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 28
    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»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2013-06-17 03:54:45 PM
3 votes:

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 03:00:40 PM
2 votes:

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 02:18:03 PM
2 votes:
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 07:27:47 PM
1 votes:

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 04:55:52 PM
1 votes:

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 04:53:12 PM
1 votes:
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 04:43:07 PM
1 votes:

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 04:36:49 PM
1 votes:

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 04:33:48 PM
1 votes:

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 04:28:57 PM
1 votes:

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 04:08:54 PM
1 votes:
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 03:51:47 PM
1 votes:

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 03:25:26 PM
1 votes:

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 03:01:42 PM
1 votes:

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 02:54:21 PM
1 votes:

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 02:53:04 PM
1 votes:

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 02:51:51 PM
1 votes:

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 02:49:53 PM
1 votes:

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 02:48:42 PM
1 votes:

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 02:26:40 PM
1 votes:

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 02:21:48 PM
1 votes:

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 02:19:03 PM
1 votes:
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 02:01:58 PM
1 votes:

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 01:59:16 PM
1 votes:
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 12:51:21 PM
1 votes:

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 12:34:30 PM
1 votes:

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 12:29:16 PM
1 votes:

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 12:27:18 PM
1 votes:

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.
 
Displayed 28 of 28 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report