Slashdot Mirror
US ISPs Announce Anti-Child-Porn Agreement
An anonymous reader writes "It seems that ISPs have gathered together with 45 attorney generals and the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC) to form an agreement to crush child pornography. What does that mean? Probably the same as it meant for RoadRunner, Sprint, AT&T and Verizon customers — the end of the newsgroups." Here's the back-patting press-release from the various parties who signed on (the National Cable & Telecommunications Association, the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, and the National Association of Attorneys General), though the actual text of the agreement does not seem to have been made public.
methinks you meant attorneys general. what is the point of /. having editors if they don't edit?
you must be new here
first post
Don't call me back. Give me a call back. Bye. So yeah. But bye our, well, but alright we are on a shirt this chill.
And those that fail are now liable for carrying illegal data. Also if you download MP3s. Even from Amazon after paying.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
Why do I have the feeling that all this will do is block many websites and services that have nothing to do with child pornography, inconveniencing thousands of innocent web users, while the paedophiles find new ways to trade child porn and are barely inconvenienced? I'm all for fighting child porn, but blocking individual websites or newsgroups is clearly not working, and blocking vast chunks of websites and newsgroups is going to result in blocking mostly legitimate content. Would it be too much to ask for these organisations to actually focus their resources on catching the paedophiles for once? I'm not even sure which is worse in society - a paedophile with child porn, or a paedophile who can't get hold of child porn but wants to see naked children...
Well that's that. Usenet is dead. I am glad that child predators won't have any other way to access the cesspool of child pornography that is Usenet.
... that have child porn?
Can we call this the "Yet Another Useless Stupid Deal For Nothing"
I hate child pornograpy as much as anyone SHOULD, but I know whats a PR stunt that wont solve a thing and will only reduce internet's freedom to share information in exchange for absolutly nothing at all whatsoever.
How can we convey to the public that the internet's value depends directly on ISP's not being able to discriminate traffic by content?
How can we put out there the idea that the internet has all this potential for individual freedom and that any kind of attempt to enforce any kind of legal stuff in it will only hinder the potential it has FOR THE COMMON JOE?
Fucking legislators, fucking ISPs and fucking, unreasonable and plain stupid bible-hugging assholes.
NO SIG
> the actual text of the agreement does not seem to have been made public
Now we're going to have a bunch of whiners who never even RTFA.
A first for Slashdot.
The ISPs can monitor all your traffic as deeply as they want to, and gather up whatever the local law enforcement needs for a warrant.
And you have no recourse, ever, thanks to the new FISA ammendments, brought to you with help from your pal and mine, Senator Barack Obama.
Hey, Mr Hope himself even supports the death penalty for child sex offenders. That'll be fun.
The good senator will spearhead this witchhunt with truth and hope and change and (bullshit), and all the expanded priveleges of the White House.
I've been reading usenet for 15 years, I've never seen any child porn. Do I just not frequent the right groups?
Well, there's your problem.
and granny pr0n surfing will be on the increase:p
They'll have minimal impact on the perverts, but no doubt they'll get a chance to tighten the screws on the rest of us. Which is, of course, what it's all about.
And I certainly wouldn't be comfortable with anything the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children has its fingerprints on. It's been caught phonying up statistics and acting in a manner that could best be described as "self-serving" on more than one occasion.
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
I suspect the RIAA and the MPAA are behind this.
(and no, you cannot borrow my tinfoil hat.)
If this is going to shutdown the newsgroups, it is a semi-clever ploy to curb piracy... disguised as a "think of the children" scenario. I always enjoyed getting what warez I do grab from my ISPs hosted newsgroups, because unlike something like bittorrent, it is my ISP that is in fact "making available". Since there are actual legitimate (though very few nowadays) reasons for the existence of Usenet, they can't just turn it off. Instead, they give the world a bleeding heart story, while the RIAA and the likes line the pockets of these people.
"When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
-----
Not just newsgroups, but also websites that are known chi1d pr0n purveyors.
Will it really help? Not sure. One thing is certain - the anonymity and reach of the Internet have made it easier than ever for those who want chi1d pr0n. These kinds of changes won't stop the hard-core users, but they may reduce the more casual dabblers. Is that enough? Not likely.
Gotta love that ad for Giganews that is being put up on that article by Google AdSense.
I've watched a few episodes of cops where, after raiding a crack den or whatever, the cops then pose as the dealers and do a sting on everyone who buys the product. It seems like it should be similar here--raid the servers, and identify the clientÃle.
But the REALLY important thing, and I do mean the REALLY important thing, is to trackdown and rescue the exploited children. I'm okay with punishing people for participating in the distribution process; however, the reason we view it as so despicable is because of the value we place on the children involved, and our primary efforts should certainly be directed toward finding the source of child porn vs. find the recipients.
I now realize that this is a spam post, but damned if I wasn't squinting at this thing for a few minutes trying to figure out what the ASCII art was representing...
Personally, I think it looks like a three-headed dragon with one arm and no legs. Or maybe it's a three legged dragon that's just upside down.
Random Thoughts From A Diseased Mind (Not For Dummies)
Tor (The Onion Router) is a free software implementation of second-generation onion routing - a system enabling its users to communicate anonymously on the Internet. Originally sponsored by the US Naval Research Laboratory, Tor became an Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) project in late 2004, and the EFF supported Tor financially until November 2005. The Tor software is now developed by the Tor Project, which since December 2006 is a 501(c)(3) research/education non-profit organization based in the United States of America that receives a diverse base of financial support.
http://www.torproject.org/
Freenet is a decentralized, censorship-resistant distributed data store originally designed by Ian Clarke. Freenet aims to provide freedom of speech through a peer-to-peer network with strong protection of anonymity. Freenet works by pooling the contributed bandwidth and storage space of member computers to allow users to anonymously publish or retrieve various kinds of information. It can be thought of as a large storage device which uses key based routing similar to a distributed hash table to locate peers' data. When a file is stored in Freenet, a key which can be used to retrieve the file is generated. The storage space is distributed among all connected nodes on Freenet.
http://freenetproject.org/
I can only assume that "MOU" means "molester of children", and I for one am glad that our media overlords finally live up to their responsibility and execute all suspected molesters! Finally somebody thinks of the children and are not afraid to say so! When Time Warner death squadrons rake hot lead into the last paedophile and burns his body with acid will be a great day not only for America but for all of Earth! (queue crying eagles)
Did they at least take the time to define what child porn is?
"Thanks for all the money you paid to us. We've used it to buy off ISO among other things" -Microsoft
So the NCTA member ISPs have agreed to censor the internet (details still unpublished).
Let's presume, for the moment, that it turns out this includes suppressing the .alt hierarchy, usenet in general, watching traffic and filing tips if a user browses a "bad" site, or otherwise doing something we'd consider improper.
Then it's time to switch to a non-NCTA ISP wherever the option is available. (Yes, even - especially - if you're NOT a pedophile.)
