Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
CDA News Your Rights Online

Communications Decency Act Protects AOL in Lawsuit 130

Posted by michael from the return-of-the-living-dead-CDA dept.
JasonL writes "Cnet has an article on how the Communications Decency Act has protected AOL is a case of one AOL member selling child pornography to another AOL member. This may set a new standard on how pornography, illegal as it may be, is dealt with by ISPs."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Communications Decency Act Protects AOL in Lawsuit More

Communications Decency Act Protects AOL in Lawsuit

Comments Filter:
  • Rather than blaming AOL for the misfortune of her 11-year son (appearing naked in on a VHS for whatever bizzarre reason), she needs to blame herself for being an unattentive, money driven, unfit mother.

    "What's the Problem?"

    "Everything except myself!"

  • Re:I'm sorry, I have to post again (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    "I would like my son to read slashdot, but how can I let him with articles like this being posted, that _seem_ to be biased towards protecting the criminals and/or prosecuting as many people as you can? "

    You wouldn't want the poor lad to read and make up his own mind. That wouldn't be right. You're a smart adult, you've weighed the alternatives and come up with the best line of thinking so the boy doesn't have to read and draw his own conclusions.

    My parents were different, and I regretted it. They let me know their beliefs, but never stopped me reading or seeing anything, even when it went against their beliefs. As a result, I was forced to make those choices for myself and my head hurt constantly.

    If only my parents had made all my choices for me, life would've been much simpler.

    I had lousy parents, didn't I?

  • This is what's supposed to happen (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    The good part of the "Communications Decency Act" is that it gets ISPs out of the censorship business. An ISP shouldn't disconnect anybody without a court order to do so.

    The whole "kiddie porn" crisis was dreamed up by the Meese Commission as an end-run around the First Amendment. Go read the original Meese Report [earthlink.net] from the Reagan years. The kiddie porn crisis was devised as a way to get law enforcement chasing after the porno industry again, by creating something they could put people in jail for.

    Kiddie porn is a small-scale problem blown up into a national issue for the benefit of the religious right. There wasn't much kiddie porn back when it was legal, before the Government started distributing it. The FBI runs a large child porno sting operation, staffed by 40 people, out of their Baltimore office [fbi.gov].

    If the real interest was protecting children, there'd be more activity in catching employers of child labor. The Department of Labor detected only 14 cases of child labor during 1998 [afop.org], while surveys indicated that somewhere above 250,000 kids are working illegally. Far more law enforcement activity is devoted to chasing child pornography than other employers of children.

  • Re:I can here it now... (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Anyone who engages in sexual activity with someone under 16 for the purpose of producing pornographic materials should have their life terminated.

    So, if a 15 year old boy has sex with a 19 year old girl, and the 15 year old boy says "hey.. I've got a kinky idea.. let's take some pictures," and they do, and the girl gets caught with them (maybe the boy was showing them to his friends and one of them is like you), that girl should be put to death?

    What about if the boy threatens suicide, if the girl is put to death? Should the courts take that into consideration? Should they consider possibly incarcerating her for life, instead of killing her?

    What about if the situation were reversed - a 19 year old boy, with his 15 year old girlfriend? Should he die, also?

    And what is a pornographic material, anyway? Is that like.. two naked people? Kissing? Posing? Pleasuring? Fucking? Where's the line?

    And what does "for the purpose of producing ..." mean? Is that like.. for profit? For pleasure? Does the person's innocence have to be proved (I had no intention of keeping/selling/taking these pictures! I swear!)?

    I mean.. if some 13 year old girl starts flirting with, and coming on to her best friend's 17 year old brother, and they fool around, and her sister catches them and snaps a picture of them under the covers, and their parents find it, do we throw him in the gas chamber? Stone him to death? Hang him? Maybe give him the good ol' lethal injection? Or maybe we could show some mercy - just label him a sexual preditor for life, and throw him in jail for a few (say.. 5) years..

    Maybe it needs to be more specific?

    I mean.. we are talking about making a living person dead.

  • From the article:

    But the boy's mother accused AOL of enforcing its rules so poorly that it became a "home shopping network for pedophiles and child pornographers," she said.

    So easy to use, no wonder its number one!


    --
  • No worries, this is slashdot. :P
    "We have the right to believe at our own risk any hypothesis that is live enough to tempt our will."

  • Nope, no kids. Doesn't invalidate my point, tho.

    You see, what you say is fine. I'm not arguing with that idea at all. My beef /is/ with the people who use the internet as a baby-sitter. I'm arguing against the people who plop their kids in front of the computer, and proceed to go off and watch television or some such without a care in the world for what their kids are doing. Those are the people who I have a problem with.

    I'm all for teaching your children proper values - responsibility (being trusted on their own), and the values and, hopefully, insight to see what roads arn't good roads to take.

    I have no problem with someone who can act responsibly with something.

    My problem is with those who can't.


    "We have the right to believe at our own risk any hypothesis that is live enough to tempt our will."
  • I'm sorry, I just don't see how this post was modded up to a 5...It's simply wrong. The case against AOL for child porn is /inherently different/ from the napster case, and if you had done any sort of study on the matter you would know that. As discussed in other replies to your post (a thread in which you directly contradicted yourself, no less), the Court's argument is that Napster was created with the sole intent of facilitating copyright violation, whereas AOL was not. This IS important--Sony v. Universal (or the other way around, I forget...it's the Betamax Case) used the precedent that a device (in these cases, a service, but it's essentially the same thing) must have reasonable non-infringing value for it to be legal in the US. Now, while the laws have changed quite a bit (against the people and for the wealthy copyright holders) with the DMCA, that principle remains key to this discussion. Not only does AOL provide tons of non-infringing uses to millions of people, it was not created for the intended purpose of infringement. According to the courts, Napster was. End of story.

    Napster should, however, be exonerated because file sharing is fair use--but that's another story altogether.
  • Perhaps I misunderstand, but nowhere did I mean to say, that ISPs should not be held responsible for their own actions; specifically failure to record and/or turn over records regarding impropriety. I meant to imply that you cannot restrict information through legislation that affects a third party in this day and age. If the information had been encrypted, would you still consider the ISP partially at fault? You can pass effective laws to require ISPs to be competent in recognizing suspicious activity, but it would not be reasonable to require them to know all that goes on and could be going on (in the case of sophisticated encoded traffic). If I had been a part to, or privy to knowledge of these goings on, I would not site idle. But as it is, I do not think that I can agree that the alleged-crime was in some way the ISPs fault for sure. You have a vested interest and a vehement stance on the issue, plus a sneaking suspicion that someone knew something (as any good admin knows what's going on). I am not so sure. My first email was jack9@aol.com and they are incompetent. The justice system has done it's job in my view. AOL has always been lacking in technical competency. As for an individual making it a point to disregard the law for their own financial reasons (be it financial gain or what-have-you as per your example), that is as old as time and hardly at issue here. When talking about "rights", with regards to technology, it is important to recognize that even when acting through a device, I retain my fundamental rights. If this was not the case, there would be no issue and all aspects of technology would be very different by mandate. As it is, the US public simply doesnt know how to properly enact what the great majority considers, 'fair' and 'just' in regards to online rights...but are perfectly happy to pass laws that they have no idea contradicts their intentions in hopes of a better society. Holding people or bodies responsible for things they do not purposefully control, by nature of the medium, is one such scenario we should hope to avoid, dont you think?
  • And of course, all my formatting is shot. damnit.
  • Ahhh, but if AOL was set up with the sole intention of trading kiddie porn and was just incedentally used to trade legal porn as an after thought, Steve Case would be in the slammer right now...

    Step back a little and look at the distinctions between teh services they provide.
  • As I read the article the same question came to my mind. Why does the criminal act suddenly result in a civil suit? If the guy passed out poloroids of her kid she wouldn't be suing but a big ISP like AOL has money so lets sue. AOL may have violated the CDA which would be a "criminal" act deservining of a penalty, large fine to be paid to a victims relief fund. Does the kid have a suit against his mother for not properly protecting him ? I have two kids of my own and I don't think 14 years was enough ( well maybe if he wasn't in protective custody ) and if AOL ( You've got porn ) isn't enforcing their rules then they are negligent and need to be dealt with on a criminal level.
  • Everybody looks for someone to blame when anything happens. Two AOL subscribers trade kiddie porn, sue AOL. What's next, suing the telcos when somebody calls you up and says 'FUCK YOU'? Suing the US Postal Service because somebody sends a bomb through the mail?

    That's the biggest problem in the world - blame-shifting. You heard me, blame-shifting.
    _______
    Scott Jones
    Newscast Director / ABC19 WKPT
    • If the USPS advertised a "Priority Mail Letter Bomb" package ("When he absolutely, positively, has to die"), then yes, after the police caught the bomber I'd go after the carrier.
    And if AOL advertised similarly in this case ("You've got kiddie porn!") then yes, I would go after AOL. But I highly doubt AOL would be that stupid. Corporations can be stupid sometimes but not that bad.

    • Her argument was that AOL was aware of this and allowed it to continue. Some of my local TV stations run "community classifieds" and that sort of thing. Does WKPT have a similar program, and would it knowingly accept an ad for child pornography? If it had done so unwittingly, would it remove the ad when it was brought to the station's attention?
    Yes, we do have a 'community bulletin board' (as a matter of fact, I produce it each week). The difference between WKPT and AOL is that you have to go through the station to get something on the air, while anyone can post anything through AOL without having to send it in and have it posted by someone at AOL. That makes WKPT a whole lot more liable for stuff like this than AOL. And yes, if somehow a highly criminal event was posted, it would be removed. We're not that stupid.

    I still can't justify going after AOL for this.
    _______
    Scott Jones
    Newscast Director / ABC19 WKPT
    • I used to work for a tiny community ISP, and I had a hand in drawing up the TOS. One of the points I made was that we weren't a common carrier, and therefore had the luxury of picking and choosing our clients. I was completely content to drop somebody for using racist epithets on a web page, never mind the kind of concentrated evil we're talking about here. There are some people whose money I literally don't want to touch.
    If I understand the law correctly (but IANAL), when you do that, you are liable for any content on your system. So if one of your clients put up a seemingly innocent page with links to kiddie porn on a hidden, unlinked page, then you would be liable. That's why aiming for 'common carrier' status would be preferable, because in order to prevent illegal activites, you would literally have to monitor every bit of your users' access. Don't want anything to slip through, you know.
    _______
    Scott Jones
    Newscast Director / ABC19 WKPT
  • > the ISP has the same role as the company which made the brand of videotape

    heh:) and the power companies, and the inventor of the transistor, and the inventor of lenses, and ... ;-)
  • can we please stop blaming AOL for everything. sure they are just another marketing death star. but we can't say that they are responsible for this. and iam sure that every ISP will agree with me.

    Early to rise and early to bed makes a male healthy and wealthy and dead.
  • I guess you don't have kids?

    Our family PC isn't a baby sitter but not letting a child have some sort of autonomy while using stuff doesn't build a strong, confident person who is able to discern right from wrong. Porn is a world of temptation and stimulation esp. to teenagers buzzing with hormones.

    Do you really want to sit over your childs shoulder while s/he's spending a couple of hours on the Boyzone chat board, sure you can monitor to a certaindegree but not every keystroke and button click.

    Kids will wander to where they are not supposed to go. It's vital you give them the brains to deal with what they find when they get there.

    So that's that sorted then 8-)


    .oO0Oo.
  • yeah, sorry I do agree with you, bit knee jerk but stimulated me into something interesting I hope.
    .oO0Oo.
  • Yes I do realise this is exactly the place, it wasn't my point but I did have it in mind when I was writing.

    I didn't say I didn't monitor them I was expressing to what degree children should e autonomous.

    Hanging on street corners, tough one. It never did me any harm but thats a bit spurious as an argument but you assume incorrectly. You'll also notice I don't argue for not paying interest in their activities.

    They deserve a taste of freedom, however, and all freedom carries a risk and a price.
    .oO0Oo.

  • Well, it is a pretty big object, so I hope they passed by reference... And I hope some day we are free()'d from it's more odious clauses.


    --
    News for geeks in Austin: www.geekaustin.org [geekaustin.org]
  • mod this down. Youre an idiot. A peer to peer file sharing program easily has noninfringing uses. And the only statement you made that is worth noting is that According to the courts...that's the problem. New rulings are always dependent upon the idiocy or the enlightenment of the judges. Not exisiting laws.
    And YOU contridict your retarded self by saying filesharing is FAIR USE. What a dumbass. If its fair use, then its a legitimate noninfringing use. What are you doing? Trying to get karma by pretending to cite cases and forming sentences with words like "inherent" and "precedent". Most people see through your middle school bullshit ;) Hi, Im dzawitz...I cite cases I've only heard about on slashdot! ;)
  • AOL has always been very *lax* (sometimes too much) in turning over ANY record regarding ANY user. They don't need to waste their time and money doing the police/fbi/whomever's job
  • this just in...according to a new law store owners are now required to conduct their own investigations into crimes committed at their establishment. No long is cooperation enough. They must investigate and prosecute everything from robberies, drug deals and exchanges of child pornography in their establishment.

    In other news, US police forces have found themselves with little to do, as the city streetsweepers have turned to investigating muggings and murders.
  • yes..cause smart people just let "facts" stand and make no effort to look into alternative methods of implementing said "facts" or other "facts" to acheive the desired or better effect. Posting statements of "fact" makes you no more smart than asking hypothetical questions...specially since you are *contributing* litte, and it's obviouslly not your "smarts" being given since it's not your "fact". Get it? Or are YOU too dumb? Intelligent people question. Dumb people babble memorized information.
  • The CDA was passed for reference? I was sure it was passed for value.

    Care about freedom?
  • > Why shouldn't he "respond to a statement of fact with a statement of how things *should* be"?

    Because it is irrelevant

    Far from being irrelevant, it's actually the first step on the road to overcoming that fact.

    I wouldn't want you in my logic classroom.

    If you were a fellow student I'd slap you. If you were a teacher I pity the students..

  • How about this...

    Person who has been dumped by Mr. X provides the same report with falsified evidence. Is AOL supposed to remove their account?

    The testimony of a single person does not generally warrant invading that persons privacy.

    This is exactly what happened with the "report a classmate who has been talking suspiciously" anonymous phone numbers.

    What the plaintiff should have done is report the actions to the police who could then take appropriate legal measures. The whole point here is that AOL does not want to become big brother, eaves dropping on its members at the slightest whim. And moreover that the safe harbor clause of the CDA should protect an ISP from having to do this just because some user said so.

  • Application of the communications decency act to protect ISPs as safe harbors is news for nerds. It is important to us that the government not force ISPs to become big brothers.
  • Oh really well then how come all the bars around here are still open instead of being closed?
  • she does have a point here, the problem is it applies to the entire internet. Not just AOL. now Kiddies the next question is. How do we stop this crap?
    hahaha. So the internet have to solve a problem that has existed for a very long time in society. I've never thought of the Internet being a GOD.
  • No, it's not dumb, your logic is faulty. The only "statement of fact" you made relevant to the issue is that "Phone companies are uncontroversially open carriers. Online services aren't." So you made a "statement of fact" that there is controversy about whether or not online services are open carriers. I, in return, offer an opinion as to why the controversy should end and online services should be considered open carriers. I further offer the chance for rebuttal by asking "Why should this not also be the standard for online services and ISPs?"

    Now, instead of resorting to insults, why don't you take a stab at answering the question I posed?

    Go ahead, dazzle me with your intellectual insight and debating skill.
  • While the data itself, and the act of sending that data is illegal, the analogy you make is accurate. The ISP, in my opinion, should not be held responsible for the transmission of that data anymore than a phone company should be held responsible for the same communication taken over voice phone lines. The idea that an ISP is somehow not a common carrier is one I disagree with.
  • *Sigh* Controversy exists because of differing opinions, my friend. It is the very nature of controversy. The ending of controversy comes through the public offering of opinions and informed debate, leading to a consensus. Did I assert that what I was offering was fact? No, I offered an opinion and, far from implying "everyone else should shut up", I posed a question, inviting response and other opinions. In no way have I presumed to be the arbitrator of fact. You are assigning motives to me that are not accurate.

    Again, I pose the question: "Why should this not also be the standard for online services and ISPs?"

    Instead of attributing false attitudes to me, why don't you offer something constructve?
  • ...of how the CDA really doesn't "protect" anyone and should be stuck down, either by the clueless legislature that originally passed it, or by the courts. I'm all in favor of a slow, painful death for child pornographers and the like, but the CDA is nothing more than a knee-jerk reaction to the problem.

    OTOH, AOL still sucks, and doom on them for failing to act sooner.
  • Exactly. The CDA is a perfect example of how the government cannot distinguish between a legal responsibility and a moral responsibility. Should AOL have a legal responsibility to monitor every transmission across their network? Nope. Now, do they have a moral responsibility to deal with this kind of thing when brought to their attention? Damn straight. But, that is a choice made by AOL. As the saying goes, "You cannot legislate morality."
  • By your own words you will be judged
  • ????? That might be what happened but all the article says regarding the charges is,

    The mother alleged that AOL violated Florida criminal law, which prohibits the distribution of pornography, and was negligent by not knowing that one of its subscribers was a seller of child pornography and for not stopping him once complaints had been made

    Awfully general, isn't it. Anyone have a link with a more detailed report?
  • "Phone companies are uncontroversially open carriers. Online services aren't.

    That's the point isn't it? Why is there even a question of whether online services are open carriers or not? It is no more practical for an ISP to monitor all their traffic than it is for, say, PAC Bell to monitor all their phone calls. Now, if the police brings a warrent authorizing tracing and wiretapping for a particular phone number, PAC Bell complies. They can also respond to complaints made by their customers. Why should this not also be the standard for online services and ISPs?
  • 2) Fund the efforts to advance 3D graphics to the point where realistic child porn can be generated without children.

    That will help keep children from being victimized, yes, but, at least in Canada, art that depicts children pornographically, whether they are real or not, is illegal. The demand for kiddie porn isn't *allowed* to be fulfilled here. Most people just want it eliminated altogether, and there is no First Amendment for pedophiles to argue.

  • Do you really want to sit over your childs shoulder while s/he's spending a couple of hours on the Boyzone chat board,
    You do realise that this is exactly the kind of place that paedophiles hang out to find kids dont you?
    I assume you let your kids hang around on street corners too because you can't be bothered keeping an eye on them for a couple of hours.
    I must be realisitic though (its easy to flame :-) perhaps you should log all the internet access so you can quickly search through it later for keywords.
  • >And this is legally different from (Slashdot sacred cow)
    >Napster *HOW*?

    You can do a lot of things on AOL. You can chat. You can read Usenet (albeit through a cruddy interface). You can post to message boards. You can get information on thousands of topics. You can visit thousands of forums. You can swap kiddie porn. You can swap legal porn.

    On Napster, you can trade pirated MP3s. You can trade legal MP3s.

    Getting clearer...? AOL is an ISP and provides access to the internet as a whole. Napster isn't, and doesn't.

    Shaun
  • Hi Eladio,

    I appreciate your insight, but I was a bit saddened by your statement of:

    To facilitate the trade in illegal materials is obviously illegal. To offer illegal materials for sale is illegal. WTF are you thinking?

    While I am surely partly to blame for not being clear in my points, I definitely never said the video tape material was legal, and was surprised I received such a harsh reply.

    I clearly understand that the transaction is illegal. However, I was asking if the data transmitted through AOL's networks was illegal - the raw data itself did not contain any illegal material, right? If so, how can anyone expect AOL to track otherwise-legal data? AOL surely cannot track illegal intent...

    Well... that's what I was trying to say... =)
  • From a common sense stand point, can you blame AOL more than the US Postal Service (or whatever means was used to ship the VHS tape)? I think it is unreasonable to expect any ISP to monitor communication between any of its members.

    Does yelling the word "pedophile" give an ISP the right to intercept the accused person's communications? Only a law enforcement agency has the right to do this, an ISP does not (unless you have specifically agreed to let them do this, and few would knowingly join an ISP that did).

    Personally, I value my privacy more than the "protection" that would be provided by forcing AOL (or another ISP) to monitor an individual's activities...

  • I hate biting at trolls, but just where do you get that from? The case is listed as a "Jane Doe", so clearly you don't know the woman or what happened with her husband. I'm guessing this is just your little fantasy.

    I'm a man, and you've offended me. I bet women cross the street to avoid you.

  • If the USPS advertised a "Priority Mail Letter Bomb" package ("When he absolutely, positively, has to die"), then yes, after the police caught the bomber I'd go after the carrier.

