Slashdot Mirror
Google Aims To Cull Child Porn By Algorithm, Not Human Review
According to a story at VentureBeat, "Google is working on a new database of flagged images of child porn and abuse that can be shared with other search engines and child protection organizations. The database will help create systems that automatically eliminate that sort of content. ...
If the database is used effectively, any flagged image in the database would not be searchable through participating search engines or web hosting providers. And maybe best of all, computers will automatically flag and remove these images without any human needing to see them." Here's the announcement.
So by that logic, police officers investigating possible CP crime are also guilty? I think not.
What is the point of automatically removing child porn so it's not searchable. That's not the problem with child porn.
The problem with child porn is real children are being really abused to make it.
Making it "not searchable" doesn't stop that. Arresting the people who are making it does.
If they mean "all underage" and not just "blatantly children", good luck with that. There are no characteristics that will distinguish between 17 and 18, or even older. What is the software going to think of Kat Young, for example? What about models who are just small?
Also are they going to attempt to sort through drawings at all, considering they are legal in some jurisdictions and not others?
I sense false positives and angry models in Google's future.
How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
It would be a good thing to keep people from clicking on this sort of thing by accident ("accident?") and suffering an unfair legal penalty, or I suppose to keep aging rock stars like Pete Townshend from getting too excited and heaving a heart attack, but do people dealing in illegal porn really put up websites that are freely searchable? So, if anything, it comes off sounding more like a "hey, we're community minded!" sort of advertisement.
How do we know it will only flag illegal content? What if iPhone gets flagged and only Android phones shows up in searches? Intentionally or not. This is just like when they came up with the idea to avid searching for certain words. I instantly stated "will this ban the party, which writes on their homepage that they will increase the jailtime for such offenses?".
Don't get me wrong. I think it's great if the intended pictures aren't available or better yet, they aren't made in the first place. However my experience with auto detection tells me that it always include some false positives.
How they're verifying the algorithm...
This is a really good idea.
This is great, if it becomes integrated with browsers. I don't want clandestinely downloaded illegal images polluting my browser cache.
And about 50% of all anime. The amount of deliberately child erotic content in most Japanese anime is truly frightening. Entire seasons of waif-like, huge breasted, schoolgirls and androgynously pretty schoolboys going "ooooohhhhh" and "aaahhhhhh" and prancing around to show off their busts and asses has always been a big factor in anime. Schoolgirl porn is a *big* market in Japan, and it sells a lot of anime to a lot of fans in different countries.
It is apparently a good thing that google is coming up with algorithms to cull stuff from search without anyone needing to see them, now? So we're not even checking whether it's actual pictures of child abuse and not, say, pictures of children playing at the beach?
Besides that, child porn is not the same as sexual child abuse: The former is images (or drawings) depicting the latter. That makes cracking down on child porn, cracking down on symptoms, not on the actual abuse. Personally I care far more about the actual harm than the pictures.
Especially since few people will voluntarily look at depictions of prepubescent child abuse, sexual or otherwise, unless that happens to be their kink.
And in that case, I'd rather have them in therapy so they keep their urges in check, than that I'd have them in jail --working on their networks with fellow-minded since they have to be kept apart from the general criminal population-- and eventually on the loose again.
That quite apart from all the censorship issues that inevitably leak over to more and more censorship, regardless of the noble intentions whence it all started.
So this is really quite stupid, seemingly noble, but long-term quite futile and even carrying a lot of collateral damage. As such, again quite a good example of seeming to not be evil but turning out quite evil anyway.
They could be doing actual good instead of just seeming to do good. But that doesn't involve quite as much technology, and quite a lot of social work with very icky perverts.
How about instead you compile a list of where these images are HOSTED.....and then DO SOMETHING about that? Notify local law enforcement of the images and give all garnered info about said images to them.
Police are legally allowed to possess contraband in the course of an investigation; private-sector entities aren't, absent some exception in the law permitting them to. For example, you can't keep a large collection of drugs for research purposes (e.g. training drug-detecting sensors) unless you apply for special permits.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Let me be clear about this. I DO NOT condone child pornography at all; I find it foul and disgusting. But there is a over-reaching that I think may go on here. If I purchase a server and I engage in a P2P network, then it is not Google nor any one else's business what I transmit. If the server is a public server or one owned by a company (such as Google), then I would agree they have every right to remove such foul content from their servers.
Yes I would rather that the people who engage in this be stopped. But whenever programs like this are created they tend to start out being put to use with the best of intentions, but will likely be used for other more nefarious purposes. If this algorithm is used to sniff out child pornography, it could be modified to sniff out a information about a political party and quell it, or news that a government agency doesn't want people to know about.
With all that has recently come to light about the spying by the US Govt. can you really say that this with 100% certainty that this technology won't be abuse for other purposes? I can't.
Again I DO NOT condone Child Pornography.
Life takes interesting turns, but the most interest is when you're off the beaten path.
I don't think that with such censorship tightening around the search engines we can stand still and watch. It is not just child porn, there is strong censorship around movies and other "protected" material. When they start censoring "terrorism" and after that censoring legitimate political opposition in the name of anti-terrorism, it will be too late.
I think, that Google and other filtered search engines should be replaced by peer to peer search engines, like yacy. However, such search engines are not usable yet. For example yacy is written in java so it is slow and resource consuming. I'm looking forward to see some good solution that is actually working - I would deploy it on my server immediately.
It's not that no human needs to see them. It's that 30 humans in different countries working on different and separate hash identification systems all don't need to see them.
Parents across the internet begin frantically removing topeless pictures of their 4 year old child from Facebook for fear of an FBI raid. We all know how they like flash-bangs.
Removing child pornogragphy is a laudable goal.
We just have to realize that it won't stop at that. From the what the article says it seems like that technology could be used for any image. At the very least I expect we'll see general copyright enforcement from this. Worst case we will see things like various regimes being able to use this to suppress images they don't like. Oh you have pictures of us slaughtering our opponents well we better put those on the bad list.
Do you think it could be possible to reconstruct those images by brute-force trying all combinations until you get a positive answer from the database ?
It would take time, but doesn't sound impossible...
My reaction was something similar. I question the value of a search engine when it is no longer neutral. Now I will only see what Google has decided it is in my interest to see. This technology will be used in the future to skew political searches for example, or to favor one company's products over another's. (If it isn't already.) Now if they said 'we are using Google's search engine to catch child pornographers' I would say good for you please continue.
This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
I'm serious. Kids are too young to know their pictures will be there forever on the internet. They need to be old enough to understand the consequences.
Who had to test the child porn detecting algoritm.
This will increase child abuse. As soon as it becomes invisible, perpetrators are completely free to do whatever they like, as the public will not be aware it is a problem. The reason is that it addresses the wrong problem. Distribution of CP is a minor issue. Creation of CP (and all the child abuse that is not documented or does not end up on the Internet) is the real problem. It seems politicians have become so focused on distribution of CP, that nothing is being done anymore to fight actual child abuse. After all, distribution of CP gives nice and easy convictions and to hell with the children themselves.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
Google and other search engines filter content already - like Google's "safe search" options to block images showing naked people to appear in their image search. The technology exists, and "safe search" appears to actually analyse images to judge the content, while this child porn database only compares file hashes against known offending content.
The technology is there, it's not new, this is just a new application of it. And I have to say I'm quite confident that it's not being used for political purposes, partly because it's Google themselves that take the initiative, not the government.
Also if it becomes known that Google actively filters certain political content or skews search results intentionally to push a political agenda, they may end up losing their #1 spot as search engine really fast (especially if at the same time the competition, most notably Bing because that's the only one that I know wiith serious money behind it, finally gets their act together and provides a proper alternative).
This is certainly, unarguably, a useful tool that can be used in order to accomplish a worthy societal goal; I don't think our criteria for such things should be: "Well, it could be used for bad things, so we should stick our heads in the sand instead." No cars because they might be driven by bank robbers! No knives because they might be used to cut people instead of carrots! etc.
In any case, content recognition algorithms already exist and are already used for nefarious purposes. Why not use those tools towards a worthy end?
I think we should be praising and supporting any organisation that is trying to protect innocent children from being subjected to this. We should not only lobby governments and organisations to do more to stop the practice and bring these people to justice but also praying for the poor children that are at the centre of this.
Also, spare a thought for the poor Google employees who are going to have to test this algorithm. I sincerely hope that Google ensure that these people are given any support and counselling they might need.
sheesh
See the old story, by CM Kornbluth called the marching morons
The age of consent in spain is 14, in the uk 16, in the USA 18 , so if there's a picture of a nude 15 or 17 year old in what country does it get to decided if its legal?
While this may be a laudable effort I have the sneaking feeling the USA once again will be pushing its legal system and morality onto the rest of the world.
