thousands of "paedos" to escape justice

[petemurphy]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2800580/th...


so time for an actual debate and rethink of the law / google etc's roles? or is it just impossible in todays climate. as John Grisham found out.

r there really that many actual "paedos" out there and if so whats to be done.

sensible comments please

[petemurphy]

randlemarcus said:

Sensible comments on a DM clickbait article? Hmmm.

Based on the facts in the article itself, I would say that the NCA bloke has said nothing that is not massively obvious. Each trip around the justice system costs lots of money. Budgets are, necessarily, limited, and focus is given to those things that happen to be this week's squeakiest wheel in the media.

Solution is therefore either that NCA gets lots more money, and we can do a proper investigation on the 50000 instances of abusive images being downloaded (which will probably become a lower number of humans committing multiple crimes). Or Westminster sees this as an opportunity to lower the burden of proof in this particular crime, and it becomes a Sec 59 type offence for the broadband bill payer, with all the attendant outcries about miscarriage of justice etc etc.

its the "downloaded" bit thats wrong imho. law as it stands says viewing is downloading / creating when thats not what most would say. should be a more balanced scale where viewing is still punished but not as harshly as actually downloading / paying / creating etc so they can target the actual abusers better.

and at the risk of being shot by anti censorship people i think google etc could do a lot more to stop these images.

[petemurphy]

otolith said:

How?

facebook seem to manage it?

[petemurphy]

Jim the Sunderer said:

They won't be using Google search to find the images.

what do u base that on?

[petemurphy]

otolith said:

Facebook hosts content. Google indexes content it doesn't control - and also, it does censor the index. Also, use of certain search phrases will get you a warning about looking for underage pornography, and it is possible to report images from Google image search and have them removed.

The people sharing illegal pornography won't be finding it on Google.

see i think thats the issue - u and others seem to think the 50,000 paedos are all encryption loving dark net lovers. theyre the ones the police need to get. from what ive read most are porn users using google etc who have strayed either accidentally or on purpose - e.g. john grishams chum but who are labelled and punished as the others.

[petemurphy]

otolith said:

Also, use of certain search phrases will get you a warning about looking for underage pornography, .

is that true? ( dont test it! )

[petemurphy]

otolith said:

If it were so easy to find on Google, it would also be easy to take down. Some of it will be dark net, others will be using peer to peer file sharing, Usenet, private web forums, etc. Making and sharing these illegal images is something people do, networked computers just facilitate the process.

woman in channel 4 program year ago found it within a minute on google? tbh even some daily mail images could be classed as it

[petemurphy]

otolith said:

Yes, but Daily Mail images won't be illegal.

Technically they could be

[petemurphy]

otolith said:

They aren't going to be vile images of sexual abuse - if the people escaping justice just had a collection of clippings from the Daily Mail, that would be a bit of a "so what", I'm sure what they have is much, much worse.

true but i find it hard to believe theres 50k users all on "dark net" type sites I reckon its more google / links from normal porn ones

if not google could isps do more?

[petemurphy]

JagLover said:

Without knowing the severity of what is not being pursued it is difficult to make a judgement.

By today's standards anyone who has some old Page 3 newspaper clippings of Sam Fox when she started out is in possession of child porn, should we be pursuing that?. But anyone downloading images of child abuse should be pursued.

spot on and i am assuming ( hoping ) theres not 50k serious offenders out there and if so then that leads to whole new set of questions of why and how we deal with them.

by downloading do u mean what the layperson would describe as downloading or do you mean viewing ( or even having on the screen without actually viewing )?

[petemurphy]

otolith said:

It's difficult - I am sure that sites must get blocked or shut down, but the internet is designed to be resilient. If you have a bunch of pervs communicating via email, social media, private web forums, text message and phone, etc, all it takes is someone in somewhere without much in the way of regulation or enforcement to plug a couple of hundred quid's worth of PC into a network connection and they've got a place to upload and download their content from. Doesn't need to be searchable, all it needs is an IP address shared via word of mouth. Likewise, setting up peer to peer file sharing is not difficult. There is a huge amount of the internet that although not necessarily encrypted, is not indexed by anything.

true although again i think of how well facebook seems to block stuff and wonder if more could be done ( even though it is possible it cannot )