• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Barbi doll with a "hidden" cam

Cainkane1

Philosopher
Cainkane1
Joined
Jul 16, 2005
Messages
9,011
Location
The great American southeast
http://www.bing.com/search?q=barbie+doll+camera+boycott+urged&form=msnhed&GT1=36010

Ok some people say this could be a tool used by pedophiles. I guess it could but how is this different from any other cam? I wouldn't buy this not because of its potential misuse but because the average kid would have this doll ripped to bits before the end of a year.

Incidentally I don't see how they could call the cam hidden. There a big hole in Barbis neck thats very obvious.
 
Last edited:
Clinical psychologist Sally-Anne McCormack stated she was horrified the toy giant could come up with such a concept. While acknowledging it was intended to be fun, Ms McCormack said the doll was open to abuse. "I am calling for all Australians to boycott this product and to refuse to shop in any store that justifies selling this potentially pornographic tool," she stated.
Click to expand...
http://www.newsoxy.com/world/barbie-doll-camera-15532.html

What the hell is wrong with this woman? A camera is now a "potentially pornographic tool"?

Oh the stupid, it burns!
 
Cainkane1 said:
You can use anything to commit a crime. You can beat someone to death with a claw hammer but thats not what your supposed to do with it. Security cams in the home can be misused. Does this woman want to ban hidden video cameras?
Click to expand...
Seems to me she wants to ban all cameras, as any camera is a "potential pornographic tool".
 
What exactly are kids doing with Barbie that film footage of it would be considered pornography?!
 
TragicMonkey said:
What exactly are kids doing with Barbie that film footage of it would be considered pornography?!
Click to expand...

I think the pertinent question would be what exactly is Sally-Anne McCormack doing with Barbie dolls that film footage would be considered pornographic by her?
 
First of all the cam isn't hidden. Second of all what makes this cam different from any other? Does the lady think the kids will make dirty vidos of themselves? They can do that with a regular cam. If they do that then erase the video.
 
1. Dolls aren't something you typically spend time naked around. A bath toy would be entirely different.

2. If parents want pictures of their kids nude, they'll just take them. No need for a Barbie doll with a covert video camera.
 
Entertaining outrage notwithstanding, you can't get footage of naked children easily these days. It's certainly much easier to get it if you provide a child with a video camera (something many, surely most, children don't have). It's also, I'd suppose, considerably easier to get them to take and keep the camera if it looks like a doll, especially a doll so many children are indoctrinated encouraged to accept and own and perhaps 'trust'.

So it does work to facilitate pornographic images of children. It's also a doll, an innocent toy in innocent hands. The two aren't exclusive.

So, 'any camera is a potential pornographic tool' - but this one is considerably more so. If kids do use it to make inappropriate films, 'so delete them' - assuming the child has responsible adults to do that, although abuse of children is more likely to be either of vulnerable children where 'responsible' adults are not so responsible, or actually perpetrated by the adults you'd hope would delete the video. And yes, a claw hammer can be used to kill, but they don't often come packaged in a way that would encourage or facilitate their use in that way.

Her reaction to this product, if the reporting is accurate (such a small word, 'if'), is a little strident and perhaps hyperbolic - after all, it may only ever be a single child this pointless and ill-advised product is used to damage.

The reaction of some posters to this thread is, perhaps fairly, equally strident and hyperbolic - after all, we're all a little tired of do-gooders banging on about the children...

I suppose it's heartening, really, that an understanding of the actuality of child abuse is seemingly so rare. The toy isn't designed to hurt children, after all. Nor is the motor car - though we generally accept restrictions on car design (and use) that work to protect children.
 
Cainkane1 said:
First of all the cam isn't hidden. Second of all what makes this cam different from any other? Does the lady think the kids will make dirty vidos of themselves? They can do that with a regular cam. If they do that then erase the video.
Click to expand...
I have no idea exactly what's going through this woman's mind. Probably very little.

What she might be thinking is that a camera could be turned on and left in a bedroom by someone other than the child, hoping to catch site of the child changing.

And yes, they could do that with a regular camera too. But a regular camera might end up being left in a camera bag (or at the very least wouldn't be featured so prominently in a child's bedroom)

Not that I agree with the lady; I'm just trying to understand what her reasoning is.
 
jiggeryqua said:
Entertaining outrage notwithstanding, you can't get footage of naked children easily these days. It's certainly much easier to get it if you provide a child with a video camera (something many, surely most, children don't have). It's also, I'd suppose, considerably easier to get them to take and keep the camera if it looks like a doll, especially a doll so many children are indoctrinated encouraged to accept and own and perhaps 'trust'.

So it does work to facilitate pornographic images of children. It's also a doll, an innocent toy in innocent hands. The two aren't exclusive.

So, 'any camera is a potential pornographic tool' - but this one is considerably more so. If kids do use it to make inappropriate films, 'so delete them' - assuming the child has responsible adults to do that, although abuse of children is more likely to be either of vulnerable children where 'responsible' adults are not so responsible, or actually perpetrated by the adults you'd hope would delete the video. And yes, a claw hammer can be used to kill, but they don't often come packaged in a way that would encourage or facilitate their use in that way.

Her reaction to this product, if the reporting is accurate (such a small word, 'if'), is a little strident and perhaps hyperbolic - after all, it may only ever be a single child this pointless and ill-advised product is used to damage.

The reaction of some posters to this thread is, perhaps fairly, equally strident and hyperbolic - after all, we're all a little tired of do-gooders banging on about the children...

I suppose it's heartening, really, that an understanding of the actuality of child abuse is seemingly so rare. The toy isn't designed to hurt children, after all. Nor is the motor car - though we generally accept restrictions on car design (and use) that work to protect children.
Click to expand...
You do realize this camera is not remote controlled, don't you?

Or do you think children regularly engage in sex play, and having a camera around makes it likely they'll film it?
 
WildCat said:
You do realize this camera is not remote controlled, don't you?

Or do you think children regularly engage in sex play, and having a camera around makes it likely they'll film it?
Click to expand...

Yes, I appreciate that this camera is not remotely controlled. Do you think children never do things that are suggested to them by adults? Do you appreciate that having a camera around makes it more likely they'll film it?

Do you think children regularly engage in sex play? I find it disturbing that that was your first thought, rather than an adult suggesting or coercing such behaviour. I don't really find it disturbing, but if you want to resort to snide insinuation in place of dispassionate thought I'm quite prepared to pretend to be disturbed, so we're both playing the same game.
 
By the way, this is pretty much the EXACT reason why I'm leading the charge to ban lollipops and windowless vans.
 
... you can't get footage of naked children easily these days. It's certainly much easier to get it if you provide a child with a video camera ... it does work to facilitate pornographic images of children ...
Click to expand...
Is it safe to assume that people who make such claims are some kind of authorities on child pornography? Or would we be better off to assume that people making such claims have no authority to speak on the subject at all?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom