If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CNN)   Common wisdom: No one can erase ALL porn from the Internet. Google: Challenge accepted   (cnn.com) divider line 86
    More: Interesting, internet, Google, Exploited Children, search algorithms, challenge accepted, child pornography  
•       •       •

6542 clicks; posted to Geek » on 17 Jun 2013 at 1:59 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



86 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-06-17 03:07:14 PM

grumpyguru: All I got out of it was google's holding a db of child porn images and is willing to share it with anyone who pretends to care about child safety... =/


Actually it says they have the fingerprints, which is probably the MD5 sums (or similar) for image files (or zips or whatever) of files that have previously been identified as CP. I guess it could be something more advanced (as these sorts of hashes change completely even with trivial/non visible/minor changes to the image), but generally it won't be the entire image being stored.
 
2013-06-17 03:09:44 PM

meanmutton: Kyosuke: BafflerMeal: meanmutton: Kyosuke: I have yet to see in any conversation on this subject who exactly gets to define "child porn."

Oh, that one is easy: The US Supreme Court.  As most of the Internet is run through the United States, US law is what trumps everything.  The US Congress passed a few laws regarding what is and isn't child porn; the US Supreme Court gutted them, and we're left with a very basic definition: It's pictures or videos of actual people under the age of 18 engaged in sex acts.

Some details:
Congress passed:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_Pornography_Prevention_Act_of_199 6
Which was then presented to the Supreme Court in:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashcroft_v._Free_Speech_Coalition
And then Congress passed:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_Online_Protection_Act
Which was then presented to the Supreme Court in:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashcroft_v._American_Civil_Liberties_Un io n

So, it comes down to being pictures or videos of individuals under the age of 18 actually engaging in sex acts.


Also included in 'sex acts':  nudity.  There does not need to be any literal sex acts.

So, pictures of your own children in the bathtub. Great.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashcroft_v._Free_Speech_Coalition  says this is untrue.



That is technically correct, best kind in fact.  However there is gap between what SCOTUS rules and how the US writ large prosecutes and destroys lives:

http://blog.sfgate.com/sfmoms/2009/09/21/are-bath-time-photos-child- po rnography/

I also know personally people who have been railroaded into the standard fed plea bargain system over non-sexual, under 18 images.

While SCOTUS may be the supreme court of the land, generally speaking one needs lots of money and time to use it's rulings.
 
2013-06-17 03:10:40 PM

xria: grumpyguru: All I got out of it was google's holding a db of child porn images and is willing to share it with anyone who pretends to care about child safety... =/

Actually it says they have the fingerprints, which is probably the MD5 sums (or similar) for image files (or zips or whatever) of files that have previously been identified as CP. I guess it could be something more advanced (as these sorts of hashes change completely even with trivial/non visible/minor changes to the image), but generally it won't be the entire image being stored.



This is correct.  This is how the fed links photos to past known cases.
 
2013-06-17 03:18:39 PM

BafflerMeal: I also know personally people who have been railroaded into the standard fed plea bargain system over non-sexual, under 18 images.


Seriously, dude? Like, are you in a cult or something?
 
2013-06-17 03:19:56 PM
They want to erase all child porn, or just keep it all for themselves?
 
2013-06-17 03:21:12 PM
I'm using DuckDuckGo. What is Google?
 
2013-06-17 03:22:08 PM
I dunno. As much as I use their stuff, as far as I'm concerned Google can include or leave out whatever it wants in its searches and results. If I start to find better results with Clusty or some other engine, I'll start using those.

Google is well on its way to being too big for its own good, anyway. Who wants a driverless car that reports where and when you go places just so they can sell your name to McDonalds when they determine you keep going to Burger King?
 
2013-06-17 03:25:26 PM

meanmutton: So, it comes down to being pictures or videos of individuals under the age of 18 actually engaging in sex acts.


Drawing of fictional characters whose fictional backstory says they are of age but they appear to be underage have been considered child porn. Television shows where an minors engage in sex acts, but in their underwear, have been considered ok. It's not as clear cut as it should be.

BafflerMeal: Also included in 'sex acts': nudity. There does not need to be any literal sex acts.

 
2013-06-17 03:51:47 PM

jonny_q: meanmutton: So, it comes down to being pictures or videos of individuals under the age of 18 actually engaging in sex acts.

Drawing of fictional characters whose fictional backstory says they are of age but they appear to be underage have been considered child porn.


CPPA tried to make that illegal.  Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition threw out the law.
 
2013-06-17 03:54:45 PM

xria: grumpyguru: All I got out of it was google's holding a db of child porn images and is willing to share it with anyone who pretends to care about child safety... =/

Actually it says they have the fingerprints, which is probably the MD5 sums (or similar) for image files (or zips or whatever) of files that have previously been identified as CP. I guess it could be something more advanced (as these sorts of hashes change completely even with trivial/non visible/minor changes to the image), but generally it won't be the entire image being stored.


