backtop


Print 38 comment(s) - last by superstition.. on Nov 20 at 12:01 PM

Microsoft even introduces popups to startle people searching for such content out of their behavior

Google Inc. (GOOG) and Microsoft Corp. (MSFT) announced this week that they will both internationally block websites, hosted video, images, and torrent listings that they classify as child pornography.
 
I. UK PM's Fight Against Child Porn Yields Actions
 
The move comes amid mounting pressure in the UK, Europe's largest market, to crack down on the abusive side of internet pornography.  UK politicians passed a bill in mid-2012 that required internet service providers (ISPs) to force users to "opt-in" to view pornographic content.  The bill effectively blocks any pornographic site that does not have an age verification policy.  ISPs fought the effort initially, but by June of this year most had submitted.
 
But critics said these proposals did not go far enough.  The EU recently debated banning internet pornography altogether, although that effort did not gain much ground.  The leader of the UK's Conservative Party leader, Prime Minister David Cameron, called on search providers to do more to filter out content relate to sex crimes such as rape or child pornography.

David Cameron
UK PM David Cameron [Image Source: Matt Dunham/AP]

PM Cameron was quoted in July as saying:

I have a very clear message for Google, Bing, Yahoo and the rest.  You have a duty to act on this – and it is a moral duty. If there are technical obstacles to acting on [search engines], don't just stand by and say nothing can be done; use your great brains to help overcome them.

You're the people who have worked out how to map almost every inch of the Earth from space; who have developed algorithms that make sense of vast quantities of information. Set your greatest brains to work on this. You are not separate from our society, you are part of our society, and you must play a responsible role in it.

In an article in The Daily Mail posted this week, Google's Eric Schmidt said his company has stepped up efforts on this issue.  He comments:

We actively remove child sexual abuse imagery from our services and immediately report abuse to the authorities. This evidence is regularly used to prosecute and convict criminals.  But as David Cameron said in a speech this summer, there's always more that can be done.

We've listened, and in the last three months put more than 200 people to work developing new, state-of-the-art technology to tackle the problem.
 

Google's Eric Schmidt [Image Source: AP]
 
In other words, Google already had some filtering, but its new algorithm removed literally tens of thousands of hits on content relating to child sexual abuse.
 
PM Cameron praised the move, which he called "significant progress".  He comments to The Daily Mail:

If you used [search terms relating to child sexual abuse] you were looking for child abuse images online.  I challenged the search companies to block these terms, to make sure that no illegal content or pathways to illegal content were returned.

At the time, Google and Microsoft – who cover 95 per cent of the market – said blocking search results couldn't be done, that it shouldn't be done.  They argued that it was against the very principle of the internet and search engines to block material, even if there was no doubt that some of the search terms being used by pedophiles were abhorrent in a modern society.  I did not accept that then and I do not accept that now.

Google's rollout will take six months to complete, as search results for 158 countries are sanitized.
 
II. Search Providers Work With Law Enforcement, Fight Child Porn With Popups
 
Both Google and Microsoft will share information on inappropriate child sexual abuse searches -- extreme patterns of search behavior that are verified to be extremely dangerous.  Google also will display a warning on top of a search for such turns warning users that material relating to child sexual abuse is illegal, and offering links for users with unhealthy attractions to seek treatment.
 
Microsoft is going a step further, issuing popup windows on a user's computer when searching for inappropriate Bing search terms.  The warning -- which may be rolled out to Yahoo! search as well, reportedly may circumvent Internet Explorer popup prohibitions as it's a Microsoft-allowed alert.

Bing popup warning
Bing is resorting to popups to try to scare users out of searching for child pornography. [Image Source: Microsoft]

An unnamed Microsoft spokesperson told BBC News:

[The popups are designed] to stop those who may be drifting towards trying to find illegal child abuse content on the web via search engines"

This is in addition to Microsoft's existing and longstanding policy of removing any verified links to illegal content of this sort from Bing as quickly as possible.  Microsoft has been, and remains, a strong proponent of proactive action in reasonable and scalable ways by the technology industry in the fight against technology-facilitated child exploitation. We have teams dedicated globally to abuse reporting on our services and the development of new innovations to combat child exploitation more broadly.

