Blocking child porn sites "exacerbates policing problem"

apples and pears

as usual, EDRI and friends are using the wrong arguments pushing their agendas 'ISP's should be left alone' and ‘keep the internet unregulated’.

Just to put some facts on the table in regards to blocking of child sexual abuse websites…

-The IWF is an ISP industry self regulatory initiative.

-The blocking of illegal websites outside the UK was initiated by a UK ISP (BT).

-Police likes it (blocking)because if less people are in contact with that material, fewer reports on it will be made and as a consequence police can free up resources to catch perpetrators and rescue children from abuse. Let alone the aspect of the victim of the abuse is avoiding further distress regarding the availability of these documents.

-blocking is part of a string of actions that can and should be pursued in the fight against child sexual abuse material online. For a great overview of the various points of intervention to reduce illegal activity online, pls see a report from the Australian Communication and Media Authority’s http://www.acma.gov.au/webwr/_assets/main/lib31055
4/developments_in_internet_filters_2ndreport.pdf

-removal at source is also part of that and must be prioritised higher compared to how it has been done so to date, no doubt!

-asking for more police resources on fighting this type of crime would not be able to solve the issue either.

Improvement on all levels is required, including the usage of all possible measures to contrast this crime.

Thus, blocking is not the panacea, but it is part of a holistic approach and something all experts in this field considers a no-brainer.

By Dieter68 on 28 Jan 2011

reinventing reality

All of the experts consider this is a no brainer? Do you mean experts like Björn Sellström, Head of Swedish Police Investigation Group on Child Pornography and Child Abuse, who said that “our blocking measures are unfortunately not leading to a reduction in
web-based pornography.”

Do you mean experts like the European Financial Coalition against Child Pornography who said in their grant agreement to the European Commission that "“Blocking websites has little long term impact on distribution.”?

You quote somebody or something saying "lets keep the Internet unregulated". Who said this, when did they say it and how is it relevant to this article?
You say "Police likes it (blocking)because if less people are in contact with that material" yet there is absolutely no evidence that blocking reduces accidental access to the material. Specious and groundless assumptions do not help child protection.

The truth is that motivated international efforts to remove, investigate and prosecute child abuse is the only answer. Cosy relationships with governments that outsource cosmetic measures to industry rather than taking real action against real abuse are dangerous, facile and counterproductive.

By johnthetroll on 29 Jan 2011