Google Helps Police With Child Porn WebCrawler (siliconbeat.com)

The San Jose Mercury News is reporting that the Internet Watch Foundation, "an organization that works with police worldwide to remove images of child sexual abuse from the Internet, has credited Google with helping it develop a 'Web crawler' that finds child pornography." The pilot project makes it easier to identify and remove every copy of specific images online, and the group says "We look forward to the next phase of the Googler in Residence project in 2016." Last year Google also had an engineer working directly with the foundation, and the group's annual report says "This was just one part of the engineering support Google gave us in 2015." [PDF] Their report adds that the new technology "should block thousands of their illegal images from being viewed on the Internet."

Comments

Why stop there?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why not crawl peoples Android phones and Android tablets for illegal images?

Google already have access to the media folders on them via Google Play Services, so it trivial for them to take a look for other reasons.

Re:Why stop there?

[DarkOx]

Because that would open a can of worms nobody really wants opened: Is the picture dad just took of mom bathing their new infant for the first time in the kitchen sink CP? If he does it with his smart phone and Google's algorithm spots it a decision would have to be made by someone some place. Even if Google's algorithm had an 'exclude family members rule' that could turn ugly for Google the first time they failed to report some actual abuse.

Re:Why stop there?

[drinkypoo]

Because that would open a can of worms nobody really wants opened:

Ah, naivete.

Even if Google's algorithm had an 'exclude family members rule' that could turn ugly for Google the first time they failed to report some actual abuse.

This is just the first step. There is always a next step. By helping these witch hunters, Google is preparing us for the next step, intentionally or not.

Re:Why stop there?

[dgatwood]

Are you calling people trying to stop the spread of child pornography 'witch hunters'?

Depends on which people you're talking about and on how the information gets used. Google helping find and remove child porn is certainly not a witch hunt, particularly if they do so by notifying the site owners or ISPs. On the other hand, if law enforcement starts using the system to arrest people who unknowingly possessed child porn, that would be a witch hunt. It's a fine line.

Re:Why stop there?

[Coren22]

Is the picture dad just took of mom bathing their new infant for the first time in the kitchen sink CP?

FYI, that has been prosecuted as CP before.

https://jonathanturley.org/200...

The "internet watch foundation" wins

[Anonymous Coward]

and everyone else loses: No child is better protected, but content policing is now a free-for-all.

Thanks, you Bwittish guise, you.

Re: The "internet watch foundation" wins

[Anonymous Coward]

It always starts with taking down images of child pornography / child exploitation. I'm all for getting rid of this sort of thing but the OP does have a point. The same system could be used to filter out all identified cartoon depictions of Muhammad!

Re: The "internet watch foundation" wins

[Anonymous Coward]

Although I know you're playing Devil's Advocate - hence "political heterodoxy" tacked on the end of your list - I appreciate the jumping off point you provided...

How about you grow a pair and understand that pushing evidence of a serious crime underground will only make it harder to police the crime itself?

With no other act - murder, theft, corruption, etc. (well, except political corruption, publishing evidence of which brands you a traitor) - do we put so much more effort into criminalising those who have seen an image of the act than the act itself. Pictures of child sex abuse are used as an excuse to engineer surveillance software that's used for other things. Child sex abuse itself is a firm part of certain political establishments, e.g. the British establishment as already confirmed through the 1980s, so it'd also be in the interests of such establishments to make sure that everyone is afraid of having evidence of the abuse.

Unless you're a paid employee of a private company selected by an unaccountable quasi-governmental body. Then knock yourself out and look at and store all the child sex abuse images you want, without the permission of any of the original victims.

Re: The "internet watch foundation" wins

[Anonymous Coward]

So what? I'm fine if the internet is purged of that filth and those responsible arrested.

Have you considered the possible downsides? Here we have an organization, accountable to nobody, that maintains a list of hashes which they claim correspond to illegal content but which they cannot prove because actually showing the original content to anybody is itself a crime. In fact, the originals were probably destroyed after generating the hashes. All sorts of hashes could be added to their database that aren't illegal and who decides what hashes are added and what is their motivation? Meanwhile the actual persons responsible, who are generally technically sophisticated, are not hindered in the slightest because they hide behind multiple layers of encryption and on private servers were access is by vetted invitation only.

We will eventually grow a pair and go after hate speech, racism, violence and political heterodoxy.

Who decides what those things are? You? To whom are those people accountable? Sounds like authoritarianism to me. Do you not understand what you're advocating for? It was people with ideas like yours that brought misery to millions in the 20th century through fascism and later communism. Much pain and suffering was wrought for the supposed greater good. You might want to be more careful about what you wish for.

Do you have a vested interest in having that filth available?

Free people everywhere have a vested interest in free speech and free speech means tolerating some things which we don't necessarily like. The price that we would pay in lost freedoms and collateral damage to rid the Internet of "objectionable" content would be very high indeed. I will tolerate some evil in exchange for the enormous benefits that a free and open Internet without censorship brings. The benefits outweigh the costs.

Re: The "internet watch foundation" wins

[AK Marc]

They aren't arresting the people making the images, nor those profiting from them. They are deleting them, and going after anyone who viewed them. If they went after the producers of such content, it would be a different story, but that's hard, so Law Enforcement doesn't even try.

Re: The "internet watch foundation" wins

[drinkypoo]

The same system could be used to filter out all identified cartoon depictions of Muhammad!

It will only have to filter out depictions of him fucking his wife for the first time, because that would be child porn (or an illustration of same, which is often treated as illegal.) She wasn't even in the double digits before he slipped her one.

Re: The "internet watch foundation" wins

[Demena]

You know this for a fact do you? Where did you get this from?

Re: The "internet watch foundation" wins

[Demena]

All the post-war years through the 1980s. They still have not scratched the surface and probably never will.

Re: The "internet watch foundation" wins

[Demena]

Ah, yes. An incorrect lying bigot. I may despise all religion but I am honest at least. Whereas you have nothing going for you. You don't even own up to an identity.

I'm not entirely happy about this.

[SuricouRaven]

The IWB is a well-intentioned organisation, but they have no accountability whatsoever. They publish a list of links they claim are child abuse imagery, and ISPs block what's on the list - but the list, for obvious reasons, is super-secret. The processes by which the list is generated is also secret - even those who are put on the list are not informed that they are now on the list. Some (not all) ISPs actively try to prevent those who are censored from finding out by spoofing 404 error page rather than explaining that a deliberate block is in place - they certainly aren't going to contact the site operator. Even if someone wrongly blocked finds out (as happened with Wikipedia only because the block process inadvertently broke the site) there is no appeals process in place. That's a lot of power for an unaccountable and opaque organisation.

Re:I'm not entirely happy about this.

[EmeraldBot]

The IWB is a well-intentioned organisation, but they have no accountability whatsoever. They publish a list of links they claim are child abuse imagery, and ISPs block what's on the list - but the list, for obvious reasons, is super-secret. The processes by which the list is generated is also secret - even those who are put on the list are not informed that they are now on the list. Some (not all) ISPs actively try to prevent those who are censored from finding out by spoofing 404 error page rather than explaining that a deliberate block is in place - they certainly aren't going to contact the site operator. Even if someone wrongly blocked finds out (as happened with Wikipedia only because the block process inadvertently broke the site) there is no appeals process in place. That's a lot of power for an unaccountable and opaque organisation.

This is my primary concern as well. Child pornography is something that should be prevented, but people are going overboard with this - it's in the same vein as the war on terrorism. Child pornography is definitely despicable, but most of the efforts against it are either extremely creepy - such as this, handing over power to an almost completely unknown organization - or evoke incredible amounts of self-righteousness, especially when people start accusing each other of this crime without any proof. Between the overreach of trying to stop, it's hard to say you support, especially when the countries most against it consume almost all of it.

