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.
I watch 24 and like it. It's always made me laugh at how easily the agents in the CTU offices were able to bring up any info about anyone anywhere in the world and have that info be up to date. I was amused because it was just so stupid to think that that kind of technology could be developed. You'd need massive amounts of hardware, some serious database capabilities, and motivation to build a monstrosity like that.
I'm not laughing so much after reading this article. It seems to describe exactly the type of universal "Big Eye" technology that Jack Bauer and his cronies at CTU have at their fingertips. And with a cattle prod like CHILD PORNOGRAPHY they've got motivation to build it and a shield to protect themselves from privacy complaints. After all, it is designed specifically to protect the children.
I guess one good thing is that it was built by Microsoft, so it won't work correctly until v3.0.
I hate child pornographers as much as anyone. I find their perversion sick and disgusting. (I am not adverse to them getting their rocks off by looking at adults who look like children. Nothing wrong with that.) But I fail to see why everyone's right to privacy should be invaded just because the Canadians can't track down their own criminals.
What we need is the anti-24. A show with a hero who is interested in building up our rights rather than finding ways of tearing it down. I guess that wouldn't go over too well in these days of ultra-Americanism, though.
I googled for license agreement, but found nothing. I would be very surprised, if Microsoft released it under one of OSI approved licenses. So, what license is this "open-source"?
This Is Not a Sig
WTF does Homeland Security have to do with this?
Gee... I guess that couldn't be since the number of internet users has grown since 1996? Nah...
The Official Steve Ballmer Webpage
open source doesnt necessarily mean 'put the source on a website for all and sundry to download on a whim'
That's pretty much what it does mean. Otherwise it's just a source distribution, and proprietary code has been distributed in source form since, well, software's been around. Heck, big engineering projects and customised real-time control systems traditionally ship with full source, and it's only recently that a binary-only product wasn't a show-stopper in that market... but nobody would have described that as "open source".
Erm, actually they have about as many guns per person as the USA. They just don't quite as convinced that shooting someone is the way to solve a problem.
In Soviet Russia you own your cat
I think this could potentially be a subtle attempt by Microsoft to get people to associate the phrases "open source" and "child porn."
No, I mean it; don't hit that "+1 Funny" button yet. This is basic psychology, people. It's a variant of the Big Lie. All they have to do is present those two phrases together, over and over again, and people will eventually associate them to the point where if someone says "open source" the first thing that comes to mind is "child porn."
Tired of FB/Google censorship? Visit UNCENSORED!
busted people creating this stuff = good
busting people who accidentally downloaded shit off kazaa/gnutella/etc = bad
why do I have a feeling this might end up doing more of the latter?
If you don't want someone to copy something, don't give it to anyone.
Obviously, entities people dislike are suspected of having a hidden agenda when they suddently change behavior and do something they've historically opposed. When the spyware folks started making anti-spyware statements people were suspicious. Likewise when the anti-OSS folks start releasing OSS. This kind of suspicion is quite reasonable.
This doesn't mean that there isn't a "good" explanation -- just that people are skeptical.
In support of suspicion: Why is the US Dept. of Homeland Security involved in kiddy porn? Could there be some application beyond kiddy porn that might interest them?
It's a fairly common tactic to establish a precedent for a questionable tactic by using it against an unquestionable evil. I think that's what worries people about this.
Dewey
no rabid religious right
Oh, yeah? Why do you think the Canadian police are so concerned about child pornography in the first place? It's because the Religious Right, spearheaded by the Conservative Party of Canada, which is kind of like the Republicans only less moderate, is operating a carefully engineered moral panic to keep the public worried about a virtually non-existant child rape epidemic. That way they can keep attention directed away from issues the Left would prefer to discuss, like environmental degradation, lack of funding for health care, and so on.
