the rest of us. Hell, I don't even trust tin foil manufacturers anymore because I believe they are developing a form of their product that allows signals from MLB to freely enter my brain in a reverse faraday arangement.

Re:It still isn't proof (1)

Impotent_Emperor (681409) | more than 9 years ago | (#11587061)

I recently got an invitation from Guru.com to join a project that would create software that could insert a preloaded video clip into a live video stream in real time. Such software could only be used for false incrimination.
Couldn't that be used for advertising?

PSP (0, Redundant)

Predflux (851314) | more than 9 years ago | (#11586879)

On a PlayStation Portable.

While selling Paintball Sports Promotions.

Sad commentary on /. (4, Insightful)

NitsujTPU (19263) | more than 9 years ago | (#11586880)

It's a rather sad commentary on the /. crowd when I read a story about how someone MIGHT be helping sexually abused children by releasing pictures with the children editted out... and the comment board is, in the earliests posts, mostly filled with comments joking about getting the originals.

An interesting question arises though. How did they know that it was all the same scene? What if the kid was abducted, or moved around?

To the guy who blamed all of the jokes on Linux use... you must be new here

Re:Sad commentary on /. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11586935)

The photos are from different places but of the same child. Locations seem to include photos from the US and Canada. From the CBC article:

Tips from the public in Toronto have led investigators to a hotel in the southern United States where pornographic photos of an unidentified child were taken.

The photos have been widely distributed on the internet. On Thursday, Toronto Police released copies with the victim digitally removed, in hopes that a member of the public could tell them who the victim is and where the crimes took place.

Re:Sad commentary on /. (4, Insightful)

Anubis350 (772791) | more than 9 years ago | (#11586968)

one of the best ways people deal with troubling subjects is to joke about them. It allows for a relaxation that can lead to a more serious discussion about a topic, uncrippled by the uptight PCness that society now uses. While yes, this is, in fact, a very serious topic, the jokes allow for us to move out of the depressing stage of our thinking and into a more serious discussion of the potential of this new technology. Try not to have a knee-jerk reaction to the jokes and look at the (perhaps subconscious) motives behind them. Just my opinion. --Anubis

Copyright infringement (-1, Flamebait)

fredrikj (629833) | more than 9 years ago | (#11586885)

Publishing the photos like that is blatant infringement of the child pornographers' copyright!

Re:Copyright infringement (1)

YankeeInExile (577704) | more than 9 years ago | (#11586950)

And I'm sure they will be rushing into court to assert those rights.

If they were so foolhardy, I'd love to see some civil court judge (or jury) find for the plaintiff and award one dollar damages.

Maybe they could use the dollar to buy a tube of K-Y for their trip to federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison.

I suspect... (0, Troll)

supmylO (773375) | more than 9 years ago | (#11586890)

Are they sure they did not mix up this hotel in Disney World with the Neverland Ranch?

Crime scene sketched instead of face (1)

ScentCone (795499) | more than 9 years ago | (#11586901)

I think this is clever, obviously productive, and pretty much (law-wise) in the same vein as releasing a sketch of a perp's face, per the victim's recollection (or an ATM camera shot, etc) - which we see on the news all the time.

<tinfoilhat> Now: how many people might get framed/harassed by having something like this mocked up by bad guys, placing someone/something into a false scene, or placing false thing in conspicuous, legit, easily recognized scene? I don't mean that in the sense of law enforcement doing it, but rather someone looking to screw someone else could - and with little resources, really. Think car tags, buildings with logos, other stuff that would very quickly draw scrutiny while also being easy to fake.</tinfoilhat>

Re:Crime scene sketched instead of face (1)

wwahammy (765566) | more than 9 years ago | (#11586971)

I think it'd be pretty hard to make it get past multiple layers of forensic testing. As often as the FBI fucks up they still have some of the best people in the world to look at these pictures and evaluate if they are legit. Fooling the public is one thing but fooling investigators and defense experts is a whole other ball of wax.

Re:Crime scene sketched instead of face (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11587057)

If you think child molestors are dead meat now, just imagine what would happen to them if it became known they were framing innocent people. Baseball bats would be the least of their worries.

*Shudder* (4, Insightful)

Southpaw018 (793465) | more than 9 years ago | (#11586915)

I don't know what's creepier, the pictures themselves or the comments joking about the originals and downplaying kiddie porn/statutory rape...

Re:*Shudder* (1)

bladx (816461) | more than 9 years ago | (#11586932)

yeah (?!) it's not such a trivial thing

Re:*Shudder* (1)

JAppi (853260) | more than 9 years ago | (#11586983)

I'm not trying to downplay it either, but humans have a natural curiosity to know the unknown.

Usefulness (1)

wwahammy (765566) | more than 9 years ago | (#11586937)

This should help police and I think its a good idea. It does raise another question. Would release a picture of the victim result in more leads? Not an unedited picture but just a face shot or something. I can't see myself ever being in favor of that because these victims deserves privacy but at the same time could this actually prevent further abuse by the perpetrator, whether on this victim or another? It's a interesting question to consider.

