Child Porn Is Being Hidden on Legal Commercial Websites (theguardian.com)

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Child Porn Is Being Hidden on Legal Commercial Websites (theguardian.com)

Posted by msmash on Thursday April 21, 2016 @02:44AM from the watch-out dept.

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.

57 of 92 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

The Answer is Obvious by cyriustek · 2016-04-21 02:48 · Score: 4, Insightful

We need to ban all internet sites. THINK OF THE CHILDREN!
1. Re:The Answer is Obvious by Anonymous Coward · 2016-04-21 02:51 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  But that's what got us into this mess in the first place. Stop thinking of the kids already!
2. Re:The Answer is Obvious by Anonymous Coward · 2016-04-21 02:52 · Score: 1
  
  Disgusting, thinking of children. Officers, take this poster away!
3. Re:The Answer is Obvious by cyriustek · 2016-04-21 02:55 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  Please note that I said the previous comment with my tongue firmly planted in my cheek to illustrate the mindset of politicians and much of LE.
  * They want access to our data because of terrorist and child pornographers.
  * They spy on us because of terrorist and child pornographers.
  * They want encryption backdoored because of terrorists and child pornographers.
  * List this goes on and on.
  By using their logic, it would seem that legitimate site would either need to be banned, or monitoring software installed for LE to see when porn is put on to the site.
4. Re:The Answer is Obvious by boristdog · 2016-04-21 03:04 · Score: 1, Informative
  
  Yes, this has the stink of Mormons all over it.
  You know, the ones who just declared porn a "public health crisis" because they can't control themselves.
5. Re: The Answer is Obvious by Freeman-Jo · 2016-04-21 03:19 · Score: 1
  
  That must be the politician in you that is talking.
  
  --
  -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- If picture worth a thousand words, how many megapixels is it? -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
6. Re:The Answer is Obvious by Dutch+Gun · 2016-04-21 03:20 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  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.
  
  --
  Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
7. Re:The Answer is Obvious by TheGratefulNet · 2016-04-21 03:38 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  yup - the governments have all played that card too many times, they have cried 'wolf!' and now we are totally desensitized to it.
  I could care less about 'terrorism' or 'child porn' or anything else they want to make me feel AFRAID about. if the government wants it, its bad. that's how many of us feel, now. we have extreme distrust in anything the government says. they have ruined their rep beyond repair, world-wide (not a US problem but a human problem).
  I truly cannot tell who the bad guys are, anymore. but likely, if someone is 'here to help' they are likely a bad guy. my, now things have flipped on us!
  
  --
  
  --
  "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
8. Re:The Answer is Obvious by AmiMoJo · 2016-04-21 03:44 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  They need to stop their crusade against paedophiles. As they point out, it's possible to stumble on this stuff while looking for perfectly legal porn. Trolls sometimes post child pornography, especially on forums not requiring registration like 4chan. People have been prosecuted over stuff like that because their IP address appeared in some logs or the police found an imagine in their browser cache that might not even have appeared on screen at any time.
  It's also rather unfortunate that the police use child pornography as a weapon. It's not uncommon for them to throw in a few child porn charges, especially if they made mistakes in the investigation. It's sick and it needs to stop.
  Go after the people who make that stuff, by all means, but recognize that a browser or P2P client merely downloading a file does not constitute "access" and certainly not viewing.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
9. Re:The Answer is Obvious by myowntrueself · 2016-04-21 03:50 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  It's also rather unfortunate that the police use child pornography as a weapon. It's not uncommon for them to throw in a few child porn charges, especially if they made mistakes in the investigation. It's sick and it needs to stop.
  Its especially nasty when they take photos out of context and declare them "Child porn". Eg you have photos of your kids on the beach. Oh but whats this? There are OTHER PEOPLES KIDS in the background. Kids in skimpy clothing! OBVIOUS child porn, busted!
  
