British Politicians: There's Child Porn On The Internet And Google Needs To Do Something About It
from the politicians-seem-better-suited-for-'doing-something' dept
It's that time again. Something bad happens and someone thinks it's the "internet's" fault. Where do they turn? Google. If people are seeing and/or doing bad things, it must be Google's fault for not policing the internet thoroughly enough.The latest call for internet service providers and "companies like Google" to be more "proactive" in preventing access to illegal material stems from the recent sentencing of former abattoir worker Mark Bridger, who received life in prison for the kidnapping and murder of 5-year-old April Jones. Apparently, Bridger had viewed a cartoon featuring a bound girl being sexually abused by an adult just hours before the kidnapping. He also had several other such images stored on his computer.
This horrific crime has resulted in a call for Google (and unnamed others) to step up efforts to remove or block child pornography on the web.
The business secretary, Vince Cable, has become the first cabinet minister to intervene over the "shocking" availability of illegal child abuse images online, urging Google to take more action to police explicit material.Cable's not completely unreasonable...
Cable said internet companies should act quicker to "cover the anomalies" amid fears from child protection charities that the proliferation of indecent images online is putting more children at risk.
Cable admitted it was "very, very difficult" to police the internet, but added: "Mark Bridger appears to be influenced by watching child pornography on the internet. Ultimately, this has got to come from the public. If they see any evidence of this happening, of getting it to the police immediately."… but that "difficulty" shouldn't stand in the way of "taking action."
"I think probably where there is some scope for taking action is getting the companies that host these sites, Google and the rest of it, to be more proactive in policing what is there."Keith Vaz, chair of the Commons home affairs select committee, threw in his take on the issue as well.
"The Mark Bridger case has shown that we need to act to remove such content from the internet," he said. "The committee has in the past recommended that the government establish a code of conduct with internet service providers to remove material which breaches acceptable behaviour standards. I am very disappointed that although the government said it would engage with the industry on this issue, we are yet to see any action resulting from this."But "industry giants such as Google" already monitor and intervene (which isn't a search engine's "responsibility," by the way).
Google and other internet service providers had to take action to tackle the issue, Vaz added. "Internet service providers, search engines and social media sites are far too laid back about what takes place on their watch. Industry giants such as Google need to accept their responsibility to monitor and intervene."
On Friday, a senior Google PR angrily denied it does not take appropriate action to remove illegal and extreme material from its search results, which act as a gateway to the web for many internet users around the world.First of all, Google complies with a list of illegal search terms and sites provided by the Internet Watch Foundation. In addition, illegal images are already blocked (and reported) and have nothing to do with its SafeSearch filters. Scott Rubin, director of communications for Google's worldwide efforts, points out that illegal material like child pornography isn't being left in the hands of Google's algorithms.
"The SafeSearch filter, which is designed to prevent sexually explicit material of all kinds from showing up in your search results, should not be conflated or confused with our dedication to keeping illegal abuse imagery out of our products. We don't rely simply on filtering technology to block child abuse images; we go beyond that.In fact, Google relies on actual human beings to help filter and block objectionable material. A former Google contractor wrote a post for Buzzfeed last year that details the work performed by the human filters it employs.
"We are very proactive and work with the right people, including the National Centre for Missing and Exploited Children in the US and the IWF, to keep child abuse content off all of our sites. Any implication we aren't doing anything or we refuse to be part of removing this material is wrong."
Sitting in the sun at a tech company cafeteria, this former Google worker described a year spent immersed in some of the darkest content available on the Internet. His role at the tech company mainly consisted of reviewing things like bestiality, necrophilia, body mutilations (gore, shock, beheadings, suicides), explicit fetishes (like diaper porn) and child pornography found across all Google products — an experience that he found “scarring.”Google has a constant stream of contractors shuffling in and out of the company, filtering (and reporting) the material politicians keep claiming it's not doing enough to control. This is what "proactive" means. Putting real people in the line of fire and subjecting them to 10-12 hours a day of humanity's worst moments. How "proactive" do they want Google to be? They make a lot of concerned noises, but I doubt any of these politicians would be willing to switch places with Google's human filters, no matter how much good they'd be doing. (The fact that Google cuts these contractors loose after one year, rather than hiring them, is a bit disturbing in its own right...)
Even with the best efforts of Google (and other, unnamed "internet companies" and "service providers"), stuff still manages to get through -- especially if the interested person knows where, and more importantly, how to look. But this latest call for internet companies to be more "proactive" isn't really about child pornography. It's about opportunism. Vince Cable himself seems to realize what he's asking is improbable, if not impossible.
Asked whether he believed the problem was impossible to police, Cable told BBC Radio 5 Live: "Very very difficult. That's the nature of the internet. It is something that governments don't and can't control. But we've got to try to deal with that problem. Now we've had an awful case of people being influenced in that way we've got to try to find ways of covering the anomalies."Sure, the internet can't be controlled by any single government, at least not entirely. But many governments have attempted to set up little fiefdoms using the latest outrage/tragedy as justification for their actions. Cable may not have his eye on controlling the internet (although the same can't be said for Vaz), but he certainly knows better than to let a tragedy go by unexploited. Someone needs to do something about it, and that "someone" is unanimously Google.
Keith Vaz: "Industry giants such as Google need to accept their responsibility to monitor and intervene."
John Carr (adviser on internet safety and secretary of a children’s charities coalition): “Google can do more and should do more.”
These three, using the Mark Bridger trial to build their case against "internet companies" (although it's only Google that's named repeatedly), are using loud vagaries ("proactive," "should do more") to pursue "anomalies." Good luck with that.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: april jones, blame, child porn, liability, mark bridger, uk, vince cable
Companies: google
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
The Internet is Special
Perhaps a system where we just throw everyone in jail because they could potentially do something wrong.
Don't get me wrong, what happened here was horrible, but the fault is not Google's. It isn't even the police's or the politicians. All of us are responsible for the safety and well-being of ourselves and others. Part of this is making sure our children are safe, and reporting to police if we believe a crime is being committed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The real question...
"What are YOU going to do to fix this problem?"
I'd love to see the results of that inquiry.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The real question...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The real question...
FTFY
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The real question...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
GOOGLE DOES NOT CONTROL WHAT HAPPENS ON THE INTERNET!!!!!!!!!!
It is sick and wrong that this happens especially when there is nothing Google can do. People cannot seem to grasp the fact that Google does not equal the Internet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: GOOGLE DOES NOT CONTROL WHAT HAPPENS ON THE INTERNET!!!!!!!!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: GOOGLE DOES NOT CONTROL WHAT HAPPENS ON THE INTERNET!!!!!!!!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: GOOGLE DOES NOT CONTROL WHAT HAPPENS ON THE INTERNET!!!!!!!!!!
-
My wife watches TMZ... I know. An interesting chain of events happened. Some rapper did a hit and run. LSS... They were able to plug his tag number in and track where he went from street cameras. DHS has funding to use the same tech, but with facial recognition... Think about that for a moment.
-
Proudly puts on tinfiol hat... shiny side up. LOL. :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: GOOGLE DOES NOT CONTROL WHAT HAPPENS ON THE INTERNET!!!!!!!!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: GOOGLE DOES NOT CONTROL WHAT HAPPENS ON THE INTERNET!!!!!!!!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: GOOGLE DOES NOT CONTROL WHAT HAPPENS ON THE INTERNET!!!!!!!!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: GOOGLE DOES NOT CONTROL WHAT HAPPENS ON THE INTERNET!!!!!!!!!!
It's a SPY agency already.
With all the info Google collects he is kind of right, although "like a spy agency" would have made his case better.
-
Wants to... Sure they want as much info as possible... especially the stuff they can sell.
-
Google is clearly not just commercial - OK woo hoo here.
-
"Sooner or later its monitoring is going to be merged with police power, that's THE PLAN." - Well not Google's plan for sure... It wasn't At&t's plan either... You know there is someone in the NSA that would love to have access to Google's systems. Time, pressure, and money.
