David Cameron urges internet firms to block child abuse images

Azza · 21 Jul 2013 at 11:51

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23393851

So the headline story today is the leader on the Andrew Marr show saying Google et all. need to take responsibility to stop people finding basically CP.

Obviously such things are hurrendous but what he says in his chat is just astounding. Why hasnt anyone sat down and explained to him and the simplest of terms how the internet works. Does he honestly believe people go and Ask Jeeves "how to find CP"?

I'm not one who instantly looks for a hidden agenda within government PR but this just stinks. Surely he can't be so naive, hell on the BBC news story there is even a link to the CEOP report, he has to have read it and consulted with people before coming out with this speech and stating about possible legislation. Just makes him look like a fool, though I guess to the Average Joe™ he looks like Superman and the saviour of children.

Goksly · 21 Jul 2013 at 11:58

What ever they do they must make sure they limit it just to CP and not use it for other things to lock down the internet.

Xordium · 21 Jul 2013 at 12:03

He most likely did not write the speech.
He most likely knows it's a waste of time.
He most likely knows most people are plonkers and will lap it up and think he is doing a good job.

Mr Jack · 21 Jul 2013 at 12:30

I don't doubt that large internet companies can assist with the fight against child porn; I seriously doubt blocking search terms is going to help. It's more likely to be roughly as effective as the NHS block on porn terms which successfully stopped staff from discussing breast cancer.

smelly_legend · 21 Jul 2013 at 13:01

As I said in the networking thread on this:

To be honest, before the internet I used to get my kicks looking at the discarded porn pages at the railways and park fences (what was that all about anyway? Same places ALL the time) like any other under 16 year old. Should we have opt in parks as well?

UncleRuckus · 21 Jul 2013 at 13:27

I would imagine that people who don't want their kiddie porn websites found would block web crawlers such as Google's. Utterly pointless exercise

bitslice · 21 Jul 2013 at 13:40

Mr Jack said:
I don't doubt that large internet companies can assist with the fight against child porn

I doubt it.
I had a thread about it on here (until the mods deleted it, still no reply from them as to why)

I reported the images to the company, got an acknowledgement from them with a promise to get back to me. The company has since failed to remove any of the images and the perv still has his account

waste
of
time

metamorphpwner · 21 Jul 2013 at 13:44

does Cameron really think they name the files so obvious like "Child Porn"?
Block that search term and they name it something else and then share that search term on their forums..... they're not going to block the word "bread", are they?

Also, I was under the impression that most of this stuff was hidden in deep web?

Mr Jack · 21 Jul 2013 at 13:48

bitslice said:
I reported the images to the company, got an acknowledgement from them with a promise to get back to me. The company has since failed to remove any of the images and the perv still has his account

Isn't that them choosing not to rather than not being able to?

pitchfork · 21 Jul 2013 at 13:53

I read an article which basically said that most child porn isn't on the standard internet, it's pretty much the onion network.
ISP's have basically no control over the use of TOR/ the onion network.

It's all media based crap, well known tories have a heavy foothold in mainstream media. It's how they can convince average Joe that things which, really, aren't good for them, are good for them.
And make it seem like they're all saints saving old ladies and children, and puppies from burning buildings.

Not to get political, but that's clearly the only reason for it.

UncleRuckus · 21 Jul 2013 at 13:53

Ahhh here we "The internet watch foundation". Cameron will be paying people to look at/for kiddie porn to protect us.

Watch this space folks this will be the new iteration of state snooping.

bitslice · 21 Jul 2013 at 13:56

Mr Jack said:
Isn't that them choosing not to rather than not being able to?

I can't really think of a reason why a major picture hosting company would choose to retain child porn?

I'd like to name them but maybe that's why the mods deleted my thread, although a comment from them would be helpful.

rotters · 21 Jul 2013 at 13:56

I read an article a while ago saying that most cp rings don't store images on websites anymore its more about the live shows and most of it is now via web cams. Don't know how the government would police that.

JonJ678 · 21 Jul 2013 at 14:37

Google is very good at turning misspelt, vaguely relevant phrases into the websites people are looking for. It doesn't seem conceptually unreasonable to run the process in reverse, systematically removing inappropriate results from the search query.

Anything on TOR is probably invisible, sure. But on the open web, some form of filtering should be possible.

Pawnless Endgame · 21 Jul 2013 at 16:27

This is one that I don't get: Ex-BBC news editor sentenced over child images

Okay they may have not been his own children, but they were child images, not child abuse / paedophilia images. I'm sure if I looked on my own hard drive, I'll have images of books and cards that have children on them. I go to theme parks and take pictures of the rides. Oh look, there are 32 kids on that roller coaster, I must be a paedo

What about clipart from MS Word that contains children? :rolleyes:

What about people who draw children on deviantART? Oh look, people are drawing animals on deviantART too, they must be really into their bestiality lol.

Mr Jack · 21 Jul 2013 at 16:30

Monserrat said:
Okay they may have not been his own children, but they were child images, not child abuse / paedophilia images.

"A former BBC news editor has been handed a community service order after admitting downloading and distributing indecent images of children.

Graham Day, 58, of Park Way, Droitwich, shared 43 images and downloaded more than 800 pictures and films including ones featuring toddlers."

I'm not seeing the issue. This isn't like people getting in trouble for having photos of their kids in the bath.

antijoke · 21 Jul 2013 at 16:31

Can we look to ban all MP's? That would make the world a better place

Pawnless Endgame · 21 Jul 2013 at 16:32

Ah right. Didn't know that indecent was worse than that.

Angilion · 21 Jul 2013 at 16:54

Either:

1) He's talking rubbish because he knows most people are ignorant of the subject and have been deliberately fed disinformation by the media in pursuit of profit. So it's politically sensible for him to pander to ignorance and lies because that attracts votes.

or

2) He's using the suffering of children as a tool to increase the power of the state over everyone and its intrusion into everyday life. That allows sweeping powers that the most spying-obsessed tyranny would only dream of imposing on the people under its rule and silencing opposition by pretending it's a way of protecting children.

Or a mixture of both.

I'd be very surprised if he was ignorant enough to believe what he's saying, but I would not be at all surprised if he was saying things he knows to be untrue because it's politically useful for him to do so. After all, he is a successful politician.

bitslice · 21 Jul 2013 at 17:00

This is what Camron has to fix, companies that don't give a stuff.

This was the response to a journalist complaining about a company hosting porn and not deleting it (after her kid had just walked into it)

Marc LaFountain, Nov 01 09:53 (EDT):
We allow pornographic images/animated images on Tumblr. I would suggest not viewing or following blogs with content that you do not wish to see.
Marc

This was back in 2011, and in 2013 the situation remains the same, child porn is not being deleted by Tumblr. It's about time we name and shame people like Marc, Tumblr's Community Director.