Slashdot Log In
Why ISPs' "Stand" Against Child Porn Is Actually Not a Stand Against Child Porn
Posted by
ScuttleMonkey
on Fri Jul 18, 2008 03:30 PM
from the thinking-of-the-children-means-actually-thinking dept.
from the thinking-of-the-children-means-actually-thinking dept.
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."
Related Stories
[+]
Your Rights Online: Usenet Blocking Intensifies 449 comments
I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "The war against the alt.* hierarchy of Usenet continues as NY Attorney General Andrew Cuomo has convinced two more ISPs to drop access to part of Usenet. They've also set up the website NY Stop Child Porn, and convinced California to join them in the fight. In some sense, this is rather like bulldozing the slums to fight crime; sure, it might get rid of a lot of undesirables, but it also affects many innocent people, and everyone will now start migrating elsewhere in droves. The article notes, 'Cuomo's new web site signifies that he's clearly not done yet. It includes contact information for 20 ISPs that presumably operate in New York, and text of a letter to send to them to urge that they sign on to the campaign.' And you thought the Eternal September was bad..."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Copyright infringement, too (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Interesting)
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!
Parent
Re:Copyright infringement, too (Score:5, Insightful)
In the name of protecting the children? Just watch.
Parent
Re:Copyright infringement, too (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re:Oblig. (Score:5, Funny)
Think of the children! Won't anyone think of the children!?
Isn't that the whole problem they're trying to prevent? :)
Parent
Re:Copyright infringement, too (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re: (Score:3)
It appears all they're doing is not hosting in their local NNTP cache the listed newsgroups.
Is it just the specific kiddie-nasty groups or all of alt.* or alt.binaries.*?
Perhaps this is getting pushed by some with an agenda to suppress some other (video/music) content?
Re:Copyright infringement, too (Score:4, Informative)
I don't know about any other ISP, but Verizon dropped all but the "Big 8" without warning or explanation about three weeks ago.
Parent
Re:Copyright infringement, too (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re:Copyright infringement, too (Score:5, Informative)
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 [techdirt.com] 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 [ncta.com] 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.
Parent
Re: (Score:3)
It boggles the mind that people still use it in the age of BitTorrent
I expect people use it because it's consistantly faster, doesn't require you to upload as much as you download to be nice to the swarm and doesn't broadcast your IP address for all to see.
To me, the biggest inefficiency that got me away from Usenet is the header downloads. If you have a long retention provider like Giganews, some of the groups can have multiple millions of headers, so just in order to see what is available on the big binary groups can take more than hour even on broadband.
Which is why we invented NZB's [wikipedia.org] and run indexing sites.
Re:Copyright infringement, too (Score:5, Informative)
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!"?
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Quoteth Lord Apathy:
You apparently don't subscribe to your own nickname.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Newgroups are still a great way for spreading (legal, though often disliked by various governments) information as well. That being said. one thing I've rather missed in linux is finding a good newgroup reader that has SSL capabilities. Anyone know of one?
Re:Copyright infringement, too (Score:4, Informative)
Howto for Ubuntu is here [ubuntuforums.org].
Parent
Re:Copyright infringement, too (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Yeah, I know. I just used it to get off a damn fine bullshit rant.
Re:Copyright infringement, too (Score:5, Funny)
Entirely understandable. I'd do the same if I didn't handle my stress with drinking.
Parent
Re:Copyright infringement, too (Score:4, Insightful)
Port 119 is not the only port used by premium usenet providers, many provide access via alternate ports.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I guess if they were really really really really really serious, they could do some packet inspection to weed out all these evil potentially-kiddie-porn-laden NNTP packets (you know what nests of pervs places like alt.fan.tolkien and alt.atheism are). The way I read it, it looks like the few remaining big-name ISPs still running news servers shutting them down while declaring "it's for the children", when in reality, it's probably more for the reason the ISP I worked at finally killed the feed, because onl
Re:Copyright infringement, too (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course if the shut down usenet would anybody notice?
I so miss the days when usenet was useful.
Parent
Well DUH (Score:3, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
And let's not forget what ISP really means
ISP = I Seldom Pay
Re:Well DUH (Score:5, Informative)
How about the fact that a 6 weeks ago, Roadrunner stopped serving Usenet altogether?
Parent
Re:Well DUH (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Parent
Dual-edged sword (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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/ [erowid.org] ?" "Well, we block objectionable content all the time, such as pornography, because we are family friend.").
Parent
A blow against net neutrality (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Fuck Godwin (Score:5, Insightful)
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
Parent
Not that I disagree with the sentiment.... (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Parent
10 Years Gone (Score:5, Insightful)
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 [theharbinger.org]
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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. (Score:5, Insightful)
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>
neutral or not? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah right ... (Score:3, Insightful)
USENET least of my worries. (Score:4, Informative)
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 [cnet.com]
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.
Since I'm sure it's possible to use P2P sites... (Score:3, Insightful)
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? (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Meh, just capitalism (Score:5, Funny)
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!!
obviously not about child porn (Score:3, Insightful)
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. :)
Are you folks nuts? (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re:Captain obvious saves the day! (Score:5, Funny)
Santa isn't real!
Hey man, spoiler warning! Now my entire world is shattered!
Parent
O Rly? (Score:4, Funny)
"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.
Parent
Re:to be fair (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re:to be fair (Score:4, Funny)
there is no way they could get away with this with smtp or hhtp.
Ah, yes, the Hyper-Hoopla Transfer Protocol!
Parent
Re:in soviet USA (Score:5, Insightful)
IOW: This is the beginning of the "Great Firewall of America".
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
> Until they eliminate Humans from the Earth, there will be porn....
There, fixed it for ya.