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.
Good (Score:5, Insightful)
There is obviously a cost of some form to the ISP for providing this information, and it seems fair that this cost should be passed to the law enforcement organisations to be serviced out of their budget - this is what their budget is for. If it's not sufficient, they should lobby for it to be increased via taxation or other methods.
The telcos are already allowed to charge for providing background information - and this is as it should be. If information is made available freely and at the drop of a hat to third parties then it encourages misuse of that information and encourages scope creep to monitoring a wider population than you might originally have required.
Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)
It's like there is this imaginary fantasy that IT work costs nothing. They made 9400 requests last year, that's 36 a day or a request every 15 minutes. By my estimation, that could be the work of two people doing nothing but requests for officials. It sounds like to me that they are being charged fairly.
Re:Good (Score:4, Insightful)
They should only be able to get this information via a court order for fucks sake. Getting away with a couple of quid per inquiry is cheap. They should stfu and be happy that they get any information at all.
Re:Good (Score:5, Interesting)
I have to agree... in a more calm manner.
Since when has it become Ok to sell (or give away) our data, that we have a contract on, that says that they will not give that data away?
Sure, if it's really the police, that police has the same policy of privacy (which they have, at least on paper), and the police has a search warrant or some other court order... then there's fair reason that it must be investigated.
But everything else is not only a breach a contract (requiring compensation for damages), but -- if it really is the police -- also an illegally acting police. (Which should result in the boss of those cops going to jail, because breaking the law is worse when you're a cop... that's the price of having special rights.)
Re:Good (Score:4, Interesting)
Unfortunately, some people believe doing something noble should be free, unless of course their the ones doing it.
When the police investigate or arrest someone, for child abuse, do they mark it different on their timecard so they get paid in hugs instead of money?
Does Jim Gamble, the CEO of CEOP do this for no pay?
Should doctors not get paid?
Should attorneys that handle adoptions not get paid?
Doing the right thing may be it's own reward but it doesn't keep a roof over your head or put food on your table.
This is completely ass backwards.
Re:Good (Score:5, Interesting)
Absolutely, having these charges will hopefully reduce the amount of spurious fishing trips. Let's face it, if it didn't cost them, we all know how that would end.
Mind you, when I read about this yesterday on theregister, it said that ~10000 requests had resulted in ~300 arrests, but no data was available on how many of those arrests had resulted in convictions. So we don't really know the quality of those requests as it is.
Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)
More than 300 people get arrested on a single Friday night for having had too much to drink. They get to sleep it off in the cells and get released at 4am, even if the police station is 4 miles from where you actually live. All were arrested, none were convicted.
Likewise, out of those 10000 requests leading to 300 arrests, we might assume that 10 actually made it into the courts system ? And if it isn't thrown out for improperly appropriated evidence (police fishing attempts), or thrown out because the arresting office decided to stick the boot in before bundling the suspect into the paddy-wagon, maybe we might just see one conviction.
At what point does 100,000 pounds of taxpayers money and 299 peoples lives tainted due to false arrests cease to justify the successful conviction of the one person who spent too much time surfing 4chan ? Or does "won't somebody think of the children" throw a mental blanket over common sense ?
Re:Good (Score:4, Insightful)
Or does "won't somebody think of the children" throw a mental blanket over common sense ?
Yes, it does.
Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)
Or does "won't somebody think of the children" throw a mental blanket over common sense ?
Yes, it does.
Absolutely, what are you going to answer to that?
..." is immediately dismissed and ignored after the first three syllables. People that live on these "we have to protect our children from any type of experience" are so ignorant it doesn't even matter if you speak their language or not.
"Fuck the children" will get you dirty looks and probably a visit by the coppers. Any answer other than that starting with "But wait a minute
Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)
If by "experience" you mean being molested by someone and/or having sexually explicit photos taken of them for distribution to other molesters for wanking purposes, then yeah, I'm pretty intent on protecting them from that type of experience.
So you don't want your daughter in Playboy. That's OK.
