Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

EU To Monitor All Internet Searches

samzenpus posted more than 4 years ago | from the stop-searching-for-the-children dept.

Google 340

Xemu writes "The European Parliament is issuing a written declaration about the need to set up an early warning system to combat sexual child abuse. However, the substance of the declaration is to extend the EU data retention directive to search engines, so that all searches done on for example Google will be monitored. If you are a citizen concerned about the right to privacy and freedom on the Internet, you can help by sending e-mail to the MEPs from your country and explaining the issue to them."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

All searches? (3, Funny)

B5_geek (638928) | more than 4 years ago | (#32440546)

Yeah, i'd say this is a good opportunity to dust off my gopher skills.

Re:All searches? (1)

Vinegar Joe (998110) | more than 4 years ago | (#32440686)

Yeah, i'd say this is a good opportunity to dust off my gopher skills.

Gophers and duct tape? Ewwww......

Re:All searches? (5, Funny)

metacell (523607) | more than 4 years ago | (#32441186)

But think of the children!

No wait! Don't think of the children!

Well, shit (4, Informative)

Andorin (1624303) | more than 4 years ago | (#32440570)

I guess search engines like StartPage [startpage.com] (also known as Ixquick) that don't keep logs of your IP address are gonna see a nice jump in traffic.

Re:Well, shit (5, Insightful)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 4 years ago | (#32440746)

No https://www.startpage.com/ [startpage.com] might, but if its ordinary HTTP, it can be detected by the ISP which is honestly more of a threat than Google logging searches.

Re:Well, shit (1)

klui (457783) | more than 4 years ago | (#32441060)

These guys are in Europe. Will they be forced to open a backdoor to the EU?

Re:Well, shit (1)

Bega (684994) | more than 4 years ago | (#32441230)

Will they be forced to open a backdoor to the EU?

Well, if you mean with "backdoor" that we're getting buttfucked with this, then yeah.

Re:Well, shit (2, Informative)

klui (457783) | more than 4 years ago | (#32441150)

This site is really cool.

I just used FF's Add to SearchBar to add it to my searchbar.

1. You can generate a custom preference URL (no additional filter, # of search results, etc.) without the use of a cookie and its preference hash is the same regardless of your IP or ISP.
2. You can use their proxy.
3. Google's site:xyz works.
4. You can force SSL for all communication with their site.

I really hope they don't change their policy.

Net neutrality (1)

bonch (38532) | more than 4 years ago | (#32440874)

Question to net neutrality supporters--does this teach you yet that government control of the internet is very, very bad?

Re:Net neutrality (1)

valros (1741778) | more than 4 years ago | (#32440894)

As long as the government takes it no farther, net neutrality is great for ensuring that the recording industries and any other interested parties do not obtain control over your connection.

Re:Net neutrality (3, Insightful)

Rusty KB (1778458) | more than 4 years ago | (#32440914)

Without government control of the internet the same search logs would be kept and used against you by the RIAA. Who do you think is "more bad"? Which one do you trust less? Do you honestly think that without government regulation you'd be able to withstand the onslaught of megacorps (or whatever power structure would exit in the absence of said regulations)?

Not really... (2, Insightful)

tehdaemon (753808) | more than 4 years ago | (#32441022)

Not really, 'cause without net neutrality - I might just be paying more to my ISP, who would be charged by the search engine for the privilege of having the government track my searches....plus costs of course.

What, you thought keeping the government out of net neutrality would also keep them out of this sort of crap???

T

Re:Well, shit (1)

smart_ass (322852) | more than 4 years ago | (#32441050)

Or be forbidden from serving up search results to European IPs

Take off and nuke the Vatican from orbit (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32440572)

It's the only way to actually do much of anything about child sexual abuse.

Yeah OK (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32440576)

Because pedos are totally going to Google "kiddy porn downloads".

Re:Yeah OK (4, Informative)

Andorin (1624303) | more than 4 years ago | (#32440586)

Mod this AC up. Channels through which child pornography passes are almost certainly outside the reach of simple monitoring of Google searches.

Re:Yeah OK (3, Funny)

by (1706743) (1706744) | more than 4 years ago | (#32440610)

Mod this AC up. Channels through which child pornography passes are almost certainly outside the reach of simple monitoring of Google searches.

I think you forgot to check the "Post Anonymously" button...

Re:Yeah OK (0, Offtopic)

by (1706743) (1706744) | more than 4 years ago | (#32440622)

Damn slashdot didn't display the original post. Apologies.

Re:Yeah OK (4, Insightful)

Andorin (1624303) | more than 4 years ago | (#32440636)

I know there are those who hype the child porn issue to such an extent that you are labeled a pedo if you post anything less than an extremist attack on child porn, but I'm not so concerned about those people that I need to be anonymous in order to speak out against what I see as retardation incarnate.

Unless you were joking. In which case, lol, i c what u did thar.

Re:Yeah OK (5, Funny)

logjon (1411219) | more than 4 years ago | (#32440710)

I know there are those who hype the child porn issue to such an extent that you are labeled a pedo if you post anything less than an extremist attack on child porn, but I'm not so concerned about those people that I need to be anonymous in order to speak out against what I see as retardation incarnate.

Clearly you aren't thinking of the children.

Re:Yeah OK (2, Funny)

ae1294 (1547521) | more than 4 years ago | (#32441014)

Clearly you aren't thinking of the children.

Well I AM...

DoH!

Re:Yeah OK (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32440632)

First they come for the criminals and the pedos. Then they come for the rest.

As always, it is a shitty job trying to defend privacy and freedom of expression as one always defends the pervs and the criminals. But the laws are always "aimed" at them, but then magically used against everyone else. Just see the 9/11 laws that were only to be used for combating terrorism. :/

Re:Yeah OK (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32440674)

I can't wait until they come for those who misuse Niemoller's poem for stupid bullshit reasons.

Re:Yeah OK (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32440800)

I agree. Massive invasions of privacy are such a trivial issue.

Re:Yeah OK (1)

Rusty KB (1778458) | more than 4 years ago | (#32440948)

Of course they are. Just think of the children! Just think of them, so young and innocent and fresh........and delicious....with syrup.

Re:Yeah OK (1)

Mitchell314 (1576581) | more than 4 years ago | (#32440922)

They came first for my chair
And I didn't speak up because I could stand

Then they came for my mouse
I didn't speak up because I had a touchpad

Then they came for my caps lock key
I didn't speak up because I could still whisper

Then they came for my keyboard
And by that time there was nothing left for me to blog

Re:Yeah OK (1)

KDR_11k (778916) | more than 4 years ago | (#32441260)

The internet would be so much better off if they really came for the caps lock keys...

Re:Yeah OK (2, Insightful)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 4 years ago | (#32440934)

As always, it is a shitty job trying to defend privacy and freedom of expression as one always defends the pervs and the criminals. But the laws are always "aimed" at them, but then magically used against everyone else. Just see the 9/11 laws that were only to be used for combating terrorism. :/

Most of the laws in the PATRIOT ACT that are being (ab)used don't say "... and only to be used in cases of terrorism"

That's the basic flaw with most laws.
The legislative intent is one thing, while the actual language of the final law is much broader.
Whether this is a bug or a feature depends on your perspective.

Re:Yeah OK (5, Insightful)

jornak (1377831) | more than 4 years ago | (#32440658)

Full infiltration of the TOR network is pretty much necessary if they ever want to catch pedophiles in the act.

I've also got some philosophical issues with the removal of access to this content as well. If you take away CP from a pedo, doesn't it just mean that they're going to turn to alternative methods to fulfill their urges, such as nabbing little kids, and public indecency at parks, etc etc??

Re:Yeah OK (5, Insightful)

calmofthestorm (1344385) | more than 4 years ago | (#32440750)

No, they'll immediately revert to being moral, responsible citizens.

Re:Yeah OK (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32440808)

Exactly. These people have something wrong with them and their default position isn't the same as most people. They need help, and taking one outlet away isn't going to help them stop thinking about children like that.

Re:Yeah OK (3, Funny)

Mitchell314 (1576581) | more than 4 years ago | (#32440942)

No they won't.

Re:Yeah OK (1)

spitzak (4019) | more than 4 years ago | (#32441030)

Whoosh!

Re:Yeah OK (1)

Mitchell314 (1576581) | more than 4 years ago | (#32441156)

Read the parent's sig. :P

They're not [just] stupid... (5, Insightful)

calmofthestorm (1344385) | more than 4 years ago | (#32440736)

CP is just an excuse, not the real thing they want to look for.

