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."
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
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.
'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.
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
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.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
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
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
Pennsylvania has the right to set regulations for those who do business in Pennsylvania, on how they do so.
If UUnet has a way to block those sites just for Pennsylvania, then that's fine from the AG's POV -- that's the most he can ask for.
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
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
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".
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
They don't have any jobs for you there, anyway.
well, unless you're in medicine and can take care of old boomers.
--mandi
the real question is, what happens when 2 different states give UUnet different rules?
One state say, you must filter XYZ, and onther states say you can not filter XYZ?
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
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
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.
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"
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?
Porn and kiddie porn are separate issues. THey are also pretty distinct from jobs and economies of keeping grads. But what PA legislators may not understand is that some folks with the option to choose where they live and work, esp. grads, may not like the underlying tone behind the laws. The grads certainly do not want or advocate kiddie porn, but they look at government regulation of blocked sites as a no-no, an estimation of some underpinning cultural concept in the state. It says to them the state don't like, PA'll block. Precedent, whether correct or not, is they'll likely come up with another law to block something else sooner than some other state. Not a place to set up if you are pushing whatever boundaries, like many tech companies traditionally have been perceived as doing.
I've heard male grads move out of the area due to the PA fatherhood issue (which, pretty much, if you do not contest the child is or is not yours, and find out later it is not, you still have to pay child support for the rest of the child's life--which also in PA includes young adulthood). People don't believe a kid should be left behind, but legislators pinning support on the wrong person just shows whacked thinking, and people use that as an estimation of the type of people that run the state.
PA has decent hate crime laws on the books, but can't do much about the hate crime (we have a rather large percentage). Another I've heard people use as a reason for moving to a neighboring area.
PA has one of the highest retirement populations in the country, yet taxes property out the whazoo. Low income people can afford the affordable housing, but can't pay the taxes--taxes end up being about half of the rent of a home in the area anyways. The retirement community keeps voting for their special interests not to pay their portion, which is the main theme of the governor's race now, which will shift the burden more to non-retired folks. For grads, they consider this utterly silly that they have to pay high real esate taxation when they trying to pay off present tuition or school loans. So they get the hell out of the area.
Areas with jobs? Busy. Noisy. Growing way too fast--and the infrastructure too slow. Again, people with option and money to choose where to start out will choose extremes like Colorado or the big city/mass surburbia like Boston or DC over Pittsburg or Philadelphia, estimating the middle ground does not have enough tradeoff of one criteria for another.
PA has plenty of available jobs, even in this economy, but they are hardly of quality or decent paying. Cost of living is low, so salaries are low, until you add taxation, then you get hammered. Young people aren't moving here. Traditional businesses are here (industry, agragrian), and there are plenty of tech industry (look at Arlen Specter's contributions from the pharm industry) around major cities; growth is here, but that's because there was nothing here--opportunity to find a good job with good growth possibility is still greater outside PA. (Reason why Rendell and Fischer are both screwups--they aren't leading, they're both following.)
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.
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
It might be worth noting that the AG involved is also running for Governor in PA.
Then again, it might be irrelevant.
[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
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!
>>You don't mind do you? After all, it's to fight child porn.
And to fight the terrorists. Don't forget the terrorists!
Drop service to one or both states, and let them know that you'll do so while they're still arguing over the laws and regulations, and that you'll be happy to come back if they'll only be reasonable and forge compatible policies.
Or, perhaps, play games with forming local subsidiaries.
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
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"
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.
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.
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.
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.
Configure all the routers you run in the one state to route XYZ as null. The rest of the internet should route around the "damage", seeing that they can't use that router to get to that destination.
Granted, my preferred method would to not do business in that state (or at least run routers), but that's an expensive proposition.
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
Correct me if Im wrong, but CMU is in Pittsburg....
and they're complaining of a "brain drain" there? I would be interested if you have any details on this "brain drain." I don't live in PA, but have family there (who aren't stoopid, by chance) and am just curious to the aspects that you refer to.
Please give your mod points to others, Im at the cap. They will appreciate it more
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
A source, please?
USPS has always had a list of things you are not
allowed to mail (explosives, biohazards, blabla),
but would you care to point out the source for
your information? Questionable material? Is
a mailing from ACLU a questionable material?
At the risk of getting "offtopic", I think even
die-hard big-gov't types should have little problem with privatizing this part of the gov't.
Who needs it to be a gov't agency?
Considered harmful.
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
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.
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
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.
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)
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.
*looking around*
What was that?
Considered harmful.
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.
Also, as an interesting note, my Canadian passport contains a warning that says, roughly, the following. "If you hold dual citizenship, you are subject to their laws, including military service, while on their soil." If I were living in Canada, I would not be subject to US military service simply because I hold citizenship.
Remembering that "on their soil" includes diplomatic missions, ships and aircraft... Usually you are subject to the laws of a country when you are on their soil, regardless of your citizenship. In the absence of any specific treaty between that country and yours. The US is one of a small number of countries which attempt to apply their own laws in an extra territorial way.
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...
Comment removed based on user account deletion