WorldCom Forced To Block Questionable Sites 532
Cutriss writes "Seen on Wired, this article briefly mentions how the Pennsylvania State Government is forcing UUNet to block access to five child pornography sites, under their new state law. No mention was made as to whether they were domestic or foreign. I'm certainly no fan of kiddie porn, but this ruling also serves as a blow to the 'common carrier' status that any whatever-tiered ISP should have in theory, and in practice. Also, this is a state law, not a federal one, but the end result is nationwide. This isn't a whole lot different from Yahoo! France being sued for making auctions of Nazi propaganda viewable by French citizens."
Fix the problem (Score:5, Insightful)
I think we can see where all this is headed (Score:5, Insightful)
Not only the carrier (Score:5, Insightful)
I hate kiddie porn as much as the next person, but imposing censorship over what an internet provider can deliver (only at the request of the user, keep in mind,) is a terrible thing in my view.
If this stands, it will open the door for many similar situations to arise.
Well (Score:2, Insightful)
The precedent that this sets is really bad. It means that it's all downhill from here. If ISPs are blocking one type of "illegal bytes", then why should they allow another type?
Consorship is not some theoretical thing, it is real, alive, and something that threatens everything that the USA is supposed to stand for.
To all those that didn't vote Libertarian, to all those who don't know their representative's name, to all those who don't care, so long as they can drink their beer, eat their pizza, and play with their tech toys.... This is your doing.
Not a Common Carrier (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't think ISP's like UUNET have ever been considered common carriers, nor do I think they want to be. They regularly engage in content based filtering of spam all the time.
Re:Who's rights we talking about? (Score:3, Insightful)
what I believe to be the problem is the fact that this makes backbone/service providers liable for the content that travels across their networks. this also sets a bad precident in allowing other things to be censored at the network level... even if they aren't such a hideously objectionable thing such as child pornography
Re:Fix the problem (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Who's rights we talking about? (Score:4, Insightful)
Just because you use the word children doesn't make you right.
Using child pornography as an excuse for injustice is worce then just the child pornography alone. Prioritize.
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Get the facts straight (Score:2, Insightful)
The block isn't nationwide, it's for Pennsylvania. I'll admit it might be tricky to implement and they may just say to hell with it and block the sites nationwide. And so what? How is blocking some kiddie porn sites affecting our rights? I think we need to take these type of things in context.
We're not opening a Pandora's box that will allow a NY senator to shut down a CA homepage that has some negative opinions of them on it. It's child porn! It's not like there's a state in the US that says it's legal. If every state went ahead and had to file a motion against WorldCom to block the same 5 sites, then everyone would be upset that so much money was wasted.
Choose your battles wisely.
Re:Who's rights we talking about? (Score:5, Insightful)
So a taxi company will take someone to the door of a place that is illegal for them to go to (say an underage brothel). What is the proper course of action?
a) Prevent taxi companies from taking people into those neighborhoods.
b) Do your best to close down the underage brothel and arrest the proprietors.
Failing b, (a) is not an acceptable substitute. It places the responsibility into the hands of people who it should not be the responsibility of, it interferes with the flow of business, and it is so easily circumvented by customers that it almost isn't worth considering.
Chill. There are better ways to handle this than to shoot the messengers. Knee-jerk reactions that sum to "THIS IS WRONG WE NEED TO DO EVERYTHING IN OUR POWER TO STOP ANYONE FROM EVER LOOKING AT IT" don't help the matter and are what lead to the corrosion of our rights.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Who's rights we talking about? (Score:5, Insightful)
Your argument is a false dichotomy. Or do you really think that Worldcom(tm) has the power to stop the sexual abuse of children? Because that's what you're saying. That if Worldcom(tm) blocks these sites, that that action will somehow restore the lost rights of these children. Which is simply not true at all. Forcing a backbone carrier to not route traffic to a certain block of IP addresses (which is the only way a backbone carrier can really effect such a policy) does nothing to prevent sexual abuse of children. Children were being abused before the Internet even existed, and they'll still be abused after Worldcom implements this decision.
Some things are worse than censorship. Prioritize.
Lot's of things are worse than censorship. Murder. Rape. Child abuse. Genocide. Kidnapping. But censorship doesn't actually prevent any of these things. If child porn is such an issue for you, why don't you try and find some way to actually prevent it, rather than sit around making weak aguments that censorship is OK as long as it's "for the children".
Re:WTF?!! (Score:5, Insightful)
How do we know what they are blocking? (Score:4, Insightful)
I am not in favor of child pornography. I suspect the great majority of people aren't. It is a terrible very bad thing. And even if we all can't agree that it is a bad thing, it is illegal.
But . . . how do we know what they are blocking? Who decides if it is child pornography? What is to prevent the authorities from expanding this? What if someone posted a URL of a site alleged to be child pornography on slashdot, and so the authorities decided to block slashdot because it "contains links to child pornography".
