Facebook shopped BBC hacks to National Crime Agency over child abuse images probe Facebook reported BBC journalists to the police after the reporters accidentally emailed them images of child sexual abuse, the social network's PR has alleged. The BBC was investigating private Facebook groups used to share both legal and illegal images, some of the latter of which featured children being abused. Its …
> Call me cynical - fake news has been cited by the more Liberal side of the media as the reason recent big votes went the way they did. One of the portals frequently blamed is FB. Is it beyond the realm of possibilities that certain unsavoury stories would be "investigated" to deligitimise said portals?
You're cynical. In fact, you almost sound like you've had a bump on the head.
Leaving your view of the BBC's motivations aside for a second, ask yourself this:
Is it plausible and reasonable to think that some might be sharing indecent images in "private" facebook groups? Bearing in mind most of the images are probably rendered indecent by the context rather than actually being that explicit when viewed on their own.
Now, what seems more plausible - that someone at the BBC risked life and liberty (cos you will be jailed if caught) to both procure and then publish the images, purely to discredit a company that does a good job of discrediting itself,
or that a bunch of... ahem... interested people shared some fairly risque (but not necessarily outright illegal, at a glance) images, and that Facebook's moderation & review mechanism happens to be shite, or more likely, based on a different set of law to what needs to be observed here in blighty?
See, I'm more inclined to think that whilst option 1 isn't impossible, it's far, far, far less likely to be the truth than option 2. and I find it hard to believe that anyone could reasonably think it's more likely, especially given that if it triggers an investigation, it wouldn't take long for the investigators to piece together the messy trail the average journalist would leave when they believe they're anonymous.
For all YOU know, I think you meant ...
... but, beyond the witless trolling, there is a point here: compare Facebook, a mere regurgitator of almost entirely infantile, worthless drivel, lies, bragging, bullying and endless crappy adverts, with a public service broadcaster and producer which has been producing original, creative content, spanning every genre from news through comedy and drama and scifi, for nearly a century, selling its best work for tens of millions of pounds to audiences of hundreds of millions across the world.
The comparison makes you realise how pathetically juvenile, shallow, tacky and superficial operations like Facebook really are.
BBC: "We use real talent to make original stuff, to entertain and inform"
FB: "We use computers to endlessly repeat other people's trash and then manure their eyeballs with marketing sewage"
Seems to sum up the fundamental, mindless vacuity of the digital revolution rather well. I can see why BBC employees might feel proud of their work, for all Auntie's faults. But I realise now that I cannot imagine why anyone working for Facebook or Google or most of the other digital giants—little better than organs of regurgitation—would feel anything except slightly ashamed and embarrassed ... perhaps the same way you should feel ashamed if you worked for a distiller producing poor-grade, cheap liquor, knowing perfectly well it was purchased only by those with alcohol problems. Quite distasteful, isn't it?
"You're new to this law making business, aren't you?"
No - I cut my teeth fighting some of the overreach in the Sexual Offences Bill (2003). That opened my eyes to the way the drafting of bills like that are effectively delegated to vested interests and lobby groups. Several times it appeared the thresholds of evidence had been reduced to almost nothing - "because it's hard to get convictions".
It was the SOA 2003 that reclassified 16/17 year olds as "children". Previously they were a separate category recognising that they had almost adult maturity. Which is why back copies of the Sun Page 3 are now probably illegal to own.
There's a lot of room for argument over who to blame, but I think it's the cops who need to take a hand now. It's not just about whether the BBC should have reported to them, or whether Facebook should have called for sample images. Some of it seems to be context driven, such as a not-all-that-blatant pic of a schoolgirl attracting a flood of abusive comments. I am not sure the cops can set all that definite a line, but they're the one who have seen the pictures, not us.
At the end of the day, they might need to interview the people involved under caution, and ask to see the letters between Facebook and the BBC. We're not getting quite the same story from the two of them.
Both could have made mistakes in this.
Surely when a non-tax paying organisation believes its internal policies trump British law then that company should not be operating in Britain?
The UK can go back to "friends reunited" as a platform to bullshit their friends into believing they have a perfect life :P
The MOU referred to in the article provides a legal defense for people who may stumble across this vile content so they can safely report it.
The MOU also specifically says:
"Vigilantism is not merely unnecessary, it is unhelpful: anyone taking it upon themselves to seek out or investigate this kind of material where there is no legitimate duty to do so will be liable to prosecution"
So whether the BBC activities can be considered vigilantism I leave for the reader to decide. The safer option should have been for them to report the images to the authoritative body for this (IWF) and used that as the basis for interviews rather than re-sharing the images which does not seem to bo covered by the MOU.
