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 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's not completely unreasonable...
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."

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."
But "industry giants such as Google" already monitor and intervene (which isn't a search engine's "responsibility," by the way).
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.

"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."
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.
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.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  1.  
    icon
    Gothenem (profile), Jun 3rd, 2013 @ 6:03am

    The Internet is Special

    My response to the politicians: There are still shoplifters, there are still people to break traffic laws (speeding, running red lights, rolling stop signs, et. all). I think that the politicians need to be more proactive in stopping these threats.

    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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  2.  
    icon
    Jay (profile), Jun 3rd, 2013 @ 6:53am

    The real question...

    Someone should ask the politicians exactly one question...

    "What are YOU going to do to fix this problem?"

    I'd love to see the results of that inquiry.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  3.  
    icon
    Zakida Paul (profile), Jun 3rd, 2013 @ 7:38am

    GOOGLE DOES NOT CONTROL WHAT HAPPENS ON THE INTERNET!!!!!!!!!!

    This is another hypocritical and immoral politician using a tragedy (the April Jones murder case) to further their own agenda.

    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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  4. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
     
    identicon
    out_of_the_blue, Jun 3rd, 2013 @ 7:43am

    Google to be key to everything. Extension of the telescreen.

    This is not surprising, as Techdirt sez. Google is already monitoring every site besides everyone all the time, and so it's a logical next step in ongoing process of merging police with SPYING corporation. -- Note that I'm merely stating facts, NOT advocating that Google be given actual police power to go along with its current spying for the state.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  5. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
     
    identicon
    out_of_the_blue, Jun 3rd, 2013 @ 7:46am

    Re: GOOGLE DOES NOT CONTROL WHAT HAPPENS ON THE INTERNET!!!!!!!!!!

    @ "People cannot seem to grasp the fact that Google does not equal the Internet." - NOT YET BUT WANTS TO! That's most of the danger. Google is clearly not just commercial. It's a SPY agency already. Sooner or later its monitoring is going to be merged with police power, that's THE PLAN.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  6.  
    icon
    Zakida Paul (profile), Jun 3rd, 2013 @ 7:47am

    Re: Re: GOOGLE DOES NOT CONTROL WHAT HAPPENS ON THE INTERNET!!!!!!!!!!

    Tinfoil hat club or what

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  7.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 3rd, 2013 @ 7:53am

    Google is not the internet.

    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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  8.  
    icon
    PaulT (profile), Jun 3rd, 2013 @ 7:53am

    Re: Google to be key to everything. Extension of the telescreen.

    "merely stating facts"

    Where's that picture of Inigo Montoya when you need it...?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  9.  
    icon
    Zakida Paul (profile), Jun 3rd, 2013 @ 7:56am

    Re:

    So, Google IS the Internet? :-P

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  10.  
    icon
    weneedhelp (profile), Jun 3rd, 2013 @ 7:56am

    Re: Re: Re: GOOGLE DOES NOT CONTROL WHAT HAPPENS ON THE INTERNET!!!!!!!!!!

    Why not? The NSA is already intrenched in the telcos. Whats to say they haven't infiltrated Google yet? AT&T didnt come out and tell the world it was duplicating and routing all traffic to the NSA. It took a whistle blower.
    -
    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. :)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  11.  
    icon
    PaulT (profile), Jun 3rd, 2013 @ 7:57am

    Re: Re: Re: GOOGLE DOES NOT CONTROL WHAT HAPPENS ON THE INTERNET!!!!!!!!!!

    He's not even making sense with his own internal logic. Even if Google *want* to do the things he's talking about, he's admitting they aren't currently doing so. But, the target of his anger is still Google, and not the politicians who want to force Google to achieve their aim. So, even if his paranoid fantasy was correct, (and it's a long way from correct), he's still attacking the wrong target to stop it from happening.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  12.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 3rd, 2013 @ 7:57am

    if porn is so widespread and has such an influence on people, why dont governments stop the production of porn completely, making all films and magazines illegal? oh, i forgot, it employs people and gives governments taxes. it also gives them and the raft of do-gooders an excuse to keep having a go at Google. if it were as easy to stamp porn out as certain freakin' big mouthed idiots think it is, why dont they do it instead of expecting every other company to do so? this is as big an exploit reason as the entertainment industries use. it's very easy for the likes of Google to do this, that and the other, provided they want to. the industries themselves cant even distinguish between what is their stuff, what they have copyright on, what they are responsible for, what should be released and what not to be released. if they cant sort their own shit out, how come they think the job is so easy for everyone else to do? any excuse to have a go at what certain people dont like and are trying to get everyone else not to like as well!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  13.  
    icon
    Gwiz (profile), Jun 3rd, 2013 @ 7:58am

    Re: Re: GOOGLE DOES NOT CONTROL WHAT HAPPENS ON THE INTERNET!!!!!!!!!!

    Google is clearly not just commercial. It's a SPY agency already.


    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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  14.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 3rd, 2013 @ 7:59am

    Re: Re:

    No, but they'd like to think they are...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  15.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 3rd, 2013 @ 8:01am

    I have a proposal, the politicians can regulate the Internet when they have reviewed every post to the Internet posted from now on. I will be kind, the only need to review posts in their native language, and they can divide the work among themselves. However the review must be carried out by elected politicians.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  16.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 3rd, 2013 @ 8:04am

    The title should read like this

    "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!"

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  17.  
    icon
    jupiterkansas (profile), Jun 3rd, 2013 @ 8:07am

    If viewing child pornography online makes you a criminal, then wouldn't the people monitoring be the worst criminals?

    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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  18.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 3rd, 2013 @ 8:09am

    Re: Google to be key to everything. Extension of the telescreen.

    Advocating would mean you're in support of google having police state powers. No one here believes for a second that you support them in anything since you even attack and tell lies about their legitimate operations.

    Not sayin that google's a saint of a business but they are nowhere near being the sinners hat you claim they are

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  19.  
    icon
    Marcel de Jong (profile), Jun 3rd, 2013 @ 8:10am

    Re: Re: GOOGLE DOES NOT CONTROL WHAT HAPPENS ON THE INTERNET!!!!!!!!!!

    reported as off topic.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  20.  
    icon
    Djinnx (profile), Jun 3rd, 2013 @ 8:13am

    Blaming Google for what people do on the Internet is like blaming the Yellow Pages for prank phone calls.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  21.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 3rd, 2013 @ 8:13am

    "Mark Bridger appears to be influenced by watching child pornography on the internet..."

    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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  22.  
    icon
    PaulT (profile), Jun 3rd, 2013 @ 8:13am

    "Keith Vaz"

    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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  23.  
    icon
    Zakida Paul (profile), Jun 3rd, 2013 @ 8:15am

    Hollywood - Google should do more to stop piracy
    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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  24.  
    identicon
    Dave, Jun 3rd, 2013 @ 8:16am

    Responsibilities

    I think politicians should accept their responsibility and rid the world of poverty and starvation. /sarc

    I can understand Google's frustration.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  25.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 3rd, 2013 @ 8:16am

    Re:

    You know that.

    I know that.

    But now consider this:

    When the politician clicks the "internet" button, what page opens up?

    That is the problem.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  26.  
    icon
    Marcel de Jong (profile), Jun 3rd, 2013 @ 8:17am

    Re:

    I'm against that kind of waste of my tax money. Unless they are doing this in their own time.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  27.  
    icon
    Zakida Paul (profile), Jun 3rd, 2013 @ 8:17am

    Re:

    That should have read "magic wand" not "want"

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  28.  
    icon
    weneedhelp (profile), Jun 3rd, 2013 @ 8:20am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: GOOGLE DOES NOT CONTROL WHAT HAPPENS ON THE INTERNET!!!!!!!!!!

