undefined | Better HN

0 pointssjy6y ago0 comments

The dialogues in the article included people sending dick pics to a person they thought was an 11-year-old child. I’m sure that the lack of a ‘real’ victim is a problem in some countries, but this kind of offending is regularly prosecuted in Australia.

0 comments

2 comments · 1 top-level

mindslight6y ago· 1 in thread

I wasn't putting that behavior in the category of "inactionable"! I had also thought there were more discrete conversations, but rereading it's really excerpts all from (presumably) the worst one. But, the article does provide its own accounting:

> text-chatted with 17 men ... and seen the genitalia of 11 of those

So even though two thirds are doing something that could be straightforwardly prosecuted, it seems like one third are still abusive in some way that isn't necessarily easy to write into law, especially one that won't be worked around.

FWIW "regularly prosecuted" doesn't necessarily mean that the chance of an individual prosecution is high!

sjyOP6y ago

Absolutely. The people who get caught doing this stuff generally haven’t done much to conceal their identity and get caught with evidence of other unreported offences on their computers. It’s horrifying to think about what the sophisticated ones might be getting away with.

I overlooked the word ‘half’ in your original comment and brought up the dick pics because they make the crime so easy to prove. I’d say all of the conversations were illegal grooming, but it’s harder to prove that the person had the necessary intent when the conversation isn’t explicitly sexual.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse