PAEDOPHILES should not be able to escape prosecution by simply wiping child porn images from their computer hard drives, campaigners said today.
The law should be changed to allow the prosecution of perverts who use so-called "evidence erasing" software, the Children's Charities Coalition for Internet Safety (CHIS) urged.
Computer magazines which distribute the programmes as front-cover give-aways were also criticised for encouraging people to break the law.
CHIS also said ministers should consider making it illegal for convicted paedophiles to possess such software.
In a letter to the Home Office in response to a consultation on computer encryption issues, CHIS executive secretary John Carr said: "We think it is irresponsible of the computer magazines ... to promote and advertise software of this kind in the way that they do.
"It's a bit like placing an advertisement to say something like `If you want to break the law and get away with it, we've got just the thing for you!"'
Give-away copies of such software - with titles such as "Evidence Eliminator" - could be seen on the front covers of computer magazines "on any day of the week", he said.
"The purpose of these programmes is not disguised in any way," said Mr Carr, an internet safety expert from children's charity NCH.
"Quite simply they do multiple wipes of all or part of a computer hard drive.
"This `eliminates' any `evidence' of anything and everything that has been performed on that computer that the owner does not want anyone else to see.
"If the computer has been used in the commission of a crime, for practical purposes it makes it impossible for law enforcement to recover anything of value that could be produced in a court."
He went on: "There has been at least one case in the UK where no serious charges could be brought against the defendant precisely because he had routinely deployed such a product, yet through effective intelligence-gathering the police knew exactly what he had been doing."
The expert suggested to the Home Office that the rules of evidence should be changed to allow prosecutors to bring cases against suspects who have wiped their computer hard drives where police have other evidence which shows their activities.
Currently, the images themselves must be seized by police for a prosecution to take place.
Mr Carr said: "Might there be a case for saying ... that where it can be shown that a person suspected of possessing indecent images has used a programme like Evidence Eliminator to wipe everything from their hard drive, yet the police are in possession of information which shows to the satisfaction of a judge what he had been doing with his computer prior to that, the normal rules of evidence can be relaxed in some way?
"An alternative approach might be to make it a crime, at least for persons with relevant prior convictions, to possess or use such programmes and merely finding them with a programme of that nature on their computer or in their possession would be enough to constitute an offence."
The campaigners also called for the penalty for refusing to decrypt computer material to be equalised with child porn penalties.
Currently, failure to decrypt carries up to two years' imprisonment, leading paedophiles to refuse to co-operate because by doing so they face lower sentences.
CHIS brings together charities including the NSPCC, NCH, Barnardo's and Childline to combat child porn on the Web.
Should this sort of software be available? Have your say.
Tweet
Showing comments 1 to 17 and replies | View All
Surfer, Swinton (06/08/2006 at 11:01)
Roy Ellor, Salford (06/08/2006 at 16:10)
Other, similar software is available and is used for its proper purpose. Destroying sensitive documents and erasing any personal data from deleted files properly, plus reclaiming hard disk space and speeding up computers.
Labelling all such security software as dangerous is the wrong way to attack the problem of child porn. Law enforcement needs to go after the root of the problem, including the banks and credit card firms who enable kiddyporn transactions.
The best way to get child porn off the net is to stop it being made and distributed in the first place, not by attacking genuinely useful privacy software.
Darnthesafety, London (06/08/2006 at 16:19)
Where is all this money coming from for this Child Exploitation Online Force Thing when it is a well known fact that any ability to protect the identified, known child abuse victims, mostly living with their abusers, is poor?
Identified child victims of abuse are not being afforded any decent standard of early intervention ability or any decent standard of child protection services which should and could be available to help lift them out of identified abusive situations.
How many more children, in all areas of the UK, are going to be left in identified 'at risk' situations to be further beaten and violated, sometimes to death, before the child protection authorities and the child protection organisations address the reality that in the UK many children, who belong to that small minority of children who are identified as being abused, at home, are having their situation, overlooked and blatantly neglected and are being left to suffer, without being offered any decent, effective, child protection ability and in many cases no child protection ability at all.
