Smut filter and nonce-catching
I don't understand how the two are related? The smut-filter is an on-off thing for 'adult content.' How could it help catch nonces?
Two years on from the launch of David Cameron's internet crackdown in Blighty, the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (NSPCC) reckons two offenders are convicted every day for possessing child-abuse images. "This is an alarming study and just a fragment of the hundreds of other similar convictions …
More interested in the causation - are they saying that they are not only filtering and blocking porn but actively monitoring your porn viewing habits?
Or worryingly are they implying that if you have applied to be able to see porn then you come under increased investigation?
"I don't understand how the two are related"
The connection? It's the NSPCC stating the bleeding obvious that David Cameron's next-to-useless filter for parents who can't be arsed to care about what their kids get up to online smut filter hasn't done anything to stop people looking at images of child abuse, two years after he urged the online industry to 'obliterate' such images.
Well, what a shock! I never would have thought it...
There's the optional ISP porn filtering (what most of us would think was being referred to as the "smut filter", and which fits the two-year time frame). There's also the non-optional IWF-maintained blacklist, originated years earlier, that blocks kiddie porn, also used by most ISPs. Perhaps someone is confusing the two. However even the latter, as far as I know, only blocks content, so I'm not sure how it would lead to any convictions.
'..However even the latter, as far as I know, only blocks content, so I'm not sure how it would lead to any convictions.
The IWF filter may 'only block' content, but it'll sure as hell log your IP number if you access a site blocked by the thing..
I'll assume your subsequent network traffic then gets subjected to 'special attention'..
I'll assume your subsequent network traffic then gets subjected to 'special attention'..
unless you're a serving or former MP, Lord, related to the xxxxx, member of a conspiracy theory organisation, once signed your name as "MickeyMouse" at (one of) the guest-house(s) whilst collecting your child for the weekend. . .
the "nonces nailed" don't currently include nobbie the bobby himself, and anyone more senior - unless they're conveniently dead. . .
the obscene images & text on this website linked below seem to have temporarily escaped the IWF and/or the planned extremism filter
http://www.anorak.co.uk/421356/news/westminster-paedophiles-colin-wallace-kincora-child-murder-and-sir-maurice-oldfields-sick-mi6.html/
"Perhaps not all convictions result in a prison sentence?"
Possible but they wouldn't want to admit that only a small percentage got to prison otherwise the Daily Mail would run a headline along the lines of
"NSPCC ADMIT THAT OVER 1,300 PEDOS ROAM THE STREETS"
Of course this is assuming that Daily Mail Journalists are capable of doing simple maths, so actually the NSPCC might be ok.
You need to do "legal beagle" math... the courts in many countries aren't in session every day. One needs to find out how many session days per year for a given offense, in here in the States, some days, they only deal with vehicular issues... other days, more serious stuff. Since there is no reference to session days, etc. the number is basically bullocks.
Looking at the original press release from the NSPCC and there are two sets of questions that spring to mind.
Does the press office posses a calculator and the ability to use it? There are a lot of SPLASH numbers such as 49 years in prison - across 101 people that's less than a 6 month average.
As previously pointed out 2 a day over 2 years just does not add up. There are as a rule 260 working days in the year.... 101 convictions is closer to 2 a week - but that's not as punchy a headline.
The press release uses ambiguity to link 1000 court cases to child abuse.
our analysis of national and local newspaper stories reveals at least 1000 court cases involving offenders with abuse images, which frequently show children being assaulted and raped.
The presence of "frequently" in the above text is used to imply that the majority if not all 1000 cases are child related. If the NSPCC can count all the other statistics then they could have accurately stated what percentage of the cases were child related.
The NSPCC should be held to higher account - the work that it does is too important and making such glaring mistakes does its reputation little benefit.
Add this to the recent fuss over the NSPCC commissioning flawed polls and they are in danger of becoming their own greatest liability.
The second set of questions: Why did El Reg not feel the need to critically assess the press release before posting this story? Anything to do with page impressions perhaps?
Aside from its Childline, what does he NSPCC do except run expensive campaigns reminding us that children and neglected and abused all over the UK in unacceptable numbers (the acceptable number being, of course, zero)? It really is time they were more active, but they don't seem to involve themselves in actual cases of neglect and abuse in any way. Or have I missed something important? If so, I apologise.
The stats don't seem to add up, didn't a recent porn hub report reckon that over 20% of smut surfers are women?
It could be a question of predilection, I'm sure, but it could be a case of when illegal images are found they just assume it was the bloke in the household and pin the case on him since that's the easy way to get a conviction.
