Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
United Kingdom Censorship Crime Government Your Rights Online

Child Porn Arrest For Cameron Aide Who Helped Plan UK Net Filters 205

Posted by timothy
from the takes-one-to-know-one dept.
An anonymous reader writes "A senior aide to David Cameron resigned from Downing Street last month the day before being arrested on allegations relating to child abuse images. Patrick Rock, who was involved in drawing up the government's policy for the large internet firms on online pornography filters, resigned after No 10 was alerted to the allegations. Rock was arrested at his west London flat the next morning. Officers from the National Crime Agency subsequently examined computers and offices used in Downing Street by Rock, the deputy director of No 10's policy unit, according to the Daily Mail, which disclosed news of his arrest."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Child Porn Arrest For Cameron Aide Who Helped Plan UK Net Filters

Comments Filter:
  • by Chrisq (894406) on Tuesday March 04, 2014 @09:45AM (#46396101)
    he was just testing the filters!
  • Is it possible to make something illegal if you don't know what it is? How can you fight something if you don't know how widespread it is? How do you find something if you don't try to look for it? If the law requires child porn blocking, then someone has to be trawling the internet actively looking for child porn in order to know what to block. I wouldn't wish that job on anyone.

    • by cdrudge (68377)

      I don't know. Police officers generally tend to know that drugs are illegal and enforce such laws that make them illegal without possessing a stockpile of them at their personal desk and/or at their home. They don't have to "research" the drugs by physically possessing them outside of an operational or laboratory (aka non-official) setting.

      The same thing can be said for just about any illegal activity. You don't have to actively go out and find it to learn about it. You don't have to murder, beat, or ra

      • But the police don't actually make the laws, so they don't need to do the research. And besides, the police have had plenty of drugs in their possession over the years, and they have actively sent officers out to buy drugs to gather evidence against dealers.

        Now I don't know whether this is a case of downloading a few pictures to test the filtering system (or to work out how easy it was to do), or whether this was a large stockpile that went beyond any notion of research. But frankly, if anyone could possibl

        • Now I don't know whether this is a case of downloading a few pictures to test the filtering system (or to work out how easy it was to do), or whether this was a large stockpile that went beyond any notion of research. But frankly, if anyone could possibly use the old "research" excuse it would have to be someone that actually had a need to do research.

          He was in the position where he would be in no doubt that such "research" would be illegal.

          If there is a need for such research one would expect it to be done in a specialist facility, under supervision, and with proper monitoring, and for there to be a provision in the law to allow for that.

      • by X0563511 (793323)

        We're talking about enforcement.

        You have to find it to enforce against it. You don't just know that Joe is a drug dealer. Fortunately it's not a crime to see a drug, or to look at it, or to know that it (that specific instance, not the concept) exists. This is not really the case with CP; but that said police generally don't get hung up on that. It would be stupid if they were.

        Now in this case, it's even less the case with "enforcements" like filtering - someone has to program the filters. AI might be makin

      • by sjames (1099)

        The difference is that it's not a crime to see drugs. You can see drugs without possessing them. You can find them online all you want and be clearly on the right side of the law.

    • Is it possible to make something illegal if you don't know what it is?

      Sure, you don't have to become a murderer to catch murderers.

      You can test almost any software with mock data. In fact, such data may be a by far better test as it is composed of things that are on the edge of being problematic..

      • by sjames (1099)

        You can legally see a murder. You can even download a picture of murder. I don't know about the U.K. law but at least in the U.S. even simulated child porn is considered child porn.

        Most anything you could come up with as a positive exemplar is intrinsically illegal to possess.

    • by PopeRatzo (965947)

      Is it possible to make something illegal if you don't know what it is? How can you fight something if you don't know how widespread it is? How do you find something if you don't try to look for it?

      My goodness, you actually believe that the UK's net filter actually has something to do with child porn?

       

      • Quote right. It seems to be used mainly for tackling torrent sites. Protecting the media companies is far more important than protecting children.

    • by PRMan (959735)
      That's what I was thinking. Isn't this necessarily a requirement of his role in making the filter?
  • by FilmedInNoir (1392323) on Tuesday March 04, 2014 @09:50AM (#46396157)
    This guy was controlling the internet for an entire country, and when I added Porn Expert to *my* resume, I didn't even get a call back.
  • by Required Snark (1702878) on Tuesday March 04, 2014 @09:57AM (#46396233)
    It's a common pattern. Someone has a dark secret and they end up persecuting those who have the same impulses. They simultaneously engage in behavior they see as evil while doing the same thing themselves. It's why we continuously hear about virulent ant-gay politicians and religious leaders who have a secret gay life. Just look for the people who are screaming loudly about a specific sin, and there you will find a greater then average concentration of sinners.
  • Is this, like, "You need a thief to catch a thief"?

    This is messed up.
    • He's innocent until proven guilty, regardless of whether or not he resigned. And a little more circumspection would be nice. I know there's "no smoke without fire", but both I, you and everyone else here knows how easy it is for something explicit to land on your drive without you having any idea where it came from. We try to defend against it but we're not always successful. I also wouldn't rule out foul play here, as the Police seem to be all too eager to stitch-up Cabinet Ministers with lies and fals
      • by Kimomaru (2579489)
        Isn't it Guilty Until Proven Innocent in the UK? Or is it France?
        • by whoever57 (658626)

          Isn't it Guilty Until Proven Innocent in the UK? Or is it France?

          No, and no.

