It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Barbie...She's Been a Chef, A Teacher, Now...Pedophile? New Barbie Sparks FBI Warning This Xmas

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 5 2010 @ 09:19 AM
link   


Has your daughter been begging for Video Barbie this Xmas? Hold your plastic shoes, Ken, we may have a problem. It appears the FBI is warning parents this year against the purchase of a new and exciting Barbie called VIDEO GIRL . As in, warning the parents that this toy could be used for.....PEDOPHILIA!!!!!!

CNN Covers This Horrifying Potential Pedophile Problem


FBI: New Barbie 'Video Girl' doll could be used for child porn


The FBI is warning law agencies that the new Barbie "Video Girl" doll could be used as a tool by pedophiles to make child pornography.

In an alert entitled "Barbie 'Video Girl' a Possible Child Pornography Production Method," the FBI said the doll has a built-in hidden camera in the chest and a small LCD screen for video display in her back.

The FBI "cyber crime alert" doesn't cite any misuse of the doll, which has been on the market since July, but talks about the possibility


I know we have a lot of parents here, I would love to hear from you. Would this prevent your purchase of the pedophile's little helper? Has the idea even crossed your mind if you already got your cherub one (it came out in July, funny this is the first I have seen of it.) My neices have every Barbie on the planet, I am going to check to see if they have one when I baby sit for them this Xmas break.

My question is this.

Is this just yet another quick jump on the pedophile Scare Train? If one parents their child properly, wouldn't a pedophile be unlikely to gain use of their Barbie to use it nefariously? I suppose the FBI is thinking the Ped's themselves will purchase it to lure the child or something convoluted as per their MO.

Thoughts?




posted on Dec, 5 2010 @ 09:43 AM
link   


Photo of Pedophile's Little Helper Barbie.



posted on Dec, 5 2010 @ 09:46 AM
link   
Ahaha lmao. The image from barbies necklace is displayed directly on her back with a screen. The ad did not say it could record, so people's worries about this may be misplaced. The potential pedophile would have to be there holding the barbie in one hand, and would be unable to record using it. Federal Bureau of Idiocy by the sounds of it.



posted on Dec, 5 2010 @ 09:51 AM
link   
I could see how this could get innocent parents in trouble as well. Imagine if the child takes the doll to the bathroom or has the doll around when they are getting undressed. If the child inadvertantly films themselves, and they find this, then the parents can be charged for possessing child porn they didn't even know they possessed.



posted on Dec, 5 2010 @ 09:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by jessieg
I could see how this could get innocent parents in trouble as well. Imagine if the child takes the doll to the bathroom or has the doll around when they are getting undressed. If the child inadvertantly films themselves, and they find this, then the parents can be charged for possessing child porn they didn't even know they possessed.
You know, had not thought of that! The way the FBI is so overzealous about protecting the childrens from big bad pedophiles, I could see an innocent bath time being made into a living nif=ghtmare for parents.

This doll seems like it would be best left on the shelves, imo.



posted on Dec, 5 2010 @ 09:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Inkrinhuminge
Ahaha lmao. The image from barbies necklace is displayed directly on her back with a screen. The ad did not say it could record, so people's worries about this may be misplaced. The potential pedophile would have to be there holding the barbie in one hand, and would be unable to record using it. Federal Bureau of Idiocy by the sounds of it.


From the CNN link in my OP:


The doll's camera can capture 30 minutes of footage, and the video can be downloaded and streamed live to a computer, but there is no indication it can be streamed directly to the Internet, the FBI alert said.


It is this live streaming potential that is most concerning, but hey if the FEEBS say it cannot be used to stream direct to the net then OK there.

The fact the footage can be downloaded alone gives me pause. Kids could indeed record bathtime frolics, then as most kids now a days are computer saavy, and woefully under watched, they could go immediately after the bath to the puter and download their fun time onto Daddy's work laptop, and suddenly, Little Lisa has no father!!



posted on Dec, 5 2010 @ 10:19 AM
link   
My god.. this is ridiculous. If they are going to put a pedophile warning on something put it on webcams and computers. All it is is a video camera. From what I saw its not a wireless transfer camera and you need to plug it in (not going to ask where her USB port is). All I have to say is really?!! My youngest cousin has a kids digital camera by the FBI's standards it should have a warning too since it could record children.

