CP Content "Worst" On US Websites

[Webby]

Dunno what to say about this - it's nothing but ammunition for the US Admin to talk about. They sure as hell will not be making distinctions between CP and the adult industry.


CHILD ABUSE CONTENT:
USA: 51.1%
Russia: 14/9%
Japan: 11.7%
Spain: 8.8%
Thailand: 3.6%
South Korea: 2.16%
UK: 0.2%
Other: 7.5%
(Source: IWF)

US 'worst' for online child abuse

More than 50% of online images of child abuse reported to an internet watchdog can be traced to the US, a report says.

Investigations by the Internet Watch Foundation (IWF) found nearly 2,500 US sites containing illegal images.

The IWF study also said that some sites that contain the illegal content remain accessible for up to five years despite being reported to relevant authorities.

In April the US Attorney General proposed changes in the law to tackle the problem.

The proposals by Alberto Gonzales included new laws that would require Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to report images of child abuse.

In June a Technology Coalition comprising Microsoft, Time Warner AOL, Yahoo, Earthlink United Online and the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC) also announced plans to tackle online child abuse in the US.

The IWF, which is based in the UK, said that the reason why the US hosted the majority of illegal content was because the country has the most ISPs and the most web traffic in the world.

Worst offenders

The new figures from the IWF are a snapshot of online child abuse content around the world.


Gonzales proposes child laws

The foundation relies on web users reporting illegal content to its website or hotline. Other countries including the US run similar services.

In the first six months of this year the IWF received more than 14,000 reports of suspected websites, a 24% increase on the first six months of 2005.

"The increase in reports processed could be attributed to a number of factors, including public intolerance of child abuse content online combined with increased awareness of our role in combating it," said Peter Robbins, chief executive of the IWF.

Of the reports, nearly 5,000 contained images of child abuse.

Of these nearly 2,500 were traced to the US and more than 730 to Russia.

One site was first reported to the IWF in 1999. Since then it has been reported to the foundation a further 96 times.

The IWF said that it had reported the site to the authorities in the countries where the website was hosted on 20 separate occasions.

However, the website "hopped" between the US and Russia every couple of days making it difficult to trace and shut down.

As a result it was still accessible to offenders, the IWF said.

A further 8% of 287 websites contained child abuse images remained accessible for between one to five years despite being reported by the IWF to relevant authorities.

Public reporting

The report also highlights the worst offending countries for hosting commercial and non-commercial child abuse content.

Non-commercial content is shared between offenders using tools such as free online photo albums or message boards to distribute pictures.

The US was found to host 57.7% of commercial images of child abuse and 49.5% of non-commercial.

Russia hosts a further 28.1% of commercial content, and Japan 14.6% of non-commercial.

Other countries that feature in the list include Spain, Thailand and South Korea.

The report said that the UK did not host any commercial sites containing images of child abuse and was responsible for 0.2% of non-commercial sites.

Any sites reported to the IWF that are hosted in the UK are removed within 48 hours by UK ISPs.

"That only 0.2% of child abuse content is hosted here is a testament to the public's help in reporting suspicious websites and to all our partners," said Mr Robbins.

The IWF is funded by the EU and UK internet industry, including ISPs, mobile operators, internet search providers and telecommunications and software companies.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/5195460.stm

[fallenmuffin]

Well of course america would be number 1...

Americans have all moved to other countries while they move here... so it's really them not us.. lol

[Webby]

Originally Posted by fallenmuffin

Well of course america would be number 1...

Americans have all moved to other countries while they move here... so it's really them not us.. lol

One thing I'd be a bit cynical about - tho may be accurate and on a level playing field - I'd question the stats on the UK - smells bollocks.

[en21]

I hope these cp provider go to the highest level in hell

[xpics]

Originally Posted by Webby

One thing I'd be a bit cynical about - tho may be accurate and on a level playing field - I'd question the stats on the UK - smells bollocks.

Too high? I don't question it at all.

[justsexxx]

Funny that most Americans blame the Russians....

[Manowar]

that's fucked up

[Paul]

I bet all these teen sites that are legal but have underage looking models are lumped into this report as well.

[NikKay]

Originally Posted by Coatsy

I bet all these teen sites that are legal but have underage looking models are lumped into this report as well.

It says that they receive more than 14,000 reports, of which almost 5,000 contain images of child abuse. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that the other 9,000+ are legal teen sites and "legal" child modeling sites.

[frank7799]

I highly doubt that it´s a scientific study at all. There are no definitions of the term "cp" and not the smallest hint what sites they counted for their "study".

So it´s all to defend their bullshit laws to fight porn, I´m afraid.

Prevent cp is a very popular term and nobody wants to show up as a supporter of cp. So it´s the easiest way to defend a law claiming that it will protect children.

[Paul]

Originally Posted by NikKay

It says that they receive more than 14,000 reports, of which almost 5,000 contain images of child abuse. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that the other 9,000+ are legal teen sites and "legal" child modeling sites.

Sounds about right

[Doctor Dre]

I don't think theses figures are accurate but I don't really know the CP world ...

[Degenerate]

damn that sucks

[Webby]

Originally Posted by xpics

Too high? I don't question it at all.

No.. I'd have guessed the UK was going to be higher than 0.2% xpics..

[DutchTeenCash]

These are stats on ppl OWNING content, not producing. Im pretty sure those stats look totally different.

[CaptainHowdy]

!

[Romeo GaySearch4Sex]

I'm a bit surprised its that high - although when they say it can be traced back to the US, maybe that means its US citizens distributing it on servers outside the country? or maybe thats really the percentage of complaints from the US.

I find it a bit hard to imagine that much of CP is on servers in the states, although I'm sure there is still a fair amount sadly.

I hate to be cynical, but I think exaggerating or not acurately measuring the real amount of cp in the US is in the attorney general's best interest.

Remember that congressmen from NY who sued google because they profited off 18+ adult advertisements which he claimed was CP?

I wonder if some ISPs really don't monitor or report any suspicious cp content because of laziness or that they don't want to loose business. Somehow I doubt that though...

::end of rant::

[Webby]

Originally Posted by thinkx

These are stats on ppl OWNING content, not producing. Im pretty sure those stats look totally different.

Owning? Don't think anyone bothered to check whether they "owned" the material or not - you mean content for "private use" or "non-commericial" thinkx?

The stats are based on reported websites containing images of children being abused and covering both commercial expliotation as well as file-sharing type scenarios - and it makes clear distinctions in the report.

Producers of this type of content are not the subject of the report - It's about website content only.

[OG LennyT]

unreliable source imho

[DutchTeenCash]

Originally Posted by Webby

Producers of this type of content are not the subject of the report - It's about website content only.

dont get all worked up dude I hate it as much as you do.

What Im simply saying is, US is #1 on that report while other reports show that content production takes place a lot more in other countries.

Offcourse that makes a difference. No production means noone that HAS content.

Who would you rather see taken down? a guy who has 100 pics or a serious criminal biz with studios networking lots and producing. Id say #2.

[Xplicit]

Sounds like an excuse for more government monitoring of the internet.

Somehow I see this leading towards "we need ISPs to give the government full access to logs and the ability to monitor their traffic".

.... when it should be the government spending its time and money tracking down the root sources of this stuff. If you bust the people MAKING IT, there wont be any CP to be hosted in the first place, right?

[potter]

Problem with those stats are, if you take ANY CONTENT stats from the world's internet 51% will be in the States. Now, if you took percentages of total US based sites, and how many of those were CP, then did the same for the other countries you could get a more logical figure to base your stats from.

P.S. We have 51% of CP sites, but I bet we have nearly 90+% of the CP protection sites ie: netnanny type stuff.

[Webby]

Originally Posted by Romeo GaySearch4Sex

I'm a bit surprised its that high - although when they say it can be traced back to the US, maybe that means its US citizens distributing it on servers outside the country? or maybe thats really the percentage of complaints from the US.

I hate to be cynical, but I think exaggerating or not acurately measuring the real amount of cp in the US is in the attorney general's best interest.

Remember that congressmen from NY who sued google because they profited off 18+ adult advertisements which he claimed was CP?

I wonder if some ISPs really don't monitor or report any suspicious cp content because of laziness or that they don't want to loose business. Somehow I doubt that though...

Same here - surprised it is that high. No, the content is imaging on, eg US servers or whatever other country. It is based on complaints about website content.

Other bit worth noting - this is not a US report and doubt the compilers gave a second thought to what Gonzales or any other country thought about their stats. So.. from that angle, chances are it's "clean" (tho still a little cynical about the UK only being 0.2% - there are some nasty people there - wanted for far more than CP - namely the bodies of missing children they most likely abused).

One thing you hit on above - there is one hell of a lot of utter hypocracy when it comes to CP (and other related child offense type activity) where people want to pretend it does not exist.

I've been around the adult biz for decades and to be honest - was naive as hell when it came to CP till getting an education from US law agency people handling this stuff - got to say I was utterly shocked - not only by the actual offenses, but the volume and the types of people committing these offenses. It is one *very* sad, evil and nasty scenario which, apart from the actual offense of child abuse (CP being an offshoot) - it can affect children all their lives.

Often children (more so than adults) can develop MPD (multiple personality disorder). Oddly, this can be a good thing and a defensive mechanism for a child who is abused. They can develop "personalities" to shut off and block out abuse. Unfortunately, it may not be easy to leave these personalities behind in adult life - and can cause some ongoing problems.