Dig a photo of a scary-looking convict out of the archives and put it on television, throw around the word "pedophilia" a lot, quote some statistics along the lines of "N Internet servers carry child pornography!" (because all servers that carry Usenet have one or two objectionable messages in their gigabytes of spool) and "M children are abducted every year!" (virtually all of them "abducted" by their own parents, after court custody battles, with no sex abuse involved, but we won't mention that)... and congratulations, you don't have to talk about social programs for another week.
Looks like the only problem here is that the MSNBC article referred to the software as "open source." Since they're the only article I can find that calls it that, it seems like they're trying to confuse "no-cost" with open source (and OpenSource).
"child" = "someone who is not of legal age in the jurisdiction you're currently in".
So what if the person he had sex with was his wife? Girls are still married at the age of 12 (or maybe even younger) in many parts of the world; that does not mean that when a 12-year old and their husband travel to - say - the USA, it should be legal for them to have sex.
(The case is much less clear when the "child" is, for example, 17 or so, of course...)
quidquid latine dictum sit altum videtur.
Now, now - this is America, after all. You ought to know by now that, at the mere mention of CHILD PORNOGRAPHY, it is your constitutional duty to enter into a shouting competition with your fellow citizens to find the strongest, most bile-filled, venomous, hate-laced speech you can imagine to denounce it to the world. Mention of castration is good... the phrase "sick fucks" should come up several times in your denunciation. You should loudly support brutal anal rape in this scenario. You really can't protest too much. You wouldn't want somebody else to come off as more disgusted by it, would you? Because if somebody appears looks more disgusted by CHILD PORNOGRAPHY than you look, you run the risk of being suspected as a closet CHILD PORNOGRAPHER.
You see, if you don't denounce it, you support it. If you support it, you collect it. If you collect it, then you are a sick fuck who should be castrated and brutally anally raped. Any and all measures should be taken to defend against CHILD PORNOGRAPHY. Don't worry - these measure will only be used in to ongoing battle against CHILD PORNOGRAPHY (and, maybe, terrorism... and tracking down deadbeat dads... and wife beaters... ok, maybe a few more things... but really, as long as you're not doing anything bad, you have nothing to fear from us watching over you).This is only slightly off-topic but I think we have to start rethinking what we mean by child pornography. So far we play pretty fast and loose with the precise meaning of it. And specifically I am concerned with the ages at which we still consider people children.
Some cultures debut a woman into society at the age of 15 or 16. At the age she is debuted as a person of marriageable years. Doesn't that mean she is no longer a child? How about a boy of the same age? Some states allow 16 year olds, or minors, to be married. How about the child pornography laws in those states - is the age 16 or 18?
Yes, it matters. A lot. One makes sense and the other does not.
I even have a specific example: Traci Lords. IIRC, she was supposedly 15-16 when she made all those movies. Now I don't know the lady, but I have heard that she was the one that conned the porn industry into thinking she was over 18. They inquired, she lied about it. I have also heard that she was pretty much the slut and a driven porn career girl in her time.
But under the law something as innocent as her Penthouse magazine debut is considered child pornography. Sorry, if I don't cry a river of tears for a woman of 16 that looks and acts like that. It doesn't seem like child pornography to me, nor was it peddled that way in my view.
What about another child viewing the information in question? I mean your 13 year old son is trading naked pictures of himself with a 13 year old girl he knows. Are you liable? How do you prove it's your son and not you?
This is a big joke. This is more than a slippery slope - this a friggin' slip and slide hosed down in K-Y. The abuse of this technology is about to run wild. And as others have pointed out - it's really hard to be the guy arguing against a "child pornography" technology. They will cram it down our throats this way and then just sit back and watch the scary, abusive results.
Some of these children are not children. For all intents and purposes they are adults and should be treated as such.
BTW, you may curious if I have a cut off point at which age I think it makes sense to protect a child. I do: the age is 14. But I have a stipulation that the child cannot have lied or had false ID that suggested he or she was older than was the case. Now a lie is hard to prove, but if they have emails where the kid claims he or she is older, I consider that a fair defense. Any fake IDs indicating an older age are also a defense.