I read something on this awhile ago. There is some central gov agency (can't recall the name) that has an enormous collection of child porn images. They compute simple hashes (such as MD5) and more complex visual feature fingerprints (they currently use Microsoft's algorithm) and send those small fingerprints out to ISPs etc. who "voluntarily" scan images. When a fingerprint matches I presume the image is sent to the gov agency for confirmation. Access to the actual huge db of porn is very limited.

Google uses a similar feature fingerprinting technique for its reverse image search. This allows it to overcome differences in format, image size, resolution etc. I've been quite impressed by reverse GIS. It will give matches for some degree of image alterations and croppings and I once used it to find the source of a rather blurred poster shown on a wall by cropping out the poster and searching from that.

For example a reverse GIS on the Fark squirrel turns up this photoshop entry:

img.photobucket.com

All the features extracted and used in a reveres GIS are encoded in its URL, which Fark won't let me link to, but the amount of info is fairly small. For one version of the Fark squirrel here is the encoding of the features used:

https://www.google.com/search?tbs=sbi:AMhZZis7WWLb6lxmSqAEvP1UV1shK2t A dqDVkBblNQHu-AjyLtyrWJvA8C4DAyomRjw_1IU3q1XdjIZ7MJgAKqfEu7lh4vao54FKXh VckEx4VBZ5qw45YgQV3I8cKpk_1b9K_1WS6NnUwJNISAWpQpfj-JFfBv1vrfOQ-j9rbtI9 g18iJxYhA0lc0cNtNIWxHkM3AC7yfXfXKPYv90bywLwPrFNEAXPXXvW5y4xjb1eL1Ee96Q LYezG0iNfyP-rI9rEg7vzL6iF7FYo&ei=DWK_UeOCKLeq4AOuoYCwAg&biw=981&bih=51 4
 
2013-06-17 04:08:54 PM
You could delete it all, but to do it, you'd have to delete everything. Even the stuff you don't think qualifies as porn, because the flip side of Rule 34 is that for any given thing on the Internet, someone will use it as porn. No exceptions.

/yes, even this post
//hot, hot punctuation action
 
2013-06-17 04:13:19 PM

TuteTibiImperes: jehovahs witness protection: Relatively Obscure: R.A.Danny: Finding one less titty on the internet is not an infringement on your rights.

Woah, woah.

I don't want any one-titted women in my porn, SIR.

Why not?
[denver.metromix.com image 247x370]

Is that to balance out the chick from Total Recall?  Is that a lesser known law of physics, universal conservation of tits?

/Also, GISing 'one titted woman' led to this (NSFW and the most WTF thing I've seen in a while)


Which one of you assholes showed the conservatives how to use Photoshop?
 
2013-06-17 04:24:37 PM

R.A.Danny: Voiceofreason01: R.A.Danny: We tend to bristle at the government censoring things. That isn't what is happening here.

It's not better when Google censors things. I'm fine with child porn being removed from the internet. What bothers me is that the technology that Google is creating and refining could easily be used to spy on anybody or censor anything.

Finding one less titty on the internet is not an infringement on your rights.


NAY! I draw the line. This far, and no farther. Have at thee!
 
2013-06-17 04:28:57 PM

R.A.Danny: We tend to bristle at the government censoring things. That isn't what is happening here.


Because letting a small group that is not represented by citizens  deciding what we have access to is much better then letting a group that is actually represented by citizens decide?

That makes no sense.
 
2013-06-17 04:33:48 PM

Corvus: R.A.Danny: We tend to bristle at the government censoring things. That isn't what is happening here.

Because letting a small group that is not represented by citizens  deciding what we have access to is much better then letting a group that is actually represented by citizens decide?

That makes no sense.


The "small group" doesn't have force of law, nor even of monopoly. Use another search engine. There are lots of them.
 
2013-06-17 04:33:57 PM

Corvus: R.A.Danny: We tend to bristle at the government censoring things. That isn't what is happening here.

Because letting a small group that is not represented by citizens  deciding what we have access to is much better then letting a group that is actually represented by citizens decide?

That makes no sense.


Who owns the internet
 
2013-06-17 04:36:49 PM

R.A.Danny: Voiceofreason01: R.A.Danny: We tend to bristle at the government censoring things. That isn't what is happening here.

It's not better when Google censors things. I'm fine with child porn being removed from the internet. What bothers me is that the technology that Google is creating and refining could easily be used to spy on anybody or censor anything.

Finding one less titty on the internet is not an infringement on your rights.


I'm all in favor of scrubbing kiddie porn from the internet, or better yet tracking its producers to where they live and nailing them legally-but, I have noticed an uncomfortably puritanical streak in Google of late that I am not liking.  Their change to GIS that makes it impossible to turn off safe search unless you are logged in, for instance, or thier ban of porn apps from Google glass.   I Don't care especially, except that it reflects a sort of creeping Neo-puritanism from the people I would least expect it from
 
2013-06-17 04:43:07 PM

R.A.Danny: Voiceofreason01: R.A.Danny: We tend to bristle at the government censoring things. That isn't what is happening here.

It's not better when Google censors things. I'm fine with child porn being removed from the internet. What bothers me is that the technology that Google is creating and refining could easily be used to spy on anybody or censor anything.

Finding one less titty on the internet is not an infringement on your rights.


1- yes it is, it is an infringement on my right to look at tits

2- what happens when this is applied to other "offensive" things?
 
2013-06-17 04:53:12 PM
So now the child porn hosters will just run scripts every few hours to tweak their images juuuust enough to not match the hash.

For a while they had skin tone filters, but that was nabbing sumo wrestlers.

I hate to break it to them, but about all you can do is keep it restricted to the dark web.  At least it isn't laying around willy nilly like it used to be on usenet.  Heck it probably still is on usenet but you would have to be a complete imbecile to pay for usenet with your credit card and download anything illicit.
 
2013-06-17 04:55:52 PM

Magorn: Their change to GIS that makes it impossible to turn off safe search unless you are logged in, for instance, or thier ban of porn apps from Google glass.


My point here is that it is their company. You can find smut with Yahoo.
 
2013-06-17 04:56:36 PM
No snark, just curious: what's to stop people from altering the images such that the hash changes?  Even a subtle way, such as shopping a secondary image in?
 
2013-06-17 04:58:10 PM
A: Nothing in the article says "all" porn, subby.
B: $5 million? Wow, hope Google doesn't go bankrupt sowing how concerned they are.
C: Nobody involved in this story seems to understand what is happening here. The author doesn't seem to understand his own words. Google isn't looking to "scrub the web" of kiddie porn, they are working on tagging images so that those images can be tracked, and they are looking to help other organizations who are the ones trying to "scrub" the web. Google is looking to just be one cog in this wheel.
D: Google is worrying me on the whole porn thing overall, they seem to be wanting to dictate morality a little bit at a time here. The kiddie porn thing is a no-brainer, but they seem to want even legit porn to be harder to search for.
 
2013-06-17 04:59:01 PM
If only child porn had a gun to protect himself
 
2013-06-17 06:13:43 PM
Wait until states start asking Google to block information on abortion.
 
2013-06-17 06:16:16 PM
Abortion!!

Cut it out!

(idea for a T-shirt)
 
2013-06-17 06:16:59 PM
Sex!

do it for the Children.
 
2013-06-17 07:20:50 PM

Linux_Yes: Abortion!!

Cut it out!

(idea for a T-shirt)


She wants an abortion?  Hanger.

/sorry, everyone.
 
2013-06-17 07:27:47 PM

Voiceofreason01: R.A.Danny: Voiceofreason01: R.A.Danny: We tend to bristle at the government censoring things. That isn't what is happening here.

It's not better when Google censors things. I'm fine with child porn being removed from the internet. What bothers me is that the technology that Google is creating and refining could easily be used to spy on anybody or censor anything.

Finding one less titty on the internet is not an infringement on your rights.

What if President Santorum decides that you shouldn't be able to see any titties on the internet? Or let's say and unscrupulous administration or stupid congress don't like certain political speech? That's OK, just put in a phone call to Google. Or how about Google decides to back a certain political party or candidate, what's to stop them from making it difficult or impossible to find information on those people? Like I said I don't have a problem with child porn being censored or it's producers prosecuted. What does bother me is that this technology would be ridiculously easy to abuse.


Careful there, your tinfoil hat appears to be a bit too tight.
 
2013-06-17 08:53:34 PM
Google is buying Fakeblock?
 
2013-06-17 10:36:10 PM
And now I have to go explain to IT why I clicked a link with "child porn" in the URL. Thanks a goddamn bunch.
 
2013-06-17 10:43:44 PM

Gunther: And now I have to go explain to IT why I clicked a link with "child porn" in the URL. Thanks a goddamn bunch.


Unless CNN starts to display child pornography on their site I am pretty sure that the IT department will care.
 
2013-06-17 11:17:51 PM
Making excuses why they should be scaning through your email not the billions they make in advertising
 
Xai
2013-06-18 08:07:22 AM
I would love to see the job position this creates.

Recruiting; Search engineer capable of accurately identifying hardcore porn of underage children. Right applicant will have many years experience in viewing child abuse images and have an extensive knowledge of underage sex. Position involves long periods of working alone, will need to be self-motivated and have excellent stamina.
 
2013-06-18 08:21:38 AM

Xai: I would love to see the job position this creates.

Recruiting; Search engineer capable of accurately identifying hardcore porn of underage children. Right applicant will have many years experience in viewing child abuse images and have an extensive knowledge of underage sex. Position involves long periods of working alone, will need to be self-motivated and have excellent stamina.


Does that include a Kleenex endorsement?
 
2013-06-18 09:39:59 AM
The problem with this database is all you have to do is change one RM to CP (how Ironic!) and instead of deleting all the child porn on the net, you are collecting it.

With a different database, you would be able to scrub any other pictures from the web you like. Just throw the hash in the database.

/Google Streisand
 
2013-06-18 11:23:03 AM
Has anyone mentioned how this is really scary because Google is the only search engine on the planet?
 
Displayed 36 of 86 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report