Slashdot Log In
Finnish Censorship Expanding
Posted by
kdawson
on Mon Feb 18, 2008 09:50 PM
from the as-it-always-does dept.
from the as-it-always-does dept.
Thomas Nybergh lets us know about the secret list maintained by the Finnish National Bureau of Investigation, containing an estimated 1,700 foreign "child pornography'" sites. These are mostly in the US and the EU, and certainly not all of them contain child porn or even links to it. Finnish ISPs are required by law to block access to sites on the list, according to The Register. Finland's EFF has information about the block list, which reportedly includes a musical instrument store, a doll store, and a site of Windows tips in Thai. Recently added to the list — which by law should contain only child pornography sites — is the text-only site of a Finnish free-speech advocate who criticizes the censorship law. Evading the ISPs' block is trivial, of course.
Related Stories
This discussion has been archived.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.
Windows tips (Score:3, Funny)
Wikipedia - News for Nerds, Stuff That Matters (Score:5, Interesting)
This was on Wikipedia's front page the other [wikipedia.org] day [wikipedia.org].
Re:Final Solution: Kill the Children (Score:4, Insightful)
I think I know a couple of hundred Finnish ministers of parliament who constitute a clear and present danger to the children of Finland.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I wish I were making that up, but at least here in the States there have been a couple of cases of teens with webcams being arrested, tried as adults for producing CP, and convicted. Clearly logic plays no part in law.
Foriegners (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
So instead of actually investigating themselve
Re:Foriegners (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:The checked list (Score:4, Insightful)
Personally, I think a much more sane law would be that it's illegal to PRODUCE child pornography, or to buy it (as those dollars go towards producing more of it), but if you're not making it or buying it then there shouldn't be an issue if you run across it on the web. That punishes everyone who had any hand in harming a specific child while not making the rest of us walk on broken glass while surfing the web.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Well, that's a "slippery-slope" of its own... What if those ugly CP-makers are allowing you to watch it for free and use ads to make money?
No way out of it, the crap just has to become legal to watch — and to produce. Crimes, deemed to be associated with the producing — such as rape (statutory or otherwise) — should remain illegal, of course.
Re:Foriegners (Score:5, Insightful)
That is, of course, a mind-bogglingly fallacious argument, though I'm sure you're well aware of that.
Based on what I've seen from phishing sites and other similarly illegal activity, I would suspect that most child porn sites (assuming they are not hosted in a country with lax laws on the subject) are either A. being hosted by somebody on a commercial server that hosts a truckload of sites and the person hosting them is hoping nobody will notice or B. being hosted on a cracked server.
In the case of A., if you try to do an IP match, you'd get truckloads of "false positives"---sites that appear to link to a child porn site, but in fact link to Ned's Used Cars and Auto Emporium's website. If you don't do an IP match, though, you miss the case where somebody creates their own DNS record for a child porn site that doesn't support virtual hosts to get around the blocking lists, so you get lots of false negatives. Either way, you lose.
In the case of B., it is probably safe to assume that 99.9% of those links existed prior to the site being hijacked to distribute child porn, and thus the owners of the site doing the linking would have no idea that the site was being used in that way, and thus should not be treated as though they were intentionally contributing to child porn.
Further, in such cases, the main page of the compromised site almost certainly wouldn't have links to the offensive content, as this would tip off the owners of the compromised site. Thus, linking to the compromised site, with the exception of links to some specific part of the directory hierarchy, wouldn't be contributing to the spread of child porn at all....
Even if a website intentionally links to porn-oriented sites that contain child porn, it is still not automatically reasonable to say that the linking site is promoting child porn unless either A. the website is linking directly to a child porn section or page on the site, or B. the primary focus of the destination website is child porn. If somebody uploaded a piece of child porn to Wikipedia, would everyone linking to Wikipedia be considered "contributing to the spread of child porn"? Why should any other website be treated differently even if it is a porn site? For that matter, if someone adds a link to a child porn site from a Wikipedia page, should Wikipedia be blocked? If the Finnish lawmakers don't have a damn good answer for these question, they need to seriously rethink this policy.