... he had hundreds of thousands of civilians killed and was willing to sacrifice thousands of American lives just to protect you from something that never happened (again). Sure 9/11 was horrible but he didn't have to go all batshit crazy like that. Now the USA have country a huge image problem (even worse than before) despite Obama and why? All because that crazy old man wanted to protect his child America from being molested by foreigners. There you have it.
--
But seriously, I can see your point and I support it. The likelihood of child abuse on the other hand is much much lower than all the beautiful things your kids don't get to experience under constant supervision. I know it's a thin line to walk on but that's life. Risk everything, get everything. Risk nothing, get nothing. Would you rather know that your child can't be molested whatsoever (most cases happen in and around families) and doesn't get to play freely and run around for your fear of abduction until they're so old that they can't but hate you for all the interference with their lives. Or would you rather have your kid experience the world and try to live with the sub-percent chance that someone might do something to them? I don't have any kids so I can't say about myself, I'm just asking. Don't forget, your kid is way more likely to be hit by a car, struck by lightning or die of self-induced lung cancer than being molested or even abused.
I know that my parents treated me way too carefully and that I had a really tough time learning all the stuff that I missed (and that's when I met the bad people, trying to catch up quickly). Bad things happen. The only thing that's worse than bad things happening is someone overdoing his job of protecting you. Look at Ex-president Bush
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If the ISPs and their staff are expected to do this for free, then why are the police not expected to do this for free?
Then CEOP would have no problem meeting budget, since no one there would be charging a wage!
Really, why should their budget go to police officers, while they expect private enterprise to supply them services for free?
Re: (Score:2)
Child porn cases pretty much always get reported in the papers, and as far as I'm aware, there has been at approximately one conviction in the past year, which was for a child murderer. I don't think there was any evidence of internet related stuff here, but probably it was one of the 10,000 requests.
There is another abduction case going through at the moment, where he had been chatting with the girl for about 6 months on MSN and Facebook before taking her out of the country to France. The evidence for th
Re: (Score:2)
Without them it would be a suprise if any of the requests wern't "spurious fishing trips". Possibly even to the point where actual child abusers are ignored, because they don't fit some bogus profile.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The reason this attitude is considered acceptable in ISPs and not for other fields of work (do you think BT hand over phone records without charging?) is because ISPs in this country are giving way into the idea that they are responsible for what their users are doing. It's kind of become accepted that ISPs could look inside every packet and decide whether it's bad stuff.
They shot themselves in the foot when they introduced all that packet filtering for torrents and so on, and when they started thinking
Re: (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: (Score:2)
Another issue is that if it's connected with a cost then the risk of abuse of the IP search decreases.
Re: (Score:2)
Presumably when police want some kind of forensic examination carried out by an external lab (which could include one attached to a different police force) they get charged a
Re: (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 "ch
Re: (Score:2)
IIRC this is already the case with photos/videos.
There's also the whole issue of if it's possible to tell a person's age by appearance. On one hand you have supermarkets saying "If you look under 21/25 we will ask you for ID for a
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The examples you are mentioning are organisers requesting the help of law enforcement agencies, and therefore asked to foot the bill. Doesn't sound like the same at all to me.
Sort of, in reverse.
In this case the agency is forcing the ISPs to comply through law AND is being charged by them for it.
Fixed that for you. Sounds a fair arrangement to me. Like someone above commented, IT costs aren't free, particularly considering the volumes of requests these people seem to be making.
Re: (Score:2)
The examples you are mentionning are organisers requesting the help of law enforcement agencies, and therefore asked to foot the bill. In this case the agency is forcing the ISPs to comply through law AND is charging them for it. Doesn't sound like the same at all to me.
WTF? Did you just open a browser window and type random words or something?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's a little different when it is standardized and can be quantified within the expense structure of the organization. Records retention, mandatory reporting and so on can easily be structured and passed on to the customer.
However, specific information requests about random people is a little more taxing and difficult to cover. The record retention is the same but imagine the went above the record retention and requested a financial institution to search for all transactions that meet a certain payment siz
Re: (Score:2)
Can't you expect to do a few IP lookups a year and roll that into the costs of the ISP? Look at how many you did last year and figure that as your best guess.
