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
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.
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."
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
The article from MSNBC mentioned in this story is very light on details. Thanks to Google News, here are some more useful articles about CETS, the Child Exploitation Tracking System:
These articles mention that CETS is based on MS SQL Server (for the database) and some bits of MS SharePoint (for the web portal). Also, the system uses .NET and web services (SOAP/XML) for exchanging data so it should be possible to integrate this with non-Microsoft systems (in theory).
What is not mentioned in any of the articles is whether the system is really open-source, as claimed in the headline of this Slashdot story and the related MSNBC article. The only statements that I found about this said that Microsoft Canada will "make [CETS] available free of charge to any law enforcement agency that wants to use it." But no mention of any Open Source license.
-Raphaël
WTF does Homeland Security have to do with this?
Funny how a week ago, this story would have made perfect sense.
Beauty is in the eye of the beerholder.
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
-- Thou hast strayed far from the path of the Avatar.
Entry Number 1, Mr Michael Jackson.
Gee... I guess that couldn't be since the number of internet users has grown since 1996? Nah...
The Official Steve Ballmer Webpage
Microsoft writes open source child porn buster
Next weeks news item: Microsoft claims open source supports child porn
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){$_="IGNORE";}while(){}'
Oh, that's what it is! One of the local headline writers made it sound a little different.
You probably shouldn't click this.
Windows Windows?
I'm sure Bill would love for you to buy 2 licenses every time you needed just one.
TFA doesn't seem to have any clue what "open source" means. This isn't open source at all. It was liscences to several MS server technologies donated to the National Child Exploitation Coordination Centre in Ottawa. It gives Canadian police a central database for notes, evidence collected, and existing tracking databases. It then uses standard data mining to tease out connections. It will do the same for other jurisdictions. It's "free as in beer" if your a national law enforcement agency, but certainly not "free as in speech"
Free MacMini
No guns? Haven't you seen Bowling for Columbine?
perl -e 'foreach(values %SIG){$_="IGNORE";}while(){}'
include/asm-alpha/errno.h, include/asm-arm/errno.h, include/asm-cris/errno.h, include/asm-i386/errno.h, include/asm-ia64/errno.h, include/asm-m68k/errno.h, include/asm-mips/errno.h, include/asm-mips64/errno.h, include/asm-parisc/errno.h, include/asm-ppc/errno.h, include/asm-ppc64/errno.h, include/asm-s390/errno.h, include/asm-s390x/errno.h, include/asm-sh/errno.h, include/asm-sparc/errno.h, include/asm-sparc64/errno.h, include/asm-x86_64/errno.h, include/asm-alpha/signal.h, include/asm-arm/signal.h, include/asm-cris/signal.h, include/asm-i386/signal.h, include/asm-ia64/signal.h, include/asm-m68k/signal.h, include/asm-mips/signal.h, include/asm-mips64/signal.h, include/asm-parisc/signal.h, include/asm-ppc/signal.h, include/asm-ppc64/signal.h, include/asm-s390/signal.h, include/asm-s390x/signal.h, include/asm-sh/signal.h, include/asm-sparc/signal.h, include/asm-sparc64/signal.h, include/asm-x86_64/signal.h, include/linux/stat.h, include/linux/ctype.h, lib/ctype.c, include/asm-alpha/ioctl.h, include/asm-alpha/ioctls.h, include/asm-arm/ioctl.h, include/asm-cris/ioctl.h, include/asm-i386/ioctl.h, include/asm-ia64/ioctl.h, include/asm-m68k/ioctl.h, include/asm-mips/ioctl.h, include/asm-mips64/ioctl.h, include/asm-mips64/ioctls.h, include/asm-parisc/ioctl.h, include/asm-parisc/ioctls.h, include/asm-ppc/ioctl.h, include/asm-ppc/ioctls.h, include/asm-ppc64/ioctl.h, include/asm-ppc64/ioctls.h, include/asm-s390/ioctl.h, include/asm-s390x/ioctl.h, include/asm-sh/ioctl.h, include/asm-sh/ioctls.h, include/asm-sparc/ioctl.h, include/asm-sparc/ioctls.h, include/asm-sparc64/ioctl.h, include/asm-sparc64/ioctls.h, include/asm-x86_64/ioctl.h, include/linux/ipc.h, include/linux/acct.h, include/asm-sparc/a.out.h, include/linux/a.out.h, arch/mips/boot/ecoff.h, include/asm-sparc/bsderrno.h, include/asm-sparc/solerrno.h, include/asm-sparc64/bsderrno.h, and include/asm-sparc64/solerrno.h
Then it said that I could get a license for untainted versions of the files for something like $700 as a special limited-time offer...Village idiot in some extremely smart villages.
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
Trying to tie this issue to 1st amendment rights shows how little you know about the issue and how little you know about the 1st amendment.
Children are bought and sold, gang-raped, and forced to have sex with each other. Acts which absolutely destroy a child. This isn't some victimless crime.
But, continue on with your ignorant anti-american ways. I'm sure it somehow makes you feel better about yourself.
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.
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. 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', you can keep an entire GPLed codebase within a tight group of people, so long as the binary isnt distributed outside that group.
Opensource does not mean you have immediate rights to 1, 2 or 3.
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".
No mate. These are Canadians so they would use JTF2, not the SAS.
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(){}'
Criminals usually succeed by anonymity. This OSS code appears to remove that advantage, BUT if they (the crinimals) had access to this so called OSS code, eventually they will gain that advantage back--it's chess game/game theory situation. Becuase of the policies currently in place, OSS code for fighting crime is similar to OSS electronic voting--an oxymoron.
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
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.
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
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.
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
But if the program was indeed under an open-source license, then any member of that group could make the binary and source available to the general public - and what's more, it wouldn't be a "leak" or anything, it would be something that's perfectly within their rights.
Considering M$ seems to have stated that they purposefully want to keep the technology secret in order to give the "good guys" an advantage, I doubt it's under any open-source or free license - in fact, considering this goal, it's probably pretty much safe to say that it will NOT be.
However, there is another question that I haven't seen anyone ask so far. What does M$ get out of this? They are a company, so ultimately, what they want to do is make money - even more so since they got shareholder value to worry about. So... do they plan on screwing police departments using this over in the future in some way? Or do they just want the free advertising value (hoping for a "ooh, look at those guys, they help track down child porn for free, what a noble cause, I will buy M$ Office now to support them" effect)? Do they just want to be on "good terms" with law enforcement people/governments for the future?
I don't know. The only thing I *do* know is that there is no such thing as a free lunch, and while I don't blame M$ for (ultimately) wanting to make money, if I was a decision maker in a law enforcement agency, I'd certainly wonder what exactly *they* hope to get out of this whole thing.
quidquid latine dictum sit altum videtur.
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.
The Canadian child pornography law covers purely fictional material. Draw a picture of a child being raped, from imagination, without any real child being harmed, and that is just as illegal in Canada as if it were a photo from life. One recent widely-reported case had a man in Edmonton arrested and prosecuted for possession of fictional Japanese comic books. They are also working hard on expanding the law to also cover text. That is, words, made up from imagination, without any pictures. The current effort is almost entirely directed at writing a law to convict one man - Robin Sharpe - who was acquitted of child pornography possession because the "child pornography" in question was fictional text and the Supreme Court said (correctly) that that was victimless and couldn't be prosecuted. The Religious Right is pressing to rewrite the law - damn the Constitution - in order to have a way to convict people like Sharpe. (The law actually already does cover text, but they want to make it a lot broader.)
This isn't about children "bought and sold, gang-raped, and forced to have sex with each other". It is sometimes, and in the most important and highest-profile actual Canadian case, a truly victimless crime.
Do you really believe that purely imaginary words should ever be illegal? I don't.
Bill Gates one saving grace may be his philanthropic efforts.
Are their any great examples of philanthropy in the open source community?
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
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.
lus3r:= whois(userdoman)
case lus3r
microsoft.com: execute goodguys
apple.com: execute sick-em
redhat.com: execute sick-em
*torvald*: execute kill-em
end case
sub sick-em
execute upload michael_jackson_home_movies
execute call_Homeland_security
end sub
sub kill-em
execute upload gates_kids_home_movies
execute call_interpol
end sub
sub goodguys
execute grant_more_stock_options
execute ballmer_happy_dance
end sub
Refer to the article on slashdot the other day about MSFT..
