David Cameron urges internet firms to block child abuse images

[RaverDrew]

<googles "Elvis' post mortem">

 

[UnderOpenSky]

FWIW every phone contract I've had, it came turned on by default, although at least with virgin I could log on to their web page to take it off, rather then having to phone.

 

[xenon]

Has got fail ritten all over it. This will just increase the playground market for swapping flash drives.

 

[UnderOpenSky]

Has got fail ritten all over it. This will just increase the playground market for swapping flash drives.

Bless. Just like our day when we used floppy discs with low jpegs on.

Except of course this will be hi def hardcore.

 

[stuff_it]

Probably because they monitor internet use. U75 is the most viewed site in my company. Luckily, I'm the one that checks the weblogs

I'd be fucked if they knew how much time I waste on here

A mate years ago found out it was filtered in the local library.

 

[Boris Sprinkler]

people who use linux also have sex?

always up for a quick fsck

 

[cybertect]

Bless. Just like our day when we used floppy discs with low jpegs on.

Except of course this will be hi def hardcore.

Obligatory XKCD link - http://xkcd.com/598/

 

[weltweit]

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

The prime minister has warned internet companies that they need to act to block access to child abuse images or face new legal controls.

David Cameron told the BBC's Andrew Marr Show search firms like Google must do more to stop results from "depraved and disgusting" search terms.

Google said when it discovers child abuse images it acts to remove them.

Labour said the PM's plans did not go "far enough" and criticised cuts to online child abuse policing budgets.

It seems what Cameron is saying is that if someone goes to google and enters a search term intending to find child porn, they should not find any results.

Seems quite reasonable to me.

Why are google even indexing such stuff in the first place, I thought they could handle information intelligently.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

I wonder. Does anyone actually sit down at the computer and type 'child porn' into the Google search window?

 

[weltweit]

One forum I am on censors common swear words, basically if you include them your post fails until you remove them. It can't be outside of google's ingenuity to block searches targeting child porn. In fact google ought to be able to spider such sites and automatically report them to the authorities.

 

[weltweit]

I wonder. Does anyone actually sit down at the computer and type 'child porn' into the Google search window?

Well that is probably a good point.
The hardcore pervert probably has other ways to access such stuff.
But perhaps an inquisitive beginner might do that and perhaps they should be put off.

 

[The Octagon]

So under Dave's proposal, if I wanted to read about the mountains of research that presumably went into this, how do I Google "David Cameron's child porn plans" without losing my job and access to my (at this point imaginary) kids?

Well thought out I'm sure.

 

[ibilly99]

One forum I am on censors common swear words, basically if you include them your post fails until you remove them. It can't be outside of google's ingenuity to block searches targeting child porn. In fact google ought to be able to spider such sites and automatically report them to the authorities.

That's Scunthorpe fucked again then.

 

[Maurice Picarda]

What else ought Google be able to do? I'd like it to choose me debonair hats. And it should automatically correct misspellings.

 

[Firky]

Using an emotional rhetoric like child abuse to bring in censorship and surveillance of people on the internet.

It solves nothing.

Stuff like that isn't hosted on sites, its posted anonymously on Usenet, hidden in encrypted torrents, private FTPs, and hosted on servers in countries which don't give a shit.

 

[agricola]

Labour said the PM's plans did not go "far enough"

 

[weepiper]

uh huh

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...e-porn-let-Cameron-declare-victory-issue.html

 

[weltweit]

Stuff like that isn't hosted on sites, its posted anonymously on Usenet, hidden in encrypted torrents, private FTPs, and hosted on servers in countries which don't give a shit.

Ok, but this suggests it can be accessed from google, surely that is not desirable?

 

[Puddy_Tat]

One forum I am on censors common swear words, basically if you include them your post fails until you remove them. It can't be outside of google's ingenuity to block searches targeting child porn. In fact google ought to be able to spider such sites and automatically report them to the authorities.

One forum I've met, you can't mention the counties that (say) Southend or Brighton are in...

 

[Firky]

What you quoted suggests that it's not readily accessible by google.

 

[J Ed]

FFS, you can now basically just apply that quote to any new Tory policy.

Also this proposal is stupid but then again what else do you expect from the man who had to have it explained to him by Rebecca Brooks that LOL does not mean lots of love.

 

[Shippou-Sensei]

there are too many sites to check manually so a mixture of automated systems and human checking is in place.

the thing is no system is perfect.

it's not like google were in talks with cameron and said that they were perfectly happy with the amount of dubious content on there system

it's just politicians saying stuff to make themselves sound like they are doing things.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

We just had this fight in Canada. The govt wants sweeping internet surveillance powers, so it raises the spectre of child porn.

Opponents of a controversial bill that would give authorities new powers to increase online monitoring of Canadians have been accused of siding with “child pornographers” by Safety Minister Vic Toews.
The so-called “lawful access” legislation, tabled in the House of Commons on Tuesday and expected to pass under a Conservative majority government, means Internet service providers and cellphone companies must hand over basic subscriber information of customers to law enforcement agencies.
Opponents of the proposed law claim it is ‘untenable’, but Mr. Toews said yesterday that people “can either stand with us or with the child pornographers.”
The claim, which caused outrage among opposition MPs, came after Liberal public safety critic Francis Scarpaleggia asked Mr. Toews in the House of Commons how Canadians were supposed to trust the government wouldn’t use the private information they obtained online to intimidate citizens.
“We are proposing measures to bring our laws into the 21st century and to provide the police with the lawful tools that they need,” Mr. Toews said to the MP for Lac-Saint-Louis, Quebec. “He can either stand with us or with the child pornographers.”

