Prime Time Crimes Against Children & Child Porn

Nijmegen

Very interesting Prime Time Investigates tonight, and not at all pulling many punches - I found myself and my other half were both equally shocked and outraged.

The fact that in a short period of time they tracked over a thousand people on P2P networks looking for child porn in Ireland - which likely means there are a lot more who are smarter in the relatively simple ways to cover your tracks - is amazing.

The fact that we have people verifiably producing child porn in Ireland is another thing I think might have been underplayed - especially given that in Ireland we are dealing with a fairly horrible child abuse legacy from the past, why aren't we doing more in the here and the now?

I think that the sex abuse crimes against children is largely ignored because we don't have the stomach to hear about it - I know I'm shaking a bit after some of what I saw and heard on PT tonight.

Interesting also to see the teenagers and their habits online - I notice that Komplett.ie was on the screen in the school, what do they have to do with CP I wonder?

I wonder if our politicos will be moved off their arses by this? (As opposed to being moved by, err, a problem existing, as opposed to a problem existing where we get an hour long TV program to tell us about it.)

They figure that 20% of the porn out there is child porn.

Biggins

Some people are still really stupid.
There are so many things that are traceable known ways by specialists, to do it - yes, even thru some proxies too!

Long story short, if your into that perverted stuff, ye deserve to be caught.

nacho libre

The shocking thing is op there could be people you and your partner interact with on daily basis, who you deem to be salt of the earth folk, that go home at night and look up this stuff while their wife and children are asleep.

JonathanAnon

People are sooooo naive about the Internet. You're effectively sending your phone number with every packet you download... your IP will be logged by the ISP, whether telephone number/ SIM number on mobile bband etc etc.. The only thing that they have problem proving is who is using the computer behind the IP.

I'd say there were a lot of people getting very anxious as the towns were being named out on the show tonight.

Biggins

JonathanAnon wrote: »

...I'd say there were a lot of people getting very anxious as the towns were being named out on the show tonight.

...and rightly so.

What ever happened to our infamous judge that dodgy stuff was found on his machine!
Is he still about/alive?

PCPhoto

he retired !!

AnnyHallsal

Biggins wrote: »

...and rightly so.

What ever happened to our infamous judge that dodgy stuff was found on his machine!
Is he still about/alive?

Oh yeah. That whole thing was a farce.

JonathanAnon

Biggins wrote: »

...and rightly so.
What ever happened to our infamous judge that dodgy stuff was found on his machine!Is he still about/alive?

Got off on a technicality, search warrant expired..
Brian Curtin

In November 2006, Judge Curtin resigned from the judiciary on health grounds, ending the investigation. This occurred days before he was to give evidence in private to the committee, and days after he had completed five years on the bench, the minimum sufficient to qualify for a pension.

Still sucking on the teats of Mother Ireland no doubt, like a good public servant. What a stupid country we live in..

sheesh

JonathanAnon wrote: »

People are sooooo naive about the Internet. You're effectively sending your phone number with every packet you download... your IP will be logged by the ISP, whether telephone number/ SIM number on mobile bband etc etc.. The only thing that they have problem proving is who is using the computer behind the IP.

I'd say there were a lot of people getting very anxious as the towns were being named out on the show tonight.

yeah that is what i was thinking I would say there is a load of reformatting of hard drives going on after that program.

fairly rough viewing

Nijmegen

sheesh wrote: »

yeah that is what i was thinking I would say there is a load of reformatting of hard drives going on after that program.

fairly rough viewing

I was laughing thinking of the sicko's who must have been bricking it. Though considering that many of them are married middle class men, I wonder if their wives noticed them getting edgy?

I also wonder if the Gardai will swoop?

Their statement didn't sound very convincing - 1 officer trained on such software, and I daresay that the company involved will be receiving their first serious communication from AGS in the near future.

Not the Gardai's fault of course, they work with what they're given by the government. And as the UK and US police said, this has been a problem that is increasing in size hugely over the past decade... I wonder if police resources in the area have increased at the same rate?

Another reactionary, back-foot response from our government will be required, I think. Perhaps the Department of Justice was too busy drafting blasphemy laws to take a look...

Edit: Another point to make about the rough watching... Firstly, there was no actual child porn there, so I can only imagine how rough this stuff is. Secondly, we can switch off the TV. The kids can't. I think we owe it to them to do something about this, uncomfortable as it is, uncomfortable as challenging priests over sex abuse was.

seamus

The only thing which I "like" about the web in this regard is that it has exposed a lot more of these people than was ever previously possible. At the same time, it might also have created a lot more of an appetite than there had been previously.

There was a lot of talk of legislating in regards to the web, but the problem is that there is a world of a gap between what legislators talk about and the technical realities of the situation.

Every suggestion that was made on the program in terms of blocking, banning, etc, etc, I just responded, "Pointless".
The internet as a medium does not respond to censorship very well and any attempt to do so will fail. What we should be doing is harnessing the openness of the web to track down these people and their "consumers".

There are a number of problems with child porn; firstly it needs to be categorised.

There is a world of difference between porn involving someone who is clearly a child and "lolita" porn which involves women/men who are not entirely sexually mature, but have developed to a point where they are clearly male or female and clearly no longer children.

I imagine the consumers of this kind of stuff feel some kind of disconnect from the images - it's escapism pure and simple for them and they may even justify it to themselves by saying that they are over-age women dressed up to look young (which may also be true). It can also be a sort of "time-travel" fantasising where they imagine themselves as a gawky teenage boy having scored with these young women. There's also the issue that the images cross jurisdictions - the images may have been entirely legal in the jurisdiction in which they were taken.

Child porn is something else entirely. Children are children and we don't ordinarily associate sexual thoughts with children - because we didn't have sexual thoughts ourselves as children.

So it's a much tougher issue than simply "Underage people == bad" and any response needs to recognise this and treat it accordingly.