It is also probably not a surprise that - even forgetting CP - child abuse is classless. The abuser is a prominent member of local society, the next door neighbor, a relative, schoolteacher, local doctor, politician and of course, trusted dad.

Only my but child abuse itself is *the* main offense. Who knows, but chances are this is often under-reported and the situation, in reality, is a lot worse. Anyone who then shoots this shit for either personal or commercial purposes seriously needs a long jail term for the protection of others - they are not fit to walk the streets.

[Webby]

Originally Posted by Xplicit

Sounds like an excuse for more government monitoring of the internet.

Somehow I see this leading towards "we need ISPs to give the government full access to logs and the ability to monitor their traffic".

.... when it should be the government spending its time and money tracking down the root sources of this stuff. If you bust the people MAKING IT, there wont be any CP to be hosted in the first place, right?

It starts exactly there Xplicit - with the individuals who actually abuse children and produce this type of content. Hell.. don't care whether they product CP or not - they abuse kids - they need locked up.

The other aspect is... instead of politicians talking about it and finding new laws to combat it - act. Several law agencies are already well under-funded and it's thanks to the officers making extra efforts from their own time that these agencies are still functioning. There are plenty laws already existing to handle this stuff - they just need more resources, not more laws.

Sure ISP's can play a roll - that does not necessarily mean government monitoring. Once a govt gets access - they have more data than they could possible handle and enter "information overload" mode.

It's already known who many of the perps are - it's a matter of time till law agencies get round to dealing with them. (Back to resources). Small example, very first time I came across clear-cut CP - this was reported to the FBI. What did they do? Nothing. Approx five calls later I gave up and went via another law channel and the website was pulled in under an hour. This is not a criticism of the FBI in particular. There can be other reasons for apparent inactivity - more important and more serious than CP.

Tho agree Xplicit - can't say anything a govt has to offer is a cure and prob the less messing by govt the better, - but a govt can allocate more resources to CP (and child issues generally), instead of farting about with stuff like, eg 2257.

[minusonebit]

And exactly who is the "Internet Watch Foundation" to be making such statements? Why is it I have never heard of them before?

[madawgz]

Originally Posted by en21

I hope these cp provider go to the highest level in hell

oh they will get fucked

[Webby]

Originally Posted by minusonebit

And exactly who is the "Internet Watch Foundation" to be making such statements? Why is it I have never heard of them before?

They do an annual report on websites reported or referred to them, - coordinate reporting to relevant law agencies in other countries. In effect, they are the industry watchdog in the UK.

They are funded by the European Commission and also by anyone who cares to contribute - ISP's etc. Their main area of activity is within the UK, but obviously there is an overlap with other countries.

Website is here..
http://www.iwf.org.uk

[Matt 26z]

14,000 reports, 5,000 of which they claim were CP.

This figure should be highly suspect. Hasn't the ASACP said that most of the reports they get end up being for legit adult content? Maybe they can come into this thread and tell us if their complaint to CP rate is also 36%. I doubt that it is.

I'd like to know what kind of adult industry experience this IWF group has with identifying content. Did they get 14,000 reports and then just say 5,000 of those look like CP, so it must be?

[Webby]

Originally Posted by Matt 26z

14,000 reports, 5,000 of which they claim were CP.

This figure should be highly suspect. Hasn't the ASACP said that most of the reports they get end up being for legit adult content? Maybe they can come into this thread and tell us if their complaint to CP rate is also 36%. I doubt that it is.

I'd like to know what kind of adult industry experience this IWF group has with identifying content. Did they get 14,000 reports and then just say 5,000 of those look like CP, so it must be?

Matt... for one, I can tell without a second glance what is child porn and what is not. There is no need to have *any* help from the "adult industry" to know a kid cocksucking a pervert is blatantly wrong and illegal in most countries. The same applies to law enforcement in the US or EU - the world is not stupid

We are not talking about "opinions" over trivia and the use of the word "teens" etc - we are talking about sifting thru crap reports and highlighting criminal offenses - not just concerning children, but organised crime and missing children (sometimes related). There is a vast difference.

For further information - refer you to local law and if you get lucky, they will suggest suitable contacts within the justice system to obtain further information. If that fails, - I'll be pleased to drag along a US law agent to a "webmaster show" to explain exactly what child porn and offenses involve. He will also be pleased to explain the extent of this activity - even within your locality.

As a side comment - you may be surprised - tho maybe not, - a fair amount of this content is actually produced in the US and not all coming from places like Russia and India.

[Matt 26z]

Originally Posted by Webby

Matt... for one, I can tell without a second glance what is child porn and what is not. There is no need to have *any* help from the "adult industry" to know a kid cocksucking a pervert is blatantly wrong and illegal in most countries. The same applies to law enforcement in the US or EU - the world is not stupid

Well something is certainly wrong with the IWF's figures. Take a look at this.

The ASACP states here http://www.asacp.org/press/pr062405.html that,

"Over the last two years, ASACP has received over 150,000 reports of suspect child pornography sites; only 8% of these are new, unique verifiable CP sites."

ASACP:
150,000 reports
12,000 (8%) they believe are new CP

IWF:
14,000 reports
5,000 (36%) they believe are (presumably new) CP


Why is the complaint to CP rate so much higher with the IWF? Do users of ASACP really report that much more mistaken CP?

That is why I question how the IWF labels content as CP. Is it blatant CP, or could their reviewers be mistaken to the point of inflating the rate to 36%?

[martinsc]

[LiveDose]

That shit disgusts me...

[Webby]

Originally Posted by Matt 26z

That is why I question how the IWF labels content as CP. Is it blatant CP, or could their reviewers be mistaken to the point of inflating the rate to 36%?

IWF don't have "reviewers" - the data is passed to the relevant law enforcement agency in whatever country. They decide whether their laws are broken or not.

Also remember, IWF deal mainly with UK related issues and are not an equivalent of ASACP, but funded by the EU, Google, Verizon, BBC, TeleWest, Lycos and numerous other ISP's and mobile phone networks. They do not represent the "adult industry" as a method of purportedly policing that industry.

[Matt 26z]

Originally Posted by Webby

IWF don't have "reviewers" - the data is passed to the relevant law enforcement agency in whatever country. They decide whether their laws are broken or not.

However you want to put it then. I just want to know how those deciding weather something is CP or not actually comes to their conclusion.

Here in the US we've had cases of people being put on trial for CP when it was in question weather it was even CP or not. The prosecution brings in a pediatrician to testify that the photos *could* be of a child.

Is this a similar situation in the UK? It is awfully difficult to tell if an 18yo's content is of an 18yo or a 16yo. See what I'm saying? They could be going on the safe side and labeling it as CP until they find out otherwise... and maybe they never do find out. So it remains wrongly classified as CP.

That's my theory and I'm sticking to it.

[Webby]

Originally Posted by Matt 26z

However you want to put it then. I just want to know how those deciding weather something is CP or not actually comes to their conclusion.

Here in the US we've had cases of people being put on trial for CP when it was in question weather it was even CP or not. The prosecution brings in a pediatrician to testify that the photos *could* be of a child.

Is this a similar situation in the UK? It is awfully difficult to tell if an 18yo's content is of an 18yo or a 16yo. See what I'm saying? They could be going on the safe side and labeling it as CP until they find out otherwise... and maybe they never do find out. So it remains wrongly classified as CP.

That's my theory and I'm sticking to it.

Let's put it this way IWF are not concerned about the "adult industry" - they are well-aware of porn and that's not an issue or under their brief.

There is also a much wider field covered by IWF - it is basically everything from fraud to organized crime, CP blah.

Sure there will be instances of nuts claiming CP when it may not be and.. hell.. I don't know for certain - but doubt there will be many issues over whether is model is 16 or 18 since this can vary depending on jurisdiction.

The real problem is not so much "what if's" but common sense stuff with what are clearly children engaging in sexual activity - basically clear cut CP.

It is even acknowledged by IWF that CP is not part of the "porn industry" - but basically criminal content - and most likely, in the background, even more serious criminal activity with assaults on children.

Yes.. see what you are saying Matt. No.. it's highly unlikely that any court would listen to an expert witness in a CP case claiming an image "could be of a child" There is normally a considerable amount of evidence to support any prosecution - and this is usually clear cut nasty shit, else they don't even attempt a prosecution.

Can only say my own - and hard to convey here. If you saw some of the shit law enforcement ended up with (and this is specifically US law enforcement) - you'd prob be kinda shocked - even tho you are in the adult biz. There are no levels to what adults with an "inclination" will go to as regards children - CP is only one issue - usually the product of other offenses which range from raping babies (one was six months old) to murder. The impact of offenses in children is so damned damaging - it's unbelievable.

[Kimo]

wouldnt russia be one of the top cp producers?

[Webby]

Originally Posted by Kimo

wouldnt russia be one of the top cp producers?

They are Kimo, tho this is fairly regional, but a major problem. "Content" is normally shipped to western countries.

Russia has now signed and ratified the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) but has a long way to go yet, tho there is cooperation with international law enforcement.

There is a high degree of child prostitution and "sex tourism" in Russia not unlike most other countries where sexual expoitation can be "facilitated".

Where I am, all flights into the country have an immigration form which promises 16 years in prison for child offenders, but offenses still happen and the perp often escapes out of the country before being cuffed. Last year was the first occasion the US actually gave up a body for trial for pedo activity - that took four years dealing with the DOJ and then final threats of international embarassment before the accused was extradited for trial.

Oddly... the only two countries who have not given childrens rights under this treaty are the USA and Somalia - all other countries have already signed.