These pedophile warnings are starting to get ridiculous instead of slapping warnings and investing time and money into researching the products why don't the catch the filthy pedophiles. Or invest in teaching children the dangers of video cameras, the internet and creepy men with white vans.



posted on Dec, 5 2010 @ 10:24 AM
link   
I guess what worries the FBI is if the pedophiles find a way to record the images or even worse to hack into the barbie camera.It might sound crazy but with the technology we have today is possible.

BTW my opinion on Barbie dolls and all the similar products is that they are bad influence to the little girls and should be avoided.They advertise a sterotype of how women should be and how succesful they can become looking like that,which is wrong because it goes towards to a society of clones and the discrimination towards those people who don't follow these "rules".



posted on Dec, 5 2010 @ 10:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xiamara
My god.. this is ridiculous. If they are going to put a pedophile warning on something put it on webcams and computers. All it is is a video camera. From what I saw its not a wireless transfer camera and you need to plug it in (not going to ask where her USB port is). All I have to say is really?!! My youngest cousin has a kids digital camera by the FBI's standards it should have a warning too since it could record children.

These pedophile warnings are starting to get ridiculous instead of slapping warnings and investing time and money into researching the products why don't the catch the filthy pedophiles. Or invest in teaching children the dangers of video cameras, the internet and creepy men with white vans.
I agree one hundred percent! It is like crying wolf now. Why not just brand newborn babies with a giant P upon birth, that way everyone gets the warning.


It seems every toy on the market should carry a warning, because who knows which toy the Pervy Pedophile is going to use to lure YOUR child into his evil web of debauchery?

The FBI has greater fish to fry, don't they? Isn't protecting kids from predators a......parents job?



posted on Dec, 5 2010 @ 10:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Phantom traveller
 

You can't wirelessly transmit from a device that doesn't have wireless capabilities you can only hack the computer the device loads to. So a pedophile could NOT hack the barbie to transmit wirelessly to their computer.

I agree with you on your opinions on barbie but hey I had them and I'm a woman who feels perfectly secure with myself and I don't agree with what the barbie label sets forth, but that's because I had a good mother who taught me that barbie is a doll and not something to idolize and work to become.



posted on Dec, 5 2010 @ 10:33 AM
link   
reply to post by hotbakedtater
 


It is! Puppies and kittens should be getting brands since oh pedos use them to lure kids. Lets get rid of the internet and all webcams, digital cameras, toys and anything else that can be used by a pedophile.

This barbie thing just seems like we are going warning happy on everything. I swear everything we buy has a warning, its like no one uses their brain anymore to reason things and say hmmm maybe I should explain things to my child and warn them of the dangers of the internet.



posted on Dec, 5 2010 @ 10:35 AM
link   
reply to post by Xiamara
 
I'd say you are wrong,.
this IS a direct connection to the child,.
And could certainly be an issue,.
and btw,. your avatar is cool



posted on Dec, 5 2010 @ 10:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Lil Drummerboy
 


So any video device should be banned marketed to children such as a children's digital camera I mentioned? Really instead of labeling I really think they should be focusing more on having faster methods of catching them and invest in teaching children to be smart. Have programs at school explaining the dangers. A label is a label, it doesn't do much. How many of you read the warning labels on house hold objects? I rarely read them. Also if you ban camera barbie you have to ban lap tops with built in web cams.



posted on Dec, 5 2010 @ 10:43 AM
link   
The FBI has to keep itself in business by giving people ideas on crime. I'm sure everybody who buys one soon will have tohave a background check and not be on the LIST!!



posted on Dec, 5 2010 @ 10:44 AM
link   
reply to post by hotbakedtater
 


Good find!! Excellent question....BUT.

First, we have to know how much (time wise) the "Barbie" camera can actually record...how much video can it store? (Sorry if I missed that, thinking ahead here...)

Second....remember the "Nanny Cam"??? Errrrm....seems it was a streaming video apparatus, intended to (of course) be like a baby monitor/slash robotic spy when parents are away. Certainly, THAT could also be linked to a DVR or something...whereas "Barbie" seems a bit more....um....portable.

