Is it just me - or is this the wrong way to go about it?
Discussion
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4687904.stm
Is it just me? Or isn't this shutting the gate after the horse has bolted? Blocking web-sites starts with something everyone agrees on and soon becomes censorship. I'm not sure I want the Ministry of Truth deciding exactly what I can find with Google and what I can't...despite the fact that I agree completely that this sick shit needs dealing with.
Surely we should be hunting down the sickos making this stuff, arresting them, locking them up and leaving them to rot in a cell with Big Bubba and burning their computer equipment?
Difficult issue.
bbc said:
BT sounds child web porn warning
BT launched Cleanfeed in 2004
The number of attempts to view illegal child pornography on the web has risen sharply since 2004, according to BT.
The company has a system to block sites carrying indecent images of children and over the past four months it has been thwarting 35,000 hits each day.
When BT first launched its Cleanfeed system 18 months ago, there were just over 10,000 attempted hits every day.
Children's groups have repeated calls for all internet service providers to prevent access to illegal websites.
BT's blocking technology forbids access to sites blacklisted by the Internet Watch Foundation, which monitors illegal activity on the web.
Most of the bigger service providers use similar blocking technology to BT, but there is continuing pressure on all UK providers to follow suit.
The foundation blacklisted more than 6,000 websites in 2005 - up from 3,500 in the previous year.
'Outer limits'
The IWF assesses whether websites are "illegal to view" under the 1978 Child Protection Act.
John Carr, an internet adviser to the children's charity NCH, has welcomed the work being done by BT and other companies.
JohnCarrInternetAdvisor said:
BT has proven that the technology works so there really isn't any excuse for any internet service provider not doing it
However, he believes the current system of self-regulation is "reaching its outer limits".
He told BBC Radio Five Live that "unless the industry can show pretty quickly that they're at or close to 100% coverage in Britain, I'm afraid we will be going to talk to our MPs... demanding legislation".
He said that as BT estimated it had one-third of the market, to extrapolate across the whole domestic internet market would mean there were 100,000 hits per day or 4 million per year.
Proven technology
According to the industry about 80% of domestic internet users in the UK are covered by BT Cleanfeed-type solutions, he said, but he also raised concerns that there was "some scepticism" about that figure and called for it to be independently verified.
"Even if it's true, it means that one in five domestic internet users could access these illegal sites without any obstacles at all.
"That is not acceptable. It needs to be 100%.
"BT has proven that the technology works so there really isn't any excuse for any internet service provider not doing it," Mr Carr added.
Is it just me? Or isn't this shutting the gate after the horse has bolted? Blocking web-sites starts with something everyone agrees on and soon becomes censorship. I'm not sure I want the Ministry of Truth deciding exactly what I can find with Google and what I can't...despite the fact that I agree completely that this sick shit needs dealing with.
Surely we should be hunting down the sickos making this stuff, arresting them, locking them up and leaving them to rot in a cell with Big Bubba and burning their computer equipment?
Difficult issue.
Have to agree Don.
My personal view is that child-porn is one of those "Trojan Horse" type subjects. I don't believe its anyhere near as bad as these stories would have you believe but by spinning them up and saying "We've no choice but to force ISPs to restrict access to certain sites" they establish a precedent for slapping controls on anything they may deem fit to do so in the future.
As you say, its not necessarily the fact that you can find child porn on the internet that's the problem; it's the fact that people are creating it. Is anyone naieve enough to think that child porn never existed before websites?
>> Edited by neil.b on Tuesday 7th February 10:54
My personal view is that child-porn is one of those "Trojan Horse" type subjects. I don't believe its anyhere near as bad as these stories would have you believe but by spinning them up and saying "We've no choice but to force ISPs to restrict access to certain sites" they establish a precedent for slapping controls on anything they may deem fit to do so in the future.
As you say, its not necessarily the fact that you can find child porn on the internet that's the problem; it's the fact that people are creating it. Is anyone naieve enough to think that child porn never existed before websites?
