3 ms·

If this article is for real, then it's certainly not being pushed mainstream. > The Times’s reporting revealed a problem global in scope — most of the images f

If this article is for real, then it's certainly not being pushed mainstream. > The Times’s reporting revealed a problem global in scope — most of the images found last year were traced to other countries — but one firmly rooted in the United States because of the central role Silicon Valley has played in facilitating the imagery’s spread and in reporting it to the authorities. Clearly the NYT is laying the problem at tech's feet, and we are the best ones able to thwart this. Many times I've scoffed at the government's continual removal of privacy, but this is the first time it's sunk in. Perhaps they have a case. > 1998 - 3k cases. 2008 - 100k. 2014 - 1M. 2018 - 18.4M. These figures from a total of 45M images flagged. Again, is this for real, or this this propaganda?

mlindner 7y ago
These aren't new images, they're the same images that have been around the web for decades, that's why they are able to be flagged (via hashing, unless companies are training neural networks to know what child pornography is vs regular pornography). You need to benchmark those numbers versus the increase in regular images sent over the web in general. If it's increasing faster than that increase then there is an argument, if it's increasing slower then the opposite argument is the truth.
- sjy 7y ago
  The NYT article refers to "both recirculated and new images" and states that "in some online forums, children are forced to hold up signs with the name of the group or other identifying information to prove the images are fresh." Isn't it just common sense that the proven existence of online paedophile communities that explicitly encourage the "production" of new child abuse material, in fact results in some net increase in the number of abused children, even if that increase is a small proportion of the total number of victims? Isn't it worth asking what can be done about it?
pyrale 7y ago
It is not surprising that creating automated reporting systems increases the number of reports. The article simply gives no way to make an informed opinion. There are two things I would point out: 1) I would be surprisesd that the ease of communication the internet brought did not benefit to criminals 2) The article describes several problems that won't be fixed by encryption ban (e.g. the lack of means for report clearing houses) and also gives exemples of cases solved despite encryption. I would like to understand why encryption is described as the problem here.
phoenixy1 7y ago
I didn't read the article as blaming tech. The main takeaway for me was the astonishing under-resourcing of investigation and prosecution of these crimes. If the government can't be bothered to investigate 98% of the child sex abuse cases it already knows about (per Flint Waters's testimony -- which dates from a time when the problem was far less severe than it is now), why does it need to prevent encryption to possibly learn about a handful more cases? Not to mention: Congress has regularly allocated about half of the $60 million in yearly funding for state and local law enforcement efforts. Separately, the Department of Homeland Security this year diverted nearly $6 million from its cybercrimes units to immigration enforcement — depleting 40 percent of the units’ discretionary budget until the final month of the fiscal year. Or in other words, in order to fight the imaginary rapists that Mexico is allegedly sending us, DHS is diverting money originally allocated to investigate actual child rapists.

mlindner 7y ago

These aren't new images, they're the same images that have been around the web for decades, that's why they are able to be flagged (via hashing, unless companies are training neural networks to know what child pornography is vs regular pornography). You need to benchmark those numbers versus the increase in regular images sent over the web in general. If it's increasing faster than that increase then there is an argument, if it's increasing slower then the opposite argument is the truth.

sjy 7y ago
The NYT article refers to "both recirculated and new images" and states that "in some online forums, children are forced to hold up signs with the name of the group or other identifying information to prove the images are fresh." Isn't it just common sense that the proven existence of online paedophile communities that explicitly encourage the "production" of new child abuse material, in fact results in some net increase in the number of abused children, even if that increase is a small proportion of the total number of victims? Isn't it worth asking what can be done about it?

pyrale 7y ago

It is not surprising that creating automated reporting systems increases the number of reports. The article simply gives no way to make an informed opinion. There are two things I would point out: 1) I would be surprisesd that the ease of communication the internet brought did not benefit to criminals 2) The article describes several problems that won't be fixed by encryption ban (e.g. the lack of means for report clearing houses) and also gives exemples of cases solved despite encryption. I would like to understand why encryption is described as the problem here.

phoenixy1 7y ago

I didn't read the article as blaming tech. The main takeaway for me was the astonishing under-resourcing of investigation and prosecution of these crimes. If the government can't be bothered to investigate 98% of the child sex abuse cases it already knows about (per Flint Waters's testimony -- which dates from a time when the problem was far less severe than it is now), why does it need to prevent encryption to possibly learn about a handful more cases? Not to mention: Congress has regularly allocated about half of the $60 million in yearly funding for state and local law enforcement efforts. Separately, the Department of Homeland Security this year diverted nearly $6 million from its cybercrimes units to immigration enforcement — depleting 40 percent of the units’ discretionary budget until the final month of the fiscal year. Or in other words, in order to fight the imaginary rapists that Mexico is allegedly sending us, DHS is diverting money originally allocated to investigate actual child rapists.