Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Collaborates On Child Porn Buster
pmike_bauer writes "Microsoft and Canadian authorities on Thursday launched a software program designed to help police worldwide hunt down child porn traffickers. Police departments can use it free of charge." From the article: "The program was developed by Microsoft Canada, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and Toronto police, with the help of the Department of Homeland Security, Scotland Yard and Interpol." Update: 04/08 18:09 GMT by Z : Modified to reflect the fact that it's not Open Source.
This is a somewhat strange choice by Microsoft, in my opinion.
They cry and whinge about how inherently evil OSS is, and then when its used for a purpose that they know nothing other than OSS would be accepted, they go ahead and release software in this way.
It would be interesting to see what license this has been released under.
This could serve good use in showing they FUD around open source as the sham that it is.
Whilst im glad that they are doing this, I wonder if it may come back and haunt their OSS fighting efforts later down the line. Lets hope so, im all for Win-Win situations.
-Shepy
About bloody time, too. Microsoft releasing an open-source tool-- good. Killing child porn-- even damn better!
Details of how the system works are being kept secret, Hemler (Microsoft Canada president) said. "We're intentionally coy about the technology that is used in this because we think it gives the good guys an advantage over the bad guys," he said. "Think of it as an assembly of commonly available Microsoft software, using techniques from Microsoft Research and best practices that the law enforcement community shared with us."
Look! Open Source, good! Protect the children against those bad child pornographers, good! Now, how about looking at what they're actually doing besides their cover story, bad.
This is the second time in about a week that we're seeing Microsoft doing something that puts it up against a greater evil. And to make it even more boggling, they're doing it open-source.
Did Microsoft hire someone new? Or did they take a look at their image and try to make amends? As much as I know my view of them is biased both by my history as a mac fan and the rants I've seen of others complaining and complaining about problems with microsoft (note I'm not trying to start an argument here, just pointing out that my view is biased); I know that Gates has funded new CompSci departments for universities like Cambridge (UK) - it's just a surprise to see what has seemed such a stereotypical corporation taking these steps against something in this way. Gates' view that open source is evil has been overtaken by the view that child porn is worse. I completely agree, and as strange as it is to say it - good work, Microsoft.
Browsing with +2 to insightful posts and a higher threshold makes the average post seen seem a lot more ingenious
I guess one good thing is that it was built by Microsoft, so it won't work correctly until v3.0.
You better hope that means it doesn't find anything, rather than it incorrectly finding you.
How open source can it be?
1. I can't find the license anywhere.
2. I can't find where to download the binaries.
3. I can't find where to download the source code.
4. It's available for free only to law enforcement.
Has anyone actually located 1, 2, or 3? Please post if you do...
perl -e 'foreach(values %SIG){$_="IGNORE";}while(){}'
No guns? Haven't you seen Bowling for Columbine?
perl -e 'foreach(values %SIG){$_="IGNORE";}while(){}'
It only doesn't affect your rights if it is *only* employed against child pron. And yes, I agree that that is a a repulsive crime. On the other hands you don't need to be a member of the tinfoil hat brigade to think of ways this could be abused, especially if the actual design and mechanisms remain secret.
Think for a minute. If you walked up to someone on the street and shot them in the head, would you be able to say Hey! You can't get me! You violated my right to privacy because I have Universal, 24x7, everywhere continual anonymity, and therefore you couldn't possibly have legally seen me out in public doing anything, let alone shoot someone in the head! My rights! My rights! My rights are being violated! ????
Same difference.
Say you do shoot someone in the head in the privacy of your own home. Are you somehow magically safe from the law because nobody has the right to know or determine what you do in your God-Given-Constitutionally-Approved-Super-Duper-P
Are you afraid that someone is going to track down your Super-Private online goings-on and share your secret with others? For example... is Safeway (grocery chain) going to track down all your online purchases of ass ailment treatments, and then, in their store, announce over the loud speaker, John Doe, We're currently featuring 10 cents off Assinol Plus with the purchase of Roidwipes2000? No. Could they? Perhaps. Would they? No. Their legal department would forbid it, for fear of frivolous lawsuits such as the one you'd hit them with 10 minutes later.
