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.
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.
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.
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.
"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.
But, how do you just block traffic to IPs in PA? It sounds easy, but it isn't. The easiest way is to just null route the IP off their backbone.
Michael Loves Me!
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
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.
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.
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 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.
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
surely this is different ... posession or acquisition of kiddie porn by a photographer is illegal.
Actually it's illegal to transfer to possess whether you are a photographer or not.
In any case, how is this different? Should all sites that break the law be consored?
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
"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.
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?
I'm so glad that you've agreed to surrender your rights in order to fight child pornography. Tomorrow the police will be searching your house, just in case you might own some of it. They've tapped your phones in order to make sure you aren't accessing any illegal sites. And from now on, all published material will have to vetted through the Government anti-child-porn censorship comittee.
You don't mind do you? After all, it's to fight child porn.
That's not at all what I am saying. This is something quite easy they can do. They aren't breaking into peoples homes, they are just blocking something from being transmitted. People always jump off the deep end, and bring it right to the 1984 worst case scenario
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).
Illegal in the U.S., but perhaps not illegal where the sites are hosted. This reminds me far too much of 'the great firewall of china': simply block content we deem unfit for our citizens.
do not read this line twice.
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
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.
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
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.
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
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.
This is exactly the problem. Blocking peoples access to these specific sites will do very little. We need to hit the problem at the source, we need to shut down the sites that generate the material.
The people ruining childrens lives are the ones making the porn, and the ones running the sites.
As far as freedoms goes, this is pretty nasty as now any state has the precedent to block ANY and all sites the choose. THAT is censorship plain and simple.
Scott.
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..
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.
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...
The existence of kiddie porn is illegal (or should be) - it shouldn't exist unless someone breaks the law, and then that someone should get punished. Now, surely those pics should be considered illegal too (publishing, owning, whatever). The submitter claims "This isn't a whole lot different from Yahoo! France being sued for making auctions of Nazi propaganda viewable by French citizens." Well, yes it is...opinion should be covered by freedom of speech. Is owning nazi propoganda illegal in france (a booklet, for example)? Is it in America? I wouldn't have thought so. Kiddie porn in form of a pic file or video is a violation of human liberties (and it's evidence of malpractice)...having/sharing an opinion isn't (unless you live in a country which doesn't agree with freedom of speech of course).
"You know you don't act like a scientist, you're more like a game show host." Dana Barret
The AK-74
The AK-47
The heartbreak of being a tard.
Honestly, if they want to serach my house, I don't really care. I don't have anything to hide
Yes, I am giddy over this one.
"A microprocessor... is a terrible thing to waste." --
GeneralEmergency
That's because, if we're not careful, it will get to the 1984 worst case scenario. If you think there aren't some people who will do whatever it takes to keep you from doing something that they find offensive, even if it doesn't directly affect them, then you've been living on a high mountain with an exiled Tibetan monk for way too long. I'm not saying that there's an active conspiracy out there to strip us of rights (though it wouldn't suprise me), but that people are generally afraid of anything they don't understand and way too easily manipulated. If they aren't stopped here, where will they be stopped? And will it be too late?
--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??
Now, surely those pics should be considered illegal
They already were, before this came about.
opinion should be covered by freedom of speech. Is owning nazi propoganda illegal in france (a booklet, for example)?
Yes
Is it in America?
No
having/sharing an opinion isn't (unless you live in a country which doesn't agree with freedom of speech of course).
You have a very naive view of the world. Do you think France is really that different from here? Do you really think the French think their government doesn't believe in free speech? This could easily happen here, as the last year has shown us, if you didn't already see it in the numerous examples in US history of banned books, stifled speakers, the DMCA, the CDA, the list goes on.
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
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...
You pretty much gave the definition of child porn, picture of underage people engaged in sexually explicit acts or positions. Theoretically this would not include something like photos of a nudist camp with children in it. Of course sexually explicit doesn't have to mean engaged in any sex act, it could just mean the girl spreading, or posing in a clearly provacacitive way. Which is the way it should be IMHO, the child shouldn't have to be physically molested to be protected by the law. Strange thing about the law though is that, until recently, if you rendered a picture of the pre-teen girl in poser without clothes on it might be considered child pornography. There are warnings not to display those types of pictures on many of the sites that distribute texture maps and such. That law was repealled, which is probably a good thing, I don't get off looking at 3d rendered pre-teens, but I'm guessing NOBODY does which is why the law was silly. Besides, if somebody does get off on that sort of thing, I'd rather them get off on a fake girl than a real one.
