British Telecom Blocks Access to Child Porn Sites

An anonymous reader writes "British Telecom has taken the unprecedented step of blocking all illegal child pornography websites in a crackdown on abuse online. The decision by Britain's largest high-speed internet provider will lead to the first mass censorship of the web attempted in a Western democracy."

Comments

Foot in the door

[Manip]

What worries me is this could be a foot in the door situation.. It is hard to justify the first ones but then easier for future blocks. P0rn, Warz, Hax all could be disappearing from a website near you!

Re:Foot in the door

[ftzdomino]

It's unlikely that an ISP will survive if they block all porn.

Re:Foot in the door

[Anonymous Coward]

In most juristictions, child porn is already banned. This is a block, not a ban, and it prevents people from being going to prison or spending the rest of their lifes tagged as a "sex offender" for a crime that's frequently performed accidentally (on their part.)

Re:Foot in the door

[mirror_dude]

Or have you ever thought that BT might "accidently" filter some non kiddy porn sites that speek badly of BT?
I'd prefer to keep the internet a dumb network thank you very much

no different than the real world

[jd142]

Before everyone does the kneejerk censorhip response, this seems no different than what goes on in real life. Access to child pornography is blocked in real life. Your local Kwik-E-Mart is not going to be carrying Russian Lolitas Monthly next to the Playboys and Penthouses. Nor should they.

The only issue to be concerned with is whether or not the list of blocked sites is accurate or not.

And of course, this will not stop the knowledgable pedophile, but if it can keep some companies from earning money via paid subscriptions, good for BT.

I hate to do it but...

[ZackSchil]

I'm going to side with freedom of speech (and thereby child pornography on the internet.) I in no way approve of or condone child pornography. I think it's disgusting the way that some people get off by exploiting children too young to fully understand the consequences of their actions. However, censorship is a slippery slope. Once we allow the child pornographers to be blocked, what's stopping them from taking the next step and censoring all they deem obscene? What about outlawing anonymous forums because they facilitate obscenity? How long until you have to get your sites white-listed by ISPs to even be viewed in the UK or any other nation that follows this same path?

I'm not insane, just concerned. I say fight the problem of child pornography (etc..) from the other end. Arrest the people, not the websites and protocols.

Re:I hate to do it but...

[R.Caley]

So there is nothing wrong with blocking access to illegal material.

Yes there is.

There is a legitimate argument for blocking harmful material, and some would say there is a legitimate argument for blocking immoral material.

However, blocking illegal material is, by definition, blocking material the government doesn't want you to see, if you accept it as legitimate, you are accepting every possible act of government censorship.

In china, for instance, certain kinds of political material are illegal, so by your argument there is nothing wrong with the Chinese government blocking it.

I know this may sound pedantic, but this is one of those confusions which we are encouraged to make by the state and it's friends in the media. One we all need to be wary of. Slipping betwen `immoral' and `illegal' is easy and dangerous.

Go BT.

[topynate]

If they can do that without any slowdown, good on them. However, presumably they aren't saying what they're blocking, exactly. There's a problem with this, because if customers don't know they can't assure themselves that their internet usage isn't being unreasonably censored. But if you publish a list of illegal websites, that increases the ease with which anyone can find them (and alerts the owners of these websites that they are being monitored). So, while I can't deny that I'm glad these sites are being blocked, I don't think they should be - it's unworkable from a more general freedom of expression perspective.

The alterative is trusting a government body that you have real freedom of information rights. Say no more.

WTF?

[Ratso Baggins]

Where on earth is child porn legal, such that these sites can't be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law?

So I'm more that a little concerned the "solution" is to ban urls... wtf?

not a good idea

[nagboy]

i dont think this is a very smart idea, not as much from the free speach perspective, but from a law enforcement point of view. the only thing that will happen is that this kind of material will be distributed in other less transparent ways.

Every major child-porn bust in both western europe and the US has linked the end users with the web sites via their credit card, this is a good way both to bust end-users and to get a good statistical overview of the problem.

Also if the sites are actually on the web it is also much easier for law enforcement to trace people / places where this kind of material originates.

I mean, it would become a nightmare scenario for law enforcement if every end-user of child porn actually took the step and started downloading / posting everything anonymously w/PGP encryption on usenet or other message boards, it would be close to impossible to monitor and no credit card to trace.

just my two cents

Very Frightening Possibilities

[One Childish N00b]

A lot of people are screaming about how banning child pornography cannot possibly be twisted into A Bad Thing, but it is not child pornography that this debate really centres on.

The issue most people have is a large corporation having sway over what it's users can and can't view.
It's not just child porn, what happens if someone posts anti-BT comments or messages? I've seen enough companies censor their support forums by banning users and deleting posts that criticise their service, do we really want a company able to censor the entire internet? the 'net is one of the few havens of totally free speech availible, and if BT is given the power to block one sort of site, then they will use it as a 'test case' to gain the right to block other kinds of sites.

Next will go the anti-government sites. Websites that criticise the government, simply blocked from view thanks to BT. Then regular porn sites. Scream at me to say I've got my tinfoil hat on over this, but all I see is a large corporation taking it's first tentative steps towards 'sanitizing' the internet. Blocking child pornography is just the start - the company can block child porn and live safe in the knowledge that anyone who objects will be labelled a paedophile or a supporter of child pornography. Then they can start sliding other categories onto their block lists, safe in the knowledge that anyone who objects to it will get the full wrath of the following knee-jerk reaction:

"Oh so you don't like internet censorship, then, do you? what do you want, then, you want kiddie porn all over the place then? is that what you want!" - BT looks good by proxy of public hysteria.