-
OOTB goes over the top 99.9% of the time. But he had 2 today that were not typical OOTB, and actually kind of OK. (I threw up in my mouth a little writing that)
-
Oh and on topic... GOOGLE IS NOT THE INTERNET X's ∞
Thank you PaulT.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: GOOGLE DOES NOT CONTROL WHAT HAPPENS ON THE INTERNET!!!!!!!!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: GOOGLE DOES NOT CONTROL WHAT HAPPENS ON THE INTERNET!!!!!!!!!!
Simple solution, Blue. Don't use Google.
You should try YaCy. Designed to resist information gathering AND censorship. Win-win for you!
http://yacy.net/en/index.html
It's also free. They just ask that you donate hard drive space and bandwidth to the cause.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: GOOGLE DOES NOT CONTROL WHAT HAPPENS ON THE INTERNET!!!!!!!!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: GOOGLE DOES NOT CONTROL WHAT HAPPENS ON THE INTERNET!!!!!!!!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Google to be key to everything. Extension of the telescreen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Google to be key to everything. Extension of the telescreen.
Where's that picture of Inigo Montoya when you need it...?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Google to be key to everything. Extension of the telescreen.
Not sayin that google's a saint of a business but they are nowhere near being the sinners hat you claim they are
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Google to be key to everything. Extension of the telescreen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Google is not the internet.
Google is not the internet.
Google is not the internet.
Google is not the internet.
Sinking in yet? No?
Google is not the internet.
GOOGLE IS NOT THE INTERNET.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
They not only think they are the internet, they want you to think so too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: (AOL)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I know that.
But now consider this:
When the politician clicks the "internet" button, what page opens up?
That is the problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The default homepage in almost every browser/device combination on this planet is the google page.
And even if it isn't, the alternative is so terrible (for the average user) that I am nearly certain that someone in IT would've set the politician's homepage to Google (or even installed Chrome or Firefox). It's what we do when we deploy machines for a client, because that's what people expect (as an aside, let me tell you that it is WAY easier to deploy equipment when all equipment is built from the same image, so I expect that any half-decent IT department would do just that).
But even if my tl;dr rant doesn't convince you, just ask yourself this: out of all the people you know, how many of them don't have Google set as the homepage?
Does the problem suddenly come into focus?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
One, my mother. Literally everyone else I know (where I have seen their computer in use) has changed their homepage to something more interesting.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'd have to check, but I would have thought that a government IT department would set the home page to a government portal or intranet. I accept that there may be differences (though the dated IT policies in many government sites mean they probably still try to go the IE route). However...
"Does the problem suddenly come into focus?"
Yes. People who are so clueless about technology that they don't know the difference between a search engine and the internet are being allowed to try to make policy on technology. See also: creationists trying to make science policy, homeopaths trying to mould healthcare, etc.
That's the real problem. Politics allows people who know nothing to shape policy against the knowledge of people who actually know the subject in question. The reason why they know nothing is important, but not the overall problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
> That is the problem.
It goes like this.
When the politician asks the intern of his junior assistant to show him what this intarweb thingy looks like, what does he see on the screen first?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Google is NOT the Internet,but...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Google is NOT the Internet,but...
No, they're cited because they're a large organisation and are the leader in their primary field of web search, as well as a well-known brand name.
"But, since Google has power, shouldn't they use it?"
They don't have any such power, that's the problem. They can remove such material from their databases and hide links to those sites. But the material will still be there, no matter what Google do. Hiding it is not the same as removing it or prosecuting it.
What you're asking for is for Google to pretend to do something about this material, then ultimately make it harder for law enforcement to do their jobs (guess which tool is among those used by people actually investigating these cases?).
Google can assist law enforcement, they can ensure that their safesearch and other functions make it less likely for the public to stumble across such things, and they can forward any leads they receive either from users or algorithms. But they can't do a damn thing about the material being out there in the first place. That's the job of law enforcement, not Google. Hell, they can't even ensure that the same images don't show up in Bing or DuckDuckGo, let alone do anything about the originating site.
"It wouldn't be targeting you guys"
Not directly, but no censorship system is without collateral damage and false positives. Sorry, I'd prefer to keep my freedom of speech intact, rather than sacrifice some of it because you want Google to put on a bit of theatre to pretend it's responsible for all this. No child is going to stop being abused because Google made it more difficult for people to search online for it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Anonymous coward
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Anonymous Coward
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"British Politicians: We failed to do our job and pass laws to prevent child porn and make it easier for police to catch people who make child porn. So Google needs to cover up our failures by censoring the Internet!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Vince cable is just an idiot. It is that simple.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oh that's right, they're not mentally ill like the criminals.
Hmm... then maybe we should be doing something about mental illness?
But that's too difficult. It's much easier to just make the internet illegal. Even though it won't do anything to stop crime.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Oh, wait. Maybe the guy viewing that vile cartoon already had a predilection for that behaviour before he kidnapped and murdered that child. Huh. Imagine that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Or maybe Mark Bridger was into Child Porn so he went and looked at some. Maybe he wasn't "influenced" by the internet at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Is child porn on the internet different from child porn that's not on the internet? Is there any quantifiable difference to child porn on the net to CP found say on a bunch of DVD's handed to you by a creep in a dark alley? What if said creep takes the DVDs, rips them and then puts them up online? Do they change in some way?
If the answer is no, then the mere fact its online changes nothing. Child porn is child porn.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"Correlation does not equaol causation"
So - someone who commits horrible crimes against children also looks at related stuff on the internet.
Quelle Surpise! You could have knocked me down with a feather.
I also notice that people who like cooking watch cookery programmmes on TV. Which way round is the causation there?
I don't know.
I also notice that murder mystery programmes are very popular. Does that turn the population into murderers?
I also suppose that real life murderers also watch these programmes. Maybe they also look for tips to avoid detection. Should we ban Agatha Christie, Sherlock Holmes, CSI, Columbo etc?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yeah, I knew this idiot would be involved somewhere. For anyone not aware, he's the guy who still trots out the fully debunked lie that the videogame Manhunt was responsible for the murder of Stefan Pakeerah. (For the uninitiated, not only was the game not involved in the murder in any way - as confirmed by the courts - but the copy found belonged to Pakeerah, not his killer).
In other words, a compulsive liar with a track record of spreading fear over new technology rather than addressing the real problems in society.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Child safety advocates - Google should do more to stop porn
Politicians - Google should do more to stop extremism
How long before we hear "Google should do more to stop obesity"?
Google does not have an Internet magic want to make this stuff disappear, people. If you want Google to stop these things why not request the same of Yahoo? Ask? Bing? Google provides a method of searching for content, they do not provide the content.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
NYC's Nanny Bloomberg is probably already working on that one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Child safety advocates - Google should do more to stop porn
Politicians - Google should do more to stop extremism
How long before we hear "Google should do more to stop obesity"?
Google is getting way too powerful. Someone should do something about that. Google should do more to stop Google.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Responsibilities
I can understand Google's frustration.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And then there is the darkweb. Like what has already been mentioned here, Google is not the internet, nor can Google actually remove the content. If Google isn't getting search results from these sites, precisely how is Google going to be effective?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Another point
Cable probably knows this, as well, and is just saying this to gain some political capital in the aftermath of a tragedy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
one of the main things that keeps this 'proliferation of indecent images' on the internet is the constant attention certain bodies keep giving to the subject. no one who is classed as normal agrees with this but why is it always then put into the lap of Google to sort it out? the publications are still available, so are the movies. no one is running around to California and similar places, shutting down the productions of porn movies or the taking of then publishing of pictures are they? if this stuff isn't wanted for distribution, stop it before it can be distributed anywhere, including the Internet! go to the source and then see how easy it is to stop once it has all been driven 'underground' and there is no way to then keep track of any of it!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Apparently when the police searched his computer, it came about that he had visited the site a few times and looked at the various postings on the site.
No one really knew of this till it came out in the court hearing that he had visited the site.