Furthermore, the approach we use today is fundamentally flawed. Currently, we try to block all images of it, but we can only target those existence that we know of - and even then, it's trivial to add an extra byte here and there to through of the checksumming. This creates a drive to make more of it, which more people get, before that too gets blocked. It's very profitable for these businesses and only encourages the cycle, so with all these programs in effect we're making the problem worse and worse. Most shockingly of all, when you legalize child porn, rates of it actually go down, and sex abuse goes much farther down. Given what we know about ancient societies, where children also engaged in sex and didn't show any signs of being traumatized, it's a really hard issue to grasp, because all of the morals we grew up with are being disproved by numbers. If it weren't for the fact I'd be put on a government watchlist for the rest of my life, I might even suggest that perhaps the issue is more complex than we think.

Re:I'm not entirely happy about this.

[Linsaran]

If it weren't for the fact I'd be put on a government watchlist for the rest of my life, I might even suggest that perhaps the issue is more complex than we think.

Like almost everything, the issue IS more complex than we think. Drugs, for profit prisons, whether or not 'hitting your kids' is acceptable. You name a topic and I'm sure I can come up with a half dozen different sides to it. As for the government watch lists, I'm sure we're both on a couple dozen already. There's just the matter of 'is this an issue people care about right now'.

Re:I'm not entirely happy about this.

[AmiMoJo]

The proposed Snooper's Charter and GCHQ spying is already driving more and more people to use VPN services for privacy. VPN services usually don't subscribe to the IWF's block list.

The more you tighten your grip, the more star systems will slip through your fingers

Re:I'm not entirely happy about this.

[AK Marc]

Child pornography is something that should be prevented,

Why? Given that the definition almost everywhere now seems to include simulated child porn that didn't involve an actual child, the issue is obviously not about child-harm. The studies show that a pedophile with access to CP offends less, because they have an outlet. So, in actual fact, the only reason to ban CP is because someone finds it icky. Once icky is the only requirement, lots of things get put on the list, being gay, being a jew, whatever.

Re:I'm not entirely happy about this.

[swb]

The problem with your analogy is that being Jewish or Gay isn't inherently icky. Those states of being aren't inherently harmful to anyone and being Jewish or Gay implies a kind of free association among like minded adults to engage in those activities.

Is there any way you can justify the practice of pedophilia outside of simulated imagery? Even sharing such images seems as if it encourages and reinforces impulses which may encourage acting out those impulses, acts which do not involve the free association of like minded adults, since one party to pedophilia isn't an adult.

Perhaps you could have a very limited argument that mere possession of such imagery isn't a crime, I don't think you can argue that the larger society is wrong for public condemnation of collecting such imagery or socially ostracizing those who do so.

We hear plenty of arguments as to why "freedom of speech" doesn't protect people from the public social consequences of holding unpopular opinions.

It's also interesting to pose the simulated imagery question with a different subject matter. If a person collects simulated imagery of lynching black people, can you justify it by stating that racists are less likely to lynch people if they have a safe outlet for enjoying lynchings?

Re:I'm not entirely happy about this.

[AK Marc]

If a person collects simulated imagery of lynching black people, can you justify it by stating that racists are less likely to lynch people if they have a safe outlet for enjoying lynchings?

Have there been studies done that show that access to pictures of lynchings reduces the numbers of lynchings? You are making another emotional appeal, rather than sticking to facts.

The problem with your analogy is that being Jewish or Gay isn't inherently icky.

Then why do I hear so much about gay being icky? Lots of people think it is. That's one of the reasons why gay marriage is under attack. The very thought of it disturbs some people, about as much as child porn disturbs others.

Or are we appointing you the emperor of moral standards, so you can decree what is and is not icky, and we can base all laws around your opinion of icky?

Re:I'm not entirely happy about this.

[mikaere]

. Most shockingly of all, when you legalize child porn, rates of it actually go down [springer.com], and sex abuse goes much farther down. You fucking moron. The study you linked to was around legal, consenting, adult porn vs general sexual assault. That is, watching some people *legally* and most importantly *consenting* to both the sexual activity and its recording, is not the same as watching sexual assault. i.e. no victims.