>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
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.
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
....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.
So it does help put a stop to it for people in PA. Guess what, take away all the customrs, and the business will die
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
>>You don't mind do you? After all, it's to fight child porn.
And to fight the terrorists. Don't forget the terrorists!
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"
Of course I don't think the variance in opinion of morality between humans from different parts of the world is incomparable (France and America). For a start, I don't live in America, so lets not pretend that I advocate American mob patriotism in anyway (the text in parenthesis is meant to be ironic). You've just proved by the yes and no that the laws are quite different between these two countries, and claiming that "this could quite easily happen" is the whole point. Incidentally, you really shouldn't make such bold comments about people when you fail to see the irony or message of what they are saying.
"You know you don't act like a scientist, you're more like a game show host." Dana Barret
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.
There may have been a miscommunication at some point... I'm not really sure of the point you are trying to make anymore.
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
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.
Just remember that you gave up your search and seizure rights when they decide to make something you have illegal. Of course, the government never makes mistakes so if they say something is illegal it must be and shame on you for having it. Like an analog television, or maybe a radio scanner, or perhaps even a computer without DRM hardware! Way to stand up for civil rights.
Chris
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.
Maybe, since you're not American, you don't understand:
In our system of government, we are not "given" rights. We have rights. People possess these rights whether they "deserve" them or not.
Although our government does not always do a good job with this, it was founded to protect our rights, considered inalienable and "God given".
Some things are not rights, they are privileges. Privileges are granted. Knowing the difference is important.
How about just blanking their DNS entry.
And what happens when I am running my own DNS resolver locally, as I do on my cable modem? Or what happens if I know the IP address? Then I can still access it and they aren't blocking it.
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
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
All you with your freedom talk while caring a rats ass about the victims.
/dev/come-on-baby-light-my-fire
What victims would you be talking about here? I presume not the 250 million who stand to lose intellectual and personal freedom bit-by-bit thanks to sound-byte knee-jerk politics. Ohhh! You meant the children (real people, just like you and me, remember) who are supposed to remain asexual until a mysterious, magical 18th birthday...
but not before your kids have not shown up somewhere out there.
100 children are abducted and killed each year in this country by murderous lunatics. 1 in 4 "underage" females (I suspect it's actually many more) are at some point in situations that would paint them as victims by your standards. The major source of victimization, I would argue, comes from the social stimatization after the fact -- and to be fair, not all of these experiences are good for those involved.
Unfortunately your statements reinforce the common misconception that all "girl-lovers" are homicidal. And that somehow all patriots of freedom and skeptics of social conventions are guilty by association. THINK.
loop -o flames
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
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
I'm sure they know which routers are in PA. They can do the null route thing just on those.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
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...
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
> 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.
Guess what, take away all the customrs, and the business will die
That's right. We stop everyone in PA from looking at kiddie porn on the internet and, quite suddenly and amazingly, all the sick pedophiles stop molesting children. Even the ones in PA!
Maybe, since I am not an American, I have a harder time understanding the problem with this ... You are given rights
Just so you get what a lot of the other people have said...:
The government doesn't give us, WE (ultimately) give the government it's rights.
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.
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 ?!?
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.
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 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.
Way to put words in my mouth. All I said was this would kill the buisness for the people selling it. But like most people here you have to add your own interprutaptions to what I actually meant
To tell the truth I am not for random searches, I am just sick and tired of everyone jumping off the deep end, and thinking every little step the government takes has the sole purpose of eroding your rights.
When they start doing that, then I will worry, but I don't think there has to be a connection. Of course, I am not in a country where big business (ie media companies) pays to get their representatives into government, and pass the laws they need passed (like DRM)
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.
If you we don't violate your rights, then the terrorists have already won!
No, you don't live on Earth? Just for fun, when I read this post, I did quick searching on a handful (7 or 8) countries that aren't the US, finding examples of businesses using payola to get their way, and didn't fail on one country. I'd wager that there isn't one out there in which it does not happen. And, incidentally, when it actually IS eroding rights, it's not jumping off the deep end. Perhaps you think it is a JUSTIFIED erosion of rights, but the fact of the matter is, it is still erosion...
A posting of said examples would be much more resonible then this so called list that you have come up with
Thanks
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?
Pulling your head out of your ass would be more resonible[sic] then[sic] making up bullshit about how wonderful your alleged country is. Pray tell, what country are you from, and I'll find you an example from THAT country.
If you want examples from other countries, use google for christ's sake. That's what I did.