The government and the ISPs claim that competition is all that's needed to keep the ISPs regulated. Fine. Competition works by the customers switching to "better" providers, thus hitting those who misbehave right in the bottom line.
Let's try it.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
When you announce censorship to stop piracy, everybody gets up in arms about net neutrality.
When you instead use child pornography as your scapegoat, the majority will turn a blind eye to your censorship efforts.
Note that the first thing to go was alt.* on usenet, a large source of piracy. If they had choked off alt.* because of piracy, there would have been much talk about net neutrality. Since they did it because of child pornography, nobody mentions net neutrality.
I think it's supposed to be a hand with middle finger extended, but it's not a very good one.
Uh, "if it looks roughly mouse-shaped according to my infra-red sensitive pit, eat it"? --Chris Burke 09-08-10
We had one of our ISPs cave to something similar. So I wrote this letter to the marketing director: (pardon the asterisks)
Dear Steve Jackson
I'm writing to express my concern over ******'s introduction of website filtering. I believe this sets a disturbing precedent for the continuing provision of internet services by *****.
An ISP's role is not to regulate what I can use my internet connection for. An ISP's role is to provide me with an internet connection, which **** has been excellent at doing.
The aim of 'stopping objectionable practices' is a noble one. However, problems soon become apparent when one considers that my interpretation of objectionable behaviour is undoubtedly different from *****'s interpretation. The logical conclusion to this line of reasoning, is that at some point in the future when I want to use my internet connection for something, **** will decide that it knows best, and stop me from so doing.
This quote from David Lane (Director of Society For Promotion Of Community Standards Inc.) is particularly disturbing: "... [The society] wants the filtering extended beyond child porn content to include the blocking of all hard core pornographty sites and those promoting "objectionable" content defined in secion 3(2)(a-f) of the Films, Videos and Publications Classification Act 1993 (sexual violence, bestiality, etc).".
It illustrates the problem rather well. I have used the internet for pornography, and I don't expect to be blocked from doing so in the future. If I look at pornography more hardcore than the limits imposed on free-to-air television, this doesn't make my behaviour 'wrong', and I certainly don't expect **** to impose its standards on my behaviour. If I do something illegal, then that's relevant for the Police, not a coporation.
Additionally, the concept that a list maintained by the Internal Affairs Office will be capable of cataloguing all objectionable sites on the internet is flawed if not outright hilarious.
There are various software packages available which attempt to keep the internet 'safe' for younger users. I am sure that, combined with actual parenting, these tools are far better suited to keeping children from accessing inappropriate content.
I should take this moment to clarify that my primary concern is not that I may soon be unable to access pornography with my **** account. Instead, I believe that once this form of filtering has been introduced for one honourable reason, it will only be a matter of time before the practice of filtering is extended to other aspects of the internet.
It is widely publicized (although not necessarily accurate) that 'peer to peer' (p2p) services consume a disproportionate amount of bandwidth accross the internet as a whole. I extend from this assumption that some time in the future **** may be in favour of blocking p2p services in order to extract more customers from the same amount of bandwidth. This would have a real and noticeable affect on my internet behaviour.
There are other scenarios in which **** might decide to filter my internet use. For example, I'm sure **** wants to retain their customers, and so logically it would be a sensible idea to block all competing ISP's websites. Or, if there is a damning report about ***** on a news website, it would be very easy to block any user from accessing that website.
I'm not suggesting that **** does or would do any of these measures, but the only way I can be certain of this is for **** not to regulate my internet behaviour in any way.
The knee-jerk reaction to this news would be for me to cancel my **** account. Instead I'm going to post this letter on a few popular **** forums, and raise general public awareness of ****'s actions. I will continue to closely monitor ****'s actions, and may switch ISPs if it continues with this course of action.
Yours Sincerely
Insanity: voting in the same two parties over and over again and expecting different results
"I commend the nation's cable operators for utilizing the National Cable and Telecommunications Association (NCTA) to negotiate and collectively enter into a unprecedented industry-wide agreement with the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC) to limit the availability of child pornography on the internet."
No agreement is, or ever was, necessary for any ISP to proceed forth to fight child pornography. The fact that some kind of mutual agreement is in place suggests something else is going on behind the scenes. Would NCMEC have prohibited ISPs from fighting against child pornography without an agreement? I doubt that. Maybe these ISPs knew all along they were part of the problem with child pornography? Or is NCMEC trying some more extensive shake-down tactics?
The big question will be just to how far will these ISPs go in the name of protecting children? Just how many will use it as a false excuse to shut off internet resources that have nothing to do with child pornography and were not even the victim of spammers of such content?
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
Use the hyphen...not the dash.
It won't protect me from my uncle... Or any other child - this stuff isn't new. As if no child was ever molested before the internet. These are nothing but keywords - to elicit emotional response and push through their agenda. That way if you oppose them, they can say "You support kiddie porn!"
I'm all about getting rid of child porn on Usenet. But, I think Time Warner axing all newsgroups and Verizon getting of the whole alt heirarchy is a bit too much, and hurts Usenet.
Why not just block the newsgroups that cater to these sick perverts and leave all the others alone.
I mean, how many child porn newsgroups are there. My usenet account show maybe 5-6 groups. I'm sure other servers have more. Let's say there are 20. Just block those. Leave all the other newsgroups alone. There are plenty of legitimate alt newsgrops. I use alt.aquaria all the time.
If the ISPs want to not deal with it, let them take down their Usenet servers and outsource the way Comcast does to Giganews.
From what I gather, this is only the ISPs that have their own servers that are affected, and not independent usenet providers themselves (like Giganews). Notice that Comcast is not listed as an ISP in this grouping? That's because Comcast contracts out their usenet service to Giganews. If you want unrestricted Usenet access, then chances are you'll have to pay for the service, instead of the (in my opinion trivial) offerings from the likes of Sprint et al. If I recall correctly, most dedicated usenet providers start somewhere around 5-10$/month for a couple of gigs and free headers. It's really just a flash in the pan feel good law. I wouldn't know about the CP scene, but just like with anything else (music/movies/whatever) there are always going to be other ways. I'd like to know how the stand alone usenet/alt.* providers are going to respond to this. Will they follow along and weed out groups? Looking at Giganews AUP they mention something about responding to reports of inappropriate groups (where the name refers to illicit content) by reviewing the group and making a decision to keep it or drop it. alt.multimedia.simpsons.episodes would be ok, where alt.multimedia.kiddie.pron would be subject to removal if the group showed itself to actually contain that and not be some bad joke some idiots had added for their own amusement.
Seriously? This is like using mortars to end a hostage standoff; sure they'll hit some nefarious parties, but most of the casualties will be the very ones they're (supposedly) trying to protect.
Won't this just mean that ISPs will become responsible for content now? So if I see some child pornography I can sue my ISP for not properly enforcing their own standards?
There are so many ways to make available files to a lot of people that getting rid of Usenet may barely be noticed. Even without P2P networks, a lot of people make warez files available through FileFactory, MegaUpload, RapidShare, and similar sites; while some of them are rather restrictive, I dare say they're easier to access for the regular Joe than Usenet is, and you can both upload and download using a proxy so your IP isn't logged.
So I don't see why lists of child porn content hosted in those services won't be available just as easily and readily as they are on Usenet. Sure, those services take down files every now and then, but I still see lists being available in plenty of places and kept up to date; IRC chatrooms, P2P networks, Yahoo groups... there are plenty of places where such lists can be posted.
Trying to stop information, any kind of information, from being spread on the Internet is a really futile excersice. You'd think they would have figured that by now.
Futurama Madhouse
"Fucking legislators, fucking ISPs and fucking, unreasonable and plain stupid bible-hugging assholes."
We need to get more of these fucking people fucking each other and see how they fucking like it.
The FCC admonishes Comcast for their P2P traffic management techniques.
Never fear. Now major ISPs can start blocking P2P altogether in the name of a cooperative effort with government (45 attorney generals), to crush child porn.
The FCC can't oppose a measure "to crush child porn".
It's a very crafty political technique.
There are a lot of people who want to see child pornography crushed. It's a popular political position to take.
ISP entirely blocking access to an IP, just because some of web pages served from it may include 'undesirable' content (for ISP's definition of the day for 'undesirable'), is definitely non-neutral.
There aren't that many of the general public who understand what "network neutrality" means, or the harm it will cause when ISPs start blocking sites for arbitrary reasons.
I'm sad to say, that Network Neutrality will probably be the first casualty of this cooperative.
It will start with "child porn" illegal stuff, but it won't stop there.
Yes, all of Usenet, or all of alt.* may die, even with all its perfectly legitimate and legal content and discussion areas.
Will the general (uneducated) public hear about it, or lose any sleep over it? Probably not.
First Usenet, then P2P, then IRC, then Youtube, then most of the web (other than major content providers' and business' sites).
On RoadRunner's website they state that they dropped usenet access because of low customer demand. Supposedly some other ISPs only dropped certain groups (alt.binaries.*) but RR just stopped providing usenet service altogether. They used to have their own servers until around November of 2006 and then they outsourced their service to NewsHosting. Then of course in June they stopped that as well. Given that when I would call tech support when I had issues with the usenet service and none of the techs knew what I was talking about (I used both 'usenet' and 'newsgroups' terms when calling) or wouldn't know anything about it but knew what it was, it doesn't surprise me if demand was actually really low and it just wasn't worth it to keep paying NewsHosting for the service.
I ended up signing up with NewsHosting instead of Giganews because NewsHosting had recently changed their plans around to offer 8 connections with 80 day retention and unlimited downloads for only $14.95 a month which was must cheaper than Giganews (I was aiming for an unlimited account). Luckily I can still stick it to RR since all my downloads still have to go through their pipes.
At least we still have these 3rd party news services. Hopefully they will not ever cave to SIGs who want to stop usenet just because a few groups contain child pornography. We may as well disable TCP/IP on all routers because it is the transport mechanism for digital child pornography.
this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom. -- Lincoln, Gettysburg Address
I find it odd that we are supposed to be impressed by them preventing the viewing of this material. Isn't the real crime the act? Shouldn't this money and their time be spent preventing more harm to actual children rather then the same old prevention of the copying of bits? I see a lot of effort wasted.
Go get the people committing the crime! Surely preventing distribution of the documentation of the crime should be a part of the effort, but why does it seem like that is the end in of itself? There isn't a copy file method in existence that hasn't been used to distribute all manner of offensive and criminal behavior. Yet there is far less prevalence of certain crimes than others in distribution channels. If you can stop (for the most part) beheading, torture, and other crimes, why not this?
Also, forget about usenet, why not shut down all of limewire?
Owner of www.example.com: "Uh, yeah, I want to see the child porn blacklist. I think you might have blocked my site by mistake."
ISP: "Hey! This guy is trying to view the child porn blacklist!"
Police: "Oh hey, website owner. We're arresting you under suspicion of possessing child pornography."
Owner of www.example.com: "Wait, what?"
Police: "You asked for the list of sites, and on top of that, you tried to visit www.example.com, which was on the list. Clearly you wanted to see child porn."
Then, watch the whole country get pissed off.
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
Just read: "Anti-child porn agreement"... wow.
I found a directory hierarchy that actually contained text suggesting child-pornography. As a general rule, anything on Google that is recent as of the past 5 years will be CIA and FBI entrapment. Make sure the source has been around for a long time. That's why I trust YABBITBOY's White Strapon and Lesbians Forum, as well as STILEPROJECT. -- hands down --
Mind you, Google Search is a CIA-created entropy pool with an evidence repository (mail.google.com). Don't trust them even with a proxy server; all the free proxies out there may as well be as free as Google will ever be, and that is verry unlikely.
Are there any reputable ISP's that aren't covered by this over-zealous censorship? I'm looking to switch providers now that Verizon has caved, and am wondering what my options are...
Newsgroups are useful for legitimate purposes. They should set up a mechanism whereby people can report newsgroup-based child abuse. Since you need to be registered with a newsgroup provider (either your ISP or one you pay to access), they can easily track down people who post or download that stuff. But don't cancel a valuable system that's useful for thousands of legitimate uses because of several illegitimate ones.
McCain/Palin '08. Now THAT's hope and change!
I was on Usenet two nights ago looking for a song in my vinyl collection that's in deep storage, and all the .alt.binaries groups I'm subscribed to were there (yes... even those, so stop with the jokes).
And yesterday AM when I logged on, they were gone, and and "Alt- 411 no such group" error appears instead.
All the other groups I'm subscribed to are still functioning.
I spent four hours on the phone attempting to "complain", and got the "standard" troubleshooting script more than a few times, before I politely interrupted one woman, and asked firmly to speak to her supervisor.
The bitch (oh, did I say that? Why YES, I did, in retrospect) put me on looooooong hold, then came back on the line and said with dripping sarcasm: "I'm so sorry for the loooong wait, here's your extension." ... click...
After calling back I was again transferred several times by clueless people, dropped a couple more, and finally vented (nicely) on a poor 611 tech guy, the only human I could speak to who actually had technical knowledge.
And yes, dear friends, he was also completely clueless about the attacks on Usenet.
I'm now more angry that they have "insulated" themselves from humans with the endless phone tree.
If it don't GO... chrome it. ~ Frank Banks
.
We have been through this before.
USENET like IRC chat requires clients that are arcane and fussy to use.
It is uninviting territory for new participants unless they have something very specific in mind --- most likely the trade in music, DVDs, warez and porn that causes nothing but heartburn for their ISP.
The five-star-rated News Rover 11 for Windows has seen 210,000 downloads in two years
--- if you want to crack the Download.com Windows Top-Twenty you need to see those kind of numbers each week.
Your unlimited service from Giganews is $25/mo - $30/mo with SSL encryption. Plus whatever bandwidth surcharges your ISP may lay on top of that.
Giganews is not invisible. Giganews is your next target.
Personally, I'll take the unlimited DVD-Blu-Ray rental package from NetFlix.