Contrast this with child sexual assault material (aka child porn). The child in it is a victim - every time a nonce watches that shit. Reading the rest of your comment you sound like a child sexual assault apologist, or else a fucking nonce yourself. If you are a nonce, may you face justice sooner rather than later.

Re:I'm not entirely happy about this.

[drinkypoo]

The problem with your analogy is that being Jewish or Gay isn't inherently icky.

An assortment of cultures have had sex with people younger than we claim to be inherently icky, as a matter of course. Maybe it's not inherent. Maybe we make it up. (Maybe that's a good idea, that is another argument — the point is that it is somewhat arbitrary.) I was having sex with a 20 year old when I was 15. I pursued her, she wasn't initially interested. Did that warp my fragile little mind? I submit that it was warped already.

Re:I'm not entirely happy about this.

[SuricouRaven]

Including the historical predecessor to the western culture which most posters here reside in. It wasn't until the 1800s that a movement to raise the age of consent began to spread, and it was driven in large part by a desire to eliminate prostitution - prior to that the legal age of consent in most countries was somewhere between ten and thirteen, and the social standard was that menstruation was the signal a girl had reached adulthood and was ready to be married. Most parents would be very eager to get their daughter married off as quickly as possible - get them a good husband, and get their upkeep and food costs transferred to another family. The sons would take longer - they had to worry about financial security and education.

Re:I'm not entirely happy about this.

[SuricouRaven]

If the subject of the image is unaware the image has been viewed again, how can they possibly be harmed by the act?

You have, though, provided a good demonstration of why debate on the subject is so difficult: The socially acceptable view is that child porn is inherently evil and anyone who seeks to watch it is a monster who needs to be locked up or destroyed. This view is so strong that to question is in public is to risk one's reputation and one's career. I personally regard it as a medical issue: No person simply decides 'I think I'd like to look at some child rape today.' It's a psychological problem, a compulsion, and one that the sufferers do try their best to resist as they are filled with self-loathing. They need treatment and monitoring, not to be thrown in jail - but anyone who expresses this view is branded as a 'child sexual assault apologist, or else a fucking nonce.' How can you have a debate in such an emotionally charged environment?

Re: Its a MAJOR Privacy Violation

[Anonymous Coward]

Because no one would trust Android ever again after that. Its a death sentence for the OS. If the crawler finds public child pornography, its fair game. Unfortunately Child Pornography consumers don't make that stuff public.

Re:Well-intentioned my foot.

[Anonymous Coward]

The results are simple: CP is driven underground, to sites where there is all kinds of CP, even hurtcore, and where membership is granted by invitation and one actually has to be an active producer / contributor of new material.

Meaning, those who consume CP and would be fine with just a little softcore, are exposed to much more materiall including hardcore, and also encouraged to start sexually abusing children in real life.

End result, IWF profits on a circle of itself perpetuating it's own purpose for this initiative, by creating the perverse incentives for more abuse for which it next can argue that it needs more funds to "combat".

Oh and more people start using darknets, which at least is a plus, I guess.

Anyway, good luck jailing everybody who consume what is defined as "CP", including minors that sext.

NEAD MOAR PRIASONS PRECIOUSSSS

In conclusion, fuck the fucking piggies and moral fags.

* "UK pedophiles too many to prosecute": http://edition.presstv.ir/detail/383015.html
* "Children as young as SIX questioned by police over sending indecent images as number of child arrests increases five-fold ": https://archive.is/G1YAO
* "Legalizing child pornography is linked to lower rates of child sex abuse: study": http://phys.org/news/2010-11-legalizing-child-pornography-linked-sex.html

The Pete Townshend defence

[Hognoxious]

1st Googletard: If anyone finds this there'll be big trouble.

2nd Googletard: I could say we were doing it as a hypothetical exercise or something.

