ForumGarden

My journey into the hell that is internet child porn: We asked AMANDA PLATELL to view the websites that twisted the mind of little Tia's killer | Mail Online

Why is it always someone else's fault when the bastards get caught?

Oh come on. He typed "‘little girls in glasses" and Google's to blame for the attack?

No censorship.

SnoozeAgain;1428016 wrote: Oh come on. He typed "‘little girls in glasses" and Google's to blame for the attack?

No censorship.


agreed.

And even if there was, the sites that have the stuff on them should be held responsible for their content. Not Google for just finding what you were looking for.

It's a bit like blaming a street directory listing the addresses of pubs and off licences for alcoholics being able to find them.

gmc;1428024 wrote: It's a bit like blaming a street directory listing the addresses of pubs and off licences for alcoholics being able to find them. I don't know.

I am just wondering If child porn was not available on the net so readily, would It contain those with a passing Interest and stop them looking at more and more deviant child porn?

To me, It's chicken and egg.

If Google had something In place that did not allow those who create the sites to be found through search engines, then they would be far less easy to find and not so readily available.

We should always blame the faceless as opposed to the actual perp.

Gun

Google

Big Mac

Large Soda

Alcohol

Machete

Car

Bar or tavern

Big Pharma

Big Oil

Big Agriculture

Religion

This makes our society so much more stronger and virtuous.

And it makes us feel really smart and "enlightened".

:guitarist

Don't forget the tobacco industry... they're spotless.

SnoozeAgain;1428029 wrote: Don't forget the tobacco industry... they're spotless.


Must blame them too!

In order to remove the pesky "individual liberty", we must first remove "individual responsibility". We do this with Washington D.C and Hollywood as our role models.

Yeah, those addictive carcinogenics have nothing to do with it.

SnoozeAgain;1428032 wrote: Yeah, those addictive carcinogenics have nothing to do with it.


Precisely why they should be blamed...but not banned. That would show resolve and common sense.

There's so much wrong with "Is It time for Google to remove all child porn or be held accountable" that it's hard to know where to start. Firstly I deplore weaseling out of responsibility for the suggestion by posing it as a question.

Does the OP think current programming technology is capable of distinguishing illegal "child porn" from other web material, even without taking the different legal criteria of the host and viewer country into account in each instance? In case there's any question about that, no it isn't. The only capacity Google would have for making that distinction is by employing a trained human to look at the page.

So Google's to employ trained humans to look at all web pages potentially carrying "child porn" in order to remove links to any it finds - much less all that exists, which is what the OP's "question" requires? The company doesn't earn that much, it would go bankrupt. Go and look at an estimate of the number of web pages in the world, and then consider an employee actively looking at each and forming a judgement every time its content changed.

Assume, for the sake of argument, that this weren't so and Google complied with the implied requirement. Have you never heard of Bing's search engine? Yahoo's? DuckDuckGo's? There are dozens of world-wide world-class search engines out there. Why pick on just Google?

Assume, for the sake of argument, that every web search engine company employs trained humans to look at all web pages potentially carrying illegal "child porn" in order to remove links to all that it finds. There are a dozen other host technologies in current use which have peer-to-peer indexing and never go anywhere near any company, or any search engine, to provide downloads. Why pick on web search providers when you'd not abate the problem by one iota if you totally succeeded in removing all the links you're discussing.

As for the quoted article, either the author is lying or the author should be prosecuted - it's not up to the police or DPP to decide whether public interest is a defence for what the author claims to have done, that's a question for a court to answer. Personally I think the described "research" actions as far as web access goes are lies, nobody could be that stupid.

" weaseling out of responsibility for the suggestion by posing it as a question." ? get a grip, It was a question to Induce debate nothing more. That's what we have here Is It not? A discussion forum.

If the author of the article Is a liar.... prove It

I don't suppose you'd like to actually address the topic by any chance.

oscar;1428026 wrote: I don't know.

I am just wondering If child porn was not available on the net so readily, would It contain those with a passing Interest and stop them looking at more and more deviant child porn?

To me, It's chicken and egg.

If Google had something In place that did not allow those who create the sites to be found through search engines, then they would be far less easy to find and not so readily available.


Just be certain that those entering queries diretly looking for child porn sites are being logged in the appropriate authorities little black book.

There are no secrets on the web, it just takes time to winnow the wheat from the chaff.

Bryn Mawr;1428255 wrote: Just be certain that those entering queries diretly looking for child porn sites are being logged in the appropriate authorities little black book.

