namelesstavern.net

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27198621/
Thoughts?

Personally I think it would be great to stop child porn, I would hope to think any normal person would feel this way, however the method they are wanting to use to get the job done, WOW that is stupid beyond words. They won't stop a thing and they'll just push these freaks further underground

Nothing good can come of this

The idea has its heart in the right place, and using it they may very well catch some of the end user side of things, but this will not work.
If they really want to crack down on child porn, there are better ways to go about it. Policing data is just stupid.

I'm seriously wondering how this technology functions. First of all I'd think the obvious way around it would be encryption. What I found particularly interesting is that it's matching a list. I'm assuming it's image matching, which would mean that images sent out before they were listed would not get caught, wouldn't that have a net effect of accelerating the black market for new material?

Or cause people to just, you know, RENAME A FILE... *gasp* Such a complicated computer task! Surely no criminal would EVER be savvy enough to change the name of a possibly incriminating file to "image001.jpg" or something equivalent, or even, *RADICAL IDEA* change 1 pixel of an image 1 shade and then resend the altered image to throw off any checksum they're using....

Don't get me wrong, I think any sane person is utterly disgusted by child porn, and would love to see it stamped out. This, however, would do nothing of the sort. They're using it as a red herring to draw attention away from the fact that they're trying to erode our civil liberties.

And yes, Lueyen, encryption would throw it off too. Of course, the next step would be using the fact that you're encrypting messages as a cause to investigate you specifically. I mean, after all, according to the right wing supporters of Warrantless Wiretapping: "If you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to hide, and shouldn't be worried about the Government eavesdropping on you!" And, I mean, if you're encrypting traffic, you're OBVIOUSLY trying to hide something..... Ergo, To Guantanimo with you! (yes, I am exaggerating for effect on that last bit)

-Arlos

I think this probably has more to do as any entry point to set a precedence for ISP's to scan traffic looking for illegal material rather then government invasion. I suspect the next target will be pirated materials.

Lueyen wrote:I think this probably has more to do as any entry point to set a precedence for ISP's to scan traffic looking for illegal material rather then government invasion. I suspect the next target will be pirated materials.

I disagree, this could be the start of what has been justified as wiretapping. If this were to "go live" there would be very little difference between us and China.

ClakarEQ wrote:

Lueyen wrote:I think this probably has more to do as any entry point to set a precedence for ISP's to scan traffic looking for illegal material rather then government invasion. I suspect the next target will be pirated materials.

I disagree, this could be the start of what has been justified as wiretapping. If this were to "go live" there would be very little difference between us and China.

I've never bothered researching how China's monitoring works, but I'm making the assumption that government agencies either oversee or have direct access to the scanning. From the article I get the impression that it is the private entity (the ISP) that does the scanning and is bound by law to report illegal material it comes across. The lines may be blurred in China as the ISP might not be a private entity, but a government controlled one.

Note I'm not promoting the general notion, nor am I saying it won't end up with government playing big brother. I'm just saying that I don't think this is so much government trying to play big brother that is driving this but private industry using it as a convenient excuse to start something that could be expanded to fulfill it's goals in regards to piracy.

Either way I don't believe it would be implemented and then not expanded once the precedence is set, so despite it's supposed good intentions, I think it's bad news.

I think we agree then