First it's the big, bad child-porn sites. Then it will be the big, bad anti-government sites. Then it will be the whole porn sector, then whole swathes of the internet that do not agree with 'company policy'. Like I said, I might have my tinfoil hat on over this, but the world seems to get a little closer to something out of a cyberpunk novel everyday.

Re:Who is to decide? And what comes next.?

[kfg]

And what about the first legit child abuse support site they block?

Why, then the public simply infers, since they are blocked, that they are child pornographers.

KFG

Re:Is this a good idea?

[elpapacito]

No it isn't a good idea.

Remember Prohibitionism era ? It was effectively trying to cut the production and distribution of alcohol, but it never worked because the demand for alcohol was consistent and was probably reinforced by the fact alcohol become a "forbidden thing" and we all known how youngsters are attracted by things that are forbidden by adults during their transition to maturity. Police spent enormous resources trying to address the "alcohol" problem, just to see all the effort wasted because it was a pointless investment to begin with.

"Tracking and hunting" approach, typical of today knee-jerk reactionism, doesn't address the psycological problems child pornographers have, which probably is caused by an unhealthy approach to sex, seen as a "problem" or "filthy issue" instead of a completely natural expression of human beings. Education on the subject of sex works in the long term, while repression and prohibition has done more damages then good.

Re:Is this a good idea?

[orangesquid]

But the argument is, child molesters are disturbed individuals. Do economic rules apply so simply to them? They will be disturbed and wanting to molest children regardless of the price associated. Decreasing the supply, which drives up the "price" (scarcity), is not going to make fewer people want to molest children, which seems to be implied in a lot of arguments against child pornography (it might lessen how much it happens, but it won't decrease the desire to). "Looking at dirty pictures of children" is always listed as "contributing" to the molestation of children. If I run across some random picture of some naked 12-year-old who reminds me of a girl I had a crush on in junior high, how exactly am I contributing? It's not as if I went out looking for that picture, and, unless I communicate my interest to suppliers, they probably won't even know that one more person saw that picture, because information, unlike a physical object, is easily reproducible. Do you think the suppliers sit there watching their hit-counters and access logs and think, ooh, more people are finding my site, I need to molest more kids!

Of course, is it really necessary to assume such individuals are through-and-through disturbed? That's what society argues, but, psychology is not an exact science.

Re:Is this a good idea?

[stwrtpj]

No shit, it's a good idea.

And I don't like the NRA. Should I demand my ISP block those sites too? And I believe in a woman's right to choose, so maybe I should demand my ISP block anti-abortion sites? I don't like the republican party. Should I demand that the ISP block their sites?

Anyone who now responds with "but that's not the same thing!" is missing the point. Blocking something that most people (myself included) is a universal evil sounds like a good idea, but it sets a dangerous precedent. It can be twisted around to allow someone to start blocking sites that have unfavorable political views by associating them with child porn in some way. Do this enough times, and eventually they'll stop even trying to make the association since censorship will become a fact of life.

Freedom of speech means NOTHING if it is not open for all. Freedom for all, or freedom for none.

Also, consider this: Child porn would not be around if there was not a demand for it. Perhaps the problem should be addressed there, rather than accepting this band-aid solution.

Funny thing is ....

[argoff]

I can do alot to protect my daughter from perverts, but how do I protect her from people trying to micro-regulate the internet?

It's called WEDGE POLITICS.

[Anonymous Coward]

You force your opponents to take an unpopular stance. Just as "Give Sen.Corruptus Money And Power In Order To Save The Children" is becoming tired and cliched, "Give Sen.Corruptus Money And Power To Save Us From Nukulor Terrism" is on the wane, but "Give Sen.Corruptus Money And Power To Save Us From The Pedophile Menace" is a fresh and new scam. You won't give Sen.Corruptus money and power? How dare you support pedophillia!

Forget that most sexually molested kids are interfered with by their relatives or even their parents, the thing that people fear the most is evil strangers, hiding in the bushes in children's playgrounds, "grooming" children on the internet, jerking off to strangers' baby photos. The press have whipped the public into an absolute hysteria over the Evil Pedophile Menace, and it's fertile political capital for anything you want to do.

The first thing any opponent of yours has to do is concede that Pedophiles Are Evil Agents Of Satan, which is basically agreeing with 99% of whatever you propose to do. If he doesn't, then He Is Siding With Those Evil Monsters. His hands are completely tied. All he can propose is something even stronger and accept your position even more than you do. Of course, your proposal will do fuck all to save anyone, let alone the children, from the pedophiles. It's all a ruse to get money and power. But if anyone dares suggest that, They Are In League With The Sick Pedo Beasts.

Definition of Kiddy Porn

[KrisHolland]

As well what is the definition of 'kiddy porn'. Is simple naked children, i.e. nudist web pages, kiddy porn? In many places that *is* becoming the standard: take a picture of your children bathing and you goto jail.

Is this painting the next to be blocked? This one or perhaps this?

Perhaps spamming such art around would desensitize people to the hysteria that has developed over the past 20 years surrounding this topic.