Open the mailer. Load the disk.
Perhaps as you grow older, you grow tired of the game.
If shutting down all usenet is the only way to stop such a dastardly problme, then let's so it. Sure. Why not, makes sense, right? Sure we shut down a big thing to stop a small percentage of it that's bad, but it's the only way right?
But there's still other ways to get kiddie porn. Websites. Email. File Sharing. The very Internet itself. So let's shut that down too. There, the Internet is gone.
But people still take the pictures. And sell them. Magazines. Private collections. I mean it's only a tiny fraction of what people use cameras for but they do it. So let's get rid of cameras and video cameras too. Outlaw those.
But some people will still find a way. So let's get rid of them. They are only a small percentage of society but hey there's no other way to stop them. So let's get rid of all of the peopole.
The problem with your argument is that you sir, are a moron. That you would so quickly do away with something simply because YOU have no personal use for it, is a testment to your narrow thinking and lack of any understanding of what liberty means.
"and there's a naked 7 year old...."
That's your example of child porn?
A naked 7 year old?!
Ever been to a public swimming pool?
Lots of topless 7 year old's running around.
Ever been to a nudist colony, lots on completely butt naked children of all ages just running around.
You sir, are referring to innocent images of children and sexualizing them, and that's the real child porn.
It has no bearing where the image/s are posted, you are the one making it sexual.
I've seen those photos you mention as well, and also deleted them, since I prefer adult women...
But I digress, none of those images were sexual, no suggestive poses, just naked girls.
You come off as a Pervert with that mindset.
If it don't GO... chrome it. ~ Frank Banks
this is just another attempt to "civilize" the net and it won't be the last. Will it work, probably not, but in the end that's not the point. DRM, the RIAA etc are just the Pinkerton's of the 21st century. Nobody liked them either. This is wrapped up in the cloak of stomping out child porn so it will be implemented without too much opposition. What we know as the "net" won't exist in 10 years, maybe less. Will "hobbyists" lurk in the background, sure, but the vast majority of people using the net will have zero idea of what is under the hood in what they are running in any way shape or form. This is another step in mainstreaming it for them.
I hope they don't take out comp.* in this slash and burn campaign.
"a small percentage"
go to an alt.binaries.pictures.erotica group
go ahead
download a smattering of pictures, labelled as if they were something completely unrelated to child porn
please, go ahead oh great genius
now. try to write what you just wrote above again
asshole
NO ONE WANTS TO USE THE PLACE ANYMORE REGARDLESS OF WHAT THE GOVERNMENT DOES
THE GOVERNMENT DIDNT SHUT DOWN THE BINARIES, CHILD PORNOGRAPHERS DID
no one wants to use this place anymore, because no regular user wants to unwittingly download child porn
get it
using your OWN examples, would you like to take a picture of your wife and look at the preview and see a naked 6 year old?
would you like to buy and open a magazine called "wired" and find a naked 8 year old?
what would happen to the magazine industry?
REGARDLESS OF WHAT THE GOVERNMENT DID
it would dry up. no one would want to buy magazines anymore if every time they opened a magazine they were playing russian roulette and might get a naked child instead of an article about video games
you simply don't know what the hell you are talking about
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
posted in a sexually frank way
is evil
because there is a VICTIM asshole
the NAKED CHILD DIDN'T CONSENT. because a seven year old IS NOT MENTALLY FORMED ENOUGH TO CONSENT. you are oding the child MENTAL HARM
do you deny any of that?
these guys are taking these pictures of these naked girls for THE SOLE PURPOSES OF SEXUAL TITILATION. not swimming in a pool!
this is a crime, one of the most heinous that there is of crimes, and you act like it is natural and acceptable
what the hell is wrong with you?
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
people
OK, I have no evidence to back this up and I'm certainly not trying to troll, but I've been around long enough to know that when big business has the chance to make more cash and get a larger market share they do. They aren't stupid.
Alright then, we have this anti-child porn cartel, whats to keep them from saying, "You aren't in our group so you are either too irresponsible to be in this business or you are in favor of little kids getting raped, so we're going to blocking your traffic."?
If you had the chance to kill off all of the mom and pops in a single blow (aka local telcos), why wouldn't you? Is there a cost for joining this club? I mean they need money to run, right?
There are a lot of small ISPs who have dropped news groups years ago, for fear of getting labeled as pro-child porn but does this mean anything?
Once again, I'm not trying to troll, I'm just a little suspicious of any massive trade groups intent.
Also what about news groups on Google? Are they the enemy as well?
No, they're shutting down that sector of the Internet. Next they're going to block AIM and Yahoo Messenger, because of the chat rooms on those services -- a niche service for p2p file transfers.
They could just shut down the Internet, except for businesses and academic institutions. Deny home users any access, except maybe e-mail. Full access still available at public kiosks.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
And the people against net neutrality would love to align it with child porn in Joe Sixpack's mind. However, they need to astroturf a bit first to get some people who really are in favor of net neutrality to take the bait.
Until the Telecommunications Act of 1996, they were common carriers. But the telecom industry bought themselves a loophole by getting an exclusion for 'information services'.
that's what you are honestly trying to tell me?
what a stupid asshole
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
For years, I kept reading that any monitoring or filtering of *transport* content (not content on their own hosted servers) would be flatly rejected by the ISPs due to potential loss of their "common carrier" status - which in turn would open them to all sorts of customer liability lawsuits for not filtering this, inappropriately filtering that, etc.
So what's happened to that safeguard? I understand it wouldn't apply to usenet groups being hosted/provided by the ISPs, but what's being discussed here is blocking traffic to third-party websites.
KeS
Comment removed based on user account deletion
if you disagree with me, make a proposal to filter out child porn submissions on all of the alt.binaries. not volunteering, huh? no idea how to do it, huh? don't deny it doesn't exist. don't deny there is a lot of child porn posted there. don't deny it is wrong and must be fought. don't deny shutting down the distribution channels is a valid means of fighting it.
I say we take off and nuke the entire 'Net from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.
there was a good chance you'd get naked 7 year olds instead of articles about video games, the magazine industry would be dying, and the government wouldn't be what was killing it
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
"Man is distinguished, not only by his reason, but by this singular passion from other animals, which is a lust of the mind, that by a perseverance of delight in the continued and indefatigable generation of knowledge, exceeds the short vehemence of any carnal pleasure."
Who's more bored, you for encoding that or me for decoding it?
How we know is more important than what we know.
7/10
Not THAT great of a troll but i lol'd a couple times, so bonus points.
STOP thinking of the children....
please mod parent funny
Maybe I've naive, but how much "Child Pornography" is actually publicly available on the internet? (No links please, thanks)
I mean, I see PLENTY of "regular" or even crazy-weird porn online all the time, but I've NEVER accidentally or intentionally come across child porn. Are the distributors sophisticated enough to use private/encrypted systems, or do I just not crawl usenet enough? Seems like a fictional problem that sounds REALLY good to elected officials and families ("Yes, let's change to that ISP who blocks child porn, that will solve all of our problems, honey!")
