In fact this is Ghelardini himself in the December of 2010 confirming that Facebook had just banned one of his other accounts:
My alter-ego Paul Constatin banned! Ahahah!! I don‘t care a rap! Problem is for my friends not for me because I have an arkiv with + of 10.000 pthc pics and 1000 vids! My mails no one, neither God, can delete! Fuck asshole Facebook ad idiots snakes fake friends!
If Facebook had denounced him to the police earlier could they have saved some poor children from further abuse? For police are more likely to prioritise complaints from them than they are from the likes of me. But we already know from the police themselves of Facebook’s history of simply banning the accounts of child pornography traders on its site without bothering to tell the cops about them. In August of 2010, Australian police revealed that Facebook repeatedly and over time failed to tell the authorities of a worldwide child porn swapping ring which was operating on its site in the first half of that year. That ring, which by police estimates had dozens of members, was led by 45-year-old repeat offender Ian Green from England, now serving (or possibly by now, released early from) a paltry four year sentence for his leading role in sharing around 100,000 images of child pornography, some of which he had produced himself. Paedophiles from America, South Africa, Switzerland, Germany, Canada, and Australia were also involved, and indeed one Australian suspect told police that he had sent up to 10 different messages to Facebook warning them of the ring, all of which were ignored. Whether that was just the false pleadings of one captured paedophile hoping for mitigation or not is a moot point as what is beyond all doubt is that Facebook were indeed aware that dozens of paedophiles were being invited by one ringleader into numerous private groups in which to share images of children being sexually exploited and tortured, and that the company responded by merely deleting those groups and the accounts of the paedos themselves, which police later revealed were being replaced within hours anyway by new groups and profiles operated by the same individuals. Two children in Britain were being actively sexually abused by members of this same ring, and may have carried on being so had not the Australian police discovered what was going on and began an investigation that eventually led to their rescue.
A statement released by Neil Gaughan, the director of the Australian Federal Police, said: ‘We are aware that Facebook knew of the existence of these pages and even went so far as to remove the profiles,’ and that: ‘Facebook deactivated the online accounts of the initial suspects but there were indications that within hours the groups were re-forming again.’ He went on to confirm that at no time did Facebook think that a large paedophile ring operating on its site was important enough to inform the police of. To try and mitigate the public relations damage caused by this, Facebook head of security Joe Sullivan made the disingenuous statement that the website ‘immediately took action once alerted to the offensive activity and was working with police.’ If he’d been more honest he would have said that the only action which the website had taken when first it was aware of the offensive activity was to uselessly close down the accounts of the offenders. It was only when the police contacted Facebook to inform them that they knew as to what was going on that they began cooperating with the cops and taking the ‘action’ Mr Sullivan was no doubt referring to. Mr Sullivan then went on to claim that Facebook would report illegal content quicker to the Australian police in the future. This was in August of 2010 but by the March of 2011 Australian police had cause to complain that by deleting far too quickly the profiles of the paedophiles they report to the police before the police have actually had time to look at them, Facebook was making it difficult to investigate the child pornography networks which operate on its site. Once deleted, the profiles and groups can only then be accessed by police forces outside of the United States, where Facebook is headquartered, by jumping through all sorts of legal hoops to get Facebook to respond. The company responded to this complaint by stating that it would not change its policy and was going to just keep on deleting the profiles of offenders rather than giving the police outside of America the time to investigate them that they need to have.
Delete, delete, delete is all that Facebook seems to want to do about the psychopaths and the child molesters which use its site. Delete, delete, delete and keep them off for a few hours or less until they bother themselves to make new accounts and begin the cycle all over again. No wonder they find the website so attractive to them. Children are being sexually abused by Facebook users and the images being put up on the site but what is most important to Facebook is having these images deleted for a few hours at a time, even more important to them than having the police look at them. Delete a few billion dollars off its worth for being a paedophile’s paradise and they’ll soon find a better way to deal with things.
Facebook want to be able to say that they are practicing a zero-tolerance policy on child pornography and that profiles of offenders will be deleted straight away once they become aware of them (of course never mentioning that all of these same offenders in question are just simply making new accounts and getting back on with it). They clearly have no respect for the needs of the people who are actually working to try and convict the abusers of children; they just have decided among themselves that being able to say that they have a policy of instant deletion of the accounts of child pornography swappers is the best thing for their public image. Or in the words of Grant Edwards, the Australian police officer who raised the subject, ‘Facebook is brand-protecting.’ To this giant corporation image is everything.
Image is indeed everything and when Fox News in the October of 2010 confronted two top Facebook executives with evidence of the rampant child pornography swapping that is taking place daily on its site, truth seemed to take a backseat to image. The two executives – company spokesman Simon Axten along with Joe Sullivan – were shown how freely and openly the child pornography was being traded on Facebook. According to the Foxnews.com report Sullivan was ‘dumbfounded, unaware of and unable to explain the extremely graphic content on the site.’ This from the report:
Then, when asked to click on the profile of any of the group’s members, the executives were ushered into a subculture dedicated to using Facebook to traffic child pornography and to target and interact with children.
