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

[Lord Apathy]

I'm calling Bullshit! ISP shutting down usenet does nothing about anything. Hell, how are they shutting down usenet? Blocking port 119? That is bullshit too.

Shake the google tree for usenet access and see what falls out. You'll get at least half a dozen dedicated usenet providers alone. Most of the offering unlimited access and SSL connections for around 20 bucks a month. All most every one of them offers SSL connections and connections on ports other than 119 just to get around blocking 119. Hell, the one I use even has port 80 and 25 open for nntp. They use SSL connections just so some dumbasses can't see what your downloading.

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

Thus is Bullshit, I say, Bullshit!

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

[Reality Master 201]

Entirely understandable. I'd do the same if I didn't handle my stress with drinking.

Re:Copyright infringement, too

[againjj]

The other funny thing is that while the summary cries "Usenet", TFA only mentions Usenet in passing, and the article to which it connects does not mention Usenet at all. That is basically a copy of the same article that was posted here a short while ago which didn't mention Usenet either.

From TFA:

All 18 cable companies have agreed to use NCMEC's list of active Web sites identified as containing child pornography, to ensure that no such site is hosted on servers owned or controlled by those companies.

(emphasis mine)

Why on earth are people screaming "They are turning of Usenet!"?

Re:Copyright infringement, too

[TopSpin]

It appears all they're doing is not hosting in their local NNTP cache the listed newsgroups

That's what I've gathered also. Cuomo's (D., NY State AG) people have lists of groups and sites they've identified according to some criteria and those groups and sites will be blocked and dehosted.

You have to click through link in this Slashdot story and the link in the first TechDirt story to another TechDirt story before you discover that specific usenet groups are being targetted. Characterizing this as "turn off Usenet access" is a lie and the referrers, including Slashdot, are lying.

The related story linked earlier today by Slashdot makes it clear that the websites being targetted (as opposed to newsgroups) are those actually hosted by the ISPs involved; no "firewall for the children". They are dehosting sites they host, not filtering. Right or wrong this is an enforcement of their existing "acceptable use policies", which Cuomo claims they have neglected.

The ISPs are being browbeat by a politician that is threatening fines. Don't like it? Vote the Fuck out of office. ISPs aren't at fault here.

Slashdot editors: I decline to assume the intended level of apoplexy based on your lies. Sorry to disappoint.

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:Well DUH

[bigstrat2003]

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

Re:Captain obvious saves the day!

[bigstrat2003]

Santa isn't real!

Hey man, spoiler warning! Now my entire world is shattered!

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.

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.

Re:in soviet USA

[denis-The-menace]

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

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.

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.

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:Well DUH

[betterunixthanunix]

"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?

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

Re:Oblig.

[funaho]

Think of the children! Won't anyone think of the children!?

Isn't that the whole problem they're trying to prevent? :)

Meh, just capitalism

[zmollusc]

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!!

Not that I disagree with the sentiment....

[Junta]

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.