Slashdot Mirror
Pennsylvania Law Requires ISPs to Block Child Porn
feed_me_cereal writes: "Salon
has an article describing a new law in Pennsylvania which requires ISPs to prevent access to child pornography on the internet. Under this law, the government can give ISPs a list of websites to block. Failure to do so can result in fines from $5,000 to $30,000 + jailtime. While stopping child pornography sounds noble, it seems that these powers will do little to meet this goal and much to allow the government to decide what websites are suitable for public viewing." Reader lightspawn provided this link to the law itself as well as another story at freedomforum.org.
aka if a stat says you can't see this... and isps have to follow .. then everyone ealse who has a net connection provided for others must follow as well...
.. oh what a mess this will be..
now the question is what if somone in pensilvenia uses some sort of web proxy to view such pages.. hrmm makes the isp still liable? does that mean that the isp has to block all web proxies out there
Stop providing internet service in Pennsylvania.
No internet, no kiddie porn websites.
This sig is xenon coated, and will glow red when in the presence of aliens
First, this is obviously a kneejerk reaction to Candyman.
Secondly, who's to decide what's what? Is the ISP supposed to just carte blanche kill off anything that even resembles child porn? What happens to people trying to look at Anne Geddes images? Who do you appeal to if an improper decision is made, and how does it work?
This seems like too much idealism and not enough rational thought.
"Mod, mod, mod...and another troll bites the dust."
Frankly I don't see why companies like supernews and other usenet providers aren't held accountable. No they can't be responsible for any paticular post, but why should they be allowed to carry groups like alt.binaries.kiddy-porn? Groups whose sole purpose is to traffic illegal material.
While stopping child pornography sounds noble, it seems that these powers will do little to meet this goal and much to allow the government to decide what websites are suitable for public viewing.
The gov't has already decided that child porn is not suitable for public viewing. This is just one way of enforcing that decision.
While I'm as big a conspiracy theorist as anyone, I do think this could actually stop some child porn.
That I almost suspect its not supposed to be a real law, but rather something to make mothers feel better.
The Misanthropic Bitch has some interesting things to say about child pornography.
Why is possession illegal?
We have an extreme version of this at our school - originally put in place to block porn, it was later extended to terrorism (fair enough), but then also anything under the "fun" category, the "online sales" category, and finally the "personal" category - laughably this last one includes ANY address with a ~ in the url.
Needless to say, the potential for abuse here, as well as complex legal arguments, is HUGE
Is there a current PA law making it a crime to send child porn to others, or is the FBI still free to troll for suckers?
I am all for killing off kiddie porn and the purveyors of kiddie porn but I nevertheless find this a little bit disturbing as a precedent. Today it is kiddie porn, tomorrow adult content sites, then sites that provide birth control information, then...
If it can be absolutely restricted to ONLY blocking kiddie porn and NOTHING else, then OK, but once the toe is in the door, it is hard to stop the leg, then the shoulder...
In Bushworld, they struggle to keep church and state separate in Iraq as they increasingly merge the two in America.
"The law has the blessing of the state chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union. Larry Frankel, the chapter's executive director, said someone whose material is cut off could seek a court hearing."
Isn't this contrary to the ACLU's positions on previous issues? I'd like to know the exact quote and the context.
As long as there's a decent oversight so they only block access to child porn I don't have a problem with this. If they start blocking other stuff, that would be bad. It would also be bad if they used some kind of automated system, because that can go wrong. A person must verify these sites before they get put on the ban list.
Of course the big problem with this.. There is now a nice and complete list of child porn sites.. and you have people looking at this stuff all day.
Free Mac Mini
I gues it's a start, but there are so many ways of getting what you want on the net. file sharing progs, irc, im's, ftp, etc...
... the people in control have no idea about the technology.
who is going to maintain this list? how often will it be updated? how often will the sites on the list be checked that they still exist?
it just shows one thing
i'm sure this will only lead to a precedent that other people will start whining "if child porn can be blocked, then all porn can be blocked. and if porn can be blocked, let's block hate sites. and these sites and those sites..."
pretty soon there will be nothing left to surf except the search engines..
oo.. google's cache might have child porn.. better block that too..
The reason girls and Windows users don't understand UNIX is because all the documentation is in Man files.
Give them an inch and they will take a mile
Yeah Baby!!
These isps happily provide a USENET feed full of child pornography.
I think there is a real First Amendment problem with this statute," said Lee Tien, senior staff attorney for the California-based Electronic Frontier Foundation
I wonder how child pornography is covered as "free speech" under the First Amendment? Especially considering that there are other laws prohibiting such activity.
I normally support the EFF's decisions, but I beg to differ on this one.
Where can I find that list?
I don't think this strategy is that good. Something similar has already been tried in switzerland, and failed (sorry, I don't have a link to post right now).
First of all, it would be impossible to track all possible hostnames to block and every user for example using a proxy or surfing at school would have access. Therefore, it would be technically difficult.
It could also be dangerous: who (and how) decides what to block? Would people like to have their data filtered by ISPs?
I think that other solutions have to be found to solve this kind of problems (child porn and other illegal activities on the net), like for example an international task force to investigate and find out where these sites are, close them and send responsibles to jail...
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I am a little unclear on the standards of child pornography. It seems to me that if you put such a broad block, you can lose a great deal of meaningful content. Example. You're doing research on rain jungle aboriginies and there are pictures of children unclothed as they frequently are. (Ever watch a National Geographic?)
I admit this is a weak argument, but this is part of a larger issue. No Internet content ought to be blocked. The only filter should be your own brain. If you find this image offensive, don't look at it! It's just that simple. I agree, child pornography is absolutely sick, and the government should take steps to eliminate it and prosecute those who produce it. They should not on the other hand, enforce tactics for trying to regulate the flow of information to clients. This is impossible.
Consider the choices: regulate content flow to a billion+ clinets, OR, eliminate a few thousand content sources. *sigh*
Why bother.
I used to take an extreme free-speech position as an argument against government sensorship of this sort. Personally, I'd rather not see certain sites but I'd prefer to choose which sites to ignore, on my own.
Having said that, it's important to recognize that the lawmakers who came up with this legislation are trying to do a noble thing, but their efforts are misguided and are doomed to failure, simple because of the mechanism through which they attempt to achieve their goal.
This is our fault. We need ot better educate our representitives with regard to technical issues, understanding of which is of great importance in drafting legislation in recent years. We need to teach our representitives about the technologies they wish to control through legislation or to legislate out of existance, before too many mis-steps are taken.
--CTH
--Got Lists? | Top 95 Star Wars Line
This is a flagrant abuse of free speech rights. While we can all agree that child pornography should be stopped, this seems absolutely unreasonable. I mean, some effort should be made to minimize the intrusions of personal liberty while maximizing the effectiveness of stopping child porn (or at least significantly cutting it back).
This proposal, however, does neither.
1. An unnacceptable amount of government intrusion into people's affairs. I mean, the government could deem Arab web sites as harboring threats against the US and ban all the Arab servers they wanted. The government will always "err" on the side of deprivation of liberties.
2. Not stopping the problem. There are plenty of other ways to do this. Password-protected ftp sites, AIM/chat clients, Gnutella network to just name a few.
In conclusion, this law is probably the least effective way to do this: It threatens personal liberties much more than providing for the public good.
Bzzt! You (of course) didn't read the article. The law was passed a month ago. Candyman was just a coincidence.
OK Both wrong. The State is to give and update a list of sites for ISPs to block. However, the articles do not state just how that list is drawn up or kept up to date. Maybe they'll have a new beaurocrat in charge of surfing for kiddie pr0n?
first it's the camel's nose under the edge of your tent, next thing you know, you're sharing your bed with a large, smelly ruminant -- that spits!
This is a good thing. It would be even better if it got rid of all the porn on the net. Do not forget that everytime you masturbate, God kills a kitten. So thank you Pennsylvania for thinking of the kittens.
"where are we going, and why am I in a handbasket"
On the other hand, in order to pull off something of such great magnitude, crossing state and international boundaries is going to be a technical and political nightmare.
I, for one, am personally against governments having the power to force ISPs to block any type of access to the net. Even something as disgusting (note, my personal opinion, I can't speak for all) as child pornography. Give a gov't that kind of power in even a tiny tiny amount, and you open things up for abuse.
I guess you can say, I'm still on the fence about all of this, my sensibilities as a person say, by all means, block things like that, but then the other side comes in to play, block one, and others will follow.
Randal Graves says: I'm a firm believer in the philosophy of a ruling class... Especially since I rule.
this is a good thing, if it's done correctly.
E.
MMMMMMMMM.this.should.fit
The statute has the blessing of the state chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union
I think its time that the ACLU gets taken to task by the EFF and shown that it is wearing no clothes in the tech policy arena. You would have to be completely blinded by your moral self-righeous poppy cock to not understand the implications of this. Once they start deciding one outrageously repulsive type of site is ok to filter you'll start having local standards decided decades ago on everything to enforce.
On a sidenote: I still can't believe that places like utah haven't done this yet. Didn't they try to pass laws in utah a few times on having a state mandated age to drink caffienated beverages?
An Education is the Font of All Liberty
The law specifically says that a site has to be kiddie porn, as defined by their statutes. So:
Today it is kiddie porn, tomorrow...kiddie porn, then...kiddie porn!
Not only that, but a judge has to sign off on EACH AND EVERY SITE to EACH AND EVERY ISP. That's a pretty safe system.
This is why we need linux on the desktop now. With the new 2.5 kernel under development, linux will soon be poised to take over the desktop computer world and prevent censorship with its open-source power. We need to send the world a message that we will not stand for the censorship imposed by governments controlled by proprietary software companies. Linux and GNU software is an indispensable ally in preventing censorship and blocked sites. We of the free world should be the first to implement an operating system which will have no feature allowing this type of evil censorship. Die propietary software die!
Why is it that once we get something nice going on, the government has to ruin it. I like the freedom of the internet. I can do what I want, and not be hassled for it. If I do something Illegal that's my risk and ill accept the consequences. What's next? Censored adult porn?
Anyone got a link to the definitions referenced at the end of the law? That state website seems designed to prevent easy searches.
Why not bust the site, and it's viewers? If it's outside PA, then call the FBI, and have them do it. It is not really in the interest of law enforcement to block those sites since a sting would be much more effective.
Eat at Joe's.
That's not really a good example, though, is it? Your sister's bathtub photo was probably taken by your parents, so either you're saying that Mom and Pop are child pornographers, or else you think that masturbation should be a crime.
Which is a good question, actually: although some child pornography is very harmful to the child, I imagine (not having investigated myself) that some of it is probably at that "kid in a tub" level. So is it really exploitative for Mom to have snapped that photo of me on a bearskin rug? Or does it become exploitative when it's on the Internet? Or am I only exploited when my photo arouses someone? What if nobody saw the photo until I was grown up - am I still exploited? What if Mom only gets out the photo at family gatherings and also to show my prospective girlfriends - is that when the exploitation occurs?
I'm not trying to minimize the harm that child pornography does to children, of course. I'm just pointing out that you could have found a better example to get all uppity about. And, also that the popular conception of "photos of children == evil" may not be so black and white as we would think. There's a lot of black, and there's some amount of grey.
Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and
They need to be concentrating their efforts into cracking down on the people distributing kiddie porn...not just blacklisting entire sites/domains/whatever.
Isn't this like what the Chinese government is doing? They consider all adult content wrong so the majority of sites that are blocked are porn sites. Pennsylvania is saying that it finds child porn morally wrong so it must be blocked. This is almost exactly like the idea behind the 'great firewall of china'.
Keep your sites to yourself!!
The legislation would be as specific as possible to avoid lumping 'art' into this category, and a company would be able to file for exception if for some reason they didn't fall under this 'definition'.
There's absolutely no common sense reason that this shouldn't happen!!
Apparently nobody is reading the story. It says that the govt can give ISPs a list of websites to block, not that the ISPs have to proactively decide who to block. This definitely stinks of bark-and-no-bite; if the govt is going to come up with a list of things to block, why not just shut the sites down right afterward instead of asking ISPs to block them? It seems to me that the approach legislated treats the symptoms. OTOH, I can understand the case of sites hosted in other countries that are unwilling or unable to stop them. More than likely, it's a way for lawmakers to look good to their constituents, not a real (read: effective) way to stop child porn.
Tastes like burning! - Ralph Wiggum
Do you all have accounts that are shutting down as a result of this legislation? Please!
Just because the government is cracking down on one of the sickest crimes there are, everyone here is crying about them taking over. <personal opinion> Gee - now that they are trying a stab at stopping people from sexually abusing children, maybe they'll even try to stop people from killing them before they are born. </personal opinion>
Why dont' you go bawling to your own city government that they have restricted people from breaking into private property. Once it starts there, no one will be able to go anywhere. Anyone ever heard of a Social Contract. America isn't that free - and it's a darn good thing.
I think its a great idea. Any sort of criminal consequence that comes from allowing people to participate ONLINE should be logically valid, since we punish people for the same stuff OFFLINE.
$0.02
got morals?
it's all about whether i trust my state government to block these sites effectively without (1) infringing on my privacy, (2) infringing on my rights to view other, non-kiddie-pron, constitutionally-protected discourse, and (3) opening the door to more heinous abuses of power.
mmm... yeah... You see, we're putting the cover sheets on all TPS reports now before they go out...
What is this, Australia?
