# Censorship: Google and Microsoft block searches for child abuse



## qubit (Nov 18, 2013)

I think we can all agree that fighting child porn is the right thing to do, taking down such sites should continue and efforts stepped up to bring perpetrators to justice - and I mean life imprisonment or the death sentence. Let's not get soft on these criminals.

However, the censoring of the internet (search engines Google and Bing here) for this purpose also has some unintended consequences, detrimental to legitimate uses of search engines and our general freedoms. This includes things such as preventing people working for child protection services from genuinely researching the subject and possibly finding evidence against perpetrators, for example.

It will also give rise to mission creep, because once you start censoring, where does it stop? I can see all sorts of unrelated stuff getting blocked too, such as protest sites (political or about other things such as big companies) along with legal porn being blocked eg Playboy. We already see access to sites like The Pirate Bay blocked in the UK by major ISPs over "piracy", so what's to stop big business using its muscle to kill off search results and sites that they just don't like? Not a lot.

This is a slippery slope to a full-blown censored internet which will only benefit governments and big business at our expense.

Even the child protection expert quoted below isn't in favour of this search engine censorship.

_Health Warning: this is an interesting and controversial subject, as censorship always is. Please keep it civil and don't flame or troll me for my opinion about it, or each other._



> But Jim Gamble, former head of the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre (Ceop) told BBC Breakfast he did not think the measures would make any difference with regard to protecting children from paedophiles.
> 
> "They don't go on to Google to search for images. They go on to the dark corners of the internet on peer-to-peer websites," he said.
> 
> ...



Read the rest at the BBC


----------



## RCoon (Nov 18, 2013)

qubit said:


> We already see access to sites like The Pirate Bay blocked in the UK by major ISPs over "piracy"



That's because the pirate bay is piracy, and anyone trying to defend it claiming it is not solely for the purpose of piracy is a liar or deluded by all those other internet peoples that say it's all part of a master scheme. I don't feel any pity for anyone visiting a torrent website and finds that it's blocked. Buy things, if you can't, don't. And why in the hell would a child protection officer being googling or binging child abuse?! That's the shitest excuse I've ever heard.


----------



## Tatty_One (Nov 18, 2013)

If censorship helps prevent directly or indirectly "some" child abuse, in whatever form then as far as I am concerned the risk of "total" censorship are well worth it, I am of the opinion that the complete censorship of the Interwebz, possibly leading to it's demise and withdrawal is more than worth it.


----------



## 3870x2 (Nov 18, 2013)

RCoon said:


> That's because the pirate bay is piracy, and anyone trying to defend it claiming it is not solely for the purpose of piracy is a liar or deluded by all those other internet peoples that say it's all part of a master scheme. I don't feel any pity for anyone visiting a torrent website and finds that it's blocked. Buy things, if you can't, don't. And why in the hell would a child protection officer being googling or binging child abuse?! That's the shitest excuse I've ever heard.



Hence why it is called The Pirate Bay.  In it's defense, I have used it to magnet legal files dozens of times (IE software I no longer have the installation hardware for but have a legal license.)

We should not censor at all.  Blocking searches like this will only lead to companies and governments being more comfortable with censoring.  Internet freedom is already at a loss and losing even more as time goes on.


----------



## ShiBDiB (Nov 18, 2013)

They're private companies let them block what they want. Theirs alternatives if you so desire to search for a blocked term.


----------



## the54thvoid (Nov 18, 2013)

I haven't voted.  I'm unsure about the move as it seems like a very naive political 'victory'.  If you google child porn - you will not find child porn, as Jim Gamble infers, it's not just 'out there'.

However, resources would be better spent on the reporting and investigating all images of child abuse.  At the moment, under British Law, even if your computer 'sees' an image and it is stored or cached you have committed a crime.

The initial laws proposed were solely for the distribution of images (filming, recording etc) but they were deemed too lenient.  The actual crime was amended to be to 'view' (not even store), just view an image of abuse.

That in my mind was a mistake as it removes the 'right' to report an image.  For example if you report seeing child porn, you are technically admitting viewing it and thus breaking the law.

The global issue of child sexual abuse makes the policing of it almost impossible.  I think if you do searches for child porn you're a fucking retard and you shouldn't be blocked from doing so - you should get a police caution.

If you happen upon it accidentally, you should feel free to report it, not scared it's now cached on your PC.

I think blocking search results may make it seem to disappear but it wont do a thing to stop it.  Paeodophilia is not an interest - it's an abnormal psychological condition and it's pathological.  People predisposed to it will always make an effort to view it or be involved.

Mr Cameron's naivety is staggering.  I'm sure i read years back lots of the domains are Russian.  We need global efforts, not whimsical delusions that Google and MS are the solution.


