Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

Child Porn Arrest For Cameron Aide Who Helped Plan UK Net Filters

timothy posted about 9 months ago | from the takes-one-to-know-one dept.

United Kingdom 205

An anonymous reader writes "A senior aide to David Cameron resigned from Downing Street last month the day before being arrested on allegations relating to child abuse images. Patrick Rock, who was involved in drawing up the government's policy for the large internet firms on online pornography filters, resigned after No 10 was alerted to the allegations. Rock was arrested at his west London flat the next morning. Officers from the National Crime Agency subsequently examined computers and offices used in Downing Street by Rock, the deputy director of No 10's policy unit, according to the Daily Mail, which disclosed news of his arrest."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Frosty Pedos (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46395961)

Takes one to know one?

Nelson (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46396229)

HA-ha [youtu.be]

victimless crime (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46395969)

How is the possession or viewing of child porn a crime at all? I dare someone to prove the harm in possessing/viewing cold porn

Re:victimless crime (1)

king neckbeard (1801738) | about 9 months ago | (#46395993)

Cold porn is significantly less arousing than hot porn, so you would presumably get less potent erections.

Re: victimless crime (4, Insightful)

jordanjay29 (1298951) | about 9 months ago | (#46396011)

Because actual kids are being filned/photographed performing such acts? Since minors can't legally give consent for sex, they are the victims in this crime.

Re: victimless crime (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46396029)

Here in the UK, drawings classify (which is not something I agree with), so I defy you to find the victim in that.

That said, Cameron has one hell of a time destinguishing fiction from reality.

Re: victimless crime (0, Troll)

OzPeter (195038) | about 9 months ago | (#46396047)

Here in the UK, drawings classify (which is not something I agree with), so I defy you to find the victim in that.

Since you're in the UK, if you travel north a bit you'll eventually cross a border where I am sure you will find a true Scotsman.

Re: victimless crime (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46396057)

What does Scotland have to do with anything?

Re: victimless crime (0)

OzPeter (195038) | about 9 months ago | (#46396093)

What does Scotland have to do with anything?

Because you obviously can't find a True Scotsman in England and you seem to be looking for one.

Re: victimless crime (5, Informative)

ShanghaiBill (739463) | about 9 months ago | (#46396667)

What does Scotland have to do with anything?

Because you obviously can't find a True Scotsman in England and you seem to be looking for one.

I don't see how the "No True Scotsman" logical fallacy applies here. The AC was pointing out that kiddie porn laws (in both the US and UK) are overly broad, and outlaw not only porn involving actual children, but adults posing as children, animation, and even abstract sketches. These laws would make some sense if there was any evidence that such artwork induces behavior that harms children. But no such evidence exists. Pointing that out is not illogical and not a fallacy. It also would not be illogical to point out the "child porn possession" is one of the safest and easiest ways to frame innocent people and destroy their careers.

Re: victimless crime (1)

OzPeter (195038) | about 9 months ago | (#46397413)

I don't see how the "No True Scotsman" logical fallacy applies here.

The OP hasn't kept a constant definition of KP.

Re: victimless crime (2)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about 9 months ago | (#46396797)

What does Scotland have to do with anything?

Uh...have you just quoted official British government policy? ;-)

Re: victimless crime (-1, Troll)

i kan reed (749298) | about 9 months ago | (#46396077)

A lot of times, at least according to the FBI(I know this is the UK, they're just relevant experts), the "drawings" are just photoshop filters on legitimate abuse, and anyone paying for/providing material support to the creator of those images are fostering an environment for more child abuse.

I'm not sure how often that's true, but I've also never heard the assertion meaningfully contested(maybe because researching child porn isn't the smartest idea)

Re: victimless crime (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46396113)

I was thinking more along the lines of naked children in anime, or manga/doujinshi/visual novels containing sexual depicitions. You know, ones where you know full well that they're drawn.

Not photoshopped images of actual children.

Re: victimless crime (1)

i kan reed (749298) | about 9 months ago | (#46396253)

And just to make sure I'm covering my bases here: are a lot of people arrested for that?

Re: victimless crime (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46396337)

I don't have an answer to that on hand.

However, I don't agree with them being illegal.

Re: victimless crime (3, Informative)

ray-auch (454705) | about 9 months ago | (#46397095)

At least one known arrest and conviction, and conviction confirmed on appeal:

https://web.archive.org/web/20... [archive.org]

Of course, that was cartoon based on the Simpsons characters, maybe that's a lot more realistic than your naked children in manga etc....

Re: victimless crime (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46397445)

There's at least one other case where a professional translator got convicted for possessing 'manga'.

Re: victimless crime (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46397269)

Oh, I also remembered this.

They want to make textual depictions illegal. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-19574487 [bbc.co.uk]

So, "It'll be our little secret." whispered Daddy, would be illegal.

Re: victimless crime (-1, Flamebait)

wisnoskij (1206448) | about 9 months ago | (#46396255)

99.99999% of all child porn is either drawn, or pictures teens took themselves for their boyfriends or just for the thrill or because it was sexy but not revealing enough to not get posted on FB.

When people talk about child porn sites, they mean Japanese drawn erotica (Hentai).

And besides, unless you visit a place dedicated to child porn, paying for it or just viewing their ads, it does not stimulate child porn.

Re: victimless crime (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46396441)

Hey, I don't really know about that 99.99999% and I don't think that you do either. Unless you can identify yourself enforcement hotshot I don't believe you. What I do know is that now and then some guy at a day care center gets busted, always for having the real deal, not some hentai pictures, or so new sources and police claim.

Re: victimless crime (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46396471)

How would you like it if I raped your daughter and posted the pictures online?

He wouldn't. So what? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46396503)

Would you like it if I shoved a prickly pair up your ass and decapitated you?

Has nothing to do with anything here, but, hey, you started it.

Re:He wouldn't. So what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46396605)

remember, order is important.

Re: victimless crime (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46396563)

As someone who likes Japanese erotica, we call that aspect of hentai "loli."

And loli is not CP.

Re: victimless crime (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46396995)

It is in the UK

Re: victimless crime (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46397313)

That's because the UK are too stupid and stubborn to realize any differently.

It's like equating first person shooters to actual murder.

Re: victimless crime (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46396641)

99.99999% of all child porn is either drawn, or pictures teens took themselves...

And you know this how?

Re: victimless crime (1)

aevan (903814) | about 9 months ago | (#46397237)

Not validating the 99.9999% but I'd say it's a matter of quantity... Japan churns out so much hentai it would pretty much HAVE to minimise the child porn out there (as a ratio)... and plenty seem to involve drawn children.

Re: victimless crime (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46397309)

When people talk about child porn sites, they mean Japanese drawn erotica (Hentai).

When people talk about child porn sites they are referring to members-only BBS-style forums where photos & videos of children being raped are shared between the members, who are paedophiles. You can find Hentai using Google. Oddly, the criminal underworld isn't easily reachable via Google, nor does it have thumbnails on xvideos.com.

99.99999% of all child porn is either drawn, or pictures teens took themselves for their boyfriends or just for the thrill or because it was sexy but not revealing enough to not get posted on FB.

If this figure is true it's because a large mass of what is technically "child porn" travels by Snapchat and Chat Roulette etc. every day. The percentage doesn't really tell the story about how many children are raped in order to satiate the paedophiles' need for pornography, though.

And besides, unless you visit a place dedicated to child porn, paying for it or just viewing their ads, it does not stimulate child porn.

So broadly, unless you obtain child porn from somewhere, it does not stimulate child porn. I think we can agree on that, although it seems fairly obvious & not worth saying.

Re: victimless crime (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46396583)

The one thing about that, is consent is all based on social and religious law. Rather than science, or human development interests. There is no evidence of children being unable to consent to or it being unhealthy for them to engage in sexual activity.

Its also not scientifically proven to harm their development, but it might harm it if they never learn what sex is or how to engage in it safely and properly...

Re: victimless crime (2)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about 9 months ago | (#46396773)

It seems to me that in many jurisdictions, "possession" is something that can be abused. Hack someone's machine, place files, inform the police. Since "possession" is mostly a passive thing, how often (if ever) does police even attempt to check how the "possession" came into being? Catching someone actually selling or buying controlled or prohibited substances or items is one thing, but what actually happens in real world seems like a slippery slope to me.

Re: victimless crime (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46397005)

Honestly is that a problem with the pictures?
The main problem with child porn is that it gets made (which is when the child gets abused) and there is profit behind it, which gives more reason to make the child porn.

There MAY be some benefits to making free sharing of child porn legal. I say MAY because I don't know and frankly neither does anybody else since its so illegal that we can't study it.

Lets say child porn is legal to distribute in torrent like networks without any way to make money on it (for example forbidden if your site has ads anywhere, even if its for a different part of the site). Now if you have to believe the music industry, this means that there will be no profit left in child porn. So all child porn created for reasons of profit will soon die out. Making a net reduction in harm done to children. Since its all open on the surface, it may also get easier to catch those that actually abuse the children by looking where the uploads come from and following that track. Its probably a lot easier if you have a starting point that isn't interested in hiding.

Further on it might help being able to flag this content. Ever asked yourself what to do if you would find cp on a website you go to? Do you go to the cops and risk them finding it necessary to detain them? Do you just forget about it and hope some internet watch group finds it?

The main problem I could think of that would be worse than today is that the abused children later may more easily see the pictures made of them and get reminded of the emotionally scarring period.

Re:victimless crime (0)

Sique (173459) | about 9 months ago | (#46396025)

Not everyone likes the idea of an image of himself that was taken in an abuse situation being out there and other people masturbating to it.

And not everyone likes the idea that there is a demand for those images which then leads to the abuse in the first place.

As long as sexually abusing children is considered a crime, viewing footage of said abuse for your own satisfaction is not a victimless crime.

Re:victimless crime (4, Insightful)

interkin3tic (1469267) | about 9 months ago | (#46396139)

I don't think laws should be passed based on what victims would like or dislike. That's not exactly the same as justice, the point of laws. In my humble opinion, justice is about preventing people from becoming victims, and trying to make it right when there are victims. People viewing the abuse and masturbating to it isn't the main reason why victims of child porn are victims. It's the abuse, not the viewing, that is the problem.

The second line about creating demand, I also disagree with. Prohibition seems to work only in very limited contexts, like preventing individual citizens from buying material useful for making nuclear weapons. Drugs, porn, sex, alchohol, cigarettes etc, prohibition only seems to increase the value of the stuff that is sold. And, I suppose, prevents the government from profiting off of the sale through taxes, which come to think of it might be an argument in favor of keeping child porn illegal.

Lastly, legalizing the sale or distribution of child porn which is already out there, while coming down extremely hard on the producers could in theory change the economics such that it's no longer profitable to make new child porn.

(Obligatory disclaimer that I'm completely fine with child porn continuing to be completely illegal, just that I think the rationale for it is questionable. My rationale too: I've failed to even convince myself with this post.)

Re:victimless crime (1)

interkin3tic (1469267) | about 9 months ago | (#46396183)

PS. I would be royally pissed if the law were changed right now for this censor. Or if they do change it, censorship like this asshole did should be punishable by death.

Re:victimless crime (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46396221)

I don't think laws should be passed based on what victims would like or dislike.

It's not about like or dislike, but a continuing of the crime and abuse. If you were raped while filmed, you would not have any problem with it being completely legal to spread the movie of your rape on the Internet?

Re:victimless crime (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46396249)

>I don't think laws should be passed based on what victims would like or dislike.

They're not. They're passed based on what David Cameron, Soccer Moms or the Daily Mail dislike.

Re:victimless crime (1)

interkin3tic (1469267) | about 9 months ago | (#46396627)

Good thing all of them like passing laws based on what they like, otherwise the paradox would probably destroy the UK.

Re:victimless crime (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46396199)

Not everyone likes the idea of an image of Mohammed in a mocking situation being out there and other people laughing at it.
And not everyone likes the idea that there is a demand for those images which then leads to the mocking in the first place.

My point being, that just because some people don't like something, doesn't mean it should be illegal.

As long as sexually abusing children is considered a crime, viewing footage of said abuse for your own satisfaction is not a victimless crime.

Surely, by that logic it should also be illegal to view or posess videos of murders caught on CCTV? What about televised police chases? Footage of civil riots? War crimes?

Re:victimless crime (0)

Sique (173459) | about 9 months ago | (#46396615)

Not everyone likes the idea of an image of Mohammed in a mocking situation being out there and other people laughing at it.

That's why I wrote about being abused yourself and having pictures taken and made public. The grand parent called possessing child porn as a victimless crime, which is plainly wrong, as you can clearly see the actual victim in the child porn footage. As Mohammed is long dead, he is not a victim of mocking him now, because this doesn't cause him any psychic distress anymore.

Re:victimless crime (1)

Kjella (173770) | about 9 months ago | (#46397203)

Nobody argues that 9/11 was a victimless crime, but I don't feel that I'm in any way contributing to that crime by watching the footage. I don't think even the jihadists who were celebrating it were doing anything illegal, even though I'm sure the victims and their families strongly disapproved of people cheering for the death of their beloved ones. And the idea that there is a demand for this kind of terror and destruction in the first place. Watching it was victimless. Killing 3000 people obviously wasn't. It only happened once though, no matter how many times they show it in replay. Should these people sue CNN because they're being "revictimzed" every time the footage is shown? Just admit it, the logic is unique and doesn't apply anywhere else.

Re:victimless crime (-1, Troll)

The123king (2395060) | about 9 months ago | (#46396099)

How is the possession or consumption of cocaine a crime at all? That's a victimless crime?!?! Well no, it's not. People get murdered, kidnapped, raped and shot, purely to get that fine white power into Charlie Sheen's sinuses.

Same with Child porn. There's all sorts of psychological damage that can be done by making child porn. Obviously there is times when child porn can be made without hurting the, errr, "actor", but in general, it's not a victimless crime at all.

Just because your part in the chain doesn't actively hurt anybody, doesn't mean your part in the chain isn't actively helping to support rape, kidnap, murder etc. With most "victimless" crimes, it's all about a moral standpoint. Choose your footing wisely, or you might fall off the mountain.

Re:victimless crime (1)

king neckbeard (1801738) | about 9 months ago | (#46396177)

Violence is associated with cocaine largely because of its contraband status. If you remove the crime part of cocaine, you greatly reduce the incidence of victims.

Re:victimless crime (0, Flamebait)

TheRealMindChild (743925) | about 9 months ago | (#46396213)

Have you ever DONE cocaine? Inhibitions go out the window and the chip on ones shoulder becomes the size of an elephant

Re:victimless crime (4, Insightful)

operagost (62405) | about 9 months ago | (#46396227)

Sounds just like alcohol abuse to me.

Re:victimless crime (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46396393)

One major difference though is that there is much less of a hangover with cocaine. Which kind of is a natural "price tag" to an evening of binge drinking, for example, and might go some way to prevent regular abuse. Cokeheads can go on day after day for quite a while -- until their own personality has basically evaporated from under their inflated coke-personae (which are all the same, frankly very annoying, guy).

Anon for obvious reasons.

Re:victimless crime (3, Interesting)

LoRdTAW (99712) | about 9 months ago | (#46396603)

Its different. I never did coke but a friend had a habit for a short time. He described it as having the biggest set of balls on the planet without the drunken haze and motor impairment along with a shit load of energy.

Re:victimless crime (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46396347)

Have you? Many people can control their alcohol intake, just like many can control their cocaine use.
I for one, am much more out of control under the influence of alcohol.
Furthermore, the knowledge that much more alcohol can be consumed without permanently damaging my body convinces me to drink more under the influence of alcohol.
Likewise, the knowledge that a cocaine binge will severely risk my chance of a heart attack/overdose, as well as permanently damage the septum in my nose, prevents me from continuing to use cocaine to a point where my senses become out of tune with reality.

Alcohol is worse, more accessible and much cheaper.

Re:victimless crime (1)

TheCarp (96830) | about 9 months ago | (#46396751)

Yes; and no that didn't happen at all. Actually, the experience was kinda bland. I distinctly remember thinking that a coke habbit would get expensive just in the amount of pot I would need to smoke to relax my jaw.

Overall it was kind of like drinking way too much coffee but a little stronger on the focus, with a little less jitter. It was pretty enjoyable for a little while but nothing I ever went back and did again.

Like anything, I am sure it effects different people differently, I know people who act like you describe from alcohol too.

Re:victimless crime (0)

The123king (2395060) | about 9 months ago | (#46397289)

And child porn isn't a contraband item? Sure, it's much easier to get hold of than cocaine, but it still doesn't negate the fact that there is a lot of suffering and psychological scarring that goes along with the production of child porn. As long as there's paedophiles they'll be child porn, and as long as it is (and rightly should be) illegal to have sexual relations with someone under the age of consent, there will be paedophiles. After all, it's all about supply and demand. Charlie Sheen needs his snow, the pervert at the end of the road needs his fix by perving on the schoolgirls. Both are very much illegal, and both for very good reasons. It's up to you yourself to decide where your morals fall, and which crime is greyer than the other.

Re:victimless crime (0)

PhilHibbs (4537) | about 9 months ago | (#46396187)

How is the possession or consumption of cocaine a crime at all? That's a victimless crime?!?! Well no, it's not. People get murdered, kidnapped, raped and shot, purely to get that fine white power into Charlie Sheen's sinuses. Same with Child porn.

Not same. The cocaine trade only causes that kind of side-effect because it is illegal. Child rape would still happen if child porn were made legal, much much more so in fact. Note that I am agreeing with your conclusion that child porn is bad, but not about the side-issue that you brought in to the discussion about the drug trade.

Re:victimless crime (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46396281)

Child rape would still happen if child porn were made legal, much much more so in fact

(Posting AC due to unpopular facts below.)

Actually, pesky science says says the opposite. CP gives pedophiles an 'outlet' to relieve their sexual tension, and they are less likely to go after actual children.

Of course the children who make that CP are still being abused, so doesn't really work in practice.

Re:victimless crime (1, Insightful)

SpankiMonki (3493987) | about 9 months ago | (#46396501)

(Posting AC due to unpopular facts below.)

Actually, pesky science says says the opposite. CP gives pedophiles an 'outlet' to relieve their sexual tension, and they are less likely to go after actual children.

If you could actually support your statement with some links to that "pesky science" you speak of, you probably wouldn't have to post as AC. Perhaps you wish to remain anonymous because you performed the research yourself? Or maybe you were a test subject?

Re:victimless crime (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46396261)

All of those negatives things associated with obtaining Cocain only even exist because of it's illegal status. Remove that and you'll have people in America sowing Coca seeds in their backyards that same day. No murders. No kidnappings. No rapes. No shootings. Just fine white powder and more people like Charlie Sheen.

Re:victimless crime (1)

Immerman (2627577) | about 9 months ago | (#46396267)

Drugs are a rather different issue - the associated violent crime is pretty much a direct result of being provided through the black market. Legalize the drugs and the violence goes away. Just look at what happened during alcohol prohibition in the US, and how fast the violence dried up after it was repealed.

Child porn (real, not drawn) on the other hand pretty much requires the sexual molestation of a child. We could change the economics by legalizing possession, but unlike drugs the problem isn't the side effects of the black market, it's the act of creation itself.

Re:victimless crime (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46396521)

How is the possession or consumption of cocaine a crime at all? That's a victimless crime?!?! Well no, it's not.

Yes, it is. You must literally be retarded.

Re:victimless crime (3, Insightful)

pehrs (690959) | about 9 months ago | (#46396127)

<quote><p>How is the possession or viewing of child porn a crime at all? I dare someone to prove the harm in possessing/viewing cold porn</p></quote>

There are a lot of problems with many child pornography laws, but there are also very good cases to be made for banning possession and viewing of it.

1. If there is a market for child pornography there is a stronger incentive to abuse children. People will produce more of it where it is actually legal to produce (or the legal system is too weak to stop it).

2. There is a strong stigma connected to being presented in pornography. This stigma and the associated injury does not decrease with time. Those who have experienced it describe it as a form of constant, ongoing, abuse that they have to live with their whole life. While you may not mind people jacking off to pictures of children, it is not something the children in the picture can consent to.

Re:victimless crime (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46396405)

1. If there is a market for child pornography there is a stronger incentive to abuse children. People will produce more of it where it is actually legal to produce (or the legal system is too weak to stop it).

Except there already is a market, otherwise there wouldn't be a problem. All that making it illegal does is drive the market (more) underground and probably increase the prices (and therefore financial incentives) for the pedellers. If people could get their rocks off without having a real child in front of them (rather, an old photo or cartoon, or whatever), perhaps the actual incidents of abuse would drop?
It seems to me that most politicians are more concerned with hiding the symptoms than stopping the problem.

But that speaks nothing to the theory that exposure leads to escalation.

Re:victimless crime (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46397193)

You are implying that producing child pornography is always abuse. Following that logic if someone masturbates over a children's swimwear catalogue those children were abused. That doesn't seem right.

There are mainstream films featuring child nudity. They are not generally considered to be child abuse, even if some people may gain sexual gratification from them. I submit that it is possible to make child pornography without actually abusing the subject. Indeed, in the case of actors who were paid there would seem to be a great benefit to them.

I don't buy your argument about stigma either. Will Wheaton gets a lot of abuse for playing a shit character in a beloved TV show, and I'm sure many other irritating child stars do to. On the other hand it doesn't seem to have harmed the careers of others, including Brooke Sheilds who famously appeared nude as a child in a mainstream film and subsequently in magazines.

Re:victimless crime (1)

wisnoskij (1206448) | about 9 months ago | (#46396179)

Half the law book is victimless crimes, so what is your point?

Re:victimless crime (2)

Gunboat_Diplomat (3390511) | about 9 months ago | (#46396287)

How is the possession or viewing of child porn a crime at all? I dare someone to prove the harm in possessing/viewing cold porn

If you were a victim of child abuse, you wouldn't find anything wrong with movies of that abuse being legally distributed for peoples pleasure?

Re:victimless crime (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46396579)

There isn't much to do to stop it from being exchanged by sick fucks on internet. Only the retarded ones get caught.
OTOH, if it was legal to distribute it, I think victims of abuse would have a big problem if some people started profitting by legally distributing images of their abuse...

Re:victimless crime (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46397067)

The subject of a movie has legal recourse to prevent the distribution of that movie, if only on copyright grounds (see the recent court order that YouTube take down "Innocence of Muslims").

let me guess (4, Funny)

Chrisq (894406) | about 9 months ago | (#46396101)

he was just testing the filters!

Someone has to be looking for child porn (1)

PhilHibbs (4537) | about 9 months ago | (#46396125)

Is it possible to make something illegal if you don't know what it is? How can you fight something if you don't know how widespread it is? How do you find something if you don't try to look for it? If the law requires child porn blocking, then someone has to be trawling the internet actively looking for child porn in order to know what to block. I wouldn't wish that job on anyone.

Re:Someone has to be looking for child porn (1)

cdrudge (68377) | about 9 months ago | (#46396273)

I don't know. Police officers generally tend to know that drugs are illegal and enforce such laws that make them illegal without possessing a stockpile of them at their personal desk and/or at their home. They don't have to "research" the drugs by physically possessing them outside of an operational or laboratory (aka non-official) setting.

The same thing can be said for just about any illegal activity. You don't have to actively go out and find it to learn about it. You don't have to murder, beat, or rape to know that the actions are illegal to craft a law against them. Or to speed in a car, launder money, or commit tax fraud...although those last ones are probably bad examples as I'm sure many politicians are practicing experts in those areas...

Re:Someone has to be looking for child porn (1)

Gadget_Guy (627405) | about 9 months ago | (#46396477)

But the police don't actually make the laws, so they don't need to do the research. And besides, the police have had plenty of drugs in their possession over the years, and they have actively sent officers out to buy drugs to gather evidence against dealers.

Now I don't know whether this is a case of downloading a few pictures to test the filtering system (or to work out how easy it was to do), or whether this was a large stockpile that went beyond any notion of research. But frankly, if anyone could possibly use the old "research" excuse it would have to be someone that actually had a need to do research.

And I say that as someone totally opposed to any form of widespread internet filtering.

Re:Someone has to be looking for child porn (1)

X0563511 (793323) | about 9 months ago | (#46396485)

We're talking about enforcement.

You have to find it to enforce against it. You don't just know that Joe is a drug dealer. Fortunately it's not a crime to see a drug, or to look at it, or to know that it (that specific instance, not the concept) exists. This is not really the case with CP; but that said police generally don't get hung up on that. It would be stupid if they were.

Now in this case, it's even less the case with "enforcements" like filtering - someone has to program the filters. AI might be making large strides recently, but it's nowhere near advanced enough to make such subjective judgements without a human operator feeding in data - data which is Verboten in this case. These human operators won't have such flexibility like the police enjoy - not unless it is granted. So, unless they are explicitly protected, they cannot perform their duty without violating laws.