>> Edited by neil.b on Tuesday 7th February 10:54
Pointless technology really, a proxy connected ta an ISP without these restrictions would bypass any web-based access control. How about shutting down the sites and prosecuting the owners?, if BT and everyone else knows were the sites are why isn't anything done about it? As far as im aware, child porn is illegal in every country in the world, so it shouldn't matter were the host is located.
scorp said:
Pointless technology really, a proxy connected ta an ISP without these restrictions would bypass any web-based access control. How about shutting down the sites and prosecuting the owners?, if BT and everyone else knows were the sites are why isn't anything done about it? As far as im aware, child porn is illegal in every country in the world, so it shouldn't matter were the host is located.
Perhaps they don't want to admit that actually finding and stopping the perpertrators is a nigh-on impossible task.
Stopping access to the sites is not going to make the problem go away.
>> Edited by neil.b on Tuesday 7th February 10:51
neil.b said:
.
My personal view is that child-porn is one of those "Trojan Horse" type subjects. I don't believe its anyhere near as bad as these stories would have you believe but by spinning them up and saying "We've no choice but to for ISPs to restrict access to certain sites" they establish a precedent for slapping controls on anything they may deem fit to do so in the future.
I would have to agree.
Anyone creating or viewing child pornography should be punished, but I am wary of any restrictions imposed on the Internet.
Instead of working with ISPs and ultimately not solving the problem (pedos will just change ISPs surely?), why don't they work with the domain registrars and web hosting companies worldwide to track down the people UPLOADING the information, thus cutting out the source.
They do the same with the P2P file sharing people, so they've got the means to get the providers.
They do the same with the P2P file sharing people, so they've got the means to get the providers.
rico said:
Instead of working with ISPs and ultimately not solving the problem (pedos will just change ISPs surely?), why don't they work with the domain registrars and web hosting companies worldwide to track down the people UPLOADING the information, thus cutting out the source.
They do the same with the P2P file sharing people, so they've got the means to get the providers.
Just another layer of State Control.
I once gave the police hard evidence of someone (in germany) who anonymously mailed me real child porn, I gave them a written statement, full audit on their ISP, Domain, Server posted from, traffice routing, time of posting, account name holder, town address, etc, etc. I demanded a crime report number (it was never offered), and to this day, I have not heard a single word back.
ZR1cliff said:
Did i read right..35,000 hits each DAY
a hit is just the download of an object. the object could be a page (html) or it could be a graphic, or a ccs (style sheet), or a programme library. this page that i'm typing the reply in has generated at least 19 visible hits.
many times the images are moved around service providers whilst the html stays on one provider, so the one html page promising lots of thumbnails of pictures could generate anything up to a hundred blocked hits.
so yes, 35,000 hits each day is a very bad number, but it could easily be down to a handful of pedos who are searching the net from their BT connection. pedos can also be strangely single minded about searching the stuff out, they will spend hours on it each evening - so it doesn't take many to build 35,000 hits.
the problem with this sort of action that BT have engaged in is that they are driving the problem underground. you obviously don't want overt pedo pictures, but ips are tracked down to certain people, and people are busted for these things. if you make these people more difficult to track the difficulty in getting a prosecution gets much worse.
tinman0 said:
Did i read right..35,000 hits each DAY
a hit is just the download of an object. the object could be a page (html) or it could be a graphic, or a ccs (style sheet), or a programme library. this page that i'm typing the reply in has generated at least 19 visible hits.
many times the images are moved around service providers whilst the html stays on one provider, so the one html page promising lots of thumbnails of pictures could generate anything up to a hundred blocked hits.
so yes, 35,000 hits each day is a very bad number, but it could easily be down to a handful of pedos who are searching the net from their BT connection. pedos can also be strangely single minded about searching the stuff out, they will spend hours on it each evening - so it doesn't take many to build 35,000 hits.
the problem with this sort of action that BT have engaged in is that they are driving the problem underground. you obviously don't want overt pedo pictures, but ips are tracked down to certain people, and people are busted for these things. if you make these people more difficult to track the difficulty in getting a prosecution gets much worse.
Thanks for explaining that,seems like the best idea is too leave these sickos to log on so the authorities can catch up with them.
john75 said:
Still personally can not see how anyone could get sexual pleasure from images of children being abused.
The 35,000 figure suggests some clearly do which is rather worrying.
Some people like feet, some like fat, some like leather... the human mind is a strange thing.
Did you know that it's not just pictures of 'abuse', just pictures of kids: I hear that most mail order catalogues (Grattans, Littlewoods etc) don't show kids in undies anymore for that reason.
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff