The government, in an effort to allay criticism about its decision to fold the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre (CEOP) into a new National Crime Agency along with other bodies, confirmed today that the agency would retain operational control. In October last year, the organisation's then-CEO Jim Gamble resigned …
I guess it was too good to be true
It would have been nice to get rid of those leeches, and maybe even move away from the tabloid-based polices they supported, but it looks like this change is going to be in name only. Or not even that I guess, what with the "unique brand" thing.
Sounds like still *no* effective oversight
So expect continuing self serving mis-information "CP is a billion dollar industry" etc.
What I'd *love* to know from all those *years* of secret ISP blacklists, raids and seizures are
1) What is the *real* proportion of online UK paedophiles versus the total number of UK internet users?
2)How much does each prosecution cost?
3)What is their conviction rate?
4)What is their conviction rate *after* appeal?
5) How many children have been identified as being *in* the UK?
*Maybe* £8m a year is *not* too high a price to pay
But I *strongly* doubt it.
@AC, Erm, couple of questions:
1. Why did you need to encrypt the file? Surely just jump on a bus/train to a neighbouring city, walk into internet cafe (checking for CCTV of course) and upload from there, or just use TOR. Or post them a USB key, or a million other anonymous methods.
2. Sending the key via email is slightly stupid, as anyone with access to their mailbox now has the decryption key. Key distribution is a hard thing to crack, which is why you should of asked them to generate a public key for you to encrypt the information with.
Mines the jacket with the tin foil lining.
The usual way...
... is to use two different transports. Like, email and fax. Fax is surprisingly useful for that sort of thing: For its speed, for its legal status and for allowing me to politely "suggest" the exact openssl command line to decrypt the data--when I last did it an archive file containing an ssl certificate.
Twice email, by comparison, isn't remotely as good. Even "different IP addresses" is just about worthless, as you're relying on properties of the network that you don't really know and can change in seconds. And wholesale DPI is only getting easier. Encryption should free you from such concerns but that means you still need a trustworthy courier to send the key.
Though one could justifyably ask why an agency that "naturally" will have to deal with highly sensitive materials in electronic form hasn't mastered PGP/GPG and S/MIME mail encryption both, and has trouble with something as simple as a (weakly) enciphered archive file.
Maybe that's related to why people in such positions still think that censorship will magically make child abuse go away.
Danger, danger Will Robinson!
"unique brand as the national centre for child protection".
Well a sound-bite like that should start ringing warning bells all on its own.
I can live with Ceops status. Maybe the intent all along was to get rid of that twat Gamble and then carry on as normal.
I can live with that.
Just a ploy to get rid of Gamble?
It sounds to me as if nothing will change, they'll just be reprinting the org chart and the letterheads.
I wonder if this was a rather clever ploy to get rid of Gamble, leaving a perhaps more useful and less publicity-hungry organisation.
What I'd like to know is...
... how many children directly benefited and/or were saved from ongoing or demonstratably imminent harm by CEOP's taxpayer money spending. Note that I don't give a hoot about the corporate "philantropic" monies, though I suppose the generous givers would like to know what came of it.
Or perhaps it wasn't really about children after all?
Also, what sort of racket is this gamble character busying himself with these days?
Gamble, who at the time was Britain's most senior anti-paedophile policeman
So you're suggesting the rest were pro-paedophile ?
Someone call the daily mail! :-)
Mine's the one with the big red CEOP button in the pocket
I said I didn't give a hoot...
... about CEOP non-taxpayer money spending. But come to think of it, I do.
These guys are part of the police, so accepting monies from the likes of micros~1, no matter how well-meaning, imply a risk of influencing. You can see that in ominous language like this gem from the article: "Gamble had claimed that Microsoft stated it was "extremely unlikely" to maintain its support under the new structure."
Who cares? Well, we should, but not in that way. Why are they arm-deep in this murky bit of national police? Do we risk arrests as "personal favours" here too? Why was this guy allowed to build a cosy little empire with private AND public funding while trying to sneak out from public oversight? Just "for the childrun" isn't enough. As part of government and, recalling the Peelian principles, as part of the police, they too must answer to the public. If they don't and won't mend their ways, we have little option but to remove them as a danger to society. No matter how enlightened or how much for the public good they claim to be.
- Geek's Guide to Britain INSIDE GCHQ: Welcome to Cheltenham's cottage industry
- 'Catastrophic failure' of 3D-printed gun in Oz Police test
- Game Theory Is the next-gen console war already One?
- BBC suspends CTO after it wastes £100m on doomed IT system
- Peak Facebook: British users lose their Liking for Zuck's ad empire