Talk:Operation Ore

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Operation Ore is within the scope of the Law Enforcement WikiProject. Please Join, Create, and Assess. Remember, the project aims for no vandalism and no conflict, if an article needs attention regarding vandalism or breaches of wikiquette, please add it to the article watch list.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.

Contents

[edit] NPOV dispute

  • Are any particular parts a particular problem? As far as I can see the only thing missing is a section on the successes of the operation, to balance the article with the section on "controversy and injustices". This would require someone with more detailed knowledge of the case than me to work on it though. Jdcooper 13:39, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] General comprehensibility

  • The "Origins" section of the article is very unclear for someone who doesn't already know about the case. All the information about the postman, how is that relevant? What actually happened? I'm adding a context tag to this article, because it needs clearer explanation. Jdcooper 13:45, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Making this article balanced.

That is really difficult, yes some suspects were guilty and maybe some children were saved from any further abuse or future abuse. But in order to get those few, thousands got hit for dodgy credit card transactions on the Landslide database. The fact is, more children have been put in danger by Operation Ore than been saved, thousands of chldren have been subjected to emotional and psychological abuse by the very system that is suppose to protect them.

Just to escape from what successes Operation Ore had, the facts clearly point out that every search and arrest made, was illegal. Also, so many lies have been told about Operation Ore, its hard to find what is true reporting, or hyped up media propaganda to create public hysteria.

[edit] Balance

It would be very helpful indeed, if someone was to arbitrate over the contents of this section of wikepedia, particulary as it involves contentious territory. As a researcher of this territory, and what is uncovered tends to conflict with the official statements, it clearly requires someone with the necessary skills and independance to mediate between what are likely to be highly conflicting accounts of what Operation Ore was.

To answer the postman issue, it will seem strange to many, as the media in general, attributed Operation Avalanche, the US operation which spawned Operation Ore, to the FBI. The FBI had been called in twice by Landslide in relation to illicit websites using the Landslide payment systems, however the investigations were not hostile and were shelved.

USPIS, the US Postal Inspection Service, quite independantly started an undercover investigation into Landslide, and at one time their website carried an article correcting the fact that the operation had been credited to the FBI. Although the FBI were involved, the investigation was initially USPIS with assistance from Dallas police.

I don't know who put up the bulk of the article, I would like to contribute indirectly to content, but as the research evidences issues that run in such contention with the public story, both in the US and the UK, it does require a moderator in order to ensure accuracy, neutrallity and appropriate definition are reflected in the content. Any volunteers from outside the UK?

As I found myself adding an entry to this section only for it to be altered by what I was advised was the National Crime Squad (who ran Operation Ore), it would perhaps be appropriate to 'scrub' this entry entirely until such time as someone steps forward to mediate between what are highly conflicting versions of what Operation Ore was.

[edit] Moved from main page

The following content has been moved from the main page until such a time as it is made NPOV. This would require as least some opposing viewpoint (i.e. That Operation Ore is allright, it saved a million orphans from depraved sexual abuse and handed out apple pie afterwards.) The content below is POV not because it's wrong, that would be something else. I'm also not saying the content below is factually correct. Anyway... brenneman(t)(c) 01:20, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Controversy

Operation Ore has also been called a modern day witch-hunt (labelled as such by Pete Townshend himself), a 21st century inquisition and the 'largest miscarriage of justice in UK history'. Detractors of the course of justice taken in regard to Operation Ore cite incidents of faulty intelligence, identity theft, accidental click-through caches, and unsolicited spam as major factors that lead to some people being falsely accused.

On June 21, 2005 an article appeared in PC Pro which revealed that many of the alleged offenders were innocent.

“The most critical computer evidence produced in Operation Ore, I have found, was flawed,” says Duncan Campbell, an expert witness in the defence of Operation Ore suspects. “The mistakes meant huge quantities of police, technical and social work resources were misdirected to some futile and ill-founded investigations. But the worse result was damage to innocent lives, and the welfare of families and children.”

The article also claimed that prosecutions have centred on what's been claimed in court to be the front page of an adult website, which prosecutors said was dominated by a direct link to child pornography. New evidence revealed in the PC Pro article shows that many subscribers could not have accessed the alleged child porn page, while US officials had only seen a link to a child porn site on one occasion.

