InCoffeeWeTrust
Joined 5 years ago
Karma
-1
Submissions
5
Member since
Apr 4
Recent submissions
Comment · 5 years ago
Comment · 5 years ago
This statistic is according to the British Internet Watch Foundation.
Uncovering sources of CP is done pretty much equally for all countries considering the nature of the distribution of content and how it is uncovered and traced back.
Here's an article describing the procedure and how the statistic was calculated: https://www.tellerreport.com/life/--why-is-there-so-much-chi...
Comment · 5 years ago
Almost every entity has oversight measures implemented to safeguard it from criminal negligence.
The laws in the Netherlands need to be updated to ensure that data hosting centres and their owners can't get away with criminal negligence.
And to everyone complaining about this with a "but my free speech" excuse - there are extensive legal procedures which ensure that allegations of criminal negligence are conducted openly and fairly.
How the Netherlands managed to avoid creating criminal negligence laws for these scenarios is beyond me.
If the laws did exist, they would require data centres to be aware of the content which is hosted and promptly remove clients if the law is violated. No, this isn't "snooping" or an infringement on your "free speech" - in fact, these measures ensure that free speech flourishes while removing the illegal garbage.
Now, once again, is the rebuttal of "but the government uses laws to unfairly censor people" - so then are you all for not having any laws? We have laws, they work - even though governments have abused them. But the answer is not to stop having laws.
It's like youtube saying that they're simply "a highway" for video hosting. If it's moving through your platform, you have to be aware of what it is. There are police monitoring highways, there is extensive monitoring on youtube, so why is AIM pretending that the same rules don't apply?