Slashdot Mirror


Usenet Blocking Intensifies

I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "The war against the alt.* hierarchy of Usenet continues as NY Attorney General Andrew Cuomo has convinced two more ISPs to drop access to part of Usenet. They've also set up the website NY Stop Child Porn, and convinced California to join them in the fight. In some sense, this is rather like bulldozing the slums to fight crime; sure, it might get rid of a lot of undesirables, but it also affects many innocent people, and everyone will now start migrating elsewhere in droves. The article notes, 'Cuomo's new web site signifies that he's clearly not done yet. It includes contact information for 20 ISPs that presumably operate in New York, and text of a letter to send to them to urge that they sign on to the campaign.' And you thought the Eternal September was bad..."

449 comments

  1. Wonderful. by PunkOfLinux · · Score: 4, Funny

    no more kinky sex stuff on usenet :\ That's the only good part of it, too.

    1. Re:Wonderful. by Chrono11901 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      pointless, nearly everyone who does pirate stuff off of usenet uses something like giganews.

        Hell i wish they put more legit stuff on it, i get 1.5-2MBs via giganews; I even download things like wow from it because its way faster then any other method.

    2. Re:Wonderful. by Baseclass · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Back in the day usenet was my bread and butter. It is sad to watch it fade away into obscurity. The binary groups have been replaced with p2p and the message boards with blogs. Since my ISP imposed a 2GB per month limit I've stopped using it altogether. I do feel a small piece of me and my heritage has been lost.

      --
      ^^vv<><>BA
    3. Re:Wonderful. by hairyfeet · · Score: 2, Interesting

      2GB per month for Usenet,or 2GB per month period? Because if it is period I'd seriously be looking for another ISP. But I'm afraid we're all going to end up in the walled gardens of tiered Internet. I had to take my cableco's VoIP instead of Vonage because theirs doesn't count against my 36Gb per month cap,whereas Vonage does. And from what I understand Windows updates don't count but Linux does,which is why I cut my distro tasting way down. But at least my little cableco is using my money and that of the other customers to roll out new lines and replace aging infrastructure. We all gave the tax breaks to the big ISPs for upgrading broadband nationally and the big boys simply pocketed it,so I am happy about that if not the cap. But as always this is my 02c,YMMV

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    4. Re:Wonderful. by Joshwaa · · Score: 0

      Thats not true. My ISP allows me to max my connection on usenet, using their newsservers. Why would i pay for giganews? Their retention is also upwards of 30 days.

    5. Re:Wonderful. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      30 days retention across all binary groups is exceedingly rare for ISPs, especially with decent completion levels.

      Though you're lucky to have that, you can get almost 6 months extra retention at Giganews, and almost forever on text groups. For the other 95%+ of people with normal ISPs it's well worth paying for the service.

    6. Re:Wonderful. by SkyDude · · Score: 2, Informative

      Obscurity? You don't know Usenet if you think it's on its way to obscurity.

      Usenet is bigger than ever and there's more traffic than there's ever been. While P2P might be the choice for some, Usenet providers like Giganews provide far more content - including text groups - than P2P will ever provide and at very good speeds, without crushing your residential cable or DSL connection.

      Giganews just announced 240 day binary retention. See if P2P can match that.

      --
      == First cross river, then insult alligator.
    7. Re:Wonderful. by h4rm0ny · · Score: 1


      Sadly there is also more spam than ever before. I'm still looking for a good way to filter it all.

      --

      Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
    8. Re:Wonderful. by darkpixel2k · · Score: 1

      Since my ISP imposed a 2GB per month limit I've stopped using it altogether.

      Hopefully that limit is just for usenet, and not your total connection
      I just looked at my pfsense RRD graphs for the last 16 hours and I have transfered over 2.5 GB...

      --
      There's no place like ::1 (I've completed my transition to IPv6)
    9. Re:Wonderful. by Baseclass · · Score: 1
      2GB is my monthly usenet cap.

      I just looked at my pfsense RRD graphs for the last 16 hours and I have transfered over 2.5 GB...

      Yea LOL, 2GB total would get used up pretty quickly around here with me, my 2 kids, and my wife all active on the internet.

      --
      ^^vv<><>BA
    10. Re:Wonderful. by DiamondMX · · Score: 1

      Sounds a lot like they're telling you (successfully) which software to run on your PC. Maybe you should be looking for a new ISP too.

    11. Re:Wonderful. by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      How? By abandoning my entire family and moving to another state? I have the choice of 20GB for $36(WISP) with a $60 install fee for four months,or $33 for 36GB with no install fees(cable). The lines are so old and crappy that AT&T DSL might as well be dialup,and from what I've heard they comcast you anyway. And it isn't like the cableco(which is a little statewide operation) is saying "you can't use Linux,or bittorrent,or Vonage",it is "we have a WSUS server which cuts down on our costs by keeping it local."

      If they asked me I could set them up a package mirror,but frankly the poor thing would probably never get used. The college kids are either on Macs or EEEs,I'm running Xandros,and the few "old school" guys we have that run Linux run Red Hat,either CentOS or more often Fedora. IMHO it would be better for everyone if we had a universal package system so a single WSUS style server could mirror for a whole community,but I doubt that will ever happen. And like I said,they are actually using the money I pay them(currently $105 for 2Mb Internet,VoIP,and 60 channels of basic cable) to replace servers and upgrade lines all over the area. And their service is top notch.

      I sweet talked one of the secretaries who was also a college student and had my cable hooked up in less than 4 hours, I never have a glitch,and the only outages I get they announce ahead of time because of the aforementioned upgrades. I went from 1.5Mb average a year ago to 2.5 with 4-6Mb peaks now,and it just keeps getting faster. So with the exception of the cap I am very happy. If I get the nice side job I am trying out for I will just move up to business class with a 100Gb cap and 8Mb speeds. Oh,and none of my neighbors in my apartment building have cable Internet so I don't get the afternoon slowdowns like most. But if you can get a better deal then you are lucky. And I'm betting we'll all be on tiered pretty soon anyway,simply because the big boys aren't upgrading the backbone with all them tax breaks we gave them to do so.

      And I would rather have one like my cableco that tells me up front my cap and lets me spend it as I wish,than something like comcast that forges RST packets and bones you every chance they get. But that is my 02c from beautiful Searcy,YMMV

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    12. Re:Wonderful. by DiamondMX · · Score: 1

      The fact that they have a clearly tiered service is a big step towards the tiered internet that we all know and fear as one of the few things that will break the internet - perhaps if you don't have the choice, that's all well and good for you.

      But just because Searcy isn't screwing you as hard as comcast is - that doesn't mean they aren't screwing you hard anyway.

      For comparison - I found an ISP that offered unlimited 8mb, with a promise of no FUP traffic shaping because of high use, and a 1 month contract which makes this quite easy to believe.
      My small group of people regularly exceed 100GB per month (probably a lot more than that) and the ISP doesn't block bittorrent, or any other service we're aware of.

      Not (only) being smug about my internet service, but as it's £93/month - sometimes you have to vote with your wallet.

      Also rumour has it they're starting trial installations of Fiber in the UK next year ^_^ 100mb/s broadband, yay.

    13. Re:Wonderful. by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      Sadly everything has a price. If I gave up my home,paid five times more in rent and utilities,and never see my family again,I could go to Memphis or Dallas and get those kinds of speeds. Of course I wouldn't be able to walk down streets that look like something out of Gone with the Wind at 3AM without fear of being shot or mugged,and I would have to deal with hassles from the cops. Here,all I get when I'm doing my 3AM walks is "Do you need a hand? Did your car break down?". It is nice living in a place where folks will actually stop to see if you're okay. And if I get this part time job I've applied for I can move up to business class at 100Gb at 8Mbps for $110. Right now 36Gb for $33 is just fine for me. But as always this is my 02c,YMMV

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
  2. it's just a cover by Reality+Master+201 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It's not just (or probably even mostly) about the kiddie porn - it's the software, video, and music that gets shared in the alt.* hierarchy, too. And the ISPs probably don't mind not providing a service that doesn't do much but cost them extra for bandwidth and storage.

    Still, Cuomo's an asshole.

    1. Re:it's just a cover by christurkel · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No, Cuomo is a politician.

      --

      CDE open sourced! https://sourceforge.net/projects/cdesktopenv/
    2. Re:it's just a cover by Adrian+Lopez · · Score: 5, Funny

      Po-tay-to, po-tah-to.

      --
      "In prison you just have to shut your eyes and take it. Here you have to shut your eyes and give it."
    3. Re:it's just a cover by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Best "redundant" mod ever :)

    4. Re:it's just a cover by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      >And the ISPs probably don't mind not providing a service that doesn't do much but cost them extra for bandwidth and storage.

      And customers.

      Considering once the data is on their network, it costs them (virtually) zero to transmit it to their customers, a usenet leech is the best customer you could ever have.

    5. Re:it's just a cover by crispin_bollocks · · Score: 2, Funny

      Grandstanding and posturing worked for Spitzer - Cuomo's obviously running for governor.

    6. Re:it's just a cover by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cuomo is having hot steamy sex with the commercial usenet providers. Forcing ISPs to block the alt.* hierarchy is only going to increase supernews subscriptions.

    7. Re:it's just a cover by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      And, like potatoes, politicians are best when run through a mechanical slicer and deep fried.

    8. Re:it's just a cover by ArtemaOne · · Score: 1

      Who uses newsgroups that doesn't pay $10 a month for a GOOD one anyway? Even when my ISP had usenet I had a seperate account.

    9. Re:it's just a cover by Nutria · · Score: 4, Insightful

      it's the software, video, and music that gets shared in the alt.* hierarchy, too.

      That's basically the first thing I thought of: Cuomo in be with {RI,MP}AA and using child porn as a smokescreen.

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    10. Re:it's just a cover by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      The data isnt on their network [atleast it wasent with roadrunner/brighthouse] they outsourced their usenet access to highwinds then to newshosting.

    11. Re:it's just a cover by NJRoadfan · · Score: 1

      Is he on the Emperor's Club client list yet?

    12. Re:it's just a cover by eltaco · · Score: 2, Interesting

      absolutely. they don't care about some illegal prons - there's no money in it. it's the same old strategy of advancing little steps forward to creepingly achieve their greater goal. influencing the masses by claiming it's to get child pornography out of the net and using that support for their imaginary property cause.

      --
      It's not about fate, it's about character.
      there be no shelter here, the frontline is everywhere!
    13. Re:it's just a cover by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He's probably afraid his picture will show up.

    14. Re:it's just a cover by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That was Dan Quayle, douchebag.

    15. Re:it's just a cover by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wrong. Epic fail. Look at the post. It says, 'There. Fixed it for you. -- Al Gore' And as we all know that is what Al Gore said after he fixed the environment when he was elected in 2016.

    16. Re:it's just a cover by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      That's the stupidest statement I've heard on Slashdot today. "Once the horrendously expensive and unprofitable part is done, it costs nothing!"

      How do you propose the data gets on their network genius? It's not free. No one who isn't a dedicated Usenet provider wants to keep up with the binary groups. Nor can they, reasonably. The amount of data they would need to move to satisfy a tiny niche audience is so astronomically out of proportion to the subscription fees that tiny userbase providers they're more than happy to kick you to the curb. And who can blame them?

    17. Re:it's just a cover by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How do you propose the data from the dedicated Usenet provider gets on their network, genius?

    18. Re:it's just a cover by settantta · · Score: 2, Funny

      Is there a difference?

    19. Re:it's just a cover by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In recent years the attorney general of New York has always been an asshole, first Elliot "the hypocrite" Spitzer and now Cuomo. It seems like these guys are always overstepping the bounds of their office and jurisdiction and presenting law enforcement as political theater to fuel their own ambitions and isn't it ironic how often these boy scouts themselves turn out to be the worst offenders (ala Spitzer)?

    20. Re:it's just a cover by Xtifr · · Score: 1

      That's insulting. To assholes. :)

    21. Re:it's just a cover by KGIII · · Score: 2, Interesting

      See some of the smaller dialup (yes I said that right) ISPs. I linked to LocalNet a ways down in this topic. Figure 10 bucks a month is unlimited USENET access with 20 simultaneous connections (I think it is that many - haven't needed that many in a while). And, well, you get a secondary ISP to use should you travel or need to test something.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    22. Re:it's just a cover by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, Cuomo is a politician.

      Well, 'asshole' sounds too innocent to describe what he did. He is po..cian, sure.

    23. Re:it's just a cover by Wowsers · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's easier to shut down a website forum with easy to alter DNS records etc. then to stop free speech in Usenet which gets sent around all over the world, no central storage. THAT's what it's about, control of speech and thought.

      --
      Take Nobody's Word For It.
    24. Re:it's just a cover by IntlHarvester · · Score: 1

      Considering once the data is on their network, it costs them (virtually) zero to transmit it to their customers, a usenet leech is the best customer you could ever have.

      This makes the huge assumption anyone is looking at this stuff in the first place.

      When you consider all the spam and junk on usenet there's a good possibility that the majority of the content is downloaded by 0 to 1 users. And that could more than make up for the "popular" content downloaded by multiple users.

      It's dumb to make armchair proclamations without any real numbers.

      --
      Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
    25. Re:it's just a cover by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Funny

      There's a German joke about sharks prefering politicians because without a spine and butter on their head (German idiom for having skeletons in your closet), they're the perfect diet.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    26. Re:it's just a cover by nospam007 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      > It's not just (or probably even mostly) about the kiddie porn - it's the software, video, and music that gets shared in the alt.* hierarchy, too...

      Not to mention my favorite alt.cows.moo.moo.moo

      Perhaps we should create dozens of kinky sex groups in comp, humanities, misc, news, rec, sci, soc, talk
      If we are able to slashdot mighty corporate servers we should be able to create hundreds of those too to show them how idiotic the whole thing is.

      The Usenet Volunteer Votetakers among you should discuss this.

    27. Re:it's just a cover by Curtman · · Score: 1

      It's a witch hunt. Don't try to make sense of it, there is none. It's hysteria unopposed.

      This is the worst kind too, if you speak against it then you're obviously a paedophile.

      It makes no difference to these people that the creeps will simply move on to bittorrent, edonkey, etc. They'll keep on destroying good technology until their work is done. Too bad it never will be.

    28. Re:it's just a cover by couchslug · · Score: 1

      Usenet is an easy target. It's mostly spam/pron/warez and isn't used by mainstream customers. It isn't useful for communication or discussion compared to other methods, and it sucks bandwidth from providers.

      Anyone who wants it can pay for a separate newsgroup provider, and it's still cheaper than paying for all the content you can mooch. Geeks can work around the loss and no one else needs it.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    29. Re:it's just a cover by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ..except for the fact that potatoes only require a pinch of salt, while politician on the other hand..

    30. Re:it's just a cover by kipman725 · · Score: 1

      There's a German joke about sharks prefering politicians because without a spine and butter on their head (German idiom for having skeletons in your closet), they're the perfect diet.

      And to think some people say the germans don't have a sense of humor!

    31. Re:it's just a cover by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you seriously that stupid? Usenet providers are in the business of providing Usenet feeds. They charge a fee equivalent to what it costs them to move the data. As Usenet has grown, the fees have gone up.

    32. Re:it's just a cover by redelm · · Score: 1, Flamebait
      Most likely. Cuomo has political aspirations and funding those takes money. He has chosen to alienate free-speech-loving individuals in favor of support from free-speech-hating organizations like the RIAA, MPAA, and BSA.

      This is a clear case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater: kiddie pr0n almost certainly is less than 0.1% of USENET alt.bin* traffic. I would think its' value as an investigation lead in finding pervs is actually greater than the damage in distributing it.

      This USENET dragnet is like banning all brown-paper envelopes because some contail illegal materials.

      Cuomo reveals his colors.

    33. Re:it's just a cover by mxs · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's not just (or probably even mostly) about the kiddie porn

      Well, his initiative is.

      - it's the software, video, and music that gets shared in the alt.* hierarchy, too. And the ISPs probably don't mind not providing a service that doesn't do much but cost them extra for bandwidth and storage.

      Actually, ISPs should be flocking to Usenet, make it more accessible, and give it a lot of storage and bandwidth if what they want to do is reduce costs. Every bit that comes from the ISP-owned Usenet cluster is a bit that does not have to come from distant networks. If your customers leech the binary usenet servers dry all day, they can't be using the same bandwidth to leech the P2P services dry and clog up the network -- remember, since they are the ISP and they control the network, they could easily have caching Usenet-servers in the more densely populate locales.
      (As for making it accessible : something like what easynews.com is doing, i.e. searchable and fully pre-decoded files on HTTP servers)

      Widespread use of this would probably cost a lot less than those silly filtering thingies they install on their network and do more for customer satisfaction. Of course, every content producer and their mothers would probably try to sue you, too -- but then again, there is plenty of precedent in this area; especially as how it relates to caching.

      It's a lot more lucrative to sell your own content though, via your own triple-play packages and the like (why would you want to offer unfettered access to usenet that contains most of what TV has to offer when you are also selling cable TV at the same time, or worse, are in the business of selling music, movies, etc ?)

      So long as enough people use Usenet in your ISP, it's a costsaver -- even if you have to deal with 1gbit/s of incoming data all the time.

    34. Re:it's just a cover by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >That's the stupidest statement I've heard on Slashdot today. "Once the horrendously expensive and unprofitable part is done, it costs nothing!"

      So, I suppose, if you were legally allowed to operate it, you'd be the one person on the board OPPOSED to building a money printing machine?

      Yes, there's hard work involved, and some expense too. That's why they're a company. They do that hard work in exchange for your money (novel concept).

      However, unlike a case where you're selling a good, in that you run out of those goods and continually have further expenses, usenet is a service, and apart from the cost of improving said service, it is a "license to print money" in that after the initial investment, you reap near 100% net profit margin. Trust me, most companies *like* that kind of business.

      >How do you propose the data gets on their network genius?

      Well, thank you for attesting to my title, humble normal. I believe the method is well documented in RFC 977. I would suggest you read it.

      >The amount of data they would need to move to satisfy a tiny niche audience is so astronomically out of proportion to the subscription fees that tiny userbase providers they're more than happy to kick you to the curb.

      That might be so, and as such, the provider will need to balance the cost of the money printing machine vs. how much money can it print each day. If you invest $1 million dollars in a money printing machine, but find out it can only print $100 a day, you might need to reconsider the investment

      However, for a particularly large ISP (such as these) the bandwidth cost is negligible (clearly you live in a dreamworld where large national ISPs *don't* have several gigabit internet links). The only particularly large costs involved would be paying administrators, paying for equipment, and paying for electricity.

      The fact is, not running the NNTP server has costs associated with it as well. Those dedicated to usenet binaries will use alternative services, going across your expensive internet links to download the same multi-gigabyte files hundreds, thousands, if not more times. That activity, though, is what I expect you're missing in your equation.

      >And who can blame them?

      I certainly don't. My ISP doesn't offer particularly good NNTP service. So, I have an unlimited NNTP service, and generally download 500 GB monthly from them. Speaking with others, there's probably a good solid 1,000+ of us doing this on this ISP. I suppose 500 TB of transit monthly is cheaper than a 100 mbit link for usenet for our ISP, and that's fine with us.

      However, this ISP is smaller (only serves Canada). I'd be very surprised if a National US ISP really is finding 5 PB of traffic a cheaper deal than providing NNTP. But hey, each to their own.

    35. Re:it's just a cover by Dark_Gravity · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Still, Cuomo's an asshole.

      Why yes indeed, he is. Unless, of course, you actually welcome caffeinated alcoholic beverage prohibiting overlords.

    36. Re:it's just a cover by rant64 · · Score: 1

      Considering once the data is on their network, it costs them (virtually) zero to transmit it to their customers, a usenet leech is the best customer you could ever have.

      I don't know about your ISP, but the number of feeds and retention on my ISP's "free" service is useless. I use a third party Usenet provider.

    37. Re:it's just a cover by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1
      In fact, they also no longer have the linux.kernel mailing list (no alt ... that is the entire Usenet Group name.) If one enters kernel in the search box the only newsgroups they carry with kernel in the name are:
      • comp.os.mswindows.programmer.nt.kernelmode
      • comp.os.ms-windows.programmer.nt.kernel-mode

      (not a typo, the only difference is in the dashes.)

      I wish I was making this up, but I'm not. I doubt it is a conspiracy, but I am left wondering if I should go to alt.conspiracy and .. OH SHIT :-(

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    38. Re:it's just a cover by david.peace · · Score: 1

      No,no. Politicians are like diapers and need to be changed often for the same reason.

    39. Re:it's just a cover by Dark_Gravity · · Score: 1

      This is supposedly "News for nerds" and yet somehow a post about the principal actor in TFA (who is indeed an asshole) and his crusade against caffeinated alcohol beverages is moderated as off topic?

      Surrender your geek card and all your caffeinated and alcoholic beverages immediately, oh yon delusional moderator!

  3. Today Usenet by Iamthecheese · · Score: 3, Interesting

    tomorrow the world!

    bbs FTW! we dont need no steenkin ISPs.

    So whats to stop some enterprising individual from putting all of Usenet on a distributed, encrypted network?

    --
    If video games influenced behavior the Pac Man generation would be eating pills and running away from their problems.
    1. Re:Today Usenet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      Money, the laws of physics, etc.

    2. Re:Today Usenet by simcop2387 · · Score: 1

      there's something similar albiet slow and not as good on Freenet called frost, though last time i looked at it, it was used for what Freenet is stereotypically used for...

    3. Re:Today Usenet by infaustus · · Score: 2, Funny

      Pornography featuring only models verified to be at least 18 years of age?

      --
      Frosty piss posts are worthless, GNAA posts are worthless and hurtful, but they are the least of this site's neuroses.
    4. Re:Today Usenet by Greyfox · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It's just store-and-forward. Setting up uucp isn't that hard. Setting up uucp and connecting to enough other people to be worthwhile is pretty hard. Even back when usenet was the main thing there were huge gaps in coverage from site to site. UUCP shouldn't care about the underlying protocol, so doing UUCP from node to node over TCP/IP over encrypted tunnels on the Internet would work fine. Or you could go over wireless mesh networks and dedicated site-to-site lines. It's all do-able if you can scare up enough interest. I don't think there will be that much interest, though...

      --

      I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

    5. Re:Today Usenet by SpaceLifeForm · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Throw in nntp and you'll be back in business.

      --
      You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
    6. Re:Today Usenet by DMUTPeregrine · · Score: 1

      spam, actually. Which is why FMS has been created, to cut down on the massive amounts of spam flooding Frost.

      --
      Not a sentence!
    7. Re:Today Usenet by Baseclass · · Score: 1

      Once you get past the speed and kiddie porn, sure Frost isn't too bad.

      --
      ^^vv<><>BA
    8. Re:Today Usenet by westlake · · Score: 1
      I don't think there will be that much interest, though...
      .

      consider that the epitaph of the 'net as a playground for the geek. the masses move on to sites and services which are attractive and accessible. the geek tries to breathe new life into usenet and irc chat.

    9. Re:Today Usenet by Gazzonyx · · Score: 2, Funny

      And the .uucp TLD and rsyncable text file of all the nodes. Erm, I guess we gotta' modernize it. Make that an rsyncable XML file of all the nodes!

      --

      If I mod you up, it doesn't necessarily mean I agree with what you've said, sorry.

    10. Re:Today Usenet by Gazzonyx · · Score: 1

      No doubt, both are tried and true and we don't make it very easy for n00bs to find them. And when they do, they stick out like reporters at DefCon, and get shown the door in proper style (kline, FTW!).

      --

      If I mod you up, it doesn't necessarily mean I agree with what you've said, sorry.

    11. Re:Today Usenet by mrogers · · Score: 1

      So whats to stop some enterprising individual from putting all of Usenet on a distributed, encrypted network?

      Okay, okay, I just have to finish my thesis and then I'll get right onto it.

    12. Re:Today Usenet by kipman725 · · Score: 1

      I tried out freenet for a few days and hardley saw any regular porn nevermind any mention of kiddy porn. It was mostly interesting text files and personal home pages, it was overrall quite interesting.

    13. Re:Today Usenet by Hatta · · Score: 1

      Bandwidth charges. Do you have any idea how much bandwidth USENET uses? It's feasable for the ISP because they just get the feed once, and distribute it over the last mile that they own and don't have to pay for. That's vastly more efficient than sending every packet across the backbone in a distributed network. This is probably the only reason ISPs still do USENET, because otherwise all that traffic would go across the world instead of down the block.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    14. Re:Today Usenet by Hatta · · Score: 1

      Probably because you weren't looking. Which really makes me wonder about all the people who do complain about kiddy porn on Freenet.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    15. Re:Today Usenet by simcop2387 · · Score: 1

      its not that i went looking for it, theres board for sharing "links" (not sure what to call them) on, and when you go look at that its pretty much full of either kiddy porn or other sick things i wouldn't be interested in (people who get off on goatse style stuff)

  4. AGREED by od05 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    While Usenet does have useful value, it IS full of kiddie porn.

    alt.binaries.pictures.naturism.family
    alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.young
    alt.binaries.pictures.youth-and-beauty
    alt.binaries.erotica.teen.female
    alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.mclt

    I mean seriously, do any of these usenet categories contribute anything of value to society???

    1. Re:AGREED by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      this is for you

      Little girls running down the beach naked isn't cp either.

    2. Re:AGREED by cliffiecee · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I mean seriously, do any of these usenet categories contribute anything of value to society???

      Well, you could apply that question to all of Usenet and on average, the answer would be No.

      Besides... if alt.binaries.* gets blocked, the pervs will just move to the rec.* branch, or whatever strikes their fancy. They've done this in the past; they're probably doing it now. In all seriousness, they might as well ban Usenet binary distribution altogether. That's what they're going to have to do if they're serious about going the distance with this.

    3. Re:AGREED by cayenne8 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Just to be technical...unless the kids are doing something sexual...it isn't kiddie pr0n. If if the bar is 'that' low, then we got a bunch of parents out there that are liable to be arrested and taken to jail for taking shots of their little kids bathing or running around nekkid...

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    4. Re:AGREED by Xizer · · Score: 4, Funny
      http://www.12chan.org/

      Uh oh! A website with questionable content!

      WE'D BETTER BLOCK ALL WEBSITES TOO

    5. Re:AGREED by crispin_bollocks · · Score: 1

      Knew right where to look, eh?

    6. Re:AGREED by Hijacked+Public · · Score: 4, Funny

      Channel28.EverybodyLovesRaymond
      Channel52.AmericanIdol
      Channel76.FriendsReruns
      Channel95.FoxNews
      Channel176.WWESmackdown

      I mean seriously, do any of these TV shows contribute anything of value to society???

      --
      "Sacrifice for the good of The State" - The State
    7. Re:AGREED by blahplusplus · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Is some of that really 'kiddie porn'? I checked out naturism newsgroup has lots of regular looking folks not engaging in sex and doing regular activities in the nude, I wouldn't exactly call that 'porn', many of them look like family vacation/bbq/get together photos to me IMHO.

      Looking at pictures in naturism.family doesn't seem like porn to me at all, (disregarding cross posters) there are regular people taking pictures in the background in a few of them.

      I think this all has to do with judeo-christian cultural values of the west and it's crazy puritan heritage, other cultures do not share the same values. The idea of 'kiddie porn' is not universal.

      People are naturally born naked, and many other cultures are comfortable being around people (strangers) in other countries, it's only really the west that is so repressed.

    8. Re:AGREED by Conspiracy_Of_Doves · · Score: 3, Informative

      Take a look at all the newsgroups you listed. What do they all have in common besides being in the alt. hierarchy? Here's a hint. Look at the second item in the name.

      They aren't just dropping alt.binaries. They are dropping the entire alt. hierarchy. Including the ones where you can't even trade files.

      These people have admitted that they only found child porn in 88 of the 100,000 newsgroups.

    9. Re:AGREED by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I could not load the link. I use Virgin internet, is this a problem?

    10. Re:AGREED by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only if you want your connection to keep its virginity.

    11. Re:AGREED by dougmc · · Score: 2, Insightful

      People often have problems defining kiddie porn, but they know it when they see it ... and many, when they see pictures of a naked family having a bbq ... they know it's kiddie porn. (now, the actual law may (and actually does, in the US) say something else, but that doesn't matter -- they know this is kiddie porn, and off they go on their crusade against it.)

      Now, that works for the naturism group. But if the name has `erotica' in it, that suggests that it's actual pornography. As for alt.binaries.erotica.teen.female, well, that group is probably mostly full of pictures of 18 and 19 year old girls, and that's not child porn. Looking up the mclt group, it means `My Collection of Lolitas and Teens' ... which also seems to like 'em young, but as for how young, I don't know, and I don't feel like checking.

      Either way, if they've found child porn in 88 groups, it seems stupid to drop the entire alt.* hierarchy because of it -- just drop those 88 groups.

    12. Re:AGREED by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Yes, I propose that we block www.*.org. This will block 12chan and many other bad websites. Won't someone think of the children?!

    13. Re:AGREED by Koiu+Lpoi · · Score: 2, Informative

      it's only really the west that is so repressed.

      So, it's just the west? There's moderate to severe nudity taboos in Japan and China (don't know about the rest of the Far East), in many middle eastern countries, and most of the post-Russian block countries. In fact, the only place off the top of my head where nudity is a normal part of society is Africa, and the in much of Europe it's tolerated (kinda), and that's, uh, the West. No, nudity taboos are pretty universal among developed nations - the West has nothing to do with it.

    14. Re:AGREED by blahplusplus · · Score: 1

      You did not understand what I said. You missed the gist of what I said completely.

    15. Re:AGREED by wild_quinine · · Score: 3, Funny

      While Usenet does have useful value, it IS full of kiddie porn. alt.binaries.pictures.naturism.family alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.young alt.binaries.pictures.youth-and-beauty alt.binaries.erotica.teen.female alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.mclt I mean seriously, do any of these usenet categories contribute anything of value to society???

      If there is a street in your town conveniently called Rapey Lane, just don't walk down it.

      Demolishing Manchester becase of Moss Side is only a good idea on paper.

    16. Re:AGREED by Koiu+Lpoi · · Score: 1

      No, I understand completely, but the fact of the matter remains that many non-western cultures consider "child pornography" to be just as awful an offence as here in the west - countries that have no Judeo-Christian background. While there are places that do not share this, it's not related to Christan values, and it's not related to the west.

      Remember, since I used a quote, I was only dealing with that section of your post. I never said anything about the rest of it.

    17. Re:AGREED by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They don't need to ban all alt domains, or even all of the binaries... but if questionable material is so plainly obvious as "alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.young", then something ought to be done about it.

    18. Re:AGREED by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I mean seriously, do any of these usenet categories contribute anything of value to society???

      Does blocking them?

      --
      May the Maths Be with you!
    19. Re:AGREED by Toll_Free · · Score: 1

      No, he caught the gist.

      The problem is, your view, is wrong.

      --Toll_Free

    20. Re:AGREED by blahplusplus · · Score: 1

      "While there are places that do not share this,"

      And thats why I said it wasn't universal, a universal means its universal, there are no exceptions. You asserted a proposition that asserts something of all members of a class and then said there are places that do not share this.

      Next is the fact that you didn't pick up on the truncated thought (i.e. mental shortcut), in which I made it look like that it was only 'the west' that was repressed, that was the gist you were not picking up. Always remember that when part of a post is made in haste. I could go and write an essay about it but this is slashdot. :P

      So yes it is obvious that you didn't understand the subtext of what I was saying.

    21. Re:AGREED by Robber+Baron · · Score: 3, Funny

      this is for you

      Little girls running down the beach naked isn't cp either.

      Wow! looks like that link is slashdotted...
      You buncha sick bastards!

      --

      You're using her as bait, Master!

    22. Re:AGREED by Nutria · · Score: 4, Informative

      then we got a bunch of parents out there that are liable to be arrested and taken to jail for taking shots of their little kids bathing or running around nekkid...

      You haven't visited Britain lately...

      http://www.telegraph.co.uk/global/main.jhtml?xml=/global/2008/06/25/noindex/nbaby.xml
      http://www.telegraph.co.uk/global/main.jhtml?xml=/global/2008/06/25/noindex/nchild.xml

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    23. Re:AGREED by Skapare · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If Cuomo really wanted to stop the child porn, he'd focus on the child porn. But this absolute idiot who is a disgrace to the human race is running some kind of agenda to shut down the internet. Instead of asking these ISPs to close off the groups that have the porn, he's creating a situation where people who have absolutely nothing to do with the porn, and are involved in groups that do not have any porn, are forced to go somewhere else, which is likely to have those same porn groups. This is an action that won't shut down porn. It will just move it elsewhere ... and move the other people that effectively and unknowingly help support it, along at the same time. Dumb! Dumb! Dumb! That is one dumb politician.

      He's only making the problem worse.

      The child porn will go somewhere else. He hasn't eliminated the market for it. Then he'll demand shutting down other parts of the net. Next you know he'll demand ISPs block port 443. Dumb! Dumb! Dumb! That is one dumb politician.

      --
      now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
    24. Re:AGREED by Nazlfrag · · Score: 1

      That's shocking. The second article particularly bothered me. As usual, the victims who suffer most here are those they are trying to protect, such as with this from your second link:

      The report comes after Children's Commissioner, Sir Al Aynsley Green, said 50,000 girls were waiting to join the Guides because of a shortage of adult volunteers, partly caused by the red tape of the CRB process.

    25. Re:AGREED by Nazlfrag · · Score: 4, Funny

      Why wait? You can just disable them in your hosts file, like I'm doi@'#^&2:_=

      NO CARRIER

    26. Re:AGREED by compro01 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The problem with "something must be done" is that it rapidly turns into "this is something, therefore, it must be done".

      --
      upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
    27. Re:AGREED by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      "In all seriousness, they might as well ban Usenet binary distribution altogether. That's what they're going to have to do if they're serious about going the distance with this."

      Genius! Cuomo has found a way to trick/force the Internet to abandon backwards compatibility for 7-bit character sets and MIME converstion!

    28. Re:AGREED by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...just drop those 88 groups.

      They didn't find 88 groups ofK P... what they actually found was the 88 groups that spammers hit most with that particular 'topic'... so Mr. 'loser-in-next-ny-governors-race' has a cover for "encouraging" Isp's to drop alt.* that the 'duh-whats-this-usenet-thing' populace will totally get on board for. Wonder how much the *IAA's will be and/or have contributed to his campaigns.

      I would challenge Verizon to do a corporate-wide audit search of ALL technology devices used by employees or contractors working for them.. what should happen to Verizon should evidence be found on more than 88 of them of 'things-that-ought-not-to-be-there'? and the same thing for all systems owned by or used by any government entity in the state of NY? What should happen to their AG? What are the chances that there is NOT more than 88 at either? nil? or 'just almost-practically-so-close-it-might-as-well-be-zero'?

    29. Re:AGREED by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Even drawings and photoshopped images are considered kid pr0n. Even completely legal porn containing young looking girls has recently put people in prison.

      It's out of control.

      They plan on going after parents too. Soon parents will need training and a license in order to kiss or hug their own children. Doing so without permission will be jail time.
      Search "Government Permission Required For Parents To Kiss Children".

    30. Re:AGREED by Eli+Gottlieb · · Score: 4, Funny

      4chan user detected!!! Launch missiles, Exterminate! EXTERMINATE! EXTERRMINAAAAATEEE!!!

    31. Re:AGREED by slaker · · Score: 3, Informative

      Technically speaking, in the US at least, there's no requirement that there be any kind of sexual act or activity, only that there are minors engaged in something that can be described as lewd or lascivious.

      What that means is that if some prude thinks the picture where you're giving your infant kid a bath in the bathroom sink... that can be child porn. That sort of thing actually does happen, and it ruins people's lives.

      As another example, there are deeply creepy web sites where parents dress up their 12-year-old daughters in bikinis and miniskirts and get them to pose in very adult (think Penthouse) ways. People have gotten in trouble for that, too. I don't have links. I don't really want to go looking for links, but that stuff is out there.

      --
      -- I wanna decide who lives and who dies - Crow T. Robot, MST3K
    32. Re:AGREED by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here's an article from an American magazine saying otherwise: How a Photo Can Ruin Your Life
      Warning: contains a photographic example of the kind of image in question. Thus I think it would be better to post this anonymously.

    33. Re:AGREED by Jafafa+Hots · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Actually, his agenda is not to shut down the net. His agenda is to get himself elected governor, and possibly eventually president.

      Shutting down the usenet is just a means to an end.

      --
      This space available.
    34. Re:AGREED by Baseclass · · Score: 1

      Oh please, there's plenty of good old adult lesbian porn to be had too.

      --
      ^^vv<><>BA
    35. Re:AGREED by Monsuco · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I think this all has to do with judeo-christian cultural values

      You are probably right, but it is odd for Abrahamic religions to develop a taboo surrounding nudity. If you look in the bible, you will find that non-sexual nudity isn't really seen as negative. In fact, Adam and Eve were quite content to walk around naked. This was before there was sin in the world. When Adam and Eve ate from the tree of life, committing the original sin, they suddenly felt bad about nudity. Since the world was without sin before eating from the tree, it is logical to conclude that non-sexual nudity is not sinful (there are Christian nudist groups that promote this view).

    36. Re:AGREED by eeyore · · Score: 1

      They do not perform their true function in life 100% effectively. I refer of course to keeping stupid people (and politicians) off the Internet. Politicians should be coming down hard on the presence of objective news coverage on Fox news, and on the mindless violence in WWES Smackdown.

    37. Re:AGREED by Kleen13 · · Score: 2, Funny

      You know, I never really gave any thought to this type of smut that was available while I used to use Usenet... That was someone else's preference, not mine. Not till I had a daughter. Now I get it. Get rid of it all, it would be better to lose it all then to have one kid be exploited like that. My 2 cents.

      --
      That sinking feeling deep in your gut when you KNOW you screwed up bad summed up with: {head desk} {head desk}
    38. Re:AGREED by KGIII · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I too am a parent but you're not going to like what I have to say. How about you, oh, install filtering software AND monitor your child's online activity? I have a 9 year old daughter - getting closer to that age - and she is not allowed unmonitored internet access. I can't protect her when she's not around me but I can instill values and observe and comment as to how she can improve and why she should. That's all I can do. When she uses the internet (and she does a great deal) there is an adult in the room with her at all times - no exceptions. I can only hope to show her the right way, enforce the right way when I can, answer the questions as they come, comfort her when she makes mistakes, and hope that I've done my best.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    39. Re:AGREED by Kalriath · · Score: 1

      Don't forget they're even knocking out groups where Kiddy Porn isn't even possible - like the alt.*.moderated groups.

      --
      For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
    40. Re:AGREED by CRCulver · · Score: 1

      I got the impression that, after becoming a parent, the above poster isn't worried so much about the possibility of his daughter viewing material, as much as children being exploited to make pornography.

    41. Re:AGREED by IntlHarvester · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Is some of that really 'kiddie porn'? I checked out naturism newsgroup has lots of regular looking folks not engaging in sex and doing regular activities in the nude, I wouldn't exactly call that 'porn', many of them look like family vacation/bbq/get together photos to me IMHO.

      "Naturism" was used as a way to sell nudie mags back in the days when they were illegal in many places.

      Why do you think anyone would want to look at pictures of naked people barbecuing except to arouse themselves? It might be boring, but its still porn.

      --
      Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
    42. Re:AGREED by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh the insight.

      Since the beginning of time, sysadmins have used judgment about which usenet groups to carry; especially in alt.* where anyone can create a group. Not carrying dubious sounding groups isn't the slightest bit notable or interesting.

    43. Re:AGREED by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Well, IANAB(iblethumper), but I guess that very part is the reason why nudity is seen as "sinful" today in those religions. After Adam and Eve ate from the tree, they could know good and evil, and one of the first things they did was trying to get clothing. I can see how religion can interpret this part as an indicator that, when you're able to know good and evil, you should get dressed, thus being not dressed is evil.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    44. Re:AGREED by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Who am I to decide why someone looks at pics? We're getting pretty close to thoughtcrime here.

      Is it possible? Yes. Is it likely? I'd guess so, since I don't understand the appeal of watching people BBQ naked (unless you're in some twisted way interested in how people react when they get burned in more sensitive places, I wouldn't stand next to a BBQ without some protective clothing).

      But just because I don't understand it doesn't make it "evil", or leads automatically to the train of thought "there is no other reason to do X but Y", since Y is the only thing I could think of. Along the same lines, you could argue that games like Battlefield and Call of Duty serve no purpose but to prepare people for terror attacks, since I don't understand why someone would play it for the sake of playing it.

      Beware the borders of thoughtcrime.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    45. Re:AGREED by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Have you ever been to Manchester? I dunno, but the idea doesn't just sound good on paper... :)

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    46. Re:AGREED by Opportunist · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This is the typical action of a "quick, fast, hard action" politician. I don't even think he isn't aware that this action won't do or solve anything. I'm quite sure he's aware of that. But it serves the purpose: It looks like he's really badass about cracking down on $boogieman_of_the_month.

      What you need to do for this tactic is to shut down something that can in some way be linked to the crime in question and doesn't hurt a sizable portion of your voters. Now, who uses UseNet? Certainly not Joe Average Voter. So Usenet is the perfect scapegoat. It's something his voters don't understand, thus don't really miss if it's gone, and it looks like he's really putting pressure behind his agenda. That it doesn't do jack doesn't matter.

      When you look around at the scapegoats that were blamed for this or that, and politicians going badass against those things, you will notice that NONE of those scapegoats were anything a sizable majority of their voters would use or at least know about.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    47. Re:AGREED by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was afraid the actual psycho /b/tards were really slashdotters in disguise, it seems to be true.

      Slashdot........the original Anonymous :-)

    48. Re:AGREED by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      12chan.org

      I'm the last person to say "think of the children" but this site is nothing but a gathering place for pedophiles to drool over pictures of barely clothed kids.

      Keep that shit off of slashdot.

    49. Re:AGREED by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 5, Informative

      There's moderate to severe nudity taboos in Japan and China

      Can't speak to China, but Japan had their nudity taboo imposed on them by Westerners. Originally, onsen (hot spring baths) and sento (public baths) were not separated by gender. Out in the countryside, people worked in the fields pretty much naked.

      Shinto still has hadaka matsuri - literally, "naked festivals", though these days people usually (but not always) wear fundoshi.

      Old Japanese erotic prints usually depict clothed figures, not naked ones!

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    50. Re:AGREED by freeweed · · Score: 2, Insightful

      As another example, there are deeply creepy web sites where parents dress up their 12-year-old daughters in bikinis and miniskirts and get them to pose in very adult (think Penthouse) ways. People have gotten in trouble for that, too.

      And yet when they do it in the style of "beauty pageants" a la Jon Benet Ramsay, it's considered "cute".

      --
      Endless arguments over trivial contradictions in books written by ignorant savages to explain thunder in the dark.
    51. Re:AGREED by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    52. Re:AGREED by h4rm0ny · · Score: 4, Interesting


      I don't know why there's a flamebait mod on this. I am British, I live here, and I can tell you that there's a ridiculous amount of groundless fear and hysteria in this country. The article saying that they are struggling to find people to work with children because people are terrified someone will think they are a peadophile is spot on. I don't know how this country is in comparison to other countries, so maybe that's where the flamebait comes in, but it seems to me that things are pretty bad here and we need to find a way to make it acceptable to actually like children again and enjoy spending time with them, even when you don't have an "excuse" such as being their parent.