The Sun (the UK paper for you folks that aren't aware of it) actually contacted the webmaster of Best Gore and let the chap know they'd like to speak with him regarding the revelation from the court hearing.
While the webmaster wouldn't do an in person interview, he consented to have the reporter e-mail him the questions and he would provide them with a response.
The Webmaster of Best Gore who seems a tad paranoid posted the whole interview on the site, which you can have a look at http://www.bestgore.com/brain-fart/interview-the-sun-murder-april-jones-mark-bridger/
Interesting tidbit, if you recall the Luka Rocco Magnotta case ( him being the person that killed a Chinese exchange student and made a video of it) was posted at Best Gore, which in turn got picked up by the media that someone had done this murder and made a video and posted it online.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Does nobody realize that censoring images (and text) that you don't like or that society doesn't like is the digital equivalent of book burning?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
This is a fictional character where you can't sell the game if the game's manual has her age listed as 16. Change the 6 to an 8 and suddenly, everything's right as rain.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
You know, I've almost got to wonder if a majority of politicians worship the Elder Gods, as politician 'logic' seems like something that would drive a normal person completely insane trying to understand it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
There is a shonen manga which ran from 1996-2008 where one of the female characters was 'born' and died (in plot-time) in under the span of one year. This character is clearly an adult in body and mind, yet in calendar years she was alive for less than 12 months. This manga also became an anime, and this character ended up practically topless more than once in the actual storyline.
WHERE THE HELL does she fit in all this "cartoon nudity=child porn" grandstanding bullshit?
(kudos to anyone who knows the character that I'm talking about.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Back in the day
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's all the Interwebs fault
We could sack all the police and save billions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Another thought...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOGLE!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Clarity
The cartoon that Mark Bridger viewed is lawful under UK law because all animated porn is a victimless event no matter how extreme. So they are asking Google (our local web masochist) to censor something that is lawful.
Now had you believed they should censor such lawful porn then this case goes much further. Due to the rare risk of such porn popping up somewhere they insist that ALL lawful porn should be censored also. All porn, all sites, gone.
Well almost when they say if people want to watch such standard lawful porn they first have to register for it. So these people have no honourable intentions when it is only an attempt at mass porn censorship.
All services do take strong action against unlawful porn once informed when that is the law. Google though host no media when it is only links and why they always go beyond the law into masochistic censorship.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Fight for Fairness and Freedom will never End until the people in Charge are overturned and good,fair, and Peace loving people are put in their places.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And then there is the darkweb. Like what has already been mentioned here, Google is not the internet, nor can Google actually remove the content. If Google isn't getting search results from these sites, precisely how is Google going to be effective?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Its a drawing!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Government involvement in CP distribution
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There is another thing that troubles me in this. That is it seems every time some politician gets up on his soap box to scream about child porn, months later it is revealed his personal computer contains... Child porn. It repeats over and over.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
1) How much should a private company be required by law to do?
2) What sort of measurement do you use to determine if what a company is doing enough? If the answer is "no illegal porn at all", that would force search engines to stop using web crawlers/spiders and instead manually review each website before including it. And force them to not include sites with user provided content.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
/s "You don't say?"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A little knowledge is a dangerous thing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
re: Google is not the Internet, but...
I am not just being an ass. I really know very little about how the internet works. This isn't a case of (I am very sleepy and cannot remember this term properly, either. But what was the group who were so against technology that they destroyed machinery? Please reply if you know and I'll be overjoyed because I am too tired to look it up.) The problem is that my husband is the training manager of (I think) nine states, at&t DSL stuff, as well as a gadget freak, so when he starts spouting acronyms -not the kind of USMC acronyms that I understand _I often only hear "Fate, blah blah blah. " This works for us because I admit the fact that I'm never going to "get it, "I still prefer to write and post real letters using non -email! And his concession is tolerating my Roger Daltrey /The Who obsession. A small compromise for a happier marriage. WHAT I'm SAYING IS that I am serious about my ISP question and I would really love an answer! Snarky Assholes need not apply. And with that nod to my Irish _ness for "No Irish need apply. "
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]