Microsoft Collaborates On Child Porn Buster 671
pmike_bauer writes "Microsoft and Canadian authorities on Thursday launched a software program designed to help police worldwide hunt down child porn traffickers. Police departments can use it free of charge." From the article: "The program was developed by Microsoft Canada, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and Toronto police, with the help of the Department of Homeland Security, Scotland Yard and Interpol." Update: 04/08 18:09 GMT by Z : Modified to reflect the fact that it's not Open Source.
Microsft releasing OSS? *Blink* (Score:3, Insightful)
They cry and whinge about how inherently evil OSS is, and then when its used for a purpose that they know nothing other than OSS would be accepted, they go ahead and release software in this way.
It would be interesting to see what license this has been released under.
This could serve good use in showing they FUD around open source as the sham that it is.
Whilst im glad that they are doing this, I wonder if it may come back and haunt their OSS fighting efforts later down the line. Lets hope so, im all for Win-Win situations.
-Shepy
Re:Microsft releasing OSS? *Blink* (Score:4, Insightful)
It's difficult to take a stand against an entity after they've declared war on kiddie porn.
Re:Microsft releasing OSS? *Blink* (Score:3, Interesting)
Perhaps 3 fronts.
Microsoft just made a direct connection between OSS and kiddie porn. Whether or not it's a 'good' connection is irrelavent. The connection's made, just like the senators tring to associate P2P with kiddie porn. Any connotation with kiddie porn is a bad connotation in this "WON'T SOMEONE THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!11!!oneone!!OMGWTFBBQ!!!!!" world.
Re:Microsft releasing OSS? *Blink* (Score:5, Funny)
Actually, it's harder than you think. Allow the Open Source Players to demonstrate:
The Open Source Players present "You're a bad man!", by TripMaster Monkey.
So, as you can see, it's indeed not wise to take a stand against M$, especially since they've so firmly established themselves in the Camp of Good.
Re:Microsft releasing OSS? *Blink* (Score:4, Funny)
OSSG:See this wookie? He is from Endor. Does that make any sense? No. It doesn't!
AJ:Oh, my bad.
Re:It isn't OSS, it's vaporware. (Score:3, Informative)
There is nothing in the GPL or most other free software licences that requires you to make your software available for free on an ftp site.
It is perfectly OK to sell it and make money from selling it.
What you can't do is prevent the people you sell it to from making it available on an ftp site if they choose to do this.
Re:Microsft releasing OSS? *Blink* (Score:5, Funny)
Win-win? As opposed to *nix-*nix?
I'll be here all night...please tip your waitresses!Re:Microsft releasing OSS? *Blink* (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Microsft releasing OSS? *Blink* (Score:5, Insightful)
The article headline says "Open Source", but the text of the article just says that the software is free to police forces. Since it was also developed with the help of a couple of police forces, that makes sense, however, "Free for police" and "Open source" aren't the same thing.
Since most news stories have a different person writing the headline than writes the article itself, I'd assume that the headline writer is confused about what open source is (or didn't read the article carefully) and this software isn't "Open Source" at all.
(Yes, I'm referring to the linked article and headline itself, not the
Re:Microsft releasing OSS? *Blink* (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Microsft releasing OSS? *Blink* (Score:5, Insightful)
MS doesn't like OSS in the retail/commerical industry - which this is not.
They did a good thing, appreciate it. It is not FUD, I am sorry to say that in this case the FUD is from you at first post.
re: microsft releasing OSS? *blink* (Score:5, Insightful)
think about the uses to which you can put that underlying code, which is now all open source. now imagine what will happen when someone takes this open source code and perverts it into a complete ID theft tool. what will the M$ press release look like then?
ed
Re: microsft releasing OSS? *blink* (Score:3, Interesting)
Then M$ just goes on saying this is because OSS is evil, and this only happened because of OSS.
Re:Microsft releasing OSS? *Blink* (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, Microsoft has never said that open source is bad for commercial work. They have consistently said that BSD type licenses are fine but GPL is bad. The problem that they have with the GPL is that they feel that it can pollute other projects that touch it. (I like to think of this as the "clingy" theory of the GPL.)
Microsoft is right about what the GPL does, but they are wrong to think that it kills business. ALthough, it might put a dent into their business model.
If you want to argue with Microsoft you have to at least understand what they are saying and why. Otherwise it just comes down to two separate hissy fits....
Re:Microsft releasing OSS? *Blink* (Score:4, Informative)
The GPL only covers actualy *COPYING*.
It does not stop you from reading code, learning something new from it, then applying that knowledge in a creative way.