      • by mrbester (200927)

        Innocent *unless* proven guilty. "Until" implies that you are guilty (before the fact), but you haven't been caught yet.

      • He's innocent until proven guilty, regardless of whether or not he resigned. And a little more circumspection would be nice.

        I bet you wouldn't be nearly so circumspect had it been a Labour politician.

  • A perfect child-porn filter that only filters child porn would be wonderful, but that is fairy magic.
    In reality we cannot trust those who wish to filter our internet, and this is why.
    There is no substitute for proper discipline and compassion in upbringing.
    Being forced to learn to fight crudely at school to protect myself (and fight my own battles) has caused me crippling psychiatric issues in adulthood.
    Being forced to porn act to make daddy money (this did NOT happen to me) is an even worse evil.
    Children need to grow, learn and play, and be free from influences such as sexuality and violence, but must be taught proper discipline about both so that as they reach maturity these things are no longer a fascination and do not cause the grown up child to turn to unhealthy sex and violence as a crutch. Society needs fixing.

    • One thing that would help is to strictly define Child Porn so that fathers/mothers/guardians of children can take pictures of Stuff without getting tagged for CP.

      a suggestion a given image is to be considered Child Porn if

      1 it has no clinical ,artistic or historical value
      OR
      2 the subject of the picture is completely Nude (to include pics with trivial clothing and exclude bathing pictures)

      AND/OR One or more of
      1 The subject is engaging in sexual activity or being used as a prop/toy for sexual activity
      2 The sub

      • by Luckyo (1726890)

        Nothing new there actually. A lot of the most rabid anti gay campaigners come out of the closet as gay later in their lives.

        It seems that wWhen people feel a strong desire for something and are forced to suppress it because they see it as necessary to live a life they think/are conditioned to think they want to live, they tend to lash out against those who live the kind of life they actually desire to live deep down.

      • <pedant>How would porn not count as an "artistic value"? And wouldn't putting on a wristband or something technically disqualify you from being "completely nude"?</pedant>

        Like they say, "I know porn when I see it." I posit that you can't legally delineate child porn vs. family bathing pictures because the difference is psychological rather than physical.

        • the first is a STOP type filter (its meant to be biased to NOT PORN) and if you notice i said "trivial clothing" does not count.

          • Ah. I was having a rather difficult time deciphering your boolean logic. Although if we're talking about an automated filtering process, you just know that there will be false positives and negatives pretty much no matter what, too.

    • by X10 (186866)

      A perfect child-porn filter that only filters child porn would be wonderful

      No, it would not. It would mean that "ordinary people", the average internet user, would not be aware of pictures of child abuse. The pedophiles have access to them anyway, and with public opinion being totally unaware, they can happily continue to abuse kids and publish the pics on their secret proxied servers. The best thing to do is to show every horrible picture to the public, to journalists, causing public outrage leading to funds being made available to put the abusers in jail.

      I'm one of the founders

      • by X10 (186866)

        F*ck, I get so angry about the stupidity of politicians. They don't care about the kids that have their lives destroyed. They just care about percentages and seats. F*ck them. I have seen the pics, I have seen the videos, and I still dream about them, even though it's been many years since I was actively involved in Meldpunt. As a police officer from Canada said on an Interpol conference about online child pornography in Lyon many years ago, "a person who gets murdered dies once. A child who is sexually abu

  • Yeah, right...

  • by swschrad (312009) on Tuesday March 04, 2014 @10:11AM (#46396373) Homepage Journal

    "but I know it when I see it," says the US Supreme Court. Rock is obviously a diligent researcher...

  • Karma (Score:4, Funny)

    by korbulon (2792438) on Tuesday March 04, 2014 @10:42AM (#46396645)

    What goes around comes around. No, wait...

    I mean: He got his comeuppance.... NO!

    Er, that is to say: For every action there is an equal and opposite erection... ah fuck it.

  • by swb (14022) on Tuesday March 04, 2014 @12:43PM (#46398107)

    What are the odds of this being a frame-up? Motivated by any number of reasons involving political competition, dislike of the law/system, personal vendetta?

    How about any legitimate claims of acquisition resulting from research on how easy/hard it is to find child porn?

    Of all the people who could possibly make either claim, this guy seems like he is in the position to do so.

    Although it also seems to fit that someone who was secretly into child porn might also be want to be in a position where they might believe they are above suspicion or close to the source.

    • by pipedwho (1174327)

      It also means that the cops will need much more evidence than 'looky right here what we've gone and found on your computer'. Which should apply to everyone anyway.

  • Who Watches the Watchers ('batin)? Or does that require another filter?
  • First, sort of reverse projection - I suspect some of the people who are REALLY obsessed with the subject have a not-so deeply buried yen for the forbidden fruit, and sally forth to find and punish the bad people who are likewise obsessed. Denial and reverse projection.

    Who the hell else has opportunity to collect but the people who search for people with such images? Where else you gonna get it? Bust a collector, you get the collection.

    Since such stuff is hard to find, and harder still to put up on the web,

  • Everyone knows the stuff is everywhere.
    How do we know this?
    They tell us it is.
    If no one is looking for the stuff, because laws, how do we know the stuff is everywhere? No one can research it. I certainly don't.
    Is it possible it is now so rare that it exists at all because cops and task forces are posting it?
    Is it possible this "war" is as real as the one on The Terror? The war is the war because war?
    Are we being lied to on a drug-war scale?
    Are people being set up?

I am here by the will of the people and I won't leave until I get my raincoat back. - a slogan of the anarchists in Richard Kadrey's "Metrophage"

Working...