- Related Stories
-
Industry, others object to data retention
May 31, 2006 -
ISP snooping plans take backseat
May 18, 2006 -
Republican politico endorses data retention
May 5, 2006 -
FCC approves Net-wiretapping taxes
May 3, 2006 -
Congress may consider mandatory ISP snooping
April 28, 2006 -
U.S. attorney general calls for 'reasonable' data retention
April 20, 2006 -
ISP snooping gaining support
April 14, 2006 -
EU data retention directive gets final nod
February 22, 2006 -
Europe passes tough new data retention laws
December 14, 2005 -
Your ISP as Net watchdog
June 16, 2005 -
Europe to push ahead with ISP snooping law
June 9, 2005 -
FBI adds to wiretap wish list
March 12, 2004 -
My (brief) career as an ISP
October 10, 2003 -
FBI targets Net phoning
July 29, 2003 -
Perspective: Privacy lessons from Europe
October 23, 2002
The Internet companies--AOL, EarthLink, Microsoft, United Online and Yahoo--are pledging $1 million in cash and technical assistance to develop technology that can "detect and disrupt the distribution of known images of child exploitation" on the Internet. The coalition's effort will take place under the auspices of the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children.
Tuesday's announcement comes just hours before the beginning of a two-day U.S. House of Representatives hearing that will explore enacting new laws to require Internet providers to store records on what Americans are doing online, a concept called data retention.
Because Internet providers are loath to see new laws that could raise privacy and security concerns--and cost them millions of dollars in the process--they hope that their own, self-regulatory proposal will reduce Congress' willingness to impose a mandatory one. That may be a tough task: Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has been pressing for data retention laws as a way to aid in child porn investigations, and some politicians have already drafted legislation.
"There's always a concern that regulations are adopted that are overly expansive or difficult to implement," said Fred Randall, general counsel to United Online, which provides Internet access through its NetZero brand and operates social networking Web sites such as Classmates.com. Randall said that United Online has a history of working with law enforcement and already reports child pornography images and videos that its employees encounter.
One proposal that politicians are expected to present during Tuesday's hearing, according to one industry representative who spoke on condition of anonymity, is the creation of a national list of Web sites featuring illegal sex-themed images. Internet providers could be either encouraged or required to block access to them. (That's being done in the U.K. and was the law in Pennsylvania until a federal judge struck it down as unconstitutional.)
Borrowing from computer science
While the Internet companies say they have reached no firm decision about what standardized detection mechanism to use and are planning a meeting in July to work out details, one leading candidate can be found in any basic computer science textbook: a hash function.
Hash functions are methods used by programmers to generate a relatively small digital fingerprint from any type of data--including music, videos and photographs. Checksums, for instance, typically rely on hash functions. What makes them useful are two properties: first, they're often unique (though there's no guarantee), and second, changing even one byte is supposed to result in a completely different fingerprint.
For instance, the popular MD5 hash function yields the value fa145076b2c4d025fc7b7b4cf6bd256c for "CNET News.com" and the noticeably different result 643bc47634c1b834f36623fdb120d565 for the text "CNET News..com".
AOL has used hash functions in its internal efforts against child pornography since early 2004, said spokesman Andrew Weinstein.
See more CNET content tagged:
United Online Inc.,
Internet provider,
Net company,
Internet company,
computer science
millions of web addresses that are very dynanmic and
can change their address in a moments notice. There
aren't enough resources on this planet to filter
all objectionable material. And once you start, who
exactly would define objectioable sites? You,
perhaps George?
Your second point is extremely ill informed. If you
give a billion people access to information they
had no access to before, how are you oppressing
them? By the same logic that you cannot filter
all pornographic material, you cannot filter all
political material as well. Google has, by its
very nature, provided the Chinese people more
information then they would have otherwise. If you
think otherwise then you are a fool.
How do you propose they detect these sites hmm? It's easy to say what should happen, it quite another matter to come up with an actual come up with a solution. Google and Yahoo index billions of websites and there isn't a reliable automated way to scan for these sites. A human being going over them is the only sure way but due to the number of sites index (with more being added all the time) it would be impossible for them to clean the entire database of these search engines.
"They are making money from crimes against children. If you doubt this, do a search for "incest" if you have the stomach for it."
