http://www.techradar.com/news/internet/ ... hy-1159453

The benefits and implications of that will be enormous

It could make the blocklist from the IWF much more effective. Which is good. Though how long before governments extend it to other things? How long before it is extended to torrent sites and torrent files to stop piracy?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

RAR

+ encrypted RAR.

The only encrypted storage worth using if you're storing something illegal is the type that doesn't actually look like a file at all. if the plod have a warrant and they find an encrypted file, they can keep you in jail indefinitely until you give them the password. XKCD 538 applies in the real world. Encrypted RARs are ZIPs are just a red rag to a bull.

Steganography is a good example.

True, but it would likely mess up the image recognision. It's not uncommon to hide rar files inside image files.

Of course, stuff like that also wouldn't be searchable on Google anyway, rather making it a mute point.

I remember in the days of Kazaa, I would download image files that were 100s of MB in size but renamed and uncompressed were video files. There will always be a workaround to these kind of things.

Though to a politician wanting to be seen to be doing something tough on the matter it is all irrelevant anyway. They do not care that it is impossible, they want their sound bite and 30 seconds of seemingly being tough on the matter.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

Hmmm...

... so Google are going to build a database of child porn images and the technology to distribute that information...

... *raises eyebrow*

I was wondering how they will get round the "making copies and distributing" part of the law, when building a database. Surely they can only do that if requested by government officials or some law enforcement department? Otherwise, good intentions aside, they are breaking the law themselves.

Rather than starting another thread, I’ll add this link here:
http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/382507/chil ... norant-mps



This observation was also tweeted by Rory Cellan-Jones yesterday.

So, nothing new here. MPs won’t listen to industry unless industry tells them what they want to hear.

It’s worth reading Barry Collins’ commentary following his appearance on Newsnight the other day.
http://www.pcpro.co.uk/blogs/2013/06/18 ... -to-block/


I have to say I’m with him on this one. Let legislation do the defining before filters are put in place.

However, as always, I firmly believe that the responsibility with what children view on their computers/phones etc. is down the the parent. Don’t like your kid accessing porn on his mobile phone (this was a complaint by one of the other people on the Newsnight discussion)? Don’t give him a phone, or lock it down so they can’t access porn. Computers/tablets etc. to be used only in family living spaces - not bedrooms. It’s common sense - something that this debate seem to be incapable of embracing.

I do think that the government, or certainly some MP's want to be seen to be acting tough on this. The fact that parents are far more effective by doing the things that you suggest is irrelevant to them. They cannot berate the parents who are voters so better berate the ISP's instead.

My wife’s school did a session for parents the other week - it was literally telling them all the common sense stuff. Some, it seems, were unaware of the dangers. I think they all went home with a good idea of how not to let their child access the internet.

Along with the usual “keep the child’s computer with the adults” bit, I also thought that installing VNC on any computer the child will be using is a good idea. Tell the child that you can see the screen AT ANY TIME so you can monitor without always breathing down their necks. Mind you, at primary school ages, I would expect the parents to treat the computer like a book - spend time with the child together using it.

The article states that they are storing and distributing hashes of the images, not the images themselves. It is impossible to recover an image from the hash because it contains insufficient information.