Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Finnish Censorship Expanding

Posted by kdawson on from the as-it-always-does dept.

Thomas Nybergh lets us know about the secret list maintained by the Finnish National Bureau of Investigation, containing an estimated 1,700 foreign "child pornography'" sites. These are mostly in the US and the EU, and certainly not all of them contain child porn or even links to it. Finnish ISPs are required by law to block access to sites on the list, according to The Register. Finland's EFF has information about the block list, which reportedly includes a musical instrument store, a doll store, and a site of Windows tips in Thai. Recently added to the list — which by law should contain only child pornography sites — is the text-only site of a Finnish free-speech advocate who criticizes the censorship law. Evading the ISPs' block is trivial, of course.

150 of 196 comments (clear)

  1. Windows tips by calebt3 · · Score: 3, Funny

    Windows tips in Thai That may or may not be a bad thing depending on whether the tip was get rid of it.
  2. Wikipedia - News for Nerds, Stuff That Matters by I+confirm+I'm+not+a · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This was on Wikipedia's front page the other day.

    --
    This is where the serious fun begins.
  3. Foriegners by milsoRgen · · Score: 3, Informative
    Well Finnish culture is pretty alien to me, but digging into the article a bit, it ends up making a little more sense...

    "Without knowing any details, a good guess is that the police suspect that having a clickable link to a web site allegedly containing child pornographic images is equivalent to aiding the distribution of such images," the EFFI surmised in this blog post on the censoring of Nikki's site. Here is Nikki's list.
    --
    I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask where they're goin' and hook up with 'em later.
    1. Re:Foriegners by esocid · · Score: 1

      Of the 700 or sites that have been tested, only two are known to contain inappropriate images of children, said Tapani Tarvainen chairman of the Electronic Frontier Finland (EFFI). The remainder tend to be sites with adult-oriented themes, such as those offering legal porn, and forums for gay sex. In some cases, the sites - which include an online doll store, a Thai Windows advice forum and a computer repair service - have no visible link to porn or sex at all.
      So instead of actually investigating themselves they blanket censor a list of 1700 websites that of the 700 tested, only 2 are child porn.
      That seems like unwarranted censorship, and/or even possibly some sort of ulterior motives behind this move.

      Nikki has been one of the most vocal critics of the government's net censorship project.
      I see this, if nothing changes and it is maintained, as providing that slippery slope necessary to propose a growing blacklist of sites to block that are perfectly legal with the guise of protecting the children, and doing absolutely nothing of the sort (minus those 2 sites).
      --
      Absolute power corrupts absolutely. indymedia
    2. Re:Foriegners by muzzy · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Actually, Someone's been checking through the whole list I've published and it now appears perhaps ~15 out of 1000 might be child porn. I haven't verified this yet and I'll have to go sleep soon too so I'll do it later. Still, that's a fairly small portion. I might have to back down my claims that 99% appear legit and say that 98.5% seem legit :)

      --
      -- Matti Nikki
    3. Re:Foriegners by dgatwood · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That is, of course, a mind-bogglingly fallacious argument, though I'm sure you're well aware of that.

      Based on what I've seen from phishing sites and other similarly illegal activity, I would suspect that most child porn sites (assuming they are not hosted in a country with lax laws on the subject) are either A. being hosted by somebody on a commercial server that hosts a truckload of sites and the person hosting them is hoping nobody will notice or B. being hosted on a cracked server.

      In the case of A., if you try to do an IP match, you'd get truckloads of "false positives"---sites that appear to link to a child porn site, but in fact link to Ned's Used Cars and Auto Emporium's website. If you don't do an IP match, though, you miss the case where somebody creates their own DNS record for a child porn site that doesn't support virtual hosts to get around the blocking lists, so you get lots of false negatives. Either way, you lose.

      In the case of B., it is probably safe to assume that 99.9% of those links existed prior to the site being hijacked to distribute child porn, and thus the owners of the site doing the linking would have no idea that the site was being used in that way, and thus should not be treated as though they were intentionally contributing to child porn.

      Further, in such cases, the main page of the compromised site almost certainly wouldn't have links to the offensive content, as this would tip off the owners of the compromised site. Thus, linking to the compromised site, with the exception of links to some specific part of the directory hierarchy, wouldn't be contributing to the spread of child porn at all....

      Even if a website intentionally links to porn-oriented sites that contain child porn, it is still not automatically reasonable to say that the linking site is promoting child porn unless either A. the website is linking directly to a child porn section or page on the site, or B. the primary focus of the destination website is child porn. If somebody uploaded a piece of child porn to Wikipedia, would everyone linking to Wikipedia be considered "contributing to the spread of child porn"? Why should any other website be treated differently even if it is a porn site? For that matter, if someone adds a link to a child porn site from a Wikipedia page, should Wikipedia be blocked? If the Finnish lawmakers don't have a damn good answer for these question, they need to seriously rethink this policy.

      And then, there's the question about the sites hosting the porn being listed themselves. Those IP numbers on the list might contain dozens of other unrelated websites. If the server was compromised, it might not even be appropriate to block the host by its domain name, as you might be blocking a legitimate business. The correct course of action is always to notify first, allow reasonable time for response (whether in the form of removal, photo ID proof of age, etc.), then block if circumstances warrant it. The same goes for suspected copyright violations, suspected phishing sites, etc.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    4. Re:Foriegners by fastest+fascist · · Score: 1

      IMO the correct course of action for the police would be to get a court order. Right now the law makes the police into judges.

    5. Re:Foriegners by TapioNuut · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I would like to point out that the censorship law says nothing about links, or listing sites with links. And in the law itself its purpose is said to be to promote measures which can be used to prevent access to foreign child porn sites. Lapsiporno.info is neither foreign nor contains any child porn.

      Also let it be known that Matti Nikki (muzzy) himself has actively reported actual child porn sites before, and some of them have been closed. Some was active even a year after reporting it. Of course, these sites are not Finnish.

      The EFFI statement linked in the article is very thorough. In this case there really can be only one bias: the law is bad and the way of enforcing it is even worse.

      --
      Tapio 'itn' Nuutinen
    6. Re:Foriegners by rdradar · · Score: 1

      The funniest thing is that only one human maintains the list as his side job. And he seems to suck at it. Expect Slashdot getting added to the list in 3.. 2.. 1..

  4. What happens when lists go wrong by Mr.+Roadkill · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I work for a University, and we have a commercial web-filter to try to keep objectionable and time-wasting material off people's machines and out of labs.

    $WEB_FILTER_VENDOR has decided that http://www.littlebigshots.com.au/ belongs under "Adult/Sexually Explicit" - whereas it is, in fact, about a childrens' film festival. I've filed a report, and locally whitelisted it until they get around to doing something about it, but still... can you imagine what kind of damage could be done by a secret ISP-level list required by government, and the embarrassment associated with challenging such listings? Who would admit to saying they tried to view a site listed by the government as a child-porn site? Well, I would - if I knew for a fact that the listing was wrong - but most people aren't like me. I wonder what else, perhaps of a political nature, might make its way onto such lists?

    1. Re:What happens when lists go wrong by calebt3 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Problems occur when we start automating the identification process. Bots just aren't accurate enough, and humans just aren't fast enough.

    2. Re:What happens when lists go wrong by sys_mast · · Score: 3, Insightful

      How do you KNOW to complain if you are unable to view the site to confirm that it does not contain objectionable material? I know if I'm blocked by work/library/etc that I can go home, check, and complain if they block something OK. But here they are talking about the whole country.(ignoring workarounds)

      --
      Those who can, do.
    3. Re:What happens when lists go wrong by Original+Replica · · Score: 1

      Bots are a fine place to start, they should just include a notice sent to the site owner that let's them know they have been flagged and provides them an opportunity to object to explain their content's legality. That's where you bring in the humans to investigate further. A site blocked for a day or two isn't oppressive censorship, but when a reasonable, verifiable explanation is made and the site is still blocked then you have oppression.

      --
      We are all just people.
    4. Re:What happens when lists go wrong by Mr.+Roadkill · · Score: 1

      How do you KNOW to complain if you are unable to view the site to confirm that it does not contain objectionable material? I know if I'm blocked by work/library/etc that I can go home, check, and complain if they block something OK. But here they are talking about the whole country.(ignoring workarounds)
      A very good point. You don't know - unless you have work-arounds like an alternate DNS server or maybe something like TOR or one of those free-but-dodgy proxying websites that also try to rape your Windows install. That's the problem, you just won't know, and that works to the advantage of whoever constructs the lists. Anyone who complained about inaccuracies and was able to provide proof would also draw attention to themselves as someone who was bypassing the government-mandated filtering... and that might not be a good thing to do. Hell, any Dictator worthy of the title would put in place mandatory blocks with all kinds of extra dissent-blocking - and a nice, friendly, easy-to-use reporting mechanism for mis-classified sites (and, by extension, self-reporting of potential dissidents).
    5. Re:What happens when lists go wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      then you have oppression.

      That's what they said when the cops shot and killed me for just a day or two.

    6. Re:What happens when lists go wrong by nguy · · Score: 5, Funny

      I work for a University, and we have a commercial web-filter to try to keep [...] time-wasting material off people's machines and out of labs.

      It can't be working very well if you manage to connect to Slashdot :-)

    7. Re:What happens when lists go wrong by shermozle · · Score: 1

      Yep, had a similar experience at my work. One morning, I was using the OpenCMS wiki site. That afternoon, it was blocked. WTF? So I couldn't do my job. Brilliant piece of software, that!

    8. Re:What happens when lists go wrong by cheater512 · · Score: 1

      I'd use bots to find possible sites and then get them reviewed by humans.
      Never block and ask questions later.

    9. Re:What happens when lists go wrong by Das+Modell · · Score: 1

      I visited five completely legal mainstream porn sites that were classified as "child porn" before I switched to OpenDNS. This list is a complete joke, and I'd be suprised if there are even ten actual child porn sites on it.

    10. Re:What happens when lists go wrong by fastest+fascist · · Score: 1

      I wonder what else, perhaps of a political nature, might make its way onto such lists?
      And that's the thing right there. Societies stay more or less free as long as the inhabitants understand why fundamental rights such as freedom of speech are important to their personal safety. That does not seem to be the case these days, a lot of people are willing to sell their freedom for perceived security, or just because they see no use for it. So right now a lot of groundwork is being laid for the new coming of totalitarianism in western countries, with laws just like this one.

      A lot of the more questionable laws eroding civic liberties aren't that damaging if you can trust the government. And maybe, in some places, you still can. The problem is, the main function of those liberties is not to defend individuals against oppressive governments, but to defend societies against the rise of such governments in the first place. Remove those protections, even in good faith, and sooner or later society will suffer for it in a big way.
    11. Re:What happens when lists go wrong by lgw · · Score: 1

      No one should ever have to explain the legality of their actions just because some bot flagged them as questionable. If it's not worth a human's time to investigate whather the law is beign broken, it's not worth having the system in the first place.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    12. Re:What happens when lists go wrong by Mr.+Roadkill · · Score: 1

      It can't be working very well if you manage to connect to Slashdot :-)
      Oh, it generally works very well, thank you very much. Who do you think implements the filtering rules? ;-)

      Besides, I recognise the subtle distinction between "time-wasting material" and "theraputic measures which prevent people climbing the clock tower".
  5. Next site... by SailorSpork · · Score: 1

    Next site to hit the list:

    http://yro.slashdot.org/

  6. Good idea by Compuser · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Is there an open blacklist like this. Those of us who do use net porn are often afraid of accidentally clicking a link to something illegal like this. Once it is in your cache, you go prove you are innocent. So it'd be nice to have a blacklist of sites for personal use. It would be even better if it were like a custom DNS service which would not resolve bad sites and I were free to choose to use it.

    1. Re:Good idea by I+confirm+I'm+not+a · · Score: 1

      You've had a great idea, but the Finnish government haven't. The Finnish list is an arguably erroneous list (it contains many sites that are seem to be perfectly legal), foisted on ISPs who are supposed to "voluntarily" ensure their paying customers can't access the sites on the list.

      --
      This is where the serious fun begins.
    2. Re:Good idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      "Once it is in your cache, you go prove you are innocent". Well, for starters, in order for it to be counted as possession, it must be intentionally downloaded, not just in your cache. There has been at least one court case in the U.S. which has demonstrated this. A jury found a man guilty of downloading CP, even though the images resided only in his cache. He appealed to his state's supreme court, which reversed his conviction. According to the decision, mere accumulation in the cache does not equal downloading. (Although this decision applies in only one particular state, it could be used as a defense in similar cases in other states.)
      A person should use good cleaning programs like Clean Disk Security and Tracks Eraser Pro to ensure items in his cache, history, index files, etc., will be wiped away and unrecoverable.

    3. Re:Good idea by WillRobinson · · Score: 1

      Guess your talking to me. No this is a FREE as in beer service, with customizations. Been using it on our networks for over a year.

    4. Re:Good idea by ultranova · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You've had a great idea, but the Finnish government haven't.

      The Finnish government is a sad parody of what it once was. Once it dealt with both Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia and came up on top and turned the country from an economically abused agricultural colony (located at the arctic circle, as an icing on the cake) suffering from a civil war into a peaceful, democratic, industrial first-world country. The current version, on the other hand, falls all over itself trying to bow down to Russia, EU and the USA simultaneously while passing one bad, freedom-removing law after another. The new finnish copyright law, the so-called "Lex Karpela", is a perfect example: even the government which passed it itself admitted it doesn't know what it actually forbids or allows, but passed it anyway.

      The Finnish list is an arguably erroneous list (it contains many sites that are seem to be perfectly legal), foisted on ISPs who are supposed to "voluntarily" ensure their paying customers can't access the sites on the list.

      I assure you, the list contains exactly the entries it's supposed to: specifically, it already contains sites which merely criticize censorship. It was perfectly obvious from the beginning that this was the true purpose of the list. If these creeps actually thought of children, they wouldn't be constantly cutting funds from education to finance rising their own pay.

      Is it just me, or does every country have at its helm the most disgusting subhuman slimemolds it manages to produce ? I'm starting to wonder if those medieval theories about incubi and succubi producing demonic half-human children actually have some merit; it is kinda hard to explain the origin of our Great Leaders otherwise.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    5. Re:Good idea by asuffield · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Is there an open blacklist like this.


      No. There's a classic catch-22 in here designed to funnel money to certain interests at the exclusion of all others. Here's the trick: it's illegal to access this data. You cannot create an accurate blacklist without accessing this data, since you would have to review the content. Hence, creating an accurate blacklist is illegal. Anybody who wants to create a blacklist will therefore need political cover to avoid prosecution (this doesn't mean it's legal, it just means that the government "chooses" not to prosecute them). This effectively excludes anybody who might want to create some kind of "open" blacklist.

      Just to make it even tighter, a comprehensive review of any blacklist would have to involve accessing the illegal sequences of numbers in order to review them, so any such review is effectively blocked. This means that the people who do collude with the government to produce blacklists have no motivation to make them even remotely accurate.
    6. Re:Good idea by badfish99 · · Score: 1

      The person with political "cover" to create the blacklist is forced to spend all his time looking at web sites that have been reported as child porn, and is immune to prosecution for this. That's a pretty good job to have if you're a pervert.

    7. Re:Good idea by onnellinen · · Score: 1

      In Finland it is not illegal to access or view child pornograpy. Possession of such materials is illegal.

      As long as the user doesn't save the materials, and disables browser caching, compiling blacklists would not require any illegal acts.

    8. Re:Good idea by jsiren · · Score: 1

      OK, but one could make a whitelist of legit and responsible sites which would have none of the problems you outline to begin with.
      Just as one could make a "whitelist" of legit and responsible acts that are not criminal. No problems?
      --
      Usage: km/h for speed (kilometers per hour); kph for very slow impulses (kilopond hours).
    9. Re:Good idea by mdwh2 · · Score: 2, Informative

      In Finland it is not illegal to access or view child pornograpy. Possession of such materials is illegal.

      Even with caching disabled, you'd have to temporarily possess it if you viewed it. Has there been a court case that ruled this legal - and by that, I don't mean an accidental viewer, but someone who intentionally went to view the site?

      (Here in the UK, downloading is considered making child porn - you're "making" another copy - and hence it is punished worse than simple possession...)

  7. A disgrace to Finland by klmth · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Simply put, this entire list is a disgrace to the nation. The entire list was lobbied through by appealing to simple-minder think-of-the-children rhetoric without any thought given to the implication of this list. Anyone even remotely knowledgeable about technology in gneeral knew that this idea could not possibly work and would end up being abused in no time flat.

    The mere existence of this kind of censorship disgusts me.

    1. Re:A disgrace to Finland by Skreech · · Score: 2

      lobbied through by appealing to simple-minder think-of-the-children rhetoric Appealing to the simple-minded seems to be the popular thing to do these days! Or actually forever.
    2. Re:A disgrace to Finland by 10Ghz · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Tell me about it. I'm fucking PISSED OFF at the legislators! How in the fuck did they manage to pass a bill that is so blatantly against the constitution? And not only that, the law is already being misused, since the blacklist contains tons of websites that have nothing to do with pedophilia! And it's supposed to only deal with foreign websites, but now they are using it to silence a Finnish website as well! So that's already three ways this law has failed! And the goddamned recording-industry is already salivating by the idea of using this technology to block access to websites that "infringe on their IP". Fuck this shit!