And then, there's the question about the sites hosting the porn being listed themselves. Those IP numbers on the list might contain dozens of other unrelated websites. If the server was compromised, it might not even be appropriate to block the host by its domain name, as you might be blocking a legitimate business. The correct course of action is always to notify first, allow reasonable time for response (whether in the form of removal, photo ID proof of age, etc.), then block if circumstances warrant it. The same goes for suspected copyright violations, suspected phishing sites, etc.
Parent
Re:Foriegners (Score:4, Interesting)
I would like to point out that the censorship law says nothing about links, or listing sites with links. And in the law itself its purpose is said to be to promote measures which can be used to prevent access to foreign child porn sites. Lapsiporno.info is neither foreign nor contains any child porn.
Also let it be known that Matti Nikki (muzzy) himself has actively reported actual child porn sites before, and some of them have been closed. Some was active even a year after reporting it. Of course, these sites are not Finnish.
The EFFI statement linked in the article is very thorough. In this case there really can be only one bias: the law is bad and the way of enforcing it is even worse.
Parent
What happens when lists go wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
$WEB_FILTER_VENDOR has decided that http://www.littlebigshots.com.au/ [littlebigshots.com.au] belongs under "Adult/Sexually Explicit" - whereas it is, in fact, about a childrens' film festival. I've filed a report, and locally whitelisted it until they get around to doing something about it, but still... can you imagine what kind of damage could be done by a secret ISP-level list required by government, and the embarrassment associated with challenging such listings? Who would admit to saying they tried to view a site listed by the government as a child-porn site? Well, I would - if I knew for a fact that the listing was wrong - but most people aren't like me. I wonder what else, perhaps of a political nature, might make its way onto such lists?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Gay sites (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Gay sites (Score:5, Insightful)
Strictly speaking, even if the site does contain child porn, it's still on the list because of someone's dislike for that content. Whether that dislike is well founded or not, and whether it serves a greater good to society to block it or not, are different questions entirely.
A world of difference exists between the scenarios where something is banned on the basis of someone's arbitrary dislike of content and whether it is banned on the basis of duly enacted laws governing non-acceptable content. In a society governed by the rule of law the question of "[w]hether that dislike is well founded or not, and whether it serves a greater good to society" is not one properly left to nameless government bureaucrats. "Strictly speaking", the relevant question is whether the compilers of the list are giving proper expression to the legislative framework under which they labour.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
A very good point. You don't know - unless you have work-arounds like an alternate DNS server or maybe something like TOR or one of those free-but-dodgy proxying websites that also try to rape your Windows
If a sexually explicit tree falls in a forest... (Score:5, Insightful)
I raise this question not to criticize this particular site for not being more popular or well-known, but strictly to point out that it really is the "littlebigshots.com"s of the world that are most likely to be hurt by filters in a practically irreparable way that is also difficult to quantify: How many people, worldwide, tried to access the site before it will be whitelisted by this particular filter provider?
Picture this: Somebody Google searches "children's festival," clicks on the aforementioned site, but it appears to be down. Or even worse, a warning message appears warning the user that they've just attempted to access sexually explicit material. "Well!" our hapless Google searcher says to themselves, "This is certainly not the family-friendly activity I had in mind!" and the search continues.
The site has lost potential revenue because of the spam filter, sure. But even worse, now "littlebigshots" resonates in the mind of our Google searcher as just another porn site. It is nothing short of libel by proxy.
So you can restore access to the site all you want (and again, it's a kind and responsible thing for you to do), but it doesn't fix the residual image problem that a miscategorized site may still have to cope with. This is a relatively new issue, and what I've been waiting for is the first case that's exactly on-point with this type of situation, to help sort out what kinds of rights and remedies a miscategorized plaintiff may have. So far, no good. I guess we'll just have to keep waiting.
*(I'm not linking to it again because I'm sure they don't enjoy the unsolicited
Parent
Re:If a sexually explicit tree falls in a forest.. (Score:4, Interesting)
Having a list of child pornography sites would seem to be a bad idea simply because now those sites are getting free advertising. Maybe they should think about encrypting the list or something.