You are absolutely correct that this won't make child porn disappear. But from Google's standpoint, it will help keep their top-notch search engine (and other search engines) from being used to find it. In addition, it's more than making it "not searchable"; RTFA. This will also have "hooks" into law enforcement and ISPs.
The technology is out there. It will only get better (by a magnitudes of a 1000) in the next decade or so. It can be used by governments for all sorts of purposes - so the solution is not to limit the technology (which can't be done) but by limiting the government (which can be done).
If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
A goatse detection algorithm?
Here's the URL of this page:
"http://search.slashdot.org/story/13/06/17/0545226/google-aims-to-cull-child-porn-by-algorithm-not-human-review"
Does that get filtered? Am I now on a watch list for having viewed a "child porn" webpage?
"It's research, I swear"
In my 15 years on the Internet I've seen A LOT of nude imagery, but never ONCE come across child pornography. I get the feeling it's extremely rare, and the people who do find it spend a lot of hard time actually digging it up. What has happened now that urges Google to find new ways of combatting CP? Is there a sudden increase in posting of CP on public, easily accessed and indexed adult web sites?
Signature intentionally left blank.
Google wants to know everything about us, who we are, what things we like, what we shop, what we read, where we go, who we talk to, who we email & occasionally they will secretly share these riches of knowledge with the Secret Police. Now they will also protect us automatically from bad things, just lie back and think of England. Let the Googleplex take care of everything, why bother your mind? You should shopping for bargains on the Web.
This company sends shivers down my spine. I beg all of you to think twice and then think again and again before you transact with this company or use it's products. They will take us to a very bad place.
The summary "By Algorithm, Not Human Review" implies that the algorithm is somehow evaluating pictures. In fact from TFA it is clear all it is doing is looking for copes of known existing images by hash-code. If it were examining images I would be worried about false positives, but as it just looks for know child porn I cannot see any down-side - this is a good move.
Judges have already declared that porn is basically undefinable, and I disagree with them that you know it when you see it.
Added to this that you cannot tell the difference between a 15 yo and a 21 100% of the time, sure 95% you would get it right with that big of a range, but not always.
And trying to tell the difference between 18 and 17 or 16 if more like a 50% chance of getting it right, regardless of if you are a computer or a human being.
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
So google is trying to control the supply of CP images? That itself will only increase the price of these images or worse violation of these children. If google is seriously wanting to help, they should help law enforcer to track down these people and bring them to justice.
1. Upload to Picasa picture of kids at birthday pool party holding balloon animals with long noses.
2. End up on floor being beaten by local SWAT team.
3. ??????
4. Prison
If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
If this system were 100% effective and preventing all known CP images from being searchable or even downloaded, then wouldn't that drive demand for brand new images to be created that don't trip the filters?
Now I will only see what Google has decided it is in my interest to see.
They've been doing that for years.
That sounds like you're condoning Child Pornography.
Child porn is the crowbar being used to pry open this door. Once you have a system in place to algorithmically remove content from all searches, internet wide, it will be gradually expanded to other types of content. To fight piracy by removing video and audio files. To drug related info. To radical social/political content. To commentary detrimental to government/corporate interest . Always nibbling at the edges, always growing, slowly. And the apathetic public will not even notice or care.
You can call me conspiracy theorist. But if there is one thing history teaches us it's that governments/corporation/those in power always want more of, it's power. And in modern society the control of information is power.
What is the point of automatically removing child porn so it's not searchable. That's not the problem with child porn.
The problem with child porn is real children are being really abused to make it. Making it "not searchable" doesn't stop that. .
The point, I would expect, is that by removing the channel by which it circulates puts a barrier between the demand and the source, and hence reduces the incentive to make it. That would reduces the amount which is made.
Arresting the people who are making it does.
I don't think that this proposal was intended to be instead of arresting the people who make it.
With that said, your point "The problem with child porn is real children are being really abused to make it." is a good one. By that argument, any such material which was not produced using real children-- anime, comics, art, even photorealistic digital modelling-- should not be included in the category.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
i think the problem with this system lies not in its intent but in its effects. I'm less concerned about whether it is searchable than about the abuses involved in creating it. I'm also concerned about the fact that we've seen charges involving 14-17 year old girls sending 14-17 year old boys their own pictures via their cellphones, marking them as felons and sex offenders for life. We need to figure out what is and isn't acceptable in our society and make it clear where that line is before matters get worse. There's true "child porn" and then there's "child" porn. There is a vast difference between the two, and while I'm not in favor of either personally, I do have a problem with treating them as if they were the same.
In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
And if anybody protests, they can just report them for searching CP.
At which point plausible deniability adds reasonable doubt. See also CP (disambiguation).
How come corporate Anti-Virus scanners don't scan (or have an add-on module to scan) for signatures of illicit images? If various government agencies have a collection of known infringing images, signatures could be generated, like viruses. Sure, there would likely be a way to fool it, but it would be step in the right direction.
Competition Good, Monopoly Bad.
of course, child porn/abuse is illegal
Singing "Happy Birthday to You" in public is illegal too. There are cases where current law is out of sync with social norms.
Good grief, how hard is it to not be paranoid is this day and age? They don't want child porn to show up on their searches so they find a way to flag the images and not display them : that's it. If there comes a time when the technology is used malevolently to suppress political ideas, then you'll be able to bitch about it but going all "tinfoil hat" on it because there might me an hypothetical use which you don't like is just ridiculous.
At the moment, Google uses mostly human beings to review flagged content so if their algorithm makes those reviewers sleep better at night, I'm all for it.
I'm more worried they'll go after the loli stuff.
If they went after Lowly Worm, that'd be Scarry.
In building an algorythim that can detect CP. Then they can combine it with their location detection methods to identify where it was produced. The big question is, are they then going to inform the LEO's based on the suspicion and ruin an individual who did not commit a crime? Are they becoming the new Thought Police ala "Orwells 1984"?
Some of the things that Google has done are worthy efforts but this has the seeds of some serious abuse right from the beginning because if Google can do this for images, then they can do it for Music, Videos and everything else that people want censored.
Mod me up/Mod me down: I wont frown as I've no crown
What about borderline content such as non-pornographic nudity, sexually explicit drawings of imaginary minors, and pornographic images of adults who look like teenagers? It's likely these will be branded as "child pornography", leading to images being suppressed that are legal in many jurisdictions including the United States.
Once service providers start censoring content based on third party reports of alleged child pornography, it becomes much easier to supress other content as well. Organizations such as RIAA and MPAA would love to be able to flag arbitrary content as infringing and have ISPs block such content automatically, bypassing even the need to file DMCA takedown notices. Think of how often YouTube videos are incorrectly flagged as examples copyright infringement and extend this to all ISPs who check against Google's database, and you can see the problem.
ISPs who participate in this system delegate the right to make judgment calls on material that isn't obviously illegal to the maintainers of a central database whose judgment may or may not be consistent with local law. Anything in the database is assumed to be illegal regardless of its actual legal status, and the ISPs just follow along instead of deciding individually whether or not the content is likely to survive a legal challenge. Once the system becomes widespread, ISPs may even feel it is necessary to follow it to avoid secondary liability for content posted by their users.
This is yet another example of a worrying trend, where content alleged to be illegal or infringing is removed without due process and often with little regard for the law and relevant jurisprudence. It's no way to run a network that for many has become a primary means of communication.
Internet users deserve better than to have their content blocked according to extralegal judgments with perhaps no bearing on local law, little or no chance of appeal, and no way to establish legal precedents protecting certain kinds of content.
"In prison you just have to shut your eyes and take it. Here you have to shut your eyes and give it."
If they get their employees deputized or otherwise "blessed" by the powers that be, then it's okay.
You know who else is allowed to see child porn?
Lawmakers and their staff members in the performance of official duties that require looking at it.
According to someone I talked to in Washington a number of years ago, if a Congressperson needs some porn pulled for official use, the staff member he picks to get it for him is usually an older woman who presumably would have no interest in the contents beyond what is needed to verify it is what the Congressperson needs.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Also if it becomes known that Google actively filters certain political content or skews search results intentionally to push a political agenda, they may end up losing their #1 spot as search engine really fast (especially if at the same time the competition, most notably Bing because that's the only one that I know wiith serious money behind it, finally gets their act together and provides a proper alternative).
Bing? Hardly. I'm betting more on DuckDuckGo powered by Yandex.
What is the point of automatically removing child porn so it's not searchable. That's not the problem with child porn.
The problem with child porn is real children are being really abused to make it.
Making it "not searchable" doesn't stop that. Arresting the people who are making it does.
Similar statements can be made for most other crimes.
If you make it hard to obtain drugs, only those really determined to get them will go to the effort.
If you make it really hard to rob bank, only those really determined will bother.
If you make it really hard to find child pornography, only those really determined will keep searching, the rest will give up.