      --

      Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
    53. Re:AGREED by h4rm0ny · · Score: 1


      Clothes serve two functions: the practical - warmth, pockets, etc - and the social. The social aspect is to favour those with wealth and power. If you have a king who is chubby and forty, and a common boy who is seventeen and fit and good looking, then the latter will make the former feel inadequate, unattractive, etc. And of course, we don't need to resort to kings and commoners - it's just an illustration.Clothes allow the wealthy to establish a new system of sexual signals, causing attraction to power to be based not on obvious physical ability but on the tokens of wealth. And of course nakedness must be denigrated to support that.

      --

      Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
    54. Re:AGREED by Koiu+Lpoi · · Score: 1

      in which I made it look like that it was only 'the west' that was repressed

      No, you didn't "make it look", you straight up said that "only the west is so repressed." So, yes, I agree with you. I didn't get what you were saying, but that's because you weren't very clear about what you were saying.

    55. Re:AGREED by Koiu+Lpoi · · Score: 1

      Huh, an actually informative, good, comment on Slashdot. I guess that's what I get for only having knowledge of modern Japan. Thanks for the links!

    56. Re:AGREED by couchslug · · Score: 1

      They might help keep other groups from being taken over, but it's doubtful.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    57. Re:AGREED by KGIII · · Score: 1

      That wouldn't make a whole lot of sense? Getting rid of USENET isn't going to ensure his daughter's physical safety. I am under the impression that he's concerned about the potential for exposure to harmful things. That is a noble goal and the right thing to do but trying to kill off parts of the internet isn't the way to do it. I say we make the .XXX TLD and all defined pornography belongs there and anywhere else is illegal. This won't stop illegal pornographic material but it will make it easier to filter the legitimate pornographic content and those that were already going to break the law will break the law regardless.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    58. Re:AGREED by kiyoshilionz · · Score: 1

      4chan has attracted the WSJ for god's sake, you can't deny their (our?) influence over the internet. After watching Fannie and Freddie's stock price all day, I burst out laughing when I found out that WSJ had done an article on the butthole of the Internet.

    59. Re:AGREED by blahplusplus · · Score: 1

      And that's exactly what I said! "Next is the fact that you didn't pick up on the truncated thought..."

      i.e. ignore the error I made instead of focusing on it because it was unimportant.

    60. Re:AGREED by STrinity · · Score: 1

      What makes you think any of those groups contain anything from pirated copies of Hustler's Barely Legal videos?

      --
      Les Miserables Volume 1 now up with my reading of
    61. Re:AGREED by IntlHarvester · · Score: 1

      If you honestly believe that people aren't using these groups for self-gratification, you have committed the thoughtcrime of being really, really stupid.

      The legal standards for possession of this stuff is really strict, it doesn't really matter what the person was thinking. And that is not at all inconsistent with other matters of law (for example possession of narcotics, or burgler tools)

      --
      Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
    62. Re:AGREED by Opportunist · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If you show me how to break into someone's home by possession of "pornography", I'll follow your logic. Until you show me how to harm someone with this kind of publication, I can't see the problem with someone jacking off.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    63. Re:AGREED by Madsy · · Score: 1
    64. Re:AGREED by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What that means is that if some prude thinks the picture where you're giving your infant kid a bath in the bathroom sink... that can be child porn.

      No it doesn't. You might get ACCUSED, but people can be ACCUSED of anything.

      That sort of thing actually does happen, and it ruins people's lives.

      I've never heard of that specific example. Something like this may have happened somewhere in the USA at some time, but literally all the time people are taking naked pictures of their kids and what you are saying just doesn't happen very often at all.

    65. Re:AGREED by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Lately? Boots were notorious for this back before most people had even heard of digital photography. I was pretty keen photographer and there was always something in the press about it. This would be around middle 80s I guess.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    66. Re:AGREED by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      people are terrified someone will think they are a peadophile

      Are you a Sun raeder, by any chance?

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    67. Re:AGREED by Heather+D · · Score: 1

      Not really. Most people I know still think that's creepy.

    68. Re:AGREED by h4rm0ny · · Score: 1


      You may just be going for the Funny mod, but as it happens, I read the Independent. I'm serious though, I think a lot of people, particularly men, in the UK are very inhibited in expressing any affection or interest in children and wary of working with them, because they are afraid to be thought of as a peadophile. There is a lot of fear here and people are very familiar with the power of rumour and suspicion. Everyone recalls the story of the poor peadiatrican who's house was attacked by a mob in the middle of the night and who fled in terror when a rumour went around that she was a peadophile.

      Fear is inhibiting people, I guarantee it.

      --

      Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
    69. Re:AGREED by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      You may just be going for the Funny mod, but as it happens, I read the Independent.

      I can't really spell out why, had you down as more of a Grauniad kind of guy.

      they are afraid to be thought of as a peadophile.

      You certainly have your finger on the pulse.

      the story of the poor peadiatrican

      That one's bean around for some time.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    70. Re:AGREED by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The last thing I think of when I see naked people BBQing is "this could be arousing to pedos". If those kinds of images disturb you, then you're probably a closet pedo.

    71. Re:AGREED by h4rm0ny · · Score: 1


      Oh.... doh! "Sun raeder". I salute you. I have rarely seen such an elegant correction as this fabaceaen-themed mockery. I'll try not to mung my spelling in the future. ;) :D

      --

      Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
    72. Re:AGREED by rootooftheworld · · Score: 1

      don't want to look for links? who's the prude now?

      --
      I know full well that tobacco is bad for you, so I smoke weed with crack
    73. Re:AGREED by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    74. Re:AGREED by IntlHarvester · · Score: 1

      This isn't my logic, it's society's. Save it for the judge, pal.

      --
      Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
    75. Re:AGREED by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That would be around the time of the Cleveland investigation.

  5. they should stop chasing ISP's by crazybit · · Score: 4, Insightful

    and start chasing the people that harm the children.

    --
    - Human knowledge belongs to the world
    1. Re:they should stop chasing ISP's by corsec67 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And stop hurting the people under 18 who take pictures of them selves.

      A life sentence for taking a picture of *yourself*? (In prison or registered a sex offender, there isn't much difference in some places)

      --
      If I have nothing to hide, don't search me
    2. Re:they should stop chasing ISP's by Domo-Sun · · Score: 1

      Actually, something just occurred to me: a child can't consent. If they can't consent, how can they be found guilty for distribution. Oh, wait a minute.. they can be charged with distribution because it doesn't matter who's in the picture. But wouldn't they be tried as children instead of getting life?

      Was a teen given a life sentence for taking pictures of themselves? I heard some teens were in trouble but not that they got life.

    3. Re:they should stop chasing ISP's by corsec67 · · Score: 3, Informative

      They weren't given life sentences in prison, but they were branded as "sex offenders", which in some ways is worse.

      That, in certain counties, means that the person can't live in any house in the county that the person is required to live in. (Yes, they are forced to be homeless)

      --
      If I have nothing to hide, don't search me
    4. Re:they should stop chasing ISP's by jez9999 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Hey, if they can jail you for smoking a weed and affecting only yourself, or taking a pill and affecting only yourself, why not for taking a piccie?

    5. Re:they should stop chasing ISP's by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That, in certain counties, means that the person can't live in any house in the county that the person is required to live in. (Yes, they are forced to be homeless [cnn.com])

      Won't somebody think of the sex offenders?

    6. Re:they should stop chasing ISP's by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about minors looking at themselves in the mirror as they get into the bath? Let's punish them for looking at kiddie porn too!

    7. Re:they should stop chasing ISP's by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Now that's prime time bull. You can be a sex offender for molesting yourself?

      We live in a sick, sick world...

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    8. Re:they should stop chasing ISP's by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Good question.

      More interesting question, why can they jail you for smoking a weed or popping a pill, either?

      On threat of being modded redundant: We live in a sick, sick world.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    9. Re:they should stop chasing ISP's by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Until someone starts killing them, no it will continue, the hysteria with them will continue until the bodies are piled high

    10. Re:they should stop chasing ISP's by ivan256 · · Score: 1

      The people who smoke weed and affect only themselves generally get left alone... Nobody even notices they're smoking it.

      The people who go to jail because of marijuana generally are driving high, growing and distributing it (people who grow strictly for themselves usually don't get caught either), or smoking in public.

      It's possible for you to get high and have no impact on others, but it's also possible for your to get high and be a danger or detriment to society.

    11. Re:they should stop chasing ISP's by ivan256 · · Score: 1

      Incidentally, other than getting high and then driving, I don't actually support imprisonment of people who smoke pot. I don't think it should be legalized either, but there's no reason to stick people in jail unless they are a danger to others.

    12. Re:they should stop chasing ISP's by QuoteMstr · · Score: 1

      Why don't you support legalization if you oppose criminalization?

    13. Re:they should stop chasing ISP's by Domo-Sun · · Score: 1

      Perhaps, as is the case for statutory rape, there is no defense for distribution, but IANAL. nevertheless it's a little too harsh of a punishment for children. Especially since they're the alleged victimizer of themselves, and will probably suffer enough having to live with that humiliating mistake.

      As for adults however, they should be prosecuted, but I don't know what to do with them afterwards. Perhaps they should build an offender ghetto.

    14. Re:they should stop chasing ISP's by Domo-Sun · · Score: 1

      Because it's a false dilemma. You don't have to do both. Anyway, he said why already:

      "It's possible for you to get high and have no impact on others, but it's also possible for you to get high and be a danger or detriment to society."

      and I agree with him.

    15. Re:they should stop chasing ISP's by Madsy · · Score: 1

      Because the drugs themselves are illegal to own, and their effects can make you a danger to others.
      Your body is yours, and noone elses to control; and if you take a picture of yourself and willfully give it to someone, who the hell can argue?
      Child porn is about minors getting exploited or forced to do sexual activities.
      I could definately understand that distribution of such a picture is against the law,
      but to punish the teenager/child him/herself? That's just crazy.

    16. Re:they should stop chasing ISP's by QuoteMstr · · Score: 1

      How can smoking up harm society if it has no impact on others?

    17. Re:they should stop chasing ISP's by Domo-Sun · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      How can smoking up harm society if it has no impact on others?

      Again, he said earlier, and we are not in agreement that weed is harmless or has no impact on others. Especially when said impact is a car. And then there's the whole concept of what drug abuse does to families and society. Don't deny these facts and promote weed irresponsibly, because I list that as another example of how people abuse drugs and therefore can't be trusted to responsibly use, distribute and recommend them to others.

      I'm sensing this'll go in circles so I'll just state my opinion and provide some links.

      Weed impairs motor skills, is a gateway drug in teens, causes seriously adverse and psychotic reactions, and hallucinations and depersonalization that can recur or persist.

      So I think it's very powerful and unpredictable and therefore dangerous.

      Two cases of "cannabis acute psychosis" following the administration of oral cannabis

      Cannabis psychosis following bhang ingestion.

      Psychological Responses To Cannabis
      Cannabis and acute functional psychosis (in individuals who have no history of severe mental illness), chronic psychosis, amotivational syndrome, Evidence for dependence..

      Animals Exposed To Marijuana's Active Component Will Self-Administer

      "Tolerance and dependence"

      As gateway in teens:
      issue of cross-sensitisation of cannabis/opioid receptors

      Cannabis use increases risk of psychotic illness

      Cannabis link to mental illness strengthened

      Erowid has an Experience Vault where you can read about negative reactions, but it probably never occurred to you to do that. I'd quote the relevant sections but there are a lot of them, and it's daunting. Maybe I'll organize them one day.

      Psychosis and Eventually Schizophrenia

    18. Re:they should stop chasing ISP's by QuoteMstr · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Let's suppose you're right about smoking pot being harmful. Even so, what right do we have to prevent someone from harming himself? Shall we make overeating illegal too?

      And nobody is proposing that driving high -- or drunk, for that matter -- be legal. There, we have a clear danger to others.

    19. Re:they should stop chasing ISP's by Heather+D · · Score: 1

      This is true in many places. I once went for a loan and discovered that even though I owned enough property to cover the loan if it came to default they would not do it. It turned out that I was technically homeless at the time. We were renovating some old property that had been condemned. Since it was still legally condemned at that time we were living in a camper while we worked on it.

      The bank's reason? Too many people who don't own homes or businesses are bad risks. Well, no surprise there. but we had more than enough invested in the land alone to cover it. The loan officer said that that didn't matter, technically we were homeless and too many homeless people that can afford loans are either drug or sex offenders and thus bad risks.

    20. Re:they should stop chasing ISP's by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      people who don't own homes or businesses are bad risks.

      It's different now. These days it's the people who do own homes that are bad risks.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    21. Re:they should stop chasing ISP's by ivan256 · · Score: 1

      We have lots of laws where breaking the law is not a criminal offense. I don't support legalizing jaywalking, but I don't think we should throw people in jail for that either.

    22. Re:they should stop chasing ISP's by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, I used to be willing to let people do what they wanted until people started chopping their limbs off, and then I realized they're crazy. As for drugs, people abuse them too much and they've demonstrated they can't be trusted with them. I'm not just talking about themselves, I'm talking about how they're promoted recklessly via a "Drugs are Harmless" campaign.

      I'm not in favor of legalization as I've seen all sides of the drug problem. As for people who believe it's a medicine, I think they're wrong, but if you're terminal, I don't care. As long as it comes with a list of warnings. But not for recreational use.

    23. Re:they should stop chasing ISP's by Domo-Sun · · Score: 1

      For example, people don't dispute that alcohol and tobacco exact a toll on society. People drive drunk killing people, they act stupid, or do hideous things when drunk. And smoking causes cancer and it's obnoxious, disgusting and it costs people a fortune, both medically and through dependence.

      So the way I see it, alcohol and tobacco need more restrictions.

      So I can't throw my support behind more drug-related social problems. The only good I see from legalization is that the ills of tobacco and alcohol are no longer wildly disputed to sway opinions towards legalization. But then we still have a huge problem with said drugs anyway.

      Unless we can find a way to stop people from driving drunk, smoking when they're pregnant or in the vicinity of me, or having children when they're reckless alcoholics, I'm not to fond of legalizing more drugs.

      I'm glad I don't have to defend your position because it's a difficult one. The only thing I'd argue from your side is maybe that the prisons are over crowded with potheads, assuming that was true. That's about it.

  6. NY AG is despicable by Adrian+Lopez · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What really bugs me about this is the fact that the Attorney General has employed bogus threats to get ISPs to comply with his demands.

    The AG's allegation is that all these ISPs have engaged in deceptive practices by on the one hand having terms of service that prohibit illegal content, and on the other hand failing to actively screen such content. If the AG's legal theory were correct, prohibiting illegal content would create a responsibility to screen all such content, and from what I can see it doesn't even matter whether the content actually originates on the ISPs servers.

    Folks, the Attorney General's behavior is blatantly unethical. He's using false legal claims to bring down legitimate forums, and the ISPs are bending to his will.

    --
    "In prison you just have to shut your eyes and take it. Here you have to shut your eyes and give it."
    1. Re:NY AG is despicable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's been a while since I've hung out on Usenet, but I seem to remember the alt hierarchy consisting of three types of groups: binary groups, groups for discussion of sexual fetishes, and groups with gag names.

      I'll admit I spent a lot of time in the binary groups in my teenage years, but I have to say that you have to plug your fingers in your ears and hum very loud if you want to pretend that a trivial filtering solution doesn't make itself immediately apparent.

      It's time to stop pretending that ISPs can't trivially drop the binary groups and that the legitimate discussion groups can't be integrated into moderated hierarchies.

    2. Re:NY AG is despicable by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 1

      Folks, the Attorney General's behavior is blatantly unethical. He's using false legal claims to bring down legitimate forums, and the ISPs are bending to his will.

      anyone see the woody allen movie The Front ?

      for some reason, the 50's blacklisting comes to mind. not sure why.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    3. Re:NY AG is despicable by Wrath0fb0b · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Folks, the Attorney General's behavior is blatantly unethical. He's using false legal claims to bring down legitimate forums, and the ISPs are bending to his will.

      The ISPs "bent to his will" in the sense that they decided that this particular service was not very important to their customers -- so unimportant that they won't even bother to defend a case that is an obvious slam dunk (according to you, anyway).

      Have you ever heard anyone chose and ISP because of USENET? Most random people have never heard of it and most geeks just chose the fastest connection in their price range -- USENET doesn't figure into it. Just as well, since most ISP-newshosting services are notoriously crappy anyway. Google Groups supports reading and posting to text-based groups, alt.binaries* users will subscribe to giganews and such.

      All in all, a lot of noise about a small dog.

    4. Re:NY AG is despicable by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 2, Informative

      Have you ever heard anyone chose and ISP because of USENET?

      Actually, before this fiasco, Verizon was the ISP of choice for usenet access. Their retention never compared to the commercial services, at only about 10 days. But their coverage was 80-90% of the best. Many people chose verizon specifically for their usenet service, especially back when the cable internet speeds weren't much better than dsl. If the recent news hadn't polluted the google searches for older discussions regarding verizon and usenet, I'd probably be able to quickly dig up 10-20 threads specifically praising verizon's usenet service.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    5. Re:NY AG is despicable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the AG's legal theory were correct, prohibiting illegal content would create a responsibility to screen all such content, and from what I can see it doesn't even matter whether the content actually originates on the ISPs servers.

      Regardless of where the content originated, the facts of Usenet are that it ends up on servers operated by the ISP. That's why all these Score 5:Retarded analogies to banning websites don't hold. The ISPs are directly serving this data from their own servers.

      "We found child porn on news.verizon.com" is probably enough to make any telco executive shit his pants.

      Also it really doesn't matter if the AG's legal theory holds water. He has traction to squeeze their balls about this, and a general ISP will never going to court to protect the 10 people who still use free usenet servers.

    6. Re:NY AG is despicable by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      By that logic, the state should be responsible and liable for all the crime happening. After all, they make murder illegal yet still it happens. I didn't see anyone from any office go to jail for it, though.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    7. Re:NY AG is despicable by arbitraryaardvark · · Score: 1

      Some slashdot readers may not know that the alt. hierarchy was created by John Gilmore.
      Gilmore, or Cuomo. Hmm.
      I guess I know how I'm betting.

  7. Spam filters by Iamthecheese · · Score: 3, Interesting

    This will be no more effective than spam filters anyway. Block any group named "kiddy porn" and they'll rename it to k1ddy p0rn, and all the way down to "kay didalee dee pooArn" Filter it by the binaries and you create a race between the sick fucks and the police. One side will make undetectable binaries, the other side will want to detect them. And you'll push up demand for stuff that hasn't already been passed around ;_;

    --
    If video games influenced behavior the Pac Man generation would be eating pills and running away from their problems.
    1. Re:Spam filters by Koiu+Lpoi · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Gee, it's almost like the war against drugs and piracy! Strange how people keep doing what they want, against the "laws", despite the prevalent "morality" of their state. It's almost like the state doesn't truly represent the people at all.

    2. Re:Spam filters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, obviously those people are scoflaws and criminals and don't deserve representation in government anyway.

    3. Re:Spam filters by wiredlogic · · Score: 1

      The average pervert doesn't know how to start a new group in the alt hierarchy. Granted, all it takes is one motivated person to figure it out. There is still a natural barrier to proliferation of alternate group names since it isn't easy to do through any common GUI app, it takes time for a new group to propagate through the servers, and then people have to find the new group and begin using it.

      --
      I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
    4. Re:Spam filters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He's using sarcasm to undermine our patriotic values! BURN THE WITCH!

    5. Re:Spam filters by CRCulver · · Score: 1

      You're suggesting that a government truly representative of the people wouldn't seek to stop sexual exploitation of children? Do you have a low opinion of your fellow citizens?

    6. Re:Spam filters by Opportunist · · Score: 2, Insightful

      A government chasing down CP is not representing me. Why? Because I don't give a damn about it. You want your kids safe? Your job. Not mine. You want to keep children abroad safe? Pay their parents more money so they don't send their kids working the streets.

      No, a government that eliminates freedoms to create a feelgood nannystate doesn't represent me.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    7. Re:Spam filters by Koiu+Lpoi · · Score: 2, Insightful

      sexual exploitation of children

      Yup, considering most of those pictures no child is actually being harmed, I would say there's no reason to stop them. Why do you think otherwise? The children aren't being exploited in a huge percentage of this activity, so why stop it? Because you don't like it?

      For the material where, yes, children are actually being harmed, something should be done. But it should never infringe upon the rights of the citizens to do so. And it also depends on what you mean by "children". A video of two 16-year-olds might be harming nobody, and yet there might (and have been, in cases like this) be charges levied. Considering the age at which a woman can get pregnant, our society is pretty screwed up pushing the "legal age" all the way up to 18.

    8. Re:Spam filters by STrinity · · Score: 1

      You have no idea what you're talking about. Detecting binary groups is trivial -- discussion groups use plain text message, where you're unlikely to see any message larger than a dozen kilobytes.

      Unless you're going to divide a simple .jpgs and .mp3s into hundreds of parts, and videos into tens of thousands, it'll be pretty obvious which messages are binaries.

      It'll be easier for people who want to trade binaries to pay for Usenet access from a company that doesn't care about Andrew Cuomo.

      --
      Les Miserables Volume 1 now up with my reading of
  8. Somebody tell that tool that you can *add* groups by Cordath · · Score: 4, Insightful

    One of those nice little features of usenet is that people can *create* groups. If they ban the entire alt.* hierarchy, people are just going to create new groups outside the alt hierarchy for everything, legal or not. This will, of course, be an enormous headache to sort out since there will be *many* new groups being created for each existing group and it will take time for people to agree on which ones to use. Perhaps some of the new names will even make sense...

    e.g. startrek.ds9, music.lossless or porn.bigtits.

  9. RATM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    they don't gotta burn the books
    they just remove 'em

  10. Protecting the children by kurt555gs · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Now I can be protected from alt.rec.motorcycles

    I'll miss it, but after all, it's for the children.

    Also, there should be no "content" on the internet not owned by a benevolent large corporation.

    Losing alt.rec.motorcycles is worth it to serve our new masters.