      What I want to know is the names of each and every MP who voted for this travesty of a law! I will swear to FSM that during the next elections, I will go talk to them during their campaign and grill them about "supporting censorship". If those fucking fascists want censorship, maybe they should move to China or North Korea? Why in the hell we have such a bunch of fucking retards deciding things for us?

      Speaking as a Finn, I'm deeply ashamed and fucking pissed off!

      What Finland needs right about now is MASSIVE amount of bad publicity! We have this thing that we are always concerned what others might be thinking about us. And if Finland starts to be compared to China and North Korea in the international media, that just might be the trick to get this law overturned.

      --
      Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
    3. Re:A disgrace to Finland by ravenlock · · Score: 1

      Any ideas on what we (Finnish geeks) should do? I've already educated my friends and family about the issue, but that's a total of two people out of six million. The word is out in the geek circles, but I'm afraid that just like Lex Karpela, this one will remain an issue only geeks care about. How do we make others care?

    4. Re:A disgrace to Finland by 10Ghz · · Score: 3, Informative

      Well, what I did is that I went to Parliaments website, looked for the people who presented this legislation and supported it in the relevant comission. I then wrote a polite yet very stern email to each of them, explaining the flaws of the law and the error of their ways.

      BTW. the MP's I wrote to are: Markku Laukkanen, Raimo Vistbacka, Saara Karhu, Erkki Pulliainen and Mikko Alatalo. here you can read the comments those people made during the first hearing on the new legislation. Another person to write to could be Sari Essayah, who supported the legislation here (what else can you expect from a fundie?). It should also be noted that Jyrki Kasvi strongly opposed the legislation.

      Make your voice heard. And know who to vote.

      --
      Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
    5. Re:A disgrace to Finland by ravenlock · · Score: 1

      Indeed, that's why I voted for Kasvi in the last elections. Thanks for the list, I think I will both write to those people and pass the list on to others who are interested.

    6. Re:A disgrace to Finland by 10Ghz · · Score: 1

      Note: there are probably other people as well who should be emailed as well, but those were the people I found with 10 minutes of searching.

      And I can happily report that I voted for Kasvi as well.

      --
      Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
    7. Re:A disgrace to Finland by ravenlock · · Score: 1

      On a side note, I don't suppose you would know of any ISP that would have pledged to *not* use the secret block lists? My ISP (Saunalahti) seems to be basing its blocking on DNS entries, so OpenDNS is enough to circumvent the blockage; however I'd rather pay my monthly fees to an ISP that would refuse to do the blocking to begin with.

    8. Re:A disgrace to Finland by 10Ghz · · Score: 1

      Well, the thing is that the legislators (including some of those who I mentioned) have said that while the blacklist is voluntary, if ISP's don't start using it, they will make it mandatory...

      That said, to my knowledge Sonera (the old state telecom-monopoly! Oh the irony!) is not using the list at the moment, although they haven't made any sort of pledge on the issue. I haven't been able to verify that, since Sonera is not my ISP. I haven't checked with my ISP (Nebula).

      --
      Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
    9. Re:A disgrace to Finland by skulgnome · · Score: 2, Informative

      I should point out that Jyrki Kasvi the finnish MP had a convenient case of the flu on the day of the vote. It appears that even to the green geek hero in the parliament, the child porn excuse is far too toxic to appear as sole dissenter in.

    10. Re:A disgrace to Finland by 10Ghz · · Score: 1

      I don't think he was the "sole dissenter", or that he didn't want to vote on the issue. I mean, he had publicly spoken against the legislation quite forcefully, and his critique is available in his blog (where he even has a link to the now-blacklisted website). If he was afraid of being labeled as "supporter of pedophiles" or something like that, the damage was already done. What do I think happened? I believe he was sick on the day of the vote, and that his vote wouldn't have changed anything in any case.

      --
      Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
    11. Re:A disgrace to Finland by ravenlock · · Score: 1

      This is unverified, but the latest rumor is that Sonera is going to do it too in the very near future. Also, I'm never ever going to be a paying customer of Sonera ever again (long story).

      I'm not surprised about Saunalahti, ever since Elisa bought them it feels like the quality of their service been going steadily downhill. Been considering Nebula too, but since there's no definitive word out yet, I'm yet undecided.

    12. Re:A disgrace to Finland by skulgnome · · Score: 1

      Yet the fact remains that he did not vote against the law. Despite the amateur he might seem, he is a politician at heart.

    13. Re:A disgrace to Finland by 10Ghz · · Score: 1

      And maybe he didn't vote against it because he was sick that day? Voting against the law wouldn't have labeled him any further than his vocal opposition to the law had labeled him (if it had at all). That said, I can't find ANY voting-records on that particular piece of legislation.

      --
      Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
    14. Re:A disgrace to Finland by Daimanta · · Score: 2, Informative

      Tell me about it. I'm fucking PISSED OFF at the legislators! How in the fuck did they manage to pass a bill that is so blatantly against the constitution? I know more about that fragment of law than you apparently.
      The Netherlands and Finland are the only two countries in the world where judges aren't able to rule on the constitutionality of laws(strict trias politica). So yes, they can pass a bill that violates your constitution.
      --
      Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power lost.
    15. Re:A disgrace to Finland by 10Ghz · · Score: 1

      I wasn't talking about legalities of creating laws that are unconstitutional, I was more referring to the morality (or lack of thereof) of people who create those laws, and the MP's who either had no idea what was being done, or simply didn't care. In either case, they screwed up.

      --
      Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
    16. Re:A disgrace to Finland by Daimanta · · Score: 1

      Never, ever depend on morality as a safeguard. Count on the fact that 'they' don't have it and you'll be more carefull.

      --
      Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power lost.
    17. Re:A disgrace to Finland by hurtta · · Score: 1

      Well, He was just operated. It is quite difficult to vote on that condition.

    18. Re:A disgrace to Finland by hurtta · · Score: 1

      And naturally, the results for legislation vote are not available online...
      It is available
      • Go http://web.eduskunta.fi/
      • Select Valtiopäiväasiat ja -asiakirjat
      • Enter "HE 99/2006" to "Asian tunnus:" -field
      • Press "Hae"
      • Look "Ensimmäinen käsittely" (PTK 117/2006 vp)
      • and look "Toinen käsittely" (PTK 117/2006 vp)
      In either case there was no vote because nobody opposed.
    19. Re:A disgrace to Finland by skulgnome · · Score: 1

      Nigga please. Voting records are public, and exactly the thing that e.g. tabloids would use to go after a person they'd get in their sights. That you cannot find the results of that particular vote only tells me that you would need more exercise in travelling the impenetrable labyrinth that is the finnish parliament's website.

      For what it's worth, the result of that vote was most social democrats being absent, and members of the cabinet parties voting for. No votes against were cast, precisely because the issue was and continues to be utterly toxic to a politician.

    20. Re:A disgrace to Finland by hurtta · · Score: 1

      There is also another route.

      Police blocking page gives link to law: http://www.finlex.fi/fi/laki/ajantasa/2006/20061068

      In here there is link to "Valtiopäiväasiat": http://www.eduskunta.fi/valtiopaivaasiat/he+99/2006

    21. Re:A disgrace to Finland by Antinazi7 · · Score: 1

      I agree. Finland needs bad publicity because is on its way to become a fascist state. It's already to 80% there. http://www.redicecreations.com/specialreports/2006/09sep/finlandpolstate2006.html http://india.indymedia.org/en/2003/09/7503.shtml http://inhiit.blogspot.com/2007_09_01_archive.html http://piraattiliitto.org/uutiset/2008/01/ruotsin-ifpi-perustelee-sik-l-ist-lex-karpelaa-suomen-hyvill-kokemuksilla And a more personal story from a friend:http://www.youtube.com/user/Seaniehunter http://seanhunter.00home.com/index.htm http://seanhunter.00home.com/cgi-bin/framed/2522/pages/obvious.htm

  8. Gay sites by phorm · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I notice also that a lot of the sites appear to be gay-oriented, and as least as far as the names go, don't indicate child content. I'm not going to click on them (who knows what *my* ISP is logging), but I do wonder if they're just in there because of somebody's dislike of that particular content.