Even Stallman himself said that copyright doesn't protect ideas, it only protects an implementation of those ideas. If you create a new implementation of something that's derived from but dissimilar enough from a particular GPL'd work to not be considered infringing on it's copyright even *without* the GPL applied, then you aren't infringing on the GPL at all.
Re:Microsft releasing OSS? *Blink* (Score:5, Informative)
If I put a sign on my lemon tree that says "free lemons" it is not stealing to take some lemons, even if you strip the tree bare and set up a stand nearby to sell them for 5 cents each.
Microsoft can use BSD licensed code in their closed source products, and the author who released the code under the BSD license is/was/should be aware that this is the whole point of choosing to release code under the BSD license over the GPL.
Re:Microsft releasing OSS? *Blink* (Score:3, Insightful)
BSD code they can profit from for free, GPL code they can not.
Or: One's a gift, the other is a mutual exchange. Hey, who doesn't like gifts?
Re:Microsft releasing OSS? *Blink* (Score:3, Interesting)
Others can STILL invent "lemorapples" they just have to do it from the same BSD-licensed code.
That's the real "Free-as-in-freedom," getting to decide the license for your own code!
Re:Microsft releasing OSS? *Blink* (Score:5, Insightful)
And who says that MS has to donate a certain amount of money? If they want to spend 10 mil on a 100k donation - that is their choice - we should thank them for the 100k donation and we should thank them for putting 10 mil back into the economy and lining someone elses pockets.
But you are right about one thing - many people will never trust MS no matter what they do - which I think is just plain old shameful since we forgive people who do a lot more graver of sins.
Win-Win? (Score:3, Funny)
Windows Windows?
I'm sure Bill would love for you to buy 2 licenses every time you needed just one.
Re:Microsft releasing OSS? *Blink* (Score:3, Funny)
"Microsoft profits from Child Porn Licences"
Law enforcement offices throughout the US were complaining today that their job just got much harder with less manpower available due to the cost of reporting software from Microsoft. The Redmond company starting "giving away" the product in 2005 and have carved out another monopoly, this time amongst police forces througout the US, Britain and Canada. Microsoft's latest version requires their new Operating System : Longhorn and many age
Re:Microsft releasing OSS? *Blink* (Score:3, Funny)
Bah... I prefer Lin-Lin situations any day.
The real world just got a whole lot scarier (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm not laughing so much after reading this article. It seems to describe exactly the type of universal "Big Eye" technology that Jack Bauer and his cronies at CTU have at their fingertips. And with a cattle prod like CHILD PORNOGRAPHY they've got motivation to build it and a shield to protect themselves from privacy complaints. After all, it is designed specifically to protect the children.
I guess one good thing is that it was built by Microsoft, so it won't work correctly until v3.0.
I hate child pornographers as much as anyone. I find their perversion sick and disgusting. (I am not adverse to them getting their rocks off by looking at adults who look like children. Nothing wrong with that.) But I fail to see why everyone's right to privacy should be invaded just because the Canadians can't track down their own criminals.
What we need is the anti-24. A show with a hero who is interested in building up our rights rather than finding ways of tearing it down. I guess that wouldn't go over too well in these days of ultra-Americanism, though.
Re:The real world just got a whole lot scarier (Score:5, Insightful)
You better hope that means it doesn't find anything, rather than it incorrectly finding you.
Re:The real world just got a whole lot scarier (Score:4, Funny)
Re:The real world just got a whole lot scarier (Score:3, Funny)
Re:The real world just got a whole lot scarier (Score:4, Insightful)
You better hope that means it doesn't find anything, rather than it incorrectly finding you.
Well, since the system can only identify potential connections that are flagged for detectives to look at, if it somehow matches your credit card number to kiddie porn, then there are one of two possibilities: (a) there really is a link, and if the system hadn't spotted it an astute detective might have or (b) there really is no such connection, in which case the detective will swear at the system for wasting his time and get on with his job.
Even if there is a link, it doesn't mean you're going to jail, it means that the nature of the link has to be analyzed, to determine if there's enough evidence to warrant further investigation and what kind of investigation. A match on the system won't put you in jail. A chain of evidence, collected according to the rules, that is strong enough to convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that you're a child pornographer is what puts you in jail.
Yes, police investigations sometimes inconvenience people who did nothing wrong, but that's unavoidable. Actually, that's why the system bends over so far trying to give the alleged criminal every benefit of the doubt. You can't get 100% accuracy, so we try to err on the side of freeing criminals rather than jailing innocents. So, lots of criminals walk on "technicalities", and a few innocents go to prison.
Nothing about this system, as far as I can see, changes the nature of the criminal justice process and system at all. It just facilitates part of the detective work. If it often finds erroneous links, then the detectives will quickly learn to ignore it, or at least analyze everything it finds very skeptically. In any case, the system can't create evidence where none exists.