Incest is not necessarly a crime against a child. What proof do you have the people on these sites are actually related? Porn sites aren't above lying to attract vistors. At least as far as Google goes, no ads are displayed when you search for incest.
"How else do you explain how they prostituted themselves to the Communist Chinese and helped oppress a 1.2 billion people?"
As far as Google goes they only censor their search results. If these didn't they be blocked as far as access to information they don't make a big difference. My understanding is Google doesn't offer Gmail or Blogger in China and their servers are located outside China and thus unavailable to the Chinese government. Since the servers are located outsided of China (mostly in the U.S) there is a legal process the Chinese government must go through if the want records.
"And how else do you explain their lack of cooperation with the U.S. government?"
the U.S governments request was not based on any any need by law enforcement but rather the collection of sample data to help the government defend COPA in court. In the U.S there is a system for challenging such requests. The governments inital request was large and as the judge in Google's challenge pointed out would have set a bad precident if allowed.
This in its self is a step forward from censorship and Google should be applauded for taking this step. Incest sites do not mean child porn sites. How is google linking to child porn? The company motto is "do no evil."
I am a republican, but I find your views extreme right and un-informed. Before you go off on the net you should have your facts straight. Personaly if a web site opperator is found to be running child porn, Truely child porn I say they are an oxegen thief. But in making laws about this we need to be careful. Many laws have far reaching consequences.
You will no doubt dissagree with me, but this administration has steped a bit out of line. Secretly monitoring US citezen phone calls.(If they have nothing to hide why hide it?). Secretly requesting the search records(only Google opposed them.) I say Good. Checks and balances are needed. History teaches time and again, if un-checked a government will become tyranical. We are different WHY?
What makes our government so special we should not question it? Be fore you answer, China dosen't think thier people should question them either. The USSR didn't like people with different views either. We can messure freedom with the ability to argue with our government. Otherwise, what would you use?
Yes, some responcibilty of abuse of power should also be on the ISPs, but I feel more that they are doing what they can to stave off data retention laws, the SOBing congress is forcing/tipping their hand to do this.
I can see so much possibilites of abuse of these new policies. AOL or any ISP shouldn't be scanning my e-mails for ANY purpose. At least with virus scanning, you the end-user can turn that off, can you turn this off? They are not analogous, then.
What if people get sent these images by people unsolicted? What if someone in a foreign country with a beef with a CNET editor, for example, in a country that doesn't do this, so therefore they don't get caught, sends an e-mail to a CNET editor's email address, and that editor uses AOL, AOL scans the e-mail, the hash checks determine their is child porn it in, and before you know it, the swat team are rushing on that CNET editor house for recieving an e-mail he didn't want it the first place and had nothing to do with. See, this is making ANYONE who enounters child porn in any way, including by accident, guilty of be a child pred. This is a violation of the Fourth and Fifth amendments. This really is not much different than the abuses that could come from Gonzales's data retention and could even be worse, and has me again rethinking if I'll continue to use the internet at all, and more specifically, my POS ISP.
And like the guy from EFF pointed out, what to stop them from stopping traffic of legit porn?
What's to stop them from giving info to the RIAA and MPAA and creating hash checks for P2Ps?
The answer... nothing. The internet is dead, my friends.
"Operator and its Affiliated ISPs maintain personally identifiable information about subscribers for as long as it is necessary for business purposes. This period of time lasts as long as you are a subscriber and up to fifteen additional years"
"Operator's system, in delivering and routing the ISP Services, and the systems of Operator's Affiliated ISPs, may automatically log information concerning Internet addresses you contact, and the duration of your visits to such addresses"
Alot of ISPs already scan your e-mail at their gateways (incoming and outgoing) for viruses and if the header matches spam blacklists.
Yes, some responcibilty of abuse of power should also be on the ISPs, but I feel more that they are doing what they can to stave off data retention laws, the SOBing congress is forcing/tipping their hand to do this.
I can see so much possibilites of abuse of these new policies. AOL or any ISP shouldn't be scanning my e-mails for ANY purpose. At least with virus scanning, you the end-user can turn that off, can you turn this off? They are not analogous, then.