Re:Usefulness (1)

Southpaw018 (793465) | more than 9 years ago | (#11586949)

Even if it helped, I just don't think it could be done. The primary objective here is preventing further harm to the victim while capturing the bad guy.

Re:Usefulness (1)

JAppi (853260) | more than 9 years ago | (#11586966)

I can't remember for certain, but when I saw the story on the news, I believe they said they had plans to release pictures of the face, should the edited pictures not turn up anything.

The girl (5, Informative)

Doomie (696580) | more than 9 years ago | (#11586938)

An article in the Montreal Gazette (that I just finished reading -- what a coincidence!) says that if necessary the police might release the photos with the girl's face, the reason being that they believe that it might help the girl escape a "life of abuse"...

Stupid (1)

poptones (653660) | more than 9 years ago | (#11587010)

They show these but not others? I've seen a couple of these, they're even used a SPAM by a couple of "commercial" sites. I don't know if it's john law or the russian mafia, but if you use usenet and you've ever visited any group remotely about "teens" you've probably come across some of these, at least in thumbnails.

There are others that seem to show the inside of a home. Why the hell would they release these and not the ones that might actually be recognized by a neighbor or relative of the girl?

BTW some of us have been screaming for them to do this for years. Nice to see they're finally waking from that "protect the children by hiding them" stupor.

Now wait a minute! (3, Insightful)

Cytlid (95255) | more than 9 years ago | (#11586947)

Closed source investigation proves more secure! The less eyes looking at these modified pictures the better! A small group of policemen and investigators working on a secret case would prove more efficient and better results than to open it to the public!

Am I correct, Mr. Anti-Open-Source Person?

Re:Now wait a minute! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11587024)

Wow, what a terrible way to try and make a point. This is child porn. The less eyes on this kind of stuff, the better.

New worst job in technology (4, Insightful)

hikerhat (678157) | more than 9 years ago | (#11586979)

Editing the kids out of child porn replaces AOL phone support as the worst possible job in technology.

Homeland Security? (4, Interesting)

drayzel (626716) | more than 9 years ago | (#11586982)


From the article...
"...prompted his team to alert the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, which dispatched investigators to the alleged crime scene."

Um.. why would they have jurisdiction? I thought they were supposed to be protecting us from terrorists? Wouldn't the FBI be the ones working on this?

I sure don't know my legal jurisdiction rules, anyone care to explain?

~Z

Re:Homeland Security? (1)

wwahammy (765566) | more than 9 years ago | (#11586998)

That's a good question. I think Homeland Security has some power of parts of the FBI but honestly that whole department is incredibly confusing on figuring who controls what. My only thinking is because it likely involves a Canadian national they have power over it. Otherwise I'm stumped.

ugh I'm gonna be killed for this.. (0)

Turn-X Alphonse (789240) | more than 9 years ago | (#11587004)

I know this is going to lose me major karma and such but I don't care.

Anyone else want to see the originals (of course HEAVILY edited to hide the child's face and nudity, just an outline would do). Or another photo like this before and after. I do alot of photoshopping and I have to guess what's behind something I want to remove, surely the police couldn't get this so accurate they could pinpoint a place (taking into account Disney land would change their sheets obviously).

If this is the polices latest weapon next time I take a picture I'm making sure I'm in it just incase they decide to photoshop me into it because I'm not there..

Re:ugh I'm gonna be killed for this.. (1)

wwahammy (765566) | more than 9 years ago | (#11587032)

That's an odd thing to ask and I'm not going to make an issue of it cuz that's not the point of this post but I know Microsoft Research has some form of program to do something like this. It apparently tries to guess what the background should look like. I'm sure if you look around there you'll find it.

A Good Start (1)

clotito (812871) | more than 9 years ago | (#11587009)

Actually, this is a good start, but not towards what they intended to do. Using photos like this, as well as ones taken specifically for this purpose, the international law enforcement community could start to construct a database of images of potential crimes scenes. Yes, I know, everywhere is a potential crime scene, but still, how wonderful would it be to able to use a computer algorythm to search for images with backgrounds matching those of a crime photo?

No punishment strong enough (2, Informative)

puzzled (12525) | more than 9 years ago | (#11587035)

I taught a computer forensics class to law enforcement a couple of years ago. Evil is just a four letter word until you listen to a few stories from your local state patrol child endangerment squad.

Child molestation is not something that someone does, it is an indelible part of who they are. They never, ever get better, and the compulsion doesn't go away. Civil commitment after the end of the required prison term is the only way to keep children safe.

What a crappy job (1)

Monkey Angst (577685) | more than 9 years ago | (#11587036)

Jesus. How would you like to be the cop whose job is to sit there and edit out the victims from dozens of kiddie-porn photos -- you'd have to look at it for hours.

That's got to mess you up.

Re:What a crappy job (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11587053)

Ooh, stop it. You are such a terrible tease.

Wow! (1)

Pig Hogger (10379) | more than 9 years ago | (#11587058)

I can't believe I saw a story on TV before Slashdot talks about it!!!
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>