Re:Someone has to be looking for child porn (1)

Errol backfiring (1280012) | about 9 months ago | (#46396569)

Is it possible to make something illegal if you don't know what it is?

Sure, you don't have to become a murderer to catch murderers.

You can test almost any software with mock data. In fact, such data may be a by far better test as it is composed of things that are on the edge of being problematic..

Re:Someone has to be looking for child porn (1)

PopeRatzo (965947) | about 9 months ago | (#46396893)

Is it possible to make something illegal if you don't know what it is? How can you fight something if you don't know how widespread it is? How do you find something if you don't try to look for it?

My goodness, you actually believe that the UK's net filter actually has something to do with child porn?

 

It's not fair (2)

FilmedInNoir (1392323) | about 9 months ago | (#46396157)

This guy was controlling the internet for an entire country, and when I added Porn Expert to *my* resume, I didn't even get a call back.

Slashdot has a UK bias (-1, Flamebait)

operagost (62405) | about 9 months ago | (#46396209)

Seriously, Slashdot. Why should the the rest of the world care what happens on some Downy Street or whatever?

Re:Slashdot has a UK bias (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46396321)

Because CP is clickbait and they haven't done a CP article in a few weeks.

Why is this not a surprise? (3, Insightful)

Required Snark (1702878) | about 9 months ago | (#46396233)

It's a common pattern. Someone has a dark secret and they end up persecuting those who have the same impulses. They simultaneously engage in behavior they see as evil while doing the same thing themselves. It's why we continuously hear about virulent ant-gay politicians and religious leaders who have a secret gay life. Just look for the people who are screaming loudly about a specific sin, and there you will find a greater then average concentration of sinners.

Re:Why is this not a surprise? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46396869)

Yeah. You'd think straight guys would be happy if gay guys went for gay guys rather than girls or even got married to each other rather than marrying girls.

Better odds for the straight guys after all!

As for the lesbians, we don't really care about the ugly ones, and somehow we don't mind watching the pretty ones making out...

Is that not the truth?

Let's make this interesting. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46396235)

I have a new proposal.

Any politican, politicians aide, or other government employee, who puts forth legislation suggesting the censorship of any aspect of the Internet, is required to have all of their usable technology, both public and private, scanned for content currently illegal under the law. It seems as if those who are the 'watchers and gatekeepers' to this sort of censorship, are often the worse offenders.

Never happen, but it's pleasant to think about.

Interesting . . . (1)

Kimomaru (2579489) | about 9 months ago | (#46396245)

Is this, like, "You need a thief to catch a thief"?

This is messed up.

Re:Interesting . . . (1)

Pino Grigio (2232472) | about 9 months ago | (#46396559)

He's innocent until proven guilty, regardless of whether or not he resigned. And a little more circumspection would be nice. I know there's "no smoke without fire", but both I, you and everyone else here knows how easy it is for something explicit to land on your drive without you having any idea where it came from. We try to defend against it but we're not always successful. I also wouldn't rule out foul play here, as the Police seem to be all too eager to stitch-up Cabinet Ministers with lies and false representations as we know from "Plebgate".

Re:Interesting . . . (1)

Kimomaru (2579489) | about 9 months ago | (#46396655)

Isn't it Guilty Until Proven Innocent in the UK? Or is it France?

Re:Interesting . . . (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46396701)

That is France. The US justice system is based upon UK common law, with the concepts of innocent until proven guilty, trial by jury etc.

Re:Interesting . . . (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46396729)

I was under the impression that it was Innocent until randomly accused Guilty by the Daily Mail?

Re:Interesting . . . (3, Informative)

Eunuchswear (210685) | about 9 months ago | (#46397103)

That is France.

No, it isn't:

Article IX

Tout homme étant présumé innocent jusqu’à ce qu’il ait été déclaré coupable, s’il est jugé indispensable de l’arrêter, toute rigueur qui ne serait pas nécessaire pour s’assurer de sa personne, doit être sévèrement réprimée par la Loi.

Re:Interesting . . . (1)

whoever57 (658626) | about 9 months ago | (#46396713)

Isn't it Guilty Until Proven Innocent in the UK? Or is it France?

No, and no.

Re:Interesting . . . (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46397021)

Yeah but this is Cameron-related. Police love Cameron so they won't set him up.

