What would be deemed CP? Whatever the NCMEC says is CP just like they do now. Actually blocking CP instead of simply triggering an alert prevents a crime proactively and the current Cybertip alert method ensures someone is arrested and prosecuted. Which would you prefer? Even more important, if the system works so well as to support the prosecution of people, why isn't it being used to actually eliminate the crimeto begin with?

It's not that there is too much to track, that isn't an issue and is already largely automated and implemented hence the automatic Cybertip reports. The only area where this isn't fully implemented yet is p2p file sharing where law enforcement trolls looking to make some more statistics but like the current alert filtering in place it would be a simple matter to implement at the ISP level.

This paper covers the technical details specific to p2p networks but the methodology used is the same for the alert filtering. http://sdrv.ms/102OnpI

A deal with the devil. ur real life wont start til u try to get a job housing or a life. that would be the best deal if when u get out u where free like everyone eles thats gets out of jail

Amen Storm!

P2P means that the information is not stored on any server, it is stored on personal drives of citizens. There are privacy laws and things that LE still do have to follow. So they could continually shut down P2P servers, only to watch more pop up with better evasive tech in them. What is being proposed here is more than just eliminating CP, but a blatant violation of civil rights, far more so than what is being done today.

Maybe a better avenue is to bring the laws that surround CP to a more reasonable level. As you can get punished far harsher for a non-contact crime than you can for a contact crime or even murder, which when presented to any reasonable adult, shows how absurd the laws really are. This isn't done for then politicians would have to admit they are wrong. When you consider the personalities that are required to get to the point that you are running for national office. as Lord Acton says, "Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men." It just isn't in a politician's repertoire to be humble or admit they were incorrect, in that world that only shows weakness to the opponent.

I did read the paper that aladdin posted and I can't disagree that it could be implemented all over the place, but if I have learned nothing, I have learned this, when you are pulling weeds in any garden one will always grow in it's place given enough time. Humans are no different. As they remove those people and their extensive libraries from the network someone else will rise up to take the place of that missing library. Also stated clearly in there that without a global cooperated effort to remove those large libraries and people from those P2P networks the efforts made here in the US are minute in the grand scheme of things.

I don't believe I said it wasn't possible but the scope was really beyond our resources and LE reach.

I agree that bringing the laws into a more appropriate line with the crime is essential.

I have to respectfully disagree with you Wisconsin. It's already being done on virtually every non-encrypted non p2p internet communication already by private industry with information from the NCMEC which is a private, non-profit, non-governmental, non-law enforcement entity. The scope is demonstrably well within current resources and does not violate anyone's civil rights. It wouldn't matter where in the world the transmission originated or how many massive libraries were out there. The only thing affected would be the ability to share it with millions within the US. Again I ask which would you prefer? That a teenager become an RSO because he downloaded music from somebody in Uzbekistan and CP was attached to the album artwork or that the transmission of CP was blocked before the teenager could get in trouble without law enforcement ever getting involved?

As far as civil rights violations go there wouldn't be any. The instant you communicate with the outside world you lose any expectation of privacy. You are using the network infrastructure of several other entities and they have every right to inspect traffic on their network.

Private industry doing it is far different than any law enforcement agency doing it.

I am not sure you realize the far reaching consequences of allowing any governmental entity to have that kind of control.

The one instance or twenty instances of someone getting nailed for downloading pirated music with CP attached to the file, shoudn't be cause to violate everyone else. And do you really think they would stop with just blocking CP? Where would they draw the line 'in the best interests of the public'? It is a slippery slope that I certainly do not want to go down.

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin

The fact that the US government has statutes at all is a direct violation of our Constitution and they have over 4000 of them now. To even consider adding MORE regulation will only foster more discrimination against select groups.

But you have to remember - downloading pirated music, software, or whatever is illegal so really that practice would not be Constitutionally protected

Doesn't change the kind of 'reach' a law that was 'meant' to target only the 'bad' people of this world could and probably would do to many innocent people. It would just create a whole new set of people.

Making more laws to try to 'fix' things is not the answer, because that is how the CP laws became what they are. It is how the SO laws became how they are today... Someone thought there should be a law... and VIOLA... Patty Wetterling is a perfect example of her overzealous efforts backfired on everyone.

Regulation is not really the answer...

Again....

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin

And...

"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." - Martin Luther King Jr.

The thing that gets me is how they go after folks for things downloaded on a computer or a cell phone that the person did not want downloaded or sent to them in the first place. It's like they just want numbers to say oh aren't we great look at how many people we nailed this day, month, or year.... now give us funding.

You seem to be laboring under some false assumptions the first being that law enforcement has to be involved at all. They do not. The second is that private industry is doing this entirely on its own initiative. It is not. Private industry is doing it because they are required to by law and rather than have a government entity have that kind of control it was given to the NCMEC, a private organization. Law enforcement only gets involved in the later stages after an ISP forwards a report to the NCMEC and the NCMEC forwards the information to a local law enforcement agency.

Google made the news a while back because they are voluntarily taking things a step further. They are using their access to the NCMEC database to actively block known illegal images rather than just report them and the ultimate arbiter of what is and is not an illegal image remains the NCMEC. All I'm proposing is making that universal. No law enforcement or other government agency in control.

“Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer,”
Sir William Blackstone

And you seem to be laboring under some false assumptions that law enforcement is going to let the private sector take care of all this itself and leave them nothing to do or to make their bones with. They were hired to 'police' the private sector and to enforce the laws. The laws that you say the private industry is following already. You just want to make that scope much more broad, to cover more people, more things and get big brother even further into our homes than he is already. It is how we got into this SO mess to begin with, someone said, "there should be a law!" and then there was one and another, then another.

If the government made a law to govern it and dictate the use of the systems already in place by NCMEC then there is already governmental involvement, which in turn leads to law enforcement involvement. Because what will be done with those that have had these files removed from their computer by this system you are saying should be used.

It is better that 10 guilty persons go free than one innocent person suffer at the hands of law enforcement and the system, but what you propose will only hurt more innocents, we just haven't thought through all the extenuating circumstances or the small groups that will be overlooked.

That's what it's really all about LegalGuardian. The only real reason not to take things beyond a reporting requirement is to generate arrest statistics. People can cry civil rights violations for not doing it all day long but that's really a non-existent argument. The material itself isn't Constitutionally protected and while people do have a right against illegal search and seizure and a right to privacy none of that applies once they are connected to an ISP and attempt to transmit something illegal. Those civil rights would only apply in situations where nothing was transmitted or what was stored wasn't open to inspection on an independent network.

If they are deleting things on a P2P network ALL the files are stored on private computers. On personal property. Which is still considered private property and is protected by the US Constitution, otherwise they wouldn't need a warrant to seize it, they could just walk into the home and take it. Or send a command across the network and remotely wipe the persons computer.

That kind of power shouldn't be in the hands of anyone private or governmental for any reason. Unless you are willing to be as open about all of your private information. Such as your real name on this open forum, because it seems you have a great deal of trust for the NCMEC and law enforcement to not overstep the power you are so willing to give them. The fact that you are using an alias here means you know the importance of privacy already and should know that giving that kind of power to anyone will surely backfire.

"Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely." - Lord Acton

Who said ANYTHING about deleting any files any where at any time from any computer? Seriously. I never said anything like that. What I have consistently said throughout this entire discussion is block the transmission of such files on internet connected networks. How do you get to deleting files from that?