But 14 or under and with no extenuating circumstances, throw the book at them. Just don't trample all over everyone's privacy rights to do it.
I'm really sick of all the new laws, rulings, and technology whose purpose is just to make it easier to catch a supposed "criminal." We all commit crimes all the time. Surveillance is not really the answer. How much are you enjoying those street cameras that photograph your license plate and send you a mailed traffic ticket? Does it seem fair to you that it's you against a possibly faulty machine? Do you even time to fight it, or is it just more cost effective for you to take it in the ass and work that day instead?
You see, that's how they think. It's all about revenue collection and cheap prison labor to them; while to you it seems like it's all about an ordered society of laws.
think about the uses to which you can put that underlying code, which is now all open source. now imagine what will happen when someone takes this open source code and perverts it into a complete ID theft tool. what will the M$ press release look like then?
Then M$ just goes on saying this is because OSS is evil, and this only happened because of OSS.
I think this is one big misunderstanding. In the police & news world "Open Source" has a different meaning. It is used for information from publicly available sources like newspapers or the internet.
This is a programm to search Open Sources (websites) for information regarding kiddyporn, and links it together.
Deep inside my brain keeps yelling that this is just a Microsoft trick to create an association between "Open Source" and "Child Pornograpy".
...giving you a free needle to go with your heroin?
Unless I misunderstood, they give you the tool for free, but the required OS, the required SQL server and other stuff is not included.
It's certainly more useful than minesweeper, but I'm sure the ROI is still positive. If it weren't one of those "think of the chiiiiiildren" topics, it wouldn't even be news.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
The 10th Amendment to which you refer actually says:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
So, while I agree that a State could have established a state religion, I do not agree that powers are not reserved to individuals, since that is exactly what "the people" refers to: the people acting not as the U.S. or as a particular state of the Union.
it's a PR coup on two fronts...
Perhaps 3 fronts.
Microsoft just made a direct connection between OSS and kiddie porn. Whether or not it's a 'good' connection is irrelavent. The connection's made, just like the senators tring to associate P2P with kiddie porn. Any connotation with kiddie porn is a bad connotation in this "WON'T SOMEONE THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!11!!oneone!!OMGWTFBBQ!!!!!" world.
...Rob
The American Dream isn't an SUV and a house in the suburbs; it's Don't Tread On Me.
What do we do about underaged people who take pictures of themselves naked, delibrately, and delibrately share them?
Technically, they just produced child porn, and can indeed be punished under the law, assuming they can be legally charged as adults, which is 17 here, not 18. Yes, at 17, you aren't responsible enough to agree to pose nude, but you're responsible enough you can be charged as an adult if you take pictures of someone who's posing nude. Yes, even yourself.
As this is idiotic, no DA ever pressed charges, but the solution to idiotic laws isn't 'not press charges', it's to fix the laws.
It's even more absurd with age of consent laws being, for example, 16 here. A 17 year old girl can have sex with an 18 year old, or even a 93 year old, but heaven forbid they send a photo of themselve posing topless. They can be arrested for child porn and sent to an adult prison and forced to shower naked with other prisoners.
Oh, yeah, we're really making a lot of sense here.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
That's the theory, then there's the reality. Police and prosecutors have agendas, the average person can't afford a decent defense and public defenders are grossly overworked, there's immense social stigma associated with the mere whiff of involvement, etc.
Then there's the current craze for overcharging. Hit them with dozens of charges so they'll plea bargain down to what you _might_ have been able to get if the case went to trial. The innocent will agree to it because the alternative could be life in prison without parole, the prosecutor loves it because it bumps up their kill rate while freeing them to pursue other cases. Even better, part of a plea bargain is a surrender of all rights to appeal the conviction!
