Amazon service popular among pedophiles for distributing illicit images


The rise in child pornography images online has sparked an inquiry.

An investigation from the Internet Watch Foundation has revealed Amazon’s web hosting service is popular among pedophiles distributing unlawful illicit pictures of minors.

The organization, which works to shut down “child abuse content” on the internet, said it received a “tenfold” increase in reports to its hotline regarding inappropriate images, some of which were hosted on hardware provided by Amazon.

IWF says the online retailer is the highest priority in the "hotlist" of targets after they found its web servers were rampant with criminal activities. Approximately 372 unlawful images of child sexual abuse were distributed through the service in the first half of 2013. Some of the images have been categorized as levels four and five on the Sentencing Guideline’s Council’s scale of child sexual abuse, the two most serious categories.

While Amazon is not endorsing or promoting the content, IWF blames the Internet giant for providing the servers to third parties who then host the websites containing illicit content.

Sarah Smith, an IWF technical researcher, says her organization is making immense efforts to curb the rising issue.

It shows how someone, not looking for child sexual abuse images, can stumble across it. The original adult content the internet user is viewing is far removed from anything related to young people or children. We’ve received reports from people distressed about what they’ve seen. Our reporters have been extremely diligent in explaining exactly what happened, enabling our analysts to re-trace their steps and take action against the child sexual abuse images."

Among the supporters of the British NGO include Google, Bing, PayPal and Virgin. There have been calls for other companies – such as Facebook, Samsung and Apple – to join the cause against the obscene criminal activities.

Source: The Guardian, IWF | Image via The Australian 

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Maybe you shouldn't mix your Xbox One and PS4 games after all

Next Story

Oracle Openworld 2013: Liveblog of the Opening Keynote

18 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

"IWF blames the Internet giant for providing the servers to third parties "

Seriously? Is the IWF really that stupid?

Hello,

I will let all of you in on another "fact:" 100% of all these child images were transmitted using TCP/IP. Clearly TCP/IP is the network transport protocol of choice for pedophiles.

On a more serious note, child abuse is a horrible crime, but organizations like the Internet Watch Foundation do not help when they trivialize such things. It's like when GreenPeace "outed" Apple, who was one of the industry's highest sustainability/recycling programs, in order to draw attention to *themselves*.

Regards,

Aryeh Goretsky

I remember one day when I was working for an ISP back in 2001 each user of our dial up service was allowed 10 megs, but couldn't host naughty pictures.

I remember going through everyone stuff looking for naughty pictures, I found some too! Looking back that was probably pretty immoral! TNO encryption FTW! HA!

Approximately 372 unlawful images of child sexual abuse were distributed through the service in the first half of 2013.

I must be reading this wrong, I'm reading it as they managed to prove that 372 pictures were distributed through Amazon... and that's enough to call the service "popular" amongst sickos? I must be reading it wrong. (mind you i wish that was considered a lot but we live in a sick sick world...)

Rudy said,

I must be reading this wrong, I'm reading it as they managed to prove that 372 pictures were distributed through Amazon... and that's enough to call the service "popular" amongst sickos? I must be reading it wrong. (mind you i wish that was considered a lot but we live in a sick sick world...)

Well IWF comes from UK, and they are trying to promote / justify the idea of censorship there.
"See there's some child porn from amazon... see censorship is justified."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...re-than-porn_n_3670771.html

but i think i see Rudy's point about the article. If 372 pics qualify something as "popular" then it seems like there's not much of it going on in total. Or do they consider "popular" to be only about 3 out of 10 on the rating scale?

Buttus said,
but i think i see Rudy's point about the article. If 372 pics qualify something as "popular" then it seems like there's not much of it going on in total. Or do they consider "popular" to be only about 3 out of 10 on the rating scale?

They deliberately exaggerate the issue, because there's an agenda behind, imho.

Rudy said,
I must be reading this wrong, I'm reading it as they managed to prove that 372 pictures were distributed through Amazon... and that's enough to call the service "popular" amongst sickos? I must be reading it wrong. (mind you i wish that was considered a lot but we live in a sick sick world...)

Lets assume the number is correct - out of how many images in total were served? it kind of means nothing if it is 372 out of a billion images being served up other than to generate hysteria about a problem but not some sort of rampant problem where kids are being raped left, right and centre by fedora and trench coat wearing perverts.

bigmehdi said,

Well IWF comes from UK, and they are trying to promote / justify the idea of censorship there.
"See there's some child porn from amazon... see censorship is justified."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...re-than-porn_n_3670771.html

bigmehdi said,

They deliberately exaggerate the issue, because there's an agenda behind, imho.

Well from what i have heard, The IWF is against this new total web censorship program that Cameron is pushing. They think the money would be better placed in authoritys/education programs.