    1. Re:Gay sites by corbettw · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I do wonder if they're just in there because of somebody's dislike of that particular content. Strictly speaking, even if the site does contain child porn, it's still on the list because of someone's dislike for that content. Whether that dislike is well founded or not, and whether it serves a greater good to society to block it or not, are different questions entirely.
      --
      God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
    2. Re:Gay sites by Capsaicin · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Strictly speaking, even if the site does contain child porn, it's still on the list because of someone's dislike for that content. Whether that dislike is well founded or not, and whether it serves a greater good to society to block it or not, are different questions entirely.

      A world of difference exists between the scenarios where something is banned on the basis of someone's arbitrary dislike of content and whether it is banned on the basis of duly enacted laws governing non-acceptable content. In a society governed by the rule of law the question of "[w]hether that dislike is well founded or not, and whether it serves a greater good to society" is not one properly left to nameless government bureaucrats. "Strictly speaking", the relevant question is whether the compilers of the list are giving proper expression to the legislative framework under which they labour.

      --
      Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
    3. Re:Gay sites by Capsaicin · · Score: 1

      as if, somehow, a 'duly enacted law' is not arbitrary

      as if, somehow, black is not white?

      arbitrary, a. and n.
      1. To be decided by one's liking; dependent upon will or pleasure; at the discretion or option of any one. Obs. in general use.
      ...
      4. Unrestrained in the exercise of will; of uncontrolled power or authority, absolute; hence, despotic, tyrannical.
      OED

      Duly enacted law is not arbitrary by definition, it is instead ... wait for it ... duly enacted.

      Not to confuse you with abstract concepts, let me give you a concrete example. Take a legislative body of enumerated powers such as the US Congress, which derives its law making power from the Constitution. If the duly enacted laws this body passed were arbitrary, there could hardly exist, in constitutional law, such a concept as ultra vires , now could there? Judging by your comment, you are apparently unaware that such legislative bodies are composed of more than a single member and moreover, that these members are elected by the general population. Thus the laws they pass cannot either be said to express the arbitrary will of some individual, can they?

      Armed with this new knowledge I trust that now you will "somehow" be able to distinguish duly enacted law from the indivdual aesthetic predilections of some nameless bureaucrat who just happens to have her finger on the button.

      You may also care to further your education by reading up on Magna Carta

      --
      Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
  9. You asked ... by WillRobinson · · Score: 1

    Please visit http://www.opendns.com/ for your needs. They have exactly what your hunting for!

  10. An extrovert Finn by superash · · Score: 5, Funny

    Well, nobody in finland will protest as there is an old joke about extrovert Finns - "How do you identify an extrovert Finn? -- When he looks at your feet when talking to you instead of looking at his own" :)

    1. Re:An extrovert Finn by flyingfsck · · Score: 2, Informative

      Try looking at their feet, not their tits - maybe then you won't creep them out so much.

      --
      Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
    2. Re:An extrovert Finn by pipatron · · Score: 1

      Actually, most of those hot gothy girls loves us cute gothy geeks.

      --
      c++; /* this makes c bigger but returns the old value */
  11. Not "required" by the law by muzzy · · Score: 5, Informative

    "Finnish ISPs are required by law to block access to sites on the list, according to The Register"

    Actually, The Register doesn't say this. There exists a law specifically crafted due to this child porn censorship program, but it technically doesn't mandate ISPs into participating to the censorship. Well, except for the fact that the people behind the law have made public statements that if voluntary "self-regulation" isn't enough, then there will be such a law. So, it's not exactly voluntary when the ISPs are being threatened, but technically they can claim it's not required by the law...

    Anyway, regarding the free speech advocate who has gotten his site censored, that's me. I've written a little bit of text in English about my page and the situation.

    --
    -- Matti Nikki
    1. Re:Not "required" by the law by phorm · · Score: 1

      Personally, I'd like to learn more about the procedure for getting a site on the block list. Who can do so, and what oversight is there?

    2. Re:Not "required" by the law by nyri · · Score: 1
      Muzzy wrote:

      I've written a little bit of text in English about my page and the situation.


      Could someone paste the content of the document. I am from Finland, hence I am unable to read it.

      --
      Jari Mustonen

      PS. I feel like living in some kind of totalitarian state. Well, this is what we get for electing this jackass for our prime minister.
    3. Re:Not "required" by the law by DMUTPeregrine · · Score: 3, Informative

      About the site
      Lapsiporno.info is run by Matti Nikki to participate in the discussion of Internet censorship, child porn on the internet and the problems related to these things. Nearly everything is written in Finnish with a few pages in English when I've wanted to target it to a larger audience. My primary purpose has been to provide information and knowledge about the subject matter from my own point of view. It was my concern that all the factual information available was from childs' rights organizations and this information tended to be biased and overly supportive towards censorship.

      I started the site back in december 2005 with only one article online, outlining what I knew about Internet censorship and it would and wouldn't apply to child porn distribution. It has been my belief that censorship isn't any kind of solution to child porn, and I actually believe it'll only worsen the situation as it'll give a reason for the people involved to tighten their security and anonymity.

      Over the years I've covered a bunch of issues around the subject matter, and lately I've been writing almost daily about the Internet censorship since it unfortunately was finally implemented in Finland. One of the first things I did was to publish a list of a few hundred censored sites.

      Update 2008-02-17: I said above "one of the first things", I meant after the censorship was activated. Before this, I've written my opinions about why the censorship doesn't work and what should be done instead of it to fight the distribution of child porn online. Now, since I've seen some people thinking I published a list of child porn sites, I'd like to mention that nearly none of the sites on the child porn list seem to contain child porn. I certainly would not have published the full list had I considered it accurate!
      About the censorship

      The Internet censorship was being planned for years, and apparently three successive Ministers of Communications have been supportive to the Internet Censorship until it was finally implemented. When the ministry asked for statements about the planned censorship law from various parties, they were told by the Faculty of Law of the University of Turku that the censorship would be against The Constitution of Finland. Despite this, the ministry insisted there were no legal problems and that the censorship would be implemented.

      The Ministry of Telecommunications has ordered and published some investigations about the legal possibility of censorship, and made its own interpretations of what these investigations say. For example a document that goes by the name "Railaksen Selvitys" and dated 2005-12-16 lists several critical problems and unanswered questions regarding the censorship. These problems are listed in the very beginning of the document and include things like effectiveness of the filtering solutions, the problem of collateral damage when censorship affects more material than it should, freedom of speech, what kind of crimes the censorship should exactly target, etc. Most of these went unanswered and the problems are seen with the current implementation of the censorship. Some of the issues were only addressed partially, for example the freedom of speech regarding reception of illegal material was touched but the police has now been found censoring even sites that do not contain illegal material themselves. What is being practiced now isn't what was planned.

      Apparently the censorship had already been decided to be implemented even before the legality of the censorship had been touched at all. In the beginning of the resulting paper from the above mentioned investigation it's stated that "A decision of principle has been made to take action against distribution of child porn over telecommunication networks". Apparently the ministry had told the law firm that they will implement the censorship no matter what, and requested a paper to support it and to interpret the law in a way to make it look legal. Where this wasn't possible, the paper suggested w

      --
      Not a sentence!
    4. Re:Not "required" by the law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      http://www.pelastakaalapset.fi/nettivihje/english/www-page.php
      http://www.poliisi.fi/poliisi/krp/home.nsf/pages/indexeng

      (Already moderated therefore anonymous)

    5. Re:Not "required" by the law by Upphew · · Score: 1

      Anyone can tell cops (infact one cop doing half of his time) to block site. Then that one cop decides if that site belongs to sencored list. Because list is secret there is no oversight right now. And rumour says that list goes from police to ISPs by email and excel file... top zekret, I say!

    6. Re:Not "required" by the law by weicco · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I've tried to discuss this with many others at Helsingin Sanomat message board. But it is hard because when ever you try to convince someone that this isn't the right kind of tool to prevent child porn you get labeled as a child porn consumer or even a pedofile. Those who understands this issue can't do much and those who don't are closing their eyes and ears and shouting I CAN'T HEAR YOU, YOU SICK BASTARD.

      I'll think I write nice letter to minister Katainen about this. I have Kokoomus membership card in my pocket and I live in Pohjois-Savo, as does Katainen, so hopefully he reads my mail. But I'm not sure how to phrase the mail so that it is polite and informative at the same time :) I'll have to think about this a little ...

      --
      You don't know what you don't know.
    7. Re:Not "required" by the law by fastest+fascist · · Score: 1

      I would personally emphasize the long-term effects of laws such as this. How it is deeply troubling that the lawmakers are willing to ditch fundamental liberties like freedom of speech for no actual, demonstrable gain, except maybe the political points they themselves get. How those liberties are in place to ensure the health of the society in the long run, to prevent a slide into totalitarianism. How freedom is retained by fighting for it at all times, and lost by becoming complacent.