And if there is a market, there will be somebody to generate the product. So this is ample justification to forbid and repress possession of any child pornography.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
The law has the blessing of the state chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union. Larry Frankel, the chapter's executive director, said someone whose material is cut off could seek a court hearing.
Does this mean that the ACLU thinks it's so ineffective, it's not worth putting up a fight?
Mod Karma -1: I sed bad wurds. If I cep my mouf shut, I wud be at riyses.
Just the same as people link to DeCSS samples because the gov't says they're illegal, we ought to link to child pr0n for the same reasons.
This is how liberties are always eroded.
Someone yells like Reverend Lovejoy's wife in the Simpsons "Someone think about the children!!!" (usually something any normal person would do)
and then the floodgates are open.
Drug testing was supposed to be for sensitive jobs
like airport controllers. Now you have to piss on demand almsot everywhere you want to work...not to mention if you want to play in the school band or chess club.
The presumption of innocence disappeared for the greater good.
Now we have the same thing with this fake war on terrorism. We closing down on our borders but teh 9-11 hijackers had visas, they didnt hop over the Canadian fence. (The majority of those terrorists were Saudis, where is that big mushroom cloud over Saudi Arabia?) and the guy in charge of the motherland defense reminds us every few weeks to be on alert and how they need more money.
So what do they do?
They go out an harrass the sick and dying who use medical marijuana.
Its all in the name of terrorism. (I presume you saw the new government drug propagands?)
I think the previous post (mod him up!) was going
for "You give them an inch, they'll take a mile"
Nothing in US history proves otherwise.
zack
Failure to do so can result in fines from $5,000 to $30,000 + jailtime.
:)
For what it's worth, I think all ISPs should be regulated just like any other type of public utility. I see no problem with this. If certain ISPs don't like it, there's a void that needs to be filled in the pshycic friend market.
Yes, I know, they could be giving out a list of sites like bushsucks.com and stuff like that, but I doubt it. Call me naive
Ultimately, in this case, this state government is attacking an earwig by drilling through the elephant's neck. I don't think this is an effective solution, but I don't think it's going to cause much damage on the ISP side either.
We can all probably agree that child porn, the exploitation of children is bad. But who determines what is 'child porn' ? so the ISPs block sites. All I must do is is route my search through ask.com, a proxy, or some other site. also, so we get rid of US sites. What about all those .nl domains? Perhaps what needs to happen......is a couple of good hackers go website-smashing.............Actually, since the porn is always going to be out there, WE NEED TO CHANGE SOCIETY......kidding, thats to hard, and fetishes don't change, according to certain studies. Since the porn is going to be there, forget about blocking it, its not going to happen, instead concentrate on people with Gigs of the stuff, and put them in jail, Along with the website owner/operators. perhaps it should be a crime to HOST a kiddie porn site, along with having the stuff on your computer.
Sig (appended to the end of comments you post, 120 chars)
i thought i lived in the USA.
Under the law, signed last month, prosecutors would, after obtaining a court order, give ISPs a list of Web sites and other items to block.
Whilst it's well intended and it's not that much of a bother blocking out websites from a list (which will most likely be out of date), but I think they're pointing in the wrong direction. Shouldn't they be going after the places where these sites are hosted instead of just ISPs? It's a lot easier checking someone's webpage content than it is going through tons of a luser websurfing logs. I can understand blocking for places where there's no jurisdiction, but there's gotta be something done about the places that host child porn as well because that's the place that holds the content.
Just my 2 scents.
/*drunk.. fix later*/
All of your "legitimate" porn sites will have the disclaimer 'All of our girls are of legal age.'
All pedophile sites will have the disclaimer 'All of our girls are models.'
Mmmmm, yeah.
what's the best thing about fucking a five year old girl?
turn her over and she's a five year old boy.
what's the worst thing?
blood on your clown suit.
Give me kiddie porn or give me death!!
They are considering having the US mail/FedEx/UPS/etc
cease to deliver mail, unless they stop distributing parcels from a certain list of adresses?
The only way to stop child porn is to put a few of the individual users in jail. The only people getting in trouble are the ones that are runing the websites. If the indivual user is scared of getting caught, he/she will be less likely to do it.
Hacker Media
If the website is deemed to contain child pornography then under state/federal law shouldn't that site be shutdown? And if it isn't proven that it contains child pornography then ISPs wouldn't have to worry about blocking it. I don't the laws of other countries but can foreign website contain child pornography and be included on the list relating to this law?
See:
SmartFilter's Greatest Evils:e stevils.php
http://sethf.com/anticensorware/smartfilter/great
BESS's Secret LOOPHOLE (censorware vs. privacy & anonymity):
http://sethf.com/anticensorware/bess/loophole.php
The Pre-Slipped Slope - censorware vs the Wayback Machine web archive
http://sethf.com/anticensorware/general/slip.php
All of them, and a few others on http://sethf.com/anticensorware/ , deal with this issue of the technical requirements for the control system.
The short version is that "disable access" arguably entails banning anonymizers/privacy sites, language translation sites, and more, since these all can act as a means of escape from the blinder-box.
Maybe access through these sites doesn't count as "accessible through its service". But I sure wouldn't want to be the ISP facing child-pornography charges over that argument ("You mean you allowed access to this anonymity service, which is used by CHILD MOLESTORS?!")
Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)
Oh, but then the article goes on to say that the law was passed last month: And reading even further, we see that this has been in the works for years: Please, read the facts before starting your rant! Now on to the important issue..this does seem to be a dangerous opportunity to for the government to begin censoring/banning web sites at will. I'm all for getting rid of the child porn websites, but I would rather it be done in a way that does not remove the freedom of surfing the web.
Rather than ranting and raving about how bad this is, why don't we try to come up with an alternative solution.
-- Find the Truth...
They that can give up essential iberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
- Ben Franklin, "Historical Review Of Pennsylvania"
The more you scare people, the more they will pay you
On the one hand, disgusting piles of shit who look at little kids and do whatever it is they do absolutely disgusts me. I would prefer that they be locked away forever. Absolutely sickening topic.
On the other hand, once you start forcing ISPs to block access to sites, then the sheeple get used to it, and it becomes easier to do it again. And of course, it is almost always for a good reason, right? Mom and Dad in Middle America(TM) don't see past the "Oh, they want to block sickos from looking at naked children? Good." They don't realize what this can lead to.
Why is it that the minority always seems to be the most vocal, while the majority seem to sit back and just shake their head?
Sent from your iPad.
Not to mention possible fines or jail time if the company slips up and misses one? It's too big a risk. Blackhole-ing Pennsylvania may be the only option. Plus, after 1 day without internet access, the legislature will probably repeal the law.
Even more pathetic than this law, is drawings and computer generated images depicted child porn are now considered child porn. Child porn no longer has to have actually children in it. I forget what states have this, i don't think the whole nation could have a law that stupid, probably ohio, where a man was sentenced to 12 years in state prison for writing down sexual fantasies about small children in his diary.
This reminds me of an article from yesterday's newspaper, about two women, 18 and 21, getting sexually assaulted by a gang of 5 young boys, while 2 girls stole from the womens' fridge. What made that article unbelievably stupid was that the boys and girls were 8 to 12 years of age! (BTW, that was in PA.)
Still, that wasn't as stupid as this law. More stupidity down there, and another potential breach of the US constitution. Another thing there are too many of.
Take for instance, the famous case of the "The Tin Drum", winner of the 1979 Best Foreign Film Oscar. For simply suggesting, not even depicting, sexual behavior on the part of children, the film was banned as obscene in a number of areas. ACLU lawsuits followed, of course, which means you can read about the whole thing courtesy of their site.
Am I for protecting children against sexual predators? Yup. But am I worried when the government gets yet another chance to move the goalposts on what's art and what's indecent? You betcha.
If they know of a site that has child porn on it, why in the hell are they not going after the site instead of just blocking it?
I understand that its not as easy as it sounds, but there are other remidies that I would think would be much more effective such as having the DNS entries yanked, the ISP of the site hosting killing the site. Maybe even the FBI raiding the place (obviously not feasible if located outside the US).
But to require ALL ISP's to block sites seems like a band-aid approach to the problem.
Visit the Arcade Restoration Workshop @ http://www.arcaderestoration.com
Damn, and I used to work at an ISP in Pennsylvania. That list could be worth money to lazy pedophiles that don't know how to use Google.
No boom today. Boom tomorrow. There's always a boom tomorrow. - Cmdr. Susan Ivanova
You're absolutely correct. We should ban pictures of children under the age of 18 from the Internet, and ban scanners too since they're obviously used by sickos to post children's images to the Internet. Anyone who says we should punish the perverts who do this stuff are clearly deluded - we need to go after the people who make it all possible, starting with Al Gore for even inventing the Internet.
Rock on brother!
Okay okay...we all hate Child porn.
I can see...somewhat SEE a law that says "If you are an ISP, and you see child porn hosted on your server...you should take it down, but how in the HELL is an ISP supposed to stop access to these websites?
From the sounds of it, this law outlaws websites like www.anonymizer.com...since you could always access any site from there.
And who is going to pay for all this "monitoring"? Is there going to be a government official who monitors the thousands of ISP's in the state...and insures they cannot contact the thousands of changing child porn websites?
And who determines what constitutes an ISP anyway? I mean plenty of companies offer dial-in internet access for their employee's. Would they be considered ISP's?
I'm so sick of these useless crappy laws...I cannot believe the "lawmakers" cannot think of anything better to do.
First of all, ISPs are under common carrier status. I don't think they are liable for anything illegal. I'm also sure that's a federal law which will trump that state law. In any event, in the US free market system (well, just about a free market), corporations should not be held liable to enforce federal law. Not only does this cost the ISP more, but those costs get passed down to the consumer. The consumer is the one getting hosed here. Let's not become a police state. I have a solution: Just lock up the people that break the law. When you try to prevent it from happening, the citizens get hosed with more costs and the government starts becoming more of a thought police. I'm a Conservative, and even I disafree with the ramifications of this law. Hopefully someone takes this to the supreme court.
The way I see it, telling an ISP to block access to child porn sites is like telling Interstate 80 to prevent motorists from going to Texas.
I feel sorry for the ISPs who are going to be jerked around by a government who has no idea how to implement an unworkable law. This is just another case where uniformed legislation is going to raise price for the public and make life difficult for private business.
I live in the Pittsburgh area, they are running an ad program, "Stay, invent PA". It's about the great techie jobs in the state, and begging you not to leave the state. Now they pass laws like this?
Suggestion for a new slogan:
"Stay, get jail time for your degenerate customer, pervert PA"
You have to realize, laws as ineffective as these (mainly because they do not go after the source of the problem, namely, the illegal content sources, and those are already illegal under existing law) are the product of the same state whose PUC once suggested long-distance fees be charged to ISP customers for their visits to websites.
Yes, I know it does not make any sense.
In case of fire, do not use elevator. Use water!
Always remember these important ideas:
Those who would give up some liberty n shit for like some saftey and whatnot don't deserve nothin.
Imagine a beowulf cluster of these?
All your child pron belong to pennslyvania...
hot grits...
*yawn*
Becuase certian programs can contian child porn ie Kazaa and Freenet deos that mean i wont be able to use the programs? I live in PA and they are having the big Media compagain about Staying in pa and invent the future. Too many tech guys were leaving PA for the West. This Really doesnt help if the law is abused!
--KingKire
"All I can tell the "lesser of two evils" folks is that if they keep voting for evil, they'll keep getting evil."-Lp.org
Those who can, do. Those who can't, simulate.
I would just like to point out ... telnet to Y, use a bunch of "wget" from X, tgz the files, post from Y to a ftp, and download from the ftp ... are these people going to also ban every free-website (like tripod, 50Megs, etc...)
... then one accesses X through Y ... is every anonymous proxy going to be banned too?
1) Shell Accounts: server X can be blocked, but shell server Y may be open
2) IRC: how will this prevent people from distributing materials through IRC? Banned websites merely have to set up an IRC server, and this plan again fails.
3) Anonymous Proxies: YES they are out there, in case other people planning to ban them too are here looking, the exact addresses will not be listed:: but anyway, suppose that there's a proxy at Y
Perhaps I'm wrong, but I just don't see this happening any time in the near future with the current techonology. Furthermore, a glance at the freenet project tells you that it's _never_ going to happen under the current system.
Just my $0.02
This, unfortunately, could be the first step on a long stairway of censorship. No, I do not believe that blocking CP sites is censorship (if you think it is, you are indeed a fool), but this may just be an easy stepping stone for authorities to block other questionable materials. How about pushing education, stemming the tide of new materials and more active attempts to bust the actual child pornographers before throwing a blanket over the issue? These brush-it-under-the-rug tactics are so typical of existing government when dealing with this problem. There needs to be a worldwide agreement on the issue, which may never happen. We all need to take control of this problem, stop bitching and actually do something, rather than let government do it their way. Are they really so blind to the sub-culture out there? This is merely a stumbling block in the fight against CP, not a valid solution. Educate yourselves, take action, and fight what we all know to be wrong. Do it before the we are all punished for the actions of some twisted pukes. I encourage you all to take some responsibility.
_____ "If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear." -- Orwell
Ineternet Service Providers should be required to focus on effectively providing a link to the network and thats it. Routing and reliability is the job that I look to my ISP to perform. The governement threatening an ISP as a means to force their misunderstanding on the people is not something I welcome and I hope the message gets across soon.
If someone is hosting something that is illegal then go after the someone and not their ISP or even worse the ISP of someone else that just happens to be linking to the same internet. If you can't get to that someone then deal with it. The internet is much bigger than Pennsylvania and the narrow views of whatever government entity that gets to tell my ISP what I can see.
