back to article Child sex abuse image peddlers dodge UK smut filters and demand Bitcoin payments

The implementation of network-level filters by all of the UK's biggest ISPs has contributed to a worrying side effect: it appears to be forcing peddlers of child sexual abuse images to seek different ways of distributing the illegal material. Apparently these increasingly include hacks into the websites of businesses whose …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.

Page:

Silver badge

GCHQ! NSA!

Now here is something useful for them to put their talents to, track down this scum and eliminate them.

10
1
Anonymous Coward

Re: GCHQ! NSA!

Well they've been overcollecting on everyone for the past decades and the agencies don't seem to have stopped many soviet invasions, nor terrorism, nor crime, never mind abuse?

An article in the Economist this week even thinks that GCHQ might have the world's largest collection of pornography by now, having overcollected the Yahoo! (& probably other) webcam streams - where upto 11% of these streams were pornographic. Economist further mentions that GCHQ as a military defence organisation has no UK legal right to hold/view images of pornography, extreme pornography or kiddie pr0n scum images. They are not Law Enforcement, so might be sued! I can't see it happening tho'

11
1
Silver badge
Facepalm

Re: GCHQ! NSA!

Obviously you're talking about bitcoin users. We can't have that sort of scum around here!

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: GCHQ! NSA!

Well I asked my MP to ask for an investigation of GCHQ's Yahoo intercept, and he is usually quite receptive to ideas, I can only hope the idea of people being spied on in their most intimate moments is enough for him to put this higher up on his agenda (he is a decent bloke, even if he does like the idea of national service)

2
1
Silver badge

Re: GCHQ! NSA!

Frankly, I don't want them to.

Child porn is reprehensible, but it's already been used as an excuse to limit so much of our freedom that we needn't add to it by giving NSA and GCHQ free reins. I'd rather have a kiddie porn peddler get away than have GCHQ expand its powers even more.

2
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: GCHQ! NSA!

Payment for dodgy porn?! Has Usenet stopped working?

0
0
Bronze badge

Unintended consequences.

Shirley Ms Smith has just supplied reasonable doubt for anyone being prosecuted for distributing sicko stuff.

"Yer honour, mine was a benign $HOBBY site but evil people hacked it so they could distribute their filth. Even Ms Smith of the IWF has noted the trend of innocent people like myself being victimised in this fashion."

If the counter-argument is that, "the images were on your server therefore you're guilty of possessing said images", then there's going to be a not insignificant number of (genuinely innocent) small businesses coming to grief.

5
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: Unintended consequences.

forget businesses, I would suspect they will target government servers, i.e. councils, MP's etc...

it is often small government servers that are running outdated software and full of bugs...

3
0
Silver badge

Re: Unintended consequences.

There is no such thing as reasonable doubt with CP, it is a strict liability offence. If you possess CP, you are guilty of possessing CP. If you tell IWF where the CP is, you are confirming to a third party that you possessed CP. It really is a lose-lose scenario.

4
0
Silver badge

Re: Unintended consequences.

Which is why if I ever happen across some, I'm not going to report it. I don't want every hard drive in the household seized as part of an investigation. The witch-hunters have shot themselves in the foot here: Stories of overzealous prosecutions and trial-by-media are now well-known enough that even the innocent are afraid of them.

6
0
Silver badge

Re: Unintended consequences.

The only way you can report CP safely is to be under the age of criminal responsibility. That's why only children should report CP.

I was going to add the joke icon, but really this is not funny.

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Good old Bitcoin, a no nonce-sense currency.

8
0
Anonymous Coward

Daily Mail headlines write themselves

Bitcoin users are pedophiles!

5
0
Bronze badge

Re: Daily Mail headlines write themselves

Bitcoin users are drug-peddling pedophiles!

Fixed it for you.

8
0
Bronze badge

Re: Daily Mail headlines write themselves

Not quite there yet "Bitcoin users are heavily armed drug-peddling pedophiles! using money from Bitcoin to fund terrorism!!"

7
0
Silver badge

Re: Daily Mail headlines write themselves

Bitcoin causes cancer!

9
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: Daily Mail headlines write themselves

If it's the DM, they would have to fit the Labour party in there somehow.

4
0
Silver badge

Re: Daily Mail headlines write themselves

Nope still not there,.

Not quite there yet "Bitcoin users are heavily armed East European drug-peddling Muslim pedophiles! using money from Bitcoin to fund terrorism and stop weekly bin collections!!!!!!

9
0
Bronze badge

Re: Daily Mail headlines write themselves

Actually even the Daily Mail can spell paedophile.

4
0
Silver badge

Re: Daily Mail headlines write themselves

Not quite there yet "Bitcoin users are heavily armed East European drug-peddling Muslim pedophiles! using money from Bitcoin to fund terrorism and reduce your house prices by stopping weekly bin collections!!!!!!"

FTFY (again)

3
0

Re: Daily Mail headlines write themselves

A bit more topicality required I think.

"Bitcoin users are heavily armed East European drug-peddling Muslim pedophiles! using money from Bitcoin to fund terrorism and reduce your house prices by throttling your broadband connection!"

3
0

Re: Daily Mail headlines write themselves

There's still something missing.

"Bitcoin users are heavily armed East European drug-peddling Muslim paedophiles living in £1m houses using money from Bitcoin to fund terrorism and stop weekly bin collections!!!!!!"

4
0
Bronze badge

Re: Daily Mail headlines write themselves

...and something about pregnant teen mums.

3
0
Silver badge

Re: Daily Mail headlines write themselves

"Bitcoin users are heavily armed East European drug-peddling Muslim paedophiles, coming over here, stealing our jobs and living in £1m houses, using money from Bitcoin to fund terrorism and stop weekly bin collections, while making teen mums pregnant. And they give you cancer, and are entirely to blame for climate change."

Or something.

7
0
Bronze badge

Re: Daily Mail headlines write themselves

Is everybody going to ignore the real story of what bitcoin may have had to do with the DEATH OF DIANA?

5
0
Silver badge

Re: Daily Mail headlines write themselves

They can spell it fine. They just refuse to use those European diphthongs.

1
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: Daily Mail headlines write themselves

That must take the prize for putting hackers, bitcoin and paedophiles together in the one sentence.

0
0
Bronze badge
Childcatcher

Re: Daily Mail headlines write themselves

No one's got "computer hackers" in there yet, which is a massive opportunity missed. Perhaps chuck "cyber-crime" in there too, and namedrop Lulzsec/Anon for good measure.

1
0
Silver badge

Re: Daily Mail headlines write themselves

"No one's got "computer hackers" in there yet, which is a massive opportunity missed. Perhaps chuck "cyber-crime" in there too, and namedrop Lulzsec/Anon for good measure."

"Bitcoin users are heavily armed East European drug-peddling Muslim paedophiles, coming over here, stealing our jobs and living in £1m cyber-crime funded houses, using money from Bitcoin to fund Anon and Lulzsec, as well as engaging in terrorism and, when they aren't busy computer hacking, they stop weekly bin collections while making teen mums pregnant. And they give you cancer, and are entirely to blame for climate change."

Howzat?

0
0
Stop

Re: Daily Mail headlines write themselves

Is everybody going to ignore the real story of what bitcoin may have had to do with the DEATH OF DIANA?

Wrong tabloid.We're talking about the Daily Wail here. For DoD(*) you want the Sexpress.

(*): Death of D....

1
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: Daily Mail headlines write themselves

Chuckle - almost perfect. Maybe you could add they bitcoin users were responsible for the 2008 crash and hope that people are too ignorant to realise that it was in it's infancy then.

0
0
Silver badge

Re: Daily Mail headlines write themselves

"Chuckle - almost perfect. Maybe you could add they bitcoin users were responsible for the 2008 crash and hope that people are too ignorant to realise that it was in it's infancy then."

"Bitcoin users are heavily armed East European drug-peddling Muslim paedophiles, coming over here, stealing our jobs and living in £1m cyber-crime funded houses, long suspected of being involved in the death of Diana, Princess of Wales, using money from Bitcoin to fund Anon and Lulzsec, as well as engaging in terrorism and, when they aren't busy computer hacking, they stop weekly bin collections while making teen mums pregnant. And they give you cancer, and are entirely to blame for climate change."

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: Daily Mail headlines write themselves

We use English here.

0
1
Silver badge

Re: Daily Mail headlines write themselves

Hmm. Just noticed that I replied to the wrong post.

Ho hum.

0
0
Bronze badge

Re: Daily Mail headlines write themselves

Can't be right. The Daily Wail doesn't believe in climate change does it ?

0
0
Silver badge

Innocent?

"stashing the content on an innocent outfit's servers"

If they are in possession of the images then they're guilty. Trivialities like not knowing about it are irrelevant, it's a strict liability offence.

8
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: Innocent?

Unless, of course, under Sexual Offences Act 2003 s46 1B:

(c) at the time of the offence charged he was a member of GCHQ, and it was necessary for him to make the photograph or pseudo-photograph for the exercise of any of the functions of GCHQ.

2
0
Silver badge
Black Helicopters

Re: Innocent?

"Surely, Sir, you could not be suggesting that an officer of the law deposited those images on your server?"

1
0
Bronze badge

Re: Innocent?

Yes it's a strict liability offence, but you are over simplifying. Or you don't even begin to understand the law and it's procedures. You would not necessarilly be charged because they were on your server. The police and the CPS do excercise discretion strange though it may seem. Even were you to be charged there would still be a court case and the argument in that case would hinge around the definition of possession.

If you did not put the images on your server and were not aware that they were there could the prosecution prove that you "possessed" the images? Again, yes it is a strict liability offence, but intent is never ever trivial in court proceedings.

I don't think strict liability offence means what you think it means.

0
1
Silver badge

@Grease Monkey - Re: Innocent?

I think it is you who does not understand:

> If you did not put the images on your server and were not aware that they were there could the prosecution prove that you "possessed" the images?

