Slashdot Mirror
Facebook Reports BBC To Police Following Publication's 'Sexualized Images' Investigation (bbc.com)
"Grave doubts" have emerged about the effectiveness of Facebook's moderation system after an investigation by the BBC last year revealed the social network was failing to remove sexualised images of children even after they were reported. Damian Collins, chair of the culture, media and sport committee, made the comments as he criticised Facebook's handling of the images, dozens of which were reported to the company by the BBC and fewer than 20% were removed. After the BBC sent evidence of the photos to Facebook, the social media company reported the BBC to the police for distributing the images, which had been shared on private Facebook groups intended for paedophiles. From a report on BBC: When provided with examples of the images, Facebook reported the BBC journalists involved to the police and cancelled plans for an interview. It subsequently issued a statement: "It is against the law for anyone to distribute images of child exploitation." Mr Collins said it was extraordinary that the BBC had been reported to the authorities when it was trying to "help clean up the network." [...] Information the BBC provided to the police led to one man being sent to prison for four years.
I take it FB is unfamiliar with the Streisand effect.
There have been journalists who tried to cover this beat before and been charged with child pornography and sent to jail. Depending on who the prosecutor is, this is the untouchable story. There is no safe harbor when it comes to kids and sex.
Fortunately, the both the BBC and the Facebook employee concerned, CEOP was then legally obliged to report itself to itself, resulting in an infinite loop...
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
I've been on the net for a very long time. Over a quarter century. I have never "come across" kiddie images. I have no idea how people seem to do this, or expect people to believe they just randomly came across child porn.
That said, if I did, I wouldn't report. I would format my system and disappear for a few years. If a teenage boy can go to prison and be labeled a sex offender because his teenage girlfriend sent him a boob shot then there is no way I could expect a fair trial should they decide to charge me with something.
Because Facebook said that before they'd grant an interview, they wanted some examples of the material they'd failed to remove.
Sexualized Images is popo codeword for teen selfie in a bikini, or in lacey panties with butt facing the camera... probably with duckface. If it was real porn or nudity they would use different phrasing. Sexualized Images simply means normal pics with 'sexual' connotation, something all teens love to do.
They are pictures that young adults have taken of themselves and posted.
FTA:
Images appeared to be stolen from newspapers, blogs and even clothing catalogues, while some were photographs taken secretly, and up close, in public places. One user had even posted a video of a children's dance show.
TFA is not about "young adults" nor pictures "taken of themselves and posted." The only ages I see cited are 10-11. It's about pictures people have taken of children that are being treated as sexual.
He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
Far scarier than a letter from the copyright police. Those incidents all changed my behavior - like your acquaintance, I would just select all the files that matched a search term and download them without a thought. I'd come home from work and see what treasures I'd downloaded. Once I got some questionable pictures or videos, I was a lot more discerning. I used to run a usenet picture extraction tool - it would comb though usenet looking for - ahem - good pictures and download them to your hard drive. I stopped using that tool once it dutifully filled a directory with horrible images. The scary thing about that one is that I didn't even notice the folder for a couple of weeks or months... sometimes not having backups is a good thing! Freenet works by downloading the content on to your own PC. I get that you have a reasonable defense if you don't know what the encrypted files on your drive are... but once I visited the bad freenet site, I could no longer credibly say that I didn't know what was in the encrypted files. I stopped running freenet. Scary stuff, indeed. We've already started teaching our kids not to take any pictures of themselves or their friends naked or in revealing outfits, not because it is morally wrong but because prosecutors have demonstrated a willingness to use "child protection" statutes against children.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
"It is against the law for anyone to distribute images of child exploitation." ...said the company responsible for hosting and making availble those images.
Images of fine art in museums get deleted, but....
Don't step on the baby.
My work internet blocks Oglaf, so I can't find and link the strip in question, but a couple weeks ago my partner put the strip up on her Facebook page. A day later, the strip had been taken down because it was 'offensive'. It's a cartoon, and the punchline was basically that a guy fucks lemons. Woo. It's NSFW, I guess, but it involves two adults and lemons. It's really no big deal, and it's pretty funny.
I have friends that are models. Heaven forbid they show even the barest bit of nipple. Sometimes it doesn't even take that much. They have pictures taken down and temp-bans put on them.
So my question is who are they employing to scan these images, and why do they find partially clothed women more offensive than pictures of exploited kids?