Parent
Re:What happens when lists go wrong (Score:5, Funny)
It can't be working very well if you manage to connect to Slashdot
Parent
Good idea (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Good idea (Score:4, Interesting)
The Finnish government is a sad parody of what it once was. Once it dealt with both Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia and came up on top and turned the country from an economically abused agricultural colony (located at the arctic circle, as an icing on the cake) suffering from a civil war into a peaceful, democratic, industrial first-world country. The current version, on the other hand, falls all over itself trying to bow down to Russia, EU and the USA simultaneously while passing one bad, freedom-removing law after another. The new finnish copyright law, the so-called "Lex Karpela", is a perfect example: even the government which passed it itself admitted it doesn't know what it actually forbids or allows, but passed it anyway.
I assure you, the list contains exactly the entries it's supposed to: specifically, it already contains sites which merely criticize censorship. It was perfectly obvious from the beginning that this was the true purpose of the list. If these creeps actually thought of children, they wouldn't be constantly cutting funds from education to finance rising their own pay.
Is it just me, or does every country have at its helm the most disgusting subhuman slimemolds it manages to produce ? I'm starting to wonder if those medieval theories about incubi and succubi producing demonic half-human children actually have some merit; it is kinda hard to explain the origin of our Great Leaders otherwise.
Parent
You asked ... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
No. There's a classic catch-22 in here designed to funnel money to certain interests at the exclusion of all others. Here's the trick: it's illegal to access this data. You cannot create an accurate blacklist without accessing this data, since you would have to review the content. Hence, creating an accurate blacklist is illegal. Anybody who wants to create a blacklist will therefore need political cover to avoid prosecution (this doesn't mean it's legal, it just means t
Re: (Score:2)
A disgrace to Finland (Score:5, Interesting)
The mere existence of this kind of censorship disgusts me.
Re:A disgrace to Finland (Score:5, Interesting)
What I want to know is the names of each and every MP who voted for this travesty of a law! I will swear to FSM that during the next elections, I will go talk to them during their campaign and grill them about "supporting censorship". If those fucking fascists want censorship, maybe they should move to China or North Korea? Why in the hell we have such a bunch of fucking retards deciding things for us?
Speaking as a Finn, I'm deeply ashamed and fucking pissed off!
What Finland needs right about now is MASSIVE amount of bad publicity! We have this thing that we are always concerned what others might be thinking about us. And if Finland starts to be compared to China and North Korea in the international media, that just might be the trick to get this law overturned.
Parent
Re:A disgrace to Finland (Score:4, Informative)
BTW. the MP's I wrote to are: Markku Laukkanen, Raimo Vistbacka, Saara Karhu, Erkki Pulliainen and Mikko Alatalo. here [eduskunta.fi] you can read the comments those people made during the first hearing on the new legislation. Another person to write to could be Sari Essayah, who supported the legislation here [eduskunta.fi] (what else can you expect from a fundie?). It should also be noted that Jyrki Kasvi strongly opposed the legislation.
Make your voice heard. And know who to vote.
Parent
An extrovert Finn (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Not "required" by the law (Score:5, Informative)
"Finnish ISPs are required by law to block access to sites on the list, according to The Register"
Actually, The Register doesn't say this. There exists a law specifically crafted due to this child porn censorship program, but it technically doesn't mandate ISPs into participating to the censorship. Well, except for the fact that the people behind the law have made public statements that if voluntary "self-regulation" isn't enough, then there will be such a law. So, it's not exactly voluntary when the ISPs are being threatened, but technically they can claim it's not required by the law...
Anyway, regarding the free speech advocate who has gotten his site censored, that's me. I've written a little bit of text in English about my page and the situation [lapsiporno.info].
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Could someone paste the content of the document. I am from Finland, hence I am unable to read it.
--
Jari Mustonen
PS. I feel like living in some kind of totalitarian state. Well, this is what we get for electing this jackass for our prime minister.
Re:Not "required" by the law (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Re:Not "required" by the law (Score:5, Interesting)
I've tried to discuss this with many others at Helsingin Sanomat message board. But it is hard because when ever you try to convince someone that this isn't the right kind of tool to prevent child porn you get labeled as a child porn consumer or even a pedofile. Those who understands this issue can't do much and those who don't are closing their eyes and ears and shouting I CAN'T HEAR YOU, YOU SICK BASTARD.
