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.

Comments

attorney generals?

[Hes Nikke]

methinks you meant attorneys general. what is the point of /. having editors if they don't edit?
you must be new here
first post

Re:attorney generals?

[Anonymous Coward]

They could be generals with law degrees.

Re:attorney generals?

[QuantumG]

Or just non-specific attorneys.

Re:attorney generals?

[brianf711]

I disagree. I think they need to increase their efforts to stop the online distribution of child pornography. There are many sites that have been claimed by some to contain at least some child pornography - rapidshare, myspace, facebook, photobucket, etc; and these should be blocked as well. But even that isn't doing enough if they were to look at the larger ways of distribution. Email, FTP and HTTP have all been used in to distribute child pornography, and if the ISPs were committed to blocking child pornography, they would block those as well. That would only leave a few other things that would need to be blocked to stop child pornography - instant messaging, telnet and a few others. You say they are taking away legitimate purposes of newsgroups, but they are still leaving so many ways of getting child pornography -- so clearly you are a glass is half full and not half empty type of person, and in cases like this, that makes it seem like you are in favor of an internet part full of child pornography.

Re:attorney generals?

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

...that makes it seem like you are in favor of an internet part full of child pornography.

Speaking personally, I am so fed up with the censorship, fear and repression taking place in our society in the name of fighting child pornography; that I would personally prefer to see an internet half full of child pornography before I see any more rollbacks of freedom along the lines this "Agreement".

The child porn excuse has long since lost its ability to outrage me into accepting even quite minor restrictions on liberties. Unfortunately, the general public seems so eager to become apoplectic that media outlets have essentially created an industry around giving people their daily outrage "fix". It's like Soma, except instead of making them happy all the time, they just get angry/outraged.

The effect is the same however, as people allow their emotions to overcome their reason, and we lose all ability to object or hold any kind of reasoned debate. It's like a Mass Panic, but in slow motion. Best to run with the herd, lest you get trampled.

Re:attorney generals?

[corbettw]

You ain't kiddin', brother. In my Intro to Civil and Criminal Procedures class a few weeks ago, the professor started a discussion about the Supreme Court decision overturning the death penalty for child molesters. Almost every single one of those future lawyers (at least one of whom is a cop!) starting shouting about "protecting the children". I don't think I've seen anything like it. These are people training to someday work with the law (OK, not all of them will go on to law school, or pass the bar if they do, but still you'd think they're all thinking adults), and they immediately jumped to "for the children".

I felt like a lone voice calling out for restraint in not wanting to give the state ever more reasons to execute its citizens. It's easy to forget that not everyone in our society is able to think calmly and dispassionately about things like this.

And for the record, I have kids, and absolutely want them protected from the predations of child molesters. I also want them protected from the predations of the government; balancing those two isn't easy, but nothing worthwhile ever is.

Re:attorney generals?

[Venik]

And I say, enough pussyfooting around the problem. The ISPs should strike at the heart of the issue: TCP/IP. That's what needs to be blocked!

Re:attorney generals?

[KGIII]

Oh my... Sorry but you get this one. Now, according to the law as practiced and the spirit of the law... Are people given capital punishment because their crime was so grievous that it deserved it according to the "people" (or at least their representatives) or is the death penalty used in cases where the claim is they want to prevent the person from harming additional people in the future? (Please answer 'cause I have some VERY hated statistics for you though you may not hate them, some do, as they're rather *cough*....

Actually I will just list them now. Irony? I think so... Considering that people who murder people actually sometimes get light sentences and in many rural areas a child sexual offense really only gets the offender a slap on the wrist the first time unless there's a history of it. (Yeah, when my daughter was molested I did some research.)

Anyhow... Use the D.O.J.'s site and happily compile the statistics anyway you want. There are two groups lowest on the list for recidivism. They are murders and sex offenders. The media would have you believe that is some incurable evil brain malfunction for either case but then go holy batshit if someone actually tried to use insanity as a plea for either. Murderers and Sex Offenders are less likely to re-offend than any other criminals. A robber will go back to prison. A drug dealer will go back to prison. A fighter will go back to prison.

