Google and Microsoft To Block Child-Abuse Search Terms 308
mrspoonsi writes "Leading search engine companies Google and Microsoft have agreed measures to make it harder to find child abuse images online. As many as 100,000 search terms will now return no results that find illegal material, and will trigger warnings that child abuse imagery is illegal. The Google chairman said he hired a 200-strong team to work out a solution over the last three months. Google's previous set of measures, which displayed a warning to people attempting to search for illegal material and caused a 20 percent drop in illicit activity."
Re:Friendly request to non-Brits (Score:5, Informative)
That's not the impression the BBC article [bbc.co.uk] gives me. Indeed, it says:
Typing "child pornography" in to Google's search engine now brings up a set of search results that include warnings that child abuse imagery is illegal.
The first three links are all related to reporting disturbing images or seeking help if you think you or someone you know has a problem with child porn.
The first link is an advert that links to a Google statement about protecting children from sexual abuse. The next link directs you to the Internet Watch Foundation, where you can report criminal online content, and a link to Stop it Now advises users how they can get help and advice.
The remaining search results are mainly news stories from around the world reporting on child pornography.
So Google are now engaging in government-directed manipulation of search results covering the discussion of child sex abuse images.
Re:Friendly request to non-Brits (Score:5, Informative)
There was a Finnish site called lapsiporno.info (= "kiddieporn") which was an freedom-of-speech advocate's site who was complaining about excessively wide (and anti-constitutional) governmental blocking of things which weren't actually the distribution of child pornography. His reward for his actions - being added to the blocked list himself.
http://www.effi.org/blog/kai-2008-02-18.html
But it's a small price to pay, because think of the chiiiiildren!
Re:Well, it's something. (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, I think it's done for no other reason than to shut Claire Perry and The Daily Mail with their "Stop online porn" campaign the fuck up - yes, that's a real thing.
Since she was elected this is the only issue she's focussed on, if I were Dave Cameron I'd be pretty sick of hearing her harp on about things she doesn't understand by now too and would probably do something useless and pointless just to get her off my back.
Not saying it'll work of course, and not defending it, but I can understand why someone would cave in to a multi-year barrage of whining from that silly cow.
Now we just need her to suffer the same fate as Jacqui Smith, the last MP who was as whiny and clueless as Claire Perry - her being caught charging her husband's porn to her expenses. Karma - it's great.
Re:Well, it's something. (Score:4, Informative)
That is a red herring. Those that _sell_ this stuff can easily be identified and shut down by a very classical police technique called "follow the money". And that, again, has the added benefit that it may actually help some of those getting abused. Just drying up public business will just drive them underground (remember the prohibition?) and do nothing to help any abuse victim at all.
Re:Well, it's something. (Score:2, Informative)
Well, you obviously aren't from NYC or you're a pig apologist.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/10/nyregion/10quotas.html?pagewanted=all
Also, the point was not that spitting on the sidewalk or smoking marijuana is illegal, the point was that you will get a ticket for smoking weed but if $2000 rims get stolen off a parked car it will end up categorized as a "petty theft" as if jacking up a car and stealing the fucking wheels off it is the same as stealing some candy from the corner store.
Re:Well, it's something. (Score:5, Informative)
I think the opposite is probably true.
There is no evidence to support your belief. There have been many instances where the availability of pornography in a society changed, either by legal changes or technology (such as the spread of Internet porn). These changes are correlated with a decline in sexual violence. Here is an overview of the evidence [psychologytoday.com].
I have known several guys that watched porn compulsively. They all had no relationships with women. The porn was a replacement for actual sex. I don't know if the same is true for pedophiles, but it seems to me that child porn is as likely to reduce molestation as it is to cause it. It seems reasonable to me to ban any porn depicting an actual child, but banning porn using adults posing as children, or animation, should not be done without clear evidence that it is harmful.
Re:Well, it's something. (Score:4, Informative)
Similar in the UK. We have a ban on 'extreme pornography' that had to include an exception for BBFC rated movies - otherwise, even by the writer's admission, a lot of the horror films coming out of Hollywood would meet the definition.