     

    --
    * Carthago Delenda Est *
    1. Re:Protecting the children by wild_quinine · · Score: 3, Interesting
      Alt was always going to be the internet's pariah, even before the binaries. Popular history has it that the first three newsgroups in the alt hierarchy were alt.sex, alt.drugs, and alt.rock-n-roll.

      I've never seen any kiddy porn on usenet, but I know that there's 5 terrabytes a day of something illegal.

      For me, the rub of it is that I just upgraded to an encrypted usenet service so that I can't get clapped in irons for downloading TV shows, and now I'm worried that I'll be labelled as a sex offender.

    2. Re:Protecting the children by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      We should also be sure to lose alt.comp.lang.learn.c-c++, a group whose standard has varied over the years, but which much of the time consists of questions asked by young people learning to program and answered by professionals taking the time to help out. It is absolutely essential to protect the interests of children that such volunteers should be put off wherever possible from using modern technology to offer the next generation the same or better opportunities than they enjoyed themselves.

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    3. Re:Protecting the children by Minstrel+Boy · · Score: 3, Funny

      Can't C++ be used to write programs that display images, without regard to whether they might contain child pornography??

      Enabler!!!

      KeS

    4. Re:Protecting the children by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, I suspect the average politician would consider your comment (+1, Insightful) — or perhaps (+1, Inciteful)? — rather than (+1, Funny).

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    5. Re:Protecting the children by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Of course you are! You are downloading TV shows, so in some way you have to be supporting terrorism, child pornography or whatever else is the boogyman of the day.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    6. Re:Protecting the children by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Seeing your parent being at "3, Interesting" as I'm writing this...

      Who the heck had the bright idea to give some politician mod points on /.???

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    7. Re:Protecting the children by catman · · Score: 1

      alt.sysadmin.recovery, aka scary.devil.monastery Oh well, sysadmins will find a way.

    8. Re:Protecting the children by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      so, you lost the ability to discuss motorcycles unless you pay an extra fee.
      Others have lost the ability to discuss religion, politics, etc., unless they pay a separate fee.
      What happens when Cuomo decides to go against the Usenet hosting companies directly, with the result that they get shut down too.
      I'm waiting for the /. article that states the ACLU is fighting on behalf of someone who has lost the ability to discuss their religion/politics as a 1st Amendment violation.

  11. Bring Back BBS by Bucc5062 · · Score: 1

    There are moments when I really miss the BBS world. Yes, I love my broadband connection over the internet, but I remember a time when I could dial into a BBS, no snoopes, no riaa, nothing but me and folks that could try to share at ridiculous slow rates compared to today, but without the crap we have to deal with today,

    So now ISPs may block access to usenet? lets see, my options where I live are DSL through AT&T or cable through Charter. Wow, like I will be able to choose a path were I wont be blocked!

    Yes, I remember BBS and can only imagine how we can circumvent this POS called the Internet and move forward to a time where I could "connect" without friggin Big or little brother watching me. (the tense change was intentional)

    I think I'll just sip on my third vodka and club and ponder what I can do.

    --
    Life is a great ride, the vehicle doesn't matter
    1. Re:Bring Back BBS by cayenne8 · · Score: 4, Informative
      "So now ISPs may block access to usenet? "

      Unless I'm mistaken, they aren't blocking access to USENET, what they are doing, is essentially blocking groups or encouraging ISP's to drop carrying USENET on their own servers. You would still be free to connect to pay or free USENET servers out there...you just won't have one run by your ISP to connect to any longer.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    2. Re:Bring Back BBS by i)ave · · Score: 1

      Agreed, brother.

      --
      -- I'd give my right arm to be ambidextrous
    3. Re:Bring Back BBS by kipman725 · · Score: 1

      setup a bbs? phone lines still exist as do dial up modems.

  12. usenet on the ropes? by bcrowell · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This whole thing is really sad. I love usenet. It's basically the only way I form more than passing personal relationships online. It's a great way to learn about and stay up with anything you're interested in. My ISP completely dropped usenet access last month.

    I suspect that a lot of usenet users are simply going to give up at this point. There's been a vast amount of spam recently for knockoffs of shoes, purses, and watches. Many people whose ISPs have given up are not going to go to the trouble of finding affordable usenet access. Personally, I tried paying octanews, who ripped me off. Then for a while I used google groups, which reminded me of how much better a newsreader is than a web browser for participating in usenet. Finally a slashdotter recommended astraweb, which is working great for me now. Many people who had been using text-only usenet may not realize that you can pay for usenet access by the gigabyte rather than by the month, which means you can basically pay $10 and have usenet access for the indefinite future.

    I mentioned usenet to my sister the other day, and she asked me what it was and why I wanted to use it. I actually had a hard time explaining it until I thought about it later. Basically, it gets the job of running a discussion group done way better than web browser interface. It's also noncommercial and very general -- none of this stuff about screwing around with some specific web-based group that will evaporate in a few years and that has no world-wide profile.

    1. Re:usenet on the ropes? by mikael · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I gave up reading on USENET around 7 years ago - many of the technical discussion groups became spammed by junk mail and overloaded by students looking for quick solutions to their coursework assignments.

      There was some mystique in dialing up your ISP, hearing than modem connect and see your newsgroups download. Then you could spend an hour or so just reading the world technical news and humour.

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    2. Re:usenet on the ropes? by noidentity · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I mentioned usenet to my sister the other day, and she asked me what it was and why I wanted to use it. I actually had a hard time explaining it until I thought about it later.

      My take: It's an online forum with unmoderated groups that gives you a choice of hundreds of programs to access it, similar to email. The choice of programs means there are really good ones that respond quickly and have good filtering options, and no fucking advertisements or images to load at all. Since there are hundreds of thousands of groups, you get a common interface to whatever topic you want to discuss. When you're subscribed to your groups of interest, you can quickly check for new messages within a couple of seconds. With web-based forums, you don't get any of this; you're stuck with whatever the administrator uses for each forum, and with sometimes over-zealous moderators.

    3. Re:usenet on the ropes? by QuoteMstr · · Score: 1

      Not all usenet groups are unmoderated, thank goodness. Consider comp.lang.c++.moderated, or alt.sex.stories.moderated.

    4. Re:usenet on the ropes? by martin-boundary · · Score: 2, Funny
      I just tell people usenet is a forum for cat lovers.

      Meow!

    5. Re:usenet on the ropes? by maztuhblastah · · Score: 1

      Alternative, if you're just using text groups, you can use motzarella.org and never pay a dime. They even support SSL and run nntpds on port 443 for folks behind restrictive firewalls.

    6. Re:usenet on the ropes? by sconeu · · Score: 1

      Even the unmoderated comp.lang.c++ is pretty good. Noobs complain that the regulars are ruthless about off-topic posts, but for an unmoderated group the S/N ratio is pretty damn high.

      --
      General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
    7. Re:usenet on the ropes? by jcnnghm · · Score: 1

      Sounds to me like we're almost to October 1, 1993.

      --
      You don't make the poor richer by making the rich poorer. - Winston Churchill
    8. Re:usenet on the ropes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thx for the tip

    9. Re:usenet on the ropes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I just tell people usenet is a forum for cat lovers.
      Meow!

      (Yes, I know where "Meow" comes from.... But you also just reminded me of the great alt.tasteless vs. rec.pets.cats invasion.)

      I've seen things you wouldn't believe. Serdar Argic howling through the wire off the shores of alt.games.microprose.master-orion. alt.tasteless posters firing C-beams through the rec.pets.cats gate. All these moments will be lost in time, like articles expiring from /var/spool/news.

    10. Re:usenet on the ropes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you wish.

    11. Re:usenet on the ropes? by jez9999 · · Score: 1

      My experience with Usenet was a bunch of people responding with PLONK, and usually an insulting message, if you said something that slightly offended them. Bunch of geeks with no social skills, in my experience. Good riddance.

    12. Re:usenet on the ropes? by noidentity · · Score: 1

      Right, the point was just that unmoderated groups exist; try finding an unmoderated web forum! And as I mentioned, since some Usenet clients have fairly sophisticated filtering and rating systems, the S/N ratio of unmoderated (and even moderated) groups can be improved a lot. Usenet compared to a web forum is like a Unix shell compared to a scriptless GUI.

    13. Re:usenet on the ropes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I suspect that a lot of usenet users are simply going to give up at this point.

      Indeed. I gave up on Verizon and went back to Speakeasy. The extra cost is worth not having to put up with this kind of bullshit.

    14. Re:usenet on the ropes? by McDutchie · · Score: 1

      My experience with Usenet was a bunch of people responding with PLONK, and usually an insulting message, if you said something that slightly offended them. Bunch of geeks with no social skills, in my experience. Good riddance.

      PLONK

    15. Re:usenet on the ropes? by Logic+and+Reason · · Score: 1

      ...try finding an unmoderated web forum!

      Allow me to introduce you to 4chan.

    16. Re:usenet on the ropes? by KGIII · · Score: 1

      Then stop asking for Windows help in a Linux group. Sheesh.

      PLONK

      ;)

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    17. Re:usenet on the ropes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      PLONK

    18. Re:usenet on the ropes? by digitalianiseatingbr · · Score: 1

      4chan *is* actually moderated (even though it's not always noticable).

      http://www.4chan.org/faq.php#whomod

    19. Re:usenet on the ropes? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      What did you expect when you ask for tech help in alt.tech-support.recovery?

      Be glad we didn't show you how to blow up your PC!

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    20. Re:usenet on the ropes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, back to the drawing board (irc network)

    21. Re:usenet on the ropes? by Kalriath · · Score: 1

      4chan is moderated. Read it's terms of service (specifically, it's administrators will remove kiddy porn and anything else that violates US law).

      Yes, 4chan has terms of service.

      --
      For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
    22. Re:usenet on the ropes? by mikael · · Score: 1
      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    23. Re:usenet on the ropes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've never heard of usenet until now. I can't believe I missed this :(

  13. HTTP by giminy · · Score: 4, Informative

    Just wait...if Cuomo discovers that child porn is shared via HTTP, he might force ISPs to drop access to the web.

    I have dug a lot of Cuomo's recent suits for their customer/consumer-friendliness (recently he settled with Verizon when they advertised unlimited cell phone use and then dropped customers who talked too much, and also sued Dell for failing to deliver support). This is kind of silly, though. I mean, it's essentially declaring war on a protocol. It reminds me strip #2 of Get Your War On.

    --
    The Right Reverend K. Reid Wightman,
    1. Re:HTTP by Stanislav_J · · Score: 1

      Just wait...if Cuomo discovers that child porn is shared via HTTP, he might force ISPs to drop access to the web.

      Some pervs send kiddie porn through the mail -- let's ban the USPS!!

      --
      "Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket." -- Eric Hoffer
    2. Re:HTTP by Kev+Vance · · Score: 2, Funny

      Just wait...if Cuomo discovers that child porn is shared via HTTP, he might force ISPs to drop access to the web.

      No, that would be overreacting. Not the *whole* web... just the .coms!

      --
      F0 07 C7 C8
    3. Re:HTTP by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Will not happen. Ever.

      For the same reason why politicians crack down on brutal games but never on brutal movies, for the same reason they crack down on weed but never on beer:

      Many people using the latter.

      If he would shut down HTTP traffic, Joe Average would notice it, he would no longer be able to access his treasured Chicks on Bikes page and question the whole "Kid and bathwater" approach to the problem. He would agree that, yes, that may stop the problem, but the PRICE for that! Folks, be reasonable!

      Usenet is, despite its size, more a "geek thing". Now, of course some non-geeks use it too, but the vast majority of people hasn't even heard of it, even when they use their "intarwebs" daily to check mail or surf some pages. 99% of the people using the internet do just that. They don't know about telnet, usenet, some don't know more about FTP than what their browser allows them to do. And of course, they don't care whether or not it's still there.

      Politicians will never call something a scapegoat that a sizable portion of their voters knows something about.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    4. Re:HTTP by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      The .coms? Are you nuts? Some company could take damage! Outlaw the .orgs and .nets, they don't contain anything sensible but a waste of bandwidth like free content (how un-american to charge nothing for something!) or free speech.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  14. glad Icann is still holding out by epilido · · Score: 1

    I guess the predictions about .xxx are correct, get every one together and then close the space. People will find a way. Kinda like life don't you think.....

  15. The USENET is dead! by m.dillon · · Score: 1

    Long live the usenet!

    Seriously, though. There are very, very few people left who use the USENET for anything real.

    I mean, give me a break, the alt groups were a problem 10 years ago, and some ISPs are still carrying them? That's just stupid. When we were carrying the alt groups at BEST we had to set the article timeout for the high-bandwidth groups to 1-day, and that actually did a pretty good job stopping all the idiots trying to download 5000 part port movies over their dialup modems. They just couldn't keep up before the stuff timed out.

    ALT had a signal to noise ratio of 1:1000 10 years ago, I'm guessing its more like 1:50000 now. Only a fool carries it. There are plenty of other ways people can exercise their freedom of speech (and most do, in other ways now).

    -Matt

    1. Re:The USENET is dead! by cayenne8 · · Score: 3, Insightful
      "Seriously, though. There are very, very few people left who use the USENET for anything real."

      Far from it...I still find programming advice, and discussions out there. I've had discussions with lawyers and accountants on corporate law (especially when wanting for form my own corp)...and lets not forget the huge amount of binary material out there, easy to download tv shows you might have missed in real time.

      I'm guessing your are gonna say that IRC is dead and unused for anything real too?

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    2. Re:The USENET is dead! by corbettw · · Score: 3, Insightful

      From a technical standpoint, I have absolutely no problem with an ISP dropping access to USENET. It's an old protocol that has outlived its usefulness. No one expects their ISP to carry access to UUCP anymore, this is no different.

      But that's not the argument that Cuomo is making. He's essentially saying that because some third grader pissed in one end of one pool, we have to close and drain all the municipal pools and outlaw swim lessons. This is absurd. Kiddie porn traders used to send their garbage through the mail, did anyone suggest shutting down the postal service? What's next, will he try to force ISPs to inspect every email that traverses their network and make sure there are no images of little kids in them? (Oops, I think they're actually already doing this one.)

      He's had some good press lately with the consumer protection stuff, this is just completely insane and should be laughed out of court.

      --
      God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
    3. Re:The USENET is dead! by John+Hasler · · Score: 1

      > He's had some good press lately with the consumer protection stuff, this is just
      > completely insane and should be laughed out of court.

      It isn't in court.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    4. Re:The USENET is dead! by Creepy+Crawler · · Score: 1

      And the same technology that vigilantes, freedom fighters and subversives use also work for the rather disgusting practices of child porn.

      However, what can anybody do when crypto-fs DVDs are made in which the keys are transferred via some stego'ed image on some photo site?

      Good luck catching that.

      --
    5. Re:The USENET is dead! by QuoteMstr · · Score: 4, Insightful

      First of all, you're confusing a network protocol and a community. The Usenet of NNTP is the same as the Usenet that used to be propagated via UUCP. Some people might still get their messages via UUCP - how would you know?

      Second of all, we don't have many things we took for granted at the height of Usenet:

      1. Multiple competing clients for a single discussion venue
      2. Downloading messages for offline viewing
      3. Cross-posting between multiple groups, storing only a single copy of the message
      4. Reliable and accurate flagging of read messages
      5. Reading a cross-posted message once and seeing it marked read everywhere
      6. Ability to delete (err, cancel) posts
      7. Extensive filtering and archival, depending on client
      8. Real, nested, arbitrary deep threads. Most online discussion venues on the web have dumbed-down linear threads that are a pain to read

      Today's fragmented web has nothing that can approach Usenet, and every time somebody wants to add these features to some web app or another, he has to do it from scratch, and often incompatibly and poorly.

    6. Re:The USENET is dead! by dougmc · · Score: 1

      You obviously don't know Usenet very well.

      Yes, it's on the decline, but there's still thousands of people who use the text group to have discussions every day, and many more who only use the binaries groups.

      Some groups have been abandoned to the spammers. But not all.

      Usenet > alt.binaries.*

    7. Re:The USENET is dead! by corbettw · · Score: 1

      Not yet, but that's about the only avenue the AG has to get his theory enforced. His office doesn't regulate ISPs, so he'll have to get a court to agree with him before anything can be done.

      --
      God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
    8. Re:The USENET is dead! by KGIII · · Score: 1

      I'm going to GUESS that it is more than "thousands" really, way more. One of the most visited pages on my personal site is about accessing newsgroups. That page, alone, gets thousands of hits a month from real visitors. They gotta be doing something with that information even if it is just avoiding the retarded web format for the Microsoft newsgroups. Oh - is the MC at the end of your nick for Paris Island or? Tell me it isn't West Coast....

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    9. Re:The USENET is dead! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No the ISPs doing this are voluntarily, because it's good PR for everyone who isn't a 40 year old nerd, and it's not worth fighting about.

    10. Re:The USENET is dead! by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      What court?

      Cuomo: Hey, ISP, stop carrying those alt.* groups.
      ISP: Swell idea, they're a huge hit on our bandwidth anyway.

      A court only gets involved when you have at least one party with a say that doesn't agree on something...

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    11. Re:The USENET is dead! by dougmc · · Score: 1

      Actually, I'm in a position to be more precise. Looking at who posted to Usenet in June, the Big-8 saw posts from around 60,000 unique email addresses, and alt.* (without alt.binaries.*) saw posts from 129,000 unique addresses.

      It's hard to say how many email addresses one person uses, or how many of them are spammers using random addresses, but it certainly does seem to be more than a few people.

      Actually, let me remove email addresses only seen once -- then the figures become 54k and 50k. And looking at addresses used 5 or more times, it's 26k and 30k.

      Still doesn't look at readers (only posters), and there's a lot of totally invalid addresses in here, but it's a guess. Obviously Usenet isn't dead yet.

      As for my username, clicking on it will give you the answer you seek -- top right corner. (Not sure how Paris Island or West Coast would turn into MC ...)

    12. Re:The USENET is dead! by smchris · · Score: 1

      You must fall on the Windows side of Slashdot. Usenet is still a good _non_proprietary_ source of programming and technical discussion. No registrations, paid or unpaid. I really lament the fragmentation of information to specialty web sites. And, if I can be crusty for a moment, I'd rather deal with the spam than all the ads and poor html design and layout. Still have a couple linux groups on Pan that I check regularly.

    13. Re:The USENET is dead! by m.dillon · · Score: 1

      I'm the guy that wrote the Diablo USENET news system.

      Oops. Guess I know it better then you do!

      There's reality, and there's fantasy. The reality is that the signal to noise ratio pretty much nullified the advantages of the distribution mechanic, and the storage and management costs (even with the massive automation we built into the news systems) made it a pain.

      It is actually better to use point-distribution containing just the information you care about then to use a highly distributed model where 99.999% of the stuff flowing in is undesired. Only large commercial companies with highly replicative content, such as a cable provider, reaps benefits from that sort of model. Not even internet radio gets much of an advantage. Anyone remember real audio? They were the only ones trying to use a highly distributed model and the internet overtook them.

      -Matt

    14. Re:The USENET is dead! by corbettw · · Score: 1

      Oh yeah, I skipped the part where the ISPs are caving without a court order. Typical American-corporate cowardice: an official from the Executive branch shouts "Für die Kinder!" and the corporation rolls over on its back like a kicked puppy.

      --
      God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
    15. Re:The USENET is dead! by corbettw · · Score: 1

      "FÃf¼r die Kinder!"

      I'm not sure what happened to the formatting there, it was supposed to be 'Fur' with an umlaut.

      --
      God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
    16. Re:The USENET is dead! by KGIII · · Score: 1

      Ah ha! USMC - Paris Island. Anyhow, yeah. I still love my USENET access and though I don't have time to remain in contact with all the people I used to visit I still read through them most every day. If I couldn't get my access the way I do then I'd have to figure something out 'cause it's an important part of the internet to me.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    17. Re:The USENET is dead! by STrinity · · Score: 1

      Seriously, though. There are very, very few people left who use the USENET for anything real.

      Rec.arts.sf.written has 120 posts so far today. Rec.arts.tv has over 200. And I'm basing this on my newsfeed which aggressively filters out spam. That's not to bad for a resource few people use.

      --
      Les Miserables Volume 1 now up with my reading of
    18. Re:The USENET is dead! by Dark_Gravity · · Score: 1

      From a technical standpoint, I have absolutely no problem with an ISP dropping access to USENET. It's an old protocol that has outlived its usefulness. No one expects their ISP to carry access to UUCP anymore, this is no different.

      It's plenty different. I'll take good old NNTP and a newsreader over having to scour the web for a myriad of fractured forums with their own account requirements and eye-candy bloat, annoying advertising, privacy implications, possible scripting vulnerabilities, and so on.

      We need more NNTP and less Web 2.0

      Plain text: the wave of the future!

    19. Re:The USENET is dead! by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Oh, if it was working against their profit, you'd see a fight. Since it's working for them, they really applaud the chance to blame someone else for dropping a service that contributes to their cost but not their profit.

      Face it, news servers are hardly a selling point for ISPs. They have them more or less out of habit, or rather, because everyone has it. You'd see the same immediate compliance with fast food joint if for some reason congress decides that free refills should be banned. They'd immediately jump on it and would quite readily "comply". The only reason they can't stop doing it is simply that everyone else has it, and if you don't, you are short one selling argument.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  16. Filling Spitzer's shoes by mi · · Score: 1

    Folks, the Attorney General's behavior is blatantly unethical.

    Just as his predecessor Mr. Spitzer's — also known as "fucking steamroller" — was in prosecuting activity, in which he himself engaged for years (his other unethical traits could fill a book). I wouldn't be surprised, if Mr. Cuomo gets caught with child porn in the next few years...

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    1. Re:Filling Spitzer's shoes by EdIII · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I wouldn't be surprised, if Mr. Cuomo gets caught with child porn in the next few years...

      What do you mean caught? If he does get caught with "it" they will just find him in the evidence room looking at evidence... with his penis in his hand.

