CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 20Cybercrime and Law Enforcement StudiesSpam and Phishing DetectionInternet Traffic Analysis and Secure E-voting

Quantifying paedophile queries in a large p2p system

Latapy, Matthieu, Magnien, Clemence, Fournier, Raphael·2011·2011 Proceedings IEEE INFOCOM
DOI 10.1109/infcom.2011.5935191
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Increasing knowledge of paedophile activity in P2P systems is a crucial societal concern, with important consequences on child protection, policy making, and internet regulation. Because of a lack of traces of P2P exchanges and rigorous analysis methodology, however, current knowledge of this activity remains very limited. We consider here a widely used P2P system, eDonkey, and focus on two key statistics: the fraction of paedophile queries entered in the system and the fraction of users who entered such queries. We collect hundreds of millions of keyword-based queries; we design a paedophile query detection tool for which we establish false positive and false negative rates using assessment by experts; with this tool and these rates, we then estimate the fraction of paedophile queries in our data. We conclude that approximately 0.25% of queries are paedophile. Our statistics1are by far the most precise and reliable ever obtained in this domain.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/infcom.2011.5935191

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • In [85], it was shown that the number of predatory queries on a particular peer-to-peer network was approximately only 0.25% of all queries.

    “In [85], it was shown that the number of predatory queries on a particular peer-to-peer network was approximately only 0.25% of all queries.”

    From Online grooming detection: A comprehensive survey of child exploitation in chat logs (2023) · cites this paper as [85]

  • For peer-to-peer networks, positive samples amounted to only 0.25%.

    “for peer-to-peer networks, it amounted to only 0.25%.”

    From Online grooming detection: A comprehensive survey of child exploitation in chat logs (2023) · cites this paper as [85]

  • The necessity of pertinent data leads to the challenge of a highly imbalanced dataset in grooming detection, where the amount of predatory conversations data is much lower than everyday conversations data.

    “The necessity of pertinent data also leads to the challenge of the highly imbalanced dataset in grooming detection, where the amount of predatory conversations data is much lower than everyday conversations data [62,72,85].”

    From Online grooming detection: A comprehensive survey of child exploitation in chat logs (2023) · cites this paper as [85]

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Latapy, M., Magnien, C., & Fournier, R.
Venue
2011 Proceedings IEEE INFOCOM
Publisher
IEEE
Published
2011-04
Pages
401-405
DOI
10.1109/infcom.2011.5935191
OpenAlex
W2171229996
Cited by
20
References
0
Citations by year
2021: 2 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 1 · 2016: 1 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 5
FWCI
2.64
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • IEEE Conference on Computer Communications (INFOCOM) (publishedVersion)
  • HAL (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Cybercrime and Law Enforcement Studies
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Spam and Phishing Detection
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Internet Traffic Analysis and Secure E-voting
Keywords
peer-to-peer networks, eDonkey, child protection, false positive and false negative rates, keyword queries, online child sexual exploitation, internet regulation

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review