Why ISPs' "Stand" Against Child Porn Is Actually Not a Stand Against Child Porn

TechDirt has an insightful article on the recent push for ISPs to turn off Usenet access under the guise of fighting child pornography. Unfortunately, the "stand against child porn" isn't actually a stand at all, it seems — more like ignoring the issue while trying to snag some headlines and good will. "Taking a stand against child porn wouldn't be overly aggressively blocking access to internet destinations that may or may not have porn (and there's no review over the list to make sure that they're actually objectionable). Taking a stand against child porn would be hunting down those responsible for the child porn and making sure that they're dealt with appropriately... Also, this sets an awful precedent in that the ISPs can point out that it's ok for them to block "objectionable" content where they get to define what's objectionable without any review."

Comments

Copyright infringement, too

[Reality Master 201]

I'm sure no small part of the decision is also to either avoid legal problems form or to give a reacharound to the content producer industry. Lots of warez, mp3, and dvd rips get traded on usenet. Shutting off alt.* puts a dent in that. Temporarily, at least, till everyone moves elsewhere.

Re:Copyright infringement, too

[Paracelcus]

Port 119 is not the only port used by premium usenet providers, many provide access via alternate ports.

Re:Copyright infringement, too

[computational super]

Blocking port 119?

In the name of protecting the children? Just watch.

Re:Copyright infringement, too

[LWATCDR]

Of course if the shut down usenet would anybody notice?
I so miss the days when usenet was useful.

Re:Copyright infringement, too

[blueg3]

It appears all they're doing is not hosting in their local NNTP cache the listed newsgroups. They're not blocking ports, blocking all Usenet access, or ceasing hosting of Usenet.

Of course this doesn't make it impossible to get CP. But it does reduce the avenues for accessing it. Claiming that is pointless because there's "another way to get it" is like saying there's no sense in locking your door. A sufficiently motivated thief will gain entry.

Re:Copyright infringement, too

[fyngyrz]

C'mon mods. Parent put the finger right on it. Just because it's short doesn't mean it isn't 100% insightful, informative, *and* interesting.

You know no one with any power or position is going to take a stand against this; it is the ultimate leverage — and those who stoop low enough to use it know that perfectly well.

Welcome to the United States of For The Children.

Re:Copyright infringement, too

[Spy der Mann]

It is exactly as I had foreseen. The music/video industry is pairing with ISPs to supress content and freedom of speech.

The next step is to watch the users encrypt everything and not be able to do anything about it. And that's already happening - torrent trackers are allowing https access to them, and thepiratebay is working on an encrypted replacement for the IP protocol.

Let's see what happens in 5 years. Will governments completely ban end-to-end encryption? How much will human rights organizations do to defend privacy?

Frankly, I don't know, but the microwave just beeped - the popcorn's ready.

Re:Copyright infringement, too

[CodeBuster]

So they subpoena the records of all of the subscribers, block the well known servers of the service provider, and have the bank accounts of those providers that are unwilling or unable to cooperate frozen. I am not suggesting that this is what should be done, but rather what may be likely given the crusading nature of state attorney generals these days and particularly the Attorney General of New York, formally Spitzer (who got busted for using high priced hookers) and now Cumo. Indeed, they have been especially pushy and nosey in recent years, threatening anyone they don't like regardless of jurisdiction. These are the types of things that happen when you combine lazy and self serving politicians with an ignorant voting populace. No politician wants to be labeled as "soft on crime" so successive office holders compete to pass ever more draconian and intrusive laws and the voters are pleased as their freedoms, rights, and protections are gradually stripped away in the name of fighting cp and the terrorists.

Re:Copyright infringement, too

[Original Replica]

No this is feel good bullshit that won't even put a dent in kiddy porn.

If they actually took actions that put a stop to the majority of the production of kiddie porn, what would legislators use for their debate proof vehicle for over-reaching legislation? Terrorism seems to be loosing steam slowly, and the historic boogie men of homosexuality, communism, and drugs are all kinda trendy now. Without kiddie porn a whole new "evil that must be stopped at all costs" would need to be invented.

Re:Copyright infringement, too

[NotBornYesterday]

I think that's why they are being so heavy-handed about it. They aren't censoring content itself, which would imply they filter the content, let some through, and block "objectionable" content. That would be grievously expensive and impractical, and might threaten certain protections they now enjoy. They are choosing to no longer include newsgroup access in their bundle of internet access service to their customers, and although it's a shitty thing for them to do, I view as more of a consumer's rights affront than censorship per se. I'll bet that Verizon isn't handing out big fat rebates or lowing their rates to compensate customers.

