back to article Google, Microsoft to drop child sex abuse from basic web search

Google and Microsoft have bent to political pressure in the UK – by agreeing to tweak their search engines to not only make it a little harder for sickos to find child abuse images online, but to also prevent regulatory intervention. UK Prime Minister David Cameron said that "significant progress" had been made since the …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.

Page:

  1. Bradley Hardleigh-Hadderchance
    Big Brother

    Husbands will have to ask their wives...

    ...if they want to watch porn at home, Cameron _WARNS_ (emphasis mine).

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2509393/Husbands-conversations-porn-home-Cameron-warns.html

    Scenario 1:

    "Darling, you don't watch any of that nasty smut, do you ?"

    "Why of course not, darling, you are all I need, all I'll ever need, for forever and a day".

    "Thought so darling. That's good. Darling. It's just we got a saucy letter from our ISP telling us they were going to censor our internet, whether we liked it or not, but if we wanted to, we could put ourselves on the NEW PERVERTS SEX REGISTER (emphasis theirs) and everything would be as normal. For now."

    "Oh I don't think we have any need for that kind of filth. I for one, am happy to welcome our new covert/overt censoring overlords."

    Cue mad rush to find cheapest monthly VPN that doesn't keep records.

    "Darling, what is this charge for 9.99 per month made out to 'Vpnz_R_Us' ? "

    "Er, darling, I can explain. But you might like to get a cup of tea and sit down, while I get my story straight, I mean, while I explain everything to you".

    _______________________

    Scenario 2:

    I'm still in shock. I don't know where to begin. I feel as if my whole life has been turned around. Everything I thought I ever knew has come into question...

    I don't know where to begin. The start is as good a place as any.

    My Wife and I have been married for over 14 years. We are soul mates. She is the one for me. And I for her. She is all I have ever wanted. And all I'll ever need. For forever and a day.

    I particularly dislike pornography and the kind of smut that degrades women. The exploitation is the worst we have to offer as a species and it just shows how far we have to go in the human race before we can even start dealing with the very real problems that are now facing us. It's why I don't read the Daily Mail.

    So imagine my shock, when my Wife cagily broached this subject one evening last week after dinner and one too many bottles of Merlot.

    "Darliiiiingggg."

    "Yes Darling."

    "You do know that I love you, don't you?"

    "Yes darling. I do."

    "Well, there's something we need to talk about."

    "Out with it, my good lady."

    "Well the other daaaayyyy, I got this very nasty little letter in the poooooost."

    "Really darling, what did it say?"

    "Well those nasty men from our ISP are going to be censoring our internet. Rationing the tap of true knowledge and enlightenment that used to be Man's birthright, one and all. And the only way around it is if we sign up for some silly little SEX PERVERTS REGISTER. No ifs or buts."

    "That is disgusting darling. We shalln't be doing that. Oh no. You know how I feel about those sex people."

    "Well, that is what I wanted to talk to you about darling. You see, I have a secret addiction - it's not that I don't love you, for forever and a day, but, I don't know how to put this - I like to see skinny white girls getting spannered sideways by big nasty black men with 12 inch cocks! There, I've said it."

    "You certainly have darling. How long have you been feeling this way?"

    "Oohoooohhhh, I don't know, since before I met you. It's not that I don't love you. So I was wondering if we could maybe sign up, well YOU actually for that nasty little SEX PERVERT'S REGISTER - the bill is in your name after all. Then that way, I could keep getting my daily dose of smut and tickle myself into a stupor every day before you get home from work."

    I hope by now you are getting the picture of the difficulties I am facing. Obviously I had no idea this sort of thing was going on. Can you see the bind I am in? Do I sign the SEX PERVERT'S REGISTER and keep my wife? Or do I decline to sign it and lose her for ever?

    ____________________________________

    Ahem.

    So many things wrong on so many levels. Politically, Technically, Socially, Sexually, etc. etc...

    If you read that Mail article, you will see them once again conflating the argument with people that use TOR/VPN.

    This is an all out assault. Someone has thought very long and hard about this and they are 'making it happen' with the requisite engineering. They do know how to press those buttons. But it works for them and gives them what they want. Start from a seed of an argument that no right minded individual could disagree with and work up from there until you log on to your state approved terminal with your genitals.