Komplett: Aaron

Nijmegen wrote: »

Interesting also to see the teenagers and their habits online - I notice that Komplett.ie was on the screen in the school, what do they have to do with CP I wonder?

In relation to Komplett, the logo appeared in a segment where Transition Year Students were being given a talk on "Teen Safe Computing" by Pat McKenna of ChildWatch, who were also technical advisors on the show and were behind a Barnardos report on the same topic last year.

We've been sponsoring ChildWatchand Teen Safe Computing in going out to secondary schools to give this presentation since last year.

What started out as a pilot program to TYP's only ballooned when teachers and parents, as well as the kids themselves, took to it very well, and we now go out to give presentations to all years of secondary school. (Different presentations to 1st years vs 6th years, naturally.)

It's a program we're actively looking to expand into next year. We hit 40% of the schools in Dublin this school year, and we'd like to find ways to bring it to a wider school audience, and we're also bringing it directly to parents and teachers in afterschool programs.

Edit: And if I could proffer a legal opinion Seamus... Any pornographic material of a child under the age at which we consider them an adult is illegal. There is no gray area to that.

seamus

Komplett (Aaron) wrote: »

Edit: And if I could proffer a legal opinion Seamus... Any pornographic material of a child under the age at which we consider them an adult is illegal. There is no gray area to that.

No argument here. And I'm not saying that we should turn a blind eye to it or make it a slap-on-the-wrists offence.
However, we do need to recognise that there are so many differences between child porn and "teenager" porn that they should be considered as separate offences rather than a blanket "child porn" declaration as we do now.

My primary concern is about teenagers themselves. Teenage boys in the UK have been convicted with "child porn" offences for having explicit images of female peers on their phones. It's so wrong to criminalise the sexual interests of teenagers in other teenagers and you risk ruining someone's life for nothing more than being a teenager.

Komplett: Aaron

seamus wrote: »

No argument here. And I'm not saying that we should turn a blind eye to it or make it a slap-on-the-wrists offence.
However, we do need to recognise that there are so many differences between child porn and "teenager" porn that they should be considered as separate offences rather than a blanket "child porn" declaration as we do now.

My primary concern is about teenagers themselves. Teenage boys in the UK have been convicted with "child porn" offences for having explicit images of female peers on their phones. It's so wrong to criminalise the sexual interests of teenagers in other teenagers and you risk ruining someone's life for nothing more than being a teenager.

I'm outside of my writ to be posting repeatedly in Politics, so I'll keep this brief as we have a declared interest in the subject.

Teen on Teen interaction is fine so long as everyone is under the age of adulthood. The issue with "sexting" is that after relationships break up, these images can be distributed - and are, we've seen it in many schools - and used as part of bullying and coercion.

Anyone distributing these images, for example to brag to mates, is committing a crime under child pornography legislation. This is an aside to the damage that cyber bullying causes. The best practice advice to teenagers when thinking of filming themselves is, don't. A digital image is very difficult to control.

seamus

That's all well and good for the "official line" Aaron, but it doesn't do much to address the realities of the situation.

I do however understand that your hands are tied in terms of diverting from discussing anything but the current legal situation and best-practice advice and to do so would be contrary to what Komplett are doing in their very laudable support of these programs.

Komplett: Aaron

Best thing for me to do here would be to drag in ChildWatch, they're far more expert than I in these discussions, and I know Pat likes to thrash through discussions on the topic... There are always gray areas where it comes to teens, but I suppose it's worth noting that the vast vast majority of stuff these guys deal in is serious crimes against children, and in the schools there'd be a lot of cyber bullying as well that comes back to and is interrelated to it all.

pooch90

Nijmegen wrote: »

Very interesting Prime Time Investigates tonight, and not at all pulling many punches - I found myself and my other half were both equally shocked and outraged.

The fact that in a short period of time they tracked over a thousand people on P2P networks looking for child porn in Ireland - which likely means there are a lot more who are smarter in the relatively simple ways to cover your tracks - is amazing.

The fact that we have people verifiably producing child porn in Ireland is another thing I think might have been underplayed - especially given that in Ireland we are dealing with a fairly horrible child abuse legacy from the past, why aren't we doing more in the here and the now?

I think that the sex abuse crimes against children is largely ignored because we don't have the stomach to hear about it - I know I'm shaking a bit after some of what I saw and heard on PT tonight.

Interesting also to see the teenagers and their habits online - I notice that Komplett.ie was on the screen in the school, what do they have to do with CP I wonder?

I wonder if our politicos will be moved off their arses by this? (As opposed to being moved by, err, a problem existing, as opposed to a problem existing where we get an hour long TV program to tell us about it.)

They figure that 20% of the porn out there is child porn.

Just to point out - a thousand Ip addresses is meaningless. They could be anything from the actual culprits hacking one or more wireless networks (was that mentioned?) and it could be people downloading mislabeled files.

Remember, they don't even have to finish downloading as this is simply a list of trackers.

Don't expect primetime and RTE to ever portray filesharing in a good light as they are direct competitors.

nacho libre

pooch90 wrote: »

Just to point out - a thousand Ip addresses is meaningless. They could be anything from the actual culprits hacking one or more wireless networks (was that mentioned?) and it could be people downloading mislabeled files.

Remember, they don't even have to finish downloading as this is simply a list of trackers.

Don't expect primetime and RTE to ever portray filesharing in a good light as they are direct competitors.

yes it was just another attempt to demean filesharing rather than shed light on this type of crime.

although, you do have a point it is possible some of these people were not doing anything wrong.

it's possible to download such files without the person's awareness

i recall a court case where a man was cleared of downloading child porn because a single file was in his internet temporary folder. he claimed he didn't knowingly download the file. an IT expert agreed it was possible.

anyway as someone said there will be a lot of reformatting of drives after that programme.