How about a thousand lookups a year? And do them under this constraint: if you do them wrong and don't disclose enough, or too slowly, you get cited for obstructing justice; and on the other hand if you disclose too much or too quickly, you get a civil lawsuit for privacy breach
And, if any of the disclosures do make it to court, you have to spend a week testifying. (being deposed, going to court to file documents, dealing with barristers and solicitors, being called in to testify but the trial is postpon
Re: (Score:2)
What the UK is forgetting, in my opinion, is that this is tax money being spent. Increasing the cost of government through revolving door fees only hurts the tax payer. The more cost effective way is to require the companies to absorb the cost of these inquiries. The cost is then passed on to the customer without the overhead of a government taxation process. (cut out the middle man) The customer (tax payer) is going to pay anyway. This way they pay less because there are fewer layers in the process.
What you're suggesting is essentially that, when law enforcement costs a certain amount of money on a certain service, that cost should be folded into the service's expenses (and, therefore, customers), rather than the law enforcement's expenses (and tax-payers as a whole).
Erm.. (Score:4, Interesting)
Cant the UK govt legally steal it via some regulation that allows it?
Our govt is immune from copyright and patent infringement, and only listen to "entertain".
Re: (Score:2)
Our govt is immune from copyright and patent infringement
I believe that the government has agreed to be sued for copyright and patent infringement [stason.org].
IIRC, the only case involving copyrights where sovereign immunity was invoked was the specific sections of DMCA forbidding by-passing technological measures (and really, this case was where an *employee* of the government put those measures in place in the first place).
UK government is decidedly more authoritarian and I wouldn't be surprised if they decide to steal from their people, but as far as U.S. is concerned, we
Re: (Score:2)
Cant the UK govt legally steal it via some regulation that allows it?
Yes, it's called "taxation".
Back to front logic (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Any chills protection agency
Perhaps a prophetic typo, given the likely effect of allowing government arbitrary access to this sort of information without any incentive not to use it unnecessarily.
Requesting data on 10,000 people... (Score:3, Interesting)
They requested data on at least 3,000 people from the ISPs (at £60 per request). But assuming most ISPs don't charge them then the real number is likely significantly higher perhaps even over 10,000 requests... That's a lot of requests.
As far as the charges go... I like them. It forces the police to at least look at how many people they're requesting data on so they just can't put out a drag net to see what they catch.
Plus it does cost ISPs money.
Re: (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 t
Re: (Score:2)
To get perfect looking £ signs, just type £
ISPs should not be cooperating (Score:5, Insightful)
The ISPs should not be cooperating with pseudo-government institutions who want to know the addresses of people who look at album art on Wikipedia.
Indeed, innocents accused have ruined lives. (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd say A few pounds per person is a very small price to pay to ruin someone's life.
Many innocent people are accused and even convicted of "abuse" of children, only to be exonerated after their businesses have failed due to boycott, they've lost their jobs, they've been driven from their communities, they've spent years in jail, etc.
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:Indeed, innocents accused have ruined lives. (Score:5, Insightful)
This is why the government should be legally liable for any consequences of a failed investigation, in the same way as anyone else whose defamatory behaviour damages an innocent's reputation, who kidnaps someone and holds them against their will, who steals their money, etc. For example, in cases like this, there should probably be financial compensation, arrangement for sufficient public awareness work to restore the damaged reputation, and provision of any extra security needed in the meantime.
We must never allow a "greater good" argument to be used to justify government destroying unlucky individuals' lives.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The government is not at fault for investigating him, the media is at fault for judging him in the court of public opini
Re: (Score:2)
Wouldn't the police then simply convict innocent people so as to avoid incurring those costs?
Re: (Score:2)
Wouldn't the police then simply convict innocent people so as to avoid incurring those costs?
The Police don't get to convict anyone, that's the job of the courts.
Re:Indeed, innocents accused have ruined lives. (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's face it, the only reason they have these crackdowns is that it makes the politicians look tough, without actually hurting a large number of voters. Violence and exploitation of children is a huge problem, but the internet porn factor is only a small part. Removing kids from violent or neglectful environments is expensive and controversial. Busting a few perverts for looking at naked kids is cheap and easy. The police themselves are probably doing a good job (given the resources they are allocated), but they should be working on other things.