A representative of UK nonprofit Children's Charities' Coalition on Internet Safety, John Carr, told BBC News:

To hardened technology-sophisticated, technology-literate pedophiles, these pop-ups will probably make very little difference.  But there is a very large number of men who perhaps have a marginal interest in this type of material and we need to stop them getting any further engaged with it.

As with Google, the Bing changes will take several months to roll out internationally.

As with Google, the Bing changes will take several months to roll out internationally.
 
III. Other Issues Regarding Sexuality and the Internet Remain More Controversial
 
While the top internet firms, government regulators, and nonprofits seem to be reaching an international consensus on a solution they can all agree with regarding child pornography, other topics in digital sexuality remain more contentious debates.
 
For example the issue of so-called "revenge porn" -- explicit content from a former sexual partner that is non-consensually published for "revenge" or profit -- is still being hotly debated. Some argue that if the partner agreed to be filmed, they surrender their right to protest, while others going as far as to argue that those who post such materials should face prison time.

Revenge
Revenge porn is a topic of much debate in the digital community. [Image Source: Geffen Records]


Another topic of intense debate is underage children sharing sexually explicit images with each other.  Given the fact that many underage teenagers in the EU and U.S. are sexually active and many possess smartphones, there's been a rampant rise in teens trading sexually explicit video and pictures.  According to laws in the U.S. and most of the EU, this is classified as "child pornography".  Teens can face prison time, even if they were the same age, were only sharing with their significant other, and were not being malicious.  


Making the matter worst, most teenagers are relatively ignorant about the law when it comes to such matters.  And enforcement is inconsistent -- 999 out of a 1,000 or even 99,999 out of 100,000 "sexting" incidents go unreported or are dismissed by local law enforcement, but occasionally an unlucky teen actually has been sentenced to prison for such behavior.
 

Sources: Eric Schmidt/The Daily Mail, BBC News



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: Unintended Concequences
By TSS on 11/18/2013 5:15:32 PM , Rating: 5
Let me take the devil advocate's response here.

I've actually tried finding child porn via google (years ago i'll be damned if i try in this day and age), not because i'm a pervert but because i was and am getting damned tired of these politicians pushing the "for the children" arguement to get anything done. I mean, the way david cameron speaks it sounds like you could just turn "safe search" off on google and it'll automatically give you every damned dirty picture on the internet.

Well, i haven't found any child porn via google. None. Not a single bit, and i've tried some pretty creative search terms. Probably because the filter they're employing is already effective. I'll bet you 10 bucks though that nigh all regular people aren't going to try it though because of pure fear of "what might happen", or out of shear disgust and they wouldn't want to be caught dead searching for the stuff. Even i've been quite nervous just trying it out because i don't wanna go to jail just to prove a point, but yknow. Tree of liberty and all....

Now i've been on the internet a long time, so i can tell you, i have come across child porn as well as the other disgusting stuff such as bestiality, murders filmed by perpetrators etc. Most of it during the KaZaA days, mainly because of mislabeled pirated stuff. With BitTorrent i can't fault people for having forgotten but before that, you had about a 50% chance of downloading what the file actually said it was. And ofcourse, the only way of finding out if that 700MB video file that says is a copy of the matrix is actually a copy of the matrix is by opening it. By comparison BitTorrent has about a 99% chance of it being what the file says it is, and in that 1% of cases, the website you got the torrent from probably has a reaction by that one guy not afraid to try things saying it's a fake. And those are virusses and such, child porn gets moderated from those sites almost immediantly because no website wants to be caught dead distributing the stuff.