  --
  In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
10. Re:The Answer is Obvious by Dutch+Gun · 2016-04-21 05:39 · Score: 2
  
  I truly cannot tell who the bad guys are, anymore. but likely, if someone is 'here to help' they are likely a bad guy. my, now things have flipped on us!
  I'm not sure I'm quite that cynical yet, as I believe most people are still fundamentally good, even if a bit self-serving at times. I still assume that most of these people have the best of intentions, but are dangerously misguided in their narrow focus to ferret out those who would genuinely attempt to do us harm without looking at the big picture in their zealous pursuit of policy to benefit their investigations.
  Those charged with protecting us really need to acquire some serendipity - in other words, learning to understand that there are some things too precious to lose, even in the name of protecting lives. One of the drawbacks of a free and open society like ours is the absolute impossibility of preventing someone from doing harm to others, especially if they're willing to forfeit their lives in the process. Nor is it possible to always prevent monsters from harming innocent children, although every decent instinct in us screams at us to try.
  Extremism in the pursuit of security, especially when it comes at the cost of liberty or privacy, is most certainly not a virtue. It's an insidious slippery slope that's all too easy to start sliding down, even with the best of intentions. And we also have to assume that not *all* intentions are so benign, or, more to the point, we can't know if *future* governments will restrain themselves even if the current government does, once that power is acquired.
  
  --
  Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
11. Re:The Answer is Obvious by PinkyGigglebrain · 2016-04-21 05:42 · Score: 1
  
  And lets not forget about people being charged because they have Anime images on their computer. And I'm not talking about the Hentai tentacle stuff.
  http://beforeitsnews.com/eu/20...
  About a 5th of the way down is a good example of how insane the situation has become. If a person can get convicted by the picture in article what could a DA with an agenda do to you with the pictures you have of your kids in the bath tub?
12. Re:The Answer is Obvious by TheGratefulNet · 2016-04-21 05:46 · Score: 1
  
  I admit I'm very cynnical.
  power positions attract the wrong people and to get INTO a power position means you have to be the lowest of the low. and then, once you get into power, you end up even worse and more corrupted then when you first entered office.
  the system encourages this, too. honest won't get you elected. and those elected have fully given up on trying to make things better for the little people. they now see office as a way to line their pockets and do as much damage at they can, then it will be someone else's problem.
  other than bernie, I can't think of a single politician who has been even partially honest and trustworthy in the last 30 years.
  they are all bad. I don't trust a single one of them. like salesman, if their lips move, they are lying.
  sad to have to say this, but this is the bed we made ;(
  
  --
  
  --
  "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
13. Re:The Answer is Obvious by tnk1 · 2016-04-21 06:01 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  I agree that they shouldn't simply target people who "view" anything, especially if you can be entrapped into it by going to a perfectly legitimate adult porn site and suddenly, you're looking at child porn. That could affect anyone, being an actual pedophile is not required. That is just scary.
  Unless you can trace back monetary payments to the producers or traders of such material, I don't see how simply viewing that material exploits anyone, even if it is for more perverted reasons. It's like a Go to Jail, Go Directly to Jail card for doing nothing to anyone but viewing some pixels.
  Let's be clear, though. The people who produce this material are the scum of the Earth and need to go to jail immediately and stay there. That does not mean that we allow that sentiment to explode outward so that it affects even people who are unwillingly viewing that material. That's just too far.
  They should end the laws that make viewing the material illegal and concentrate on trading and, most importantly, production. Anything that monetarily supports that business needs to be stamped out. If no one is trading this material, then no one is going to see it, and there is less incentive to produce it. There will always be some sick people who just do that for their jollies and trade with like minded pedos, but I don't see why fighting that has to turn into something that can pull in non-pedos and ruin their lives.
14. Re:The Answer is Obvious by MitchDev · 2016-04-21 06:09 · Score: 1
  
  I was thinking that same thing unfortunately.
  Out of control government and LE are the new terrorists...
15. Re:The Answer is Obvious by Locke2005 · 2016-04-21 06:47 · Score: 2
  
  How about cases where people under the age of 18 have been arrested for sending other people pictures of themselves? Yep, that's considered "distributing child porn" when a 17-year old girl texts a topless picture of herself to anyone!
  