Re: (Score:2)
Especially since the vast majority of child abuse is perpetrated by close relatives. Many of which are nowhere as high profile as Karen Matthews.
Re: (Score:2)
Many innocent people are accused and even convicted of "abuse" of children,
At least one terrorist group (SHAC) has a policy of making such false accusations against their targets
only to be exonerated after their businesses have failed due to boycott, they've lost their jobs, they've been driven from their communities, they've spent years in jail, etc.
It's not unknown for innocent people in the UK to be charged for ti
Surely (Score:5, Funny)
It does. And don't call me Shirley.
Costs. (Score:5, Insightful)
The costs of this seem to average out at approximately £18 per query, which is less than the amount that can be charged for a "Freedom of Information Act" request, so the ISPs definitely are not gouging the investigators.
It also definitely does cost the ISPs money to obtain the specific requests, so by any measure, they should be able to charge. If they're suddenly expected to donate their time for free "because of the children", then surely the investigators should be expected to do the same (how would they like their job to be suddenly unpaid)?
This token amount, though small, operates as one of the balances to ensure that investigations are at least slightly sane, otherwise I can see requests flying out on every person they can find, simply because there is no reason not to.
From reading the figures, the information gained from about 10,000 requests was useful in about 240 arrests. While a little on the low side for hit rate, it does show that they're targeting the searches at the moment. Long may the targetting, rather than scattershot fishing expeditions so favoured by digital enforcement agencies, continue.
Re: (Score:2)
Virtual +1 Insightful from me. Like priests preaching about the virtues of poverty from a golden pulpit.
Re: (Score:2)
To work out how well targeted these investigations are you'd need to look at how many of these 240 people were changed then what proportion of these were convicted. As well as the proportion found not guilty after a trial. The simple act of dragging an innocent person through a criminal trial
First sensible decision in a decade (Score:5, Insightful)
Well the frist sensible decision which involves children in a decade. As other posters have pointed out it is not the (direct) responsibility of businesses to pick up the tab for crime fighting irrespective of how vile that crime is. This is just another one of those quasi-governmental bodies the UK is so fond of throwing it's weight around.
Personally, I'd like to see more crime fighting measures costed out like this. Perhaps if the public got to see how much these stupid wars on X, Y and Z cost they would grow up a bit and realize that there will always be bad people in the world and, with finite resources, you are only ever going to limit their number.
Re: (Score:2)
When you play this "what if it were your child" card you are removing objectivity from the discussion.
Please, refrain to do so in the future.
Re: (Score:2)
He's going further then that. He is anthropomorphizing the ISP. The ISP is a company, not a person. And in most cases, it is a number of different people who own it.
Sure, I would do anything I could to protect my children but I'm not sure I would do it for yours or anyone elses. I don't think that is an unreasonable view either. But an ISP isn't a person and they can't share humanistic views outside what it's management or owner decides.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't want to feed the trolls but... lets flip what you say on it's head and ask the question "how much would the ISP pay to say someone elses child from abuse?". Would they pay £1000 a year? Perhaps £10000. While they would certainly pay any amount to save their own child I suspect you would be shocked to find out what they would pay to save the child of A.N. Other.
Re: (Score:2)
well, lets flip that on its head and ask "how much would the CEO of the child protection organisation pay to save..... etc". Possibly the answer is "depends on how much I get paid myself".
Of course, its always easier to expect *other* people to pay.
Re: (Score:2)
True enough but as a percentage of income the amount someone would pay is probably broadly similar across all earners. I would actually suspect that higher earners would probably be willing to pay a smaller percentage. It doesn't really get away from the fact though that most people would only pay a very small sum / % of income in order to protect someone elses child. I'm not advocating that we shouldn't pay some money to help protect vulnerable members of society I just don't want the most extreme 10% sett
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure ISP's wouldn't complain if one of their kids was saved from victimization as a result of their subpoena response.
How the hell does an ISP have children?