AARRRGH

It's not that hard to crack WEP/WPA encryption as used by most wireless modems. That means I could use your internet connection to look at child porn. You would get blamed.

Scary...

JonathanAnon

pooch90 wrote: »

Just to point out - a thousand Ip addresses is meaningless. They could be anything from the actual culprits hacking one or more wireless networks (was that mentioned?) and it could be people downloading mislabeled files.

I think to be fair to PrimeTime, they did show the types of searches that people were putting in and a pattern of the same IP address seeking this sort of information on multiple (sometimes hundreds) of isolated occasions. I think this demonstrates the intention of the people to request this sort of information more so than simply clicking on a link by accident.

Though I do agree with you that it is hard to 100% link the person to the IP address. I think the only reason that they caught Judge Curtin was the fact that he used his credit card. They would have got a conviction if they hadnt messed up the search warrant.. (What a stupid law btw, the fact that they found illegal property should completely negate the necessity for the warrant).

pooch90

JonathanAnon wrote: »

Though I do agree with you that it is hard to 100% link the person to the IP address. I think the only reason that they caught Judge Curtin was the fact that he used his credit card. They would have got a conviction if they hadnt messed up the search warrant.. (What a stupid law btw, the fact that they found illegal property should completely negate the necessity for the warrant).

In fairness to the judge - if a 3rd party had access to his wireless network, they may have also had access to his cc statement meaning there is no guarantee he is guilty. In fact, he'd have to be absolutely thick to be guilty.

How do you defend that sort of evidence when both security systems are easily breached?

AARRRGH

It reminds me of yer man who was convicted of murder because his mobile phone was giving off a signal in the area.

Let's say I wanted to kill my neighbours daughter.

I hack his internet connection and look and child porn to make it seem like he is a pervert. I also google "how to dispose of body" and "how to kill someone" using his internet connection.

I borrow his mobile phone and clone his sim card. (Very easy).

I then wait until I know he is alone or whatever I consider to be the right moment, kidnap his daughter, put his cloned sim in a phone, kill her and dispose of her body.

He will get blamed as the evidence is overwhelming -

His ISP records show he is a pervert
His ISP records show he was googling how to kill someone
His mobile phone was transmitting where the body was dumped

As a techie I understand how easy it is to fake the evidence, but do you think the average jury would agree with me?

dowtcha

AARRRGH wrote: »

It reminds me of yer man who was convicted of murder because his mobile phone was giving off a signal in the area.

Let's say I wanted to kill my neighbours daughter.

I hack his internet connection and look and child porn to make it seem like he is a pervert. I also google "how to dispose of body" and "how to kill someone" using his internet connection.

I borrow his mobile phone and clone his sim card. (Very easy).

I then wait until I know he is alone or whatever I consider to be the right moment, kidnap his daughter, put his cloned sim in a phone, kill her and dispose of her body.

He will get blamed as the evidence is overwhelming -

His ISP records show he is a pervert
His ISP records show he was googling how to kill someone
His mobile phone was transmitting where the body was dumped

As a techie I understand how easy it is to fake the evidence, but do you think the average jury would agree with me?

As a complete middleaged utterly non techie riddle me this - what do you think of Fergus Finley's point - once there is a few schekels at play then this P2P or whatever can easily be targetted/tackled by eircom, move onto distribution of defenceless child abuse images then things suddenly get very "gray"???? Frankly, I don't think so??? - I'm 110% with FF on this. What does this say about this country? - tiptoeing around child porn vs hammering music downloading - I don't buy all this tech geek speak, where there's a will there's a way!!!
Is this country slowly dissapearing up it's own rear end, 230 times accessing this material in 30 days wtf??? If anyone's interested to see where all this is leading, then get your hands on the mag from last Sunday Times about child abuse in South Africa, seriously sad state of affairs, seems to be straight onto the contact crime, forget the P2P
Lastly, again more mixed messages, why is it that we don't just block these sites like they do in UK? again speaking as a non techie
Perhaps I am sounding a wee bit self righteous here, however as and always seems to be the case these days, of course men have to be at the root of all this activity, and being of that gender myself, give a dog a bad name etc. Don't get me wrong though, am all in favour of light being shone into the dark recesses of what remains of Irish society

AARRRGH

dowtcha wrote: »

As a complete middleaged utterly non techie riddle me this - what do you think of Fergus Finley's point - once there is a few schekels at play then this P2P or whatever can easily be targetted/tackled by eircom, move onto distribution of defenceless child abuse images then things suddenly get very "gray"???? Frankly, I don't think so??? - I'm 110% with FF on this. What does this say about this country? - tiptoeing around child porn vs hammering music downloading - I don't buy all this tech geek speak, where there's a will there's a way!!!
Is this country slowly dissapearing up it's own rear end, 230 times accessing this material in 30 days wtf??? If anyone's interested to see where all this is leading, then get your hands on the mag from last Sunday Times about child abuse in South Africa, seriously sad state of affairs, seems to be straight onto the contact crime, forget the P2P
Lastly again more mixed messages why is it that we don't just block these sites like they do in UK? again speaking as a non techie

If child abuse was legal and some company was losing money because perverts are using P2P to trade it freely, I have no doubt it would be tackled a lot harder than it is now.

It absolutely baffles me that there aren't more convictions. There is no way every pervert has the technical skills to spoof their IP and remain anonymous.

dowtcha

AARRRGH wrote: »

It reminds me of yer man who was convicted of murder because his mobile phone was giving off a signal in the area.

Let's say I wanted to kill my neighbours daughter.

I hack his internet connection and look and child porn to make it seem like he is a pervert. I also google "how to dispose of body" and "how to kill someone" using his internet connection.

I borrow his mobile phone and clone his sim card. (Very easy).

I then wait until I know he is alone or whatever I consider to be the right moment, kidnap his daughter, put his cloned sim in a phone, kill her and dispose of her body.

He will get blamed as the evidence is overwhelming -

His ISP records show he is a pervert
His ISP records show he was googling how to kill someone
His mobile phone was transmitting where the body was dumped

As a techie I understand how easy it is to fake the evidence, but do you think the average jury would agree with me?

As a complete middleaged utterly non techie riddle me this - what do you think of Fergus Finley's point - once there is a few schekels at play then this P2P or whatever can easily be targetted/tackled by eircom, move onto distribution of defenceless child abuse images then things suddenly get very "gray"???? Frankly, I don't think so??? - I'm 110% with FF on this. What does this say about this country? - tiptoeing around child porn vs hammering music downloading - I don't buy all this tech geek speak, where there's a will there's a way!!!
Is this country slowly dissapearing up it's own rear end, 230 times accessing this material in 30 days wtf??? If anyone's interested to see where all this is leading, then get your hands on the mag from last Sunday Times about child abuse in South Africa, seriously sad state of affairs, seems to be straight onto the contact crime, forget the P2P
Lastly again more mixed messages why is it that we don't just block these sites like they do in UK? again speaking as a non techie

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

What I'd like to know is, if we can trace IP address this accurately why are we threaetning poeple with downloading illegal music more resoultley than downloading child porn?

Sand

Because selling music is legal, and illegal downloads means lost sales (allegedly) and hence lost money. The same is not true of child porn. No one (legal businesses anyhow) loses money, so the interest in preventing it isnt the same.

pooch90

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

What I'd like to know is, if we can trace IP address this accurately why are we threaetning poeple with downloading illegal music more resoultley than downloading child porn?

Because somebody with pockets full of money would prefer that peer to peer networks didn't exist. Distribution networks used to cost millions to establish and maintain - now they're free!!

walshb

JonathanAnon wrote: »

People are sooooo naive about the Internet. You're effectively sending your phone number with every packet you download... your IP will be logged by the ISP, whether telephone number/ SIM number on mobile bband etc etc.. The only thing that they have problem proving is who is using the computer behind the IP.

I'd say there were a lot of people getting very anxious as the towns were being named out on the show tonight.

I was thinking about this myself and thought that these sickos really are taking such a risk.
But, I guess the overwhelming urge and desire is what makes them take this risk.

dowtcha

walshb wrote: »

I was thinking about this myself and thought that these sickos really are taking such a risk.
But, I guess the overwhelming urge and desire is what makes them take this risk.

Allied to the fact that fanny adams appears to being done about it - much was promised but little was delivered... a familiar thread in this country

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

walshb wrote: »

I was thinking about this myself and thought that these sickos really are taking such a risk.
But, I guess the overwhelming urge and desire is what makes them take this risk.

This is it. I've always seen child porn as more of an addiciton than a fetish. Someone who signs up for a child porn site using their credit card know that it's going to end badly, but for whatever reason just can't stop.

pooch90 wrote: »

Because somebody with pockets full of money would prefer that peer to peer networks didn't exist. Distribution networks used to cost millions to establish and maintain - now they're free!!

Yeah, I know, but why isn't their legislation to help guards do the same thing? I'm not saying it's the duty of the phone cmpanies or the network providers, so at least they can be caught before they do something more serious.

pooch90

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

Yeah, I know, but why isn't their legislation to help guards do the same thing? I'm not saying it's the duty of the phone cmpanies or the network providers, so at least they can be caught before they do something more serious.

But what exactly are you calling for?

I have no difficulty with the concept of trying to stamp out this kind of thing - all I ask is that you propose a mechanism for doing this which isn't grossly excessive and which is effective.

Should we implement widescale surveilance on everyone just to maybe, possibly catch one or two people who may or may not be guilty? Should we take steps to ensure that wireless networks are better protected? Should we monitor all credit card activity? Should we ban vpn's and encryption over net?

Of course, you could just close down the net, banning sites outside of ireland and requiring Irish sites to pay a license fee and to be monitored to seek out illicit material but a) that would only work for a while and b) its excessive.


Anyway, most child abuse happens at home so what are we doing about that? Should we not have social services play a more intrusive part in raising kids? Should we not be stripping undesirable people of their children and neutering them so they can't have more?
There is such a thing as going too far though and you cannot just willy nillly impose your will on people and expect them to comply and be grateful.

Nijmegen

I think that if we want a good model we should look at CEOP in the UK.

They have a remit to assist other police forces in tracking down abusers, and also to help identify kids and find ways to rescue them - one example (though I think it was in the US) was where they had a reflection of the abuser in the eye of the kid being raped, and managed to find them through that method.

We know for a fact that images are being created and distributed in Ireland (there's a fellow behind bars for doing just that to his sisters children!), it seems fairly lax of us to have to wait for foreign police forces to tell us almost incidentily as a part of their investigations.

dowtcha

pooch90 wrote: »

But what exactly are you calling for? .

Without wanting to a flog a dead horse here, very simply : some action ie. gaurds turning up on doorstep with warrent to sequester the PCs linked to the ISPs, if Eircom can do equivalent for music downloaders then is this asking too much.

Nobody is looking for a big brother stalinist purges response, but some action I think would be approporiate, rather than standing back and allowing the country become a pedo paradise haven for Gary Glitters

pooch90

dowtcha wrote: »

Without wanting to a flog a dead horse here, very simply : some action ie. gaurds turning up on doorstep with warrent to sequester the PCs linked to the ISPs, if Eircom can do equivalent for music downloaders then is this asking too much.

Nobody is looking for a big brother stalinist purges response, but some action I think would be approporiate, rather than standing back and allowing the country become a pedo paradise haven for Gary Glitters

Okay, but how do we gather the intel?
Do we monitor all traffic or just the traffic through filesharing networks?
Do we monitor emails and instant messaging?
Do we ban virtual private networks and encryption?
Do we monitor all credit card transactions?