    I took this from it:
    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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  29.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 3rd, 2013 @ 8:25am

    Google's webcrawler obeys robot.txt . Pedophiles know what they do is against the law. They also know that if they don't allow Google in, then Google will return no search terms for their site.

    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?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  30.  
    icon
    PaulT (profile), Jun 3rd, 2013 @ 8:27am

    Re:

    This is the constant problem with modern politics, unfortunately. Real problems - crime, poverty, abuse, unemployment, etc. - are relatively mundane and are always present. It's hard to grandstand, even if your policies are effective. But, find an issue to crusade upon, even if said crusade not only does nothing effective but deflects attention away from the real problems? You'll have retired or been re-elected before the public notices...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  31.  
    icon
    Zakida Paul (profile), Jun 3rd, 2013 @ 8:29am

    Another point

    The chances that paedophiles actually use Google to find the porn are very small. This would render anything Google does as 100% ineffective.

    Cable probably knows this, as well, and is just saying this to gain some political capital in the aftermath of a tragedy.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  32.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 3rd, 2013 @ 8:31am

    '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.'

    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!!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  33.  
    icon
    Zakida Paul (profile), Jun 3rd, 2013 @ 8:31am

    Re: Re:

    What ever page they have set as their home page comes up.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  34.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 3rd, 2013 @ 8:41am

    Actually, there is a little more to it. Apparently Bridger was fascinated with death, gore and what not and visited the site BestGore.com.

    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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  35.  
    identicon
    Rekrul, Jun 3rd, 2013 @ 8:47am

    I like how everyone discussing this (other than the article) fails to mention the fact that it was a CARTOON drawing of an abused child, not a photo.

    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?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  36.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 3rd, 2013 @ 8:48am

    i wonder what sort of job those who keep complaining about how little Google and others do to stop this sort of stuff getting on to computer screens would manage to make? not very good, i would hazard a guess. giving them the opportunity might be the answer to stop them from keep freaking whining. once they found out how ridiculous a job it is, how much stuff gets through, despite how much effort is put in to stopping it, perhaps then they would shut up. if these idiots are not prepared to put up, they should shut up! to keep passing the blame and the buck onto others is the easy way out. it gives them a reason to keep condemning a certain company. what it doesn't do is anything at all to help!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  37.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 3rd, 2013 @ 8:49am

    Re: Re:

    If they did it during all their waking hours it would keep the out of trouble, by trying to pass laws, or making stupid statements; this would be a better use of their pay. :-)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  38.  
    icon
    Zakida Paul (profile), Jun 3rd, 2013 @ 8:51am

    Re:

    Well the Cleanfeed system has failed to stop child porn and online predators, so I can't see any other entity doing a better job.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  39.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 3rd, 2013 @ 8:57am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: GOOGLE DOES NOT CONTROL WHAT HAPPENS ON THE INTERNET!!!!!!!!!!

    There are reports that the tin foil actually amplifies the signal.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  40.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 3rd, 2013 @ 9:10am

    Re: Re: Re:

    Oh don't be dense.

    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?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  41.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 3rd, 2013 @ 9:11am

    Re:

    What's 'Yellow Pages'? Some ancient technology or something?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  42.  
    icon
    Nastybutler77 (profile), Jun 3rd, 2013 @ 9:12am

    Re:

    I came to post something along these lines. If viewing child pornography turns you into a child molester/murderer, and Google is paying people to view child porn and other horrible images, then shouldn't these contractors all end up responsible for molesting and murdering children? Wouldn't Google be directly responsible for all sorts of crimes commited by these people they've turned into deranged sickos?