Third....I just read in the paper that the C.E.O. of Mattel is going "all in", as it were.....he will either be a HUGE success (to overshadow his predecessor, who failed apparently), or he will go down in flames too. "Barbie" is a nearly flame-proof franchise (except, of course, for the ill-conceived "Oreo Barbie"....UGH!!!!).

Still, to be a C.E.O., means taking the company in future (and profitable) directions....the C.E.O. is going on a tangent, per the article I read. Meanwhile, seems that Barbie keeps chugging out the innovations.....good or bad?

PS...for those of you parents with kids....(redundant? Yes, I think so...LOL!)

Here is the product that Mattel is putting out, with high hopes:

www.usatoday.com...

Full disclosure....NO< I have never worked for Mattel...BUT, I grew up in Los Angeles, not very far from their company headquarters....you can see them from the 405 freeway! AND, "HotWheels" were fun, fun fun!!!



posted on Dec, 5 2010 @ 10:46 AM
link   
reply to post by jessieg
 


I see what you are saying, but really..since when has a naked child been considered 'pornography'?

Pornography is : 'Pornography or porn is the portrayal of explicit sexual subject matter for the purposes of sexual excitement and erotic satisfaction'.

An image of a naked child is not pornography..an image of that child engaged in a sexual act or in a sexually suggestive act is.

The human body is not disgusting or shameful..it only becomes so when scumbags coerce kids into sexual acts for their own gratification.

If a photo of a naked kid is pedophilia then just about every parent whoever took a picture of their kids just out of the bath, in the bath, having their nappy changed, lying on a rug before dressing must be considered a pedophile?

How utterly ridiculous a situation that would be.

Yes, go after the child rapists (cos that's what they are) and abusers, and throw the book at them when they are caught, but let's keep a sensible and rational perspective and avoid arriving at a situation where the human body is to be considered disgusting or pornographic..it isn't.



posted on Dec, 5 2010 @ 10:50 AM
link   
reply to post by spikey
 


That is what society has become. Babies in a bathtub is now porn, if you have a picture of even your own child naked you could be charged because oh its wrong. I know in Canada teachers can't even hug a crying child because it could be considered pedophilia.



posted on Dec, 5 2010 @ 10:50 AM
link   
reply to post by hotbakedtater
 


First, we have toy robots terrorizing airports.
Now,we have barbie dolls that are undercover
pedophile tools.I wonder what is coming next?



posted on Dec, 5 2010 @ 10:56 AM
link   
reply to post by spikey
 


I wanted to coment on this. There have been documented cases of parents being prosecuted for having naked baby pictures. And I am the mother of two boys, now grown. I never took nor allowed anyone else to take naked baby pictures of my babies. There simply is NO NEED. I know lots of people do it, and they may indeed be innocent pictures, and of course now that most people bypass the photolab altogether, this may not seem a concern, but when mine were little photolabs were the place to get your pictures deceloped, and yes their employees did in fact alert police on naked baby pictures. It has been in the news. So it has happened.



posted on Dec, 5 2010 @ 10:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Xiamara
 


It's terrible that kids suffer at the hands of sexual freaks, but i agree with your earlier post that it is a parent's responsibility to ensure their children are safe from these..people.

To target all parents as pedo's simply because they may have taken a photo of one of their kids in the nude is absolutely unreal.

When i was a kid in the UK (60's/70's) it was almost weird if you didn't have a photo of one of your kids nude, sprawled out on a white fluffy sheepskin rug in front of a roaring fire. I've lost count of the amount of times growing up i have taken the mickey out of mates or girlfriends after seeing them as babies or toddlers in the 'noddy'..just about everyone had photo's like that...and my parents certainly were not perverts, or any of my friends parents either for that matter.

To Hotbakedtater:

Yes, i too am the father of two boys, still small though. And yes,like you, we have no images of them in the nude, exactly for the reasons you have highlighted.

It's not really a problem, as you say there is no need for images like that, except maybe to show the kid when they grew up, and say 'look at you at that age' and 'i cannot believe you were ever that tiny and fragile' kind of thing...oh, and to embarrass them when they decide to bring a new girlfriend home to meet you (the classic family photo album moment!


I do get angry at the insinuation though that every parent is being thought of as a deviant pervert simply for taking an innocent photo of their kids...it's almost Orwellian.


Cheers.
edit on 5/12/2010 by spikey because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join