3rd Googletard: Won't fly. The first thing they'll ask is why we didn't choose another subject. *Any* other subject.

1st Googletard: We, paleface? And why didn't you, by the way?

2nd Googletard: Ummmm....

3rd Googletard: How about ... we were doing it to help the police?

2nd Googletard: Froppwoppalattes all round!

Publicize the hash table

[Anonymous Coward]

As a web developer with some sites that let users upload files, why can't I get access to the hash table that they're using? Obviously the big players like Google probably have access to a black box of confirmed real images supplied by whatever agency and are using their using their GIS algorithms to find resizes or crops/edits, but I'd be absolutely shocked if the police don't have a list of hash files that they use to scan suspects' hard drives to find any images.

I want access to that hash list so I can immediately block any uploaded images/videos that match the list and automatically report the upload to whatever agency. Yes, hash collisions exist, that's why reporting the upload would simply be evidence for someone else to look at and not an instant arrest. Hell, if it's a list of multiple hash methods along with an exact byte filesize, I'd be absolutely shocked if a multiple-collision could exist.

This kind of technology will never be misused

[Required Snark]

1984 Winston Smith

Winston Smith works as a clerk in the Records Department of the Ministry of Truth, where his job is to rewrite historical documents so they match the constantly changing current party line. This involves revising newspaper articles and doctoring photographs—mostly to remove "unpersons," people who have fallen foul of the party.

Orwell couldn't conceive that Winston would be automated out of a job. That may be the only part he got wrong.

Re:"Free speech"

[AK Marc]

What a surprise that Slashdotters are defending child porn and by extension raping children

Adult women with small breasts is child porn in Australia. A cartoon child is child porn in the US. Child porn has nothing to do with child rape. Child rape is something different. That you dream of raping children every time someone mentions child porn doesn't mean anyone else does.

Re:But they do, so do you

[darkonc]

While I have no problem with Google nailing pedos on the net, the problem I have with them searching through private images to do so is that it opens up a slippery slope for searching for other content that certain people might find 'subversive'... like being a Bernie supporter, or wanting to turn in certain kinds of corruption.

The privacy of private information that Google has access to needs to remain sacrosanct or there will be a huge pile of people walking away from Google.

Re:But they do, so do you

[JoeMerchant]

Do you have Netflix? Or other access to the film 1971? The FBI under Hoover was just looking out for America, Hoover's America, decent people had nothing to worry about.

Re:But they do, so do you

[ATMAvatar]

"They have this pedo scanner. They have your stuff. How is it they don't use one on the other?" Easily. They say "you know what, scanning people's own data will probably result in everyone shunning us. It makes bad business sense, so let's not do it".

Apple has aligned itself as the defender of customer privacy, so if Google let law enforcement into people's private data on their phones, you know there would be Apple ads everywhere letting everyone know about it. Surely, Google realizes this, too.

Re:robots.txt?

[wonkavader]

I'm wondering when someone will make an argument in court that ignoring robots.txt demands a warrant.

Thousands?

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

"Their report adds that the new technology "should block thousands of their illegal images from being viewed on the Internet."

Thousands....out of what are probably millions if not billions of images?

Don't get me wrong, I'm absolutely 100% against the sexual exploitation of children, but this seems like less than a drop in the bucket.

We routinely read about police finding people with tens or hundreds of thousands of child porn images on their computer, how does blocking a few thousand make any significant difference?

Re:Thousands?

[dgatwood]

Ironically, the possession laws are the sole reason why it isn't millions or billions. IMO, if you really want to get tough on harm to children, it has to be legal for people to A. submit photos that they think might be child porn, so that authorities can investigate them, and B. submit photos and metadata to a server to determine whether it is known child porn, with a guarantee that nobody will try to track you down and send you to jail or confiscate your equipment merely for checking a photo that you have questions about (or even a million photos that you have questions about).

But to make that possible, short of hiding it in some sort of onion routing nightmare, the existing possession law likely would have to be either drastically scaled back or eliminated. Why? Suppose somebody posts child porn on an Internet forum that I own/maintain. There are basically three likely outcomes:

• A user flags it for review. A moderator looks at it and decides to delete it. Odds are, nothing bad happens.
• A user flags it for review. A moderator contacts law enforcement for advice. The server is now part of an active investigation, and gets taken offline for forensics. In the best-case scenario, I get my hardware back in a couple of months. In the worst-case scenario, I lose the hardware, my backups, and the domain name through civil forfeiture.
• I add software to scan the file and ask some server whether it is child porn. That request is logged. Law enforcement now knows that this image is on the server, and begins digging through other parts of the server. They find some image that wasn't in the database yet when it was originally submitted, but that is, in fact, child porn. Again, I lose the site for at least a couple of months, and maybe forever, thanks to civil forfeiture laws.

Each of those scenarios other than the first one is basically a death sentence for a website. So right now, with the law as written, the safest thing a site owner can do is to avoid looking for child porn, and if they discover child porn inadvertently, destroy all evidence that it was ever there. This is the polar opposite of the behavior that the law should be encouraging, and the sole reason for that is that possession laws invariably cause more harm than good, no matter how heinous the thing you're trying to ban.

Re:But they do, so do you

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

I'd like some of whatever medication you're on, but in a smaller dose.

Re:"Free speech"

[AK Marc]

The production of child porn involves the rape of children.

A female age 25 in Australia with small breasts making porn is making child porn. What child was harmed?

A cartoonist in the US that draws cartoon sex of a child has created child porn. What child was harmed?

Your repeated assertion that child porn is child rape is not true anymore.

And why did my original comment get modded -1 troll?

Because you insulted all Slashdotters that believe in freedoms from government oppression. The comment was a troll, and was modded as such.

This is pure projection.

Nope. Pure fact. You are the only one here the repeatedly states that child porn equals child rape. So you obviously make that connection when you hear child porn. If you can't defend it, don't say it.

Re: But they do, so do you

[jmcvetta]

You know real pedos are vanishingly rare, right? The only people who actually get turned on by kiddie porn are the Law Enforcers and their boot lickers who built a special search engine just so they could find some.

Comparison

[phorm]

I wonder exactly what they use for matching. It's not like most pictures of a kid in a swimsuit are CP, nor even nude pictures. Most likely they're going from a database of existing and known images or possibly of "similar" images where they have flagged facial recognition etc etc.

Beyond that, I suppose something obvious like a "full spread" might allow matching of genitalia and a match against body size, skin pigment etc might yield some results, though it might also catch some odd stuff like midgets or just various false positives (somebody's lawn cherub, perhaps?).

What I really wonder is how they tune such things. Basically you have to look at it to do so. As somebody who had to work at a forums company and periodically assist reviewing "flagged" posts, that sounds like a good way to end up with bleeding eyeballs and a desire to jump off a cliff after some time at it...

Re:Comparison

[Obfuscant]

I wonder exactly what they use for matching. It's not like most pictures of a kid in a swimsuit are CP,

It is probably as simple as an MD5 sum, but could include simple image matching. From TFA:

The project, which a foundation spokeswoman described as a pilot, facilitates removal of all circulating copies of particular abuse images.

In other words, they have an image that is already known to be CP, and they're looking for other places where it is available on the web. It's not a hard problem to do a checksum and then visually examine anything that matches. It won't catch your "picture of your kid in a swimsuit" or "mom in the bathtub with baby Susie" unless you've been distributing it as CP already.

Re:Comparison

[Coren22]

It's not like most pictures of a kid in a swimsuit are CP, nor even nude pictures.

You would be surprised what is considered CP sometimes.

https://jonathanturley.org/200...

Re:Comparison

[phorm]

I'd imagine that it has to be a bit more complicated than that though, otherwise a single pixel of difference is all that breaks the checksum. I suppose it might be "reduce the image to a simple form" (reduced color depth, size, etc) and then checksum, but that would consume an awful lot of computing resources.

