PA Child Porn-Blocking Law Challenged, Suspended

An anonymous reader submits: "Pennsylvania's controversial child porn controls have been challenged in court, and in a surprising twist, suspended by the state. If you recall, PA required ISPs within the state to block access to sites hosting child porn. The list (which used IP addresses) is compiled solely by the State Attorney General's Office. The use of IPs resulted in the unnecessary snagging of other sites on the same hosting service. The plaintiffs are the ACLU, CDT, and a Doylestown PA ISP. The State AG, in an odd move, suspended the law and the list indefinitely. [Note: Philly.com appeared to suffer a DDoS earlier today. Please be kind to their admins.]"

Comments

Read the article

[setzman]

Fisher suspends tactic in fighting child porn

By Joseph A. Slobodzian
Inquirer Staff Writer

Pennsylvania Attorney General Michael Fisher today agreed to halt his behind-the-scenes effort to get Internet service providers to block child pornography Web sites until a federal judge rules whether Fisher's tactic violates the First Amendment by indiscriminately blocking legitimate sites.

The decision was announced at a federal court hearing on a request by civil rights groups for a temporary restraining order to stop Fisher's year-old program.

U.S. District Judge Jan E. DuBois approved the compromise and set a hearing for Nov. 21 on the merits of a lawsuit.

The suit against Fisher was filed earlier today by the Center for Democracy and Technology, a Washington, D.C.-based Internet policy group; the American Civil Liberties Union in Philadelphia; and PlantageNet Inc., a Doylestown Internet service provider, or ISP, that provides local dial-up numbers for much of the Philadelphia region in Pennsylvania and New Jersey.

John O.J. Shellenberger, chief of the Attorney General's Eastern Regional Office, said his office may still move against child pornography Web sites under state law by seeking a formal court order. He also agreed that his office would contact the ACLU before seeking such an order so that ACLU lawyers could protect the interests of legitimate Web sites that might also be closed.

Pennsylvania is the first - and only - state to try to tackle the thorny problem of fighting purveyors of illegal child pornography, which has become as pervasive on the Internet as legal sexually explicit sites.

The problem has confounded Congress and software developers because the technology of the Internet makes it impossible to filter out, or block, offensive Web sites without also blocking some legitimate sites about sexual, medical or social issues.

Fisher spokesman Sean Connolly defended the law, which went into effect in April 2002, and Fisher's informal policy of contacting ISPs by letter, which advises of a child porn site and threatens legal action if the ISP does not block the site.

An ISP that receives the warning has five days to block the Web site from view by Internet users in Pennsylvania. Failure to do so could result in fines of up to $30,000 and jail terms of up to seven years.

"This informal notification process was developed at the request of ISPs," Connolly said. "We are perfectly willing to obtain a court order. We've done it in the past and we're willing to do it again."

In Doylestown, the president of PlantageNet Internet Limited, James Smallacombe, said that the way the law is written makes it "impossible" for him and others to comply.

"If we received an order to block access to a particular IP address, since we started outsourcing dial-up networks, we have no physical way to prevent any user from accessing any site, because we don't control the network that the users dial into," Smallacombe said. "But the way the law is written, we can still be ordered to do this and, if we fail to comply, suffer the consequences."

Stefan Presser, the ACLU's legal director, said Fisher's informal process effectively blocks legitimate Web sites without the owners' knowledge - or the chance for them to challenge the action in court.

"We do not support child pornography. Regardless of [Fisher's] goal, he is not complying with what the legislature suggested be used," Presser said.

Fisher's informal policy does "little or nothing to combat the crime of child pornography or the problem of child pornography on the Internet," Presser said, because it does not go after the purveyors but the communications links they and legitimate Web sites use.

Because of the Internet's technical architecture, in which multiple Web sites share the same numerical Internet address, or IP number, the lawsuit contends that numerous owners of legitimate Web sites have found themselves blocked from custom

Re:Read the article

[MattCohn.com]

[Note: Philly.com appeared to suffer a DDoS earlier today. Please be kind to their admins.]"

Score: +1, CONSIDERATE - NOT A WHORE!

Re:Read the article

[lelnet]

>illegal child pornography, which has become as pervasive on the Internet as legal sexually explicit sites

I have to wonder whether the person who wrote this is wildly exaggerating the amount of child pornography on the internet (or in the UNIVERSE, for that matter) or wildly understating the amount of regular porn. :)

Re:Read the article

[Illbay]

I have to wonder whether the person who wrote this is wildly exaggerating the amount of child pornography on the internet...

No, very, very sadly, he is not.

Re:Read the article

[lelnet]

How do you think it can be, that legal porn is absolutely everywhere you turn, but virtually every report of widespread child pornography has turned out to be either a hoax or a mistake (depending on whether one feels generous toward the motivation of the person reporting it), if as you and he say, child pornography is just as common as adult pornography on the internet?

(By "legal porn", BTW, I'm referring only to that which depicts persons who are in reality above the age of sexual consent in whatever jurisdiction the material was produced. Other laws might be being broken without affecting my core argument.)

Re:Read the article

[Illbay]

I have no idea what you mean by "hoax or mistake." All you have to do is check out Usenet. The stuff is everywhere.

Re:Read the article

[vicviper]

I have no idea what you mean by "hoax or mistake." All you have to do is check out Usenet. The stuff is everywhere.

But the ISPs were ordered to block websites. Although the original quote said "Internet", one would have to assume that this referred to the Web via the Internet...

Re:Read the article

[Illbay]

Not sure why you're retreating on this, but your original comment wasn't about "other websites that were hurt," it was to the effect that the issue of child pornography on the net is overblown.

Setting aside for a moment the question of what to do about it, I'm simply saying that your statement is demonstrably untrue.

The problem of child pornography is not "overblown" nor is it a "hoax." In fact, given the propensity today to tolerate advocacy for the most egregious of behaviors I would suggest that the problem is if anything greater than we realize.

Re:Read the article

[lelnet]

Well, I wouldn't know about Usenet these days...the spam problem is so severe that the last time I looked Usenet was essentially useless except in the moderated groups...and I'm willing to wager you won't find child pornography in those.

More to the point, the article (and the government policy it refers to) is about web sites, not Usenet.

I agree with this post

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes.

The good, the bad, and the opportunity

[TLouden]

Good to see an effort to stop child porn
Bad implementation is a little dissapointing
So, who's gunna make the next filter for the ISPs to block the sites without hurting others sharing the IP?

I think something like this is just waiting for the proper implementation to really get it going and then other states (countries?) might follow suit.
Keep up the good work.

Re: The good, the bad, and the opportunity

[Black Parrot]

> Good to see an effort to stop child porn
Bad implementation is a little dissapointing
So, who's gunna make the next filter for the ISPs to block the sites without hurting others sharing the IP?

If they know the IPs, why don't they just raid the creeps and cut it off at the source?

Re: The good, the bad, and the opportunity

[TLouden]

I'd doubt it very much if any of the creeps are stupid enough to locate in the US, those that were are already in prison.

Re:The good, the bad, and the opportunity

[C10H14N2]

Yeah, it's great. It's sort of like creating a blacklist for addresses and telephone numbers then sending random S.W.A.T. teams out and blanket wire-taps. The guy moves out, you move in. Suddenly, you'r ass-up to a full body-cavity search and your front door is a pile of matchsticks. Hey, why not make the worthless domain registrars actually verify who the hell you are so they can identify the actual people behind the sites? Then the police/fbi/kaos/control could just do an nslookup and drive over. No, that would be too freakin' logical. Harassing innocent people is P.A.T.R.I.O.Tic UGH.

Re: The good, the bad, and the opportunity

[La Temperanza]

Perhaps because it's difficult to raid a site, and equally difficult to convince local governments to, in Vietnam or Bulgaria or similar countries.

Re:The good, the bad, and the opportunity

[TLouden]

You're confusing the subject a bit. You're right but we aren't talking about harassing people. Where talking about an affective way of keeping child pornography out of the US.

Re:The good, the bad, and the opportunity

[C10H14N2]

No, I'm not confusing it. Yes, we're talking about an effective way of keeping child pornography out of the U.S. I'm pointing out the patently obvious fact that using IP addresses is directly comparable to using telephone numbers. They're essentially arbitrary and of no informational value.

When such arbitrary information is used to identify people for crimes (think of the truncated passenger name lists in CAPPS), people get harassed. It may not be the intention, but it is the effect. It is also inexcusable to use useless information when useful information exists simply because it is easier for a completely ignorant moron (read: a politician) to say "a-ha! I have your IP address" and then proceed to legislate. The problem is that when politicians are allowed to legislate such dreck, they invariably create systems that are easy to be put into, but nearly impossible to get out of.

Re:The good, the bad, and the opportunity

[StewedSquirrel]

He was making a DIRECT comparison between raiding a person based on their address and raiding a person based on an IP of a site they may have been involved with.

The trick is that an IP address is more similar to a "street" than a specific address. So the SWAT team comes out and raids every house on the street. Sure, you'll find the culprit, but you'll also find the inside of a lot of innocent people's homes and that is a violation of our rights and basic freedoms.

"One who gives up liberty for security deserves neither."

Stewey

Re: The good, the bad, and the opportunity

[danila]

If they know the IPs, why don't they just raid the creeps and cut it off at the source?

1) These sites probably have nothing to do with sources of child porn.
2) Many people that you think you know, including potentially some of your friends and relatives regularly view child porn. Are they creeps?

Re:The good, the bad, and the opportunity

[danila]

Where [sic] talking about an affective [sic] way of keeping child pornography out of the US.

Freudian slip, may be? Because this really is an affective, not effective, way to keep child porn out of the US.

The fact is that there is already child porn in the US and some of it originates there. But may be, just may be, you should pay more attention to fighting parental abuse, not child porn. Much more kids are screwed by bad (as in horrific) parenting than by being forced into kiddie porn.

Re: The good, the bad, and the opportunity

[Illbay]

Many people that you think you know, including potentially some of your friends and relatives regularly view child porn. Are they creeps?

The fact that you feel like you can even pose such a question and have anyone take it seriously is a sad, sad commentary on what we as a society have become.

If I said to you "my brother-in-law regularly takes truckloads of toxic sludge in the dead of night and dumps it in the local river. Does that mean he's a creep?" I can almost guarantee your reaction.

Yet you apparently think the "consumers" of child porn--the ultimate reason for its existence, and for the exploitation of helpless innocent children--are blameless to the extent we can't even consider them "creeps" if they are friends or relatives?

What kind of monster did your parents rear?

Re:The good, the bad, and the opportunity

[Illbay]

Much more kids are screwed by bad (as in horrific) parenting than by being forced into kiddie porn.

Is that supposed to be a serious statement?

You actually see this as an "either-or" situation?

Incredible.

Re: The good, the bad, and the opportunity

[ag0ny]

If they know the IPs, why don't they just raid the creeps and cut it off at the source?

Virtual hosts. You can place as many name-based virtual hosts (websites) as you want on a single IP address. I, for example, have many domains hosted in my server at home using a single IP. I have just a few, but the average ISP/hosting company have hundreds or thousands of websites sharing the same IP address. It wouldn't be very wise to block them all because one of them is ilegal.

Re:The good, the bad, and the opportunity

[danila]

You actually see this as an "either-or" situation?

No. My point is that child porn is far from being the ultimate evil. Yes, it sucks when kids are forced to have sex with adults so that perverts can watch photos/videos of it. But this is not the end of the world and the attention paid to this issue is disproportionate to its seriousness. Child porn scare is 10% real problem and 90% hysterics fueled by media and other irresponsible parties.

I think it is rational to tackle problems starting from most serious (most urgent). Child porn is neither. The chances are probably higher that your kid (or any other kid) will be killed by a drunk driver, killed by another kid, start taking hard drugs and die in a couple years, etc. than that he will be a victim of child porn. The question is why we mostly ignore other problems (or do something, but clearly not enough), but seemingly are willing to do absolutely anything to stop distribution of child porn. And notice how nobody is usually talking about producers of child porn, but only about consumers.

Let's solve more serious and more urgent problems first. Of course, for any politicial it's much easier to fight child porn (you only need to pass a law, nobody will be able to check it's effectiveness) than to fix the broken education system. So, yes, my statement was dead serious.

Re: The good, the bad, and the opportunity

[danila]

If I said to you "my sister-in-law regularly goes to the local river and watches and smells the toxic sludge that was dumped there by your relatives. Does that mean she's a creep?" what would be your reaction?

Consumers of child porn are different. There are apparently many innocent consumers, whose only wrongdoing is that they are sexually aroused by scenes of kids in erotic/sexual situations. These people do not pay for child porn (so no money for the producers) and they do not act on their fantasies (if they even have paedophilic fantasies). What is wrong with having on your PC an image of a child having sex? I have much more disgusting images in my browser cache after a visit to rotten.com. How does me having such image cause any harm to anyone else? I don't see that. And furthermore, how does having such an image suddenly change a person from moral and ethical one, who works for a respectable software company, has a social security number, pays his taxes, and helps the landlady carry out her garbage, into a creep? Do you really think such moral absolutism is possible?

So, in summary
1) I don't see how consumers who do not pay for child porn and are sane enough not to harm any children themselves can cause any noticable harm.
2) Watching child porn may not be the most ethical thing to do, but I fail to see how everyone who does that, immediately turns into a creep (unless he is a LEO, in which case he is immune).

In addition to that I want you to realise that for many children that are filmed for child porn this is not a big deal. In many countries you can get a blowjob from a 13-year old girl for 5 bucks. Do you think posing for some pictures would really do her any additional harm? What about hungry and homeless orphans? Sometimes (not always, of course) they even love (like) the person who exploits them for child porn because at least with him they are fed and have a place they can call their home. I am not even saying anything about those hundreds of millions of kids who live on less than 1$/day (guess how long do they live on average). Do you still think the problem of child porn has any relevance whatsoever?

I am not a monster - I am just a rational person, who is able to see through the media-induced bloodlust and who is happy to live in a country where posession of any and all digital materials on your PC are legal and where a thought can no longer be a crime.

Re: The good, the bad, and the opportunity

[Ktulu_03]

I don't see how consumers who do not pay for child porn and are sane enough not to harm any children themselves can cause any noticable harm.

How do you know they are sane though? Do you want to live next door to someone who downloads and view that type of material when you have kids? Are you going to trust them to be sane? I sure as hell wouldn't.

Re:The good, the bad, and the opportunity

[Illbay]

My point is that child porn is far from being the ultimate evil

You could not be more wrong. It would be more merciful to simply kill them than to assault them, rob them of their innocence then leave them to struggle with the pain, the guilt, the fear and the anguish for the rest of their lives.

Re: The good, the bad, and the opportunity

[danila]

Of course I can't guarantee you that a random paedophile would not try to seduce your kids. But neither can I prove that your random neighbour will not simply kill them or steal your car, or poison your cat, or anything like that. There is no need to single out all paedophiles as some sort of maniacs without self-control.

But what I can guarantee you is that there definitely are some people who look at child porn, but who are normal people, just like you and me. I know some and I would even trust them to look after my kids, just like I would trust another friend of mine who enjoys BDSM roleplay.

I mean, this is just porn. Here at /. we usually laugh at the notion that video-games can turn a normal person into a murderous freak. How then could photos of naked kids having sex change a person into a creep? If you compare these two things, the games are more likely to be dangerous, because there is interactivity, people "train" to become killers. With child porn there is none. Rape porn is legal and it apparently doesn't turn viewers into rapists. Then why do people assume that watching child porn will turn everyone into a paedophile and child abuser?

Re:The good, the bad, and the opportunity

[Anonymous Coward]

It would be more merciful to simply kill them than to assault them, rob them of their innocence

Yeah, better a DEAD child than an impure child? People like that are a hell of a lot more disturbing than child sex offenders. Kincaid was right, the problem isn't that children are being loved inappropriately, the problem is that we don't love children at all.

Re:The good, the bad, and the opportunity

[Anonymous Coward]

Personally, I find comparing them to apartment buildings is a little better.