So basically , ye olde regular consumer, even ye olde honest pirate, is not going to come across child porn in this day and age (you can be damned sure David Cameron has never even tried to find it to verify what he's saying is true), atleast not via Google or Bing. But i can tell you where you can find it, just by using logic: The TOR network, yknow the same network the Silk Road uses, websites that operate specifically on there because it's so hard to track. Because Google and Bing crawler bots don't come there and index them, in order to report them to the authorities. I can guarrantee that without even looking for it.

Not to mention those sites operate with a "tit for tat" system, where you can't see anything unless you make an account and submit some childporn yourself along with it before the administrator even approves your acces to it, another effective way of keeping out the crawlers. Some bittorrent sites worked this way with torrents so i'm damned sure childporn forums do.

Other place where i've come across it are those newsservers or whatever they're called providers use. Yknow, where files are split into lots of little pieces and spread across the network and you need a .nzb to get them all or whatever. With my connection that i pay for i got acces for upto 4 connections to the 30 day server of my provider so i thought i'd check it out (hey i pay for it might as well use it atleast once). In general it's just pirated stuff that's easyer to get via BitTorrent, but one time on a site designed to browse the stuff i forgot to hit the "filter spam" checkbox and sure enough, child porn. Didn't even have to download it, there's no way ~290mb video files with some very illegal names aren't child porn since virusses are always 10MB or less (usually labeled as a "crack" for some program). And those servers have been around since the dawn of the internet so i haven't got a clue why i never see action taken against those.

These new laws or filters or whatever are going to do NOTHING to protect you and me from accidentaly finding child porn on google (how does one even do that? "i'm sorry officer my fingers just happen to type "child porn" in image search while i wasn't looking?"), or stop the real perverts from finding it on other places. What they are going to do is condition you and me to be OK with filtering results, even more then the current child porn filter, safe search filter and DCMA filter already do. Haven't you read the article? Didn't you see how the EU tried to ban ALL porn? (good luck finding regular porn images on google with the safe search filter on by the way) They showed that control is what they want, not safety. They want to tell us what is right and what is wrong to search for, because there's no way no how the peasants know this by themselves.

IMO, people like justin bieber/miley cyrus and the way they dress, act and "perform" in their frickin underwear while barely 18 have done more to turn people into "passive pedophiles" then any child porn on the internet ever has. As well as this whole metrosexual thing because it's gotten rid of alot of body hair. Guess what children mostly lack? That's just about the only thing the porn industry can be blamed for. Not talking hairy genitalia here, but where has the arm/armpit hair gone? The leg hair? The chest hair?

Now i wanna live in a decent, rational, logical society as much as the rest of ya but that includes acknowledging some bad stuff isn't going to go away no matter what we do. Simply because there's always going to be some men who will want to watch the world burn. Trying to stop them by outlawing matches is just inconveniencing everybody else while these people figure out how to rub sticks together (get it? rubbing sticks? porn discussion? ending on a lighter note?).

This is just another slide down the slippery slope by a government that's been trying very hard to curb free speech, which i've got no doubt eventually is going to be "suggested" to be filtered from google/bing as well (get it? slippery slope? lotion? ok i'll stop now).


RE: Unintended Concequences
By superstition on 11/18/2013 8:04:24 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
IMO, people like justin bieber/miley cyrus and the way they dress, act and "perform" in their frickin underwear while barely 18 have done more to turn people into "passive pedophiles" then any child porn on the internet ever has.

Sorry, but this is utter nonsense. A pedophile is attracted to prepubescent children , not 18 year old young adults.

Americans frequently conflate the two, but actual pedophilia has nothing to do with being turned on by sexually developed teens or young adults.


RE: Unintended Concequences
By EricMartello on 11/19/2013 12:03:41 PM , Rating: 2
As far as the legal definition of "child pornography" goes, it prohibits sexually explicit photos or video of people that are younger than 18 years. Fairly arbitrary, but I guess the idea is that if you're 18 you can legally enter a contract and therefore agree to allow yourself to be filmed in a porno.

Biologically, the human body pubes out around 12-14 so technically you're not a "sick pervert" if you are attracted to a teen girl with big tits - while not socially or legally acceptable, it is biologically normal.

The point at which you have a mental disorder is when you are sexually attracted to pre-pube kids. That is a legitimate sickness and it's not much different than homosexuality.

Now here's an unintended consequence to consider:

We've come to tolerate gay people because their mental disorder doesn't usually lead them to preying on kids or other 'helpless' victims. They have spent a lot of time and effort trying to get society as a whole to believe that homosexuality is "a new kind of normal" rather than a potentially treatable mental disorder.

The sentiment shifted from the traditionally correct view of homosexuals as being "sick" to the desired liberal view which is that they're "different, but equal". By changing perception of homosexuality from being a mental disorder to a "lifestyle choice", the fate of pedophiles and other people struck with mental disorders has been sealed.

Why?

Pedophiles are automatically vilified and there is unlikely to ever be any sympathy for them due to their actions (rightly so), but it's interesting to see how the left-wing push for us to accept homosexuality as "normal" has effectively precluded the possibility of pedophiles ever receiving any kind of therapy to address their disorder. It just becomes a lot more convenient to dismiss pedos as sick beyond help and nobody outside of nambla is going to get on board with pushing pedophilia as a "lifestyle choice".

If we're going to talk about mental disorders that affect peoples' sexual tendencies we should put them all on the table to keep things in perspective.


RE: Unintended Concequences
By shikigamild on 11/19/2013 9:56:57 PM , Rating: 2
So many references to homosexuality.

I feel like someone is trying to project something here.


RE: Unintended Concequences
By superstition on 11/20/2013 12:01:19 PM , Rating: 2
Orly Taitz would love his posts.


RE: Unintended Concequences
By superstition on 11/20/2013 12:18:13 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
As far as the legal definition of "child pornography" goes, it prohibits sexually explicit photos or video of people that are younger than 18 years. Fairly arbitrary, but I guess the idea is that if you're 18 you can legally enter a contract and therefore agree to allow yourself to be filmed in a porno.

It's based on the archaic idea that skeletal maturation = adulthood. Lazy lawmakers and the ignorant public that backs them are apparently content to throw adolescents and young adults into a single category with prepubescent children ("minor"). This recklessness carries a price, though. It's the young people who generally pay it.
quote:
Biologically, the human body pubes out around 12-14 so technically you're not a "sick pervert" if you are attracted to a teen girl with big tits - while not socially or legally acceptable, it is biologically normal.

That would be 14-17, in terms of our "minor" categorization. There are hebephilia and ephebophilia to cover the state of pubescence and the post-pubescent adolescent respectively. Hebephilia is close enough to pedophilia, given our social strictness about sexual activity, that ephebophilia is the main issue. And, even more precisely, the -philia part suggests a particular preference, which is not necessary. Pedophilia is different in that pedophiles strongly prefer prepubescents over sexually mature people. So, precisely speaking, attraction to older adolescents is not necessarily an example of ephebophilia, and ephebophilia is not considered a disorder unless it involves obsession.
quote:
That is a legitimate sickness and it's not much different than homosexuality.

You really fell off the rails.

It is a scientific fact, known since 1956, that homosexuality isn't a disorder. Dr. Hooker exposed the illusory correlation between mental disorder and homosexuality by avoiding the employment of a polluted sample (men with a history of treatment for mental illness). The APA finally got around to recognizing this fact in 1973 when homosexuality was removed from the DSM.

And, even without those facts, simple logic shows that there is very little commonality. Pedophilia involves attraction to prepubescents, not sexually mature people. Homosexuality involves attraction to sexually mature people.

Your stuff about lifestyle is a mess. Sexual orientation is not a matter of lifestyle and is not chosen. Virgins have just as much of an orientation as prostitutes.