    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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  43.  
    icon
    Akari Mizunashi (profile), Jun 3rd, 2013 @ 9:23am

    I'm a bit terrified many people didn't see the obvious: Since when has a cartoon been deemed child pornography.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  44.  
    identicon
    John Doe, Jun 3rd, 2013 @ 9:24am

    Back in the day

    Back in the infancy of the internet, Microsoft was doing everything they could to co-opt the internet into being the Microsoft Internet. Today, it seems that governments are doing everything they can to give the internet to Google. If they are given control of the internet, will they start taxing us on it?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  45.  
    icon
    John Fenderson (profile), Jun 3rd, 2013 @ 9:26am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    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?


    One, my mother. Literally everyone else I know (where I have seen their computer in use) has changed their homepage to something more interesting.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  46.  
    icon
    John Fenderson (profile), Jun 3rd, 2013 @ 9:26am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Oops, I mean only one person has Google as their homepage. Everyone else has something different going on.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  47.  
    icon
    Old Fool (profile), Jun 3rd, 2013 @ 9:27am

    It's all the Interwebs fault

    I think it is fairly well established that if we dismantled the internet all crime would end.
    We could sack all the police and save billions.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  48.  
    identicon
    Call me Al, Jun 3rd, 2013 @ 9:30am

    Re:

    Actually it is considered as such under UK law. This is a result of another piece of grandstanding a few years ago.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  49.  
    identicon
    John Doe, Jun 3rd, 2013 @ 9:30am

    Another thought...

    Google is paying people to view child porn. How long before a politician demands Google be prosecuted for that?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  50.  
    icon
    That One Guy (profile), Jun 3rd, 2013 @ 9:31am

    Re: The real question...

    Why they're blaming everyone else of course, and that's some real hard work there don't you know?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  51.  
    icon
    jupiterkansas (profile), Jun 3rd, 2013 @ 9:31am

    Re: Re:

    yp.com - looks like it's part of that evil Big Search

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  52.  
    icon
    Rikuo (profile), Jun 3rd, 2013 @ 9:40am

    Re:

    ""Mark Bridger appears to be influenced by watching child pornography on the internet..."

    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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  53.  
    icon
    Gwiz (profile), Jun 3rd, 2013 @ 9:40am

    Re:

    How long before we hear "Google should do more to stop obesity"?


    NYC's Nanny Bloomberg is probably already working on that one.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  54.  
    icon
    Rikuo (profile), Jun 3rd, 2013 @ 9:45am

    Re:

    I was wondering that myself. You ever hear of the video game series "Dead or Alive"? In case you haven't, it's a fighting game series where one of the lead females, Kasumi, is 18 years old in the English localisation, but is I think 16 or 17 in the original Japanese. The reason for the age difference is because the game series regularly has the females in sexually provocative poses...hell, it even has a Beach Volleyball series spinoff with such mini-games as Butt-Battle.
    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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  55.  
    icon
    Rikuo (profile), Jun 3rd, 2013 @ 9:46am

    Re: Re:

    IT IS?!?!?!?!? *Hurriedly deletes Kodomo no Jikan anime from hard drive*

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  56.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 3rd, 2013 @ 9:52am

    When Willian Wallace with his eyes fixed on the kiddy-porn gets ups, wilding his swords he gets up and start running, letting go a single word:

    GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOGLE!!!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  57.  
    icon
    DannyB (profile), Jun 3rd, 2013 @ 10:07am

    Re: Re: Re:

    You are confused with America Online.

    They not only think they are the internet, they want you to think so too.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  58.  
    icon
    Violated (profile), Jun 3rd, 2013 @ 10:08am

    Clarity

    I see that some facts are missing in this story.

    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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  59.  
    icon
    DannyB (profile), Jun 3rd, 2013 @ 10:10am

    Re: Re:

    > When the politician clicks the "internet" button, what page opens up?
    > 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?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  60.  
    icon
    gorehound (profile), Jun 3rd, 2013 @ 10:24am

    Many bad Laws start with the standard "Please Save the Children (insert more here) or the newer "Fight the Cyberwhatever (insert fear monger line here) .
    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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  61.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 3rd, 2013 @ 10:34am

    Google's webcrawler obeys robot.txt . Pedophiles know what they do is against the law. They also know that if they don't allow Google in, then Google will return no search terms for their site.