Re:Yeah OK (1)

theskipper (461997) | more than 4 years ago | (#32440768)

True, and poisoning the surveillance would be pretty easy through a grass roots effort. Imagine just a few hundred thousand different ips associated with the query "child bestiality porn" entered into the logs each day. The man always seems to underestimate the collective power of disgruntled netizens.

Re:Yeah OK (2, Insightful)

JockTroll (996521) | more than 4 years ago | (#32441138)

What power? Until now "disgruntled netizens" have had absolutely zero effect: the conversion of the Internet into cable TV status is proceeding at full speed with no opposition. In the end, when all will have been said and done, "disgruntled netizens" will simply wring their hands and accept the new status quo because there will be nothing to be done.

If you want to act, act now.

Re:Yeah OK (4, Interesting)

metacell (523607) | more than 4 years ago | (#32441232)

Actually, here in Sweden, coordinated efforts from bloggers focused attention on a surveillance law our politicians tried to sneak through parlament without anyone noticing. In the end, the law was only delayed and slightly modified, but the newspapers started writing a lot more about the issue and people seem more aware of the problem now.

Re:Yeah OK (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32441184)

No problems, they'll still be able to find the pedos -- that'll be the thirty searches a day for "child beastiality porn".

Re:Yeah OK (1)

mrsteveman1 (1010381) | more than 4 years ago | (#32440952)

Actually more like "how to molest babby"

b de! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32440588)

yoyo thats true right there

What's the big deal? (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32440602)

If you're not doing anything wrong, I don't see why you wouldn't want to let the government see what you're doing. In this post-9/11 world, we *have to* to give up some of our personal priveleges, or else the terrorists will win. The sooner we get remove the word "freedom" from the dictionary, the sooner everyone will stop whining.

Re:What's the big deal? (2, Funny)

Andorin (1624303) | more than 4 years ago | (#32440612)

And yet you post as AC.

Re:What's the big deal? (1)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 4 years ago | (#32440766)

Well of course! After all don't the terrorists hate us because we have freedom? Remove the freedom and the terrorists have no reason to attack us!

Re:What's the big deal? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32440770)

Unsubtle troll is unsubtle.

Re:What's the big deal? (2, Insightful)

johnshirley (709044) | more than 4 years ago | (#32440958)

What's really scary is that there are people out there who actually believe exactly what you said. In their disturbed little minds, if everybody in the world could just have kind, happy thoughts all the time, then we would all get along.

These self-proclaimed pacifists literally become violent if you don't have the right kind of happy thoughts.

Pacifists scare me.

Re:What's the big deal? (3, Interesting)

lordholm (649770) | more than 4 years ago | (#32441088)

Actually, several MEPs have already retracted their signatures. They where asked to sign the declaration under false pretences. They where not told that the declaration included clauses about extending the data retention directive.

Though, if Pen and Tellers stunt where they pulled of a petition to ban di-hydrogen-monoxide, taught us anything is that we should not pay to much attention to petitions in general, and we should be a bit careful about what we sign. For MEPs, that include reading the entire declaration before signing, not just signing based on what he petitioner claims it is about.

Re:What's the big deal? (1)

KDR_11k (778916) | more than 4 years ago | (#32441274)

I wish we could FORCE them to watch what we "don't have to hide". Having each member of the govt forced through a tour of all internet shock sites would be an appropriate first step.

Please keep in mind (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32440604)

Your email will be logged, and you will be noted as a child porn supporter.

Freenet as Insurance (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32440620)

In retrospect it was a good idea that Freenet was developed to combat censorship and government control of the internet before it was needed, and before governments could take steps to stop it. I think Freenet, and other similar networks, will become increasingly useful as governments try to clamp down on the Internet.

I used it recently, and it seemed to work well but I wish more development took place on it, and others would fork it to try their own takes on it and/or experiment with different ideas.

Re:Freenet as Insurance (1)

Andorin (1624303) | more than 4 years ago | (#32440668)

I've used I2P [wikipedia.org] a little, and it seems like a more mature anonymous network than Freenet, although I've not yet checked out its support for the equivalent of freesites. It also supports things Freenet doesn't, like BitTorrent and IRC. It uses a Tor-like network to relay traffic from node to node.

Re:Freenet as Insurance (1)

metacell (523607) | more than 4 years ago | (#32441284)

Freenet and I2P have different design goals. The unique thing about Freenet is its ability to store data in the network itself. You upload something to Freenet, and the data blocks are spread over the (currently) tens of thousands of nodes in encrypted form. This makes it impossible to stop something from being distributed by shutting down the source, but also makes the programmer's task harder.

This will never fly (5, Insightful)

Jerrei (1515395) | more than 4 years ago | (#32440624)

Universal Declaration of Human Rights Article 12

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

If the EU doesn't uphold this, it's members will.

Re:This will never fly (2, Insightful)

Ash-Fox (726320) | more than 4 years ago | (#32440698)

If the EU doesn't uphold this, it's members will.

From what I have observed, members don't tend to have much say or power. Look at the whole issue with Greece or even how laws are being steam rolled into the UK with the Lisbon treaty with no way out.

Re:This will never fly (5, Insightful)

weicco (645927) | more than 4 years ago | (#32440814)

Bah! In Finland government welcomes any new idea to monitor use with open hands. We have already blacklists which are supposed to keep you away from child porn but it is not working very well and for some curious reason it filters out also local Finnish site criticizing the blacklisting. The law enables only to filter foreign sites.

I think I'm already hearing applauding coming from the seat of the government some 150 km south from here...

Re:This will never fly (1)

Skal Tura (595728) | more than 4 years ago | (#32441046)

Also that site releases a list of kiddy porn sites, which might cause the blacklisting, to right or wrong, there's links to kiddy porn (full blacklist released).

Furthermore, Finnish goverment has quite a track record on refusing all kinds of EU laws & orders etc. Well, at least mostly pertaining to heavy taxation with high refusal to let go of absurdly high taxes.

Re:This will never fly (1)

KDR_11k (778916) | more than 4 years ago | (#32441296)

But if the porn sites are already blocked by the filter why would you need to block a site for listing them?

Re:This will never fly (1)

metacell (523607) | more than 4 years ago | (#32441302)

But the point of publishing the blacklist on a website, was to show that many of the sites are, in fact, not child pornography sites.

Re:This will never fly (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32441010)

Who defines "arbitrary?" This isn't arbitrary; it's purpose is to prevent child pornography.

Re:This will never fly (1)

phantomfive (622387) | more than 4 years ago | (#32441214)

You know, when the Euro was created, all the members signed a treaty saying that if one of the members were to go bankrupt, the others were not to help. Well, guess what just happened to that treaty when it became convenient? I have no hope for your cited Declaration to be upheld by anyone.

We do it that way in the US too; our constitution is free to be interpreted any way we like when it becomes convenient or popular enough.

You do know (1)

djupedal (584558) | more than 4 years ago | (#32440628)

...that 50% of the news headlines about how some cp ring was broken up are just fishing expeditions to see who panics and reads the link to see if they're going to be next....

Guess those lost their effectiveness, and this is just the next step. Buyer beware.

Old meets new Europe (4, Insightful)

AHuxley (892839) | more than 4 years ago | (#32440648)

In the eastern parts of Europe you had to be careful on the phone.
The West smiled when it saw the vast data collection systems and rows of tape.
Now you have to be careful what you type into Bing, Yahoo, Google ect.
Interesting to see the line about "based on the existing system for food safety" [laws].

Apparently (1, Insightful)

logjon (1411219) | more than 4 years ago | (#32440650)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1243625/Businessman-Mirko-Fischer-sues-British-Airwars-treating-men-like-perverts.html [dailymail.co.uk] Being seated next to a child on a plane also makes one suspect of being a kiddiefiddler. Come on guys, really?

Re:Apparently (1)

AHuxley (892839) | more than 4 years ago | (#32440740)

Wow, interesting, ty logjon, add in laptop and body scans. Makes you want to roll out as much optical in your own country and never fly. Teleconference or share time on a small jet.

So we prevent crime by hiding it now? (3, Interesting)

Max Romantschuk (132276) | more than 4 years ago | (#32440656)

If I see a crime I'm supposed to report it. But this system can't differentiate between someone looking for child porn, and someone who is trying to use their spare time to locate and report people who deal in child porn.

Basically, we're teaching the public to turn a blind eye. Together with the mandatory filters implemented in even my "free" country the problem is just being buried even deeper.

Re:So we prevent crime by hiding it now? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32440806)

I tried that defense in college and it failed :(.

"Officer, I wasn't soliciting you to buy marijuana ... I was just being a good samaritan and was going to call the police as soon as the transaction was completed. I had to make sure it was legitimate contraband."

and just last year :((

"Officer, I wasn't soliciting you for prostitution ... I was just being a good samaritan and was going to call the police ... I do this in my spare time, to rid the streets of prostitutes."