Re:attorney generals?

[Antique Geekmeister]

It's funny: if you replace the words 'child pornography' with 'Scientology documents', you can roll this line of reasoning right back to when Helena Kobrin tried to rmgroup alt.religion.scientology. (I really recommend look up the newsgroup on Wikipedia, it's fascinating Internet history.)

Like filtering Bittorrent, a real reason for dropping the alt.* hierarchy is doubtless bandwidth. When I last looked some years ago, there were over 70,000 alt.* newsgroups, most of which had no traffic except spam, and some of which were meerely names to create ASCII art in the list of newsgroups. And the binary groups with the most traffic tended to be porn. So since people can download porn on their own fairly easily now, why should the ISP's take responsibility for such an expensive resource to maintain? Blocking child pornography hasn't been an excuse for over a decade, since 'NNTP-Posting-Host' became a de facto required field from all NNTP service providers.

Most of the ISP's I've seen mentioned are only dumping alt.*, not all of Usenet, which still has a lot of useful discussion groups. The Google archives of such groups are wonderful for obscure technical help, and some of the groups remain quite useful for technical discussions or social networking. Dumping those freely created and awkward to flush newsgroups, as a matter of policy, seems to make good business sense and needn't be burdened with the excuse of child pornography.

Re:attorney generals?

[HungryHobo]

Solution, bring it above board, regulate it, unionise it.
Bring it out of the back rooms and seedy motels and give the girls some decent protection.
Take the fucking control away from pimps and organised crime and you fix most of the problem.

Re:attorney generals?

[TheLink]

Looks like GP was right.

Perhaps one of the many reasons the homicide figure is lower is because they can't kill their hated person twice ;).

Based on the statistics it makes more sense to have a burglary/robbery offender list rather than a sex offender list.

Anyway, putting people on such lists is wrong - once they've done their sentence, you have to let them out.

If a country doesn't have confidence in criminals turning over a new leaf, they should do what China does and execute people for all sorts of crimes - e.g. theft, "hooliganism".

Re:attorney generals?

[idlemachine]

In Australia child pornography is legal, if you call it "art".

Oh come on, that's total garbage.

A picture of a naked child is not a sexualised image to anyone but a paedophile. All of this media beat up crap about it being "irresponsible" on the behalf of the artist(s) because "of what paedophiles do with such images" is further perpetrating the viewpoint that a naked child is a sexual entity. You can't hold someone as immoral when you're espousing their own position.

Look at it this way: there are some people for whom stuffed toys are their fetish. Should we be calling for the banning of Sesame Street for its irresponsible pandering?

Re:attorney generals?

[sckeener]

I recommend that you read Ain't Nobody's Business if you do by Peter McWilliams.

I bought the hardback book when it came out and I had not even heard of it. It is that cool.

The next cool thing is...it is online and free! Here's a link:
http://www.mcwilliams.com/books/aint/toc.htm

And here's a link to the prostitution chapter:
http://www.mcwilliams.com/books/aint/306.htm

What the government did to the author was really pretty horrible. Here's a commentary about his death:

THE MURDER OF PETER MCWILLIAMS

An Indictment, Not an Obituary

Peter McWiliams, 50, best selling author, poet, photographer, publisher, libertarian crusader, medical marijuana activist, AIDS patient and cancer survivor, was found dead on the floor of his bathroom, apparently having choked to death after vomiting, for want of medical marijuana.

There will be an autopsy, but whatever the immediate cause of death may have been, he was murdered by the United States Government as surely as if they shot him. Indeed, it would have been much more humane if they had just put a bullet in his head. No one should have to go through what he suffered at the hands of his country.

When I learned of his death yesterday, I was too angry to write about it. Even now, this is being written more in anger than in sorrow. Peter is where they can't hurt him anymore, but his murderers are still at large, and if there is anything that Peter would want, it would be for us to continue to speak the truth to power, to tyranny.