Next up, how do we go about helping to protect people from having their connections hijacked?


By the way, Eircom and IRMA will not be using the guards as there is no financial incentive to do so. Imagine them trying to prove that any or all of a persons downloads translated to a lost sale. All someone has to say is that they bought what they liked and didn't with the rest.
IRMA could claim that you owe them 10k - btw that's 1000 albums at E10 a pop, for which you are still only liable for the royalty portion - but nobody spends that kind of money on music!

Nijmegen

pooch90 wrote: »

Okay, but how do we gather the intel?
Do we monitor all traffic or just the traffic through filesharing networks?
Do we monitor emails and instant messaging?
Do we ban virtual private networks and encryption?
Do we monitor all credit card transactions?

Next up, how do we go about helping to protect people from having their connections hijacked?


By the way, Eircom and IRMA will not be using the guards as there is no financial incentive to do so. Imagine them trying to prove that any or all of a persons downloads translated to a lost sale. All someone has to say is that they bought what they liked and didn't with the rest.
IRMA could claim that you owe them 10k - btw that's 1000 albums at E10 a pop, for which you are still only liable for the royalty portion - but nobody spends that kind of money on music!

Irish "We Can't-ism" here.

In the UK and other countries they have very, very active police groups whose tasks include:

1. Catching people who look at CP
2. Catching people who distribute CP
3. Catching people who produce CP
4. Identifying and rescuing kids

They're actually quite successful, using a variety of methods.

Now, I've been in the UK plenty and they're right next door so I think we'd know if there was an epidemic of people getting their internet shut off, innocent teenagers being sent to jail for having pics of their girlfriends, or homes being stripped of computers later returned with no charge... ?

One example of a program they use - essentially spyware - on people they suspect of looking at CP nets an average of 3 people who have been looking at CP in the UK, per week.

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23754576-child-porn-police-use-spy-software-to-arrest-200-suspects.do

This is one such tool.

If the ROI has 7.5% the population of the UK, that means that we could expect to catch roughly 15 people per year in Ireland with this one simple tool.

Assuming, of course, that our crime rates are the same.

And don't tell me theirs are better than ours. Excluding what happened during the week, we have a gun murder rate massively higher than theirs, for example.

dowtcha

pooch90 wrote: »

Okay, but how do we gather the intel?
Do we monitor all traffic or just the traffic through filesharing networks?
Do we monitor emails and instant messaging?
Do we ban virtual private networks and encryption?
Do we monitor all credit card transactions?

Next up, how do we go about helping to protect people from having their connections hijacked?


By the way, Eircom and IRMA will not be using the guards as there is no financial incentive to do so. Imagine them trying to prove that any or all of a persons downloads translated to a lost sale. All someone has to say is that they bought what they liked and didn't with the rest.
IRMA could claim that you owe them 10k - btw that's 1000 albums at E10 a pop, for which you are still only liable for the royalty portion - but nobody spends that kind of money on music!

May I respectfully suggest as a non techie that I don't feel the need to concern myself with the detail of what the appropriate response from the Gardai should be, all I am saying is that it should be above all visible, ie there for all to see & that we are not standing back and allowing this traffic to proceed unabated - think of it in terms of speeding and road deaths - plenty of speed traps and hey presto everyone starts to get very
road safety aware. I wouldn't pretend to know the exact details of what or how Eircom are intending to cut down the music downloads, main thing is everyone knows they have taken some action and human nature being what it is, I don't think you would be surprised to see a reduction in this activity. I am not suggesting either that the Eircom response will eliminate this activity, but this is not a rationale for why Eircom / guards should do nothing, or in this case be seen not to do anything - they may well be beavering away in te background

pooch90

dowtcha wrote: »

May I respectfully suggest as a non techie that I don't feel the need to concern myself with the detail of what the appropriate response from the Gardai should be, all I am saying is that it should be above all visible, ie there for all to see & that we are not standing back and allowing this traffic to proceed unabated - think of it in terms of speeding and road deaths - plenty of speed traps and hey presto everyone starts to get very
road safety aware. I wouldn't pretend to know the exact details of what or how Eircom are intending to cut down the music downloads, main thing is everyone knows they have taken some action and human nature being what it is, I don't think you would be surprised to see a reduction in this activity. I am not suggesting either that the Eircom response will eliminate this activity, but this is not a rationale for why Eircom / guards should do nothing, or in this case be seen not to do anything - they may well be beavering away in te background

I am not actually asking you to go into the nitty gritty, just asking that your response be a little more sophisticated than just "do something".

If you read my post again, you'll see that what I am really getting at is (ignoring my Irma moan, which is a little off-topic) that I would like to know how far you are willing to go, and what you are willing to sacrifice, to clamp down on this thing.
Like I said, are you happy to allow the gardai to:
- inspect and investigate every credit card transaction you make?
- monitor every email, instant message and internet posting(boards) you send?
- monitor every website you visit?
- monitor or ban encrypted files?

Nijmegen wrote:

Irish "We Can't-ism" here.

Absolute rubbish. You'll find that what i'm doing is actually proposing methods to do this effectively and trying to establish how far people are willing to go to do this.

Copying what the british do without thinking about how it works is a little bit naive when it comes to technology as a) the british have an acceptance of their govt spying on them and b) its easily avoidable for the kind of people who might actually pose a risk of abusing (distinct from viewing images in that they might actually go and act on their compulsions).

dowtcha

pooch90 wrote: »

its easily avoidable for the kind of people who might actually pose a risk of abusing (distinct from viewing images in that they might actually go and act on their compulsions).

Again without wanting to get overly emotive on what is a very emotive subject, I think what you seem to be most concerned about here is the rights of privacy of the population being infringed, by excessive surveillence.