Of those who are looking for child porn for a sexual thrill, you've got several categories:
There is also the issue of "perceived demands drives supply" - if those producers who are doing it for revenue or for the thrill of seeing their "hit count" go up have more customers, on the whole the supply of "new" child porn is likely to be higher than if they believe there is little demand for their images. More "new" child porn being distributed in the future pretty much means more actual, real-world abuse in the future.
My very strong hunch is that making it very hard to find child porn will be a net win for children, even if in particular situations you may have significant numbers of children whose dads molest them in person because he can't find his "methodone/child porn."
Arresting the people who are making it does.
I'm all with you but if these people are in a country with weak law enforcement in this area, there's not much that Interpol or *insert child-porn-hating country with good law enforcement here* can do in the short term to put the abuser behind bars.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
I get to see the REAL "dark Internet" every time my ISP's service goes out. *cue rimshot*
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
So "thinking of the children" is bad now?
I doubt that any sane person would have their browser start up with such things (even it they were into it). With that in mind, I would wonder how that happened.
Either a virus/hijack or something as simple as some site changing the start page would be my guess, but would be scary as heck for a normal person. I could see some sick-minded people jacking other people's PC for lulz with such stuff, or just to taint the pool a bit. At the various least it warrants DBAN and a full reinstall, but in many cases it might be safest just to scrap the drive.
At least it was visible. Worse would be if they were using hidden iframes or something like that to cause cache-tainting...
Thankfully I've not run into anything like that on a personal machine. I did once work on a win2k box where an idiot contractor preferred to turn on anon FTP rather than creating himself an account, and left it on over the weekend. I never looked at the actual content stored on the box, but the filenames were repulsive enough that it got new drives and the old ones got the drill.
In the early 1980s there were only two practical ways to transfer child porn: "Locally," which meant in person, by local courier, or by a "drop" or similar means, or "non-local" by courier, shipper, or the Post office.
Finding other people to trade the stuff with in a way that the cops wouldn't easily find you was also very difficult.
The US Postal Service inspectors and other police agencies were so effective that by the early 1980s it was said that child porn trading through the mail was virtually wiped out, AND that police were finding virtually zero "new" images.
The advent of the computer scanner, particularly the color scanner, changed all of that. Now people could use computers to send images to each other 1-on-1 or via invite-only bulletin boards and, well, I don't need to go on from there.
I remember the "bulletin board lists" of the 1980s. The "adult" boards were typically marked or in a separate list. I can't help but wonder how many of those had "secret, invite only" areas that held illegal images. If you know, please don't tell me. Unless the answer is "0" I don't want to know.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
there was less alcohol during prohibition (a 30% reduction).
So THAT'S why Grandpa complained that the bootleg booze he bought tasted 30% watered down!
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
At least this way reduces the number of workers they have which require serious therapy after viewing those images for manual filtering purposes;
This actually makes sense.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Why don't they implement a filter for gay images? Or for all that Hollywood does not approve? Will governments be given some sort of "plug-in" access so they can remove what does not follow the state policy?
I didn't click on the link, but based on the domain-name this actually might be marginally on-topic.
+1 on-topic
-infinity flamebait
The question nobody will dare answer here and really nobody here wants to know is does the person who took the photograph get "+5 years - jailbait" or "+ 50 years - much too young to qualify as jailbait". I'm just going to assume "neither" so I can sleep at night.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
It seems that it is quite easy to not be paranoid, actually; that is why we have the PATRIOT Act, Homeland Security, and the TSA slowly eroding freedoms without sparking widespread protest. On the other hand, we are now being spied upon by our own government, and as I mentioned we are much less free than we were 15 years ago. Perhaps some skepticism at some point could be useful.
If more than a few minutes of screen-time of a feature film were similar to a given image or video clip, would that film receive an NC-17 (United States) or equivalent (non-US) rating based on sexual content or sexual content in combination with other content (e.g. sexual violence, etc.).
For a video longer than about an hour, would the video as a whole receive an NC-17 or equivalent rating based on sexual content or sexual content in combination with other content (e.g. sexual violence, etc.)?
If the answer is "yes" then it's almost certainly porn in the legal sense of the word.
If the answer is "no" then it may or may not be "porn" in the legal sense of the word but IMHO it is deserving of "free speech" protection in countries with "free speech" protections as strong as those in the United States.