Heterosexists claim that homosexuality is a lifestyle (as if a gay Buddhist monk in Tibet has the same lifestyle as a gay Hollywood actor) and a matter of choice because it makes it easier for them to condemn. They don't, of course, deal with the fact that religion is a matter of choice. The only thing left for the heterosexist, given the scientific facts, is a religious basis for condemnation.

Pedophiles are vilified because they tend to put their sexual appetite ahead of the well-being of children. It is true that one psychologist controversially said that sexual activity between children and older people is not necessarily damaging -- that it's the negative social reaction that actually does the damage (shaming of the victim, et cetera) -- it must be recognized that our culture behaves this way. A responsible pedophile would manage her/his disorder by using virtual art (such as illustrations), something that Supreme Court ruled is legal. I am not an expert in this area, but clearly for some it is a compulsion that leads them to manipulate children into sexual activity that society punishes them (the children) for -- obliquely via socialization and directly via shaming and "damaged goods" rhetoric.

As far as treatment goes... pedophilia is apparently incurable. Given our society's collective illness concerning the human body, particularly the naked one (where mutilation is seen as preferable for one thing), and sexuality -- it's unlikely that treatment will be the main focus any time in the near future.


RE: Unintended Concequences
By domboy on 11/20/2013 10:16:41 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Your stuff about lifestyle is a mess. Sexual orientation is not a matter of lifestyle and is not chosen.


And you have drunk a bit too much of the Kool-aid. Your statement is the current politically correct view.

Honestly there is still a lot we don't know or understand about a lot of these topics that to consider a particular opinion or view as the end of the matter is unwise, close-minded, and potentially damaging to those that are caught in the middle.


RE: Unintended Concequences
By superstition on 11/20/2013 11:42:52 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
And you have drunk a bit too much of the Kool-aid. Your statement is the current politically correct view.

Empty rhetoric. Hooker's 1956 research was vetted first by experts in the field; several of them designed the tests used. Then, over decades following further research supported the conclusion. Since then no credible research has refuted it.
quote:
Honestly there is still a lot we don't know or understand about a lot of these topics that to consider a particular opinion or view as the end of the matter is unwise, close-minded, and potentially damaging to those that are caught in the middle.

Hooker's work from 1956 offered a belated elimination of the illusory correlation between homosexuality and mental illness. Your refusal to recognize well-established science with many decades of research support is what's unwise and damaging. Banal references to Jonestown don't substitute for credible research.


RE: Unintended Concequences
By EricMartello on 11/20/2013 10:39:18 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
It's based on the archaic idea that skeletal maturation = adulthood. Lazy lawmakers and the ignorant public that backs them are apparently content to throw adolescents and young adults into a single category with prepubescent children ("minor"). This recklessness carries a price, though. It's the young people who generally pay it.


Just because humans have longer life expectancies today than they did ages ago doesn't mean our bodies' transition from child to mating-ready adult has changed. Child porn laws need to be revised; teens willingly texting each other nude photos of themselves should not bear the same penalty as that of a pedo who kidnaps and molests kids.

quote:
That would be 14-17, in terms of our "minor" categorization.


Not referring to the law; referring to physical development. Most humans are fully sexually mature at 14, a process that begins when they turn 12, sometimes younger if they eat a lot of food containing certain hormones.

quote:
There are hebephilia and ephebophilia to cover the state of pubescence and the post-pubescent adolescent respectively. Hebephilia is close enough to pedophilia, given our social strictness about sexual activity, that ephebophilia is the main issue.


Nope, these are made-up to make the legal restrictions seem reasonable. Once a human body is fully developed, there is no "disorder" in feeling sexual attraction toward said human. You can add that to the list of other made-up illnesses like ADD.

quote:
So, precisely speaking, attraction to older adolescents is not necessarily an example of ephebophilia, and ephebophilia is not considered a disorder unless it involves obsession.


You're basically saying what I said before - if you feel attracted to a post-pube teen you are biologically normal. It's purely a social taboo / legality issue.

Obsession is a separate issue that tends to be tied to a personality more than any specific disorder, so no, I'm not going to buy the notion that an obsession with anything validates a disorder.

quote:
You really fell off the rails.


LOL right, you're going to explain to us how being gay is "normal" just like they've been training us. Then you'll tell us that man-made global warming is real, and that in 20 years from 1985 the rainforest will be gone due to evil corporations that keep cutting down the trees...

quote:
It is a scientific fact, known since 1956, that homosexuality isn't a disorder. Dr. Hooker exposed the illusory correlation between mental disorder and homosexuality by avoiding the employment of a polluted sample (men with a history of treatment for mental illness). The APA finally got around to recognizing this fact in 1973 when homosexuality was removed from the DSM.


Where is the "scientific fact" in what you said there? None of this is "fact"; this is political spin mixed with liberal propaganda. Homosexuality stems from the same vein as pedophilia and other mental disorders and you've offered NOTHING to suggest otherwise.

quote:
And, even without those facts, simple logic shows that there is very little commonality. Pedophilia involves attraction to prepubescents, not sexually mature people. Homosexuality involves attraction to sexually mature people.


In both cases of pedophilia and homosexuality, people are attracted to "mates" with whom they cannot reproduce. That is a scientific fact - because the drive to have sex exists for the sole purpose of promoting one's own genes. In other words, survival.

There is a very legitimate biological prerogative for humans to be sexually attracted to other humans who are sexually mature regardless of age. On the other hand, there is zero biological prerogative for humans to engage in sexual activity with a person or object that is not biologically capable of reproducing.

Furthermore, there are plenty of documented cases where homosexuality combines with pedophilia, giving you people who sexually molest and harass boys and girls.

Looks to me like the real science facts got swept under the carpet so that liberals could carve themselves out another voter pool.

quote:
Your stuff about lifestyle is a mess. Sexual orientation is not a matter of lifestyle and is not chosen. Virgins have just as much of an orientation as prostitutes.


Read what I wrote carefully. There is no such thing as "sexual orientation". You are either normal, i.e. hetero, or you have some kind of disorder that causes you to derive sexual pleasure from something other than your biologically compatible partner.

Refraining from having sex, as virgins choose to, does not preclude them from having sex in the future, nor does it mean they do not feel the urge to have sex.

Prostitutes choose to exploit sex for profit and is a pragmatic decision.

quote:
Heterosexists claim that homosexuality is a lifestyle (as if a gay Buddhist monk in Tibet has the same lifestyle as a gay Hollywood actor) and a matter of choice because it makes it easier for them to condemn. They don't, of course, deal with the fact that religion is a matter of choice. The only thing left for the heterosexist, given the scientific facts, is a religious basis for condemnation.


Heterosexists? LOL You blatantly disregard science and cannot accept that homosexuality is a disorder just like pedophilia or zoophilia. It's a disorder because is violates basic biological laws and it's no different than a person who derives sexual pleasure from murdering people.

Feeding into the propaganda pushed by the left just makes you look like a clueless tool.


RE: Unintended Concequences
By superstition on 11/20/2013 11:54:51 AM , Rating: 2
I really hope your post is satirical because if you're serious with this sort of nonsense then you really should seek help.

Rainforests, global warming, and homosexuality are truly synonymous! It's all part of a vast conspiracy.


RE: Unintended Concequences
By EricMartello on 11/20/2013 10:40:29 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Pedophiles are vilified because they tend to put their sexual appetite ahead of the well-being of children.


Gay people tend to lead with their sexuality - after all, that's what they're all about. They want to legitimize their sexual disorder rather than seek treatment for it.

Just like a person who murders for sexual, pleasure feels "terrible" if he/she is stopped from doing so, gay people feel like their disorder is "who they are". It's not; it's a disease.

quote:
It is true that one psychologist controversially said that sexual activity between children and older people is not necessarily damaging -- that it's the negative social reaction that actually does the damage (shaming of the victim, et cetera) -- it must be recognized that our culture behaves this way.


Psychologists are pretty much in the same category as other faux scientists and doctors - chiropractors, any meteorologist who 'belives' in global warming - in that very little of what they do or say is scientifically verifiable so they can get away with making stupid claims like this or by saying that homosexuality is not a disorder while pedophilia is when they're effectively the same damn thing.

quote:
A responsible pedophile would manage her/his disorder by using virtual art (such as illustrations), something that Supreme Court ruled is legal.


And a responsible homo would stay in the closet and fap to whatever tickles their fancy in their own home - not constantly whining about having their "rights" denied or complaining that the rest of society is too slow to adjust to accommodate their mental disorder.

Homosexuals are sick people and should be treated as such, meaning medical research is performed to cure their illness so that they can lead meaningful lives rather than deriving a false sense of purpose from a mental disorder.

quote:
I am not an expert in this area


You are not an expert in any area.

quote:
As far as treatment goes... pedophilia is apparently incurable.


As long as idiots like you try to pick and choose which mental disorders are and aren't actually disorders (when all of them are), nobody is going to be treated.

Homos are not getting treatment for their problem because they decided to run with it and live as broken humans.

Pedos will not get treatment because the pro-gay propaganda has marginalized them into being "incurable" threats.

Perhaps the worst mental disorder that trounces all of the above is liberalism - because when the sh1t they and do say starts 'making sense' in your mind, you can rest assured that you've been infected with a plight worse than cancer.


RE: Unintended Concequences
By superstition on 11/20/2013 11:46:00 AM , Rating: 2
Let me know when you manage to get the DSM changed. Until then you can wallow in your lunatic rubbish.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z_Nq3xuHkgE


RE: Unintended Concequences
By AlphaVirus on 11/20/2013 11:45:58 AM , Rating: 2
I don't reply much, but when I do it's to posts like this.

A well thought out and paragraphed posts is so welcoming that whether I agree or not doesn't matter. It's refreshing to find a logical and intelligent post that isn't bashing the person you are having a discussion with, nor did it contain any profanity and useless banter. I thank you sir for this renewed respect for forum discussions on an internet website.

First it's great you were honest stating you've tried before, I'm sure most heavy internet users have searched not just being perverted but out of curiosity in the system. I'm certain that the internet contains child porn but I highly doubt the average Joe sixpack will be able to find it behind all of the standard computer configurations, plus ISP firewalls, PLUS web search restrictions.

A brand new computer that comes with standard with security software beyond Windows' baked in security will hit road blocks for known unsafe websites. Once you actually make it onto Internet Explorer it has more layers of protection to safeguard against known malicious websites. Most people will use Google or Bing to search for that content anyways, of which both are set to safe-search by default and most people don't even realize it's turned on.

You brought up a good point on how mainstream media also encourages the interest in one way or another and this is totally true. The other day I thought about how many adult artist (25+yrs old) sing songs of love/sex/drugs/etc and how their concerts allow people under 18 years old. How can we possibly expect our youth to stay young and sheltered if they are exposed everyday to adult content. I think it works on the flipside too, you have super young artist like Carly Rae Jepsen, Taylor Swift, Justin Beiber, and Miley Cyrus (to name pop stars) who are over sexualized and create an interest in older adults.

Some people make the argument that once you hit puberty by natures standard you are old enough for sex, which I won't argue, but I will argue that a 13yr old has no clue how to raise a kid which is the purpose of having sex. A lot of 18-25 year old are having trouble raising kids.

I read the other day a huge sting operation for child porn was successful. I do hope they continue to be successful with new sniffing and tracking technologies in abundance. It's a shame to hear of stories of these kids getting abused and taken advantage of whether it's "consensual" or not.


"Mac OS X is like living in a farmhouse in the country with no locks, and Windows is living in a house with bars on the windows in the bad part of town." -- Charlie Miller














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki