Facebook's WhatsApp Has an Encrypted Child Porn Problem (techcrunch.com)

Videos and pictures of children being subjected to sexual abuse are being openly shared on Facebook's WhatsApp on a vast scale, with the encrypted messaging service failing to curb the problem despite banning thousands of accounts every day. From a report: Without the necessary number of human moderators, the disturbing content is slipping by WhatsApp's automated systems. A report reviewed by TechCrunch from two Israeli NGOs details how third-party apps for discovering WhatsApp groups include "Adult" sections that offer invite links to join rings of users trading images of child exploitation. TechCrunch has reviewed materials showing many of these groups are currently active.

TechCrunch's investigation shows that Facebook could do more to police WhatsApp and remove this kind of content. Even without technical solutions that would require a weakening of encryption, WhatsApp's moderators should have been able to find these groups and put a stop to them. Groups with names like "child porn only no adv" and "child porn xvideos" found on the group discovery app "Group Links For Whats" by Lisa Studio don't even attempt to hide their nature.

Better manual investigation of these group discovery apps and WhatsApp itself should have immediately led these groups to be deleted and their members banned. While Facebook doubled its moderation staff from 10,000 to 20,000 in 2018 to crack down on election interference, bullying, and other policy violations, that staff does not moderate WhatsApp content. With just 300 employees, WhatsApp runs semi-independently, and the company confirms it handles its own moderation efforts. That's proving inadequate for policing at 1.5 billion user community. It's a similar problem that WhatsApp, used by more than a billion users, is facing in developing markets where its service is being used to spread false information.

Comments

It's encrypted

[nospam007]

It's not a 'problem'.
You are just not yet used to the 3rd millennium.

Re:It's encrypted

[BitterOak]

It's not a 'problem'. You are just not yet used to the 3rd millennium.

I don't think the law distinguishes between encrypted and un-encrypted child pornography.

Re: It's encrypted

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you worried about the porn your grandchildren will see or the porn you posted?

Re:It's encrypted

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, children being harmed by pedos is a problem, fuck your asshole with a chainsaw kiddo.

Re:It's encrypted

[Anonymous Coward]

If it's encrypted there is no child pornography. Only strings of random bytes of data.

Re:It's encrypted

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a slippery slope. If the SJW's and the thought police come after kiddie porn, next thing you know they'll want to come after vanilla porn etc.

Re: It's encrypted

[Anonymous Coward]

the two are not mutually exclusive

Re:It's encrypted

[ShanghaiBill]

If it's encrypted there is no child pornography. Only strings of random bytes of data.

According to the summary, it is "openly shared" encryption. I am not sure how that differs from "unencrypted", but apparently it does.

Is there anyone who understands what TFA is trying to say? What level of outrage, if any, should we have about this?

Re:It's encrypted

[K. S. Kyosuke]

If it doesn't distinguish that, why is this "encrypted child porn problem" instead of "child porn problem"?

Re:It's encrypted

[rogoshen1]

Not sure either. BUT it sounds like a lot of piracy is going on. As hollywood and the RIAA have taught us -- it should put the producers out of business. So, it hopefully might be a self limiting problem?

Re:It's encrypted

[jpaine619]

It is a problem. Of that there is no doubt. The question is "How do we solve or at least tackle the problem without devolving to a point where no communications can take place that aren't vetted by a third party?"

That's a tough one....

This may not be an issue that can be solved in the context of freedom. If you give two people the freedom to communicate in private sometimes they will communicate evil.

Mind you, I'm not suggesting we don't keep trying to come up with solutions. But in a free society it may not be possible to prevent all types of crimes. Some will have to be punished after the fact.. The only solution I see, at present, is to devolve to a Though Crime or Pre-Crime society... That's not an appealing thought either.

Re:It's encrypted

[fustakrakich]

Because the object of the article is to vilify encryption so the public demands that it be outlawed. It's a pretty old trick

Re:It's encrypted

[rtb61]

The reality in this case, the crime is not what they share, the crime lies with the creators and distributors of the content. Is there a problem on the web site, no, the problem appears to be a failure with policing to track down the creators of the problems on those web sites. Encrypted, should not be a problem, if it looks bad, check into the end user, if they are overseas, well, use cyber treaties (oh wait you can because hack the planet), well then fucking establish treaties and if they wont play ball, cut them off, not their balls of course back their backbone connections.

The problem is not the distribution of that content but it's creation, and that can not be encrypted and this bullshit to weaken encryption, just more bullshit. The problem can readily be dealt with if the US government would simply stop being dickbags and stop trying to hack the planet.

Re: It's encrypted

[Anonymous Coward]

That's how they finally got SOPA, er, PIPA, er, SESTA, er, FOSTA passed with little objection.

Re:It's encrypted

[phantomfive]

To give it perspective, we still haven't solved the problem of murder, either. We do try, but we also have safeguards (like jury trials).

Re:It's encrypted

[Bert64]

Long before the days of electronic communication, and even in the most totalitarian of societies people would communicate illegally in person, and that's always going to continue.

Re:It's encrypted

[Anonymous Coward]

Yep, encrypted content by company which income comes from selling the information they collect. Of course all the traffic is completely visible to Facebook by design.

Re:It's encrypted

[Joce640k]

You know the number of rapes has gone down since we had free porn on the Internet, right?

Re:It's encrypted

[BlueStrat]

Because the object of the article is to vilify encryption so the public demands that it be outlawed. It's a pretty old trick

Ding, ding, ding! A winner!

Also, child porn is a societal problem and one that's awkward to address for those who want to insist all moral belief structures, particularly those surrounding sexual behaviors and attitudes, are equal. Much better and easier to scapegoat encryption. Widespread adoption of strong crypto scares the pants off of TPTB. It's also another "this is a thing and we're dong something, so reelect us and give us money!" soundbite opportunity to spam the 24hr news cycle.

Strat

Re:It's encrypted

[Anonymous Coward]

Think of the children!