So Anyway, my main points here are:
1. you don't have a universal deluxe right to privacy, it's a myth.
2. The Man is already reluctant to use your top-secret-Jedi info for fear of frivolous lawsuits.
Also, the cornerstone of paranoia is the mistaken belief that others actually care. They just don't. You're not that interesting (nor am I), nobody really cares, so relax.
"Would it kill you to put down the toilet seat?" -- Maya Angelou
...I obey the laws of physics....
Similar stats could probably be cited for any kind of image found on the Internet, including cars, sunsets, weddings, houses, and generic boob-n-beaver shots of consenting college students. News flash: the Internet (especially the Web) has grown a lot in the past decade!
I'm not saying that child sexual abuse isn't a problem (it is, and has been since long before ARPAnet, and the perps should be beaten with rubber hoses), but this statement in the article implies a kind of exponentially-exploding disaster that it doesn't actually demonstrate.
Feeling worried? Maybe you should delete ALL your pictures. Imagine, being arrested because some computer flagged your photos of your kittens as kiddie porn. I'm sure you'll feel better once the cops take the time to come out and seize your computers (which you will never see again, even after they figure out they fucked up).
Maybe you'll even feel relieved when one comes by your office and announces loudly "Mr. Coward, you're under arrest for possession of child pornography". I hope you didn't enjoy that job.
Perhaps you'll be at ease when you're sitting in your cell reading the paper and see how "investigators found a collection of photos of little boys and girls in various sexual acts on disks in the person's desk". Haven't you ever thought it odd how its always found on disks? When nobody uses floppies anymore?
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
Common mistake - open source does not mean that 1, 2 or 3 have to be fulfilled to the general public, indeed I can opensource a project of mine and supply the binary and code to my one sole customer, it would still be open source.
That would make virtually every large scale engineering or realtime control system for the past three decades "open source". And that's just stupid... our product ships in source code form, but it's sure as heck not described as, thought of as, or considered "open source". It's a proprietary product that comes with a source distribution.
There is nothing in any of the GNU licenses or the OSI opproved licenses that says 'you must supply this to the general public for it to be an opensource project',
That's true, it's perfectly possible to violate the spirit of open source while complying with the letter of any license. That's not "open source", that's "gaming the system".
Philosophically speaking, the situation you've just described would imply that your work is Free Software (as in freedom) not Open Source. Free Software is based on the idea that you should be able to see how your programs work (a political movement); Open Source is based on the idea that the more eyes you get looking at something the better (a development model).
For the love of God, please learn to spell "ridiculous"!!!
Nationwide fear, paranoia, and long-term apathy has made shows like 24 palatable. I started watching this show when the current season began and I was horrified at the laws and rights that those CTU twits would trample just to take shortcuts to get his man. The rule of law can make things inconvenient but it's there for a REASON.
Call me crazy, but I'd rather have my rights than some illusion of security. If Bauer's heroism was in his cleverness and creativity while following the rules, he truly would be a hero. To me, he's just a manifestation of the stampeding fear America has of "terrorists."
Fair enough. It's worth noting, though, that the phrase 'Open Source' does have these connotations for people. By limiting the size of the community, Microsoft is imposing restrictions on the code that do not apply to most people's conception of OSS.
It's not unexpected, of course, since by releasing the code to the general public, Microsoft would be acknowledging the idea that you can still have a secure system if the code is publicly available.
It'll be interesting to see what happens when the code leaks.
perl -e 'foreach(values %SIG){$_="IGNORE";}while(){}'
1. I can't find the license anywhere.
2. I can't find where to download the binaries.
3. I can't find where to download the source code.
4. It's available for free only to law enforcement.
The fact that you can't find it doesn't mean it isn't open source. The fact that it might only ever be available to law enforcement doesn't mean it isn't open source, either. Not even the GPL requires that a work be distributed to whoever wants it. (Not that I have any delusions about this MS project being GPL'd...)
From the GPL FAQ (next to last question):
"The GPL does not require anyone to use the Internet for distribution. It also does not require anyone in particular to redistribute the program. And (outside of one special case), even if someone does decide to redistribute the program sometimes, the GPL doesn't say he has to distribute a copy to you in particular, or any other person in particular.