    This isn't that clear, but she argues that AOL knew this sort of traffic went on and tacitly allowed it. I haven't read her original suit, only skimmed a bit of the opinion:

    The Complaint further alleges that Russell became an AOL subscriber in late 1993 or early 1994 and that he communicated with other people in AOL chat rooms ''to advertise and/or solicit'' and arrange for ''the sale and distribution of'' the aforementioned videotape and photographs. (Id. PP 24-26, 28.) The Complaint alleges that Russell's chat room conversations ''openly described the contents of the videotape and photographs .... and included the exchange of addresses and telephone numbers for purposes of the sale of ... pornographic materials.'' (Id. P 26.)

    Her argument was that AOL was aware of this and allowed it to continue. Some of my local TV stations run "community classifieds" and that sort of thing. Does WKPT have a similar program, and would it knowingly accept an ad for child pornography? If it had done so unwittingly, would it remove the ad when it was brought to the station's attention?

  • I rarely strive to impress the anonymous, but as it happens I was replying to:
    Now I truly didn`t mean to offend any women out there, this certainly isn`t the norm, but there are many such money-driven whores out there who abuse the pity of the court...
    and I meant to point out to him that, not only had he almost certainly offended any women who might read his post, but that in fact even other men might find this crap pathetic and mildly revolting.

    As for the FBI sting operations (at least I assume that's what you mean), yes, I do have my concerns about that. It doesn't happen to be terribly important in this case, since the criminal charges against this Richard Russell were based on selling and creating kiddie porn, not buying it. He was not entrapped by the FBI, but rather:

    Russell allegedly engaged Doe and the other minors to perform sexual activities with him and with one another, (Complaint P 23), and he allegedly videotaped and photographed these sexual acts...He pled guilty and was convicted on federal criminal charges of sexual exploitation of children and transportation of sexually explicit material involving a minor and state criminal charges of attempted capital sexual battery.
  • Actually, I'm rather inclined to agree with you, but I think her case is defensible. She isn't, as some have suggested, blaming AOL for everything -- she waited until after the criminal prosecutions of the molester were complete -- and I don't think she's doing this for the money.

    I assumed that your station would screen ads, because I imagine that you're neither stupid nor irresponsible. My guess is that if somebody came to you and pointed out an ad, much less a whole series of ads, that covertly referred to criminal acts ("Dirty deeds done dirt cheap") you would probably (if you were convinced of the ad's nature) both pull the ad and refuse to do further business with the person who posted it.

    Her accusation (and I sure don't know - I'm neither a pedophile nor an AOL member) is that AOL knew this traffic was going on (because she reported it) and did nothing, continuing to allow themselves to be used as a meeting ground for pedophiles and collecting their membership fees.

    My gut feeling is that yes, AOL is a meeting ground for pedophiles, as well as fishermen, knitters, Communists, Republicans, and Elvis impersonators, and they don't have a hell of a lot of control over that. On the other hand, at least back then I believe they claimed to moderate their chat rooms, and apparently the tape in question was described in such a fashion as to be obviously what it was.

    I probably would not have brought this suit, instead spending my time working out a way that the molester could die horribly, but I can see where she'd go this way. Every time she gets a CD in the mail or sees one of their ads it must remind her that they had a role, however minor, in the promulgation of her son's molestation, and that a portion of their revenue stream, however minor, is based on similar transactions, and she feels that they didn't respond and apparently don't care.

    I used to work for a tiny community ISP, and I had a hand in drawing up the TOS. One of the points I made was that we weren't a common carrier, and therefore had the luxury of picking and choosing our clients. I was completely content to drop somebody for using racist epithets on a web page, never mind the kind of concentrated evil we're talking about here. There are some people whose money I literally don't want to touch.

  • Well, if you labeled it "Naked Wife"...
  • exactly. thank you.
  • ..and that would include this:

    "Copyright Notice Associated Press text, photo, graphic, audio and/or video material
    shall not be published, broadcast, rewritten for broadcast or publication or redistributed directly or indirectly in any medium. Neither these AP materials nor any portion thereof may be stored in a computer except for personal and non-commercial use. AP will not be held liable for any delays, inaccuracies, errors or omissions therefrom or in the transmission or delivery of all or any part thereof or for any damages arising from any of the foregoing."


    .. and you'll be OK. ..Thats the copyright notice on 'cnetnews.com.. Obey the law or else! UCITA, CDA, DMCA, ETC.. The *LAW* is the *LAW*.. And don't you forget it! .. If you disregard the *LAW* the system will degenerate into *ANARCHY* and ALL WILL BE LOST


    --------------------------------------
  • I agree. The same technology can be used to reenforce values, or just to "babysit". I have no problem with the v-chip, content control in IE, etc. if they are used properly. The proper way (IMHO) is to talk to the kids about what's right and wrong, and why. Then, controls on TV or the Internet can help reenforce these values. But what too many parents do is just blindly trust the technology. They set up controls on the TV and computer, then sit back and watch Survivor II, while their kids are busy reprogramming the chip and looking at 24/7 pr0n. A determined kid can go to a friends house, go to the library, or even hack the software if s/he wants to. But tell the kid why you don't let them watch something, and maybe they'll think it's wrong too. Or at least they will think twice before sneaking around the barriers.
  • I am not completely on AOL's side either:
    Once the threat of lawsuits is removed, ISPs can take steps to police themselves, Carome (Patrick Carome, AOL lawyer) argued.
    It seems to me that companies only become self-policing (or censoring or regulating, etc) when there is a possibility of law suits, government regulations and such. How can a business justify spending $$$ on something that they don't have to do? They may do it out of "social responsibilities", but will that be enough? And how far can (should) they go?

    NOTE: IANAL

    I think you miss the point of Carome's statement. AOL (or any other ISP) really has two options: a) "we don't police anything, we're not responsible for anything our members do" or b) "we monitor our users' content to insure nothing illegal goes up"

    Currently, they're taking option 'a' because it offers the least chance of being successfully sued. Once they start going down the path of 'b', then they start becoming responsible for any illegal content that does get on their servers. Until they can do 'b' and not get sued for missing things, they're going to stick with 'a', and let users police themselves.

    I also disagree that companies only police themselves out of threats of lawsuits. If you're going to join an "online community" (ala AOL, Tripod, Geocities, etc), are you (where 'you' is the average law-abiding mainstream Internet user) going to join the one that's clean, or the one that's dirty. Most companies think (and are probably right) that more people will choose the clean over the dirty. Therefore, they do have a monetary incentive (the only incentive that ever matters to a publicly traded company) to keep illegal things off of their servers.

  • May I remind you that you play petty games rather well yourself. See your post about punctuation. Hypocrite

    I see you fail to appreciate sarcasm. And to punctuate your final sentence.

  • So you made a "statement of fact" that there is controversy about whether or not online services are open carriers. I, in return, offer an opinion as to why the controversy should end and online services should be considered open carriers.

    Whatever you opinion is on whether anything should or should not be controversial is, trivially, absolutely irrelevant to whether it is controversial or not. Are you trying to imply that, because it is your opinion that this controversy should end, everybody should shut up? I suspect other parties might not be perfectly happy to allow you to be the arbitrer of fact.

  • Far from being irrelevant, it's actually the first step on the road to overcoming that fact.

    So, y'alls want to overcome the fact that there is a controversy about the common carrier status for online services. Fine. Now what the fuck does that have to do with me?