I'm all for recovering exploited children and keeping them away from child molesters, but why do I not see a photo taken ten years ago and posted on the internet as a particularly heinous crime in this day and age?
Note... my ex GF was a cop and they (cops) ALL took particular pleasure in busting active child molesters/"public weenie-whackers". I liked to hear about them getting caught as well, and my GF said that 99 times out of 100, the suspect would be the biggest sissy on earth and start "crying for momma" as soon as they were even arrested (not CONVICTED...yet).
Grandpa: My Homer is not a communist. He may be a liar, a pig, an idiot, a communist, but he is not a porn star.
I think what we're really looking at here is the instrument by which P2P for the masses will be destroyed -- all in the name of "we must protect our precious little snowflakes!" -- and before anybody gets started on me, I am NOT a pedophile, child molestor, or sex offender of any type, and I am against all such activities and the people who perpetrate them. Still I assert that this, or something like it, is going to be the hammer that gets dropped on P2P. Think about it: If you're a pedophile, then you're insane to have your wares hosted on a web server somewhere that can be raided, and you arrested. You're better off using the Gnutella network and it's like, and BitTorrent, right? At least, it's plausible, and that's all they really need, is plausibility, because everybody knows that only dirty filthy criminals use P2P, right? Of course what will really happen is that like with anything else, their efforts will just drive the pedos deeper underground, and meanwhile P2P will likely have to evolve in a direction that likewise takes it out of the daylight and fairly deep underground, too -- because no matter what, you can't stop the signal, Mal..
I think the tendency to let the influential elite channel an emotional reaction from a moral issue into practical policy makes the US a better empire, don't you?
If i'm not mistaken... this is the same as closing highways because criminals may use them for bank robbery escape routes. this isnt about ending child porn, this has more to do with ending distribution routes used by people to destribute content themselves. In other words, the major corporations behind these ISPs have an interest in dictating usage so that they are the single delivery system for content to their end users. Child Porn is an excuse used to distract us from the real situation. The newsgroups is not full of child porn... child porn is perhaps .005% of the porn on newsgroups.
The truth is... all of the good porn, tv shows, movies, music, etc etc are on the newsgroups... that means MASSIVE bandwidth usage.
The bandwidth used by child porn sick fucks, doesnt even compare to the bandwidth being used by jackers looking at "of legal age" material, or the file traders who are sending massive amounts of data through the newsgroups.
Kiddie porn is a fucking political power move. Dont fall victom of it. Its not a widespread issue.
Sounds good to the media and electorate but in the end does nothing.
Undetectable Steganography? Yep, there's an app fo
The thing is, the government may deem such images as child porn, which means by viewing them you are breaking the law. Unfortunately, you don't know what you're going to view, really, until you view it because it is mislabeled. How do you defend against it? You did download it. You did view it. They can't prove your intent with that specific picture, but your intent in your overall session is clear so based on the context they can probably draw a legal conclusion that you willingly downloaded and viewed child porn. The part that scares me is that if you're actually interested in nudism you can come across pictures of children which, while the context of them are not sexual, are child porn simply because they show naked children. What do you do when you come across a photo like that? You're not thinking anything sexual about these children (hopefully) but nobody knows what you're thinking except you, and from many outsiders' points of view you are viewing child porn. For pete's sake, taking a photo of your own child's first bath could be considered child porn to some folks out there. The problem is there are a few hundred folks in Washington that represent the rest of us, except that I only get a say in electing three of them (house, senate, president(&VP, but is that really a choice?)) and of those, there's only really a 50/50 shot of each one I voted for getting into office (and that's if I vote on the two major party lines). Don't get me wrong, I'm not a child porn supporter, but in a world where you can be declared a terrorist and thrown into prison with no rights just because someone says "You're a terrorist!", we should really be careful about allowing trials to convict people when the constitution demands a FAIR TRIAL. Moral questions are answered so differently due to religion, heritage and personal background that I don't think any two people completely agree on anything.
As terrible as (genuine) child pornography is, from a societal standpoint, censorship is much worse. This has been demonstrated by history time and time and time again.
Not only does censorship NOT WORK, it does a tremendous amount of harm to individuals and society. Just read your history... you can find out all about it.
"... those who do not remember the past are doomed to repeat it." -- and many variations of this, commonly attributed to George Santayana
Err.... I appreciate your balls, but no. Just no.
#1, I'd really like to see that study, and what is understood by "extremely young girls", as well as how that was correlated to genetics. I don't see how that was accomplished.
#2 I also don't buy the "10%-25%" number. If it would be that prevalent and genetically based, I'd expect "extremely young girls" in primitive societies to be far more pregnant. I can potentially buy the argument down to 15, but extremely young smells of 10. That doesn't fly.
#3 Finally, a couple of hundred years ago, girls were married off like cattle and sold into marriages. When girls in similar societies today are allowed to speak out, they almost universally condemn it. As a matter of fact, there was a story on cnn.com yesterday just around that.
Seriously. Young girls - by my definition, anything under 16 - do not have tits, do not have curves, and most importantly, can't deal with a proper relationship yet. And those that do mature physically earlier, still haven't developed emotionally.
I'm glad you stay the hell away. Because if I ever have a girl and I smell someone like you around her, I will beat the crap out of him.
Again, I'm glad you have the balls to speak out and start a discussion (thank god for AC posting). However, I still see nothing but lame excuses, shady references to unnamed studies, and most importantly, a bogus external locus of control (it's my genes!). While pedophile doesn't mean wanting to fuck little girls, there's a fine line there. From what I can tell from your posts, your main reason to stay away from fucking underage girls is the cost to you. That tells me you don't understand what that does to underage girls (let's be blunt and say below 14), nor are you concerned about it. Instead, you spend a lot of time finding justifications for why it is ok to be sexually attracted to them.
Let me put it this way: some people might be sexually attracted to barnacles. I don't care about it, nor do I care about the barnacles. Go have fun with them, if that's what floats your boat. With kids under a certain age though, you will screw them for life if you act on your desires. Again, I don't care where those desires come from. But fucking girls who aren't ready for it is something that's worse than murder - it can destroy a life without ending it.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
I have been using newsgroups for a LONG time. I still use them on a daily basis. I have become a regular contributor in 10-15 specific groups and would hate to see the actions of a few ruin it for everyone.
Been using Newsdemon Usenet Newsgroups for a long time. Their yearly unlimited account can not be beaten. I even got some help from them getting a spammer booted out of one of my groups.
Unfortunately, you're a part of the problem because you haven't the balls to speak publicly about this important issue.
If you are truly afraid of "The Government" coming after you for downloading a mislabeled photo, then you have greater things to be concerned about.
Cowards never changed anything, citizens that speak out make the changes.
If it don't GO... chrome it. ~ Frank Banks
Pity to see the droids out there modding me down for actually having the balls to point out the logical fallacies of the "child Porn" issue.
Weak dicks.
