Google and Microsoft agree measures to block abuse images

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24980765

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-websites-stunning-victory-Mail-campaign.html

 

Nice try, Google and Microsoft. But that isn't going to contribute much to prevent such a nasty habit. Unless you two just want to get yourself into the safe position, now that's a different story.

 

Yes, it's doubtful that their filtering would have any impact at all against those abhorrent industries, and more likely that they'll just shoot themselves in the foot by generating many FP blocks and upsetting innocent users and owners of mistakenly blocked websites.
Could drive users to move to other, non-filtered search engines also.

 

That's why I always say surveillance > censorship. Although the former is also prone to FPs, at least the innocents have chances to defend themselves before they were flagged as guilty.

 

The effort itself is wonderful. However, a couple of things prevent it from doing much good. For one thing, given what is known about surveillance across the internet including search it's highly unlikely that most will be unintelligent enough to hunt for such images on Google or Bing. Another issue is that the people most likely to warrant attention are the ones who already know the exact internet addresses of the places providing the content. Their measure is likely to work well for the low-hanging fruit so to speak, but it will hardly put a dent in the ability to find material. One last issue is that, unfortunately, it's fairly trivial to venture to legal adult websites that don't get as much traffic and find such pictures that lead to less and less legal websites.

All of this isn't even considering options like Freenet and I2P. Previously I would have said Tor but it seems like that route was hurt pretty badly with the destruction of places like Lolita City and others. Sadly, like a drug war, I don't believe it's a battle that can be decisively won. If people want something bad enough, they'll find a way to get it.

 

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/nov/18/david-cameron-gchq-child-abuse-images

More progress in the right direction, hopefully...

 

Nah, it won't go as smooth as they said. And remember they mentioned about privacy invasion. There will always be workarounds.

 

So if you get an FP Block where to do you report it ?

 

Even if we can report FP blocks, will it get revoked? WOOOOOOOOTT?!

 

The big tech companies are on PR spree. Now they're on "think to the children" phase. Google is gathering information on his users since forever. They actually want me to believe they had nothing which flagged pedos until now?

 

It is pure political correctness. It is; see what I am doing to help stuff. While it is nice in principal it's not going to even put a dent in it. As the BBC article says, these type of folks don't search using Google. Who knows what else will be censored next for the community good?

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25430582

 

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/12/20/bt_lets_subscribers_turn_off_gay_education_sites/

 

I wonder if there are examples of content being wrongfully flagged?

 

Dermot7's post#13 and #14 in this thread.

 

How about Google and Microsoft agree to block governments from spying on their customers?

 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/timwors...-story-yet-about-the-uks-online-porn-filters/

 

https://www.openrightsgroup.org/blo...s-wave-of-new-customers-activate-their-phones

 

Thanks for the examples. Definitions of what can be classified as illegal are getting a little weird too. I read about a 17 year old girl who sent a text to her boyfriend of her in her underwear. They arrested them both for distributing child pornography. I think that is just truly bizarre. There is evidently a new type of predator in town. And he's not who you think. I can imagine that he harm done by the prosecutor in this case would be similar to the type of emotional and psychological harm that would come from being molested. Sick sick sick.

 

I read about that case too. It pretty sad what things have come to these days.

 

I know who are the suspects. But mentioning them will get OT. To simplify it, I'll just call them some pathetic oldsters who think they are so wise to be moral police and illegalize anything they don't like.

Your case above is quite on the edge though. But the accusation is really irrelevant. I just don't see why is a couple's naughty conversation be considered as child pornography. And FWIW, sex education and reproduction mechanism studies can be seen as porn stories if you remove the biological terms and/or replace them with casual languages. Shortly, pornography is a vague topic.

 

What's especially insane is that they were both charged as adults.

 

do you have a link to the story you could share? PM if you think it is OT. Thanks

 

So those 17 yr old kids are legally old enough to have sex, but not old enough to send a picture of themselves in underwear ??
How ** bizarre is that !! The world has gone mad.