Barbi doll with a "hidden" cam

jiggeryqua said:
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.
Click to expand...
What makes the Barbie camera any different than any other kid's camera, of which there are many on the market?
 
Fnord said:
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?
Click to expand...


See my remark about snide insinuations above, Fnord. I seem to recall you being temp banned from another forum for insinuating I must be a kiddyfiddler if I didn't wish violent retribution on a particular abuser in the news. Are you just trying to divert attention? Is there anything you want to share with us? Is it safe to assume you protest too much? (The answer to that last one is 'no, it's never safe to assume', by the way, nor is one assumption 'better' than another).

Try examining the claims, and arguing with them.

WildCat said:
What makes the Barbie camera any different than any other kid's camera, of which there are many on the market?
Click to expand...

Oh hush now, have we crossed swords in the past? Your name is vaguely familiar and it's the only reason I can see for your determination to create conflict here. What makes the Barbie camera different is that it's the subject of this thread...though I'd guess it's also the only one contained in a doll, and certainly the only one in a doll with such iconic branding.
 
jiggeryqua said:
See my remark about snide insinuations above, Fnord.
Click to expand...
I made no insinuation. I asked a question, and in doing so, I removed your name from the quote, just to protect you.
jiggeryqua said:
I seem to recall you being temp banned from another forum for insinuating I must be a kiddyfiddler if I didn't wish violent retribution on a particular abuser in the news.
Click to expand...
I seem to recall a lot of people getting banned for coming to your defense. Weren't you perma-banned from that website too?
jiggeryqua said:
Are you just trying to divert attention?
Click to expand...
No, I'm asking a legitimate question: Should we assume that people who make definitive claims regarding child pornography are authorities on the subject, or should we just ignore them?
jiggeryqua said:
Is there anything you want to share with us?
Click to expand...
Just this: You are over-reacting.
jiggeryqua said:
Is it safe to assume you protest too much?
Click to expand...
Of course the answer is "No", and I don't need you to tell me that.
jiggeryqua said:
Try examining the claims, and arguing with them.
Click to expand...
See below.
jiggeryqua said:
... the only reason I can see for your determination to create conflict here.
Click to expand...
I asked a question. YOU created the conflict.
jiggeryqua said:
What makes the Barbie camera different is that it's the subject of this thread...though I'd guess it's also the only one contained in a doll, and certainly the only one in a doll with such iconic branding.
Click to expand...
Unless you consider a Teddy Bear a doll ... the Teddy Bear Camera sells for about $250 US.

The term "Teddy Bear" has more history as an iconic brand than any Mattel product.
 
Last edited:
jiggeryqua said:
Oh hush now, have we crossed swords in the past? Your name is vaguely familiar and it's the only reason I can see for your determination to create conflict here.
Click to expand...
I have no idea who you are, and have no recollection of ever being on a forum with you other than this one.

jiggeryqua said:
What makes the Barbie camera different is that it's the subject of this thread...though I'd guess it's also the only one contained in a doll, and certainly the only one in a doll with such iconic branding.
Click to expand...
You completely miss the point. Every camera model is different from some other model camera, that's not the issue. You are claiming this particular camera will result in a higher incidence of child pornography. You have yet to cite/provide a rational basis for this claim. Will you be doing so?
 
Since an adult could say, "here, take this camera and _____," just as easily as they could say, "here, take this Barbie camera and ______," the only reasonable conclusion to draw from jiggeryqua's posts is that he/she did some things with Barbie dolls that he/she really didn't want recorded.
 
Last edited:
Fnord said:
I made no insinuation. I asked a question, and in doing so, I removed your name from the quote, just to protect you.

I seem to recall a lot of people getting banned for coming to your defense. Weren't you perma-banned from that website too?

No, I'm asking a legitimate question: Should we assume that people who make definitive claims regarding child pornography are authorities on the subject, or should we just ignore them?

Just this: You are over-reacting.

Of course the answer is "No", and I don't need you to tell me that.
See below.

I asked a question. YOU created the conflict.

Unless you consider a Teddy Bear a doll ... the Teddy Bear Camera sells for about $250 US.

The term "Teddy Bear" has more history as an iconic brand than any Mattel product.
Click to expand...

You made an insinuation, Fnord - by asking a loaded question. The two are not mutually exclusive, and let's not forget you have form...something you didn't deny, preferring to fling an unrelated fact in: yes, I was banned from that same forum, though only for a year and it was more of a suicide, and certainly wasn't anything to do with the current topic...or this forum (although you did write the events up as an unacknowledged self-serving fiction here in a thread on bullying, making out it had happened at high school). Thanks for bringing it up though.

Now, back to your snide insinuation, which you apparantly removed my name from - not that I wouldn't recognise my own quote, nor would it be difficult for someone following the thread to establish who said it. But how kind to 'protect' me...from what, exactly? Your attack? It didn't work very well.

Your 'legitimate' question shames you on this forum. An artificial choice, between two assumptions, has no place here. Sloppy work, Fnord.