My own opinion for what its worth is balanced against the effort to reduce this traffic activity, I am perfectly happy to have whatever surveillence carried out on me by whoever if it assists. I realize that everyone does not share this view

Lastly in your final statement you seem to be going towards saying that viewing these images is OK just so long as it doesn't lead to contact crime
This really is a big can of festering worms. I disagree entirely. These images are of somebodies children. Is there an important distinction here
while adults may end up doing things they do not wish to do, it seems to me that the level of abuse with a child in the same situation is greater, merely due to the fact that a child is more dependent/less independent than an adult?

pooch90

dowtcha wrote: »

Again without wanting to get overly emotive on what is a very emotive subject, I think what you seem to be most concerned about here is the rights of privacy of the population being infringed, by excessive surveillence.

My own opinion for what its worth is balanced against the effort to reduce this traffic activity, I am perfectly happy to have whatever surveillence carried out on me by whoever if it assists. I realize that everyone does not share this view

Lastly in your final statement you seem to be going towards saying that viewing these images is OK just so long as it doesn't lead to contact crime
This really is a big can of festering worms. I disagree entirely. These images are of somebodies children. Is there an important distinction here
while adults may end up doing things they do not wish to do, it seems to me that the level of abuse with a child in the same situation is greater, merely due to the fact that a child is more dependent/less independent than an adult?

Firstly, I'll deal with your last statement which is unwarranted. I did not even almost imply that its okay to view these images. I did imply that people would be much more concerned about abusers going after their kids than viewing images of child porn and i stand over that - bad and all as it sounds it makes sense that people care more about their own kids than someone else that they'll never ever meet.

Now your first statement: I am concerned about the right to privacy. But I am also concerned that we will do something pointless which will have no real effect except to deprive honest people and companies of their privacy. I am outlining some aspects of what is required to effectively prevent this thing from happening and asking if people are willing to accept it.

Other aspects of what are really required include banning all websites with the exception those licenced, allowed and monitored by the state (like tv channels you would have web channels).

On your second point too, i note that you have no issue with someone monitoring your daily activities and electronic traffic for no particular effective reason but i reckon others, including companies like Intel, would.

Edit; what it boils down too is i like to think about what i am doing. If i have an itch in my left arm, i see little benefit in scratching my right arm just for the sake of it.

dowtcha

pooch90 wrote: »

Firstly, I'll deal with your last statement which is unwarranted. I did not even almost imply that its okay to view these images. I did imply that people would be much more concerned about abusers going after their kids than viewing images of child porn and i stand over that - bad and all as it sounds it makes sense that people care more about their own kids than someone else that they'll never ever meet.

Now your first statement: I am concerned about the right to privacy. But I am also concerned that we will do something pointless which will have no real effect except to deprive honest people and companies of their privacy. I am outlining some aspects of what is required to effectively prevent this thing from happening and asking if people are willing to accept it.

Other aspects of what are really required include banning all websites with the exception those licenced, allowed and monitored by the state (like tv channels you would have web channels).

On your second point too, i note that you have no issue with someone monitoring your daily activities and electronic traffic for no particular effective reason but i reckon others, including companies like Intel, would.

Edit; what it boils down too is i like to think about what i am doing. If i have an itch in my left arm, i see little benefit in scratching my right arm just for the sake of it.

Well I'm glad we've cleared all that up - you agree there are steps which can and should be taken to reduce access to this material

And as there is a large amount of internet surveillence already, carried out by whoever, including the gardai, why can they not act on it ???

dowtcha

Nijmegen wrote: »

Irish "We Can't-ism" here.


In the UK and other countries they have very, very active police groups whose tasks include:

1. Catching people who look at CP
2. Catching people who distribute CP
3. Catching people who produce CP
4. Identifying and rescuing kids

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23754576-child-porn-police-use-spy-software-to-arrest-200-suspects.do

Sorry I missed this post earlier - exactly the type of response I would have thought appropriate - and surprise surprise no widespread demonstrations about invasions of privacy ??

When can we look forward to reading an equivalent article in an Irish paper about gardai action??

pooch90

dowtcha wrote: »

Well I'm glad we've cleared all that up - you agree there are steps which can and should be taken to reduce access to this material

And as there is a large amount of internet surveillence already, carried out by whoever, including the gardai, why can they not act on it ???

Well, what I think should be done is to have a section of the gardai who find this material on the net and then go hell for leather after the guys who are doing the crime. Then i would have a mechanism for a court issued warrant to monitor all users of that site and then to monitor all their internet activity to build a case.
The big difference being the introduction of probable cause or suspicion before surveillance is carried out.

Building a case, however involves actually monitoring that person in the act of downloading material as otherwise the conviction is unsafe (your wireless network and your pc could be accessed and any sort of stuff put on or through it and you credit card details could be very easily stolen to show that you paid for stuff. Your innocent but your screwed.).

I would also consider banning wireless networks, or at least legislating for security standards to try and prevent 3rd party's from having their net hijacked and finding themselves being needlessly dragged through the courts.
You might also have to ensure that people using internet cafe's are logged so that they cannot just get their filth off random cafe's computers.
The question is how far to go, and how to do this in a manner which is effective but doesn't put people under 24 hour surveillance for no good reason.

Nijmegen

pooch90 wrote: »

Absolute rubbish. You'll find that what i'm doing is actually proposing methods to do this effectively and trying to establish how far people are willing to go to do this.

Copying what the british do without thinking about how it works is a little bit naive when it comes to technology as a) the british have an acceptance of their govt spying on them and b) its easily avoidable for the kind of people who might actually pose a risk of abusing (distinct from viewing images in that they might actually go and act on their compulsions).

The British are the same people who went up in complete arms at the idea of ID cards. Again, I've been to Britain. It's not a police state. It's actually one of the worlds oldest democratic countries, and one of its strongest... Despite not having a constitution to boot.

Anyway, that aside, to propose that the police cannot breach anyones privacy anywhere as part of an operation hamstrings them completely, don't you think? They'll never be able to do anything.