    Many on this very website have been saying for sometime now, it's only a matter of time. VPNs will be illegal to use. Proxies too. Bit by bit they will take it down and take it back. Because they are very very afraid. In fact, I never realised they were this afraid. People this afraid are dangerous.

    One thing I know is, Cameron et all don't give a fuck about the abuse of children. They have the resources to tackle it and 'backtrace' it and stop it. Nip it off at source. But no, they are too busy using it as the main excuse to spy on and curtail all our rights and liberties and freedoms. They are as bad as the very people that rape young children to my mind. They are perpetrators because it suits their sick and twisted agenda. Images of child abuse will still be available in 10 years time. But the use of VPN/TOR for the average man, will not.

    Is there any one out there that can not see what this is really about and where it is really going?

    "Do it to Julia! Do it to Julia! Not me! Julia! I don't care what you do to her. Tear her face off, strip her to the bones. Not me! Julia! Not me!"

    1. TitterYeNot
      Coffee/keyboard

      Re: Husbands will have to ask their wives...

      Up-voted for making a scarily valid point about what this is really all about, writing a post as if written by several of the late, great John Wyndham's characters, whilst simultaneously including the phrase "getting spannered sideways" and making me ruin my keyboard...

    2. btrower

      Re: Husbands will have to ask their wives...

      @Bradley Hardleigh-Hadderchance:

      Upvote for seriously amusing post with a message.

    3. Squander Two

      Re: Husbands will have to ask their wives...

      > Cameron et all don't give a fuck about the abuse of children. They have the resources to tackle it and 'backtrace' it and stop it. Nip it off at source. But no....

      Seriously? You're claiming that the British Government put zero resources into tracing and locating child abusers? You're delusional.

      > They are as bad as the very people that rape young children to my mind.

      Then your mind is not up to much. Asking a search engine provider not to return particular links is as bad as raping children? You didn't have any second thoughts about that one before you hit 'Submit'?

  2. Bradley Hardleigh-Hadderchance

    I'm off to look up John Wyndham.

    So to speak. Oo er and all that. Missus.

    Is it any wonder we're all so sexually fucked up in this country with the diet of evening time television we were brought up on? I believe there is even a Mr. Dick Emery that posts on here. God help us.

    Now it's child abuse this, kiddy porn that, ad infifuckingnitum and ad fuckingnauseum. (Mind your language)

    It's almost as if they are trying to brainwash us into being sexual degenerates. (My programming is pretty much complete already)

    Anyway, John Wyndham. Didn't he write 'Foul Play Suspected' and 'The Secret People'?

    Say no more, say no more. Nudge nudge...

    ____________

    A thought just occurred to me. It must be horrible growing up as a child today. You wouldn't trust or respect any adults you came across. You would think one half of them were spying on your private emails, and the other half were spying on your private webcam. And you'd only be half wrong most of the time. And twice as right some of the time. Little buggers don't stand a chance.

  3. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Cameron, the man pretending to be UK PM claims ...

    There, fixed that for you.

    (Sorry I only just saw it, been doing useful stuff all day)

  4. mcmoanisk

    won't this make it harder to find the endangered children?

    I have one concern about removing it from the search engines, I don't think it will stop the gross people who want to see children abused. I think it will make it harder for the people who are trying to locate these children who are being abused , I think that there should be a toll free anonymous international reporting line for people who come across this vulger content to report these sites and links to the proper authorities so that those authorities may then start searching and hopefully locating and saving what they can of the poor childs life who is in danger. For all I know there is a reporting line , however if there is a reporting line it is not advertised enough for the general public to find it , I am sure if the public had common knowledge of a reporting line that there would be at least 1 billion more people who would make a difference if they had the misfortune to come across such material.

    1. Squander Two

      Re: won't this make it harder to find the endangered children?

      > I think it will make it harder for the people who are trying to locate these children who are being abused

      What, the police? Yeah, they can't work without Google.

      > I think that there should be a toll free anonymous international reporting line for people who come across this vulger content to report these sites

      Well, we have 999 and most other countries have their own versions of the same. Will that do?

  5. Anonymous C0ward

    Who the hell is watching this stuff on Youtube anyway?

    Tip of the iceberg.

  6. Moffy

    But..

    Surely there is life beyond google and bing..

    Admittedly Gas companies follow like sheep. one puts the prices up, all put the prices up.. but will all search engines do this? or just the ones that the average household. Duckduckgo?

  7. Danny 5

    naive

    You must be pretty fucking naive to think peado's go to Google or Bing to get their daily serving of kiddieporn.

    1. Squander Two

      Re: naive

      Yes, that would be naive, and that is not what is being addressed here.

  8. andy 45

    "...all other copies will then be removed from the web"

    "Once a copy is spotted on the service, all other copies will then be removed from the web."

    Rubbish will they!!!

  9. Nameless Faceless Computer User

    Nothing good will come of it

    Beware of legislation which begins with the premise, "Save the children."

    1. Squander Two

      Re: Nothing good will come of it

      What, all legislation intended to protect children? So you'd oppose the laws that prevent children under the age of twelve being allowed to work as prostitutes, then?

  10. Squander Two

    Censorship.

    I see a lot of people in this thread getting very upset about the fact that a search engine will no longer return particular links, but no-one is saying that the sites that those links point to should be legally protected. If you believe websites containing images of child abuse should be allowed, fine, say so. If you don't, why on Earth does it matter whether Google link to them or not?

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Censorship.

      ...because Google will apparently be blocking *search terms*, not *search results*. Searching for "gruesome murder on Fleet Street" doesn't only return results containing instructions on how to commit murders from the comfort of your barber shop; likewise, searching for "child pornography" will certainly not return *only illegal things*. And as the terms get more ambiguous, the results will necessarily become almost entirely collateral damage rather than actual web sites which have images of child abuse - which I have to believe are vastly rarer than those which do not.

      This is a bit like not wanting people to read the word 'shit', and, to prevent it, not allowing them to search for any string including 'hit'. Not only will it not work, the huge majority of prevented results will have been innocuous.

      1. Squander Two

        Re: Censorship.

        > because Google will apparently be blocking *search terms*, not *search results*.

        Nope, I just reread Schmidt's statement, and you're wrong.

        "We've fine tuned Google Search to prevent links to child sexual abuse material from appearing in our results. ... these changes have cleaned up the results for over 100,000 queries that might be related to the sexual abuse of kids."

        I think you're conflating "target" with "block". Search terms are being targetted; results are being blocked. In just the same way as Google already do for hundreds of other reasons, then, such as spam. Funny how tech people are less outraged about Google blocking spam than about them blocking child porn.

        I'll add that I found the piece by googling "google child abuse uk government". The term "child abuse" is clearly not blocked.

  11. Suricou Raven

    I am unable to view pages two and three.

    The content filter at my workplace blocks them.

  12. The Alpha Klutz

    im confused by the news

    So microsoft and google will do this for the UK government but they wont pay any tax?

    somethings fishy.

  13. shovelDriver

    No Search Terms; No Results

    Okay . . . if we modify search algorithms to prevent the finding and publications of search terms for pedophilia - or any other subject - who defines the terms?

    And how is that different from censorship?

    Because . . . if you can't search for the stuff, you can't search for the violations. Nor can you do any legitimate research into the problem, or into how effective the techniques are, nor what the results will be.

    What's not good for the pedo is also not good for the researcher, the doctor, the cops, the prosecutor, the defense attorney. Shall we just then make the presumption that anyone who ever types a prohibited word into a search engine is guilty? If so, where will it end?

    1. Squander Two

      Re: No Search Terms; No Results

      > if we modify search algorithms to prevent the finding and publications of search terms for pedophilia - or any other subject - who defines the terms?

      This is an old problem, not particularly related to the Web. Who defines porn? Who defines the difference between soft and hardcore? Who defines what constitutes child porn? Who chooses the age of consent?