/. writes it up with some smarmy "I guess Bill is too busy helping those brown people" quip. I read that as a paraphrase of "Bill Gates is a dirty nigger lover".
Bill Gates has pledged 90+% of his net worth, and has stated it is his personal mission to stop AIDS.
They're too fucking retarded to mentally seperate a man from a corporation, and too immature to discuss any sort of issue without lame ass ad-hominem attacks.
I mean, I think the linux community is full of dipshits and arrogant assholes. Yet, I don't run around posting "Linus Trovalds is a nigger lover"
What, exactly, have you done to help your fellow man, Taco? Not a fucking thing.
Then of course, there's the blatant racism against Indians. I guess they have to blame someone for being unemployed, rather than looking in a mirror and realizing they have no jobs because we have no tangible computer skills.
I've pretty much abandoned the "geek community". Nobody discusses technology here anymore. Slashdot is nothing but lame ass "We hate Bush, we hate Gates, we hate Blah blah blah" rants.
Frankly, I'd love to see a discussion of how this software works, what it's shortcomings are, what it's strengths are. I won't get that here. Once upon a time I did. I keep coming back hoping it'll once again be a "news for nerds" site.
The community here can't discuss anything computer-related on a technical level. The average slashdotter is not a programmer, the average slashdotter is an "IT guy" who reboots your computer, or crawls under your desk to plug in the Cat 5, or he's on the other end of the phone reading through some scripted troubleshooting measures, and that's where his skills end.
Anyhow, waste some more mod points on me.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
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.
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!
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".
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?
...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 article was a little light on the exact details of what this software actually does but even so I'm wondering how the developers and QA people tested this software. I'm sure it had to run against live chat rooms and real people. Can you imagine being a QA tester and getting sent to vefiry that an online chat actually contained child porn discussions? Talk about creepy work.
- First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then ???, then profit.
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
I hadn't had my coffee yet and first read this as "Microsoft Writes Open Source Child Porn Cluster" and thought they must really be going out of their way to discredit OSS now. Heh heh "Join the Microsoft Open Source Kiddie Porn Ring!" Yow! Well I guess I'd best go make my coffee now...
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
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.
I suggest you read some of RMS's writings.
There is nothing in the GPL or most other free software licences that requires you to make your software available for free on an ftp site.
It is perfectly OK to sell it and make money from selling it.
What you can't do is prevent the people you sell it to from making it available on an ftp site if they choose to do this.
many of the posts on this thread seem to stating this, in a nutshell: "yes this is a good thing but hey they are just trying to make more money through positive PR". really? if you choose to live in any degree of capitalist society you accept this. this is the best you can hope for.
/. crowd can't stand it, bill gates is extremelely philanthropic ...
0 04gates.html)
.. but that does not dimish the good things that happen as a result of the cash.
as much as the
"Forbes calculates that Gates has given 37% of his wealth--more than $28 billion--to charitable causes, largely via the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. (By contrast, add up the donations made by billionaires Warren Buffett, Paul Allen, Michael Dell, Larry Ellison and Steve Ballmer and you get about $2.55 billion--not even the equivalent of a decent tip on a $28-billion tab.)
(source: http://forbes.com/philanthropy/2004/10/04/cz_ec_1
sure, he gets tax breaks, he gets PR
First, there's no guarantee you'll be found innocent. If police want something bad enough, they've been known to do some not so legal things to get their man. Second, regardless of the outcome, your neighbors find out, your coworkers do, everybody does. That is enough to ruin a life right there. And if you don't think so, ask anybody who's been wrongfully accused of a felony charge.
Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
Wish I was trusted with mod points for ya.
The problem with information (data), is that it can be very easily re-purposed, disseminated, aggregated, and combined with other sources. It happens all the time...
Having worked for law enforcement, I'm nervous about any aggregation of data in an era where politically hot issues so easily distort the quaint ol' concept of "innocent until proven guilty". Highly visible lists and uberdatabases making the news in recent years may serve to illustrate the difficulty of clearing one's name.
Certainly the intended purpose of many of these projects is laudable. But the unintended consequences of attempting to connect diverse "dots" can pose a threat that, well, doesn't seem to be acknowledged by many here... not to mention those in positions of power who are trusted to mitigate such risks.
<grrr>
M$ 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