Google Announces More Child Porn Blocking Efforts While David Cameron Offers To Throw The GCHQ At The Problem
from the a-worthy-cause-backed-by-terrible-ideas-and-legislation dept
Over the weekend, Google Executive Chairman Eric Schmidt wrote an editorial touting the search engine's "new" efforts to battle child porn. It appeared in, of all places, the Daily Mail, presumably so the paper could write a self-congratulatory piece declaring its victory over Google (and child pornographers, too, I guess…)
What Schmidt details in his op-ed isn't really news at all, for the most part. Google has proactively blocked illegal images from appearing in search results for years now. It has also used human beings to help its algorithms filter illegal content, something which has an undeniable deleterious effect on those willing to do this horrific job. In fact, Schmidt points out as much.
That's why internet companies like Google and Microsoft have been working with law enforcement for years to stop paedophiles sharing illegal pictures on the web.The pressure to do something "more" has stemmed from UK Prime Minister David Cameron's assault on the internet in general. Cameron has successfully pushed through a plan that forces ISPs to filter porn out by default and, thanks to a couple of high profile child murders, has decided that search engines just aren't doing enough to keep child pornography away from those looking to view it. Google has always been the name thrown around, even though Google has been actively working with child protection agencies to filter results by keywords and turn over information to local law enforcement agencies. So, a majority of Schmidt's op-ed is given over to explaining processes and tactics Google has had deployed for quite some time.
We actively remove child sexual abuse imagery from our services and immediately report abuse to the authorities. This evidence is regularly used to prosecute and convict criminals.
One thing Cameron asked for specifically is now being implemented by Google.
We're now showing warnings – from both Google and charities – at the top of our search results for more than 13,000 queries. These alerts make clear that child sexual abuse is illegal and offer advice on where to get help.Google is also lending its technical expertise to the Internet Watch Foundation and the US Center for Missing and Exploited Children in order to help them find victims and prosecute offenders.
All of these are generally good ideas, although the Mail's hurry to take credit for steps Google has implemented for years is rather unseemly. The key here is "generally." There's nothing wrong with what Google's doing other than a) child porn mostly travels below the "surface" and b) what little is there that's discoverable by Google's crawlers will now join the rest of it "underground." This may separate the truly stupid from illegal images but it will have little to no effect on the purveyors of child porn, who have stayed under the Google radar for years. If anything, it eliminates the "low hanging fruit," making law enforcement's efforts that much tougher.
David Cameron seems to think this is a major victory as well -- a triumph of political muscle over internet architecture. He starts off with this unverifiable claim.
'Google and Microsoft have come a long way,' Mr Cameron added. 'A recent deterrence campaign from Google led to a 20 per cent drop off in people trying to find illegal content, so we know this sort of action will make a difference.A 20% drop off means 20% of people seeking child porn are now using methods other than Google/Bing searches. That's about all that means without an accompanying percentage increase in arrests and convictions. Blocking doesn't keep people from wanting the blocked content. It only pushes them to use other tactics.
'Both companies have made clear to me that they share my commitment to stop child abuse content from being available not only in the UK but across the world.
Then Cameron makes this ridiculous/frightening statement.
'If the search engines are unable to deliver on their commitment to prevent child abuse material being returned from search terms used by paedophiles, I will bring forward legislation that will ensure it happens…Cameron still wants to be the one to ultimately decide whether search engines are doing "enough" to block illegal images. No effort along these lines will ever be able to completely block illegal images, so this legislation is all but inevitable. The fallacy here is that Cameron thinks legislation can do what search engines can't: provide 100% blocking. This falls in line with his thinking on "regular" porn blocking at the ISP level: an impossibility made "possible" by government intervention.
I believe we are heading in right direction but no-one should be in doubt that there is a red line: if more isn't done to stop illegal content or pathways being found when you use a child abuse search term, we will do what is necessary to protect our children.'
Cameron chased this with more bad news. He's planning on bringing GCHQ (the UK's NSA) on board to dig through the "dark net" for child pornographers.
"There's been a lot in the news recently about the techniques, ability and brilliance of the people involved in the intelligence community, in GCHQ and the NSA in America. That expertise is going to be brought to bear to go after these revolting people sharing these images [of child abuse] on the dark net, and making them available more widely," the prime minister said.One would assume that's what the FBI and Scotland Yard are for. To call for the GHCQ and NSA to be given even more unfettered access to internet communications is very disturbing, especially considering this exceeds both agencies' "national security" directives. Putting two agencies with incredible capabilities and little oversight on the trail of other criminals hidden in the "dark net" is a bad idea. Anyone who thinks the GCHQ/NSA troll for child pornographers will start and end with just those criminals is delusional.