Of course, if Peter did choke after vomiting it would be directly the result of his having been denied the right to use medical marijuana. Peter was a part of the roughly 40% of those patients for whom the anti-viral drugs being used to treat AIDS can cause violent nausea. The government knew this from direct observation. During at least one court appearance he vomited into a wastebasket during the hearing.

See: How the Government Helps Medical Marijuana Patients: "McWilliams vomited repeatedly in court Friday, prompting guards to keep a trash can nearby." http://marijuananews.com/how_the_government_helps_medical.htm

Dealing with this nausea is one of the best documented uses of medical marijuana, and he had also used it during cancer chemotherapy, when he actually gained weight.

None of that mattered to the judge. None of that mattered to the prosecutor. After all, these are the same people who had held him in federal detention for months on a $250,000 bail, even though he posed no flight risk, the only justification for such a high bail.

See: Peter McWilliams Still Held on $250,000 Bond; Denied AIDS Medication For Four Days!!! Two Stories http://marijuananews.com/peter_mcwilliams_still_held_on_.htm

Had he wanted to flee, he had plenty of time to do so before he was charged, but he is a world famous writer, so he could not hide. His publishing company was there in Los Angeles, and he was taking expensive anti-virals for AIDS. He really could not flee, but that did not prevent the government from violating his Constitutional rights.

Consider the lengths to which they went to keep him from raising the bail.

When his elderly mother pledged her house as security for the bail, they threatened that the government would seize her house if her son simply failed a drug test, not just if he were to flee. She would not be intimidated, but now her son is dead as the result of the conditions of the bail. These are the "family values" of America's war on the sick and dying.

See: "The federal prosecutor personally called my mother to tell her that if I was found with even a trace of medical marijuana, her house would be taken away." -- Peter McWilliams

Re:attorney generals?

[computational super]

Sir, you're being sensible, rational and logical. On this topic that is not allowed. Please report to the nearest re-education camp at once.

Re:attorney generals?

[bigstrat2003]

No, you'd have to include any European countries whose national health care covers abortions. They're murdering their own citizens too.

Isn't unnecessary spin great? See how we can so effectively snuff any rational discussion by tweaking words just a little bit? What a great technique you discovered!

Here's betting it doesn't work

[ChowRiit]

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...

Re:Here's betting it doesn't work

[cstdenis]

Pretending to do something is much easier than actually doing something.

Re:Here's betting it doesn't work

[QuantumG]

What's worse is redefining "child porn" to mean "naked children". Here's the definition, read it.

"any visual depiction, including any photograph, film, video, picture, or computer or computer-generated image or picture, whether made or produced by electronic, mechanical, or other means, of sexually explicit conduct, where -

        (A) the production of such visual depiction involves the use of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct;
        (B) such visual depiction is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct;
        (C) such visual depiction has been created, adapted, or modified to appear that an identifiable minor is engaging in sexually explicit conduct; or
        (D) such visual depiction is advertised, promoted, presented, described, or distributed in such a manner that conveys the impression that the material is or contains a visual depiction of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct . . ."

- 18 U.S.C. 2256

Re:Here's betting it doesn't work

[cstdenis]

Also, if they solve the problem, they won't have a reason to exist anymore.

They need something to justify their existence (and pay check).

Re:Here's betting it doesn't work

[Anonymous Coward]

"Pedophile" does not mean "child molestor." Here, let me rephrase your statement:

I'm not even sure which is worse in society - a heterosexual with porn, or a heterosexual who can't get hold of porn but wants to see naked women...

Do you see the flaw now?

As a pedophile, I am sick and fucking tired of being stuck in a corner among the sickest imaginable because of urges I can't control. I didn't fucking ask to like little girls; I just do. It's just one of my idiosyncrasies. I don't kidnap, rape, or molest children, nor do I ever plan to, and I have an entirely constructive relationship with the children I do come in contact with. Surprise! The vast majority of pedophiles are rational human beings, just like you. The man in the white van who offers you candy is a psychotic; the exception, not the rule.

Please, cooperate with me here. The only way to get this demonizing bullshit to stop is by changing the general mindset of pedophile = sick child raping motherfucker.

Re:Here's betting it doesn't work

[Jerrry]

"I hate to say it, but the web has outlived it's usefulness anyway. Any idiot can create a website, Any idiot can post anonymously and any idiot can freely distribute kiddie porn as a result. Let's face it, the web is an outdated system that is primarily abused. Anything accomplished on the web can be done elsewhere faster, cheaper and better. Sure, the pedo crowd can still find ways to trade, but the web makes it too easy to hook up. Killing the web won't kill kiddie porn, but it makes it more difficult. Does anyone really give a crap if the web disappears? Seriously?"

Just replace "usenet", "the web", with just about any networking technology and your statement still has the same meaning. Where does it end?

Re:Here's betting it doesn't work

[againjj]

To me, it sounds like the ISPs have agreed to turn off web sites that NCMEC complains about. They will "use NCMEC's list of active websites identified as containing child pornography, to ensure that no such site is hosted on servers owned or controlled by those companies." This is to "enforce their terms of service, all of which forbid the hosting of such illegal materials on their servers." In other words, sites are going to be turned off based on NCMEC's say so. Thus they look good for turning off sites that are illegal (think of the children!), and NCMEC gets the power they want.

From TFA:

Specifically, the cable companies have agreed to use NCMEC's list of active websites identified as containing child pornography, to ensure that no such site is hosted on servers owned or controlled by those companies. The companies will also report these instances to NCMEC's CyberTipline and where appropriate revise their policies around other potential sources of child pornography, such as, for example, newsgroups.

The agreement with NCMEC will provide cable broadband service providers with an invaluable source of information to help them enforce their terms of service, all of which forbid the hosting of such illegal materials on their servers. The information provided by NCMEC to cable service providers will also help them identify instances of child pornography, facilitating their reporting of such material to NCMEC as required by federal law. This in turn enables NCMEC to refer these cases to law enforcement for investigation and prosecution.

Oh, and the newsgroups bit seems like sensationalism to me.

Re:Here's betting it doesn't work

[PunkOfLinux]

Wow, I really commend for having the balls to come out and say that. A bunch of my irc buddies are pedophiles/lolicons, and they would love to see this post.

And, yes, you're right. while there is some intersection between pedophiles and child molesters, it is nowhere near a majority. If you want to see how ridiculous this seems, replace 'pedophile' with 'straight male' and child with 'woman'. You end up with "straight male = sick woman raping motherfucker". Sure, some straight males ARE sick woman raping motherfuckers, but that doesn't mean they all are. It's normal for someone to have strange urges and desires; there's nothing inherently wrong with liking little girls. It's not until you destructively act on those desires that it becomes a problem.

Re:Here's betting it doesn't work

[Anonymous Coward]

You and about 12% of the male population in North America according to the only study I've ever read. I don't sympathize personally, but we've already spent the better part of human history demonizing men who like other men and women who like other women. Those obviously couldn't be consensual either. Even consensual anal intercourse between a man and a woman is or has recently been illegal in many states.

How is that relevant? Knee-jerk reactions to issues based on a gut feeling are not always the best way to determine legal outcomes of peoples' thoughts or feelings.

Good studies have shown time and again that there is no definite link between the viewing of underage pornography and the abuse of children by that viewer, but because they get turned on by something we lump them in as molestors.

Here's one that really gets me -- technically a pedophile is only someone who gets aroused by pre-pubescent children, but viewing of 17 yr olds who are supermodels (yes, many professional adult looking models are under 18) engaged in sexually explicit conduct qualifies as viewing child pornography.

So next time you all say 'think of the children' remember these laws are about you when you were 17 checking out that picture of your naked 17 yr old girlfriend. Yes, that's child pornography too.

PS look up Genarlow Wilson.

Re:Here's betting it doesn't work

[Kiuas]

What's worse is redefining "child porn" to mean "naked children".