As for someone else using your router or credit card details, when police take your computer and router they will go over it with a fine tooth comb - for example, checking precise logs on the router as to whom was connected and where the porn actually went through the router, so as to identify where the porn went from pipe in the home.

They'd look at HDD's and so on and so forth.

I don't think, again, that we have had an epidemic of false imprisonments over this kind of material.

The police need to be able to do something, and that something is monitor for people in Ireland accessing child porn, and then take a somewhat closer look at that person. If, for example, they do it a second or a third time, they should be flagged and a warrant sought to, for example, do as they did in the UK.

A warrant for anything requires that the police have a reasonable suspicion, and as was proved in the case of Judge Curtan, if you go a centimetre outside of the legal provisions of those warrants the case will fall apart, no matter what you find on his HDD.

There is a middle of the road solution. Give the police the tools they need, and let them be invasive with a warrant.

thebman

Nijmegen wrote: »

The British are the same people who went up in complete arms at the idea of ID cards. Again, I've been to Britain. It's not a police state. It's actually one of the worlds oldest democratic countries, and one of its strongest... Despite not having a constitution to boot.

Anyway, that aside, to propose that the police cannot breach anyones privacy anywhere as part of an operation hamstrings them completely, don't you think? They'll never be able to do anything.

As for someone else using your router or credit card details, when police take your computer and router they will go over it with a fine tooth comb - for example, checking precise logs on the router as to whom was connected and where the porn actually went through the router, so as to identify where the porn went from pipe in the home.

They'd look at HDD's and so on and so forth.

I don't think, again, that we have had an epidemic of false imprisonments over this kind of material.

The police need to be able to do something, and that something is monitor for people in Ireland accessing child porn, and then take a somewhat closer look at that person. If, for example, they do it a second or a third time, they should be flagged and a warrant sought to, for example, do as they did in the UK.

A warrant for anything requires that the police have a reasonable suspicion, and as was proved in the case of Judge Curtan, if you go a centimetre outside of the legal provisions of those warrants the case will fall apart, no matter what you find on his HDD.

There is a middle of the road solution. Give the police the tools they need, and let them be invasive with a warrant.

There are plenty of cases where the police have shown they have little interest in justice and want quick resolution. You can't trust them to do the right thing, you can't trust anyone to. You need evidence and the police will plant it/or do whatever they need to in order to look good themselves and damn the peoples lives they might ruin.

If the police think they are right they will plant the evidence if needs be, we already have evidence of this happening. We can't trust them.

Its horrible but the police need proper irrefutable evidence in these cases or there is reasonable thought no matter how dodgy or obvious the crime may appear. The process is there for a reason.

There is no reason the police will look to see if your router security was breached by default. They are only interested in their statistics for solving crime not if they are right or not.

Arfan

I would respectfully suggest that the Gardaí are going about this type of crime in the correct fashion. What they're doing is through co-ordination from international units targeting distributors and producers rather than mere consumers. Drug crime is fought the same way. You target the people bringing drugs into the country and disrupt their operations rather than just mass arrests of drug users.

Also as a major privacy advocate I am already extremely disappointed in Eircom's buckling to corporate pressure. As previous posters mentioned it does highlight the hypocrisy of the law in that vested interests are able to force other companies to comply with their demands while real crime goes unpunished.

elegantemma

I watched this online and found it very sad and disturbing
I thibk it was donegal and leitrim that had no evidence found, out of the 1000 tracked
There may have been other counties

It now seems to be an endemic problem. Its a mental illness but i dont think these are all strange recluses. There may be many white collar professionals attracted to this sort of sick imagery.
I find it quite upsetting and the hurt must be unbearable for the victims of such acts, their families etc. Whilst the internet is useful, it is very suceptible to abuse, crime and inhuman behaviours, porn etc. All the problems associated with the dark side of the internet.

ChildWatch.ie

Hi - the sexual abuse and exploitation of children is a choice by anyone who does it. What is less obvious is the re-offence against the same child where a person views the digital record of that abuse, the images themselves being crime scenes, and the people who consume them being criminals. When you see some really vicious sex and violent assaults against children, some so young that they could sit in the palm of your hand, you appreciate that every and any means to stop casual browsing into this realm is better than nothing. Regards, Pat

ChildWatch.ie

Arfan wrote: »

I would respectfully suggest that the Gardaí are going about this type of crime in the correct fashion. What they're doing is through co-ordination from international units targeting distributors and producers rather than mere consumers. Drug crime is fought the same way. You target the people bringing drugs into the country and disrupt their operations rather than just mass arrests of drug users.

Also as a major privacy advocate I am already extremely disappointed in Eircom's buckling to corporate pressure. As previous posters mentioned it does highlight the hypocrisy of the law in that vested interests are able to force other companies to comply with their demands while real crime goes unpunished.

I agree with Jim Gamble that you cannot police this problem from within your own patch. Child porn infrastructure is a complex web of servers linked together through secure and encrypted comm's that are difficult to pin down. This is another argument for blocking - if you cannot control what largely occurs in other jurisdictions then you opt to control what you can - which is blocking the domains that you know about.

This is not a perfect solution and people with a will can circumvent it. But it will stop the casual browser who is messing with teen porn and strays onto one of the many such sites that sit above younger illegal sites. For instance, many teenagers do dabble in teen porn and this is an age group that would not resort to purchasing high grade solutions to circumvent blocking, and it would warn them off steering into such content.

I spoke with someone yesterday and gave them this example.

I visited a school a couple of months ago doing one of our presentations. After the preso a young chap came to me with a teacher and burst out crying. We went for a walk around the block and had a chat. He liked teen porn and strayed onto a site with CP. He was curious and clicked on a movie that rendered (many don't - they do other things) and he saw something that he was not prepared for. The movie that he described is nasty - very young victim with penetration and sadism - it would shock anyone not inclined to come into contact with CP.