    Again, all I've done is point out that fact. Yet everybody in this thread insists in using faulty logic and wordplay to make me look like I'm some sort of monster because there is a controversy about the common carrier status for online services.

  • Why shouldn't he "respond to a statement of fact with a statement of how things *should* be"?

    Because it is irrelevant.

    I wouldn't want you in my logic classroom.

  • By your own words you will be judged

    And, you, my friend, shall be judged by your punctuation skills.

  • Arbitrer appears in OED.
  • If you are a subscriber to the OED Online, or belong to a subscribing institution, I can even give you the URL. If not, what are you waiting for? You clearly need it if you intend to play your petty "pull out the dictionary" games. As long as my dictionary is bigger, you lose. And, dude, no dictionary is bigger than OED.
  • Your statements of fact are obvious

    Not obvious enough that the original poster in this thread didn't fail to see them on his own.

    your logic IS faulty

    Please point out the place where the fault lies. I believe your futile attempts will provide me with much amusement.

    and your insults are unoriginal

    I don't see how the perceived originality of my insults has anything to do with the validity of my point.

    What I find hilarious is that you NEVER answered the question TOT asked. Scared to?

    Go back and read my post.

    Suppose I told somebody who asked that Dubya is the President of the US, as indeed he is. A third party then comes in, and tells me that he believes Dubya shouldn't be president. He tricked his way into the White House, which is a crime.

    Then the third party puts the question to me: since John Doe would be in jail for electionary fraud, why shouldn't Dubya be in jail now?

    Of course, such a question is completely irrelevant to my point, which was, from the very beginning, nothing more than pointing out the fact that Dubya is the President of the US!

    So, will you people leave me the fuck alone and allow me to fucking just point out that we are in the very middle of a fucking legal controversy about the common carrier status of online services, all which I've ever intended to do in this thread, without bombarding me with self-promotional rhetorical questions that deep down are about what you insist that I am compelled to believe about the whole issue?

  • To facilitate the trade in illegal materials is obviously illegal. To offer illegal materials for sale is illegal.

    WTF are you thinking?

    I openly admit I may not understand the legal implications of this, but if this person had made the video order through the telephone, would she then sue the phone company for "allowing an illegal transaction to take place on their networks."??

    Phone companies are uncontroversially open carriers. Online services aren't.

  • You respond to a statement of fact with a statement of how things *should* be? You respond to a statement of fact offered to a question about that precise fact with a statement about how things *should* be?

    Are you trying to look smart? You just look like you lack reading comprehension skills.

  • There's a very subtle but distinct difference between Napster and AOL.

    AOL was not developed with the intent to trade in 'illegal goods' (MP3s, child porn, etc); certainly this stuff does go on, but according to law, as long as AOL responds in a timely manner when someone informs them of such material on their server, they gain the "ISP Protection" that is talked about here.

    Napster, on the other hand, was designed to facilitate the distribution of copyrighted material, though their defence of late has been that "oh, but there are non-infringing uses!". Sure, they have tried to comply with requests to remove copyrighted material, but the fact that the system started as a way to trade that (and it will take a LOT to prove that otherwise) makes them unable to claim themselves as an ISP.

    Besides, I believe these are different judisdictions, and therefore, the same ruling need not apply if all things were equal.

  • > Somewhere down the line I wonder if it had been
    > a mom and pop ISP if the scenario would have
    > been the same.

    It probably wouldn't have gone to court, there is a lot more money in suing big corporations than small ones. And, yes, big corporations can afford more expensive lawyers. However, they also tend to take a unemotional cost/benefit approach to lawsuits, and it is often cheaper to settle than to win, even ignoring the risk of losing (judges are hard to predict) and the publicity cost. A small company is more likely to take the lawsuit personally, and fight it to the end.

    > its sad however to see that judges play the
    > robotic role of following "the book" but use
    > little to no ethical, or humanlike qualities
    > when dealing with any type of criminal case.

    AARRRRGGGHHH! That is the entire *point* of the justice system! A good judge should judge according to the law, and to the greatest extent possible avoid letting his personal values influence the outcome. If a law is wrong, it should be changed, not reinterpretated to suit the idosyncracies of an individual judge.

  • she does have a point here, the problem is it applies to the entire internet. Not just AOL. now Kiddies the next question is. How do we stop this crap?

    Does she? Or is she simply using the computer as a baby sitter? The problem I see with a lot of this is that no one takes responsibility for their fucking actions. 'Oh, no, I can't be bothered to be pay attention to what my children do.'

    The way that we stop this crap is for people to stop fucking using TV and the Internet as a baby sitter, and raise their own fucking children.

    But hey, that's just my opinion, I could be wrong.


    "We have the right to believe at our own risk any hypothesis that is live enough to tempt our will."
  • That will help keep children from being victimized, yes, but, at least in Canada, art that depicts children pornographically, whether they are real or not, is illegal.

    Canada's civil rights problems aren't my fault.

    The demand for kiddie porn isn't *allowed* to be fulfilled here.

    Which doesn't lessen the demand there. It just guarantees that it will be met with victimized children, because hey, it's illegal either way, so why not get the real thing?

    You in Canada are starting to learn the same thing that we in the US are starting to learn; having a jillion laws creates a climate where people don't respect the law, and if they don't respect one law, it's a very short stretch for a lot of small minds to stop respecting ALL laws.

    It starts with 55 MPH speed limits on roads where everybody (even the cops) drives 70, and it ends with climbing murder and armed robbery rates.

    In fact, your murder rate started rising right about the same time ours started dropping, give or take a year.

    -
  • Is it really your belief that anyone who engauges in sex play with someone under the age of 18 deserves to have their life terminated?

    No, I think it should be more specific:

    Anyone who engages in sexual activity with someone under 16 for the purpose of producing pornographic materials should have their life terminated.

    The existing penalties will be fine for having sex with someone that young without producing porn out of it.


    -
  • In an interesting opinion, the Florida Supreme Court [flcourts.org] split 4-3, ultimately adopting the earlier Zeran decision. Most interesting was to read the 3-judge dissenters, who made an interesting argument. This shows how truly fragile merely statutory rights and safe harbors can be.

  • "Only a law enforcement agency has the right to [intercept communications], an ISP does not (unless you have specifically agreed to let them do this, and few would knowingly join an ISP that did)."

    Oh, really?

    AOL: (Note: Taken from a copy of the TOS circa 1998. I was unable to find a more recent copy.) AOL, Inc. does not access or disclose the contents of private communications (e.g., e-mail, instant messages, Member-created private rooms, oral online communications), unless it in good faith believes that such action is necessary (1) to comply with applicable law or valid legal process (e.g., search warrant or court order); (2) to protect the rights or property of AOL, Inc.; or (3) in emergencies when AOL, Inc. believes that physical safety is at risk.

    Earthlink: EarthLink may disclose personal information about Visitors or Members, or information regarding your use of the Services or Web sites accessible through our Services, for any reason if, in our sole discretion, we believe that it is reasonable to do so, including: to satisfy laws, such as the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, regulations, or governmental or legal requests for such information; to disclose information that is necessary to identify, contact, or bring legal action against someone who may be violating our Acceptable Use Policy or other user policies; to operate the Services properly; or to protect EarthLink and our Members.

    Galaxy [gis.net] (my ISP): Galaxy treats e-mail messages as private. Exceptions are those permitted by law, including under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 (the "ECPA"). The ECPA permits Galaxy limited ability to intercept and/or disclose electronic messages, including, for example (i) as necessary to operate the system or protect Galaxy's rights or property, (ii) upon legal demand (court orders, warrants, subpoenas) or (iii) where Galaxy receives information inadvertently which appears to pertain to the commission of a crime.

    Emphasis mine in all.

    Anyway, my point is that you'll be hard-pressed to find any ISP that won't snoop on your communications if it feels it needs to. And as the bolded statements prove, they can do so for any reason they want to.

    --

  • AOL was not developed with the intent to trade in 'illegal goods

    I strongly disagree with that statement, did you read my post?

    AOL was one of the primo warez scenes back in the early to mid 90's. If you look at the logistics of it, there is no way AOL could justify their mail system being for legitamate use. Every other ISP had at most a 10MB storage limit on mail. Even in this modern era you are hard pressed to find more than 20MB. Yet in days when hard drives barely came in that size, AOL was allocated gigabytes of mail storage per user.

    There is no possible way AOL could not have noticed the warez groups uploading 500+ 15MB ZIP files and then forwarding them to thousands of people. Someone had to buy the hard drives.

    I agree the AOL service was not created to facilitate piracy, but there is no way you can explain their completely absure mail system design without piracy. Legitamate users simply do not need that kind of mail capacity.

    - JoeShmoe
  • Oh, don't be such a jackass. If a bank knows or has reason to suspect that one of their customers is committing fraud, they are required by law to inform the authorities. Used record (CD) stores are required to tell the police if they think that some of their merchandise is stolen. (which is why they don't ask _any_ questions when you bring stuff in--they don't want to have any evidence that 40-70% of their stock is stolen)

    It's called responsibility. Responsibilty to the police, and to society.

  • This is an easy one. If AOL had started to take action, was investigating, etc., then that evidence would have come out in court. In fact, it probably would have come out in Russell's trial, as evidence.

    The fact that AOL was under some suspicion almost guarantees that they _didn't_ investigate the complaints.

  • Well as an ISP I'm pleased to see AOL protected from the repercussions from the actionsof their users. Here inthe UK we tread a thin line when it comes to porn. When we first provided our Usenet news feed our local police force called and gave us a list of the groups that Scotland Yard suggested we didn't carry. It was groups in which the name was overtly paedophilic, even if the group was dormant. He said if we complied then we'd come under no pressure to remove adult hardcore groups the content of which can be considered illegal to distribute if we sold printed photographs of it.

    As a carrier I think that saying "we don't know what's in a group" isn't really a valid defence to some degree. If I called my high street shop "Erotic pictures of large female genitalia" then I would hope that people would expect to find the same things as they do in "alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.female.genitalia.la rge", or else be some sort of whacky place.

    As a carrier I don't expect to police the actual content of the groups to make sure it follows the name but at least manage my distribution channels in some way.

    I'm the sort of guy that says free speech is a right but I'll still demonstrate my offence at your words and actions. That's what free speech is for.

    Children need protecting fro paedophiles and paedophiles need protecting from themselves, after all they are ill, not malicious.

    We've seen vigilanti actions here in the UK and it's not pleaseant. (esp. in the case where a paediatrician was mistakenly attacked by an ill educated mob)

    My solution? rant about it on Weblogs ;-)
    .oO0Oo.
  • No I wouldn't. But if I had a button on my keyboard that actual or future child abusers to have their nuts painfully ripped off and fed to them before dying a slow painful death then yes I would certainly press it.
  • I'm saying that on the Internet it's much easier to catch the sickos because they think they're anonymous when they're not. Every IP transaction leaves a huge swath of evidence leading right back to them. Authorities just have to lurk in chatrooms, bulltein boards and Usenet to catch them with ISPs & Telcos all too willing to help. Then you have idiots like Gary Glitter who are convicted after deleting the kiddy pictures and then taking the PC for repair not realising that delete is reversable on a FAT partition.

    Of course there may be smart paedos who use encryption to hide their actions but they represent a tiny minority and not even they can erase all evidence of their actions.

  • If its fair use, then its a legitimate noninfringing use

    Actually, no. If it's fair use, then it's a sanctioned infringing use. That's a significant distinction.

    A legitimate non-infringing use requires that the copyright holder's monopoly is not violated. "Time-shifting" is non-infringing, because only one copy of the original material is retained in the viewer's possession. The viewer has merely chosen to view the program at a different time, not to make multiple copies of the program and redistribute them. Since the material was broadcast, it was obviously intended to be viewed; the viewer has merely exerted a degree of control over the terms under which he or she viewed the broadcast.

    A fair-use defense starts with the presupposition that a copy has been made of a copyrighted work; that is, it starts from the presumption that copyright has been violated. The burden of proof then lies upon the violator to show that this prima facie violation is, in fact, so small and so minor that no real damage was done; the text was propelry attributed, etc. But don't lie to yourself: fair use is infringement, merely tolerated infringement.
  • Warning: His Kiddie Porn link is a reporting system!

    I already clicked on it after reading his post. It made me really angry. This could easily be abused. I could just make the text of the link "come to Jesus" or "Fight child pornography" and dupe innocents into clicking on it. Perhaps I could just do something like:

    <img src="http://www.antioffline.com/old/kiddieporn.htm l">

    and send this in an html formatted mail to people I don't like. If they were clueless, they'd only see a broken picture link. This is a really bad idea and encourages a witch hunt.
  • The eseyist just got easeier!

    *you've got Kiddy Pr0n!*

    Yes with new AOL 6.0 you get all the hottest 12 year olds, so sign up to day!

    *Goodbye pedophile!*

    but more to the point

    But the boy's mother accused AOL of enforcing its rules so poorly that it became a "home shopping network for pedophiles and child pornographers," she said.

    she does have a point here, the problem is it applies to the entire internet. Not just AOL. now Kiddies the next question is. How do we stop this crap?


    ________

  • And this is legally different from (Slashdot sacred cow)Napster *HOW*?

    Oh.. I mean other than Napster not necessarily being a "home shopping network for pedophiles and child pornographers,"

    Here we have 'safe harbour' in action..

  • I guess that clears *THAT* up.. Obviously you can't chat on Napster or swap files other than MP3's.. unless of course you were to use wrapster [pconline.com] or some such insidous software. After all, everyone knows that napster [napster.com] could *never* be used to distribute underage porn [coolboard.com]

  • The CDA had multiple provisions.

    One of them would have effectively outlawed transmission of any "indecent" material over the internet. Problem is that "indecent" was undefined, although it was clearly broader than "obscenity" which does not receive first amendment protection.

    It was this part of the CDA which was struck down by the supreme court in Reno v. ACLU

    The SC didn't strike down the entire CDA, which is a good thing, because another part of the CDA, which is at issue here, holds that ISPs are not responsible for materials transmitted via the ISP.

    So part of the CDA is good and part of it is bad, which (as you note) is too much for the hivemind to comprehend.

  • While I'm no big fan of AOL, and the crims disgusts me, there is one key fact that shoots out at me:

    Was the data that went through AOL's network illegal?

    The video delivered through snail-mail is illegal - no question about that.. But... the 'order information' (in the form of name, address, credit card, phone number) sent via e-mail is surely not illegal, is it? I openly admit I may not understand the legal implications of this, but if this person had made the video order through the telephone, would she then sue the phone company for "allowing an illegal transaction to take place on their networks."??
  • Did you read the article? She's not upset because he her son stumbled across kiddy porn -- for all I know she doesn't even own a computer.
    a Florida woman, whose 11-year-old son
    appeared in a lewd videotape
    How that video came to be I don't know. The possibilities range from telephoto through their bathroom window to events I'd rather not contemplate before breakfast. Point is that this is not a Parental Controls issue -- the original violation occurred out here in the real world, and her charge is that AOL has furthered and profited from it.

  • This is another case where the internet is getting the "special treatment"... If two men met in a bar and exchange child porn (or drugs, guns), is the bar responsible? Maybe they should search their customers before they enter? Sounds crazy? Now we replace our setting from a bar to a chat room or newsgroup. Yes, ISPs has been sued (successfully?) for that.

    Just because it is possible to electronically monitor someone activities, and without them knowing, should we do? This time, some judges said no. But what about the next time?

    I am not completely on AOL's side either:

    Once the threat of lawsuits is removed, ISPs can take steps to police themselves, Carome (Patrick Carome, AOL lawyer) argued.

    It seems to me that companies only become self-policing (or censoring or regulating, etc) when there is a possibility of law suits, government regulations and such. How can a business justify spending $$$ on something that they don't have to do? They may do it out of "social responsibilities", but will that be enough? And how far can (should) they go?

    Who is to blame (in addition to that two offenders)? This is really a legal gray area, and IANAL.

    ====

  • Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • But the boy's mother accused AOL of enforcing its rules so poorly that it became a "home shopping network for pedophiles and child pornographers,"

    home shopping network is probably a good analogy... both for losers too lazy and stupid to do anything other than buy what is being sold to them...

    seriously though, aren't ISPs considered "common carriers" and therefore not responsible for the content of communication carried out over their "lines"???
  • how about "significant non-infringing (see legal) uses"???

    although i do support napster (idealogically, not financially)
  • The CDA is bad, it presumes that all pornography is vile and evil. Maybe to some people it is, they can choose not to look at it. They've also not really made a good definition of what they find indecent, which to me is rather frightening.

    Now I agree that child pornography is wrong, but I still don't agree with the CDA. The CDA isn't about stamping out child pornography, its about stamping out everything that the "moral majority", or whatever they call themselves now, think is wrong.

    There are already laws against child pornography, they come with stiff penalities. I'd be happy if they were even harsher, castrate the offenders, lobotomize them, I don't care. These laws obviously don't stop 100% of the abuse or this article wouldn't have been posted. There are not enough police officials assigned to this to really make a dent. Increasing the amount of stuff that they're supposed to contend with, which is what the CDA effectively does, is assinine.

    Sticking to the real problems, such as child pornography, allows a more effective job to be done. If they really want to pretend they're serious on child pornography, dump the war on drugs. I'm not a drug user. I've never used them, I never will. But I think its assinine to spend the billions that are spent on preventing people from harming themselves when it can be spent preventing people from harming others. It obviously isn't all that effective since a cocaine user is in the highest office in the United States anyway.

  • Warning: His Kiddie Porn link is a reporting system!

    This is a well written, insightful post for the most part, worthy of a +5, insightful. However, even if you wrote that last link in as a measure hoping to catch some real pedophiles, you're likely to get many more innocent people, who wonder if your link is as informative about the troubling issue of kiddie porn as your EHAP [ehap.org] link.

    Furthermore, looking at your user info [slashdot.org], you have been trolling [slashdot.org], that is, so long as it is false that CmdrTaco and friends are anally obsessed. If they in fact are anally obsessed, you have been unfairly modded down, and someone should give you back that karma.

    But I really don't think that is the case...

    Just one request for the future. Please don't mix trolling/entrapment with your informative, interesting posts. I got suckered in by that link, and insofar as I'm a decent, kiddie-porn hating, god-fearing person, I feel upset that I'm even now being reported to Customs. This is even more upsetting once you realize that I'm playing with the idea of a future career in politics, trying to be one of the world's most honest, intelligent, caring politicians. If this goes on any govt. record/file being kept about me, it could be a dirty piece of allusion that some muck-raking, negative-ad-using political opponent could use against me. So please. Think about your actions before doing something impulsive like this in the future...

    Offtopic: is your wife Swedish? Does she run the website "speedygrrl"? I think I stumbled on her webpage last night, either that or the webpage of one of her female colleagues (sp?)... How's that for weird co-incidences?

    -----
    IANASRP- I am not a self-referential phrase
    -----

  • Re:I can here it now... (Score:3)

    by Syberghost ( 10557 ) <syberghost@@@syberghost...com> on Saturday March 10, 2001 @12:43AM (#372680)
    she does have a point here, the problem is it applies to the entire internet. Not just AOL. now Kiddies the next question is. How do we stop this crap?

    People who like child pornography will not stop liking it because it is illegal, no matter what the penalty. They didn't sit down one day and make the conscious, logical decision that they were going to start liking child porn.

    If there is a demand, there will be a supply.

    So, what you can best do to prevent children from being victimized is:

    1) Pressure the countries where child porn is legal (such as Japan) to change their laws.

    2) Fund the efforts to advance 3D graphics to the point where realistic child porn can be generated without children.

    Then there will be no incentive to victimize children to supply the demand, because it will be cheaper and easier to just computer-generate fake child porn that is indistinguishable from the real thing. The pedophiles will be happy, and the children will be as safe as they are going to get.

    Then give the death penalty for acting out those desires on real live children.

    -

  • Isnt this what is supposed to happen? (Score:3)

    by Jack9 ( 11421 ) on Saturday March 10, 2001 @12:24AM (#372681)
    This is exactly what I expect. I'm glad. You should not hold a 3rd party ISP responsible for individual's actions. Holding the communication provider responsible causes ISPs to try to implement their own form of protections that erode my personal privacy and hinder my rights.

  • Re:Wait, explain this to me Judge... (Score:3)

    by Zico ( 14255 ) on Saturday March 10, 2001 @12:05PM (#372682)

    Napster wasn't just turning a blind eye to piracy. As their own internal documents stated, "[W]e are not just making pirated music available but also pushing demand."

    The companies having their IP pirated made a big deal about Napster's involvement. I sure don't remember any similar hue and cry over warez d00ds at AOL. I don't remember anyone showing any proof that AOL's business model rested upon encouraging illegal activities.

    This is an apple, and that is an orange. Case dismissed, and I'm holding anyone who modded that up in contempt of court.