    8. Re:Not "required" by the law by weicco · · Score: 1

      Ah. Very good point. But to be exact it is not lawmakers who are in control (well, at least not anymore) but the police. What I understood was that someone at police organization updates this list based totally on his/her whim. So whoever is in control can use this list to drive his/her own political, religional etc. agenda. Maybe I should make a point about liberties and that there's absolutely zero oversight on what is put on that list?

      --
      You don't know what you don't know.
    9. Re:Not "required" by the law by fastest+fascist · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What you should do depends on what you find acceptable. If there was oversight, would you approve of this kind of censorship? If you would, then by all means, demand oversight.

      For me, the lack of oversight is a minor issue compared to the fact this system exists at all. I would be against it even if they got a court order for each and every site blocked. It would still be an extremely dangerous system. What happens if the government becomes corrupt? What happens if the nation destabilizes. Finland had a civil war once, it's not inconceivable that serious conflict could arise again. There are many scenarios where systems like this could be used by the ones who control them to oppress their opponents. Censorship shifts the balance of power yet more into the hands of the government, which leaves citizens increasingly vulnerable. The government is a hugely powerful machine, and as such is the number one potential enemy for the people it governs. Therefore extreme care must be taken not to give the government too many tools with which to control and monitor the lives of the governed.

      Note that for corruption of government you don't necessarely need the cunning bastard-dictator type to rise into power and throw all liberties away. Government is in many ways a lifeform in it's own right, indeed the whole legislative-bureaucratic system is designed to ensure the survival of the organism: the governmental system. It is safe to assume - even without individuals with grand, malicious plans - that governments, unchecked, will tend to obtain more and more power at the expense of the liberties of the citizens they govern. That is the nature of the beast.

      New laws are made all the time, but how many laws are decommissioned? This is why it is critical to take a pessimistic long-term view of the effects of decisions made in the short term. If a law can be abused, it will be abused, given enough time. If liberties are not fiercely defended, they will be lost. Not due to bad people, simply due to the laws of probability and the innate tendencies of governmental systems.

    10. Re:Not "required" by the law by weicco · · Score: 1

      Well I personally don't like this censorship at all. I just thought to use lack of oversight as one argument against this.

      You rise more very good points which I haven't considered at all. I thank you for that. I'll think I wait a couple of days if more comments come in and then we'll see what happens :)

      --
      You don't know what you don't know.
    11. Re:Not "required" by the law by fastest+fascist · · Score: 1

      we'll see what happens
      Indeed we shall... Just to clarify, the reason I take a dim view of criticizing lack of oversight is that while proper oversight certainly plays an important element in keeping government in check, here concentrating your critique on the technical deficiencies of the law may overshadow the more important questions of principle at play. Similarly I wouldn't concentrate on criticizing the technical unfeasibility of the filtering, except maybe to make a point about how stupidly the lawmakers have acted - criticism against the technological aspects of censorship leaves open the possiblity that one day, somehow, the problems will be overcome and proponents of censorship will then say the criticism has been addressed and censorship can be applied. The problem here is not the tech or the precise wording of the law. There is a broader assault on personal liberty underway, and it is critical to utterly discredit the entire idea of censorship, not just parts of it.
    12. Re:Not "required" by the law by jsiren · · Score: 1

      In my opinion there are two very strong arguments against this whole censorship ordeal: first, it's against the Constitution (see the statement made by the University of Turku Faculty of Law in this PDF). Second, it does nothing to serve the victims, i.e. those children who get abused. It has been stated outright that the only purpose of the law is to protect web surfers against accidental exposure to child porn. This amounts to nothing more than pulling a curtain in front of an unpleasant sight; burying our heads in the sand lest we see something frightening. It is a shame that even organizations whose only agenda is to advocate for children's rights have fallen for this.

      I don't have an easy solution to the problem, other than things like allocating resources to criminal investigation, international co-operation, promoting good parenting, and other boring old things that have worked in the past. Censorship will never be a solution, because data can easily be encrypted and transported in a clandestine manner. This can be used for both good, like promoting democracy and openness within oppressive regimes, and evil, like smuggling child porn. Thus far it takes a human to distinguish between good and evil, and even then it's not always obvious.

      --
      Usage: km/h for speed (kilometers per hour); kph for very slow impulses (kilopond hours).
    13. Re:Not "required" by the law by hurtta · · Score: 1

      Could someone paste the content of the document. I am from Finland, hence I am unable to read it.
      You can also try this link.
  12. It's on the DNS Level by Coopjust · · Score: 4, Informative

    For those of you who do not want to RTFA, this blocklist is within the ISP DNS server, so switching to a non-Finnish DNS server or running your own is all that is necessary to bypass it and access the numerous falsely blocked sites.

    1. Re:It's on the DNS Level by Upphew · · Score: 1

      According to lapsiporno.info some ISPs are now using proxies to block sites on the list.

    2. Re:It's on the DNS Level by Lloope · · Score: 1

      Some of the ISP's also use proxy based censoring. Your internet traffic is forced to go through ISP's proxy so that they can block access to blacklisted sites even if you're using foreign DNS server.

  13. maybe there *really was* child porn there. by SuperBanana · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Finland's EFF has information about the block list, which reportedly includes a musical instrument store, a doll store, and a site of Windows tips in Thai.

    Right, because someone hosting child porn would be stupid enough to link to it on their legitimate business site.

    Child porn could have very well been there- maybe the site owner has a /kiddieporn/ directory, or maybe someone put porn on the server without them knowing- either someone who just needed a server to distribute said porn, or someone who wanted to exact revenge.

    A server I helped run was hacked and it had an IRC bot on it providing sample clips of a group's movie rip (incidentally, Rizon IRC admins refused to do anything about it, claiming "you could have faked logs". I suppose then, that it's normal to have a channel with 10,000+ members all sitting idle, eh? With a group name that's easily googleable to see that they do pirate movie releases? Make no mistake: Rizon is 100% about supporting movie and software piracy.)

    --
    Please help metamoderate.
    1. Re:maybe there *really was* child porn there. by muzzy · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The references to and instrument store and doll store both relate to same blocked domain. Specifically, it's a whole Japanese ISP's web server. One of the users probably has something the Finnish Police doesn't like, and that's all it takes to block the entire server.

      The reference to "Windows tips in Thai" is to a whole ISP's server blocked in Thailand. They provide free web boards, so it's fairly reasonable to assume that those free boards are used to post child porn links. Child porn groups tend to communicate over forgotten guestbooks, forums, they use freesites to publish stuff, etc.

      The whole point is that these legit sites are collateral damage, and the police doesn't care the slightest about it. As a matter of fact, the police has released a FAQ which quite directly suggests that since there are so many sites on the internet it doesn't matter if a few of them are blocked.

      --
      -- Matti Nikki
    2. Re:maybe there *really was* child porn there. by Lehk228 · · Score: 1

      if you ran a private IRC channel would YOU want people to have access to private information about members because they claimed they were hacked?

      that's exactly why we love rizon.

      you did more to help piracy by failing to properly configure your server than rizon did by ignoring your requests that they go snooping into their users business without a court order.

      --
      Snowden and Manning are heroes.
    3. Re:maybe there *really was* child porn there. by unchiujar · · Score: 1

      As a matter of fact, the police has released a FAQ which quite directly suggests that since there are so many sites on the internet it doesn't matter if a few of them are blocked. That is similar to saying "since there are so many people in the world it doesn't matter if we censor a few voices".

      --
      Shakespeare poems - infinite monkeys with infinite time.Computer tech support - a few trained ones working from 9 to 5.
  14. Re:This doesn't make any sense! by I+confirm+I'm+not+a · · Score: 1

    > This simply doesn't make any sense - they have a list of illegal sites,
    > but instead of tracking down the owners and prosecuting them and shutting the
    > sites down they just block access to them. Wha...???

    Firstly... one of the sites on the list was a Thai Windows tips site, another was a Japanese doll (the toy kind, perv!) site. The Finnish authorities can only prosecute and shut down Finnish sites.

    Secondly... the point of this is that many of the sites *aren't* illegal, even in Finland.

    --
    This is where the serious fun begins.
  15. Where's the free INTERNET? by Ralph+Spoilsport · · Score: 1
    Wasn't the web supposed to be this great fun free place of personal self expression?

    Well it seems to have turned into yet another tool for the police state. Yeah - kiddie porn is evil - no doubt, but the bloom is off - it's not a wide open frontier. It's dead and calcifying as we speak.

