But there are many things that I don’t like that I don’t think should have criminal penalties attached, and child porn possession is one of those things.
Legalizing possession would create huge demand for commercial child porn.
First, if this were true, I would rethink my position—I agree it is a worrisome consideration..
I am not at all sure it is true. The ‘ordinary’ porn market is not so profitable any more because there is so much amateur material available for free. Virtual child porn might well crowd out a market for real porn. It should still be possible to follow the money to the producers. One could consider making the purchase of such material illegal but not its possession. Or one could change the penalties to a fine instead of prolonged imprisonment. One could also try various of these things in pilot experiments and see what happens.
All that said, in this one case we go to extraordinary lengths to suppress a market for something. For comparison, suppose someone stages a murder of a half dozen people. No one disputes it is a horrible crime. But to my knowledge, making a video of it which a person uploads or sells is not an additional crime, and possession is not a crime. Consider real, existing video of hostages being executed. People watching them creates the demand for their creation, but we don’t even think about banning possession of such things.
The ‘ordinary’ porn market is not so profitable any more because there is so much amateur material available for free.
Amateur or professional, the demand is there. The payment might not be money, but other goods like reputation or porn. What’s the difference?
Virtual child porn might well crowd out a market for real porn.
This speculation seems unfounded, considering this has not happened in adult porn.
It should still be possible to follow the money to the producers. One could consider making the purchase of such material illegal but not its possession.
No. Cryptography and covering your tracks by using anonymization services is trivial.
But to my knowledge, making a video of it which a person uploads or sells is not an additional crime, and possession is not a crime. Consider real, existing video of hostages being executed. People watching them creates the demand for their creation, but we don’t even think about banning possession of such things.
I don’t think legalizing one harmful thing because other harmful things are legal is a good argument.
I think if you have a good reason to suspect you’re under active surveillance (by the NSA?), you’ve already failed.
Establishing perfect protection is impossible, but getting very good protection is trivial and accomplished by using simple to use software. That is, if you know what you’re doing. I admit that is a very special kind of trivial.
Virtual child porn might well crowd out a market for real porn.
This speculation seems unfounded, considering this has not happened in adult porn.
The production of real adult porn is as legal as virtual adult porn. Since the production of real child porn would remain illegal, one might expect a difference.
It should still be possible to follow the money to the producers. One could consider making the purchase of such material illegal but not its possession.
No. Cryptography and covering your tracks by using anonymization services is trivial.
These methods are available in today’s environment too where child porn possession is illegal. There are still a lot of convictions. If we divide the world into “those who can use tracks-covering services reliably” and “those who can’t”, we could argue that the first group is already consuming its fill of child porn and the second group would be as uncertain in covering financial dealings as they are in covering downloads today.
But to my knowledge, making a video of it which a person uploads or sells is not an additional crime, and possession is not a crime. Consider real, existing video of hostages being executed. People watching them creates the demand for their creation, but we don’t even think about banning possession of such things.
I don’t think legalizing one harmful thing because other harmful things are legal is a good argument.
That’s fair enough, but we can also consult our intuitions about how we’d like to handle that case. Would you with enthusiasm support efforts to make possession of such videos illegal? My reaction is, “Let’s not go there, and just let people possess those videos.”
Sometimes a sample is also a population. We might not be able to generalize to all nations, but knowing the effect on the US would be very interesting in and of itself.
Other times it seems reasonable to draw conclusions without a sample, if we expect little variability in the population on the measure in question. For instance, if Obamacare has been in effect in Massachusetts for a few years, you don’t say “n=1” and that the results have no bearing on what will happen in other states. You might argue that there are reasons it won’t apply due to differing conditions, but few would say that it is as irrelevant as “n=1″ would imply.
Legalizing possession would create huge demand for commercial child porn.
First, if this were true, I would rethink my position—I agree it is a worrisome consideration..
I am not at all sure it is true. The ‘ordinary’ porn market is not so profitable any more because there is so much amateur material available for free. Virtual child porn might well crowd out a market for real porn. It should still be possible to follow the money to the producers. One could consider making the purchase of such material illegal but not its possession. Or one could change the penalties to a fine instead of prolonged imprisonment. One could also try various of these things in pilot experiments and see what happens.
All that said, in this one case we go to extraordinary lengths to suppress a market for something. For comparison, suppose someone stages a murder of a half dozen people. No one disputes it is a horrible crime. But to my knowledge, making a video of it which a person uploads or sells is not an additional crime, and possession is not a crime. Consider real, existing video of hostages being executed. People watching them creates the demand for their creation, but we don’t even think about banning possession of such things.
Amateur or professional, the demand is there. The payment might not be money, but other goods like reputation or porn. What’s the difference?
This speculation seems unfounded, considering this has not happened in adult porn.
No. Cryptography and covering your tracks by using anonymization services is trivial.
I don’t think legalizing one harmful thing because other harmful things are legal is a good argument.
It is many things, but trivial is definitely not one of them.
As a related example, consider Bruce Schneier’s opinion that it is non-trivial to maintain as simple a thing as an air gap.
I think if you have a good reason to suspect you’re under active surveillance (by the NSA?), you’ve already failed.
Establishing perfect protection is impossible, but getting very good protection is trivial and accomplished by using simple to use software. That is, if you know what you’re doing. I admit that is a very special kind of trivial.
I’m a little amazed that you’re managing to lose this argument, Hypor.
The production of real adult porn is as legal as virtual adult porn. Since the production of real child porn would remain illegal, one might expect a difference.
These methods are available in today’s environment too where child porn possession is illegal. There are still a lot of convictions. If we divide the world into “those who can use tracks-covering services reliably” and “those who can’t”, we could argue that the first group is already consuming its fill of child porn and the second group would be as uncertain in covering financial dealings as they are in covering downloads today.
That’s fair enough, but we can also consult our intuitions about how we’d like to handle that case. Would you with enthusiasm support efforts to make possession of such videos illegal? My reaction is, “Let’s not go there, and just let people possess those videos.”
No, making localised experiment about such a topic is hard. You can’t effectively run localised experiments on the internet.
You can run an experiment in a single large nation, such as the US. Policies are set at the national level in any case.
That’s n=1. You won’t learn from a n=1 experiment about the exact effects of the policy.
Sometimes a sample is also a population. We might not be able to generalize to all nations, but knowing the effect on the US would be very interesting in and of itself.
Other times it seems reasonable to draw conclusions without a sample, if we expect little variability in the population on the measure in question. For instance, if Obamacare has been in effect in Massachusetts for a few years, you don’t say “n=1” and that the results have no bearing on what will happen in other states. You might argue that there are reasons it won’t apply due to differing conditions, but few would say that it is as irrelevant as “n=1″ would imply.