Line Toddler Sex Group Audience Broke No Laws: Police

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

2 hours ago, robblok said:

You download the data when you watch something.. do you think things magically appear without data transfer ? Download does not mean save to your device. I find it a weak excuse from the police to do nothing.

 

Given the state of Thailand's Computer Crimes Act, it's pretty much seemed from past enforcement that the police can basically can charge anyone for almost anything they want. Right down to solely clicking the wrong LIKE button on Facebook.

 

So in this case, I'm wondering, is it really that the police couldn't bring a legal case against the viewers (which sounds implausible), or, they can't find out from LINE or elsewhere just who the viewers were?

 

 

[KiwiKiwi]

11 minutes ago, cyberfarang said:

Foreigners with your type of attitudes that come to Thailand, are like the bitter pill to swallow, you certainly don`t enrich Thai/westerner relations. You use threads like this as an excuse to discredit Thais as a whole, that I consider is in extremely bad taste.

 

I agree, There needs to be an end to this bit.

 

Stars in their eyes - bloody tourists.

[robblok]

12 minutes ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

 

Given the state of Thailand's Computer Crimes Act, it's pretty much seemed from past enforcement that the police can basically can charge anyone for almost anything they want. Right down to solely clicking the wrong LIKE button on Facebook.

 

So in this case, I'm wondering, is it really that the police couldn't bring a legal case against the viewers (which sounds implausible), or, they can't find out from LINE or elsewhere just who the viewers were?

 

 

I think its too much work for them to find it out from line. They will have to communicate in English with line, wait for replies file all kinds of documents. I think its just too much work for them. Just think they don't want all this work as there are more profitable things to do. 

[KiwiKiwi]

4 minutes ago, robblok said:

I think its too much work for them to find it out from line. They will have to communicate in English with line, wait for replies file all kinds of documents. I think its just too much work for them. Just think they don't want all this work as there are more profitable things to do. 

 

And even when they've finished, they'll have to prosecute Thais. No good at all - probably what they'd call a 'victimless crime'.

 

If the viewers were foreigners, there'd be no stone left unturned.

[robblok]

3 minutes ago, KiwiKiwi said:

 

And even when they've finished, they'll have to prosecute Thais. No good at all - probably what they'd call a 'victimless crime'.

 

If the viewers were foreigners, there'd be no stone left unturned.

Most of the people prosecuted by the Thai courts are Thais. So to suggest that the police is not going after Thais..  is a bit crazy to say the least. 

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

19 minutes ago, robblok said:

I think its too much work for them to find it out from line. They will have to communicate in English with line, wait for replies file all kinds of documents. I think its just too much work for them. Just think they don't want all this work as there are more profitable things to do. 

 

For political things, I think, there's probably some resistance and pushback from online providers outside Thailand when the Thai police or government come knocking with dodgy requests.

 

But in what would appear to be a pretty clear-cut case of child porn and even moreso rape, AFAIK, none of the international internet communication networks would be denying a law enforcement request for that.

 

Another possibility here, of course, is that there's someone or someones among the group members who has the power/influence to quietly quash the whole efforts to begin searching for the viewers.  I have no idea in this case, but it probably wouldn't be the first time.

 

 

Edited June 26, 2018 by TallGuyJohninBKK

[robblok]

1 minute ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

 

For political things, I think, there's probably some resistance and pushback from online providers outside Thailand when the Thai police or government come knocking with dodgy requests.

 

But in what would appear to be a pretty clear-cut case of child porn and even moreso rape, AFAIK, none of the international internet communication networks would be denying a law enforcement request for that.

 

Yes but even the online providers outside of Thailand want some good requests maybe a court order or something like that and all in English. Maybe its just too much work for them. I really think they find it too much trouble to get all the required documents, as national providers cave in easier and things can be in Thai. That is the only logical explanation I can give.

 

Someone said a HiSo in the mix.. even if this was true, they could just ignore his data and go after the rest. I don't really think that would stop them. 

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

Suffice to say, the non-pursuit of this would appear to be BIZARRE.

 

There are plenty of times here when I scratch my head and say, "I just don't understand this."

 

And this one probably has rocketed to the top of that list.

 

[KiwiKiwi]

18 minutes ago, robblok said:

Most of the people prosecuted by the Thai courts are Thais. So to suggest that the police is not going after Thais..  is a bit crazy to say the least. 

 

Numbers?

 

This is a crime of perversion. The likelihood of Thai police going after foreigners rather than Thais on the basis that 'Thais would not do that, whereas foreigners are known for it' is actually quite high.

 

Doubtless you have the numbers  to refute that suggestion?

 

 

Edited June 26, 2018 by KiwiKiwi

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

One thought that occurs to me is that LINE implemented end-to-end encryption on its messaging platform in the last couple years. So that might be an impediment in this instance.

 

However, in reading a 3rd party researchers review of LINE's encryption at least as it existed in 2017, it was apparently not all it was cracked up to be:

 

https://citizenlab.ca/2017/08/linesecurity/

 

Analysis of End-to-End Encryption in LINE

 

Quote

 

As University of New Mexico Professor and paper author Jedidiah Crandall says, the findings present two main issues:
 

“One is that a well-designed end-to-end encryption protocol should have the property that if both the sender and receiver delete the message, there should be no way to recover it even if their private keys and devices are compromised,” he says. “LINE does not have this property, and so deleting LINE messages does not give the assurances that it should.”  
 

This means there’s the possibility that even deleted messages could be retrieved by a third-party who has access to LINE’s servers, presenting a security threat.

 

 

[robblok]

13 minutes ago, KiwiKiwi said:

 

Numbers?

 

This is a crime of perversion. The likelihood of Thai police going after foreigners rather than Thais on the basis that 'Thais would not do that, whereas foreigners are known for it' is actually quite high.

 

Doubtless you have the numbers  to refute that suggestion?

 

 

Numbers, look at the Thai jails all full with Thais for all kinds of crimes the numbers don't lie to suggest that the Thai police does not go after Thais like you said is ridiculous. Plenty of Thai rapist are also in jail that is a crime of perversion too. So given your logic ( or should i say lack of logic) they should not be in jail too because Thais don't go after other Thais for crimes of perversion. 

[KiwiKiwi]

2 minutes ago, robblok said:

Numbers, look at the Thai jails all full with Thais for all kinds of crimes the numbers don't lie to suggest that the Thai police does not go after Thais like you said is ridiculous. Plenty of Thai rapist are also in jail that is a crime of perversion too. So given your logic ( or should i say lack of logic) they should not be in jail too because Thais don't go after other Thais for crimes of perversion. 

 

So no numbers then, just intuitions?

 

That's OK intuitions are useful, just not definitive.

 

 

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

Another more benign explanation, perhaps, could be that there is some legitimate technical or other reason why the Thai police can't at all, or can't easily, access the info they need to prosecute the viewers in this case.

 

They certainly would know what that reason is, but perhaps don't want to explain it in their public statements. Because, to do so would open the door to potentially all kinds of follow-on behavior that they might not like from people like democracy activists, mushroom pickers, Facebook likers etc. who might then turn to using the same method to avoid detection. And the police surely wouldn't want that.

 

[sanemax]

2 hours ago, Bluespunk said:

Yes.

 

Hence my post.

Your post doesnt make sense through  , because it wasnt "laziness" that stopped the Police tracking those people down, it was because they didnt break any laws

[jvs]

4 hours ago, robblok said:

You download the data when you watch something.. do you think things magically appear without data transfer ? Download does not mean save to your device. I find it a weak excuse from the police to do nothing.

I should have said what i  got fom he article that the people watched it live,streaming does use a lot of data and leaves traces on your pc or mobile but it does not download everything.I could be wrong .

[sanemax]

1 hour ago, KiwiKiwi said:

 

As I understand it, viewing porn, especially child porn is illegal in Thailand, no matter that the police say.

The single major problem is with these muppet police, is that whenever there is a case of the legendary Thai incompetence, people will  be unsure whether it is indeed incompetence or  more corruption.

This is the situation they are in because they are both incompetent and corrupt.

Som nam na. Effort brings its own reward.

I do think that its the possession of porn which is illegal , rather than just watching it .

   How could the Police prove in Court that a certain person was watching it ?

Unless their was some evidence ,(like in possession of)there would be no proof and the case would be dismissed .

[Bluespunk]

12 minutes ago, sanemax said:

Your post doesnt make sense through  , because it wasnt "laziness" that stopped the Police tracking those people down, it was because they didnt break any laws

Yeah right...dream on.

 

"now say they’ve given up and decided they did not break any law."

 

Gave up and then decided no crime.

Edited June 26, 2018 by Bluespunk

[sanemax]

Just now, Bluespunk said:

Yeah right...dream on.

Which laws did the viewers break then ?

[Bluespunk]

Just now, sanemax said:

Which laws did the viewers break then ?

I find that an even more difficult to believe someone would ask that, than someone saying women should watch what they wear because of rapists.

[sanemax]

Just now, Bluespunk said:

I find that an even more difficult to believe someone would ask that, than someone saying women should watch what they wear because of rapists.

We are trying to ascertain whether the Thai Police were correct when they stated that no laws have been broken by the viewers , if you feel that the Police were incorrect , then state the laws which were broken .

   If you cannot state the laws which were broken , we will have to accept what the police said and that you were wrong to label the RTP as lazy 

[Bluespunk]

11 minutes ago, sanemax said:

We are trying to ascertain whether the Thai Police were correct when they stated that no laws have been broken by the viewers , if you feel that the Police were incorrect , then state the laws which were broken .

   If you cannot state the laws which were broken , we will have to accept what the police said and that you were wrong to label the RTP as lazy 

Child rape I believe is a crime.

 

They gave up on finding these scum who were watching.

 

People who quite possibly have more than a passing interest in child rape.

 

Any proper police force would hunt down such filth to investigate this possibility.

 

The bib chose not to.

 

That is why they are lazy.

 

The other deserved comments I made are applied because they are too lazy to hunt down those scum watching child rape.

Edited June 26, 2018 by Bluespunk

[sanemax]

Just now, Bluespunk said:

Child rape I believe is a crime.

They gave up on finding these scum who were watching.

People who quite possibly have more than a passing interest in child rape.

Any proper police force would hunt down such filth to investigate this possibility.

The bib chose not to.

That is why they are lazy.

The other deserved comments I made are applied because they are too lazy to hunt down those scum watching child rape.

Child rape is indeed a crime and those people were arrested and prosecuted .

The RTP stated that the viewers didnt commit any crime in watching and thats why they didnt arrest them ,  the Police cannot arrest people if they havent broken any laws 

[Bluespunk]

1 minute ago, sanemax said:

Child rape is indeed a crime and those people were arrested and prosecuted .

The RTP stated that the viewers didnt commit any crime in watching and thats why they didnt arrest them ,  the Police cannot arrest people if they havent broken any laws 

Quote me:

"They gave up on finding these scum who were watching.

 

People who quite possibly have more than a passing interest in child rape.

 

Any proper police force would hunt down such filth to investigate this possibility.

 

The bib chose not to.

 

That is why they are lazy."

 

End quote

 

[sanemax]

1 minute ago, Bluespunk said:

Quote me:

"They gave up on finding these scum who were watching.

People who quite possibly have more than a passing interest in child rape.

Any proper police force would hunt down such filth to investigate this possibility.

The bib chose not to.

That is why they are lazy."

End quote

That would be further investigations though .

We are talking bout this crime and the reason why the viewers were not arrested and prosecuted for viewing this crime and thats because they broke no laws.

    Hopefully the Police will track the viewers down and investigate them for any other crimes that they may have committed .

  Those would be other crimes and issues and investigations though , now we are talking about this specific crime in the OP

[upu2]

5 hours ago, Just1Voice said:

How in the hell could ANY parent sell their toddler to someone like that?  That just boggles my mind. 

 

It just shows you the kind of people that exist in this world. Sick Mofo's if ever there was. They should find something to charge them with. They had child porn on their computer / phone whatever and that is illegal. Charge them as such give long, long jail sentences

[Bluespunk]

Just now, sanemax said:

That would be further investigations though .

We are talking bout this crime and the reason why the viewers were not arrested and prosecuted for viewing this crime and thats because they broke no laws.

    Hopefully the Police will track the viewers down and investigate them for any other crimes that they may have committed .

  Those would be other crimes and issues and investigations though , now we are talking about this specific crime in the OP

No, you are talking about a specific crime.

 

I've explained my comment to you in detail.

 

I've made it clear why they are lazy.

[Get Real]

5 hours ago, jvs said:

They watched it on Line,no download.

 

<deleted>! What! And pure shit! What are you talking about? Are you serious. Who in their right mind would like to look at such a thing? Only a totally braindead person would even try to defend such a heinous crime.

As for the verdict is a pure tradgedy of justice. This just tells everybody that if you see somebody getting raped or killed in the street. You can just stand there looking and don´t call for police. After that you just say that I just wanted to see what happened, and that you didn´t even think it was real. What way is humanity and the way of responsibility in the human mind going when we have lawyers and judges like this?

[KiwiKiwi]

46 minutes ago, sanemax said:

I do think that its the possession of porn which is illegal , rather than just watching it .

   How could the Police prove in Court that a certain person was watching it ?

Unless their was some evidence ,(like in possession of)there would be no proof and the case would be dismissed .

 

It is a fact of digital life that you cannot watch any digital content without downloading it or otherwise copying it (automatically or not) to your device, in other words, any browser (www or Line or whatever) downloads content to a cache file then displays it either when finished or while in progress. In still other words you copy to memory then watch what you have copied (whether full file or partial file).

 

Having the content in your device's memory for however short a time represents ownership or authorised viewing rights consistent with ownership, and is assumed not to be accidental or automatic - hence ownership for these purposes is defined.. It is true that proof may beyond most Thais, but one would expect the police to have the appropriate skill levels available - forensics is, after all, their business. Allegedly, though after Koh Tao I'm not sure many people would assume them to be so.

 

Anyway, the point is that downloading or streaming is assumed to be synonymous with ownership in any technologically competent country. Which means that (as another poster rightly pointed out), either the police cannot identify users and don't want to admit it for reasons of saving face or they can identify them but have some other reason not to prosecute. There may be more convoluted approaches to viewing files, but ultimately, ownership (for these purposes) is assumed where a file or traces of a file can be found on a device.

 

I can't see any alternative explanation.

 

Edited June 26, 2018 by KiwiKiwi

[KiwiKiwi]

2 minutes ago, Get Real said:

<deleted>! What! And pure shit! What are you talking about? Are you serious. Who in their right mind would like to look at such a thing? Only a totally braindead person would even try to defend such a heinous crime.

As for the verdict is a pure tradgedy of justice. This just tells everybody that if you see somebody getting raped or killed in the street. You can just stand there looking and don´t call for police. After that you just say that I just wanted to see what happened, and that you didn´t even think it was real. What way is humanity and the way of responsibility in the human mind going when we have lawyers and judges like this?

 

Any file which is viewed locally (whether streamed or not) is doewnloaded eiethr in full or in segments before viewing is possible. So far as I am aware.

[sanemax]

4 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

No, you are talking about a specific crime.

I've explained my comment to you in detail.

I've made it clear why they are lazy.

We are talking about why the viewers were not prosecuted in this case .

They were not prosecuted in this case because they broke no laws regarding this case .

  Whether they may have or may not have committed other crimes unrelated to this case is besides the point .