So recognise the pornagrahic reality that we are failing many identified vulnerable children in the UK and show the will to implement the changes to CHILD Protection Policy which the children have and are being made to scream long, hard and very loudly for.
We all want a child protection ability that we can be proud of and all want to be part of.
Anon, anon (06/08/2006 at 16:53)
Fact is, unless you wipe your drive, your taking a HUGE risk of someone stealing your personal information.
But of course the watch groups will never tell you that, because they have to make things worse than it truely is because they make their living/money off doing this. What better way to bring in more money by making things sound worse than they are. Its all the more bucks in their pockets.
Also wiping programs help clear up a TON of junk files that slow down your computer and do nothing but take up space.
There is nothing wrong with wiping programs despite what they say. They are just twisting the story around like they do everything.
In fact your a fool if you don't use one.
You know we don't have to put cameras in every home. People are entitled to a certain amount of privacy in life, and that would even count LEGAL adult porn if the person wants to wipe it.
Sue, Salford (06/08/2006 at 17:41)
But, can't governments around the world bring in legislation whereby the Internet Service Provider (ISP) concerned is automatically closed down?
Web pages are 'supposedly' checked with the ISP providers, before they allow the pages to be put through their service. If legislation was in place, worldwide, to bring these providers to heel, then they'd soon brush up their act and hand across the necessary information to the police force/judiciary in their country, ie the names/contact details of the people trying to upload these sites.
Allen Khodabash, Domincan Republic (06/08/2006 at 20:01)
Anonymous, USA (07/08/2006 at 02:31)
Furthermore, as technology improves "erased" evidence might be recoverable in the future by police and others with large data-recovery budgets.
The best solution is to toll the statutes of limitations until the evidence is recovered or determined to be beyond recovery in the defendant's lifetime.
There is also the issue of "planted" evidence. If a third party remotely "takes over" your computer and uses it to download and store pornography, you may not be able to defend yourself in court since all the evidence makes you look guilty. This applies whether or not you or the third party is running file-shredding software.
Andy, Wythenshawe (07/08/2006 at 09:09)
Colin W, Stockholm (07/08/2006 at 12:09)
Richard, Cardiff (07/08/2006 at 13:29)
Considering CHIS is a coalition of children's charities, you'd think
they'd be against throwing out the baby with the bath water. *shakes
head*.
Blaming a generic technology for the uses to which it may be put will do
nothing to prevent child abuse.
Put more resources into social services instead - it'll be more effective.
Mr X, M'cr (07/08/2006 at 19:18)
Why not also jail anybody who has a shredder at home or in the office! They can't be up to any good can they, and remember if it saves the life of just *one* child it will all have been worthwhile....
Colin W, Stockholm (09/08/2006 at 11:02)
x x, uk (09/08/2006 at 13:55)
Each time, I used a recovery tool called File Scavenger. It pulled back every single image I had ever looked at and every copy of every mp3 file ever played (I think each time you play it, it copies it).
Imagine my fun at trying to work out which files were mine and which were the computers.
I now wipe my disc as a matter of routine, just in case the PC crashes again and loses files.
John, London (14/09/2006 at 12:54)
Another good way of combating child pornography is by banning the internet, this never happened when there was no internet, so ban it or make it like in Cuba where only government approved officials can access computers.
Let's Get Real, Shall We?, everywhere (16/10/2006 at 14:30)
Just to make it clear: child pornography does not exist, the term is a misnomer and an oxymoron. Paedophile material does exist. Did you know that in the UK, more police officers than pornographers have been convicted of possession of abusive images of children.
Richard, Vancouver Island (28/11/2006 at 10:18)
actually I've got a better solution... automatic castration of such ilk. Problem solved.
harry, montreal (15/12/2006 at 18:07)
Office shredders should also be illegal because you might be cheating on your wife and that should be exposed.
Personal matters of a private matter outside of sexuality should be open for any further enquiries,.
And we should have the police on every street corner to make sure this is enforced.
Anyone opposed to this should be incarcerated.
And the keys thrown away.