    RS

    --
    Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
    1. Re:Where's the free INTERNET? by khraz · · Score: 1

      > Wasn't the web supposed to be this great fun free place of personal self expression? As with all things which became overly popular; too many stupid people took an interest in it, ruining the fun for everyone else.

    2. Re:Where's the free INTERNET? by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      It's dead and calcifying as we speak.

            No it's not. Evolution is just leaving you behind. But the people will always be one step ahead of the government in this. That's what happens when you allow cheap, instant communication between people all over the world. The only way to prevent people finding different ways to share information is to prevent that means communication and take everyone off the net.

            I don't justify child pornography, after all children under the age of consent should not be exploited or sexualized. But information will always flow as long as you keep the taps open. It just finds a different way to do it.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  16. If a sexually explicit tree falls in a forest... by BeeBeard · · Score: 5, Insightful

    While I'm sure we all applaud your efforts at whitelisting an innocuous site, it begs the question of how much demand there really was to visit "http://www.littlebigshots.com.au" in the first place?*

    I raise this question not to criticize this particular site for not being more popular or well-known, but strictly to point out that it really is the "littlebigshots.com"s of the world that are most likely to be hurt by filters in a practically irreparable way that is also difficult to quantify: How many people, worldwide, tried to access the site before it will be whitelisted by this particular filter provider?

    Picture this: Somebody Google searches "children's festival," clicks on the aforementioned site, but it appears to be down. Or even worse, a warning message appears warning the user that they've just attempted to access sexually explicit material. "Well!" our hapless Google searcher says to themselves, "This is certainly not the family-friendly activity I had in mind!" and the search continues.

    The site has lost potential revenue because of the spam filter, sure. But even worse, now "littlebigshots" resonates in the mind of our Google searcher as just another porn site. It is nothing short of libel by proxy.

    So you can restore access to the site all you want (and again, it's a kind and responsible thing for you to do), but it doesn't fix the residual image problem that a miscategorized site may still have to cope with. This is a relatively new issue, and what I've been waiting for is the first case that's exactly on-point with this type of situation, to help sort out what kinds of rights and remedies a miscategorized plaintiff may have. So far, no good. I guess we'll just have to keep waiting.

    *(I'm not linking to it again because I'm sure they don't enjoy the unsolicited ./ web traffic.)

  17. Most are US based, 20+ Porn Actresses! by urbanriot · · Score: 3, Informative

    In the US waivers MUST be signed by performing actresses that they're 18 years or older. I perused the list and every US based server I looked at had known porn actresses that are 20+, let alone 19 or even 18. Guaranteed that some old guy, completely out of touch with his youth (ie. over 50), and probably unable to meet young attractive women banned anything that remotely looked under 30. This is religious conservatism at its worst and the Finnish people shouldn't stand for this repression!

    1. Re:Most are US based, 20+ Porn Actresses! by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 1

      younggirls.org I started from the bottom and this page CLEARLY has naked girls UNDER the age of 18. Legal images as they are photographs by David Hamilton. They fall under art but are absolutly 100% of girls under the age limit you mention.

      I am not going to do the whole bloody list, but a sampling shows me that a LOT of it is from porn sites with quite a bit of questionable content.

      The entire defence of the Hamilton work depends on the fact that the images have artistic merit and are not just there to arouse (as porn is). Putting them on a porn site among clear porn images sort of suggests that the owner of the site is not intrested in them for the art.

      Various site also contain images of underaged "models". This is a worldwide thing where girls who are absolutly without a shadow of a doubt (hamilton girls could be 18, although they are not) underage posing in poses that have nothing to do with either art or modeling.

      Browse the list a little bit further and you will find images that are highly questionable. Wether they actually fall under child porn I cannot say, it is a difficult subject not made any easier by the fact that women's ages can be hard to guess.

      But let us not forget that there have been several cases of legit porn turning out to have underaged actresses in them.

      Frankly the blocklist seems pointless, but it should be attacked with facts, not speculation. Now is anyone here willing to browse the complete list? Because the poster of the list claims that there are real childporn sites among it and frankly I don't need to see that again (once worked at a sysadmin job where my task was to investigate claims of inappropriate material. Goatse? you ain't seen nothing yet).

      --

      MMO Quests are like orgasms:

      You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

    2. Re:Most are US based, 20+ Porn Actresses! by hurtta · · Score: 1

      younggirls.org I started from the bottom and this page CLEARLY has naked girls UNDER the age of 18. Legal images as they are photographs by David Hamilton. They fall under art but are absolutly 100% of girls under the age limit you mention.
      http://younggirls.org/ redirects to http://helpprotectkids.org/

      Help Protect Kids The purpose of this site is to collect the most important resources related to preventing and stopping the sexual abuse of children.
      younggirls.org is not on that blacklist.
    3. Re:Most are US based, 20+ Porn Actresses! by urbanriot · · Score: 1
      I'm not sure what you saw, but the page is a redirect to a 'save the kids' style page. It's quite possible the european sites have 'child porn', but I only went through the US site, which are the bulk majority on that list, to prove a point. In fact, it would be more helpful to children if whoever created this list contacted US authorities, as child porn sites are illegal... however, clearly that's not possible as the sites aren't child porn, so no one would care.

      younggirls.org I started from the bottom and this page CLEARLY has naked girls UNDER the age of 18. Legal images as they are photographs by David Hamilton. They fall under art but are absolutly 100% of girls under the age limit you mention.
  18. Finish with the censorship already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Enough is enough.

  19. Also art censored by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    "Police in Helsinki have confiscated a work on display at the show in the Kluuvi Gallery by Ulla Karttunen. The item in question was the material in one particular artwork, which criticised child pornography and which had images of young girls and boys." Article at Helsingin Sanomat in English.

  20. Re:This doesn't make any sense! by Dunbal · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Secondly... the point of this is that many of the sites *aren't* illegal

    True dat. What happens when the legal age for sexual consent is 14, and pictures of naked 14 year olds engaged in sexual acts are viewed by someone where the legal age of consent is 18? How are you going to make a case against the website that is doing nothing wrong in its country? Are you going to go after the person viewing the content? Then you can make the argument that how can you know what is on a website without seeing it first?

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  21. Re:but even then by not+flu · · Score: 1

    There aren't 900 genuine CP sites, out of all the hundreds of known blocked sites only a few contain anything that the censorship list was actually supposed to block.

  22. Re:If a sexually explicit tree falls in a forest.. by huckamania · · Score: 3, Interesting

    This whole situation reminds me of Duty Call formations when I was in the Marines. Before putting into a port, they get all of the enlisted together and tell us what places not to visit. Sometimes we would take notes so we could get to these places faster.

    Having a list of child pornography sites would seem to be a bad idea simply because now those sites are getting free advertising. Maybe they should think about encrypting the list or something.

  23. Ashamed to be Finnish nowadays by Kennu · · Score: 1

    This censorship issue was discussed before the law was passed, but the politicians did not understand at all how the Internet works. Now we're in a situation where it's actually easier to find child porn (by scanning the net and checking which sites are blocked). And now they're censoring the people who try to criticize and alert everybody about the situation. Sad times for Finland.

  24. Re:If a sexually explicit tree falls in a forest.. by corbettw · · Score: 1, Redundant

    This whole situation reminds me of Duty Call formations when I was in the Marines. Ever notice how, at least some of the time, when you showed up at one of those spots, the officers from the ship had already beaten you to it? I had one JO (Junior Officer for you non-Navy types) that I worked for tell me flat out that he and his roommate put the name of their favorite bar in Hong Kong on the list, because they didn't want to end up drinking with the same guys they'd been working with for the previous four months at sea. Can't say I could blame 'em, and at least they were good sports about it and bought a round for the four of us who crashed their little party.
    --
    God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
  25. Why does a list even exist? by rowanparker · · Score: 1

    Maybe I'm missing something here but, if I had a list of websites that had child pornography available, I'd go and arrest the site owner rather than filter it. Is there a place in the world where child pornography is legal and you can actually host the stuff with out breaking any laws? I'm not aware of one. The logic applied here is like saying the government has a list of addresses for murder clubs, but rather than go and close these clubs where people murder each other, they'll just hid the addresses from you.

    1. Re:Why does a list even exist? by wheany · · Score: 1

      Well, except contacting the local authorities...

    2. Re:Why does a list even exist? by Fluffy+Bunnies · · Score: 1

      The list was probably originally meant to block sites in countries where local authorities couldn't/wouldn't do anything, which is probably why there is no procedure for contacting anyone.

    3. Re:Why does a list even exist? by wheany · · Score: 1

      On the other hand, one of the sites on the list was an actual child porn site that Nikki himself had reported to the police about a year ago. So it seems that the police just can't be bothered to actually do anything productive about them.

  26. Re:Timecops??? by muzzy · · Score: 3, Informative

    >> They called him for questioning on Wednesday 20 February 2008.
    > Oh my god! I time-travelled 2 days in the future? Or maybe Finland is on GMT+42?

    The date is accurate for the questioning, the news just travels so fast that the actual questioning hasn't happened yet. They sent the "invitation" last friday (15th), and it arrived in mail this monday (18th). I got a prior notice about it through email though.

    --
    -- Matti Nikki
  27. Re:If a sexually explicit tree falls in a forest.. by palegray.net · · Score: 1

    As a sailor, I can confirm this practice :).

    --
    512 MB RAM, 20 GB disk, 200 GB transfer, five datacenters. $19.95/month.
  28. Finnish Censorship Expanding by Trogre · · Score: 1

    Yes, I wish they would.

    --
    "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
  29. DSN blocklist by hurtta · · Score: 1

    For those of you who do not want to RTFA, this blocklist is within the ISP DNS server, so switching to a non-Finnish DNS server or running your own is all that is necessary to bypass it and access the numerous falsely blocked sites.
    Well, according of lapsiporno.info, some ISPes use transparent WWW proxy instead. But Welho (my ISP) uses just DSN, so I used

    sudo aptitude install bind
    sudo -e /etc/resolv.conf
    DNS queries clearly are not blocked.
  30. Lapsiporno.info reported to Google ? by hurtta · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Searching lapsiporno.info from Google produces:

    In response to a legal request submitted to Google, we have removed 1 result(s) from this page. If you wish, you may read more about the request at ChillingEffects.org.

    ChillingEffects.org:

    Google has received notice of a list of web sites from the Internet Watch Foundation (web site URL) that contain child pornography. Google has removed the related web sites from its search results.
    1. Re:Lapsiporno.info reported to Google ? by hurtta · · Score: 1

      Answering to myself: Not necessary lapsiporno.info is reported, because there is one file from lapsiporno.info also on search results.

    2. Re:Lapsiporno.info reported to Google ? by jonfr · · Score: 1

      Chillingeffects.org are U.S based organizations that is clearly wrong in this case (Brand of EFF it appears). I doubt that they even check there facts before they send them off to google.

      I wonder if the EFF knows that they are doing exactly the same thing what they condemn others for.

      http://www.iwf.org.uk/

      Is an UK based organizations that clearly doesn't check there facts before sending legal treats over the table. But it also appears that nobody else checks the facts before starting claiming that lapsiporno.info is an cild porn web sites.

      This demonstrates high level of not caring about the facts by the people how claim to be fighting child porn, but look more like an bunch of internet censoring loving people.

      It is clear that it is now time to fight back the internet censorship harder then ever before. Because this is getting out of hand really fast and it is starting to look real ugly.

    3. Re:Lapsiporno.info reported to Google ? by makomk · · Score: 1

      It's not lapsiporno.info, I don't think.

  31. Final Solution: Kill the Children by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    As every true die-hard anti-cp fanatic knows, this scourge will only end with the final solution: killing the children.
    It must be done to protect us from cp and make it's production impossible. Together with outlawing sex, this will be the final solution that protects the planet from cp.

    1. Re:Final Solution: Kill the Children by fastest+fascist · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No, no. You must kill all the adults. After all, no measure is too harsh if it protects the children.

      I think I know a couple of hundred Finnish ministers of parliament who constitute a clear and present danger to the children of Finland.

    2. Re:Final Solution: Kill the Children by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      No, no. You must kill all the adults.
      I suppose that would work. In the short term, at least.
      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    3. Re:Final Solution: Kill the Children by fastest+fascist · · Score: 1

      Until the children become adults, anyway...

      This brings me to a point: How can you justify protecting children by taking fundamental rights away from adults? Those children will grow up, too, and I doubt having had a protected childhood is much consolation to a slave.

    4. Re:Final Solution: Kill the Children by lgw · · Score: 2, Funny

      No, no. You must kill all the adults. After all, no measure is too harsh if it protects the children. That's clearly inadequate. What about those children who themselves produce CP with no adult asistance - the scourge must be eradicated!

      I wish I were making that up, but at least here in the States there have been a couple of cases of teens with webcams being arrested, tried as adults for producing CP, and convicted. Clearly logic plays no part in law.
      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  32. Norway! by OldManAndTheC++ · · Score: 1, Funny

    Swede Jesus, you perverts disgust me!

    --
    Soylent Green is peoplicious!
  33. Norway has the same kind of list by ymgve · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Norway has the same kind of list.

    It seems to be more lenient, though. Lapsiporno isn't blocked, and out of a sampling of the least offensive sounding sites, "only" three out of eight were blocked.

    1. Re:Norway has the same kind of list by hurtta · · Score: 1

      "On the other hand, it is depressing that so many clearly want to surf to such sites. The number is incredibly high," Lessum said.
      It newer occur to them, that censorship list also gives wrong positives?
    2. Re:Norway has the same kind of list by muzzy · · Score: 2, Informative

      Norway has a different list, with different kind of sites blocked.

      Here's a partial list for Norway: http://lapsiporno.info/blocked.nextgentel
      Heck, here's one for Sweden, too: http://lapsiporno.info/blocked.glocalnet
      And now that I'm at it, Denmark: http://lapsiporno.info/blocked.cybercity

      Also, it might be just a matter of time until Finnish Police tries to push my site into lists of other countries too.

      --
      -- Matti Nikki
    3. Re:Norway has the same kind of list by uffe_nordholm · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Sweden also has the same kind of child porn filter. But it contains some rather puzzling sites, among others http://www.koreabonsai.com/ which to me appears to be a site about growing bonsai trees. The last time I used my ISPs DNS servers I found another site on the list that when I examined it did have some pictures I would have called inappropriate (a young girl in non-sexual poses but still a sexual undertone to the pictures), but not child pornography. I chose not to fully examine the site, since it would have cost me money, and my opinion is based only on the material I could see without paying anything.


      Also, a few months ago the police wanted to add The Pirate Bay to the list since there apparently were a few child-porn torrents available. They have not, however, added Google to this child porn list, but they should if they are to follow their own guidelines: the list is to be over sites known to host child porn. Google hosts it's own thumbnails and caches, while TPB hosts only the torrent files, not the files themselves...

    4. Re:Norway has the same kind of list by Daimanta · · Score: 1

      How is this usefull? This is a public list. If this list is correct you only need to check this one if you're looking for child porn. Simply use tor and OpenDNS. Censorship is useless if you indicate what you censor. And at the same time it's abusable if you don't indicate what you censor. Sounds like a lose/lose situation to me.

      --
      Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power lost.
  34. Re:This doesn't make any sense! by fastest+fascist · · Score: 1

    Viewing the content isn't illegal according to Finnish law, perhaps because the opportunities for trolling would be enormous. Imagine someone plastering CP images all around the city, or, say, on the front doors of parliament, and calling the cops on anyone who sees them... Possession and distribution are illegal. Of course, computers being what they are, viewing an image pretty much ensures a copy is left on your hard drive. I read about a recent finnish case where a man was fined for possession of CP, which according to his own words he had accidentally downloaded from newsgroups with a bunch of legal porno. Apparently the fact he hadn't deleted all of the material was the crucial thing in leading to his conviction.

    So if you ever accidentally stumble upon any illegal porno, be sure to wipe your cache...

  35. In Finland and clicked on a link by PrayingWolf · · Score: 1

    I just clicked on the music store link (http://www.nn.iij4u.or.jp/~nekokubo/) and three other links mentioned in TA. I got through without problems - in Finland. I guess my ISP isn't blocking it.
    The blacklist idea is dumb, but I can see how linkfarms or gay sites may actually contain CP or links to CP somewhere under the domain/website in question. Its probably just hard to find - the banning has been done at a too high level...
    At least my ISP isn't blocking anything, go figure...

  36. The checked list by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    The checked list is available here: http://maraz.kapsi.fi/sisalto.html

    The tags used are explained more thoroughly in Finnish, but luckily they seem pretty self-explanatory for us internetizens. If you can't be bothered to check, it shows that only nine of the 1047 listed sites definitely have child pornography on them.

    1. Re:The checked list by fbjon · · Score: 1

      The summary appears to be faulty. While I haven't even heard about this before, I can also safely say that my ISP (TeliaSonera) doesn't appear to block anything from the list, no matter if they're marked green, orange or red. So who's blocking them then? Smaller ISPs?

