Originally Posted by RickyD
Originally Posted by Thegman
Quit arguing and go to the source.

https://meadows.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=3049

dodgefan seems to have it about right; it seems to be an actual problem, but not as widespread as the op's original article suggests.

Originally Posted by Thegman
Quit arguing and go to the source.

https://meadows.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=3049

dodgefan seems to have it about right; it seems to be an actual problem, but not as widespread as the op's original article suggests.

Washington, D.C. – U.S. Representatives Abigail Spanberger (D-VA-07) and Mark Meadows (R-NC-11) led the introduction of bipartisan, bicameral legislation that would help the Department of Defense (DoD) stop the use of its internet network to possess, procure, or produce child pornography – the END Network Abuse Act.

In the course of a national investigation—titled Project Flicker, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement identified over 5,000 individuals who subscribed to child pornography websites, including several DoD-affiliated individuals. This discovery prompted an inquiry by the Defense Criminal Investigative Service, which in turn identified hundreds of DoD-affiliated individuals as suspects in these child pornography cases. While only 20 percent of these individuals were investigated, of the cases investigated, several of the individuals were found to be using their government devices to download or share said pornographic material.

Show me where this article is different than what I posted. This is saying over 5,000 of government employees had subscribed to child porn sites, and of those hundreds of Dod affiliated employees were suspects but only 20% investigated (why??? because of who they are?) and of those some were downloading on govt devices and sharing with others. That is what the article I posted says, too.


Maybe I'm reading this incorrectly, but the middle paragraph above states:

1. "...identified 5000 -individuals- (does not specify "government employees") -including several- (as in a few, like 3-7) -affiliated- with DOD ( not direct employees of DOD)

2. Then, "identified hundreds of DoD -affiliated- individuals as suspects". 20% of suspects were investigated. 20% of "hundreds" is likely over 100. Of these, "several were found to be..." guilty. I assume several again means a few.

To be clear, I'm not trying to make excuses for anyone involved in any way with child pornography, and would go beyond castration as to suggesting they be eliminated entirely from the planet. That said, fortunately, this (real) problem doesn't seem to go as far as the original article suggests.