Slashdot Mirror


ISPs to Create Database to Combat Child Porn

BlueCup writes to tell us that several media companies are banding together to create a database of child pornography images to help law enforcement officials combat distribution of questionable material. In addition to the database several tools and new technologies are also planned but most notable is what some perceive as a willingness to cooperate which critics say has been lacking in the past. From the article: "Each company will set its own procedures on how it uses the database, but executives say the partnership will let companies exchange their best ideas — ultimately developing tools for preventing child-porn distribution instead of simply catching violations."

18 of 595 comments (clear)

  1. Yeah. by Dibblah · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is a great idea. With a couple of tiny issues.

    ISPs have long said that they are just carriers and are not responsible for the content they provide access to. As soon as the technological solution for implementing a "content filter" is there, RIAA and friends will _require_ ISPs to use it for that purpose as well.

    This is completely ignoring the technical stupidity of trying to "fingerprint" media that is _not_ going to be transferred in plaintext.

    1. Re:Yeah. by Threni · · Score: 5, Insightful

      > This is completely ignoring the technical stupidity of trying to "fingerprint" media that is
      > _not_ going to be transferred in plaintext.

      And even if it is, it's trivial to come up with a way of altering images so that they look identical but where every bit is different to the original.

      I'm sure the Chinese government would literally kill to have a way of tracking the movement of files too.

      But yeah..kids...photographs...the internet...

    2. Re:Yeah. by voice_of_all_reason · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Besides I rather have someone like a teacher arrested because they found Child Porn on his PC, vs. Having him just work there for years not knowing because the ISP has blocked the traffic.

      See, that's the problem -- "rather 100 innocent jailed than one guilty man go free." It's supposed to be the other way around.

  2. So this is like... by Powercntrl · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...stopping the proliferation of nuclear weapons by creating a massive stockpile?

    --

    ---
    DRM is like antifreeze, to the MPAA/RIAA it's sweet, to the consumers it's poison.
    1. Re:So this is like... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yes, but the bad guys will still have nukes. Making statistics that say "they only have 0.1% the number of nukes we have" doesn't fix that.

      .. and *WOOOSH* goes the sound of the joke.. :-)

    2. Re:So this is like... by enrevanche · · Score: 5, Insightful
      This will probably only work against particular instances of an image. Change the resolution or compression rate even slightly will look like a whole new image. Zipping images with a password and/or various compression rates etc. will make this difficult also. This may catch the easy suspects though.

      If you only store a small piece of information per image, the number of false positives will make the whole thing useless. Store too much and your storing the image.

      Using SSL etc. will make it impossible.

      The analogy with nuclear weapons would be similar, change the box, add a few decoy parts, paint the others a different color and the original "plans" or pictures are worthless, the machine won't detect squat. A human expert probably would.

      I think this is probably all B.S., i.e. it's someone's idea of how they will make a lot of money in consulting and software developemnt. All the ISPs will buy into to say that they are doing something even though they know it is B.S.

      This is really a socialogical problem which is hard to fix and this makes just it sound like everyone's doing something. They dont have the answer. If pcs of 100 people are confiscated and their personal lives invaded for every one person caught, this is a vast injustice.

    3. Re:So this is like... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This is really a socialogical problem which is hard to fix

      Rubbish. It's (fairly) easy to fix. The trouble is that it's been demonised so much that it's turned into a "thoughtcrime".

      Here's an idea. Remove all laws against copying, selling and downloading child porn, but keep the laws against things that actually involve the children - like statutory rape, child abuse, etc. This makes it more likely that police will be able to find images of kids being abused, partially because the black market won't be so hidden and partially because it's more likely that the illegal stuff will be photographed. If the police have images of abuse, they can crop out everything but the kid's face and stick it on a milk carton with "do you know this kid"-style messages, thus actually tracking down the kids that are being abused and stopping the real crime, not the symptom.

      Unfortunately, this tactic would involve scaling back the paranoia and hatred and making a distinction between people who actually abuse children and people who are attracted to underage people. That's not a distinction society is willing to make, in my opinion, we collectively seem to like having people that we can point unreserved hatred at.

  3. Devil's Advocate by rkcallaghan · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What exactly is different between Company A (ISP) and Company B (Offshore Freakshow) amassing a huge database of child porn? Company B is probably even in a jurisdiction where having it is legal by local laws, but Company A is certainly not. We have zero tolerance laws so strict they ruin people's lives for a banner ad containing a legal model that simply wasn't documented properly. So how come it doesn't apply here?

    ~Rebecca

  4. wont work by mtxf · · Score: 5, Insightful

    how many ways can these pictures be hidden?

    zip, rar, and other compression formats
    encrpyted
    hidden inside other files (stenography)
    the list goes on...

    these people should learn, you cant fight the internet

  5. privacy issues... by mtxf · · Score: 5, Insightful

    from tfa: "the goal is to ultimately develop techniques for checking other distribution techniques as well, such as instant messaging or Web uploads"

    so they will be scanning our web traffic in real-time to determin if we are sharing child porn?

    anyone else see this and think something along the lines of "this is just a 'think of the children' excuse to implement advanced monitoring systems, which in due time the govt. will take over 'in the public interest'"?