The 'definitive' claims I made about child pornography were a singular claim - that it is more difficult now than it used to be to film children. At all. Let alone pornographically. The climate of awareness precludes it, Fnord - even innocent use of a camera around children provokes concern and interference. I can't take photographs of activity at the local youth club (while working there) without express permission from the parents. These are common facts, Fnord - if you want to extrapolate from my stating them that I have experience of trying to get footage of naked children, so be it. You already know how little I care for your opinion, but once again I am concerned that you try to whip up a witch hunt in place of reasoned debate.

The other 'claim', such as it was, was that it is easier to get footage of a child if you give the child a camera. I trust you're not actually disputing that? It hardly requires expert confirmation - but feel free to ignore it, if you assume you should.

When I suggest you tackle the argument rather than the arguer you respond 'see below'. I don't see anything of any consequence, could you point at where you address the arguments previously raised? All I see beneath is you pinching a line from a post responding to someone else (which is dishonest, Fnord) and again attacking the arguer rather than the argument. Further down you do address more recent points:

I don't consider a teddy bear a doll, as it happens, although it was only a guess that it was the only doll camera. I don't consider 'teddy bear' an iconic brand, and nor do you really, Fnord - it's a different sort of thing altogther to 'Barbie', and you know it. Did you also research whether the clinical psychologist Sally-Anne McCormack has expressed concern about the 'teddy cam'? No? Sloppy work, Fnord.

Strangely (well, not really...) you missed addressing the main point in that sentence: that the real difference between the Barbie-cam and other cameras for children is that this thread is about the Barbie-cam and a reaction to it. But it's no fun telling someone on the interweb they're right, eh?
 
WildCat said:
I have no idea who you are, and have no recollection of ever being on a forum with you other than this one.
Click to expand...

No, nor I - but I do vaguely recall you from this one.


WildCat said:
You completely miss the point. Every camera model is different from some other model camera, that's not the issue. You are claiming this particular camera will result in a higher incidence of child pornography. You have yet to cite/provide a rational basis for this claim. Will you be doing so?
Click to expand...

And you completely miss the point that I have made no such claim. I have dispassionately and rationally stated that it is so designed as to make the acquisition of child pornography easier, for reasons elaborated on that you have either missed completely or, as suggested above, have a personal reason for deliberately pretending not to have seen in order to generate conflict. There may be no personal basis for that conflict, I tend to forget who's limped away licking their wounds from some forum exchange - though plenty of people remember who sent them packing...

I think, while busy missing points, that you've also invented one of your own to ascribe to me - you appear to imagine that I'm defending Ms. McCormack's reaction. I am not, and have not - I'm mocking the irrational mockery of her in this thread, and exploring the issues dispassionately.
 
WildCat said:
You completely miss the point. Every camera model is different from some other model camera, that's not the issue. You are claiming this particular camera will result in a higher incidence of child pornography. You have yet to cite/provide a rational basis for this claim. Will you be doing so?
Click to expand...

Your point (the one to which my response provoked a claim that I had missed the point) was a question: "what makes the barbie cam different?'. My response was that it was the subject of this thread. Now you say every camera is different to every other camera, and that's not the issue. It was a moment ago - doesn't it suit you now you have an answer? Do you begin to see why I think is all about the conflict for you?
 
jiggeryqua said:
And you completely miss the point that I have made no such claim. I have dispassionately and rationally stated that it is so designed as to make the acquisition of child pornography easier, for reasons elaborated on that you have either missed completely or, as suggested above, have a personal reason for deliberately pretending not to have seen in order to generate conflict. There may be no personal basis for that conflict, I tend to forget who's limped away licking their wounds from some forum exchange - though plenty of people remember who sent them packing...

I think, while busy missing points, that you've also invented one of your own to ascribe to me - you appear to imagine that I'm defending Ms. McCormack's reaction. I am not, and have not - I'm mocking the irrational mockery of her in this thread, and exploring the issues dispassionately.
Click to expand...
Feel free to show how this camera makes child pornography easier. So far you haven't shown anything, you've just made claims.

Can you back up your claim?
 
WildCat said:
... You are claiming this particular camera will result in a higher incidence of child pornography. You have yet to cite/provide a rational basis for this claim. Will you be doing so?
Click to expand...

TraneWreck said:
Since an adult could say, "here, take this camera and _____," just as easily as they could say, "here, take this Barbie camera and ______," the only reasonable conclusion to draw from jiggeryqua's posts is that he/she did some things with Barbie dolls that he/she really didn't want recorded.
Click to expand...

WildCat said:
Feel free to show how this camera makes child pornography easier. So far you haven't shown anything, you've just made claims. Can you back up your claim?
Click to expand...

Now, now ... let's not insinuate anything! It may well be that Jiggy really has no idea what he's talking about.
 
jiggeryqua said:
No, nor I - but I do vaguely recall you from this one.




And you completely miss the point that I have made no such claim. I have dispassionately and rationally stated that it is so designed as to make the acquisition of child pornography easier, for reasons elaborated on that you have either missed completely or, as suggested above, have a personal reason for deliberately pretending not to have seen in order to generate conflict. There may be no personal basis for that conflict, I tend to forget who's limped away licking their wounds from some forum exchange - though plenty of people remember who sent them packing...

I think, while busy missing points, that you've also invented one of your own to ascribe to me - you appear to imagine that I'm defending Ms. McCormack's reaction. I am not, and have not - I'm mocking the irrational mockery of her in this thread, and exploring the issues dispassionately.
Click to expand...
I seriously doubt if this cam was ever intended to deliberately make it easier to make porn. It seems to me like a hidden cam in a room would be a better tool for this odious purpose. Kids playing with this doll would probably just take innocent pictures of whatever and put it aside when their attention was on something else.
 
Fnord said:
Now, now ... let's not insinuate anything! It may well be that Jiggy really has no idea what he's talking about.
Click to expand...

How clever of you, Fnord, to remember how much I detest 'Jiggy'. How juvenile of you, Fnord, to use it at all.

Originally Posted by TraneWreck
Since an adult could say, "here, take this camera and _____," just as easily as they could say, "here, take this Barbie camera and ______," the only reasonable conclusion to draw from jiggeryqua's posts is that he/she did some things with Barbie dolls that he/she really didn't want recorded.
Click to expand...

I have you on ignore, TraneWreck, and for just this sort of thing. Do you not have children? Never worked with them? Perhaps not - but even so, do you not think they might be more readily persuaded to use Barbie-cam than another sort of cam? Perhaps not teddy-cam, which Fnord researched, but generally speaking you really can't see the difference, from a child's point of view? Or was it that you just wanted to join in a rather unpleasant game?


Cainkane1 said:
I seriously doubt if this cam was ever intended to deliberately make it easier to make porn. It seems to me like a hidden cam in a room would be a better tool for this odious purpose. Kids playing with this doll would probably just take innocent pictures of whatever and put it aside when their attention was on something else.
Click to expand...

Nobody has suggested it was intended to deliberately make it easier to make porn. It is, as I said, so designed as to facilitate that, but not purposefully. A hidden cam might well be a better tool (careful, actually thinking about these issues can make you a kiddy-fiddler according to Fnord and TraneWreck), if you were in a position to install it.

Talking of Fnord, hey, Fnord: what should we make of Cain's "Kids playing with this doll would probably just take innocent pictures of whatever and put it aside when their attention was on something else"? Is it safe to assume he has too much knowledge or should we rather assume we can ignore him? Or do you really have no idea what you're talking about? Henceforth, you'll be sniggering alone, I shan't be seeing any of your posts.

Wildcat, do have any evidence for your wild claims about my claims? Merely repeating them doesn't validate them. Missing (wilfuly or ignorantly) what you claim I haven't said doesn't show I haven't said it. Read the thread, pay particular attention to my posts and endeavour to comprehend them. Don't bother to let me know how you get on, you're joining Fnord.
 
Jiggeryqua, what exactly is your concern?

The article is being criticized for very good reason. There are vague insinuations that something bad will happen, but it's not very clear why. Let's get some clarification:
Ms McCormack said it would be easy for someone with evil intentions to hand the doll to a child.
Click to expand...
Well that doesn't really explain a lot. Why should I be concerned about somebody handing an object to another person?

So when other posters point out that this is much ado about nothing, I find them to be justified. You, however, are criticizing them for what you perceive to be irrational criticism. Why do you find these people to be unreasonable? You haven't really elaborated on that point. You have instead posited even more vague notions that something bad could happen. Could you please state as clearly as possible what your concern is?

If your concern is that the camera could be used to film child pornography, then you could just as easily say the same about all cameras. Is that your argument?

Or, you could be arguing that such use of the camera is more likely with this product, as opposed to a more ordinary camera. If that's the case, then I'm curious why you think this is true.
 
jiggeryqua said:
I have you on ignore, TraneWreck, and for just this sort of thing. Do you not have children? Never worked with them? Perhaps not - but even so, do you not think they might be more readily persuaded to use Barbie-cam than another sort of cam? Perhaps not teddy-cam, which Fnord researched, but generally speaking you really can't see the difference, from a child's point of view? Or was it that you just wanted to join in a rather unpleasant game?
Click to expand...

I do enjoy when people tell you they have you on ignore. Passive aggression, always an attractive quality.

But you have such a great sense of humor, and a devastating ability at detecting a joke, so that more than makes up for any deficiencies.

And no, I don't see how it would be easier to pursuade them to use a Barbie Cam. Your entire position makes no sense to me.

Things like the following have been on the market for a while:

http://www.kmart.com/shc/s/p_10151_...003a&ci_src=14110944&ci_sku=020W875520110001P
 
Last edited:
Craig4 said:
Am I missing something? Couldn't any camera be used for pornography?
Click to expand...
yes and if some jerk wanted to make kiddy porn they would pick a better cam than the cam on Barbi. Kids usually do what they are told by an adult especially if the adult is a parent or guardian and I doubt if porn will ever be made using a Barbi doll. If a kid does this with another kid then erase the damn tape.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom