After the conviction of that sick retard that killed that little girl in Wales the children's charity's are asking for a crack down on child **** sites.

Am I missing something? I thought child **** was illegal in this country and without googling I would have thought typing child **** referring words would bring up an official government warning.

No?

 

I don't quite follow either, yes it is massively illegal already.

Perhaps they want ISPs to me more proactive and quicker to respond to requests to disconnect websites.

 

I would have thought that it is not as simple as just googling the two words. The sites are probably named some thing random to try and hide them.

 

You guys never heard of 'Tor' '.onion' or 'the Deep Web'? That's how easy it is to access this and other material should you so wish.

Handy if you want a hired assassin too, apparently.

 

Nope, can't say I have!!

As said before I had assumed (falsly is seems) that everything possible was already being done to stop these site and catch their users.

 

I haven't seen that kind of **** in a long, long time. It used to be rife. If you were into doing illegal things (i.e. cracking programs etc..), using certain types of program to download software or (in the bygone days of IRC) using some chat programs I would see those kind of images all the time. Obviously not solicited by me, but the adverts seemed to assume "looking for dodgy software serials = want to look at young teenage girls".

So to a certain extent I would say that things have been cleaned up and even hosting countries like Russia seem to have cracked down.

But, as always, technology moves on. And if you ARE looking for that kind of stuff there is Tor and Onion as mentioned above and they are really hard to stop. They truly hide both your and the servers identity. You may have heard in the news about the LulzSec group and they were only caught because one of them forgot to use TOR to connect to a chatroom, other than that not a hope of tracing them.

 

While this discussion is all very well do we actually believe that viewng these sort of images turns someone into a murdering paedophile as that is the implcation by these charities.

They seem to be implying that if he hadn't had those images he wouldn't have done it..... which is of course unproven and likely to be nonsense!

 

I usually look at the Customer Advertising board in Lidl

Typical of the media whipping up hysteria while not understanding how the Deep Web works.

 

Though unrelated directly to this killer, I think the point charities are making is that if there is no 'market' for these kinds of images, fewer pictures will be shared and fewer children will be abused and potentially killed.

I too am dubious about the link of looking at such pictures turning someone into a killer paedophile. I think it's a symptom rather than the cause. The same crap is spouted by people who link murders to violent videogames.

 

The suggestion that Google should police their results and remove anything illegal just shows an ignorance of technology and the practices of those involved in illegal activities.

Proactively removing content would need human intervention as I very much doubt sites carrying such content have 'CHILD ****' splashed all over them in such a way that an algorithm could detect. Google has millions, if not billions and trillions of indexed pages... the cost implications are just unfeasible, no matter how abhorrent the content might be. Besides, I'd put money on the fact that the sickos that DO want to find this stuff don't Google for it - as has been said already there are lots of sub-networks around which allow more anonymous browsing and data transfer.

Rather than making the content harder to find, they should be focusing on tracking down the people making it and stopping it ever existing in the first place.

 

I had never heard of it either until recently. All my mates in the city use the "Deep Web" to source their evening highs.

 

Chap on radio was saying that people go to legal **** sites but these are loaded with ads for other illegal sites. Often with coded names that are understood by the paedophile s,hitheads.

I came across one years ago when I was doing some research into safety of kids wearing seat belts on school buses; I suppose the word "children" was picked up. It was horrible.

The request was for Google and the like to crack down on these ads.

I suppose there is the question as to whether it's better for paedos to get their kicks from a computer screen rather than going out for the real thing? But I doubt it works that way and kids will still be harmed.

dl

 

Onion/Tor network is a whole nother world where nearly everything and anything can be bought and sold using bitcoins.

 

What I don't understand is when it supposedly affects large companies pockets they are screaming at British courts to get ISP's to ban downloading sites yet they don't ban the child **** ones?

 

Know what you're saying mate but it ain't really that simple, as the guys mentioned above. It's a mess alright though!

 

IMO the Internet needs censoring. If thats possible, i don't know. There is the rumpus about JLO's *** on BGT, yet easily, and without much effort you can stumble accross some pretty sick (but legal) stuff.

 

Nope, never and i don't want anything to do with it.

 

 

Regardless of whether for against, imagine the complexity technically, politically, socially, of trying to censor the internet.

 

While i quite agree about restricting or trying to make this type of **** nigh on impossible to view , to me, its just the thin edge to a slippery slope. If its successful, whats next on the list? This argument has gone on for years and will continue until the do gooders get their way cos yet another sicko looked at images . yes, images were found on his pc , but it was his weak personality that he acted on. The images were just the catalyst to make him carry out this abhorrent crime.As guys ,and women dont forget, we all look at **** to a greater or lesser degree but that dont make us all go out and rape women . If its in somebodies psyche to commit horrendous crimes , they will, whether they watch the stuff or not

 

Don't the Chinese manage it.

 

The Chinese to not have access to the Internet, as we know it

They have access to a very controlled "walled garden"

 

This all makes it sound like , since the advent of the internet , all of mans [or a certain percentage of them] evil thoughts and actions have been turned on. It wasnt around when saville and sickos like him were doing what they did so what was their excuse? Dirty b...ards one and all , no matter what age the victims are .

 

No, absolutely not. They may try, and the 'great firewall' may deter casual browsing, but as a way to actually prevent determined people from accessing blocked material it's a spectacular failure - just as any such scheme was always guaranteed to be.

 

People who think that censoring the internet works or could be made to work just show a complete misunderstanding of how information travels on the net.

If it was just a case of banning www.kiddyfiddlers.com then yes, it might be possible....however people devious enough to be looking for this sort of thing dont use normal websites.
Illicit material, whether its ****, stolen credit card details or the new Daft Punk album flows around the globe in waves via bit torrent, news groups and the deep web. None of this is traceable or stoppable. ever.
At the shallow end of the spectrum, I downloaded The Bourne Legacy (load of **** btw!) last night. All my ISP knows is that 750mb of data arrived at my computer from dozens of different sources around the globe.....it has no idea the content of that data or exactly where it came from.
There is no way that could have been stopped. Sure, they can find wherever The Pirate Bay is being hosted and shut down the servers, but that wont stop anything mainly because the films etc are not there, they are distributed in small chunks around the world on individual computer, besides it will just pop up somewhere else within a couple of days anyway.

The internet just physically CAN'T be censored. I am sitting here in France watching BBC iPlayer...it only took a few mouse clicks to get around the block BBC have on foreign viewers. There will always be a way around anything that is imposed.
Morally, its not possible either. No normal person wants kiddy **** to be available, but where do you draw the line and who decides what is to be made available to us proles?
kids - wrong.
BDSM between consenting adults? - technically its illegal to view this in France. Why? who decided that? and what will they take a dislike to next? Its not a slippery slope, once censorship starts its a vertical drop.

 

[QUOTE=f1_fan;11106193]While this discussion is all very well do we actually believe that viewng these sort of images turns someone into a murdering paedophile as that is the implcation by these charities.

Don't know - ask April

 

I take it that site in the second paragraph is made up , but its highlighted as a link to a site ! Someone PLEASE click on it to see what comes up , surely its not that easy ? Im certainly not touching it

 

It is a shame that those who publicise any kind of **** on the Net can't be tracked down and heavily punished.

Les

 

Even when it's perfectly legal, Les?

 

A flippant answer and one that by implication means you think there is a connection between the availability of these images and this kind of act. What evidence do you have for this?