these sorts of people do not use standard http to communicate or distribute this sort of content
Well, actually they do. At least the "end user" types.
Whilst it is reasonable to assume that pedophiles are using secure systems to transfer information the majority don't fit that profile.
The ones who do fit that profile are usually the ones creating the content for sale (that operation is extremely well organised :() and a relative minority.
the dumb ones do but they would just as easy to catch without filters or logs like this
Damn straight. In fact it's arguable whether or not we would have much more success with filtering and logs. It would be easier to secure a prosecution because you could turn around and say "well we have a log of you accessing X at Y time, explain that". But to be honest usually such things aren't needed.
The problem with filtering when pitched as a solution to pedophilia is: how do you filter for it? Oh, you could probably watch for keywords. But typing "Lolita" into Google is not illegal, so how do you figure out which traffic actually represents a pedophile downloading images? It's a dodgy path to go down; and I doubt any one of the proponents of this idea will be much impressed to find their computers seized because, say, their teenage son searched "lolita" for a school project or something :)
In actual fact the vast majority of peadophiles are caught in two ways: being reported by a friend, relative, passer by etc. OR because they tried to groom a child over the internet, and we have great success using the current logging methods to track down such individuals. Catching the gangs behind the commercial stuff; well, filtering certainly won't improve our efforts there...
Well, actually they do. At least the "end user" types.
Whilst it is reasonable to assume that pedophiles are using secure systems to transfer information the majority don't fit that profile.
The ones who do fit that profile are usually the ones creating the content for sale (that operation is extremely well organised :() and a relative minority.
the dumb ones do but they would just as easy to catch without filters or logs like this
Damn straight. In fact it's arguable whether or not we would have much more success with filtering and logs. It would be easier to secure a prosecution because you could turn around and say "well we have a log of you accessing X at Y time, explain that". But to be honest usually such things aren't needed.
The problem with filtering when pitched as a solution to pedophilia is: how do you filter for it? Oh, you could probably watch for keywords. But typing "Lolita" into Google is not illegal, so how do you figure out which traffic actually represents a pedophile downloading images? It's a dodgy path to go down; and I doubt any one of the proponents of this idea will be much impressed to find their computers seized because, say, their teenage son searched "lolita" for a school project or something :)
In actual fact the vast majority of peadophiles are caught in two ways: being reported by a friend, relative, passer by etc. OR because they tried to groom a child over the internet, and we have great success using the current logging methods to track down such individuals. Catching the gangs behind the commercial stuff; well, filtering certainly won't improve our efforts there...