UK Child Abuse Investigators Resent Being Charged For ISP Data 241
nk497 writes "In the UK, ISPs are charging a child protection agency for access to IP user details they need for their investigations into online-related abuse. The Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre has paid out over £170,000 since 2006 on IP data requests related to child abuse cases, and expects to pay another £100,000 this year — enough to fund another two investigators. The CEOP's CEO said that any ISP which can't afford to give the police such help 'simply can't afford to do business.'" Surely it must cost the ISPs money to comply with such requests, no matter how official the quest.
Re:Requesting data on 10,000 people... (Score:2, Informative)
They requested data on at least 3,000 people from the ISPs (at £60 per request).
[Citation needed]
I'm not sure where you're getting this figure from. From the article:
The Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre (CEOP) told the BBC following a freedom of information request that since April of 2006 it had made 9,400 requests for user information, at a total cost of £171,505.99.
That breaks down to about £18.25 per request. Less than a third what you claim. If you look at the claims for 2008, too (4600 claims at £64604)(from the article linked in the article), you get an even smaller figure of £14 per request.
I can't say for certain that it's that expensive to process one of these requests, but it's certainly not that bad. I, too, am not willing to bend over backwards and throw out all sense just because we're "thinking of the children." Let 'em pay their fair share.
Part P (Score:2, Informative)
I rewired my own kitchen perfectly legally. I had to pay 100 pounds to the local Buildings Control Office who sent someone round to look at it. He knew very little, but it was pretty clear to me that he was really there to figure out if I knew what I was doing - if he got a bad impression, he'd send an electrician round.
Part P has got a bit of a bad press, and certainly bad implementation by many councils. I'm not saying it's a good idea, but it isn't quite as idiotic as a lot of people make out.
Re:Well-paid investigators (Score:4, Informative)
As a rule-of-thumb when hiring staff you use a 'fully costed' approach which takes employment taxes, telephone, expenses, office space, heating etc. etc. etc. into account - so employers will take the base salary of the person and then double it to get the fully-costed figure. 50,000 headline figure probably translates into a salary of 25,000 to 35,000 whi
Re:Indeed, innocents accused have ruined lives. (Score:5, Informative)
Happened to my friend's dad two years ago: he was investigated on suspicion of being part of a child porn ring. He lost his job, and the family had to move house because of the weight of the mortgage. Then had to move again because news of the investigation leaked out in his new community, resulting in several smashed windows and graffiti on the door.
7 months later, the allegations were all dropped. After turning his home, his office and his life upside down the police found no evidence of child porn, or any "morally dubious" (scare quotes intended) items of any sort. My friend's dad is perhaps one of the most boring people in the world.
Well over a year after the charges were dropped, he is still unemployed and he and his family still suffer regular abuse. He had a nervous breakdown late last year and is still recovering.
Still, I suppose he can take comfort in knowing that it's all for the children.
Re:Good (Score:3, Informative)
They have no common carrier status. Never did.
Psychologicaly you're correct though, once they opened the door to the idea that they could search for one thing every fool with an agenda realised he could get his piece.
Re:Good (Score:2, Informative)
it encourages misuse of that information and encourages scope creep to monitoring a wider population than you might originally have required.
I agree. And on that note, Jim Gamble (head of the CEOP, who is quoted in the article) supports the law on "extreme" adult images - even with consenting adults - that comes into force this Monday. (He was interviewed on this matter on a rather one-sided "Woman's Hour" on BBC Radio 4.)
From a practical point of view, it's not like it makes any different - this isn't "child abuse investigators versus profiteering ISPs", it's taxpayers (who fund the CEOP) versus ISP customers (the cost will undoubtably passed on) - i.e., we pay for it either way. So anything that helps minimise fishing expeditions is a good thing, in this climate.
Let's also not forget the Government plans to criminalise non-realistic images (cartoons etc) that have some appearance of an under-18 "child" (also note the age of consent is 16 in the UK - so a cartoon of a legal act will be illegal to possess); the bill was recently published. I don't know off hand what Jim Gamble's view on this is, although I wouldn't be surpsied to find that he supports it...
Re:Not all ISPs charge (Score:3, Informative)
Because it's for the children, of course?
In the mid-90s I was working for a small ISP (about 1000 customers) when a cop showed up at the door one day wanting to gain access to a guy's email. My boss, an ex-biker (I know, odd change of career), had little enough love for the police, said "Sure, when you come back with a warrant". The cop was actually quite angry that my boss would dare to demand any such thing.
The lesson is clear. Cops loathe civil liberties, viewing them as obstacles to their job. They hate freedom, despise it, and are encouraged by their superiors and political masters to basically run roughshod as often as possible. They may be a necessary evil, but they are still an evil.