The language in this article is quite odd - they're call these kids victims of "online sexual abuse." WTF does that mean?? Either these children were sexually abused (requiring IN PERSON contact) or they weren't (a.k.a. "online"). Doesn't make any sense to me. Is this some type of FBI "P.R. campaign" and it's all just b.s. or what?
It says "...Operation Janus, a month-long operation aimed at the rescue of children across North Texas who are the victims of online sexual exploitation."
RESCUE SO yeah, it SHOULD be the physical rescue of kids. Maybe they were videoed and it was put online.
IF these people ONLY had pictures on their computer and they had absolutely zero involvement with the kids then I don't agree with the sting. The way the laws are set up now...you could browse LEGAL porn sites..and cookies and thumbnail images of child porn can be put on your computer without your knowledge..and you would be classified as having child porn on your computer. It's stupid.
The language in this article is quite odd - they're call these kids victims of "online sexual abuse." WTF does that mean?? Either these children were sexually abused (requiring IN PERSON contact) or they weren't (a.k.a. "online"). Doesn't make any sense to me. Is this some type of FBI "P.R. campaign" and it's all just b.s. or what?
Forced to do webcams, perhaps.
It says "...Operation Janus, a month-long operation aimed at the rescue of children across North Texas who are the victims of online sexual exploitation."
RESCUE SO yeah, it SHOULD be the physical rescue of kids. Maybe they were videoed and it was put online.
IF these people ONLY had pictures on their computer and they had absolutely zero involvement with the kids then I don't agree with the sting. The way the laws are set up now...you could browse LEGAL porn sites..and cookies and thumbnail images of child porn can be put on your computer without your knowledge..and you would be classified as having child porn on your computer. It's stupid.