Re: The good, the bad, and the opportunity

[Blacklotuz]

It realy dosen't matter if people agree or disagree with you beacuse there is such a stigma surounding the child porn that even if you don't truly beleive there is any harm in it, if the subject is brought up and you dont express your disgust along with the group you may be thought a pedophile yourself. There are very few people who would publicly admit that they don't feel there is anything wrong with viewing child porn (even if they dont) and even fewer people who wouldn't shun them for it. But all that aside, I't also strikes me as odd that an organization like NAMBLA (North American Man Boy Love Association) is aloud to exist yet anyone even suspected to be viewing child porn has their house raided and could face many years in jail even if they never would dream of harming a child. I don't see how posessing a few pictures in your home is so much worse than publicly anouncing that your a 40 year old man who loves little boys and meeting with other old men to discuss it.

Re:The good, the bad, and the opportunity

[Anonymous Coward]

...the problem isn't that children are being loved inappropriately, the problem is that we don't love children at all.

Bingo Gringo!

Re: The good, the bad, and the opportunity

[Planet Bob]

2) Many people that you think you know, including potentially some of your friends and relatives regularly view child porn. Are they creeps?

If they knowingly view child porn, then yes they are creeps and whilst you can't choose your family you CAN choose your friends.

Re: The good, the bad, and the opportunity

[sribe]

2) Many people that you think you know, including potentially some of your friends and relatives regularly view child porn. Are they creeps?

Consumers of child porn are different. There are apparently many innocent consumers, whose only wrongdoing is that they are sexually aroused by scenes of kids in erotic/sexual situations. These people do not pay for child porn (so no money for the producers) and they do not act on their fantasies (if they even have paedophilic fantasies). What is wrong with having on your PC an image of a child having sex?

Oh, such amazing ignorance. You two are really carrying on the fine slashdot tradition of spouting off your mouths on subjects about which you know absolutely nothing.

Fact: People who are aroused by images of children engaging in sexual acts are a very small minority.

Fact: The vast majority of people are sickened by such images.

Fact: Viewing of such images is very strongly correlated with acting on the fantasies represented there, in other words having sex with children. I'm sure you'll dispute this, but you're just wrong and don't know what the fuck you're talking about! Think about it for a second: Do straight guys seek out gay porn? Do gay men seek out straight porn? Do you really want to deny that there is no link between what porn people watch and what they want to do? No correlation between what images arouse a person and what that person actually does?

Now you may ask how those facts about child porn differ from porn about any fetish? And the answer is simple and obvious: the gay porn and most others cater to fantasies which involved consensual sex between adules. Coercing children to have sex--raping children--causes profound psychological damage which takes at minimum years for them to get over, and some never manage to live normal lives. Generally the only people who deny this are the pedophiles themselves, because it's so obvious to anyone else who's ever talked to or worked with victims of child sexual abuse.

am not a monster - I am just a rational person, who is able to see through the media-induced bloodlust and who is happy to live in a country where posession of any and all digital materials on your PC are legal and where a thought can no longer be a crime.

I don't believe you are a monster; I just believe you are an ignorant fool.

Oh, by the way, the PA law is completely wrong. There is no way it is either right or constitutional to take down a whole bunch of web sites just because one of them hosts illegal material of any form. Just because the nature of the illegal material is particularly heinous does not give law enforcement the right to inflict all that "collateral damage" on the hosts of innocent material.

Re: The good, the bad, and the opportunity

[Agent Green]

First of all...we're talking about children here. NO child under the age of 18 can consent to committing sexual acts...period.

The so-called "innocents" that you describe are not quite so innocent. They continue to feed an industry which has real victims, which is the problem.

Your twisted rationality is that these children are so much better off...but are they? Do you really think that the children are the true beneficiaries of any of that money?

If you were in the U.S. and dirt poor with a couple of kids, would you send out your 13 year-old daughter to give out BJs for $5? After all, the residual profits from the pictures might get you a supersized meal...and a better cardboard box at the end of the day. The money that actually trickles down is barely enough to live on, but not enough to break free from the cycle.

Then when they kids get older, what are they worth and how much emotional baggage do they get to carry with them for the rest of their lives?

Like most trial lawyers, it's the brokers of the porn that make the money by their resale...not the people photographed.

I would recommend you take a course in child maltreatment, which should be offered at most reputable institutes of higher learning. You'd be surprised what you'll learn.

Re: The good, the bad, and the opportunity

[bigmattana]

If my sister-in-law does something wrong, whether it is order child porn, produce child porn, torture someone, or murder someone, it will change my opinion of her. Just because I know her and the behavior is unexpected doesn't make it okay.

Any time you participate in something, you are supporting it. This is particularly true when it something that is not really needed. I will not buy CDs from bands under the RIAA. I will not buy shoes or clothes from companies who have been shown to employ workers in sweatshop conditions when they could afford to pay them orders of magnitude more.

When you take part in something, espicially when you give someone money, you know damn well what you are supporting. This crap that you are innocent because you aren't the one actually doing it is a joke. Do you think a judge wouldn't sentence me because I paid to have someone killed instead of doing it myself?

Another thing, these kids aren't just posing. Many of them are being held hostage and raped. Where do you think many of the missing children end up? These children will be scarred for life, and many of them won't be able to live a normal life. That is, if they are allowed to live through their ordeal. I'm sure many of them would rather die than go through being raped another day.

If everyone in this country started looking at child porn, you can bet the number of abducted or exploited children would skyrocket!

Re: The good, the bad, and the opportunity

[Stiletto]

First of all...we're talking about children here. NO child under the age of 18 can consent to committing sexual acts...period.

So, you obviously agree that there is nothing wrong with prosecuting these folks:

http://www.debaser.us/content/news/000307.shtml

Summary: Two 14 year-olds are charged with raping each other. The ridiculous claim is that they are both rapists AND victims simultaneously because they were having sex with one another, both incapable of consent.

Your Black-And-White-World mentality is why we paint so many people as criminals these days.

Re: The good, the bad, and the opportunity

[nfk]

I think it's scary that you got modded as insightful. I'll refer you to another comment I made about the subject, some time ago, if you want to read it:

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=54488&cid=5346 273

I know you are talking about people who don't pay, but, depending on where they got the pictures, it could be an incentive to the people who produce them (for instance through advertising, or just the knowledge that there is a big market out there). That's why they are "creeps" to me, not because I fear they will necessarily become child molesters. I'd say more about it but I have to work.

Re: The good, the bad, and the opportunity

[danila]

Fact: People who are aroused by images of children engaging in sexual acts are a very small minority.

Yep. So what? People who are aroused by images of pregnant chicks or by wearing diapers are a minority as well. Does that mean these practices should also be prohibited?

Fact: The vast majority of people are sickened by such images.

False. Reality is that the majority of people have never seen such images. And just like everyone and his dog in the USSR was against Boris Pasternak when party started the famous defamation campaign without even reading any of his poems. There are some sick child porn images, but then there are many normal ones that would probably make a normal person aroused, not sick. As for the sick porn, the sickest I ever saw was some sadistic anime with some pretty girls cut into slices alive. :) Now that was sick. Compared with that any child porn would look mainstream.

Fact: Viewing of such images is very strongly correlated with acting on the fantasies represented there, in other words having sex with children.
First, any data is skewed, because as you are well aware, people do not normally reveal the fact that they enjoy child porn. The only ones that we know about are those that were busted by the police. Not a very representative sample. Second, correlation does not equal causation. Obviously, child abusers would be interested in child porn, but that doesn't mean that child porn viewers are likely to become child abusers.

Do straight guys seek out gay porn?
Do straight guys seek out lesbian porn? Again, there is some correlation between your tastes in porn and your sexual preferences, but trust me, not every hentai fan wants to be raped by a giant squid. :) And as I said elsewhere, rape porn is legal and it doesn't turn people into rapists. Why should child porn be different. Most people are capable of self-control and know the difference between fantasy and reality.

Coercing children to have sex--raping children--causes profound psychological damage which takes at minimum years for them to get over.
1) You can have sex without coercing anyone. You ignore the fact that some kids might be ok with having sex with adults. Consensual sex with kids is illegal in the US, but there is nothing unethical about it.
2) Raping kids is not much different from raping adults. And nobody is advocating raping humans of any age (of course, I mean real rape, statutory rape is ok in many cases). But there is no proof that child porn viewers will turn to raping kids in reality.
3) There are some indications that psychological damage is caused by joint efforts of police, family and psychologists. Many kids are just fine after having sex with adult, but are royally screwed by people who care more about jailing a paedophile than about the well-being of the child.

some never manage to live normal lives.
Fact: Consensual sex with other kids before 18 doesn't not lead to any harm and is perfectly ok in most cases.
Please tell me how it is so much different in case of an adult? Physically sexual contact with adult is possible as early as in 5 years or so. Psychologically some kids are ready as early and many are ready around 12 years or so.

I don't believe you are a monster; I just believe you are an ignorant fool. :)

Re: The good, the bad, and the opportunity

[danila]

NO child under the age of 18 can consent to committing sexual acts...period.
That's hilarious. :) I know some people who have been able to consent to sex before 18 just fine. I probably would consent myself if anyone offered. :) And whole countries like Holland somehow manage with this "problem". :))))

The so-called "innocents" that you describe are not quite so innocent. They continue to feed an industry
Tell me please, how downloading a child porn image from a free anonymous website feeds any industry? I can only see how it starves the industry by wasting precious traffic. :)

Your twisted rationality is that these children are so much better off...but are they? Do you really think that the children are the true beneficiaries of any of that money?
Usually not. But you can't ignore things like schoolgirl prostitutes in Japan (although it is controlled by yakudza to some extent) and the fact that sometimes selling yourself is the only way to get something to eat. Great that you don't need to do that. Many people are not so lucky. As I said elsewhere, there are hundreds of children living on under 1$/day. Do you realise that they might have different standards of what is acceptable?

If you were in the U.S. and dirt poor with a couple of kids, would you send out your 13 year-old daughter to give out BJs for $5?
I didn't mean the US. It's a fucked up country but hopefully not as fucked up as that. But in other places some kids (and not their parents, simply because they are orphans) don't have other choice. Of course, there is stealing and begging, but these might be more dangerous and less profitable.

Then when they kids get older, what are they worth and how much emotional baggage do they get to carry with them for the rest of their lives?
Do you realise that these kids often have more emotional baggage already than you can accumulate over your whole life? The problem of child porn is not that evil pedophile scum kidnaps an American white honour student and forces her to pose for child porn (though RIAA might do that if next 12-year old will not have $2000 to pay ransom). The problem is that there are already some kids for whom child porn is an ok way to get money. You can't fix this problem by through child porn viewers in jail. These kids are fucked up because of the socio-economical situation in their countries. These are more difficult so solve.

Like most trial lawyers, it's the brokers of the porn that make the money by their resale...not the people photographed.
Sure. But
1) Kids usually get something and that "something" is often valuable enough (like food, shelter, alcohol and drugs - they are often already addicts, sorry) for them not to worry about potential psychological problems.
2) Once the damage is done, those who distribute it for free do not cause any additional harm to the kids (neither to those filmed, nor to any other kids) and even somewhat harm the child porn industry by providing free substitute. If more people can get free child porn, less people will be willing to pay someone to make new one (although that would mean those kids will starve...).

Re: The good, the bad, and the opportunity

[Ktulu_03]

I totally agree with you. If there is demand, supply will be created. no matter how disgusting it is.

Re: The good, the bad, and the opportunity

[danila]

The point about the sister-in-law was that looking at the result of someone's bad action is not bad itself. Otherwise how would you watch the evening news? As for producing child porn or ordering it, I completely and wholeheartedly agree - both things can have negative impact on kids. But getting it for free doesn't. Same, killing someone or paying for the murder is bad - reading about it in the newspaper or watching the dead body on TV is not bad.

Another thing, these kids aren't just posing. Many of them are being held hostage and raped.
And many of them are not. Kidnapping and rape are crimes even if no pictures is made. Some child porn was/is made with consent of children and sometimes even parents and doesn't harm children (especially the legit porn from 70s and 80s) or harms them less than the alternative (starving).

If everyone in this country started looking at child porn, you can bet the number of abducted or exploited children would skyrocket!
Take it for what it's worth, but I've heard that some time ago paedophiles offered FBI to help with fighting child abuse if existing child porn would be legalised (at least de-facto). Of course, that didn't happen. But really, think of the amount of porn. I would bet there is already enough of it, so everyone could watch the same existing images and the number of abducted children would stay roughly the same.

Re: The good, the bad, and the opportunity

[brlancer]

Yet you apparently think the "consumers" of child porn--the ultimate reason for its existence, and for the exploitation of helpless innocent children--are blameless to the extent we can't even consider them "creeps" if they are friends or relatives?

First off, someone who views kiddie porn is not a consumer; a consumer has to pay for it.

Second, the point is that a lot of people otherwise viewed as normal (or even exemplary) do some pretty disgusting things. You would be amazed at all of the creeps out there.

And while viewing child porn is disgusting, it should not be illegal (reading, viewing, etc. should never be illegal). What should be forcefully prosecuted is people who make, sell, or buy child porn because they are all involved with the actual exploitation. Some weirdo viewing it for free shouldn't be prosecuted because he has done nothing to with children being exploited.

It's like prosecuting people for reading or publishing books on how to make bombs or decode DVD's; prosecute the people who actually commit crimes, not ancilliary things that may have nothing to do with the real crime.

Re: The good, the bad, and the opportunity

[vDave420]

Yet you apparently think the "consumers" of child porn--the ultimate reason for its existence, and for the exploitation of helpless innocent children--are blameless to the extent we can't even consider them "creeps" if they are friends or relatives?

Har har har.
Be careful, your reasoning cuts both ways:

Automobile accidents cause more than 40,000 deaths each year in the US alone (far more than child pornography and terrorism combined!!), and yet you, the consumer, are the ultimate reason for the existance of these horribly deadly "Automobiles!", and ultimately, the death and destruction of millions of dollars of property and loss of countless lives.

Does that mean you are a creep because you use said product? NO!

In fact, the (by far) most likely scenario (that I can see) is that you are a nice, "normal" person who doesn't use his car for bank robbery, vehicular homicide, etc.

However, since those creeps cause deaths and destruction, and you use the same end product, by your logic YOU ARE THE CREEP WHO SHOULD BE LOCKED UP!

What kind of creep did your parents raise? How can you (the consumer, and ultimate reason for the existence of these automobile tools-of-death) live with yourself?

Right?
Of course not.

Please, PLEASE don't fall for (or propegate) the "save the children" rant. They are plenty safe, and people who view said pictures are NOT hurting them or causing them pain, anymore than you are responsible for other people's automobile deaths because you use a car.

Do you see the problem with your reasoning?
I doubt that you will, because it involves children, and (as politicians know) that is the way to influence anyone to agree with anything.

-dave-

Re: The good, the bad, and the opportunity

[nfk]

Now you've done it. This is slashdot after all, you can get modded up for the apology of child porn, but this:

Tell me please, how downloading a child porn image from a free anonymous website feeds any industry? I can only see how it starves the industry by wasting precious traffic.

Replace "a child porn image" with "an mp3" and you'll have 100,000 people here jumping on your throat to explain you.

And in an unrelated point, even granting that there are grey areas (for instace, watching a 3 months old baby being raped is not the same as a 15 year old teenager being allured to have sex), and cases where you could argue that the child is better off in that situation (although that would lead to a big debate, I'm sure); even granting that, I hope your friends only watch pictures with the little "Unicef Approved" logo, saying no children were harmed in the production of those images. Yes, there are children who might starve if they weren't used like that. Forget for a moment the monstrosity of allowing them to live only if they perform those acts. There are still many other children who are kidnapped, or who are allured to go to some country to find a job, maybe as waiters in a bar, or any other employment, and then get thrown in a basement where they become prostitutes or child porn actors. I'm sure your friends really care about the source of the pictures, and only watch those that are produced in good, clean home businesses. Hey, maybe the state should even fund those moral enterprises, to put the "bad guys" out of business.

And yet another point, about "paedophiles" having asked the FBI to let them have the current production, so they wouldn't need new child porn, because they would just watch what already exists. Of course that would work! That's why we don't have movie and record industries anymore, who would want to watch new things when we have so many movies and songs and books? I don't even go to the movies anymore, or listen to the radio, what's the point? Oh, but wait, that's me, some unrestrained freak. We're talking about child porn viewers here, that responsible and civilized crowd.

And who went to the FBI anyway? Paedophiles of the World United? Are there associations big enough to tell the FBI they will help them if they can have legal material, and not be laughed at, for being irrelevant? Who are these people?

Re: The good, the bad, and the opportunity

[Anonymous Coward]

Dude, Age of Consent is not always 18. So YES children under the age of 18 can consent to committing sexual acts. Even in Alabama age of consent is allegedly 16. Whereas in other places in the world, like, say, Austria, legal age of consent is 14, and some places set it even lower.

This table, from a Canadian govt. document, might help:

12 in Mexico
13 in Japan
14 in Iceland, Austria, Canada and Italy
15 in Denmar, France, Sweden
16 in Australia, Finland, Germany (14 with parental consent), Holland (12 with parental consent), Israel, New Zealand, Norway

Re: The good, the bad, and the opportunity

[danila]

Thanks for an interesting post, I tend to agree with many things.

But not with all. :)
Replace "a child porn image" with "an mp3" and you'll have 100,000 people here jumping on your throat to explain you.
These are very different industries. You can't really imagine a person downloading a crappy MPEG child porn video, enjoying it and then ordering a DVD, can you? :) First, after he had an orgasm, he is not exactly in the mood to order a DVD. Second, you can't easily order a child porn DVD. And third, the quality is probably not the most important factor - paedophiles are quite different from auidophiles. ;) So, honestly, I don't think that downloading the file feed the industry somehow, especially because nobody downloads the files directly from sellers of child porn, no, it's downloaded from the guy, how downloaded it from the guy, who ...... who found it on some obscure BBS and nobody knows how it got there.

My point about grey areas was simply to illustrate that the whole problem is not as black and white as many people in this discussion assume. You see, I agree that making child porn generally (on average) is a bad thing, but I disagree that one photo equals one completely maimed, twisted, fucked up innocent kid with incurable psychological problems for the next 1000 years. There are much worse things that are done to kids, like simply raping them without photos, like killing them, like bombing them from the sky, like suicide-bombing them when they have a disco or a wedding, like destroying the school system and fucking up their mentality more than any paedophile ever could. And then you have bullying in school, you have all kinds of crap that kids have to endure every day in every corner of this beautiful blue speck flying through space... And to single out one particular problem and proclaim it the root of all evil is simply untrue and it smells like a witchhunt.

If you remove the negative impact of parents+police+psychiatrist from the child abuse case, I am not sure if the long-term damage is greater than from a very bad teacher at school. Exploring their sexuality is natural for kids, often they do it with other kids of the same age, sometimes with older children, sometimes with teenagers and sometimes with adults. There are many well-known cases when there is no psychological damage to kids whatsoever. Sex doesn't kill.

Yes, if the abuser kidnaps the child, rapes him/her, enslaves and forces to pose for child porn, this is bad. No doubt about it. But the fact that the child is exploited for child porn is irrelevant. It's not the picture that harms him/her, it's the abuse from the adult authority figure who somehow controls the kid. Poor treatment of the child is not a requirement of child porn. It's simply a consequence of the socio-economic situation. If you can buy a same kid for 100$ in that country, you won't treat him/her well. When child porn was legit a few decades ago, it was definitely a much smaller problem (in Europe and the US). Yes, it never was mainstream, because the sexual revolution didn't not penetrate the whole society to a necessary extent, but it was a much lighter topic. If child porn was to be legalised today, models would be treated the same or better as child actors in movies, TV films and fashion industry are treated. There are definitely many kids (defined as younger than 18) who can have sex without going crazy after it. Some of them would probably be happy to earn good money by starring in child porn. Of course, we can't expect legalisation any time soon, although I hoped that virtual child porn would emerge as a substitute for real child porn. Apparently, people/companies are so scared by the government and the media, that they are afraid to touch this in any way.

I hope you see that there is nothing inherently bad about child porn photos/videos. Now the question of is it moral/ethical to download child porn now, when most of it isn't made in noble ways. We

Re: The good, the bad, and the opportunity

[Anonymous Coward]

"consumers" of child porn--the ultimate reason for its existence

In other news: Mountain climbers cause mountains!

Re: The good, the bad, and the opportunity

[Khaed]

First of all...we're talking about children here. NO child under the age of 18 can consent to committing sexual acts...period.

What the hell are you smoking? When I was 16(which is under 18 for those of you who can't count), I "consented" left and right to sex with my girlfriend.

Let's look at something from a *different* point of view for a second. First and foremost, I don't look at child porn, but I think that viewing it as a right-or-wrong is a bit looney from either side.

When I was 16, my girlfriend and I were having sex. Lots of sex. I got ahold of a video camera, we filmed some of said sex... now, if I were to watch that tape that I made just four years ago of *myself* having sex with a consenting partner, it's child porn?

Think about that. Not all child porn is some fat hairy old guy humping an eight year old.

Re: The good, the bad, and the opportunity

[2Flower]

I agree that in general, tolerance of a media genre and those who consume it is a good idea. Not labelling all video game players as potential killers and all BDSM enthusiasts as violent sex offenders is groovy.

Here's where it falls apart for child porn: it's illegal to produce it, because to MAKE it, you need to abuse children. That means that consumers of it drive up demand to abuse more children. That's absolutely not groovy in the slightest.

With BDSM or video games or even fake-rape porn (or those stupid fake snuff porns out there) it's all consenting adults and virutal acts. Actors and artists depicting what could be illegal, but only simulated. Whereas if you stick two kids in a room and tell them to go at it and tape it, that's not going to wash since there's no 'consenting adults' or 'virtual' factor. It's a crime, period.

Ergo: Naked kiddie pictures are something that you have to stamp out, because at the root, it's illegal and destructive no matter how nice some of the people who look at it may be.

Of course, by this logic, that means that drawings of kids with no actual flesh and blood model the artist works from would be fine just as Grand Theft Auto's simulated violence is fine... but I'll let you draw your own moral conclusions on that grounds.

Re:The good, the bad, and the opportunity

[Anonymous Coward]

I think that filtering and blocking or blacklisting sites is great... but what about those sites that simply provide links to subscribers of xxx content?

I have setup an site recently that I think would allow all parties involved a 'win - win' situation.

Why not let people that subscribe and view xxx content be the ones to 'blow the whistle' on anything that may be child porn or illegal porn.

I have setup a website demonstrating how such an application would work (please note that I have been working on this in my spare time so it is not finished).

http://www.angelfire.com/theforce/isareligion/

If I can get it finished I plan on contacting current xxx website owners and soliciting this as a CYA and if enough people are concerned about child porn on the web a sharp increase in anonymous submissions will take place and at that point maybe legislation would be able to legally require an anonymous submission form be placed on any website hosting or offering pornography services.

I think the majority people that visit and subscribe to these services don't want to see child or illegal porn. But then again I could be wrong! =)

Re: The good, the bad, and the opportunity

[Richthofen80]

OH MY GOD. Mod this guy down.

The fact that youth , and the innocence of the sexuality of youth, is sexually arousing has been debated. but you can debate it all you want, that's not the point.

EVERY TIME SOMEONE CREATES CHILD PORN, they exploit the child. These children are not old enough to make decisions about sexuality, or about appearing nude for others sexual appetites. If someone takes a picture of a child nude, the child is unable to make the informed decision about what that means or what it means to those viewing the pictures. Before a certain age, rational thought about Very important things, like sexuality and appearing nude, isn't possible. it might not be 18, but we round up for safety's sake.

Are people jerkin it to kiddie porn because they want to exploit children? probably not. But they have to know that to get those photos, the children were exploited. (I'd even say abused, maybe not physically, but probably abused in other ways). It doesn't make you a bad person to find the innocence of sexuality of young people attractive, but it does when you enjoy it while another child is exploited. Thats why there are fetish sites with legal girls attempting to look illegal. for people who aren't evil fucks who don't care that kids are exploited.

Re: The good, the bad, and the opportunity

[fbjon]

Second, the point is that a lot of people otherwise viewed as normal (or even exemplary) do some pretty disgusting things. You would be amazed at all of the creeps out there.

I'd say a majority of the world population are creeps one way or the other. The thing is that it's hard to come up with anything sensible to say because of the 2-metre thick steel stigma that surrounds this thing.

And while viewing child porn is disgusting, it should not be illegal (reading, viewing, etc. should never be illegal). What should be forcefully prosecuted is people who make, sell, or buy child porn because they are all involved with the actual exploitation. Some weirdo viewing it for free shouldn't be prosecuted because he has done nothing to with children being exploited.

Precisely. You may think rottem.com is disgusting, or that child porn is disgusting, the important thing is the child-abuse part of this matter. And there's a lot more to solve that connects to this matter before the cild-abuse part is solved (like economic situations), so wether or not some people view it for free is kind of irrelevant, and arguing about it is pointless. Well, at least at this stage of human evolution.

Re: The good, the bad, and the opportunity

[Anonymous Coward]

1) You can have sex without coercing anyone. You ignore the fact that some kids might be ok with having sex with adults. Consensual sex with kids is illegal in the US, but there is nothing unethical about it.

Consensual sex with pre-adolescents is IMPOSSIBLE because the kids are simply incapable of understanding what sex is about.

They are not prepared mentally, physically, or emotionally to make an informed decision. Their brains are not fully developed, their bodies are not fully developed, and they have no true sexual urges. (They may imitate sexual behavior because of what they've seen on TV, but that's completely different.)

Sexual contact with kids under 14 or so cannot be consensual. This is why it is considered statutory rape when it is done by a person who is old enough that he should know better.

It is true that different people mature at different rates. Even so, it is very rare that a person of 14 or even 15 would be judged physically, mentally, and emotionally ready to make an informed decision about having sex with an older person (i.e., to be able to judge whether this person is taking advantage of them, what the consequences of protected and unprotected sex are, and so on.) And since age is the only practical way for laws to operate, there are very good reasons to set a conservative age limit.

The cut-off of 18 years that you mention is by no means universal. Even within the US it varies depending on what state you are in. So complaining that 17 years ought to be old enough to have sex is attack a straw man; in many places, they are old enough.

Of course, crossing state boundaries in order to have sexual contact with an underage person subjects you to federal law, as well it should. This closes a loophole that would otherwise make many states' laws ineffectual.

Re:The good, the bad, and the opportunity

[Anonymous Coward]

What makes you think that they will live with pain, guilt, and fear for the rest of their lives? Just because they had sex doesn't mean that they will be scarred for the rest of their lives, if any scarring at all. If you were talking about rape, however, then there will be some bad effects on the child, but not to the point that killing them would be the kinder, better thing to do to them, and the effects may not necessarily be with the child for the rest of their lives.

Re: The good, the bad, and the opportunity

[dillon_rinker]

I can think of no reason for you to defend child pornography unless you are a consumer of it.

I'm turning you in.

No, I'm not kidding.

Re: The good, the bad, and the opportunity

[bar-agent]

Then you have a sadly limited imagination and social conscience.

Re: The good, the bad, and the opportunity

[nfk]

Hey, you have to have a sense of humor, otherwise life would be too depressing. I disagree with much of what you say, as you might expect...

It's true that a person won't see a paedophile video and order the DVD (although they would, if it were legal as you want it to be), but that's just half of the argument about filesharing helping record companies. It's still a way of spreading the images, spark the interest of potential consumers who look at it, and, as such, to help the industry. Why do you think companies advertise their products? Not to mention there are people who don't do it for money, and having people download is an incentive to them. And who says quality isn't an important factor? If that were true, there would be no high quality pornography. Many people do want quality, or at least quantity, or there wouldn't be secret child porn sites out there.

And that part about the guy who downloaded the file from another guy who downloaded, etc... where did the file come from? Magic? Or maybe a child was hurt to produce it, but hey, we can just distance ourselves from the fact.

It's true that the issue is much more complex than saying a person will be automatically scarred for life because of those photos and the circumstances in which they are taken. What kind of argument is that though? "Oh it won't necessarily scar them for life, so it's all good". Based on current knowledge (which could change, I admit), common sense, and just basic decency of not doing to others what you wouldn't want them to do to you, or your own children, I would like to spare kids the chance of finding out what it feels like. And you say "there are many worse things that are done to kids, like simply raping them without photos"?! So taking photos is a mitigating factor? And even if there are worse things, like some of the others you mention, what's your point? You seem to have an all-or-nothing mindset, where child porn would have to be the one bad thing in the world, to even consider fighting it. I have never seen anyone saying child porn is the root of all evil, but so what? Let's do nothing then. Why bother with burglars if killers are much worse? There is no root of all evil, but fighting all the little seeds is still worthwhile, if you want the world to get any better.

You're not sure the damage of abuse would be greater than a very bad teacher? That would be one hell of a bad teacher. And your idea that parents, police and psychiatrist are such a negative impact is based on what evidence? Maybe the abuse itself, especially when it goes on for years, is the main problem for these kids? I know, it's a revolutionary concept, but give it some thought, and maybe read some testimonies about it. Children do explore their sexuality, and that's healthy, but adults have a different way of exploring their own sexuality and that of children. We're talking about kids here, who are inexperienced and vulnerable, still don't decide about everything in their lives, because they don't have the capacity to, and rely on their parents and authorities for protection against abuse.

The fact that the children is exploited for child porn is relevant. It's your all-or-nothing mindset again, saying that if pictures are not the whole evil, they're no evil at all. Of course the abuse itself is the worst part, but what about the humiliation of seeing it on the Internet? If I may be so bold to ask: if you were abused yourself, would you prefer to have no pictures taken, or would you still consider the issue irrelevant? And that's discounting for the fact that pictures are also important when they are driving a business, or when they may be part of the motivation to abuse the child in the first place. I know our opinions are different about this point, but I would say that poor child treatment is a requirement of child porn, because using children for pornography is already treating them poorly.

Child pornography was legit a few decades ago, and not much of a problem, because children had no

Re: The good, the bad, and the opportunity

[vDave420]

I can think of no reason for you to defend child pornography unless you are a consumer of it. I'm turning you in. No, I'm not kidding.

You troll!

You can't tell the difference between committing an action and disagreeing with the flawed logic used by an ignorant person opposed to said action?

Better turn me in as a terrorist as well, then. After all, I am highly opposed to the way the government has so openly imposed itself upon the rights of american citizens in the name of terrorism. By your reasoning, I must therefore be a terrorist.

Dumbass!

-dave-

Re: The good, the bad, and the opportunity

[nfk]

I'd say there is a problem with your reasoning too, if I could see any signs of reasoning at all. The analogy with cars doesn't make sense. If you were to do that analogy, cars would be the computers, those are the tools. Then you have to find an activity you do with cars that is necessarily dependent on hurting someone, and where it's patently obvious that it does.

Re:The good, the bad, and the opportunity

[Anonymous Coward]

only way to do that is to get the people out of the US, and maybe the monkeys as well.

Re:DDoS, you say?

[alex_ant]

Shhh, they're an evil megacorp. You know, like SCO and the RIAA. So it's okay.

aaditya@member.fsf.org

[Anonymous Coward]

aaditya@member.fsf.org

Re:DDoS, you say?

[Anonymous Coward]

Heh, yeah... and they already had server problems lasting most of Tuesday. Oh, well.

Well

[SargeZT]

As much as I hate Child Pornography, and the people who distribute it, if you block a million child porn sites, and only 1 non porn site is blocked, they shouldn't be blocked. Olestra chips are yummy in the tummy

Re:Well

[John Seminal]

I disagree. People can always write to the Attorney General and appeal that they are not a child porn site. I would say even if 10% of the sites which are blokced are not child porn, then that is acceptable. What is not acceptable is doing nothing.

I also think states must work together to track down the providers of child porn and arrest and jail these scumbags. They should be forced to go to jail.

Re:Well

[Anonymous Coward]

if you block a million child porn sites, and only 1 non porn site is blocked, they shouldn't be blocked.

Yes they should.

Re:Well

[shepd]

>People can always write to the Attorney General and appeal that they are not a child porn site. I would say even if 10% of the sites which are blokced are not child porn, then that is acceptable. What is not acceptable is doing nothing.

I also agree with you.

But I think we need to implement curfews to prevent night crimes like robbery, outlaw smoking to prevent deaths, and ban drinking because too many people drink and drive. What isn't acceptable is doing nothing about those issues.

I also think states must work together to track down people who make liquor, walk about at night, and produce smokes. They should be hanged.

Re:Well

[MrLizardo]

Great. Guilty until proven innocent. Let's just round up people who we think might be car theifs and hold them indefinitely. What's not acceptable is punishing the innocent along with the guilty. Yes, we need to do something about child pornography, but this is not what we need to do and the judge who suspended this law realized that.

