
Child sexual abuse material could be going undetected because of ‘false reports’ - buisi
https://www.iwf.org.uk/news/thousands-of-images-and-videos-of-child-sexual-abuse-could-be-going-undetected-because-of-
======
lilboiluvr69
He said: “If they are caught actively searching for this, they will have no
more of a defence than someone that’s doing it because they want to find it
for their own gratification. It is not a defence in court going looking for
this.”

I wonder, with the rise of deep fakes and CGI, why a company hasn't come up
with a business model offering professional rendered synthetic child
pornography. It seems to me that there would be demand for it, and if an
ethically un-encumbered product is indistinguishable from the real thing, much
of the demand of child sexual abuse imagery would evaporate.

~~~
ozten
People who consume child pornography have severe mental health issues. They
need counseling and treatment. This idea is not what they need and is
repugnant.

Also, who in their right mind would build, QA, or market such a soul crushing
product.

Some Taboos will remain Taboos despite “hurting no one”.

~~~
happytoexplain
If it materially reduced harm to human beings, that's a theoretical benefit.
Regardless, by insulting the parent's _idea_ ("this idea ... is repugnant"),
you've presented yourself as unreceptive to good faith discussion.

~~~
throwaw4y-plate
Manufacturing child porn IS repugnant, even if it is a deep whatever. Is that
so controversial?

~~~
jhanschoo
While it is repugnant, whether or not it is immoral is another matter. If it
is immoral, it likely deserves being criminalized, whereas if it is not
immoral, democratic liberal ideals suggest that the law should protect such
manufacture from unjust censure instead.

The case against filmed CP is straightforward: minors are harmed in the
process. But what is being harmed in generated imagery? If nothing is harmed,
what is the basis for it being immoral?

~~~
smitty1e
Unintended consequences abound.

Once Pandora's Box of deep fakes is open, are we going to permit racists to
generate genocidal imagery to slake their hatred for $ETHNICITY ?

I mean, as long as only fake Elbonians are dying unspeakably, it's OK, no?

Because the same people who just gotta have that stuff would never want to
operationalize that ickniness, would they?

How about just "no"?

~~~
jhanschoo
Yet just "no" would be an immoral act itself, since it is discrimination
against an act that is morally neutral. Let us leave aside the question of the
morality of the act that you hypothesize we might eventually decide to commit,
and assume it is immoral. (I phrase it this way since these "unintended
consequences" don't follow as a matter of fact but require people to decide to
perform them.) Even if we in future might end up deciding to commit an immoral
act, that is no justification to continue committing the present immoral act.

~~~
smitty1e
I'm sincerely confused as to whether you're rejecting or embracing activities
that could lead others astray.

------
Zenst
‘false reports’ - what percentage of those are malicious is a question they
should be asking themselves. False claims like that are bad as in such crimes,
the mentality is guilty until proven innocent in the eyes of the public at
large.

~~~
DanBC
Someone making 8300 reports over six months is making 43 reports per day.

You don't stumble upon that many images of child sexual abuse in normal web
browsing.

~~~
buisi
It is either wholly fraudulent or a vigilante.

The law does not discriminate between someone pursuing images for their own
usage or to report them. If it did, every criminal would be able to use
reporting them as a defense in court and look at them for decades.

Possession / viewing / downloading is illegal because it is very difficult to
get probable cause for distribution. Some of them encourage distributors as-
well. If viewing was legal and it led to more reports and content being taken
down, that would be positive but it could go the other way with it being
harder to pursue.

------
iso1210
IWF, the shady company that has near 100% control over the UK internet and
blocked wikipedia?

------
coderintherye
Seems some simple filters on their reporting tools could help them more easily
deal with inaccurate reports.

They note: "Do report only once for each web address – or URL. Repeat
reporting of the same URL isn’t needed and wastes analysts’ time."

Well, surely they could implement a filter to only allow reporting the same
URL once.

Further they note: "non-criminal adult material from pornographic websites"

Surely, there could a be a whitelist for major legitimate porn sites with an
automated response that those sites are legitimate businesses not hosting
illegal material.

~~~
asfginmionio
>Surely, there could a be a whitelist for major legitimate porn sites with an
automated response that those sites are legitimate businesses not hosting
illegal material.

Pornhub is currently in hot water over allegations that they have been
negligent in keeping child porn off the site. I don't know whether or not
those allegations have merit, but it is certainly the case that child porn
crops up on mainstream sites from time to time.

Here's one relevant article:

[https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/stories-51391981](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/stories-51391981)

~~~
timwells3
While that article references an incident from 10+ years ago, agreed, CSAM can
be on any website with UGC. I’m sure a large amount of false reports is from
legal adult performers that appear to look young though.

------
handedness
If the blotters of our local PDs are any kind of guide, I'm wondering if
there's any crime that's reported with an accuracy rate higher than 25%.