No what is even worse is the fact that they don't even have to be children and it can still be considered child porn:

(B) such visual depiction is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct;

If I understand correctly it is enough if the person in the film happens to look too young and whilist I agree that intentionally trying to make a film look like child porn is a bit weird it still shouldn't be a crime if every person in the film is an adult.

Besides in my oppinion it's still preferable for somebody to watch "fake" child porn than the real stuff and having this fake stuff available legally could even cut down the number of those who want to watch real child porn.

Re:Here's betting it doesn't work

[mcpkaaos]

Troll much? A pedophile is one who is sexually attracted to children. Where does it say "views movies of other people raping little children"? I'm a heterosexual man and I like to view naked women. Does that mean I want to watch one get raped?

You are what you do, not what you think about. Please chill out with the prejudice.

Re:Here's betting it doesn't work

[green1]

I am no expert in this, but my take on it is this:

if the magazine bills itself as showing girls who are of age ("legal") and shows girls who look too young, but ARE of age, than it "appears" legal.

however if the magazine uses those same girls, who ARE of age, but CLAIMS them to be too young, then they "appear" illegal.

basically, as long as you don't claim anywhere that the people portrayed are too young, and there is nothing in the picture to imply it, and you DO claim visibly that they ARE old enough (and they in fact are) then all appearances are satisfied.

I think that is more what the law is addressing. it allows them to prosecute where there is no way to determine the age of the person in question, but where it is obvious that things are not intended to be legal.

Back on the main topic though, my concern with such things isn't the blocking of child porn (personally I think that would be a very good thing), it's the possibility of "collateral damage" to innocent sites, and worse yet, "feature creep" where they decide that once they have child porn they'll block pirating, then normal porn, then anyone having a cigarette in a photo, then anyone who disagrees with them on any grounds, etc... (classic slippery slope) and once you get to that point you can't fight any of it without being labelled as a lover of child pornography.

Re:Here's betting it doesn't work

[Original Replica]

Killing usenet won't kill kiddie porn, but it makes it more difficult.

But it wouldn't protect any children, it would just make their plight less publicized. The children that are in child pornography pictures are being abused (obviously)The people abusing them are not the one viewing them on the web, but are the people taking the pictures. It is the children that we are trying to protect here isn't it? Ending the distribution of pictures does nothing to stop the real life abuse. It's just sweeping the problem under the rug. Attacking distribution instead of production shows that the protection of children comes second to the punishing of the pedophile. While protecting the actual children being abused would seem to be a higher moral priority, it isn't as media savvy/lucrative as simply chasing the pedophiles. Look at things like "To Catch a Predator" or the FBI's fake hyperlinks. Did they save a single child? No there was never any actual child danger. How often do you hear about an actual child being saved from sexual abuse vs hearing about the arrest of someone with downloaded kiddie porn? Yes the two crimes are related, but shouldn't we be focusing on the root problem (child abuse) instead of just treating the symptoms (online kiddie porn)

Re:Here's betting it doesn't work

[PunkOfLinux]

He was saying he doesn't have any desire to actually have sex with them, you fucking jackass. He's honest with people. The flaw in your statement that "straight male" = "male who will probably have sex with one or more women during the course of his life". So, continuing your analogy, "pedophile" = "person who will probably have sex with one or more children during the course of his lifetime" has one fatal flaw: most men only have sex with women able to give proper consent. There are such things as half-decent pedophiles; some of my best friends on the internet fall under this category. You know what the difference between a pedophile and a child molester is? Restraint. Sure, the pedophile might fantasize about that stuff, but the molester MAKES it happen, regardless of the law or the wants and needs of the child. Don't ever think that just because someone is attracted to children that that makes them a scumbag.

Re:Here's betting it doesn't work

[rtechie]

Attacking distribution instead of production shows that the protection of children comes second to the punishing of the pedophile.

The theory is called "demand reduction".

The idea is that most child pornography is produced overseas where US authorities have no jurisdiction, and by locking up child pornography "patrons" the demand for CP will do down and therefore less children will be abused overseas.

I am not defending this theory, I am merely presenting it. I will say that very little child pornography is produced in the USA.