Re: It's encrypted

[Anonymous Coward]

I bet you are a libtard who claims that "free speech" is the most important thing in the universe. Yeah, sharing child porn is bad, at least in the eyes of a the God of the universe that most of you libtards don't even think exists. By most libtard logic, 'once it was made, eventually no more harm is done in sharing, so the libtard 'let me do whatever immoral thing I want as long as I'm "not hurting anyone else", so lay off me, man' philosophy would apply.

I'm a self righteous jerk, but holy shit are you guys complete fucking hypocrites, and fucking retarded to boot.

Sharing is bad, yeah, but even though that is probably 99% of the volume, the main issue is creation. That is where 99% of the effort needs to go to fix things.

As for this 'beyond Hitler' level of hypocritical anger against 'the sharers' of that crap, seriously get some fucking perspective.

For a simple comparison that *maybe* is basic enough for a libtard to follow: That in just our recent past human beings were litterally marched into ovens where they were burned alive, is ridiculously evil. Everybody has an obligation, as a human being alone, to speak up against that and take action to stop that sort of shit when the opportunity presents itself. And, vastly much more obligation to do so if you have any sort of belief in a God who watches us both individually and corporately, who, for some reason, is committed to mankind having free will, as we nearly continuously fail to show Him that we have any redeaming value.

Yet, disgusting pictures of those same people being marched into those ovens, or the horrendous pictures of what followed, while awful, are not considered to be 'illegal' to have or view.

I would say that while sexually sanding a child is very awful, I think the burning of a human alive is at least as bad and is in most cases significantly worse than the sexual abuse. There may be some who feel a little bit the other way, but I would certainly day that the brutal murders are at least close to as bad by most everyone standards and, when we are really honest with ourselves, will typically rate as worse.

So why is it that pictures from one are considered 'in bad taste' and pictures of the other often elicit 'rape them in prison with a chainsaw' (arguably an even more disgusting sentiment than the aforementioned 'burning humans alive' incidents, you, are yourselves, sick fucks for even going to those places)?

I would say that anyone engaging in looking at such pictures, from either of those categories, in order to derive any sort of pleasure(sexual or otherwise) is not a positive thing; and taking pleasure in such things is likely an indication of someone who has other things they need to work through or understand in their lives and in their head.

But for certain, conflating the act of creation of those things, and the act of viewing those things, while both arguably non-positive, are on vastly different levels of 'offensiveness' and anyone who acts like they are even close is someone who patently doesn't have a fucking clue about life.

Re:It's encrypted

[nospam007]

+According to the summary, it is "openly shared" encryption. I am not sure how that differs from "unencrypted"

It means they have the key and you don't.

ID by IP address?

[TomR teh Pirate]

While courts have found that identifying a suspect by IP address isn't sufficiently specific, maybe it should be enough to secure a search warrant. Then you can send in the cops and bust these creeps.

Re: ID by IP address?

[edris90]

For every creep you bust .a new creep is created to fill the vacuum left by the last. I recognize the intentions are noble but the goal is unattainable. For every effort we put into we put Into these things ,we are still forever sitting in the same situation. Playing Ring around the outlets with no actual decrease in the indesired behaviors. And in financials we call these effort a money pit. And cut our losses for the sake of pragmatism. Think of how much we could accomplish with the efforts that are put into this impossible mission, if put into things that actually can be helped?

Re:ID by IP address?

[nospam007]

"While courts have found that identifying a suspect by IP address isn't sufficiently specific, maybe it should be enough to secure a search warrant. Then you can send in the cops and bust these creeps."

You mean the clients of Starbucks?
Or the VPN people?

Re: ID by IP address?

[edris90]

Yes I recognize this is a quite socially disassociative Stance to take, but to look at a situation objectively disassociation is a prerequisite

Re: ID by IP address?

[Anonymous Coward]

[citation needed]. Without evidence, I'm more inclined to believe that the supply of creeps is relatively constant percentage, and that the removal of one creep from society won't cause a new one to spring up in its place. If you use the network to track down the *producers* of CP, that seems like a manageable set. We just need to make sure that they're occupying the cells being vacated by pot smokers, rather than being released back into the community as is all too often the case.

Re: ID by IP address?

[Anonymous Coward]

I have no need for pot smokers around my place. Or blockchain apps. And once we are off gas and oil and on solar I will spend all my time listening to shakespeare audio

Re: ID by IP address?

[Anonymous Coward]

For every creep you bust .a new creep is created to fill the vacuum left by the last.

Nonsense on its face and an entirely evidence-free assertion. You paraphrased the common anti-war line from about 10-15 years ago that said if you kill terrorists you just create more terrorists.
There isn't some thermodynamic law of conservation of pedos (or terrorists, for that matter)
You may have a point about the goal being unattainable but this is a bad way to make it.

Re: ID by IP address?

[Anonymous Coward]

And society has no need for pedos, so off to prison with you. All the Shakespeare you could ever want and unlimited time to read it, enjoy.

Re: ID by IP address?

[Anonymous Coward]

For every creep you bust .a new creep is created to fill the vacuum left by the last.

Nonsense on its face and an entirely evidence-free assertion. You paraphrased the common anti-war line from about 10-15 years ago that said if you kill terrorists you just create more terrorists.

And guess what . . . . that's exactly what has happened.

We've spent the last 20 years killing "terrorists", and we've killed a lot of them, and it hasn't reduced the number of terrorists one bit.

Re: ID by IP address?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd love to see the data you used to pull that conclusion out of your ass.

Re: ID by IP address?

[nukenerd]

For every creep you bust .a new creep is created to fill the vacuum left by the last.

So there is a queue of wannabe pedos waiting for vacancies to arise?

Re: ID by IP address?

[Anonymous Coward]

the supply of creeps is relatively constant percentage, and that the removal of one creep from society won't cause a new one to spring up in its place

You just contradicted yourself. If the supply is constant and you remove one, then necessarily another will appear to keep the supply constant.

Re: ID by IP address?

[Dunbal]

I guess you don't pay attention to the news and all the stabbings, shootings and vehicles running people over in Europe, all in the name of alla snackbar. That didn't used to happen.

Re: ID by IP address?

[Anonymous Coward]

Same data that found WMDs

Re: ID by IP address?

[jan_koch]

You should check your figures.

Global Terrorism Index 2018: https://www.statista.com/stati...

The US have a higher prevalence of terrorism than any European country (although Ukraine is only one place behind the US).

Re: ID by IP address?

[Anonymous Coward]

> We've spent the last 20 years killing "terrorists", and we've killed a lot of them, and it hasn't reduced the number of terrorists one bit.

That is because you have replenished their ranks when you went for "regime change".

Re: ID by IP address?

[Anonymous Coward]

Shhhh! Rightwing domestic terrorism by white people doesn't count!!!

Re: ID by IP address?

[thegarbz]

The US have a higher prevalence of terrorism than any European country (although Ukraine is only one place behind the US).

Except that index ignores the normalisation between countries. The index itself is derived from absolute numbers: the number of terrorist incidents per year, the number of fatalities caused by terrorists per year, the number of injuries caused by terrorists per year, and total property damage caused by terrorism per year and then simply ranked between 0-10 being the best and the worst country.

The size of the USA in terms of many metrics (population, immigration, GDP, landmass) etc, makes it closer to combining all of central and western Europe figures into one.

Re: ID by IP address?

[Anonymous Coward]

So are you trying to imply that incarcerating a pedophile will cause more people to become pedophiles to avenge the one in jail?

Re: ID by IP address?

[jan_koch]

True. Thanks for pointing that out. I wish I had moderator points to upvote your post.

I never thought it possible Statista would publish such a sloppily defined metric.

This makes me pity the people in Iraq even more...

Re: ID by IP address?

[thegarbz]

I never thought it possible Statista would publish such a sloppily defined metric.

Statista publishes metrics from 3rd parties and unfortunately in terms of comparing terrorism there isn't really much other stuff out there than the Institute for Economics report, however that doesn't make the metric useless. Looking at individual rankings and their changes over years relative to other countries still provides some insight into the terrorism landscape. While the ability to side by side compare countries like the USA to countries like Iraq, the comparison between say France and Germany still is quite accurate.

Also the report itself has a huge amount of insight despite the way the rankings are published: http://visionofhumanity.org/ap...

Re: ID by IP address?

[jan_koch]

Will read that, thank you. Certainly, it is true that some information is better than none. I just expected (naively perhaps) that something called an 'index' would be normalized to some attribute like population (or one of the others you named).

It *IS* a problem.

[Anonymous Coward]

After all the government needs it unencrypted so they can fap to it, and every once in a while publicly convict someone who isn't part of their paedo club.

Hint: The people with power are the ones most likely to abuse children.
See UK's parliament from the 80s-10s(and probably before and after), and
the Jeffrey Epstein guilty plea (which allowed the network of paedos around him to escape justice, while he got a literal slap on the hand, not even real PMITA prison time.) And don't even get me started on the Catholic Church, who at least just got one major blow with the conviction of an ArchBishop in Australia, one of the top three in the Vatican at the time of his trial.

Am I missing something?

[Kokuyo]

Isn't Whatsapp tied to your mobile phone number? At least in Switzerland, you'll need to have ID to even use prepaid. There is no such thing as an anonymous telephone number in Switzerland.

Is that different in other countries? Are there ways to use Whatsapp without a phone? Because otherwise I find it highly questionable to share illegal content on there. What stops any agency from infiltrating the group and collect phone numbers?

Re:Am I missing something?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, there are other countries in the world besides yours that have different rules governing anonymity and access to various services.

Did you really ask such an idiotic question?

Re:Am I missing something?

[HornWumpus]

I bet I could find a burner phone inside 24 hours in Switzerland, knowing only English and some German. I might have to step across a border, but I'd have one inside a day. Yes, I know, you are all a bunch of law abiders. The first Swiss person I asked would rat me out for sure...I won't ask any Swiss people.

I the USA, you get a prepaid credit card for cash, then buy and activate a prepaid phone 'plan' with that.

You can bet these groups are already infiltrated. Good, the internet _busts_ another bunch of pedos.

Re:Am I missing something?

[burni2]

Actually in Germany you could - till around 1 year ago - get a pre-paid SIM for example from Aldi/"AldiTalk" without showing your ID, and you didn't even needed it for activation - this has changed.

However in the U.S.A. knowing from media coverage that the FBI has a great deal of possibilities to prosecute, I would think that they get the IMEI/IMSI logs from a cell-tower and then they got a location and perhaps a route somebody drives, than you can IMSI-Catch someone and pin-point the location pretty exact, and when you catch him with that exact phone with the "incriminating content"you have pretty hard evidence, because its likely that a burner phone is just a flimsy Android device to crack open for a whole lot less than an iPhone.

So basically, I find it hard to believe that there were no big busts till now, but perhaps they want to stuff as many criminals as they can get into their bucket.

So actually we should wait and not alarm them.

Re:Am I missing something?

[Anonymous Coward]

"because its likely that a burner phone is just a flimsy Android device" - They'd just CIPAV you or similar. They'd know exactly who and where you were and everything you'd ever done on that phone in about 3 minutes.

The only actual question, at what threshold of notice do they care enough to look at you - and unless you've got something to actually hide, why are you going to such trouble to hide nothing?

IIRC there was a time when having multiple cell phones was probable cause enough by itself to get a warrant to investigate someone in the UK. I'm sure they've upgraded their criteria since in subtler ways.

All data is snarfed. They just don't know what to look at in realtime, or have the manpower to look at even a decent % of it without XKEYSCORE or similar. When AI replaces XKEYSCORE, this may change overnight.

Re:Am I missing something?

[Dunbal]

and unless you've got something to actually hide, why are you going to such trouble to hide nothing?

You must be masturbating every time you close the bathroom door. If you're not masturbating, why do you close the door?

Re: Am I missing something?

[Anonymous Coward]

To buy a phone you don't need anything, to have a SIM card you need ID. In Switzerland and over all of Europe.

Re:Am I missing something?

[pnutjam]

To keep the foul smell in when I take a dump. Plus, having used stalls without doors at my crappy high school; I don't appreciate people critiquing my wiping technique.

Re:Am I missing something?

[Dunbal]

Nope, I'm sure you're masturbating. If you weren't masturbating the door would be open.

Doesn't WhatsApp have "end to end encryption?"

[w3woody]

Uh, hang on a cotton-pickin' second. Isn't WhatsApp supposed to have "end to end encryption?" Didn't they like publish a whole paper describing how their end-to-end encryption made it impossible for third parties to know the content that was being sent? Wasn't it supposed to be impossible for anyone, including WhatsApp themselves, to know the content being transmitted on their system?

Doesn't end-to-end encryption, where "even WhatsApp" can't see the contents of the messages, sorta preclude the use of moderators to moderate content? That is, if WhatsApp can't see the messages, they can't moderate the messages, right?

So, um, am I wrong in thinking that WhatsApp's claim to being able to moderate messages and claims that messages cannot be read by WhatsApp are sort of incompatible? Unless WhatsApp's supposed "end-to-end encryption" is more of a bullshit marketing ploy rather than a description of the actual algorithms in play here...

Re:Doesn't WhatsApp have "end to end encryption?"

[Anonymous Coward]

Group names, profile names, and profile pictures aren't encrypted. TFA is about group names indicative of CP.

Re:Doesn't WhatsApp have "end to end encryption?"

[Anonymous Coward]

LOL. Do you believe that an outfit of CIA of the US in America like *insert your social network site here* is not spying on you?

Re:Doesn't WhatsApp have "end to end encryption?"

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd mod you up if I could because that is something very, very few people seem to comprehend. Metadata like that is pretty much never secure. Happens more in a corporate environment where people will do things like name contacts with their full name and phone number because it's easier to see, problem is even if you don't public that information on the platform, it's still leaked because users are stupid. I have old skype accounts I haven't used in _years_ that still have the names I gave to contacts (something that was supposed to be kept local).

Re:Doesn't WhatsApp have "end to end encryption?"

[dissy]

Uh, hang on a cotton-pickin' second. Isn't WhatsApp supposed to have "end to end encryption?"

They do but they have groups as well.

Similar how this very post is encrypted end (my browser) to end (the slashdot server) yet you can read it.
In fact the headline is equivalent of saying "Slashdot has an encrypted web troll problem" - the encrypted part literally has nothing to do with it.

Re:Doesn't WhatsApp have "end to end encryption?"

[alexo]

How did that got upvoted to +5 when the answer is right there in TFA:

A WhatsApp spokesperson tells me that it scans all unencrypted information on its network — basically anything outside of chat threads themselves — including user profile photos, group profile photos and group information.

Re:Doesn't WhatsApp have "end to end encryption?"

[fustakrakich]

the encrypted part literally has nothing to do with it.

Yes, but the idea is to make encryption look evil, that it aids and abets criminals and must be banned. The "kiddie porn" angle is to draw eyeballs and provoke outrage. The government has been hammering on this for decades, trying to pry open private communications.

Re:Doesn't WhatsApp have "end to end encryption?"

[dabadab]

In a group named "child porn xvideos" I would expect to find troians and spam, not actual child porn.

Re:Doesn't WhatsApp have "end to end encryption?"

[fbobraga]

and Metadata like "when someone messages other" is not sufficient for investigation? See the content are necessary?

Re:Doesn't WhatsApp have "end to end encryption?"

[Anonymous Coward]

As someone else already said, the point of articles like this is to demonize end to end encryption to make it easier for the control freaks to try to outlaw it. You can't prove that content isn't a problem on WhatsApp after all, you just have to take their word for it. If you try to prove it, or disprove it, eventually you're going to do something however innocent that's going to land you in jail, so just believe everything you're told and get outraged when you're told. That is the modern way of things, especially where Facebook is concerned.

Re:Doesn't WhatsApp have "end to end encryption?"

[Anonymous Coward]

Per the summary:

Better manual investigation of these group discovery apps and WhatsApp itself should have immediately led these groups to be deleted and their members banned.

I disagree with this premise. I believe that all information about these groups should be handed over to proper authorities to prosecute. A ban does not stop child exploitation, just moves it to other channels or accounts. Proper investigation and prosecution of the perpetrators will have a greater chilling impact on this behavior.

Re:Doesn't WhatsApp have "end to end encryption?"

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh, hang on a cotton-pickin' second.

Hey buddy I used to use this phrase until I considered it's origins one day.
Don't wanna get all SJW on you, just don't want you going through life pissing people off accidently

Re:Doesn't WhatsApp have "end to end encryption?"

[Anonymous Coward]

Why are you assuming the name and content actually line up?

Decades ago, I found out I had r/w access to some folder on our corporate LAN (in some area one would assume would've been r/o). To point it out, I created a folder called 'pr0n', and inside it, an empty file named "haha, made you look.txt".

If all you're going to rely on to make accusations is file and folder names, don't be surprised if you end up being the one looking pretty damn stupid.

You can get anonymous numbers in US

[SuperKendall]

In the US you can get anonymous prepaid phone service you just pay cash for (through purchased service cards you can pay cash for, anyway).

Re:You can get anonymous numbers in US

[burni2]

Yeah, but phone IMEI/IMSI -> logged cell tower - ok you can get a burner phone, but the FBI could pin-point your location, or come near it and setup an IMSI-Catcher (getting your position even more acurate) -> knowing where you are and bust you.

Re:You can get anonymous numbers in US

[SuperKendall]

Yeah, but phone IMEI/IMSI -> logged cell tower - ok you can get a burner phone, but the FBI could pin-point your location, or come near it and setup an IMSI-Catcher

If you only ever power the phone in a location that is not home...

Requires a phone with a removable battery of course.

Re:You can get anonymous numbers in US

[jpaine619]

You've been watching too many movies.. Cell tower triangulation isn't nearly as good as it is depicted in the movies (former cell tower tech here). At best you can narrow the target to a sector of 90 or 120 degrees.. Maybe you can work out distance. but if the person is far away from the tower, at best you're narrowing it down to a few blocks.. or tens of blocks..

Yeah, the Stingray devices can help even more, but the resources required tend to push the use of those to more high profile crimes.. Drug trafficking, terrorism, etc..