One modification that would apply in "non porn" sexually suggestive images of minors or which appeared to be minors:
If the actors or characters in the film are believed by the rating agency to be underage (18 in the US) or they appeared to be underage (or the ages were ambiguous), then modify the above to be "if the movie was re-shot so the actors and characters were believed to be of legal age and they appeared to be of legal age" to remove the situation where a given scene would be "rated R" if it had adult actors and characters but "NC-17" if the actors or characters were either minors or their status as adults was not clear.
All of the above applies to live-action shots. It's my understanding that in the United States at least, the Supreme Court has ruled that non-obscene hand-drawn and computer-drawn imagery which does not rely on an actual child being filmed is outside the scope of "child pornography" laws because it is protected as "free speech."
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Although just about every tech site is mis-reporting the news, Google is proposing an image-tracking system using the same technology as tin-eye. Tin-eye is the REVERSE image search engine that allows you to input a picture and find other examples of the same picture in the Internet- pictures that may have been resized, cropped, colour-corrected or have logos over them.
You see, Google is saying that Internet companies can 'spider' EVERY accessible image online, and create signatures for each image. These signatures can be compared against a signature database for known/reported child abuse images, and/or stored in a database for future scans against an updated abuse database.
The advantage of this system is that most child abuse images will be identified WITHOUT Human intervention (so long as they are duplicates of known abuse images, which 99.99% of them will be).
The advantage to ordinary people is that they will not accidentally come across such images as a result of innocent activity, like an internet image search.
There is a downside- a darker purpose to Google's actions. Google wants all information on the Internet to be visible and accessible to the NSA. Already, the cloud services and file lockers are stating that only file types that can be examined by any third party are permissible. Obscure or encrypted files are considered abuses of the TOS. Google wants to strongly imply that anyone storing files that internet companies CANNOT scan is hiding child porn.
Of course, we all know that mathematically, it is always possible to create seemingly innocent files that pass all scan tests, and yet contain encrypted data. NSA level spies use this method all the time. However, the sheeple are to be discouraged from using encryption at all costs. For instance, given the trivial nature of the solution, why are people NOT encrypting their regular email traffic or skype phone calls using the power of the computer at each end? No-one should be using point-to-point communication without encryption in this day and age.
However, we can all agree that when child abuse images are allowed to be commonplace, the child abuse industry grows and consumes more child victims. The only people who try to deny this fact are part of the child abuse community. Humans do NOT simply make do with old material connected with any sexual situation, as some child abusers attempt to claim. Child abusers are both devious and very well networked with other abusers. Child abusers commonly seek and obtain positions of management where they can oversee rules, regimes and policies that allow situations encouraging and protecting child abuse.
This has including, at multiple times in the past, people responsible for drafting the rules governing children's homes, juvenile 'prisons', schools, and 'medical research' projects requiring the regular intimate inspection of hundreds of children. Some of the most senior and powerful men in the medical community have been revealed as paedophiles (too many, sadly, after their death). In the US, the influential handful of people who cause corporal punishment to remain legal in their school districts are actually perverts who get a sexual kick from the idea of kids being abused this way (like any of you don't know that 'spanking' is a massive Human fetish?).
Of course, the significant causes of child abuse on a planetary scale are those policies implemented by the West against much weaker nations that impact the people of those nations. The racist atrocities carried out by nations like France and Belgium against their former colonies in Africa (the genocide in Rwanda was organised by forces officially working for the French and Belgium governments). The maintenance of women and child-abusing regimes in nations like Saudi Arabia by the British and Americans. Blair's wars in Kosovo, Afghanistan, Iraq, Gaza, Lebanon, Syria, Libya, etc take child abuse to a whole new terrifying level.
Imagine for a second that the government used this sort of tool to ban a legitimate fetish, like fat girls
Initially, everyone would settle in to the reality that they can just no longer watch fat girls do nasty shit on the internet. After that became the new normal, people would start pushing up against their boundary's looking for media of fat girls getting fucked.
The likely outcome would be an expiration date for pictures or videos of BBW poon-houndery. A video or image would be searchable for so long before it was discovered by censors and rubber stamped out of existence.
This would create an insatiable demand for "fresh, new, never-before-seen!" videos of white whales taking dick.
Kidnappings of fat girls would go up practically overnight if you regularly purged the interweb of all stale wank material for the chubby chasers.
i think the onion directory on TOR stopped listing sites featuring "models" under 18. haven't tried TOR in a while though.
Most models are just small. The average female porn star is a 5'5" brunette woman who weighs 117lbs and has B-cup breasts, and measures 34"-24"-34". So half are smaller. The lightest is apparenly only 74lbs.
Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
"Look at us fight CP!! (Pay no attention to the NSA man behind our curtain.)"
