Do you have adblock enabled?
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  
•       •       •

6543 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
 
2013-06-17 12:17:06 PM  
On the one hand child abuse is a terrible thing but on the other censorship in any form is a very dangerous thing. I'm not sure how I feel about this.
 
2013-06-17 12:23:41 PM  

Voiceofreason01: On the one hand child abuse is a terrible thing but on the other censorship in any form is a very dangerous thing. I'm not sure how I feel about this.


We already censor child porn.  We just suck at it.
 
2013-06-17 12:25:31 PM  

Relatively Obscure: Voiceofreason01: On the one hand child abuse is a terrible thing but on the other censorship in any form is a very dangerous thing. I'm not sure how I feel about this.

We already censor child porn.  We just suck at it.


and we have the first of many responses from people who did not read the article.
 
2013-06-17 12:26:59 PM  

Voiceofreason01: Relatively Obscure: Voiceofreason01: On the one hand child abuse is a terrible thing but on the other censorship in any form is a very dangerous thing. I'm not sure how I feel about this.

We already censor child porn.  We just suck at it.

and we have the first of many responses from people who did not read the article.


Reading is for nerds.
 
2013-06-17 12:27:18 PM  

Voiceofreason01: On the one hand child abuse is a terrible thing but on the other censorship in any form is a very dangerous thing. I'm not sure how I feel about this.


Google is already complicit in removing allegedly infringing (but legal) content from search results just on the basis of DMCA claims, with no oversight or review to see if said content is actually fair use or not before removal.
 
2013-06-17 12:29:16 PM  

Voiceofreason01: On the one hand child abuse is a terrible thing but on the other censorship in any form is a very dangerous thing. I'm not sure how I feel about this.


We tend to bristle at the government censoring things. That isn't what is happening here.
 
2013-06-17 12:34:30 PM  

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.
 
2013-06-17 12:39:05 PM  

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.
 
2013-06-17 12:41:00 PM  

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.
 
2013-06-17 12:41:35 PM  
... Or DO I?

/...
//*Google*
 
2013-06-17 12:49:56 PM  

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
 
2013-06-17 12:51:21 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.


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.
 
2013-06-17 12:55:31 PM  

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)
 
2013-06-17 01:03:15 PM  

Voiceofreason01: On the one hand child abuse is a terrible thing but on the other censorship in any form is a very dangerous thing. I'm not sure how I feel about this.


I assume they arent actually removing anything from the net so much as revising what one can access with their search engine. It may be censorship, but it's their right. They already remove stuff that presumably violates copyright.

/if it bothers you, use a censor free porn engine?
//would have been ok not clicking a link about child porn...thanks for the heads up, subby
 
2013-06-17 01:04:05 PM  
After a week of WTF is the NSA doing?
Then Google working on a program to censor all the kiddie porn. (i dare you to find something more offensive, and thus shiatloads of popular support).

Seems like google already learned a lot on how to find any information, anywhere, on anyone.

this doesn't disturb anyone?

/hail our corporate overlords.
 
2013-06-17 01:26:49 PM  

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.


Well, I read the article (unlike a lot of people it seems) and they are not arbitrarily finding child porn and nuking it. FTA:

Recently, Google has begun using "fingerprinting" of child sex-abuse images, Fuller said. It will help law enforcement, Web companies and advocates find and remove the images, as well as prosecute the people who posted them, Google says.
 
2013-06-17 01:35:02 PM  
I have yet to see in any conversation on this subject who exactly gets to define "child porn."
 
2013-06-17 01:59:16 PM  
Umm, Subby? What does it say about you when the article says Google wants to get rid of child porn and you interpret that as Google trying to get rid of all porn?

/Chris Hansen wants you to take a seat.
 
2013-06-17 02:01:58 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)


Damn, that is funny as hell. I kinda of scared of the mind that created it though.
 
2013-06-17 02:03:37 PM  

Voiceofreason01: On the one hand child abuse is a terrible thing but on the other censorship in any form is a very dangerous thing. I'm not sure how I feel about this.


Yeah.

I'm of two minds about this.

Child Porn = Bad.
Govt or Corp Censorship = Bad.
 
2013-06-17 02:07:27 PM  
Google says it will spend ... $2 million to research more effective ways to find [child porn] images.

That's all I took from this.
 
2013-06-17 02:12:30 PM  

Virtual Pariah: Voiceofreason01: On the one hand child abuse is a terrible thing but on the other censorship in any form is a very dangerous thing. I'm not sure how I feel about this.

Yeah.

I'm of two minds about this.

Child Porn = Bad.
Govt or Corp Censorship = Bad.


The censorship comes with a free frogurt!
 
2013-06-17 02:12:57 PM  
www.geekfill.com
/hot
 
2013-06-17 02:13:13 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?

Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition
and  Roth v. United States say that he can't do that.

Or let's say and unscrupulous administration or stupid congress don't like certain political speech?

That whole 1st Amendment to the Constitution thing right there.

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?

They're still a business that wants to make money.  Doing this would destroy the company.

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.
 
2013-06-17 02:15:09 PM  

Klaumbaz: Seems like google already learned a lot on how to find any information, anywhere, on anyone.

this doesn't disturb anyone?


Ought it? That's the entire reason for Google's existence, and their primary product. I'm not particularly disturbed by Ford making cars.

Like any technology, search can be used for good or evil, and trying to un-invent and/or prevent such technology from being invented isn't going to work.
 
2013-06-17 02:18:03 PM  
Even though it has nothing to do with the content of the article: has anyone noticed that even with SafeSearch off, Google is completely useless for porn anymore? I'm talking the regular kind that the completely pointless and misleading title that Subby gave this article refers to. Do the same search on Yahoo and you're like, "hey! There's the results Google used to give me!"
 
2013-06-17 02:18:44 PM  

Burr: Virtual Pariah: Voiceofreason01: On the one hand child abuse is a terrible thing but on the other censorship in any form is a very dangerous thing. I'm not sure how I feel about this.

Yeah.

I'm of two minds about this.

Child Porn = Bad.
Govt or Corp Censorship = Bad.

The censorship comes with a free frogurt!


That's Good.
 
2013-06-17 02:19:03 PM  
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... =/
 
2013-06-17 02:21:48 PM  

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


They mention fingerprinting, so I assume they're comparing against the Official Database of Known Kiddie Porn (tm) (I forget the real name). I also assume the tech improvements they're working on are still in the area of finding these 'known' images even if they're edited / cropped / whatever.

Maybe they're working on algorithmically differentiating naked 6-year-olds from naked adults, and/or porn from nonsexual nudity. That seems awfully hard, but it's Google...
 
2013-06-17 02:26:40 PM  

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


I guess it comes down to how their fingerprinting algorithm is trained, and even then....
Jacobellis v. Ohio (1964)
The most famous opinion from Jacobellis, however, was Justice Potter Stewart's concurrence, holding that the Constitution protected all obscenity except "hard-core pornography." Stewart wrote, "I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it..."
 
2013-06-17 02:27:18 PM  
I'm wondering how many "hits" this thread is accumulating

/silly govt lurkers
 
2013-06-17 02:29:40 PM  

Anonymous Bosch: Even though it has nothing to do with the content of the article: has anyone noticed that even with SafeSearch off, Google is completely useless for porn anymore? I'm talking the regular kind that the completely pointless and misleading title that Subby gave this article refers to. Do the same search on Yahoo and you're like, "hey! There's the results Google used to give me!"


add the keyword 'porn'
 
2013-06-17 02:31:59 PM  

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.
 
2013-06-17 02:32:46 PM  

Anonymous Bosch: Even though it has nothing to do with the content of the article: has anyone noticed that even with SafeSearch off, Google is completely useless for porn anymore? I'm talking the regular kind that the completely pointless and misleading title that Subby gave this article refers to. Do the same search on Yahoo and you're like, "hey! There's the results Google used to give me!"


No.... Google finds lots of naked people. Just googling "porn" brings the nakedness on. Maybe someone is censoring your internet feed.
 
2013-06-17 02:33:47 PM  

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.
 
2013-06-17 02:34:39 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... =/


No, they are not. No one is that stupid, as I'm sure you're well aware simple possession is a crime.

What they're doing is creating a database of file hashes that identify images known to be illegal. This makes it easier to find duplicates of those images without actually LOOKING at pictures all day and also gives them a starting point for a much larger and comprehensive database in the future.

That said, I'm no fan of censorship in any form - especially automated. I'm even less of a fan of the kiddy porn though, so this is a tough call. I'm tempted to simply say two wrongs can sometimes make a right, but beware the expense..
 
2013-06-17 02:36:12 PM  
All I'll say is good luck.

Like others I'm of two minds. No one wants to support child pornography (well, almost no one) but at the same time I don't want Google deciding what can and cannot be accessed online.

And in the end it probably wont work. Someone somewhere will figure out a work-around and the web will continue to be flooded with porn, a very slim margin of which will be child porn. My advice if you're going to trade child porn is: Don't get caught.

/Same as it ever was and ever will be
 
2013-06-17 02:40:28 PM  

Virtual Pariah: Burr: Virtual Pariah: Voiceofreason01: On the one hand child abuse is a terrible thing but on the other censorship in any form is a very dangerous thing. I'm not sure how I feel about this.

Yeah.

I'm of two minds about this.

Child Porn = Bad.
Govt or Corp Censorship = Bad.

The censorship comes with a free frogurt!

That's Good.


The frogurt has been bugged by the NSA
 
2013-06-17 02:41:24 PM  
Whatp happened google? You used to be cool
 
2013-06-17 02:42:38 PM  

Springy23: Like others I'm of two minds. No one wants to support child pornography (well, almost no one) but at the same time I don't want Google deciding what can and cannot be accessed online.


It's not Google deciding what can or cannot be accessed online; it's Google deciding what they will present in their search results.
 
2013-06-17 02:44:24 PM  
How could Google hope to control what people in eastern European countries host on their sites? I get how they could limit access through google.com, but you'd have to sever the hard lines to an entire country, which would practically require a modern siege.
 
2013-06-17 02:48:42 PM  

qorkfiend: Springy23: Like others I'm of two minds. No one wants to support child pornography (well, almost no one) but at the same time I don't want Google deciding what can and cannot be accessed online.

It's not Google deciding what can or cannot be accessed online; it's Google deciding what they will present in their search results.


Okay but they're Google. They're perhaps the largest digital entity in the world, which is especially prescient given all the NSA stuff that's been coming out. I suppose we could all go to Bing for our child porn requirements, but Google holds enough of a stranglehold on the market that they basically get to say what goes online. Or at least what you can readily find.

Which, again, is agreeable when it comes to Child Porn. How long until something like this gets extended to piracy? What about leaked information, like the Wikileaks files? How long until Google starts determining what you can and cannot use their servers to access? I suppose another search engine would just pick up where Google falls off (how you doin' go duck go?), though that doesn't reassure me any that the world's largest tech giant can essentially determine what we can find using their product. What's worse is that they also support transparency and free, open access to all web content.

Not saying this is a slippery slope, just saying we should be aware of what this movement might signal.
 
2013-06-17 02:49:53 PM  

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.
 
2013-06-17 02:51:51 PM  

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.



That's how pants-on-head some of this is.
 
2013-06-17 02:53:04 PM  

Anonymous Bosch: Even though it has nothing to do with the content of the article: has anyone noticed that even with SafeSearch off, Google is completely useless for porn anymore? I'm talking the regular kind that the completely pointless and misleading title that Subby gave this article refers to. Do the same search on Yahoo and you're like, "hey! There's the results Google used to give me!"


Wikipedia:
On 12 December 2012 Google removed the option to turn off the filter entirely, forcing users to enter more specific search queries to get adult content.


Suck, really.
 
2013-06-17 02:54:21 PM  

Tommy Moo: How could Google hope to control what people in eastern European countries host on their sites? I get how they could limit access through google.com, but you'd have to sever the hard lines to an entire country, which would practically require a modern siege.


Does nobody read the article or previous comments anymore? Here, I'll repost what I said earlier:

show me: 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.

Well, I read the article (unlike a lot of people it seems) and they are not arbitrarily finding child porn and nuking it. FTA:

Recently, Google has begun using "fingerprinting" of child sex-abuse images, Fuller said. It will help law enforcement, Web companies and advocates find and remove the images, as well as prosecute the people who posted them, Google says.
 
2013-06-17 02:54:29 PM  

BafflerMeal: That's how pants-on-head some of this is.


Yup, soon enough it will be illegal to take pictures or film childbirth, because, you know, naked baby.
 
2013-06-17 03:00:40 PM  

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.
 
2013-06-17 03:01:42 PM  

thisiszombocom: Whatp happened google? You used to be cool


It's odd that you think that fighting child molesters is somehow not "cool".
 
2013-06-17 03:05:49 PM  
Does this give new meaning to the Bing it on Challenge?


/AOL IS the internet Damnit!
 
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 86 of 86 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report