Quoting from the Criminal Justice Act 1988:

* * * * *

160 Possession of indecent photograph of child

(1) Subject to section 160A it is an offence for a person to have any indecent photograph or pseudo-photograph of a child in his possession.

(2) Where a person is charged with an offence under subsection (1) above, it shall be a defence for him to prove—

(a)that he had a legitimate reason for having the photograph or pseudo-photograph in his possession; or

(b) that he had not himself seen the photograph or pseudo-photograph and did not know, nor had any cause to suspect, it to be indecent

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/33/part/XI/crossheading/possession-of-indecent-photograph-of-child

* * * * *

Note where it says "It is a defence for him to prove" ie a person is *assumed* to be guilty *unless* they can prove that they didn't know the images were there and they hadn't seen them!

6
1
Anonymous Coward

What exactly is a "pseudo-photograph"?

See Title.

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: What exactly is a "pseudo-photograph"?

I hate all strict liability offences, I find them most un-democratic, more like you will find in a dictatorship. We need to revoke all strict liability offences, keep the offences but remove the strict liability, intent is very important in any law, without intent is there a crime (except maybe carelessness?)

9
0
Silver badge

Re: What exactly is a "pseudo-photograph"?

Strict liability is just a stupid, stupid concept. Everything about it is just horseshit, because it was designed by the horses asses that are disguised as politicians.

All those laws are political stunts so somebody can big themselves up. What's really interesting about strict liability cases, is they cost just absurd amounts of money to prosecute. It doesn't require an All-Star legal team to dump 95,000 pounds of sand in the courts Vaseline. Although the cases usually proceed as planned, the resource use just skyrockets. If nothing else there's an economic argument to phasing out strict liability rules.

5
0
Bronze badge

Re: Innocent?

It's a bit like the fines ten years back on having illegal immigrants in the back of your truck. One chap heard a banging after he'd entered the UK and realised he had acquired some stowaways. Turned round and dutifully pulled back into Dover to hand them over to immigration and received the exact same fine as if they'd found them in the truck without his cooperation.

That set a precedent of there being zero reason for a truck driver to do the right thing. If they're in the country they might as well pull over into a quiet car park, let them out and say nothing.

Thankfully the High Court found in favour of a class action and pointed out to the Home Office that such a policy was not only bad for business but counter-productive in an environment where you rely on the good will and cooperation of the drivers. Rather than "Us and Them" being Immigration + Truckers vs. Clandestine Entrants, "Us and Them" now referred to Immigration vs. Truckers. Which is retarded.

Although the fines are still in place (up to £2k per entrant), they decide how much they'll actually ask for based on the steps taken to secure the vehicle, your level of cooperation, whether the fabric of the vehicle had been maintained to deter illicit entry, etc, etc.

7
0
Silver badge

Re: What exactly is a "pseudo-photograph"?

Looks like a photo, but isn't - so includes computer generated imagery.

(This change occurred in 1994. 2003 raised the age to 18. As of around 2009, any non-realistic depictions are also included. It's been a slippery slope...)

3
0
Silver badge

Re: What exactly is a "pseudo-photograph"?

Nice idea, but after a while someone who looks very much like a trader in child abuse images will get off with it because the jury couldn't be convinced completly about intent - and the resulting media outrage would leave any politician with hopes of reelection no choice but to close this 'loophole' and bring strict liability back.

0
0
Silver badge

Re: What exactly is a "pseudo-photograph"?

But what do you mean he very much looks like a trader? If by that, you mean evidence, then that would be enough to convict.

A jury are not required to be convinced completely, but beyond reasonable doubt - no different to any other crime.

Individual politicians do not have the powers to pass new laws. They can make some media-friendly soundbites, without actually doing anything of real consequence.

0
0
Silver badge

Re: Innocent?

>The police and the CPS do excercise discretion

Translation: they only prosecute you if they don't like your face or if they think you've been rude to them.

I love those kinds of laws. They're so malleable and... apt.

4
0
Silver badge

Re: Innocent?

"The police and the CPS do excercise discretion strange though it may seem. Even were you to be charged there would still be a court case and the argument in that case would hinge around the definition of possession."

So the police can charge you if they feel like it. If they want a high profile case. Or if the Mail has just run another batch of stories. Or if there's been another case like Saville and they've been told to jump on everyone possible.

There will be a court case? Really? In an atmosphere of hysteria it is extremely common for people to wrongly be found guilty. Look at the number of IRA cases that were reversed many years later because they were blatantly unsafe convictions.

And if you do manage to get found innocent, the mud will stick forever. You will ALWAYS be the person who was charged with child porn but managed to get away with it. Anyway by the time the case grinds through a lot of the damage will already have been done.

2
0

I think we should definitely ban Bitcoin, used only by terrorists and paedos and not by normal fun-loving consumers of mass-commercialised entertainment. While we're at it, we should ban the Internet and mobile phones, as apparently paedos have been known to use these means of communication too.

However, if you really enjoy spying on strangers in various states of undress and arousal in the privacy of their own homes, may I suggest applying for a job at GCHQ?

9
0

Page:

This topic is closed for new posts.

Forums