http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/0...re-siding-with-child-pornographers-vic-toews/




But

police have failed to provide evidence that such legislation is necessary to combat the scourge of child pornography. Internal e-mails from the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police show they could find “no good examples” to support their demand for greater access to private Internet communications. Furthermore, every provincial privacy commissioner, along with the federal commissioner, has warned of the dire privacy implications of this legislation. Even bureaucrats in Mr. Toews own department aren’t buying his arguments

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com...ess-youre-with-us-or-the-child-pornographers/

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

After a huge backlash, the govt killed the Bill:

Justice Minister Rob Nicholson announced yesterday that the government will not be proceeding with Bill C-30, the lawful access/Internet surveillance legislation:

We will not be proceeding with Bill C-30 and any attempts that we will continue to have to modernize the Criminal Code will not contain the measures contained in C-30, including the warrantless mandatory disclosure of basic subscriber information or the requirement for telecommunications service providers to build intercept capability within their systems. We've listened to the concerns of Canadians who have been very clear on this and responding to that.

This shift in policy is remarkable, particularly for a majority government that has used crime as a legislative wedge issue. Almost one year ago to the day - on February 13, 2012, Public Safety Minister Vic Toews infamously told the House of Commons that critics of his forthcoming bill could stand with the government or with the child pornographers. Bill C-30 was introduced the following day, but within two weeks, a massive public outcry - much of it online - forced the government to quietly suspend the bill and now a year later openly acknowledge that it is dead.

I think there are at least four takeaways from the lawful access failure of 2012-13. The first is that bad policy is hard to defend. Successive governments (both Liberal and Conservative) have introduced lawful access legislation and consistently struggled to identify actual examples where the current laws are inadequate. Moreover, the rationale for these laws has constantly shifted - from terrorism to spam to child pornography to (most recently) cyber-bullying. The public can sense a failed policy and the current version of lawful access - with no real attempt to address legitimate privacy and oversight concerns as well as silence on who was going to pay the hundreds of millions in surveillance technology costs - was so bad that even supporters were forced to admit its overreach. In fact, even as the bill was declared dead, the director of CSIS acknowledged that "it's not absolutely critical for us to do our work."

Second, the lawful access experience in Canada becomes part of the growing number of Internet advocacy success stories. From the massive petition on usage based billing that spurred the government to effectively order the CRTC to reconsider the issue, to the gradual shift in copyright reform that resulted in more user-oriented provision than any comparable law in the world, Canadians have demonstrated that they are concerned with digital policies and will not hesitate to use social media and the Internet to speak out. To the government's credit, it paid attention to the lawful access backlash as Nicholson acknowledged the strong public opposition and the decision to respond to it.

Third, even with Bill C-30 dead, there is a problem with the current system of voluntary disclosure of customer information by ISPs. The lawful access debate placed the spotlight on the fact that ISPs disclose customer information tens of thousands of times every year without court oversight. The law permits these disclosures, but there are no reporting requirements or accountability mechanisms built into the process. Those are needed and the government should move swiftly to add this to the law, either within Bill C-12 (the PIPEDA reform bill) or Bill C-55, which was introduced yesterday.

Fourth, Bill C-30 may be dead, but lawful access surely is not. On the same day the government put the bill out its misery, it introduced Bill C-55 on warrantless wiretapping. Although the bill is ostensibly a response to last year's R v. Tse decision from the Supreme Court of Canada, much of the bill is lifted directly from Bill C-30. Moreover, there will be other ways to revive the more troublesome Internet surveillance provisions. Christopher Parsons points to lawful intercept requirements in the forthcoming spectrum auction, while many others have discussed Bill C-12, which includes provisions that encourage personal information disclosure without court oversight. Of course, cynics might also point to the 2007 pledge from then-Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day to not introduce mandatory disclosure of personal information without a warrant. That position was dropped soon after Peter Van Loan took over the portfolio.

http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/6782/125/

 

[weltweit]

We just had this fight in Canada. The govt wants sweeping internet surveillance powers, so it raises the spectre of child porn. ...

Interesting, I wonder if that is a subtext here also..

 

[Firky]

Fucking hell.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Interesting, I wonder if that is a subtext here also..

Of course. Even the police said that they didn't need it.

 

[smokedout]

Ok, but this suggests it can be accessed from google, surely that is not desirable?

some of it probably leaks onto google, but it cant be much or google image search etc would be full of it. Id imagine google do log sites, pass on details etc, they must get thousands of reports as well, this just seems like playing to the gallery by someone who doesn't understand the internet

whenever you read about someone being convicted of online noncing, they always mention google search strings used as part of the evidence, strikes me as quite an important point as to whether someone accidentally stumbled across child porn, or whether they went looking for it. in others words this could make it harder to get convictions, have no impact on the amount or accessibility of child porn online, sets a precedent that could creep further then just child porn but the daily mail will love it because they are fucking stupid and shouldnt be allowed to use computers anyway if they cant use google without exposing there children to child porn and turning themselves into paedos

 

[free spirit]

I wonder. Does anyone actually sit down at the computer and type 'child porn' into the Google search window?

I nearly did when I was watching the news item on this, but figured it'd probably be a bad idea.

I was wanting to test out my thinking that it'd just be full of news items about people being nicked for child porn etc. I really doubt that google will be how people go about finding child porn images.

 

[peterkro]

I just googled "child porn" and at least for the first 40 pages were full of news reports and politicians ranting about how to stop this tsunami of horror.I'm not saying it's not a problem however the web polices itself pretty well and if you were seeking out child porn Google would probably the last tool you'd use.