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.

Child porn = smokescreen

[russotto]

I suspect the RIAA and the MPAA are behind this.

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

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 Let's face it, the web is an outdated system that is primarily abused.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?

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

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.

Re:Here we go again

[QuantumG]

I bet you're a pervert.

I bet everyone on Slashdot is a pervert.

Being that a "pervert" is someone who practices "perversion" which is "those types of human behavior that are perceived to be a serious deviation from what is considered to be orthodox or normal." That is, not just sexual.

But hey, there's plenty of sexual behavior that is "perverted" which makes most Americans blush (like that's hard), and there's lots of people that would love to "tighten the screws" on those practitioners also.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:YAUSDFN

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

The Common Joe does not want privacy.

The Common Joe wants to be able to pry, poke and be privy to the personal and intimate details of his neighbors, his employer/employees, his local representatives and clergy, friends, enemies, teenagers, celebrities, politicians, historical figures, and especially his spouse. He wants access to all this information so that he can can gleefully pour over it all in the confines of his basement.

This is what people actually want. If you need any further proof beyond the distribution of tabloid and gossips rags, as well as the scandal hungry state of modern television; then you are in denial.

It started with SBC Tuesday night. My RANT

[Talkischeap]

I was on Usenet two nights ago looking for a song in my vinyl collection that's in deep storage, and all the .alt.binaries groups I'm subscribed to were there (yes... even those, so stop with the jokes).

And yesterday AM when I logged on, they were gone, and and "Alt- 411 no such group" error appears instead.

All the other groups I'm subscribed to are still functioning.

I spent four hours on the phone attempting to "complain", and got the "standard" troubleshooting script more than a few times, before I politely interrupted one woman, and asked firmly to speak to her supervisor.

The bitch (oh, did I say that? Why YES, I did, in retrospect) put me on looooooong hold, then came back on the line and said with dripping sarcasm: "I'm so sorry for the loooong wait, here's your extension." ... click...

After calling back I was again transferred several times by clueless people, dropped a couple more, and finally vented (nicely) on a poor 611 tech guy, the only human I could speak to who actually had technical knowledge.

And yes, dear friends, he was also completely clueless about the attacks on Usenet.

I'm now more angry that they have "insulated" themselves from humans with the endless phone tree.

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.

Re:Here's betting it doesn't work

[assassinator42]

I do find it odd that in many places in the United States it's legal for an adult to have sex with a 16 year old but illegal to tape it.

How much is there?

[notdotcom.com]

Maybe I've naive, but how much "Child Pornography" is actually publicly available on the internet? (No links please, thanks)

I mean, I see PLENTY of "regular" or even crazy-weird porn online all the time, but I've NEVER accidentally or intentionally come across child porn. Are the distributors sophisticated enough to use private/encrypted systems, or do I just not crawl usenet enough? Seems like a fictional problem that sounds REALLY good to elected officials and families ("Yes, let's change to that ISP who blocks child porn, that will solve all of our problems, honey!")

I'm all for recovering exploited children and keeping them away from child molesters, but why do I not see a photo taken ten years ago and posted on the internet as a particularly heinous crime in this day and age?

Note... my ex GF was a cop and they (cops) ALL took particular pleasure in busting active child molesters/"public weenie-whackers". I liked to hear about them getting caught as well, and my GF said that 99 times out of 100, the suspect would be the biggest sissy on earth and start "crying for momma" as soon as they were even arrested (not CONVICTED...yet).

Re:Here's betting it doesn't work

[hellwig]

Don't forget that you'd also be supporting Al-Queda and be figuratively spitting in the faces of the America troops. Anything that sparks fear in the simple minded and shame into those who dare to think otherwise.

Sadly, views like yours will be considered paranoid, until of course they come to fruition, but by then you've already been labelled a communist and no one will listen to you anyway.

Re:attorney generals?

[Anonymous Coward]

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".

Two-minutes hate? [wikipedia.org]?

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?

[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:Compare to Drug Houses

[azgard]

Actually, rampant child pornography in Czech Republic was a myth invented by some German non-profits that fight child pornography, to get more funding. In reality, there is no more child pornography produced here than in e.g. Germany or Belgium, or any other European Country (exact numbers are of course hard to measure).

Part of this myth may also be due to the fact that lot of porn actors/actresses come from Czech Republic, because we are very atheist and liberal country. But this has nothing to do with child pornography.

Re:Here's betting it doesn't work

[Antique Geekmeister]

I agree with some of your logic. But not all 'child pornography' involves any abuse of children. Take this article about a grocery store refusing to make a birthday cake with a baby picture of a 21 year old man for his birthday, because the child was naked. (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1029375/Asda-refuse-print-baby-snap-son-21st-birthday-cake--hes-naked.html).

And for someone fascinated by children, women, men, or exciting panoramas of cornfields, there are plenty of innocent pictures collected and published that might be exciting if organized and published together. So please do not assume that all 'child pornography' actually involves any mishandling of children.

time to lie down our own cables

[hany]

I think it's time to lie down our own cables.

From neighbour to neighbour. And to bridge longer distances, organize properly and ask a commercial telco (or whoever has cable in place) to simply lease a cable to us. I repeat, lease the cable. Not "provide connectivity".

That way I think we can get back the control of what's going through the cables. Thus "feeing the Internets".

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 [mcwilliams.com]

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

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 [marijuananews.com]

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 [marijuananews.com]

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?

[JesseMcDonald]

Your hair splitting of saying that "prostitution" is victimless, is contentious at best. The activity of prostitution has a victim 999 times out of a 1000. By all means tell me about the girl you know who cheerfully sells sex and is perfectly well adjusted and doesn't need to do so, but I don't know of such cases myself.

To say that something is a victimless crime is to say that the criminal is harming, at most, him- or herself by committing it. It does not say anything one way or the other about whether the criminal is simultaneously a victim of some other crime. If A extorts B into committing the crime of prostitution then A is the ultimate criminal, and B is both a victim and a criminal. However, the crime that B commits has no victim, and thus shouldn't be considered a crime in the first place.

If they're choosing to do it -- and it is a choice, whatever you may think of the alternatives

I am really sorry to say that you are wrong. There are girls ... who are kept prisoner and sold against their will ... who have been told that their families will be punished if they try to escape. To call that a choice and to say that they should pursue an alternative is unfair.

Every action is a choice. It's not always a free choice, but it is a choice nonetheless. I did not say that they should pursue an alternative; you are assuming that calling it a choice implies looking down on them for making that choice, where no such slight was intended. What I said was that what they chose to do was the best alternative they knew of given their circumstances, including the threats and force others have used against them, and that if you (or anyone else) wants to change their lives for the better you need to change those circumstances, in this case by protecting them from these threats, because just outlawing the behavior can only make their situation worse than it already is.

I think we agree, really, except for the part where I consider prostitution, a victimless crime, to be separate from kidnapping and extortion, which both have clear victims. If someone is forced into prostitution due to someone else's crime of kidnapping and/or extortion then they are a victim of those crimes, not a victim of prostitution itself. If anything, prostitution performed under duress is even less eligible for the label "criminal" than the same action chosen freely.