Re:So we prevent crime by hiding it now? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32441222)

Banning child porn does nothing to help abused children. It's really a case of sweeping the issue under the rug. Banning, essentially, even the thought of child sex abuse. How is this productive? Let's just stick our fingers in our ears and go lalalala.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and just say that I think possession of child porn should be completely legal. Looking at pictures hurts no one. Pictures of murder victims are legal and people mostly seem fine with that. So what makes child porn any different. It really is just a hysterical taboo; a cultural phenomenon. Consider the attitudes of Japan in this area as a case study.

If we do this, we remove the boogie man, so to speak and there will no longer be this "think of the children", BS justification for Internet censorship and all the surveillance state crap. The government should really have no right whatsoever to prevent freedom of expression/communication under any circumstances.

Not surprised at all (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32440672)

"The dark night of fascism is always descending in the United States and yet lands only in Europe." - Tom Wolfe

Re:Not surprised at all (0)

logjon (1411219) | more than 4 years ago | (#32440748)

The next thing I knew, the discussion was onto the subject of fascism in America. Everybody was talking about police repression and the anxiety and paranoia as good folsk waited for the knock on the door and the descent of the knout on the nape of the neck. I couldn't make any sense out of it. . . . This was the mid-1960's. . . . [T]he folks were running wilder and freer than any people in history. For that matter, Krassner himself, in one of the strokes of exuberance for which he was well known, was soon to publish a slight hoax: an account of how Lyndon Johnson was so overjoyed about becoming President that he had buggered a wound in the neck of John F. Kennedy on Air Force One as Kennedy's body was being flown back from Dallas. Krassner presented this as a suppressed chapter from William Manchester's book Death of a President. Johnson, of course, was still President when it came out. Yet the merciless gestapo dragnet missed Krassner, who cleverly hid out onstage at Princeton on Saturday nights. . . .

Support [for Wolfe's view that fascism wasn't coming to America] came from a quarter I hadn't counted on. It was Grass, speaking in English.

"For the past hour, I have my eyes fixed on the doors here," he said. "You talk about fascism and police repression. In Germany when I was a student, they come through those doors long ago. Here they must be very slow."

Grass was enjoying himself for the first time all evening. He was not simply saying, "You really don't have so much to worry about." He was indulging his sense of the absurd. He was saying: "You American intellectuals — you want so desperately to feel besieged and persecuted!"

He sounded like Jean-François Revel, a French socialist writer who talks about one of the great unexplained phenomena of modern astronomy: namely, that the dark night of fascism is always descending in the United States and yet lands only in Europe.

Not very nice, Günter! Not very nice, Jean-François! A bit supercilious, wouldn't you say! . . .

Perhaps it is our pointing out of this creeping fascism at every available opportunity that is slowing its progress here?

Think of the Children (5, Insightful)

Adrian Lopez (2615) | more than 4 years ago | (#32440694)

Pedophiles use children for their own self-serving purposes, and now the government wants in on the "fun". They're using these poor children to achieve the government's broader political goals, getting away with things they otherwise could not. "Think of the children", the oldest trick in the book since the Victorian era.

Perverts and legislators -- it's like they're made for each other.

Researchers (4, Interesting)

Itninja (937614) | more than 4 years ago | (#32440696)

God help you if you are researcher (private or government) and search for naughty terms. At my local library they tried this a few years ago and some high school girl almost arrested because she was searching for terms like 'child porn' and 'naked kids'. Turns out she was actually writing a report on how easy it was to find illicit porn online. She even made to the local talk show circuit for a while.

Re:Researchers (5, Insightful)

timmarhy (659436) | more than 4 years ago | (#32440868)

if she had of been a He, they'd be in jail right now, probably getting molested. oh the irony

It's a declaration. (4, Informative)

RyanFenton (230700) | more than 4 years ago | (#32440702)

This declaration doesn't seem like a law, more like the equivalent to a US Congressional Non-Binding Resolution [wikipedia.org] , having no force of law on its own, and hoping the parties being addressed will react to the non-binding request. In other words, it seems to me like hot air to feed special interests.