-AX

Re:Well

[ergo98]

I would say even if 10% of the sites which are blokced are not child porn, then that is acceptable.

Brilliant! As the region's Office of DoubleTruth Information, I would like to thank you for your clever idea. We will now being the campaign to populate the 10% misinformation buffer. "Oh, I'm sorry, we heard that that Democratic Party page was child porn.". Or even better "accept it or imply that you support child porn".

I also think states must work together to track down the providers of child porn and arrest and jail these scumbags. They should be forced to go to jail.

I don't think you'll find much disagreement, and when childporn is found of course people do go to jail, and then they should investigate the perps computer and find the trails leading to his child-porn friends, and the network of childporn traders implodes. That's good investigative work, and is the way it should work. The government running some sort of NetNanny service is wholly unacceptable, though, because we know that the span between the theoretical implementation (eliminating childporn) and the realistic implementation often is a massive one. Instead you have the blocking tonnes of sites that have nothing to do with childporn whatsoever. Indeed, it could just be plain old fashioned, entirely legal, porn being blocked under the moral auspices of blocking child porn...and who's going to call up the state because their Woman-on-Woman site isn't working?

Re:Well

[gfody]

Then they should just block the range 255.255.255.255.. that of course blocks all child porn sites (and all spam sites too).

the people who are not kitty porn or spam sites can just call and have their ip's removed from the list. the ACTUAL kitty porn peddlers wouldn't have the audacity to call and lie about it

Re:Well

[John Seminal]

What is wrong with having a process where people can appeal to the Attorney General of their state to have their lawfull site unbanned. I think the state has to combat child porn. If you are worried that the state will overstep its right and abuse those powers, then the media will tell us and we will vote them out of power.

Re:Well

[whereiswaldo]

[I would say even if 10% of the sites which are blokced are not child porn, then that is acceptable.]

Brilliant! As the region's Office of DoubleTruth Information, I would like to thank you for your clever idea. We will now being the campaign to populate the 10% misinformation buffer. "Oh, I'm sorry, we heard that that Democratic Party page was child porn.". Or even better "accept it or imply that you support child porn".

If we aimed for absolute accuracy, no innocent people would've been killed in the war on terror. No guilty people would've been killed either.

Whatever means fit the end. We're not talking about pickpockets here, we're talking about pedophiles.

Re:Well

[Anonymous Coward]

"Olestra chips are yummy in the tummy"

Was this before or after you got the shits?

Re:Well

[Kenja]

So you must think that no one should ever be arested then. After all, at that point they have not been proven to be guilty.

Re:Well

[IM6100]

It sounds like you're trying to equate those other crimes with child pornography.

Society doesn't agree with you. Child Porn is a special case. It's so abhorent to mainstream society that special prohibitions are deemed appropriate.

You'd best deal with it. It's not going to change.

Re:Well

[Anonvmous Coward]

"As much as I hate Child Pornography, and the people who distribute it, if you block a million child porn sites, and only 1 non porn site is blocked, they shouldn't be blocked."

That logic works when you're talking about death sentences, but in this case it just plain doesn't work. If 1 in a million sites are getting blocked, then it seems like it'd be easier just to work with that site to get its block removed. Move to a new ISP? Use different terminology? Use a whitelist?

If you had said 1 in 10, then I wouldn't have taken issue with what you said. The core of what you meant is solid, but you used a number that was self-defeating.

Re:Well

[nocomment]

How about this, since they know the ISP's, and since they know the domain name (if blocking by IP blocks other sites then obviously they are using virtual hosting by domain name), why don't they

A> Contact the ISP and have the site shutdown, as well as supbeona all logs of the people accessing the site.

-AND-

B> Arrest the mutherfucker

Re:Well

[Anonymous Coward]

No you're not. You're talking about illegal pornographers. Who said anything about pedophiles?

A pedophile doesn't necessarily break any law. Pickpockets, by definition, do.

Re:Well

[b17bmbr]

well stated. i have two small children. maybe those withot children don't understand the pernicious nature of the crime. no, no crime deserves total abrogation of civil liberties, but this is hardly that. if they can be removed from the block list, then fine. do it.

Re:Well

[Quothz]

People can always write to the Attorney General and appeal that they are not a child porn site. I would say even if 10% of the sites which are blokced are not child porn, then that is acceptable. What is not acceptable is doing nothing.

This is, in formal logic, what's known as a false dichotomy. You can do _something_ without blocking legitimate sites. For example, you can attempt to identify and prosecute the creators and distributors of child pornography. "Deputizing" ISPs without their consent is just silly. If they're aware of any kiddie porn, they should act, but forcing them to monitor everything that passes through their network is just silly. Anybody seriously suggest that telecomm companies be liable for stopping drug deals that occur over the phone?

I also think states must work together to track down the providers of child porn and arrest and jail these scumbags. They should be forced to go to jail.

I agree. But we, as a society, pay people to round up these scumbags (the kiddie pornographers, not the ISPs). Foisting off the responsibility onto someone who isn't employed to do so is just passing the buck.

Yes, there's shades of grey here. Hotel proprietors are often required to run off any known prostitutes, but you don't see laws requiring them to monitor all rooms at all times to prevent it, nor would such laws be feasable.

Similarly, requiring that ISPs report known child pornographers is reasonable (and is currently the law, AFAIK). Requiring ISPs to monitor and make a judgement on everything that passes through their servier is not reasonable.

Re:Well

[jlaxson]

Now that's all well and good, but the way it stood, such a site could be blocked quitely and instantly without any sort of appeals process nor warning.

If you're a business doing, say, $1000 of sales a day on the web to customers in PA, and they accidentally block you, what do you do when sales all of the sudden drop by that amount. You wouldn't know anything about your server's IP address being blocked by ISP's, nobody would have told you. Then it takes 2-3 days to find out. Goodbye $3000. A few more days to get a court order to unban, $2000. Then all the ISP's have to go back and un-ban your server, another $1000-5000. There's a possibility of $10,000 of lost sales there, not to mention lost customers who took their purchase elsewhere when they couldn't reach you.

No, if you want to institute some sort of banning, fair notice must to be given to the owner of said IP address, who can then alert their customers to the coming events, and try and appeal. But, whoops! Now the pornographer knows all about it and jumps ship just as soon as they have a backup to $media.

Now we're back to the beginning again. The Child pornagrapher is on another site, another IP address to get banned then appealed. I don't see any way a pre-emptive ban like this could work without harming innocent business.

Re:Well

[darqchild]

this becomes impossible when a site is being hosted overseas...

Re:Well

[whereiswaldo]

No you're not. You're talking about illegal pornographers. Who said anything about pedophiles?

A pedophile doesn't necessarily break any law. Pickpockets, by definition, do.

I stand corrected - I was just trying to vary my word usage to avoid the grammar police. So I get nailed anyway. :)

Moving on, just replace "pedophile" in my message with "illegal pornographer". My point is that these are real scumbags who need to face the music, even if there is some possible risk to innocents which can be justified and in this case easily remedied.

Re:Well

[sharkey]

the people who are not kitty porn

So... you get off on seeing young cats engaging in sexual congress??

Re:Well

[Anonymous Coward]

Oi what is wrong with kitty porn

Re:Well

[shepd]

>Child Porn is a special case. It's so abhorent to mainstream society that special prohibitions are deemed appropriate.

So, people would rather be murdered than deal with child porn?

Seems to me society has a more serious problem to deal with than people wanting to look at naked children.

Re:Well

[nocomment]

I'd be surprised if every country didn't think this was illegal. Even Sealand has laws against this.

Re:Well

[forkboy]

I would venture to guess that some 3rd world African and Asian countries don't have any sort of laws against sex with children....by virtue of them having not advanced to the point of civil rights yet or having higher priorities.

Even in places where it is technically illegal, so much goes on behind the scenes and generates hoards of income from degenerate fucking tourists (*cough* Thailand *cough*) that the police are told to look the other way. Coincedentally, these are the same places that also allow their children to be employed in factories for big foreign countries for 12 hours a day at pennies per hour.

These are also the same places that illegalize on pain of death most controlled substances. God forbid you indulge in something mind-expanding and come to the realization that the government is letting dirty foreigners fuck your kids. (physically AND financially)

Re:Well

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes you should, and change your ISP if theyre ok hosting shild porn.
Andybody hosting child porn are scum.

Re:Well

[PainKilleR-CE]

i have two small children. maybe those withot children don't understand the pernicious nature of the crime.

What does having children have to do with understanding the nature of the crime? In fact, the people that commit the crime of creating child porn are far more likely to actually have children than not.

no, no crime deserves total abrogation of civil liberties, but this is hardly that.

You're right, this is hardly that. This is people that have committed no crime at all having their sites blocked without due process of any sort, without even being informed that their site is or will be blocked. When I worked for an ISP, the number one rule was that you do not take any action that will take a customer offline, because it can cause a great deal in monetary damages to be offline for even a short period of time. Anything that would take a customer offline had to be done because they weren't paying their bill, not because I (or someone that worked for me) did something that took them offline.

The problem with taking harsh knee-jerk reactions against crime is that you have a tendency to hit bystanders. It is one of the founding beliefs in the US that it is better to let criminals go free than to punish one person for a crime they did not commit.

Re:Well

[Qzukk]

So is your site blocked? How do you know? Are you going to call the attourney general's office (who is the sole group responsible for this probably very private list) and ask them if you are running a pedo porn site?

And if you are being blocked, what are you going to do about it? Quietly change ISPs and hope that the damages of having your addresses, DNS hosts, mailservers, etc. change are minimal? Call up the AG office and demand they unblock your site?

And if the AG blocked your site because it was your "Me for Attourney General!" campaign site. What do you think you're going to get? Other than an ad on TV mudslinging about how you used a kiddy porn host for your campaign (it must be true, otherwise it wouldn't be blocked, right)?

Re:Well

[IM6100]

It sounds like you're trying to equate those other crimes with child pornography.

Society doesn't agree with you. Child Porn is a special case. It's so abhorent to mainstream society that special prohibitions are deemed appropriate.

You'd best deal with it. It's not going to change.

Re:Well

[IM6100]

It is one of the founding beliefs in the US that it is better to let criminals go free than to punish one person for a crime they did not commit.

There is no 'founding belief' that it's better to let criminals go free.

There are principles of due process, and the right to a fair and speedy trial. Nobody ever showed enthusiasm or promoted the notion that criminals should go free.

Re:Well

[mwood]

"If you're a business doing, say, $1000 of sales a day on the web to customers in PA, and they accidentally block you, what do you do when sales all of the sudden drop by that amount. You wouldn't know anything about your server's IP address being blocked by ISP's, nobody would have told you. Then it takes 2-3 days to find out. Goodbye $3000. A few more days to get a court order to unban, $2000. Then all the ISP's have to go back and un-ban your server, another $1000-5000. There's a possibility of $10,000 of lost sales there, not to mention lost customers who took their purchase elsewhere when they couldn't reach you."

Uhhuh. And then you sue the State of Pennsylvania for $10,000 in lost sales, plus $5000 to cover those lost customers, plus court costs and attorney fees. Meanwhile a hundred other businesses are doing the same. The AG's office is going to have plenty of work to do....

Re:Well

[Anonymous Coward]

The age of consent varies widely. Wouldn't it bother you if your ISP were blocked because someone else's content transgressed Taliban law?

Re:Well

[PainKilleR-CE]

The enthusiasm is not that criminals should go free, but rather that the innocent should not be punished for a crime they did not commit.

There are principles of due process, and the right to a fair and speedy trial. Nobody ever showed enthusiasm or promoted the notion that criminals should go free

The very principal of due process is that one must be proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt before being punished for a crime. Therefore, even if the person is guilty, but the crime can not be proven to have been committed by that person, they should go free, for fear that an innocent be punished.

Suspend Kiddi porn law and sue them

[deadmongrel]

I don't understand how the law works. You suspend Kiddi porn law and you go after them for sharing music. way to go. again I repeat. America - Land of the Free* ________________________________________ * Free but conditions apply

Re:Suspend Kiddi porn law and sue them

[Anonymous Coward]

You might want to read the fucking article, asshole.

Re:Suspend Kiddi porn law and sue them

[ogre2112]

Trying to reduce kiddie porn by blocking IPs is like trying to reduce the sale of beer by bulldozing the road that leads to the grocery store. It's not gonna work.

Did you read the article? Legitimate businesses, and other sites are being blocked by these filters. If they want to remove these sites, they need to do it by prosecution, not by technical workarounds.

Re:Suspend Kiddi porn law and sue them

[deadmongrel]

I understand that and I have read the article. But how else would you stop these people who fuel kiddie porn? Esp the one who is sitting offshore? porn is fine but how could you even think of getting young people into a business like this. If other business get hit by it then it simply means that they are sharing the same IP space with these people who sell kiddie porn. Once they move(and if they move) then these websites would be out of business atleast in the US. If you don't deal this problem with a heavy hand they I don't think you would solve it.

Re:Suspend Kiddi porn law and sue them

[deadmongrel]

I have read the article and I stand by the fact that if these websites are not filtered then they would be more and more business like that around. You can't eliminate it but you have to contain the problem unless you like what you in these websites.

Re:Suspend Kiddi porn law and sue them

[Read Icculus]

how could you even think of getting young people into a business like this.[?]

I imagine that quite a few people would say the same thing about the USA's legal pornographers who recruit "barely-legal" girls into the buisness. When you talk about "kiddie porn", you should realize that defintion is used quite broadly here. What's the difference between a Dutch porn merchant who peddles photos of 16-17 year old girls and an American who does exactly the same thing with 18 year olds? "How could they even think about such a thing?" Your morals are your own, please try and keep them that way.

Re:Suspend Kiddi porn law and sue them

[deadmongrel]

I really don't care about barely legal or 16 or 17 years old. they may legally come under the category of children but they start screwing at a very early age. I am talking about children who are forced to do this just because they are either physically forced to do it. I understand that every one's moral differs but where do you draw the line? would you like to see your child involved in something like this? Sure 16 17 18 are also children but most of them do it willingly for money and the others are forced into this business because they had done it before. yeah the definition is broad here but, I believe, the core issue is really young children who are abused.

Re:Suspend Kiddi porn law and sue them

[jujuchef]

The prosecution is usually so outdated by the time a legal system gets around to it the site/user/ has changed (the logs yeah, but by the time they're acted on how many DAYS/WEEKS/MONTHS does the party have to wipe their drive?). Perhaps persecution...

I know my school is attempting to get a degree program specializing in network security and criminal justice. Could this be the dawn of a new market for the I.T. sector?

Re:Suspend Kiddi porn law and sue them

[Read Icculus]

Just because they "start screwing" at an early age doesn't mean that it's not illegal. You may not care about it, but the line has been drawn. The point is that where do *you* draw the line? Are "art" pictures of naked children acceptable? Or maybe pictures of your children in the tub? I would rather have people be able to look at and think whatever they want to. The government should not be involved - period. If you want to to watch Faces of Death then fine by me, even though I think that someone who gets pleasure out of watching people die is much worse than someone who wants to see naked children I am not going to impose my own view on anyone. The problem isn't that people look at these kinds of things, it's that they have the desire to look at them. Might as well make that illegal too right? I mean first they start thinking about it, then they start looking at it, then they're doing it. Might as well get them now before they start looking at dirty pictures. Thoughtcrime laws in 2004!

Re:Suspend Kiddi porn law and sue them

[Anonymous Coward]

How about get the legitimate sites hit by these blocks to gang up on there hosting providers to get them to close the child porn sites, or simply move to a provider who doesn't think child porn is acceptable.

Re:Suspend Kiddi porn law and sue them

[Anonymous Coward]

Blocking a few americans from seing the pictures does NOTHING to stop the problem. Arresting the people behind does. But if you block the sites, you can't report the owners (how are you going to find out the site exists at all?), and "they" will be able to distribute child porn in peace on their own blocked network.

Re:Suspend Kiddi porn law and sue them

[AKnightCowboy]

Did you read the article? Legitimate businesses, and other sites are being blocked by these filters. If they want to remove these sites, they need to do it by prosecution, not by technical workarounds.