What the GPL requires is that he must have the freedom to distribute a copy to you if he wishes to. Once the copyright holder does distribute a copy program to someone, that someone can then redistribute the program to you, or to anyone else, as he sees fit."
So, unless Microsoft Canada or certain law enforement agencies decided the give/sell you a copy of the (hypothetically GPL'd) application, you still wouldn't get a copy, yet it would still be freeware.
They can't help it, that's how the mind works. It doesn't track the source of information all that well, so when it comes to form a decision or opinion on something, all of the media you have seen in your life comes into play and you don't know it. If I were to ask you, e.g. what was the Vatican's stance on the Hollocaust? Most people would say "silence", because that's what it said in the movie Dogma. It's not true, but that doesn't matter. Likewise the old west. Instead of being the brutal ethnic cleansing of 20,000,000 native americans, cowboys are seen as heros and pioneers. He who controls the past controls the present.
This is old news. Hollywood has been deliberately used to promote the American Dream for many years. Advertising has been used to get brand recognition instilled into us. And religion has been around for several thousand years. People will believe anything you tell them, it's not natural to question everything. What most folk don't realise is that the producers of media are very much aware of these facts and techniques.
I missed the part of the 1st Amendment that gave people the right to violate and abuse children.
No keyboard detected. Press any key to continue.
Perhaps you'll be at ease when you're sitting in your cell reading the paper and see how "investigators found a collection of photos of little boys and girls in various sexual acts on disks in the person's desk". Haven't you ever thought it odd how its always found on disks? When nobody uses floppies anymore?
While I share your concerns, take off the tin foil. "Disks" could also mean Compact Discs or Digital V(pickyourword) Discs.
Not to say that there aren't crooked cops out there who plant evidence, but most of them don't need to. People who do this sort of thing can be remarkably stupid about leaving incriminating items all over the place.
"An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it." Col. Jeff Cooper
You better hope that means it doesn't find anything, rather than it incorrectly finding you.
Well, since the system can only identify potential connections that are flagged for detectives to look at, if it somehow matches your credit card number to kiddie porn, then there are one of two possibilities: (a) there really is a link, and if the system hadn't spotted it an astute detective might have or (b) there really is no such connection, in which case the detective will swear at the system for wasting his time and get on with his job.
Even if there is a link, it doesn't mean you're going to jail, it means that the nature of the link has to be analyzed, to determine if there's enough evidence to warrant further investigation and what kind of investigation. A match on the system won't put you in jail. A chain of evidence, collected according to the rules, that is strong enough to convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that you're a child pornographer is what puts you in jail.
Yes, police investigations sometimes inconvenience people who did nothing wrong, but that's unavoidable. Actually, that's why the system bends over so far trying to give the alleged criminal every benefit of the doubt. You can't get 100% accuracy, so we try to err on the side of freeing criminals rather than jailing innocents. So, lots of criminals walk on "technicalities", and a few innocents go to prison.
Nothing about this system, as far as I can see, changes the nature of the criminal justice process and system at all. It just facilitates part of the detective work. If it often finds erroneous links, then the detectives will quickly learn to ignore it, or at least analyze everything it finds very skeptically. In any case, the system can't create evidence where none exists.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Now I in no way condone child pornography, but producing statistics w/o context for comparison is ridiculous:
"The FBI has seen a 2,000 percent increase in the number of child pornography images on the Internet since 1996"
What's the percentage increase in non-child porn on the internet since 1996? The percentage increase in pictures period? 2,000 percent seems like it could be a lower bound, but who really knows?
That quote makes it sound like the world is under a deluge of child porn, when in fact one could argue that the internet is just getting bigger.
They've got the source code, right? What keeps them from altering it a little bit and using it to track people who might be buying bomb-making material? Or people who might be running prostitution rings? Or drugs? Or anarchists?
The software doesn't search for images. From the article, it's essentially a groupware law-enforcement collaboration tool. Why stop at child porn?
If we didn't have a "big eye" before, we will shortly.
The ______ Agenda
Simple; it's called jurisdiction-creep. Bureaucracies engage in it all the time, and those bureaucracies that have the word "Security" in their moniker are especially guilty of it. :P
Regards;
Bill Gates one saving grace may be his philanthropic efforts.
Are their any great examples of philanthropy in the open source community?
The whole reason they're doing this is VERY simple.
Release a tool that does some huge good - i.e. Busting child porn purveyors.
Make it open source, so the criminals can read the code.
The criminals can see how they're getting caught, and adapt.
Microsoft then proves that Open Source is evil, because it lets criminals get away.
All they did was find a limited-case example where releasing the code might be harmful, and implement it. This will be thoroughly epic FUD a year from now.
Get ready for it.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
Are you afraid that someone is going to track down your Super-Private online goings-on and share your secret with others? For example... is Safeway (grocery chain) going to track down all your online purchases of ass ailment treatments, and then, in their store, announce over the loud speaker, John Doe, We're currently featuring 10 cents off Assinol Plus with the purchase of Roidwipes2000? No. Could they? Perhaps. Would they? No. Their legal department would forbid it, for fear of frivolous lawsuits such as the one you'd hit them with 10 minutes later.
Nit #1. I wouldn't call that lawsuit frivilous. I think people have a pretty good expectation of not being made a spectacle of in the middle of a store due to medical conditions.
Nit #2. The Constitution does not define the rights we have. Just because it's not explicitly stated in the Constitution means absolutely nothing at all.
There are, however, reasonble limits to invasion and protection of privacy. I fear that unreasonable people are taking control of what those limits are, though.
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
Think COST REDUCTION! Microsoft probably ran a business case on this and determined that selling it would not win points or make money. So they whip up something and then release it into the wild where a million OSS zealots will maintain it... for FREE! Microsoft can walk away from any further responsibilities to bugfix, update, yet still claim that they're helping the cause. In my business the cost of development is nothing compared to the costs of ongoing maintenance and support.
"What does MS need to do to earn a thank you from all the nay-sayers"
Make it open source and give us a downloadable link.
That way, we can port it to Linux where it can do some real good. You see, Windows is such a poor platform, that I'm afraid that unless we run it on a secure platform (such as Linux), it will let a lot of evil child pornographers escape.
So I suppose you are for letting child pornographers escape. Open source people just want to catch all the child porno people.
You must be sick to not want the same thing.
There are very real cases where people have got their whole lives nearly destroyed after being falsely suspected of paedophilia and being found innocent. (Attacked, lost jobs, shot, forced to relocate, etc).
Once such suspicion gets to the ears of the neighbourhood, it's "guilty, whatever the proof".
Child pornography is not a technological problem. It is a social problem and can only be dealt with on a social front.
..... now, if people actually are abusing children, that should be punished. {Bathtime and holiday snaps, which do not involve abuse, shouldn't.} As should attempting to emulate in real life certain things seen in pictures. But those things already are illegal. And most child abuse is perpetrated by a family member or friend, not by random strangers.
And, frankly, I don't give a flying toss about people looking at pictures. If some sicko wants to get his filthy little rocks off, I'd far, far rather he did so into a box of Kleenex than with any kid of mine. {Plus, he would then be safely out of commission for a few hours.} It's just a picture, for crying out loud -- the damage {if there was any damage -- many fairly innocuous pictures of kids in the bath, or on the beach, nowadays would be considered "child porn"} is long since done. The suffering does not increase every time someone looks at a picture.
Taking the pictures is a different matter
But in these times, the New Dark Ages, child pornography has become the new witchcraft. And there isn't going to be any kind of rational debate anytime soon.
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
Children are bought and sold, gang-raped, and forced to have sex with each other. Acts which absolutely destroy a child.
That's a pretty boring issue. I doubt you'd find anyone who'd seriously argue whether or not that is or should be a crime. That people who actually commit those crimes should be put in prison.
The more interesting issue is whether possession of information should be a crime. For example is (or should) possession of a photograph of a crime itself a crime? Lots of people possess pictures of the planes hitting the World Trade Center. The murder of several thousand people is a pretty heinous crime. It certainly included the murder of children. Are they criminals for possessing an image of a crime? Does it depend upon what crime it is a picture of? Do we just decide we don't like certain kinds of pictures, therefore possession of them will be criminal even though pictures of children being murdered are ok? Don't criminal laws have to be backed up by something a lot more solid than "because we really really really dislike it"? Where "it" is mere possession of a picture taken by someone else.