Just my 2p
This is the problem, if you see the images then, as the law stands, you are guilty. I came across an email account some years ago which contained many really bad pictures - after some investigation the decision was made at a higher level that we would shut the account down and delete everything including all backups. It was feared that reporting the user would result in the mail server and everyone's computers being seized and the system admins facing prosecution. I think the PHB's were more concerned about the server than the people.
Unsurprisingly the user never contacted us to ask why his account had disappeared.
Law enforcement in the 21st century is not applied equally and not at all to the powerful, like Facebook or anyone with any ability or money to influence our political systems. It isn't suppose to be that way but it is as entrenched today as in the age of Monarchies.
Whistle-blowing, or reporting crimes committed by the wealthy or powerful is very risky. Think of a crime or wrong doing you know of that came to light as the result of whistle-blowing. If you do not have first hand experience think Snowden, Watergate, Ad Scam or something you've read more than the headlines about.
All such incidents came to light against massive resistance which included prison for some that didn't get the message to be quiet. If you find something or know something illegal then it is you who will face charges. It is obviously hoped that will keep the next upstanding citizen quiet.
In a democracy crimes, particularly white collar and political but also child abuse needs to be reported, investigated and charges laid. Instead many crimes are never reported out of fear and when their are politics and power will decide the response. A response which can and does include attacking those trying to report such crimes and protecting those with power regardless of their crimes.
To change that we will need to change the system but even there entrenched interests have restricted our ability to do so.
What an odd story.I'm perhaps naively surprised that criminals would use something like facebook, for, well, anything. Are there seriously not more secure ways to share unpleasant or illegal material? People are that stupid? Or is the material in question creepy and unpleasant but falling within the law? As I say, an odd story.
"[...] local laws about what precisely is illegal [...]"
Even in the UK it is difficult to establish exactly where the legal line is drawn. The essence of the definition of a "child" is "someone who is - or looks as if - they are under 18". That's a wide field in late teens physical appearances.
A man was convicted of viewing illegal material on a hotel room PC. The US web sites he had been viewing carried the certification that all their models were over 18. The police and CPS disregarded that fact in their prosecution - arguing that some of the people "looked under 18".
Eventually he won on appeal with that same defence.
There have been cases where the prosecution showed the jury perfectly innocent pictures - and then put a sexual slant on it that amounted to a charge of "thought crime".
Most family albums probably have pictures of children that would fall foul of the classification of "clothed in a provocative pose".
In the UK, cartoon images of what appear to be children in provocative or sexual situations is also classed as child porn.
I have heard of at least one person sent to jail for possessing such cartoon images.
All you guys with the humping Jelly Baby decals take note.
"The police and CPS disregarded that fact in their prosecution - arguing that some of the people "looked under 18"."
That is the correct interpretation of the law which says "who is, or appears to be, under the age of 18". The CPS guidance is "The age of a child is a finding of fact for the jury to determine. Expert evidence is inadmissible on the subject..." That is, there is to be no objective evidence of any sort, the test in law is the opinion of the man on the street.
"Expert evidence is inadmissible on the subject..."
No wonder the police and CPS try their luck in bringing prosecutions if factual evidence like a birth certificate doesn't act as an early veto. Trying to decide if someone is over 18 by their looks could include people well over 18. A Chinese friend was so petite that she had to buy children's clothes - and at 35 she was still being mistaken as her husband's daughter.
On the other hand - one police force said that if the subject in a picture had definite pubic hair then they wouldn't waste their time pursuing a prosecution based on them looking under 18.
"not everyone on Facebook is British"
Indeed, but Faecebook operates in many different jurisdictions and imposes it's own and local morality in many cases. Hence it rigorously censors the mammary gland and associated apparatus. This seems to be for US sensibilities which hold the nipple to be some sort of evil that will bring doom upon the world. However they also cite other jurisdictions as the concerns for this censorship of even medical and fund-raising (cancer charity) images.
Faecebook also censors to avoid political upset in repressive regimes. It's clear therefore that they have the capability to tailor Faecebook feeds to a local market. It's also clear that they have chosen to *not* do this for paedophile imagery.
Blame the algorithm?
After all, how much does one report of "bad" count against 50 "likes" - I am sure it won't be a real person looking at this until the scales swing the other way. If these images were in a hidden/private group it shouldn't be a surprise they were appreciated by the members. I wonder if any accounts have been suspended yet? Any arrests? After all, the real names policy will make it easy to identify them . . . . . . .