      --
      True confidence comes not from realising you are as good as your peers, but that your peers are as bad as you are.
    2. Re:The checked list by MBGMorden · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I don't know about Finland, but in the US I certainly wouldn't consider it very wise to grab that list and "verify" what has Child Porn on it. False Positives that you identify are gonna be fine, but the minute you hit an actual Positive you've just committed a felony (no moral/ethical problem, just a legal one). It's a shame that we have to be afraid to check on stuff like this, but I'd not risk getting arrested over it.

      Personally, I think a much more sane law would be that it's illegal to PRODUCE child pornography, or to buy it (as those dollars go towards producing more of it), but if you're not making it or buying it then there shouldn't be an issue if you run across it on the web. That punishes everyone who had any hand in harming a specific child while not making the rest of us walk on broken glass while surfing the web.

      --
      "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
    3. Re:The checked list by hurtta · · Score: 1

      Sonera is planning implement blocking. They not have just software/hardware in place yet.

      Filtering is active on

      • DNA
      • Elisa
      • Kymp.net
      • MPY
      • Netikka
      • Tampereen puhelin
      • Welho
      (from SensuuriWiki)
    4. Re:The checked list by electrictroy · · Score: 1, Informative

      The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that photographs of naked children are not illegal, or pornographic.

      The court also ruled that children engaged in sex is not illegal if said children are legally married (i.e. 16 or 17 year olds married young).

      And the person viewing said photos is a victim, not a criminal. Only the photographer/producer/distributor is a criminal.

      --
      The government is not your daddy. Its purpose is not to raid middle-class neighbors' wallets and give it to you.
    5. Re:The checked list by mi · · Score: 2, Interesting

      but if you're not making it or buying it then there shouldn't be an issue if you run across it on the web.

      Well, that's a "slippery-slope" of its own... What if those ugly CP-makers are allowing you to watch it for free and use ads to make money?

      No way out of it, the crap just has to become legal to watch — and to produce. Crimes, deemed to be associated with the producing — such as rape (statutory or otherwise) — should remain illegal, of course.

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
  37. Mod parent up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Please mod the parent up. Despite the crude language, the poster is right: considering how concerned Finns are of what the foreigners think about us, one of the best strategies is to get the Times of London compare Finland to North Korea or another stereotype of an oppressive regime.

  38. Re:This doesn't make any sense! by ribbe · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I have read the court papers on the case you refer to (as a part of a computer law course). The guy had set a program to download some newsgroups full of (legal) porn, and he discovered later that some of the pics were of children. He had deleted the ones he found and later testified that he hadn't been sure if he'd gotten them all (how could he, he can't check the age of everyone in a huge amount of pics). The court reasoned that even though they agreed the man's possession of child pornography wasn't intentional, he must have thought it possible that everything on his hard drive wasn't legal and hence he was found guilty.

    As I recall, there was also a weird twist in the case where the police confiscated his hard drive to use as evidence, but after compiling a list of child porn on it they somehow managed to lose the original and all the copies, so the defense couldn't use it in court.

  39. Not true! by dropadrop · · Score: 2, Informative

    Finnish ISPs are required by law to block access to sites on the list, according to The Register.

    This is not true, rather quite the opposite. There is no requirement for the ISP's to add the block list, but for some strange reason most of them still do.

  40. Also proxy (Re:DSN blocklist) by hurtta · · Score: 1
    Commenting myself:

    Well, according of lapsiporno.info, some ISPes use transparent WWW proxy instead. But Welho (my ISP) uses just DSN, so I used
    It turns out that some sites hit also to some proxy. It looks like that this proxy is not owned by Welho either. So it looks like that some of upstreams of Welho uses transparent WWW proxy also...
  41. MOD PARENT UP! by $pearhead · · Score: 1

    I'm wondering the same thing. It's like using decapitation as a cure for headache.

  42. Censorship In The UK by mdwh2 · · Score: 1

    Here in the UK, all ISPs have had to sign up to Cleanfeed. Like the Finnish system, it's intended to block only child porn - to be fair, unlike the Finnish system there doesn't seem to be evidence that it catches more stuff. But then, since the list is secret, and blocked pages silently return a false "page not found" error, there's no way to be sure.

    http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2008/02/391376.html?c=on claims that the list has been expanded, but it's not clear what the evidence is. We already know though that the Government want criminalisation of possession to start including consensual adult porn.

  43. Number of children saved by Loke+the+Dog · · Score: 1

    Number of legit websites censored: 1
    Number of abused children saved: 0

    Score one for the child abusers!

    Everyone here knows the cracking of software is not driven by supply and demand, games would be cracked even if no one played them. So how many of you think that child pornography is driven by supply and demand? Do you think less children will be abused if spreading pictures of it is harder? I doubt it.

    Someone has forgotten to think of the children when they were shouting "Think of the children!"

  44. ISP Filtering status by hurtta · · Score: 2, Informative

    There is list on http://sensuuri.wikidot.com/operaattorit

    Also see http://www.hs.fi/kotimaa/artikkeli/+/1135234066254

  45. Strange finnish timewap by jackhererUK · · Score: 1

    FTA - "..They called him for questioning on Wednesday 20 February 2008." Damn those Finnish police and their time machines.

    1. Re:Strange finnish timewap by hurtta · · Score: 1

      FTA - "..They called him for questioning on Wednesday 20 February 2008." Damn those Finnish police and their time machines.
      Time machine is not needed. Police contacted on 2008-02-15 and questioning is on 2008-02-20.
    2. Re:Strange finnish timewap by jackhererUK · · Score: 1

      "Called" is past tense so it implies it has already happened however Wednesday 20 February 2008 is tomorrow which hasn't happened yet. Ahhh brain exploding due to temporal anomaly....

  46. Jyrki Kasvi by hurtta · · Score: 1

    Specially look

  47. Re:If a sexually explicit tree falls in a forest.. by Darinbob · · Score: 1

    Maybe the name "lapsiporno.com" (ie, child porn) is just too obvious and the pervs would suspect it's an entrapment site and never go there? It sort of sounds like Matti chose the name in order to say "I dare you to censor this!" and getting his wish.

    I can imagine a couple of Finnish censors talking to each other. "Do you know what's on lapsiporno.com?" "I don't know, you click on it and see what's there." "No way! You click on it!" "Not me!" "Let's just add it to the list then." "Ok."

  48. Re:MOD PARENT OFFTOPIC by catmistake · · Score: 1

    Well played, Sir! My statement of the obvious ("I'm way way way offtopic") didn't fool your eagle eyes! You are indeed a bigger Middle-Earth nerd than I. However, check your sources... though Tolkien appreciated the tibre of Italian, it was Finnish that he believed most beautiful, not just for its aural superiority to most other languages, but because in Finnish, the words that descrbe beautiful things themselves were beautiful sounding, unlike, say, English, where beautiful sounding words, like "cellar," descibe not so beautiful concepts (a basement is hardly a beautiful concept). Italian can't touch that.

    --
    The Admin and the Engineer
  49. Re:HEAR, HEAR!!! by Gnavpot · · Score: 1

    Such tactics work here. So my fellow slashdotters, please ensure that our country is being likened to North Korea and China abroad

    "In Finland, only old people can browse unfiltered."
  50. Universities by hurtta · · Score: 1

    And as an anecdote, i'm on university network and nothing seems blocked (yet, anyway).

    FUNET (Finnish University and Research Network) does not do censoring.

    And DNS based censoring is not even possible on that case, because every university uses own DNS. ( So censoring may require proxy based approach, which is more expensive. )

    Universities can not do that censoring. They do not get that censorship/filter list from police (law gives special permission police to deliver that censorship/filter list to ISPs only.)

  51. We LGBT always stand in on line by nicoleken · · Score: 1

    Well, we LGBT always stand in one line. "We do support each other to get more rights just as equal as others.." said on the forum of http://www.bimingle.com/ Anyway, we will get and learn more from it. Hope the world is beautiful for LGBT too.

  52. [OT] /etc/resolv.conf by hurtta · · Score: 1

    If you're using dhcp, the correct way is to edit your dhclient script and prepend your own domain name server. Resolv.conf gets overwritten from time to time.

    It is resolvconf package which overwrites /etc/resolv.conf (and when network configuration changes).
    I put nameserver 127.0.0.1 to /etc/resolvconf/resolv.conf.d/base file.
    Another place is put dns-nameservers 127.0.0.1 to /etc/network/interfaces file.

  53. It will be URL level (Re:It's on the DNS Level) by hurtta · · Score: 1

    Police is announced that it will going to list URLs instead of domain names in it's filtering list which it gives ot ISPs.

    Effectively this means that ISPs must use proxy for filtering.