~~~
brian-bk
That's what I thought too, 25% accuracy for public reports? That's crazy high!
They just don't want to hire more people or improve their process.

------
antibland
Why is this submission[0] flagged, yet this is not? Because of the word
"black"?

[0]
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23950661](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23950661)

~~~
iso1210
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23927223](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23927223)
was the same story and not flagged a day or so earlier, but only had 1 comment

------
fortran77
Why are volunteer, non LE groups doing this in the first place? And how do
they screen their "volunteers"? And how do these people get dispensation to
view illegal pornography? The whole thing smells rotten to me.

~~~
maxk42
I tried calling the FBI to report an uploader on one of my sites who had
posted child porn. They wouldn't take the info and instead directed me to
NCMEC - a volunteer non-LE corporation.

I don't know why this is standard practice in the US but it rubbed me the
wrong way. LE should be taking the lead on this.

~~~
briandear
NCMEC works with law enforcement once they determine that a crime has likely
been committed. NCMEC is an excellent org and such public-nonprofit
partnerships help free up LE agencies to pursue arrests and prosecutions. The
sheer volume of reporting would overwhelm most agencies. They’ll wait until
they have more concrete leads before getting involved.

~~~
maxk42
Well that's just it: I had IP addresses and public posts from the perpetrators
and NCMEC never called me back.

~~~
jacobwg
You may have already found this link, but in case you didn't or anyone else
reading is interested, you should send in an online report to CyberTip
([https://report.cybertip.org/](https://report.cybertip.org/)), which is the
legally-mandated reporting website if you encounter child porn / abuse
material. Reports sent there pass through NCMEC and are eventually forwarded
on to law enforcement.

~~~
fossuser
I thought this was a pretty good video that gives some insight into what they
do: [https://youtu.be/TLPzK4vrxo8](https://youtu.be/TLPzK4vrxo8)

Also this NYT story: [https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/09/28/us/child-
sex-...](https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/09/28/us/child-sex-
abuse.html)

~~~
buisi
Many criminals are prosecuted under State Law IIRC. NYT covers Federal
statistics.

------
tyingq
Seems expected, since there is a fixed line for the age, varying by
jurisdiction. People want to do the right thing, so false accusations seem
normal.

------
throwaw4y-plate
Imagine bikeshedding TFA with an argument over "Uber, but for deepfake child
pornography."

------
asfginmionio
From their website
([https://report.iwf.org.uk/en/report](https://report.iwf.org.uk/en/report)):

>We take reports on UK-hosted non-photographic images of child sexual abuse,
such as computer-generated images. The images we can take action on must be of
children, pornographic, grossly offensive, and focus on a child's genitals or
depict sexual activity involving or in the presence of a child.

More detail here: [https://www.iwf.org.uk/what-we-do/how-we-assess-and-
remove-c...](https://www.iwf.org.uk/what-we-do/how-we-assess-and-remove-
content/laws-and-assessment-levels/laws-for-non-photographic-0)

It's rich to complain about people wasting time that could be spent on "real
abuse imagery" when this organization is also going after _cartoons_. Maybe
they should sort that out first?

Also, the HN title is inaccurate. The article claims these reports are
_mistaken_ , but does not say they are fraudulent. In fact, I do not see
fraudulent reports mentioned in the article at all.

~~~
squarefoot
There's a potential good use for fake images. Virtual, or well photoshopped,
images could be used to lure dealers into distribution, so that a known trace
can be followed, hopefully helping to bust them.

~~~
nicbou
I don't think they need help to collect such material when it's readily
available on the internet

~~~
squarefoot
Sadly, it's being also produced on request, as "new material" to them has more
resell value.

------
rpiguy
One would hope it was closer to 100%

~~~
codezero
I’m not sure I understand. Are you saying it would be better if there were no
child abuse, so any report would be false? I’m not sure how that is productive
in the context of this post, given that there is child abuse.

------
microcolonel
As horrible and cynical as this is, I feel like they probably should not
publish this. I think there are more people who would abuse this information,
than who could do anything about it.

~~~
saagarjha
What kinds of abuse do you think this opens up? That DOSing the people
handling this work?

~~~
microcolonel
Yes, that is exactly what I'm talking about. Sadistic or Machiavellian people
with an interest in it may get the idea that they can send false, marginal, or
expired reports to waste their time; and equally I feel like this kind of
writing is less likely to be read by people considering making a genuine
report.

~~~
codezero
Maybe that’s the point... Maybe they have some information indicating that
false reports originate largely from actual criminals. So this article will
bring more out of the woodwork. Perhaps they let their guard down and submit
without hiding their identity, to look more legit, and this is how they bait
them.

It’d be a great honey pot.

