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.

Comments

What is Facebook thinking?

[Anonymous Coward]

BBC tells FB that there are inappropriate child images on FB and FB turns around and reports the BBC to the police that BBC is distributing these images?

I take it FB is unfamiliar with the Streisand effect.

Re:What is Facebook thinking?

[Mostly a lurker]

It is even worse than the summary suggested. The BBC did not originally send the evidence to FB. They did so when FB asked them to ahead of an interview arranged with FB's director of policy Simon Milner. Reporting them to the police for providing what they were requested to beggars belief.

Re: What is Facebook thinking?

[reanjr]

Police put child pornographers in prison after asking them for photos. That's how the law works. It's a dumb law, but THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Re:What is Facebook thinking?

[lgw]

They did so when FB asked them to ahead of an interview arranged with FB's director of policy Simon Milner.

In many (most?) US states, this is legally required. That's how far the pedophile witch hunt has gone. It's a felony in most places, often with the same penalty as actually producing the material, to be aware that someone has child exploitation images without immediately reporting it to the police. The law doesn't mention anything about journalists.

This is something anyone who repairs PCs for a living knows. Sure, common sense might say "but this is an exception", but the law doesn't. There are some states in the US where no intent is required to be guilty of possession - doesn't matter why, unless you're a policeman investigating the particular crime. Heck, even the defense lawyer and jury may not be allowed to legally see the images except in tightly controlled circumstances, as if the witches might cast their evil magic unless the correct protective ritual is performed.

not the first time

[Cytotoxic]

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.

Re:Report them!

[squiggleslash]

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...

Re:Go to the police!

[geek]

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.

Re:Should have sent links, to the authorities not

[Anonymous Coward]

Because Facebook said that before they'd grant an interview, they wanted some examples of the material they'd failed to remove.

code words

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Report them!

[gnick]

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.

Re:Go to the police!

[MightyYar]

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.