Here's the actual text:

---

"I am pleased to inform you that, together with my colleague Ms Anna Záborská MEP, I have submitted
Written Declaration No 29 requesting the establishment of a European early warning system for
paedophiles and sex offenders. A normal childhood for our children means a solid future for our, and
for their, European Union. Any act of violence suffered by a woman or a child is an indelible defeat of
the rules of civilised coexistence. We would therefore be very grateful if, as many other colleagues
have already done, you could support this important Written Declaration No 29 'On setting up a
European early warning system (EWS) for paedophiles and sex offenders'. The proposal does
not involve the establishment of a new European agency but rather greater levels of cooperation
between the public authorities and civil society in order to defend the weaker members of society
and protect the rights of all.
I may be contacted as follows:
Tiziano Motti MEP
ASP 9E209
Tel. 45247
tiziano.motti@europarl.europa.eu
Declaration No 29 may be signed:
- Outside the Hemicycle during the part-sessions
- At the office of the Members' Activities Unit in Brussels, PHS 2A 019
Thank you in advance,
Tiziano Motti MEP"

---

They seem to do these a lot, in terms of declaring a condemnation of Israel, or having a declaration on violence against women - hot air to feel good and influence constituents, without any real legal meaning on its own.

To put it in programming terms, it seems to me they're declaring an intention - not instantiating a law. Bad in terms of intentions towards what little privacy remains, but not yet acting to change law.

My interpretation could certainly be wrong - but that seems to be how the wording strikes me.

Ryan Fenton

Re:It's a declaration. (0)

logjon (1411219) | more than 4 years ago | (#32440778)

Ah, that makes a lot more sense. Seems a group of nutty legislators getting a stick up their ass and going with a knee-jerk bass-ackwards response is something you can enjoy regardless of your nationality. Hell, there's a house resolution nearly every year here in the states in favor of a constitutional amendment against flag burning.

Re:It's a declaration. (1)

lordholm (649770) | more than 4 years ago | (#32441106)

A lot of the MEPs signed it without actually reading the text. Some of them have now retracted their signatures.

Could just be governmental jealousy (1)

jdogalt (961241) | more than 4 years ago | (#32440714)

Seems like this might just be the government spies being jealous of the data the search engines (*cough* advertisers) have been collecting for years.

Sick and tired of the "pedophiles" excuse (5, Insightful)

mykos (1627575) | more than 4 years ago | (#32440738)

"We need to monitor your internet searches. You know, to prevent pedophilia."
"But I don't want anyone's internet searches monitored without a warrant to monitor them."
"SO YOU'RE PRO-CHILD MOLESTATION AND YOU WANT GRAPHIC SEXUAL DEPICTIONS OF THEM ON THE INTERNET?!"
"What in the hell? That's not what I said at all!"
"Maybe we should be monitoring YOU, pervert."

Re:Sick and tired of the "pedophiles" excuse (1)

Wizarth (785742) | more than 4 years ago | (#32441188)

Ah, the same play book as being used in Australia.

SSL Google? (4, Insightful)

beaverdownunder (1822050) | more than 4 years ago | (#32440772)

Will they ban it?

Re:SSL Google? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32440830)

Has China banned it yet?

stoops.

Re:SSL Google? (4, Informative)

Andorin (1624303) | more than 4 years ago | (#32440864)

No, because Google can still keep logs of your searches if you use SSL.

So? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32440774)

Whoop de doo.
Google etc already keep logs, they will just be held in 2 places now.
Oh noes

Child Abuse? You lying mother fuckers. (5, Insightful)

Jackie_Chan_Fan (730745) | more than 4 years ago | (#32440840)

Fuck the EU and fuck the children. Fuck the assholes who use "child porn" as an excuse for every thing!!!

When has Google Trends ever listed a single Kiddie Porn search string?

If Kiddie porn was such a problem on search engines, surely it would be right up there on #1 of Google Trends right?

Give me a break.

The child fucking boogieman is not real. Its not the children that are getting fucked... ITS YOU.

Burn your governments down.

Re:Child Abuse? You lying mother fuckers. (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32440976)

Now, _usually_, when someone takes a stand against the think-of-the-children brigade, and members of said brigade respond with "Do you want our children molested? In fact, you probably ARE a pedophile YOURSELF!", I consider their argument the basest form of political dishonesty.

Fuck the EU and fuck the children.

In this case, though, I kinda see where they're coming from.

Re:Child Abuse? You lying mother fuckers. (1)

Jackie_Chan_Fan (730745) | more than 4 years ago | (#32441090)

Doesnt everyone fuck children?