Re:First sensible decision in a decade (Score:5, Funny)
.
Considering how many people Time-Warner screws over, somebody must have gotten pregnant.
Re: (Score:2)
Feel free to disagree with the parent comment, but it is this opinion that dominates the population and is the reason we have agencies like Child Protection in the first place, so you can't just dismiss the argument as a troll.
We just need to find the rational middle ground between those that think no cost is too high to "save the children" and those that would turn a blind eye because it costs something.
What is the CEOP's CEO paid ? (Score:3, Interesting)
Unless CEOP's CEO works for free on this worthy cause then why does he think other people should ?
Time And Materials (Score:2)
Everyone gets the same deal.
To paraphrase... (Score:2)
Pay the bill... ignorance of the technology is no excuse...
British Government idiocy (Score:5, Interesting)
The answer, which won't happen while the Civil Service is run by Civil Servants, and while the government is run by politicians, is either to roll back the SIs and rely on properly thought out laws, or to require that any SI must first identify all funding issues required and explain how they are to be addressed.
My favourite idiotic SI is the one passed a few years ago, under which it is now illegal for, say, a professor of electrical engineering to rewire his or her own kitchen or bathroom, while the same job can be done by an unqualified trainee who merely works for a registered electrical contractor. That's typical of Civil Service thinking: don't look at the job to be done, look at the paperwork.
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:Part P - you make my point for me (Score:4, Insightful)
Incidentally - I did have a professional involvement in this as a member of BSI electrical safety committees in the 80s and 90s. Did you know that the Government would not make the Wiring Regulations statutory, against the advice of their own experts, because of resistance from the electrical installers?
Re: (Score:2)
The resistance of the installers made it more difficult to conduct business. *ducks*
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Part P (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Part P (Score:4, Insightful)
I think the argument is that it's necessary to make sure any home is properly and safely wired up. If you sell it to someone else and they move in expecting the wiring to match the usual design specifications, and someone ignorant of those specifications has messed around, then... Well, I'm not quite sure what bad stuff they expect to happen, particularly if there is a record of how the new wiring was done, but I'm sure it would be very bad and nasty.
You're right, it probably originated in Brussels. But I bet our own guys pushed for it!
However, the argument is invalid (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
"I suspect this originated in Brussels."
Because British local and national government would obviously never behave like clueless fuckwits without those jealous Europeans forcing them to. That's why all the most horrible European laws are only forced on Britain, while the rest of the EU goes around acting as if they don't exist at all.
Re: (Score:2)
I hear what you are saying regarding Part P. It's an absolute farce. I had to rewire our house so I went off and got myself Part P qualified. While I'm glad that I took a course and got the qualification (because I now feel competent to work on my house) I couldn't help feeling that the whole Part P thing was little more than a protection racket. It really feels like the certification bodies simply lent on the government to protect their business sector. Lets face it they must be making a killing out of Par
Well-paid investigators (Score:2)
and expects to pay another £100,000 this year - enough to fund another two investigators.
Let's see, 100,000 / 2 = 50,000. Unless the living costs in the UK are much higher than in Denmark, or the British pound has tanked more than I'm aware of, that would seems to be quite a decent bag of money you get as such an investigator...
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: (Score:2)
and expects to pay another £100,000 this year - enough to fund another two investigators.
Let's see, 100,000 / 2 = 50,000. Unless the living costs in the UK are much higher than in Denmark, or the British pound has tanked more than I'm aware of, that would seems to be quite a decent bag of money you get as such an investigator...
Actually, recent npr reports show the british pound in virtual freefall against the US dollar right now. Some of the gloomier of british economists are suggesting parity between the two in the next couple months at this rate.
If the law was passed to make it free (Score:5, Insightful)
The Real Story (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
This summary is a little misleading. (Score:4, Insightful)
As bad as child abuse is, what good reason is there for giving the investigators cost benefit over, say, murder and rape investigations?
Re: (Score:2)
How ever can you say such things? Don't you know that saving one child from a single nude photograph that involved no physical contact is far more important than preventing murder, rape and even genocide of entire populations. It's one of the few things that is more serious than pirating DVDs!
