Slashdot Mirror
Child Porn Is Being Hidden on Legal Commercial Websites (theguardian.com)
People who visit porn websites or search for adult pornography on the Web are facing the risk of being arrested for accessing child abuse images. The Internet Watch Foundation is warning that vicious minds are increasingly hiding criminal content on legal commercial websites, according to a report on The Guardian. The IWF found 743 websites in 2015, compared with 353 in 2013, in which child sexual abuse content was hosted on legal porn websites, and could be accessed if a special link was requested. From the report: "It has really started to become an accepted practice for the commercial side of the paedophilic community because this obfuscation technique is more effective at keeping its content live for longer," said Fred Langford, chief executive of the UK charity. Last year, the IWF found that 21% of the webpages containing illegal images and videos were commercial and those seeking to profit from the abuse were increasingly disguising it behind legal content, usually adult pornography. Langford said the trend raised the risk that people searching for adult pornography could unwittingly access child abuse images on disguised websites.
We need to ban all internet sites. THINK OF THE CHILDREN!
Trust random internet porn sites? Or even mainstream ones (I suppose there must in theory be some.)
Sometimes when I click on a video the female protagonist underaged. Then I notice her tramp stamp tattoo and c-section scar and go merrily on about my "business".
I predict "reputable" US-based sites will make a big public to-do about voluntarily start screening all content and working with the FBI, in hopes of attracting end users who can "rest assured" that they won't accidentally stumble upon illegal content.
Click bait / flamebait / nonsense-bait / bait.
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
officer, don't you read /.?
even back in the BBS days sites had hidden areas ---- this is not news
exactly what can be found in those hidden areas oh gee a subject that is now "legal" may have pre-legal stuff stashed somewhere on the same site. ---- not news either
notice the article had the narrative required swipe at TOR (btw news folks TOR is a network not a Browser)
The other note is they lump all categories of CP into one bundle which needs to stop if we are to have a decent dialog on this.
AGE , type and treatment of the subjects does make a difference (okay so its a difference on how quickly and painlessly these folks need to die but...)
What ? Simply in bizarre subdirectories with weird names on plain "normal" webservers ?~
But I though that the children-pedo-terrists were all hiding using Tor, GPG, end-to-end chat encryption, "China's Great Firewall"-busting VPNs, and all those other "anonymity-protecting" technologies that our governments want to rightfully take away from the evil hippies menacing us ~~
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
I remember going through RedTube searching for Russian blowjobs (because that search produces some nice cute girls performing my favorite sexual act). Low an behold a Siberian Mouse video that was discussed on 4chan a day earlier comes up in my search results. I did nothing but apparently some others on 4chan reported it. I say apparently because either RedTube didn't care that they were serving child pornography to a legitimate search or the guys said they reported it just to prevent others reporting it. Either way it was on there for several weeks before anything happened.
The Hidden In Plain Sight Web.
Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
Yeah, I'm sure that rising number has nothing to do with increasingly weird laws... For example in Germany it can be classified as "child porn" to have an actor act childish and LOOK like they theoretically COULD be under 18 - even if the actor proves to be an adult in front if the camera, for example by providing legal documents. Also even innocent pictures of, for example, children playing on the beach are increasingly classified as porn now. I'm not trying to marginalize a real, existing problem here, but it doesn't help that jurisdictions world-wide actively inflate the statistics for their own agendas. Quite the opposite in fact...
"These creatures you call mice, you see, they are not quite as they appear. They are merely the protrusion into our dimension of vastly hyperintelligent pandimensional beings."
-Douglas Adams
As for rodent- or for that matter pandimensional-being-porn, I guess to each his own.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
wtf does this paragraph mean?
""""It’s extremely significant,” he said. “Some people may think they’re going to legal adult content but they unfortunately have picked up the cookies on the way that means that they are served the child sexual abuse material. There’s a huge risk there.”""""
cookies bitch? are you cooking? wtf are they talking about, and these dudes are the ones on the snowden revelations? and you expect me to beleive this shit?, you are really expecting me to beleive that people upload that shit to regular internet and a magic cookie teletransports you to pedobear dimension? does that cookie have the shape of a bear? maybe its not a cookie, maybe its a gummybear
I cant beleive the crazy autist people from the chans were right (AGAIN), we live in a sad planet when it turns out /pol/ is right AGAIN, but it seems social justice warriors and the rest of the faggots are out in full swing to attack regular pornography, the utah thing is just the beggining, now there are evil cookies that transport you to chris hansen material... word? and they have the audacity to suggest that to people that... ehem, have a dick and in consequence FAP A LOT
look, i know porn can be scary sometimes, you can be there, dick in hand, ready to fap to a beautiful christina hendrix lookalike ginger girl with massive gravity defying bewbs, click on the link, and suddenly a 300 pound black chick video loads.
that.
is.
crazy (cue vaas voice),
but thats all that it is, the ginger girl is still there hermano, you just have to click back! she is still there. The 300 pound black girl will not be able to follow you around the internets, she lacks cardio!
1. Are we talking 12 yr olds and younger, or 17 yr olds?
2. If the former... I have trouble believing that there's *that* big a market for it that it's worth all this effort.... Does *anyone* have any statistics (and I don't mean from funnymentalists or morons, er, Mormons.
mark
So you're saying mice are using a pan-dimensional glory hole?
What's really sad is that the government has actually managed to desensitize me to at least the *idea* of something as vile as child porn and terrorism. I now mostly associate it with attempts to stomp out a tiny bit more of our freedom. Congratulations, government.
Read a warrant in one of the cases where prosecutors are going after someone who posts child porn. You'll get resensitized by about the third word and want to throw up.
The tech crowd understands the overreaching problems and dislike the strict liability and overbroad criminalization because they're engineers and distrust authority (and authority has been known to wildly abuse power, to be fair, just like cops sometimes make bad decisions about who to go after). But the people who produce and post goddamn sexual interactions with kids, not even physically mature but actual three or four-year-olds, will make the most peaceful and desensitized of nerds want to throw up and beat the living shit out of those people.
Most federal judges agree the mandatory minimums for underage pornography possession are generally insane, but are powerless to do much about them. There are lots of things needing reform in this area of law. But the cops sure as fuck should be going after the bad guys.
You can hide child porn images inside cat pictures... why don't we start doing that and start getting those damn cat lovers arrested for kitty porn?
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
If a person accidentally accesses child pornography they should never be arrested in the first place. Crime involves an intention to break the law. Without investigators establishing a proof of intent there should never be an arrest in the first place. Next, the issue is who was on that computer. Without proof that the suspect was the one actually using the computer and that the suspect intended to watch or download child pornography an arrest is simply illegal harassment. The time to establish the facts is before the arrest and not at the point of trial. What has occurred, is a form of power grabbing. States declare state sovereignty in order that doing wrong is shielded from penalties. This allows police to make very sloppy arrests. Any defendant dragged before a jury for child pornography charges is likely to be convicted due to the emotions of jurors rather than the facts of the case. A defense attorney will tend to want a plea bargain rather than a trial, knowing full well that innocent people are frequently found guilty when such emotional charges are brought against a defendant regardless of their innocence or the truth of the situation.
Literally every different type of website has something 'hidden' on it. The only criteria is that it has been remotely compromised.
This is such a massive problem that Google have gone to lengths to add features into their Webmaster Tools to hint to website operators that their site has been compromised.
So this is staggeringly unsurprising. It's just another reminder that the average tolerance for security is very low.
People who visit porn websites or search for adult pornography on the Web are facing the risk of being arrested for accessing child abuse images.
could be accessed if a special link was requested.
Good thing they don't leave the court system to journalists. Yeah ok he was in the same bar as that murderer, arrest him too! I think it's pretty reasonable to expect to be found guilty of a crime if you actually, you know, commit the crime. If you're not interested in kiddie porn there's a good chance you won't be clicking on that "special link". IANAL but I think the intent part is pretty important too. If you click on a link that says "Click here to send flowers to your girlfriend", even if that link opened up a kiddie porn page the prosecution is going to have to work a little harder than that to prove that you actually were interested in the porn and not, say, sending flowers to your girlfriend...
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Childporn laws only apply to any and all kinds of genetalia contact betwixt an adult and a miner. Case in point: two you lesbian girls reconciling tgeir drama after a rave party or a halloween candy binge, where no adolts are in site! I and muh fellow 13yo gov employars salute yuh all. And may the South rise agin an agin!
Can a jury look at CP without barking the law?
What about your own expert witness? say there is question on under/over 18 / 21?
Look at the files to see if there was hacking / popup porn?
Now if the jury / your own Expert witness can't view it then the case needs to be voided due to lack of due process / right to trial by jury / other rights.
Clearly what we need to do is scan every person in the world and maintain a database so that they can be identified and their age confirmed in the database. That way any photo that appears on the internet anywhere will have the identities and ages of all participants verified no matter the source. I guess we should also add that to all of the operating systems by law too as well as every camera firmware. If a face or identifiable body part appears in a file, it should obviously be immediately identified.
holy crap is this really slashdot??? every single visible/upvoted/whatever post in the comments is intelligent and insightful. i must have slipped into the twilight zone. next i'll be reading a bunch of /. comments acknowledging that nuclear energy isn't without risk, that all the world's scientists might not be involved in a massive conspiracy to perpetrate climate change as some kind of hoax on humanity, and that gravity alone might not be capable of causing steel-frame skyscrapers to pulverize themselves to dust at the acceleration of gravity.
For me, the most compelling argument against the criminalization of Internet child pornography is this:
In no other case is it illegal to possess a copy of the evidence of the commission of a crime.
Notice the multiple levels of indirection here: (1) It's only a electronic copy of the evidence, and (2) It's just evidence -- it's not
the underlying crime itself.
There comes a point when there is so much indirection between a person and the crime committed that it's just not rational to view that person as a criminal.
This ultra-loose criminal association creates a terrible corollary: Anyone can easily turn anyone else into a criminal simply by planting a piece of paper or a computer file in their possession. It scares me to live in a country that allows this. There is nothing standing in the way of me spending the rest of my life in prison because of a mis-configured wireless router or by being the victim of a malicious e-mail prank. My government will respond to my victimization by placing me in prison for the rest of my life. And they will do it with 100% conviction that they have protected children from sexual abuse.
Do any of you find it strange that if you were to upload a video with some copyrighted music in it, the video would be blocked in a heartbeat; yet this child porn sites manage to stay working for years.
Don't you find that odd?
Then we don't need to ban porn!
More UK pedo-paranoia. Maybe they should look harder at their own government and who they protect (at least while those under protection are still alive...).