All I see everywhere, is little kids and adults walking hand in hand... Those adults must be fucking those children! Sometimes theres even a woman and a man holding a childs hand as they walk down the street...

Obviously they fuck children.

We must end this!!!!

The reasons for socialism/communism are many... (1)

DrPeper (249585) | more than 4 years ago | (#32440846)

The reason against it is one.

Re:The reasons for socialism/communism are many... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32441224)

Is any worse then what the "Beacon of Freedom" is doing? This is not even law yet. This is nothing compared to what the good ol' government of the USA does regarding monitoring the net...

Re:The reasons for socialism/communism are many... (1)

Deus.1.01 (946808) | more than 4 years ago | (#32441278)

The reason for your post utterly eludes me.

Be Careful What You Search For... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32440912)

...because what you find may disturb you.

For example, searching for "Tiziano Motti f****ng horses" turned up about 56,700 results. I'm not making this up -- check it out on Google.

Don't think Tiziano isn't into some seriously freaky stuff? Okay, try "Tiziano Motti bl***ng a teenage unicorn".

Man, those EU parliment people are disturbed.

All Sex Must Be Monitored (5, Insightful)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 4 years ago | (#32440936)

Internet searches aren't child molestation. Child molestation is a sex act. So the EU must monitor every sex act to prevent child molestation. Otherwise it's just wasting everyone's time while the real killers run free!

Will not work and easy to abuse (4, Insightful)

DJ Rubbie (621940) | more than 4 years ago | (#32440992)

All someone interested in breaking this system at a basic level needs to do is to gain access to some popular server to put some code (plain HTML img tags, or javascript if site is vulnerable) that will automatically do searches based on those "monitored" search terms when a user-agent accesses it. This will incriminate all innocent parties that browse those "infected" pages (as if something like is bad), which naturally flood the monitoring tools with garbage.

Alternatively (4, Insightful)

Hognoxious (631665) | more than 4 years ago | (#32441000)

you can help by sending e-mail to the MEPs from your country and explaining the issue to them

Or you can just search for your MEP's name along terms related to paedophilia. And then do it again, and again...

Pedo-Paranoia (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32441102)

I almost got kicked out of college because I, from school, googled "6 year old girl in sundress." I was looking for reference images for finishing a photoshop painting of a man walking with his daughter on a beach. I had the beach, I had the man, the ice-cream he was holding and in the middle of class I goggle images of kids because the bone structure of kids is different than adults. 2 days later I'm in the deans office getting a "Letter" added to my records. I'm like WTF? Did they think I was looking at child porn in a room full of twenty three people and the only one who noticed was the IT filter? So it's on my permanent scripts now.

If I go to a 4 year program I have to hope they explained it well enough I'm not just denied for "viewing inappropriate material" on campus. My teacher even backed me up and explained he was in the class with me and that the images where completely harmless, fully clothed, yet they still put it on the record. Pissed me off.

The world has gotten so freaking paranoid about pedos it's crazy. What's next public burnings? This pedo-paranoia has to be screwing up the kids too. When I was a kid we played with all the kids in the area, went where ever we wanted and were pretty damn safe. Now kids have play dates and a small circle of friends. Adults act like kids are made of glass and might break. If we screw up 90% of these kids childhoods with paranoia to save 10% of the kids who are going to get molested how the heck is that good for the human species?

We are going to have whole generations of social cripples afraid to be around each other and eating/drugging themselves to death while they wonder why they can't feel happy. The human race has moved along quite well without fenced in play grounds and cops policing public parks constantly. Kids shouldn't have to live in fear that the boogie man might touch them in their private places. "Keeping the kids safe" is doing more harm than good if you look at it from the big picture. Let them act like kids for Christ's sake.

But I'm sure by posting this I'll be marked as a child stalker. *rolls eyes*

Whoa? (1)

Asaf.Zamir (1053470) | more than 4 years ago | (#32441158)

Did Hitler come back? I'm sure I would've heard of it.

Re:Whoa? (1)

lostsoulz (1631651) | more than 4 years ago | (#32441268)

He never really went.

Alternatively (1)

erroneus (253617) | more than 4 years ago | (#32441262)

You can simply search for "{member of parliament} would you please stop doing this? it is a really bad idea and could result in your being voted out of office or some such thing."

you don't have to send directly to your MPEs (3, Funny)

Punto (100573) | more than 4 years ago | (#32441290)

just send an e-mail to your mom, they'll read it too.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?