      The answer is: politicians. And you are free to write to your MP if you think they're doing it wrong. And they do regularly review these things and tweak the definitions in response to feedback from the public and law enforcement agencies and the real world in general. Which makes the answer: society. Which, I have to say, is not all that scary, and is certainly not the dystopian totalitarian tyranny a lot of people round here seem to think.

      > Shall we just then make the presumption that anyone who ever types a prohibited word into a search engine is guilty?

      As mentioned elsewhere, no, because we live in a democracy.

      > If so, where will it end?

      It ends when someone proposes a measure that loses votes either because it's unpopular in the first place or because it goes horribly wrong and thereby becomes unpopular. It's not a slippery slope.

  14. Harry Stottle

    The "Cure" for Paedophilia will be VR

    First off, major kudos to the AC who shared his own judicial nightmare with us.

    this is actually a prediction I made before the turn of the century. (http://www.fullmoon.nu/articles/art.php?id=god)

    Once VR is genuinely full immersive (a la "Matrix" rather than the cheesy VR helmets which we will sneer at in years to come) and operating at so called "gestalt" speeds (so we genuinely have no sensory means of identifying fact from fiction other than the ability to step back out of the fiction), human sexual desires of all kinds will be much more deeply fulfilled by the VR world than the real world could ever manage.

    This will be equally true for paedophiles. They'll be able to whistle up whatever they need to satisfy their lust to a much greater level, in much greater safety and, importantly, with zero impact on any other human beings. A major consequence of this will be the end of the recruitment cycle which research tells us is responsible for the perpetuation of paedophilia. If "real" humans stop being abused in their formative years, they'll stop becoming paedophiles themselves and the problem will gradually fade away.

    The only obstacle I see to technical progress to such a solution are the Authoritarians continuing down their road towards "thought crime" where they have begun to criminalise such things as creating your own images (even drawings or paintings based on your own imagination) if such images are of subjects which, in the real world, would involve child porn (http://tinyurl.com/npxvvh5). Taking such an extreme legislative position crossed the rubicon and defined the first legally recognised "thought crimes". We should have had riots in the street but, of course, we didn't because it was only those nasty peedos, so who gives a shit? The next steps will be the criminalisation of thoughts about blowing up Parliament and the like. Just the sort of thing which will make a lot of us want to blow up Parliament...

    In any case, even if I'm right and VR eventually eliminates Paedophilia, other problems, of course, will arise in its place. Like: how is the human race going to procreate if everyone is getting their rocks off in VR? And, before you reject that option as wild speculation (also part of the same essay) check out what's happening in Japan right now even before we get the serious technology...

    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/20/young-people-japan-stopped-having-sex

    1. Bradley Hardleigh-Hadderchance

      Re: The "Cure" for Paedophilia will be VR

      Harry. Can I call you Harry? Harry Kiri?

      Sorry, bad cultural reference joke.

      Er, I'm all for it - anything that protects the kids. Seriously. But you do know that shit you posted is highly illegal don't you? If I got caught with a scrap of paper with a doodle on it, in my pocket, and some deranged sicko decided it depicted the image of a young girl/boy engaged in a sexually explicit pose, then I could be strung up as one of them there threats to the nation - your common paedophile.

      How exactly do you think they would feel about an immersive experience in full 3D? With a fully rotational throb-stick connected via USB3? Worse again, with detachable stereo hairy mitts?

      I'll tell you how they'll feel: Front page of the daily mail and a dark dungeon for 30 years. Whilst being prodded by sticks by a one off visiting party of O.A.P.s on a 'special' provided by Paul Dacre.

      They are not interested in reducing the harm to children. They have the technology. They are openly bragging about it.

      You and I and a thousand others are agreed on this matter. Let those that have sick and under-developed fantasies play them out in a neutral environment. Sublimation might have been the term Freud used. But it don't work like that. As many people as possible need to be made as guilty as possible, as quickly as possible. Everyone shall be a criminal. You have probably broken some kind of law by proposing/positing this concept, and I for agreeing with you.

      Any anyway, Mr. Kiri, never mind young people in Japan stopping having sex. That is the easy part! Try prising their mobile phones/5G devices out of their clammy little hands. That is when you will realise what type of fight you have on your hands.

Page:

This topic is closed for new posts.

Other stories you might like