Re:The real world just got a whole lot scarier (Score:4, Interesting)
So this is like those automated threatening letter campaigns that the RIAA and MPAA swear up and down that are reviewed by a human, even as they send off letters to the host of the X-File filemanager for hosting the entire first season of X-Files in a hundred-KB tarball?
Re:The real world just got a whole lot scarier (Score:5, Insightful)
Check civil liberties blogs (Score:5, Interesting)
Then there's the current craze for overcharging. Hit them with dozens of charges so they'll plea bargain down to what you _might_ have been able to get if the case went to trial. The innocent will agree to it because the alternative could be life in prison without parole, the prosecutor loves it because it bumps up their kill rate while freeing them to pursue other cases. Even better, part of a plea bargain is a surrender of all rights to appeal the conviction!
If you want to see a horrid example of this run amuck, look at the Weenachee, Washington child abuse cases. According to the police (a single officer, Lt. Perez, iirc), and the prosecutor a 30+ child abuse ring was uncovered and convicted.
If you listen to the critics, you'll learn that almost everyone charged was poor, hispanic, and accepted a plea bargain because they couldn't afford a defense. They all continue to maintain their innocence. The only couple to get off where rich and white and they took the case to trial. (The critics also point out that Perez appeared to have used improper interrogation techniques for young children and was far more likely to have implanted false memories than to have uncovered true ones. E.g., iirc he had many of his victims live with him while the child's parents were under investigation! He would (subconsciously?) reward them with ice cream and other treats when they were cooperative.)
If you listen to the other courts the city really screwed up and owes millions in dollars in damages. The city is appealing because the judgement will bankrupt the town.
Unfortunately the real victims are the 30+ people convicted of these crimes. The subsequent court rulings introduce massive doubts about the prior convictions and most people could get a new trial. (Then the DA would probably decline to prosecute, freeing them without an admission of wrongdoing on either side.) But they're stuck in prison for 5, 10 or even 20 years because they accepted plea bargains and lost their right of appeal. Their only hope may be a pardon from the governor - and mass pardons for convicted child molesters (regardless of circumstances) is political suicide.
So tell me again how the system bends over backwards to protect the innocence and the falsely accused have nothing to fear.
Re:The real world just got a whole lot scarier (Score:3, Insightful)
Ho hum. "It just facilitates part of the detective work."
Re:The real world just got a whole lot scarier (Score:3, Funny)
-
Re:The real world just got a whole lot scarier (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The real world just got a whole lot scarier (Score:4, Insightful)
They can't help it, that's how the mind works. It doesn't track the source of information all that well, so when it comes to form a decision or opinion on something, all of the media you have seen in your life comes into play and you don't know it. If I were to ask you, e.g. what was the Vatican's stance on the Hollocaust? Most people would say "silence", because that's what it said in the movie Dogma. It's not true, but that doesn't matter. Likewise the old west. Instead of being the brutal ethnic cleansing of 20,000,000 native americans, cowboys are seen as heros and pioneers. He who controls the past controls the present.
This is old news. Hollywood has been deliberately used to promote the American Dream for many years. Advertising has been used to get brand recognition instilled into us. And religion has been around for several thousand years. People will believe anything you tell them, it's not natural to question everything. What most folk don't realise is that the producers of media are very much aware of these facts and techniques.
ditto! MOD PARENT UP (Score:3, Insightful)
Call me crazy, but I'd rather have my rights than some illusion of security. If Bauer's heroism was in his cleverness and creativity while following the rules, he truly would be a
Re:ditto! MOD PARENT UP (Score:3, Insightful)
I think you would like many courtroom drama shows, like Law and Order, or the old LA Law. Those shows featured highly skilled lawyers, who'se (unsung) heroism was in twisting, sorry, cleverly and creatively interpreting, the rules (ie the law) to suit their own case.
Fortunatly, 24 is just fantasy TV. NO different from Arnie blowing up bad guys with his gun of unlimited ammo.
Re:The real world just got a whole lot scarier (Score:5, Interesting)
No, it didn't. If anything it just got the tiniest bit safer.
This isn't some massive database of everyone everywhere, if you RTFA you'll see that it's just a database of kiddie porn clues. Like the example given (with a lot of my own guessing/extrapolation): Cops bust a kiddie porn web site and grab a bunch of photos but can't identify who made them. Separately, cops monitor a chat forum where kiddie pornographers hang out and someone posts a (legal) image. Both sets of images are put into CETS along with information about where and when they were obtained. The system matches the images and determines they were taken with the same camera (EXIF headers or whatever). Some other clue ties in a credit card number so that the owner of the camera can be tracked down. The result is enough information and evidence to get a search warrant, which in turn provides enough evidence for an arrest and conviction.