What if people get sent these images by people unsolicted? What if someone in a foreign country with a beef with a CNET editor, for example, in a country that doesn't do this, so therefore they don't get caught, sends an e-mail to a CNET editor's email address, and that editor uses AOL, AOL scans the e-mail, the hash checks determine their is child porn it in, and before you know it, the swat team are rushing on that CNET editor house for recieving an e-mail he didn't want it the first place and had nothing to do with. See, this is making ANYONE who enounters child porn in any way, including by accident, guilty of be a child pred. This is a violation of the Fourth and Fifth amendments. This really is not much different than the abuses that could come from Gonzales's data retention and could even be worse, and has me again rethinking if I'll continue to use the internet at all, and more specifically, my POS ISP.
And like the guy from EFF pointed out, what to stop them from stopping traffic of legit porn?
What's to stop them from giving info to the RIAA and MPAA and creating hash checks for P2Ps?
The answer... nothing. The internet is dead, my friends.
Did anybody ever bothered to do a study of this "pervasive" child porn problem? Like how many convictions of child porn that actually occured? Or is this one of those mystical "everybody knows" thingie?
It's one on those conversational enders, those things they purposely do to make you stop responding and dissenteing, using arguements like, "why, you can't possibly be against this, unless you're a child predator!"
We see this illogical thinking here in this very thread. People attacking people and making character assassinations just becuase they want this power grab. THese people are the sick people envoking children to get legislation or policies they want. They are the ones exploiting children.
At least this shows them for who they really are.
I don't buy the argument that you have to let child porn be available otherwise its 1984. That is a sick definition of freedom. The constitution is not a suicide pact, and it is not a protector of child pornographers.
Clueless. Vicious. Full of venom and attackful.
I don't buy the premise that you wipe your keyster with the constitution just to purportedly defend against "terrorism" and "child predators". That is the sick definiton of freedom. Constitution holds precedent.
What part of "we have laws against child porn/child predators" do you not understand?
On what do you base that slanderous assertion on?
"As do many on the left."
Same question as above. You might want to look up the republicans who have been caught having sex with minors or owning childporn as there is surprising number of them. It appears the right has a soft spot for childporn as well.
"I don't buy the argument that you have to let child porn be available otherwise its 1984."
It depends on how you go after it. If they use the method employed in PA to block child porn websites then lots of legit sites will also be blocked (which is the reason it was found unconstitutional). Nor can they treat everyone like a criminal by invading their privacy on the off chance they may have child porn. Lets not forget hashing algorithms are subject to collisons (false positives) and even the most rudimentary encryption algorithm could foil the use of hashes. The RIAA wanted ISPs etc to implement similar filters to stop the filesharing of music. When the RIAA asked congress to step in on the issue the response was that such a method would be ineffective along with turing ISPs in to copyright Cops.
"The constitution is not a suicide pact, and it is not a protector of child pornographers."
No but it does protect the innocent from unreasonable measures. It is not reasonable (at least it's not suppose to be) to suggest that everyone be placed under surveillance to stop child porn.
This will cost ISPs a ridiculous amount of money, and do nothing. One little SSL certificate will make this system useless. The cost of implementing this useless system will still make your Internet bill go way up.
Think of this as a tax increase to fund pork.
The Houses's website has a link for streaming video.
What file formats? JPEG/GIF/TIFF/BMP? any other obscure ones?
What if they encrypt their files? How can the HASH ever match.
Brian Doyle, 56, of Silver Spring, MD, resigned from his job shortly after his Apr. 4 arrest on charges of trying to solicit sex with an underage child. He has pleaded not guilty and is free on $230,000 bond. If convicted on all counts, he could be sentenced to life in prison.
Anyone remember that story?
Remember these things when you go and say the "Left" has a love of child pornographers, thanks.
Yes, you are right, just change one pixel or use SSL, an anonymizer or something like freenet and hash checking is useless. This will cost us all losts of money, but doo nothing to stop child porn.
-
by Screwedin615
October 6, 2008 3:20 PM PDT
- If AOL really wanted to prevent Child Porn, they would warn their members of the consequences. I certainly had no idea there were mandatory sentences involved when I traded with an FBI agent sitting in an AOL chatroom. Had I known, I can assure you I would have never done such a thing. I believed by trading for old images, that you were not really doing anything harmful, and the FBI only wanted those in Porn Rings or those that paid for images. It's like shooting fish in a barrel, and AOL is mostly to blame. Even the smallest of items carry warning labels, but something that can get you 10 years or more in jail is not even addressed by them. Cowards.
-
Reply to this comment
-
See all 28 Comments >>