I'll think I write nice letter to minister Katainen about this. I have Kokoomus membership card in my pocket and I live in Pohjois-Savo, as does Katainen, so hopefully he reads my mail. But I'm not sure how to phrase the mail so that it is polite and informative at the same time :) I'll have to think about this a little ...
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
For me, the lack of oversight is a minor issue compared to the fact this system exists at all. I would be against it even if they got a court order for each and every site blocked. It would still be an extremely dangerous system. What happens if the government becomes corrupt? What happens if the nation destabilizes. Finland had a
It's on the DNS Level (Score:5, Informative)
maybe there *really was* child porn there. (Score:3, Interesting)
Finland's EFF has information about the block list, which reportedly includes a musical instrument store, a doll store, and a site of Windows tips in Thai.
Right, because someone hosting child porn would be stupid enough to link to it on their legitimate business site.
Child porn could have very well been there- maybe the site owner has a /kiddieporn/ directory, or maybe someone put porn on the server without them knowing- either someone who just needed a server to distribute said porn, or someone who wanted to exact revenge.
A server I helped run was hacked and it had an IRC bot on it providing sample clips of a group's movie rip (incidentally, Rizon IRC admins refused to do anything about it, claiming "you could have faked logs". I suppose then, that it's normal to have a channel with 10,000+ members all sitting idle, eh? With a group name that's easily googleable to see that they do pirate movie releases? Make no mistake: Rizon is 100% about supporting movie and software piracy.)
Re:maybe there *really was* child porn there. (Score:5, Interesting)
The reference to "Windows tips in Thai" is to a whole ISP's server blocked in Thailand. They provide free web boards, so it's fairly reasonable to assume that those free boards are used to post child porn links. Child porn groups tend to communicate over forgotten guestbooks, forums, they use freesites to publish stuff, etc.
The whole point is that these legit sites are collateral damage, and the police doesn't care the slightest about it. As a matter of fact, the police has released a FAQ which quite directly suggests that since there are so many sites on the internet it doesn't matter if a few of them are blocked.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
that's exactly why we love rizon.
you did more to help piracy by failing to properly configure your server than rizon did by ignoring your requests that they go snooping into their users business without a court order.
Where's the free INTERNET? (Score:2)
Well it seems to have turned into yet another tool for the police state. Yeah - kiddie porn is evil - no doubt, but the bloom is off - it's not a wide open frontier. It's dead and calcifying as we speak.
RS
Most are US based, 20+ Porn Actresses! (Score:4, Informative)
Norway has the same kind of list (Score:4, Interesting)
It seems to be more lenient, though. Lapsiporno isn't blocked, and out of a sampling of the least offensive sounding sites, "only" three out of eight were blocked.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Here's a partial list for Norway: http://lapsiporno.info/blocked.nextgentel [lapsiporno.info]
Heck, here's one for Sweden, too: http://lapsiporno.info/blocked.glocalnet [lapsiporno.info]
And now that I'm at it, Denmark: http://lapsiporno.info/blocked.cybercity [lapsiporno.info]
Also, it might be just a matter of time until Finnish Police tries to push my site into lists of other countries too.
Re: (Score:2)
> This simply doesn't make any sense - they have a list of illegal sites,
> but instead of tracking down the owners and prosecuting them and shutting the
> sites down they just block access to them. Wha...???
Firstly... one of the sites on the list was a Thai Windows tips site, another was a Japanese doll (the toy kind, perv!) site. The Finnish authorities can only prosecute and shut down Finnish sites.
Secondly... the point of this is that many of the sites *aren't* illegal, even in Finland.
Re:This doesn't make any sense! (Score:5, Insightful)
True dat. What happens when the legal age for sexual consent is 14, and pictures of naked 14 year olds engaged in sexual acts are viewed by someone where the legal age of consent is 18? How are you going to make a case against the website that is doing nothing wrong in its country? Are you going to go after the person viewing the content? Then you can make the argument that how can you know what is on a website without seeing it first?
Parent
Re:Timecops??? (Score:4, Informative)
> Oh my god! I time-travelled 2 days in the future? Or maybe Finland is on GMT+42?
The date is accurate for the questioning, the news just travels so fast that the actual questioning hasn't happened yet. They sent the "invitation" last friday (15th), and it arrived in mail this monday (18th). I got a prior notice about it through email though.
Parent