    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?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  62.  
    icon
    Richard (profile), Jun 3rd, 2013 @ 10:37am

    Re:

    Also known as
    "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?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  63.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 3rd, 2013 @ 11:00am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: GOOGLE DOES NOT CONTROL WHAT HAPPENS ON THE INTERNET!!!!!!!!!!

    i laughed when i saw them flagged as spam

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  64.  
    icon
    Jeffrey Nonken (profile), Jun 3rd, 2013 @ 11:16am

    So... does anybody have any statistics showing how many of these contractors have gone on to commit crimes based on the questionable content they've been viewing for a year of their lives?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  65.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 3rd, 2013 @ 11:52am

    Re: Re: The real question...

    "That's some real politicians works there don't you know"

    FTFY

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  66.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 3rd, 2013 @ 11:55am

    Re: Re:

    Bing

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  67.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 3rd, 2013 @ 11:56am

    Re:

    No.

    Vince cable is just an idiot. It is that simple.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  68.  
    identicon
    Joe Dirt, Jun 3rd, 2013 @ 12:18pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: GOOGLE DOES NOT CONTROL WHAT HAPPENS ON THE INTERNET!!!!!!!!!!

    Do you know why one side is shinier than the other?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  69.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 3rd, 2013 @ 12:23pm

    Re:

    Hollywood - Google should do more to stop piracy
    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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  70.  
    icon
    That One Guy (profile), Jun 3rd, 2013 @ 12:53pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    No wonder they hate the internet so much, if that's the first thing they see when it loads.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  71.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 3rd, 2013 @ 12:58pm

    governments should be more proactive in keeping these crazy lunatics away from the general population. We know it's very very difficult, but you know, if everyone had their minds read a few times a year to make sure they were not having unacceptable behaviors, the world would be a safer place.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  72.  
    icon
    That One Guy (profile), Jun 3rd, 2013 @ 1:02pm

    Re: Re:

    So by that same 'logic', would shredding a cartoon drawing of a child count as murder? Does perhaps drawing the pic in the first place counts as giving birth?

    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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  73.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 3rd, 2013 @ 1:27pm

    Re: Re: Re: The real question...

    So the British Government wants to turn over governance to a private company?? I can see reporting requirements but the states had better put PROFESSIONALS from Law enforcement in these positions.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  74.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 3rd, 2013 @ 1:35pm

    Its a drawing!

    Porn is in the eye of the beholder. Do this: draw a picture of an attractive young human, naked. Now write underneath, "(s)he is 15." Now erase the 5 and replace it with an 8. Were you in possession of "child porn" when the caption said "15"? Are you now? How good are your drawing skills?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  75.  
    icon
    PaulT (profile), Jun 3rd, 2013 @ 1:44pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "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)."

    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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  76.  
    icon
    BearGriz72 (profile), Jun 3rd, 2013 @ 2:17pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: (AOL)

    "You are confused with America Online.
    They not only think they were the internet, they wanted you to think so too.
    "
    FTFY

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  77.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 3rd, 2013 @ 2:25pm

    Well, at least it's not copyrighted material.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  78.  
    identicon
    Anonymous, Jun 3rd, 2013 @ 3:14pm

    Government involvement in CP distribution

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  79.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 3rd, 2013 @ 4:44pm

    Why in the world would I want Google as my home page? Ever?

