Thread 17: Starmer: Treading softly.

[DuncinToffee]

Lettuce pray

Keep it civil

Cat, dog, flowers tax much appreciated

Previous thread
https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/_chat/5257111-thread-16-starmer-mad-world?page=40

Can you be identified from the app or just if you're using safari, chrome etc?

(I might add I didn't see these threads so I'm not asking for that reason)

We did keep saying that something was very wrong.
The disrupters are everywhere.

I guess we are only allowed to talk about it when the disruptors are targeting MNHQ?

The pattern was there for all to see but instead we got told off for discussing it

My tinfoil hat has been firmly on since last summer. The sheer volume of threads and the distinct language thrown about during July/August made me question a few things. MN has certainly attracted some attention.

Procedures should have been strengthened months/years before the other night.

No one is going to be getting a knock on the door for scrolling down a thread where CSA images were posted. You might as well take a random sample from the population and examine their hard drives. A) this isn’t an episode of Person Of Interest and B) the resources just aren’t there.

I know you are being your usual arch self, Jane, but no one who happened to be on those threads and saw those images is going to have a knock at the door!

I am only saying this as someone might read this and panic, the people who saw those images are understandably distraught.

I have no idea exactly how this site is built. However any system I have worked on could link logfiles which would link an IP address with anything downloaded from the site. That could be chained into logfiles about user logins to know who downloaded what. That would be enough for the police to get a warrant based on suspicion of possession of CSA if they so wished. Whether they would do that to target specific MN accounts would depend on how thick your tinfoil hat is.

Not being a lawyer my knowledge of the intricacies of the law are limited. However the offence occurs regardless of intent, so you really have to rely on prosecutorial discretion. Whether that alarms or comforts you will be a personal choice. Worth noting that MN would be unable to confirm or deny this under the law.

Regardless that action is now out of MNs hands. Presumably police computer forensic teams will have obtained the relevant logfiles and be trawling as we speak.

Things could have been worse. MN could have a system that emailed thread updates to subscribers which would have been incredibly bad for anyone subscribed.

Age and experience have taught me to never say never.

10 years ago I said no one would ever have had a knock from the police to "check their thinking".

Being brutally honest, you are not in a position to guarantee that.

And if you listened to yourself, you would realise that your TL;DR is to trust in the common sense of the police and the CPS. Which is your prerogative of course.

Personally I would be surprised if anything like that were to happen. But not because it would be in any way technically difficult but more because it would probably run counter to whatever the CPS considers "the public good". I am sure they would rather people who are accidentally exposed to such material feel safe reporting it.

Presumably police computer forensic teams will have obtained the relevant logfiles and be trawling as we speak.

Yes, to find the perpetrator, not the poor souls who stumbled on the images. I mean seriously. Any attempt to prosecute would get entirely nowhere. Just imagine:.

"Your honour, the defendant deliberately clicked on a thread about soup making in the full knowledge there would be illegal images on said thread."

This sort of shit can pop up anywhere, there would be thousands of people being prosecuted for inadvertently viewing it.

Yes, but ludicrous or not, that involves the person who actually posted "wrong think" or what ever you want to call it, not a person who viewed it.

Given all the disgusting tweets posted about Southport that were read by probably millions, we'd all be in the clink along with the authors.

Anyway, I wonder if maybe we shouldn't discuss too much as MNHQ are obviously a bit jumpy right now.

Just FTAOD, I'd be highly surprised if there were any midnight knocks (and that includes the perpetrators).

However that doesn't change the facts (if anyone cares about them anymore) of what I have written - albeit from a non lawyer position. My expertise is the technical.

I'll break the 4th wall here and promise I won't say anymore. On with the politics.

Oh, that reminds me, someone tell me why the last thread had a warning from MNHQ please ?

Well it's hit the news now
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c93qw3lw4kvo

Oh dear. MNHQ would be wise to suspend new registrations for a bit.

I believe they have.

Oh right. Good.

FFS. All those bloody hysterical posts agitating to get the story out to the media. Too dense to realise that they'd only inflame the situation, make the trolls/criminals rub their hands with glee and make it obvious to any other bad actors/potential bad actors, that MN is vulnerable and can be targeted, and forced to narrow the focus of its approach.

For now, we can't post photos. Who knows what else will end up being restricted/controlled?

I'm not sure they're dense. I suspect that the most vociferous ones have the express motive of getting the site removed completely.

Agree with sooty there.

Which won’t succeed if MNHQ adopt the It Could Happen Here safeguarding approach, put in place 24 hr paid moderation and invest in software to intercept the images before they are posted. They’ll always be a step behind the more determined criminals, but that’s the nature of online forums. At least they will have tried their best.

I am starting to feel a bit sorry for Justine. She is getting a right kicking.

It's fair enough to ask for clarification and reassurances but posters making nasty digs about photos are not adding anything useful to the discussion.