The benefits to them? 1) - They get family-friendly PR from the censorphiles in power. 2) - They save the money they were paying for maintaining usenet infrastructure and bandwidth. 3) - By not exercising editorial control, I believe that they preserve legal protection from any "objectionable" content that does move across their network.

Re:Copyright infringement, too

[Anonymous Coward]

I like "content" as a euphemism. It fits, sounds about as neutral as "backups," and helps to stem the feelings of guilt that arise from doing something that is hurtful. All around an excellent name.

Re:Copyright infringement, too

[dasmoo]

Under the guise of protecting children, they're finding great ways to filter copyright & non-conforming content. The plan is great as noone will stand up against the people filtering child porn so they can eventually filter everything else.

But why the hell would you? The filthy fucking perverts deserve to have their sick material filtered. So we have a Kansas City Shuffle, with us all up in arms about child porn, while really we're letting them filter everything questionable on the Internet.

Can't we just bring in longer jail terms, say greater than 30 years, and leave the fucking internet alone. What's the bet that the RIAA and MPAA have their fingers in this pie and it will end in us not being able to chat over voip because there's a song playing on the radio in the background or something equally retarded.

Well DUH

[Joe U]

It's a PR job, pretty much everyone reading this knows that already.

The good news is that it will all eventually backfire and we'll all get a class action check for $1.59.

Re:Well DUH

[bigstrat2003]

Exactly. Going after the predators would require real effort, and that shit is hard.

in soviet USA

[Anonymous Coward]

This is nothing more than a MAFIAA sponsored ploy to reduce free trade of their IP. Child porn is the tack they have taken this time. But this assault on personal freedom and privacy is just another underhanded strike by the billionaires that wish to control us all as sheep, milking our dollars as we simper and dribble while sucking down their provisions like the drug-addled fools that we are.

Re:in soviet USA

[denis-The-menace]

IOW: This is the beginning of the "Great Firewall of America".

Dual-edged sword

[Psmylie]

Also, this sets an awful precedent in that the ISPs can point out that it's ok for them to block "objectionable" content where they get to define what's objectionable without any review."

I would think the ISPs would be more concerned with the perception that they are somehow responsible for policing for this kind of content. Once you open the door to that kind of expectation, how can you close it again?

Re:Dual-edged sword

[betterunixthanunix]

That's why they started with child pornography. As TFA states, who can protest anything that appears to be a blow in the fight against child pornography? Anyone who protests this move will be easily labeled as either being naïvely soft on child porn, or as being some sort of pedophile themselves.

The next step? A "family friendly" ISP, that blocks all pornography all together. Then ISPs that block websites or forums where people discuss controversial topics like drug use. All in the name of being "family friendly," and at each step, pointing to the previous step when someone questions it ("Why are you blocking http://www.erowid.org/ ?" "Well, we block objectionable content all the time, such as pornography, because we are family friend.").

A blow against net neutrality

[ndnspongebob]

From my point of view, anytime any institution mentions child porn, they are actually using that as a cover to gain control. Since when did everyone become so altruistic and when has child porn become a rampant problem? The FBI has been using this line also but only to gain control over the networks for other purposes. The ISPs will be the same in which case, it is the first blow against net neutrality for them. It is also a clever trick since no one would be against a plan to go against child porn. A bit of a political move in my eyes.

Re:A blow against net neutrality

[Bryansix]

Exactly! I'd like to see actual statistics about how much child porn is produced in a year. And I'm not talking about pictures of kids taking a bath. Nudity isn't illegal. It's the explicit sex acts involving children that are what compose "child porn". Where are the real statistics on that?!

10 Years Gone

[Cytlid]

I worked for an ISP from 2001-2006 (Dreamscape Online) who had their POP raided in 1998 from then-AG Steve Vacco (he was running for re-election if I remember correctly).

Here's a nice writeup on it: http://www.theharbinger.org/xvii/990119/blair.html

In 1998 I heard about this in the news, and was annoyed at the common man's lack of knowledge about technology. By the time I worked there the ISP outsourced it's newsgroup servers.

I love the attorney's quote at the end of the article. How people should go after the originators and not the ISP's.

I was very glad to have worked at a place which seemed to have set a precedent. But did it really? I mean, here we are 10 years later, and some average Joe sixpacks (including AG's) still have no clue as how to fix social issues.

Because that's what they are. They're social issues not technical issues. Hell, the internet connection is just the carrier. We need to get ISP's out of the service (and content) business _NOW_.

Somehow I feel like this is bureaucratic BS ... like my local municipality saying they're going to take care of pot holes, only to come examine and scrutinize my driveway ... and patting themselves on the back for the excellent job they're performing.

I want to see this stuff wiped out as much as anyone else. But for some reason they're focusing their efforts at the wrong ends of the internet.

