You should maybe read about the work [0], or just read the rest of what I said. Surrealism has nothing to do with the argument I made, so why do you bring it up?
CSAM databases can by necessity not contain novel abuses, because they are novel. In fact, filtering by CSAM databases even indirectly /encourage/ novel abuses because these would not be caught by said filter.
Catching CP hoarders does little to help the children being exploited in the first place, and does a lot to harm our integrity and privacy.
> Catching CP hoarders does little to help the children being exploited in the first place
This is completely untrue, since hoarders tend to often also be part of groups where images of still unknown abuse circulate. Those images help identify both victims and suspects and in the end help stop abuse.
Sorry for the late reply, but for evidence you can look up Robert Miķelsons, who was an active child predator in the Netherlands. He was identified due to images found on a computer in the US. It ended up leading police to him, which caused him to stop. According to further investigations he abused an estimated 83 children, one of which was abused close to 100 times. Many of the victims were less than 5 years old, some were babies.
Without finding the child porn, he would not have been identified and would've victimized many more children.
I don't think market forces are what drive the production of CSAM. Rather, it's some weird fetish of child abusers to share their conquests. I'm sure you're aware, but when CP collectors are busted, they often have terabytes upon terabytes of CP.
But that's, I think, tangential - I don't understand pedophilia well enough to say something meaningful here.
Quite funny: looking for some figures, it seems I wasn’t the first one to do so, and that finding anything even remotely reliable isn't easy at all. See
> I'm sure you're aware, but when CP collectors are busted, they often have terabytes upon terabytes of CP.
Always appalled me that there is so much of it out there. FFS.
For some reason, it reminds me of when the French government decided to spy on BitTorrent networks for copyright infringement (HADOPI).
Defense & Interior asked them not to, saying that it would only make their work harder.
That some geeks would create and democratise new tools not to be caught downloading some random blockbuster, or even just out of principle, and both child pornographers & terrorists would gladly adopt them in a heartbeat, because while they weren’t necessarily the type capable of creating such tools, they had historically been shown to be proficient enough to use them.
Quite hilarious, when you think of it. Some kind of reverse "Think of the Children".
We still got HADOPI however, and now any moron has access to and knows how to get a VPN.
> We’re talking about actual material in real life, being shared by users and abusers.
And, more importantly, material that has been and will be produced through the actual abuse of real children. The spreading of which encourages the production of more of it.
Who’s talking about surrealistic drawings? We’re talking about actual material in real life, being shared by users and abusers.
To be clear, I’m not supporting surveillance, just stating facts.