Brought to you by

Hunting Child Pornographers With A 1.8 Petaflop Supercomputer

Bad news, child pornographers: you’re now being hunted by a supercomputer. Over the course of the next year, one million processing hours on Jaguar, Oak Ridge Labs’ 1.8 petaflop supercomputer, will be dedicated to ferreting out child porn’s loathsome producers.

Overwhelmed with the prospect of ferreting out child pornographers on a big, sick internet with manpower, Grier Weeks, the executive director of the National Association to Protect Children, appealed to the computer scientists at Oak Ridge, a national computing laboratory outside of Knoxville, Tennessee. They quickly agreed to lend the help of Jaguar, one of the fastest supercomputers in the world.

Robert Patton, the lead investigator at Oak Ridge, has developed a series of algorithms that evaluate P2P traffic, flag child porn searches, and watch how various IP addresses respond to the queries. With time, the investigators hope, they’ll be able to determine where exactly the illicit material is coming from. I’d imagine that even the most deranged criminals will understand that hiding from a supercomputer is probably an exercise in futility. [New Scientist]

Discuss

(7 Comments)
  • [–]

    pan.sapiens

    Sunday, December 5, 2010 at 7:20 PM

    “Over the course of the next year, one million processing hours…will be dedicated”

    …you do realise that there are only 8760 hours in a year, right?

    • [–]

      Edward Luck

      Sunday, December 5, 2010 at 9:41 PM

      They probably mean per processor core. Jaguar has 224,256 cores, so they could do their “one million processing hours” in half a workday if they wanted. :)

      They’re probably selling slices of its time to them to process massive amounts of router log data, up to a maximum of one million hours (on a single core estimate).

    • [–]

      David X

      Sunday, December 5, 2010 at 11:14 PM

      You are assuming that the computer will only process one task at a time. I think you’ll find there will be several thousand processes happening at anynti,e, so 1,000,000 processing hours in a year of 8,760 physical, literal hours is quite possible

      • [–]

        David X

        Sunday, December 5, 2010 at 11:15 PM

        *any time* even

    • [–]

      mbryant

      Sunday, December 5, 2010 at 11:16 PM

      It said “processing hours”, not just “hours”. For example, 1,000,000 processing hours would take 1000 processors 1000 hours.

    • [–]

      Joel Bruce

      Sunday, December 5, 2010 at 11:33 PM

      Divided by the number of processors perhaps? Something like that?

  • [–]

    ross

    Monday, December 6, 2010 at 1:05 PM

    It looks unfortunately like a whoopsy!!!

Join The Discussion