ISPs charge child abuse investigators for data
By Nicole Kobie,
Internet service providers (ISPs) have charged child sex abuse investigators over £171,000 for access to data since 2006.
The Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre (CEOP) told the BBC following a freedom of information request that since April of 2006 it had made 9,400 requests for user information, at a total cost of £171,505.99.
In an interview with the BBC, the CEOP centre’s chief executive Jim Gamble said the body expected to pay as much as £100,000 to ISPs to get the information they needed to find children who were being abused – and the criminals hurting them. “That could have put a number of specialists to work here – doing the right thing, making the environment safer, making it even more commercially viable,” he said, later adding that figure could fund two extra investigators.
Affiliated with the Serious Organised Crime Agency, the CEOP centre uses information from ISPs to track online predators, essentially to put a name and location to IP addresses. Some ISPs charge to supply that data, while others do not.
Gamble said companies clearly have the right to cost recovery, and said he does not think a change to the law is necessary. “We don’t need new legislation, we need new thinking. We need sensible thinking,” he said. “What I’m trying to do is to say that I don’t believe that ISPs should give us everything for free, of course not.”
But he added that any firm which claims it can’t afford to provide such data in support of police protecting children “simply can’t afford to do business”.
Gamble compared CEOP’s work to transport police, who are allowed to travel free on trains. “They won’t have to buy a ticket to get on the train – and you compare the train system to the online network; they won’t pay or have to cajole or convince the conductor to give them the information about the threatening person who’s in the carriage down the back,” he said.
“So what we need to do is get the whole of the online industry – because many of them already provide this info to us for free – to get the whole industry to behave more reasonably on this particular issue.”
You may also like...
You may also like...
advertisement
Latest Internet Features
Apple vs Google: Tale of the tape
Apple and Google are moving into each other's markets - but who will come out ahead?
- The trials and tribulations of social networking
- Why do people tolerate Twitter frailties?
- Where will quantum computing take us?
- Fear and loathing in the Mariposa aftermath
- What will the coalition do for business and technology?
- The Office/Google Docs war goes real-time with collaboration
- Will Apple live to regret the Adobe affair?
- Has social networking changed the election?
- Q&A: Gerhard Eschelbeck, chief technology officer at Webroot
Latest Internet Reviews
Firefox 4 beta 1 review: First look
advertisement
Most popular
- Government calls mobile broadband spectrum auction
- Sony Ericsson Xperia X10 Mini Pro review
- UK web guru handed key to the internet?
- Samsung Galaxy S review
- 100 million Facebook user info scraped
- HTC Hero to finally get Android 2.1 update
- Top 10 remote desktop applications
- Amazon sets UK Kindle launch date
- Head to Head: Office 2010 vs Open Office 3.1
- Top 10 future trends for mobile phones
Latest News Videos in Internet
Video: Mobile web has moved from hype to reality
Claranet's UK managing director talks to IT PRO about the mobile web and how online infrastructure in the business world is evolving.
Whitepapers
Want more background on today's hottest IT trends?
Visit IT PRO's whitepaper library for more on virtualisation, encryption and other topics.
Register for IT PRO
You'll get exclusive member benefits including free whitepapers, downloads, Webinars and weekly newsletters full of the latest IT PRO news, reviews, insight and expertise.






Competition eliminates excess capacity
Jim Gamble doesn't seem to understand how competition works: companies that are competing for customers need to offer the best service and the lowest prices possible. He presumes that companies who cannot afford to give away their time should not be in business, but it seems to me quite the opposite - that companies that CAN afford to pay employees to enforce the law for the government must be overcharging their customers. This is also different from the train example: It costs the railroads virtually nothing to allow law enforcement to ride free, and it benefits the railroads because customers feel safe. With ISPs, they are being asked to subsidize a law enforcement presence that may cause their customers to feel less secure online (especially given past abuses like Operation Ore). Any reasonable businessman would demand payment for services rendered under such circumstances.
By Ip_baldurinniflh on Friday Jan 23
£18.25
"9,400 requests for user information, at a total cost of £171,505.99." Doing the math, the charge is less than £18.25 per data search. "Gamble said companies clearly have the right to cost recovery... I don’t believe that ISPs should give us everything for free, of course not." He says companies have a right to cost recovery,and he's making an issue over an average £18.25 charge? That sounds like a pretty low cost to having one or more IT professionals to go rummaging though archived data logs. In some cases they may need to use special care and manually cross-check data logs to ensure they do not misidentify an innocent person.
By Ip_nonsense574f8 on Friday Jan 23
£18.25
"9,400 requests for user information, at a total cost of £171,505.99." Doing the math, the charge is less than £18.25 per data search. "Gamble said companies clearly have the right to cost recovery... I don’t believe that ISPs should give us everything for free, of course not." He says companies have a right to cost recovery,and he's making an issue over an average £18.25 charge? That sounds like a pretty low cost to having one or more IT professionals to go rummaging though archived data logs. In some cases that may need to use special care and manually cross-check data logs to ensure they do not misidentify an innocent person.
By Ip_nonsense574f8 on Friday Jan 23