Google and Microsoft agree measures to block abuse images

A very late but a good start in the right direction! And i'd like to tell the younger guys here that you'll look at this serious topic differently after you became a father. But you have to be a father/mother to understand that at all, you can't explain it. No offense here but what i really can't stand anymore is all the moaning about freedom and cencorship.

Yes, there will be lots of FPs and other problems but do you honestly think it will dramatically restrict your internet experience ? Do you honestly feel your freedom is severely limited ? Don't you think it's worth paying this price to fight child abuse ? Many people don't realise that we adults judge about topics like this and forget that childs can't defend themselves.

With the NSA in the media right now, i just hope that all these agencies will use their power to fight child abuse like they fight other criminals.

 

It is not.

And does it have to be repressive? Censorship is not an answer, and it will bring more harm than any good effect.

 

No personal offense to you, but it is rather stupid to use the "only parents understand" reasoning. Well, no, if you're a normal adult you will understand. Are scientists only supposed to understand why stars appear to twinkle or why the sky is blue? No person in their right mind is going to say "who cares about abuse, don't tread on my freedom". But make no mistake about it, once you decide to censor one thing, more will follow. Why is that? Because everyone finds something offensive. If we get rid of all offensive things, guess what will be left..nothing. You may not see the harm or think such arguments are irrelevant, but then you'd be missing the point. This is one of those classic slippery slope cases.

 

That's especially true on the global Internet.

And that's why it's best here to focus on technology.

 

You can justify anything by saying it'll stop pedophiles. And then it's like "hey well we can stop terrorists too". Or maybe drug dealers. Or drug users. Or those who pirate content. Hey, that guy is J Walking, that's a crime. And suddenly that scary technology that we'd reserved for 'the most evil' people starts getting used on anyone, because they justified it long before against someone else.

"Only a parent can understand" is exactly what they're counting on.

In reality, my real issue with this is how obviously ineffective it will be. Spoilers: no one is 'binging' or 'Googling' for child pornography. So then what's the real point of it other than to implement another layer of potential abuse when it does nothing to help anyone?

 

Of course. But as we've seen time and time again, tech and politics are becoming nearly inseparable.

 

Exactly. Only an imbecile who is begging to go to jail is looking this stuff up on the "clearnet". Also, your other point is spot on. It's precisely how we've found ourselves on the wrong side of the Patriot Act and the NSA.

 

Really? That is just nuts. There is really something wrong with these people.

 

I don't have a link but I think it was in Ohio. It has been a while.

 

Yeah something needs to be done about this sort of thing. These types of prosecutors are worse than the sexual predators.

 

No offense taken, but, I totally disagree. I am a father (not a younger one either) of three youngsters. Censorship is not the route to take. Those two 17 year old youngsters are marked for life because of some one who thinks they are morally just. As a parent I would be absolutely furious with the prosecutor in this case.

 

@ GrafZeppelin

Yes, it's a good start, cause not making it harder for these people, doing nothing at all isn't an option. Terms like "repressive" and "censorship" are a matter of definition and personal perception. It's another conflict of freedom and comfort vs. safety. If we follow this argumentation then we should realise that we already have a massive internet "censorship" by agencies/companys controlling / filtering our access to websites (DNS servers etc.). Why should we trust and accept them prohibiting access to certain websites THEY do label as "dangerous" cause of malware etc. ? Why do we already accept a lot of restrictions but are getting slightly paranoid on this point ?

@Dave0291 / Hungry Man

I didn't want to say that only parents are able to understand the point at all, but i'm convinced that being parent is a huge difference. And i do understand your critical point of the personal perception of finding things offensive. It's far from being irrelevant. But if you say that we can't do this cause "everyone finds something offensive" where does that lead to ? The converse
argument is that society/our elected politicians get "uncapable of action" cause there could be one single human being on earth not liking this or that. Isn't it a matter of common sense, outweighing pros/cons and the majority of population ? I don't want to overstress this topic but we all have a responsibilty of protecting our children everywhere. It's just my personal opinion that we should not get kind of paranoid by every single step taken of making the internet a better and more secure place for everybody.

 

I find lots of things quite disgusting, including the content that they are not attempting to filter. IT has nothing to do with what is or is not offensive to an individual, it has everything to do with rights of children being violated.

The approach is the issue. I think, in general, when there is some technical approach to fighting a terrorist or pedophile, ask yourself if you would be OK with that being used against an 18 year old college student downloading something illegally, or smoking weed, or whatever else. Because these technological capabilities are incredibly powerful and incredibly hard to control once you allow them to use them even once - it sets a precedent. Suddenly the argument isn't "This technology is wrong" it's "Well this technology is OK when the crime is really really bad, which some person in the government gets to arbitrarily decide".

That's a big issue.

I think steps *should* be taken to prevent child abuse, and pornographic images from circulating. But there are far better ways to do this (almost all of it is coming from foreign governments, of course, so that's where we should start - not with US companies liek Google who only facilitate clearnet information) and ways that require giving less power to the government that could later be potentially abused.

Look at the UK porn filter. It's a disaster. Children behind the filter can *not* look up porn, but they also can *not* look up websites to help them report abuse at home. They can't find out about laws, or look at wikipedia articles, or anything else.

But "oh save the children" is what put that filter into government, and now they control what ever child behind that filter sees.

That's not OK. There are better ways.

 

The fact is it's you who is being paranoid here. Up to the point where you think censorship is the only way to go. I already have proposed the idea of surveillance everytime I had the chance to say it. It's the better option, among other ways which are not about censorship or any blacklisting approaches.

In all seriousness, you'll need to be a webmaster who have your websites getting blocked/flagged for something you've never done to understand it.

 

I believe the cops upload the overwhelming majority of the cp on the Internet. And every CP site is probably run by the cops. So the authorities pretend they are censoring CP when in fact they promote most of it. Cops are NOT interested in stopping crime. They promote crime, so that they can capture more people and throw more people in jail. Promoting crime and catching "criminals" is how cops make money and get rich.

Let's be honest. The police and government are not interested in stopping the spread of CP. If they were, they wouldn't be uploading the overwhelming majority of it.

CP is just a boogeyman used by a fascist government for controlling the masses with fear and terror. The same goes for drug dealers and terrorists. Pedophiles, drug dealers and terrorists are convenient scapegoats for the government. If the government can get the masses to be scared of a scapegoat, then the government becomes a protection racket for the general populace. Once the government becomes the protection racket for the citizens, the citizens' rights will get stripped one-by-one.

I would personally avoid doing anything illegal at all costs, because I don't want to become a scapegoat for the government.

We basically live in an era where the government is ABOVE the law. And they commit crimes in order to promote crimes and catch "criminals".

 

Seriously?

Although I'm sure that entrapment is fairly common, that's an improbable claim.

 

They aren't allowed to do that..but a LOT of law enforcement agents have been busted for cp. What they can do is pose as people seeking or providing it, claim to be a child in a chat room and a few other things. Entrapment only applies if a person was coerced by an officer or agent into committing a crime they didn't intend to commit. Of course that can be very difficult to prove, which is why true entrapment cases are rare. They do sometimes take over existing websites and collect data already present or even wait for a user to download an image or video file, and go get them. That's basically what happened with FreedomHost, though they initially used malware to carry out the sting.

 

They are allowed to distribute contraband. But what makes you think they can't just start an illegal site for the sole purpose of catching people? They've done this with credit card theft/fraud and terrorist sites, so I'm pretty certain they can do this with other kinds of criminal websites.

 

Re - LEA's setting up cp porn etc www's

I seem to recall reading that they have done so, & on more than one occassion. This was several years ago too. From what i remember, they put up free "soft porn" www's to get you to pay/sign up to get hardcore stuff. Once people did, they were trapped etc.

 

That is the correct answer. But they can't set up other types of stings, such as hosting a site that distributes illegal material in a safe manner.

 

I was almost certain that was completely illegal to do. I guess they put up images such as the very old Brooke Shields modeling photos (Which Google still shows in search results for some reason..nice job on that blocking, guys.) and then promise to "show the goods" after payment. I can't at all see them getting permission to upload the hard stuff. If so, that's really..disturbing. If I were an agent tasked with doing that, I don't care if in the end I helped bust the worst crime ring in the world..I would feel my soul withering away and assured of a hot rock in a hotter place.

 

@Dave0291

I'm not a lawyer anywhere, but it's my impression that intent alone is sometimes considered criminal. How different is this from agents posing as kids in chats, and setting up meetings where perps are arrested?

 

No lawyer here either, but I would think having actual photographs/video to offer, let alone upload yourself would put you over that fine line. When they are doing the impersonation stings, there is no hint of real children involved. No illegal material to deal with, etc. It's kind of the same when the FBI, ATF or Home Security are dealing with people looking to buy bomb making material or otherwise planning an attack. The material or equipment is nearly always fake. Agents aren't going to show up with a case full of plutonium like a real life Doc Brown. Gang and narcotics units will use the real deal, but street deals are quite different from the kinds of operations we're talking about. You don't show up to a warehouse with a fake Uzi or baking soda with a drug cartel or gang surrounding you. Any drugs and guns used in an operation like that are also signed out with permission to use, and if they go missing and not brought right back afterward, you're up poop creek without a paddle. Units like that can get away with a good bit more than the heavy hitters in the higher agencies, crazy as that may seem. But again, totally different operating conditions.

Intent is quite often enough to get you, yes. You were planning it, so there isn't a lot of defense for you to hang onto. "Well, yes, I planned on doing this..but I didn't..yay me?", won't often work when agents are already dealing with you. You should have a change of heart before you go past the mental planning stage.