On 31/08/2005, two complaints containing serious criminal allegations against the conduct of senior operatives of the National Crime Squad in relation to Operation Ore were upheld on appeal at the Independant Police Complaints Commission.


[edit] Child Porn Banner

Operation Ore was launched with considerable fanfare in UK media and BBC broadcasts showed police computers showing a 'click here child porn' banner, and a video capture of this part of the page was used in Operation Ore trials in court.

The inference was clearly, that visitors to the Landslide website, knew that child pornography was being offered. This issue is a point of contention. A public archive in San Francisco captures websites around the Internet and therefore provides an evidential resource. The screen shot used in UK courts was a blow up of what matched the bottom of the Landslide AVS page.

The archived version shows that the banner location is is way down the bottom of the AVS page, and the banner does not appear as this was part of a third party rotating banner system controlled via another domain.

[edit] AVS vs KEYZ

The assertion was that avs was adult, but those who had used the Landslide keyz payment system were suspected of downloading child pornography. This provides further contentions, as unlike AVS where a range of websites can be accessed for a single payment, keyz was a per site payment system, there was no menu of websites, and there was evidence the 'click here' banner wasn't present on keyz.

Again this is an issue that can be explored on the public archives via the wayback machine in San Francisco. Users could go to a keyz menu, however, this did not provide site access. The menu allowed subscribers to check their account status, however, the menu would have been principally used for webmasters to set up keyz accounts.

[edit] Keyz subscriptions

Any keyz or avs signups, recorded the referring site in the client data. It was therefore possible to discern which web sites the Landslide data had charged credit cards against. As again, the archives and other caches on the Internet confirm, the majority of web sites were entirely lawful. This is another point of contention.

Jim Gamble, now deputy director general of the National Crime Squad said to a government enquiry in 1999 towards 7,000 people in the UK sat at their computers and accessed child abuse websites

As only a minority of the websites contained underage imagery, and the bulk of it did not involve child abuse, this point is in contention.

Trevor Pearce, now director general of the National Crime Squad, said to the government This operation started when, in 2001, the details of 7,272 British suspects who had accessed child abuse images on a US website with their credit cards were passed to UK authorities. Operation ORE subsequently became the largest ever single investigation into online activity of this nature.

7,272 was the total number of credit card identities, which became 6,500 traceable identities. However, to suggest the entire list of subscriptions, to what was mainly an adult payment gateway used by legitimate sites, represented suspects, is a point of contention.

[edit] Public safety

That National Crime Squad alleged that the Landslide subscriber list represented a list of people who were a danger to children, and stated the list was broken up to classify the risk whereby people with responsibility or access to children were the most dangerous.

Firstly, the presumption that those who had illicit imagery represent a threat to children, particularly in the context of Landslide, is not supported by any credible research, and this very point was made in answer to this very question in parliament.

Secondly, as previously asserted, there was no evidence to suggest that most Landslide subscribers had ever seen contentious age imagery.

Operation Ore in Scotland is complete, and not a single Landslide subscriber was charged with child abuse. It has been stated that people have been charged in other parts of the UK, however the number has not been stated, and if it was stated, it would be necessary to qualify if these were Landslide subscribers, as images were investigated and that is of course quite a seperate issue.

[edit] Witch-hunt

The information used, and particularly the emotive and leading nature of the terms used, created a frenzy and a full blown 21st century witch-hunt ensued.

The IWF (Internet Watch Foundation) is a reporting mechanism that works with the police in relation to websites reported as hosting contentious age imagery.

You will notice in the IWF news, 'Operation Ore, a worldwide hunt for online perverts', 'hunted down', 'brought to justice'. These are far from neutral terms. A pedophile refers to people that are attracted to young children. That is a mental state and as such is not a crime. Further, the law currently in the UK, classifies any imagery deemed to be under 18 and indecent in a court as illegal, the classification applied is therefore not just emotive and misleading, it is false.