He can't get this out of his head. A blocking solution would have protected him. It is that class of curious person that does not have a well defined interest in CP that is protected by blocking.

I - by the way - would not like to see blocking of everything and anything on the net, but for me, CP is a very different prospect to downloading music. For instance, one music executive was quoted as saying that child porn is great for the music industry - in the context of blocking of course.

I understand the Digital Rights position on blocking - I just think that they should relent in the case of CP

Pat

dowtcha

Arfan wrote: »

I would respectfully suggest that the Gardaí are going about this type of crime in the correct fashion. What they're doing is through co-ordination from international units targeting distributors and producers rather than mere consumers. Drug crime is fought the same way. You target the people bringing drugs into the country and disrupt their operations rather than just mass arrests of drug users.

Also as a major privacy advocate I am already extremely disappointed in Eircom's buckling to corporate pressure. As previous posters mentioned it does highlight the hypocrisy of the law in that vested interests are able to force other companies to comply with their demands while real crime goes unpunished.

Did you actually see the primetime program?????
I humbly suggest one of its themes is that the widespread accessing of this material appears to taking place with very little being done about it
If this would appear to you the correct fashion for the gardai to approach this matter, I beg to differ. I think privacy concerns seems to being used as a smokescreen for doing nothing. Surely some regulations regarding responsible use of the internet must apply?, otherwise it is akin to a country without laws where anarchy prevails, which is all very well until it effects you or someone belonging to you. You are surely not suggesting that crimes committed in the privacy of ones own home are committed with impunity, lest a persons privacy is violated. I mean on another note was the husband not convicted in North County Dublinn of killing his wife (Rachel O'Reilly?) on the basis accessing his mobile phone records? Was this a breach of his privacy or a justifiable method of criminal investigation
Just how how much privacy do you think you have in the 21st century?

mm.ie

First of all I will declare that I have an interest in this area as I work in it. Secondly I wish to state that I do not use the words Pornography when talking about the material. Pornography is accepted in broad society while this material can never be plus the production of pornography implies consent something which a child can never give. Child (Sexual) Abuse Material (CAM) is the graphic depiction of child sexual abuse.

Like death, we know the sexual abuse of children happens in our world but we prefer not to think about it until we are faced with it within our own circle. That being said the SVAI report (produced in Ireland and used as a benchmark globally) puts it as plainly - 1 in 5 women and 1 in 6 men suffered contact sexual abuse before the age of 17. It is safe to say therefore that there are 110,105 girls and 91,903 boys currently being sexually abused in Ireland. (figures extrapolated using census data from CSO.ie) It should come as no surprise that a certain amount of that abuse is recorded and shared with other like minded individuals.

Child Sexual Abuse has always been with us and ever since there has been a means to record it there has been CAM. In fact, right up until the 1980s CAM was available in magasines form in shops across Europe and America. Laws brought in at that time gave real hope, not that it had been eradicated, but that it had been driven so far underground that it was no longer an issue. Then came the Internet and the ease of transmission of files. This, coupled with the ease of production of those files, meant that the Internet and modern technologies became the de-facto method of production/ transmission. Add to this the sites that re-enforce the cognitive distortions of those who seek/ produce this material and the element of community afforded to like minded people and it is easy to see why this problem has been exasperated by the Internet. The vast majority of this material traded today is done over the Internet.

So the problem is not the Internet but the people who use it or misuse it to be more accurate. That does not mean that there is a silver bullet to deal with issue. As can be seen from above the problem is the sexual abuse of children. That is unfortunately a very complex issue and one which is compounded by the fact that sexual abuse tends to take place within the home or family circle. It can only be dealt with when it becomes visible. It is visible on the Internet and so it must be dealt with there. The Internet should not however be vilified in the way it currently is. This is more of a societal issue and our overall attitude to the children and how we treat them should be looked at. The over sexualisation of children within society, the failure of people to realise that they are masturbating to child sexual abuse and the treatment of sex offenders generally are all issues that need to be addressed. This can be tackled with awareness campaigns, proper robust law enforcement and of course tackling the methods of production and transmission.

A good example of how to deal with the first two of these long term sustainable solutions (to reduce consumption and production) is the Prime Time show on RTE and the work of advocates such as Fergus Finlay and Pat McKenna. Another good example is fora like this where there can be mature and objective debate of the issues.
The third point is so much more difficult as the issues are not fully understood by those who make the decisions and hold the purse strings.

The Internet was developed as a monster trust network. The vision that drove its development once the military gave it to the academics was one of a massive open network freeing information and knowledge from the chains that are imposed by those who would like to impose them. This works brilliantly and the proof of the pudding is the fact that we are all eating it as we speak. The blocking debate is a good example of attempts being made to put a hold on the trust networks and so it attracts valid and sometimes rabid debate. Some people take advantage of the trust network to do harm. Are we to ignore those people or are we to drive them underground? I vote for the latter.

The blocking of websites that make CAM available is on the face of it useless. Any Internet user worth his salt would be able to get around it and get access to the material they want. The filtering is only valid on the web and so other services such as the P2P networks and IRC are not affected and the vast majority of this material is traded in non-port 80 technologies.

Where it is not useless though is as a prevention mechanism. The current systems in place give you a STOP page if you try to access the site. This has a positive effect on most people as it makes them think again. Think again about what they are trying to access, think again about their reasons for doing it and think again about the implications of continuing to access illegal material.

It is also useful in raising awareness of the whole issue. This material is illegal because of what it is not because of any notion of propriety on behalf of our legislators.
Filtering is also a low cost method of taking this material off the web, the part of the Internet used by most people. Pat from child watch made the point that the filter also protects people. Can you really recommend that your mother use any system that might expose her to graphic depictions of child sexual abuse?

Internet Filtering is not a solution. It is however a start and every effort should be made to remove access to this material, reducing demand reduces supply.
mm.ie