Slashdot Mirror
WorldCom Forced To Block Questionable Sites
Cutriss writes "Seen on Wired, this article briefly mentions how the Pennsylvania State Government is forcing UUNet to block access to five child pornography sites, under their new state law. No mention was made as to whether they were domestic or foreign. I'm certainly no fan of kiddie porn, but this ruling also serves as a blow to the 'common carrier' status that any whatever-tiered ISP should have in theory, and in practice. Also, this is a state law, not a federal one, but the end result is nationwide. This isn't a whole lot different from Yahoo! France being sued for making auctions of Nazi propaganda viewable by French citizens."
That's it. This is the last straw. Now I am definitely not moving to Pencil-vane-ya.
"Piter, too, is dead."
If the sites are domestic why not shut them down rather than restrict constitutional rights? On another note, if they are not domestic, does the person posting them have the freedom to speech? doubt it.
Most of the sites are outside of the US. Two are is Spain and at least one is in Russia. WorldCom will just null0 the IPs, but, if they are multihomed...
Michael Loves Me!
While child pornography should be stopped, this isn't the way to do it. We read articles every day about creative ne censorship and DRM, and the worst thing about these things is that they open the door to a new world of restricted freedoms. A lot of these new restictions won't hurt our freedom in their current state, but it's when the get twisted into a new form that they will become dangerous.
Perhaps they should also shut down the phone lines to prevent people from dialing up to the internet at all. That would block "questionable sites" for a large portion of the state.
I hate kiddie porn as much as the next person, but imposing censorship over what an internet provider can deliver (only at the request of the user, keep in mind,) is a terrible thing in my view.
If this stands, it will open the door for many similar situations to arise.
Sharpies don't just sniff themselves.
this ruling only applies to PA residents who have UUnet/WorldCom/whatever it's called. Outside PA, UUNet dont have to do squat.
A lot of people have blasted the people in the past for overreacting to YRO stories. I hope that in the last year people have woken up to just how fragile freedom really is.
The precedent that this sets is really bad. It means that it's all downhill from here. If ISPs are blocking one type of "illegal bytes", then why should they allow another type?
Consorship is not some theoretical thing, it is real, alive, and something that threatens everything that the USA is supposed to stand for.
To all those that didn't vote Libertarian, to all those who don't know their representative's name, to all those who don't care, so long as they can drink their beer, eat their pizza, and play with their tech toys.... This is your doing.
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
the problem is that KP damages kids for life. Though the implication of this are not that big because this is at the state level (as it should be).
I would expect a court case soon to see if this confilct with the first amendment, if not i clearly falls under the 10th..
What if they're an American living/visiting abroad? Or they have an overseas server?
The tricky part is we're essentially asking the rest of the world to accept our notion of Freedom of Speech which is really Freedom of Political Speech.
This doesn't fly too well with most other countries.
But you're right, the sites should be shut down, wherever they are. I don't think Kiddie Porn is protected anywhere.
The opposite of progress is congress
Jesus man, they're not saying "don't deal with it." They're just saying, "deal with it in a different way." Chill out.
No sig for you.
I'm no fan of censorship of opinion (even if I hate inbred nazi/kkk cocksuckers), but the posession or acquisition of kiddie porn by a photographer is illegal.
"You know you don't act like a scientist, you're more like a game show host." Dana Barret
Won't this law then enable the whole "Your blocking these kiddy porn sites, why no block these warez sites?". Basically isn't this law now removing the protection granted over what is transmitted over the lines? By no longer getting unresponible for what is being transmitted I can see many companies sueing if they don't like what's being transfered. This will cause packet filtering at every router, hell I can see the RIAA and MPAA trying to get the routers to determine if whats being transfered is a copyrighted song or movie. My suggestion is for WorldCom to completely avoid this new legislation by stopping all service in Penncilvania. Having all their citizens bitching should get this law overruled pretty quickly.
You have to remember that Attorney General Fisher is running for the office of Governor. He'll do anything to get a headline (other than be intelligent).
As a previous poster said, there is no mention if the sites in question are foreign or domestic.
What will they think of next, telling Earthlink that their service is being used for file sharing and to stop it?
While I believe child pornographers should get the death penalty, this is just fluff. Nothing more.
but in some communities it's not even obscene!
Right then, if napster can be sued for letting people download music by supplying the software then how about sueing microsoft for allowing people to search the internet for WHATEVER THEY WANT. In fact my computer allows me to print LIES on my printer so sue Hewlett Packard. And, while you are there, sue my teachers for teaching me to read.
Do you really believe that chasing these sites around the net is going to end childporn? Do you really think they are not going to just go where the PA AG can't get to them?
Michael Loves Me!
'common carrier' status that any whatever-tiered ISP should have in theory, and in practice
I don't think ISP's like UUNET have ever been considered common carriers, nor do I think they want to be. They regularly engage in content based filtering of spam all the time.
Isn't this unconstitutional? Only the federal goverment has the right to regulate interstate commerce.
you lose.
"Only in their dreams can men truly be free 'twas always thus, and always thus will be."
--Tom Schulman
I don't believe anybody is saying that there should NOT be child pron sites - that's (pretty much) universally agreed on to be a "bad thing"
what I believe to be the problem is the fact that this makes backbone/service providers liable for the content that travels across their networks. this also sets a bad precident in allowing other things to be censored at the network level... even if they aren't such a hideously objectionable thing such as child pornography
Hey dont knock PA....I live here (ducking). Serious though...I dont see PA telling them to block animal porn...then again PA is known for some backwoods fun with furry friends. What about my favorite bonsai kitty site? NO!!!!!!
Two wrongs never make a right. The people who should be punished are the people responsible, not the messanger. Why should UUNET pay the price for the child pornographer's wrongdoing?
Just because you use the word children doesn't make you right.
Using child pornography as an excuse for injustice is worce then just the child pornography alone. Prioritize.
Hell, I'm no fan of Microsoft or the RIAA, but that doesn't mean I think their sites should be blocked.
If you start blocking sites because you don't like what's in them (or because you think it will "offend" other people), where do you stop? Should you block sites that show dead iraqi children because it doesn't benefit the US's image? Should you block christian sites because they might offend some muslims?
Instead of blocking these sites, they should go after people who exploit and kill children. Hiding a problem won't make it go away, it'll only make people less aware of it land less likely to solve it. If children are being exploited I think people should see it with their own eyes, and get mad, and do something about it.
Websites don't appear magically in my browser. To find something, I have to deliberately look for it (unless it's penis enlargement, pills, of course). I definitely don't need - or want - the state to "protect" me.
Ive waited over 5 minutes to post this, so I can only assume that slashdot has slashotted itself.
"Control the pedophiles, and you have a happier/cleaner society."
I said that.
having the mechanism and the legislation in place to restrict access to the undoubtly sick sites also allows easy blocking of sites the feds don't like to see...
in germany some ISPs in my state have to restrict access to certain nazi-sites as well, due to local law... fine so far, but I haven't found anything nazi-like or anything else illegal on rotten.com, so why did they block this one as well? (ok, it's bad taste, but nobody forces you to go there)
Sommmmmebody had a sneaky uncle!
Yes,
This is probably the only way something can be done about it since the sites are outside of US influence.
I don't think this is a censorship issue unless it continues on to other things. I think we can safely say that a line can be drawn against child porn.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I for one don't want ISPs to maintain killfiles. Which is why I agree with the Editors, and disagree with you, that this is bad.
as far the poster implying that this is a national thing, he's wrong. The ruling only applies to WorldCom/UUNet within PA. Basically, for PA customers, they have to block the sites, but outside PA, they can do as they please (for so long until other states pass similar laws, or the feds do)
For example, I'm in PA. I dont think UUnet is at the backbone of my school's ISP, but if they are, I could not reach the blacklisted sites. OTOH, visit a friend outside the state, and can reach those sites (assuming similar legislation is not in effect there too). (disclaimer: This does not imply that I would want to be looking a kiddie pron)
The One Rule Of Chess You'll Ever Need: Don't play someone who carries a kit in their bookbag.
I see: by complaining that the tactics used by the State are ineffective and have been used as a power grab into other unrelated areas, you would lump me in with the child pornographers. Thanks, that'll shut me up.
HARRISBURG, Pennsylvania -- WorldCom, the bankrupt long-distance voice and data services company, was ordered by a judge to deny access to five child pornography sites to its Pennsylvania customers, the state Attorney General said Wednesday.