Re:You can get anonymous numbers in US

[serviscope_minor]

You've been watching too many movies.. Cell tower triangulation isn't nearly as good as it is depicted in the movies (former cell tower tech here).

That's certainly true.

At best you can narrow the target to a sector of 90 or 120 degrees.. Maybe you can work out distance. but if the person is far away from the tower, at best you're narrowing it down to a few blocks.. or tens of blocks..

You can certainly narrow it down to 120 degrees, because that's generally the shape of a cell. You do also get rough distance but it's not very good. But cellphones are almost always negotating with two, often more towers at the same time.

You then take the intersection of all the very wide swathes to get a narrower region. It's still ont very good, but it's enough t otake it down from many square kilometers to under one in many cases.

You get much better precision in cities where cell towers are much closer. On the other hand so is everything else so you need much better precision. All things being equal it's pretty much a wash.

Your estimate of a few 10s of city blocks sounds about right.

Re:You can get anonymous numbers in US

[jpaine619]

You can certainly narrow it down to 120 degrees, because that's generally the shape of a cell.

Not certainly. Verizon still likes to use Omni-directional antennas in remote areas. The site at the top of Christmas Tree Pass in Nevada (for example) is served by an omni. There are others in So Cal, NV, and AZ, but off the top of my head I can only name the CT Pass site.

You can't control the flow of information

[James Carnley]

This problem is only going to grow in the future. You can't control or reliably censor information on a free and open internet. The only way to ensure that nothing "bad" happens on the internet is to completely lock it down and whitelist everything that is posted. This isn't going to happen.

In a few years blockchain based messaging apps will be launching and they will not be controlled by Facebook or anyone else. You won't be able to ban anyone. This is something we are going to have to accept and deal with. There will be things you don't like on the internet.

Re: You can't control the flow of information

[Anonymous Coward]

Blockchain messaging apps? You seem a bit retarded.

Re:You can't control the flow of information

[Anonymous Coward]

"In a few years blockchain based messaging apps will be launching and they will not be controlled by Facebook or anyone else. You won't be able to ban anyone. This is something we are going to have to accept and deal with. There will be things you don't like on the internet"

You underestimate the power of the "think of the children" crowd.
They'll arrange so that you can only get on the internet by signing in and being verified and your ISP will be watching and actively reporting on everything you do.

Re: You can't control the flow of information

[AHuxley]

AC it depends if your anti virus and OS start to "detect" reported images and movies for police.

Re:You can't control the flow of information

[DNS-and-BIND]

I get the idea that whitelisting is exactly what is going to happen. Google can already identify us. Next, they're going to develop a successor to the internet that will have zero anonymity. You will need to have an ID card to even move a single byte. Google doesn't agree at all that there will be things they don't like on networks. They are already proud to announce they are firmly against freedom of speech and they will work hard to eliminate it from their world.

Re: You can't control the flow of information

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe he imagines a world where BitTorrent and blockchain work in magical and anonymous ways.

Re:You can't control the flow of information

[Anonymous Coward]

Amen, bro. The BLOCKCHAIN will save us all.

/ if only the random idiot on /. who typed in "blockchain" in the hope they look smarter that way knew what it means...

Re: You can't control the flow of information

[goose-incarnated]

Blockchain messaging apps? You seem a bit retarded.

A bit? Surely that's an understatement.

Re: You can't control the flow of information

[Anonymous Coward]

AC it depends if your anti virus and OS start to "detect" reported images and movies for police.

AHuxley, you seem a bit retarded.

Re: You can't control the flow of information

[Anonymous Coward]

i would say they already do. Definitely on cloud they do. God knows what else they do with your data. At the big blue you cannot upload anything company related to non-company-owned clouds, nor to use google translate for any confidential information. Go figure.

Re:You can't control the flow of information

[Anonymous Coward]

> In a few years blockchain based messaging apps will be launching and they will not be controlled by Facebook or anyone else. You won't be able to ban anyone. This is something we are going to have to accept and deal with. There will be things you don't like on the internet.

At least one already exists, named BitMessage

Re: You can't control the flow of information

[AHuxley]

Every new app, software copy, software use is watched for AV like activity by the OS.
Why not checksum some police reported files at OS level too?
Any encryption is off and the users trusts their OS.

The old IRC problem again?

[Kyr Arvin]

A few decades ago I admined an server on an IRC network. If you got a full list of channels, well... you saw channels with a lot of these sorts of titles. I know from conversations with other admins that the FBI liked these sorts of channels. They could just hop in, start collecting all sorts of logs with people offering up stuff and downloading other things. They were less pleased with well-meaning admins wading in and shutting those channels down. It made their jobs harder than when people were providing searchable kiddy porn so they could get busted.

Those areas could be a minefield of law enforcement. Why wouldn't they go after the low-hanging fruit? It's a lot easier even than to try to snoop the traffic.

Re:The old IRC problem again?

[desdinova 216]

which is why (using drugs as an example) they'll offer a plea bargain to a low level dealer to name their supplier

Re:The old IRC problem again?

[Anonymous Coward]

Like the example you gave with irc admins, the people who claim to be outraged are unaware of what may or may not be happening behind closed doors. They assume that since Facebook is involved surely they must be allowing it for no other reason but supporting the distribution of CP. Problem is they are incorrect.

At its core the reason is virtue signaling. The ends to solve" the CP case are used well beyhond their intended scope (mass wiretaps), effectively compromising the entire platform over something that may infact already be dealt with.

Glow in the Fucking Dark

[Anonymous Coward]

"Terrorism" is usually enough to spook most companies.
You can always shake down CEOs with bad press as well.
But if companies remain stubborn on the issue of allowing the government immediate and absolute access to all citizen data at all times under any circumstances -- with or without paperwork -- then its time to drag out the child pornography grand guignol once again and hammer the libertarian fools day and night until they finally relent.
Once paid for the month, the "fourth estate" will happily oblige in the slow suffocation of free society.

Horny Wumpwuss desires sex with young children

[Anonymous Coward]

Pretty sure nobody asked, special agent pedo faggot. The children will no doubt outsmart you and escape anyway, you're relegated to being a jackoff for life.

Pedo excuses from Rick Santorum.