This sounds to me like a tool to automate part of the analysis that detectives do every day, connecting apparently unrelated bits of information that have been legitimately collected. But the system only knows what the investigating agencies put into it, and there's no indication of any kind of massive effort to connect it to other databases, or to put information about everyone in it. Such efforts would likely be counterproductive, since the volume of information would overwhelm the system's ability to cross-check everything.
I'm a Libertarian who doesn't believe we should give up any of our rights to privacy just to make cops jobs' easier, but I really don't see any problem with this, and not just because it's kiddie porn. I think police *should* be using such tools to cross-check bits of information about suspects of all sorts of crimes. I'm all for criminals getting caught and punished under the law. We have some bad laws that criminalize some things that shouldn't be criminal, but the solution to that isn't to handicap the cops, it's to fix the laws.
Re:Nonsense (Score:3, Interesting)
The problem with information(data), is that it can be very easily re-purposed, disseminated, aggregated, and combined with other sources. It happens all the time.
Re:Nonsense (Score:3, Interesting)
The problem with information (data), is that it can be very easily re-purposed, disseminated, aggregated, and combined with other sources. It happens all the time...
Having worked for law enforcement, I'm nervous about any aggregation of data in an era where politically hot issues so easily distort the quaint ol' concept of "innocent until proven guilty". Highly visible lists and uberdatabases making the news in recent years may serve to illustrate the difficulty
a whole lot scarier (Score:3, Insightful)
The software doesn't search for images. From the article, it's essentially a groupware law-enforcement collaboration tool. Why stop at child porn?
If we didn't have a "big eye" before, we will shortly.
The ANTI-24 (Score:5, Insightful)
There is no "show". In my opine, the problem is exactly the fact that so many are content to sit on their arse, and watch frigging television.
Want a superhero? Someone to fight for your rights? I actually know where to find one!
Go to your nearest mirror, and take a close look. (Cape is optional.) Hmmm, now who would expect that ugly mug to be the face of a freedom fighter?
The way it works is, you, and every other mothers son has to stand up, put down the budweiser or moosehead, turn off the damn glowing boxen, and march your self down to the local city hall, or other local government office and make a damn pest of yourself, by actually being involved with what goes on.
I will lay odds that 99.5% of slashdot readers, for all their bullshit political raving, don't actually _do_ anything. (A simple test, do your city councilmen know your face and name?)
My city council sure as hell does not like to see my face in any council meeting, and they all certainly know my name, because they know that I am ever ready to challenge any bullshit they routinely try to pull. I have caused overly restrictive ordinance changes to be sent back to committee, for extreme modification, because they knew that I would take it to the voters for referendum. To quote the city manager... "That's the last thing we want."
So, If the will of the voters is the last thing they want, and ONE PERSON can cause this to go back for a more resonable approach to the problem, then how many freedoms have been lost in this country because people would rather sit home watching the damn glowing box than watching their local government in action, and standing up to them to keep the freedom destroyers in check.... Same in the state and federal level.
Look, these guys are mostly cowards... Most of them will fold under public scrutiny and political pressure...
But, if it appears that there is little or no resistance, then many will do whatever is expediant, and the hell with your freedoms.
Freedoms are usually not won in small increments, but they are lost or kept that way.
So, to all the readers. Don't bitch about it on slash-dot only. Get your butt involved in local, state and federal politics.
I will yeild the soap box to the next person now...
NOW, what did I do with that beer?
Re:The real world just got a whole lot scarier (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe you'll even feel relieved when one comes by your office and announces loudly "Mr. Coward, you're under arrest for possession of child pornography". I hope you didn't enjoy that job.
Perhaps you'll be at ease when you're sitting in your cell reading the paper and see how "investigators found a collection of photos of little boys and girls in various sexual acts on disks in the person's desk". Haven't you ever thought it odd how its always found on disks? When nobody uses floppies anymore?
Re:The real world just got a whole lot scarier (Score:3, Insightful)
While I share your concerns, take off the tin foil. "Disks" could also mean Compact Discs or Digital V(pickyourword) Discs.
Not to say that there aren't crooked cops out there who plant evidence, but
Re:The real world just got a whole lot scarier (Score:5, Funny)
No, "kitty porn" is not illegal (yet). Your collection is safe (for now).
Re:No, no no. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:No, no no. (Score:5, Informative)
The idea that you don't have a right because it's not in the Constitution is the exact opposite of how the framers intended things to work. The point of the Bill of Rights was to say 'You have all the rights that are not explicitly taken away, and here are some that can never be taken away'. There was a big fight amongst the founders because some of them thought people might come to interpret the Bill of Rights as a list of all the rights you have, rather than the rights that can't be taken away. The rest of the founders thought nobody would be that stupid but that's the way everyone has come to look at things now. It's a complete inversion of the idea of the Bill. I have a right to privacy because it's not taken away in the Constitution, not the other way around.
Re:No, no no. (Score:5, Informative)
No, they've already done much worse than that. Like turning those records over to federal law-enforcement [villagevoice.com].
That was true fifty years ago. Now everyone is a potential drug user or anti-globalization activist or copyright violator or terrorist or something the state doesn't like; and data surveillance is cheap and easy. The easier it gets, the more the question moves from "Why should we bother watching this guy?" to "Why not?"
Surveillance is moving to an opt-out model, rather than an opt-in.
two nitpicks (Score:4, Insightful)
Are you afraid that someone is going to track down your Super-Private online goings-on and share your secret with others? For example... is Safeway (grocery chain) going to track down all your online purchases of ass ailment treatments, and then, in their store, announce over the loud speaker, John Doe, We're currently featuring 10 cents off Assinol Plus with the purchase of Roidwipes2000? No. Could they? Perhaps. Would they? No. Their legal department would forbid it, for fear of frivolous lawsuits such as the one you'd hit them with 10 minutes later.
Nit #1. I wouldn't call that lawsuit frivilous. I think people have a pretty good expectation of not being made a spectacle of in the middle of a store due to medical conditions.
Nit #2. The Constitution does not define the rights we have. Just because it's not explicitly stated in the Constitution means absolutely nothing at all.
There are, however, reasonble limits to invasion and protection of privacy. I fear that unreasonable people are taking control of what those limits are, though.
Re:two nitpicks (Score:4, Informative)
You are 100% correct. This is the key that most people miss. The Constitution does not explicitly give us right -- instead it limits the rights of government (usually Congress).
The Bill of Rights includes Amendment 4, which is usually where the "right to privacy" comes from:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Does this apply to electronic "effects"? Can your emails and other Internet traffic be seized or searched without probably cause or a warrant? These are the questions that need to be answered.
Re:No, no no. (Score:5, Insightful)
First, privacy and anonymity "only within your own 4 walls" is stupid, pointless and something that nobody but a Bush-brain could come up with. For one, who would I be anonymous to in my home? It's not like there'd be many people there who don't know me. Besides, my name's right on the bell sign.
It's exactly when you leave your home that anonymity enters the picture.
Now, anonymity is not, though there are some of the same letters in both words, the same as invisibility. Seing someone (walking down the streets or committing a crime, doesn't matter, any kind of seing someone) does not in any way touch their anonymity. In fact, seing someone and not knowing who they are is exactly what anonymity is all about.
Then the old "what are you afraid of?" strawman, aka "honest people have nothing to hide".
Man, I do have a whole bunch of perfectly legal things to hide. In fact, I'd rather confess that I broke into that server thing some years ago than publishing some of the totally legal things I do.
Do I have something to hide? Well, if you want to call it that, yes. I prefer to call it it's none of your damn business.
And that's what privacy is about. Keeping the things private that I want to have kept private. It includes the right to not having to justify why I want to keep them private.
Now we've come a long way from anonymity (which is one way to secure privacy, pseudonimity is one other and there are more). I hope I haven't lost you somewhere on the road.
And then the "nobody cares, you're not important, relax" argument.
I have 20 pounds of legal papers to prove that some asshole in California cares what I post on my website in Germany. I have a hundred or so people in my social circle who care - many of whom don't need to know about the details of my love life or other private information.
Someone, somewhere, always cares about you. If that's not true for you then you should really ask yourself some very serious questions.
Re:No, no no. (Score:3, Insightful)
There used to be a difference between "suspect" and "offender".
<grrr>
Good! (Score:3, Insightful)
Sucker. You're the cattle mindset they dupe. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Good! (Score:4, Informative)
You might be able to _see_ the source code but I'm betting the licence won't let you easily modify it.
Open source? (Score:4, Insightful)
Details of how the system works are being kept secret, Hemler (Microsoft Canada president) said. "We're intentionally coy about the technology that is used in this because we think it gives the good guys an advantage over the bad guys," he said. "Think of it as an assembly of commonly available Microsoft software, using techniques from Microsoft Research and best practices that the law enforcement community shared with us."
Re:Open source? (Score:5, Insightful)
Do you know what "open source" means? (Score:4, Interesting)
That's pretty much what it does mean. Otherwise it's just a source distribution, and proprietary code has been distributed in source form since, well, software's been around. Heck, big engineering projects and customised real-time control systems traditionally ship with full source, and it's only recently that a binary-only product wasn't a show-stopper in that market... but nobody would have described that as "open source".