I for one will always be in favor of deciding what filtering needs to be done on my connection to the internet and think that the voters in Pennsylvania should let there representativers know that this heavy handed attempt is nothing short of an attempt to control something that can not be controlled in this manner.
Since the onus is on the state Office of the Attorney General to notify the ISP which sites to block, why don't they just shut the sites down in the first place? It seems easier to stop it at the source, especially if you know the source. This is just going to require more work for all involved and probably won't help the situation. This law will be struck down; it's only a matter of time.
They have a list of Child porn websites for the ISP to block. Why dont they just take down the damn Child porn sites?!!!
When comcast started briefly monitoring their customers' web site viewing habits i was unconcerned. Why? Because I don't look at many web sites. I just download gigs of files from Kazaa/Morpheus and Audiogalaxy. Cracking down on the more visible sites will just force kiddie porn viewers to use secure non-centralized distribution networks like Gnutella. Where it will be much much harder to find the identities of the users.
This isn't just ineffective. It will be counter productive: forcing the underground further underground and making secure peer to peer file sharing the standard way of sharing/trading/distributing this material.
OK, so yes, kiddie porn is very bad, but I'm sorry, this is not acceptable. Should the state "encourage" ISPs to block these sites? Maybe. But MAKE them block the sites? Thats a consitiutional violation of my rights.
If a site is out there, then I should have access to it. Let the ISPs, themselves, block these sites (nor not), and let me deal with my ISP if i have an issue with it. That way i have a CHOICE to use my ISP or go to another.
If the government wants to get involved.. go after the site, NOT my ISP!
thelikesofwhich.com
According to the Child Protection Act of 1984 (18 U.S.C. 2251-2255) child pornography is described as a sexually explicit photograph of anyone 17 years of age or younger. This means that a picture taken by mom or pop of their little child would not constitute as child pornography. For more information you can go here.
I'm only paranoid because everyone is against me...
The law requires that ISPs block websites from the list given to them by the government. It doesn't, however, require that ISPs give the government access to their servers in order to input these sites. This means that nobody's privacy is being invaded. This is no more harmful to an ISP than building and wiring codes.
Sure it is one more thing they have to worry about, but it shouldn't be hard to write software to automate this task.
Let's see, how is this going to play out:
1) Parent, nosy churchlady, or someone who couldn't pass the tests to become a postal inspector finds something on the web they don't like. They write a letter to the AG.
2) Nearly all the real kiddie porn will be gone within hours. So how is the AG going to collect evidence to go before the court and ask for an order to close it down?
3) Probably the AG has political ambitions, so he'll still try to find _something_ to block. Maybe purveyors of "barely legal" pictures. Maybe a URL that repeatedly gets complaints, even though there's nothing there when they look. Maybe Planned Parenthood sites; because these stay put, they'll probably log more complaints from the religious kooks than any actual porn site....
4) Compliant judge will sign the orders without actually looking at the "evidence".
5) Hundreds of lawsuits will be filed for violations of civil rights.
Folks, the 1st Amendment does not prohibit censorship by private parties of items passing through their servers. It does prohibit government censorship (with exceptions that I seem to be unable to find in the actual text)... By designating the sites to be blocked, the State of PA is putting itself right in the targets of every hungry lawyer that can find an innocent, or sleazy but legal, client on the block list.
Who cares? Why don't you report about the
Cheney-Rumsfeld administration propagandizing
about Iraq's "weapons of mass destruction"?
Go to Salon
and read about it.
I think Cisco has workable censor-ware, didn't they supply China and Saudi Arabia ;)
While I agree that this isn't likely to have much effect - I expect the list will be almost empty if they are careful, and full of 'regular' porn sites if not - it's not as bad as I was afraid when I first read the headline. They could have just said that ISP's were required to block child porn, and let the ISP's do the choosing. This way, everyone is working from the same list, so if the list gets munged up it only has to be fixed once.
I hope that was a troll. Tell me please how running linux on the desktop will stop ISP's from blocking access to certain sites for their customers?
Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)
When did it become the problem of the ISP that child pornography, or any illegal items for that matter, is being distributed on the Internet? No mention of file sharing programs, search engines, news reading software, etc...or [insert your diety here] forbid that us as a society address the root of the problem itself to try and stop children from being exploited, or working with adults who are ill, and make no mistake, they are very very ill.
If the government cared at all about the children they wish to protect, they would funnel more spending into studying this problem at it's root cause, IMO. All countries. Not just the United States...or one state in the U.S..
Also, let me get this right. You can show a picture of a child being murdered, so long as they are not being sexually abused? This is not protecting children so much as it is giving everyone out there who falls for this warm fuzzies since, "If the problem isn't visable, it must not exist" (copyright 1492-2002 United States Citizens for Ignorant Bliss).
Color me stupified.
It may seem obvious but newsgroups seem to offer the relative anonymity that encourages distribution of this type of material.
Websites have to be hosted someplace. Content can be identified and prosecuted.
I'm still not sure why some newsgroups are carried by ISP's. What possible legal use could there be for alt.binaries.sex.children or similarly named groups?
This is not a flame or a troll but I think there's general concensus that certain material should be prosecuted and every effort made to eliminate its presence from the net. I'm not referring to all porn but pornography involving the exploitation of children.
Banning these websites may be a particularly ineffective way to achieve that goal but at a minimum something should be done about the newsgroups.
> What exactly is the problem here??
Several things actually:
1. This puts the burden of doing this on the ISPs, who will remain uncompensated. While AOL can amortize the cost of processing the blocking list across millions of subscribers, the little ISPs don't have that kind of user base. Penn. should pay the ISPs for their costs to do this.
2. How will an ISP block access to kiddie porn websites when people try to access them through, say, www.anonymizer.com? The ISPs would have to mount a man-in-the-middle attack and decrypt all such traffic.
3. The Attorney General is being given the power to simply declare something as being kiddie porn without a judge, jury, or trial. I can easily see them shutting down a web site that consisted of erotic photos of young looking, but legal age, adults. Worse still, I can see a born-again-Christian-zealot Attorney General defining kiddie porn to further their own agenda. It could include everything from Japanes anime sites to sites devoted to helping prevent the spread of STDs among teens.
ISPs should not become uncompensated censors for the government.
I live in PA, and I don't want to come off like I support child porn, BUT:
1) Is this law enforceable? What if someone posts child porn (or something the religious zealots would call child porn - like a 17 year old tryin to look sexy). to a site such as hotornot.com. Does that mean the entire site is cut of, or just that page. The law says just that page (just pornography), which means that the ISP has to filter the URL, determine if it's a match, and block that page. Blocking www.hotornot.com would not be the requirements of the law, and would violate 1st Amendment rights for the other pages.
2) What about due process?? What I see as child porn may be different from what you see as child porn, etc, etc.. You report me, and my site is filtered, what about notice to the owner of the site? What about a court hearing? What about guilty until innocent? (Silly Steve, is that an urban legand?)
There's also a few other problems that people have mentioned about this.
In case you don't know, Pennsylvania is pretty much Philadelphia and Pittsburg, with the Bible Belt in between. So I do see it as something that would spread to Adult content, political agenda sites, how about blocking of sites that portray non-christian values?
to answer your question, the article says who's to decide what's what: the state attorney's office.
i just can't believe how stupid the whole thing is. if the law enforcement officials KNOW a site is child porn then wouldn't they be much better off going after the site itself rather than alerting the site owners by putting them on a hunted list?
moreover, wouldn't it be more useful to LET people access a known child porn site? a swift enough equipment seisure could offer further leads in email, log files, and so on.
i got all huffy when the french decided to sue some american companies for not blocking access to nazi paraphanalia sales when the sites, themselves, didn't control the sales. i see this as the same thing, though the subject matter is an order of magnitude more detestible. still, i say pennsylvania's going after the wrong people.
"Mister Potato-head --MISTER POTATO-HEAD! Backdoors are not secrets!" (War Games, 1983)
Actually, I believe it is.
And the men who hold high places must be the ones who start
To mold a new reality... closer to the heart
Any legislator that would try to repeal this could kiss his position goodbye -- nobody will want to re-elect this "pedophile".
So now its the techies that have to pay the price. Not an unfamiliar theme.
Berto
i mean, sometimes it's easy: prepubescent is obviously kiddie porn. but what about 14 year olds that look 25? who decides? how do you tell if it's an 18 year old, or are they going after the really twisted child stuff only?
as for the comment about "someone has to look at all the porn to find it", well, maybe they can just hire the convicted felons to scan the archives and whatever turns them on is removed. partially sarcasm, partially serious.
https://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested
at least they are providing them with a list of sites to block instead of expecting the isps to just broadly block anything that might have to do with kiddie porn like those laws in germany that prevent the sale of nazi memorabelia(sp?)
PN isp's can just change their dns to point those websites at 127.0.0.1 or something.
If I use gnutella without some kind of family filter, even very innocent searches, (well, innocent if we forget about copyright law for the moment) will turn up some truly rancid stuff.
My first ever search for video files on a P2P was on Morpheus (old version), and it was for "Simpsons". It came up with a bunch of files including one describing underage rape or something. Of course I don't actually know that the description was accurate, but that was a search for a Fox cartoon show for crying out loud.
That's why I use Bearshare now. It's not the best gnutella servant, but it does have a very good family filter. (Here's a question though, does my Bearshare servant still pass on requests for porn?)
Going after websites without going after the rest of it is like only going after minivans for speeding...
. --- If you're looking for free e-mail you won't find it here! http://www.noemailhere.com
1) If the AG goes to the trouble of getting a court order to ban a site, the AG apprently knows something about the site and therefore could/should just as easily go after the supplier, not the consumer [there are already laws for this]
2) Left up to the discretion of an AG, judge, angry mom, sites like pampers.com, johnsons & johnsons, and all other manner of sites that have infants in 'explict' nude or semi nude pictures would be blocked.
3) As others have stated, this opens the door to more restriction. The next to come will be other 'offensive' sites, such as:
- Information on strange fetishes
- Information on hate groups (race/orientation/etc)
These sites could be considered indefensible. Once we have those out of the way, then we go after:
- Information on abortion
- Information on contraception
- hardcore pornography
- Gay/Lesbian information
Then, of course, it's not a big stretch to include other things like political information, like anarchy, communism, etc.
This isn't something that happens overnight, and it isn't something that most people will realize is happening. It took a long time to get the rights we have here in the US, and it's taken a long time to pull back some of those rights.
It's unfortunate, but the legislators, law enforcement and judges don't have the foresight to see how a seemingly legitimate act can contribute to the downfall of a society over an extended period of time.
Step 1 - Buy web hosting services from someone. Set up web proxy that lets you view any URL.
Step 2 - View banned site through proxy. Demand that ISP be fined.
Step 3 - Repeat steps 1 & 2 until ISP is out of business (might take longer with Comcast, just keep trying).
Step 4 - Get new ISP and goto step 1.
When there is no internet in Pennsylvania, perhaps the voters wiill vote in somebody with common sense.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
You seem to be saying sites have the right to advertise legal porn as being illegal. Obviously they don't.
Positions are now open in our the Penn's new anti-smut office located in Trenton, N.J.
Applicant must display extensive knowledge of locations of smut on the Internet.
Applicant must be able to demonstrate the highest moral standards.
Applicant must be willing to commute to N.J. as smut access is blocked at the AG's main Penn. office
Who's going to work at ISP's with the threat of jail time for not doing this impossible job correctly? Heck, many IT personnel are not up to handling many ordinary tasks... now PA is asking them to do this? This all sounds so INSANE.
Steve Magruder, Metro Foodist
John D. Ashcroft, Attorney General, et al., v. The Free Speech Coalition, et al. will decide whether virtual child pornography can be treated as the real thing. It was argued in the Supreme Court last October, and they still have not issued an opinion.
If you can treat the virtual like the real, then it becomes much easier for the AG of Pennsylvania to do something. He doesn't have to care about the difference. Otherwise, sorting out whether it is virtual or real could pose difficulties.
Interesting that CANDYMAN happened while the Supreme Court was noodling over the issue. I wonder if they know.
You just know that someone will be wrongfully placed on that list, suffer some loses, get a landshark^WLawyer, then sue the pants outta PA.
/*drunk.. fix later*/
So I can um go check and make sure its holding content that needs to be blocked.
Actually I am all for blocking kiddie porn.
But what I would like to have is a complete independant party to verify that the blocking is legit.
-THIS SPACE FOR RENT!
don't be ridiculous. they'll just up the cost to the consumer to cover their butts/cover the cost/make a killing with an excuse. why would you abandon a market just because of increased costs that apply to EVERYONE? Just charge more.
. --- If you're looking for free e-mail you won't find it here! http://www.noemailhere.com
Did you read the law? Here is where it describes how sites get added to the list:
...
1 MAKING THE CHALLENGE.
2 (E) APPLICATION FOR ORDER TO REMOVE OR DISABLE ITEMS.
