7:00AM BST 21 Jun 2012
Police target 'anonymous' paedophiles [sic] on 'hidden internet'
"Paedophiles [sic] who trade in indecent images of children on the so-called “hidden internet” in the belief they can remain anonymous are to be targeted in a crackdown by Britain’s specialist child protection police unit.
Ceop, the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre, said such sex offenders would be its “top priority” for the next year and that “many” paedophiles [sic] are now using hidden internet services.
“Some offenders have come to mistakenly believe that there are areas online, or tactics they can employ, that will cover their tracks from law enforcement,” said Peter Davies, chief executive of Ceop.
“This is not the case. There is nowhere to hide.
“We will be specifically targeting these offenders over the coming months with the full range of policing resources.”
The hidden internet is typically accessed using software such as Tor, originally developed by the United States government to make it more difficult to trace the source of traffic.
Ceop is dues [sic] to be incorporated into the new National Crime Agency next year, a reorganisation that prompted Mr Davies’ predecessor, Jim Gamble to resign [was that the reason, Jim?].
The Home Secretary Theresa May said the unit would be “further enhanced” as part of the National Crime Agency by “sharing intelligence to expose the links between child exploitation and other forms of serious and organised crime”" [ah, we see where this is going]
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/9345144/Police-target-anonymous-paedophiles-on-hidden-internet.html
Published Thursday, June 21, 2012 - 13:30
UK Security: CEOP target 'anonymous' online child sex offenders
"Home Secretary Theresa May said:
“CEOP has gone from strength to strength and the Government fully supports its vital work, keeping children safe [sic] and bringing predatory [sic] sex offenders to justice.
“Protecting 427 children from sexual abuse last year is a major achievement – each and every one of them now has a chance to enjoy a proper childhood, free from harm. [what on Earth are you talking about, Theresa?] CEOP’s role will be further enhanced next year when it becomes part of the new National Crime Agency, sharing intelligence to expose the links between child exploitation and other forms of serious and organised crime.”
http://www.egovmonitor.com/node/51380/print
CEOP Goes Covert On Dark Web To Snare Paedophiles [sic]
http://www.techweekeurope.co.uk/news/ceop-going-covert-on-dark-web-to-snare-paedophiles-83513
Online child abuse offenders have 'nowhere to hide', says Ceop
http://www.publicservice.co.uk/news_story.asp?id=20067
*****
Comment:
But, we are a little confused, Peter ... who is lying, you or the FBI? ...
Jun 12, 2012 6:55 pm UTC
FBI halted one child porn inquiry because Tor got in the way
"Feds closed "assessment" of child porn found on Silk Road, a Tor hidden service.
The FBI appears to have been stymied by Tor on at least one occasion.
A Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to the Department of Justice reveals that at least in one instance, an FBI inquiry into illegal child pornography (also known as child abuse imagery) on a Tor-protected site was apparently halted in its tracks due to the use of the anonymizing tool."
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/06/fbi-halted-one-child-porn-inquiry-because-tor-got-in-the-way/
FBI claims that Tor stymied child abuse investigation
http://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2012/06/14/fbi-tor-child-abuse-investigation/
'Dark Net' keeps FBI from investigating child porn
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/47815897/ns/technology_and_science-security/t/dark-net-keeps-fbi-investigating-child-porn/#.T-Lqq5GcKhI
Tor anonymizing tool stymied FBI child porn inquiry, document reveals
http://www.theverge.com/2012/6/12/3081405/tor-stops-fbi-child-pornography-inquiry
FBI Hunt For Child Porn Thwarted By Tor
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/12/06/12/0042214/fbi-hunt-for-child-porn-thwarted-by-tor
*****
(UKPA) – 9 hours ago
'427 children safeguarded by unit'
"More than 400 children were safeguarded from online paedophiles [sic] in the last year, a specialist police unit has said.
In the last 12 months, 427 children were safeguarded or protected by the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre (Ceop).
That included 60 victims [of what? Case citations please] who were found by Ceop identification teams, for example through looking at child abuse images online and tracing those children involved [how many of those, then, Peter? ... oh, and how many would you have found without the availability of the images?]. The figure also includes children who sex abuse suspects had access to as well as children who have been abused. [oh yes, we know exactly what it means]
The agency arrested 192 suspects in the last year, not including more than 100 arrests made in a 48-hour operation last week.
Peter Davies, chief executive of Ceop, said: "The safeguarding of so many children this year speaks for itself [in what way, Peter?] and is a tremendous achievement [sic].
We've identified the groups of offenders and sexual predators we believe pose the greatest risk to children and have prioritised these."
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5j6kmSiwaVtI3XB0gyKONHP4VauFQ?docId=N0408241340206720981A
'427 children safeguarded by unit'
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/uk/427-children-safeguarded-by-unit-16175187.html
21 June 2012
CEOP launches latest threats
"CEOP's 2012 threat assessment. An analysis of the threat to the United Kingdom from child sexual abuse and exploitation."
"CEOP’s Thematic Assessment ‘A Picture of Abuse' identifies a strong correlation between those who commit IIOC possession offences and contact offending, and explores research and practitioner experience to deliver in-depth analysis
[sic] of this issue."
http://ceop.police.uk/Documents/ceopdocs/CEOPThreatA_2012_190612_web.pdf
*****
Comment:
The question we posed, to the Home Secretary, is quite simple:
What is the cost of CEOP in £ per conviction?
We also asked you, in the past, how many convictions, for what and where?
Please answer these, Peter; Jim would not.
*****
No comments:
Post a Comment