Turing?
I have seen nothing to suggest that the people who watched and "encouraged" believed that they were looking at a real person.
Child protection group's creep-catcher passes Turing Test
An international sting has trapped “international Webcam sex tourists” from 65 countries by using an avatar in place of a 10-year-old child to solicit viewers into asking for on-camera sex acts. The avatar, dubbed “Sweetie”, was developed and operated by the Dutch arm of international group Terres Des Hommes, and was operated …
-
-
Wednesday 6th November 2013 01:40 GMT Anonymous Coward
In countries with no regard for human rights, due process, or justice, sure, why not!
Hell, for that matter, why not just castrate all the intelligent but socially-awkward loners who have male pattern baldness and those creepy little mustaches? Sure, there'll be some collateral damage among train engineers and accountants, but... the children! Think of the children!
-
Wednesday 6th November 2013 07:11 GMT Scorchio!!
Orchidectomy in humans does not destroy sexuality, of any sort. We had an outpatient who had the operation privately performed - no NHS consultant was willing to touch it - and he was seen months later hanging around schools; similarly surgical removal of the penis is doomed to failure, since (as with female paedophiles) thrill by proxy is possible, in the form of any attack that you can imagine. The human brain is sensitised in these areas before birth, unlike rat neonates which continue the central nervous system process of maturation, in this domain, outside of the womb.
As for 'chemical castration', using e.g. distilbesterol (I'm doing this from memory) results vary. It's not reliable. Something that I've seen but oppose is the use of the polygraph (often wrongly known as the 'lie detector'; it detects behaviours associated with lies, not the lies themselves), and I oppose it because it is also unreliable, generating both false positives and false negatives. In the UK it is used to test paedophiles housed in small supervised communities to see if they've been engaging in the sorts of behaviours that can be termed 'pre-offending'. Any sign of it and they are hoicked back to Broadmoor or some medium secure forensic unit.
Evoked potential (EP 400) work seems to have startlingly accurate results if the proponents are to be believed. I've seen some partisan reviews of the technique, which unnerve me; there is in my experience no absolutely reliable measure of human behaviour, no one to one correspondence between any nucleus or other cell group and another phenomenon.
Personally I favour putting these individuals in communes, built on very isolated islands, places where they can only offend against one another. I'd have no difficulty with them 'enjoying' one another as a substitute for their normal atrocities.
-
Wednesday 6th November 2013 22:28 GMT Anonymous Coward
"Personally I favour putting these individuals in communes,"
I would rather that we do this with all the children. Once they're born, they get sent off to an island to the caring hands of highly monitored professional to prepare them to join society. Can't molest something that isn't around.
And I'm not just saying that because I've spent the last 17 hours trapped in a large metal tubes and terminal building around several of the little condom accidents.
-
-
-
Wednesday 6th November 2013 01:35 GMT Anonymous Coward
'The group claims it identified more than 1,000 adults “willing to waste an hour and a half to screw with a bot on the internet"'
FTFY.
Also, does the phrase, "who can therefore be considered “inclined” or predisposed to commit this crime" make the hair on the back of anyone else's neck stand up? Blood run cold? Hackles raise? Stomach twist? That kinda thing?
To say nothing of the fact that his justification has nothing whatsoever to do with entrapment; just because you conclude that the entrapee deserves it doesn't mean that what you did wasn't entrapment. That argument makes as much sense as shooting a guy to death and then saying that because it was self defense, you didn't really kill him!
-
-
Wednesday 6th November 2013 21:06 GMT Old Handle
Re: Isn't it possible
Exactly. Consider this exchange for example (from another article about Sweetie):
'What you want see?'
The user responded: 'U.'
Sweetie replied: 'What u pay for?'
And the user added: 'Naked.'
Obviously he was simply impressed by the quality of the GCI and wanted to see if the rest of the model met the same standards.
-
This post has been deleted by its author
-
Wednesday 6th November 2013 10:17 GMT Vladimir Plouzhnikov
The perversity of this infuriates me. They way it is reported as some kind of a triumph of law enforcement. But is it?
Clearly the model is so obviously CGI that nobody could mistake it for a real person. I have seen the video of that model moving/blinking etc on the BBC last night - Alyx from Half-Life 2 has more believable facial expressions than that "Sweetie". Anyone interested in playing with that model would have clearly done that without any intent of harming any real person. This all is simply a fabricated thought crime.
Now, I dislike paedophiles as much as anyone but I said many times in the past and will repeat it again - a paedo wanking in front of a PC screen is a paedo safely off the streets. If you really care about children you must give those people some kind of a vent, otherwise they might as well go for the real thing.
If punishment for a fantasy is just as tough as punishment for the real crime - what incentives do they have to limit themselves to fantasies?
-
Wednesday 6th November 2013 10:22 GMT Anonymous Coward
> a paedo wanking in front of a PC screen is a paedo safely off the streets. If you really care about children you must give those people some kind of a vent, otherwise they might as well go for the real thing.
Damn straight, Vladimir.
Loath as I am to post anonymously, I once made the same suggestion on the Web and got flamed for literally years afterwards. So good luck.
-
-
Wednesday 6th November 2013 10:19 GMT Anonymous Coward
In the UK
"...that they were just interested in the CGI? Who's actually done anything wrong here?"
Producing / owning / copying / downloading a sexual drawing / CGI / non-photographic image of an underage person is illegal, so I suppose trying to interact with one might be.
The London Olympic company was probably very lucky to get away with their logo, ms perry seemed to miss out on the opportunity.
-
-
Thursday 7th November 2013 00:16 GMT Anonymous Coward
Nowhere near TAKING the turing test.
Sweetie isn't a bot, just an avatar. In other words "she" isn't a computer impersonating a human at all, just one human impersonating a different human with the aid of a computer-generated disguise. I suspect they could actually automate the initial stages very easily, the fact that the character has a limited vocabulary should be a big help. But the part where they con their mark into revealing identifying information probably requires a bit more intellect.
This topic is closed for new posts.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