Re:Here's betting it doesn't work

[Caseyscrib]

This is slightly off-topic, but Genarlow Wilson was a 17-year old high school football player who received consensual oral sex from a 15-year old girl and was sentenced to prison for 10 years for aggravated child molestation. He received several scholarship offers and was an excellent student. (Source)

There are also many stories of 16/17 year olds exchanging nude photos of each other and being charged with child pornography. (Source)

I think kiddie porn (pics of young children) is absolutely disgusting and people seeking it need serious psychiatric help, but our laws need to distinguish between those looking to exploit children and kids that are just sending pictures of themselves over the internet without realizing the consequences.

Re:Here's betting it doesn't work

[KGIII]

Wow. I usually don't think much. Really. I just sit, post, respond, etc... Seldom do I think deeply. Your post made me do so. The vast majority of people here on /. imply that they believe a law that doesn't suit the good of the masses is unjust (some just think that if they don't like it than it is unjust) and believe that those laws should be repealed or changed in the manner that suits their various agendas. So, well, I've seen my State's SOR web site. There are a GREAT many people on it - which is even more amazing given the fairly tolerant place where I live and the very low crime rates in the State of Maine. We can conjecture that there are those who enjoy child pornography (and I'd like to hope that this is a conversation we can have without accusing the parent of being pro-anything) and we can even debate the meaning of child pornography. (I've come across what would probably be termed pornographic material where they simply claim it is art, I do think it was closer to art but some judges would likely consider it to be pornographic simply because it contained under-aged people at nudist camps and the images contained age ranges from near birth to near death.) So, to the discussion that needs having by people more involved. There are only those people who get caught for numbers, I'd am pretty sure that the ratio would be a much higher percent than there are of, say, the 5% figure often used by the homosexual group. They are a group with little representation and yet we grant them additional rights and protections - they're a minority so to speak. It wasn't that long ago in our own American society where you could wed at the age of 12. Hell, in some states you still can. So, if this is a law and the people breaking it aren't stupid but are doing what they feel comes natural to them then do the actual regulations and laws need a revision or a repeal?

If is my understanding from way too many bad movies, internet chats, television shows, and some thinking on my own that maybe we're defining an age as something meaningful. Is a 21 year old capable of drinking safely? Is he more safe to drink at that age than any other? When is a human ready to make the choice to engage in sexual activity with a person of their choosing. In Maine, my State, you can have sex with a 16 year old female. All day long. You can't take a picture of her nude, she can't live with you and send out a lewd picture of herself using your computer, if she sends you nude images you're committing a crime, and more... Who is the judge? The law that suddenly went out and said that 18 is the magic number?

The worst part about this is the media instilled phobias now, "Oh he's looked at children nude online. Studies show he will be jumping out of trees and raping toddlers with a baseball bat, so we'd better ban him from being within however many feet of a place where a child live or plays or go to school so that we keep them safe." (While they're forcing them to live on the outskirts of town, has limited access to the services he needs to prevent becoming a recidivism statistic, or forcing him to not register at all and then become an unknown risk.)

I have a daughter who was molested by an older cousin. Trust me when I say we have no love for child abuse in our family. (She was five, he was 17.) There are some obvious cases where a child is harmed. Can we successfully make a person wait until the magic age of 18 before having sex? No? Why not? How about because they are naturally curious. Can we stop a man from liking a well developed teen aged girl? Of course not and I don't care HOW much you want to lie to me (not you personally parent post) you too are going to appreciate beautiful females. When you see a fantastic looking woman while out shopping, when you get close enough so that you can see she is even more beautiful, when you get there and see by her face or mannerisms that she is probably underage you do not (I suspect) suddenly feel awful. I suspect you get a few more thoughts about innocence, beauty, and

Re:Here's betting it doesn't work

[TehZorroness]

What's disturbing here is that they include "computer generated images." For every computer generated image or drawing of child pornography that is taken away, actual child pornography will be made to replace it. Artistic expressions depicting child pornography should most certainly not be considered illegal. If you don't like it, don't look for it - but as long as no children are harmed in the making of it, WHAT THE FUCK IS THE PROBLEM? The very next step is to consider artistic depictions or negative views of our beloved corporations and/or government to be illegal.

