Microsoft and Google team up to fight kiddie porn. A good thing?

In response to the longtime, alarming proliferation of photos and videos containing child pornography on the Internet, Web search giants Google and Microsoft plan to introduce measures to block the content from their search results.

The modifications will prevent more than 100,000 search terms from generating results that link to images and videos associated with child sex abuse and instead trigger a warning that the associated content is illegal. The restrictions, which apply to English-speaking countries, will be expanded to more than 150 languages in the next six months, Google Chairman Eric Schmidt wrote in an article for the Daily Mail on Sunday.

"We've listened, and in the last three months put more than 200 people to work developing new, state-of-the-art technology to tackle the problem," Schmidt wrote. "We've fine-tuned Google search to prevent links to child sexual abuse material from appearing in our results."

Once it's determined that content represents genuine abuse and not innocent bath time photos, the content is assigned a unique digital fingerprint that speeds the detection and deletion process when the images appear in Google's system, he wrote. "Microsoft deserves a lot of credit for developing and sharing its picture detection technology," Schmidt wrote. (read the rest of the article here)

I'm waiting for the ACLU to weigh in. Why? False positives.

The problem here is that this is being done by Microsoft and Google and not by any law enforcement agency. What does that mean? It means no one will actually be looking at and verifying that the material actually child porn. Why? Because the only people who can legally look at child porn are law enforcement officers actively engaged in child porn investigations. 

If no one is actually physically examining the material, then an algorithm is being used which is examining such things as the size of the subject of the photo relative to things of known size, childlike facial proportions, hairlessness around the groin, etc. The false-positive aspect comes in when you consider that there are pint-sized adults who will match all of those descriptors. So, you stumble upon one of those people and get a warning. Want to bet there will be a record of that warning? You betcha! 

Anyone who searches for porn soon discovers that there are lots and lots of images of skinny, small-breasted or flat-chested, shaven or waxed Russian girls. They are presented on sites that have to comply with US law and so it's a safe bet that even if they look 15, they are at least 18. I myself did photography with a girl who at age 24 could still pass for 16.

Anti-child porn laws are really over the top as it is. Not only is it illegal to look at child porn, it's illegal to have it on your computer. Suppose in your normal porn searches you get presented with an image that clearly is child porn. You hit the BACK button. Chances are that page is still there in your browser's cache. And if you clear the cache, it's like erasing any other file. It's not instantly gone; rather, the space it occupies becomes overwritable, and who knows when that will happen.

Many a person has found some child porn—perhaps even had some planted on their computer by someone playing a joke or hoping to get them into trouble—and reported it to the authorities. What happens then is that THEY become the subject of an inquiry, and while they are likely to get off the hook eventually, their computer is confiscated for purposes of the investigation and examined from top to bottom. Often, it's taken apart and the hard drive sent to some lab somewhere. They might not get it back in a year or longer, once the investigation is over, but in the interim any shred of computer privacy they had will be gone. During that period, they'd be wise to stay offline entirely (think of that!).

Quite frankly, want some illegal advice? If you find yourself in that position, take your computer and throw it into a blast furnace. Get a fake passport and move to a country with no extradition treaty with the US. Why? Because records of every URL you ever visited, every email you ever sent or received, all of these activities and more are probably stored or are recoverable via your Internet Provider.

Views: 632

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

People (especially feminists) would sometimes argue that porn causes rape.

That's because they are old and undesirable women who can't compete on the sexual marketplace anymore, so in order to rig the game and skew the odds in their favor they created this illusion that it's immoral for a man to desire younger and hotter women. Same people that'll bitch at a man for a dating an 18 year old.

The individuals who entice/force young children to pose for pornographic images are despicable miscreants. That "poor loser" ejaculating to the picture of a child obtained off the web, deep or not, is supporting an industry of child sexual abuse. There is no middle ground on this subject; it's an issue of victimization.

It's still not the same as actually going out to the school yard and fly fishing kids into your van. Give that person something else to jack off to. Do what Unseen suggested, create realistic porn. Or make it legal, and keep it high-standard. Let's not pretend like some 12 to 14 year olds wouldn't jump at the opportunity to make some money off of porn. They'd just need to step in front of the camera the same way they dress to school nowadays. Let's also drop the pretense that only heinous pedophiles would watch it if it was legal. It would be quite popular.

Besides, we all support an industry of child abuse. The sneakers on your feet likely came from a sweatshop with poisoned kids in it. We don't exactly have a moral high ground on pedophiles.

There is no "industry" of child porn. If you think there are companies producing child porn, you really have your head in the sand. This is individual pedophiles trading photos and videos with each other in subculture. Perhaps a small amount of money changes hand like people buying baseball cards from each other, but there is no industry to speak of. 

Luckily for the rest of us, there can be no exceptions to our First Amendment right. It is the on right all the others depend on,

 Why is it that we never hear about getting people psychological help for these vices? It seems to me that people love having these monsters around just as they are -monsters. I don't think anyone is really interested in helping them. Just having a true POS to fear and loath seems to be enough for the populous. I realize there are people out there that are truly dangerous and beyond help but it's not all of them. 

 What are the measures of help for these people? Dare they reach out for it? Is help for these people something that should be looked into before implementing the solutions that are being offered by google and microsoft?

 Maybe I'm just naive. 

Because there is a HUGE difference between child porn/abuse and liking a full grown woman who portrays herself in a manner that makes herself look more childlike

One is a crime and the other is personal preference, which afaik is still legal. 

What part are you addressing? I mean the people with the child porn problem not the obviously innocent that happen to have a personal preference because I do understand that one is illegal and one is not. 

I've heard: A fetish is something that one prefers (in order to get off) and a vice is something one needs (in order to get off).

Jered

If ya take a good look at the DSMV listing for paraphila you will know more about fettishism than a sane person should want to.

I practice BDSM, and believe that it is a healthy sexual expression.  I do have a threapist, but not for those reasons.  If a pedophile can be helped with therapy, then I'm all for it.  But the majority of doctors believe that it is a matter of how the brain functions.  If they are correct a type of therapy called cognitive behavioral therapy may be of help.  But for the most part pedos are kinda doomed

Sorry for the confusion.  I let my emotions throttle my intellect.  I am usually better than that.

Pedophilia seems to be a basic sexual orientation, like heterosexuality and homosexuality, and as such there's an ethical question when it comes to trying to change them. We view it as unethical (because it's impossible) to change gays. It seems the best we can expect of pedophiles is to curb their inclinations in a non-harmful direction.

That's interesting. There's something very presumptuous about that attitude to me. "Well this is wrong because this law right here says so" somehow seems like using the bible to prove god exists to me. Law is infallible, law is god. But in the next town, or state, or 3000 miles away, that law can be nothing. Legal age of consent in New York vs Alabama vs Japan. Now don't get me wrong, I know why we have these laws. If I knock a sixteen year-old up, I mean yeah, sure, maybe that's all she was going to do with her life anyway, but she didn't get much of a chance at choosing a life for herself, did she? We can't be having that. But the legal system in the US is a terrifying game of chance with ample cracks to fall through if you get caught up in it. So am I not doing this thing because I recognize that it's morally unkosher and I have a real shred of humanity? Or am I more not doing it to curb the deadly incompetence of a heinously flawed system? Empathy-based, or fear-based? I think it matters.

American justice is done on TV. Let's not forget the influence the media has on enforcement. While TV reporters can help shine a light on abuse in the system, it can also prod police and prosecutors and even judges to take actions for the sake of placating the public instead of doing what's right. Any elected official who wants to keep his job doesn't want to appear to be soft on pedophiles.

Faith in America not the least bit restored.

RSS

© 2017   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service