----------



## Drone (Nov 18, 2013)

Block? They should hunt them down one by one and erase from the surface of the Earth.


----------



## Deleted member 24505 (Nov 18, 2013)

I kinda agree with this.

Also I can still access TPB but I do not use torrents at all.


----------



## de.das.dude (Nov 18, 2013)

blocking only makes it harder for the child services people to search for these things IMO.
but then again, making it open to public would be harder to eliminate completely. there are always enough creeps to sustain this stuff.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Nov 18, 2013)

the54thvoid said:


> I haven't voted.  I'm unsure about the move as it seems like a very naive political 'victory'.  If you google child porn - you will not find child porn, as Jim Gamble infers, it's not just 'out there'.
> 
> However, resources would be better spent on the reporting and investigating all images of child abuse.  At the moment, under British Law, even if your computer 'sees' an image and it is stored or cached you have committed a crime.
> 
> ...


I didn't know an accidental viewing was breaking the law , that makes me very happy I only look at the same few tech sites daily(I have to admit spacedaily as well) , that as you say makes it stupidly tricky to report anyone online or anything that you inadvertently see and that's just stupid. 
More police more actual action and a lot more sting ops are required not a filter.

I hate the idea of any filter on the net because it may start with pron but it will end with other things being filtered all for our protection which is as you say ineffective as just like the drugs industry (illegal) it will just go further underground and will stop the odd total idiot being caught.


----------



## erocker (Nov 18, 2013)

If you don't like what Google is doing, don't use Google. Simple as that. They are a private company. There are many other search engines to use: http://www.thesearchenginelist.com/


----------



## kn00tcn (Nov 18, 2013)

the54thvoid said:


> I haven't voted.  I'm unsure about the move as it seems like a very naive political 'victory'.  If you google child porn - you will not find child porn, as Jim Gamble infers, it's not just 'out there'.
> 
> However, resources would be better spent on the reporting and investigating all images of child abuse.  At the moment, under British Law, even if your computer 'sees' an image and it is stored or cached you have committed a crime.
> 
> ...



/thread 

but yes, private companies can do whatever they want, just dont have other people taking credit/political victories


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Nov 18, 2013)

erocker said:


> If you don't like what Google is doing, don't use Google. Simple as that. They are a private company. There are many other search engines to use: http://www.thesearchenginelist.com/



whilst a viable ish option those many millions with android would not find that so easy, and there should be more user say in the likes of googles and microsofts/ apples yearly nonsense dance(win8ish,itunes and this).

on desk though ill vote with my eyeballs and fingers as you suggest


----------



## qubit (Nov 19, 2013)

Tatty_One said:


> If censorship helps prevent directly or indirectly "some" child abuse, in whatever form then as far as I am concerned the risk of "total" censorship are well worth it, I am of the opinion that the complete censorship of the Interwebz, possibly leading to it's demise and withdrawal is more than worth it.



I'm with you on the sentiment there, even if it's not really practical, since the internet is the backbone of so much business nowadays. Unfortunately, this kind of thing was going on long before the internet came along, so the real question is how much would it reduce it if one were to kill off the internet? I have a feeling that it would be less than you think.



erocker said:


> If you don't like what Google is doing, don't use Google. Simple as that. They are a private company. There are many other search engines to use: http://www.thesearchenginelist.com/



That seems fair enough at first glance, but it's like any incumbent player who's products have become the de facto standard. Yeah, you can sort of do without it, but only up to a point. Try not using Windows, for example. Really not practical for most people, no matter how much one may hate Microsoft, their products and their policies. I don't hate them btw, but I'm not exactly a fan, either.

It's similar with search engines. Google's the only one that really returns meaningful search results (or at least more meaningful than the competition) so using something else doesn't really work so well.


----------



## Easy Rhino (Nov 19, 2013)

erocker said:


> If you don't like what Google is doing, don't use Google. Simple as that. They are a private company. There are many other search engines to use: http://www.thesearchenginelist.com/



i still use Altavista.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Nov 19, 2013)

qubit said:


> I'm with you on the sentiment there, even if it's not really practical, since the internet is the backbone of so much business nowadays. Unfortunately, this kind of thing was going on long before the internet came along, so the real question is how much would it reduce it if one were to kill off the internet? I have a feeling that it would be less than you think.
> 
> I had to type hitman pro into Google the other week though so err.
> 
> ...



Id say simply why is there not a cop nocking on doors that search for this ,all searches should be grounds for a search by cops if dodgy  that would do more than this political show man shit.


----------



## alexstone (Nov 22, 2013)

Not only blocking, but finding, erasing even shooting


----------



## AsRock (Nov 22, 2013)

Screw blocking how about ISP's and search sites like bing and google to report it like fuck it's not as if their not short on money now is it.


----------

