buisi

NCMEC is the U.S. hotline.

IWF is the British hotline.

They exchange information with each other and pass information through to law enforcement after reviewing it.

Different hotlines may differ in what reports they're willing to take depending on what's banned locally. IWF is legally mandated to take reports on cartoons. NCMEC isn't in theory but they might take it and pass it onto the user's country due to lack of manpower.

I don't know. Possible duplicate post?

I welcome a title change. False is equally good at articulating the subject.

There is a specific case of deliberately fraudulent reports mentioned in the article. Or highly likely to be such. An individual who makes thousands of false reports despite being repeatedly reminded not to do so.

To avoid running afoul of the Fourth Amendment but a court ruled NCMEC a government entity in the end.

Another theory goes that people who attack children would have done it either way. You punish the innocent for the crimes of someone else.

Public outrage. Legality in some jurisdictions. Chance of employees getting harassed.

It is worse than that. In one case, the Australian Police kept a site up for an entire year (the site is said to have had as many as million accounts, although account numbers often don't map precisely to actual people) to try to collect evidence on people.

A lot of these sites only tend to stay up for a year or two before they get shutdown or get skittish, so keeping it up for a year is very significant and aids in the proliferation of this content.

They also deliberately circulated quite a few relatively uncirculated images to try to gain their trust after they took over the site.

> This idea is laughable. Do you honestly believe just not telling the victims the material is out there will convince them the material isn't out there?

I'm not really agreeing or disagreeing with your viewpoints, but your logic here seems weird. In that particular case, nothing would ever convince them that people aren't looking at it, even if they weren't.

You can never really tell if someone is or isn't doing something on the internet, especially with the proliferation of strong encryption.

That isn't quite the case, it is more so due to negative attention in the media from child killers and the like. Most of it actually tends to be thirty year old magazines, nudes and things the minors (perhaps foolishly) upload themselves.

This may also seem morally wrong, so to speak, but the consequences for such are exactly the same as if you were to watch someone getting whipped and violently raped. There isn't really an incentive to go for anything "less bad", especially considering it is an innate attraction you can never get rid of.

In some states, the sentences for outright molesting dozens of kids is lighter than looking at some images or videos on your computer. It is ludicrous and it is almost as if the state cares more about "Out of sight, out of mind" than anything else.

They're even throwing people in prison for looking at cartoons or having the wrong books.

The question at the end of the day is... What exactly are people supposed to do then? Commit suicide? Perhaps genocide 0.1% to 1% of the population who have these "wrong thoughts"? The paranoia has gotten so bad that some viruses even plant CP on your computer.