    Cheers,

  • Online paedophiles (Score:3)

    by DrXym ( 126579 ) on Saturday March 10, 2001 @03:50AM (#372683)
    Maybe this may seem counter intuitive, but the more paedophiles that get online the better. They're much easier to catch than in the real world.

  • To those who don't read articles: (Score:3)

    by Bi()hazard ( 323405 ) on Saturday March 10, 2001 @12:34AM (#372684) Homepage Journal
    I can just imagine what all those people who refuse to read the article are going to do with this one, so I think someone should point out the real issue: The plaintiff told AOL about the child pornography, identified the criminal, and provided evidence, yet AOL (which has policies against child pornography) refused to take action. This is a case of a willfully irresponsible ISP, NOT trying to force the ISP to monitor everything that goes on.

  • Wait, explain this to me Judge... (Score:4)

    by JoeShmoe ( 90109 ) <askjoeshmoe@hotmail.com> on Saturday March 10, 2001 @12:41AM (#372685)
    Napster:

    Built a service that now has millions of customers by turning a blind eye to music piracy even though it was "possible" to prevent the exchange of illegal materials by blocking access to the file names.

    Result: Found guilty, guilty, guilty.

    AOL:

    Built a service that now has millions of customers by turning a blind eye to software piracy and child pornograpy trading even though it was possible to prevent the exchange of illegal materials by blocking access to private chat room names.

    Result: Innocent?

    Give me a break. According to their own internal audits, AOL had fewer than 400,000 paying member back when it overtook Compuserve as America's number one ISP. The renaming TWO THIRDS of their so-called million plus member were warez users who generated fake credit card info and used the account for several months until it was finally cancelled.

    AOL knew about people gathering in private rooms with names like "warez" and "kiddie porn" but refused to block them for several years, stating they had no grounds to police private rooms. Trading flourished unhindered until AOL had around 10 million members at which time AOL simply blocked access to private rooms with "warez" or "kiddie" or "child" in them. Which of course means the traders just started using w4r3z speak instead. Not to mention the fact that AOL allow members to have five accounts with 550 e-mails each with a 15MB attachment. That's over 2GB of storage that legitamate members were supposed to use for what? And the To: and CC: field capacities were increased three times from 200 people to 500 people then over a thousand people. Who forwards to thousands of people by warez traders? That's what listservs are for. Only after becoming so far out in front of other ISPs did AOL throw a switch and suddenly prevent people from mass-downloading forwarded warez files.

    The hypocracy is incredible. Obviously AOL pays more for their lawyers.

    - JoeShmoe

  • To save people having to muck around on the thomas.loc.gov site too much (their search interface is horrid IMHO), here's a link to what I think (c.f. horrid interface again) is the final text of the CDA as passed [loc.gov]. Of particular interest to this discussion would be Title II (common carrier crud) and Title V (things that excite senators,er, pr0n and stuff).

    This is a big, complicated piece of legislation in which the laws of unintended consequences are in full force. That's why if you want to argue on it, you have to read the thing becuase there are so many little codiciles and amendments and stuff that what you think it says based on a soundbite level of knowledge and what it actually says may well be quite different (well, this is true of any legal discussion, but with complicated bills like this doubly so).


    --
    News for geeks in Austin: www.geekaustin.org [geekaustin.org]

  • Well.. Damn.. (Score:4)

    by ShaniaTwain ( 197446 ) on Saturday March 10, 2001 @12:26AM (#372687) Homepage
    ..This just *AINT* a pretty subject, no matter how you paint it. Is CDA 'good' or 'bad'? Could we just have a simple, straight-forward direction from Slashdot on the proper way to think?.. I just don't know what to say about this one.. Gonna have to check the archives to establish my POV..


    -

  • Pedophilia (Score:4)

    by deran9ed ( 300694 ) on Saturday March 10, 2001 @12:32AM (#372688) Homepage

    In a 4-3 decision, Florida's high court said the Communications Decency Act gives the Internet service provider, a unit of AOL Time Warner, immunity from a lawsuit filed by a Florida woman, whose 11-year-old son appeared in a lewd videotape sold by one AOL subscriber to another.
    Just goes to show the lack of understanding the justice system has when assessing technology based crimes. Somewhere down the line I wonder if it had been a mom and pop ISP if the scenario would have been the same.
    The mother alleged that AOL violated Florida criminal law, which prohibits the distribution of pornography, and was negligent by not knowing that one of its subscribers was a seller of child pornography and for not stopping him once complaints had been made.
    Well not knowing the full details surrounding this occurance, I can say that it does take a while for something like this to be investigated, and I know this because my wife is on the board of Ethical Hackers Against Pedophilia [ehap.org], if AOL did acknowledge the complaint and partaken in an investigation of some sort they should be held liable, and an appeal with proof of their investigation would prove the complaintants case.

    "The interpretation adopted today provides a foundation for far-ranging forms of illegal conduct...which (ISPs) can, very profitably and with total immunity, knowingly allow their customers to operate through their Internet services," he wrote.
    Indeed the laws regarding most computer based crimes are very broad and can easily be misconstrued, its sad however to see that judges play the robotic role of following "the book" but use little to no ethical, or humanlike qualities when dealing with any type of criminal case.

    He said AOL has an elaborate system to encourage members to report child pornography.
    Many people don't often understand the implications of reporting child porn and its importance, and many will often turn a blind eye on a notion someone else will report it. It can also be assessed that some may be embarrassed to report something as pedophilia out of fear they themselves may be considered pedophiles.

    I've seen plenty of times people attempt to do what they feel it "the right thing" and totally screw things up for law enforcement. For example I won't name any particulars, but there is a group right now with anti child pornography intentions but their methods are wrong. Surely we would love to see child porn go by any means, and the attitudes these guys have taken is to break into a pedophile based server and delete them.

    Bad move acts like these can compromise an investigation, and what some of these groups don't realize is, as quick as you can delete it, the pedophiles can quickly throw up ten mirrors. Not only did they themselves commit a crime by breaking in, the also committed the crime of evidence tampering, and the list goes on.

    Personally I think some of these laws need a definite 2 year revision before things became a bit more chaotic than they are now.

    Kiddie Porn [antioffline.com]

  • Due process, etc. (Score:5)

    by ShaunC ( 203807 ) on Saturday March 10, 2001 @12:54AM (#372689)
    >The plaintiff told AOL about the child pornography,
    >identified the criminal, and provided evidence, yet AOL
    >(which has policies against child pornography) refused to
    >take action.

    You don't know this. AOL may well have notified the authorities that very day. But terminating a pervert's AOL account doesn't give the authorities much of a chance to catch said pervert in the act, now does it? If you notify your landlord that there's a crackhouse in your apartment complex, and the property management calls the police, the police aren't going to say "evict that guy right now." The police are going to want to set up surveillance, etc etc.

    Investigations take time. The fact that AOL didn't immediately shut down the freak's account doesn't mean they're irresponsible. In fact it's quite possible that law enforcement officials wanted the account to remain *open* so that they could track that account's activities.

    Just something to think about.

    Shaun

Slashdot Top Deals

E = MC ** 2 +- 3db

Close