[edit] Incitement

When the Landslide subscriber data related to one of the 12 websites (out of an estimated 5,700)where the police had evidence the sites were illegal, despite no imagery of these sites being evidence from forensic examinations, people were charged with incitement. The Landslide subscriber record was used as the main evidence, though banners and imagery in relation to the sites were shown to the juries. 12% of the credit cards involved were reported stolen before Operation Ore had even started, and only a minority of fraud is actually reported. A month before Landslide was raided, by USPIS, Dallas Police, the FBI and Microsoft, the company had ceased charging anyone, as the merchant account had been terminated through excessive chargebacks, highly indicative of credit card fraud. AVS systems were rife with credit card fraud, and Landslide had been investigated for such fraud.

===transfer=== I fully concur. I had hoped some posting would pull an auditor into play. I don't know how it is resolved when there are two conflicting versions of events, and the official story is in contention. There are a considerable number of additional points of considerable significance in contention, however, it is perhaps appropriate to pause, until if an when, these contentions can be arbitrated. I am not remotely an author, nor do I have any wikepedia expertise. I have taken a former hint to include sources that information can be verified on both sides of the contention. If these are issues that can be resolved, I would be grateful for help.

Oh, and please sign your edits using ~~~~~, thanks.
brenneman(t)(c) 01:20, 9 September 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Pete Townshend

Was he actually arrested? This entry makes him sound guilty but his wiki page (Pete Townshend) tells a different story, should this entry here be reworded? SkaTroma 19:32, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Just look at it this way, no matter what he did or his intentions, if he wasn't rich as a mint he'd be sitting in prison right now. --DanielCD 16:29, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
well that is probably true, but doesnt resolve the question about the wording of the article. SkaTroma 01:14, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Townshend was arrested. See news story linked at the end. Townshend admitted guilt and was cautioned. lmno 14:17, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Despite appearances to the contrary given by the article on him, Pete Townshend was arrested and cautioned for sexual offences against children. He was offered and - presumably after legal advice - accepted a police caution, which - whilst apparently an alien concept to US citizens - is a formal admission of guilt, accepted as such by the police, courts, probation service, social services, etc. Townshend is currently a "registered sex offender" (which is shorthand for "subject to the notification requirements of Part 2 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003". The "fact" that Townshend accessed child pornography sites "for research" is (possibly) relevant to the biographical section of Townshend (which has been almost totally whitewashed of any reference to Townshend's criminal behaviour, whilst Gary Glitter, who committed the same offence(s) is listed in Category:Convicted child sex offenders) but it is utterly irrelevant to an article on Operation Ore. How encyclopaedic and unbiased/neutral is Wikipedia? Wiki-is-truth 06:39, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