Re:Interesting . . . (2)

mrbester (200927) | about 9 months ago | (#46397377)

Innocent *unless* proven guilty. "Until" implies that you are guilty (before the fact), but you haven't been caught yet.

Re:Interesting . . . (1)

Pino Grigio (2232472) | about 9 months ago | (#46397461)

Well spotted.

Just proves the anticensorship case. (3, Insightful)

John Allsup (987) | about 9 months ago | (#46396269)

A perfect child-porn filter that only filters child porn would be wonderful, but that is fairy magic.
In reality we cannot trust those who wish to filter our internet, and this is why.
There is no substitute for proper discipline and compassion in upbringing.
Being forced to learn to fight crudely at school to protect myself (and fight my own battles) has caused me crippling psychiatric issues in adulthood.
Being forced to porn act to make daddy money (this did NOT happen to me) is an even worse evil.
Children need to grow, learn and play, and be free from influences such as sexuality and violence, but must be taught proper discipline about both so that as they reach maturity these things are no longer a fascination and do not cause the grown up child to turn to unhealthy sex and violence as a crutch. Society needs fixing.

Re:Just proves the anticensorship case. (1)

RobertLTux (260313) | about 9 months ago | (#46396495)

One thing that would help is to strictly define Child Porn so that fathers/mothers/guardians of children can take pictures of Stuff without getting tagged for CP.

a suggestion a given image is to be considered Child Porn if

1 it has no clinical ,artistic or historical value
OR
2 the subject of the picture is completely Nude (to include pics with trivial clothing and exclude bathing pictures)

AND/OR One or more of
1 The subject is engaging in sexual activity or being used as a prop/toy for sexual activity
2 The subject is being otherwise abused

add the clause that Created or Fictional Children are also covered in the same way and things should be set correctly

(i do find it odd that the main Anti-CP rep seems to like "Candi" himself)

Re:Just proves the anticensorship case. (1)

Luckyo (1726890) | about 9 months ago | (#46397197)

Nothing new there actually. A lot of the most rabid anti gay campaigners come out of the closet as gay later in their lives.

It seems that wWhen people feel a strong desire for something and are forced to suppress it because they see it as necessary to live a life they think/are conditioned to think they want to live, they tend to lash out against those who live the kind of life they actually desire to live deep down.

Re:Just proves the anticensorship case. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46397201)

Children need to grow, learn and play, and be free from influences such as sexuality and violence

Why? What's wrong with teaching children about sexuality and violence as they grow? What is it about sexuality that makes it so verboten to discuss among children? Adults very often treat sex as "just a bit of fun", so why is it suddenly so serious when it comes to children? Why is sex considered so much more dangerous for children than, say, going swimming or climbing trees?

Re:Just proves the anticensorship case. (1)

amalcolm (1838434) | about 9 months ago | (#46397453)

Unwanted pregnancy, emotional damage, STDs to name but a few

"Lead by example" (1)

Tukz (664339) | about 9 months ago | (#46396315)

Yeah, right...

"I can't define pornography... (3, Funny)

swschrad (312009) | about 9 months ago | (#46396373)

"but I know it when I see it," says the US Supreme Court. Rock is obviously a diligent researcher...

too much... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46396587)

Too much 'thinking of the kids'

Rock and a hard place (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46396635)

Well, if you are a child-porn-using government official and your boss asks you to work on anti-internet-porn rules, are you going to tell your boss "Sir, I know this is important, but I'm really not the best person to work on this project. May I recommend [co-worker's name], I think he would be good for this assignment"?

If your boss insisted that you do it, would you resign rather than work on a task in which you clearly have such a conflict of interest which would be useless to disclose (i.e. if you disclosed it, you would be fired anyways)?

I would ask if you would wake up and smell the coffee and quit using child porn, but for the sake of argument let's assume the answer to that is "no."

Karma (3, Funny)

korbulon (2792438) | about 9 months ago | (#46396645)

What goes around comes around. No, wait...

I mean: He got his comeuppance.... NO!

Er, that is to say: For every action there is an equal and opposite erection... ah fuck it.

Always the same (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46396649)

Wanna find some perverts? Just look at those taling about morality 24/7.

Do as I say ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46396913)

No as I do.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?