So, despite massive international co-operation and millions being poured into stopping the propagation of child porn, these sites are still out there and, indeed, expanding.

It rather puts into perspective the UK Government's proposed go-it-alone "Dangerous Pictures Act" where they want to give people three years in jail simply for possessing images of consenting adults engaged in consensual behaviour because (in the entirely subjective view of prudish members of the Home Office) it is "extreme or violent pornography" which they think "appears to risk serious injury or death", even when posed by actors.

Once again I mention that over one thousand eight hundred people signed my petition on the Number 10 Downing Street website calling on the Prime Minister to abandon these plans to create a "Thought Crime" http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/Violent-Porn/ yet despite two months now having passed (and another reminder being sent), there is *still* no reply from Mr Blair.

I wonder why not...?

...I probably wouldn't put my real name on a petition against it. If there's going to be a law against it then best not voluntarily add yourself to a list of people who probably break it.

Robert Grant:

That's most probably what the Government is counting on.

They hope that nobody is going to have the guts to stand up and point out that this is a blatant violation of people's rights to decide for themselves what they can or cannot see for fear of "what the neighbours will think" or because they'll find themselves on some Home Office "target list" if they manage to push this draconian law through Parliament.

It's currently the same to possess child or animal abuse pictures as it is to report them.

There is no way to anonymously report sites or induvidual files without commiting a crime, I think there should be a way to report, say, a photo on Flickr or MySpace to the police but without the risk of being charged with "posession" of it.

If the system held no records and was anonymous then it could not be used as a defence for book research or any other reason.

From reading the various reports I can find little to support the headline that "The number of websites making money by selling pictures and videos of children being sexually abused is continuing to grow."

Indeed it seems more to be a increase in reports/complaints rather than any documented increase in sites.

"The increase was in part due to greater awareness of the IWF and its reporting procedures" - IWF

---

Aside from this, what consitutes "money making websites"? Those that take credit card details or those that collect small amounts of money through advertising?

The report also mentions the rise in the use of "photo sharing websites" which I would believe would be "free" services. These doesn't fit with the headline of the rise in "websites *making money* by selling pictures and videos".

Sharing or selling, it all seems a bit muddled.

I admire your writer for calling it what it is: images of child sexual abuse.