Slashdot Mirror
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."
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.
Exactly. Going after the predators would require real effort, and that shit is hard.
"16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
Santa isn't real!
Hey man, spoiler warning! Now my entire world is shattered!
"16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
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?
psmylie's dictionary: Godzillion (noun) Any number large enough to destroy Tokyo
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.
"Things get wet when you put them in liquid water! More at 11!"
"Myspace is full of angsty teens and pedophiles"
"Santa is real but works for the NSA"
"Pro wrestling is fake, so are the breasts but it's fun to see women tear their clothes off each other anyway"
Fixed...I think...kinda.
seriously people need to tag their child porn appropriately
Making you think you're crazy is a billion dollar industry.
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.
FLR
IOW: This is the beginning of the "Great Firewall of America".
Obama's legacy: (N)othing (S)ecure (A)nywhere and (T)error (S)imulation (A)dministration
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.
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.
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
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>
"Despite what the article says, I haven't seen any actual evidence that the "agreement" is to stop carrying Usenet newsgroups."
How about the fact that a 6 weeks ago, Roadrunner stopped serving Usenet altogether?
Palm trees and 8
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!
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
I had actually forgotten about that. It's certainly possible the two are related. Time Warner could be telling the truth about their reasons. They could also be using the "suggestion" to stop hosting some Usenet as an excuse / opportunity to stop hosting all of it. I don't know, but I'll freely admit it's a possibility.
I guess I should have been more clear -- it doesn't appear that the "request" was to stop hosting Usenet altogether, but to stop hosting some particular newsgroups.
Unless they want to try to effectively kill off Usenet altogether, I don't see encouraging ISPs to stop hosting it as a smart move, as it could boost the popularity of non-ISP Usenet hosts.
Think of the children! Won't anyone think of the children!?
Isn't that the whole problem they're trying to prevent? :)
Have you had a chance to read the new article about Child porn and Cable companies letting a private organization dictate their content?
Check this out
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13739_3-9994159-46.html
This scares me a hell of a lot more than usenet. Usenet is basically used by the more "in" technical crowd.
Standard websites and family photos of bathing children etc have in the past been called Child Porn when parents try to develop harmless photos. This went away for a long time because of the digital age... Now these buggers will be able to repeat the same crap with more innocent photo's against parents who are not doing anything wrong.
There is real child porn out there.. I get that.. and kids should be protected... protect the children ... yata yata...
But giving an unsupervised private organization complete control over the vast majority of US web space content is pretty scary stuff.
there is no way they could get away with this with smtp or hhtp.
Ah, yes, the Hyper-Hoopla Transfer Protocol!
1. Sell 'unlimited broadband at super speeds'
2. Throttle downloads
3. Block usnet
4. ???
5. Increased Profit!!
Oooh, I thought of a beer analogy.
1. Sell 'as much beer as you can drink'
2. Limit to 3 pints per hour
3. Water down beer
4. ???
5. Increased Profit!!
They whose government reduces their essential liberties for temporary security, receive neither liberty nor security.
First off, how does someone "track" the actions of a child-porn downloader? By IP address, you say? Well, ask NewYorkCountryLawyer about how much value there is to an IP address and how much proof there is that an IP address equals a person. So I doubt very much if you can do any meaningful "tracking".
Next would be the publishers. Did you know that it is possible to have a web site that hosts child porn? A web site that is absolutely protected against anyone finding out who the actual "owner" might be. A web site that protects the anonyminity of the "publisher" completely. Its very simple. It might be hard to do in the credit-card happy US but outside of the US it is perfectly legal to use cash. And to do so anonymously. And post any objectionable content you want. Would you want it any other way?
So you say that such illegal material should be prohibited. What about torrent trackers for copyright movies? How about links to bomb-making instructions? Abortion doctors home addresses? How about instructions for making sarin or VX gas? Where exactly do you draw the line for "objectionable" materials? And where do you require people to give up their anonymity?
Sorry, this is the Internet we're talking about. If you aren't incredibly stupid, it is almost impossible to track a "downloader" and connect up the actions that take place on an ISP account with an actual individual. Fortunately, most criminals are really incredibly stupid. So they brag about their exploits and what they have done - almost always to the wrong people. Which then gets them convicted, sued and whatnot.
How are you going to stop child porn really? You aren't going to stop it by making it illegal - there is way, way too much money in it. You aren't going to be able to track it down on the Internet because of the basic protections that web hosting providers and registrars are more than happy to provide to their customers. You aren't going to track downloaders because you will find grandmothers, 9 year old girls and dead people getting hauled into court - such are the perils of believing an IP address means anything at all.
Yes, child porn is a problem that involves at least 50% of all computer forensic technicians today and probably 30-50% of all law enforcement and prosecuters today. But no, I seriously doubt you are going to stop it any time soon. Millions of dollars change hands on a weekly basis because of child porn. Might as well just license it and tax it like drugs.
But don't use misleading attributions. The first sentence is Hitler, from Mein Kampf. It was speaking on the view that the duty of the people is to produce healthy children and not burden society with the support of children. Not to protect the children, but to have useful children. A disturbing sentiment when considering how extreme Hitler took things like this, but orthogonal to this discussion.
Rabbi Daniel Lapin is the person who actually wrote that quote, putting the totalitarian twist on it to link it to an excuse to curtail liberty. It's insightful, but not directly linked to Hitler's strategy for totalitarianism. He wasn't nearly so subtle as that.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
Think of the children! Won't anyone think of the children!?
Isn't that the whole problem they're trying to prevent? :)
Really! If people would just stop having these god damned children in the first place the problem would be solved.