  --
  I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
16. Re:The Answer is Obvious by Anonymous Coward · 2016-04-21 07:02 · Score: 1
  
  This is why I personally think that the resulting media, ie pictures, movies, etc. need to not be illegal. Even though I do think they're disgusting and I do not ever want to look at them, I don't think they should be illegal. It's trying to suppress symptoms. Just take the pictures as evidence and go after the makers already.
  (And don't get me started on the totally Bwittish "extreme porn law" where pictures with nothing but paid actresses and actors in them, delivered with certificate that everyone visible is in fact adult, are still illegal if they look like they might be underage, or where drawn pictures are also illegal. And then they noticed that if you can draw a picture you can describe it in words, too, and so they wanted to outlaw stories, too. Oh, and the extensive classification system. "Just how bad is this picture?" answered with a convenient code of enumerating badness delivered by a trained assessor of filth. The "internet watch foundation" and its ilk have entirely too much power and influence for the dirty little minds that possess and drive them.)
17. Re: The Answer is Obvious by Type44Q · 2016-04-21 07:32 · Score: 1
  
  They want access to our data because of terrorist and child pornographers.
  Politicians want access to our computers because they're getting desperate; they got all aroused and excited when they were told there was kiddie porn on the Internet and now that they've figured out they were lied to, theyre determined to look everywhere else.
18. Re:The Answer is Obvious by G00F · 2016-04-22 05:15 · Score: 1
  
  In Utah, a man was arrested for taking pics holding his kid
  http://www.deseretnews.com/art...
  17 days later, charges finally dropped....
  http://archive.sltrib.com/stor...
  Sure he got off, but the damage to this man is without end.
  
  --
  The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive
Do you really.... by johnsmithperson123 · 2016-04-21 02:52 · Score: 1

Trust random internet porn sites? Or even mainstream ones (I suppose there must in theory be some.)
I get scared on redtube sometimes then I don't by JoeyRox · 2016-04-21 02:52 · Score: 5, Funny

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".
1. Re:I get scared on redtube sometimes then I don't by Anonymous Coward · 2016-04-21 03:15 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  Pretty much this. I would bet these "child abuse images" are home-made videos or pictures where the participants look of age. It's difficult to visually guess someone's age. Given there was a fairly well publicized case where a man was charged with possession of child pornography where the video in question was a legally made video with an actress who was 26 years old... but looked young.
  Realistically, how is the general public supposed to know if a posted amateur picture or video is of a mature looking 17 year old or a young looking 26 year old?
2. Re: I get scared on redtube sometimes then I don't by John+Allsup · 2016-04-21 03:48 · Score: 2
  
  They don't. The anti sex lobby probably want to use the uncertainty as a weapon against all remotely sexual material.
  
  --
  John_Chalisque
3. Re:I get scared on redtube sometimes then I don't by myowntrueself · 2016-04-21 04:59 · Score: 1
  
  Pretty much this. I would bet these "child abuse images" are home-made videos or pictures where the participants look of age. It's difficult to visually guess someone's age. Given there was a fairly well publicized case where a man was charged with possession of child pornography where the video in question was a legally made video with an actress who was 26 years old... but looked young.
  Realistically, how is the general public supposed to know if a posted amateur picture or video is of a mature looking 17 year old or a young looking 26 year old?
  In some jurisdictions, UK for example, it wouldn't matter if she looked young but was legal; looking young is enough for it to count as cp and get registered as a sex offender.
  
  --
  In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
4. Re:I get scared on redtube sometimes then I don't by DarkOx · 2016-04-21 07:34 · Score: 1
  
  Read up on Traci Lords.
  
