This week, we have seen that Google and Microsoft, who together comprise around 95% of all internet searches, have announced a set of measures to crack down on child pornography. This follows months of campaigning by David Cameron and his advisor on child sexualisation, MP Claire Perry, to make it harder for images or videos of child pornography to be found. The government remains adamant that a failure to crack down on illicit material will bring formal state regulation. Links have been drawn between child pornography and violent crimes, such as in the case of the April Jones and Tia Sharp murders, where the convicted murderers were both found to have accessed child pornography[1]. The announcement by Google and Microsoft has brought uncertain praise from politicians[2], individuals and charities who wish to protect children and prevent illegal images from being distributed.
Without a doubt, child pornography remains one of the most pernicious and disgusting materials available on the internet. If possible, removing child pornography from the internet would be extremely desirable. However, there has been much scepticism about the effectiveness and the desirability of the pornography prevention proposals. The search engines themselves seemed very resistant to enact any form of cyber-censorship, as they saw it, until coming forward with these proposals. So what are Google and Microsoft proposing and will it make a difference?
The proposals are as follows: they have developed software algorithms, which will prevent certain searches (relating to child porn) producing results. There will also be warnings when certain terms are searched for, which will explain that child abuse material is illegal. Search engines will also report any illegal material that they are aware of to the relevant authorities. Meanwhile, internet service providers (ISPs) such as Talk Talk and Sky will also make customers choose what level of family filters they want, with the default setting being a filter for those younger than 13.
It would be disingenuous to say that these proposals are completely inconsequential, and completely ineffective. But I believe it is fair to say that these proposals are not properly targeted and will not have the desired effect. What it probably will achieve is the dissuasion of the odd interested teenager or the prevention of an inadvertent stumble onto certain sexually explicit websites. The warning message may act as a deterrent on a curious yet law-abiding teenager. The additional software might help, but it is nothing more than an upgrade of their existing controls, which as experts claim – already prevent child pornography from being accessed.
However, the idea that a paedophile who is looking for child pornography does nothing more than a casual Google search, then after being warned that it is illegal, turns away in horror at the implications, is ludicrously naïve. I’m going to make some assumptions – a paedophile knows that child porn is illegal, and he/she desires anonymity when searching for the desired materials so as to avoid being caught. That is why the vast majority of individuals who are searching for child porn do so on the “Deep Web” or on peer-to-peer websites. The Deep Web is a part of the internet, separate from regular search engines and internet users, where all manner of “cyber-crime” takes place away from the spotlight of the visible web[3]. It has become a haven for cyber-criminals who deal in drugs, terrorism, contract killings, child pornography etc and whose only money is the near-untraceable Bitcoin[4]. To give you an idea of how widely it is used, the Silk Road, a “black-market eBay” had at least 900,000 users prior to being shut down by the FBI. It is on the Deep Web that the real battle over child pornography should be fought. However, the problem is that the Deep Web, with its most well-known network being Tor, is not simply used for these illicit activities. It is also the home of many internet users wishing to avoid internet regulation and tracking, especially in authoritarian countries such as Iran and Syria. It is also run and used by people who have a good understanding of technology and who regularly succeed in outsmarting censors. Iran, which succeeded in blocking Tor in February 2012, found out the extraordinary resourcefulness of this community as within three days the whole network had side-stepped the censor and was back to 50,000 users[5]. Regulation would only be worthwhile in the Deep Web, but even then would probably be completely ineffective and in all likelihood, an infringement of freedom.
The cloud of government threats of regulation are extremely concerning. The real worry for freedom of expression is the likelihood of faulty algorithms or over-surveillance of innocent people who are simply wishing to benefit from anonymity. When trying to regulate criminal materials, the innocent often get caught in the net. As just one example, during Iran’s drive to block Tor, Gmail – a perfectly legal email service – was shut down as an unfortunate side-effect. Furthermore, the precedence of internet regulation in the UK sets a dangerous marker, which authoritarian governments will use to bolster their arguments that considerable internet regulation is a normal function of any government. Furthermore, by saying internet regulation is acceptable now to tackle child porn, terrorism and other criminal activity, it might become acceptable to use it to tackle allegedly defamatory comments in years to come. This would prove the ultimate assault on internet freedom, when all non-PC or insensitive views are no longer allowed. As history has shown us, even unpalatable challenges to orthodoxy and accepted thinking have often proven the catalyst for proper debate or change. Clamping down on this would be a sign of restrictive authoritarianism.
Meanwhile, Google and Microsoft have cynically proposed the tightening of internet filters, which they know full well will have little effect. Why? Well, their lifeblood as companies is an unregulated Internet, which is under threat if the British government sense an unwillingness to tackle the problem. Any regulation should lie with ISPs and technology companies, while the fundamental problems of cyber-crime should be dealt with by the criminal justice system. The role of the private sector can ensure a safer internet for children and lower the chance of someone innocently stumbling onto a distasteful website. Internet regulation will not stop sexual abuse of children, nor will it cut off the supply. The more fundamental problems of child sex abuse and illegal pornography, propagated by tech-savvy criminals who are accustomed to side-stepping censors and government surveillance, are the least likely to be affected by regulation. The solution lies in legal justice and the uncovering of paedophile rings, not in blanket censorship of certain parts of the internet. By all means, allow private companies to cater for the wishes of parents who wish to protect their children. But freedom must resist the ineffective and illiberal government intentions of internet regulation and censorship.
Follow me on Twitter @tjrharrison
This article was first featured on The Free Society.
[1] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24980765
[2] http://www.computerworlduk.com/news/public-sector/3489739/cameron-welcomes-microsoft-google-moves-block-child-porn/
[3] http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/nov/18/filesharing-search-engine-tor-dark-web-bitcoin-newznab
[4] http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2009/nov/26/dark-side-internet-freenet
[5] http://securityaffairs.co/wordpress/6599/intelligence/deep-web-and-censorship.html