If you want to see a horrid example of this run amuck, look at the Weenachee, Washington child abuse cases. According to the police (a single officer, Lt. Perez, iirc), and the prosecutor a 30+ child abuse ring was uncovered and convicted.
If you listen to the critics, you'll learn that almost everyone charged was poor, hispanic, and accepted a plea bargain because they couldn't afford a defense. They all continue to maintain their innocence. The only couple to get off where rich and white and they took the case to trial. (The critics also point out that Perez appeared to have used improper interrogation techniques for young children and was far more likely to have implanted false memories than to have uncovered true ones. E.g., iirc he had many of his victims live with him while the child's parents were under investigation! He would (subconsciously?) reward them with ice cream and other treats when they were cooperative.)
If you listen to the other courts the city really screwed up and owes millions in dollars in damages. The city is appealing because the judgement will bankrupt the town.
Unfortunately the real victims are the 30+ people convicted of these crimes. The subsequent court rulings introduce massive doubts about the prior convictions and most people could get a new trial. (Then the DA would probably decline to prosecute, freeing them without an admission of wrongdoing on either side.) But they're stuck in prison for 5, 10 or even 20 years because they accepted plea bargains and lost their right of appeal. Their only hope may be a pardon from the governor - and mass pardons for convicted child molesters (regardless of circumstances) is political suicide.
So tell me again how the system bends over backwards to protect the innocence and the falsely accused have nothing to fear.
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
For that matter, couldn't the author of Lolita be held up in prison for this type of law, since his work is a fictional account of a man's romance with a child... This is indeed quite complex...
Besides, drawn/written child-porn is already allowed in the US and Canada as long as its creator puts a little disclaimer on it saying that "All characters are 18 or older"... even if other parts of the work mention a character who's just turned 18 lusting after her younger brother (an actual example from a hentai game sold on j-list.com). Somehow, the way the laws work, you can sell graphic hentai starring a character who looks 8 or 9 as long as you claim she's 18 (See: this review of Jewel Knights Crusaders), but if you draw a character who looks 18 and say she's 15, that's OMG CHILD PORN! and will get you in serious trouble.
But the system only knows what the investigating agencies put into it, and there's no indication of any kind of massive effort to connect it to other databases, or to put information about everyone in it. Such efforts would likely be counterproductive, since the volume of information would overwhelm the system's ability to cross-check everything.
The problem with information(data), is that it can be very easily re-purposed, disseminated, aggregated, and combined with other sources. It happens all the time...this is why the ChoicePoint fiasco was such a mess. An an even bigger problem faces the people who are supposedly represented by this information - if the data are in error, or if incorrect inferences are made, dealing with the fallout can easily become a major life event, where it requires proving that you DIDN'T do something, or that you WEREN'T intending to do something. It gets even worse- You have no idea where it will end up, who will be looking at it, and for what purpose.
I'm not a fan of criminal activity, but I do like the notion of freedom - including the freedom to be left alone. They might catch a few offenders with this technology, but people aren't stupid- they'll find ways around it. This, of course, will render the technology obsolete for this intended purpose, but it could easily remain in place for other purposes.
Your analogy is STILL flawed.
Others can STILL invent "lemorapples" they just have to do it from the same BSD-licensed code.
That's the real "Free-as-in-freedom," getting to decide the license for your own code!
Wish I was trusted with mod points for ya.
The problem with information (data), is that it can be very easily re-purposed, disseminated, aggregated, and combined with other sources. It happens all the time...
Having worked for law enforcement, I'm nervous about any aggregation of data in an era where politically hot issues so easily distort the quaint ol' concept of "innocent until proven guilty". Highly visible lists and uberdatabases making the news in recent years may serve to illustrate the difficulty of clearing one's name.
Certainly the intended purpose of many of these projects is laudable. But the unintended consequences of attempting to connect diverse "dots" can pose a threat that, well, doesn't seem to be acknowledged by many here... not to mention those in positions of power who are trusted to mitigate such risks.
<grrr>