Child Porn Arrest For Cameron Aide Who Helped Plan UK Net Filters

An anonymous reader writes "A senior aide to David Cameron resigned from Downing Street last month the day before being arrested on allegations relating to child abuse images. Patrick Rock, who was involved in drawing up the government's policy for the large internet firms on online pornography filters, resigned after No 10 was alerted to the allegations. Rock was arrested at his west London flat the next morning. Officers from the National Crime Agency subsequently examined computers and offices used in Downing Street by Rock, the deputy director of No 10's policy unit, according to the Daily Mail, which disclosed news of his arrest."

Re: victimless crime

[jordanjay29]

Because actual kids are being filned/photographed performing such acts? Since minors can't legally give consent for sex, they are the victims in this crime.

Re:victimless crime

[pehrs]

<quote><p>How is the possession or viewing of child porn a crime at all? I dare someone to prove the harm in possessing/viewing cold porn</p></quote>

There are a lot of problems with many child pornography laws, but there are also very good cases to be made for banning possession and viewing of it.

1. If there is a market for child pornography there is a stronger incentive to abuse children. People will produce more of it where it is actually legal to produce (or the legal system is too weak to stop it).

2. There is a strong stigma connected to being presented in pornography. This stigma and the associated injury does not decrease with time. Those who have experienced it describe it as a form of constant, ongoing, abuse that they have to live with their whole life. While you may not mind people jacking off to pictures of children, it is not something the children in the picture can consent to.

Re:victimless crime

[interkin3tic]

I don't think laws should be passed based on what victims would like or dislike. That's not exactly the same as justice, the point of laws. In my humble opinion, justice is about preventing people from becoming victims, and trying to make it right when there are victims. People viewing the abuse and masturbating to it isn't the main reason why victims of child porn are victims. It's the abuse, not the viewing, that is the problem.

The second line about creating demand, I also disagree with. Prohibition seems to work only in very limited contexts, like preventing individual citizens from buying material useful for making nuclear weapons. Drugs, porn, sex, alchohol, cigarettes etc, prohibition only seems to increase the value of the stuff that is sold. And, I suppose, prevents the government from profiting off of the sale through taxes, which come to think of it might be an argument in favor of keeping child porn illegal.

Lastly, legalizing the sale or distribution of child porn which is already out there, while coming down extremely hard on the producers could in theory change the economics such that it's no longer profitable to make new child porn.

(Obligatory disclaimer that I'm completely fine with child porn continuing to be completely illegal, just that I think the rationale for it is questionable. My rationale too: I've failed to even convince myself with this post.)

Re:victimless crime

[operagost]

Sounds just like alcohol abuse to me.

Why is this not a surprise?

[Required Snark]

It's a common pattern. Someone has a dark secret and they end up persecuting those who have the same impulses. They simultaneously engage in behavior they see as evil while doing the same thing themselves. It's why we continuously hear about virulent ant-gay politicians and religious leaders who have a secret gay life. Just look for the people who are screaming loudly about a specific sin, and there you will find a greater then average concentration of sinners.

Just proves the anticensorship case.

[John Allsup]

A perfect child-porn filter that only filters child porn would be wonderful, but that is fairy magic.
In reality we cannot trust those who wish to filter our internet, and this is why.
There is no substitute for proper discipline and compassion in upbringing.
Being forced to learn to fight crudely at school to protect myself (and fight my own battles) has caused me crippling psychiatric issues in adulthood.
Being forced to porn act to make daddy money (this did NOT happen to me) is an even worse evil.
Children need to grow, learn and play, and be free from influences such as sexuality and violence, but must be taught proper discipline about both so that as they reach maturity these things are no longer a fascination and do not cause the grown up child to turn to unhealthy sex and violence as a crutch. Society needs fixing.

Re:victimless crime

[SpankiMonki]

(Posting AC due to unpopular facts below.)

Actually, pesky science says says the opposite. CP gives pedophiles an 'outlet' to relieve their sexual tension, and they are less likely to go after actual children.

If you could actually support your statement with some links to that "pesky science" you speak of, you probably wouldn't have to post as AC. Perhaps you wish to remain anonymous because you performed the research yourself? Or maybe you were a test subject?

The world is more complex than that.

[microbox]

so I defy you to find the victim in that.

Well that all depends on your model of human nature. If you believe in a hydraulic model of emotions (and emotions motivate behaviour), then synthetic pictures are *good* in that they can reduce the chance of a real living breathing victim. On the other hand, if you believe that indulging in behaviour promotes similar behaviour, or (orthogonality) if you believe that societal structure prevents crime, then synthetic pictures are *bad* because they would increase the likelihood of a real living breathing victim.

The hydraulic model of emotions has not credibility, and clinical psychologists *and* buddhists are likely to tell you that enacting an emotional state will increase the likelihood and intensity of similar future states. (The Dalai Lama says "like begets like" or something like that. Neurologists may make an argument based on the dark side of brain plasticity.)

Now, I don't believe any of that. (For real, my model of human nature is actually quite different to anything listed above.) But the point is that the world is more complex than: "I defy you to find the victim in that".