If I had a legitimate business sharing an IP address on a web server hosting child pornography I would expect the ISP to be busted anyway. Why is this such a crazy idea? The ISP should stop hosting child pornography on the shared webserver or delete the offending user's site.

Re:Suspend Kiddi porn law and sue them

[Anonymous Coward]

If you lived in pennsylvania, you would know that we don't sell beer in supermarkets :)

I agree with this post too

[Anonymous Coward]

I just wanted to say I am with you 100%.

Re:WILD NIGGERS

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you meant to post this in the RIAA / downloading kid story below.

Porn and spam

[sbszine]

It's interesting to see that the same collateral damage problems occuring with this government porn blocklist that were affecting spam blocklists like SPEWS. Like spammers, porn site operators presumably changed accounts enough that the list operators had to block whole ISPs to guarantee filtering them.

Of course, unlike receiving spam, surfing a porn site is a personal choice (excepting porn viruses etc).

Re:Porn and spam

[TLouden]

This is a call the the field of AI and supercomputers. Let me explain:
A computer is fast and super computers are faster.
Computers know nothing until you tell them.
AI aims to (and in many cases does) change this so that a computer can 'learn' and make decisions like humans do.
Therefor using an AI enable super computer one could accomplish anything a human could but much faster. Math is simple. 1/2=0.5 anyone can do it and a computer is slightly faster at it. But what about less linear situations. Here the computer is clueless and a human can solve the problem faster, if at all. This changes only when computer can act like humans.
If we apply this to the porn problem then we might just see a solution that doesn't harm the rest of the internet.

Re:Porn and spam

[moosesocks]

While it's only my personal opinion, I believe that any ISP which hosts this sort of site almost DESERVES to be blocked.

Of course, if they were blocking SPECIFIC sites which weren't related to the law, I would have cause for alarm.

Re:Porn and spam

[arvindn]

I see the similarity, but there is also a difference: in the case of the SPEWS blocklist the decision of an admin to use it is voluntary, and not mandated by the government. Therefore it can be argued that blocking a whole ISP that hosts spammers is not a bad thing -- if all the customers of that ISP are affected, they will move away, and it will hit the ISP where it counts -- money. As long as they aren't made to suffer financially, there will always be ISPs willing to host spammers. I'm only saying that this sounds like a reasonable argument, not that it is unequivocally right. Tricky questions, certainly. A recent controversy about this aspect of the SPEWS blocklist produced some interesting arguments for both sides. When the blocking is required by law, of course, we must be far more circumspect, since the possibility of abuse is great.

Re:Porn and spam

[whoever57]

list operators had to block whole ISPs to guarantee filtering them.

I don't think so. It is because name-based virtual hosting is used to save IP addresses. Name-based virtual hosting means that many web sites can be hosted on the same single IP address.

Re:Porn and spam

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course, unlike receiving spam, surfing a porn site is a personal choice (excepting porn viruses etc).

Righto.... I disagree with you to some degree. Many websites make money porn banners, adult or otherwise. I believe if www.t50.com still exists (warez ranking site) you'll notice many sites have porn popups from hell from their sponcers. This is not exactly personal choice.

Re:Porn and spam

[oobar]

So what you're saying is "write a program to determine if a picture is kiddy porn." Have you any idea what you are asking for? I don't think that is at all possible. Image recognition currently only works when you have very controlled and well-known parameters, such as camera angles, lighting, subject matter, etc. To write a program that would take any picture and be able to determine "this is kiddie porn" would be close to impossible. And remember, to be useful it's got to have a very low false-positive rate, otherwise it's just going to waste a lot of someone's time and end up achieving nothing. See the facial-recognition quagmire for how this works (or rather, doesn't work at all.) And facial recognition is light years easier than what you're advocating, since all that needs to be done is compare a target face to a list of known faces and see if features match.

There is a lot of porn out there, and to have a computer deal with the sheer number of variations is just unrealistic. Heck, you couldn't do this with a HUMAN, let alone a program. I bet you could show a person a borderline porn image and they wouldn't be able to tell you whether the actors are underage or not. The porn industry tries very hard to blur that line, to make legal actors look illegal. If a human cannot make this distinction with any accuracy, a computer never will be able to, since such a decision relies on very subtle human abilities to recognise facial features and other cues. Hell, I bet you'd have great difficulty writing a program to tell whether a picture contains a male or a female (or both), let alone trying to determine their ages.

Please try a dose of reality.

Re:Porn and spam

[Bios_Hakr]

I'd say make the *subnets* public and then I'd blackhole them at my gateway. Same with spammers, just blackhole the whole goddamn ISP. Eventually, ISP's would get the point.

Re:Porn and spam

[Saeger]

You ignored the obvious with your AI-hammer:

By the time some future "Google AI" is able to recognize childporn as accurately and "objectively" as a human filter could (but faster), it would ALSO be obscenely fast enough to digitally simulate and render it all locally anyway. So this ultimate AI that prevents my kid from seeing harmful content would also be capable of creating it virtually without harming any actual childrens' mind or body.

Even more outlandish is the idea that the childporn problem won't always be a problem. At some point humanity will become post-humanity (with the help of AI), and the evolutionary psychology that makes some people pedofiles can be "fixed" if not already made an irrelevant taboo from biological times.

(hmm, it might seem like I'm defending childporn in this weird post, so let me insert the obligatory kneejerk partyline on this subject just to be clear: "brain: off. childporn is sick and sickos should be hung by the hair of their left nut before being lowered headfirst into acid. save the children! maternal/paternal instinct rules my emotions! brain: on." there.)

--

Re:Porn and spam

[innocent_white_lamb]

I believe that any ISP which hosts this sort of site almost DESERVES to be blocked.

Hello, thiis is your friendly ISP. We notice that you are hosting a website on our network. Be advised that you must provide us with advance copies of any and all material that you intend to post on your website (including material submitted by your users, if any) and give us at least 2 months to review it (due to the fact that there is a lot of material to review ahead of your stuff) before posting it on your site. Any changes to your site, no matter how insignificant they may seem (to you) must be reported to us and the same two month lead time will apply. Any materials that offend us in any way will be prohibited and you can not post it on your website.

Still think this is a good idea?

Re:Porn and spam

[TLouden]

I'm a programmer myself so I know how hard this is. But AI and faster computers have the potential to do such things as they continue to improve.

Re:Porn and spam

[MrBlint]

It's interesting to compare and contrast the current discussion with this one. I know that it's not the same people commenting but it seems the typical /. reader believes that blacklisting a whole ISP (or evan an entire country) is acceptable to prevent spam (which is relatively harmless) but not to block child pornography.

Re:Porn and spam

[drinkypoo]

if all the customers of that ISP are affected, they will move away

This is not different depending on whether the list is voluntary or mandatory. In fact the impact will be greater if the list is mandatory.

Re:Porn and spam

[mwood]

Wow, write a program to recognize something that even highly educated humans have trouble unambiguously recognizing. Sounds like fun, I wish I had several lifetimes to devote to it.

Re:Porn and spam

[Syberghost]

I see the similarity, but there is also a difference: in the case of the SPEWS blocklist the decision of an admin to use it is voluntary, and not mandated by the government.

True, but in the case of spam, people are getting some of their bandwidth used for things they don't want.

In the case of child porn, children are being raped.

Re:Porn and spam

[Anonymous Coward]

Problem is most abusers, sexual or otherwise of young childern are parents or relatives.
Teens it starts to drop somewhat as external forces can be involved.

Off topic - PA Child Porn-Blocking

[ralian]

When I saw this post I could only think to myself: "Pennsylvania has employed a child to block pornography?"

Re:Off topic - PA Child Porn-Blocking

[Skyfire]

Makes sense to me, they probably are the best at finding it.

Re:Off topic - PA Child Porn-Blocking

[Anonymous Coward]

Who better than a child to decide what a child should see?!?! Would you like some Angel's Cloud? I'm simply MAD for it!!!

Re:Off topic - PA Child Porn-Blocking

[TLouden]

Well, they were bound to try it sooner or later.

Re:Off topic - PA Child Porn-Blocking

[gl4ss]

well, they could get some on their payroll.

and then when spam hits their servers they can sue the spammers for sending porno to underage kids.

Re:Off topic - PA Child Porn-Blocking

[Anonymous Coward]

You're right. They should have used the oft-media-spun "kiddie porn", because then you know what the hell they're talking about.

What they should do...

[dolo666]

... is get the address info of all the child porn hosts and do police raids on them nonstop until it's shut down for good. Then we can tell the RIAA that there are illegal mp3s on those machines! Man watch the child porn disappear!!!!

But the tricky thing is separating the baby from the bathwater, if you catch my meaning. Some sites are hosted on IP blocks that share with kiddie-pron sites. I for one, would like to be aware if my ISP was allowing this kind of hosting going on and I would want to stop it.

I'm all for the blue ribbon campaign, but I'm certain it doesn't protect kiddie porn dealers (scum).

Re:What they should do...

[Anonymous Coward]

is get the address info of all the child porn hosts and do police raids on them nonstop until it's shut down for good

Sorry, but being involved with a hosting company and being in charge of finding it and deleting, I will tell you this: There is so much of it, in so many places, that it will be impossible to stop. A US customs agent once told me that the internet has made things next to impossible for them. He had been in it for thirty years. He used to hunt them down in person and arrest the people who take the pictures. He used to know the kids in the pictures. These days, most of it comes from places like Russia. With digital cameras and proxies and know how it has become an unstoppable fact of life. With all the free hosts out there and the ease of dropping a box on the internet, how are they ever going to stop it. At the host I worked at, this shit popped up daily. I could go weeks at a time deleting shit every single day. And I am talking stuff that lived on our servers for less than 24 hours. Often, by the time we had found it, it had consumed 1 or more Gigabytes of bandwidth (We had 2 100 megabit circuits, most of the time they were running at 80-90%.) This shit is here to stay. Technology has made that a fact.

Re:What they should do...

[jesser]

So you're saying that working for an ISP is a good way to find child porn? Thanks.

Re:What they should do...

[danila]

Question: do you think you are a free-thinking individual or do you realise that you've been programmed by the media to think that kiddie porn dealers are scum? Also have you considered the fact that some child porn sites feature free child porn?

Re:What they should do...

[Anonymous Coward]

There are a lot of people (including myself) who would say you've been programmed by the media not only to think kiddie porn dealers are scum, but to be sexually attracted to children. No wonder there are so many whackjobs out there, with such a dualist view on the subject being painted by the media. Check out James Kincaid for some interesting reading on the subject.

Re:What they should do...

[drinkypoo]

Child porn is like drugs in that if the demand withered up, or all the suppliers went away, then it would cease to be produced (in quantity, in a commercial fashion.) However unlike drugs, someone is necessarily being exploited, and in the case of kiddie porn which is not just children romping nude solo, a child is being abused. You could argue that happy children playing naked being filmed are not being harmed, though the problem of where to draw the line makes that a difficult call, legally.

The media tells me that both drug dealers and child porn dealers are scum. I don't believe the former (though when they sell to children, they certainly are - once again, I play the youth card) but I do believe the latter. People choose to take drugs, and that is the only person necessarily harmed by them. (Even marijuana is harmful in that you are inhaling smoke which is contraindicated for beings with lungs.) But children don't choose to be in pornography, and if they do, it is generally a sign of some type of abuse.

As far as free child porn goes, I don't really care if anyone is making a profit or not, children are being exploited, and possibly abused, again depending on the nature of the pornography - so what does that have to do with anything?

Re:What they should do...

[danila]

But who is a dealer? If I upload my collection of child porn to the website and share it for free, am I a dealer? How is anyone abused or exploited when I do it? What if someone shares the collection of child porn that was made before it was outlawed? Scans from paper magazines that were openly sold in sex shops in the US and Europe. Does such "dealer" exploit or abuse children? And what about dealers who are loved by the "abused" kids, because he was able to provide them with food, shelter and some (although perverted) love that they long lived without? Are they scum? What about the person who films his meeting with a child prostitute? Is it abuse if she is already a prostitute and was for several years already? Is he responsible for that? How does filming her and selling/sharing the film cause her any more harm?

And what about children who choose to be in porn? Certainly if adults can choose it, so can some of the kids. And even if they don't choose it completely voluntarily, there is a large grey area between being forced under the point of the gun and choosing it out of your free will. Certainly kidnapping and raping is bad, but what about persuading over a long period to start posing and then having seducing to have sex? Is it as bad as rape?

Re:What they should do...

[drinkypoo]

Child porn cost money to make at some point. If you share it for free, this is no way changes the fact that some child was exploited to make it. The fact that you are not directly exploiting children by downloading child porn does not change the fact that you are indirectly exploiting them. As the demand rises, the supply will rise, which only results in further exploitation.

In the case of the child prostitute, whether paid in food and shelter or in money (or some other service or item) it is still abuse. In fact that is, I would say, far worse than simply taking advantage of them, because it creates a feedback system which teaches them that sex is an acceptable substitute for actual affection, which cannot be healthy and is likely to leave an indelible mark on a young mind.

There is no gray area in the case of children who choose to be in pornography. An adult can make an informed decision. As you say, "even if they don't choose it completely voluntarily" -- STOP RIGHT THERE. If it is not completely voluntary, it is exploitation. If it involves sexual congress, it is also rape. Persuading over a long period? We call this coercion if it is done without being tricky about it, or brainwashing if you use tricks to tear someone down and build something else back up in place. I'd say doing that to a young mind is at least as bad as rape. After all, the physical trauma from rape is far secondary to the emotional effects; the former heal rapidly in most cases, but the latter can last a lifetime.

Re:What they should do...

[danila]

The fact that you are not directly exploiting children by downloading child porn does not change the fact that you are indirectly exploiting them.
Ok then. You are indirectly exploiting children too. Your [insert something here] is paid by taxes, including sales taxes on Nike sneakers that are made with slave labour. Have you bought a diamond for your girlfriend? You are indirectly exploiting African kids and adults. And you don't really want to know to what is done to people there. Child rape is nothing compared to that. You also indirectly exploit millions of black slaves that helped build American economy. And you indirectly exploit the kid who brings you newspaper, as well as the kid who cleans the machine shop that repairs the truck that brings the supplies to your favourite diner. Enough? Indirect exploitation is neither a crime nor an immoral thing. If I look at child porn, I do not exploit anyone directly. When you visit Louvre and see an old painting with a cherub - that's a kid exploited at some moment in time. So what? My hands are clean.

which teaches them that sex is an acceptable substitute for actual affection, which cannot be healthy and is likely to leave an indelible mark on a young mind.
Affection? What the hell are you talking about?! You don't understand anything. A much greater mark was left on her mind by death of her many brothers and sisters (they starved to death or died without basic medical care) and extremely harsh conditions in which she had to live. Becoming a prostitute was the only way out of the horrific existence she led and the only way to support her family. That was one hell of a mark. Having sex or posing nude for camera adds nothing to that. She is already desensitized to that, it took her only few weeks (or days). If you choose not to abuse her and decide not to sleep with her, she would hate you (or simply don't like you) because the money you would pay, would support her and her family for a week or so.

There is no gray area in the case of children who choose to be in pornography. An adult can make an informed decision.
Yep. When a person becomes 18 y.o., in that very instant the brain changes - he/she becomes capable of making informed decisions. To children in Holland this happens 2 years earlier. If there birthday is known incorrectly, the brain adapts and becomes capable of making informed decisions earlier or later, to comply with this arbitrary date. The kid in America can make an informed decision to kill someone and be executed for that, but he/she can't make an informed decision to have some sex or pose for porn.

You, sir, are an idiot.

Re:What they should do...

[drinkypoo]

Calling me an idiot is your final refuge, oh incompetent one. You're right that I am indirectly exploiting children, but I think that a sweatshop is one thing, and a hook shop is another, with the non-coital pornography lying somewhere in between. I wouldn't buy a diamond not because of the exploitation factor, but because they are artificially expensive due to debeers' market manipulation. What has gone in the past, specifically the slaves (not all of whom were african, by the way) is really not anything I have done, or even my parents. Or, for that matter, my parents' parents, since on one side we're Mexican and on the other we're poor, or at least come from poor roots. So that's another nice piece of trash, but not at all true. I don't exploit the kid who doesn't bring me a paper since I'm not subscribed, but if I were I still wouldn't be, because he's getting paid for honest work that doesn't involve taking his clothes off.

No one exploits anyone when they look at child porn, it's when you get child porn. Look at the facts, rather than your silly opinions on inheritance of guilt, which can be put into perspective by comparison to the concept of original sin. If you acquire child porn, someone can find out that you have acquired it, if only the person who gave it to you. If that person gets something out of giving it to you, which can be something as simple as personal satisfaction, that person will seek to acquire new child porn. At some point this translates into the people who make child porn being aware that there is a demand, and thus stepping up their supply, which results either in the same children being abused further, or new children being abused. Hence, looking at child porn does cause child abuse in a very real way.

What you call desensitization I call repression. Repressed experiences can cause a wide variety of problems later in life, most of which are likely real causes of problems in our associated societies, leading to cultures of exploitation, virtual slavery, and violence.

As for the age at which someone is considered an adult, I agree that is a bunch of hooha, but you do have to draw the line somewhere. Since everyone is different, you have two choices; either have the courts assign everyone an "adult" age individually, which would obviously drag the system down into nothingness under the weight of that poor decision, or you can assign an age. As for children being tried for murder and executed, or sentenced to live in prison without parole, that is an admission of defeat by society and it is wrong. It is completely wrong to punish someone as if they were an adult if you do not give them the responsibilities of an adult. Rights and responsibilities go hand in hand. Someone who cannot own property should not be treated as an adult.

You make a lot of stupid assumptions about my lifestyle and my thought processes. I'm not sure if that makes you an idiot, but it does make you awfully cocky.

Re:What they should do...

[danila]

I am calling you an idiot not because I don't have better arguments, but because you prove that you are incapable of understanding and using logic. In this post you do the same at least five times. I will not write a detailed rebuttal of your "arguments", I will simply point just the main flaws.

1) I didn't mean to prove that you personally are guilty of exploitation - simply to show that with standards that you use almost everyone exploits someone to some extent. I could have given more examples so that at least some are surely true in your case, but that was not the point.
2) By giving "personal satisfaction" to the person who gave me child porn I have an extremely miniscule impact on the overall situation or on the final abused kid. If you think this qualifies as being guilty, then you are guilty of every murder commited by US Army. You pay taxes and you probably voted either for Clinton (Yugoslavia) or for Bush (Afganistan and Iraq). Ergo you directly support child murdurers "in a very real way".
3) Falsy dichotomy regarding the age of consent. There is another option - individuals are free to have consensual sex. If someone suspects that consent could not be given, the police is informed and state may choose to prosecute. In this case courts only need to spend their time on cases that have some merit, i.e. when they would have probably been involved anyway.

In the parent message I called you an idiot, because of the utter stupidity of the last paragraph of your post. May be you should get a decent monitor or buy glasses, because you obvsiously have problems with recognising shades of grey.

Persuading != coercion. Sexual contact (or anything else) can be neither completely voluntary, nor exploitation. And you also ignored the point that I made in the grandgrandparent post about ability of children to choose (this time completely and totally voluntarily) to be in porn.

Please, get your logic facilities back online and hopefully nobody will have to resort to calling you an idiot.

Re:What they should do...

[cranos]

Umm excuse me what the fuck are you talking about?

Of course the man who goes to a child prostitute is harming her. It doesn't matter whether she had been a prostitute for years or days, she is still a child and as such the man is committing a crime both against the law and nature.

As for your last paragraph, children cannot "choose" to participate in porn and neither should they be allowed to. They do not have the life experience necessary to be able to make the right choice. They are too easily persuaded because they don't know any better.

All in all your post appears to be condoning child sexual abuse, I hope like hell you don't have any kids because I would be seriously worried about them.

Re:What they should do...

[drinkypoo]

Claiming that paying your taxes is supporting war is silly, especially when comparing it to buying child porn, because with the former they lock you up or at least take away your posessions if you don't do it and are very aggressive about tracking you down, and with the latter they lock you up if you do, and they happen to catch you which they are generally not very valiant about unless tipped off, though there are some sting operations in progress of course.

By contrast by giving personal satisfaction to the person who gave you the kiddie porn, you are clearly increasing demand. If this isn't supporting kiddie porn, I don't know what is.

No one has to resort to calling me an idiot. If you think I am wrong, then you are free to educate me, but calling me an idiot casts doubt upon your words. If you can't explain something without resorting to insults, then you can't explain it at all. Oddly enough I am not actually trying to be contrary in this thread, so there is really no excuse for your behavior unless you're just trolling, which is more or less accepted behavior on this thing.

IP instead of domain name

[maliabu]

how is it impossible to block domain names rather than IP addresses with the currennt technology of the Internet?

is this an intentional disruption by bad co-operation? when things are badly implemented, court order got suspended and no more need to handle blocking requests?

or are those ISPs have the same mind as Code-Red writer, who tried to DDOS whitehouse.gov's IP instead of the domain name itself.

Re:IP instead of domain name

[secolactico]

how is it impossible to block domain names rather than IP addresses with the currennt technology of the Internet?

It isn't. But it might get expensive on the hardware side. You'd need to filter everything based on the HTTP request instead of the IP. A lot of ISP are probably not prepared for that and would require investing in router/switches capable of this or forcing everyone thru a proxy server.

is this an intentional disruption by bad co-operation? when things are badly implemented, court order got suspended and no more need to handle blocking requests?

The implementation was not appropiate and was disruptive. Two wrongs don't make a right.

or are those ISPs have the same mind as Code-Red writer, who tried to DDOS whitehouse.gov's IP instead of the domain name itself.

Oh, I get it now... You are joking and I fell for it. Dang!

Re:IP instead of domain name

[Anonymous Coward]

Simple really:

To block a domain name, set the dns servers to point
that domain at 127.0.0.1 (or possibly 198.247.175.96).

To block an ip, set a router to drop packets pointing
to that ip. This is much tougher as it requires the
router to check all possible ips resulting in the router needing better hardware or handling less load. However, it is
possible.

Re:IP instead of domain name

[beldraen]

In order to make a system that did not have an absolutely massive address space on packets (which would have made addressing massively complex), the system was developed to use four numbers to represent each unique place on the internet. Any device that needs to contact a place makes a call first to a Domain Name Server to determine what IP address to contact on the internet for a given name. However, due to the way IP addresses are handed out, IP addresses are often jointly pooled. The problem is the lack of address space in only using four numbers (4 billion combinations really isn't enough due to the way they were segemented for use). So, by fault of complexity, it is not possible to block on name. The internet was designed to be used, not abused. It is its greatest strength and weakness.

Bel, the mostly sane..

Re:IP instead of domain name

[LordLucless]

You don't need to filter the requests, just the ISP's DNS servers. It can't be too hard to add in a list of domain names that the DNS server will automatically reject. Granted, there's ways around this (manual entry into the hosts file, point to a different DNS service, etc) but these are beyond the average user, and it will nevertheless protect normal users from accidentally encountering child porn.

Re:IP instead of domain name

[sribe]

It isn't. But it might get expensive on the hardware side. You'd need to filter everything based on the HTTP request instead of the IP. A lot of ISP are probably not prepared for that and would require investing in router/switches capable of this or forcing everyone thru a proxy server.

So don't block it. Just terminate the account and delete the site. Do you really want to host child porn on your system just because only PA has told you to block it from PA-based browsers? Just get rid of it altogether and be done with it!

Re:IP instead of domain name

[Anonymous Coward]

We're talking about what PA ISPs were required to do (somehow block their users' access to certain URLs), not what the hosts of the content can do.

hmmm

[rwven]

wouldnt it have been better to use a "websense" type program to do this blocking? or maybe a decent algorythm that could root out words and such and block it. blocking by IP is quite frankly a dumb way to do it...

I used to work for a porn host

[Anonymous Coward]

When we found child porn (or cp as we called it), we just deleted it. We didn't tell anyone. When we tried to cooperate, local police would tell us one thing, US Customs another, and the FBI would tell us something else. And they all acted like they were minutes away from arresting you. The laws vary so much and the agents were such dick heads, that we just quitely deleted it. By the way, it was easy to find. Just watched the logs, any new user that immediately sky rocketed in bandwidth usage was almost 100% cp. Hehe, I still have a plastic file box that we would keep the records in (when we were cooperating.) It had a label on it that read 'The PedoFile'.

Re:I used to work for a porn host

[StewedSquirrel]

The sad part about what you've said is that BY being so difficult, the police have made it more difficult on themselves.

In addition, I have a feeling that you (not turning them in) are in fact, yourself, comitting a felony.

If they were every to decided they had it in for your ass, you'd be screwed.

Sad

Stewey

Re:I used to work for a porn host

[js7a]

I have a feeling that you (not turning them in) are in fact, yourself, comitting a felony.

No, not unless you're a mental health professional, believe it or not.

Re:I used to work for a porn host

[StewedSquirrel]

Well that's fortunate.

i still don't know whether to think the "patient-client confidentiality" is worth violating, even in those circumstances.

The great irony is that pedophiles are probably the single group that need the MOST mental help and many would be willing to seek it, except for the fact that they can almost never speak openly to a psychologist for fear of being arrested.

Which is a viscious cycle.

Stewey

Re:I used to work for a porn host

[pclminion]

Wait a minute. You're saying that if a person wants to receive psychological help because he doesn't want to have urges toward children, then the shrink is required to bust him?

Make sure the next time I feel naughty urges that I don't try to seek help for them! I'll just stew quietly in my own sickness.

Re:I used to work for a porn host

[dook43]

This has nothing to do with someone wanting to seek help for their urges. If they have ACTED upon those urges, and in fact have harmed a child, then I would expect any mental health professional to turn them in. Someone who has not harmed a child and is just voicing their desire to seek help for their urges is a different animal entirely.

Finally...

[Anonymous Coward]

Finally some sanity! Maybe those politicos are finally realizing that they don't know as much as they thought they knew about the internet. Censorship of material that has nothing to do with the target is not only immoral, but illegal.

Now, we need a rational and thorough debate and plan for getting rid of these kiddy porn distributors/creators.

The only problem I see, is that it's incredibly hard to do, esp. with newsgroups, irc, etc. It's going to take a lot of time and effort to do this right.

Re:Finally...

[Anonymous Coward]

...that has nothing to do with the target is not only immoral..

By who's standard. What is immoral for one, seems perfectly moral for another. Or is there some other universal standard or yardstick that we can all judge what is immoral by? Think about it.

hey, just a quick hihowareya

[Neuropol]

speel chekas for controversial Adrian Lamo case!

Re:DDoS, you say?

[grolschie]

Yes this was a very "controvertial" decison by Slashdot.

Re:For the sake of accuracy

[John Seminal]

What is the differance? Does a commonwealth lack powers a state has?

Re:Yay!

[jeffkjo1]

Ummm.... Haven't you listened to Weird Al lately.... they "ain't payed the phone bill in 300 years!"

Good intentions, Bad laws, Potential Solution

[Dukeofshadows]

One of the few things that most nations around the world agree on is that kidddie porn is a vile abomination of deviant human sexuality. No one blames the state of Pennsylvania for doing everything they can to craft a law deflecting it. What they need are technical advisors from the computer world and the legal community to write it in such a way that it becomes realistically feasible. Legitimate sites will be blocked in the process and that represents a serious contention with the first amendment. I applaud their intentions and hope they turn to the Linux or Unix communities to try and create the most efficient filter possible (maybe with a cash prize as incentive?). Mandating the presence of such a barrier is troubling because of the precedence that this sets. Remeber that Rick Santorum, a Senator whose religious views are readily expressed on key occasions, is from this state. The possibility exists that establishing a law based on "public morality" or whatever excuse could be used a s precedent to enforce a more narrow interpretation of morality later on down the road. In the future I hope that Pennsylvania will allow ISPs to try this out on a voluntary basis first to make sure it works more effectively and to give parents a notice of which ISPs are doing the most in that area. But as long as the average user remains glaringly ignorant about how the internet works, child porn will remain disturbingly accessible regardless of the barrier in place. This is especially true about legal pron sites which usually disguise themselves as something more legitimate.

As a side note, the RIAA should also not be allowed to infiltrate the Pennsylvania legislature as the vast majority of P2P distributors are not facilitators of kiddie porn distribution despite the current propaganda.

Re:Good intentions, Bad laws, Potential Solution

[Anonymous Coward]

While your claim may be true, different cultures vary greatly on what they believe "kiddie porn" is. PA and the USA don't define the cultural standards of the world.

Are you suggesting the RIAA should be allowed to infiltrate anywhere where people are believed to he kp distributors? Why don't we just kill them and see if we were right later?

Re:Good intentions, Bad laws, Potential Solution

[nyseal]

I believe this has been said before on this website, but if you silence the views (good or bad) of one person or ISP you silence them all. Kiddie pr0n/malastation has been going on for centuries but it's just been recently with the internet and the whole 'save the children' campaign that it's really gained notoriety. I am definitely not FOR kiddie porn, but the minute you sacrifice the exception for the rule everyone loses; that's a fact. I'm not even saying it's free speech; I abhor it, but at the same time we can't limit the free exchange of information through a given medium because of a few bad apples. I'm also not speaking of unsolicited child sex via email; that's almost worse, but people who venture onto the internet need to realize that there are dangers out there; maybe even worse than the regular highway. Viruses, porn, unwanted email....they are all things that are out there; right or wrong and they were out there well before the internet. We don't have to accept them per se, but silencing or restricting an ISP is NOT the way to do it. All I ever wanted to do was surf the net without interruption from an advertisement about a dating service or some penile extension miracle but I've come to realize that it's not my ISP's fault. They're only giving me what I signed up for: an unlimited access to information, whether it's good or bad. It's up to me to filter out the information I want and don't want. Same goes for kids, if you have them, pay attention to where they surf.

Re:Good intentions, Bad laws, Potential Solution

[Richthofen80]

While your claim may be true, different cultures vary greatly on what they believe "kiddie porn" is. PA and the USA don't define the cultural standards of the world.


Yeah. thats why the laws of PA and the USA don't apply in other parts of the world. but when you're here, its illegal.

Overloards

[Anonymous Coward]

I for one welcome our new child-porn overlords...

Re:Yay!

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm amish and I take offense to that!

is it fair?

[chuckfucter]

First off - I am very much against child porn. But is it fair for a government to block a IP? I can see if aol or verizon, etc.. decided to do this while the authorites track down the bastards the put up this crap, but the internet WAS supposed to be for the people and uncontrolled (though that does not mean "not-policed") And if I have a business site hosted next door to a child-porn site, I would be infuriated at the hosting company for not removing that site and at any revenue loss I would incurr from the state blocking the ip.

DDoS attack?

[NeoRete]

>>Philly.com appeared to suffer a DDoS earlier >>today. Please be kind to their admins. Is anyone positive that this wasn't just a preemptive slashdotting? 25 char are fine for a s

Re:DDoS attack?

[Anonymous Coward]

You do realize that your sig is added to the end of each of your messages you fucking twat.

Re:DDoS attack?

[KentoNET]

Please, PLEASE READ the article about the DDoS before you post here. The DoS occurred in the early morning hours and only continued through about six hours, into early afternoon. It was not caused by massive traffic to the philly.com website, it was caused by a massive malicious attack against Knight Ridder and had sour effects on at least 30 of their sites.

--

Re:DDoS attack?

[dnoyeb]

Thats bullshit. I am tired of this recent trend of requesting DDoSers and crackers to behave themselves. As if they are even a part of this community. They are not, and we should not be implying it.

A suggestion for Google

[cloudless.net]

Put Goatse as the search result for "child porn". It should give some permanent eye damage to the readers.

Re:A suggestion for Google

[sharkey]

Tubgirl? Pass a link

You asked for it. Here...You...Go Don't view after eating gravy of any sort.

Re:A suggestion for Google

[jesser]

To suggest a search result to Google, create a link. In this case, create a link with "child porn" as the link text and goatse as the link target.

Re:A suggestion for Google

[strider3700]

I know google is good and all, but you can't really google for child porn can you? I know that you can get anything you want on the web no matter how wrong and vile, but I never assumed it would be so easy as google. I'm tempted to test but don't feel like going to jail over it.

I guess it would be hard as well to filter without actually inspecting each page though.

Interestingly enough

[Moloko_Plus]

Aren't the current headlines and media tied up into people swapping mp3's? Its about time someone posted genuine criminal activity and the actions being taken to stop them. Tell the RIAA that i threw a rock at their building yesterday when i died and went to hell.