Kinda like there was suddenly a bumper crop of bomb and airplane threats the first few weekdays after Snowden broke.
A man who seizes and has relations with a female child should keep her as a bride, not be imprisoned or killed.
As soon as Google has this system operational, the MAFIAA will be knocking on its door to have the hashes of all 'illegal' mp3's, movies, torrents, etc. included as well.
And, since Google gets a 'feel good' from the general public for this measure, Microsoft can't stay behind. So, with a 'security patch', they'll install new functionality in Windows which will log the hashes of all opened or touched files on a user's computer and regularly, in computer idle time, it'll check the logged hashes against the global database of 'illegal hashes'.
Since 99% of all computers contain at least one mp3 or movie file which the MAFIAA probably considers illegal (the user might even be unaware of the presence of that file), with the combination of the two statements above the new totalitarian government has all it needs to be able to put 99% of the population behind bars, which it can do to anyone at random as practically everyone is a felon now, thereby creating the perfect fear driven scenario for it to succeed as the worst type of police state.
People, this is not some kind of science fiction doom scenario anymore.
The technology for this is presently available already and only needed to get deployed, which is just what Google is actually starting to do now.
No matter how well intended by Google, this is only a path to worse for everyone.
Why would you keep a large collection of them? If you're developing sensors, you're arguably better of with a small collection. The smaller amounts you can detect, the more marketable your sensors are going to be.
Ezekiel 23:20
Well, maybe not Google but the U.S. Department of Justice. They have a database of all child pornography images known to law enforcement. Whenever there is a prosecution, the images go to them to determine if there are any new ones. They also try to identify who the child actually is with some success. So, in conjunction with them, it would not be difficult to create a database of "images" that Google is proposing. The question is why it's taken them so long? This DOJ database has been around for quite a while.
It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
Google is in a great place to discover and report this type of material on the internet
For those who think that this does not help stop this stuff or the child victims, you are wrong. Ask most child porn victims and they will tell you that they are victimized allover again every time somebody views this stuff.
The harder it is to view this stuff the less people there will be viewing it, and making it. Look at beer, most people drink it as it is everywhere, dynamite is a little harder to get and reasonably most law abiding people do not have it.
Google does not need to have a repository of child porn to be able to detect it. Google only needs to compare hashes to tell if this is child porn or not.
This should be the standard for all Web search websites.
The downside to this is that now google has the infrastructure to censor any information they or the governments want. That report about congressional members spending, removed, CIA spy program, removed, bad review of a product, removed (without going through the hassle of claiming copyright infringement).
What would be awesome is an API that allows webmasters to check images against this database. If you run a website that has a steady stream of images being uploaded by anonymous users, a backend function that automatically deletes anything deemed child pornography by Google would be a godsend.
There was a law against that type of drawings, it was ruled unconstitutional in 2002.
Then there was a new law in 2003. It has never been overturned.
So that type of drawings and computer generated pictures are currently illegal in the USA.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PROTECT_Act_of_2003
If 16 year-old little Johnny is downloading porn at home, it is not unreasonable to think he might want to see images of naked 16 year-old girls, especially if he already has in real life (which is not illegal if consensual). Having the Google child porn block might save little Johnny's father from having to spend 20 years in prison. I have children, so I would definitely use it.
Ok, how about this. All the images in question have been PREVIOUSLY VIEWED AND HASHED, so that this database is only tagging known CP images (with small deviations), and then alerting the authorities to the fact that it has been posted. One would assume, normal detective work would continue from there. Bonus point is the fact that less CP images will have to be looked at by some poor scrub as they did in the past.
Can they please continue now? Or would you like to knee-jerk some more before you RTFA.
Not necessarily. The key distinction appears to be whether or not the images are legally obscene according to the so-called Miller test. Obscenity has never enjoyed constitutional protection, so ultimately the PROTECT Act of 2003 changes nothing.
Besides, USA is not the whole world.
"In prison you just have to shut your eyes and take it. Here you have to shut your eyes and give it."
Isn't that what Tor is for?
http://opva2pilsncvtwmh.onion/ or something
who needs google images when it's all over Tor and the only thing left on the running gnutella networks that are still up is
pthc, hussyfan, babyshivid, r@ygold, kingpass, mafiasex
Whatever you do, make sure people understand that you do NOT condone Child Pornography. Or they'll come after you. Because it's like, not rational, y'know.
So that law enforcement, your sheriff, your priest, and all of the rulers in power can jack off to a database of child porn.