The block isn't nationwide, it's for Pennsylvania. I'll admit it might be tricky to implement and they may just say to hell with it and block the sites nationwide. And so what? How is blocking some kiddie porn sites affecting our rights? I think we need to take these type of things in context.
We're not opening a Pandora's box that will allow a NY senator to shut down a CA homepage that has some negative opinions of them on it. It's child porn! It's not like there's a state in the US that says it's legal. If every state went ahead and had to file a motion against WorldCom to block the same 5 sites, then everyone would be upset that so much money was wasted.
Choose your battles wisely.
When kiddie porn is mentioned, i automatically think pre teen pubescents being forced/manipulated into sexually explicit acts... does anyone know the definition of kiddie porn? I'd like to think that there aren't that many people out there that sick.
Maybe, since I am not an American, I have a harder time understanding the problem with this. I think anything that helps try to put a stop to child pornography is a good thing!
I think your rights and freedoms are important, but I stringly believe anything the government can do to stop these perverts should be done, and if it tramples on their rights a little, that's too bad. You are given rights, assuming you are not a completely sick and twisted idiot, but some people clearlt don't deserve these rights
Some things are worse than censorship. Prioritize. I don't think that anyone would argue with you that child pornography is worse than censorship. Those sites should be closed off at the source. Shutting off access for a few million potential visitors does NOTHING to protect these children from being abused. On the other hand, the restriction of these sites sets a prescedent that government/special interest groups can influence a content provider to restrict access. First this, then some news site that doesn't agree with with the government's view or rulings. And then, slowly, your right to free speech erodes away. There are better ways of solving this problem.
Apparently they weren't able to stand up for those rights, and had them taken away. Bitching on /. about free speech may not be much of a stand, but it's a stand.
The problem is sub-humans who abuse children. Dropping all packets between Pennsylvania and any of 5 IP addresses is not the answer.
--
E_NOSIG
Good point, but...
That's the problem with any right, if you excercise your right: "You people MAKE ME SICK." to free speech, you may offend a lot of people, what about their rights?
While I certainly do not advocate child pornography or the acts depictured, I believe that the site should not be blocked, but rather, if domestic, brought down, if foreign, go after the people who have actually downloaded the contents. (Which is afaik the illegal part, possessing child pornography)
In no matter do I want the goverment to decide what I am able to do, I want the freedom to do it and then I will gladly take the consequences of my actions.
Wax-Museum Fire Results In Hundreds Of New Danny DeVito Statues
No one is holding a gun to your head and forcing you to look at any of that. If you don't like it just don't visit those sites.
The right way is a supeona the ISP asking for a list of customers who have downloaded kiddie porn from these websites. Prosecute under existing laws. The listed website could even be used as valuable tools (bait) in ferreting out criminals likely to cause harm to children.
The wrong way is for government to get in the business of blocking anything. I reserve the right to decide what I look at on the web, and accept in trade the resopnsibility for what I choose to look at on the web.
Judicial review is a wonderful thing.
paintball
I fail to see the relevance of the courier in this case.
So a taxi company will take someone to the door of a place that is illegal for them to go to (say an underage brothel). What is the proper course of action?
a) Prevent taxi companies from taking people into those neighborhoods.
b) Do your best to close down the underage brothel and arrest the proprietors.
Failing b, (a) is not an acceptable substitute. It places the responsibility into the hands of people who it should not be the responsibility of, it interferes with the flow of business, and it is so easily circumvented by customers that it almost isn't worth considering.
Chill. There are better ways to handle this than to shoot the messengers. Knee-jerk reactions that sum to "THIS IS WRONG WE NEED TO DO EVERYTHING IN OUR POWER TO STOP ANYONE FROM EVER LOOKING AT IT" don't help the matter and are what lead to the corrosion of our rights.
Integrate Keynote and LaTeX
Some things are worse than censorship. Prioritize.
Like terrorism?
What about suicide?
The manufacture of drugs?
Computer viruses? Copyright violations? Where do you draw the line?
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
Common carrier laws (as I understand them) say that you can carry anything and not look at the content, but if someone calls attention to a specific communication as being illegal, you *must* now act on it. So since kiddie porn is illegal, and since UUNet has been told they're carrying it... No one is asking them to *look* for kiddie porn, they've been told *exactly* where it is. Sorry - that's not censorship, that's enforcement of the law.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
What about the rights of these children? You know, the right not to be abused. The right not to be defiled.
Your argument is a false dichotomy. Or do you really think that Worldcom(tm) has the power to stop the sexual abuse of children? Because that's what you're saying. That if Worldcom(tm) blocks these sites, that that action will somehow restore the lost rights of these children. Which is simply not true at all. Forcing a backbone carrier to not route traffic to a certain block of IP addresses (which is the only way a backbone carrier can really effect such a policy) does nothing to prevent sexual abuse of children. Children were being abused before the Internet even existed, and they'll still be abused after Worldcom implements this decision.
Some things are worse than censorship. Prioritize.
Lot's of things are worse than censorship. Murder. Rape. Child abuse. Genocide. Kidnapping. But censorship doesn't actually prevent any of these things. If child porn is such an issue for you, why don't you try and find some way to actually prevent it, rather than sit around making weak aguments that censorship is OK as long as it's "for the children".
...where the government censor websites they disagree with, we'll probablity have more pressing problems with the government at that point than just mere web site blocking.
We shouldn't worry about the slope. We should worry about the bastards who grease it.
This is slashdot. Annonymous Coward is by default, male.
I must respectfully disagree. Historically there have been mariages between what the US defines as "children" since the dawn of the human race. Many times 12, 13, 14 year old "kids" would be wed, and this was considered normal within that culture.
Romeo and Juliet? Within the context of the play they were written as 14 year old adolescents, and sexual content was implicit in that story. This was a work created only 500 years ago, and accepted in Elizibethen England. And yes, they were also married in that story...at age 14. If this happened today in the US they would be branded as freaks, and thier parents would be crucified on CNN. But in that time and place, it would have been considered perfectly normal.
There are cultures alive today, where this is still true. These issues are largely about cultural relativism. In the US, pornography featuring 14yr olds is branded as "evil". But in other cultures, it wouldn't be considered strange at all.
Insisting that the rest of the world conform to our White-protestant code of ethics is ignorant, and arrogant.
This is no different then what happened to the Amateur Action Bulletin Board's owners back in the early 1990's. They ran a BBS out of California, yet were charged (and went to jail because the BBS could be accessed from other states whose political tolerance for dirty pictures wasn't that of California.
Many states have always tried (and succeeded) to have jurisdiction over the citizens of other states...just ask anyone who's been involved in a divorce that crossed state lines.
I gotta tell you, I hate child porn (just like any other rational human), but blocking sites at the level they did is akin (and too close to it for me) to national censorship. There are far better ways to deal with this than what they chose. Just more proof that governments are the biggest collection of morons existant.
I"m not saying that it's right, but it is very defferent from Yahoo!france case!
There is a lot of difference between publishing and giving access to a material published bu someone else!
Censoring child porn? The very idea sickens me. Do people honestly think the problem is going to go away if we just put the blinders on?
The more people know about these atrocities the better. What we need to do is go after the damn perverts and shut them down for good.
Censorship is the ultimate hypocricy.
"I have opinions of my own, strong opinions, but I don't always agree with them." -- George H. W. Bush
"If by you taking away certain rights and privliges on the net a child out there may not have to go through that, then take them with my blessing."
I said that.
Finally, math books without any of that base 6 crap in them.
the PA state government should also post the list of sites blocked. Censorship without specific mention of source material is a common tactic of totalitarians. In the United States, one should be allowed access to references of all pertainent material specifically targeted by law. I hope someone sues the state of they don't.
I, for one, am in support of child pronography on the Internet. If it were my child, I would oil up my AK-74 and grease the disgusting bastards who created and hosted it. But in order to ensure the continued freedom of Information itself, I would never support a law specifically blocking child porn.
Once they lock up the child pornographers, who's next? Hackers? Sysadmins? How long until they come for me, and there is no one to stand up for me?
Sigh, let's take this case by case. (BTW, I've read the Pennsy law, have you?)
ISP liability: There is none. The ISP is simply being asked to block the distribution of material known to be illegal. Any ISP anywhere will comply with such a request, once the offending material is pointed out. To fail to respond to such a request is what would create liability for the ISP. Further, this type of action is perfectly consistent with common carrier status. UUNet is *not* being punished.
Porno site owners: These are the only people being 'punished', but they do not deserve protection. They are, after all, distributing illegal material, and have no right to do so.
