I mean, obviously this stuff is disgusting. But we live in an era when it’s easier than ever to take and keep pictures. So of course statistics like “number of images” are going to show huge increases. But I don’t care about the size of someone’s SD card, I care about kids.
-
Show this thread
-
The NYT article that underlies these statistics just seems *distressingly* unconcerned with the actual kids. You see a picture like this, the first question any reasonable person asks is: holy shit, does this mean a huge increase in exploited children?! Not this article.pic.twitter.com/X2HpAOivmN
3 replies 7 retweets 61 likesShow this thread -
The article even goes on to say that part of the reason these numbers are spiking is because of *improved detection efforts* at providers.
2 replies 3 retweets 47 likesShow this thread -
Mass surveillance of child sexual imagery seems like a particularly stupid and ineffective way to fight this crime. People who share these images aren’t terrorists in some tight cell structure. They’re just randos who find each other on the Internet.
3 replies 8 retweets 48 likesShow this thread -
If you want to bust online sharing rings, you don’t need to build a mass-scale image recognition system that would make Xi Jinping jealous. Just have your agents make some fake accounts and hang out in the wrong part of the web.
5 replies 26 retweets 92 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @matthew_d_green
The people fighting child sexual exploitation are pretty vocal about the status quo (basically, Facebook matching images against a known database) being extremely helpful.
2 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @Pinboard
How? Can you explain? It’s not reducing the incidence of this particular crime any, if I read this article. Is it catching abusers? Do you have links?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @matthew_d_green @Pinboard
In any other area, if we deployed a crime prevention system and the rate of that crime increased by 1,750% in the four years after it went live, we’d say that it wasn’t working well. But that’s more a criticism of the statistics the NYT article uses.
2 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
-
Replying to @Pinboard
Yes, but what does one do with this exploding detection rate? You said it’s helpful. What happens with these huge numbers?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Every one of them is referred to NCMEC
-
-
Replying to @Pinboard @matthew_d_green
I have some notes on this that I'll post from the conference
@alexstamos organized, which had a presentation from NCMEC and went into some of the procedural weeds0 replies 0 retweets 0 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.