If it don't GO... chrome it. ~ Frank Banks
A easy way for government to get rid of P2P sharing as well. I mean, if they can put the lock down on usenet and newsgroups what is to stop them from saying "P2P is a way to share child porn".
I feel this has bigger implications than most think.
I always figured those were stings.
Nobody would really spam all of alt.binaries with kp that has a url on it if it wasn't a trap.
I mean, come on. Either the feds are totally inept or they are the source of most of the kp spam that gets posted to OT binaries groups.
I'll get my coat.
It's time for the net neutrality people to sue them.
I've sent in complaints to the EFF and ACLU, I suggest you do the same.
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
So, exactly how old does Brittney Spears look in her "Baby Baby" music video. Call me a sick fuck if you want (hell, I call myself that too), but she sure looked under 18 to me when I first saw that video, and (there's a seat for me in hell) I sure as shit got horny thinking about shagging some of the girls I knew in high school that dressed in school uniform and showed plenty of teaser bits to get me going. And it was Brittney that brought it all flooding back to mind, providing ample material for fresh fantasy. So now I understand that I like "child pornography", and that therefore I'm a potential child molester and threat to society and deserve to have my nuts chopped off, and internet access revoked forever.
I contend, ladies and gentleman, that Brittney Spears promotes child pornography and should be punished and imprisoned for life for her misdeeds.
And NO, I will not "leave Brittney alone". She make's money out of turning us witless adult males into psychotic child molesters, and she needs to be shut down promptly. End sarcasm. Damn, I'm just an ordinary bloke - who decided to turn me into a psycho?
But we have no way of stopping people in other countries making and using guns, and people in the UK can still see pictuers and videos of this. I think that we should immediately get a law through forcing ISPs to censor gun sites, especially with the glorification of the handgun and its increasing use in urban gangs.
We have a similar problem with knives, and I think all access to the Leatherman site should be blocked. I mean, why should I be able to see pictures of an item that is illegal to carry on the streets of London?
Finally, we have a very real problem with speed here. We have laws about it, but we can't control people in other countries. This means that these people can make videos of things going really fast and upload them to Youtube and other places. People in the UK watch these videos, and then go out and do crazy things on the roads, killing them and others.
As we don't have any means of controlling the production of these videos, it would make sense to control distribution and viewing of these, to remove that impetus to commit crimes that British people are currently faced with.
Yours Sincerely,
From the office of Jacqui Smith
I see nothing here about blocking websites that are not being hosted by or affiliated with the ISPs in question. If you're hosting this material on webspace given to you by your ISP or on a home server, you technically shouldn't have anything to worry about.
However, when the line between upload/download is blurred (such as on P2P) it's a little scary of a precedent.
Depending on how you define "pedophile", you can come up with a figure of almost zero percent, 1 to 3 percent, 10 to 30 percent, or 90 to almost 100 percent.
Oddly enough, according to the statistics of the FBI and other law enforcement agencies around the world, the vast majority of child molesters are NOT pedophiles in any way, shape or form. Most child molesters are heterosexual, adult-attracted men who (a) can't find a woman, (b) got drunk or high, (c) are under stress, or something else along those lines.
Besides all this, there is no reliable evidence that children are harmed by sexual activity which they desire (in and of itself - STDs and such are a separate issue), regardless of the age of their partners.
In short, something is rotten in the western world, and this subject has not received an honest discourse.
For those who are interested in learning more, look up boychat and girlchat - though you can't find girlchat on google, since they delisted it.
I think it's time to lie down our own cables.
From neighbour to neighbour. And to bridge longer distances, organize properly and ask a commercial telco (or whoever has cable in place) to simply lease a cable to us. I repeat, lease the cable. Not "provide connectivity".
That way I think we can get back the control of what's going through the cables. Thus "feeing the Internets".
hany
This would probably matter more if most ISP-provided usenet feeds didn't have retention that can barely be measured in HOURS to begin with. I imagine the pedocons, like anyone else who has any serious interest in newsgroups in general, and binaries newsgroups in particular, probably pay for premium usenet service. What worries me is what happens when this (As obviously will be the case) does nothing. Will they eventually try to wipe out usenet altogether?
Giganews is up to 240 days retention on all binary newsgroups. If it's out there, anyone who wants it can have at it for $25 a month. But then, so it goes. That's always going to be the case...so where does it end? We start taking pointers from China? From Web 2.0 to Web Good-fuckin-Luck.
Friend: "The NIC is misconfigured..." Me: "No prob, I'll just telnet in and fix it." *Silence*
Why doesnt the goverment just give pedo's all the child porn there hard drives can handle. Then they will be too busy masturbating to go out and find a real child. Some prisons keep prisoners so well fed they become fat and lazy thus reducing violent crimes inside the facility. Similar concept.
This is just like the TSA security checks at the airport: a minor inconvenience for most internet users, a major hassle for a few, and only capable of blocking the stupidest of the criminals it is intending to catch. Oh, and both cause an observable erosion of civil liberties.
We are the 198 proof..
Not to mention Miley Cyrus, Vanessa Hudgens and Jamie Lynn Spears. Interesting that no one has been charged with child porn or molestation in these cases.
We are the 198 proof..
They seem keen on censoring people's minds too. Not just porn but politics. These are the new liberals of change. The idea of change means calling all your enemies right wing extremists. Since this censorship coupled with economic collapse will result in increases of crime and violence or overall anarchy in the streets these politicians will reap a whirlwind of chaos and they won't even know what happened and how they created this environment of corruption. Pyramid scams will increase, hysteria will overtake rationality and there will be some that will feel happy with this except when they lose control over the outcome of their lives. If you are in a room full of liberals and speak your mind you will be ignored or shouted down, in reality the left are no less fascist then their arch enemies of the republicans. We've had newsgroups since the beginning, these morons might as well wipe out http to "save the children" and shuttle us all onto a disney land mall like architecture for shopping and sharing our tips on goods or products for sale, what a rip off. They killed radio and tv and now they seek to wreck the internet.
The founding fathers must have been child molesters too by these standards of free speech, we now implicate free speech as child porn. That basically sums up insanity. To think freedom means crime means war, civil war, and disaster. Why don't they just line us up and shoot us in the head and ditch us in the graves? Seems what they are aiming at, since they don't like free speech and equate it as child porn. Free speech means favoring child porn according to these geniuses. Since they are probably lying they must be planning somthing like 911 right now. Get your survival foods, ammo and guns, since Obama thinks we are all paranoid bible thumpers that are backwoods rednecks. The hatred of the south as well seems to be invasive like a diseased infection in the liberal democrats, they actually believe that people that live differnetly then themselves are stupid and if the government says so then it must be true. Dumb people make dumb laws but evil people make hell for everyone, these censorhip moves are evil, they are death star, darth vader like destructive. I don't like this child porn but I am not dumb, free speech on usenet doesn't equal child porn. These are semantic sicknesses being instituted through society. Freedom means slavery, etc. A redefining job, a twisting of language, a twisting of meaning. Laws on sex vary all over the planet and throughout all 50 states, only the muslims would rejoice at this kind of censorship, these laws belong to the taliban. Hey, they just censored all the media and we had 911, any connection between censored media and massive violence? Wake up people, wake up or they'll make more attacks. this has everything to do with power, violence and religion. Repression brings about a nazi like state of affairs. Ok liberals are you for censorship or freedom? Make up your minds because you sound worse than bible thumpers at his point. A single democrat decided to shut out free speech like a Mullah, he hate's speech doesn't that constitute "hate speech"? Can anyone answer that? Does hating speech mean you are a hate speech maker?
Check the US, some states drop as low as 14 for age of consent. I believe Spain's AoC is 13. However, per US law, a minor, under 18 & not emancipated, cannot enter into the model contract to do a legal photo shoot. That leaves a whole lot of very strange potential situations - In a few cases people have been arrested for private boudoir photo's of their wives.
Could this be the end of Eternal September? People serious about wanting usenet access can get a pay account to access it and all the spammers and riffraff that have plagued it since the mid 90's will be for the most part gone. Still there are a lot of downsides of this, but I don't think losing a piracy outlet is one of them. Have you seen the retention of most ISP's these days? They don't retain enough of anything to be worth much anymore. Their binary section usually has a size limit which means that unless you are collecting each piece as it comes in, if you log in, you only see about 1/4 of the last uploaded chunks of the file. And don't get me started on how much they throttle the usenet speed (I'm talking sub dialup speeds). Anyone who uses it for binary access is almost certainly using a pay site that has decent retention and good speed. That isn't going to go away from what I understand.
--Won't that be grand? Computers and the programs will start thinking and the people will stop. - Dr. Walter Gibbs
To all those people (including Slashdot commenters) who got smug and extolled the virtues of usenet whenever a P2P software maker, torrent site or whatever went under... ...let this be a lesson for you. I've seen many +5,Funnies that said "the first rule of usenet: don't talk about usenet" in response to +5,Insightfuls or +5,Informatives; maybe it's time you actually started heeding this advice.
Pride goes before a fall.
Well, if ISP don't give the services... well a lot of server over the internet give you newsgroup access.
Working at prohibition always failed. Alcohol had been made, people had been killed for the prohibited alcohol, but in the same time the prohibition give a rise to the alcohol consumption.
The make of those movies and pictures should be severely punished around the globe. The one who mess with those children life should be the one punished.
But even that, with the history in mind, isn't enough to clean the problems.
With a freaking anarchist-corporation power system, killing the free capitalism ideal of family buisness... our world is sick. And a side effect of that sickness is the freaking bad behavior of the fucker of that sick world.
More your elite is corrupt, more they gather together looking at devious sexual behavior. The powerful of this world, promoted that kind of activities in the curtains of anonymity.
Jourdelune
Old and busted: Witch hunting
New hotness: child porn hunting
There is a creeping consensus in the English speaking countries that ALL adults are capable of sexually exploiting children. And that the state has a responsibility to deny them the opportunity to do so.
The pass rate is not terribly important. There will always be enough women testing clean to fulfill the demand. Those places in the U.S. where prostitution is legal have managed to set up reasonable and workable testing protocols and the brothels do not go without personnel.
I'm not standing up for pedophiles by any means but we need to put a stop to ISP's and Corporations teling us what we can and can not access.
If we took the ISP's and Corporations OUT OF THE LOOP we could give a nice big middle finger to them all! How do we do this you might ask, well here is my idea.
We look at the "Internet 2" project - the one that is saying "no corporation support allowed" We as "geeks" and "nerds" band together and help build it up to were it is like a "sub internet". To where you would just use your ISP as a passthrough onto this "internet". It would store all the things the ISP's and Corps say we shouldn't be allowed to access. More importantly we come up with a way to encrypt our traffic so the ISP's can't exactly tell what is coming and going so it will be damn hard for them to filter. Then we can have TRUE FREE access to information. Not the Communist China version the ISP's and corporations are implimenting. Either that or we go back to the days of the membership only BBS type stuff...
The Truth is a Virus!!!
The problem with that statement is that it is rational. The currently fashionable thinking on the subject, irrational though it may be, is that anyone who views the pictures, anywhere in the world, at any time, with or without the knowledge of the child, is actually committing abuse on that child again every time they view the pictures.
That means that if pictures of a child being molested get into general circulation in that community, then that kid is being raped thousands of times a day, constantly, all day long. *Any* price is reasonable to pay to reduce the number of times the child is raped daily.
It's only when you wrap your head around that notion that you can understand the strident anti-child-porn folks who seem so completely fixated on hunting down pedos and don't seem to give a damn about the kids except to pay lip service to their plight and to pat themselves on the back every time they "catch a predator."
Your observation is reasonable.
However, various courts (look up "Dost factors" and related case law) have decided to include "lascivious exhibition" of the genitals or genital area as a "sexually explicit conduct." Further, courts have decided that any exhibition can be lascivious, even if the child is fully clothed. Still further, courts have decided that any photograph of any activity can be considered a lascivious exhibition and therefore sexually explicit conduct if it arouses the viewer inappropriately. Given evidence of the state of mind of the possessor, any picture can put you in jail. If, for example, you have previously been convicted of child molestation (thus proving your state of mind and your reaction to children), then simply possessing the newspaper department store ad showing tweens in bikinis would be enough to garner you a conviction for possession of child porn.
So, the GP is wrong. It's not just that naked pictures create an assumption of guilt; there's more to it than that. What I find scary is that, under the right circumstances, literally any picture of a child can be found by our (U.S.) courts to be child pornography.
Hell, there have been CP prosecutions for making videos with adults who look young and for cartoons. I don't know why I'm surprised at this crap any more.
It doesn't do much when the root problem - child sexual abuse - will continue with or without consumer demand for kiddie porn.
Maybe the FBI knows something we don't. Maybe a significant number of children who would otherwise not be abused are being abused because there is a demand for kiddie porn.
It's possible, but I doubt it.
Think of it this way: Before the camera was invented, was there a sex-trade industry? Were there husbands trading their wives with or without their wives' consent? The answers to both are "yes."
You will always have dads abusing their daughters. You will always have dads trading their daughters' bodies for cash or other goods or services. You will always have men taking in runaways or throwaways then pimping them out. You will always have men who promise a family he will give their daughter a good job or a good education then forces the girl into the sex trade. Taking photography out of the equation will probably reduce this a little, but it would be far more effective to rescue the girls and go after the pimps.
If you do go after kiddie porn customers, use them to find other girls and scare them away from the whole scene, and send them to a shrink, but don't ruin their lives over it. Of course, make sure they aren't actually having sex with anyone they shouldn't be or allowing their children to be abused.
Oh, yes, I know some men abuse boys and some women abuse boys and girls. The majority of the underage stuff is men with female adolescents.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
you can't blow someone for spray painting
Obviously the word "away" was supposed to be in there somewhere ;)
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
The general age of consent in the US is 16, 17, or 18 in all states.
As recently as the late 1990s at least one state was 14 but that's ancient history.
