British Telecom Blocks Access to Child Porn Sites 835
An anonymous reader writes "British Telecom has taken the unprecedented step of blocking all illegal child pornography websites in a crackdown on abuse online. The decision by Britain's largest high-speed internet provider will lead to the first mass censorship of the web attempted in a Western democracy."
Re:Foot in the door (Score:3, Interesting)
iit wont get blocked.
BUT it is a good thing, this means that no one can, ACCIDENTLY go onto a child porn site. Something which i've always feared tbh. As even temporary files can be concidered as stored information. Accidently finding such a site "could" get you into alot of trouble.
For once BT have done something good!.
completely the wrong approach (Score:2, Interesting)
Of course nothing stops them using a proxy to access child porn with my method, but seeing as the accessor would not be given any hints that anything is amiss, they would be unlikely to bother, after they have successfully accessed this material.
IANAL yadda yadda yadda... (Score:5, Interesting)
The door swings both ways.
Re:Foot in the door (Score:4, Interesting)
Is this a good thing? Well, not for those of us who like our music and movies for free, but as far as companies are concerned, it probably is, although presumably they could lose a lot of business if they started blocking P2P.
IIRC, several of the UK's mobile phone providers announced they were going to block all porn for mobile internet access unless the phone owner submitted proof of age. I can't help but wonder how many people would have the nerve to ring up customer support and ask for their porn access to be restored
Re:Good motives but... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Blocking Child Porn (Score:5, Interesting)
One of the most important facts is: The child abuse was already done, when the pictures got posted. With the open web, potentially everyone can look into it and notice it. I don't want child abuse happen to anyone... But it being back in the dark rooms no one has access to is the worst. Bring it to light, so we know, there is a problem out there, and we can do something about. If it gets blocked, then it goes on unnotified.
Fact is: Since pictures of abused childs are aviable on the web, the number of childs killed in abuses has dropped remarkably in Germany. From 40 per year in the Eighties down to six last year. That's 34 children rescued.
Re:Foot in the door (Score:3, Interesting)
Not good. (Score:5, Interesting)
a) Practical reasons. How on earth are they going to decide which sites are child porn sites? Do these sites announce themselves as such with a special logo? Or will the government employ 1,000 people who search google all day for new sites? Or will all sites that refer to "child" and "vagina" in the same sentence be blocked (I guess that includes nudist sites and anti-childporn sites as well)? For these practical reasons and many more, this idea will not be practical.
b) The slippery slope. OK, child porn is obviously bad. And so is antisemitism. And bomb making. So, the PLO site is soon to be banned too? All newsgroups that ever discuss bombs? Sites that sell radar detectors? Web sites taht discuss and encourage tax cheating? Anti-government sites? Exam cheat sites? When you accept that the government can decide what we are allowed to read online, this is a dangerous state of affairs.
c) Drawing attention bad. It will no doubt make it a challenge to get to the forbidden sites.
Censorship has never worked. My kids watch only shows that are rated "mature". While I sympathise with the intention here, the idea of a wise government that bans access to information is one that has never worked in the past and will not work now. It seems to me that enforcing existing laws against child porn (producers, viewers) would be a much better course of action; one more likely to lead to real results.
Filtering content is NOT illegal (Score:5, Interesting)
Some slashdoters seem to have a view that the internet is a realm where all information should be free and available. This is bullshit. If, for example, my personal medical records became avaiable there, I'd be pissed. This is yet another example of information that you have no right to have in the first place. There would be nothing wrong with shuting down a site that listed everyone's the medical history. Same case with the kiddie porn. I'm sorry, but anybody making an argument that filtering all content is illegal should have NO expectations of privacy. RIAA/cops/evil twin want your fingerprints? No problem, that resturant you ate at can put them online(hosted, of course, in a 3rd world country with at best lax law enforcement) - filtering content is, after all, illegal.
The only concern is that they have measures in place to unblock a site that is blocked in error, and that they make a best-effort attempt to minimize the number of errors.
I have a better idea (Score:4, Interesting)
Censorship in this case might be with the best intentions, but the precedent and future problems it creates is immense.
What will they block next?
- How to build a bong.
- How build a petrol bomb.
- How to make your car street illegal.
- How to hack your ipod.
All these things were blocked in China when I lived there.
Okay, I have just one problem with this (Score:4, Interesting)
In fact, people seem to be missing what the actual problem is here. It's not that people download it (not that that's a good thing). The main problem is that people create it in the first place. That is the part that does the most harm.
Not the first.. (Score:3, Interesting)
In my own neck of the woods, even the widely held as enlightened, geek-run, freedom-of-information-positive provider xs4all blocks kiddy porn newsgroups on usenet. And there are multiple "Christian" themed providers that provide an internetfeed that is filtered beyond belief (usually using some sort of server-side implementation of wildly inaccurate blacklists like netnanny); most public primary/secondary schools also get filtered (if any) access.
It's a matter of consumer choice really. At least BT (and the aforementioned "Christian" themed/school ISPs) are upfront about it. And let's hope the "error message" people get does inform people how to get innocent sites delisted.
Now, if BT was doing this as a part of their wholesale operations, that would be A Bad Thing.
I know for a fact that BT subsidiaries like to restrict their internal networks a whole lot; even browsing to another ISP's webmail is blocked, on the theory you might receive or send some (*gasp*) non-work related e-mails. That's pretty evil (not to mention counter-productive).
That's odd. (Score:2, Interesting)
Hey, there is always Freenet and P2P (Score:1, Interesting)
If BT says they will shut down any hosted sites with objectionable content, that is their right IMHO. You always have other choices.
Re:WTF? (Score:3, Interesting)
In Japan, pornography is defined as the showing of pubic hair, so showing images of young children naked is not considered porn.
Even "abuse" has different definitions. I've seen a (mainstream) Japanese movie where a mother started grabbing her son's privates, after he was running around naked playing a game of tag with her. In the context of the movie it made sense, but the scene was still sexual in nature and it shocked me, and I'm not a prude at all.
Re:My theory: "The Universal EEW!" (Score:3, Interesting)
It's a slippery slope because when the kiddie porn perveyors are gone, then everyone else looks a little more censorable.
Opt-in a better solution? (Score:2, Interesting)
I'm thinking of a (transparent?) HTTP proxy server that blocks the addresses, but the DNS entries are still there on the DNS server, or a similar filtering construction.
Such a solution would completely eliminate the censorship worries, and yet give end-users the protection of such a scheme. I doubt the scheme is meant to actually prevent paedophiles from getting to the content. Surely, they'd just change ISP or use some kind of anonymous proxy, which they're probably using already to avoid being caught.
My ISP can barely keep my billing straight (Score:3, Interesting)
You think the ISP's are going to go back through and make sure the original sites they blocked are still being used for the same purpose? HAHAHAHA! Then you've never dealt with tech support on some of the bigger ISP's. Yesterday I couldn't spell ethernet, today I is a tech support pro-fessional.
This really doesn't have anything to do with kiddie porn. It's a question about who decides where we can go on the Internet and who makes the call about what constitutes objectionable content.
And, as usual, it's only going to stop the honest people. Anyone wanting to get to a site bad enough will figure out a way to proxy around the block.
Slippery slope my ass (Score:3, Interesting)
Yeah, right. Governments change. This year they lean to the right, next year they lean to the left. So what happens? Do the filters switch on election day, to block anything critical of the new rulers? Please...
There are enough people on all sides of the political spectrum to make this a non-issue.
Child porn is universally wrong. Show me an upside.
"Why censor? Why not just arrest the blighters?"
And we know that's not the next step how? Identify, notify, arrest, prosecute. But you have to identify first.
Pre internet, pedophiles were out there, but isolated. With the fre range internet, and easy access, interest boomed. "More, more!" How many pedophiles got their start in the last few years only because they could find this material easily? We'll probably never know, but I'd be willing to bet its grater than 1.
Re:Is this a good idea? (Score:3, Interesting)
Free Market (Score:1, Interesting)
I got no problem with this at all. It's akin to a newsagents not selling particular magazines. If he doesnt sell what I want, I use another newsagent.
"strict fundamentalist religious mindset" (Score:2, Interesting)
Its the same damned thing, if you were honest enough to admit it.
That's what religion is all about, if you haven't noticed. its "MY way or you are wrong, and must be punished" The 'way' and the 'punishment' vary from religion to religion, but its all the same exercise of control. And dont pretend they dont have a hell of a lot of power..