Definition of ISP

[HaeMaker]

This is why we need a clear definition of "ISP" and government agency to enforce it.

If we define ISP as:

-> Access to the internet which is unfiltered* and unfettered
-> Hosting of DNS, NNTP, SMTP**, HTTP (hosted page for users), POP3 and IMAP

Anything that does not meet this criteria can not be called an "ISP" and can not offer for sale "Internet Access". Selling service that is less than the above yet calling themselves an "ISP" or selling "Internet Access" is "false advertising". FTC is probably the proper agency to enforce, or perhaps state agencies.

*or the ability to turn the filter off on your own. I have this with my ISP, they block 25/tcp by default, but I run my own mail server so I disable it. Blocking 25/tcp is good for the internet as a whole, but for certain users, it should be turned off.

**mail forwarding for those who do not run their own server.

Re:Definition of ISP

[AnyoneEB]

You mean like how CDs with DRM are not allowed to show the trademarked CD logo because the DRM breaks the audio CD specification in some subtle way, but no one notices and everyone just buys those CDs anyway?

Telco removes "E" section from Yellow Pages

[dpbsmith]

And in further news, responding to charges that some escort services provide illegal services, the announced that effective today will carry only the "big 25" Yellow Pages sections: A through D and F through Z.

Re:Telco removes "E" section from Yellow Pages

[RobBebop]

And what happens when escorts start calling their business model "fuck friends"? Will that wash away the "f" section too?

More money for Supernews, et al.

[gujo-odori]

My ISP already doesn't offer Usenet, so I have the cheapest account Supernews offers. If ISPs turn off Usenet, they'll just drive more business to Supernews and other NNTP services. As a former ISP sysadmin, I suspect that's actually their real plan. Running a decent news server takes quite a bit of bandwidth and disk space (at least if you carry binary newsgroups).

So, what's an ISP to do? Hmmm. Drop NNTP service. Saves you money and disk space. Claim it's to fight CP. Makes you look good to some people who don't know the real story. Customers who want Usenet then sign up with an NNTP service. They go over their bandwidth caps and you either then throttle them down or charge them extra bandwidth charges. They may pay, they may go elswhere. Either way, you've solved a few business problems for yourself, all the while being able to claim it's because you're thinking of the children.

Don't get me wrong about CP - I'm a dad, and I not only think child pornographers should be taken out and shot, I'd be happy to shoot them myself - but this just isn't going to do anything to control, contain, or prevent CP>

Re:More money for Supernews, et al.

[Anonymous Coward]

You having a child doesn't make you any more wise or good than the rest of the world. All it does is give you a "unique" bias.

If you really thing executing a child molester is like putting down a rabid dog, I truly feel like you lost your sense of humanity and compassion.

You are indeed a very bad person.

Re:Why is viewing so bad?

[lordofwhee]

We should be going after the kiddie raping motherfuckers who DON'T look at little suzie down the street on the internet, they go entice her with candy in a white van and take her behind the gas station. THAT'S abuse. It's like saying looking at trees is abuse of the trees. It's not, and it's exactly the same in this case. Hell, internet kiddie porn probably keeps more kids from being raped than it encourages. Think about how many people there are that are actually pedophiles. Not kiddie-rapers, they just like little kids. So they hop on Usenet, download a video or two, and that's that. Now, what if they couldn't? They might eventually end up kidnapping little suzie.

Generally I'm against censorship, but..

[scorp1us]

I think hate speech is protected and all other kinds of censorship is wrong, but I have to agree here. There can be no artistic, social or any other benefit from this industry. I've known sexual assault victims (from when they were children), and it really messes with their heads. It completely screws them over in terms of how they see themselves, their place and reality in general.

I'm not worried about people getting frustrated and searching out real victims. I think there is a line between fantasy and reality that is a barrier. For instance, I've always wanted sex with multiple women. Despite having been in Nevada, I have yet to 1) expereicne a prostitute and 2) experience multiple women.

Then there is the issue of hentai (sp?). I often see this as ironic, because you have to draw these images 12 frames a second, provide story board and script. A of more work goes into that production! Does this turn artists into pedophiles? I don't know. But still, this medium can serve as fantasy release. The one thing I got from watching the Matrix in HD is that it doesn't change the experience. Concepts are the same. But at the same time no one is getting hurt. So maybe it is a good thing and can serve as a vent. I don't know.

But I don't think child porn is like a gateway drug. I think regardless of what images you are presented, you have the choice in and responsibility for your actions.

