Let's blame Google and ISPs for others' crimes

j0nathon2

unholyangel wrote: »

Personally I think they should be given the death penalty but apparently thats "inhumane" (and their treatment of kids isnt? ha yeah right).

Defraud banks and insurance companies - John and Anne Darwin, 6 years

Boat race protester - John Trenton, 6 months

Craig Meehan, 11 counts of possessing child pornography, 20 weeks.

It's clear who really matters :-) The bankers and the elite.

j0nathon2

Oh and today:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23401076 - Online pornography to be blocked by default, PM to announce

Are these people thick?

Firstly, parents should parent. Not computers.

Secondly, just blocking the stuff does not get rid of it. Even if, say, my house leaves the block on, what stops my child's friend showing him/her pornography on their phone, or on their home PC, or what they've already downloaded, or from a magazine, or from a DVD. There is a real risk of introducing false comfort on this front.

Ronaldo_Mconaldo

Even a thred on child !!!!!! seems to transform into a bash-a-banker session. Get the chip off your shoulder. Just let it go.

j0nathon2

The thread was not about child !!!!!!, it was about how the government is shifting their own problems onto others, with two examples, and solving the symptoms or outcomes as opposed to the root cause.

I am not bashing bankers, I am bashing the justice system that thinks bankers and boat racers should get more justice than, potentially, 11 or more children.

VitaK

j0nathon2 wrote: »

No they couldn't. Let's say we wanted to ban pictures of kittens on the internet. You have a picture of a kitten. You go to www.somewebhost.com and put your kitten on. You go to www.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! and upload your video. You send an SMS message to all your friends about your video and your kitten. Let's imagine we shut google.com down too. Has this stopped your kitten being viewed? Not at all, you've done a great job of circulating this without a search engine at all, and we haven't even touched upon newsgroups, forums with Private Messaging (like MSE) email, chat rooms...

Now let's imagine somewebhost and dailymotion and ISPs all ban the word "kitten". So you decide to call it "baby cat". They ban that, so you call it "small felis catus". They ban your IP address, so you get your friend to do it. They ban his IP address so he gets his friend to do it. They ban all your IP addresses, so you put it on a DVD and circulate it - who you going to blame now, Sony?

Jail you for 10 years, you're not going to be doing it for 10 years.

I doubt it would ever be done by banning certain words alone. I imagine they would look at each picture using image recognition tools and once a picture have been flagged, a more in dept investigation can be carried out.

fluffnutter

Everyone has a part to play in keeping children safe.

dacouch

Al Murray "The Government had best be careful what they say to Google etc because Google might leave the UK and pay tax elsewhere. Oh."

sweetstudent

Not sure if its been mentioned on here, but even BBC News has even mentioned that most of the abuse images are within the 'dark internet' which can only be accessed by those in the know-how. And once perverts and child abusers start finding that they can no longer search for them or the search terms bring up warnings all they will do is change the search terms.......

Whilst I agree in principle of the idea of blocking this disgusting content and protecting innocent victims I worry that we may end up becoming as controlled as China is with there internet.

Surely there must be some software that can detect this material and record an IP address without a human on the other end who has to view this material in order to put these perverts away?

antrobus

sweetstudent wrote: »

....Surely there must be some software that can detect this material and record an IP address without a human on the other end who has to view this material in order to put these perverts away?

I'd have thought it was actually quite difficult to create some software that could tell whether or not any particular image qualified as being 'child pornography'. Microsoft have a product known as a PhotoDNA which is used to track child !!!!!!, but that only works on known images that some human has already seen.

Recording an IP address will enable you to identify the computer on which the image was stored. That's not the same as identifying or indeed physically getting your hands on the person who put it there.

If you want to "put the perverts away" some humans somewhere will have to 'view the material'. The jury for example.

j0nathon2

sweetstudent wrote: »

Not sure if its been mentioned on here, but even BBC News has even mentioned that most of the abuse images are within the 'dark internet' which can only be accessed by those in the know-how. And once perverts and child abusers start finding that they can no longer search for them or the search terms bring up warnings all they will do is change the search terms.......

Seems most people other than David Cameron and some of these idiot experts (not IT experts) know this. If I was Google, I would be truly baffled at what is expected of me by October.

I also fail to see what these terms would be and how they would work:

• if you ban "child" and "!!!!!!" together, what happens if a parent searches for "how to stop my child viewing !!!!!!?" Flash this nonsense box up saying you need help before you lose your kids?
  
• if you ban "rape", what happens when the rape victim wants to search for "rape advice"? Tell her/him they're going to lose their job?
  
• if you ban "self harm", what happens when a concerned friend searches for "self harm" to see what it might look like?

Computers can do a lot, but they cannot read minds and many people have awful grammar and spelling too, so what they type can be misunderstood by a simple computer.

Software can do a lot, but unfortunately humans would always have to get involved, be it a jury or trained expert. The way this stuff is shared too, there isn't really a point where a scanner could sit and log this access. I guess you could flood the net with "fake" images to see who bites, but I am not sure you can prosecute on this?