At this point, there was silence for nearly a full minute, except for the sound of furious, rapid typing. Axten and Sullivan sounded stunned, unable to explain why this happened and how their filters could have failed.
Which is funny, because as we know, Paolo Ghelardini had been using the website to openly share his child sex abuse materials with other paedophiles from the January of 2010, and Facebook had certainly been aware of his presence as they had been banning his accounts. This was confirmed to me by two separate women who had been reporting the paedophiles – including Ghelardini – to Facebook itself from June of that year. One of them even let me see email discussions from that summer of 2010 which prove that Ghelardini was active on Facebook and had gone through a number of profiles on the website. So if Facebook were aware of that one paedophile and had saw even one of his profiles – and all evidence says that indeed they most certainly had – then they had also saw that he was linked into a disturbingly large number of other paedophiles also sharing child sex abuse images on Facebook. These same women also told me that many of the other paedophiles they observed in that same network were regularly coming and going with new accounts after having had their previous ones banned.
‘How many were involved then at that time in the same web Ghelardini was a part of?’ I emailed one of these women.
‘There were/are thousands, I couldn't say how many only that when you find one you will find unlimited numbers,’ was the reply.
So either Joe Sullivan was straight-out lying when he said that he was unaware in October 2010 of the large and public child porn swapping network on Facebook – and so saving having to answer difficult questions about why he and his team hadn’t been able to stop it - or else the re
st of the Facebook security and administration teams had somehow forgotten to mention to their boss the trifling matter of a thousands strong international network of paedophiles on the site openly trading in highly illegal material involving children. Which one of these scenarios seems more likely to be true?
Also in October of 2010, the New Zealand Department of Internal Affairs began what turned into a huge international police operation aimed at a child pornography trading ring existing on Facebook. By May 2012 this was reported to have netted 55 suspects in numerous countries, and led to the rescue of 12 children from their abusers. According to the NZ Department of Internal Affairs, when they contacted Facebook at the beginning of that operation in October the company claimed that it was unaware of the extent of the child porn trading on its website. But how could Facebook have been unaware of this at two different points in October when on at least one of those occasions they had been made aware of it? When the New Zealand authorities made them aware of it that month had they already forgotten about whenever Fox News had contacted them to tell them about it? Or maybe it was the New Zealanders that contacted them first about it and that when Fox News got to speak to them regarding the issue the whole thing had just slipped their minds?
Image was everything for the Catholic Church too, and look how that has turned out.
Apart from all the child pornography trading and being a meeting place for the planet’s paedophiles, the Facebook system of ridiculously easy, unchecked signups is also enabling sexual predators to actively prey on the children who use the site. In the anti-paedo activist group I was a part of we made up fake profiles with child’s art and interests on view so as to appear as children ourselves, this to ensnare the paedophiles with and get them to talk to us, with the conversations then being forwarded on to the cops. The paedophiles, though, in a horrible reversal of this, are themselves posing as children but to ensnare real children with for the purposes of grooming them for sexual exploitation.
It would appear that this is a popular tactic for paedophiles on the site. Since the beginning of this year of 2012 I have been twice-weekly searching through Google News for any news items about paedos who have been caught using fake identities on Facebook with which to sexually groom children with, and so far, as of late November, I have found media relating to 51 different arrests or court cases this year alone involving over one thousand children being targeted on Facebook by paedophiles who have made up fake identities so as to prey on them for either naked photographs and videos of themselves, or for actual real life meetings. Bear in mind that these are only the cases of which I am aware of that have come to court this year in the English-speaking world alone, and that the total number of paedophiles on the site using fake accounts with which to groom children is likely to be drastically higher.
The modus operandi here of the paedophile is most usually to pose as either a teenage boy (sometimes as a celebrity teen like the singer Justin Bieber, whose identity it seems is a popular choice for the predators to assume); a teenage girl or a sexy older woman such as a porn star; or as a talent scout for a modelling agency, and then befriend children on the site and try to scam them into sending out pornographic images of themselves. Sometimes they will even try and incite them into meeting with them, and sometimes in that they are successful. A number of the cases have seen a single predator victimise hundreds of children via the use of false identities. Christopher Gunn, 31 and of Montgomery, Alabama, pleaded guilty in August of this year to using false identities on Facebook and elsewhere to scam and coerce hundreds of girls aged 9 to 16 from all over the world into sending him pornographic images of themselves. Gunn used numerous identities on Facebook alone to groom the children with, including ‘Tyler Mielke,’ ‘Jason Lempke,’ and ‘C.J. Harper;’ along with a number of others (including posing as Justin Bieber). He played what was called the ‘New kid ruse,’ pretending to the girls whom he targeted on the site to be a boy who had just moved into their area and who was seeking new friends. Once he established contact with them he would lure them into intimate conversations and get them to divulge personal details about themselves such as their bra size and any sexual experiences they may have had. Any that did divulge those secrets to him he would then threaten that he would paste those details everywhere unless they sent him pornographic images of themselves, or appeared on webcam touching themselves for him. This went on from 2009 until his eventual arrest in 2012.