Porno voyeurs: Again, the material is illegal. You have no right to obtain illegal materials, regardless of methodology employed.
'Slippery slope' arguments: Hey, folks, that's what the courts are for. Courts make distinctions all the time about what is, or is not, illegal. In this case, the type of material is explicitly illegal. If the porno providers can show that their product is NOT kiddie porn, they can sue to get the blocking removed and further, they can sue in civil court to recover damages due to the blocking.
It's not because child porn is BAD BAD BAD, it's because the way in which it is made is BAD BAD BAD. That's why it's illegal in so many countries, but regular porn isn't.
Note to M1-ers: a curt but otherwise insightful message is not "Flamebait" or "Troll".
this is a WHOLE lot different than Yahoo France. That law was instituted by France, not by a part of France.
Other countries allow what we consider child pronography (.nl for instance allows 16 year olds to pose nude and have sexual intercourse and be of legal age to do so, whereas in the US we do not allow such behavior until 18).
I am starting to see a bit of pressure being exerted by state and local governments which overthrows the US Government (see CA and their pot distribution from City Hall b/c of a recent bust of a pot collective by Federal agents).
You're not seriously arguing that child porn should be legal, are you?
I can't believe this shit. Maybe being a new father is making me over-zelous but if someone said to me that I had to give up internet privliges forever but it would me that just one child would be spared going through that, I'd give it up, all of it, and sleep like a king that night.
Finally, math books without any of that base 6 crap in them.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Ban this at least.
where hard alcohol can only be sold in state-controlled stores. CMU students are not surprised.
2 years and no mod points. Join reddit. Because openness is good.
It's funny that many states in the US define the age of consent as 16 (Canada and many UK countries set the age in the 14-16 range).
The irony is that displaying a picture of a nude female one day before her 18th birthday in the US is automatically classified as child pr0n. Go figure.
Then why not take down the actual sites that host this crap? The entire concept of blocking things on the backbone level is flawed, and can lead to huge infringements on our rights - rights that people have died for. Also remember that America's definition of Child pornography is different then that of other countries. It also covers teens. Although I agree with America's values (18 the age of consent), how can we force the world to subscribe to OUR values? So what if France thinks it should be 16 or 17? I can argue that it's wrong, but I don't have the right to shut them down. If you're offended by it don't go to the site.
There is no longer anything that can be done with computers that is nontrivial and clearly legal. -- Paul Phillips
But are pictures of Dolphins having sex with drowning horsemen is ok?
How about a nice animal story?
The court is in my home county and the credit-taking attorney general is running for governor (R).
Hence the guy is trying to take credit for everything from stopping the sale of Hershey (a sale that his office was reportedly pushing for until public uproar came) to the telemarketer Do Not Call list (wow, implementing a law passed by the legislature. impressive.) and now apparently stopping child porn (and beating on Worldcom! Two for one!).
Whether this will be anything more than a footnote in election politics, I don't know, but you can be sure that if it does then the problems of precedent and putting the burden on the wrong party, not to mention the whole flawed Whack-a-Mole approach, will get lost in the noise.
----- I don't believe in wisconsin.
I agree wholeheartedly that one child is worth more than the whole "internet experience", however I don't think that blocking this site will make their lives any better. As long as there is a market for this crap, there will be a way to distribute it. Fix the actual problem of demand for it. I don't know how that would be done, but I don't think that the answer will come from one Pennsylvania judge.
Though I can't point out specific names, this is how it's done and has been coordinated with PA:
:)
1.) State of PA submits a URL and IP address which is verified to be a kiddie-porn site. Note: The burden of proof and maintainence of the information is left to the state and they are responsible for providing all the information. This way, the ISP in question isn't stuck playing kiddie-port cop.
2.) The IP address of the offending URL is globally null-routed across the provider's backbone using two redundant null-route servers.
3.) The IP is recorded along with the URL in a flat file for reference and tracking.
4.) The null route stays in place as long as necessary, currently indefinitely.
I'd post the list for all the sick bastards that visit Slashdot, but I don't want to get fired.
Anyway, this is no big deal and can be implemented with very little overhead if negotiated properly. UUnet certainly has the resources to pull this off...since there are other providers that are doing the same thing.
// Agent Green (Ian / IU7 / KB1JQO)
// IEEE 802.3: All 10base Are Belong To Us
I mean obvious children, of course. As a 23 year old, 16 and 17 really isn't offending me. I'm talking more about the under 10 group.
Finally, math books without any of that base 6 crap in them.
You deserve to have all your rights taken away. Kiddie porn makes me sick, but idiots like you are the reason rights are taken away. Turn a blind eye, take a few here and there. Next thing you know, 1984.
Sod off.
We used to have a line (still do, in fact) that says only Congress can declare war. Listen to the bullshit hearings going on today as Congress once again bends over and spreads 'em on this issue. Then come back and tell us about lines.
Waiting for the obligatory goatse.cx link!
This law is unconstitutional. Not becasue it is blocking my 1st admentment rights or anything, but because it is trying to mandate a federally based system. States should not be able to pass laws that effect national and international entities like the internet.
so now Bush et al. is applying acid to our rights? I guess that's why everyone is so pissed off, acid fumes make people irritable.
Josh Winslow
You got you're AK-74 to speak for you!
The one mistake libertarians sometimes make that annoys me (and hence why I am not one of them) is their refusal to see the reason Our Supreme Court is as powerful as Our Congress and President is so that teh intent of the laws can be weighed out. I very much thought the founding fathers considered people taking pictures of kids and posting them for the world..
Seems a tad more efficient than putting it at the router level, but *shrug* what do I know.
Then again, what's it matter how they block it?
I am not in favor of child pornography. I suspect the great majority of people aren't. It is a terrible very bad thing. And even if we all can't agree that it is a bad thing, it is illegal.
But . . . how do we know what they are blocking? Who decides if it is child pornography? What is to prevent the authorities from expanding this? What if someone posted a URL of a site alleged to be child pornography on slashdot, and so the authorities decided to block slashdot because it "contains links to child pornography".
And . . . how soon before the legislation is expanded to sites alleged to include music files or program files. And what about sites that traffic in encrypted data? We'd better block those, too, because who knows what is being hidden in that encryption? And what about sites that question the policies and actions of the government? After all, any site that attacks the government may well be abetting terrorism, and fighting terrorism is even more important than fighting child pornography.
Face it, people. Our "unalienable" rights are as fragile as tissue paper. It requires constant vigilence to see that they are not eroded. We need to find a different way to fight child porn.
So we should come to each new issue with no consideration of past behavior. OK, that gets rid of three strikes laws, which are severely abused in Califirnia.
Thanks, that'll shut me up.
If it doesn't, we should escalate.
What about the rights of the CHILDREN who were sodomized or the women who were forced to do some things of incredible pain? What about these rights you clever ass?
And don't tell me about the freedom of speech law, please. When you kill someone, you go to jail, why not go to jail by creating so much pain and problems to the "sex objects"?
Look, once, thousands of years ago, it was ok to kill someone if he did something you did not like or unfair to you. Today, it is not.
Same with these SICK child/hard porno stuff. It might look to you as "your right" to watch these stuff that someone else has forced upon poor existances, but I hope, in 100 years, it won't be the case anymore. I really hope.
People should stop being sick. And the law should protect people from being sick.
Even animals know the right from wrong. People should start learning too.
Do you know that the age of consent is different in other countries? I'm pretty sure the age at which you can act in a porn movie is different as well. I don't know about you, but I don't want to live in a country that censors everything from the outside world that doesn't match their views, such as China, or pretty soon the US, it seems.
I saw a movie. It had bad Nazis. Kill Kill Kill Them All.
Seastead this.
Radio and TV bandwidth is considered common carrier because it is impossible to own a piece of the broadcast spectrum. Instead, in the U.S. at least, the airwaves are held to be owned by the public, with the FCC charged by Congress to allot frequencies, license stations, etc.
You can't make that argument about the Internet, which is built on a hodge-podge of real cabling and hardware that's all owned by an equal hodge-podge of corporations and entities. If posssessing certain materials is illegal, why should a private holder of a chunk of the Internet -- like an ISP -- not be subject to that law re: illegal files on his hardware?
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
This reminds me of that game they use to have at Showbiz Pizza places when I was a kid - you had some rubber mallet thing and you had to smash down the monster heads popping up... Sure they were easy to knock down at first, but eventually the harder you tried - the faster they popped up from another spot and the game basically ended.
I know this is a horrible analogy to the seriouslness of issues concerned surrounded child pornography... but there is some truth here I think.