[Anonymous Coward]

Bullshit blathered by a liar - Are you Rick Santorum in the flesh? If you're making dumb excuses like this in defense of pedo childfuckers, you probably are one. We should find out, and we will.

Re:Pedo excuses from Rick Santorum.

[Anonymous Coward]

Will you use the same tone on people who watch the regular porn in future? Or on filthy faggots?

Re:Pedo excuses from Rick Santorum.

[Anonymous Coward]

Bullshit blathered by a liar - Are you Rick Santorum in the flesh? If you're making dumb excuses like this in defense of pedo childfuckers, you probably are one. We should find out, and we will.

Can you not see how being an absolutist on issues makes you vulnerable to manipulation? Maybe you should think about that.

It's encrypted?

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought group chats were not end-to-end encrypted, only one-to-one messages were.

Re:It's encrypted?

[Lanforod]

no, group ones are encrypted as well.

Figures Zuckerberg would be into kiddy porn

[WCMI92]

I mean, he just looks like he's into that kind of thing. He looks like a child molester.

Re:Figures Zuckerberg would be into kiddy porn

[burni2]

And you can really tell how child molesters look like?!

Or people that watch child porn?

The FBI should hire you!

Re: Figures Zuckerberg would be into kiddy porn

[Anonymous Coward]

>And you can really tell how child molesters look like?!

Right? He doesn't even have the 'stache.

Re:Figures Zuckerberg would be into kiddy porn

[Anonymous Coward]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_kNHtg-FxQ

some massive questions to be answered.

[nimbius]

- if this service is end-to-end encrypted, then only alice and bob can read the messages. Carol is in no position to moderate anything.
- If carol was invited to this exchange, and given cryptographic access to Alice and Bobs chat, then she can investigate and report whatever child porn she finds. its no different than my coworker inviting me to go cockfighting after work.
- the concept of encryption has nothing to do with the cusp of the issue: child pornography exists in 2018 and is illegal. Its no different than say, the illegality of content of the panama papers or the coverup of Pat Tillmans execution (both illegal.) These illegalities and many other white-collar first-world crimes were also encrypted, but here we are using child pornography to sensationalize an otherwise mundane report on crime.
- using this story, we can turn end-to-end encryption into a hot button item that demonizes any politician that seeks to preserve constitutional freedom of speech. example: We're not disagreeing that breaking end to end would ruin freedom, but we are saying that if you dont do something to outlaw crypto, you're a pedophile by proxy.

Formulaic problem ...

[CaptainDork]

... and the only real cure is unattainable.

People want child porn and the cure is to stop that desire. Pedophilia is a sexual preference.

The social structure is similar to America's need for drugs: Stop the desire for drugs and Bob's yer uncle,

Until then, it's wack-a-mole.

Re:Formulaic problem ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe you wack-a-mole to that crap you sicko but not me. Plus who the hell calls their penis mole any way?

Re: Formulaic problem ...

[Anonymous Coward]

You may as well be suggesting that we cure the desire for gay sex.

Re: Formulaic problem ...

[Anonymous Coward]

That's the problem right there, though. Whenever anyone considers trying to cure pedophilia, the rest of the LGBTQAY crowd comes out and starts getting mad that you're considering "curing deviant behaviors" and blocks it. So thanks to the LGBTQAYs, we can't try and cure people of something that a lot of people agree hurts children.

Re: Formulaic problem ...

[Anonymous Coward]

"INCEL PEDO BLAMES GAYS" - do you realize how gay you sound right now, pedo republican faggot?

Re: Formulaic problem ...

[CaptainDork]

No, I may as well not.

If you can be converted from gay to heterosexual, you can be converted from heterosexual to gay.

Re: Formulaic problem ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Whenever anyone considers trying to cure pedophilia, the rest of the LGBTQAY crowd comes out and starts getting mad that you're considering "curing deviant behaviors" and blocks it.

Sure, that sounds like a real thing that has actually happened ever.

Re: Formulaic problem ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Duh! That's why glorious putin won't allow the gays to spew propaganda at the precious russian children. That's his job.

Re:Formulaic problem ...

[eaglesrule]

Only real cure? What are you proposing, chemical castration of all men (and women)? Internment camps for all children, for their own protection?Even then there's no guarantee.

Probably the worst course of action is to make real, live children the only source for satisfying that urge. As much as I find the thought utterly distasteful, cp can be simulated or animated. Let them fantasize that shit all they want, but deliver severe, brutal punishment when actual kids are abused.

That wouldn't prevent all cases either, but allowing easier access to that alternative may prevent many more from happening. It's as if not infringing on personal liberties usually has better outcomes than trying to dictate human behavior by excessive policing.

Re:Formulaic problem ...

[fustakrakich]

Until then, it's wack-a-mole.

Or you could say it's garbage collection. You don't want that shit to pile up everywhere.

Anyway, unless we can prove the admins are reading the chats, we don't have much to worry about. Though it doesn't hurt to assume the worst, considering what we know about the spies.

Re:Formulaic problem ...

[Anonymous Coward]

What kids are abused by looking at an image? Don't bother repeating the obviously false "looking at it is re-victimization" trope, nor the "it creates a market" lie that denies human nature leads to this shit naturally anyway. Come up with a real answer to the question. If the abuse has already happened and the images are already available and you're looking at one, how is it hurting anyone other than possibly yourself that's doing the looking? Why is the standard for kiddy porn images not applied to any other images showing any other category of physical crime (be it a child or adult victim) such as murder or assault?

The truth is obvious: no one is hurt by the image, be it looking at it or handing it to someone else. It is a double standard to single out this narrow category of criminal offense as "you can't have pictures of it!" Regardless of your emotional response to kiddie porn images, the fact is that the acts done to create the images are long over by the time the image finds its way elsewhere. There is no logical, rational reason to ban kiddie porn images. There is scientific and statistical evidence that availability of kiddie porn to pedophiles reduces escalations to real offenses against a child, so supporting a ban on such images turns out to be indirectly supporting child sexual abuse. The facts may be very uncomfortable, but they don't change based on your feelings of revulsion and fear. While we're at it, here's another pesky fact: most child sexual abuse is perpetrated by someone close to the child such as a teacher, caretaker, or family member, so the person you may be preventing from filming themselves fingering your daughter could be your sister. (Female pedophiles that offend are almost never caught offending because people always assume women wouldn't molest anyone.)

