posted by
LaminatorX
on Tuesday March 04 2014, @06:26PM
from the quis-custodiet-ipsos-custodes dept.
from the quis-custodiet-ipsos-custodes dept.
Angry Jesus writes:
"Senior advisor to UK Prime Minister David Cameron, Patrick Rock, was arrested last night for possession of child abuse imagery. Mr Rock was a key player in the policy push for the UK's recently deployed, opt-out, nation-wide internet filtering system. That filter has been working pretty much as you might expect."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
UK Porn-Filter Advisor Arrested for Child Porn
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 35 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Vanderhoth on Tuesday March 04 2014, @06:27PM
How does that go again? Thieves often have the best locks?
Nice to see politicians being held to the same rules everyone else is for once though.
"Now we know", "And knowing is half the battle". -G.I. Joooooe
(Score: 3, Interesting) by pbnjoe on Tuesday March 04 2014, @06:56PM
I wouldn't be surprised if he was acquitted in short order though, with some sort of BS about how he was holding them for investigation or something. Cynical side of me speaking, hopefully it doesn't happen.
(Score: 5, Informative) by Angry Jesus on Tuesday March 04 2014, @07:28PM
In theory, the filter he was part of pushing on the public was not about illegal imagery, just "offensive" imagery.
The kiddie porn filter -- Cleanfeed [wikipedia.org] -- is not intended to be opt-out and has been around for about a decade.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by mojo chan on Wednesday March 05 2014, @01:26PM
I used to tolerate Cleanfeed but since all the GCHQ revelations and Cameron's porn filter came in I switched to using VPNs and Tor all the time. Ironically I think Cameron has given more people access to things that were blocked by Cleanfeed, while denying children access to health information sites.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
(Score: 3, Funny) by hatta on Tuesday March 04 2014, @08:42PM
What do you think happens to all the kiddie porn that's caught in the filter? Someone has to clean it out eventually.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 05 2014, @08:51AM
Child labor?
(Score: 2) by bd on Tuesday March 04 2014, @07:56PM
Legality aside, I'm shocked to find out that a politician did seek expert advice in a field of legislation.
You live and learn...
(Score: 1) by tibman on Tuesday March 04 2014, @10:27PM
It is interesting though that a guy who knew how to get illegal images is asked for input to filter them. Have to wonder how that came about. The article sounds like happenstance but it feels like more should be there (Dexter like).
SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
(Score: 0, Flamebait) by NlGGER on Tuesday March 04 2014, @06:40PM
What was it ? kids forced to go to a church ?
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Boxzy on Tuesday March 04 2014, @06:46PM
You won't see a better example than this.
Just shows that censorship always opens up abuse, this time literally.
Go green, Go Soylent.
(Score: -1, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 04 2014, @08:59PM
Yeah, me... the way I know, irony is like silvery except with iron. And, for the life of me, I can't make sense how this applies as an example.
(Score: 5, Funny) by edIII on Tuesday March 04 2014, @06:56PM
You would have to be British to properly enjoy and convey to the rest of the world the absolute irony in something like that.
The irony is just so thick that only British wit and humour (I used the U) is suitable to deal with such amazing wonders that happen in the old empire.
Please tell me Stephen Fry is here and can chime in. Please. We beseech thee.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 3, Funny) by NoMaster on Tuesday March 04 2014, @10:50PM
Sorry - if you want to hear from pompous twats you'll have to go back to /.
Live free or fuck off and take your naïve Libertarian fantasies with you...
(Score: 1) by dublet on Tuesday March 04 2014, @06:57PM
I guess he had the inside viewpoint on how these people get their stuff. And then proceeded to recommend stuff that allowed him to continue these activities without any problems.
"If anyone needs me, I'm in the angry dome. [dublet.org]"
(Score: 5, Funny) by halcyon1234 on Tuesday March 04 2014, @06:57PM
Of course he was in possession of those images. How else is he going to know which sites to block? I mean, if it wasn't for this brave man-- no, I will say it, this HERO-- meticulously cataloging each and every naughty site that you (OR YOUR CHILDREN) might come across, how else could the government protect you from them?
I mean, otherwise they might just implement a broad, overreaching solution rife with false positives. And no one wants that.