What's the use in blocking these IP's - its not going to solve anything... other sites will surely pop up within a blink of the eye... Seems like it would be easier to control and monitor if left as-is... Not to mention that if the pedo's lose material to look at, who's to say that they aren't going to get the urge to go out and physically act on their impulses??
Censorship in any form will never lead to a final solution - it just makes it harder to attain in the long run...
Although phrased in an inflammitory manner, the above post is relevant to the discussion at hand.
It reminds people of the craven lengths this official will go to to garner favor with the electorate. Never mind the rights of propertyholders.
Fat fucking chance, you moron. But a history book -- any history book. Then read the goddamned thing. Then ask questions about all the things in there that you won't understand.
Nobody here seems to be clued into the fact that much of what passes for child pornography these days is images doctored with image editing software. Some child pornography never involved the use or abuse of a child in its creation. So, are we to censor what other people are allowed to think and what kind of media they use to express their thoughts? As detestable as I find the concept of an adult taking pleasure in the thoughts of sexually molesting pre-pubescent minors, or anyone for that matter, I feel it's not the place of society to tell them what to think. However, I am in agreement with the general concensus that genuine child pornography isn't a protected form of speech.
Yes, I am giddy over this one.
"A microprocessor... is a terrible thing to waste." --
GeneralEmergency
Isn't that placing the blame else where?
Instead of blocking this content go after the creators of it.
The pictures are just painful reminders of what has already taken place (if it was infact even illegal). Go after the people causing the pain so they can't cause more. By simply blocking sites of the Internet you can simply ignoring the problem and it will continue. To kill a weed you need to kill it's roots.
From: StopMLM@greenapple.com
Subject: STOP THE MLM INSANITY - (permission request)
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 10:36:54
Greetings!
You are receiving this letter because you have expressed an interest in receiving information about online business opportunities. If this is erroneous then please accept my most sincere apology. This is a one-time mailing, so no removal is necessary.
If you've been burned, betrayed, and back-stabbed by multi-level marketing, MLM, then please read this letter. It could be the most important one that has ever landed in your Inbox.
MULTI-LEVEL MARKETING IS A HUGE MISTAKE FOR MOST PEOPLE
MLM has failed to deliver on its promises for the past 50 years. The pursuit of the "MLM Dream" has cost hundreds of thousands of people their friends, their fortunes and their sacred honor. The fact is that MLM is fatally flawed, meaning that it CANNOT work for most people.
The companies and the few who earn the big money in MLM are NOT going to tell you the real story. FINALLY, there is someone who has the courage to cut through the hype and lies and tell the
TRUTH about MLM.
HERE'S GOOD NEWS
There IS an alternative to MLM that WORKS, and works BIG! If you haven't yet abandoned your dreams, then you need to see this. Earning the kind of income you've dreamed about is easier than
you think! With your permission, I'd like to send you a brief letter that will tell you WHY MLM doesn't work for most people and will then
introduce you to something so new and refreshing that you'll wonder why you haven't heard of this before.
I promise that there will be NO unwanted follow up, NO sales pitch, no one will call you, and your email address will only be used to send you the information. Period.
To receive this free, life-changing information, simply email me
at: be_f111@poetic.com or be_f111@dr.com, type "Send Info" in the Subject box and Send. Do not reply to this email. Make sure you type "Send Info" on the subject box otherwise I will not be able to send you the information. I'll get the information to you within 24 hours. Just look for the words MLM WALL OF SHAME in your
Inbox.
Cordially,
Elaine
P.S. Someone recently sent the letter to me and it has been the most eye-opening, financially beneficial information I have ever received. I honestly believe that you will feel the same way once you've read it. And it's FREE!
--Do we have to say this:
/. these bathturds!!
TAKE DOWN THE SITE(S) THEMSELVES,
NOT block access to them!!!
Somebody
.
.
== WolfriderV6 == I'm willing to admit that *I just might* be wrong... Are you??
Well the government should be forced to shut down roads that lead to drug dealers. I believe child pornography is one of the worst cancers in our society, but they should be enforcing the law (i.e. arresting) as opposed to walling off these predators.
I want my rights back. I was actually using them when our government stole them after 9/11.
If the pictures are domestically hosted, it is a crime to host them. Find the hosting provider, get them to yank the pictures. If they are foreign, get warrants and monitor traffic to find out which US people look at them. Then arrest and charge them.
This is ridiculous. Who hasn't inadvertedly clicked on a link they didn't mean to and gotten flooded with popup windows advertising porn? I don't want to go to jail just because some jokester forwards his webpage to a child porn site.
No sig for you.
When will everyone understand that apart from the UN, nobody has jurisdition on the internet?
Cheers...
Nice going, idiot. Now we'll have to deal with the PETA people about depriving animals of a way to express their sexuality. What would happen to the pride of lions?
>Even animals know the right from wrong. People should start learning too.
If animals know the difference, please explain to me why horses engage in sex with people instead of take 1 second out of their day by trampling them to death?
If they know its okay, then you have to agree that any animal that doesn't fight back against a human during animal/human sex is concenting and thus it must be OK. (And believe me, animals do *not* have to be forced into sex with humans. Hell, we all know dogs and cats will hump anything they can get their legs around during heat.)
I'm not tipping my cards as to what my personal opinion is, but your statement sounds an awful lot like Hallmark logic. According to your reasoning, beastiality is A-OK so long as the animal doesnt fight back, in which case animals simply deserve protection under rape laws!
"Old man yells at systemd"
Comment removed based on user account deletion
No, I'd be suggesting that you're a dipshit for even posing your allegedly guileless question.
Sounds good to me, but I'm not sure the Internet is still "Federally based"??
.
.
== WolfriderV6 == I'm willing to admit that *I just might* be wrong... Are you??
It might be worth noting that the AG involved is also running for Governor in PA.
Then again, it might be irrelevant.
Fine, jerkoff. Bring the people who did these actions before me and I will personally throw the switch. Action should be punished, but don't fuck with speech.
But how can I decide what is worse when I cannot see or speak of that information?
Prioritize? How about some simple logic to begin.
Dude, get it right. It's 'unicron' not 'unicorn'. there's a very big difference. One is a mythical creature with a horn. The other is a planet-eating super transformer (from "Transformers" of course).
I have to know these things. My boyfriend likes transformers.
Side note: Anyone know of any place I can go to buy him a giant robot? *ponders Christmas present*
If a and b in c, and a can create b, and a can create a, and b can create b, and b cannot create a, then a created c.
[I'll go out on a limb and presume some of the following, none of which may be true now but much of which may be true in the future.]
/19. Let's further say that they got that /19 from their parent provider's /16.
/19 goes back to the Tier 3 provider.
/24s or whatever. Now, I go to use my new /24 at my new provider and my router, running the blocked IP, can't talk to anything. Anyway, indefinitely is a long time -- is there any way to overcome it? Does anybody periodically check it? I'd hate to think that there's a bunch of null0 routes in some backbone router that nobody can remember why they're there...
4.) The null route stays in place as long as necessary, currently indefinitely.
Indefinitely is a long time. Let's say that the IP is part of a Tier 4 providers CIDR
The reason you could run a KP site on the original tier 4 provider's network is that they're damn near out of business and nobody cared about AUPs or about much of anything. The KP site kills the business, and the provider's
They re-slice it into
let's take this further and sue the shit out of the USPS.... all mail items that are deemed prurient in nature to be routed to my address for further evaluation..
....is probably the same one that can route that fast. Dropping a packet based on IP add. is probably easier than figuring out where to route it, since you can just send it to the bit bucket, and not out another interface that is specified in the routing table.
Geek used to be a four letter word. Now it's a six-figure one.
Personally, I think anyone caught producing or directly distributing it should be deal with harshly.
The point is that the PA goverments is ordering a carrier to take full responsibility for the content. If you plot a crime using the phone is the phone company liable?
Wait I forgot, it's just like terrorism. Since I don't support this "I must not care about the children". Well bullshit, I have a five year old I love to death, I think the people who are caught pursueing these site's and certainly the people creating this material should be thrown in prisions so lonely that they'll pay spiders for sex. That doesn't have anything to do with the issue at hand
Got your attention, did I? Got your flamethrowers all fired up and ready? Good. (Call it a TROLL if you want, but not until you read the rest of it, eh?)
First of all, I'd like to see some proof that the alleged "kiddie porn" really involved minors. If it did, then those responsible should be thrown in jail and the keys should be lost. I have no wish to see anyone go though that kind of abusive hell.
The reason I say this is that the definition of child pornography is probably not the same as what most people think when they hear the term. I suspect the image that jumps to mind for MOST people is of very young (less than 10 years old) kids, but that's usually not what's being targeted. By definition, it is any act of a sexually explicit nature (including suggestive poses, but NOT simple nudity) involving a person under the legal age of majority (which is generally 18, but varies from place to place). Think about that. How many of you know people in their 20's who still get carded at the bar? How many 19 year-olds could pass for 14 or even younger if they have the right anatomy, makeup and lighting? For that matter, how many 14 year-olds are well-developed enough to pass for 17 or 18 at a glance?
Add to this the incredible advances in digital image processing, and you might realize that it's not THAT hard to make someone look far younger than they are. Even childlike. So, if the people in the images were not underage, or perhaps not even real (fully computer generated images are not impossible), whose rights have been violated?
Secondly, and MORE IMPORTANTLY, where will this end? Today, a bunch of people make laws to force ISP's and backbone providers to block horrible kiddie porn and keep everyone safe from the horror. Next year, a bunch of other people decide that it's important to block access to information regarding nuclear materials, explosives, or other terrorist paraphenalia, on the grounds that it allows and encourages Terrorist Activities and is a threat to National Security... and this censorship has a precedant, the blocking of kiddie porn.
A bit later, information about the principles of nuclear fission, operation of automatic weapons, the history of the middle east are censored or "adjusted" to make them safe for consumption by the public. This is done under the guise of further efforts in the War On Terrorism, and earlier rulings are used to show that these too are perfectly legal, as they are nearly identical to the prior bans.
In one generation, we could very easily lose the one thing that so many people in the last 200 years have fought and died for... freedom. If you let them take the little things now, you can be sure they'll take bigger things later, until you have nothing left.
Once upon a time, I could walk into a library anywhere in the country and sit down to research any topic I was curious about. I would have no fear of persecution (other than raised eyebrows from the library staff, perhaps), and would be content in the knowledge that even if someone tried to bury my work or hide the truth, at least the law protected my right to ask questions (even if the answers were classified).
Then came the DMCA. Now, asking the wrong questions might land you in the circumvention camp, and curiosity might earn you jail time. Next, an unfortunate terrorist attack allows the door to swing open on Homeland Security -- talking too loudly about the wrong things might land you in the conspiracy to commit acts of terror camp, in which case you might disappear for a long time. Now, I'm being "protected" from things that tend to distrub "most" people. If I happen to stumble across an image of a naked little girl running from a burning building, SOMEONE might decide that it's porn and so I can no longer see that historical print from a war that was fought before I knew what "war" meant.
Do we *REALLY* want to go back to the idea of Government Approved Information? Is it really more comforting to know that anything you read, see, or hear has been sanitized by Uncle Sam to be sure you don't see anything upsetting? Is everyone THAT thin-skinned, that we have to hide behind lawyers, lobbyists, and laws?
The distribution of kiddie porn is NOT the problem. The creation of it IS. Let's stop making laws that do a poor job of curing the symptom and try enforcing already existing laws that might cure the sickness. Go after the people MAKING the stuff!
Not that I'm arguing that the providers are innocent but whatever happened to the state having to provide evidence that the product IS kiddie porn? Why is it up to the porno providers to prove that they're innocent? I thought the burden was on the state? Chris
Nonsense. it's got nothing to with self-censorship, since I'm not saying or publishing anything. I'm simply refusing to host illegal materials on my equipment. Would you be willing to host dead-tree child porn in your kitchen cabinets? If not, why expect your ISP to host it on his servers?
If I ran a bookstore, I couldn't put child porn on the shelves. If I was a media distributor, who wholesaled books and magazines to bookstores, I couldn't be a carrier and distributor of child porn. What's so bloody special about the Internet that people who own pieces of it -- the net's equivalent of bookstores and wholesalers -- are immune from the law?
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
Read the replied-to post. It very clearly suggested exactly that.
I think it comes down to whether "speech" could possibly be as offensive as that, and whether the writers of the constitution did realize that.
I'm pretty sure they did. In medieval Europe sometimes beliefs were perceived to be so offensive that people were burned at the stake for voicing their "heretic" ideas. Many of the early colonists came to the US for religous reasons, so this must have been very well known.
Of course there is a difference here, since posting pictures of kiddie porn requires committing another crime somewhere along the line, but I just wanted to focus on that one point in this post.
- I doubt it seriously, for all the hysteria in the US about terrorism right now It isn't that big of a problem. We lost some 2000 people in the September 11 attacks. That is tragic, as is the loss of any human life. But more people die from car accidents every year than were killed in the WTC attacks. Where are the politicans screaming that we need to reogranize the goverment and ban cars?
Suicide - WTF does this have to do with censorship?
The manufacture of drugs -
Given the disaster that has resulted from the "war on drugs" I don't think this should be banned at all. It's simple supply and demand... as long as people want the shit, someone will make it. You'd think we'd have learned after the prohibition era - no one drank then right?
I can't stand the knee jerk "it's bad, therefore we need to pass laws" attitude. Yes drugs are bad, that doesn't make banning them good.
You could just not route it if all you are doing is dropping it. However, routing tables are already bloating to unmanagable size, do you really think they could handle several thousand more entries of single IP addresses? As it is, you have a hard time getting peering if you are a holder of a class C or less due to this.
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
(pssst.. the correct answer is "Speech")
Wouldn't it be better to do this:
Have law enforcement set up mirror sites, and have the IP redirect to these instead of blocking the KP sites. Then, when the idiot kiddy-lover signs up using his credit card *bam* firstname, lastname, he's ready to fry.
Uh, I think you were agreeing with me.. :)
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
Write your elected officials, run for office, or wait for elections; This is a democracy.
Does this mean we won't be able to get our lolita fix?
/dev/come-on-baby-light-my-fire
What about Video Angels?
What I can't understand is why they don't bother going after the large newsgroup servers (and ISPs who host them). Common carrier priviledge for the purpose of relaying a transmission from point A to B seems justified to me, but what about storing and relaying the contents of alt.binaries.pictures.hussy (for example)?
Won't it be a fun game when amateur 3d modeling becomes so realistic that one is unable to tell the difference between CGI and RL CP...? If CGI CP is legal and RL CP is not, wouldn't it make sense for the producers of RL CP to all switch to CGI CP? And if all those who appreciate such content know instinctively that it is no longer RL CP, will it still be as exciting? And if there is no more (new) RL CP, will we still need laws against the possession of (any) RL CP on the basis that it *might* be used in a manner that produces more RL CP?
loop -o flames
Of course, but would you search each customer to make sure that he didn't carry any child porn into your book store?
...richie - It is a good day to code.
I choose option c) Sue the government for making roads that allow travel to those places.
Same logic as pursuing UUNet for Internet "travel."
--
But then again I thought VCR+ was a stupid idea and would die a quick death--so what do I know?
The issue here is larger than just the kiddie porn. The issue is your right to access whatever information you want.
So, today they decide to block access to certain child porn sites. Okay. CP is gross and disgusting.
Then they decide that they don't like people looking at bukkake and jap scat. Well, both of those are pretty nasty. Can't argue too much with that.
Then they ban all access to gay porn. Well, I'm not fan of gay porn, so it doesn't effect me at all. Life goes on.
Then they ban all porn, even Playboy.com. Hey! I like some of that more "normal" stuff! Give it back, damnit!
Then they decide that they are going to block sites that espouse radical political views that they don't like. Well, I don't like some of those fringe groups, but I want to read Jesse Ventura's homepage! Damnation!
Then they ban any sites that might be distuirbing tio any child anywhere. Great. 90% of the Internet just vanished.
Then they banish anything they don't like at all. Even some of teh kid-friendly sites (you know that girl from "So Wierd" is just a bit too developed for young boys to be looking at, have to protect them from those naughty thoughts, you know...). And the Net disapears forever.
That, Dear Friends is the issue. They will always go for the most extreme cases first, the material that no one wants to stand up and defend. After they get the legal precident, they go after everything they don't like.
The correct solution is to go after the creators and sellers of child porn. Not to open the Pandora's box they are playing with.
Boobies never hurt anyone. - Sherry Glaser.
There is a big difference between a knife gun or medal or uniform from World War 2 and pictures of kids being raped.
Yes, if that is your idea of freedom then it is about time to shut the internet down, but not before your kids have not shown up somewhere out there.
If you are not able to show respect for others then your idea of freedom is nothing but the dictatorship of your overgrown egos.
Thanks for making be glad not be American again.
No, but if the local police told me my wholesaler was using my warehouse as a cover for shipping porn, I'd kick them out. And, if the police gave me a photo of a wanted porn merchant, I would turn him in if he walked into my store.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
As any homeowner can tell you, the time to get rid of crabgrass (and any other weed) is when you see the first plant off in the back corner of your yard, not when it's teken over and killed off that expensive Kentucky Bluegrass you paid so much money for.
The best way to protect your rights is to stop those who would take them away from you right at the start, and not when you have no rights left.
Part of the problem that the Internet is creating is that what might be illegal and offensive in one place (say, child porn, or the showing of an woman's face) is perfectly legal and normal in another. While I would like to stamp out KP, I don't want to ban the display of any female face.
Boobies never hurt anyone. - Sherry Glaser.
Kelso Lundden commented in a fashion similar to a number of other posters:
Child pornography, of course, is a terrible,
terrible thing...
I agree with the general sentiment of Lundden's note, but I think the above needs to be questioned. It is not a simple thing to determine what it is that is "child pornography".
-MOST- of what is prosecuted as "child pornography" really IS NOT a terrible thing. Under US Federal law--and I am sure PA is no better--a 24 y.o. dressed in a "schoolgirl" outfit to "simulate" a minor makes for child porn. You might say that that's not "really" child porn... but on the LAW, you'd be plain wrong. Likewise, parent taking pictures of their small children bathing, swimming, or running around the lawn, have been prosecuted and imprisoned for producing "child pornography." Or even in the case that is -borderline- reasonable, a 16-17 y.o. who is of the age-of-consent to have sex in his/her state, becomes the "victim" of child pornographers if her/his partner (who might be 16-17 too) takes a picture of the act. I might say that this last case is maybe, slightly bad--but certainly also far short of "terrible." Or still more: someone who draws a picture--entirely from imagination--of kids having sex, produces child porn... and likewise even if those drawings are just "suggestive."
Moreover, even by the incredibly loose standard that images (and words) get classified as "child porn"... the PA action doesn't bother to demonstrate that the banned sites ACTUALLY meet the weak threshhold. They just order material banned... no hearing, no trial, no evidentiary trail. Just a lone declaration by an AG that "I know that's what it is."
Buy Text Processing in Python
of eliminating all child pornography by eliminating the internet, would you do it? It's an impossible situation, but that's the moral decision. Your choice will tell you which side of the line you stand on.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
This is nothing like blocking NAZI-era items!
I haven't one smoking clue what the author was smoking at the time; however, there is a MASSIVE difference between child pornography and historical items, not the least of which is the legality.
Yes, NAZIs are a politically structured hate group, but if you were a German at the time, you'd know it was a lot more than "Kill Zee Jews!" Pins and metals aren't made of human skin, nor did they have any words upon them that were. And I'm saying this AS a Jew! Even I keep stuff that is historically questionable, but none the less relevant (for example, DOS 3 LISP(I didn't say I used it)).
People should be very careful about making broad comparisons like that.
"Yeah...it was the numbers that were irrational, not the murderous cult of vegetarians...." -- Hippasus of Metapontum
Nice attitude, Slashdot! That's true freedom of speech, that is. What hurts is you know he's right. Bunch of hypocrites.
So if I call you up and tell you I'm coming to your house to kill you, when do you call the police? a) Immediately b) After I get to your house c) After I enter your house d) After I kill you
Fact is, words DO hurt, if the words constitute a credible threat of violence. That's why we have laws against phone harrasment. You say you were just excercising your free speech rights by repeatedly calling me up a 4AM??? I don't think so, and the law will put you in jail for doing so. You say you should be able to call up random women and talk dirty to them, you're just excercising your free speech rights? Again, the law disagrees with you, and you will go to jail. Sorry, but there is no such thing as an "absolute" right -- even your right to life is forfeited if you demonstrate you are enough of a danger to others.
"Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney
And what's the definition of "a clearly provacacitive way"...?
Paranoia? Perhaps, but when censorship happens on the sly, freedom mongers should worry.
"Only in their dreams can men truly be free 'twas always thus, and always thus will be."
--Tom Schulman
I seriously doubt any six year old would voluntarily pose nude without being coerced into it.
:-)
Of course, in a similar vein, I doubt any six year old would voluntarily undergo required immunization shots without being coerced into it.
I sure as hell wouldn't.
May we never see th
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Perhaps. But how can you say that removing the Internet to prevent one child being photographed nude wouldn't prevent the voices of anti-government protesters being massacred in a third world country from being heard widely enough? Outside aid wouldn't be sent, the protestors would be killed and raped, their children killed or left to starve to death. A photograph against a starvation...
Quick judgements about difficult issues are too often wrong.
May we never see th
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Children were being abused before the Internet even existed, and they'll still be abused after Worldcom implements this decision
Child abuse (at least in the US) is a lot lower than it would have been in, say, the Middle Ages, or even a hundred years ago. Don't lose sight of this -- it's not some new, looming danger -- it's something on the drop.
Now, obesity or cancer is another story...
May we never see th
The Sixth Patriarch, long ago in China, once passed two monks who were arguing about a flag blowing in the wind. One monk said, 'It is the flag that is moving.' The second monk said, 'It is the wind that is moving.' The Sixth Patriarch said, 'You are both wrong. It is not the flag, it is not the wind; it is your mind that is moving.'
You are confused about cause and effect. Keep in mind that calling me repeatedly at 4AM will harm me by depriving me of sleep. The cause is not your speech; it's the act of making my phone ring. You could say nothing and it would still be harming me. The women in your other example are not harmed by "talking dirty" (I've never really been clear on what that is, I admit - seems to have something to do with sexually repressive societies and the way they warp human minds) they are harmed by being harrassed. Telemarketing (which I think is not considered "talking dirty?") would be just as harmful.
Communication is not harmful.
Actions used to enable communication, and consequences of information that may be (mis)communicated can be harmful.
Speech can only be harmful if projected so loudly as to cause cellular damage.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Does Google have a cache of these sites being blocked and if so, how long will it be before PA starts blocking Google too?
Maybe I'm misunderstanding something here, but if the majority of PA citizens don't want child porn, maybe they shouldn't click on the links. Just like anything I don't want to see on the net, I don't look.
This sounds like a bunch of stupid people being manipulated to me. The PA people are telling their government not to let them see child porn. I think it's more likely that one activist got a question to the public along the lines of "Do you want to stop child porn on the net" and enough people said yes that this passed.
-N
I've nothing to say here...
If the sites are outside the USA, then US laws are meaningless, as is US morality. Would you like your site shut down by some Islamic government because you had a picture of your wife/girlfriend/daughter/mother/sister's uncovered face on it?
Boobies never hurt anyone. - Sherry Glaser.
I'd gladly pull the trigger on scumbags who make children perform sex acts, but I'd like to point out that it's the actual act of MAKING the porn which damages the kids for life, not what happens afterward.
What if this neighbor hated you so much that wherever you moved he would set up camp next to you and blare noise into your home?
This example is purposely farfetched. But I believe your claim is farfetched too, especially if taken so far as to include, in your own phrasing, all "sound waves".
The current trend in both goverments makes them more closer to a confederation than to an open war. The great firewall of China some day will cover the USA too. My pity for americans. So used to be free that they didn't notice when they became slaves.
Mexico: 100% conservative's America now!
Yet they would get prosecuted the same...
Is this right???
Secure multi-mediation is the future of all webbing...
The issue here is NOT kiddie p0rn--it's the inappropriate use of technological bandages to give people (specifically in this case PA state legislators) the warm feeling that _something_ has been done when in reality very little has been done. Also when the system is abused "for the good of [fill-in-the-blank, usually children]" it too often leads to other greater abuses: "Hey! If WorldCom can monitor its users _to protect the children_, then why can't it also monitor phone calls on its lines _to protect us against the terrorists_?"
Or do you think that if I _tell_ you that the lock you are using in the door of your house is ineffective that you can arrest me for breaking and entering?
Routing lookup and filter processing work differently. A routing lookup can be done with a kind of hash, and is often done in hardware for maximum speed. Filter processing is more complicated due to the fact that it has to test more kinds of things, and make varied decisions based on the results. That ends up requiring that the filters be tested in sequence. Unfortunately, the filter matching on addresses are not usually implemented as a hash lookup, and so, each filter access-list entry does one match at a time, in the specified sequence. I've seen routers slow down by having too many access-list entries. This could be designed better in routers and I could describe how, but the sad fact is it hasn't been done anywhere I've seen (most Cisco). But since this kind of blocking isn't the kind needed to keep a DoS attack from going further into the network, it works to simply add the addresses to be blocked to the route table and send their packets to a null interface (e.g. the bit bucket). The web server with the pr0n thus never even gets the SYN packet and no connection is ever established.
And yes, there are ways around it. 99% of the masses will never even think to try to go around it, which is probably sufficient to satisfy the Pennsylvania Attorney General's Office Criminal Law Division Child Sexual Exploitation Unit.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
This is akin to saying the airlines are responsible for the terrorist hijackings. Do we need to make laws that the airlines cannot allow hijackers on board? No there are already laws against hijacking that place the responsibility were it belongs.
Same with the internet. Do we need laws that say ISPs and internet backbone providers cannot allow kiddie porn to flow over their network? No, we already have laws that place responsibility where it belongs.
> I'm simply refusing to host illegal materials on my equipment. UUNet doesn't host any websites.
I think I should sue Massachusetts. They provides Roads that lead to New York state which has more roads that lead to New York City and from New York City someone can take a plane to Asia and have sex with children! This cannot be allowed! I feel violated that someone can use the same road as I do to have sex with children. What is this world coming to?
End travel now!
temp sig: If this made any sense you obviously haven't done enough drugs today
I'm not a Net Nazi myself, but when I get more spam mail, then I do regular email..I tend to get abit ticked. The malicious ways spammers send email to those not subscribed to their lists doesn't do my judgment of them much good either. By taking off 5 kiddie pornsites, do you really think you will stop them? C'mon now, get realistic. Every day there is some geek sitting behind a box wondering what to do with his l33t cable or DSL line. One click to allthumbs and a spider run later, he has a porno site.
I will say however, that it should be at the end user disgression, rather than the ISP being forced to put a crimp on things, let the end user put all them nifty difty Nortan utilities and other "firewalls" for windoze to use.
If we're going to start attacking ISP's, let's start with the ones that are doing _nothing_ about net abuse *cough wanado.fr cough..ftp scripties*.
My Thoughts, Kyndig
My personal opinion is that the worthiness of a society is determined by how it treats it's children.
Distribution of kiddie porn is perhaps the most morally repugnant and pernicious activity that is enabled by the internet. It is illegal in the United States, and if it wasn't I would be ashamed to live here for that reason alone.
If a politically ambitious AG in PA has seized on this issue as a means of ingratiating himself with voters, well, what is wrong with that? Shouldn't the protection of children from this sort of exploitation be an issue that voters should consider when making their choice?
As far as internet carriers being forced to block traffic to kiddie porn sites, well, why not? The technology to block these sites IS available. Shouldn't we use it to protect the most vulnerable people in our society?
As far as issues of whether an ISP is a common carrier and not liable for content, I see that as a different matter. Nobody is suing the ISP for transmitting this data - they are merely requiring the ISP to stop facillitating the distribution of this rot. I would have a very different view if the AG was prosecuting Worldcom because it was distributing kiddie porn.
As far as the issue of erosion of free speach rights goes, that is a problem that affects all of society, not the internet specifically. Erosion of free speach rights needs to be fought at every level. The internet has no special position here.
All of these comments arguing free speech (to and fro) are all off topic
danheskett (do a ctl f you'll find him here) posted the main point, which is that the issue here is whether or not the isp be treated as a common carrier. There is not word one mention of free speech in the article.
I never realized the full scope of psychological damage that sexual assault on a child had until I started listening to Loveline on the radio. Just about every women who would call up who seemed a little bit off/made bad decisions/etc had a history of abuse (sexual or physical). I've learned more about psychology from that show than the 1.5 years of psych classes that I took in high school and I reccomend the show to all slashdotters.
I have been in many countrys in which small children run and play butt maked in the streets, mostly on the countryside and gettos. This by no means is child porn, nevertheless it is a reality.
another case is when families take pictures together naked as it can be observed at public libraries in the photography seccion, I have heard cases in which pleople have been been accused of child porn in such situations, but it makes no sence, for example a picuture of someone naked standing next to a tree with his/her mother, by the simple fact that the person is naked is considered porn by many. porn by others is considered when the person is involved in a sexual act, which is a whole lot different than being only naked.
I guess words get twisted by the media, and authorities and they loose their original meaning.
I guess if you travel in a third world country take a picture of the landscape and if there is a naked kid then it is pornography in USA, but that is wrong, because the word pornography loses its real meaning, and it lets the real pornographers look better because the meaning of pornography is now weeker.
Censonship is generally a bad thing, since it is possible to find any reason to censor anything at any time.
just my 2 cents.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
It's really about supply and demand.
Why do porn sites exist? Why does a search for the term "sex" on any search engine return bazillions of hits? Because there is a great demand for it. Have a big demand, and there will be a supply.
As distasteful as it is to me and many others, there is a demand for kiddie porn. Thus a supply has formed to meet the demand. The government's response to this has been -- as it always is in these cases -- is to choke off the supply. That does not solve the problem. As long as the demand exists, a supply will form. You only need to look at the so-called "drug war" to see this in action.
So the real solution would involve reducing the demand, which is totally outside the realm of website filtering. Yet that would mean taking a much more in-depth look at the problem, as well as a lot more time and effort, and the government (and the voters) are not interested in this. They want quick solutions, regardless of whether it is the right solution. Block the websites, throw the kidde-porn producers and consumers in jail. Lather, rinse, repeat. And the problem simply goes on., a vicious cycle of stupid legislation and lawsuits to have them repealed, and so on.
Karma: Frotzed (mostly due to the Frobozz Magic Karma Company)
Now that that's out of the way...
Legality Issues
- Making 'kiddie porn' IS Illegal in the USA - so go after the offender
- Having/Viewing 'kiddie porn' IS Illegal in the USA - so go after the offenders
Moral Issues- your free to use drugs just don't get caught - it's illegal
- your free to drink and get drunk - just don't drive afterwards - it's illegal
- your free to run through the streets naked - just don't get caught - it's illegal
get the point yet?!?The point is instead of our govenment dealing with the issues, they enrage society into giving up their freedom. Ask people you know if they want communism and they will tel you - No. Then ask them if the goverment should provide healthcare,welfare,social security etc. and they will say - YES. Well people you can't have it both ways! No matter how repugnant you feel that someone elses beliefs and/or desires are - it is their right to choose those things because of thier freedom of choice.
Some people in this thread have complained that comments that address fredom are offtopic - I say to them - WAKE THE F*%K UP!!! It's all about peoples freedom.
While I want our 'next to useless' law enforcement to find and prosecute all of the offenders, don't keep anyone from their freedom to go looking for it.
Excuse the topic but, what about the woman who shaves herself then goes to a nude beach - is she attempting to look like a young girl and make others think she IS a young girl?? The next step will make That illegal too.
Maybe they will decide that Open Source Software is immoral and force sites related to it to be blocked? (Hey - M$ has enough lobbyist dollars for it). Wouldn't that be violation of your freedom.
Maybe all people should have their age tattooed on their forehead so everyone will know a person's age - Now we took a Woman's freedom to lie a little about her age away from her - but hey it's okay - it's for a good cause right ?!?
Without that I'll have nothing to satisfy me and I'll have to come over to your house and rape your daughters. Hell, I'll do you're son too, its like a rape 2, get 1 free special. If only you'd let me keep my kiddie porn, right?
And, if the police gave me a photo of a wanted porn merchant, I would turn him in if he walked into my store.
How would you feel if you where legally obliged to turn him in? What if you where just required to call the police if any "suspects" on a given "list" walked into your store? (but you where assured that they where all very very evil people?)
Need help treating your acne? Come here!
Forcing our view of morality on the rest of the world is something the US has been doing far too much lately.
Like where? I wasn't aware of any U.S. policy mandating morality in another country. Or, for that matter, any country allowing themselves to be dictated to.
I understand the varying ages of consent. 'Adulthood' can be a loaded definition. Just because society considers an individual to be 'of age' doesn't mean they're biologically or psychologically an 'adult'. And I don't have to agree or disagree with their societal interpretation, since I can always ignore it (not the subject of this law.) And I think this law is foolish to some extent (new websites can be up in minutes -- who could keep tabs.)
But I'm interested in this forced morality. I keep hearing people say it like it's a fact, but I have never ever heard of an actual instance of mandated moral acceptance, either being proferred by the U.S. or accepted by another country.
The opposite of progress is congress
Comment removed based on user account deletion
People who make kiddie porn belong in jail. People who look at kiddie porn create demand for the exploitation of children and might also belong in jail, but there is hardly moral equivalence. Blocking sites is redundant.
Your library analogy is flawed. All information in the public library has been censored by the government. No inapropriate content was selected for inclusion and that is equivalent to exclucing inaprorpiate content. Government exclusion of the content others would provide is equivalent to the censorship of private libraries.
So, back to my original question, how can they tell? What do they do, burn an IP address? Pornmeisters will get around that and there will be no adresses left before you know it. Where will they get the lists of sites to block?
DMCA, Hollings, Palladium. What might have sounded like paranoia is now common sense.
So ISP's have to keep records of where you surf? Bullshit!
The right way is for law enforcement to do it's job catching people who exploit children. That has never meant violating the post (equivalent to what you propose) or monitoring people's communications and reading.
DMCA, Hollings, Palladium. What might have sounded like paranoia is now common sense.
It is definitely right!
The point is the 15 year old boy did not take the pictures of the girls, the pictures more than likely would have been taken by an adult male.
Anyone that fuels the actual *depraved market* - whether it is a man, boy, women, or girl looking at these pictures, are accomplices to the act, and if you knew the stories behind each one of those photo's I'm sure it would definitely not be pretty, at all
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Look, I'm pretty conservative, to the point of thinking that Limbaugh is to liberal sometimes, but your analysis of the constitution is too much for me.
Amendment II: (Right to keep and bear arms) Fully automatic weapons have a high "tax" on them at this point. No more can be produced for anyone but law and military organizations. If you take a legal (preban) fully automatic weapon outside the US it *CANNOT* come back into the US. So they are only getting fewer in number. Now the crusade is on to get rid of assault weapons. For no other reason than they look mean...like a fully automatic weapon. The "People's Republic of California" read(marxist fuckheads) have already banned several of these types. (i.e. ak47, ar15). What's more in this shithole of a "STATE" you cannot own the federally legal fully automatic weaponry even if you do pay the "tax". This doesn't sound to me that they are following the constitution very closely. That part about the "shall not be infringed."...kind of convenient to just ignore that one.
I can see your point, in that it is important on an organizational level that the citizens retain enough force to overthrow their government, if it becomes tyrranous, but a few assult rifles will not change the current balance, and the right to own one is not infringed, it is just made more difficult. Infringment means exceeding the breaking boint, according to dictionary.com, and while more difficult, a tax does not prevent all but the poorest citizens from obtaining one. Realize that especially in certain regions, the population density, is much higher than anyone could have imagined.
Amendment VII: (Excessive bail, etc.) HAHAHA...this happens all the time.
I don't know about bail, you will have to provide some examples of excessive bail. However, the pre-trial siezure of those accused of drug crimes seems to violate the 6th amendment.
Amendment X: (Constitutional rights and states rights) The "people's republic of California" and doubtless other states violate this one all the time.
Unless specifically prohibited by the constitution the states are reseverd all powers not specifically given to the federal government. It would be dificult for a state to violate this. It was put in place to limit the federal government.
Amendment XIII: (Abolition of Slavery) This one is violated everytime there's a draft. In fact it was challenged and the Supreme court said that it didn't apply!?!?! How the frickin' hell does "...or involuntary servitude...) *NOT* apply! In times of draft it's "you" go here and "die". And "you" say I don't wish to, they put you in jail or force you at the point of a gun. That's pretty fucking involuntary to me! If you doubt this do a search for XIII and draft on the supreme court historical rulings. It was challenged 2x and TWICE the court just kind of ignored the constitution and upheld the draft! Article I Section 8 Gives congress the authority to raise a navy, and provide for calling forth the militia, and creating laws to govern it. It seems like this would preempt the ban on slavery, and their is a provision for true contientious objectors.
Finally, deportation or loss of citizenship might be a better solution than death. And not appointing them for life, means that a single president, with the advice and consent of the senate all the judges in the country. Trust me, that is a bad idea, the whole point of the judiciary was to create a slow contemplating arm of government that would limit the amount of change that a single admisistration or congressional class could accomplish. Also, they can be impeached by congress for violating "good behavior" this would be better than assasination.
There is nothing keeping you here, if you so desire to emmigrate to Russia, there is nothing in the US to stop you. There are lots of examples of bad individual leaders, judges, and laws. However, on the whole the system works pretty darn well. We do not have a perfect system, but it is pretty darn good, and beats about every other system in existance. I am getting really tired of people insulting our system of government with no reasonable ideas for improvement.
Degaussing scares the bad magnetism out of the monitor and fills it with good karma.
I can see your point, in that it is important on an organizational level that the citizens retain enough force to overthrow their government, if it becomes tyrranous, but a few assult rifles will not change the current balance, and the right to own one is not infringed, it is just made more difficult.
Just one question, what the fuck are you smoking?
Any uprising against our government would be like ant taking on a tennis shoe.
I thought that girls that were 15 or 16yrs old in Holland or some other country. So technically, what we have here is something that's legal in another country, but illegal in the US, so a US law and a US company blocks access to it. That seems a bit fishy to me...
I don't recall ever hearing exactly what content these sites allegedly had. For all we know, the girls were all 17yrs old.
The rest of your quote is this:
Job 32
Elihu
1 So these three men stopped answering Job, because he was righteous in his own eyes. 2 But Elihu son of Barakel the Buzite, of the family of Ram, became very angry with Job for justifying himself rather than God. 3 He was also angry with the three friends, because they had found no way to refute Job, and yet had condemned him. [1] 4 Now Elihu had waited before speaking to Job because they were older than he. 5 But when he saw that the three men had nothing more to say, his anger was aroused.
6 So Elihu son of Barakel the Buzite said:
"I am young in years,
and you are old;
that is why I was fearful,
not daring to tell you what I know.
7 I thought, 'Age should speak;
advanced years should teach wisdom.'
8 But it is the spirit [2] in a man,
the breath of the Almighty, that gives him understanding.
9 It is not only the old [3] who are wise,
not only the aged who understand what is right.
10 "Therefore I say: Listen to me;
I too will tell you what I know.
11 I waited while you spoke,
I listened to your reasoning;
while you were searching for words,
12 I gave you my full attention.
But not one of you has proved Job wrong;
none of you has answered his arguments.
13 Do not say, 'We have found wisdom;
let God refute him, not man.'
14 But Job has not marshaled his words against me,
and I will not answer him with your arguments.
15 "They are dismayed and have no more to say;
words have failed them.
16 Must I wait, now that they are silent,
now that they stand there with no reply?
17 I too will have my say;
I too will tell what I know.
18 For I am full of words,
and the spirit within me compels me;
19 inside I am like bottled-up wine,
like new wineskins ready to burst.
20 I must speak and find relief;
I must open my lips and reply.
21 I will show partiality to no one,
nor will I flatter any man;
22 for if I were skilled in flattery,
my Maker would soon take me away.
I never realized the full scope of psychological damage that living in a trailer park had until I started watching Jerry Springer on televeision. Just about every person who would show up who seemed a little bit off/made bad decisions/etc had a history of living in trailer parks. I've learned more about psychology from that show than the 1.5 years of psych classes that I took in high school and I reccomend the show to all slashdotters.
Those who sacrifice security to condemn liberty deserve to repeat history or something. - Benjamin Santayana
It says over 200 sites have been shut down since April, which finally led them to WorldCom. How are they doing this search? There must be PCs somewhere in the govt of Penn with tons of child porn on them.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I dont think the Founding fathers could realize that speech could be that offending because they had not concept of needing an individule to actually do something to present it to the public. In their time one could paint or write offensive stuff without actullay doing that to a kid...
Ahh, welcome to the problem. My parents would have a problem with nudity of people under 18. Your line is at about 16 or 17. Perhaps my neighbor thinks 13 and up is fine, but under that is sick. Perhaps his neighbor says if there is hair, it's good. I'm willing to wager that my grandmother would be against nudity in general on the 'net.
Okay, which one of you gets to choose? You have essentially made our points. Censorship is a horrible way to go about regulating things. Child porn is bad, but lets not strip our civil liberties to "stop" it.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Sorry, it was a long day, I failed to catch the sarcasm in your first post.
If it is in their country, then it is their business what they block. We are talking about child porn here. Get a clue.
US morality applies in the US. Duh!
If I had sex with a minor, when I was a minor, and I video'd it with the other's permission, would the video be considered kiddy porn if I don't release it to anyone, and only I watch it?