Re:Formulaic problem ...

[CaptainDork]

Your histrionics don't work well as a persuasive tactic.

Your lack of research is showing, as well.

Chemical and physical castration will not stop sex offenders

Why in Sam Hill did you bother posting?

Re:Formulaic problem ...

[Anonymous Coward]

The only way to stop it is to kill all the children and that isn't even good enough because most places consider underage looking artworks as child porn too. Killing all the adults won't work because some kids take naked pictures of themselves.

Your initial sexual orientation isn't a preference, but you can choose to act on it or not. You can also choose to gain new ones or slowly break existing ones, but doing either is a process. Even so, some people do it for the power rather than sexual excitement, so preferences/orientations aren't everything.

You can look at how well we did at stopping the desire for alcohol, gay sex, drugs, divorces, sex outside of marriage, rock and roll, volient video games, etc... If you can come up with a reliable and humane way of cutting out the desires of someone who doesn't want you to, you'll be able to rule the world. Good luck.

Re:Formulaic problem ...

[goose-incarnated]

... and the only real cure is unattainable.

People want child porn and the cure is to stop that desire. Pedophilia is a sexual preference.

No, it is the result of a sexual orientation. Problem is, society already agreed over the past few decades that sexual orientation is something that someone is born with and cannot be changed.

If it is possible to change someone's sexual orientation I'm pretty certain we would have done so by now.

Re:Formulaic problem ...

[goose-incarnated]

Your histrionics don't work well as a persuasive tactic.

Your lack of research is showing, as well.

Okay, so that get's about half of them (the male offenders). What's your plan to deal with the other half (female offenders)?

Re: Formulaic problem ...

[fbobraga]

If you can be converted from gay to heterosexual, you can be converted from heterosexual to gay.

You can't. It's a biological issue.

Re:Formulaic problem ...

[serviscope_minor]

People want child porn and the cure is to stop that desire. Pedophilia is a sexual preference.

The social structure is similar to America's need for drugs: Stop the desire for drugs and Bob's yer uncle,

Whereas if you stop peadophilia, Bob stops being your "uncle". It wasn't like he was a real uncle anyway.

Re: Formulaic problem ...

[CaptainDork]

My point, exactly.

Re:Formulaic problem ...

[CaptainDork]

I didn't offer a plan for the first goddam half.

Re:Formulaic problem ...

[CaptainDork]

In other words: What I said.

Re:Formulaic problem ...

[desdinova 216]

so you're proposing a demand side solution.

Re:Formulaic problem ...

[CaptainDork]

Read up.

... and the only real cure is unattainable.

Re:Formulaic problem ...

[goose-incarnated]

I didn't offer a plan for the first goddam half.

Apologies. I was apparently not reading very carefully.

Re:Formulaic problem ...

[goose-incarnated]

In other words: What I said.

I dunno, it's a fine distinction to me: pedophilia is an action, sexual orientation is not, therefore pedophilia is a choice that a person can decline while sexual orientation is not.

If someone's sexual orientation is "children" they can't help that, while someone who fiddles with children can choose not to.

(NOTE: I don't offer any opinion on whether sexual orientation can be changed or not - I don't care - but the popular thinking is that it cannot be changed.).

Re:Formulaic problem ...

[CaptainDork]

Apology accepted and I thank you for being courteous.

Re:Formulaic problem ...

[CaptainDork]

Go back and read what I posted:

Pedophilia is a sexual preference .

I am very fond of women's asses and I'm not particularly interested in their tits. Try changing that.

And he evidence is where?

[Anonymous Coward]

If the app has end to end encryption how can anyone know what is being shared on a large scale?
Where is the evidence to back up this claim?

Banned?

[Anonymous Coward]

Banned? Why are they banned? Why aren't they *referred to an agency*, either for law enforcement or for therapy or both?

Won't somebody PLEASE think of the pixels...

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh wait. Funny how sharing of pictures of child exploitation is supposedly the big problem, and not the exploitation itself. Gotta love the backwards logic.

Name one other crime where they would complain that it is too easy to find photographic evidence of the crime.

Re: Won't somebody PLEASE think of the pixels...

[Anonymous Coward]

When the crime is committed in order to sell photographies of it, then yes, the photos are part of the problem.

Re:Won't somebody PLEASE think of the pixels...

[Anonymous Coward]

wouldn't it be just great if people who love to steal in shops would not steal but be satisfied byonly watching videos of other people stealing stuff? ah well, it would be a huge problem, because that is highly offensive and dangerous because there would be a market of people doing such videos for others to watch.

Re:Won't somebody PLEASE think of the pixels...

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh wait. Funny how sharing of pictures of child exploitation is supposedly the big problem, and not the exploitation itself. Gotta love the backwards logic.

Name one other crime where they would complain that it is too easy to find photographic evidence of the crime.

So, is he a libertarian or an actual paedophile?

Impossible to tell isn't it folks?

Re:Won't somebody PLEASE think of the pixels...

[Anonymous Coward]

But...it's not photo evidence of the crime...that would be a picture of the photographer taking the picture. The picture is in itself the crime, the picture is the source of the exploitation. Sort of like burned out homes may be evidence of arson, but I think you would be hard-pressed to find many people who are happy to find burned out homes. Note: I do allow that there may be additional abuse taking place, but that is just like finding dead bodies in the burned out houses.

Rethink

[Anonymous Coward]

Not defending the tech giants but the problem lies with the source, not the platform

well, lisa..

[Anonymous Coward]

the ones you 'found' are most likely honeypots.

Russians are far more damaging to society

[thesjaakspoiler]

Or at least that is what the mainstream US media wants me the believe. So that is why all Facebook's attention goes to the wrong area.

Solve it with piracy

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't it the logic of MPAA and RIAA, and the whole reason for DMCA and copyright all those stuff, that if people can get copyrighted works for free, no one will produce it anymore?

