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.

Comments

What is the point of this?

[Electricity Likes Me]

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.

Re:What is the point of this?

[TheBlackMan]

Exactly.

Also, I am browsing the net since at least 12 years and i have NEVER found child porn by accident or whatsoever. I am thinking that child porn can be found only in the "dark internet".

So that makes one wonder what Google's real motives are.

Re:What is the point of this?

[Ardyvee]

The summary is a bit incomplete. I suppose that if the algorithm finds something, it will warm law enforcement.

FTFA: "This will enable companies, law enforcement and charities to better collaborate on detecting and removing these images, and to take action against the criminals." "We can do a lot to ensure it’s not available online—and that when people try to share this disgusting content they are caught and prosecuted. "

Re:What is the point of this?

[ebno-10db]

True, which means this isn't a solution. It is about as much as a search engine can do though, so it's to Google's credit.

Re:What is the point of this?

[Errol backfiring]

if the algorithm finds something, it will warm law enforcement.

I may not always agree with law enforcement, but I do not think they are THAT corrupt.

Re:What is the point of this?

[ebno-10db]

Realistically this is just a feel good effort. No one is going to seriously criticize Google for this, and they can say "we're doing our part". Not that their part really helps anything, but that's not Google's fault.

So that makes one wonder what Google's real motives are.

Good PR. I'm as cynical as the next person, but PR is often the only motive for these things. If they had a sinister motive, they'd just offer to help the NSA some more.

Re:What is the point of this?

[cdrudge]

Also, I am browsing the net since at least 12 years and i have NEVER found child porn by accident or whatsoever. I am thinking that child porn can be found only in the "dark internet".

Unfortunately it is out there. In a previous life as an intern I received a computer from a retail store that needed "fixed" as the store manager put it. Figuring it had some malware on it I booted it up to see what the damage was. Almost as soon as the computer was started numerous browser sessions autostarted with some of the most vile websites you wouldn't want to imagine. It wasn't a picture or two of some amateur girlfriend that might have been a little too young. They had the appearance of professionally designed and maintained websites just like any other porn website, but just happened to have kids 13- instead of 18+. I just turned off the computer, went to my boss, explained briefly what I found and said I wasn't dealing with it.

That was 13+ years ago. I'm sure things have changed some since then, but I'm also not naive to think that child porn is just on the "dark internet" whatever that is.

Re:What is the point of this?

[c]

What is the point of automatically removing child porn so it's not searchable.

Well, if it works to prevent people from seeing it unintentionally then it means the Google search engine provides more relevant search results. So that's a major improvement in Google's search engine.

If it's automatically identified removed, then presumably Google would be able to purge ephemeral copies from their caches and whatnot, which is probably nice from a liability perspective.

It might help to reduce casual interest in the subject if it's not easily searchable.

It doubt it would prevent anyone actively trying to find it, and it certainly won't stop the kinds of people who would go to the length of producing it; at least, I can't imagine that fame through improved search engine results is a significant part of their motivation.

The question is what is the impact on the people who might make a transition from casual interest (if they could view it by searching) to actual production? If it helps prevents that, it's a win. On the other hand, if these people deal with frustrated urges by just going ahead and making their own, we'd have to call it a major failure.

Ideally, someone has actually done the research and determined that yes, blocking casual searches for child porn should amount to a net benefit.

In practice it wouldn't surprise me if it's a move to reduce the threat from Attorney General's who see child porn in Google's search results as an easy PR and courtroom win.

Re:What is the point of this?

[luis_a_espinal]

So Google are attempting to create a system to automatically disappear content from the Internet with no human supervision, not only that but it also autonomously informs law enforcement of "child porn" found on these sites and you think thats to their credit?

I was thinking to post this anon, but no. I've personally known people who were victims of such horrible crimes. So my views on this very strong (and biased should you wish to seem them that way.)

This is a step in the right direction. Be it by peer review or by an algorithm, detect something that is "child porn". Flag it and rate it. Who published it and how it got searched (a profile that could suggest a rating from "accidental" find to "found by premeditated and methodical searches"). Report it to the authorities, and let them sort it out.

If I were to see or glimpse or even take a whiff of an indication of child porn on someone's computer or a person's private property, or whatever, you can bet your ass that I would call 911, and let the cops sort it out.

Turned out to be a false positive? I won't sleep much over it, unless someone genuinely innocent gets destroyed by this. But probabilistically, the chance of such occurrence is so low, not impossible, but so extremely low (truly innocent person in possession of child porn), I'm willing to live with the consequences.

People conflating this with 1984 or PRISM, that's NIMBYstically, selfishly disturbing and disconcerting.

I'd hate to see what you think is a step too far.

I'd hate to see what you think is a step too short when fighting child sexual abuse. Seriously, what do you propose in practical terms?

Re:What is the point of this?

[Razgorov Prikazka]

That is correct. The list looks a bit like this:
1 - fighting terrorists
2 - fighting child pornography
3 - something with global warming
4 - helping the government spy on ordinary people.

Re:What is the point of this?

[Mitreya]

Turned out to be a false positive? I won't sleep much over it, unless someone genuinely innocent gets destroyed by this. But probabilistically, the chance of such occurrence is so low, not impossible, but so extremely low (truly innocent person in possession of child porn), I'm willing to live with the consequences.

You, sir, are a grade-A asshole

Are you considering the possibility that you might be the target of the false positive (however unlikely)? Because it is mighty kind of you to be willing to live with the consequences of someone else's life being ruined due to false positive.

All of this would be a less horrible idea if the law enforcement found a less damaging way to investigate (i.e. keep the accusation completely private until it is proven in court). Otherwise lives are utterly ruined well before the investigation is concluded.

Re:What is the point of this?

[Anonymous Coward]

Turned out to be a false positive? I won't sleep much over it, unless someone genuinely innocent gets destroyed by this. But probabilistically, the chance of such occurrence is so low, not impossible, but so extremely low (truly innocent person in possession of child porn), I'm willing to live with the consequences.

Go to 4chan for a few weeks. Your browser cache may now very well contain child porn, even though you did not want child porn, because posting to 4chan is anonymous and even though they do their best to take illegal images down they can't always tell if something is child porn and if it is, it will take them a while to find out about it. I'm pretty sure there are more readers of 4chan than there are pedophiles getting child porn on the internet, leaving your false positive rate at more than 50%. I know a kid who for some reason liked to amass vast quantities of porn on his computer. At meets he'd copy gigabytes of everyone else's stashes - more than he could ever watch. He ended up taking the rap for child porn charges because one of those images, perhaps an image he never saw, was child porn. In my home country, the police get many more panicked calls from people who inadvertently saw child porn on the internet (and are now horrified that they will be prosecuted for seeing it, which in fact could happen if it is in their browser cache) than they do leads on actual child rapists. Preventing child rape (or rape of any kind, for that matter) is a worthwhile endeavor. Doing something productive about it is good. Randomly ruining innocent people's lives is not productive - it's not what needs to be done, regardless of your ability to feel bad about it.

Re:What is the point of this?

[dgatwood]

The goal is to eliminate the known child porn, not to decide what is or is not child porn. Presumably their database will come from law enforcement agencies. That said, your comment brings up a valid point—that you can't always tell what is or is not legal. Those photos of that Hollywood actress a few years ago were taken when she was only 17. The fact that she took them and sent them to her boyfriend doesn't change the fact that (assuming she wasn't lying to try to make the photos go away) possessing those photos is technically illegal under child porn laws.

This raises a more interesting question: Will it be possible for individuals to query that database? For example, if someone downloads a picture from somewhere and can't tell with certainty whether the girl is legal or not, could that person anonymously query the database to determine the legality of that photo? I mean, obviously the database would be incomplete, so lack of data does not necessarily indicate legality, but I could see something similar to virus scanners that periodically scan your porn collection against the child porn database and alert you to anything that shows up in that database so you can delete it. That would be a useful tool for staying on the right side of a law that is otherwise basically impossible to comply with (at least with any degree of certainty), particularly if it came with information describing how the age of the person in particular photo was determined and the level of certainty involved. For example, for a presumably legal photo, it might return "Over 18. Certainty: low. Reason: not found in database" or it might contain "Over 18. Certainty: high. Reason: Playboy affidavit" or anything in between.

I hope they really mean child

[Mal-2]

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.

Re:I hope they really mean child

[ebno-10db]

This is about detecting known images (presumably even if altered a bit), not automatically detecting if a heretofore unseen image is CP. From the Google announcement:

Since 2008, we’ve used “hashing” technology to tag known child sexual abuse images, allowing us to identify duplicate images which may exist elsewhere. Each offending image in effect gets a unique ID that our computers can recognize without humans having to view them again . Recently, we’ve started working to incorporate encrypted “fingerprints” of child sexual abuse images into a cross-industry database. This will enable companies, law enforcement and charities to better collaborate on detecting and removing these images, and to take action against the criminals. Today we’ve also announced a $2 million Child Protection Technology Fund to encourage the development of ever more effective tools. [emphasis added]

I have a better idea....

[SemmiZamunda]

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.

Not sure I agree 100% that this is a good idea....

[realsilly]

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.

Re:Not sure I agree 100% that this is a good idea.

[jbmartin6]

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.

Out of sight, out of mind

[gweihir]

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.

Exactly - and how do you define underage?

[Viol8]

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.

Re:Exactly - and how do you define underage?

[J'raxis]

The age of consent for porn is 18 throughout the entire United States.

This has created all sorts of problems for people in that 16-18 age bracket taking photos of themselves or their partners, ruining their lives with chargers of "manufacturing child pornography," but hey, we have to "protect the children," don't we.

Re:Impossible

[J'raxis]

A lot of people are misunderstanding what Google is developing here.

This is not "automated" censorware that would make its own decisions as to what should be censored. It's not going to analyze images and decide to censor them on its own (which would result in the kind of false positives you claim).

It's censorware that would, once a live human Google employee has viewed a piece of content and made the decision that that particular content is to be suppressed, globally remove all copies of the same content from Google's database. See, one of the major obstacles censors face nowadays is the so-called "Streisand effect," where suppressing a piece of offensive content results in dozens, sometimes thousands, of people mirroring the content and publicizing their mirrors. If people want the information, they'll get it; censorship always fails, and in many cases completely backfires.

But, software like this will ensure that in the future, if a corporation or a government wants to suppress information, they will be able to do so.

Of course, Google and others will only use this censorware to go after CP, which as we all know "everyone" hates, so I guess everything is okay.