Another one of my pet peeves: I hate when people and groups (*cough* religious groups) try to enforce their ideals upon others. God forbid they would use words, instead they always try to twist the government's arm to enforce their ideals upon the world. This is taking place within this argument, but also can be clearly seen with video game/movie ratings, abortion, and drugs. I have my own ideals and my own concious. I can decide for myself what I think is right and wrong. If you disagree, that's fine. If you can convince me to change my mind on a matter (drug use, abortion. I invite you.), that's excellent. When you are an old fuck who has nothing better to do then enforce your uneducated oppinions on others through violence (that would be allowing the police to raid one's property and seize whatever they need), here's a big FUCK YOU to you. Have a nice day.

Re:Here's betting it doesn't work

[compro01]

"engaging in sexually explicit conduct"

And how is that defined/redefined?

Re:Common carrier

[p0tat03]

Why are people hanging onto this myth? ISPs do not, and have never had, common carrier status.

Usenet is dead.

[Hamster Lover]

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.

Re:Usenet is dead.

[Carnildo]

I've been reading usenet for 15 years, I've never seen any child porn. Do I just not frequent the right groups?

Check out the alt.binaries.pictures.erotica hierarchy sometime -- there are some groups with very suspicious-looking names.

(alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.child? Gee, I wonder what that could contain?)

Re:Usenet is dead.

[Anonymous Coward]

Check out the alt.binaries.pictures.erotica hierarchy sometime -- there are some groups with very suspicious-looking names.

(alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.child? Gee, I wonder what that could contain?)

Erotic pictures of Julia Child perhaps?

Re:Usenet is dead.

[SL Baur]

alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.child? Gee, I wonder what that could contain?

That's an easy one. Thousands upon thousands of SPAM messages.

YAUSDFN

[alexborges]

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.

Re:YAUSDFN

[ChowRiit]

Maybe the first stage would be to convince the Common Joe that his privacy actually matters to him? People don't seem to CARE about privacy or liberty any more, and I worry that nobody will notice their freedoms being stolen until its too late, as has happened so many times before in history...

Yeah, Get sneaky and clever

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Here we go again

[hyades1]

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.

Child porn = smokescreen

[russotto]

I suspect the RIAA and the MPAA are behind this.

(and no, you cannot borrow my tinfoil hat.)

Don't be so nieve

[TheRealMindChild]

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.

Compare to Drug Houses

[explodingspleen]

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.

Re:Common carrier

[brunokummel]

Why are people hanging onto this myth? ISPs do not, and have never had, common carrier status.

humm...I'm gonna write it as sugestion to the mythbusters...
Do ISPS have common carrier status?
I hope there's explosions envolved .... =)

Net neutrality

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Something similar happened here next week

[shermo]

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

A sneaky way of blowing away "net neutrality"

[mysidia]

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).

Re:Common carrier

[paganizer]

USENET services have been protected by common carrier status since they started; if you start censoring newsgroups, you become responsible for their content. this has been the way it is forever, and is commonly understood and supported in case law.

Don't Bother Asking for the Blacklist...

[PipianJ]

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."

Re:Common carrier

[Jafafa Hots]

Several years ago the ISP Buffnet was successfully prosecuted for child pornography because the local prosecutor found child porn on the usenet, and Buffnet had usenet servers. Common carrier status didn't save them.

Yes, it was an election year.

Re:Common carrier

[afidel]

They aren't old school common carriers, but the safe harbor provision of the DMCA is very similar in scope and spirit with the old common carrier regulations. So long as they are only transporting the content and not deciding what is and is not shown then they are afforded broad immunity. Of course the same law requires them to censor content when they receive a request, so I don't think that this type of blocking would strip them of their protection. If it becomes an issue then this is one area where I think it would be very legitimate for the ISP's to lobby Congress for some legislative immunity.