It's utterly irrelevant? Townshend was caught up in the operation because he was doing research on the subject; the story was widely covered in news and print media, perhaps event to as great an extent than the entire operation iteself, due to his stature as a public figure. Almost every article you'll find on Operation Ore on, say, the BBC World News web site mentions Townshend, and the specific fact that he viewed a child porn web site for research purposes is brought up over and over again as an integral part of the subject. Here is one example; note the characterisation here: "Operation Ore has given police direct leads on 250,000 suspected internet paedophiles worldwide, including The Who's Pete Townshend, who insists he was merely researching the subject." Same with CNN. This fact has also been present in this Wikipedia article for quite a long time, and its inclusion has not been disputed until you showed up.
Given that you're brand-new at editing the encyclopedia, and you seem to be editing the encyclopedia for the single purpose of stirring up this issue of Pete Townshend and Operation Ore, I'll give you some slack for not understanding how Wikipedia works, or what information is deemed to be worthy of inclusion. But as someone who's been here a long time and has many thousands of edits to their name, I assure you that this is the kind of information that belongs here. Please review Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:Verifiability, two cornerstones of Wikipedia's content policies to help you further understand. Also, if you want to be taken seriously, don't write stuff like this. Nobody around here wants to work with an editor whose first order of business is to insult the project.
Leave the information in the article. It belongs here. It's part of the story and it's part of the reporting of the story as it unfolded. -/- Warren 07:56, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  • 'Townshend was caught up in the operation because he was doing research on the subject: Townshend was "caught up" in the operation because he had sought out (an offence under English law), paid for (an offence under English law) and viewed (his own words) child pornography. He did exactly the same things as Gary Glitter, yet his "motivation" appears to redeem the man. If research into "child abuse" included prowling the streets of London for underage prostitutes, would that similarly redeem the offender? 'I'll give you some slack for not understanding how Wikipedia works I do not need any slack from people whose sole purpose appears to be the minimisation of sexual offences against children where those sexual offences are committed by people they approve of, but where the same sexual offences can condemn other less attractive people to a life of "disgrace". I know how Wikipedia works. People who have a partisan approach to the facts use Wikipedia content polices so that Wikipedia presents the facts in whatever light suits their bias. Wiki-is-truth 11:30, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
You're going to have to accept the criticism. If you don't want to be criticised for your low-quality, opinion-driven contributions to the encyclopedia, don't touch the edit button. It'll save you a lot of grief. Leave the encyclopedia-building to people who care about following Wikipedia's content poicies, which insist that our opinions as editors don't matter anywhere near as much as the statements made by the sources we use. This isn't the place for you to express your opinions, or for you to try and game the system by changing the wording to make someone sound more vile than our cited sources do. You simply can NOT claim that you "know how Wikipedia works" until you absorb and accept that fact. Again, I encourage you to read the policy pages I linked above. -/- Warren 13:46, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I would accept the criticism if there were any. My "opinions" are entirely absent here - it is your opinions that are the problem. My cited sources? I haven't cited any sources, and nor have you - at least not reliable ones. It is entirely fine for Townshend to publish on his own website that he was committing crimes simply for "research purposes", but that does not make his self-opinion count as a valid reference that outweighs... say... the law. English law classes Townshend as a sex offender. People do not become sex offenders by dint of "research". There is a "legitimate reason" defence to child porn offences under English law, and Townshend was not able to avail himself of them. That means, no matter how loudly he or you protest, he has committed the offences. How about some sources? Minimisation: UK Home Office - Sex offenders typically deny both the full extent of their sexually deviant behaviour and the risk they pose of re-offending in the future (Nichols & Molinder, 1984). Breaking down denial is seen as an important pre requisite for change as offenders need to admit to their deviant behaviour in order for them to take responsibility for their offending. Without a clear understanding of what the offending behaviour involves the offender cannot develop the skills necessary to prevent re-offending. Townshend's criminal activity: Guardian article of 8 May 2003 quoting Scotland Yard: Inciting others to distribute these images leads to young children being seriously sexually assaulted to meet the growing demands of the internet customer. It is not a defence to access these images for research or out of curiosity. Please point out where my opinion comes into that, and where it says that Townshend was actually doing nothing wrong since it was for "research" purposes. Wiki-is-truth 15:05, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  • As to your opinions being stated here rather than mine, how about Almost every article you'll find on Operation Ore on, say, the BBC World News web site mentions Townshend, and the specific fact that he viewed a child porn web site for research purposes is brought up over and over again as an integral part of the subject(see above) in which Townshend's own minimisation of sexual offending is presented by you as "fact" when what it is in reality is a claim by Townshend that serves to present his offending behaviour in a less negative light, otherwise known as minimisation. Wiki-is-truth 15:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I must offer my apologies - I have belatedly realised that you think I object to the "for research" claim. I am quite happy to accept that Townshend claimed that he committed serious criminal offences for research. What I do not accept is that Townshend's should offered a "way out" of the severity of his behaviour by so doing. In particular, I do not accept that Wikipedia should perpetuate this let out, at least while Gary Glitter, who committed some of the same offences, is described here as a "disgraced English rock and pop singer and songwriter and a convicted paedophile". By virtue of the police's decision to offer Townshend a caution rather than press charges, and the unsurprising ignorance of journalists subsequently, Townshend has managed to avoid tags such this "disgraced" and "paedophile". That is normally called having double standards. 205.212.73.90 16:12, 2 January 2007 (UTC) Oh, I thought I had signed in. Just in it is something else you are unable to realise, the comment by 205.212.73.90 was in fact Wiki-is-truth 16:15, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Townshend's case is much different to that of Gary Glitter. Police investigation found thousands of child porn pictures on Glitter's computer, but none on Townshend's at all. Since there was no evidence for prosecution, Townshend was not charged. Pkeets 04:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Townshend denies the seriousness of his wrongdoing

The police found no evidence that Townshend possessed indecent photographs of children. However, they offered him the option of being charged with an offence and going through with a court trial, OR accepting a caution, which - from the police's statement - appears to have been for the offence of inciting distribution of indecent photographs of children. The police statement read (Guardian, 8 May 2003): Inciting others to distribute these images leads to young children being seriously sexually assaulted to meet the growing demands of the internet customer. It is not a defence to access these images for research or out of curiosity. Townshend himself admitted paying for access to a child porn website.

However, Townshend was told by the police that Landslide was a child porn website. Looking at his public statements, it's clear he never denied accessing the site; however, he said he saw no child porn there. Reconstruction of the site appears to show this is because there was none.Pkeets 04:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Townshend was unable to rely on the legitimate reason defence, which might arguably have been available to a charge of inciting distribution. This means the only people Townshend could convince he was doing "Research" were himself and those ignorant of or too stupid to understand English law. If Townshend truly believed himself to be innocent of the charges, he should not have accepted a caution; the normal thing to do is opt for trial and trust in the jury. Quoting Townshend as saying he was doing research is acceptable; repeating it as if it were fact is not acceptable - it is not true, it is not supported by the sources (that is, sources other than Townshend's own mouth), and it is POV. I am not the one "gaming the system" here... Wiki-is-truth 04:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Check Townshend's public statements. He admitted accessing the Landslide website, but said he saw no child porn, consistent with current reconstructions that indicate there was likely none there.Pkeets 03:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category

Why is this category added: Category:Wrongful convictions. I didn't see anything about wrongful convictions in the article. --DanielCD 16:29, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

  • The phrase "wrongful convictions" probably means "flawed convictions". But whether the people were actually guilty is not the issue here, legal process was undermined in this case, as is detailed in the article, and thats why that category is added. Jdcooper 01:19, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removals and controversy section

Why was the controversy section removed? Should we incorporate it into the article? No one seems to have worked on this for a long time. If no one objects I may decide to reinsert the controversy section and have a look at it. Skinnyweed 23:28, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, it may be wise to get consensus to do so here, then reinsert it. Have the issues above been addressed? --LV (Dark Mark) 01:30, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Use of Survivors Swindon as a reference is itself controversial

The "reference" to the Survivors Swindon site ([1]) is inappropriate; the page does not detail the story in any way whatsoever and contains no reliable reports. Wiki-is-truth 10:29, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] References

I'd like to fix a bad link in the References section of this page, but when I try to edit it, I just see something that might be Javascript. How do I get to the references to fix the link?

You have to go to where the reference is located in the text. Footnotes 1 and 2 are in the intro and 3 (which I suspect is the one you'd like to fix) is in Origins. I'd direct you to WP:FN for instructions on syntax, but you can see examples in the intro text. When you're ready to edit, edit the Origins section and place the correct reference between the <ref> </ref> tags. Hoof Hearted 21:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
This appears to be the text you need:

<ref name="ORE">"[http://www.survivorsswindon.com/ore.htm OPERATION ORE: THE LARGEST UK PAEDOPHILE INVESTIGATION]", Survivors Swindon, URL accessed on 14 June 2006.</ref>

Hoof Hearted 21:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. It was actually The Times article that had a bad link, but since I see the disagreement about the Swindon reference, I changed the one you've posted to the BBC News, which reported the same figures. Presumably that will be seen as more neutral and reliable. Pkeets 06:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Reading up a ways, I see the question about the Controversy section. From reading the references, this seems to be a serious challenge working its way through the courts, so the article has a very slanted POV without discussion of it. Therefore, I'm for retaining the Controversy section in the interest of neutrality. Pkeets 23:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Reading a bit more on this, I notice that media references are now saying Landslide "allegedly" advertised and sold child porn, since an independent expert's reconstruction of the site showed no child porn ads and very little of what might be questionable sites and legal action is in process. Does anyone have an opinion of whether the wording of this article should be changed to match? In other words, "alleged to sell child porn," etc. Pkeets 00:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../o/p/e/Talk%7EOperation_Ore_efe0.html"