    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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  80.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 3rd, 2013 @ 5:44pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    I don't know about you, but when I install Firefox, Firefox is the homepage. When you install IE, then Bing is the homepage. When you install Chrome, well, you're already using Google, there. What other browsers default to Google? Can you even name any?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  81.  
    icon
    Matthew Cline (profile), Jun 3rd, 2013 @ 6:05pm

    John Carr (adviser on internet safety and secretary of a children’s charities coalition): “Google can do more and should do more.”
    Technically, this is true. Google could hire more humans to try to identify more such material. They could hire an army of such people, and army so big that their profit margin would drop to zero. The questions are:

    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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  82.  
    icon
    Internet Zen Master (profile), Jun 3rd, 2013 @ 7:08pm

    Re: Re:

    Okay then. I have a question:

    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.)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  83.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 4th, 2013 @ 12:53am

    Re:

    Part of the problem is that the politicians cannot get their heads around the fact that the Internet does not use gatekeepers to decide what is published.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  84.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 4th, 2013 @ 3:48am

    They should also ask Google if they could remove it from Tor as well.

    /s "You don't say?"

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  85.  
    identicon
    Dave, Jun 4th, 2013 @ 10:44am

    Re: Google to be key to everything. Extension of the telescreen.

    What madness is this? Paranoid ramblings of the the highest order.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  86.  
    identicon
    DP, Jun 4th, 2013 @ 10:46am

    Re: Re: GOOGLE DOES NOT CONTROL WHAT HAPPENS ON THE INTERNET!!!!!!!!!!

    Paranoia in the extreme or just plain bonkers.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  87.  
    identicon
    Dave, Jun 4th, 2013 @ 10:54am

    A little knowledge is a dangerous thing

    Oh dear. Once again we seem to have another example of technically illiterate grandstanding politicians who want folk like Google to wave a magic wand and.....whizzo.....in the twinkling of an eye, the net is all nice and squeaky clean. It ain't gonna happen. When will these buffoons get some technical advice from people in the know, instead of spouting from on high about things they obviously know nothing about? It's always Google they quote, not knowing the difference between a search engine and an ISP.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  88.  
    icon
    Niall (profile), Jun 5th, 2013 @ 4:50am

    Re: Re:

    That's the trouble, Vince Cable is less of an idiot than most.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  89.  
    icon
    feyte (profile), Jun 6th, 2013 @ 8:05am

    Re: Google is NOT the Internet,but...

    Google is extremely well-used,making them extremely well wealthy. As such, Google has POWER! That is why they are often cited in Net cases. And because they have such power, they can Use It In A Good, Humanitarian Cause. No, they have no legal responsibility in a Search-and-Destroy mission against peodophiles, thou myself and trillions of others would be happy if they did. But, since Google has power, shouldn't they use it? It wouldn't be targeting you guys, unless I am responding to a group of child-wankers, in which case, you're on your own!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  90.  
    icon
    feyte (profile), Jun 6th, 2013 @ 8:11am

    Re: Anonymous coward

    Take out government taxing for a moment. If porn were banned, it would go over the same way the Prohibition Act did with banning alcohol...bath-tub gin and Speak-easy clubs. Obviously there is a much wider market for booze, but do you get my drift?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  91.  
    icon
    feyte (profile), Jun 6th, 2013 @ 8:19am

    Re: Anonymous Coward

    Wow! Damn good idea, if you leave out the politicians! Think of the millions of rather interesting jobs it would create! Now that I have said such, I must go delete all posts against the Republican Party, The Know-Nothings (oops. I mean The Tea-Baggers Party, and anything about my ancestory including my 'prize possessions;' Letters from Gerry Adams of Sein Feinn. I'd be marked as an IRA by association, even though my communications were for a university report!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  92.  
    icon
    PaulT (profile), Jun 6th, 2013 @ 8:31am

    Re: Re: Google is NOT the Internet,but...

    "That is why they are often cited in Net cases."

    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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  93.  
    identicon
    feyte, Jun 6th, 2013 @ 11:19pm

    re: Google is not the Internet, but...

    So are you telling me that there is no "registry "involved (I simply cannot think of the proper word, which is the reason for the quotation marks,) to become an ISP? Anyone can just pop up a provider service?
    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. "

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  94.  
    identicon
    fred, Jun 15th, 2013 @ 3:02am

    I like child porn. I do not understand what the problem is. MOUR CP PLZ!!!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This