Re:Do you know what "open source" means? (Score:4, Informative)
But thats OK, yours is a common misconception brought on by the fact taht nearly every open source project does just put the code up on a website for public dissemination. As is their full right.
License? (Score:5, Interesting)
More details about CETS (Score:5, Informative)
The article from MSNBC mentioned in this story is very light on details. Thanks to Google News, here are some more useful articles about CETS, the Child Exploitation Tracking System:
These articles mention that CETS is based on MS SQL Server (for the database) and some bits of MS SharePoint (for the web portal). Also, the system uses .NET and web services (SOAP/XML) for exchanging data so it should be possible to integrate this with non-Microsoft systems (in theory).
What is not mentioned in any of the articles is whether the system is really open-source, as claimed in the headline of this Slashdot story and the related MSNBC article. The only statements that I found about this said that Microsoft Canada will "make [CETS] available free of charge to any law enforcement agency that wants to use it." But no mention of any Open Source license.
Noble cause, but (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Noble cause, but (Score:5, Funny)
Wow (Score:5, Insightful)
Did Microsoft hire someone new? Or did they take a look at their image and try to make amends? As much as I know my view of them is biased both by my history as a mac fan and the rants I've seen of others complaining and complaining about problems with microsoft (note I'm not trying to start an argument here, just pointing out that my view is biased); I know that Gates has funded new CompSci departments for universities like Cambridge (UK) - it's just a surprise to see what has seemed such a stereotypical corporation taking these steps against something in this way. Gates' view that open source is evil has been overtaken by the view that child porn is worse. I completely agree, and as strange as it is to say it - good work, Microsoft.
YEA!!!!! (Score:5, Funny)
Pulling statistics out of one's ass (Score:3, Interesting)
Gee... I guess that couldn't be since the number of internet users has grown since 1996? Nah...
I sure don't hope ... (Score:5, Funny)
Next weeks news item: Microsoft claims open source supports child porn
Open Source? Really?? (Score:4, Insightful)
1. I can't find the license anywhere.
2. I can't find where to download the binaries.
3. I can't find where to download the source code.
4. It's available for free only to law enforcement.
Has anyone actually located 1, 2, or 3? Please post if you do...
Re:Open Source? Really?? (Score:5, Informative)
Opensource does not mean you have immediate rights to 1, 2 or 3.
Open source, nope. (Score:4, Insightful)
That would make virtually every large scale engineering or realtime control system for the past three decades "open source". And that's just stupid... our product ships in source code form, but it's sure as heck not described as, thought of as, or considered "open source". It's a proprietary product that comes with a source distribution.
There is nothing in any of the GNU licenses or the OSI opproved licenses that says 'you must supply this to the general public for it to be an opensource project',
That's true, it's perfectly possible to violate the spirit of open source while complying with the letter of any license. That's not "open source", that's "gaming the system".
Re:Open source, nope. (Score:3, Insightful)
Bit misleading (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Open Source? Really?? (Score:3, Insightful)
It's not unexpected, of course, since by releasing the code to the general public, Microsoft would be acknowledging the idea that you can still have a secure system if the code is publicly available.
It'll be interesting to see what happens when the code
Re:Open Source? Really?? (Score:3, Informative)
Considering M$ seems to have stated that they purposefully want to keep the technology secret in order to give the "good guys" an advantage, I doubt it's under any open-source or free license - in fact, considering this goal, it's probably p
Oooohhhh!!! (Score:5, Funny)
Not Open Source (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Not Open Source (Score:3, Insightful)
Because if this wasn't being presented as "Open Source", it wouldn't have gotten the attention it did? Think about it.