  17. Dammit...do you not remember? by cayenne8 · · Score: 4, Funny
    Remember, the first rule about USENET.

    You don't talk about USENET.....

    --
    Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    1. Re:Dammit...do you not remember? by dougmc · · Score: 4, Funny
      First rule of Usenet is read the FAQ.

      alt.binaries.* came later.

    2. Re:Dammit...do you not remember? by Baseclass · · Score: 1

      Second rule of usenet...
      You do not talk about USENET.

      --
      ^^vv<><>BA
    3. Re:Dammit...do you not remember? by westlake · · Score: 3, Interesting
      Remember, the first rule about USENET.
      You don't talk about USENET.....

      .

      Back to the Future:

      Re: Wow.

      "When AOL gained Usenet access people referred to it as "the September that never ended", referring to the fact that there was now a constant influx of clueless newbies"

      But without new blood Usenet ages and dies

      What happens if other ISPs decide that maintaining a news server for a handful of Geeks is no longer worth the trouble?

      AOL Kills USENET Acess [posting as westlake January 25, 2005]

      In 2008, I have my answer.

      In June Roadrunner dropped USENET and the event passed with barely a rippple of protest.

      Unlimited USENET in 2008 is Giganews at $30/mo with encyption.

      Giganews might as well put up a banner add explaining what it is they are really selling. This isn't USENET as an open public forum. It's USENET as a distribution channel for illicit content.

      The stereotypes of the geek are reinforced, he is marginalized a little more.

    4. Re:Dammit...do you not remember? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's partially funny, but mostly true. I'm a huge fan of USENET for information and for binaries. My biggest fear is someone will notice how easy it is to get any movie, music, software or game you could ever want from USENET and try and ban it. Lets keep the USENET secret amongst us, and let everyone else enjoy the wonders of Kazaa or whatever the latest P2P network is.

    5. Re:Dammit...do you not remember? by cayenne8 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I wonder, in the US, what is the liability as a private individual of running a newsserver open to the public....I've got boxes I could set up and run, but, could I be held liable for 'bad' content that might be on there? Or do I get the 'common carrier' type protection if I'm just running content through the server?

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    6. Re:Dammit...do you not remember? by discord5 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Or do I get the 'common carrier' type protection if I'm just running content through the server?

      I could write a very long and frustrating comment about "common carriers", but I'll just summarize it : You don't have enough cash nor do you provide enough of a useful service to become a common carrier.

      That's basicly the gist of it.

    7. Re:Dammit...do you not remember? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Quite frankly, I've found it difficult to find movies via usenet. I find neither the 'just out' blockbusters, nor the old classics. All I find are 'in-betweeners'- movies that are 5-20 years old and moderately successful. Maybe I'm just looking in the wrong place? (ie: any group with 'movie' in the title, and a reasonable amount of traffic.) Or maybe the retention of my IPS's servers is shit?

    8. Re:Dammit...do you not remember? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are four main steps in my downloading method:

      1) Use an nzb search engine to generate an nzb file for the stuff you're interested in. I prefer bintube.com, with binsearch.info as a backup.

      2) Using a decent Usenet client (I like Agent, though there are others) import the headers in your nzb file.

      3) Having signed up to a decent Usenet provider (e.g. Giganews) with a good retention, download the content (almost always .rar files) referenced by those headers. Your non-specialist ISP most likely has a crap retention.

      4) Use something like winrar to join your rar files together.

      Once you get the hang of it, it's less of a hassle than it sounds. I seem to have rambled beyond the parameters of your original question, but the main things to consider are a provider with a good retention and a familiarity with nzb search engines. Trying to find something without using nzbs is possible but a pain in the ass.

    9. Re:Dammit...do you not remember? by STrinity · · Score: 3, Informative

      That's the first rule of 1337 filesharers who like to pretend Usenet is some cooltastic secret fount of pirated files. Those of us who've been using newsgroups for their intended purpose of completely unmoderated discussion fora think you guys are twits.

      --
      Les Miserables Volume 1 now up with my reading of
    10. Re:Dammit...do you not remember? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I buy the 2GB plan from Giganews. My ISP has shitty spam filtering, and one of the groups I like is plagued by a random asshole spammer that makes it nearly unreadable. The guy is some sort of filter evading savant, too. Has nothing to do with "illicit content." (And Google's Newsgroups are a joke, or at least were when I started using Giganews. The spam filtering was non-existent and their interface irritated me.)

    11. Re:Dammit...do you not remember? by ardin,mcallister · · Score: 1

      NZBs are a godsend. Searching thru groups manually sucks. But yes, chances are its his ISP's retention. http://www.nzbs.org/ is a good free search engine. I pay for ngindex access too, because its 24$ a year.

      --
      "Some men just want to watch the world burn..."
    12. Re:Dammit...do you not remember? by Lord+Flipper · · Score: 1

      Maybe I'm just looking in the wrong place? (ie: any group with 'movie' in the title, and a reasonable amount of traffic.) Or maybe the retention of my IPS's servers is shit?

      Probably a little of both. You can do searches for things like DVD, divx, VCD, etc.

      I gamed the Earthlink 2GB max by constantly deleting and recreating 'new' 'alias' account names associated with my main account. They offered 5 users (like a 'family', I suppose) and I had 5 names. So, those 5 were good for ten GB, and as one or two or more of them reached their download saturation amount, I just dumped and reinvented. Worked very well, actually.

      The newest films tend to come out as video handheld items. The other nice versions of newer things are all copies of the US and British film awards groups. The film companies issue 'screeners' so that all the academy members can see everthing without leaving their homes.

      The best thing you can do is figure out your Usenet software app's "Search" and anti-spam filtering. This is serious hobby material, when one is fully-engaged in the pursuit of files..

      If you have commercial Usenet you can also use Google and NZBdrop or other NZB collector, and you feed it a title that was posted elsewhere, and it then uses your, say, Giganews, access to fully saturate the max number of simultaneous feeds coming off the remote server to your machine. HTH

    13. Re:Dammit...do you not remember? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But that site just shows my point:

      Big.Brother.
      Curb.Your.Enthusiasm.
      Deconstruction.
      Law.and.Order.SVU.
      VA-Promo Only Underground Club August-2008-WRE
      Wheatus-Teenage Dirtbag-DVDRiP-iVTC-SVCD-2001-mV4U
      Law.and.Order.SVU.
      The.Filth.Files.
      Santiago Nino-Spark Re-Charge-
      T.S.O.L.--Fuck You Tough Guy The Collection-
      Curb.Your.Enthusiasm.
      Law.and.Order.
      Ryan Leslie-Addiction-(Promo CDS)-2008-C4
      Soundgarden-Superunknown-1994-EMG INT
      Faker-Pet Sematary
      Taxi.To.The.Dark.Side.2007.DVDRip
      Capricorn.One.1978.
      E.True.Hollywood.Story.Heath.Ledger.
      INCOMING - el-p-collecting the kid
      Quest For Blood With Yukihiro Isso
      Rote Rou-De Profundis-2008-GRAVEWISH
      Lil Wayne-A Milli-DVDRIP-x264-2008-DYNASTY
      Sigur Ros-Hoppipolla And Med Blodnasir
      Soulja Boy-Donk-x264-2008-DYNASTY
      Ladder.49.2004.1080p.BluRay.DTS.x264-CtrlHD
      Le.Dernier.Gang.2007.
      Infinitum-Behold Eradication-2008-GRAVEWISH
      Mouth Of The Architect-Quietly-2008-hXc
      Ray J-Gifts-PROPER-DVDRiP-x264-2008-VSR
      Yung Berg Ft Casha-The Business-DVDRip-
      The.Riches.S01E12.
      Colby O Donis Feat. Akon-What You Got-Promo
      Dirty South And Axwell-Open Your Heart-(
      Double Dragon-Devastator-2008-
      Drowning the Light-The Serpents Reign-2008-GRAVEWISH
      VA-Hard Energy-3CD-2007-uF

      These are the titles on the front page of www.nzbs.org at this time. (I removed the multiple episodes of Law and Order).. mose are 1) music, 2) music video, 3) TV episodes. The only movies there are:

      Taxi.To.The.Dark.Side.2007. Never heard of it.
      Capricorn.One.1978 Good movie, but 30 years old.
      Ladder.49.2004 4 years old.
      Le.Dernier.Gang.2007 Foreign.

      And that's IT. 4 out of 50. Less then 10% are movies, and of those, one is foreign, one's almost older them I am, and the other 2 I don't really care about.

      I know how to download from Usenet, I just find that what I'm looking for is not there. On the orher hand, a look recent searches on a 'well known' torrent site reveals:

      The Kingdom (2007)
      AMerican Psycho
      The Bank Job (2008)
      Stargate Continuum
      Foot loose (1984)
      Forgetting Sarah marshall

      6/29 are movies, and it is TRIVIAL to actually search for JUST movies in the database, which reveals THOUSANDS of active torrents. If usenet was like that, I'd be worth it.

    14. Re:Dammit...do you not remember? by Hognoxious · · Score: 2, Funny

      In alt.chat.soviet-russia, usenet talks about YOU!!!

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    15. Re:Dammit...do you not remember? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you're doing it wrong.

    16. Re:Dammit...do you not remember? by ardin,mcallister · · Score: 1

      Funny, I grabbed Continuum from a newsgroup. maybe you should SEARCH. then again, maybe you just want to believe that newsgroups arent very good.

      --
      "Some men just want to watch the world burn..."
  18. DISAGREED by NorbrookC · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's quite easy to simply stop carrying the feeds for those groups. What this action is, is the equivalent of using thermonuclear bomb to kill a fly. I'm sure that out of the multiple thousands of groups in the alt.* hierarchy, there's probably some kiddie porn. For all I know, there might be some in the free.* hierarchy, but I have zero interest in searching through all the hierarchies to see if I can turn up any kiddy porn. I guarantee you it isn't present in the alt.help.*, alt.health.*, alt.animal.*, alt.fan.*, or the alt.sport.* groups. Even looking through the list of the alt.binaries.* groups, they're overwhelmingly obviously not kiddie-porn groups. But hey, somewhere in there there might be some.

    Saying Usenet is "full of kiddie porn" is pretty much a lie. There are a lot of groups in the alt.hierarchy I've belonged to over the years, and still do, and I've never seen any. However, I've always used the rule of "if it looks like something you're not going to want to see, then don't go there!

    1. Re:DISAGREED by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is just insane.
      One of my first introductions to internet discussion/forums were the alt.games newsgroups.

      I literally have cozy childhood memories, from groups such as alt.games.daggerfall, and now they wanna block alt.*?

      This is fucking insane.
      What is WRONG with this fuckheads.

    2. Re:DISAGREED by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Saying Usenet is "full of kiddie porn" is pretty much a lie.

      You don't understand.

      If there is even the possibility of child porn being present, then we have "Serious Cause For Concern".

      If there is even the slightest amount of material that someone even thinks might be child pornography, then we have "Disturbing And Objectionable Materials Being Posted".

      If there is actually some child pornography in any form, then we have "A Haven Of Depravity Full Of Obscene And Vile Depictions Of Abuse".

      If you don't like entire internet protocols being tarnished in this manner, then you are a "Person Of Questionable Motivation".

      And of course if the place is an actual child pornographer's hangout stuffed to the gills with the worst of material, then you have an "Private Gentlemens Club, For Pillars Of The Community".

      --
      May the Maths Be with you!
    3. Re:DISAGREED by mysidia · · Score: 1

      Blocking alt.* doesn't eliminate what they're aiming at.

      For one thing, it may move'bad' stuff into other places. (Bad guys'll post to some rec.* group instead of some alt.* group)

      And dropping alt.* creates lots of collateral damage -- much intelligent discussion on various topics, and variety of non-porn-related subjects that happen to fall in the alt.* hierarchy.

    4. Re:DISAGREED by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Blocking alt.* doesn't eliminate what they're aiming at.

      Yes it does. It's aimed at blocking warez, MP3z, movies, and TV shows, because that's what the BSA, RIAA, and MPAA have lobbied for.

      It doesn't eliminate what they say their aiming at, but so what? That was never more than a smokescreen for the voters.

    5. Re:DISAGREED by quacking+duck · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And dropping alt.* creates lots of collateral damage -- much intelligent discussion on various topics, and variety of non-porn-related subjects that happen to fall in the alt.* hierarchy.

      The last thing certain people in charge want right now, are people participating in intelligent discussions.

    6. Re:DISAGREED by robot_love · · Score: 1

      Great post! Scares the shit out of me.

      --
      .there is enough of everything for everyone.
    7. Re:DISAGREED by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I guarantee you it isn't present in the alt.help.*, alt.health.*, alt.animal.*, alt.fan.*, or the alt.sport.* groups.

      sorry, there are several CP binary groups in alt.fan.*

    8. Re:DISAGREED by STrinity · · Score: 1

      Among serious Usenet participants, alt.* has always been seen as the place where 13 year olds go to have flamewars over whether Mighty Mouse could beat up Superman.

      --
      Les Miserables Volume 1 now up with my reading of
    9. Re:DISAGREED by Heather+D · · Score: 1

      I'd mod this up if it weren't already at +5. Locally the police have had an unofficial standing agreement with the prostitutes for decades. The ones who attract the most bad publicity get busted come election year, the ones who avoid publicity get overlooked then and through the rest of the year.

      Sort of a "You don't screw me, I screw you" proposition.

    10. Re:DISAGREED by electrosoccertux · · Score: 1

      To be honest they'd have a lot less to be afraid of if they'd stop trying to squash it. Squashing it just makes us more angry and gives us more things to talk about and more reason to evangelize.

      Left alone without fuel, we have nothing to spread our cause with.

    11. Re:DISAGREED by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      hardly likely.

  19. Why not ban just alt.binaries.*? by gambolt · · Score: 1

    That would be slightly saner.

    1. Re:Why not ban just alt.binaries.*? by Conspiracy_Of_Doves · · Score: 1

      Yes, it would. But you are forgetting that these are corporations and lawyers that we are talking about. They avoid sanity like the plague.

    2. Re:Why not ban just alt.binaries.*? by Opyros · · Score: 1

      According to TFA, that is exactly what AT&T is doing.

    3. Re:Why not ban just alt.binaries.*? by momikey · · Score: 1

      I can confirm that alt.binaries.* has been deleted from the bellsouth.net servers. Most of the rest of alt.* is still there, though.

      It's funny, because there are certainly binaries in other groups that seem to have survived (alt.sex.pictures.*), and there are binary groups with legal content (alt.binaries.pictures.numismatic). Like Time Warner and Verizon, this is probably just an excuse to get rid of MP3s and movies (and the bandwidth they need).

      So I guess I'm in the market for a new Usenet provider. I don't really have the option of switching ISPs, though. Where I live, I can get DSL or dialup, and that's about it, since Comcast has said that they have no plans to ever run cable to this part of the county. Anybody have a favorite?

      (This is my first post, so please be gentle.)

    4. Re:Why not ban just alt.binaries.*? by QuoteMstr · · Score: 1

      The bandwidth argument is lame though. ISPs own the channel between their usenet servers and their users, so they don't have to pay for bandwidth. If these users then go to an external provider, suddenly the ISP has to cough up for them.

    5. Re:Why not ban just alt.binaries.*? by assassinator42 · · Score: 1

      I can confirm that alt.binaries.* has not yet been removed from the AT&T/SBC/Prodigy news servers.

    6. Re:Why not ban just alt.binaries.*? by KGIII · · Score: 1

      I will not only be gentle, I will be helpful. Just don't tell anyone or expect it a second time. *grins*

      Head to LocalNet

      Get a dialup account for 10 bucks per month.

      NNTP Settings: username@localnet.com and your password (need to authenticate) Server: news2.localnet.com (Not secure login).

      Have spare ISP for when you are on the road or to share with buddies as they don't seem to care.

      Have unlimited USENET access.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
  20. Moderators: Please note by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    twitter and "inTheLoo" are the same person.

    And as an aside to the public service announcement, I have to say it's hilarious to see him trying to shill his own posts with accounts that are all posting at -1...

    1. Re:Moderators: Please note by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who the fuck cares?! Get a life already.

  21. Re:Somebody tell that tool that you can *add* grou by bcrowell · · Score: 5, Informative

    It's not just the alt.* groups or the binary groups. My ISP (Time Warner) dropped usenet access completely last month. I'm sure that's what the other ISPs will do soon as well. Gawd, I remember calling my ISP when their news server went down, and it was like pulling teeth to get anyone on the phone who had even heard of usenet, or would admit that they (at that time) provided such a service.

  22. Charge the ISP's by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why not go after and charge the ISP's themselves, then? Hey Attorney General -- I know a few companies who have child porn on their servers.

  23. What will people do without alt.*? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There are other ways to put yourself out there without Usenet you know. Wonder what the AG thinks about the alternatives? Heh.

  24. NY Stop Child Porn? by barzok · · Score: 5, Funny

    http://www.nystopchildporn.com/ - is that like http://www.expertsexchange.com/ or http://www.kidsexchange.com/ before they added their hyphens?

    Or are they trying to lure in the kiddie-porn people, hoping they'll be looking for New York'S Top Child Porn?

    1. Re:NY Stop Child Porn? by Alsee · · Score: 1

      Don't forget PenisLand.net where "Your pen is our business",
      and MolestationNursery.com which unfortunately has relocated to MoleRIVERnursery.com (they grow flowers).
      But my favorite is definitely SpeedoFart.com, otherwise known as Speed Of Art.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    2. Re:NY Stop Child Porn? by ShadowsHawk · · Score: 1

      I wish I had mod points.

  25. nerds, you brought this on yourselves by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Whenever there is an industry that has a social problem linked to it's products or byproducts, the industry has two choices. 1. clean up the problem yourself, or 2. pretend there isn't a problem, and wait until the government cleans it up for you.

    The 'internet industry' has decided the latter course of action. I have seen hundreds of stories on slashdot about the evils of censorship. I think I have seen maybe 1 or 2 stories about stopping pedophilia. It is not that nerds are pedophiles, it's just that they feel no responsibility for the ways their product (the internet) is used in brand new ways by sick people to hurt others.

    You have this logo of Einstein, you paste it on all your science stories. But apparently, you have learned nothing from Einstein, for if he had anything to teach us at all, it is that we are responsible for the consequences of our creations, and the effect they have on people's lives. No man is an island and nobody lives in a bubble.

    If Internetania, including slashdot, had been working as hard to stop child exploitation as it has worked, say, on stopping spam, or stopping memory leaks in compiled languages, then the government would not have to step in and do the job for you.

    But you let it fester. You just assumed that alt.kiddie.sex, alt.child.rape, alt.stories.incest.preteen, or whatever was not your problem, not your concern, and you could look the other way. Well, fortunately, you people do not run society, in a democracy everyone is supposed to have a say, and a lot of those people are social workers, survivors, and family members of abused kids, and they don't really think 'alt.binares.preteen' or whatever is something that they can turn away from and pretend doesn't exist.

    1. Re:nerds, you brought this on yourselves by KnowledgeEngine · · Score: 1

      Did you ever consider for a moment that some of us are just against nanny state mentality and government? I for one would rather see our tax dollars spent on more worthwhile ventures than to support the furthering of the nanny state agenda. This is just another in a long line of tax dollar wastes.

    2. Re:nerds, you brought this on yourselves by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      hey stupid fucker....maybe the real problem isnt fucking banning the camera which takes the picture but the person who uses the camera to take the picures of the fucking kid you fucking idiot.
      why the fuck should WE police the TECHNOLOGY when the PEOPLE are the problem ? go after the fucking child abuser and stop "cleaning up" after the horse has left the fucking barn, you fucking idiot.

    3. Re:nerds, you brought this on yourselves by dougmc · · Score: 1

      Yeah, if I was going to post a load of tripe like that, I'd do it anonymously too.

  26. Re:Somebody tell that tool that you can *add* grou by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    This is only true on the alt.* heirarchy. On the Big 8 you need to go through a review process to have additional groups added.

  27. New Legislation Coming Soon by KnowledgeEngine · · Score: 1

    I hear they are currently working hard to eliminate vowels from the vocabulary also on the grounds that they are found in numerous vulgar words and if the kids cannot use vowels it will severely limit their ability to cuss. Let's hope they do not convince Webster to remove the vowels.

  28. Re:Somebody tell that tool that you can *add* grou by Jarjarthejedi · · Score: 2, Insightful

    At which point they'll just ban it entirely. They're already using overkill, what's the differences between a nuclear and a thermonuclear bomb if you don't care about the target's safety?

    --
    There are two kinds of fool One says 'This is old therefore good' Another says 'This is new therefore better'- Dean Ing
  29. Attorney Generals are out of control by tjstork · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Cops suck.

    --
    This is my sig.
    1. Re:Attorney Generals are out of control by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Excuse the pedantry, but it is "Attorneys General".

  30. Much of the traffic on alt is movies and music... by John+Hasler · · Score: 1

    I wonder what the connections are between Cuomo and the **AA?

    --
    Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
  31. What about the Alt.'s that are perfectly fine? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There are plenty of Alt.binaries that are not just kiddie porn.

    Its the same old problem of destroying legal "tools" or "methods" of communication that may harbor bad things.

    Its the same old problem all over again. Alt.binaries.sex.amateur, while full of spam, is certainly perfectly legal for amateurs to post naked pictures of themselves. Sure its sex oriented, sure its full of spam... but it does not mean the government can just destroy it at will. EVEN IF some sick fuck from outside the country decides to flood it with kiddie porn with subject headers that appear to be of legal age.

    Its always possible to trade metallica songs under the name "my dads band.mp3"

    Where will people now share pictures and movies, music.... ? I ask this because whatever you think of copyright infringement... EVERYTHING has a copyright. If I film my friends having fun and post it on alt.binaries.home.videos, I'm sharing my video through newsgroups... and it is copyrighted... by me.

    Should i now not be able to use the newsgroups because other copyright holders are more important than I?

    Should we rip down the internet because child porn is available on it?

    Why are we destroying ourselves to stop a few?

    What is really more important?

  32. I do so love the month of September. by maeka · · Score: 1

    This post was written Fri Sep 5428 18:59:58 EDT 1993

  33. Why is the New York State Government by FlyingSquidStudios · · Score: 2, Informative

    worried about other people's sexual perversions? They have enough of their own to worry about as it is.

  34. Re:Somebody tell that tool that you can *add* grou by dougmc · · Score: 4, Insightful

    TWRR dropped Usenet because they were sending too much money to Newshosting for their outsourced news server, and Cuomo gave them a convenient excuse.

  35. When are we going to take our Internet back? by kwabbles · · Score: 1

    Eventually we'll have to unite and fight back against censorship, shutdowns, throttling, surveillance, and government control.

    Imagine... the first "virtual revolution".

    --
    Just disrupt the deflector shield with a tachyon burst.
    1. Re:When are we going to take our Internet back? by lordofwhee · · Score: 1

      It'll happen, eventually. It's just a matter of time before people start to open their eyes and see what is really happening to them, and how few rights they actually have anymore. I rather hope it will happen in my lifetime, it'd be nice to see every single corrupt motherfucker in the government getting a nice kick in the balls (or tits) from millions of revolutionists, one at a time.

    2. Re:When are we going to take our Internet back? by Toll_Free · · Score: 0, Troll

      Your internet.

      The US government built it, fool.

      When was it ever in YOUR posession?

      I mean, c'mon, I'm all for net neutrality, etc., but let's be honest here. You NEVER owned it, and it was never yours, and to even attempt to lay claim that it was makes you look like an idiot.

      --Toll_Free

      --Toll_Free

    3. Re:When are we going to take our Internet back? by kwabbles · · Score: 1

      Tell me then, if the Internet doesn't belong to everyone - who does it belong to?

      Do you seriously think the Internet belongs to those who own the copper/fiber infrastructure that delivers it?
      Do you think that the Internet belongs to those who invented TCP/IP?

      Who's the idiot?

      --
      Just disrupt the deflector shield with a tachyon burst.
    4. Re:When are we going to take our Internet back? by Toll_Free · · Score: 1

      The internet belongs to the governments of the states / countries it goes through. Bottom line.

      You may not like reality, but there it is, for you to look at.

      Don't believe me, take a look at .cn and their firewall. Take a look at Iran, and their firewall.

      Think they are the only ones? lol.

      And to the mods who modded my orignal statement a troll, please show me where I faulted in my statement? It's complete bullshit to abuse mod powers just because you don't agree with the way something is, and want it changed; Vs. someone obviously trolling for something or being an asshole. I made a factual statement. Mods didn't like it, so they modded it down. Funny.

      Again, who "invented" the internet? Was it NOT a network allowing US based schools and military installations comms and redundancy?

      If not, guess I was part of something else, all those years ago.

      --Toll_Free

  36. Somebody wants to be Governor. by leereyno · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Cuomo isn't an attorney, he's a politician.

    He's playing the "Ooooh ooooh look at MEEEE!! I'm stopping those evil kiddy porn traders from hurting kids! I'm going to huff and puff and blow their house down!!!" game.

    Of course nothing he is doing is having any sort of an effect whatsoever, but then that isn't the point. The point is that the average dimwitted (but I repeat myself) person doesn't knows very little about computers and absolutely nothing about usenet. But they sure do vote! So when Cuomo shakes his stick and growls at imaginary hobgoblins, the voters think well of him, and remember that good impression come election day.

    Unfortunately the only real way to stop someone like him is to give him REAL problems to deal with and REAL bad guys to chase after.

    This is what happens when you get rid of the mob, people like Cuomo have too much time on their hands.

    --
    Muslim community leaders warn of backlash from tomorrow morning's terrorist attack.
    1. Re:Somebody wants to be Governor. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He might have more of a problem than he can handle. I'm convinced that there are plenty of groups running number stations via Usenet. Its untraceable and as long as your operatives are willing to download loads of p0rn the entire system looks plausable to anyone asking too many questions.

      If you want to see how this works, go grab some of the model images that happen to have fixed color borders. Look at the encoding of the borders and ask your self what program would encode an area of solid color that way... Theres bits hiding in those messages.

  37. Sad day -- but how relevant is Usenet anymore? by Shalom · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I used Usenet way back in the day when it was the primary--nay, just about the only way to find like-minded people to discuss topics of interest. Particularly the alt hierarchy.

    But now I find that web site forums, Google/Yahoo groups and email lists have supplanted Usenet. I haven't found any content I was looking for for a really long time on Usenet and haven't found a reason to delve there myself. I think the last time a search returned Usenet was a tech support question I asked like 4-5 years ago. We used it a little bit for Mozilla coordination but even then it felt like the bastard child of communication--bug reports, IRC and email lists were the method of choice.

    It's definitely a sad day, killing a fly with a sledgehammer, etc. etc.--but how relevant is Usenet anymore really? Is it actually still heavily used and I just don't happen to know anyone who uses it?

    1. Re:Sad day -- but how relevant is Usenet anymore? by Skapare · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The problem with the web site forums is the severe fragmentation. You have to join so many different sites just to have access to several of the topics. With Usenet, you could go to a single place to get everything under one signon. With Usenet, if you wanted to jump to another topic you have never been on before to ask some question, it's easy. With the web, you have to go find a site that carries that topic, register, keep track of yet another password, sift through ads that are in many cases abusive, and post your question. Then repeat half of that after you login, and do this all several times to see if you got an answer. And that doesn't even account for the fragmentation of there often being a couple dozen web sites covering the issue. But no web site is as thorough as Usenet; not even close.

      Yes, it is sad that New Yorkers seem to host so many of the idiots of the Democratic party.

      --
      now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
    2. Re:Sad day -- but how relevant is Usenet anymore? by slyborg · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The problem with the web site forums is the severe fragmentation. You have to join so many different sites just to have access to several of the topics. With Usenet, you could go to a single place to get everything under one signon. With Usenet, if you wanted to jump to another topic you have never been on before to ask some question, it's easy. With the web, you have to go find a site that carries that topic, register, keep track of yet another password, sift through ads that are in many cases abusive, and post your question.

      +1 Insightful. Exactly right, USENET was fundamentally a democratic medium, since except for moderated groups, it wasn't "owned" by someone like a web forum. And as noted, it was all in one place. in so many ways, a lot of the "innovation" on the Web is retrograde. In some sense, what we have gone back to is the old BBS model, only with Google so you can actually find the locations of discussions.

      The other good point here is that the main problem commercial types have with the old school USENET is that it doesn't permit real advertising delivery, since it isn't possible to easily determine how many views a posting gets. Plus it's text, which is pretty unappealing to Madison Avenue, since they can't show all the skillz at bullshitting the masses via kewl graphic design.

      Since it's in the ISP's own interest to kill USENET, I think this puts the nails in the coffin. The non-affiliated providers like Supernews are now the long poles, and they'll have to cave as well.

    3. Re:Sad day -- but how relevant is Usenet anymore? by Shalom · · Score: 1

      I understand the technology has benefits. The point is, whether one thinks Usenet > forums or not, Usenet seems to have lost the battle for mindshare. Most relevant discussions seem to be happening elsewhere. I don't have data though, it's just a perception of how my own habits, and the habits of those around me, have changed.

      For example, there is this one tech website that gets a lot of comments and is having a discussion exactly like this one right now :)

      Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying Usenet is bad, I think the alt-slapping was a stupid idea from wrongheaded people. I am just trying to figure out if I'm just missing a huge giant Usenet bandwagon. It seems like it's just as much a hidden niche of the Internet now as any website.

    4. Re:Sad day -- but how relevant is Usenet anymore? by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      The problem with the web site forums is the severe fragmentation.

      I've long thought it would be a highly useful feature for all the forum software out there to supporting gatewaying to usenet. Create some alt group or hierarchy of groups to contain every post in each forum or subforum on a website.

      I guess the financial incentive isn't there as they are probably worried they'll lose a fraction of their advertising eyeballs to usenet. But I think that in the long-run it would only generate more interest in the website plus they would get free archival services from google/deja and the usenet providers that have 100% retention in the text groups. One thing I really hate about web forum is their ephemeral nature, even the long lived ones often just delete older posts rather than spend the disk space on archiving them and the others can just disappear completely and take all their collected information with them.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    5. Re:Sad day -- but how relevant is Usenet anymore? by KGIII · · Score: 1

      It wasn't my conversation but I'll interject and if you don't mind too much you can respond. It is the proliferation of the web. I'll use the term "stupid" for this. Stupid people got computers because Jane and Dick had one next door. They couldn't figure out how to use USENET and so the mindshare moved to the web. There is no configuration required to use the browser. (I blame you, I blame me, I blame us. We *COULD* have taken the time to show people but we didn't and certainly weren't going to after the advent of the AOLers.)

      It is the natural progression -- things need to be made simple. To use the horrific example... You, and I, could probably hop into a giant semi and drive it but we could not do so with the skill of a trained professional so, well, they made automatic cars and if you go back years enough those professional drivers were the best on the road and now you have just a whole bunch of meatsticks who point and poke the pedals.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    6. Re:Sad day -- but how relevant is Usenet anymore? by IntlHarvester · · Score: 1

      +1 Insightful. Exactly right, USENET was fundamentally a democratic medium, since except for moderated groups, it wasn't "owned" by someone like a web forum. And as noted, it was all in one place. in so many ways, a lot of the "innovation" on the Web is retrograde. In some sense, what we have gone back to is the old BBS model, only with Google so you can actually find the locations of discussions.

      Not really. "Democratic" Usenet only worked when you had a limited number of students and professionals on it. It collapsed like a cheap house of cards as soon as the hoi polloi got access.

      The modern internet user has simply zero tolerance for an unmoderated environment where trolls and kooks can run free and raise havok endlessly. (Read any site about usenet kooks -- some of these people are pathological.) People demand some form of administration, or a high-level of control, as seen on social networking sites.

      I mean you're right that Usenet is boring, ugly, hard-to-use, and almost impossible to monetize. But that's not really why nobody uses it anymore.

      --
      Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
    7. Re:Sad day -- but how relevant is Usenet anymore? by Shalom · · Score: 1

      Hmm. I am not sure this is about stupid. I don't think the web is dumber than Usenet. It just requires a lot less work to find something interesting. On the web you find organized sites that know their topic pretty well and have pre-filtered posts (like Slashdot). You get more bang for your buck, as it will. That's not stupid; it's smart--it's economics.

      Usenet is less fragemented, which is an advantage. It's a nexus for discussion of all sorts. You can wander from one genre to the next easily. If conversation was all people wanted--if their primary reason for logging on was to find random users and chat--Usenet would probably be more popular than it is.

      I've no doubt that configuration entered into it, but Usenet could have tried to reach its tendrils into the web, to become a more integral part of it. I can't even begin to figure out how that would work, but if Usenet was the primary commenting engine behind web sites, maybe you could navigate to the rest of Usenet from there. I mean, you and I are already in a conversational mood. At this point we're probably both in a space where we would enjoy Usenet for a while.

    8. Re:Sad day -- but how relevant is Usenet anymore? by moogyboog · · Score: 1

      You could say the same about radio, bicycles, printing presses, atari 2600, but you'd still be wrong, they are relevant because some kid in the future will discover them and reinvent them or be inspired by these inventions to make something even better. Where has the sense of wonder and discovery gone, I'll tell you where it has gone.

      Spitzer was hunting prostitutes on a regular basis and then was caught red handed with his hand in the cookie jar, ala J.Edgar Hoover. Now Cuomo goes looking for "child porn" and finds it, doesn't that constitute a crime, somebody should sue him, what he did ala looking at child porn constitutes a crime, maybe he has an issue with this stuff like Spitzer, maybe he might be another Hoover waiting to occur. Just one more hyper sexually repressed fascist. You might not be shocked to think these politicians should get slapped with stickers on their bumpers saying "what would hitler do?", maybe they deserve it for attempting to shutdown the free international communication networks.

      I don't trust his judgement. 88 groups constitutes some kind of threat? Maybe in a hyper paranoid and hyper repressed way to people that are scared of a naked anything, this will surely protect nobody but his voting position in the appearance of morality and repressed sexuality. These are the kinds of people that arrest teens for filming themselves. He seems mentally ill, because young people have sex and this doesn't stop it. We were all young once and all did crazy stuff, if you say no your a liar or I'm sorry that your teenage years were not more ideal and crazy. But to hear him talk you'd think the world was ending, which of course it doe not end. The real sick people will just go elsewhere where he can't find them, which makes this move on his part naive and ignorant, or calculated for other reasons. he would probably have a few bones in his closet and I'd be shocked if he became the governor. Spitzer was a walking contradiction and this guy seems cut from the same cloth, we'll see.

      Last time I checked the Constitution says "any" restriction of the free press would be a violation of the first amendment, not "some", not "community standards". And the reason for this was to protect us from politicians, government from destroying our means of communication, by the stroke of the pen these ISP's just roll over and play dead and yet they are entrusted with keeping the communication channels open, oh I suppose only open in the ways the NSA can easily sift, maybe they feel it too much work to have to go through and moniter the newsgroups so why not just shut it down, then flash to 4 years from now and the same method gets used to close any "unmonitored" free networks of communication, at this rate they might as well start placing cameras in your homes, you tube becomes the auxillary of the NSA via Viacom which should be better described as Via communist media monopoly. Ah, we'll just invent something else to make them all scratch their heads in astonishment at the cleverness and then they will need another 20 years to catch up.

    9. Re:Sad day -- but how relevant is Usenet anymore? by KGIII · · Score: 1

      Sorry for the slow response - I was too drunk to type last night. Anyhow... The web, itself, isn't more stupid and I didn't have a better word. Usenet's people have tried to make it to the web but have always failed miserably when they try to scrape the results to a web forum. I think that we can agree that there are far more untrained in the computer field people using a browser than there are using a usenet client though I still like the word "stupid" for that.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
  38. Re:Somebody tell that tool that you can *add* grou by base3 · · Score: 2

    Ding! Surprised more people haven't figured that out. The ISPs get to dump a bandwidth-intensive and sometimes even outsourced service. And as a bonus, they can say they're helping "protect the children."

    --
    One CPU cycle wasted on digital restrictions management is ONE TOO MANY.
  39. Pro-control by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There are some sick things on usenet. Control does need to be exerted over the content of these groups, but outright censorship is not the way. I'd support an outright lack of service until the legitimate groups can be separated from the ones hosting illegal content in each jurisdiction. That is the legal, and open way to go for this. Outright state that its not the same, but that you are creating a derivative of purely legitimate content and not carrying the the original in any form.

    1. Re:Pro-control by QuoteMstr · · Score: 5, Insightful

      CENSORSHIP IS NEVER THE ANSWER. WHAT YOU PROPOSE IS STILL CENSORSHIP.

      Information can never hurt anyone. If you want to stop harmful acts, then stop harmful acts. As a Supreme Court justice one said, the answer to bad speech is more speech. Not banning what you personally find offensive. Banning things is the way to a repressive, stagnated culture.

      Also, what ISPs are doing, although reprehensible, is perfectly legal. Stop the sloppy thinking already. Learn to separate the concept of "right" from that of "legal". You'll get bitten in the ass time and again.

      The answer to "why shouldn't I do this?" should always be "because it's wrong", not "because it's illegal."

    2. Re:Pro-control by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Personal feelings don't matter at this level. Its a policy, so it deals with policy alone.

    3. Re:Pro-control by wolf12886 · · Score: 1

      God, I wish I had mod points for this.

    4. Re:Pro-control by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1
      Control does need to be exerted over the content of these groups, but outright censorship is not the way. I'd support an outright lack of service until the legitimate groups can be separated from the ones hosting illegal content in each jurisdiction.

      Find the people creating the illegal content and shut them down. They're the ones who are *actually* physically harming the children, and if Usenet is shut down, those sick people will continue to do so and just post their products in another venue.

      -b.

    5. Re:Pro-control by moogyboog · · Score: 1

      The problem with your ideas of finding people amounts to where in the world are you going to go and decide what constitutes child porn? In canada age of consent appears to be 14 in mexico 12 and on and on. Give me a break if you think we can impose law on the entire planet that will just lead to bombs flying around because in the long run this maybe about more than porn, this actually has more to do with the value of life. Why on the one hand can we bomb a hospital full of sick kids and come up with excuses for that behavior and then decide for kids what they can and can;t do with their bodies? Seems to me that it's perfectly ok to bomb them to pieces but not to observe them naked or heaven forbide that those kids might engage in this behavior on their own. For these things the net should be censored? Seems like more kids will get bombed the more censored the net becomes, can't you understand the connection? Life becomes even less valuable the less you protect the right to communicate. I would rather their be free speech and some things that I disagree with than no free speech and bodies in pieces on the 6 o clock news? Sexual repression leads to fascism. When looking at political actions ask yourself "what would hitler do?" Hitler would be for shutting down the usenet and he would applaud the efforts of the ISP's to get rid of the alternatives to one true media source.

  40. Surprised it's taken so long by rastoboy29 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Frankly, I've been amazed for years at Usenet's continued slipping  under the radar.  It's interesting that these days it's considered a kind of advanced or very geeky part of the internet, when in the old days it was often our first foray into global networking (after FIDOnet, of course!).

    Increasingly, it seems like Usenet is being hosted by a few large, dedicated Usenet providers, and ISP's just subscribe to them for their users, which is understandable.  Who wants to maintain an NNTP server?

    Only problem is it makes it easier to take down.

    The stupids, now that they are starting to finally grasp the true power of the internet, are naturally keen to see it destroyed...because they're stupid.  We gotta remember who's right in this struggle, and the importance of protecting unpleasant and unpopular speech--including filez, warez, movies--everything.  If you can keep me from sharing data you don't want shared, you can control what I say.  There's no two ways about it, you can have one or the other--free speech or control over content.

    Besides, didn't I read a year or two ago how some of the big Usenet providers were working with the Feds to try to filter out the kiddie porn?  I highly approve of that action, and I think thats where we need to draw the line.

    1. Re:Surprised it's taken so long by thogard · · Score: 1

      I was going to point out the Usenet Top 1000 Sites now has 3414 sites listed. Then I remember it used to be in the 10,000 range and noticed my server is at 853... hmmm.
      I guess these sites are going away. My server tends to provide feeds for text only groups to sites that want small feeds.

  41. you voted for Democrats, you deserve it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You nerds voted for Spitzer, Cuomo, and the other Democrats. You were warned multiple times that the left stands for "the good of society" above individual liberties. If they think that something is bad for society, they ban it.

    Owning a gun is bad for society. Driving a car is bad for society. Smoking a cigarette is bad for society. Drinking alcohol before you are 21 is bad for society. Owning a little house that you can afford is bad for society -- if you can't afford a 20 acre McMansion then you should live in an apartment with the other hoi polloi.

    And now, reading alt.* groups is bad for society.

    You listened to the seductive lure of socialism. You brought it upon yourselves. I have no sympathy.

    1. Re:you voted for Democrats, you deserve it by Skapare · · Score: 1

      Both parties have their stupid people. Dems have their Cuomo, Pelosi, and Clinton. Reps have their Bush, Cheney, and McCain. Nothing new here.

      --
      now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
  42. contrarian view by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I maintain the mostly misunderstood, contrarians view on this:

    information is never evil

    I don't care how horrible the image, how awful the sound, how shocking or offensive the video, or even how criminal the act that made the information... the information, by itself and after the fact, is NOT evil and, in my opinion, the US runs a horrible slippery slope by making some information "illegal" to possess. What next, burning books again? Get permission to learn something? See something? Know something?

    When laws are crafted [for the sole reason] to try and curb market forces, they are in the wrong place and usually fail. Laws are the system we have to direct behaviors so society works and people are safe from each other (note: not from themselves). Mostly, the market and the financial drivers behind it is a completely different thing.

    Law enforcement needs to do their job, and stop people from preying on other people, whatever their age. We need to fund them to the level they need so they can accomplish it, and hold them accountable for the results. Really. Like so many other places, it is getting harder with technology progression and with rate of technology change for law enforcement to stay up with things but that failure to adapt on their part does not justify lazy practice down the line or the erosion of core principles in how society works. Nor does it mean making ill-formed laws or government agencies where they dont need to be. Law enforcement needs to aggressively find, prosecute and jail people who harm others and break the law.

    And we need to call the idea that some data bits are "illegal information" for what it is: "government thought police".

  43. The fundimental flaw of the internet by mlwmohawk · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I have always believed that the flaw of the internet was in fact one of its strengths, The idea that it is a web of unrelated legal entities routing traffic. Once one starts to think about which traffic to route, the internet as a "free" (as in freedom) medium breaks down.

    This is exactly what we are seeing today.

    The problem with the internet is the same problem we have with the U.S.A. Fascism! The joining of government and industry is a dangerous precedent and strategy.

    Just remember, Hitler (no godwin here, actual history) was fighting terrorists and protecting the children. We should be very suspicious of government that employs industry for its objectives because that mean industry will employ government of its objectives.

    With RIAA, MPIAA, the telecoms and ISPs, and the new FISA bill can we ignore this any longer?

    1. Re:The fundimental flaw of the internet by martinw89 · · Score: 1

      Just remember, Hitler (no godwin here, actual history) was fighting terrorists and protecting the children. We should be very suspicious of government that employs industry for its objectives because that mean industry will employ government of its objectives.

      I respectfully disagree on whether that was Godwin or not. Your argument regarding Hitler was not only a Reductio ad Hitlerum but also a non sequitur. Yes, Hitler may have engaged in those actions; but comparing those actions to our current government fails to prove anything. Continuing that failed logic to something completely different is flawed further.

      I also want to mention that I did not change my sig for this post : )

    2. Re:The fundimental flaw of the internet by CyprusBlue113 · · Score: 1

      I actually would disagree with this, as it is not an unrelated topic like "Hitler painted, therefore painting is bad". This is on the grounds of Hitler came to power by doing this, so beware of other people trying to do the same thing.