There are exceptions for special cases. I think one state may be 15 for fondling, and most states have Romeo and Juliet laws and specific exceptions for married couples, and there are other uncommon exceptions.
However, per US law, a minor, under 18 & not emancipated, cannot enter into the model contract to do a legal photo shoot.
It's not as simple as that. If it were, her parent's signature would be all that is necessary to enter into the contract. X-rated photo shoots for money are regulated as hazardous occupations and limited to adults. I'm not sure the legal theory behind regulating non-paid photo shoots, but it's been upheld.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
I know how to get rid of a large chunk of illegal child porn..... Redefine the age of consent to 6 (six).
Vioala! There's that problem gone.
The problem isn't that the ISPs are helping to enforce the law. Next we'll lift the laws against shooting people. That ought to reduce a bunch of the crime in the cities.
Without laws there can be no crime!
Anarchy may not be the best form of government, but it's better than no government at all!
But I digress; ISPs are the new ceiling cats.
This post approved by Shampoo.
In cases where an actual crime has been committed, the victims have privacy rights, so it makes sense to restrict distribution of "crime scene photos."
When no actual crime occurred, such as when two 15-year-olds who are married to each other and therefore emancipated have sex, taking and distributing a photo of the event is not a "crime scene photo" nor are unemancipated minors involved. It takes a different legal theory to outlaw such photos.
I think courts have upheld applying anti-KP laws in such cases but I'm not sure what the legal theory was. Probably "interstate commerce" for the feds and "general power to regulate" and some successful argument that the 1st amendment doesn't apply for whatever reason.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
What's funny is people saying this won't actually stop anyone from distributing the stuff, that they'll find another way. While at the same time complaining that other "legitimate" material will be blocked instead - because... you know, we, the good guys, will never find another way.
So... the bad guys win??? Whatever.
Nothing like an article about efforts to eradicate child porn to make the Slashdot populace all ooze up and show their true colors. 4chan fans, porn addicted twits that cry about their first amendment right to watch women be sexually tortured, dudes reeking of entitlement claiming they have every right to ogle and lust after any woman, no matter how young, and the legions of pedophiles and their apologists.
The issue is not so called bad porn. It is the ability for many users to communicate. The Chinese call the Falun Gong religion bad porn and define it as such in their laws. You know, they could also pass a law saying that red was blue and blue was green and arrest one for denying this obvious 'in yer face' lie. The usenet groups are for all kind of interest groups to find each other. Some politicos find this a threat.
This explains things. My ISP is AT&T and I lost all of my alt.binaries.* newsgroups two days ago.
No more crappy MP3's. No more crappy wallpapers. No more crappy MIDI's. Newsgroups have been going downhill since I first started using them in 1993. Back then, I actually participated in discussions...but with the proliferation of spam and crappy porn, it has become exponentially difficult to do anything.
I sure do miss those flamewars in the alt.tasteless.jokes...ah, the good old days.
Maybe I'll finally get rid of my Agent installation - the same one I've had for almost 10 years now.
semper ubi sub ubi
Perhaps some actual victims should get together and call them on their hand waving and force them to take some real action that might really help.
Maybe have a neat slogan like "The internet doesn't molest children, old white male politicians do."
Whenever there is a new sex law someone gets caught in a bathroom stall with another man so it will probably end up being true too.
I've been spouting for years now to lash out,hunt,torture and kill pedophiles.There is no good reason to allow them to waste oxygen.Now Newsgroups are in danger.
Round up this dangerous mutation,exterminate it and recycle to fertilizer.
Bah!
*Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
the same as it meant for RoadRunner, Sprint, AT&T and Verizon customers -- the end of the newsgroups."
I have been an AT&T customer for years, and have not used the AT&T usenet servers in probably 3 years. AT&T always limited their newsgroup transfer rates to around 150k a second, and only had about a 3 day retention. There are many premium servers out there, take your pick. I have used many of the big ones, and each has its strengths and weaknesses. Just google Usenet. Supernews, EasyNews, NewsHosting.com. Pay your $20 bucks a month, get unlimited downloads, speeds as fast as your connection can handle (I get around 5 and a half meg a second transfer rates on my 6 meg DSL connection), most offer encryption and tunneling nowdays, and many have retention days of over 90 days (I think Supernews is claiming around a 200 day retention time now). On the PC, use a binary grabber such as NewsBin Pro (I love this program). Why would I ever go back to using my ISPs usenet servers.
Bring back USENET the way it was supposed to be.
Drop the binaries and pictures and move it by modems again or UUCP over TCP inside of an ssl or ssh tunnel.
My Telebit is ready.
They'll take my alt.folklore.computers away when they pry the keyboard from my cold dead hands.
There you go! Lets do it Old School!
The can't have my comp.os.linux.* hierarchy!
The Truth is a Virus!!!
And you people still don't see it coming.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
In the future, resistance fighting will be about piggy-back riding on monitored internet traffic and fighting for the electromagnetic spectrum.
In response, in the future, they will outlaw crypto.
Main difference between the BSD license and the GPL license: one is from California and the other is from Massachusetts
Like a hydra, if you kill newgroups, you'll just give people a reason to create anonymous distributed newsgroups that can't be blocked or killed by anyone.
I'm doubtful that this will kill newgroups though. The ISPs and the USA legislators seem to forget (or don't care since this is mere PR, pandering and political posturing anyway) that USA laws do not extend to the rest of the world. Newsgroup server on Tuvalu, anyone?
Still, they'll fool Joe and Jill Sixpack with this nonsense. Always have. After all, if Bush can get elected (well, once anyway), then the American people are just to dang dumb and are getting exactly what they deserve.
Cheers!
You people had your chance to have freedom of speech and you fucked it up. So now we are going to treat you like the children you are and take it back.
It's not about the children. The government doesn't care about children, or your health.
If you are an internet user, the internet is being criminalized in the exact same way that the war on drugs was started and there will be a new generation of criminals to fill the jails.
No! Don't crush it, legalize it! The sex can stay illegal of course but media should be free since then the public can help the cops by matching things up in the vids when cops are too understaffed to do it.
Where have you been the last 3 years? :D
Yahoo has unilaterally shutdown the user-created chatrooms a WHILE back, precisely because of "child porn" / "child molestation" concerns. The only thing that accomplished (besides pissing off a lot of legit users), was to drive all the porn-spam-bots and folks looking for illegal activites into the Yahoo-generated rooms (whose structure sucks, but that's besides the point).
End result: the service sucks. I personally stopped using it right after the "kill all user-gen rooms" switch, since there was no longer a way to connect to local people with similar interests (legit interests, BTW). On top of that, the spam (previously tolerable) has reached unbelievable levels.
Perfect example of how the "Swiss-Army-Chainsaw" method does not work. Ever.
Did it stop molestation/CP issues? No. Did it kill a resource used by millions for legit purposes? Yes.
Not sure what's more disturbing - the fact that it's been done (and failed) before, or the fact that ISP's / content providers don't learn from their own history.