I'm guessing the downvotes are because you're adding nothing of substance to the conversation.
But you're not wrong (it's a strict liability offence, so mere possesion is enough, there's no mens rea involved), and in fact, there have been various high-profile cases where celebrities and the like have been caught with indecent images and attempted to use the defence that they were merely investigating it.
It was explained to me that under UK law cartoon images of child abuse are illegal; and (if you take this to extremes) drawings of stick-figures having sex could transgress the law if one of the figures was stated to be underage.
I have no idea if that has ever been tested in court, but it's ridiculous if true.
Won't anyone think of the (stick-figure) children?
"[...] drawings of stick-figures having sex could transgress the law if one of the figures was stated to be underage."
Just "looks under 18" is sufficient. IIRC a 2012 Olympics logo potentially fell into that category - once people said it looked like The Simpsons cartoon characters.
There is a scale of legal "indecency" that starts with nudity and then goes through "clothed in a provocative pose" - before you get to what most people would say was definitely showing abuse.
IIRC "antique" drawings, paintings, and sculpture are largely excluded from prosecution. Someone recreating them today - without any live model - would probably be liable to prosecution.
"Cartoons fall under "pseudo-photographs"."
No they don't.
"Pseudo-photograph” means an image, whether made by computer-graphics or otherwise howsoever, which appears to be a photograph."
Cartoons (in the Simpson's or 2000AD style) don't look like photos.
See http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1994/33/section/84
There's probably case law.
@Adam 52
"There's probably case law."
There is case law and guess what? It shows that you are wrong. The Crown Court has already convicted someone of possessing prohibited images of children simply for being in possession of (manga) cartoon images. The Judge in that case also made it clear that he considered that "word of mouth, drawings or artistic impressions" fall under the legislation.
OK. I think I've resolved this. Cartoons are not "pseudo photographs" under the Criminal Justice ... Act (for the reason given above) but they are a "prohibited image" under the Coroners and Justice Act 2009. That Act specifically excludes pseudo photographs [s65 (3)].
The offence is slightly different - the images have to be obscene rather than merely sexual - good luck arguing that one.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2009/25/part/2/chapter/2
Facebook is neither a police force nor our moral guardian. There is no definition in the UK of what is and what is not an illegal image save that a judge or a jury consider it to be (a) a depiction of a child and (b) indecent in their opinion (there is no definitive definition of "indecent"). There does not need to be sexual activity nor nudity. While some images are very obviously indecent, how could we expect a Facebook moderator to know whether e.g. an image of a child in a bath, or kids running around at a naturist resort is or is not illegal? It need not be a photograph either. Pencil drawings, computer generated images and even cartoons are also included (and at least one person has been convicted of possessing an indecent cartoon of a child). Maybe the 2012 Olympic symbol is illegal because if you use your imagination it looks like Lisa Simpson engaged in an indecent act - should Facebook delete all such images just in case?
Suspected illegal images should be reported to the police, and IMO all we have any right to expect of Facebook is that they fully cooperate with any police investigation.
> Why *should* Facebook act?
Because Facebook have taken it upon themselves to do so in the past.
http://adage.com/article/digital/controversy-mounts-facebook-napalm-girl-censorship/305792/
>how could we expect a Facebook moderator to know whether e.g. an image of a child in a bath, or kids running around at a naturist resort is or is not illegal?
Context is fairly important when a court decides if lower-grade stuff was indecent.
If you're a facebook moderator, looking at a reported image of a kid in a bath and all the comments basically say "Phwoooaaarrr", then use your gut.
Giving FB the benefit of the doubt though, I suspect that those images which weren't blocked were probably looked at in isolation (i.e. they looked at the image and not the comments, rest of the group etc) and in a hurry. It wouldn't surprise me if they were images that'd be innocent in another context.
Facebook should act, because they've taken it upon themselves to do so (not without pressure from Government of course).
But, at the same time, gov.uk should also act to tidy up the emotive, knee-jerk legislation we have and provide some actual fucking clarity in what is actually quite an important body of law.
People's lives get ruined by mere accusation of possession, so having the law so widely open to interpretation is stupid, and leads to situations like these where content platforms have no real way of knowing whether or not something would actually be illegal under law. All that does is make distribution of marginal cases easier, because some will inevitably slip through.
I think the ban on cartoons is stupid, but it doesn't really matter as long as they provide a clear definition so that filtering and detection can actually be done based on fact rather than supposition. With the added benefit that no-one's going to find themselves prosecuted for an innocent photograph - because the subsequent acquittal really clears their name in the eyes of the public.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