It's quite simple really.
That is some really bad logic.
Good-bye
...please. The voice of reason has spoken.
I consider that to be a real problem with the current laws. There are some data, which can be used for good or for bad purposes. Google has lots of data, they also have the computing architecture to store and process all of this data, and they have the expertise. I firmly believe Google is in a better position to do this sort of data mining than authorities. It is not just about images of child abuse, but also about correlating that with other data, which would not be illegal on its own.
If Google by performing mining across a little bit of child pornography along with lots of legal data is able to produce an output, which can track down the people who were abusing the child in the first place, then I consider that to be a good use of the data, regardless of what the law says about that practice.
The potential for Google to help track down some of these kids and get them out of the abuse is so important, that it is unfortunate that such efforts are jeapordized by the current laws. That makes it only so much nicer to hear that Google is doing an effort in this area. Whether Google is breaking the law or not in the current effort is not important to me, as the goal of the effort is to go after much worse crimes.
I consider abuse of children to be a much worse crime than possession of child pornography. Most people agree that it is worse, but some people seem to think it is not that much worse. Would the average person think it was ok to let 100 people guilty of possession of child pornography go without punishment, if it meant one more person guilty of child abuse could get caught?
Do you care about the security of your wireless mouse?
No, it isn't are you trying to detect traces of drugs? Why not simply work with microscopic amounts?
Ezekiel 23:20
Because you only need a little of a *specific* drug to be able to detect that drug. If you want to create some sort of sensor that detects *all* drugs in general, you need small quantities of *every* drug, to be able to discover similarities. This is impossible, probably, because 'drugs' is to broad a concept.
Similarly, with child porn, you'd need only one sample of every instance of child porn. There's no use keeping 20 copies of the same image. But because the smallest amount of each instance is that instance itself, you need to keep 1 copy of as much instances as possible.
This is really common sense, so I actually don't even know why I'm explaining such a simple concept.
that since they had someone reviewing all reports of child porn, that google was the storing a monstrously large cache of child porn and paying someone to spend all day looking at it to sort through it.
How does Google get away with storing so much CP? Shouldn't this be handled by some gov entity?
Is this going to flag baby bath tub photos as porn? Or is there an algorithm to detect penetration or other signs of exploitation?
Google's image search sucks dick since they destroyed it earlier this year anyway, you can't even find a tit if you searched "uncovered nipple" or a blow by typing "blow job." On those grounds alone, how the fuck could anyone possibly find child porn through Google? Yeah, yeah... add a stupid keyword like "porn" or "naked" or "nude"--as if "anal fucking" is not straightforward enough (just an example--there's no way in hell I'd actually look that shit up)... but you still get shit results if you expect to find porn. The bottom line is, if you want decent porn, why the fuck would you be searching Google for it anyway? Unless it is to find actual porn sites? Really, this is stupid, it doesn't really solve the real problem ("hiding" it doesn't change the fact that it is happening behind the scenes somewhere in the country), and... well, I just don't see how it can help anything.
The only thing I can think of is it would prevent you from somehow managing to accidentally stumble upon such sick, illegal material, it will be blocked so you won't ever actually download it, which could save you from having the FBI come knocking on your door. That aspect, to be fair, is welcome--but I would hope the "real" porn sites take the legal age requirements seriously and DO NOT accept anything from outside that looks questionable. Plus--I would think these nuts sharing these illegal images are probably not putting it up for the world to see, and instead have some kind of "underground" system set up. So really, how much actual "child porn" is there on the public Internet in easy reach to begin with? I would think not very much.
"According to these evidences, that I can not, by law, show to anyone, but that get flagged by the new GoogleThinkOfTheChildren algorithm, your picture named ProofOfPoliceAbuse.jpg is actually child porn and needs to be censored."
Now that people accept the idea that the NSA can read anything in Google, how long will it take them to accept the idea that it also has a write access?
The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
Sounds like another trojan horse guised as somehow good for society.
-- Jimtown Kelly
I wonder if this will do me economical damage.
The real purpose of child-porn laws is to be able to frame anyone at any time for a charge they cannot fight.
Only those who disagree with their government need fead CP laws.
Also, Google's engineers LIKE nifty algorithms. They like to play around and see if they can get a computer to do X, whether that's speech recognition, driverless cars, whatever. Once the engineer had a working algorithm, the suits could choose between two options:
A) show results with child porn
B) show results without child porn
Once you have the option, B seems to be a fairly obvious choice.