Of course, law enforcement doesn't hire any IT folks. And they certainly neve
Early beta version output (Score:3, Funny)
include/asm-alpha/errno.h, include/asm-arm/errno.h, include/asm-cris/errno.h, include/asm-i386/errno.h, include/asm-ia64/errno.h, include/asm-m68k/errno.h, include/asm-mips/errno.h, include/asm-mips64/errno.h, include/asm-parisc/errno.h, include/asm-ppc/errno.h, include/asm-ppc64/errno.h, include/asm-s390/errno.h, include/asm-s390x/errno.h, include/asm-sh/errno.h, include/asm-sparc/errno.h, include/asm-sparc64/errno.h, include/asm-x86_64/errno.h, include/asm-alpha/signal.h, include/asm-arm/signal.h, include/asm-cris/signal.h, include/asm-i386/signal.h, include/asm-ia64/signal.h, include/asm-m68k/signal.h, include/asm-mips/signal.h, include/asm-mips64/signal.h, include/asm-parisc/signal.h, include/asm-ppc/signal.h, include/asm-ppc64/signal.h, include/asm-s390/signal.h, include/asm-s390x/signal.h, include/asm-sh/signal.h, include/asm-sparc/signal.h, include/asm-sparc64/signal.h, include/asm-x86_64/signal.h, include/linux/stat.h, include/linux/ctype.h, lib/ctype.c, include/asm-alpha/ioctl.h, include/asm-alpha/ioctls.h, include/asm-arm/ioctl.h, include/asm-cris/ioctl.h, include/asm-i386/ioctl.h, include/asm-ia64/ioctl.h, include/asm-m68k/ioctl.h, include/asm-mips/ioctl.h, include/asm-mips64/ioctl.h, include/asm-mips64/ioctls.h, include/asm-parisc/ioctl.h, include/asm-parisc/ioctls.h, include/asm-ppc/ioctl.h, include/asm-ppc/ioctls.h, include/asm-ppc64/ioctl.h, include/asm-ppc64/ioctls.h, include/asm-s390/ioctl.h, include/asm-s390x/ioctl.h, include/asm-sh/ioctl.h, include/asm-sh/ioctls.h, include/asm-sparc/ioctl.h, include/asm-sparc/ioctls.h, include/asm-sparc64/ioctl.h, include/asm-sparc64/ioctls.h, include/asm-x86_64/ioctl.h, include/linux/ipc.h, include/linux/acct.h, include/asm-sparc/a.out.h, include/linux/a.out.h, arch/mips/boot/ecoff.h, include/asm-sparc/bsderrno.h, include/asm-sparc/solerrno.h, include/asm-sparc64/bsderrno.h, and include/asm-sparc64/solerrno.h
Then it said that I could get a license for untainted versions of the files for something like $700 as a special limited-time offer...scare stats (Score:5, Insightful)
Similar stats could probably be cited for any kind of image found on the Internet, including cars, sunsets, weddings, houses, and generic boob-n-beaver shots of consenting college students. News flash: the Internet (especially the Web) has grown a lot in the past decade!
I'm not saying that child sexual abuse isn't a problem (it is, and has been since long before ARPAnet, and the perps should be beaten with rubber hoses), but this statement in the article implies a kind of exponentially-exploding disaster that it doesn't actually demonstrate.
Why people question this (Score:4, Interesting)
This doesn't mean that there isn't a "good" explanation -- just that people are skeptical.
In support of suspicion: Why is the US Dept. of Homeland Security involved in kiddy porn? Could there be some application beyond kiddy porn that might interest them?
It's a fairly common tactic to establish a precedent for a questionable tactic by using it against an unquestionable evil. I think that's what worries people about this.
I love out of context statistics (Score:4, Insightful)
"The FBI has seen a 2,000 percent increase in the number of child pornography images on the Internet since 1996"
What's the percentage increase in non-child porn on the internet since 1996? The percentage increase in pictures period? 2,000 percent seems like it could be a lower bound, but who really knows?
That quote makes it sound like the world is under a deluge of child porn, when in fact one could argue that the internet is just getting bigger.
not FUD, just Disinformation (Score:3, Interesting)
philanthropy and open source (Score:3, Insightful)
Are their any great examples of philanthropy in the open source community?
OSS Code for M$ (Score:4, Funny)
case lus3r
microsoft.com: execute goodguys
apple.com: execute sick-em
redhat.com: execute sick-em
*torvald*: execute kill-em
end case
sub sick-em
execute upload michael_jackson_home_movies
execute call_Homeland_security
end sub
sub kill-em
execute upload gates_kids_home_movies
execute call_interpol
end sub
sub goodguys
execute grant_more_stock_options
execute ballmer_happy_dance
end sub
Free as in ... (Score:3, Interesting)
Unless I misunderstood, they give you the tool for free, but the required OS, the required SQL server and other stuff is not included.
It's certainly more useful than minesweeper, but I'm sure the ROI is still positive. If it weren't one of those "think of the chiiiiiildren" topics, it wouldn't even be news.
transcript of actual user interaction (Score:3, Funny)
Whoah (Score:4, Funny)
In their own way... (Score:3, Insightful)
But I still think Linux is better, and it's still fun to laugh at them
Re:Microsoft? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Not really M$ (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Not really M$ (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Evil, bad, nasty pornography! (Score:5, Informative)
Children are bought and sold, gang-raped, and forced to have sex with each other. Acts which absolutely destroy a child. This isn't some victimless crime.
But, continue on with your ignorant anti-american ways. I'm sure it somehow makes you feel better about yourself.
Re:Evil, bad, nasty pornography! (Score:5, Informative)
This isn't about children "bought and sold, gang-raped, and forced to have sex with each other". It is sometimes, and in the most important and highest-profile actual Canadian case, a truly victimless crime.