Re:For the sake of accuracy

[Anonymous Coward]

Answer me this:

How many states comprise the United States?

Child Pr0n.

[RevSmiley]

The laws against child pr0n need to be enforced. Blocking the sites doesn't stop the abuse of children by the scumbags who publish these websites. Throwing their worthless butts in jail does. Getting all the content an burning it gets rid of it. Any of this content blocking is misguided and doesn't address the actual problem but what else could you expect from politicians? You expect them to actually do something?

Re:Child Pr0n.

[Anonymous Coward]

How do you know that the website publishers are the ones abusing children? For that matter, how do you know thay are even children by local standards? For all we know, what they do may be perfectly legal in their own country.

Re:Child Pr0n.

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, supply and demand (a well-recognized way of looking at a market, and the base of capitalism) dictates that destroying the content (supply), will drive the prices up, thus causing even more people to be willing to take the risc to create new child porn. This will not protect the children / victims, only peoples morals.

Gotta be cruel to be kind

[Fr33z0r]

Nothing quite like slashdotting someone as they're scrambling around trying to recover from a DDoS. I thought it was deliciously sadistic that the second link (explaining the DDoS) doesn't link directly to the info on the DDoS and instead needs another click, and another pageview.

Re:Yay!

[Anonymous Coward]

heheh

Some Americans do understand subtle humour...

Re:For the sake of accuracy

[pyrrhonist]

There is no difference legally. See here: What is the difference between a state and a commonwealth?

There is an interesting side note concering the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

The name, which in the eighteenth century was used to mean "republic", can be traced to the second draft of the state Constitution, written by John Adams in 1780. The people had overwhelmingly rejected the first draft of the Constitution in 1778, and in that draft the name "State of Massachusetts-Bay" had been used. Perhaps to make it clear that the second document was altogether different from the first, Adams changed this to "Commonwealth of Massachusetts". Massachusetts thus became the only state in the Union to change its name.

-- Flags of the World

The original two commonwealths were Massachusetts and Virginia.

Re:For the sake of accuracy

[Serzen]

As I said, I was only commenting for the sake of accuracy. PA labels itself a Commenwealth in official documents, and has referred to itself for a long, long time. There isn't any actual difference insofar as Federal recognition is concerned--it's treated as a State--the difference has more to do with the philosophies under which it was orginally founded.

If a distro calls itself GNU/Linux, everyone is quick enough to correct the writer who only calls it Linux.

The DDoSer is...

[Fr33z0r]

Quite obviously this guy.

The disturbance, during which the site was bombarded with more requests for information than it could handle, lasted for nearly six hours and affected more than 30 Knight Ridder Digital sites.

His hatred of David Hasslehoff rages on. 2 mysteries solved in one.

Re:Yay!

[Anonymous Coward]

Please don't ever call me an American again. Thanks.

ban hosting providers that allow such filth

[Anonymous Coward]

probably the best solution to this evil would be to ban all hosting providers that allow hosting of kiddie porn. ask yourself. would you host your site with a hosting solution provider that provides such filth? i wouldnt. If you do, you just have to pay the price for it.

Re:Why isn't song sharing like radio

[softspokenrevolution]

Technically Recording a song of the radio onto a tape is a violation of the law. It's just that it can't really be tracked since after all, radio is a wide area braodcast to millions of potential customers with a single broadcast. None of these users are tracked in anyway (excpet for ratings polls) so it really is impossible to get a hold of them, especially since the taping in no way interferes with the broadcast signal (and neither does its interception).

But what does this have to do with kiddie porn. Not anything really. The stuff if totally offensive and wrong from its every fiber of its existence. I for one applaud any law to try and tackle the vile shit. But the real problem is getting at the consumers, it's a sickness and perversion and our society needs to work that out of its system (as do many others) before any laws will become effective because these people will find a way to bypass whatever laws there are as they have in the past (kind of like the war on drugs). But prosecute too, because the people who make this shit are reepy criminals and dserve to go to nasty fderal lock ups where they don't come out.

More information here

[earthforce_1]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid= 52 8&ncid=528&e=6&u=/ap/20030909/ap_on_hi_te/internet _blocking

Re:More information here

[Anonymous Coward]

Lazy bum! :)

Here's a clickable version for all us other lazy bums!

Who's going to teach who a lesson?

[Anonvmous Coward]

"Sherman responded that most people don't shoplift because they fear they'll be arrested. "

I think the RIAA's going to learn that most corps don't pull this kind of shit because they fear they'll be boycotted.

Block the ISP

[FullCircle]

After sending a notice to the ISP that their servers are hosting kiddie porn, the ISP should disable the site and report them to the police along with the files stored on the server as proof.

If the ISP doesn't comply, block ALL their IP's if they reside in another country. Lock them up as an accessory to the crime if they are located in a semi-moral country.

If I was a legit business owner who lost access to my site because of this, I doubt I would have a problem with relocating my site. It isn't like there aren't plenty of other hosting services that have a bit of decency.

Re:Block the ISP

[grofty]

I think I like the theory of including the ISP in the process where legal control exists (i.e the U.S. and other "moral" countries), but it would be difficult to implement without a distributed means of enforcement. PA can't go in to GA to make much happen -- they should report the ISP to the Feds and let them take up the fight from there. Still, most of the child porn will be hosted in other countries. The ISP's should be notified as would be their local Governments. If this would fail because the laws in those locations allow the sites or the governmets are uncooperative, then you block the address.

But the problem presented in the article seems to be caused by only doing half the work in identifying the sites. They found the site and tracked down their IP address. Once you find the address, are you done? No. It should be easy to verify that address is only hosting one site. If it isn't flag it and build the address into the filter. It isn't brain surgery -- just not followed through completely.

Sorry! Wrong window!

[Anonvmous Coward]

"I think the RIAA's going to learn that most corps don't pull this kind of shit because they fear they'll be boycotted."

Oh sunuvabitch, I posted in the wrong topic. Had multiple windows open.

Sorry all. Mod me up so everybody can point and laugh!

makes me wonder

[Maskirovka]

How the hell would you hire people to evaluate potential sites for the ban list?
Finding reliable people who are emotionally capable of such a job must be an HR nightmare. I can just see the job description:

Researchers needed to evaluate questionable online material of an extremely graphic nature. Must have a professional outlook, neat appearance, and an ironclad stomach. Must also be able to pass a polygraph, and extensive background check. Computer literacy a plus, but willing to train candidates with the right enthusiasm. Benifits include full medical, dental, and a comprehensive psyciatric plan.

Actually this sounds like a shoe-in for de-frocked clergyman. I guess I answered my own question. Carry on.

Having been on the wrong end of a similar action..

[Mnemennth]

... I really think it is unacceptable to take this scattergun approach to controlling any kind of illegal activity.
I was fortunate enough to be a victim of AOL's blockage of YahooMail, and as I use a YahooMail account in my eBay business, it disrupted communications for several auctions I was involved in. Now true, this is a relatively minor inconvenience, but it did cost me potential profit. I can only imagine what it must be like for a legitimate business that relies on their website for advertising and revenue generation... or say the possible small website devoted to preventing Child Abuse that could as easily share that ISP.
It's like they're saying "Kill them all, let God sort 'em out..."

Mnem

Child porn?

[be-fan]

Anybody have any statistics on how many children are hurt by the making of child porn? How does it compare to the number of children hurt by child abuse. If the number hurt by child porn is relatively small, mightn't it be more useful to spend that effort preventing child abuse in general?

Re:Child porn?

[WellAren'tYouJustThe]

If the number hurt by child porn is relatively small, mightn't it be more useful to spend that effort preventing child abuse in general?

Well aren't you the ever-practical one.

Re:Child porn?

[PsionicMan]

It'd be impossible to get anything even approaching realistic statistics. Child porn is so completely demonized, it has such a stigma, that I would imagine that the vast majority of people involved, in any fashion, wouldn't be willing to talk about it, even in an anonymous survey or whatever.

And, as long as we're at it, why focus only on child abuse, and not just people abuse in general? As Bill Hicks used to say:

What does that mean? They reach a certain age and they're off your fucking love-list? Fuck your children, if that's the way you think then fuck you too. You either love all people of all ages or you shut the fuck up.

Re:Child porn?

[StewedSquirrel]

There are 8 organizations in my city for preventing "stranger abduction", yet only four such abductions have occurred in the last 2 years.

There are a dozen groups out there working to prevent sexual abuse, but Social Services itself is badly badly underfunded and can't handle the cases of *simple* abuse.

Simple as it is called, it's no walk in the garden and I think resources from other areas should be re-directed in that direction. So in essence, I'm just saying...

"I agree"

Stewey

Re:Child porn?

[drinkypoo]

Certainly I can tell you that in some areas the agencies intended to protect children are extremely lackluster. In my last apartment complex, my neighbor (who within his hearing I once threatened to knock his dick in the dirt if I ever saw him strike his child, as others had reported) had custody of a developmentally challenged kid. This kid was known to kick and spit on people he didn't know when he walked by. His father is an alcoholic, has been locked up numerous times for posession (which implies stupidity and a lack of control if nothing else) and doesn't clean the apartment. His apartment was the reason we couldn't get rid of cockroaches in his, he wouldn't let them in to spray, probably afraid they'd find his stash.

So I called CPS and told them that he was yelling at this kid, cussing him out every day; that their house was filthy and full of cockroaches; that other people in the complex had seen him strike the child. Upside his head, hard enough to knock him down. They never came out, even once, to check on this guy, and a month or so after I called, we moved out and got away from the situation. In fact, in between the time we called and the time we moved, he got busted for posession of methamphetamine, and meanwhile AFAIK he STILL has the child.

So yes, I agree, not nearly enough effort is spent on child protection in general. Arguably this lack of effort (and funding, presumably) will perpetuate a vicious cycle of hate. Kids who have been abused, after all, are considered more likely to grow up and abuse their kids. The best they typically do is lessen the abuse. My mom's mom used to tell her she was stupid and so on; my mom just told me the things I did were stupid. Maybe I'll just say to my future progeny that what they're doing is thoughtless :)

Re:Child porn?

[lkaos]

I had a theory on this that was very poorly recepted when I first began telling people.

People are violently against things like child molestation and child pornography while the same people often don't really have strong feelings about child abuse. Child abuse can leave just as intense emotional scars (and is usually more physically violent) so logic seems to dictate that is by far a worse crime (not to mention far more common).

It seems reasonable to me that people take such a violent position on child pornography because deep down, they fear their own attraction to children. It is natural for an adult to have sexual desire to a pubescent child (hell, this is what we're designed to do) and not too far back in our history, women at least were raising families at a very young age.

Now, I'm not condoning any kind of sexual activities between an adult and a minor. Violence is something that people tend to feel they have a certain degree of control over, sexuality typically isn't. Perhaps this is why people feel such a strong need to assert the immorality of child pornography.

Re:Child porn?

[quintessencesluglord]

More truth here than is comfortable to admit.

Interesting point about the parent post

[Anonymous Coward]

Even though it's off topic, the lameness filter didn't seem to catch it. That must mean that the typical Slashdot poster's vocabulary is on park with Brak's. Sad... very sad...

Easy fix

[phorm]

It isn't. But it might get expensive on the hardware side. You'd need to filter everything based on the HTTP request instead of the IP.

Just do this for those listed within the offending IPs. For example, if pedo.com (random URL) was hosted on IP block 127.0.0.1...
Keep a list of offending IP, in which 127.0.0.1 is pedo.com (they already keep the IPs)... scan attempts to 127.0.0.1 for pedo.com, ignore others. No need to scan every request, and they already have to process blocked IP's anyhow.

Oh, and by the way, if you find illegal porn hosted at 127.0.0.1 you may have more problems than just ISP blocks...

Re:Easy fix

[AKnightCowboy]

Why block them at all? Shut them down. Child pornography is illegal in every civilized country in the world... even on Sealand! No respectable ISP would refuse a request to shut off a child porn site based on simply reviewing the site. So contact the ISP, tell them to look at their customer's site and see if it agrees with their AUP. If not then the ISP has a responsibility to shut the site down. This whole idea of blocking shit is like playing whack-a-mole. It doesn't work for spam and it won't work for child porn.

Re:Easy fix

[phorm]

You assume that most of said sites are in the US, while I get the impression that while some are (and do get busted), many are also offshore in places where US enforcement isn't able to function.

It's not a matter of whether it's legal in the country doing the hosting, it's the matter of what a legislative pain-in-the-ass it can be to get anything done about it... and in some countries it is still, unfortunately, legal (or, in more cases, I believe the age of legality varies).

So really, blocking is just fine, at least until the site can be taken care of on a more permanent basis.

Re:Why isn't song sharing like radio

[Anonymous Coward]

EH?

What a stupid way to deal with child porn!!!

[SammysIsland]

Blocking child porn sites is like shutting the blinds while a parent is beating their child.

Are they trying to stop people from seeing that these poor children are being abused? I think it makes more sense to let people know this horible crap is going on.

I think it's great that they aren't going to just store these skeletons in the closet. (I hope the RIAA or some other record company doesn't come at me for that Grateful Dead ref. I don't have 2K I swear!!!)

I thought similarly, however...

[Hecatonchires]

I thought they meant the child of Gabe and Kara from Penny Arcade . Which is odd. Mainly because they don't appear to have children yet.

Re:Why isn't song sharing like radio

[Anonymous Coward]

Technically Recording a song of the radio onto a tape is a violation of the law.

You are wrong. Feel free to go to an online copy of the law and produce a link to the contrary.

My, how your views change

[StewedSquirrel]

I find it really interesting to do a general "poll" of the number of people in this thread who seem OK with the far-reaching pre-emptive blanket banning of IP addresses in this topic.

In another topic, the entirety of the board would be up in arms, but on this subject it is stirring up hot debate with the pro-block and anti-block camps looking to be about equal in numbers (at least in numbers of posts).

What does this say? That a good number of us really don't care *as much* about those freedoms that we profess to when discussing other topics? Perhaps it's just because a small group of people get so incredibly hot under the collar about this topic (and I understand, really!!).

The thing to me is that parents are always the ones to jump in and say "well, I can only imagine if it was my kid". The thing is that if you're a half-decent parent, it won't be your kid. If you let your kid be alone with someone who could be capable of posting something like that ON THE INTERNET, you are making a mistake in your parenting somewhere.

Personally, I think kids should be informed about this kid of thing at a young age so that if they are ever actually put in the situation of having to deal with it, they're capable of saying "no" and if forced, capable and willing to tell someone about it later.

But throwing down blanket bans on IP addresses <b>IS</b> a violation of our basic rights and inhibits the freedom of information, which is one of the most basic of human rights and dignities in my opinion.

It will take the cooperation of ALL the world's governments to take down these sites, which I can't see happening soon. Then the content will migrate to a service like FREENET, where the information is decentralized and fully anonymous and guess what... you won't be able to take it down anymore.

Information will flow, even if we don't want it to. Spying on the population isn't the solution. Protecting the kids is a solution. No more kids spending time with pornographers, no more porn involving kids...

That said, I also think it's scary how I, as a young white male (not old enough to be a father, but too old to be a kid myself), can't even hug my 13yo brother in public without attracting a smattering of both disgusted and prying looks from people around that just scream "WHY ARE YOU MOLESTING THAT BOY?"

WTF is up with that?

*sighs*

Stewey

Re:My, how your views change

[drsmithy]

The thing is that if you're a half-decent parent, it won't be your kid. If you let your kid be alone with someone who could be capable of posting something like that ON THE INTERNET, you are making a mistake in your parenting somewhere.

Are you unfamiliar with the statistics that say ninety-odd percent of child abuse is perpetrated by family members and/or close family friends ?

It will take the cooperation of ALL the world's governments to take down these sites, which I can't see happening soon. Then the content will migrate to a service like FREENET, where the information is decentralized and fully anonymous and guess what... you won't be able to take it down anymore.

Well, one of the larger problems is the different laws all over the world. And while I'm sure most places will be happy to agree someone having sex with a five year old is abhorrent, I think you'll find opinions start changing pretty quickly as soon as you get to teenagers.

Protecting the kids is a solution. No more kids spending time with pornographers, no more porn involving kids...