And then there's there's the wonderful argument about whether possession of even fictional images is (or should be) a crime. And better yet whether posession of fictional text is (or should be) a crime.
Those are interesting questions. But no, you don't actually say anything interesting. You don't say anything relevant. You just waste your breath on a pointless comment that rapists are criminals. Well duh. Like that comment somehow closes the issue? Like that comment ANYTHING AT ALL about the issue?
Yep. Littering is a crime. Anyone possessing a photograph with litter in it - a photograph taken by someone else - anyone possessing such a photo is a criminal. Anyone drawing a sketch with litter in it is a criminal. Anyone possessing a sketch depicting litter is a criminal. And best of all anyone who possesses words written by someone else describing fictional litter is a criminal. Because we all agree that littering is a crime. Case closed.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
There is no "show". In my opine, the problem is exactly the fact that so many are content to sit on their arse, and watch frigging television.
Want a superhero? Someone to fight for your rights? I actually know where to find one!
Go to your nearest mirror, and take a close look. (Cape is optional.) Hmmm, now who would expect that ugly mug to be the face of a freedom fighter?
The way it works is, you, and every other mothers son has to stand up, put down the budweiser or moosehead, turn off the damn glowing boxen, and march your self down to the local city hall, or other local government office and make a damn pest of yourself, by actually being involved with what goes on.
I will lay odds that 99.5% of slashdot readers, for all their bullshit political raving, don't actually _do_ anything. (A simple test, do your city councilmen know your face and name?)
My city council sure as hell does not like to see my face in any council meeting, and they all certainly know my name, because they know that I am ever ready to challenge any bullshit they routinely try to pull. I have caused overly restrictive ordinance changes to be sent back to committee, for extreme modification, because they knew that I would take it to the voters for referendum. To quote the city manager... "That's the last thing we want."
So, If the will of the voters is the last thing they want, and ONE PERSON can cause this to go back for a more resonable approach to the problem, then how many freedoms have been lost in this country because people would rather sit home watching the damn glowing box than watching their local government in action, and standing up to them to keep the freedom destroyers in check.... Same in the state and federal level.
Look, these guys are mostly cowards... Most of them will fold under public scrutiny and political pressure...
But, if it appears that there is little or no resistance, then many will do whatever is expediant, and the hell with your freedoms.
Freedoms are usually not won in small increments, but they are lost or kept that way.
So, to all the readers. Don't bitch about it on slash-dot only. Get your butt involved in local, state and federal politics.
I will yeild the soap box to the next person now...
NOW, what did I do with that beer?
Drop me a line at:
Key ID: 0x54D1D809
Because if this wasn't being presented as "Open Source", it wouldn't have gotten the attention it did? Think about it.
Of course, law enforcement doesn't hire any IT folks. And they certainly never build their own tools so they wouldn't be interested in improving this one based on their own needs. Or do they?
First, there's no guarantee you'll be found innocent. If police want something bad enough, they've been known to do some not so legal things to get their man. Second, regardless of the outcome, your neighbors find out, your coworkers do, everybody does. That is enough to ruin a life right there. And if you don't think so, ask anybody who's been wrongfully accused of a felony charge.
Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
You're funny.
The only difference between a lot of cops and crooks is that they chose to get paid BY THE PUBLIC to carry guns and bully people.
M$ seem to mean well; they're also working against phishing. Almost certainly this could be misused, but so can many useful things. I don't think they're as evil as they're protrayed to be.
:-)
But I still think Linux is better, and it's still fun to laugh at them
Ho hum. "It just facilitates part of the detective work."
But there are laws in place to prevent these abuses.
Ok, so maybe those laws have loopholes. But all he did was send her an intimidating letter. Cops would never use databases to do worse.
A few bad apples. The databases wouldn't be used to frame political opponents.
But we all know that those Earth Firsters are, essentially, terrorists. Why should terrorists be protected by laws? The FBI doesn't frame peaceful protesters!
Opinions on the Twiddler2 hand-held keyboard?