Do you really believe that purely imaginary words should ever be illegal? I don't.
Re:Evil, bad, nasty pornography! (Score:3, Interesting)
Besides, drawn/written child-porn is already allowed in the US and Canada as long as its creator puts a little disclaimer on it saying that "All characters are 18 or older"... even if other parts of the work mention a character who's just turned 18 lusting after her yo
Re:Vladimir Nabokov and Lolita (Score:3, Informative)
But saying o'er what I have said before:
My child is yet a stranger in the world;
She hath not seen the change of fourteen years,
Let two more summers wither in their pride,
Ere we may think her ripe to be a bride.
...
LADY CAPULET [webcom.com]:
This is the matter: --Nurse, give leave awhile,
We must talk in secret: --nurse, come back again;
I have remember'd me, thou's hear our counsel.
Thou know'st my daughter's of a pretty age.
NURSE:
Faith, I can tell her age unto an hour.
LADY CAPULET:
She's not fourteen.
NURS
Re:Evil, bad, nasty pornography! (Score:3, Insightful)
That's a pretty boring issue. I doubt you'd find anyone who'd seriously argue whether or not that is or should be a crime. That people who actually commit those crimes should be put in prison.
The more interesting issue is whether possession of information should be a crime. For example is (or should) possession of a photograph of a crime itself a crime? Lots of people possess pictures o
Re:Evil, bad, nasty pornography! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Evil, bad, nasty pornography! (Score:3, Insightful)
First, there's no guarantee you'll be found innocent. If police want something bad enough, they've been known to do some not so legal things to get their man. Second, regardless of the outcome, your neighbors find out, your coworkers do, everybody does. That is enough to ruin a life right there. And if you don't think so, ask anybody who's been wrongfully accused of a felony charge.
Re:The Mounties always get their man. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Let's define "child" first. (Score:3, Interesting)
So what if the person he had sex with was his wife? Girls are still married at the age of 12 (or maybe even younger) in many parts of the world; that does not mean that when a 12-year old and their husband travel to - say - the USA, it should be legal for them to have sex.
(The case is much less clear when the "child" is, for example, 17 or so, of course...)
Re:Excuse Me.. (Score:4, Interesting)
Some cultures debut a woman into society at the age of 15 or 16. At the age she is debuted as a person of marriageable years. Doesn't that mean she is no longer a child? How about a boy of the same age? Some states allow 16 year olds, or minors, to be married. How about the child pornography laws in those states - is the age 16 or 18?
Yes, it matters. A lot. One makes sense and the other does not.
I even have a specific example: Traci Lords. IIRC, she was supposedly 15-16 when she made all those movies. Now I don't know the lady, but I have heard that she was the one that conned the porn industry into thinking she was over 18. They inquired, she lied about it. I have also heard that she was pretty much the slut and a driven porn career girl in her time.
But under the law something as innocent as her Penthouse magazine debut is considered child pornography. Sorry, if I don't cry a river of tears for a woman of 16 that looks and acts like that. It doesn't seem like child pornography to me, nor was it peddled that way in my view.
What about another child viewing the information in question? I mean your 13 year old son is trading naked pictures of himself with a 13 year old girl he knows. Are you liable? How do you prove it's your son and not you?
This is a big joke. This is more than a slippery slope - this a friggin' slip and slide hosed down in K-Y. The abuse of this technology is about to run wild. And as others have pointed out - it's really hard to be the guy arguing against a "child pornography" technology. They will cram it down our throats this way and then just sit back and watch the scary, abusive results.
Some of these children are not children. For all intents and purposes they are adults and should be treated as such.
BTW, you may curious if I have a cut off point at which age I think it makes sense to protect a child. I do: the age is 14. But I have a stipulation that the child cannot have lied or had false ID that suggested he or she was older than was the case. Now a lie is hard to prove, but if they have emails where the kid claims he or she is older, I consider that a fair defense. Any fake IDs indicating an older age are also a defense.
But 14 or under and with no extenuating circumstances, throw the book at them. Just don't trample all over everyone's privacy rights to do it.
I'm really sick of all the new laws, rulings, and technology whose purpose is just to make it easier to catch a supposed "criminal." We all commit crimes all the time. Surveillance is not really the answer. How much are you enjoying those street cameras that photograph your license plate and send you a mailed traffic ticket? Does it seem fair to you that it's you against a possibly faulty machine? Do you even time to fight it, or is it just more cost effective for you to take it in the ass and work that day instead?
You see, that's how they think. It's all about revenue collection and cheap prison labor to them; while to you it seems like it's all about an ordered society of laws.