Not going to happen. Ever. Not even *with* highly invasive worldwide government monitoring and law enforcement. It's a simple fact that sexual attraction to "children" is as much a sexual preference as being gay/lesbian/bi/straight/whatever. Some people always have been and people always will be. Heck, as is often pointed out, it's not that long ago it was "normal" for pre- and early-teens to be married off to adults.

It's also fairly arguable that the "damage" as often as not isn't caused by the activity, but by society's reaction to it.

That said, I also think it's scary how I, as a young white male (not old enough to be a father, but too old to be a kid myself), can't even hug my 13yo brother in public without attracting a smattering of both disgusted and prying looks from people around that just scream "WHY ARE YOU MOLESTING THAT BOY?"

This is merely a side effect of the current level of child-abuse hysteria. I doubt it'll change anytime soon and the overall impact on society - particularly with the increase in single mothers and men literally fleeing from jobs involving interaction with kids (like teaching) - is going to be negative.

The situation isn't going to improve anytime soon either, given it's a topic that is basically impossible to have a rational discussion about even amongst intelligent people, let alone mass society.

Re:My, how your views change

[StewedSquirrel]

Very intelligent response that mirrors my views.

I actually bought "Harmful to Minors" by Judith Levine. It's a great book. You should read it, despite the amount of criticism NARTH (the national anti-homosexual group) throws at it calling it a "pedophile manifesto" (which it's amusingly not EVEN CLOSE).

You're now added to my 'friends' list :-)

Stewey

Re:My, how your views change

[Compact Dick]

Protecting the kids is a solution. No more kids spending time with pornographers, no more porn involving kids...

Or we could just stop having more kids.

Good post, mate.

Re:That's because...

[bigmattana]

Ummm, no. In this case, it is pretty easy to see which sites are hosting child pornography. And if one site accidently gets blocked, it is not the end of the world for them. How hard is it to have some communication with your ISP? The potential inconveince for a few people is nothing compared to the horror exploited children go through because the "middlemen" in the supply chain are not being held responsible. Go ACLU!! Way to uphold those children's most basic rights over some businesses' convenience.

I'm so sorry

[Anonymous Coward]

There's bound to be mistakes, but really, who's gonna miss half of these chickenshit sites?

Guilty unless proven innocent

[Anonymous Coward]

If they were every to decided they had it in for your ass, you'd be screwed.

Agreed. Even worse... If "they" decided that that had it in for ANY ONE OF US, we're screwed. Law-abiding or not. Detainment without access to family, phones, or lawyers is becoming more and more common under the guise of national security. This is exactly why both manual and automatic criteria for suspecting someone needs to be so much more accurate nowadays. In the past, detainment without arrest was not possible, so you there was at least one check in place. Now no such check exists IF a link to national security can be claimed (but not necessarily proven). Think child porn won't be linked to national security? There's money in it. Illegal money. Then throw the words laundering and offshore around a bit, and you'll got a disgusting little recipe for "guilty unless proven innocent".

Sad

Suspecting one's government is healthy and necessary. Hating is probably normal. But decent people fearing one's government IS sad.

Government distribution of child pornography

[Anonymous Coward]

We should have a three year moratorium on distribution of child pornography by the Government. Child porn is distributed by the US Postal Inspection Service and the FBI's operation near Baltimore as part of entrapment operations, and that may be a significant fraction of the material.

See The Culture of Fear. This problem is way overrated. So is "child abduction".

In terms of risk, your kid is far more likely to be hit by a drunk driver than abducted by a stranger, seduced over the Internet, or killed by a terrorist. Get a grip.

Uggg!

[makoffee]

I'm sure this will result in great karma, but seriously...

FUCK THE RIAA!

She's 12! 12! AHHHH! WTF is this world comeing to!? If this girl got caught stealing CDs in her home town you know she wouldn't be fined anywhere near that much money. So this settlement is a load of crap, I just hope that their lawyer will see threw this crap and actualy try and fight it, because any reasionable judge would just give her the old "first timer" warning.

Trust me I got into some trouble as a kid, and I know how it goes. Besides, she's twelve, she's a minor, they can't toutch her.

(just for this I'm never buying a CD again!)

Why is this even an issue?

[ChaoticLimbs]

Lets just say I have seen a few adult sites. I have never once stumbled into child porn. Not once. Something tells me that this isn't the type of thing people just wind up seeing at random. I think they're intentionally looking for it. If that is the case, why not use confiscated porn to set up stings and FINE people big money for "stumbling" into it? The prisons are a bit crowded but I would think that by registering these people before they offend (Megan's Laws) we can at least have records of those who have deliberately attempted to get this kind of material so that they don't become Scout leaders.

Re:Why is this even an issue?

[from_downunder]

Don't try browsing 'newsgroups' then. Or you might be in for a bit of a surprise (or maybe even a FINE)

Re:Yay!

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you ashamed of your illiterate, hypocritical leader?

still no law?

[Anonymous Coward]

hmmm ... wonder what would happen to website B that is sharing the same ip-addresse and HARDDRIVE like website A that is hosting child pr)n pics? I wouldn't want my website to be on the same harddisk like the pr)n stuff. i wouldn't even want to share the same ip-addresse!

block the damn ip-addresse and move to a new hosting service -OR- cancel IP-lease!

i'm just wondering what pr)nografy is doing to the economy? user gets happy, creator gets rich. but what is that guy doing with the money. his paying the models. what are the models doing with it? spending it for ... luxury goods? super! might es well burn the money or bury it.

anyways this's my new hobby: thinking how the money-network works versus how a data-network works ...

so far the farmers should be the richest people on earth, but since this is not true there's a blackhole somewhere. i believe this to be the "landlords".

the world is crazy

[Anonymous Coward]

In the USA its legal to cut off the foreskin of a baby's penis without his permission but illegal to masterbate him to sleep.

In Brazil, in some ethnic groups, its the other way around.

Well duh

[jazman]

> impossible to filter out, or block, offensive Web sites without also blocking some legitimate sites

Remember how easy it was to block alt.sex.pedophilia? "Don't like it? Then don't go there." But the existence of this group was deemed "wrong", so a.s.p no longer exists, and as predicted this hasn't actually stopped the CPs who are now inhabiting alt.grannies.knitting instead, thus leading to the dual problem of people wanting knitting patterns getting a nasty shock and CP blocking now being impossible without also blocking knit-wits.

CP is a social problem, not a technological one. Reinstate a.s.p and anon.penet.fi, then it can be blocked on an induhvidual basis very easily, simply by induhviduals choosing not to go there.

Just for the terminally stupid - I'm not supporting kiddie pr0n here. All I'm saying is that there isn't a technical solution to it, just as there isn't a web site that can be blocked to put an end to drunk driving. Just like drunk driving, the solution is a social one, not a technological one. Even if we revert technology back to the stone age, child abuse will still happen in the back of caves.

This won't happen though. A lot (with a space) of my ideas seem to be crazy, such as removing a substantial proportion of drug crime my legalising drugs and selling them at Boots for a penny a pound rather than creating this enormous black market which needs similarly vast amounts of crime to keep it lubricated. Perhaps this is why my middle name is Vetinari :-)

Block a site on DNS level

[vvdd2]

And how about to block a site on DNS server or domain registar?

This may be a better fit for WWW architecture.

Re:Block a site on DNS level

[vvdd2]

For example something like this:
every ISP in PA setup their DNS servers not to resolve specific host names. This way every user using ISP's DNS server will not have an access to specified sites. And if a user does not use ISP's DNS - this is not ISP's problem.

Name Names

[quintessencesluglord]

Funny how people will get in a furor over child porn, but no one talks about banning the Catholic Church. Make the analogy to ISPs. Somehow it's worse if you take pictures.

The largest producer of child porn during the late 70's, early 80's was... the United States Postal Service (government study. Look it up.) for sting operations. I vaguely recall a sting operation during the 80's: most of the people busted committed suicide before they were ever brought to trial.

The APA released a study a few years back that stated that kids who are molested suffer no more long-term adverse effects than found in the general population. The fallout from that study was enormous to which the APA recanted and withdrew the study.

But there is always the other statistics: the US has the highest rate of child molestation while having the strictest laws. Places where child porn is legal have the lowest rates. Cultures and attitudes towards sex are different, however. Make of it what you will.

The point of all this? I don't see Brittany Spears being tagged as kiddie porn. I see a nebulous distinction made between child molestation and rape, even though the sense of violation is the same for both. I see a society that glorifies youth to a point where pedophilia is the natural outcome.

In short, I see a lot of posturing and bullshit, and damn little that is being done.

Re:Name Names

[elefantstn]

But there is always the other statistics: the US has the highest rate of child molestation while having the strictest laws. Places where child porn is legal have the lowest rates. Cultures and attitudes towards sex are different, however. Make of it what you will.

This sounds more like self-reporting bias than an actual discrepancy -- since the US has stricter child molestation laws, more behaviors are defined as illegal, and therefore more people are turned in or caught in the act of molestation. It's not that there is a higher incidence of molestation in the US, it's that there is a higher rate of molestors reported to the police.

It's already on Freenet

[Quizo69]

"Then the content will migrate to a service like FREENET, where the information is decentralized and fully anonymous and guess what... you won't be able to take it down anymore."

I hate to break it to people, but Freenet already has kiddie porn on it, and snuff, and other stuff which is not socially acceptable to the wider community. However, as the premise of Freenet clearly states, if you are going to truly believe in the value of anonymity then you must accept that with the good comes the bad.

That means that you can openly discuss politics in a country that might otherwise kill you for speaking out, but it also means that you must accept that others whom you may not agree with can also speak out or peddle their wares.

Of course, the great thing about the internet and Freenet etc, is that it's ultimately up to you whether or not you choose to view materials online. As others have said, if you can block an IP range then surely you know who the perpetrators are. I suspect though that for all the posturing of so many organisations that say kiddie porn is everywhere, it's actually extremely hard to find on an open website, and since they've made it a crime even to look for it, it's kind of hard to prove otherwise isn't it?

Well done to those astute posters who realise that a disproportionate amount of time is spent decrying child pornographers whilst the incidents of child physical abuse (violent as opposed to sexual) are probably much more prevalent.

I think ultimately a lot of it comes down to posturing to benefit one's own status in the community as opposed to actually caring for the plight of children. After all, if people (and the church in particular) ACTUALLY CARED for children they would use their money to end world poverty and educate ALL children of the world. Education is what will help tomorrow's children avoid exploitation, not a bunch of do-gooders crying "save the children" whilst turning a blind eye to the real injustices of the world at large.

Re:It's already on Freenet

[StewedSquirrel]

Very intelligent response that mirrors my views. Take the good with the bad in the interest of liberty...

You should check out the book "Harmful to Minors" by Judith Levine. It's a great book, despite the amount of criticism NARTH (the national anti-homosexual group) throws at it calling it a "pedophile manifesto" (which it's amusingly not EVEN CLOSE).

You're now added to my 'friends' list :-)

Stewey

Re:DDoS, you say?

[Guppy06]

"Posting a story on the front page of slashdot sure is a very nice gesture to the sysadmins of philly.com, you retards."

How do you know philly.com wasn't hosting kiddie pr0n?

PFY's Job (R)

[da5idnetlimit.com]

All Rights of BOFH belongs to Simon Travaglia (http://theregister.co.uk/content/30/index.html), But I really thought of the BOFH and his PFY here...

Bofh - So, you told me you found a job on the side ? And what could that be, seing you spend all your time either here or at home browsing porn ?

PFY - Well, Actually, I found a job at Pennsylvannia's Attorney General Office....

ROFL 8p

Yes but bad blocks are not the only thing.....

[Chanc_Gorkon]

FIrst off, a site that isn't kiddie porn being blocked is not the only thing. How in the WORLD are they supposed to keep up with Kiddie Poron perveyors. They are as bad as spammers. Every trick in the spammers book is also in the kiddie porn web master's book. Move ISP's.....multiple ISP's....multiple domains....domains in other countries.....spoofing....

Trying to block anything is near impossible. I wonder...how does Saudi Arabia do this? They have a severely choked inernet pipe thanks to the laws they have in saudi regarding porn and the like. China is also another country with a choked pipe but they concentratr on anti communist web sites and any site they deem detrimental to the ruling government.

Re:Yes but bad blocks are not the only thing.....

[SuiteSisterMary]

Strangely enough, it might be illegal, in the States, to actively look for child porn to block.

Re:Why isn't song sharing like radio

[softspokenrevolution]

Thanks, but that really doesn't show much. I fyou go through a read it, the only legitimate copying purposes fall under fair use which includes the following items (which most people who rip a song off a radio are not doing):
"criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research,"
Typically fair use is also limited to a portion of the song or copyrighted item and not the entirety there of. I'm glad to see tha tyou can link to a website in general and then force someone else to actually read through it for you. While ripping from the radio might not be a directly criminal offense (which I never claimed it was), it is a violation of copyright law.

List of perverts' IPs? How about...

[ThisIsFred]

... the PA AG turns over a list of those ping zombies that are hitting Philly.com. I'm sure they're part of the same cadre of machines that script kiddies use on other sites.

A more useful move by the ISPs (the FBI should do their own job) would be to suspend service for those locations that are host to ping zombies.

Re: Phaedrus

[benzapp]

All you have to do with such people is discuss Plato's Phaedrus. I can accept that it is our modern culture to feel nothing but abhorance to child pornography. But I cannot accept that is human nature. If one of the greatest minds to ever live can write an entire book about loving boys, surely it is not intrinsically wrong.

One cannot condemn paedophilia without condemning Plato.

Most intelligent people have come to this conclusion as well, when I have brought it up. Read the Phaedrus, it is one of the better dialogues and one of the few to deal with love. It might just change your mind on the subject.

Question about that figure...

[Kjella]

At the host I worked at, this shit popped up daily. I could go weeks at a time deleting shit every single day. And I am talking stuff that lived on our servers for less than 24 hours. Often, by the time we had found it, it had consumed 1 or more Gigabytes of bandwidth (We had 2 100 megabit circuits, most of the time they were running at 80-90%.)

Is that just the child porn that was in the clear, or does that also include such things as renamed/encrypted/password protected files, where the passwords are posted somewhere else together with the link? I'm sure some of them have wisened up about technology too, which would make the real figure even higher...

Kjella

"The plaintiffs are the ACLU, CDT...."

[mwood]

CDT? Does Keith Laumer know about this? :-)

Round up the usual suspects

[brlancer]

Let's just round up people who we think might be car theifs and hold them indefinitely.

I suppose you've never heard of "Driving While Black"?

child porn

[Anonymous Coward]

I want to take this moment to explain something.

Many people believe "child porn" is porn of people under age 18. While legally, that may be true, in reality, males are programeed to respond sexually to females anywhere from ages 12 and up, sometimes younger depending on the girl's development.

Again, this is perfectly natural. Don't let anyone tell you that you're sick if you feel such urges.

However, it's all about what you do with those urges. Downloading underage porn is *never* a good idea; it supports a market that exploits children. Besides, there's enough "barely legal" 18-year-old porn out there. Or, you could just get a girlfriend/wife.

If all else fails, consider castration or suicide... I'm kidding, heh.

Re:HEYYYYYY SPACE GHOST!!! YA KNOW WHAT?

[Anonymous Coward]

NICE JOB FUCKING ASSHAT. The original parent post posted his Spaceghost stuff without needing to resort to the idiotic HTML trick you used. Go fuck off and die bitch.

Be KIND?

[Masque]

Be KIND to their admins? "Here's a link to your site from slashdot, where we are asking people to be kind and not DDoS your site. Love, Slashdot."

Does anyone else see the inherent flaw in this?

"Harmful To Minors" by Judith Levine

[Quizo69]

Stewey,

thanks for pointing out an interesting book to me. I've just done a quick search on it and found quite a bit of interesting stuff regarding her thoughts on the issues of children and sexuality.

It's interesting that she mentions the Netherlands as being quite open with sex, since I myself am half Dutch and spent several years of my youth living there. I wonder if my own liberal education in Europe has helped shape my perceptions on matters of sexuality, since I believe that Judith is spot on when she says children should be educated about sex in a positive and open way because it helps them become sexually mature adults (mentally as well as physically). It probably also helps that I am an atheist and so believe that humans are ultimately responsible for their own actions.

Glad to see I've made your friends list :)

You may want to look back through my older posts as well, you may enjoy some of my other views on various subjects. Sounds like we are of like mind anyway!

Quizo69