Re:Comparison

[Obfuscant]

I'd imagine that it has to be a bit more complicated than that though, otherwise a single pixel of difference is all that breaks the checksum.

A single pixel change is unlikely, but that's why I also said it probably included some image matching. There are simple ways of comparing images that would give good results.

I suppose it might be "reduce the image to a simple form" (reduced color depth, size, etc) and then checksum, but that would consume an awful lot of computing resources.

That would be a waste.

Re: "Free speech"

[phorm]

Regarding the Australian thing, did that actually pass, and has it been contested in court?
Last I heard they had heavy opposition by women who didn't want to be considered "illegal" just for not having DD's

Re:"Free speech"

[AK Marc]

A 25 year old woman is an adult and cartoons are only vaguely similar to real people (and indeed are not real at all). What the hell are you talking about?

That in Australia, a 25 year old woman can make what Australia defines as "child porn".

And in the US, a person has been convicted of possessing "child porn" from his collections of cartoons (Japanese Manga that contained some tentacle scenes).

Child porn prosecutions that don't involve children at all. That's why they aren't the same issue.

Not being able to distribute child porn is now "oppression"? Is it also oppression that you aren't allowed to rape and murder?

Is a picture of a rape illegal? No (unless child porn). Is a picture of a murder illegal? No. Those are separate legal issues. So why is it that the depiction of the crime is linked to the crime for one and only one crime?

Re:"Free speech"

[AK Marc]

cartoons don't have anything to do with child porn. Stop bullshitting.

There was someone convicted of possession of child porn for his cartoons from Japan. That you don't like reality doesn't change it.

So you want all pictures of crimes to be illegal?

Not that you care about any of that since you're a fucking psychopath.

Yes, anyone who doesn't agree with you about everything must be a fucking psychopath. Someone who notes that drawings of children is illegal Child Porn is a fucking psychopath.

Hiding evidence of a crime

[FeelGood314]

My biggest issue with groups or governments doing this is they are hiding evidence of a crime. This allows groups to sound outraged, pretend they are doing something about a problem and claim that they have reduced CP while safely ignoring that fact that they have done nothing to prevent child abuse and have quite possible made it worse.

Why does this sound like the same approach used for issues like prostitution vs rape and human trafficking or drug use vs mental health?

Re:But they do, so do you

[fafalone]

So my daughter might be taking nude selfies of herself on her phone, which Google flags as child porn. But its not a pedo, its a selfie. So the engineers should carefully review those selfies, decide the phone belongs to a child, and the pictures are likely her own.

Except it is pedo, she's guilty of manufacturing CP, distributing CP if it's been sent to her BF, and exploitation of a minor (herself).. and the authorities should handle it since criminal charges will teach her not to ruin her life, by ruining her life. At least that's what some police officers and prosecutors think, and judges don't seem to mind either. It's not theoretical either, kids have actually been hit with those charges, most commonly for sharing, but for possessing too-- that's right, a prosecutor in NC actually had the gall to charge a 17 year old and his gf with exploitation of a minor for possessing naked pictures of themselves (distinct from the various other charges for sending and having their partners pics), in just one example of this obscene abuse of the law. If you think that's crazy, the insanity didn't even stop there: the boy was charged as an adult!
This country has completely lost its shit over teenage sexuality since it's been combined with technology. Probably because childhood has been extended so far that people don't recognize the difference between 17 and 7, so are equally freaked out by sex with the two ages.

Re:"Free speech"

[AK Marc]

And it still isn't child porn.

He was convicted for it. That you find reality inconvenient doesn't change reality.

You are arguing in favor of raping children because of your supposed "rights."

Nope, I'm arguing against child rape. You are arguing that I'm not. Not sure how you know what I mean better than I do, but you assert it.

I said the exact opposite you dumbfuck. You're the one who keeps producing them as examples of "child porn."

They are defined as child porn by governments. You know, organizations with more respectability than you.