Slashdot Mirror
Google and Microsoft To Block Child-Abuse Search Terms
mrspoonsi writes "Leading search engine companies Google and Microsoft have agreed measures to make it harder to find child abuse images online. As many as 100,000 search terms will now return no results that find illegal material, and will trigger warnings that child abuse imagery is illegal. The Google chairman said he hired a 200-strong team to work out a solution over the last three months. Google's previous set of measures, which displayed a warning to people attempting to search for illegal material and caused a 20 percent drop in illicit activity."
Please search for and compile the list of 100,000 terms.
Which will inevitably all:
- Have double meanings;
- Be likely to be used by victims of abuse who are looking for help;
- Be useful for legitimate research;
- Be searched for by people looking for news or discussion on censorship;
- End up with a lot of political hot topics thrown in.
Thanks!
It's something to INCREASE abuse by:
1) Redirecting resources away from finding abusers;
2) Giving the impression that "something is being done already" so resources don't need to be reviewed;
3) Misidentifying abuse as something which is caused by the availability of images of abuse, when in fact almost all child sex abuse occurs within families or thanks to trusted acquaintances for various complex reasons which require careful analysis rather than knee-jerk political reactions.
You could try to get a secret court order that Google wasn't allowed to talk about that made them add noted child pornography search terms like "Edward Snowden" to the list.
Actually it does not do anything about child abuse. It just hides the problem. People that look at such images are a minor side-issue. The real issue is people that abuse children, and even there those that document their crimes in images or video seem to be a small minority.
I think this is designed (like so many efforts by law enforcement) to give the appearance of doing something really valuable, while it is likely rather meaningless in reality and may even be counter-productive. If this effort went into preventing children from being harmed in the first place, it might actually accomplish something. Instead they go for an easy, but fake, win.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
Exactly. Unfortunately this is tactics of sweeping the dirt under the rug. Shutting your eyes and pretending it's not happening. I don't understand why noone in their right mind thinks that hiding criminal activity reports will stop crime, but are sure that if we remove all child abuse pictures from the internet, then the problem will solve itself.
I'm not going to comment on whether or not this is a good idea or not. However, I will say that 200 Google employees had to code and test this. That has to be one of the shittiest jobs I can think of. Maybe it could be rewarding in some way, but damn.
They did that at my niece's dance competition, but guess what? They had photographs and recordings that I could buy at some ridiculous price.
You realize there is a difference between people that harm children, and people that look at pictures of it, right? And that in order to protect children you have to find the first kind in time, and not the second one?
This while action just gives the appearance of doing something valuable, while it is pretty meaningless for actually stopping abuse.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
True, but there are leads you can follow up with traditional police work, e.g. trying to find people that make and sell this kind of material. Focusing on those that search for it just deviates resources from it for cheap, bombastic, but meaningless headlines. Example: In one of these operations in Germany, 3000 homes were searched. That made for grand headlines. Do you know how many people were actually charged? Less than 20! But the police got their headline and gave the impression of doing something. (So much for violating rights and privacy...)
I have the impression by now that they care far more about the appearance of doing something than actually doing something, because actually doing something worthwhile here is hard and gives far less impressive headlines. So they go the easy way, and all the abused children are just out of luck. That strikes me as incredibly unethical.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
Children are harmed and continue to be harmed the moment a photo is snapped of them... they have to go through life not knowing what has become of the pictures. This is why viewing such images is illegal and must be stopped- because it is indeed an ongoing form of abuse, and courts have ruled this way.
A healthy mind, even with tendencies toward socially unaccepted thoughts or occasional actions is still a healthy mind. It is much different than a mind that doesn't work correctly in the first place. Rape (toward anyone) and abusing children and/or child porn doesn't stem from a healthy mind. The healthy mind will look back and say, "this is wrong, I have to stop this." The unhealthy mind will continue to harbor fantasies and then eventually act on them. That's not saying they couldn't harbor fantasies for a very long time..but "not getting caught" leads to acting those fantasies out.
So join or put a question to the PTA demanding the school answer why on earth it's preventing parents from saving memorable moments of their children's upbringing.
If no one questions it this shit will keep propagating, I'd wager you're not the only parent pissed off about this and given that the school wouldn't exist without the parents and their kids then it needs to be stamped out.
You ask ANY of the guys that are actually in the streets, or people that live in edge neighborhoods... crime is going up and going up rapidly.
Perception of crime may be going up. Fear of crime may be going up. Actual crime is going down.
--this is probably, however, simply a function of the aging of the population rather than the effects of policies. The largest component of crime is teenagers and early twenties.
99% of what you hear from your local,state or federal government is 100% BS to simply calm you down.
Unfortunately, when you dismiss all data that disagrees with what you have already decided to believe, you can never learn anything.
http://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2012/june/crimes_061112/
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2010/0524/US-crime-rate-is-down-six-key-reasons
http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/29/justice/us-violent-crime/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/diane-dimond/crime-reduction_b_2878003.html
If crime rates are going down, then why is my local police getting military grade equipment and gear? Cripes for the last sports event here they had M16 machine guns in the open and wearing full military armor.
The equipment used by police departments has no relationship to the amount of crime.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
People that look at such images are the ones who make the crime profitable. Without the profit, the crime decreases -- obviously not as much as in the case of say drugs, since a lot of abusers do it for their own enjoyment, but there are still plenty who do it for profit who can be put out of business.
This space intentionally left blank
Protecting the children is not the point of this.
(In US) quite a bit of effort has gone into banning art drawings that may look to contain underage characters or actors that may look under-18 (regardless of whether they are underage or not). So I think it is fair to say that the actual children are long forgotten in this crusade.
If crime rates are going down, then why is my local police getting military grade equipment and gear?
Because people like you seem to think there's a need. They need military gear because they need military gear. Tautology, yes, but no less the truth in this case. Crime rates have been going down across the board since the 70's: lower rates of violent crime, less non-violent crime, less white collar crime, everything. The only reason you may get the impression it's happening more frequently is because channels like CNN didn't exist in the 70's.
Hmm... Seems to me that if google and bing have enough content indexed so as to be able to identify content as matching those 100,000 prohibited searches, then they ought to be able to automatically notify authorities about those web sites holding said prohibited content. Who can then take the appropriate legal actions. Which would target those who are making such content available, not the mere sick individuals seeking such content.
I've got to wonder why such wasn't mentioned.
These have nothing to do with eachother and everything to do with congress and homeland security money.
The problem is that what politicians like doing is creating big funds that need to be spent. So they hand money to the DHS and the DHS runs programs to distribute that money. The only reason you see the police getting all this new gear is....it costs them nothing. All they have to do is fill out some request forms and the new equipment comes showering in.
Of course it comes as equipment so, it can't be used for training, or salaries, or improving their ability to fight real crime in any way, all they can do is request new toys....so they do.
I mean if someone handed you a credit card, said it can only be used to buy guns and ammo, but you can pretty much use it as much as you want and you don't have to pay the bill.... can you really tell me shooting wont become your new favorite past-time? Would you really not want an APC and some body armor if you didn't even have to pay for the gas? How about some robots? Surely you would take those?
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
If crime rates are going down, then why is my local police getting military grade equipment and gear? Cripes for the last sports event here they had M16 machine guns in the open and wearing full military armor.
Because whenever the government funds get doled about, everyone lines up to the trough, whether they actually need the stuff or not. Like right after 9/11, cities that were in no way threats on the same level as NYC all tried to get in on the newly allocated funds. It is government waste at its finest.
...
Really? I think they need it?
The GPP did not say you, but people like you: voters in your area. The place to change the militarization of our police is the ballot box. Get informed. Learn who on your city council supports more police, higher police budgets, and uses scare tactics about "rising crime" in their campaigns. Vote against them. A quick rule of thumb is to vote against anyone endorsed by the police union. Instead you should vote for candidates that support community policing and drug legalization.
If crime rates are going down, then why is my local police getting military grade equipment and gear?
Because people like you seem to think there's a need. They need military gear because they need military gear. Tautology, yes, but no less the truth in this case. Crime rates have been going down across the board since the 70's: lower rates of violent crime, less non-violent crime, less white collar crime, everything. The only reason you may get the impression it's happening more frequently is because channels like CNN didn't exist in the 70's.
A local suburban police force got an armored ram-car a few years back. They had no need for it. What they had was a bunch of federal "beef up the national police forces" money and nothing to spend it on. So they bought a tank. Some military contractor made a ton of money selling those things.
The only thing worse than a Democrat is a Republican.
Take a look at the 2012 CEOP report and you can see some of that feel-good in their dubious statistics.
http://ceop.police.uk/Documents/ceopdocs/CEOP_TACSEA2013_240613%20FINAL.pdf
For example, they claim to have identified 70,000 new 'IIOC' files. Except on closer reading, duplicate detections of the same image count more than once, so that figure may be several times higher than it really should be. And of those, 75% are on their 'least serious' scale, a level which includes things you'd find in the family photo album. And one-fifth of them were classified as 'self generated' - most of which are likely young people taking a naked picture for their boyfriend who then sends it to the wider internet.
My favorite part:
'The commercial distribution of IIOC on the open internet is estimated to account for a very small percentage of the transactions taking place. This low level is likely to be a result of the large volume of IIOC in free circulation.'
Yes... piracy is killing commercial child abuse!
"Schoolgirl roleplay is common"
Of course it is. For the majority of people, school was the time of sexual awakening and exploration. That's going to leave an impression, so it's no surprise many people want to re-live it.