(Yes, that's sarcasm in there ;) )
TFB. (Score:5, Insightful)
If the police can't afford to pay for the ISP's time, perhaps they simply can't afford to continue their witch-hunts against teens doing what teens do [slashdot.org] or works of pure fiction [slashdot.org].
Can ya hear the violins, CEOP?
Hey, we'd all love to see actual kiddie predators burn at the stake. But we also know that 99% of these "child protection" laws exist to make it difficult or embarassing (or sometimes even illegal) for adults to see or do things that society (C.1690) has deemed of questionable morality.
Re: (Score:2)
When you wrote "adults" there, did you actually mean "children"?
Or are you also talking about more general "child protection" laws made by people who apparently can't see any difference between a loving parent smacking a child lightly as a discplinary measure and an abusive parent seriously injuring a child through repeated beatings?
ISPs should raise the price (Score:2)
Charge a fee of $100,000 per customer.
It is unnerving that your privacy comes with a price tag, but at least if it were more expensive, you could hope that law enforcement agencies will only request it if they're really, really sure they need it.
What really happens, judging from the news, is that ISP data gets requested at the drop of a hat, houses get searched, computers confiscated and reputations ruined - only to follow up with a lame apology if the whole thing turns out to be baseless again.
Re: (Score:2)
On re-reading my post, I notice I should have said "residences rummaged". :P
Blime (Score:5, Funny)
[phone rings]
Ford: Hello, fleet sales. How can I help you?
Police: The Met here, we're after some new cars. About 20 mondeos, we were thinking.
Ford: Estate or saloon?
Police: Hmmm, ten of each.
Ford: To you squire, bulk discount and you being on the level and all, I can do that for [tappety tap tap] 400 grand.
Police: But it's for the children!
Ford: Well why didn't you say? Have them, just have them. Do me a favour and take them off my hands. I'll throw in a full tank of fuel and fluffy dice.
Police: You're a gent! Careful how you go now, sir.
Re: (Score:2)
Ford: Well why didn't you say? Have them, just have them. Do me a favour and take them off my hands. I'll throw in a full tank of fuel and fluffy dice.
Assuming they didn't want a full tankER of fuel
Children at UK (Score:2)
Please excuse my ignorance but why is UK's current situation so touchy with child abuse?
Has there been an abnormally large number of abductions recently?
Did a large pedophile crash against a building?
Re:Children at UK (Score:5, Interesting)
Because the tabloids use child abuse as a big stick to further their own political aims, whipping the unwashed (and mostly dumb) masses into a frenzy with a big "think of the children" stick.
Of course, this is a really easy one, because anyone who tries to logically argue that there has been no actual increase in child abuse or child kidnap in the last 30 years can be pointed at and branded as "doesn't care about children being abused" or onside with paedophiles. I thoroughly recommend getting hold of the satirical "Brass Eye" special on paedophilia which addresses this exact hysteria and caused outrage in the tabloids for trivialising this "serious issue". Most notable was the Daily Star who had a full page decrying the show and writer Chris Morris while the page opposite had a picture of a then 15 year old Charlotte Church in a bikini with the headline "She's a big girl now".
Re: (Score:2)
Please excuse my ignorance but why is UK's current situation so touchy with child abuse?
No the child molesters are afraid of getting stabbed ...
PaedoPanic in the UK .. (Score:2)
Because there was a case here recently of a seventeen months old baby being tortured to death over a long period by his 'care givers'. Despite the fact that he was on the 'at risk register', at no time did the social services notice a broken back [timesonline.co.uk]. See also here where a mother fakes the kidnapping [mirror.co.uk] of her own daughter.
Every so often the nation works itself up into a paedo-panic. Some time back it reached the heigh
Re: (Score:2)
"why is UK's current situation so touchy with child abuse?"
It's due to the well known British love of all children who are quiet, respectful, properly dressed, in extremely small groups, and stay away from their houses, places of work, or shopping areas when not accompanied by one or more responsible adults.
At some point... (Score:2)
Our society(s) are going to have to accept the fact that even this modern world can be a dangerous place. We have become so insulated, and mind you I'm not trying to argue for some Quaker type of lifestyle; I fully love progress/tech/etc, by our progress that any small hint of danger is blown way out of proportion.
And then you get the "won't someone think of the children!" crowd who take this already exaggerated situation and blow it up to the nth degree...well you get what we have here.
And this may seem a
Re: (Score:2)
And this may seem a bit tangent but I'd argue that we really need to use our progress to push our frontiers, IE space. Without any real frontiers to remind us all that life can be dangerous it's far too easy for people to slip into a very 'safe at any cost' mentality.
Tell that to the hysteria-drenched housewives whose horizon reaches just above the kitchen sink and the television set with celebrity news on them. We have entire generations of moms (and dads) that never did anything, let alone anything dangerous or adventurous. To them every kid should live in a cushioned cell full of cotton candy and rainbows and god help us if anything ever happens. Hysteria!!! PANIC! We need to teach these people how to deal with life or they'll forever ruin it for the curious rest of
Re: (Score:2)
But what "danger" is or isn't considered acceptable is very much a social effect.
We have become so insulated, and mind you I'm not trying to argue for some Quaker type of lifestyle; I fully love progress/tech/etc, by our progress that any small hint of danger is blown way out of proportion.
With real dangers being ignored. Thus you end up with parents who are paranoid about their children using "The
Do they resent paying for gas? (Score:3, Funny)
Do they resent paying for petrol to drive to cases? Surely any garage that can't afford to fuel their cars for free can't afford to stay in business.
Care to explain? (Score:2)
Why are some random kid's interests of being protected regarded more important than my interests in my privacy being protected? Bold statement? Explain that too, why is someone whose education costed less than mine (by definition, mine consisting of more years than a child, being less than 18 years old, could have gotten) more important than me, who can, unlike said child, contribute to the nation's GDP.
Yes, I don't give a rat's ass about your kids. If you can't protect them from harm, you are to blame. Not
Looking away (Score:3, Insightful)
I'll tell you something interesting: No stranger can hurt you as much as mom/dad can. Strangers are easy to single out, but no one wants to think about what goes on behind closed doors. You can get over occasional molestation a lot easier then being shut in a room for every day after coming home from school and being convinced that you're worthless.
The truth is too scary, so it has to be strangers, school teachers, etc
To all of these agencies: Thank you for all your wonderful protection from the scary strangers.
£18 to run some script .. (Score:2)
That's how we got CALEA (Score:3, Interesting)
Some history. Back in the 1980s, when Guliani's people and the FBI were investigating the New York Mafia, they had lots of wiretaps. New York Telephone billed them for each one as a dedicated line. The phone bill was over $1 million per year. On one occasion, the FBI didn't pay the bill, and the automated billing system then billed the person being wiretapped.
Back then, wiretapping wasn't built into the US phone system. It took manual wiring in the central office to patch in. So it wasn't done casually; there was paperwork and billing, and the wiring involved had to go into the cable database. The FBI lobbied for the Communications Assistance to Law Enforcement Act, which required carriers to build remote wiretapping capability into phone switches.
The FBI had also, on a few occasions, used the ALIT (Automatic Line Insulation Testing) system for wiretapping. This was a hardware setup in central offices which could connect to any line and checked for opens, shorts, resistance to ground, and such. Normally, it connected to idle lines for about a quarter-second, ran some tests, and disconnected. It could be used to listen in, though, which got the FBI the idea for dial-up wiretapping. Each switch had only two or three single-line ALIT units, (early versions had two racks of HP test equipment connected via HP-IB) and a wiretap tied up all that gear for long periods, interfering with its normal wire testing job, so telcos hated it when the FBI wanted to use it.
That, plus Bush I, got us built-in wiretapping.
Re: (Score:2)
Presumably they won't have this problem from March though when everyone using a British ISP will have their Internet activity stored on a government run database.
As far as I can tell, the entire Times website has fallen off the internet. It's reporting as a DNS error, for me! I know we didn't slashdot them. Maybe they have a free request policy on traffic logs, and the CEOP are hitting them with an accidental DOS attack.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (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