  --
  Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
5. Re:I get scared on redtube sometimes then I don't by Anonymous Coward · 2016-04-21 19:02 · Score: 1
  
  Have you considered that the "natural" female and male reaction is different in this case?
  As you have noted yourself, you have passed the child-bearing age. So for you, there's no evolutionary advantage in seeking out young boys.
  But males remain fertile well into old age - there are numerous cases of 70-year old guys fathering children, and well beyond that, even. So it's evolutionary advantageous for them to keep seeking partners. And here's the thing... the "natural" child-bearing age for humans is shortly after puberty - which is exactly why teens have been marrying and producing children for most of humanity's history.
  Everything else above and beyond that is purely cultural. You can agree or disagree with it for numerous reasons, both emotional and rational; but the point is that ephebophilia is the natural state of affairs, and the present state of affairs is a product of our present culture, and specifically the evolution of the Victorian concept of a child as a "pure" being (with sex being defined as impure), that becomes more sinful as it grows up into the adult.
Prediction for US-based sites by Anonymous Coward · 2016-04-21 02:53 · Score: 1

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.
Nothing to see, move along. by Frosty+Piss · 2016-04-21 02:54 · Score: 2, Informative

Click bait / flamebait / nonsense-bait / bait.

--
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
1. Re:Nothing to see, move along. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-04-21 03:23 · Score: 1
  
  jailbait
"...could unwittingly access..." by turkeydance · 2016-04-21 03:00 · Score: 2

officer, don't you read /.?
so the actual news here is?? by laurencetux · 2016-04-21 03:05 · Score: 1

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...)
1. Re: so the actual news here is?? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-04-21 03:23 · Score: 2
  
  I fear that removing pedophiles from the gene pool is impossible. We need to have more rational conversations about helping people, and finding a safe outlet for their urges, if we ever want the abuse to stop.
Not on darknet, after all ? by DrYak · 2016-04-21 03:06 · Score: 1

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 ]
Not at all suprised by thegarbz · 2016-04-21 03:12 · Score: 2

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.
That's what you get for fighting the Dark Web by Plumpaquatsch · 2016-04-21 03:19 · Score: 1

The Hidden In Plain Sight Web.

--
Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
How to create a problem by phatsonic · 2016-04-21 03:21 · Score: 5, Interesting

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...
1. Re:How to create a problem by nightfire-unique · 2016-04-21 03:53 · Score: 1
  
  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.
  Honestly not sure how that isn't considered an international human rights violation. You can't, in the eyes of the international court, arbitrarily discriminate like that - these men and women have the same legal rights as those also within the same jurisdiction.
  
  --
  A government is a body of people notably ungoverned - AC
2. Re:How to create a problem by thegarbz · 2016-04-21 04:45 · Score: 1
  
  Don't forget that in australia having small tits on the beach is illegal.
  And being attracted to women with small tits can get you arrested.
  Yeah ... nah (which is how Australian's say no) http://www.crikey.com.au/2010/...
3. Re:How to create a problem by Locke2005 · 2016-04-21 05:28 · Score: 1
  
  We now have the technology to create photorealistic animation using CGI, e.g. the new Jungle Book movie. So, if I create a video of someone naked that looks 12 but is actually completely computer generated... is is still illegal porn? Where should we draw the line?
  
  --
  I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
4. Re:How to create a problem by ArylAkamov · 2016-04-21 12:32 · Score: 1
  
  Depends on where you live, but many times, yes, even though it isn't a real person it still counts as "child porn".
  What a crazy world we live in.
5. Re: How to create a problem by phatsonic · 2016-04-22 03:37 · Score: 1
  
  In Germany, even paintings, comics AND WRITTEN STORIES can be considered child porn. Because we need to save imaginary children from imaginary violence...
6. Re:How to create a problem by G00F · 2016-04-22 05:06 · Score: 1
  
  per your article, it kind of says they do, but it's not the only thing they look at...
  
  The Australian Classification Board (ACB) has confirmed to Somebody Think Of The Children that a persons overall appearance is used by the Board to determine whether someone appears to look under the age of 18 in a film or publication.
  Asked whether breast size was considered by the Board when determining age, McDonald said he had no further comment to make.
  But really it's disturbing that they ban adult females just because they claim they look young.
  
  --
  The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive
7. Re:How to create a problem by thegarbz · 2016-04-22 09:01 · Score: 1
  
  No per the article the ACB classifies porn. This is where it started, and also where it finished. It was blown completely out of context and turned into that somehow someone passed a law banning small tits. No such law exists, and never has. Actually there's nothing separating a completely naked actual under age child on a beach from the same generic laws that apply to public nudity of adults.
  And frankly film classification has always been highly subjective.
Mice? Those are no mice! by davidwr · 2016-04-21 03:21 · Score: 2

"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.
Just a couple questions... by whitroth · 2016-04-21 04:36 · Score: 1

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
1. Re:Just a couple questions... by Locke2005 · 2016-04-21 05:25 · Score: 1
  
  My dad's coworker that I stayed with when I was in highschool had skin mags with pictures of naked 14-year old girls in them ("meses von 14" or something like that). Yeah, he was a perv, but apparently there is a market for younger than 17. I don't see the appeal of prepubescent kids myself, but there would be no supply if there was no demand.
  
  --
  I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
Disgusting by Etherwalk · 2016-04-21 05:11 · Score: 1

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.
1. Re:Disgusting by Dutch+Gun · 2016-04-21 06:13 · Score: 1
  
  Please don't mistake my insistence on preserving our liberties as any indication that I believe we shouldn't investigate and prosecute these monsters to any possible legal extent. That's a terribly unfair argument to make. Note that I was talking about the "idea" of these evils that were becoming banal. But if your heart doesn't weep after actually hearing (let alone seeing) some of the atrocious things that are done to these innocent children, then you probably don't have much of a heart left.
  But using that most natural of protective instincts against us to erode our liberties should also be deserving of scorn, because we simply can't help but to want to do everything in our power to keep our children safe, and those who cynically employ such strategies damn well know it.
  
  --
  Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
Steganography by Locke2005 · 2016-04-21 05:16 · Score: 2

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.
Intent and Arrest by JimSadler · 2016-04-21 05:33 · Score: 1

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.
1. Re:Intent and Arrest by quintessencesluglord · 2016-04-21 06:10 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Misses the point.
  The intent isn't to get pedophiles off the street, but effectively ban all porn. You had the same MO in the 80s with Judith Reisman claiming Playboy facilitated child abuse by having underage looking models, and shoots that simulated underage girls (because your standard 12 year old has 34DD breasts)..
  I mean after this report why would anyone visit any porn site, knowing full well there was a possibility of child porn there unless that's what they were looking for? You can't even report it without an admission of a crime.
  Even in the days before the internet, child porn stings were incredibly dubious (really, read the history. The vast majority of child porn was produced by the US government for sting operations), but any sense of due process is just covering for child molesters. Where there is smoke there must be fire.
  The real problem is that while decency laws are localized, the web is not, and what may be perfectly legal in one jurisdiction is worthy of hanging in another. This sets the stage for The Great Firewall, and ultimately shutting down all porn sites, just in case.
Everything is being hidden on every website by trawg · 2016-04-21 06:08 · Score: 1

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.
Fearmongering - cos PORN! by Dunbal · 2016-04-21 06:08 · Score: 2

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.
Can a jury look at CP without barking the law? by Joe_Dragon · 2016-04-21 06:54 · Score: 2

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.
Only way to be sure by im_thatoneguy · 2016-04-21 07:07 · Score: 1

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.
Strange by Anonymous Coward · 2016-04-21 07:44 · Score: 1

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?
Re:all you blockheads get away from muh rights. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-04-21 17:26 · Score: 1

child porn laws apply to whatever they want it to. i spoke to a cop in the child exploitation unit about this, and he said if they wanted to get someone, they could get him for having a supermarket catalog in his letterbox that featured children modeling underwear.