      Literally, as in the falsified bombing of their equivalent of congress was used to push through the Enabling Act.

      --
      a handful of selfish greedy people are no match for millions of selfish, greedy people -u4ya
    3. Re:The fundimental flaw of the internet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hitler stated, in Mein Kampf the following proposition as one of the cores of his plan to sieze power of the German parliment:

      The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people. As long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation."

      If we cannot learn from history, we're doomed to repeat it. I think this premise is something we have to recognize and actively fight, or we will fall to the perils of human nature once again.

      I don't think our government has the tyrannical aim and goals that Hitler himself did, but we can fall into this chasm of tyrrany just as easily if it happens BY ACCIDENT (by committee).

    4. Re:The fundimental flaw of the internet by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people. As long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation."

      Could you direct me to the translation of Mein Kampf which contains that passage?

      I can't find it.

      I can find a few references to the first sentence. Like this one but the context is not the same:

      The folkish state must make up for what everyone else today has neglected in this field. It must set race in the center of all life. It must take care to keep it pure. It must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people. It must see to it that only the healthy beget children; that there is only one disgrace: despite one's own sickness and deficiencies, to bring children into the world, and one highest honor: to renounce doing so.

      And even they don't seem to cite which translation they are using.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
  44. But gopher: still works, right? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Usenet, smooze-net.
    As longer as gopher still works. That is all I or anyone else who loves the Internet should care about.

    1. Re:But gopher: still works, right? by Baseclass · · Score: 1

      Yea, I'm having a much tougher time with the demise of usenet than gopher.

      --
      ^^vv<><>BA
  45. Run you're server by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    One way around this, is setup and run you're newsgroups server.

    I have been doing this for years, and have feeds from some of the largest paid providers for free.

  46. Re:Beware .... by maxume · · Score: 1

    Imagine if it didn't have an unnecessary (and incorrect!) apostrophe and said "your".

    --
    Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
  47. Re:Somebody tell that tool that you can *add* grou by bcrowell · · Score: 1

    What was hilarious was when the service would go down, and I would call Time Warner about it. It was just silly trying to get a tech support person who even understood what usenet was. They would tell me that they they weren't the Usenet company, and I had to call Usenet directly. They would think I was talking about Google groups. They would refuse to acknowledge that they had any such service, even when I would point out to them that there was some server called something like news.rr.com, which had been working the day before.

  48. finally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Child Porn did not exist before Usenet and with the banning of alt.* it is officially wiped off the face of the earth.

  49. Psssst by adriccom · · Score: 1

    Good show in trying to quote Commissioner Pravin Lal from the classic game by Sid Meier, Alpha Centuari.

    You may want to consult this arguably definitive list and update your sig, though:
    http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Sid_Meier's_Alpha_Centauri#Peacekeeping_Forces

    Cheers

    --
    <script>alert("I never liked JavaScript, really; it just seemed a bad idea.");</script>
    1. Re:Psssst by PinkyGigglebrain · · Score: 1

      Actuality I was paraphrasing and making it more general. Lal's comments used a masculine,

    2. Re:Psssst by lgw · · Score: 1

      Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master.

      Yep, he used proper English - "he" is general when used without a specific referent. While "Beware he" would be better style than "Beware of he", the line is actually in poetic meter. You transformed a powerful example of English prose into writing typical of a blog entry - but hey, you don't have the inappropriate apostrophe that your other sig did.

      Not trying to be a grammar Nazi or anything - pick up a modern style guide (the Oxford Guide to English Usage is good), if you're a geek who enjoys the details of programming languages, you might find the style of natural languages just as interesting. At least you'll find an explanation of the rules for apostrophes (why it's "Davy Jones' Locker", but "Bob Jones's locker", for instance).

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  50. So where is alt.andrew.cuomo.sucks? by Col+Bat+Guano · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Go on - you know you want to :-)

  51. Today alt.* by mysidia · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Tomorrow: the .ORG, .NET, and .COM TLDs get blocked from major ISP nameservers.

    After all, there are a few .COM domains out there that contain illegal porn.

    There may be some legitimate sites to use the .COM TLD, but "a small price to pay", for keeping the information superhighway clean.

  52. Blocking vs Serving by Pinky3 · · Score: 1

    The ISPs have agreed to feed only the Big 8 from their servers. There is no blocking. Here is what Verizon says on it support page.

    "I use Newsgroups frequently and access different groups outside the Big 8. What should I do?

    We recommend using a general news provider. Verizon will not stop anyone from gaining access to content of their choosing from an external news provider."

  53. Send a Letter to Your Internet Service Provider by Skapare · · Score: 2, Interesting

    ADD ISP ADDRESS HERE

    RE: Stopping child porn on the Internet

    Dear ISP:

    I am sure you are aware of the New York State Attorney General Andrew Cuomo's campaign that claims it is to rid the Internet of child porn. So far, several major ISPs have fallen for the lies perpetrated by AG Cuomo and agreed to a code of serious misconduct to broadly overreact and shut down a huge portion of the Internet that has nothing to do with child porn. I am a subscriber to your services and am concerned that you might also be mislead by these lies and end up committing to the destructive agenda set out by Attorney General Cuomo. I urge you to contact the Attorney General's Office as soon as possible and tell him you will not participate in this stupid foolishness that will do nothing to actually shut down child pornography. Tell him instead that you will shut down actual sources of child pornography and nothing more than that. Tell him that you do not need to sign any agreements with his office whatsoever in order to do the right thing.

    Sincerely,

    ADD YOUR NAME HERE

    cc: Office of New York State Attorney General Andrew Cuomo

    --
    now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
  54. Re:Beware .... by PinkyGigglebrain · · Score: 1

    My bad, its been so long since I posted I didn't notice the typo.

  55. Lawmakers, here's your clue... by wiredlogic · · Score: 1

    It is unreasonable to block the entirety of the alt.* hierarchy. You can accomplish your goals by pushing for a block on alt.binaries.* and alt.sex.*. While I know that there are some meritorious and perfectly legal groups within these two subsets of alt.* this is a reasonable target. It balances the need to satisfy the prudes without having to finely specify what you want ISPs to block and it avoids harming one of the more vigorous parts of Usenet.

    --
    I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
    1. Re:Lawmakers, here's your clue... by nurb432 · · Score: 1

      Ah, but you forget, other communication occurs across the alt*. hierarchy, such as anti government discussion, or where privacy advocates discuss practical techniques.

      If you honestly think its to stop child porn, you have your head in the sand.

      --
      ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  56. Honestly, who gives a fuck? by nog_lorp · · Score: 0, Troll

    It's called HTTP and it allows for services that are _BETTER THAN USENET_.

    Lets take a look at who really cares about usenet. I can't really guess how many usenet users there are, but according to (1) I can say usenet message volume (this month) is between 9 and 10 million messages per day, including spam which is a very significant portion. Based on (2), I can get a good estimate of the number of internet users world wide: about 1.4 billion.
    That comes out to 0.0071 messages per user/per day. It is probably a safe assumption that usenet users responsible for a majority of those posts post atleast once every 2 days (50% of all days). This puts an extremely outward guess on the number of usenet users at 0.0142% of total internet users.

    Really, just let the fucking thing die already.

    1: http://newsadmin.com/feedmessages.htm
    2: http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats.htm

    1. Re:Honestly, who gives a fuck? by QuoteMstr · · Score: 1

      Usenet is better in almost every respect than your ordinary web forum.

    2. Re:Honestly, who gives a fuck? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So with your logic we should probably just ban the entire internet? It can all harbor true kiddie porn. And honestly, who really uses the internet? Imagine all the reductions in viruses/trojans/rootkits/malware/spyware! Freedom at last with my server in a concrete box sunk to the bottom of a Atlantic. No one can get me now!

    3. Re:Honestly, who gives a fuck? by slyborg · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Your analysis is retarded.

      Extending your 'logic' just slightly into your preferred medium of wonder and light, the markup Web, we can also swiftly dispense with most websites that aren't TMZ.com since in percentage terms, most of the sites out there are a miniscule portion of 'total Internet users' and thus can be disregarded.

      I'm pretty sure that would include this one.

      I think of USENET to the markup Web as radio was/is to TV.

      Now make my day and followup with a similar brilliant analysis of why radio should be bagged since television allows for services that are _BETTER THAT RADIO_.

    4. Re:Honestly, who gives a fuck? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This guy still cares about USENET!

    5. Re:Honestly, who gives a fuck? by nog_lorp · · Score: 1

      A) My analysis is being applied to the medium. Applying it to websites is not an extension of the logic, it is applying it in an entirely different way: HTTP vs Usenet is a very different comparison than TMZ.com vs Slashdot.org. Additionally, if Slashdot.org became infamous as having a large segment (say linux.slashdot.org) that contained a notable percentage warez and child porn, it would not just be that segment that would be shut down, and noone would be weeping for us.

      B) First off, television is transmitted over radio. The radio you are referring to is broadcast audio, while TV is broadcast audio+video. Arguing that radio should be bagged (...) is more like arguing the TCP/IP protocol should be bagged because HTTP is better.
      Secondly, audio radio serves a variety of purposes that audio-video radio is ineffective for: listening to music, getting information portably (in a car/at a work site). A television set is unwieldy and unsuitable for these purposes.

      Meanwhile, the difference between usenet and, say, an HTTP clone are not comparable at all. There is no mass societal want for "discussion group" sans web browser.

    6. Re:Honestly, who gives a fuck? by nog_lorp · · Score: 1

      What are you talking about? Did you read my logic? I said nothing even remotely like that, I didn't even support the banning of alt.*.

      My argument is over whether or not anyone gives a crap. If you extended my logic to the entire internet, the outcome would be opposite: 21% of the earths populating uses the internet, so we should damn fucking well care.

    7. Re:Honestly, who gives a fuck? by nog_lorp · · Score: 1

      Explain? There is nothing Usenet does that can't be duplicated in web application form, and I've never seen a forum with anywhere near the amount of spam Usenet has. Throw in, basically, everything you could call a feature (PMs, access levels to private forums, shoutboxes, infinite extendability to add any feature you want...), and your statement sounds like BS.

    8. Re:Honestly, who gives a fuck? by jejones · · Score: 1

      While you're correct in theory, I've yet to see a web message board with killfile abilities such as I recall from USENET newsreaders. (I seriously hope that such software exists and that it becomes widely used.)

    9. Re:Honestly, who gives a fuck? by nog_lorp · · Score: 1

      Killfiles were a feature of the newsreaders, so it is fitting that the equivalent should be done on the client end. And it is: there are dozens of GreaseMonkey scripts to enable FireFox to have this feature in certain contexts. These could be adapted to any forum context, for example there is one for WOW forums. (http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/816). This one is for PHPbb: http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/12299

      It would probably be better to handle it server side in reality, but I don't see any obvious software like that in existence. Make it, maybe?

    10. Re:Honestly, who gives a fuck? by IntlHarvester · · Score: 1

      While you're correct in theory, I've yet to see a web message board with killfile abilities such as I recall from USENET newsreaders. (I seriously hope that such software exists and that it becomes widely used.)

      Nearly every web board package has a ignore list function.

      Even the site you are posting on right now can plonk people by using the enemy list and a proper threshold.

      --
      Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
    11. Re:Honestly, who gives a fuck? by nog_lorp · · Score: 1

      "Troll -- A Troll is similar to Flamebait, but slightly more refined. This is a prank comment intended to provoke indignant (or just confused) responses. A Troll might mix up vital facts or otherwise distort reality, to make other readers react with helpful "corrections." Trolling is the online equivalent of intentionally dialing wrong numbers just to waste other people's time."

      Fuck all you who modded me troll. Troll isn't "-1 I disagree with poster", if that is how you feel have the fucking balls to respond. I hope you all burn in meta-mod hell

    12. Re:Honestly, who gives a fuck? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude, using that typeface merits a troll mod by itself.

    13. Re:Honestly, who gives a fuck? by nog_lorp · · Score: 1

      Lol, fine :(

  57. Re:Somebody tell that tool that you can *add* grou by Keen+Anthony · · Score: 1

    They can be added, but won't newsserver admins decide whether or not to carry the groups? porn.girls.gone.wild probably already exists, but probably hasn't propagated far.

  58. TRY alt.andrew.cuomo.sucks.sucks.sucks by Torodung · · Score: 1

    Your new group name should contain a triple predicate. You'll do much better in alt.config if you follow standard Usenet protocols. ;^)

    --
    Toro

    1. Re:TRY alt.andrew.cuomo.sucks.sucks.sucks by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1

      alt.andrew.cuomo.fucks.a.pig

  59. Baaaaaaaaa by Keen+Anthony · · Score: 1

    Good. People should stop using their ISP's news servers for posting or downloading binaries. The retention on those servers just suck and the quotas are too small. There's just too much quality sheep porn to be had for a consumer to waste his time with such bad servers.

    Seriously though, I wonder what the effect will be on commercial Usenet service providers like Giganews. I would think the immediate effect would be a leap in new subscriptions; but will it be very long before Cuomo decides to go after these companies, maybe even attempt to block Usenet access outright under some sky-is-falling failed logic. There is a lot of legal content in the alt.binaries hierarchy. There's a lot of porn, but at last I checked, much of it is spam for porn sites we presume to be operating legally. But some of my favorite binary groups have nothing to do with illegal subject matter or pirated goods.

  60. DO NOT CLICK on the link labeled "kiddie porn" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Or you will summon Andrew Cuomo!

    (Don't look in the mirror and say "Biggie Smalls" three times neither!)

    Just sayin'. ;^)

  61. Who's on the backbone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm wondering who's on the USENET backbone these days. Is the discontinuation of these groups or the entire USENET by any of these companies going to create a break in the USENET backbone?

    Maybe there isn't a real backbone any more but there was in the old days.

  62. Bye Bye Internet as We Used to Know It by realperseus · · Score: 3, Informative
    Folks, I'm flabbergasted at the lack of outcry on Slashdot about the loss of ALT groups, and/or the loss of Usenet access entirely to internet subscribers. I don't know about you but I consider this action censorship. Instead of chasing down the 5,000 or so pervs that use Usenet to spam the entire ALT hirachy with their "come hither" ads, and post to their junk on their own ALT groups, Cuomo instead decides to "carpet bomb" ISP's.

    Perhaps Slashdot is filled with users that are just interested in publishing various "workarounds" instead of addressing the real problem. Here I am looking for someone/something to "rally-cry" with, but nobody is home.. .

    --
    "Trusting every aspect of our lives to a giant computer was the smartest thing we ever did.." Homer Simpson
    1. Re:Bye Bye Internet as We Used to Know It by dontmakemethink · · Score: 1

      Funny you should complain on one of the most progressively and thoroughly moderated forums. Try moderating alt.* to get rid of the pedophiles. It would be easier to restore a K-car out of the wreckers.

      Ergo alt.* is a junker that needs to be put out of its misery, regardless of all the good folks that have nostalgia for the K-cars they drove before they got real jobs.

      --

      War as we knew it was obsolete
      Nothing could beat complete denial
      - Emily Haines
    2. Re:Bye Bye Internet as We Used to Know It by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1
      Funny you should complain on one of the most progressively and thoroughly moderated forums. Try moderating alt.* to get rid of the pedophiles.

      Don't moderate it -- look for pedophiles attempting to abuse children. If they're raping children, feel free to pass a law to execute or neuter them if convicted. Porn? It's not nice, but pictures in and of themselves, as opposed to actions of the truly dangerous types should be very low on the list of priorities. (If anything, go after the creators, not the users.)

      -b.

    3. Re:Bye Bye Internet as We Used to Know It by realperseus · · Score: 1
      You hit the nail on the head. If the authorities (read Cuomo) wanted to actually catch the abusers they could, and Usenet is the perfect "tool" for them to use.

      If you ask my, alt.* on usenet is the "heart" of the internet where the free exchange of ideas takes place and "anyone" can create a group for themselves, completely free of rules. This censorship action is really sickening my stomach.. .

      --
      "Trusting every aspect of our lives to a giant computer was the smartest thing we ever did.." Homer Simpson
    4. Re:Bye Bye Internet as We Used to Know It by dontmakemethink · · Score: 1

      Don't moderate it -- look for pedophiles attempting to abuse children. If they're raping children, feel free to pass a law to execute or neuter them if convicted.

      Part of moderating is reporting criminal behavior to the relevant authorities. There already is law against raping children, though obviously not so brutal as you suggest and unfortunately not very effective.

      If you ask my, alt.* on usenet is the "heart" of the internet where the free exchange of ideas takes place and "anyone" can create a group for themselves, completely free of rules.

      The internet and its users are growing up with more diverse needs and more complex abusive applications every day. The internet needs to grow up too, and facilities like alt.* cannot adapt without compromising their fundamental purpose.

      Furthermore, if you can't find a suitable medium (Facebook, MySpace, Bebo, Yahoo, etc etc) other than alt.* for whatever group you wish to create, then chances are the group's intentions are illegal, since every legal cause for discussion is well supported with facilities tailored to every type of group. And there's still IRC for kiddie-porn chit-chat and file exchange if you're so sympathetic for the poor disgruntled pedophiles.

      If authorities keep alt.* operational just in order to catch criminals, they are in effect knowingly facilitating the criminal behavior, and everyone charged can claim entrapment as a defense. Whether it holds up or not I can't guess, but it still knots up the courts unnecessarily deliberating over why they didn't just shut it down. Then imagine the liability to the victims!

      --

      War as we knew it was obsolete
      Nothing could beat complete denial
      - Emily Haines
    5. Re:Bye Bye Internet as We Used to Know It by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1
      Furthermore, if you can't find a suitable medium (Facebook, MySpace, Bebo, Yahoo, etc etc) other than alt.* for whatever group you wish to create, then chances are the group's intentions are illegal, since every legal cause for discussion is well supported with facilities tailored to every type of group.

      Facebook, MySpace, LiveUrinal, etc aren't peer-to-peer media -- they're owned by someone with their own agenda. So, legal or not, speech on them isn't free. By your agenda, I can't have friends over my apartment for a party because I can find a "suitable" public venue for the party like a club or bar. After all, if the party is happening at my place, what we talk about there can't be "moderated", whereas in public it can.

      Another question for you: just because people could theoretically exchange packages of kiddie porn on the street, should we ban walking on the street?

      Gimme a break and think about what you say before you post, please.

  63. There must be by houghi · · Score: 3, Insightful

    a 'Soviet America' joke in there. The sad fact is that it isn't a joke anymore.

    On another note:

    When the governement came for p2p,
    I remained silent;
    I was not a p2p user

    Whem the governement closed nntp,
    I remained silent,
    I was not a Usenet user.

    When the governement came for ssh,
    I remained silent,
    I was not a ssh user.

    When the govenement came for http,
    there was no way left to speak out.

    --
    Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
  64. Re:Somebody tell that tool that you can *add* grou by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They can be added, but won't newsserver admins decide whether or not to carry the groups? porn.girls.gone.wild probably already exists, but probably hasn't propagated far.

    But that's no reason to assume that porn.attorneygeneral.newyork would be prohibited.

  65. The USENET is actually quite alive by McDutchie · · Score: 3, Insightful

    You forgot a biggie: decentralized distribution. Get your Usenet feed from your local (or otherwise preferred) site. If one Usenet site goes down or goes crappy, simply switch to another one. Conversely, if your favourite web forum goes away, you're fucked.

  66. Here's the level of ignorance involved by jejones · · Score: 2, Informative

    From the front page of "nystopchildporn.com":

    "Attorney General Andrew Cuomo's office earlier this year conducted an unprecedented undercover investigation that revealed a major source of online child pornography known as Newsgroups, an online service not associated with websites."

  67. Re:Beware .... by lgw · · Score: 1

    ... and you still didn't fix the apostrophe.

    --
    Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  68. DISAGREED by McDutchie · · Score: 1

    While Usenet does have useful value, it IS full of kiddie porn.

    Bullshit. I challenge you to find a single actual kiddie porn picture in any of those groups. I think you won't find any. Just going by the names of the groups is sheer idiocy, especially in alt.* where any joker can start a group at a whim under any name (and maybe two or three providers will even actually carry it).

  69. Usenet is actually quite alive. by McDutchie · · Score: 1

    Seriously, though. There are very, very few people left who use the USENET for anything real.

    You should write to all these independent Usenet providers. Maybe you'll convince them to have an epiphany and instantly drop their service to their hundreds of thousands of customers.

    I mean, give me a break, the alt groups were a problem 10 years ago, and some ISPs are still carrying them? That's just stupid. When we were carrying the alt groups at BEST we had to set the article timeout for the high-bandwidth groups to 1-day, and that actually did a pretty good job stopping all the idiots trying to download 5000 part port movies over their dialup modems. They just couldn't keep up before the stuff timed out.

    You're confusing alt.* and alt.binaries.*. There are plenty of good and active text groups in alt.*. In modern terms, the bandwidth they consume is insignificant. There is no reason you should have to carry binaries.

    And then of course there's the Big 8 hierarchies, which you conveniently declared dead right along with alt.binaries.* even though none of them carry any binaries. Please stop conflating issues.

  70. Cuomo aside by sr8outtalotech · · Score: 1

    Telco's and cables companies are rational utility maximizing decision makers. That means if they can save a buck by eliminating a service they will. I really like alt.certification.* and comp.* but apparently it's more important for Cuomo to get headlines and ISPs to save a buck.
    I ran across this on Wikipedia:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usenet#History
    Over time, the amount of Usenet traffic has steadily increased. It is important to note, however, that much of this traffic increase reflects not an increase in discrete users or newsgroup discussions, but instead the combination of massive automated spamming and an increase in the use of .binaries newsgroups in which large files (frequently pornography or pirated media) are often posted publicly. A small sampling of the change (measured in feed size per day) follows:
    No citation of course. The propaganda machine is in full force.

  71. It's the same in Australia by svunt · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I work for a data processing company in Australia, where I oversee a team of FIVE full-time operators who each spend eight hours a day, five days a week scanning "Working With Children" license applications on behalf of the Department of Justice...every volunteer for sporting, religious, educational etc organisations, schools, daycare centres, you name it! The state I cover has only got a population of 5 million, and these guys can scan in 400 applications an hour EACH...and the backlog grows every...damn...day. The hysteria is everywhere.

    1. Re:It's the same in Australia by Kent+Recal · · Score: 1

      What exactly do these guys look for? Past legal records about sexual offense or so?

      I wonder why you're talking so negative about it. To me that sounds like a measure that actually makes a little sense.
      I mean, sure it may be overkill but hey, at least for once they target the real world! Having to apply for childwork sounds sensible to me. And if you want to work with children then why should you mind a background check?

      Disclaimer: I'm not one of the "think of the children" treehuggers at all. In fact I find the noise that little kids make rather denerving ;-)

    2. Re:It's the same in Australia by Nutria · · Score: 1

      sure it may be overkill

      But that overkill is the problem.

      To work in a licensed dayschool, my wife had to get fingerprinted, so the state could do a criminal background check, and show a copy of her birth certificate (presumably to prove that she's not an illegal alien).

      But before they decided to get licensed in order to be open a full day, she worked at that same school for 8 years.

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    3. Re:It's the same in Australia by Kent+Recal · · Score: 1

      Well, apart from the usual beaurocracy nonsense (re-licensing after 8 years...) I still don't see how that's unreasonable. Working with children is a big responsibility and I find a criminal background check adequate in that case as long as the terms are clear upfront.

      Ofcourse nobody should be denied to work with children because they stole a lipstick as a teen or somesuch. But if you have *real* crimes on record then you probably shouldn't be in the business of educating children, don't you think? I really fail to see what the big deal is in this particular case...

    4. Re:It's the same in Australia by Nutria · · Score: 1

      But if you have *real* crimes on record then you probably shouldn't be in the business of educating children, don't you think? I really fail to see what the big deal is in this particular case...

      Either Americans are way more efficient at doing the same background checks that AU/UK do, or AU/UK are doing something extraordinarily more over-arching, anal-retentive & bureaucratic.

      My vote is on over-arching bureaucratic anal-retentiveness.

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    5. Re:It's the same in Australia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      >Disclaimer: I'm not one of the "think of the children" treehuggers at all. In fact I find the noise
      >that little kids make rather denerving ;-)

      Maybe you should let them out of your incest sex dungeon?

  72. Cuomo should be careful by hansoloaf · · Score: 1

    his last predecessor was obsessed about prostitutes in all shapes and forms.

  73. But with your son, it was a good thing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Does the girl thing bother you more than the boy thing?

    You remind me of the old joke:

    A farmer catches his buddy fucking a goat in his barn.

    He says "What the hell you doin' with that goat?"

    His buddy says "well, I'm pretty horny, so I was fuckin' a goat"

    The farmer laughs and says "Well, are you going to fuck my steer too?"

    And his buddy replies "Hell, no! I ain't no homo!"

  74. They got the caption wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I didn't see anything sexual about the LHS pic. Seeing that as sexual is very much like the victorian thinking that made seeng a woman's ankles was depavity presonified (but practically having the nubs bust out was a-ok!).

    The RHS was sexual. Or at least extremely titillating. Whether this is KP depends on what age they are. InJapan, it could be they are absolutely legal (14 years plus). In Kentucky (I think), not (21 years+).

    1. Re:They got the caption wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I didn't see anything sexual about the LHS pic.

      You're beginning to get the point. A few posts up, someone posted the names of a few "kiddie porn" newsgroups. I don't know the others, but I do happen to know a.b.p.youth-and-beauty.
      That group has a strict no-nude, no-erotism, definitely-no-porn policy. Except for some spam (some of which does contain child porn), the kind of pictures you find there are primarily the LHS kind. Some bend toward the RHS, but those are usually older models (15+).

      But to some people, the LHS is child porn. And remember that US law on the subject has changed some years ago, an image does NOT have to depict nudity or sexual activity to be considered child porn. A "lewd or luscious pose" is enough to get the photographer in jail. So don't take any pics of your kids where they lean back or to the side and smile shyly toward the camera. Avoid pictures taken on the beach at all cost.

      I once heard one of those CP fighters on TV. He was talking about children posing in those "bathing suits that look like underwear" you find on KP sites. My first thought was that normal people usually refer to those as "bikinis". He also had a problem with kids photographing themselves and each other and posting the photo's on websites where they could be harvested by KP collectors. He didn't mention what site, but from the context, I think he was referring to facebook.

  75. Kids and bathwater by Opportunist · · Score: 2, Insightful

    That's what we're getting in here. You want to stop X, X is faciliated by Y, so getting rid of Y should get rid of X. Easy conclusion, but a fallacy.

    Child porn was around years before the internet existed, and no matter how you crack down on internet propagation thereof, you won't stop it. Why? Because the internet is not the medium it was created for. If you wanted to get rid of, say, MMORPGs, then yes, getting rid of the internet would probably solve this problem.

    If you want to fight child porn, don't try to eliminate the propagation means (you can't, it's much like trying to mimic Sisyphos rolling his stone uphill), eliminate the source. You have pictures of the perpetrators, for crying out loud!

    Btw, your daughter should be safe. Or rather, it's in your hands whether she is. A friend of mine is a social worker, specializing in just that matter. In a nutshell, whether a child gets into such a situation depends mainly on his or her parents. It usually is parents not loving them enough, or parents "loving" them too much (if you catch my drift...).

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  76. Text groups: Individual.net by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you're really about the discussions then there's Individual for 10 euros a year. Very good at sorting out spam.

  77. Re:Somebody tell that tool that you can *add* grou by Prune · · Score: 1

    I don't like big tits. If I needed cushions I'd get pillows. Medium tits FTW!

    --
    "Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason."
  78. First they came... by LordHatrus · · Score: 1

    When the government came for alt.binaries, I remained silent: I was not a filesharer. When they locked up the kiddy porn posters, I remained silent: I was not a pedophile. When they came for alt.religion.vim, I remained silent: I was not a Vim follower. But when they came for alt.religion.emacs, there was no one left to speak out.

  79. But its for the children. by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    "We are sorry that you are no longer permitted to leave your home without a pre-approved commute plan and a scheduled police escort, after a thorough 'intent-scan', but think of the children".

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  80. Bye Bye Internet ?? by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    This is just the beginning, its more like 'bye bye to our way of life and freedom'.

    And who is going to be brave enough to complain these days and risk being tagged a dissident?

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  81. Giganews by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    Once it becomes federal law, they will be next.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  82. the really funny part by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    is how avidly you trolls read everything he writes. you losers are the twitter experts, which is one of the saddest wastes of life and effort imaginable. one day, you might step up to spooge mopping at the local peep show.

  83. Re:Somebody tell that tool that you can *add* grou by pxlmusic · · Score: 1

    i do support for Comcast, and i end up taking everyone's usenet calls. that said, i wonder how long before we drop our usenet service. perhaps i should just put up the money for GN and be done with it.

    --
    "If for any reason you're not satisfied with our service, I hate you."
  84. The end... the beginning! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I heard a million USENET leechers scream out at once and then they were silent.

    Bellsouth, now part of the AT&T Deathstar monopoly empire, shut off alt.binaries yesterday at noon. Getting free access through your ISP is all but over. While I hate kiddie porn, they could've just blocked the groups they found it on, or better yet, track down the purveyors. So really the shutoff is not about K.P., it's about eliminating the storage and bandwidth headaches for ISPs, providing less for the same $, and of course helping out their buddies in the entertainment industry. It's end of my relationship with Bellsouth/AT&T. I'm canceling my service with them. On to Speakeasy and Giganews!

  85. Re:Somebody tell that tool that you can *add* grou by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    TWRR dropped Usenet because they were sending too much money to Newshosting for their outsourced news server, and Cuomo gave them a convenient excuse.

    They didn't even use him as an excuse. The official word (a webpages linked from the news.rr.com, said the reason was lack of popularity).

    And now my upstream usage on my TW line has gone from insignificant to near saturation. USENET was a huge win for ISPs, because the cost of supporting it was far lower than BitTorrent.

  86. Re:Somebody tell that tool that you can *add* grou by STrinity · · Score: 1

    Well no, the alt.* hierarchy is the only one where you can create your own group easily -- and that's a bug, not a feature, caused by someone figuring out the command for creating alt.* groups. The traditional Big 8 require you to go through a long Request for Discussion process to prove there's enough interest in a subject to justify a dedicated group. This is why you don't see rec.binaries.bestiality.hamsters.duct-tape and rec.fan.karl-malden.nose but there are tons of such groups in alt.*

    --
    Les Miserables Volume 1 now up with my reading of
  87. You forgot something! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You have to add salt, too.

  88. Re:Somebody tell that tool that you can *add* grou by ivan256 · · Score: 1

    Use giganews. It's cheap, complete, has long retention, and it's probably faster than your ISP's news servers. Plus you can use your account on the road as well as at home.

    Let your ISP push packets. Their "value-added" services usually suck anyway.

  89. Isn't that quote good enough for a defamation suit by plasmacutter · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Isn't that quote good enough to qualify as defamation. He's basically calling everyone who uses the NTTP protocol a pedophile.

    I personally am incensed.

    --
    VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
  90. Re:Somebody tell that tool that you can *add* grou by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nuke them from orbit.
    It's the only way to be sure.

  91. Cult by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Begin of Message. 0;0

    Just remember it didn't have to be this way. These organizations are taking this and similar actions willfully.

    They do not have a grasp on the emergent behaviors which will result when the system is modified so rashly. They do not care because their belief and analysis shows their profits and control either remaining constant or growing.

    The four areas of tampering have dire consequences:

    1. Internet/Media/Communications
    2. Transportation
    3. Financial Markets
    4. Government

    My own simulations (curiously enough using random binaries on the alt.binaries.* hierarchy as a source of entropy) show that the current state of things has a result factor of 3.6 months and that the reconvention ratio will be approximately 0.74 at that time.

    The net result will be a massive shift in efforts on their part sometime on or around Armistice Day (talk about Irony) followed by a major dissolution event on or around Groundhog Day, 2009.

    Subscribers to the use of branch-distance simulations would be well served on both of those dates to fully and faithfully observe all preconditions described in the 1958 treatise that originally developed the theory including:

    • At least one glass of water [0.5 liter minimum] taken orally before bed and upon waking.
    • Any text to be read during an event should be read in full. Avoid texts that reference other texts through direct quotation. [Updated according to the 2000 congress:] Avoid websites that include summaries or truncations of their own or other sites' texts.
    • Any food must be symmetrical in at least two ways. Use either completely square bread for sandwiches or else make sure the layering of the internals are palindromic.
    • The rest of the directives may be referenced appropriately or obtained through previously specified channels.

    End of Message. 0;49

  92. No Usenet in India. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Heh, be grateful you actually have Usenet. here in India, ISP's are so lazy and cheap (not affordable!) that they do not provide this thing called usenet. You use services from paid or free providers in other countries.

  93. NYC by sjames · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The city of New York has without a doubt been used to distribute child porn. I say we nuke it!

    Of course, there's the post office! We'll have to burn those down.

    Of course, the one absolutely essential ingredient to child porn is children.....

  94. Usenet is ancient. Let it die. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seriously, it's decades old. and it's not like there aren't better alternatives that have also been around a long time.

    I haven't used usenet in a long time, especially since the SPAM levels went through the roof.

  95. Defend Usenet! Fight Child Porn from Closing it! by Bushido+Hacks · · Score: 1

    The Usenet has been untouched for years. But now that child pornographers (CPers) are shifting gears toward the Usenet, it is our responsiblity as Usenet users, especially those who subscribe to Usenet binaries, to shut down the CPers before the law (which knows about as much about the Usenet as they do the concept of witchcraft).

    Like any mail system, the Subject of a message is a given description of whether a message is pushing CP. The problem is that these jerks will post their crap in ANY of the alt.* group reguardless if they support binaries or not. Binaries subscribers suffer the most because when the message is in their heirarchy, i.e. alt.binaries.erotica.carmen-electra, all the nerds who are swapping photos of the worlds most loved Clevelander are now suspect because samirATmailDOTru wanted to distribute photos of all the children he's touched.

    American's need to wake up and knock this lazy "can't someone else fix it" crap off. When was the last time there was a major virus kicked around the Usenet? Where is the fringe crowd of computer hackers?

    Freedom is not free. And if we don't stop the CPers and the technophobe law enforcement agencies, we will lose the Usenet!

    --
    The Rapture is NOT an exit strategy.
  96. He's building political capital by Tungbo · · Score: 1

    Some of you may recall that his father was a loved governor of NY state for many years.
    He is obviously planting the seeds for his own race. This is a simple case of
    scoring points by beating an easy target.

    What I am surprised by is how few people here plan to protest this tactic to the AG or the
    the ISP. You know that many busybodies will write to the ISPs eventhough they have NEVER
    heard of Usenet before. If as many or more subscribers write to the ISPs, they
    may discover more of a backbone to negotiate and try to craft real solutions instead of
    a sham.

  97. Alternate edits by Tungbo · · Score: 1

    ADD ISP ADDRESS HERE

    RE: Stopping child porn on the Internet

    Dear ISP:

    I am sure you are aware of the New York State Attorney General Andrew Cuomo's campaign that aims to rid the Internet of child porn. So far, several major ISPs have fallen for the misinformation perpetuated by his office and agreed to overreact by shutting down a huge portion of the Internet that has nothing to do with child porn. I have been a subscriber to your services for ___ years and am concerned that you might also be mislead by these lies and succumb to the ineffective and counterproductive tactics promoted by Attorney General Cuomo. I have enjoyed the USENET newsgroups such as ________ for many years. And even the Attorney General's own study showed that 99.9+% of the newsgroups have nothing whatsoever to do with child-porn. I urge you to contact the Attorney General's Office as soon as possible and tell him you will not participate in this overreaching campaign that will do nothing to actually shut down child pornography. Tell him instead that you will shut down specific sources of child pornography following the existing laws.

    Sincerely,

    ADD YOUR NAME HERE

    cc: Office of New York State Attorney General Andrew Cuomo

  98. Re:Ass, NO it would ot be child porn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    IN order for a picrure of a child to be "PORN" it has to have sexual content or be used for sexual stimulation. Your typical picture of kids in a tub is not child porn in any US court.

  99. Re:Somebody tell that tool that you can *add* grou by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    One of those nice little features of usenet is that people can *create* groups. If they ban the entire alt.* hierarchy, people are just going to create new groups outside the alt hierarchy for everything, legal or not. This will, of course, be an enormous headache to sort out since there will be *many* new groups being created for each existing group and it will take time for people to agree on which ones to use. Perhaps some of the new names will even make sense...

    e.g. startrek.ds9, music.lossless or porn.bigtits.

    They can do what Telus has done in Canada - ban all groups carrying Binaries.

  100. Just block the Internet. It has child porn too!!! by remitaylor · · Score: 1

    Honestly, I don't get what all the fuss is about.

    Usenet has child pornography - it MUST be stopped at ALL causes.

    We should ban Usenet and, if after 30 days, anyone hasn't complied ... we should NUKE the data centers!

    Seriously.

    The internet has child pornography! And what about TERRORISTS??? They use the internet all the time!!!!!!

    What are we waiting for, people??? It's time to BAN THE INTERNET!!!!

    I mean, honestly, what good has ever come from the internet, anyway?

    While we're at it, I've heard that some child pornography comes from Eastern Europe ... we've been waiting for decades for an excuse to NUKE the Russians back into the stone ages ... NOW IS OUR CHANCE!!!!!

    I, for one, would rather die of radiation sickness before the following nuclear winter than to see any child pornography in the world! WE MUST NUKE THE *ENTIRE* *WORLD*!!!!!!!

    ---------------

    ISP's are taking away all of our freedoms. What the F%&K can we do about it? A few major ISPs dominate most of the US bandwidth market. Once they all start deciding what users can and can't view ... it's all downhill from here. What can we do before all of our freedoms are taken away from us?

    This Sucks.

  101. Re:Fascism needs sexual repression by moogyboog · · Score: 1

    Without it the objectives of creating a repressed mass cannot be achieved. We are supposed to have seperation of powers, what these moves signify are that "rule of law" has now borken down, Industry and government have started to collude to such a degree as to undermine the liberties they are entrusted to provide via communication networks.

    When there are no seperation of powers between branchs or industry we will see total tyranny. We have to get in the way and shut this and other moves down, they are declaring war on freedom itself. This century might very well fulfill total nuclear annhilation, and the faster communication gets slowed or shut down the sooner we will have all out war and anarchy. They must want this to happen, otherwise why short circuit the economy and the communication infrastructure.

    If they think this will bring about world peace they are fools. If one can sexual repress the young than one can effectively control the masses through mysticism and fascism. Masses will then seek out a dictator to fullfill the desires and ideas they are repressed from and lack. This happened in Germany in the 1930's. If we are seeing a repeat then there will truly be massive destruction and warfare in the near future, I'm afraid that this needs to be sent all over the net, people need to understand the ramifications of censorship and sexual repression.

    Freud called it "the return of the repressed".

  102. Re:Maybe the FEDS planted these things on purpose? by moogyboog · · Score: 1

    I was thinking wouldn't it be easy to create a backdoor? You know a way to put things on the net that could then be used to destroy people's ability to communicate. Nobody knows who posted the stuff for all we know the government could have been the posters, right, you know like planting a gun or drugs on the suspect. Then Cuomo comes along and plays the good cop. Afterall the feds have THE largest database of child porn on the planet, maybe they might be doing something with it other than using it to identify the victims?

  103. Re:I thnk the feds are posting this stuff by moogyboog · · Score: 1

    Just a thought but maybe they don't care because they are the ones doing so, or maybe it could be Viacom and RIAA MAfiaa MPAA doing the posting we all know how much they love NY and Spitzer and now Cuomo. Can't people figure that this people are running protection rackets and it happens to be the North Eastern seaboard that has begun our descent into middle eastern style sexual repression. Next he'll be calling for Shria Law to be enforced in NY city, thus the constitution dies from a thousand multicultural cuts to the trunk of the metaphorical tree.

    You've got government wanting to bomb the world, media companies wanting to control communication, sexually repressed mentally ill wanting to inflict maximum lowering of intelligence on the rest of us wild eyed sexual freaks and political radicals, which will of course lead to fighting in streets rather than on the messege boards, which maybe where the morons in the war on drugs want this to go, where they can inflict the sadistic pleasure they so greedily desire with their safe sex rubber bullets and clergymen with billyclubs can get off all they want on bashing the protesters heads in.

    Obama means a war on speech, MCcain means a war on movement and speech, funny they both want to stop speech, what a coincidence. I bet the kids will revolt when they figure out what this war has costed them and they come back from the gulf to a censored internet, it'll probably be cops busting the heads of ex-soldiers from the gulf demanding their rights back, this will be a nasty next 4 years maybe.

  104. Re:Ass, NO it would ot be child porn by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    IANAA and IANAL (therefore, IANAAL) but I've heard of rulings where an image has been defined as porn because someone could find it titillating.

    I think it was here that I read it. It's ludicrous - some third party unknown to you could get a hard on over potatoes and that means you get 25 in PMITA pen.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  105. Re:Somebody tell that tool that you can *add* grou by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Since children are a cause of a lot of freedoms being restricted why don't we just get rid of the children? Food prices would plummit too!

  106. Re:Isn't that quote good enough for a defamation s by Heather+D · · Score: 1

    Yes, it probably is, but the ISP's involved just don't give a damn.

  107. Dear Mr. Coumo, Please ban all books! by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

    "The war against the alt.* hierarchy of Usenet"

    It is not a war on the alt hierarchy, it is a war against free speech. This is no different than saying that some books are available that portray child porn so we should ban all books."

    --
    Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
  108. usenet is destroying the KP industry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    by giving it away free on usenet, how could the artists make any money off it? better to get rid of usenet and limit distribution to proper commercial channels

  109. Re:Ass, NO it would ot be child porn by HTH+NE1 · · Score: 1

    some third party unknown to you could get a hard on over potatoes and that means you get 25 in PMITA pen.

    Potatoes Mashed In The Ass?

    --
    Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
  110. They do contribute something useful to society by GargamelSpaceman · · Score: 1

    While Usenet does have useful value, it IS full of kiddie porn. alt.binaries.pictures.naturism.family alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.young alt.binaries.pictures.youth-and-beauty alt.binaries.erotica.teen.female alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.mclt I mean seriously, do any of these usenet categories contribute anything of value to society???

    I can see two useful functions they serve.

    • Illegal posts are primarily advertisements. Any criminals that attempt to get paid have posted their advertisement where law enforcement can also see it. As soon as the criminal attempts to get paid, then law enforcement will have them.
    • They serve as a sink for these kinds of posts, keeping these posts out of the other groups and away from the eyes of those who are not interested.

    Serving as a sink is the more important function of the two. In fact this is one of the most important functions of the entire alt.* heirarchy. For instance, there will be sci.physics, frequented by physics students and even PhDs having serious discussions at one level, and then there will be alt.physics which may have some serious discussions, but is a place where Joe Stoner can post his Marijuana inspired grand green unified theory of everything without cluttering up sci.physics.

    Getting rid of alt, will mean that Joe Stoner, having nowhere more appropriate to post will then post his stupid idea to sci.physics cluttering up the group.

    Then the sci heirarchy will just probably just start carrying a sci.alt subheirarchy. Likely the other heirarchys will do the same. The current posters to the above newsgroups will just spam some other unfortunate non-alt ( say xyz.* ) newsgroup heirarchy which will have to provide a more appropriate xyz.alt.binaries.pictures heirarchy outside of alt.* for this stuff so as to keep it out of the other groups in that heirarchy.

    --
    ...