34-year-old Jamy Church of Sulphur, Louisiana, was sentenced this April to 24 years in prison for posing on Facebook as numerous teenage girls and getting boys aged from 13 to 16 to send to those fake profiles videos of themselves masturbating. He was known to have victimised over 50 different boys in this way in a two year period. Shiraz Nariman, 42 and from Toronto, used Facebook, MSN Messenger, and a local social networking site to pose as a teenage boy to get young girls to send him pornographic videos of themselves. Mark Arthur, 31 and from Stockton, England, was jailed for six years at Teeside Crown Court this May for using eight different false identities on Facebook to lure children into meetings and into sending him pornographic images of themselves. Also in May, 25-year-old New York state teacher Timothy Bek got 30 years for using on Facebook the alias Sarah Grayson, a supposed 16-year-old girl, to incite numerous young teenage boys – some of whom he knew from school – into sending him nude photos and videos of themselves. One of the boys he induced into having sexual contact with an animal. And so the list goes on and on, and has been going on for a long time now. One case from 2010 that I discovered is that of 29-year-old Michael Williams from Cornwall, England, who was sentenced to four years prison time for operating at least eight different false identities on Facebook, MSN Messenger, and Bebo, and using them to entice hundreds of children into either providing him with pornographic material of themselves or into meeting with him. He admitted to grooming 460 victims in this way, but police believe that the real number may be close to 1000. As far back as 2007, when Facebook was still in its relative infancy with a ‘mere’ 42 million active accounts, New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo announced that his office was conducting an investigation into how paedophile predators were using the site to groom children with.
I myself - while posing as a child - have experience of being ‘groomed’ by Facebook’s paedophiles. All you have to do is to enter a page where they hang out and talk together, announce yourself as being an 11-year-old and they will pounce on you like hungry lions onto a wildebeest. Dozens of them will be crawling all over you within a short period of time, sending you messages and trying to entice you into getting them off. That’s how stupid, insane, and utterly deluded they are: believing in the first place that an 11-year-old girl really would be hanging out on Facebook pages dedicated to dirty old men discussing how ‘sexy’ 11-year-old girls are. One in particular I can recall well, he called himself ‘John Dalton’ and claimed that when he wasn’t busy being a firefighter and a professional bodybuilder he was a scout for a modelling agency which was seeking younger girls. He asked me about my stats, about what I was wearing, and if I liked to wear nighties. He told me that he needed me to measure myself for him to see if I was good material for the ‘modelling agency,’ then out of the blue he sent me a picture of what was very obviously a porn star’s penis and became very verbally lurid with it. At that I terminated the conversation but he soon came back posing as a 10-year-old ballerina who was ‘good friends’ with the ‘big and strong’ ‘John Dalton,’ who would, this little ballerina informed me, ‘take good care of me’ and not let anyone ever harm me should only I send him naked pictures of myself. What I did send were these two conversations on to the American policeman with whom I had established contact.
All that will come over to an adult as a somewhat lame and maybe even laughable attempt at grooming, but to a vulnerable and innocent child the falseness of it all may not have been so apparent. In August this year, one Indiana mother told a local news channel about how a paedophile using the obviously fake
name of ‘Dustin Bieger’ (you can see what he done there) had contacted her 10-year-old daughter on Facebook and convinced her that he was the young teenage boy in the profile picture which he was using. When the mother got suspicious and checked her daughter’s messages she discovered that the ‘boy’ was asking very funny questions for a child, not the least of which was, ‘Do you like older men?’, along with questioning the child as to whether she had ever touched a penis. The girl was very taken with this ‘Dustin’ and they had even set up a time and place at which they would meet, a meeting that was luckily enough prevented from happening because of the timely intervention of the mother. One activist has compared Facebook to ‘like having a school with 200 million kids in it and you’re not patrolling the halls or the washrooms to make sure no predators get in.’ Paedos must not be able to believe their luck at social networking sites. I have witnessed with my own eyes paedophiles on the site who were posing as children – as many in the open child porn web do – with real children on their friend lists. I have seen them collect pictures of children from the site and post them - along with the child’s personal details - onto paedo groups where they can be discussed and drooled over. Perhaps it would be harder for paedophiles to steal information and photographs if the Facebook profiles of under 16s were automatically locked down to all but the people on their friend lists; but that still brings us back to the problem of fake accounts.
Hackers on Steroids Page 18