"You use technology which is able to get into the dark internet, that is able to decrypt encrypted files, and that is able to find out what is going on. Like all these things if you put in the resources and the effort, if you use the best brains – the brains that are, as it were, the inheritors to the people that decrypted the Enigma code in the second world war – if you take those brains, and apply it to the problem of tackling child abuse online, you'll get results.
"I'm confident, having sat in the cabinet room, listening to the internet service providers, and having listened to the national crime agency, having talked to the team that are going to be negotiating with the Americans to work out how we best bring our joint expertise to bear on this, I'm confident that we can make some real progress."
Once they're in there, it's a free-for-all. Suspects will be brought to trial only to find out the evidence against them can't be revealed for "security" reasons, leaving them under-equipped to mount a credible defense. This would also play into the agencies' mindset that those utilizing privacy protections and encryption are "criminals/terrorists" because using either means they've got "something to hide." Giving these agencies the go-ahead to pursue something other than threats to national security is a terrible idea.
When asked about the potential for privacy violations that may occur if the GCHQ is allowed to run wild in the "dark net," Cameron responded with this non sequitur.
"[P]eople understand that a crime is a crime whether it's committed on the street or the internet".I'm not really sure what Cameron's asserting here, other than the potential to uncover criminal activity outweighs any privacy concerns, whether on the the internet or in the street. This mentality explains the massive amount of cameras the UK government has deployed over the past decade. The NSA (and GCHQ) has made the same argument in terms of national security -- privacy violations are just the price citizens have to pay to be protected from terrorism. Here we see it being deployed (slightly reworded) to justify the expansion of the GCHQ's purview.
Google may be taking the "lead" in blocking child porn, but that's only because it's already been active in that area for years. Judging from the PM's past, it's hard to believe these latest efforts will ultimately satisfy Cameron. We can probably expect a legislated "solution" within the next few years, especially if the world provides a tragedy or two to capitalize on.
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: child porn, david cameron, eric schmidt, filters, gchq, search, uk
Companies: google
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
damn politicians dont give a toss about the people they are supposed to be looking after as long as they can bring into being whatever it is they want. at the moment, it is any and all ways to spy on their own people and as many of every other nations as possible!
using GCHQ to sort out this child porn business, as disgusting as those involved are and should be caught, is simply an excuse! like earlier this year when he and Perry were spouting about the same subject, just to get their own way again.
i read where Perry was going to be sued because of her accusations. anyone know what happened there?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Won't someone PLEASE think of the children!?"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ 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 ]
How exactly does sweeping the problem under the rug solve anything? This content will continue to be made and distributed away from Google.
Still, better to be seen to be doing something than to actually do something to make children safer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How would legislation help?
What are they going to do? make Search providers responsible for any Child abuse results found on their searches despite their best efforts?
I cant see any way of Google/Yahoo/Bing being able to do anything other than pulling out of the UK completely.
I know this is actually bullshit, and what they actually want is a censorship regime they can abuse on a whim, but why do people swallow this?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is the UK, where drawings classify as CAI (which criminalizes a lot of Japanese stuff) and is something I'm against.
Don't get me wrong, real child abuse is abhorrant and I'm all for the protection and removal of images of real children being abused, but I don't condone the censorship of victimless thoughtcrimes.
That said, if anyone thinks this BS that Cameron is spouting is even about protecting children, then you're clearly delusional. (Mainly the Daily Mail reading ilk.)
The UK gov't has such a fucking hard-on for 1984, and this is only the beginning for futhering that. (The road to hell is paved with good intentions.)
Remember the removal of previous Tory promises/statements last week?
I also wish the British would really learn the difference between a pedophile and a child molester.
It's not a crime to be a pedophile. It's a crime to molest children and have images of children being abused, but simply having a sexual attraction to children is not a crime. Otherwise, it would be a crime to be a misanthrope or a sociopath.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Britain may lead the world on CCTV surveillance but every country is as guilty of a demonising a mental affliction as opposed to the horrific crime.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Consider:-
A child crawls into bed with its parents, and when one gets out they snap a photo to send to the grandparents, and use a photo-sharing site to do so. Could this be misinterpreted as evidence of child abuse? Is stopping the recording and sharing os family memories an acceptable price for what will probably be a minor effect on real child abuse?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
OOTB
http://tinypic.com/r/2ic1nax/5
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Damn, that's a really big centrifuge you've got there, Cameron. So what you are really saying is that since people aren't buying the "but terrorism" excuse for invading citizens privacy, you are now trying a "but child abuse" justification. Look you lying, manipulative sack of shit. We know all know what you are trying to do here. No one is buying your excuses and justifications. Crawl back under the rock from whence you came.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Terrorism is unlikely but child abuse happens all over
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Cameron is focusing on the minority threat while ignoring the majority threat (not that the threat comes from Google anyway), and that will leave children in more danger.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I just have to wonder what search terms and what websites you visit. I don't believe I've ever seen CP on the net. One really has to be activitly looking for such things to find them AFAIK.
Maybe they could try getting their facts straight BEFORE THEY MURDER INNOCENT PEOPLE.
I don't know what you are trying to say here. Who is murding who and what facts?
Get the people producing, purchasing, and looking for it and prosecute.
Agreed. Google is not those people though.
However, there are good people who see bad things. Don't frame and kill them.
I don't know what you saying here either. Frame and kill who?
Stop the problem at its source.
Yes. Agreed. Google is not the source though.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Some friends and family were covertly killed and some houses were burned, along with poisoning and torture. Google gangstalking and targeted individuals if you're interested. I was at a fetish site that had disturbing japanese comic books that I also got rid of quickly after I saw it that I ran across via google.
I was looking at porn and someone directed me to a horrible japanese video game they SAID was but legal. I looked at it and deleted it quickly. After seeing it, I wish I hadn't. I searched for "sex slave" looking for light bondage and saw something awful. That is my experience. Get rid of the weird japanese stuff and clean up sex slave if it hasn't been already.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Um...
What?
Dude, what?
Are you sure you weren't on some sort of acid/LSD trip?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
There's a term for that, it's called thoughtcrime.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Surely if a bunch of people were killed and houses were set a blaze there would be a news report of the incident. Got a link?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Yeah, how about no. Also, fuck you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
How, exactly, is blocking search terms on a search engine stopping the problem at the source?
This is nothing but authoritarian hand wringing designed to appease the knuckle dragging morons who read the Daily Mail and the like. It will accomplish nothing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
As for the rest of your nonsensical and inane postings above, take it from someone who has actually been a part of the investigative process (and continues to be in some respect) having to do with Indecent images worldwide (not just the Internet either) you have NO CLUE what you are talking about and are actually part of the problem.
Google and all the search engines are actually an integrated and very valuable evidential and investigative resource for finding, tracking, and ultimately stopping AT THE PRIMARY SOURCE the distribution and creation of these images/videos.
As for getting the Intelligent Services involved.. Worst idea ever, though it keeps being touted every so often by idiot politicians who have agendes of there own that have nothing to do with the actual stopping of any of this. The GCHQ's, NSA's, ASIO's have a mandate.. that mandate IS NOT CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION IN ANY WAY WHATSOEVER! That's what trained LEO's and Consultants are for.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I am NOT part of the problem. I have never harmed anyone in my life and if you agree with the actions being taken against me you are a scum bag.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
In fact I have no clue whom you are other than someone who starts branching off into ramblings about something that happened to them that proves in some way or other that "the govt is bad and out to get them". Whether it's true or not, without some basis of understanding with THE REST OF US you're entering tinfoil hat land.
The reasons I stated you are part of the problem is that you are screaming that "it must be stopped" without looking at it holistically and seeing the chilling effects allowing such a practice to occur would eventually lead to.
Educate yourself, look past the political and ideological FUD and understand that the people with the skills to stop (actually mitigate.. I'm too cynical and been doing it too long to think it can ever be fully stopped) this occurring would only be hindered by organisations like GCHQ, NSA, et.al being brought in to 'help'.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In that case *kills the Queen of England with a toothbrush*
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ 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 ]
and now for something completely different...
Oh, and the fact that Google hasn't done this also "proves" that all Google cares about is making money off of piracy...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This actually shows one reason surveillance is inappropriate - my first impulse upon seeing something like this in a story is to try googling various "suspicious" terms to see how these warnings show up and what they consist of. Post Snowden I have been increasingly self censoring my searches in regards to news stories about illegal or even what would commonly be considered merely immoral content. I now have to assume that my past academic interests in various subjects may well have resulted in my presence on some watchlists and that I could be only a single google search away from a lifetime of "coincidental" police stops, "random" searches and other forms of harassment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
MAFIAA logic
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: MAFIAA logic
There's going to be a lot of fuss and noise, but in the end it's not going to make the slightest bit of difference.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
On the other had them attacking certain sites on Tor Core is not unexpected but if any of their appointed services can crack that encryption nut remains to be seen. The British are not nearly as bad as those Americans for abusing granted powers but sure what power is granted for one crime soon expands into other crimes.
Then even if they do crack this dark net then only means a large technology upgrade to stop it happening again. So cat and mouse soon becomes cat and tiger.
Anyway more work by them to create pre-election stories where this is a case of damn technology it seems.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
intent
Are we supposed to always append "for research" to all of our searches now? Make sure to Google "child porn statistics," "how to build a nuclear bomb for research," and "locations of terrorist training camps because I'm just curious and maybe I want to know what parts of the world to avoid and jeez just get off my back already"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well I'll be, he sure did.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Clueless
[ link to this | view in chronology ]