Original Submission [thedailywtf.com]
(Score: 0) by cafebabe on Tuesday March 04 2014, @07:11PM
I was against censorship until I read a particular paragraph from A New Way To Be Mad [theatlantic.com]:-
Obviously, there's huge scope for feature creep and political abuse but the principle of an anti-virus for memes shouldn't be dismissed outright.
1702845791×2
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Angry Jesus on Tuesday March 04 2014, @07:23PM
Let's say we accept the possibility that such a premise is true. The example given is a poor argument for it. If those unnamed sex acts are destructive it seems reasonable that the people who engage in them are doing so because they have destructive impulses. Thus it seems unlikely that keeping them ignorant of a handful of destructive behaviors will prevent them from acting on their destructive impulses - they are nearly certain to just come up with something else equally destructive to satisfy their urges.
In other words, the problem with destructive behaviors does not lie in the specific behaviors, it lies within the individuals who engage in them.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by cafebabe on Tuesday March 04 2014, @08:00PM
If people have destructive behavior, do we want to make it easier for them to be destructive? Do we want to make them more effective?
Have you seen kids play after watching martial arts on television? They copy the moves. They try moves that never occurred to them. They might do some moves badly. They might find one or two moves which are quite effective. And they injury each other more effectively than if they weren't copying something.
Maybe that's a minor example but where is it reasonable to draw the line? Perhaps when it substantially reduces quality of life? So, things like suicide pact websites, anorexia forums and bomb making. I think the intention of censorship is to emulate the moral values of traditional mass media. And maybe some of that is recalling a golden age which never happened.
Regardless, many countries ban television advertising of gambling, adult services, unhealthy food or toys on channels or during hours in which children are likely to watch. And many countries have film and game classifications. That works fairly easily when the number of content providers is fairly small. That doesn't work so well when applied to the niche content on the Internet but do we really need more people stuffing a lightbulb in their rectum?
1702845791×2
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Angry Jesus on Tuesday March 04 2014, @08:27PM
That is begging the question. There are an infinite number of thrill-seeking behaviours that will kill or maim a person who takes them to far. Auto-erotic asphyxiation or extreme snow-boarding, they can both kill you just as easily if you make a mistake.
I think any comparison to the behavior of children would be an error.
(Score: 1) by FuckBeta on Tuesday March 04 2014, @09:02PM
"do we really need more people stuffing a lightbulb in their rectum"
No. One is enough.
Quit Slashdot...because Fuck Beta!
(Score: 1) by chromas on Tuesday March 04 2014, @10:30PM
Thank you, Fester Addams!
(Score: 5, Insightful) by hatta on Tuesday March 04 2014, @09:04PM
If people have destructive behavior, do we want to make it easier for them to be destructive? Do we want to make them more effective?
Censorship is a destructive behavior. Do you want to make them more effective?
Have you seen kids play after watching martial arts on television? They copy the moves. They try moves that never occurred to them. They might do some moves badly. They might find one or two moves which are quite effective. And they injury each other more effectively than if they weren't copying something.
The proper solution is more education, not less. Enroll your kids in martial arts so they know what they're doing.
Maybe that's a minor example but where is it reasonable to draw the line? Perhaps when it substantially reduces quality of life?
Censorship substantially reduces quality of life. Let's draw the line there.
So, things like suicide pact websites, anorexia forums and bomb making.
All less harmful than censorship.
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Tuesday March 04 2014, @08:17PM
Another way to look at this is to think about technology. We all know that technology can be used for good and bad purposes, but does that mean government committees should be involved in deciding what technologies people can learn about, or limit specific techniques regarding those technologies? Of course not, except for those who sympathize with a government like that enjoyed by N. Koreans.
The only real difference is that instead of deciding to limit information about, for example capacitors, which can be dangerous, here we are talking about sex. And sex is evil and immoral. It's horrible. Everyone should be protected from sex and never have it. /sarcasm. Seriously, just replace the word "sex" with anything else -- geology, horticulture, javascript -- and you can see that the impetus for banning sexual knowledge is wholly puritanical and paternalistic.
Secondly, people will discover things. If you limit the ability to share knowledge, a bunch of people have to rediscover the same things, and sometimes, the discovery process is dangerous. By making it impossible for people to build upon a base of knowledge, a bunch of people will be needlessly maimed or killed.
(Score: 5, Funny) by chromas on Tuesday March 04 2014, @10:44PM
You're right: JavaScript shouldn't be banned; we just need to teach people how to use it properly before they go around spraying it all over the Web.
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Wednesday March 05 2014, @01:26AM
I was trying to think of something people could hate to put in that list, and javascript seemed to fit the bill. If we want to be able to build of previous information, we have to accept that sometimes we won't like that info for any number of reasons, but the benefits far outweigh the negatives. Like javascript, and to some, sex information.
(Score: 3, Funny) by egcagrac0 on Tuesday March 04 2014, @07:55PM
At least he was thinking of the children.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by VLM on Tuesday March 04 2014, @08:25PM
And I'm thinking of him, and I'm thinking that it would be a truly awesome idea to legally rename the official CP filter after his name. Assuming he's properly tried and convicted, and by a judicial process not just the news media, etc etc. "The official Patrick Rock memorial CP filter"
(Score: 1) by cafebabe on Tuesday March 04 2014, @10:45PM
To paraphrase bash.org [bash.org], I've been thinking of the children all morning and now I'm sore.
1702845791×2
(Score: 1) by EvilJim on Wednesday March 05 2014, @12:01AM
fap fap fap goes the advisor.
(Score: 1) by tibman on Tuesday March 04 2014, @10:24PM
Love the "Who watches the Watchmen" theme.
SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by isostatic on Tuesday March 04 2014, @11:28PM
Comrades, don't let these liberal hippies besmirch the idea of hadrians firewall.
The fire cliffs of Dover must be STRENGTHENED, despite this news. Without them more 12 year olds will rape their 7 year old sister, and we may be forced to blame THE PARENTS!?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lancashire-26 418508 [bbc.co.uk]
A 12-year-old boy who raped his seven-year-old sister after watching hardcore pornography on the internet has avoided a custodial sentence.
The boy, now 13, pleaded guilty to rape, two counts of indecent assault and inciting a child to engage in sexual activity.
Blackburn Youth Court heard he had viewed pornography with friends and gained "a desire to try it out".
Social workers are working to return him to the family home soon.
'Disgusted'
The boy is currently living away from the family home but in a victim impact statement his sister said she wanted him to return.
"I feel sad what [he] did," she said. "I want him to go to our house so I can play games with him. I love [him]."
In a statement, the offender said he was "disgusted" with his crimes, which were committed between March and May of last year, and promised there would be no repeat of them.
Sentencing the boy, District Judge James Prowse said he thought it "highly improbable" he would reoffend in the same way and imposed a 12-month referral order, on the recommendations of a youth offending team.
Detaining the teenager would "tear the family apart" and expose him to "hardened and sophisticated" youth offenders, Judge Prowse said.
The judge, who described the boy as "unsophisticated" and "immature", said the teenager did not represent a danger to society.
The boy, who has no previous convictions, will be placed on the sex offenders register for two-and-a-half years.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by aXis on Wednesday March 05 2014, @12:27AM
And that's why parents should put family computers in a common area and supervise their kids when they are on the internet.
(Score: 1) by bornagainpenguin on Wednesday March 05 2014, @04:17AM
Great. Now what about their cellphones? Or do you think cellphones are only given out once the age of consent has been reached? What about game consoles and handhelds, both of which are becoming increasingly capable as video playing devices and all of which have more and more Internet presence?
Like it or not, Pandora's box has been opened already with mass communications on a scale most of us really can't comprehend so long as we insist on thinking of the Internet as a "place" that requires a desktop and not something every one of us interacts with on a daily basis in some form or another on a direct personal level of interaction.
The only way forward is education. Obscurity isn't the answer, nor is censorship. What children don't know can and does hurt them--so circumvent the security flaw by teaching them not everyone is nice. Some things are too dangerous to play around with until you're older. Etc.
(Score: 1) by isostatic on Wednesday March 05 2014, @10:06AM
</sarcasm>
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 05 2014, @04:15AM
Marry little girls.
Deuteronomy 22 28-29 in hebrew.
Vedic religion.
Islam with it's hadiths on ashia.
Marry little girls.
It is good for males.