Three ISPs Agree To Block Child Porn

Goobergunch and other readers sent in word that Sprint, Time Warner, and Verizon have agreed to block websites and newsgroups containing child pornography. The deal, brokered by New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, occurred after Cuomo's office threatened the ISPs with fraud charges. It's of some concern that the blacklist of sites and newsgroups is to be maintained by the Center for Missing and Exploited Children, an NGO with no legal requirement for transparency. Here are two further cautions, the first from Lauren Weinstein: "Of broader interest perhaps is how much time will pass before 'other entities' demand that ISPs (attempt to) block access to other materials that one group or another feels subscribers should not be permitted to see or hear." And from Techdirt: "[T]he state of Pennsylvania tried to do pretty much the same thing, back in 2002, but focused on actually passing a law ... And, of course, a federal court tossed out the law as unconstitutional. The goal is certainly noble. Getting rid of child porn would be great — but having ISPs block access to an assigned list isn't going to do a damn thing towards that goal."

Comments

Killing the Internet.

[Odder]

Let's see:

• Plans to charge per site access, as if they were cable channels.
• Plans to kick off people at will, as if it were about "piracy".
• Now, plans to block sites.

If all of these things come about, the internet will be like cable TV and there will be no free press.

Re:Common Carrier Safe Harbor

[Anonymous Coward]

Say it with me now - ISPs are not currently common carriers, have never been common carriers, and do not want to be common carriers.

Insightful my ass.

Re:Libel? Common carrier?

[Penguinisto]

ISP's don;t have common-carrier. They do have things like DMCA safe-harbor, and other pseudo-protections, but not actual common-carrier. If they had common-carrier, they'd be required to actually check themselves as to how they behave with their own customers to avoid revocation of that status.

IOW, if your innocent website gets on such a blacklist, you certainly can sue them AND the blacklist-keeping organization for libel, provided the ISP(s) doesn't take steps (or takes way too long) to remove you from it.

'course, can't guarantee that you'd win, but you certainly could sue them and stand at least a snowball's chance in hell.

Re:slippery slope

[Wavebreak]

Also in Finland. Caused somewhat of a stir when a site listing banned addresses got banned itself, for linking to kiddie porn. Exactly how can a list like that be held to any standard of accountability rather than sliding into full-blown censorship if you can't even keep a list of *what* gets banned?

Re:Block for all?

[davester666]

"How can we actively stop our sick bastard pedophile users from doing this?"

This would be precisely the wrong reason for implementing a block on these newsgroups. From my extensive watching of television, my understanding is that people who enjoy child pornography will go to great lengths to view it [and/or participate in creating it]. Just disabling access to a couple of newsgroups moves the posts to other newsgroups, mixing it in with the adult porn that I like.

To put it in Slashdot terms, it would be like trying to make people to not drive on freeways [if it were illegal] by digging up the 2 lane on-ramps, while leaving all the 1 lane on-ramps unmonitored.

I would think that from a law-enforcement perspective, knowing the psychology of this problem, instead of blocking one particular way of getting this information which just causes offenders to find another way of getting the same information, they would want the ISP's to turn over records of which clients are downloading which files from these newsgroups. It would at least catch the low-hanging fruit [namely the stupid child-pornographers].

Of course, they may or may not be able to get a warrant for the records, and just getting the ISP's to turn over the records may make the records inadmissible in court...

According to CNET, they are blocking all of USENET

[PRMan]

Actually, it's far worse than anyone thought. They aren't filtering a few minor websites, they are actually blocking major portions of USENET:

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-9964895-38.html?part=rss&subj=news&tag=2547-1_3-0-5

Time Warner will now block all of USENET

Sprint will now block all alt.* newsgroups

Verizon will now block large, unnamed sections of USENET.

So, whoever said "USENET will be shut down in the name of 'protect the children'" on the poll last week, you win!

Re:slippery slope

[mdwh2]

Agreed. In the UK, we have Cleanfeed. One problem is that blocked sites silently return "page not found".

On that note, things may become worse now that the UK Government has decided to start criminalising adult porn(!). The scope of material that could be banned is far greater, especially due to the vagueness of the law (since the IWF will likely err on the side of caution, whether or not the material has been declared to be "extreme" in a court of law). There is also the point that unlike child porn, there is no divide between "extreme" adult porn and non-extreme porn (there is no legal or ethical consensus - it's only the UK Government that imagines this), so plenty of more mainstream sites risk getting banned because of a single naughty image that is too "extreme". The Register speculates on this issue.

Re:Child porn is NOT the problem

[toriver]

The problem is the production of child porn which of course involves abuse of children.

A common misconception: Child porn laws have generally been expanded - at least here in Scandinavia - to also include paintings, drawings and text, and non-nude photos "interpreted" as raunchy. But the public believes that child porn == abuse pictures.

Re:False positives, misleading true positives

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

Are all you guys crying "Child porn is so awful!" really saying that if a hot young, busty and curvaceous 15 year old was standing naked in front of you, you wouldn't be aroused?

No. Ten seconds after any 15 year old begins to speak, most adults develop an acute urge to gouge out their own ears and let out a long, tormented wail.

Re:According to CNET, they are blocking all of USE

[STrinity]

I recommend all newsgroup denizens with TW, Sprint, and Verizon sign up for news.individual.net. It's 10 euros per year (about $15) and there are no binary groups, but they do a better job of spam and sporge filtering than any ISP I've seen.

Who would've thought the day would come when you'd have to use a German news server to ensure freedom of speech.