And . . . how soon before the legislation is expanded to sites alleged to include music files or program files. And what about sites that traffic in encrypted data? We'd better block those, too, because who knows what is being hidden in that encryption? And what about sites that question the policies and actions of the government? After all, any site that attacks the government may well be abetting terrorism, and fighting terrorism is even more important than fighting child pornography.
Face it, people. Our "unalienable" rights are as fragile as tissue paper. It requires constant vigilence to see that they are not eroded. We need to find a different way to fight child porn.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Censoring Kiddie Pr0n is EVIL! (Score:5, Insightful)
First of all, I'd like to see some proof that the alleged "kiddie porn" really involved minors. If it did, then those responsible should be thrown in jail and the keys should be lost. I have no wish to see anyone go though that kind of abusive hell.
The reason I say this is that the definition of child pornography is probably not the same as what most people think when they hear the term. I suspect the image that jumps to mind for MOST people is of very young (less than 10 years old) kids, but that's usually not what's being targeted. By definition, it is any act of a sexually explicit nature (including suggestive poses, but NOT simple nudity) involving a person under the legal age of majority (which is generally 18, but varies from place to place). Think about that. How many of you know people in their 20's who still get carded at the bar? How many 19 year-olds could pass for 14 or even younger if they have the right anatomy, makeup and lighting? For that matter, how many 14 year-olds are well-developed enough to pass for 17 or 18 at a glance?
Add to this the incredible advances in digital image processing, and you might realize that it's not THAT hard to make someone look far younger than they are. Even childlike. So, if the people in the images were not underage, or perhaps not even real (fully computer generated images are not impossible), whose rights have been violated?
Secondly, and MORE IMPORTANTLY, where will this end? Today, a bunch of people make laws to force ISP's and backbone providers to block horrible kiddie porn and keep everyone safe from the horror. Next year, a bunch of other people decide that it's important to block access to information regarding nuclear materials, explosives, or other terrorist paraphenalia, on the grounds that it allows and encourages Terrorist Activities and is a threat to National Security... and this censorship has a precedant, the blocking of kiddie porn.
A bit later, information about the principles of nuclear fission, operation of automatic weapons, the history of the middle east are censored or "adjusted" to make them safe for consumption by the public. This is done under the guise of further efforts in the War On Terrorism, and earlier rulings are used to show that these too are perfectly legal, as they are nearly identical to the prior bans.
In one generation, we could very easily lose the one thing that so many people in the last 200 years have fought and died for... freedom. If you let them take the little things now, you can be sure they'll take bigger things later, until you have nothing left.
Once upon a time, I could walk into a library anywhere in the country and sit down to research any topic I was curious about. I would have no fear of persecution (other than raised eyebrows from the library staff, perhaps), and would be content in the knowledge that even if someone tried to bury my work or hide the truth, at least the law protected my right to ask questions (even if the answers were classified).
Then came the DMCA. Now, asking the wrong questions might land you in the circumvention camp, and curiosity might earn you jail time. Next, an unfortunate terrorist attack allows the door to swing open on Homeland Security -- talking too loudly about the wrong things might land you in the conspiracy to commit acts of terror camp, in which case you might disappear for a long time. Now, I'm being "protected" from things that tend to distrub "most" people. If I happen to stumble across an image of a naked little girl running from a burning building, SOMEONE might decide that it's porn and so I can no longer see that historical print from a war that was fought before I knew what "war" meant.
Do we *REALLY* want to go back to the idea of Government Approved Information? Is it really more comforting to know that anything you read, see, or hear has been sanitized by Uncle Sam to be sure you don't see anything upsetting? Is everyone THAT thin-skinned, that we have to hide behind lawyers, lobbyists, and laws?
The distribution of kiddie porn is NOT the problem. The creation of it IS. Let's stop making laws that do a poor job of curing the symptom and try enforcing already existing laws that might cure the sickness. Go after the people MAKING the stuff!
Wasted Opportunity (Score:1, Insightful)
Route instead of block (Score:3, Insightful)
Have law enforcement set up mirror sites, and have the IP redirect to these instead of blocking the KP sites. Then, when the idiot kiddy-lover signs up using his credit card *bam* firstname, lastname, he's ready to fry.
Re:How do we know what they are blocking? (Score:2, Insightful)
Chris
What is child pornography!? (Score:5, Insightful)
Child pornography, of course, is a terrible,
terrible thing...
I agree with the general sentiment of Lundden's note, but I think the above needs to be questioned. It is not a simple thing to determine what it is that is "child pornography".
-MOST- of what is prosecuted as "child pornography" really IS NOT a terrible thing. Under US Federal law--and I am sure PA is no better--a 24 y.o. dressed in a "schoolgirl" outfit to "simulate" a minor makes for child porn. You might say that that's not "really" child porn... but on the LAW, you'd be plain wrong. Likewise, parent taking pictures of their small children bathing, swimming, or running around the lawn, have been prosecuted and imprisoned for producing "child pornography." Or even in the case that is -borderline- reasonable, a 16-17 y.o. who is of the age-of-consent to have sex in his/her state, becomes the "victim" of child pornographers if her/his partner (who might be 16-17 too) takes a picture of the act. I might say that this last case is maybe, slightly bad--but certainly also far short of "terrible." Or still more: someone who draws a picture--entirely from imagination--of kids having sex, produces child porn... and likewise even if those drawings are just "suggestive."
Moreover, even by the incredibly loose standard that images (and words) get classified as "child porn"... the PA action doesn't bother to demonstrate that the banned sites ACTUALLY meet the weak threshhold. They just order material banned... no hearing, no trial, no evidentiary trail. Just a lone declaration by an AG that "I know that's what it is."
Re:Boundaries (Score:2, Insightful)
In other countries, people become adults at different times (14 in Albania, 17 in Cyprus, 16 in Norway, full chart here [ageofconsent.com]). Forcing our view of morality on the rest of the world is something the US has been doing far too much lately.
Re:WTF?!! (Score:2, Insightful)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but this sounds suspiciously similar to the gun-control argument: "A child might accidentally get hold of (gasp) a GUN, so...let's TAKE THEM ALL AWAY! No child must be allowed to suffer!" Sorry, but it doesn't wash. Children are minors and must be protected, but their rights do not carry any more weight than the rights of others. If you wish to give up YOUR Internet privileges and, being a responsible parent, take away YOUR CHILD's Internet privileges, I would concede that as possibly a responsible course of action. Taking away everyone else's Internet privileges, however is a non-sequitur. Your child's need to be protected doesn't give you the right to deny the Internet from other people. You, as parent, are responsible for protecting your child, and you have the means to do that. Stop your Internet service. Your child will surely never come across kiddie porn that way.
I know what it's like to love a child so much that would utterly destroy ANYTHING that would threaten her/him.
In principle this sounds reasonable, but it isn't. You're not entitled to use any amount of "force" in destroying such threats if those means would cause harm to others and other methods are available that are just as effective. If someone breaks into your house and threatens your child, by all means go ahead and kill that intruder if need be. You could light the intruder up with a shotgun and I wouldn't bat an eyelash. That doesn't mean, however, that you could spray the guy with so many bullets that they streamed out of your house into other people's homes. If someone threatened your child, say, at the store (but otherwise did nothing), you couldn't seek out that person and pre-empt an attack by disabling that person. The point is, there are limits. You aren't entitled to destroy the Internet just because that's a sure-fire means of protecting your child from kiddie porn. If I went and nuked Chester, PA, I guarantee that would knock out nearly all crime in this area where I live, but that doesn't make me entitled to do it. I take this as an axiom: THE ENDS NEVER JUSTIFY THE MEANS. Never, ever. If you disagree, then I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on that point.
I can also imagine would it would be like to lose my child to something like that
Then don't make pornographic movies with your child! Sheesh, we're not talking about kidnapping, we're talking about porn. No one "loses their child" to this sort of thing; they exploit their children. Please calm down and think the issue through. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you mean to say that you don't want your child EXPOSED to it. That's a reasonable concern, but I have to stress that in that case, it's your child, and your responsibility. BE THE PARENT. Police your child on the Internet; either buy monitoring software, or sit there with your child, or drop your ISP service. I don't care how you do it. Let your child know that it's his or her backside if you catch him/her looking at porn if you have to. I don't care; the point is, you are the parent, and no one else. If you care that much, then it's your duty to invest whatever time, money, or effort is required to protect your child. It's grossly selfish of you to expect everyone to make such a sacrifice just so your child can be protected. That's your job. And don't tell me that it can't be done. I grew up in a really strict Irish Catholic neighborhood, and let me tell you, some of my friends' parents DEFINED strict. Lay down the law.
I can say without precedence that in that situation, the world as a whole losing their internet "privliges" doesn't hold a candle to the suffering of one child.
I assume you mean "prejudice". Not a problem. As to your point, excuse me, but like hell it does. See above. There is no shortage of parents who seem perfectly able to protect their children. Protect yours.
It's about supply and demand (Score:2, Insightful)
It's really about supply and demand.
Why do porn sites exist? Why does a search for the term "sex" on any search engine return bazillions of hits? Because there is a great demand for it. Have a big demand, and there will be a supply.
As distasteful as it is to me and many others, there is a demand for kiddie porn. Thus a supply has formed to meet the demand. The government's response to this has been -- as it always is in these cases -- is to choke off the supply. That does not solve the problem. As long as the demand exists, a supply will form. You only need to look at the so-called "drug war" to see this in action.
So the real solution would involve reducing the demand, which is totally outside the realm of website filtering. Yet that would mean taking a much more in-depth look at the problem, as well as a lot more time and effort, and the government (and the voters) are not interested in this. They want quick solutions, regardless of whether it is the right solution. Block the websites, throw the kidde-porn producers and consumers in jail. Lather, rinse, repeat. And the problem simply goes on., a vicious cycle of stupid legislation and lawsuits to have them repealed, and so on.