Over pay the executives. Have large plush offices. Get paid by the taxpayer to run all the expensive add campaigns. Get paid by the taxpayer to lobby the government so the government can produce the legislation it needs tp repress the public all in the name of 'think of the children'.
Some numbers*:
"...adjusting for the different statistical populations and applying our stated assumptions, men are 12 times as likely as women to perpetrate abuse against children, or put another way, they are 1100% more dangerous to children than are women. "
Whilst not specifically limited to rape, nor discussing severity, nor discussing outcomes, it does provide a bit of perspective.
*From here:
http://www.thelizlibrary.org/site-index/site-index-frame.html#soulhttp://www.thelizlibrary.org/liz/statistics.html
"Well you have to admit that women are rather rarely of the rapey sort. They can bloody well kill you just as good as men though."
That's an interesting take on things.
I think there's a distinction being made here between physical violent abuse and sexual abuse; I'm not sure how useful that is.
I'm willing to bet that if you include ALL abuse of children instead of just limiting it to sexual abuse, that the gender balance of perpetrators will move swiftly towards something more like 50/50.
Just a hunch though, and I'd be interested to see some figures.
I think the original application is linguistic. "For the nonce" is an archaism meaning "for the time being". Our friends at Wikipedia say:
A nonce word (also called an occasionalism) is a lexeme created for a single occasion to solve an immediate problem of communication. The term is used because such a word is created "for the nonce".The use of "nonce" in cryptography and security presumably derives from this.
Tom 38: A "nonce" in cryptology is an arbitrary number made up and used once >>in a particular communication.<<
Isn't it once EVER? At least if the key is the same, as it would be with simple implementations of PKC.
There's a wonderful presentation on CCC.de about what happens if the nonce is used more than once. It's an 'OMG' presentation, and well worth watching.
Not only is there a maths problem with the NSPCC'S assertions, because I'm not entirely sure how 2 per day over two years equals 101. But also how is the implementation of a adult content filter, that the last stats said that basically everyone except talk talk users turned OFF relevant to this?
Shurly if they possess the images it shows that the filter does not work, since they managed to get the images anyway even with it enabled and the whole point of the filter is to stop the images.
There is a lot wrong here, in multiple different ways!
It's called a post-hoc fallacy, the assumption that anything that happens after an event is caused by that event. For instance we have seen a marked decrease in the number of sixteen year old page 3 girls since 9/11, suggesting that the twin towers attack raised the preferred age for lust objects of sun readers. (This is true, btw, but relates to changes in the law)
The real question is why the NSPCC is telling such obvious lies. Are their funds drying up as people abandon them for more reputable childrens' charities?
As far as I could see the smut filter was to be a register of people wanting to access legal online content, make bad parents feel better and make loud puritans shut up about the topic. I didnt see anything suggesting it was about stopping child abuse images as that is illegal and so already prosecuted/pursued/blocked.
"The NSPCC states that one in three convicted sex offenders held positions of trust, or occupied roles that allowed them access to children."
I think I am more shocked that its only 1 in 3. Maybe a few who are trying to keep themselves out of temptation, I dont know. I think I read something recently about Germany trying to provide help to people with such urges regardless of any offences carried out.
"Langford explained that the IWF is working with the internet industry to develop new technology which will speed up the identification and removal of online child sexual abuse images"
This sounds like the kind of development that should have been the priority over the 'puritan' filter.
"Two years on from the launch of David Cameron's smut filter... two offenders are being convicted every day... 100 criminal cases taken to court, which saw 101 offenders imprisoned"
101 in 2 years? That's less than 1 per week, or a 30th of what the NSPCC are claiming.
But hey why tell the truth when its FOR THE FREAKING CHILDREN!!!!
Playing the part of the pedant for a moment... from the NSPCC page:
Sex offenders are still being convicted at the rate of 2 a day for possessing child abuse images 2 years after the Prime Minister urged industries to ‘obliterate’ them.
Nothing in that suggests that their study covers the entire 2 year period.
'a rate of 2 a day' could still hold true if the length of the snapshot was 50 days. They never say that their sample covers the entire 2 year period, just what the current rate is during the period of their study, which happens to have been conducted two years after Cameron's statement.
As to whether the filter he came up with had anything to do with it - I still think that's bullshit.
which implies that rate hasn't changed
Not necessarily. It could just indicate they think the number of child abuse cases is too high even now even though there might be a downward trend (obviously in this context anything more than zero is too much). A way perhaps of emphasising there is more to do.
First, define child pornography properly. The legal definition is vague and much wider than just pornography.
Second, count photographs properly. Number of photographs seized includes legal photographs as well. A single picture of a child in a paddling pool,can result in every photograph in the house being seized and destroyed.
Third, the NSPCC has a conflict of interest. They are part of an industry.