  6. Re:Wanna bet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I thought the same thing while watching some news report about child porn on television recently. A cop was sitting at his computer doing some clicking as he viewed child porn (obviously the camera didn't show the screen), and he talked about his war against distributors. Something just wasn't right about the way he talked about child porn, almost as if it took effort to disparage it and I got the sneaking suspicion that he had been compromised by it in some way. It made me wonder how much of a risk there is of a police officer developing an addiction to the matter he's sworn to defend against, a la Philip K. Dick's A Scanner Darkly One wonders why cops are allowed to work on this on their own, seems to me it would make much more sense to allow people access to the material only in teams, perhaps mixed-gender.

  7. Duplication of effort by Clovert+Agent · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This'll be different in what way from the massive database and set of image search tools that Interpol already maintains? It's not like every signatory agency (including those in the US) doesn't already have access to it, and it's been running for years.

    http://www.interpol.int/Public/ICPO/PressReleases/ PR2005/PR200536.asp

    I've met some of the guys running it, and while I really admire their dedication and achievements, I can honestly say there's no job on earth I'd less like to have.

  8. Re:Wanna bet? by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Wanna bet that some slimey police exec is helping himself with those images?

    I'd open a book on it, but only at 1/33.

    Just like the Catholic Church is full of pedophiles and pederasts, no doubt "internet" law enforcement is filled with closet perverts who delight in ammassing volumes upon volumes of illicit data. It's probably also filled with those who get their thrills from snooping on other people's emails.

    Let's put it this way. Where's the best place for a criminal to hide. A position of authority.

    --
    May the Maths Be with you!
  9. Re:Wanna bet? by tacarat · · Score: 5, Insightful

    There is NO way a NORMAL adult will be compromised... really!

    "He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you."
    Friedrich Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil, Aphorism 146

    ... besides, who at /. believes in the validity of the term "NORMAL" being used as a moral beacon? Everybody can be corrupted. Thankfully not everybody has the same tastes in vices as pedophiles.

    --
    "Common sense will be the death of us all"
  10. Re:The big problem by ultranova · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Child porn is the darkest side of the internet. Its the thing all net users should be on guard for, and the argument invoked against the internet by countless alarmists.

    Bullshit. In the 10 years I've been using the Internet, I've come accross child porn one (1) time, and even that looked more like two kids playing doctor than any pedophilic photo setup. If that's the "darkest side of the Internet", then the Net's brighter than the surface of the Sun.

    No, what's happening here is simply another censorship / surveillance system being built with the mantra "think of the children". And the makers do think of the children - they think of those children in the future, all grown up and in chains and get a hardon from that.

    So no, all the Net's users should not be on guard for the infinitesimally small chance that they happen upon CP by accident, anymore than all the people in Real Life should be on guard for the infinitesimally small chance that the guy passing you on the street happens to be a terrorist. Yeah, it's possible, but even if it happened, what the heck are you going to do - you sick pervert looked at the picture, so by law you should go to prison, since such pictures incite people to such acts, so you can't now be trusted anymore, right ? And what were you doing on a netsite where pedophiles hang out at, anyway ? You must be one too !

    Every time I hear "think of the children", I think of the future of those children and want to cry. Well, actually I want to protect those children by beating the living crap out of whoever it is trying to enslave them this time, but crying is more socially accepted.

    However, I don't agree with this database. Keeping these images, even for law enforcement purposes, is a violation of the privacy of children who have already been subjected to a horrific violation. Leave them alone already.

    Do you honestly think that those who are building this censorship & surveillance system are doing it for the childrens sake ? No, it is something that will be used to put those children into chains, once they grow up.

    Don't be fooled by their lies; these people care nothing for the children, or anyone else for that matter; they only care about power.

    --

    Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

  11. Wouldn't it make more sense ..... by ajs318 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Wouldn't it make more sense to arrest people if and when they actually harm a child?

    I have absolutely no problem whatsoever with people who just want to look at pictures. Yes, they may well be pictures documenting a crime that was committed ..... but so what? The kids in the pictures aren't getting any worse just because other people are looking at them. The harm was already done when the pictures were taken, and it isn't going to be undone.

    I say let people jack off into a box of tissues as much as they damn well like. At least once they've spent their pocket money, they're no danger to anyone for a couple of hours. If they're doing more than look at pictures, then by all means go after them. But what a person does within the privacy of their own imagination is nobody else's business.

    --
    Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
  12. Official stance by Yvanhoe · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Sharing of child pornography leads to more child pornography.
    Sharing of copyrighted music leads to less copyrighted music.

    Find the anomaly.

    In fact, to follow the "think of the children" idea, I believe that such a database would lead with more CP production, as you would have to "replace" the material censored (assuming this measure would be efficient) leading to profits for pornographer producer.
    Just a thought

    --
    The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
  13. Re:Hashing? by FireFury03 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    While we're at it, they're just flagging files transfered.. What if someone sets up a relayer in a country where its legal and uses it to send kiddieporn to you via email? Click a message, commit a crime and go to jail. Or if someone defaces a site and puts up CP, or if someone just ups random CP to a public site(4chan), or any number of other ways.

    This is what worries me about the "it's illegal to view $foo" laws - it's entirely possible that you don't know you're about to view $foo until it's too late and you've broken the law. Is there a need to go after people who have simply downloaded something dodgy since they may not have intentionally done so? Better to concentrate on people who are *paying* for content since by paying they are financially supporting the continuation of the crime (the people who haven't paid are not supporting the real criminals).