Data.
The charity warns organised criminals are taking advantage of “systemic failures” in online security infrastructure.
Commercial websites host a wide range of child sexual abuse imagery which is available for users to buy. The imagery for sale can involve victims of all ages, and can include some of the most severe and extreme forms of sexual abuse.
Some of these sites have been deliberately disguised to appear as non-criminal sites or to look inactive in an attempt to operate on the open web while avoiding detection. Many of these sites accept payment via cryptocurrencies, card payments or money transfer services.
If these sites are known, why are they allowed to operate? AFAIK there is no country where it is legal.
In some cases they’re deliberately allowed to operate as a honey trap, allowing authorities to identify and arrest as many users as possible.
If you simply shut the site down, the users go elsewhere and you have to find them again.
OK, personally I don’t think such honey traps should be legal, you can never say for sure, that a person falling for it, would use an illegal site if the honey trap didn’t exist.
IMO it’s immoral, and luckily in my country they are in principle illegal, although the police here is trying to push the line on that.
The honey trap could be the thing that “ignited” the interest for an individual!
It can also be the trigger for other people to make similar sites, as in if they can do it, we can do it too.
Honey traps break with the fundamentals of justice in many ways, and making them legal is a sign of a sick society IMO.
You don’t just accidentally stumble upon a honey trap/illegal website, you intentionally stumble into them by going to shady websites, and then clicking links to even shadier websites.
Why would you click on the links to these shadier websites? Because the thumbnails approximate what you’re looking for; barely legal teens, only not barely.
Pedophelic interest doesn’t “ignite”. It’s not like other kinks/fetishes which require exposure to discover.
The real immorality of the issue should come from the fact that the honey pots are still using child sexual abuse material, which is almost certainly used without the adult victims consent.
This does raise an interesting ethical dilemma; if an adult consents to law enforcement using CSAM made while they were a minor for the purposes of identifying individuals with the capacity to cause harm, or contribute financially to those causing harm - is that ethical?
Is it really illegal if it’s intentionally never prosecuted?
Seems it’s not illegal if you are a billionaire.
But at least in Europe it has consequences for people if they are in the Epstein files.
But in USA it seems it’s just considered to be a group of friends with special interests! 🤢