That is the solution to the CP problem. Make all CP exempt from copyright protection, and legal to obtain and keep, so everyone can get them easily for free. Then no one will produce new CP! There, no minors will be hurt anymore for producing CP!

Print it on a shirt

[Anonymous Coward]

Someone should convert some kiddie porn to base64 or some other encoding format and print it on a shirt. See how long till they get arrested. I mean is it really kiddie porn now or just a long sequence of numbers?

I should do the same with a picture of my cock, print it on a shirt and walk though work wearing it.

The problem isn't going to grow at all

[rsilvergun]

none of this is new. They were doing this crap via IRC when I was a lad. The encryption isn't very useful since you still need to advertise the crap for trading and there's plenty of honey pots out there to catch these sickos.

This is just more bullshit fear mongering narrative from the "ban encryption" crowd.

Irrational fear

[Anonymous Coward]

Wake me when the laws of the universe change and looking at porn of any type results in actual violence against another. Whatever happened is over and you can't go back in time and magically fix that no matter what laws are passed or what WhatsApp does. Locking up creepy people (pedophiles), banning these groups, etc doesn't stop child rapists either. While I have no doubt that there is some overlap between the two groups there is also overlap between murders and doctors, but you don't lock up all doctors because some will be murders. It's just irrational fear mongering.

This WhatsApp logic just doesn't add up either. It would be like claiming we need ban newspapers because pictures of dead women are sometimes on the front page or elsewhere in the paper. "Possessing" a newspaper with a picture in it of a women who was murdered isn't the same thing as murder and banning it doesn't retroactively stop the murder. Pornography is no different no matter how creepy it gets.

To top it all off incarceration is just a waste of stolen funds that makes no sense because non-violent "sex" offenders (ie child porn, "underage" consensual sex which is more often than not people of similar age and not at all offensive to sane people, etc) have some of lowest recidivism rates. Mean while law enforcement goes out of its way to try and lure normal people into having sex with people underage and then makes arrests for "attempted rape". The moral of the story is don't trust law enforcement and don't do anything that you think might be illegal. The only problem is often the law enforcement agents put people in situations that would be awkward to get out of. Like they'll tell you that they sell cocaine and heroin after you've been selling them Bitcoin for months. The objective is to make you fear for your life and continue with the transaction so that they can later make an arrest on money laundering or some similar or drug related crime.

Hmm, suspicious

[joe_frisch]

Groups with obvious CP related names? Maybe, but it could also be an organization that wants to outlaw strong encryption so that they can monitor all communication, and which is safe from prosecution under CP laws.

There are many claims (which of course may be false) that the FBI is the worlds largest distributor of child porn - done of course to attempt to catch (entrap?) peole trading illegal material.

This may legitimately be a bunch of incredibly stupid child pornographers, in which case I hope they spend a good long time in prison. OTHO, its sure convenient for organizations that want to stop encryption.
   

Re:Hmm, suspicious

[yes-but-no]

you think Power cares about CP or children's welfare? It only wants to ensure rivals (political/economic) are kept in check so you need a way to snoop their encryption or access to their computers. So create law so that you can legally do that [get a court order of suspected CP and then hack into them - pure objective of gaining political/economic advantage.]

Quantum computing

[TJHook3r]

Will be interesting to see what happens when computing power is sufficiently powerful to both break encryption and possibly to match abuse photos to their owners. A lot of traffic is already recorded, it just can't be read currently. In 10 years, when authorities have a clear record of CP being transmitted/received, will there be a lot of doors being knocked down?

Banning users and groups?

[Bert64]

What good is banning the users and groups going to do?
They will just move elsewhere...
Given that what they're doing is illegal, why not report the users to the appropriate authorities?

Re:Banning users and groups?

[fbobraga]

WhatsApp is zero rating (which is against net neutrality...) in every carrier here on Brazil: I think is the same on several countries...
It's a huge incentive to use (without this incentive, I think it will be barely used: there's several better alternatives...) - add it with end-to-end encryption by design and the great spread in crimes using it occurs!

Different issue

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is that the method used to eliminate those terrorist (mostly extra legal killing using bombs) very often do what the military used to call "collateral damage" and which I call murder of innocent. Even just recently we had that saudi US enabled bombing of a school bus (yes this was "only" supplied by the US, but the same exact fucking problem happened a lot in Pakistan). What create NEW terrorist is not the killing of those terrorist, but far more the "act" itself of bombing another country which very easily allow for the local asshole to point out the colonialism of the US and the collateral damage enable them to point out they murder innocent. Nothing easier to win heart for your cause if you can point out the other side killed 10 at a wedding or enabled the killing of 40 kids.

Back to the CP analogy : stopping people sharing CP does not produce MORE people to share CP. In fact at least temporarily it can demolish rings and very shortly lower CP production. But prostitution show us a much better way : arresting johns or arresting prostitute does not work (if it did prostitution would have long been gone...) what does work is helping the prostitute find a different job. Applied to CP what would work is 1) demolish CP ring for temporary reprieve 2) help CP consumer psychologically and chemically , have help hotline for them to ask for help etc... That has a much better chance.

Gosh

[Anonymous Coward]

This encryption thing sure sounds evil. I think the government should force whatsapp to remove all forms of it from the application and allow conversations to be moderated in real time by a dedicated group of activists under the wise supervision of [power group].

Only a paedophile would be against such measures, so any protesters along the way are to be ignored, publicly exposed, shut down and otherwise nonpersoned.

The only way

[radarskiy]

The only way to stop a bad guy with encryption is with a good guy with encryption

Moderators????

[Anonymous Coward]

How the fuck is anything on a supposedly secure app moderated? Did they just let the cat out of the bad that WhatsApp is completely insecure?

Well,

[BankRobberMBA]

A. It was going down before there was widespread adoption of Internet access, so, post hoc ergo propter hoc.

B. It's been going up fast since 2013.

C. I really hope you aren't intimating that it's ok to distribute pictures of people f*cking little kids in the hopes that it might de-motivate someone else from f*cking their little kid. That's not ok. Those kids are re-victimized every time some pedo leers at their image. So I'm sure that's not what you were saying.