There are no secrets on the web, it just takes time to winnow the wheat from the chaff.
I understand that Bryn but as an example, In the case of Tia Sharp being murdered and many others ( I recall that boyfriend of Karen Matthews) police only find the child porn when they have siezed their computers after the event.

oscar;1428256 wrote: I understand that Bryn but as an example, In the case of Tia Sharp being murdered and many others ( I recall that boyfriend of Karen Matthews) police only find the child porn when they have siezed their computers after the event.


It takes time to winnow the wheat from the chaff.

That it is sometimes too late does not mean that it does not happen.

Bryn Mawr;1428258 wrote: It takes time to winnow the wheat from the chaff.

That it is sometimes too late does not mean that it does not happen. I agree but my question stands. Do those with a moderate Interest In child porn just looking on the Internet get drawn Into more and more hard core child porn by the easy availability through search engines and If they do, Is there anything ie, google can do to help stop It.?

Child porn is highly illegal and it's taken very seriously by our law enforcement agencies. If they're that easy to find, you can bet they won't last long with the FBI on their ass.

Besides, isn't there something called the "dark" web or something, that I read or heard about. It needs special search engines but its where illegal activity is common place and incredibly difficult to police. Selling of illegal drugs, child porn etc. It aint like the ordinary t'internet by all accounts

Snowfire;1428310 wrote: Besides, isn't there something called the "dark" web or something, that I read or heard about. It needs special search engines but its where illegal activity is common place and incredibly difficult to police. Selling of illegal drugs, child porn etc. It aint like the ordinary t'internet by all accounts


If you can get oscar to address the points raised so far I'll be surprised.

oscar;1428260 wrote: I agree but my question stands. Do those with a moderate Interest In child porn just looking on the Internet get drawn Into more and more hard core child porn by the easy availability through search engines and If they do, Is there anything ie, google can do to help stop It.?


Is there such a thing as moderate child porn or a moderate interest in it?

"This proves more than ever that, whenever possible, search engines and servers have got to be made to act responsibly. Whenever this sort of thing can be detected, we've got to close it down." - Colonel Patrick Mercer, MP, OBE, from the OP citation.

In a statement, Mr Mercer said: "Panorama are planning to broadcast a programme alleging that I have broken Parliamentary rules. I am taking legal advice about these allegations - and I have referred myself to the Parliamentary commissioner for standards. In the meantime, to save my party embarrassment, I have resigned the Conservative Whip and have so informed Sir George Young. I have also decided not to stand at the next general election."

BBC News - Tory MP Patrick Mercer resigns



At least it'll keep the chap out of the Daily Mail in future.

Google (and other search engines) simply provide a list of sites relevant to the search criteria. If a government chooses to make a site or domain inaccessible through all ISPs in that country, the link is simply an address with no way for a user to reach it. Likewise, if a parent is running a parental controls firewall blocking certain domains, URLs, or high level domains (such as .xxx), the site is not accessible through that computer.

Information is not the enemy. Following the argument of the OP, all research papers on pedophilia and pornography should be censored and banned, lest a graduate student learn what has been observed and studied.

May this will make you feel better about it:

BBC News - Google: 'Zero tolerance' on child sexual abuse imagery

Meanwhile that old coffin dodger Vince Traitor Cable jumps on the bandwagon.

Vince Cable leads calls for Google to proactively block vile child porn | Mail Online

oscar;1428588 wrote: Meanwhile that old coffin dodger Vince Traitor Cable jumps on the bandwagon.I look forward to reeding next week that he's been raising questions from the floor in exchange for payment then, preferably from Al Fayed in used notes wrapped in brown paper.

One hopes against hope that someone from this new wave has a wife in the same league as that Hamilton woman, but one doubts the world could get that lucky twice.

Týr;1428590 wrote: I look forward to reeding next week that he's been raising questions from the floor in exchange for payment then, preferably from Al Fayed in used notes wrapped in brown paper.

One hopes against hope that someone from this new wave has a wife in the same league as that Hamilton woman, but one doubts the world could get that lucky twice.


:wah: Wouldn't surprise me In the slightest.

Do you mean Christine Hamilton ?

oscar;1428591 wrote: Do you mean Christine Hamilton ?That's the one. They broke the mould when they put her together, she's a one-off.

Putting her into the same marriage as Neil Hamilton was a bit like banging two halves of an A-bomb together, the end result was bigger than what each on their own could possibly have produced. I blame the electorate for not realizing immediately they went out canvassing. Or maybe the constituents of Tatton had a satirical sense of humour.

We are now officially, I think, off topic