9 AVAILABLE SHALL CONTAIN ALL OF THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION:
10 (1) A STATEMENT OF THE AUTHORITY OF THE APPLICANT TO
11 MAKE SUCH AN APPLICATION.
12 (2) A STATEMENT OF THE IDENTITY OF THE INVESTIGATIVE OR
13 LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER THAT HAS, IN THE OFFICIAL SCOPE OF
14 THAT OFFICER'S DUTIES, DISCOVERED THE CHILD PORNOGRAPHY
15 ITEMS.
16 (3) A STATEMENT BY THE INVESTIGATIVE OR LAW ENFORCEMENT
17 OFFICER WHO HAS KNOWLEDGE OF RELEVANT INFORMATION JUSTIFYING
18 THE APPLICATION.
19 (4) THE UNIFORM RESOURCE LOCATOR PROVIDING ACCESS TO
20 SUCH ITEMS.
21 (5) THE IDENTITY OF THE INTERNET SERVICE PROVIDER USED
22 BY THE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER.
23 (6) A SHOWING THAT THERE IS PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE
24 THAT SUCH ITEMS CONSTITUTE A VIOLATION OF SECTION 6312
25 (RELATING TO SEXUAL ABUSE OF CHILDREN).
No decent person likes to hear of, much less come accross, child porn on the internet.
The problem is not the commendability of trying to legislate the issue. Rather it is the problem of forcing upon an internet service purveyor the monumental task of filtering THE ENTIRE INTERNET: an at-best prohibitive task fraught with missfires and at worst a constraint that will severely hamper other very proper and honest internet usages.
Legislation of this type is a copout that makes internet connection providers responsible for monitoring content they not only have no control over; content that rightly is the domain of law enforcement agencies to investigate and control-- but, it's much cheaper to foist the problem onto the back of already financially weak ISPs than give more money to law-enforcement.
It is totally realistic that the punitive damages ordained by this legislation will drive most ISPs in that state out of business, leaving customers with few choices for access. This, while at the same time totally failing to solve a problem which is quite badly exagerated in my opinion. Exagerated and used as the riding horse of people who would like the internet to be generally censored against everything they dislike.
Do not spread "09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0" over the internet, thank you.
And at the end of the Salon story: A South Dakota law merely requires employees of ISPs to report any child pornography to law-enforcement officials, while South Carolina has a law requiring the same of computer-repair technicians.
When someone's computer is on my bench, I'll be damned if I'd snoop around for anything - Who has time - what would I tell the client? "Sure I told you two hours - the extra time is for checking every file you have for porn, and then deciding how old the "models" are...."
db
Cig:
ôô
What about porn stories that are completely fictional in which one of the "stars" is, say, 13 years old? Is this evil thought now banned, even though it likely has no basis in fact or actual events?
I also have to make sure to get the best value for my salesforce dollar, so I will donate to a non-profit group of little old ladies who's only thought is to protect the children of PA from the evils of these horrible smutmongers. In gratitude I am sure they will return a list of non-complying ISP's to me...:)
I wonder who in PA is already set up like this? I also wonder if they had anything to do with the passage of this law?
*whup* "Get along, little electrons. Heeyah!"
IANAL, but isn't child porn illegal? If it is (if it isn't it should be) and they can identify the URL, hence the company, why not just prosecute them?
Everything here in America is for the Children...
At was age are you off the love list?
What about Amazon.com, doesn't it have books by photographers like David Hamilton?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
when politicians are going to create a law that demands that god redo earth in their image. Oh wait, that is already happening.
Now I can finally go back to my normal searching for legal porn without worrying about being flooded by illegal shit. :P
Moral preachiness aside, it's a problem for those of us sick bastards who like ogling naked women. You'll be surfing one site, when suddenly not-quite-legal things start popping up out of the woodwork ala X10 camera ads. Usenet is especially horrid about that sort of thing.
That's a good law! Good for them!
Stop that filth in it's tracks.
Umm... where can I download the list of blocked URLs?
Help! HELP! I'm being repressed!
It seems to me the best way to reduce the amount of pornography (which in itself is a worthy goal) is to regulate the hell out of the sex industry. Force the strip clubs to abide by stringent health regulations, enact privacy laws that force full disclosure and explicit consent to any photography or videotaping of persons (this could go for most non-sex related things as well), outlaw sexual activity as a work for hire thus forcing strippers, porn actors, etc. to be hired as employees with full income tax reporting, and put regulations on where porn shops and strip clubs may be located--much as current zoning regulations indicate residential and commercial levels. And how about making pornographic materials exempt from copyright protection. Porn exists largely because it's profitable. Remove the profit and away goes the porn. Sure, it'll still exist, but it'll be a lot less prevalent and obvious.
How the wheel turns. Wouldn't it be best to give those folks who want it a "Pure Port", say 81, 801, or perhaps 8081. Then it becomes their responsibility, not that of the governments of the world, to issue permits to use that port number. The "permits" could be in the form of certificates issued by a network secure severs, operated by the "Pure Port Protection Authority", with a white list of Pure Content servers.
OK, half in jest, but many a true word ...
What does /. think of the idea?
There are a few problems I see immediately:
- How is a site added to the list?
- Who adds the items and polices items on the list?
- How does a site get removed from the list?
Additionally there are some discrepencies between what the majority of people will consider "child pornography", what is in reality the legal definition of "child pornography" and what is marketed falsely as "child pornography". Some would say that the naked picture of my son hanging on my living room wall is "child pornography". Legally that's not correct, but then popular opinion isn't always correct.The problem is that many people base their model of what is/what isn't "child pornography" on the intent of the person either peddling the pictures or consuming said pictures. This leaves a gaping hole by allowing personal opinion, assumption and prejudice to influence how our law process works. You end up getting the "moral majority" or "moral right" pushing a social agenda that is significantly out of tune with fact based law. These people will begin labeling anything that they find offensive to their moral beliefs as "illegal", stretching vague laws to fit their own agenda much like they do to books and phrases in their own religious literature.
Look at the recent labeling of "model" sites as "child porn" sites. While I admit that some of those sites are of questionable repute many provide a legitimate service to their customers (the models). Just because some guy who likes the children's section of the JC Penny's catalog decides he wants to collect every picture of model-X, doesn't make the site itself a "child porn" site. It simply makes the person with the intent to treat it as such a "pedophile" in need of help.
Which brings me to another point about how we treat the "sick", at least here in the US. If someone is an alcaholic, they have AA, if someone is into drugs, there are thousands of rehab and counseling programs around the country, depression/anxiety/agoraphobia there's a 1-800 number for you, a pill, a set of informational pamplets, a video, and a seminar on how you too can be well. If you happen to suffer from bad habits like food disorders, or smoking, violent behavior, snoring, we can treat you, little hypnosis some self help tapes and boom you're on your way. If you're a pedophile... a what?!!!... you're attracted to little kids!?!? Oh that's just sick man! SICK! You're going to HELL and I'm calling the police! What? What was that about love and forgiveness and healing... no, no all that talk was for the homosexuals, God can change them, you he's just sending to Hell you sick fuck.
I think that's genuinely the attitude that alot of people have. Everytime that some new molester shows up on TV everyone talks about how sick they are and how they should be shot/castrated/disembowled/labotimized/tortured-wi th-ants/[your painful choice of torture here] yet OJ goes free, everyone feels sorry for poor Robert Downey Jr., and isn't it awful how those poor Columbine shooter kids' parents failed them. While mapelthorpe gets to show his work and people make poop paintings to be displayed in galleries other artists material of a naked child standing with a flower gets labeled as child porn because one guy out of a million decides that the picture has a good beat to it.
People passing these laws and the ones behind them pushing them to pass these laws need some serious help with their thought processes. Additionally the people who oppose them need to start being a little more vocal, otherwise we're going to be living in the dark ages with everything restricted, labeled and prescreened for better consumption by the sheep.
Freenet is almost entirely child pornography with a smidgen of other illegal files. However since freenet uses encryption and distributed data storage, no single computer can [so they say] be proved to contain any particular file.
Since a user of freenet is essentially an ISP for freenet, would this law apply to freenet users?
the catholic archdiocese!
So...if I am an ISP, and the government doesn't give me a list, I can fine the government and toss it in jail?!? COOL!
Great, so the government knows of child pornography websites in which to block, but there still there. Is law enforcement/fbi/big brother f'ing stupid!!! Have they looked into possibly cracking down on the HUNDREDS of child pornographers on IRC (number varies by server). Literally people, c'mon. These chat rooms name themselves specifically to be on the top of lists (!!!!!!!!!!!!!underage). And there always filled with people and fserves. Yet I've never heard of a crackdown on these chatrooms. I guess if it's not immediately accessible on AOL, it must not be there.
Dear PA gov, the following sites include child pornography:
microsoft.com, aol.com, msc.com...
Please block these sites immediately. Do not try to verify this, as doing so would cause the tranference of child pornography and thus be illegal.
We've got a law that allows 'dangerous people' to be arrested and held indefinitely without being charged or brought to trial. If that doesn't sound like it has potential to be abuse, I don't know what does.
This latest one will be another with enormous potential for abuse. It'll censor unfairly many sites that don't have child pornography on them. It would also be possible for someone saying something that isn't liked to be put on it 'accidentally.'
But, I'm probably just paranoid, there's no reason not to trust the gov't. They are here to protect us.
(I live in PA, btw)
I think that in practice explicitness is going to end up being in the eye of the beholder (the jury), though, law be damned. An old single guy with a lot of photos of naked babies is going to end up being suspect, no matter that they're not really explicit. Your parents probably think that that photo of you at your birthday pool party when your suit fell off is hilarious, but someone else might have impure thoughts at the sight of it. It could even be the case that dear old Dad is that person, in which case does that make the photo pornography or not? If the law is that only photos of kids actually having sex with something or someone are illegal, then I think that's avoiding a whole range of stuff that most people would think are covered by the law.
Heck, the page that you linked to describes how even faked child pornography (which is almost by definition not exploitative of a real child) is illegal, so I don't think that logic and reason are really entering into this particular debate.
Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and
No, I believe it's illegal to have adult actors pretend to be children having sex.
And the men who hold high places must be the ones who start
To mold a new reality... closer to the heart
I think most people are being sucked into the whole child porn argument and missing the bigger picture - the government has passed a law censoring the internet and holding ISP's liable. They chose a topic they knew no one, not even the ACLU would side with. By doing this, they start the country on the proverbial slippery slope down. After this settles, they can go after other 'illegal' ventures, like MP3 sites. Why? There is now a legal precendent which is not being challenged. It's a small jump in a legal standpoint from one illegal activity to another, and one you can bet the RIAA will be pushing for as soon as the dust settles on this one.
What this law really says:
1. ISP's can be held liable for content, even if it is in other countries on someone elses server.
2. Content can be legislated by the government, and anything deemed unappropriate by their terms can and will be censored from our society.
Welcome to 1984.
-Sternn
But one of the first things that struck me is that the Pennyslvania state government is now going to be sending people lists of child pornography websites? If copies of these lists were to get into the wrong hands, the government has essentially send some perverted creep somewhere a list of sites to visit.
________________________________________________
suwain_2
moron. if the proxy isn't on the banned list, the ISP isn't violating anything. You on the other hand are. (You're viewing child porn). Go ahead, try this. I DARE you.
. --- If you're looking for free e-mail you won't find it here! http://www.noemailhere.com
How hard is it to shut them down? Shady sites like these are always moving around, and they'll find someway to keep dodging the bullet.... the perps/masterminds/etc. are the ones that you have to catch. Then again, different countries have different stds; in India, viewing any p0rn is a jailable offence i bolive. So, who would be in charge, where would they get their funding? Are we all going to be tracked on every page we visit and what we say online too? What about sites that get hacked and banned, how do they get unbanned? Anytime there is an exclusionary process, it has to be very careful and fair... but these issues hits alot of nerves in everyone.
I agree that it will be ineffective in terms of its stated purpose. But it allows the state to dictate a list of sites that state residents cannot access. That opens the door.
Hard to believe China is only two states away...he says from DC, on his way home to Virginia.
http://drteknikal.blogspot.com/
While you law enforcement types are busy searching for child porn websites, instead of adding it to the list, why don't you make a phone call or two and have the site shut down, the owner raided, and take care of the problem. Obviously pursuing child porn is not too much of a problem, if yesterday's worldwide operation is any indication.
:)
So shut them down as you find them, and you don't have to have anyone censor anything.
Unless of course, not everything getting censored is actually child porn. A picture of a naked baby would not hold up as child porn in almost any jurisdiction, but that wouldn't keep such a website as getting marked as child porn.
And besides, how naive is law enforcement anyways? I know that the clueless minions that walk the planet think that "the web" is equivalent to "the internet" but its just not the case. Its but a small subset of it. And to think that any significant amount of child porn gets traded over open, publically accessible websites is just moronic. There's usenet, peer to peer, ftp sites, irc. Is PA going to be responsible for censoring all of those mediums as well? How exactly are they going to do that?
And even if we ONLY look at websites, are they going to have to also censor anonymous proxies in other states or countries? Oh well. At least it SOUNDS like they're doing something. Even though they're probably creating more of a hassle than problems they'll solve.
I do like the comment about simply not offering ISP access in PA. Find out how long that law lasts if NOBODY can access the internet because of it.
-Restil
Play with my webcams and lights here
the 100,000 child pornography sites on the web sounds way too high. Does every pedophile on the web have his own web site full of pictures? I know if you go on google and search on something like "child nude pics" you get 100,000 hits, but if you click on them you find they are all regular adult porn with child porn keywords in the source. Also if there are so many why doesn't the government tell the isps to take them down. If they are all in some other country like Japan why don't they make a big stink that japan is hosting child porn? I think they made up this number to get money. Or maybe they mean 100,000 pics got posted in the last year, all on sites that were up for a few hours. But that doesn't sound so scarey so they say it is 100,000 sites.
I agree that child porn should be illegal (as it is) and sites with it should be taken down. However, the government should just take down the sites with it instead of passing it on to the ISPs. The ISPs have no power in this and with things like proxies constantly popping up, you can't regulate the vast amount of information on the Internet.
Also, one other BIG problem stopping technologically misinformed laws- the cause is noble- stopping child porn- even if the law hinders the technological sector. If you were a politician, would you rather be saying "I worked to stop child porn," or have your opponent smear you in an ad campaign saying "this politician voted AGAINST stopping child porn" ? Basically, the long story isn't heard in these things, so they will be oversimplified and politicians will thus vote for clueless measures, however noble the cause.
An ISP, when ordered to disable access to a URL on a web site that they do not control, has two options:
1) Block access to the entire host.
2) Attempt to block access to that specific URL.
The first is, in theory, easy. A router connection can have an "access list", which specifies what is and isn't allowed to pass through the router. However, access lists are avoided whenever possible because they cause massive performance hits on routers. How large will this access list be? The article says there are about 100,000 web sites which could be censored. So, taking this list for starters, every single packet transmitted by an ISP in Pennsylvania would have to be compared to a 100,000 entry blacklist, and that's just for starters. There is no provision in the law for entries to be removed from the blacklist, so the legally-required access filters will simply grow and grow, dragging down ISP router performance.
Speaking as someone who has programmed access lists, that's absolutely nuts. It's preposterous. The hardware won't do it. It won't work.
Here's an article describing how much of a performance hit can be expected if all internet traffic in Pennsylvania must be packet-filtered:Moving on to the second method:
2) Attempt to block access to that specific URL.
This is even worse, performance-wise, and probably impossible, given the current internet architecture. In order to block access to a specific URL, you would need to:
a) Collect all packets bound for that IP address. Remember that under TCP/IP, the text of a URL might be split into multiple IP packets, which might even pass through different routers, or out of order, or both, and take different paths to the target machine.
b) Reassemble the IP packets, that you magically collected, into TCP packets
c) See if that packet looks like an HTTP GET request
d) Compare the URL to the 100,000 entry blacklist
e) Assuming that the request is to a non-blacklisted URL, retransmit the packets.
Unfortunately, I don't think that there are any routers on the market that can do this, and I'm not even sure that it could be made to work anyhow. The only technical way to make it work might well be to proxy each and every web page request, which would both require insanely massive amounts of computing power, and the complete centralization of all IP traffic entering and exiting Pennsylvania.
As a result, ISPs won't use this method. The only tool that will be available to them is IP address blocking, which will cause a massive hit on the router infrastructure.
I haven't even gotten into the issues of server farms, where one hostname might correspond to two or more IP addresses. I'm sure that anyone with networking experience can come up with another dozen reasons why an ISP can't feasibly block access to URLs on machines that aren't under their control in a scalable way.
If this law stands, the only effect discernable to the day-to-day internet user is that internet performance in Pennsylvania will be significantly poorer than anywhere else in the country, or world.
Alternately, Pennsylvania internet users may see their charges skyrocket, as the ISPs are forced to purchase millions of dollars of new, ultra-high performance routers, just to implement the child-porn access lists.
A third scenario is that ISPs will simply stop doing business in Pennsylvania, due to the insane cost of doing business there.
If true, then an adult can certainly pretend to be a minor, since the adult (supposedly) has both the right and the capacity to make that choice.
Of course, this raises the issue of, say, CGI kiddie porn. The computer can't be psychologically scarred. Often the rationale then is, by providing this sanitized porn, one creates a market for real kiddie porn, and thus the simulation must be banned... a much weaker case, I believe. A trial involving these issues is, IIRC, wending its way through the courts.
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
hey, i hear you can get lots of hot kiddie porn on #cooch/EFNet"
heh.
-- LINUS TORVALDS, (cnn): Because their operating systems (Windows) really suck.
First off, if they know the actual addresses of child porn sites why are they just blocking access to them and not removing them and attempting to track down the users? Second, I don't think many of them are running DS3 trunks to their houses and hosting the websites on a .com. Many of them such as "candyman" are hosted on yahoo groups and other free more "anonymous" services. Should they block access to all of yahoo groups? Since you can't filter a specific URL with router access lists how are you to implement the filter? The ONLY way to do this would be by making everyone in the entire state connect to the internet through a proxy server with the governments filter set in place. Maybe we should ask China for advice here eh?
Saying Java is nice because it works on all OS's is like saying that anal sex is nice because it works on all genders.
Here's what I sent to both the governor's office and to my representatives, both in email and in a printed letter:
1 /0 /HB1333.HTM8 /child_porn/i ndex.html
1 21 0
House Bill 1333.
Hello,
I recently came across these articles describing government mandated filtering by ISP's:
http://www.legis.state.pa.us/WU01/LI/BI/ALL/200
http://salon.com/tech/wire/2002/03/1
While I applaud the government's efforts in attempting to stop those who spread child pornography, I believe that the proposed methods are ineffective, and have the potential to destroy some of the civil liberties this nation is founded upon.
Please read people's (including your constituents such as myself) views on this law at the following URL. It may help to illustrate some of the issues with this type of government mandated technology.
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/03/19/184
Thank you for your time,
-- Greg
Ok, now I probably have your attention. "Does this guy WANT kiddie pr0n???", no I don't want it. But I want it to be found, by the authorities, so it can be dealt with. I want neo nazi's to speak up and be heard, and thus be forced into a dialogue with people who don't share their views on the world (I myself hope that they will stop for a second and think. I refuse to belive that all of them are evil, and anything that can make them rethink is good).
You obviously read slashdot (duh), and you obviously has some knowledge about computers and the net. What happens when someone tries to stop warez? Tries to stop mp3s? Stop VCDs/SVCDs etc? What about being anonymous on the net? Someone will react and make some software to do it anyway, without someone being able to see it. They will make free net, strong crypto, you name it. It's all about technology.
But what happens when a system made to people in oppressed countries express their fears and opinions is used by these people, those who want to share their awful acts with others? They will be even harder to find, even harder to flush out, even harder to control. The "demand" won't stop, so they supply will take new ways to reach their destination.
So in conclusion, don't help these people by making it more safe for them, find them, expose them and shut them down. Reporting them will be easier if someone sees them. Only if there are pages in other countries who refuses to remove them should some sort of ban be used.
I wish I knew a link to one of the organizations who work with flushing these people out, so I could give it to you and you could help. I wish google et al would put their search engines to good use to report these people somehow. I wish people would think then act...
Yeah, its really noble to speak about - "oh no! don't take away my ability to quickly move gigs of data!" I wonder how you would feel about arguing for a medium that supports child pornography when you come across a popup add that has a gif of your daughter with tape over her mouth getting raped by some sweaty, fat, bloated fuck. I'd kick every fucking one of you in the teeth if I had the chance. At what point are we supporting open communication - and at what point are we supporting something so vile as child porn?
I can sorta see a slippery slope ahead on this subject, whereby polititians will try to blacklist all porn sites in order to make this kiddie-porn law more effective (just like hemp is illegal because if it weren't, enforcing pot laws would be too difficult). How are you going to argue against such laws when these polititians are spouting the proverbial "won't anyone think about the children" argument?
Have you read the law?
The wording is very vague, saying that you "must disable items on or accessible thorugh" the ISP. It does not specify how you access them - gopher, FTP, telnet, proxy servers would seem to me to all be ways you could get to the same content. The law bans a particular destination and does not specify how you get to it in order to be fined.
Granted, it might not hold up in court... but then again it might.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
You missed the most important reason for banning fake child pornography which is that legalizing it makes it much harder to prosecute people for real child pornography. If someone is caught with a (real) picture of a kid having sex with an adult he say "oh that's not real, that was made in photoshop" and then get off without any punishment.
I'd rather be lucky than good.
This is slowly becoming the end of the information highway. It is turning into the censorship highway. Of course someone will moderate this down as being overrated, and maybe it is a little bit, but I have been on the internet since 94 and it is not as free as it used to be. We now have more ads then ever before. There are now more spammers then there were and more people online. There are more sites and people using 'family safe software' that blocks 'bad content'. But who is defineing this bad content?
Well believe it or not much of this is being driven by religious conservatism and right or wrong how long will it be before a site that you visit that is NOT pornographic or bad is blacklisted because it is considered 'subversive' or a terrorist threat? in France they are demanding the blockage of the sale of all Nazi memorabilia (sp), asia they block some western ideas. Soon it will be up to those in power to determine what content they want you to read.
Fantasy, well most people are young here and will live to see if this is going to be more real than fantasy.
Only 'flamers' flame!
Will The Man give the ISPs a list of domains or IP blocks to block, or will there be specific sites (e.g. www.geoshitties.com/~username/naughtypics) on the list? If it was only the former, it would be relatively easy for the ISP to firewall all traffic going to and coming from the requested IP ranges. Unless vhosting was involved, anyway. But if more specific sites were on the list, the ISP would basically need to have a real-time Carnivoresque system running. It would have to sniff out all traffic to potential sites, figure out where specifically on the site the traffic is headed to, and make an accept/reject decision based on that. And it would have to do this almost in real time. While I dislike kid porn traders just as much as anybody else here, this isn't an effective way to stop them.
I pledge allegiance to the flag...
of the Corporate States of America...
This may not be the best approach. There may be shades of grey. Internet freedom and the "whats next" possibilities abound. All of these issues are inconsequential in comparison to the absolute evil that is child porn. ANY negative consequence of these laws are perfectly tolerable when you consider the victims of child porn... I don't care how many of my civil liberties, freedoms, etc. are neglected, because these are our kids, and they come first. Period. Think about your kids or yourself as a child, and then tell me that your internet freedom is more important.
Most ISPs don't have the infrastructure to block specific URLs. Whoever wrote this law is a moron.
(1) ISP's, nor the government, should not be in the business of banning certain websites, or blocking access to them. There's no difference between that and banning, or burning, books. Fucking nazis.
(2) In regards to "simulated child pornography", if its simulated, who does it harm? In such a case -- i.e., an 18+ woman who looks younger, or a computer-generated image -- no one's privacy is voilated, nor was anyone's rights violated in producing the image. Banning that is just christian bullshit where they want to control your mind. It's a victimless crime in that case.
(3) In regards to real pornography, which was actually derived from children, there are three classes: (a) Forced; (b) Exploitative; (c) Self-done. Here's my take on each of them:
a. Forced. If a child is forced (raped) into sexual poses/positions/whatever, and the image of that taken is distributed on the web, there's no reason the government shouldn't be able to take down that image from the website, in protection of the child. Every minute the image is up there is a VIOLATION of the child's rights to privacy, self-dignity, and her body.
b. Exploitative. When the child is not "forced" per se, but nevertheless is taken advantage of by an adult. The act itself should be illegal in most cases; I don't think we should be ardent about "exact" age limits. The legal age for consentual sex with older people is 18 most places; if a guy has sex with a girl a month away from being 18, so what? Of course, we need to have precise laws, so people know exactly what they can and cannot do. I suggest keeping the legal age at 18, but varying the punishment for statutory rape depending on the age-difference of the "victim" and of the adult. There's a big difference when a 60-year old man sleeps with a 16-year old girl, as opposed to a 19-year old man doing the same.
c. Self-done. When an underage person engages in sexual poses/sex, and photographs themselves; then they either post it online immediately, or wait until they're older (18) and publish it then. There's nothing wrong with this, though current laws prohibit it. If someone took pictures of themselves having sex at 16 and wants to post it on the web later on, that's their right: it is their body.
Even in case (a), where I feel the government does have the obligation to -- in protection of minor's rights -- stop the distribution of child-pornography, that doesn't justify any means. The government is free to do so via any means that are non-draconian. They are not permitted to, for example, take down an entire P2P network to stop some porn, nor to spy on what all of us put on the web.
I really think that child-molestation laws are unneeded. They are redundant with rape laws. The standard in rape law is, "could/did the person give informed consent". Obviously, a 6-year old child can't give informed consent, as that person doesn't even know what sex is. Obviously, a woman who says "no" can't give informed consent. Obviously, a woman passed out drunk can't give any kind of consent.
But there are some sticky situations where its a little vague. What about when the person is 16-18? When can they give informed consent? Obviously, some people make better sexual decisions at 16 than others do at 30. Well, maybe you can have a "sex license" sort of like a drivers license, which verifies that you know about basic sexual issues. Sounds kinda stupid, huh, a "license to have sex"? But its alot better than setting unmeaningful absolute standards which don't apply uniformly.
What about a case where a woman is drunk and is the sexual aggressor? Should the man be charged with rape if he has sex with her? I don't think so. Another consideration is, "who was the initiator"? Was it the man, the woman, or both? I think that if there is an "initiator" and the other person accepts the advances, it should never be considered rape (unless the other person was purposefully stoned to make them "easy"), except in cases where the person doesn't have their "sex license".
But even that has problems. For example, do we really want to say that a person mentally retarded can't have sex, except with other mentally retarded people?
It is clear to me that this society has not thought enough about sex; all of our answers the a complicated issue are black/white, clearly goaded on by Christian humbug.
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
Sorry, but the lives and souls of children come first. Every single "internet liberty" that has ever been invaded -- all of the aggregate complaints from all of the rights of individuals who have been silenced or restricted from their "online and civil rights".... all of those added up cannot even begin to approach the suffering of a SINGLE child that has been exploited. It sucks, but deal with it -- your online liberties are expendable, because these are kids and protecting them comes first. Before you disagree, think about your kids.
Regardless of the effectiveness of such a measure, it's constitutionality is in doubt. I'm wondering how civil libertarians might make a case against this based on prior restraint?
"You done taken a wrong turn."
-Bill McKinney, in Deliverance
Hmmm... I wonder if I should be concerned that I can figure out how to get around potential child porn law loopholes?
And the men who hold high places must be the ones who start
To mold a new reality... closer to the heart
If they know of a site that has child porn on it, why in the hell are they not going after the site instead of just blocking it?
Sure, if the site is in the US. Try to start shutting down Web sites that may be perfectly legal in other countries but that those of us in the United States find offensive, and you're opening an ugly can of worms.
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
No, it's not. Read the law; it was prepared roughly two months ago, and it's just going into effect 'round now care of the 60-day delay.
And the state AG is the one that makes the blocking decisions; the law explicitly states that the ISPs are under no obligation to go searching on their own, to monitor content (to
decide what to block), or to otherwise search for affirmative evidence of wrong-doing.
Now, the proxy issue... the law says "disabling access", which could be interpreted as either accessing directly (which makes a certain degree of sense, as the law mentions that
banning requests should include URLs -- so ban the URL might be sufficient under that) or even banning indirect access (proxies, mirrors, and other foo).
I'd be inclined to think that the former was meant (ban direct accessing of the specific URL), but... you'd probably have to check the debate records to find out.
-- the silly student / he writes really bad haiku / readers all go mad
Don't get me wrong, I am all for children's rights... I am all for those sick bastards being caught and brought to justice, I am not for the regulation of the internet however. Haven't we gone though stuff like this before? The ISP is only providing someone access to a network, it should be *UNFILTERED* and *UNRESTRICTED*, unless a person *chooses* to have a filtered account then they shouldn't.
A better way to fight this would be for the govt. agencies to bust the fuckers serving the child pornography... in the USA at least... and let the rest of the world deal with child porn as they see fit.
The bottom line is I forsee all kinds of ISPs getting warnings to block "legitimate" porn sites that advertise legal porn as less than legal - which I don't think is banned under any current law.
I suppose techincally they could be violating truth in advertising laws, but somehow I can't get too worked up about it. If anyone actually thinks they'll get to see "hot lolitas" that are advertised on these sites; well they deserve what they get.
I can just hear the complaint now, "Hello, Better Business Bureau? I want to complain about this web site. They said I'd get to see pictures of naked kids, but when I signed up, there weren't any! My name? Its Joe Perv. You're going to do something about it, right? My address? Its 1313 MockingBird Lane. I want you to...what do you mean, do I look good in stripes?"
When are we going to end this goddam witchhunt for "Child" Pornographers? Nothing but a bunch of sex-a-phobic moralizers and lazy law enforcement officials (and opportunistic politicians) who rant and rail and manipulate the issue for their own convenience. It's the same crap that we get from the anti-Drug campaign..."Sex--just say no". Lots of heat but not much light, as they say.
Blocking child pornography is essentially impossible. Blocking any sort of "content" or "IP" is an extremely difficult task. It's one thing to block port 25; unfortunately the IETF has yet to standardize on a port number for kiddie porn.
First, there's the problem of deciding what to block: Let's take the obvious example, of blocking a jpg. This means someone has to determine the age of the person in that jpg. I looked at about 1,000 jpgs last nite, and I pity the fool who has to monitor my drunken pr0n surf.
Perhaps it would be possible to use some VERY sophisticated pattern recognition algorithm, but, like spam filtering, you're never gonna block 100% of the bad stuff while letting 100% of the good stuff through. Nevermind the incredible resource hit of scanning each downloaded jpg, or the fact that your CRC-matching database of known jpgs ain't worth shit once I take the 640x480 jpg and save it as 644x483.
But that's not even the real problem. No, the real problem is THE DEFINITION OF PORNOGRAPHY. Basically it depends on things like "community standards" and such which don't really make sense on the Internet. With child pornography, the definition gets even more complicated; things that are otherwise acceptable become pornography when the subject is under 18, such as a picture which shows the outline of the vulva through clothing isn't porn if the girl is 23 but is porn if she's 9.
(In fact the entire laws about kiddie porn in this country are totally fucked. The gov't can offer to sell you kiddie porn, say from an ad in the back of a magazine, and then sell it to you, and then bust you for possession. This would normally be entrapment, but the Supreme Court decided that kiddie porn is such a scourge that normal constitutional protections are outweighed by the need to lock up pedophiles. Hmmm... "First they came for the pedophiles, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a pedophile. Then they came for the Arabs..." But I digress.)
To make matters worse, pornography doesn't even have to be a picture or movie. Text can be pornography. For instance,
I knew it was wrong, but I couldn't stop myself from licking 15-year old Timmy's perineum as he lay unconscious.
That could be construed as kiddie porn, believe it or not. Of course in this context I won't be going to jail (I hope) since my INTENT isn't prurient (but who can really tell my intent?). But if I logged on to some kiddy chat room and made that comment, I would be in big trouble, esp. if the moderator knows what a perineum is.
So not only do you have to filter the content, which is a subjective process in the first place, you have to ascertain the context of that content. In other words you have to Meta-Moderate, and we all know how much fun that is!
No, this will never work, and the "blacklist" that gets passed from the Penn. A.G. to the ISP's will have all the same problems as the anti-spam blacklists: How do you get off it, do you notify someone that they're on it, or would that just tell them it's time to get a new IP address, etc.
Here are some links to interesting legal stuff:
Supreme court def. of pornography (pdf, sorry)
has the famous "I know it when I see it" qoute from Justice Potter Stewart
Google HTML version
Guy in jail for selling videos of girls in their panties
Guy acquitted after gov't got him to order kiddie porn thru mail and then busted him. He was acquitted because the gov't hadn't proved intent, not because it was entrapment
I am not a lawyer, but I play on on Slashdot.
Seth,
/.
Reading the account of "What happened to the Censorware Project," you may be able to generate more traffic by organizing a Google bomb. Simply put, make setf.com (or censorware.net) come out above censorware.org. You can also use the "link:censorware.org -site:censorware.org" to find the links and contact webmasters.
I now return you to your regularly scheduled
Nathan
It will not do anything.
It does not stop it, and they would be better of focusing efforts on more productive avenues, but hey it's a step in the right direction.
Wow, I should not post when knackered.
It's about time us aussies got to laugh at you guys for a change - have you imported some of our lawmakers?
Then again there has been the DMCA etc. to keep us amused.
Yeah that sounds good
The only real effect this will have is rendering the blocked IP addresses useless. This will decrease the number of available IP's, and force the ISP's to change to IPv6!
OTOH, if they block name-based URL's, there will be virtually no effect whatsoever.
I am not a lawyer.
See subsection 8 specifically subsection 8B.
So I go look up 18 USC 2256(8)(B) and find the definition of kid porn to apply only to "visual depiction". This means kid porn is OK in novels. Also, the definition requires that that "such visual depiction is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct". It goes on to define a "minor" as "any person under the age of eighteen years". According to 1 USC 1, "persons" are "corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals". I don't see "cartoon character" included in the definition of a person (otherwise, copyright would be slavery, and 18 USC chapter 77 implements the Thirteenth Amendment which bans slavery); therefore, presenting hentai (animated kid porn) to adults remains lawful under Federal law.
I am not a lawyer.
Will I retire or break 10K?
fine, if you think I'm wrong you go try it then.
. --- If you're looking for free e-mail you won't find it here! http://www.noemailhere.com
If law enforcement has identified child porn servers, why don't they just confiscate the servers, rather than make isp's block access?
:-), and it was up to the cable companies to police the content. It need to be handled at the source, not at the infrastructure level.
It's like if Fox TV started broadcasting porn (it happened so gradually, nobody noticed
The only argument I can think of is for internation sites beyond the jurisdiction of the US government. I didn't see that mentioned in the article. And even if that were the point, attacking the local ISP's is a waste of time; there are a limited number of backbones going to other countries, which would be *far* easier to police. And companies like ATT and Sprint (or whoever has the links that hop overseas) would be better equipped resource-wise to do this type of thing. (And given the fact that international telecom already has a larger number of regulations that must be adhered to; this is a natural point to add this as an additional regulation requirement.)
To me, it seems like the law is well-intentioned, but missing the point by more than a bit.
-me
Love many, trust a few, do harm to none.
As I resident of the state of Pennsylvania, I am wondering where this law came from. It was not reported in any of the local media here in Philadelphia, and I do not know of any large out cry for this to be implemeneted. Of course I am not for child porn, but just think, any other law that could limit our activites that are legit could be passed by these lawmakers who are doing what we want, even though they aren't. I am disappointed in our state's goverment.
actually the clause was intentionally worded in such a way as to ban virtual kiddie porn eg CG porn
CG porn != cartoon porn.
the key phrase was "or appears to be"
CG tries to look like a human. (See also Final Fantasy VII.) Cel animated cartoons don't. Perhaps I was unclear in referring to cel animation rather than photorealistic animation.
Will I retire or break 10K?
No one can stop it..
This is still served up by Comcast.. and a very quick going over didn't reveal any mention of Freenet.
It was built to provide web content that governments ban and persecute its people for posting/viewing. Voila.
I'd be surprised if the average legislator even knows what a web proxy is.
Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
It seems to me that we should block not just
child porn sites but also things that can be
construed as enabling child porn. Let's
start with the Constitution and the Bill of
Rights.
No matter what you do, some sick, twisted perverts are going to get to Texas somehow.
[PowerPoint] is a tool for capitalist presentation
from what I hear, the problem in Pennsylvania isn't guys with pictures of little kids, it's guys with pictures of their sisters The war on child pornography, much like the war on terrorism, can only be a good thing. Remember when we had that war on drugs, and now there are no more drugs? This will be just like that...
do not read this line twice.
Once AOL/Time Warner, Verizon, AT&T, and all the other ISPs get bought by Microsoft, the gov't will only have to get filters installed at one place.
"One" is much simpler than "a few thousand".
Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
Dear Mr. Kennedy: Thank you for your message. First, I must say the story you read is less than complete. I would like to give you a little more information. We were asked to take a look at this bill by some ISP folks. As originally written, the bill did not require that a court review a site before a provider was required to block it. After we got involved, the bill was changed so as to require the Attorney General or the District Attorney to go to court to seek an order for a site to be blocked. That was the constitutional issue we saw as child pornography is not protected by the First Amendment.
I spoke with the reporter who wrote the story and I would say it is a mischaracterization to say we blessed the bill. It would be accurate to say that because our involvement the most significant constitutional flaw in this bill was remedied.
Finally, under the final version of the bill, the Attorney General must notify the ISP. The ISP is not required to monitor its service.
(Also, the ISPs were involved in the legislative process)
Larry Frankel
Whoever wrote this law is a moron.
Well, they are politicians. What else would you expect?
Sorry, a cheap shot, I know...
That's extremely sick, and extremely wrong headed.
Do you really want the online "hacker" and online pro-civil liberties communities to be associated with that?
Do you want to aid (or "benefit" from) the exploitation of children?
Do you just want to break laws for the sake of breaking laws, rather than for the sake of POSITIVE social change?
You get upset if a site uses cookies to track your web usage "Invasion of Privacy!", yet you don't care about the SEVERE invasion of privacy of someone (a CHILD) who is unable to give any sort of consent.
It disturbs me that the above comment was actually moderated UP. It should be moderated DOWN, too bad Slashdot doesn't have a moderation category for "Just Plain Sick".
I can't agree more. Why do I have to denounce child pornography every time an issue concerning it surfaces.
Somebody said: "I dont know about the rest of you, but I find this likely to be very ineffective."
It will have an effect. Beleive it.
The police will decide which sites are child pornography, and their friend the judge will agree with them 99.99% of the time. The sites will disappear for all in the state but those savvy enough to use proxies.
If the cops try to muzzle hardcore child pornography, well, that's what they're there for, I guess. But knowing cops as we do, they are not likely to stop there.
I suspect that non-pornographic photo sites will also be 'disappeared', as will non-childporn related discussion groups which the cops have for so long wished to destroy. And how will these resources fight it the censorship?
And when state after state takes up laws like these, then the mechanism for full web censorship of pedophile and child sexuality will be in place. Sites like http://www.allaboutsex.org/ may be neutrilized because they invite young children to discuss their sex lives. And who knows what else.
A weakened first ammendment is a weakened first ammendment, no matter how good it makes you feel.
What needs to be done is for society to accept people who have this inclination, and to work together with them to help rid the world of exploitation. Society needs to accept that children have a sexual response, which sometimes includes adults, for better or worse. The anti-nudity, anti-sex brigade of the US must be put in it's place by reasonable thinking people. When these three things happen, child lovers will be able to work again inside society, instead of on the outside. Do you really think pedophiles enjoy the violence, the murders, the secrecy, or the abuse which can easily occur in a secret relationship? They beg for a chance to help society. A call that has been ignored or turned against them.
In Holland in the 70s, hardcore child porn was available on store shelves. They were images of children 'showing off', and images of sex play. Holland did not experience a great increase in the number of sex crimes against children. That is, until they made child porn illegal. Then suddenly these thigns were a moral outrage to be scorned, and burned. Even the scientific and historical librarary of Brongersma, the most famous Danish boylover, was confiscated has been put on it's way to destruction.
But what is the science against child porn? None. There is nothing that proves that a pedophile that views child porn is more likely to abuse a child.
And yet Americans place their Constitution in the shredder because of some 10 year old's erection. They are too moral for free speech.
There's a rant for you..
polystrata69 - mod me up / mod me down..
1. block child "porn."
2. block terrorists
3. block unamerican activities
4. block you
Vote Republican the easy way!
Well, with the really lousy service we have here (Verio, Epix) that'd probably be a step up...
All editorial writers ever do is come down from the hill after the battle is over and shoot the wounded.
Are the headlines -
...
Microsoft, Terrorist Corporation
Dubya, linked to global economic terrorist Enron
Echelon global terrorist network uncovered
MPAA/RIAA media terrorism spotlighted
Putins murder of Chechens, terrorism at the heart of Russia
Israel terrorist-government massacre of innocent Palestinians
... and we all know why
Any sufficiently advanced man is indistinguishable from God
While this is an obvious knee-jerk reaction to the Candyman fallout - it's also been tried before. Check out PSINet, Inc. v. Chapman, 108 F.Supp.2d 611 (W.D. Va. 2000) (enjoining application of law imposing criminal liability for the commercial display of sexually explicit materials harmful to juveniles).
Oh, but this is narrowly tailored, you say? Whatever. Wait until they start slugging out what gets blocked and what doesn't, then come talk to me. This is just more posturing for the constituents.
STATE REP:"Dum da dum! I will protect your children from pedophiles, voters! Let me just unplug this twisted pair here..."
[GZZOK! Pennsylvania goes black.]
STATE REP: "Oops."
I'm betting on an ISP-obtained injunction by the end of the week. Anyone care to start a pool?
It may be cold, but at least it's clear.
It always surprised me that usenet hasn't really been hit by the censorship folks yet. I mean, there's some pretty illegal stuff going on there, and it's a lot easier at the ISP level to filter than individual websites.
The trap of the ISP being considered a publisher (and therefore resonsible for all online content) doesn't apply, because the ISP must specifically choose to carry every newsgroup in their feed. The groups in their feed are an arbitrary selection on their part no matter which way you slice it. I'm pretty surprised that more ISPs don't at least do occasional checks to see which high-traffic newsgroups in their feed are obvious child porn groups, and stop carrying them.
You'd think they'd do it just to cover their own ass, and to try to avoid legislation on the more gray-area newsgroups (mp3s, etc)
-----
Kvetch is Yiddish for "throw an exception" --Dr. Ron Cytron
Going to get nasty on boxes that use a single IP address and virtual hosting. Especially with international traffic going around.
I can see freehosts getting badly burned. Suddenly ISPs have a court order blocking 1 cp site and 20,000 other sites, mostly innocent get taken down with it.
Why not aim the court order at the hosting ISP to take it down. Going to be tricky internationally but maybe a little tolerance to others laws and ages of consents is the price we pay for an open network?
ISPs can't block access to 'sites' without analysing the traffic going past, very tricky.
Site != IP
While I agree with the intent, I have a couple of questions...
Are the ISPs to be reimbursed by the government for whatever additional resources they require in order to comply with this law? Seems hardly fair if not...
Also, how are organizations like UPS, USPS, etc regulated in this respect? For one, it doesn't seem that the statres have the authority to do that, and that such regulations would have to be federal. And to my knowledge, shipping companies aren't required to break open every box to see if they are shipping illegal material, nor are they given a blacklist of postal address that are not allowed to send or receive mail. So, if a forum of child pron freaks organized it such that all materials were transfered through parcel post, would it then be ok?
The way I see it, if they have the addresses, it is the responsibility of the government to shut these sites down, not any private organization. Now there comes a problem with sites hosted in other countries providing material to the US, and I suppose this is where this law is intended to come into play. With this, I ask what are the regulations on international shipping? Can someone in another country just seal up a box of child porn and send it on over? If so, I'm afraid the same has to be possible through the internet.
The problem is due to its convenience, the internet keeps being considered a special case with regards to everything. I think similar standards as applied to shipping companies should be applied to internet providers. If there are restrictions on international shipping with regards to all this, then, sadly, a national firewall would be the only fair way to do it. It sounds atrocious, but if done *Really* carefully with a large review process to ensure only what the public agrees to is kept out, it might work. From my experience with international shipping, however, they aren't that restrictive on what you could send.
In the end, I suppose it makes sense for the rule that if the site is on US soil, shut it down, otherwise, report the site to the country with jurisdiction. If they choose not to pursue it, well, it's not 'our' children to protect at that point.. It would certainly be worth putting pressure on that nation to be better about laws, but ultimately it isn't our responsibility to prtect their children..
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
Too true.
1...little ISPs don't have that kind of user base
Sit back and watch the Genius of Capitalism at work. Am I the only one who thinks there's a conflict of interest when the head of the FCC is on AOL/Time Warner's Board of Directors?
2...access them through, say, www.anonymizer.com
They will block access to anonymyzer.com. And/or they will outlaw anonymizer.com. No unencrpyted traffic on the "last mile." We've seen this before; ISPs whose TOS don't allow a VPN connection. If you use anonymizer.com, then the terrorists win!
3...born-again-Christian-zealot Attorney General defining kiddie porn to further their own agenda
It should be pretty easy to find "impure" sites, since under the USA Patriot act all the FBI has to do is tell the ISP that they are doing it for "security" and presto! All your packets are belong to Ashcroft.
Living thru the Internet Revolution exemplifies the old Chinese curse "May you live in interesting times."
i think the point is that the customer base will leave such that it's not profitable to be an internet business in PA. if you double your price to account for the increase in cost and expected decrease in customer base, well, more and more customers will start to disapear, to where you have to increase again, then again. finally the numbers will be gone.
i think it's all ok since i read on the internet that 1/8th of the child porn originates in PA, and that 9/10ths of all numbers on the internet are made up.
look, proxy, no proxy, encryption, no encryption. it _really_ doesn't matter. if people in PA want kiddy porn, they'll find a way to get it. the legislature is all about making crazy feel good laws and then having to put a burocracy around it. are the laws against marijuana doing any good? are they effective? is there a point other than making some people feel better about the society they live in?
I see you have no counter argument. Did you even read my response, much less the actual text of the (proposed) law?
I would try if I lived there, and if they passed the thing. How about you try it and prove me wrong? You seem to have no other means of doing so. And no I'm not going to move there, especially since my plan would most likley work and I'd be without an internet connection. What would be the point to that?
I am seriously not trying to be snippy, just propose an idea that could be tried. I'm not sure why you're so down on the whole plan, and avoid rational discussion on the matter.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Censorship is bad in all its forms, and for us to be hypocrites and get mad about China censoring the net then do it ourselves, its pathetic.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
<Drum riff>
Yeah, right.
How long before RIAA and MPAA jump on this and sue to have certain web sites blocked that have information on how to rip CDs, copy CDs, DVDs, provide ripping/copying software, etc..... There's a number of european sites that have info that would probably be DMCA'ed in the US. Hillary and Jack are salivating at the thought....Along with their paid-for stooge Fritz.
There are technical means that ISPs could use to implement Pennsylvania's orders - they could install proxy servers on all of their connections leaving Pennsylvania, either forcing users to explicitly proxy their browsers, or using transparent proxy servers. Some ISPs do this, to take advantage of caching and reduce their overall bandwidth needs, but except for local ISPs that happen to be entirely within Pennsylvania, most of them didn't build their network to easily keep track of state lines so they can enforce the "Banned in Boston" rules in Boston, "Banned in Philadelphia" rules in Philly, and "Banned in Pittsburgh" rules in Pittsburgh.
Does anybody know if any national ISPs were consulted on the implementation issues? I suspect most of them are perfectly willing to comply with orders to take down web pages, but would have lots more trouble with the blocking requirements - it's much cleaner to implement on the edges of the network, in the user's browser where there's enough information to decide.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
So this means that the Government has a LIST somewhere of kiddie porn sites? First of all, that's the kind of material that can get people in trouble ;)
:)
I almost wish I had a site on that list so I could see how many hits I got from *.pa.gov.
A fiber carrier or Frame or ATM carrier probably isn't an ISP - if they're not routing the IP packets themselves, just hauling bits or frames or cells, they probably don't match PA's law, except that most carriers providing those services also run ISP businesses.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
I saw some kid on Geraldo who didn't age.. he was about 36 years old, but he looked nine...
Hmm..
Let try a little logic here.
/.ers to do the same. There really is right and wrong and we SHOULD FIGHT FOR WHAT IS RIGHT. True freedom is not the ability to do whatever the heck you want but it is the ability and moral courage to do what is right. Those who fought and died for freedom in the past did not do so to protect the child pornographer. We honor their blood when we fight for what is right.
The main problem here is that most people are afraid to make a moral judgement because to do so would mean indirectly admitting to a higher moral law. If they agree to a higher moral law then they might need to change some of the things they do. It seems like most people throw out absolute morals to avoid facing their own issues. If you cannot appeal to a higher law then it is merely your opinion that child pornography is bad which is no more valuable than that of the child pornographer. Consider these questions:
Is child pornography wrong? Should people who think it is very bad try to stop it? Should a state try to stop it? Why?
If you say yes it is wrong on what basis can you back that up and why is the opinion you have more valuable than that of the child pornographer who thinks it is OK and actually liberating for children?
Bottom line is that this is very very bad because it hurts people. The children are scarred for life and the viewer goes deeper into his/her depravity. Many go on to molestation and some actually molest and then kill children. Apparently the process often starts with pornography.
It is bad to hurt people because God said so and He has imprinted this knowledge deep in the heart of everyone. The ability to determine right and wrong can be lost or suppressed as people smother it with their own will to do wrong. Eventually the conscience can become seared causing truth and morality to become relative. Everyone starts out with that ability, even those who deny any higher moral law. Denial does not make something go away in the same way wishing something were true does not make it so.
You SHOULD TRY TO STOP BAD ACTIONS like those of the child pornographer because to do so is RIGHT!
To not do so is WRONG.
There is no grey area here.
Instead of whining about how bad the law is help the state fix it or make a better more effective one. Try creative ways to shut the kiddie porn sites down, encouraging
If you think I am WRONG please tell me why based on logic. Telling me I am stupid for believing in God and a higher moral law without giving a logical reason why this is so will not make a legitimate point.
I prefer to be here in Canada, where ISPs are not held responsible (and rightly so), so what moves across their lines. As long as they don't store the data on their servers, they are in the clear. Maybe thats what helps to make internet access so much cheaper here? Who knows, stupid laws in the US screw up a lot of things.
Its not that I'm for that kind of material, just wrong to be able to punish a proxy for someone else doing illegal things.
The law doesn't make it illegal to send encrypted traffic, so you can still use PGP or IPSEC or use SSL web forms to send in your credit card number. If the encrypted data you're sending is Officially Banned Data, then you're committing a crime regardless of whether it's encrypted. If an ISP can detect that you're transmitting Officially Banned Data and doesn't block it, they're Guilty, but if you're sending your requests encrypted they're probably off the hook. probably.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
The war on spam is necessary. My Earthlink email account was overrun by spam before I gave out or used my email address anywhere. Only my ISP (Earthlink) knew it.
How'd that happen? I have my suspicions...
Anyway, not only stopping spam, but DoS attacks, evil "hackers", etc has led to implementation of firewalls, router blackhole lists and the like.
The war on spam is not 100% responsible.
Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
If the ISPs are going to be given the responsibilities of common carriers then they need to be given the rights of common carriers (such as protection from lawsuits, etc) too.
That's only fair.
Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
There are constitutional problems with it, and it is regulating interstate commerce, and it's arguable that the requirement for interstate businesses to pay for blocking mechanisms without reimbursement is unconstitutional. Even the Australians, whose pro-censorship folks are as rabidly pro-censorship as anybody in the US, only require that ISPs provide censorware to customers who want it, rather than requiring them to implement it themselves, plus of course requiring web hosting providers to take down any material they don't approve of (which is a rather wider set, since they lack the equivalent of the US First Amendment.)
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
Here's a site they might consider blocking: Goatse.cx
well, (un)fortunately I don't live there either.
no I didn't read the law. That doesn't change the fact that your statements are alarmist and without foundation. Also, since I am not a lawyer, I doubt that my reading of the law would convince you anyway. I think it is much more likely that common sense would actually prevail in a situation like this. A judge would look at the situation, realize that the proxy was the conduit (much more so than the ISP) and then do one of two things.
1) Let the ISP off.
2) Let the ISP off with an order that they block the proxy as well.
I think that time will prove me correct too...
. --- If you're looking for free e-mail you won't find it here! http://www.noemailhere.com
worse case scenario is that Internet access becomes expensive in PA with only a few large players providing service.
also, you hurt your argument when you compare kiddy porn to pot. I don't like pot much, but it's certainly a heck of a lot less harmful than child porn...
. --- If you're looking for free e-mail you won't find it here! http://www.noemailhere.com
im interested in how you see those few players surviving very long with expensive internet access? who's going to be paying 60$ a month for a 56k dial up connection? wouldn't a worser case be that eventually there's no internet in PA. sure it might not come to that once those lawyers sort it all out.
as another twist, how about satalite connections? if i'm living in PA, i could run across to VA or OH, or NY and get me one of them there sat-a-lite internet dishes go home and i'm all set.
the analogy of kiddy porn to pot is to show that there are dumb ass laws being put on the books which have no business there. these laws are put there for feel good measures to get a few votes next time around. maybe i should take it to a arguably more socially accepted level? are the insurance companies lobbying for anti-cell phone laws? most of the current anti-cell phone while driving laws are at the local level (cities, towns, villages,etc). if it were a real problem for vehicle accidents, the insurance companies would be harassing the hell out of those slimy congress folks in D.C.
now, back to the main point. this law is down right basackwards and unnessarry. there's laws against making kiddie porn. laws agains distributing it. probably laws agains posessing it. now there's a law that an ISP has to police its networks for the stuff and keep it out? i'll have to go back to my pot analogy on this one. it's illegal to make pot. illetal to sell pot. probably illegal to posess it to some extent. should the right prudent folks of the commonwealth of PA force their phone companies to monitor all phone conversations (gotta include the cell folks) for possible pot deals? how is this really any different? sure kiddie porn is bad stuff, but you can go around making insaine laws and just blow it off saying "well, that kiddie porn is bad stuff and we're doing our part to keep it out of PA"
If the government has identified a site with paedophelic material, then why would it not go straight to the source and get it taken down? How many countries don't have laws against child porn??
Sounds like political opportunism combined with laziness on the part of elected officials to me...
Let's analyze this shall we?
1: The government is proposing building up a list of child porn related sites. (excusing the obvious problems with sites that are NOT child porn but will eventually get slapped with this label) This in itself is admirable. I believe that this will help clean out the wasteland of porno and sick **** that the Internet has become famous for.
2: With this new list they are going to force ISPs to block access to them through the ISP's individual infrastructure, routers, hubs, dialin points, etc.. This means that the routers, etc.. will have to keep track on this (ever-growing) list. Ooh Ooh batman!! it's going to be DonTDns!! That's right ! the DNS that DOESN'T work! the government will implement a DNS-like strategy to dynamically block websites all over the US through posting to a single list! Won't this be fun boys and girls?
3: With the new DonTDNS in effect MS screws up and dumps all of it's DNS "A" records into the blacklist and suddenly all microsoft sites will be BANNED as child porn!! (this is not necessarily a bad thing!)
-----
Joking aside. Anyone looking at child porn needs to have a 12 guage head exam. Although I agree that we need to hold up our rights under the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights was also written so that it could be interpreted by the people as the bill progressed in age. There isn't one person that actually thinks that looking at young kids doing the nasty as something that should be legalized? I would like to see someone try to defend WHY child porn should be allowed to exist at all?
OTOH I do not agree that it is the ISP's job to control access. I believe that it is the Hosting service provider (HSP) that should be patrolling their own LAN to tell whether or not material falls within the "child porn" category as most HSPs state in their terms of service.
ok
Partnership for an idiot free America!
This will work perfectly guys! Why? Because, all child porn comes from a few computers with IP addresses that NEVER CHANGE! It's true!
"Your superior intellect is no match for our puny weapons!"
It was not mentioned in the article, but somebody needs to decide what exactly is considered child pornography. In other words, after sifting through thousands and thousands of pornographic images, you may not find ANY child pornography. How do you really know if a person in a photo is 18 or even 17? It could potentially take weeks of endless staring at a computer screen to find ANY illegal porn. For the record, I am totally against child pornography, but if our government needs me to stare at porn all day long, I'll do my best to serve my country well.
;-)
Moderators without a sense of humor:
Go Ahead - make my day
Some might think I'm making a joke, but I have some serious questions I'd like to ask about Child Porn:
1. Are pictures of me as a child...nude in the bathtub, considered child porn? Sounds like it is not...so could a website be run that has lots of nude children photos and be legal?
2. What about cartoon children in sexual situations? Is that considered child porn?
3. What about Japanese Anime. That definitely seems to flirt the fine line of childish characters in sexual situations. Child porn?
4. Britney Spears videos? SERIOUSLY! How old was she when she made the "Oops I did it again" video. That was definitely a sexual video. Child porn?
5. Speaking of Britney...how about any video or picture that shows a 18 year old woman wearing a catholic schoolgirl outfit. Isn't that alluding to child porn fantasies?
6. What about those Girls gone wild videos. They look awfully young. Child porn?
7. What about videos taken at some of Europes nude beaches...of obviously 13-15ish year old girls. Child Porn?
8. What about a TXT file...story of sex with children. Child Porn?
9. What about the book Lolita? Child Porn?
10. Finally, what about films like "The Professional", he really sexed up Natalie Portman in that film...that's definitely skirting the Child Porn laws.
What about due process? Does the law require the site to be found guilty in a court of law first? Or is this analogous to the police holding people on remand, awaiting trial? Would they need a court order?
Is the definition of 'child porn' in terms of the age of consent? Another poster alluded to this age being 18 years in Penn. A UK national newspaper (The Sun) famously carries soft porn on page 3. It would not surprise me if some of the pictures there have been of women younger than 18 years. Would The Sun web site be blocked? Or only a 'page 3' web page. If only the URL of today's 'page 3' web page were blocked, would the Penn. police need a new court order every day?
As danheskett says, the practical complexities of this would be unsurmountable.
Ne mæg werig mod wyrde wiðstondan, ne se hreo hyge helpe gefremman.
Is the definition of 'child porn' in terms of the age of consent?
Even this was the rule both ages of consent and ages of majority vary widely between different parts of the world. They have also changed over time. An obvious example is the question of if "Romeo and Juliet" is "child porn". Let alone what standards should apply when you get something like the Ocampa in Star Trek Voyager. (Probably Paramount is big enough to get any rules bent/ignored.)
What it every /.-er sets up a small ISP business in Pennsylvania, or one that can at least in theory be used by Pennsylvanians. And what if they all let the Pennsylvanian AG office know of their existance and their agent's address? Will the AG have to send out over half a million copies of the court order?
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
No, I believe it's illegal to have adult actors pretend to be children having sex.
This might be the case if the subject matter is actually called a "porn film". But a "mainstream film" such as "The Fly II" dosn't appear covered by any such law.
This would be odd. The legal theory that allows child pornography to be banned (while adult pornography cannot) is
The reason that "simulated child pornography", which includes adult actors pretending to be children, cartoons and CGI, is considered to be just as illegal as actual "child pornography". Is that the PTB feel it would be too difficult to actually prosecute cases where this was a possible defence.
UK law is a little fuzzy on exact ages (I personally think this is a good thing as it allows some interpretation depending on the exact circumstances), however the generally accepted rule is that in the UK 16 is the limit for topless (provided parental consent is given) and 18 for nude. I'd be surprised if The Sun in particular published under 18's, but I think they could. For a better example, there's a model who is now quite famous called Lindsey Dawn McKenzie - her first (topless) photos were published in a UK paper called The Sunday Sport on the day after her 16th birthday. For weeks beforehand they had pics of her in bikinis, with a "Countdown to 16" promotion. The idea was the pics were taken on the saturday (her birthday) and printed the next day. Of course, they could have taken them weeks before and no one would have known.
In other european countries it varies again, I've seen magazines in scandanavia (and these are news stand publications in a similar vein to TV Guide not porn) with nude photos of girls labelled as 15 years old.
---- Den ene knappen er powerknapp, den andre er Bender voice knapp "Bite My Shiny Metal Ass"
Because many ISPs block them already, or the groups are getting spammed/bombed to death, but the people just move to some less explicitly named groups, wreaking havoc on those actually looking for normal or artistic or nudist pictures by mixing it with hardcore stuff. It's been done, and it doesn"t work...
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Child porn is unique in that it is fairly straightforward both to define [...]
The definition of a good definition is that it creates a sharp boundary of inside vs. outside of the definition. If you claim that child porn has such a definition, you're smoking crack.
The term "child porn" here is supposed to cause a knee-jerk reaction, with imagery of 5-year-olds being raped. I'm as much against that as anyone (I don't know of any culture where this is acceptable, although such cultures may exist).
However, there are other cases. Consider the pictures from the family vacation trip to a nude beach. (To you who balk with horror: this is fairly common practice in Europe.) These are naked people. Is it pornography? No? Then, when does it become pornography? When the same people on the nude beach are closer to the camera? When they are resting in a chair? The line is far from obvious.
Ok, so let's assume for a moment that it is easy to determine the age, with exact precision, of somebody photographed (which it's not) and that there is a binary and ubiquituous answer to whether an image is pornographic or not (which there isn't).
The age of consent in the U.S. is one of the highest in the world. Is one really a child, sexually, when one is 17? Consider Shakespeare's "Romeo and Juliet", which takes place just before Juliet's 14th birthday. One striking line is "Younger than she are happy mothers made." Is an image of a sexually active 17-year-old child porn? With focus on child ? What if she made the image herself?
What if she's living in Holland, where the age of consent is 12 (twelve)? What if a Japanese 15-year-old (who is past the age of consent) poses for camera in Japan? If it is not child porn there (which it isn't), does it become child porn elsewhere? When?
Saying that it is easy to rate something as child porn vs. not child porn, even when we know that one component of the word ("porn") lacks a good definition, is utterly ridiculous.
In the text of the law internet is defined as over wire or radio connections.
Does this mean that this law does not apply on parts of internet that are passed over optic fiber?
This discussion reminds me something.
~shiny
WILL HACK FOR $$$
Will a bill like this hold up to "The Constitution"? Do we not have freedom of press rights granted us via the "Bill of Rights"? Or, does the "Bill of Rights" somehow exemplify child pornography? Or is PA somehow exempt from the "Bill of Rights"? I don't agree with child pornography, I'm just wondering how this will bounce back from a "higher" level?
I find it funny that americans think of the USA as "the land of the free" when they have the most restrictive censorship outside of religious dictatorships.
Hide child porn. Pretend it doesn't exist. After that you may want to forbid people from looking at pictures of war casuaties or pictures of children starving in Africa. If people don't see it, maybe they won't think about it, and maybe they'll feel better. It sure is cheaper than actually doing something about it.
Pigs.
Unfortunatley, time will proove neither one of us correct I imagine - as I'm sure no-one will try it. It really is a lot of work to go through for an uncertain gain.
The best thing we could hope for is that the point is moot and the silly thing does not pass.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
The funny thing is that I don't believe that you reply was a hyperbole -- you actually meant every word. Freedom needs to be protected -- the freedom of the kids is the priority here. Whether those who try to protect the children "get it right on the first shot" or not is not as important as the fact that they are making attempts, and YES, I do believe the my freedom to surf for kiddie porn is something that that I will GLADLY give up if it means even the possibility of saving one child. Your exaggerated expressions and over the top language does your opinion no credit. Yes, freedom is important -- for lack of a better word, "duh". Freedom itself needs to be protected, and some freedoms have priority. Freedom to live life without being raped, tortued, molested, and exploited takes precedence to my freedom to visit every URL imaginable. Do you get it now?
Exactly what are you trying to accomplish then? Your lack of context is compelling -- McMartin Preschool? Solid Evidence? This is apples and oranges... I agree with your opinion on the McMartin case, as there was no solid evidence, and they were falsely accused, but I fail to see your point, as it is, again, out of context. Evidence? Are you suggesting that there is no kiddie porn on the internet? Again, what is your point? Clearly there is nothing to respond to on this other than it is clear why you posted anonymously. At least the over-the-top "what about my rights?" freak in the next post had a point, so you can see my clarification on post post as a reply to his rant.
That's as stupid as saying that films depicting murder make it more difficult to prosecute purveyors of snuff films.
...that here in the uk, if a 16 year old schoolgirl wants to have sex with me, she can, but if I video the event (even with her permission, and for my own use only) then I am breaking the law as I own child porn.
Or look at it this way. If I had a large collection of child porn which consisted of 16 year old girls, this would be against the law, but if that collection encouraged me to go out and have sex with 16 year old girls then (as long as it was with their consent), I wouldn't be breaking the law.
In my opinion it is wrong to have a different age for consent and for what constitutes child pornography. Essentially what the law is saying (since in the UK you become an adult at 18) is that:
To own pornography of 16 year old children is illegal.
To actually have sex with 16 year old children is legal.
I know I have stated the same thing 3 times, but it is worth repeating so that the senselessness of it is driven home.
graspee
First I don't see the big deal with this law, the goverment does have a dute to protect kids, just like in ham radio there are some things you can not talk about or evan some words you can not say. Maybe the state AG is not the best person to decide what is to be blocked. But we do have to get rid of this lowlife stuff, and for the people who say go after the people with the servers, some of the servers are out of the country and some countries this stuff is leagal, I remeber hearing that Arther C. Clarck lives in some country. So how do stop this stuff, as I see it the filters will be for sites that are out of the country, the ones in the country I am sure will be sure down by the laws that are alread on the books. Just my 2c for what ever it is worth.
The problem with searching out all the links to censorware.org is that there are a bunch which are in print, in mail messages which are on web-archives, in sites which have webmasters who don't update old material, and so on. So it's a huge job, and can't ever be fully changed. Some of the top linking-sites have been changed, but there's still a big problem from the sources above. Michael Sims has recently become absolutely shameless that he's hijacking those links for his ranting. Sigh. I'll say it again, though I'll certainly guarantee myself a slam down to 'Troll' status if I am in fact being revenge-moderated: It boggles my mind that he can pull such sleaze and still retain a decent public reputation. It's the power of journalism.
Oh shut up you fucking idiot.
Hey, aren't you the freak stalking our beloved Michael?
(The idea here being that a dumb script will just follow-up this message with the same attack. Of course, a dumb person would do the same. Sometimes it's hard to tell the difference. But I am curious. For the record, I strongly doubt you're Michael Sims.
I generally don't reply to trolls. But as I said, these are test messages, in an old discussion, and given Michael Sims attacks, I'm interested in testing a few things.
I don't want to make any accusations I'm not certain about. If our situations were reversed, he would certainly unfailingly accuse me of your actions, and basically has. That's the difference between us.