And how about we ban that next? Lets start banning particular religions due to their offensive nature.. Why just stop with banning CP and warez sites? How about anti government sites? How about self reliance information? Lets block everything that even remotely might be wrong to at least one person on the face of the earth.. Lets do it for the kids.. Oh, and don't forget to track all requests, so that if you happen to request something that is forbidden today, we come and imprison you due to 'intent'. Don't laugh and call me paranoid, this is how the world used to work before we became 'civilized'
It wont stop with CP people.. Sure that's a noble cause, but it will be leveraged, to expand on it.. ( and if you haven't noticed, this would be coming form the 'religious wing' of society.. )
Good! (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Is this a good idea? (Score:4, Interesting)
This came up in the discussion of virtual representations of child pornography. That is, drawings, computer animation, other things that portray children having sex but actually do not involve real children. A law was passed to outlaw such things based on the "market" argument, and this law was eventually struck down by the SCOTUS.
Agreed (Score:2, Interesting)
Notice my emphasis on sarcasm here
I'm with the parent post on the point that the abuse is done. what i disagree with is the little factoid and his idea of children being "rescued" (comparing apples and oranges). children aren't being rescued, there's merely less reported cases of fatal situations. my guess is that at some point the "missing persons" programs which did not effectively track young persons in the eighties, is simply more effective. people go missing, and that is that.
The following things are scary ideas, but i'm going to suggest them as alternatives:
- ISPs start accountability for their users. track users' traffic and what websites they go to. employ statistics against the habits of known criminal types to flag thier users as suspect.
- Continue siding with the war on terror and the witch hunt for child pornography. This lets you be friends with the big bad Bush administration, which likes to go ape shit and abuse indiscriminately, and it involves a grand ruckus of flag-waving.
- Enforce penalties for actual crimes. I'm not talking about crime as in "sasser" or such, but it is well documented that "computer criminals" serve longer and tougher sentences than child molesters, serial rapists, and some other pretty wacky baddies that disrupt a workable society. Maybe there should be a forced sentence related to the difference in age of the defendant and the accused? This won't cover a (US education) 4th-grader picking up daddy's
And some fucking telecom wants to censor your internet access!?!?!
Okay okay we should then censor all church related material. yes. down with god. after all, it has been widely rumored and accepted that the church is facillitating the abuse of children by its members. wait... no child pornography there.
Hmm, alright! i've got it. we'll jail all the people in the telecom who decide what to block. they MUST have seen some evil child pornography. burn them! make them pay for looking at such evil.
I'm convinced that some bullshit idea like "child pornography" is pretty much a symptom of societies full of marginally stupid people. hate crime, abductor/abusers, rapists, murderers, we see photos of this kind of deviation *all the time*
It's like this wartime situation in the US, you have the (bush) administration justifying it and proclaiming its evilness at the same time. soldiers, thinking they were god justified, and abusing prisoners. isn't that awful? lol lol lol omfg rofl gmwas!
We should jail anyone who visits tubgirl.com, goatse.cx, rotten.com, consumptionjunction.com, put them in jail for looking at such evil dot-matrix representations of the colours green red and blue... we should replace green with white because green is unpatriotic (as the United States manages to make everything a "global" issue).
It's not even criminal behavior, though... you could argue with me on whether that's a real problem of society, i'd b
A LOT is two words (in this case) (Score:3, Interesting)
On the other hand, you can switch IPs rather easily, and you can also write letters to politicians and vote out the ones that don't listen to what the people want. You can also use anonymous relay services.
Re:Foot in the door (Score:5, Interesting)
"You are attempting to access a site we believe is child pornography. If you would still like to view the site click here."
Optionally, they could add "If you choose to continue your IP will be logged" and/or "your information will be sent to the authorities".
Safety for the accidental porn browsers, and if it was actually an anti-BT site people can still get through.
Re:WTF? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Is this a good idea? (Score:2, Interesting)
Bad, of course.
Now, answer mine- How would you like it if I paid you to pose naked and took a few pictures?
After all, that's what most 'child porn' is- consentual (except for the Statutory part of it).
Re:WTF? (Score:2, Interesting)
So you when your first wife is hitting 20 and your second is hitting 17 and the 14 year old you married last year is just too old you can always arrange a marriage with a nice fresh 9 year old.
So why shouldn't they be allowed to take naked pictures of their wives if they want?
Re:WTF? (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Foot in the door (Score:4, Interesting)
BT does what it should. (Score:3, Interesting)
BT in effect is rebroadcasting the offending material, and it is their right and responsibility to ensure they are not transmitting or resending child porn. I see this as BT not so much blocking a site, but preventing illegal materials to be transmitted through their facilities.
Re:Is this a good idea? (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:no different than the real world (Score:3, Interesting)
The US Post Office already does this. There are numerous examples, valid and invalid, of the post office censoring mail, prosecuting people based on what they send through the mail, and just confiscating packages. google is a good start to read up on it [google.com].
I'm not saying its right, because obviously in some cases there were political reasons for the USPS's censorship. I'm just saying that the internet shouldn't necessarily be treated differently simply by virtue of it being the internet.
Re:Foot in the door (Score:2, Interesting)
I thought the myth of online anonymity was dead? You go anywhere through an Internet gateway, that gateway knows where you went, when you went there and can even look at the little bits of data you sent and recieved.
So, yea.. If the addresses of child porn sites are known, wouldn't it make some level of sense for the ISP to log connections to those addresses? Legal liability at least...
Re:Not good. (Score:1, Interesting)
However, most groups that monitor this stuff, to my knowledge, would prefer it not to be censored... its much easier to have it out in the open where you can track it and identify those involved. This is what I don't understand about the child porn issue - isn't it better to go identify the sources and work on shutting those down?
Re:Are you an American? (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Is this a good idea? (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Foot in the door (Score:5, Interesting)
I have accidentally come across kiddy porn sites as a part of my search for free (consenting adult) porno. Whenever I saw a site that appeared to be located/run from within the US, I called the FBI and reported it.
My goal was two-fold, first I wanted to let the authorities now that these people are out there and if someone ever tried to accuse me of intentionally going to that site, the FBI's records would show that I called them and reported it.
Cracking down on kiddy porn is not an unreasonable restriction on free speech.
LK
Re:Foot in the door (Score:5, Interesting)
Since when are there child porn web sites anyway? I thought it was all IRC and USENET.
Re:Is this a good idea? (Score:2, Interesting)
Since the dawn of time there has been people who took "child brides" and the like. In fact it stopped in most parts of western societies in the late 19th century and continued in some parts up to the mid 20th century. Some would say it even exists today. The question is with the infatuation with youth we in the occidental world have, how do we stear people away from genetic urges bred into them to select mates without diseases, youth, or whatever a pedophile sees in a child that he desires?
Perhaps in the future it will become feasible to supplicate these people with artificial companions that simulate the youth they so seek. The companion would not age, and no one would be harmed.
Re:I hate to do it but... (Score:3, Interesting)
No, I see nothing wrong with the government blocking material the government has declared illegal. I only see something wrong in the material being illegal in the first place. What kind of useless government would not want to block illegal material and let it pass happily along?
As long as the material itself was originally illegal, if the government blocks it, there is no more harm done. (At least this way people won't get wrongly arrested, arrested and tortured, etc., so there is some benefit.) And if you are not going to respect the law against the material, you're going to find some way around the overt censorship.
Re:WTF? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Foot in the door (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Foot in the door (Score:3, Interesting)
In ~14 years of internet access I've accidentally stumbled across it once or twice on Usenet (and in completely unrelated groups - neither .binaries nor .erotica), and only a couple of pictures - but never on the web.
But watching the news on television, you'd think every other web site hosted by a non-corporate entity was constantly plotting to serve pre-teen lolita hardcore to unsuspecting old ladies everywhere.
Heck, even when I was a teenager and *looking* for stuff of similarly aged nekkid girls, I never saw anything involving kids, only ~15+ yo teens. Of course, back then, internet porn was only starting to get warmed up. I can only assume these "reporters" who claim to have found "mountains" of kiddie porn "within minutes of logging onto the internet" are (in descending order of probability either a) lying b) sensationalising, c) visiting sites told to them by law enforcement or d) paedophiles themselves.
And as any veteran pr0n browser knows (and searches for appropriately):
"pre-teen" == 16 - 20
"teen", "lolita" or "underage girls" == 20 - 25
"college coeds" == 25 - 30
Just because it says "underage girls" on the site doesn't mean any of the talent is underage. The pornographers know their audience, know what they're looking for and pander to that fantasy -as is their job.
Re:Who is to decide? And what comes next.? (Score:1, Interesting)
Hmm. There are broad laws in regard to slander (and libel), privacy, copyright, censorship, incitement and many others which all seriously restrict what someone may say - unless you believe that the right of free speech includes the risk of subsequent legal action. It also remains to be seen if the Human Rights convention rules supreme. It is certainly true that the free speech is not as well enshrined as in the US.
Re:WTF? (Score:3, Interesting)