That is always the focus, in my experience.Ī final note - the child protection industry is keen to remove the word pornography from the lexicon, and to refer to this type of material as "child abuse" or "child exploitation" material. I get nervous and uncomfortable when the "think of the children" argument is misused during discussions involving encryption, intellectual property violations, and general freedoms - but I'm aware that on some occasions it is important.Ī lot of work goes into identifying and where possible rescuing the children involved in this stuff, and preventing more. The courts where I live (Australia) take this quite seriously and are aware that a balance must be struck. This is indeed one of those cases where your privacy, and the rights you have over your property, are impinged upon as a regular person. Sometimes content will simply be removed. In practice, often an American content host will let NCMEC know, since they compile and forward on reports to law enforcement. This means different things depending on the type of content, the country, and lots of other moving parts, but it is the "safety of the children" argument at work. If the reason for your report is that the content involves child abuse, then the company is generally accountable for checking it out. You might have once reported a post on facebook, a file link on dropbox, or an image on imgur (to take a few examples) for being bad in some way. Most companies that host content have a "report" function. A similar flavor of this: someone sent Brian Krebs heroin in the mail, and then "tipped off" the police. It could be pretty difficult to prove that someone did this if the company's logs were inadequate. They're required by law to report it once they have reasonable suspicion.Īn interesting abuse edge case here I've pondered for a while: someone hacks into your account and intentionally posts bad stuff to get you in trouble. They almost certainly have a human verify the validity before reporting (which is probably a 100% manual process). It's all automated, likely triggered by uploads of certain types of files (images/videos). This isn't "Dropbox employees digging through everybody's files hunting for CP". This isn't a legal mandate, they do this voluntarily. I recall someone getting charged after using Gmail in a similar way. Most service providers (including Facebook and Google) actively scan for known PhotoDNA hashes of CP provided by NCMEC and other groups, and will report if they detect and then verify any of them.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |