Slashdot Mirror

Yandex is pretty good

In the UK, Virgin Media is actively trying to intercept access to disk.yandex

For your amusement

05 pres-core-2b-ae16-0.network.virginmedia.net (62.254.42.30) 21.594 ms 21.589 ms 21.541 ms
06 wb7301b.network.virginmedia.net (213.105.115.6) 25.037 ms 22.733 ms 22.670 ms
07 * * *
08 m686-mp2.cvx1-b.lis.dial.ntli.net (62.254.42.174) 31.364 ms 26.466 ms 25.174 ms
09 213.46.174.10 (213.46.174.10) 25.123 ms 31.205 ms 29.875 ms
10 ae-238-3614.edge6.Amsterdam1.Level3.net (4.69.162.246) 31.536 ms ae-237-3613.edge6.Amsterdam1.Level3.net (4.69.162.242) 31.351 ms ae-238-3614.edge6.Amsterdam1.Level3.net (4.69.162.246) 31.485 ms
11 YANDEX-EURO.edge6.Amsterdam1.Level3.net (212.72.47.202) 31.421 ms 31.768 ms 31.587 ms
12 jansson-et-4-1-0.yndx.net (213.180.213.95) 72.745 ms 72.703 ms 71.417 ms
13 std-p2-hu0-1-0-1.yndx.net (213.180.213.125) 76.205 ms 80.422 ms 80.749 ms
14 iva-b-c2-ae7.yndx.net (87.250.239.14) 87.084 ms 88.736 ms 91.979 ms
15 * * *
16 * front.disk.yandex.ru (213.180.193.50) 84.014 ms 83.769 ms
17 front.disk.yandex.ru (213.180.193.50) 76.285 ms 76.022 ms 75.978 ms

Note Hop 6 wb7301b.network.virginmedia.net, this *was* just their IWF filter/blocker, but is also their means of blocking domains the UK courts at the behest of the MAFIAA tell them to.

As the connections to it are usually encrypted, it's rather curious how the first connection now invariably fails with a 'network error' but works on second attempt...far be it from me to suggest some sort of MITM SSL proxy fucking around going on....better get my tinfoil hat on..

*Some* ISPs have signed up to censor content the IWF(*) tells them to (notably Virgin and BT). The majority of ISPs haven't.

According to the list at https://www.iwf.org.uk/members/member-policies/url-list/iwf-list-recipients the ISPs servicing 98.6% of UK households are signed up.

Along with Google, as it happens. I didn't know that.

So whether the majority of ISPs use filter on that list or not, the majority of internet users in the UK definitely do.

Who says it's a government? Likely it's the UK quango Internet Watch Foundation, maintainers of dodgy lists-of-badness to do with, oh, album covers depicting nude children on wikipedia, and that sort of thing.

You could try reporting any child sexual abuse content here:

http://www.iwf.org.uk/

It' a UK site, but you can report "Child sexual abuse content hosted anywhere in the world". And you can post anonymously.

In the UK you can report "illegal" sites confidentially and even anonymously if you wish, through the Internet Watch Foundation.

http://www.iwf.org.uk/

I think they may keep the IP address for three months, but that is it.

Probably referring to the IWF.

Almost all of the UK ISPs use their block list, although when I last checked the UK Free Software Network don't.

Don't be silly - it can't be a government agency. If it is part of the government it might count as a "public authority" and be open to Judicial Reviews of its decision and be bound by the Human Rights Act. Any government agency running public censorship will be dragged before the courts (either in London or Strasbourg; possibly Luxembourg) in days.

Far better to ask ISPs to set up a private organisation to do this, make it voluntary to implement, then threaten ISPs with legislation if they don't "volunteer".

Hopefully the ISPs won't fall for it this time; partly as "think of our profits" isn't quite as convincing an argument for the tabloids as "think of the children" - not that I wouldn't put it past them to run with it.

There already is such a system in the UK, and it went through with so little fanfare that very few people know about it.

The organisation looking after it is the Internet Watch Foundation, and it deals mainly with child porn. The way the block works is that they manage a blacklist of pages on sites. When you try visiting a site on the blacklist, your browser session is invisibly proxied; when you try to download the offending file it's blocked.

What's particularly disingenuous is how the block appears to you as a customer. Most ISPs simply terminate the browser connection, leaving you assuming that there's something wrong with the site in question. There seems to be some means for ISPs choosing how the block appears, because at least one has the good manners to flash up a message explaining what's going on.

Won't you sign up your name?
We'd like to feel that you're acceptable
Respectable,
presentable,
a vegetable...

One month, that is how long I give it before this gets used to block sites for non-piracy reasons. Like a site that talks about BitTorrent community activity or a competitor who infringes a patent for two random examples. Make my words, this will be used for political suppression even if it isn't the government doing it.

You're over two years - possibly much more - too late. The UK ISP industry already has the technology in place to block more-or-less any site they like and to administer that blocking from a single, central location which then gets pushed out to most of the big providers. The thing is it mostly went under the radar for two reasons:

1. It wasn't widely publicised.
2. It was mostly centred around blocking of child porn.

Odds on this is about adding another category to the list of things they consider acceptable to block.

(For those who didn't know about this: Citation 1 Citation 2 - and the actual organisation responsible for this list)

The thing that did come up around that time was that not only are ISPs blocking dodgy material, many are doing so in a fashion that ensures the end user is blissfully unaware it's happening - either by resetting TCP connections or intercepting with an HTTP 404. At the time this all happened, one ISP was putting up a message saying "Sorry, I can't let you see that" (so the technology used does make that possible) but that ISP was in a minority.

Many deployments of the IWF censorship list in the UK use a 404 Not Found rather than 403. I've never found any official explanation for this, though I've read suggestions that it's to make people just assume that censored content isn't available rather than tip them off that it's being hidden from them.

I don't know what US military policy is, but it gives you an idea of how censors in the Western world think.

Except that they're a BT reseller, so your service is dependent on a third party

Unfortunately just about every ISP selling to home users is, aside from virgin and the few other cable providers if they are available in your area. You could pay for a fibre line that bypasses BT completely but that ain't going to be cheap! They have their own backhaul though, so their users (myself included) haven't experienced some of the issues users of other ISPs have over recent years.

they subscribe to the IWF, so your service is filtered

This is an irritation, when there are significant false positives on the blacklist. IIRC their implementation is purely DNS based though, so easy to avoid if it causes you issues by using an external DNS provider (like Google's).

and their FUP lists all the ways they don't allow you to use the service, for example spamming

I have no problem with that: they are up front about what you can and can not do. Similarly with Virgin's current traffic shaping (I know people who use their service, and there is at least a page fully documenting how much you can use in a given time before rate limits start to be imposed and it is nice definite numbers not some unknown values so you don;y know what to expect).

I have no problem with them, I'm with a similar BT reseller, but don't delude yourself about what you're getting.

Aye. They are not perfect. And they are more expensive then most of the less perfect options. But I've been pretty happy with the service they have provided over the last ~3 years.

Except that they're a BT reseller, so your service is dependent on a third party, they subscribe to the IWF, so your service is filtered, and their FUP lists all the ways they don't allow you to use the service, for example spamming.
I have no problem with them, I'm with a similar BT reseller, but don't delude yourself about what you're getting.

Internet Watch Foundation?

Actually the UK internet is censored by some ISP's. There is a voluntary scheme where ISP's block sites on the IWF list (Internet Watch Foundation). Only the IWF and the Home Secretary know the contents of the IWF list. I believe even elected Members of Parliament are not allowed to look at the list.

It's worth pointing out that this is voluntary in the sense that the Government basically wrote to the major ISPs saying "work together to block such traffic or we'll force legislation upon you to do it".

You won't find a major ISP that is not signed up to this scheme.

Actually the UK internet is censored by some ISP's. There is a voluntary scheme where ISP's block sites on the IWF list (Internet Watch Foundation). Only the IWF and the Home Secretary know the contents of the IWF list. I believe even elected Members of Parliament are not allowed to look at the list.

IWF does NOT have a license to look at kiddy porn, but by some strange magic they manage to work out the sites to block. Oh and the Home Secretary can add any other sites he/she desires.

I searched around just for fun and I guess you could use this: http://www.iwf.org.uk/reporting.htm There are other websites too like https://secure.missingkids.com/missingkids/servlet/CybertipServlet?LanguageCountry=en_US And of course, if you really are paranoid, you could fill these forms through a proxy.

And don't forget us brits too.

But, but, it's a virtual crime! That's worse than the real thing!

Of course, in a sensible world things would be as you describe. Instead we have Governments preferring to go after people who do "virtual" things, and ignoring any actual crimes that occured in real life. It's far more of a "waste" of resources to have to investigate actual crimes, when instead they can just arrest some guy, and use computer logs as evidence of the virtual crime.

Here in the UK, we have our very own big red button for dealing with the very serious virtual crimes, such as 30 year old Virgin Killer albums covers on Wikipedia, or extremely disgusting naughty pr0n involving consenting adults.

To be fair the police don't really have to do it on their own. The Internet Watch Foundation http://www.iwf.org.uk/ is pretty much dedicated to wiping the stuff off the net.

Perhaps the government can do something similar. In fact, use prosecuted pedos to hunt the stuff down while in prison. If it resides in another country then just get ISPs blocking it. There is still proxies but you'll never get rid it completely but if you make it nearly impossible get then that's a good start.

Even more unfortunately, some of them came back.

I agree that movie ratings, as voluntarily enforced by private entities, are not censorship, and are indeed an aid (albeit a minor one) to good parenting.

The concern here is about putting tools in the hand of governments, not restricting private entities' ability to control to whom they disseminate information within the bounds of their own property.

Sorry, this is naive too. The the Internet Watch Foundation is an unaccountable private entity. It effectively blocks most people in Britain from seeing websites which the Internet Watch Foundation deems are unsuitable. What sites are these? We don't know. They don't say. Their claim is that these are mainly child pornography sites - but what does 'mainly' mean?

The difference between this and film ratings is that the film ratings are advisory - you are not actually prevented from seeing the films which are rated as unsuitable. Internet censorship actually prevents people from accessing the censored material, actually prevents them from forming their own judgements. We cannot know what has been censored, because we cannot see it.

How many sites critical of the Internet Watch Foundation are blocked by the Internet Watch Foundation? We don't know - there is literally no way of finding out. How many sites sites critical of the UK Government are blocked by the Internet Watch Foundation? We don't know that either.

It does not matter whether these censors are 'public' or 'private'. What matters is that we cannot challenge their judgement of what it is 'suitable' for us to see. That we cannot bypass the filter they put between us and the information which would be necessary for us to challenge their 'benevolent' governance.

Civil liberties and this sort of unaccountable censorship are completely incompatible.

I agree that movie ratings, as voluntarily enforced by private entities, are not censorship, and are indeed an aid (albeit a minor one) to good parenting.

The concern here is about putting tools in the hand of governments, not restricting private entities' ability to control to whom they disseminate information within the bounds of their own property.

Sorry, this is naive too. The the Internet Watch Foundation is an unaccountable private entity. It effectively blocks most people in Britain from seeing websites which the Internet Watch Foundation deems are unsuitable. What sites are these? We don't know. They don't say. Their claim is that these are mainly child pornography sites - but what does 'mainly' mean?

The difference between this and film ratings is that the film ratings are advisory - you are not actually prevented from seeing the films which are rated as unsuitable. Internet censorship actually prevents people from accessing the censored material, actually prevents them from forming their own judgements. We cannot know what has been censored, because we cannot see it.

How many sites critical of the Internet Watch Foundation are blocked by the Internet Watch Foundation? We don't know - there is literally no way of finding out. How many sites sites critical of the UK Government are blocked by the Internet Watch Foundation? We don't know that either.

It does not matter whether these censors are 'public' or 'private'. What matters is that we cannot challenge their judgement of what it is 'suitable' for us to see. That we cannot bypass the filter they put between us and the information which would be necessary for us to challenge their 'benevolent' governance.

Civil liberties and this sort of unaccountable censorship are completely incompatible.

So you are saying you don't know of anyone that wants the internet censored to protect their children from porn and swear words and terrorists?

(boggles)

I'm speechless. How can you get the above from what I requested? You make some totally weird logical leap from "Can you list an example" of how this case is like another in which "censorship" is called for.

Perhaps *YOU* can tell me how this case is like your "anyone that wants the internet censored to protect their children"?

I don't want to put words in your mouth, but are you suggesting there should not be ANY limits on "free speech"? Should we do away with libel? Calumny? Slander? Allow people to yell "FIRE" in a theater? Because these limits on speech are NOT censorship.

Lad, I'm afraid you're naive. If you give anyone the right to control content on the Internet, then governments will take it, and whistle-blowing will be effectively prevented. Britain has in theory legislation protecting whistle blowers (the Public Interest Disclosure Orders of 1999), but even here you're likely at a minimum to lose your job and quite likely to be prosecuted. In the US, you may even be killed. It's very much in the public interest that people who blow whistles should be protected, but it's equally strongly in the interests of those in power that they should be suppressed.

Sadly, if you accept that unaccountable and secretive people have a right to control what you can see on the 'net, you have sold the bridgehead, and basic civil liberties will inevitably follow.

But for how long? T-Mobile is listed as an implementer of this policy also:

http://www.iwf.org.uk/public/page.113.243.htm

From the policy: "Orange, O2, T-Mobile, Virgin Mobile, Vodafone and 3"

I'd wager a bet the only reason you can is either because you've already opted out of the filter previously, because they haven't implemented it on your connection yet or because your phone provider has opted you out automatically for some reason - perhaps because they have reason to believe already that you're over 18 or something.

if that's true, it's an out and out lie.

I mean just look http://www.iwf.org.uk/ at the big red button used to create their blacklist.
Even their FAQ says that they distribute a blacklist

With the Wikipedia block and Internet archive blocks in recent months I couldn't help but think the IWF was testing the water for a general power grab, trying to move far beyond their remit of producing a black list of child porn sites.

I just found this FTA:

http://www.iwf.org.uk/public/page.113.243.htm

So it's true, the IWF has decided it has to be the moral crusader of society and should now start censoring all that it feels like.

Bets on how long they try to extend this voluntary code which covers all the UK's main mobile providers to hardwired, static internet connections?

The problem here isn't BT, it's not The Pirate Bay. It's the fucking IWF again.

Time they're disbanded, the problems they cause now go far, far beyond any benefit they can ever provide.

True, but nearly every UK ISP does this:

http://www.iwf.org.uk/funding/page.64.htm

And I've looked at the IWF blacklist. I don't think I'll be missing any of those sites. What sites do you want to access that the IWF blocks you from?

I was under the impression that Great Britain does not censor the internet. ISPs operating within it can, and several do, choose to sign up to a voluntary scheme (which includes ISPs on the board).

Regardless, to my (limited) knowledge filtering is done by blocking certain addresses to the consumer, nothing that would hit through-traffic.

As for snooping, wherever your traffic is passing through, either you have good encryption or someone can look in. Perhaps with varying degrees of (il)legality, as if that matters much.

It was R v. Bowden:

http://www.iwf.org.uk/police/page.99.209.htm
http://www.cyber-rights.org/documents/rvbowden.htm

If it's only a court ruling, rather than what's written in the statute, surely there is a possibility of it being overturned?

I've no idea if this could be taken to a higher court, but I wouldn't expect it to be overturned myself. And there's no chance of the Government amending the law.

Common sense would seem to suggest that this is not to be what was intended by the lawmakers, however muddled/dunk they may have been.

Indeed, though sadly common sense goes out of the window when it comes to children.

Seems they maintain a list, http://www.iwf.org.uk/public/page.148.438.htm of those being supplied with the block data.

The response from makomk is correct - downloading is not only illegal, but considered "making". The case was R v. Bowden.

And also see this article with respect to new plans to criminalise all sexual images (even fictional non-realistic images) of under-18s. The Director of Public Prosecutions has confirmed that even for streamed material, you will get prosecuted - who knows if a court can be persuaded otherwise.

Yes, an independent charity whose CEO is an ex-police officer.

http://www.iwf.org.uk/media/page.66.200.htm

Peter joined the Metropolitan Police Service in 1971 and completed his police career in 2002 as the Borough Commander for Hackney. During his service he worked in the Obscene Publications Branch at Scotland Yard and liaised regularly with Child Protection Units. He specialised in inner city policing and public disorder events and acted as an independent police advisor to the Independent Electoral Commission in South Africa in 1994.

He was awarded the Queens Police Medal in 2001 for distinguished police service.

Peter was appointed Chief Executive of the IWF in April 2002 and has led the organisation's expansion from a membership base of just fifteen companies to over ninety, a tripling of its income and the conversion from not-for-profit to charitable status. He has overseen major governance and role and remit reviews and a recent modernisation of the IWF's Board, stakeholder and consultation structures. He continues to foster the extensive partnerships and organisational integrity on which the success of the IWF relies and is presently engaged in developing the IWF's new three-year strategic plan.

He is a member of the Executive Board of the UK Council for Child Internet Safety and a National Internet Crime Forum. He was a member of the Home Secretary's Task Force on the Protection of Children on the Internet until it was replaced by the new UK Council for Child Internet Safety. He chaired a national Search Engine Working Group on behalf of the Government which culminated in the publication of a good practice guide for search providers and consumers. He regularly presents at events relating to illegal online content and frequently speaks to the media at home and abroad.

Peter was awarded the OBE in the Queen's 2008 New Years Honour's list for services to Children and Families.

No offence to them but at best it's a quango. Robbins joined fresh from his police career the year that Malcolm Hutty, executive director of the Campaign Against Censorship of the Internet, and two other members resigned. At the same time that the IWF came up with its 'Tough New Approach', in fact, curiously enough.

Whether or not it is funded as an independent charity, the Powers That Be very definitely have a hand in IWF sockpuppetry. As far as I can see the only differences between this approach to the IWF and the directly govt funded approach are a) the govt don't have to pay for it, because they can just lean on the ISPs to get 'donations', and b) a complete, total lack of accountability. The govt pretty much forced the creation of the IWF in the first place by threatening to raid ISPs...

To report a link to the IWF, click here.

Do you think the IWF site could be added? BBC? National Geographic? Youtube? Only one way to find out.

The IWF is the only authorised organisation in the UK operating an internet âhotlineâ(TM) for the public and IT professionals to report their exposure to potentially illegal content online ... The IWF work in partnership with UK Government departments such as the Home Office and the Department of Trade and Industry ... The IWF is funded by the EU [i.e. the European Govt] and the UK internet industry

The parent's claim that the IWF is not affiliated with the UK Government might be true on some level, but in practice they're in bed together.

While like everybody else here I'm absolutely opposed to anybody censoring my internet connection, I wonder if the politicians have ever thought that this could maybe be a public service that people could opt in to?

Your wish is my command.

I had to scan the whole page before I found that button, which of course is starting you in the face in the middle of the page. I just thought it was a logo.

Article works fine for me via Star Internet (AS6656).

I submitted the Wikinews article which reproduces the offending image via the IWF's "Report Illegal Content" facility. I'll be interested to see what happens. After sending the report there's an option to get email notification of what action they took, along with an interesting flowchart of the process.

Report all cherubs images here

Now I know why all those priest turned child abusers. It was not the sexual repression, it was because they were exposed to these filthy child porn images.

Join me in my campaign make the internet clean.

Report all cherubs images here

Report all cherubs images here

Now I know why all those priest turned child abusers. It was not the sexual repression, it was because they were exposed to these filthy child porn images.

Join me in my campaign make the internet clean.

Report all cherubs images here

I've already complained from their contacts page. Now I am wondering which ISP to move to. Obviously anyone with Phorm is right out (BT, for instance), as is anyone with a strict download cap. Any suggestions?

Like everyone else here, it's not that I want to look at child porn, but rather that I object on principle to censorship. I didn't realise I was helping to fund this sort of thing with my broadband subscription

Extreme example I know, but today it's "criminally obscene content" and "incitement to racial hatred", and tomorrow it's the British equivalents of "Tianamen Square" and "Democracy". If I have a choice, I'm not funding that.

What would be better would be if there is a way for me to report these things to the government authorities easily.

http://www.iwf.org.uk/

That is quite a good resource for reporting child porn. It's not Australian but the internet is international so it doesn't matter who shuts them down.

At least in China it's obvious when a site has been censored. At least in China it's fairly clear when whole domains are/aren't blocked.

Back in England, there's a two step censorship system, with flagged sites re-routed to a proxy server which may or may not deliver according to specific URL. And if the site is censored, you get a faked 404. It's called Cleanfeed, and it's implemented (via government-backed IWF) by many major ISPs.

It is claimed that the system is restricted to blocking child pornography, and because no government-backed scheme or Act in Britain has ever been used for a wider purpose than originally intended - such as using the Terrorism Act 2000 to perform stop-and-search or to disperse small groups of protestors - we can be assured that that's how it'll stay. I, for one, sleep safely at night, knowing that the IWF has dozens of employees dedicated to spending their working hours looking at child porn so that no-one else has to. God bless the Queen!

All UK ISPs already filter for child porn; the government forced them to all "voluntarily" install blocking software by threatening to make it mandatory if they did not.
Of course, the (secret) list of blocked sites, maintained by an organisation called the IWF, now includes other things as well as child porn, such as "racial abuse". If the government decided to have a crackdown on file sharing they could easily force ISPs to add other sites, such as (for example) the Pirate Bay, to the banned list.

Chillingeffects.org are U.S based organizations that is clearly wrong in this case (Brand of EFF it appears). I doubt that they even check there facts before they send them off to google.

I wonder if the EFF knows that they are doing exactly the same thing what they condemn others for.

http://www.iwf.org.uk/

Is an UK based organizations that clearly doesn't check there facts before sending legal treats over the table. But it also appears that nobody else checks the facts before starting claiming that lapsiporno.info is an cild porn web sites.

This demonstrates high level of not caring about the facts by the people how claim to be fighting child porn, but look more like an bunch of internet censoring loving people.

It is clear that it is now time to fight back the internet censorship harder then ever before. Because this is getting out of hand really fast and it is starting to look real ugly.

...they'll be selecting web sites to ban

It's easy if the sites are hosted in an area that you have jurisdiction over. I haven't done any bit of research on the topic, but I'm willing to bet that most of these sites are not hosted by your local webhost service.

Internet Watch Foundation, which updates british cleanfeed blacklist, releases some stats. In 2005 their blacklisted child abuse content traced (as in hosted) to: 40% USA, 28% Russia, 17% Asia, 13% Europe (Spain, Portugal, Slovakia). I think that in swedens blacklist USA is also top 1. Anyway point is that we aren't really blocking any third world anarchy countries (like russia) but places like USA, where is decent children protection laws and propably much rights for police as they can get. (eg access to SWIFT, and right to torture people...)... so they are kind of using local webhost service.

So question is why we need to to censor USA? like it is not just Canada and GB, but also France, Belgia, Holland, Germany, Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Finland is doing filtering... and list is growing. Western countries are basically censoring kiddieporn from other western countries (like USA or Spain), where we should be able to handle it directly with police. And pretty much with secret blacklists, which is the actual major problem, not filtering :(

I also think that that plan is not to try block anybodys net who really want to avoid filtering, but filter those net who doesn't try avoid filtering. So, Why and What is bigger question. Are they filtering sites which can't put down with legal ways because they actually are legal or it needs too much work? Or is it just big whack a mole game with botnets and bulletproof hostings like with spammers?

Stats:
IWF: Half Yearly Report 2006
IWF: reveals 10 year statistics on child abuse images online
IWF: Significant Trends 2005

It's easy if the sites are hosted in an area that you have jurisdiction over. I haven't done any bit of research on the topic, but I'm willing to bet that most of these sites are not hosted by your local webhost service.

Internet Watch Foundation, which updates british cleanfeed blacklist, releases some stats. In 2005 their blacklisted child abuse content traced (as in hosted) to: 40% USA, 28% Russia, 17% Asia, 13% Europe (Spain, Portugal, Slovakia). I think that in swedens blacklist USA is also top 1. Anyway point is that we aren't really blocking any third world anarchy countries (like russia) but places like USA, where is decent children protection laws and propably much rights for police as they can get. (eg access to SWIFT, and right to torture people...)... so they are kind of using local webhost service.

So question is why we need to to censor USA? like it is not just Canada and GB, but also France, Belgia, Holland, Germany, Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Finland is doing filtering... and list is growing. Western countries are basically censoring kiddieporn from other western countries (like USA or Spain), where we should be able to handle it directly with police. And pretty much with secret blacklists, which is the actual major problem, not filtering :(

I also think that that plan is not to try block anybodys net who really want to avoid filtering, but filter those net who doesn't try avoid filtering. So, Why and What is bigger question. Are they filtering sites which can't put down with legal ways because they actually are legal or it needs too much work? Or is it just big whack a mole game with botnets and bulletproof hostings like with spammers?

Stats:
IWF: Half Yearly Report 2006
IWF: reveals 10 year statistics on child abuse images online
IWF: Significant Trends 2005

It's easy if the sites are hosted in an area that you have jurisdiction over. I haven't done any bit of research on the topic, but I'm willing to bet that most of these sites are not hosted by your local webhost service.

Internet Watch Foundation, which updates british cleanfeed blacklist, releases some stats. In 2005 their blacklisted child abuse content traced (as in hosted) to: 40% USA, 28% Russia, 17% Asia, 13% Europe (Spain, Portugal, Slovakia). I think that in swedens blacklist USA is also top 1. Anyway point is that we aren't really blocking any third world anarchy countries (like russia) but places like USA, where is decent children protection laws and propably much rights for police as they can get. (eg access to SWIFT, and right to torture people...)... so they are kind of using local webhost service.

So question is why we need to to censor USA? like it is not just Canada and GB, but also France, Belgia, Holland, Germany, Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Finland is doing filtering... and list is growing. Western countries are basically censoring kiddieporn from other western countries (like USA or Spain), where we should be able to handle it directly with police. And pretty much with secret blacklists, which is the actual major problem, not filtering :(

I also think that that plan is not to try block anybodys net who really want to avoid filtering, but filter those net who doesn't try avoid filtering. So, Why and What is bigger question. Are they filtering sites which can't put down with legal ways because they actually are legal or it needs too much work? Or is it just big whack a mole game with botnets and bulletproof hostings like with spammers?

Stats:
IWF: Half Yearly Report 2006
IWF: reveals 10 year statistics on child abuse images online
IWF: Significant Trends 2005

Actually, the mods have said the problem is IWF, the Internet Watch Foundation. They maintain a blocklist, and those ISPs just blindly block whatever is on the list. /b/ (and other NSFW boards) got added incorrectly, and 4chan's admins haven't gotten around to filling a complaint yet.

So it's not that the ISPs are not listening, it's that:
1. They didn't decide to block /b/ on their own
2. And the people who did haven't been contacted yet.