I do have to ask though -- I have social worker friends, and they are telling me that sex between 12-year olds is increasingly common. If people are voluntarily engaging in behavior at that age, are we really protecting them? I guess the idea is that we protect them from adults, and that is all fine by me, but wouldn't that be just as bad as any other sexual assault? I've also seen instances where teenagers send pictures of their own naked bits via cell phones to other teenagers. Should they be charged as well?

Today too many kids race towards adulthood. I think part of the intent is to protect that childhood. But kids these days are ding everything they can to deny childhood. I have to question the effectiveness, where the "victim" is a willing participant.

I think though, it is a noble goal and for whatever it is worth, should be pursued. I think everyone would agree that no one wants an industry of child exploitation.

neutral or not?

[Dan667]

ISP's should not be able to have it both ways. Either they are providing a service and not responsible for what is sent across their networks or they are responsible and everyone should be able to sue them. I would pick option 1, but what do I know. And if they are going to do stuff like this in the name of child pornography, why are the freeways still open? They obviously facilitate actual child abuse so why not just nip it in the bud and close the freeways? Think of the children!

Fuck Godwin

[Anonymous Coward]

Until we read history and REALIZE that this is a fundamental fault in a media-accessible society, we'll never learn.

"The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people. As long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation." --Adolph Hitler

Yeah right ...

[jon3k]

And it's even more about reducing their bandwidth costs than grabbing headlines. alt.* probably accounts for 99% of nntp traffic which these providers will now reduce to zero.

Since I'm sure it's possible to use P2P sites...

[spagthorpe]

to get CP, then I'm sure it will become reasonable to block all P2P sites. The more I hear about this, the more I think it has nothing to do with CP, but was dreamed up in RIAA/MPAA backrooms.

What great way to get bully everyone over to your side. Exploit a topic that caries such a stigma with it, that nobody will dare fight it, since they are obviously encouraging CP.

uh...review?

[buddyglass]

this sets an awful precedent in that the ISPs can point out that it's ok for them to block "objectionable" content where they get to define what's objectionable without any review.

Why would they need review? These are private entities. As long as they don't violate whatever contracts they have with their customers, they're free to block whatever they want. If you don't appreciate that a particular ISP blocks particular content, then don't become a customer of that ISP.

obviously not about child porn

[Tumbleweed]

If they really wanted to catch pedophiles, they'd open everything up and track the hell out of who is downloading the child porn, then go arrest them. This ain't that, so that ain't what this is.

I think it's pretty obvious this is about trying to stem the tide of piracy. Most people downloading stuff from Usenet are likely not using a pay service, but the one included with their net access. Thus, shutting down access to the alt.* groups at the ISP level will block *most* of that kind of activity (along with all the legal stuff, too, of course).

From the same people who brought you the "Patriot" Act. If it's in the name, that ain't the game. :)

Re:Why is viewing so bad?

[stuntmanmike]

It's like saying looking at trees is abuse of the trees. It's not, and it's exactly the same in this case.

Damn it, I am getting really sick of this pro-CP crap.

It's not the same because trees aren't sentient beings with emotions and feelings and all that gushy stuff. Trees don't care if there are pictures on the internet of you sticking your dick into their knothole.

Have a little empathy for the victims here.

Hell, internet kiddie porn probably keeps more kids from being raped than it encourages

Bullshit. Does watching regular porn stop you from having sex in real life? Just about every guy I know watches porn, and they still fuck women.

So will my bill go down?

[fortyonejb]

You know because of the fact I'm receiving less service than before? No? Oh, yeah I forgot these are ISP's we're talking about.

Usenet is no ordinary internet service

[wiredlogic]

The ISPs are just using the child porn angle as an excuse to get rid of supporting a service they see used by only a small fraction of their user base.

However, it is worth looking at the Usenet problem from the ISPs perspective. Unlike most internet services, Usenet is decentralized and requires mass distribution of the articles traversing the network. This represents a significant storage and bandwidth burden for the ISPs if they are to maintain a reasonable time span of articles. It also isn't entirely fair to frame this proposal as "blocking" in the same sense as the efforts to block P2P traffic and the like. Supporting Usenet incurs real costs for the ISPs and it has always been their perogative to choose what groups they want to carry on their servers. A much better solution to the storage problem is to just drop alt.binaries.* wholesale. The heyday of legitimate Usenet porn is long gone and I can't believe there is much remaining legitimate non-porn activity that hasn't moved to the web. Is anyone really going to cry over the loss of alt.binaries.pictures.pets when they can get their fix at places like kittenwar?

Re:GP had a legit point

[The End Of Days]

I guess it's no wonder that most pedophiles are supposed to suffer from depression.

Well, you know, it's kinda hard knowing that you have to hurt kids to attain sexual satisfaction. Depression is the least they should have to worry about.