Pennsylvania Court Forces ISPs to Block Porn Sites 556
jkastner writes "Salon is reporting that Pennsylvania is forcing ISPs to block web sites that have child porn. While we can all agree that child porn is bad, this sort of approach starts us down a slipperly slope. If one site slips through, does that make the ISP liable? In addition, the court ordered blocking may prevent access to legitimate sites that are hosted on the same server."
Good! (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Good! (Score:4, Funny)
Jebediah: hooyah, she sure raises my barn, if you know what I mean
Court orders without how to do it. (Score:5, Interesting)
This wouldn't be news if the court had listed the sites it wants blocked. Let the court make the distinction between allowed and not allowed once, instead of making every single ISP make those choices.
Kind of like a court saying, "Hey, <INSERT POWER COMPANY HERE> you have to start using fusion power next year."
Re:Court orders without how to do it. (Score:3)
Re:Court orders without how to do it. (Score:3, Interesting)
(And I'm not implying you said it made sense, but these are my thoughts based on the point you raise.)
Re:Court orders without how to do it. (Score:2)
Re:Court orders without how to do it. (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, I'm pretty sure if there was a comprehensive list of kiddie porn sites that 2 things would happen:
1: Most ISP's would voluntarily block those sites
2: The kiddie porn sites would simply switch hosting on a regular basis (like they do now) to keep one step ahead of law enforcement and blocking policies.
The problem that I have with this is that it seems to put the responsibility for determining what is and is not legal in the hands of people who are not qualified to make that decision. So, if I have vacation pics of my kids at the beach, they might decide to block the site just to be on the safe side.
Like asking telephone companies to block (Score:5, Insightful)
The telephone company is hereby ordered to block phone numbers of terrorists.
Huh? (Score:5, Interesting)
If they know where the sites are, why haven't they been shut down?
Re:Huh? (Score:3, Insightful)
The sites probably aren't in Pennsylvania. They might be anywhere in the world.
Goverment Conspiracy? (Score:5, Funny)
Oh, I think you're on to something here. The goverment start requiring blocking all domains that might have child porn, leaving only iraqi domains unblocked, so all child porn sites end up migrating to the underutilized .iq (is pr0n.raises-your.iq registered yet?)...and in the name of all that is decent and family values, we finally have a reason to invade and bomb iraq! oh wait, nevermind.
Most ISPs can't even block spam.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Scanning emails for spam is pretty easy, all the mail comes into your server. Blocking websites is a lot harder, you will need a transparent proxy with lots of rules or a list of sites to block. User changes their DNS server and uses a third party proxy and voila, no more blocked sites.
Re:Most ISPs can't even block spam.... (Score:3, Insightful)
So if for some reason PA wanted to block slashdot they'd keep me from using slashdot.org, and possibly 66.35.250.1 (/.'s current IP). However, couldn't I still connect with 0102.043.0372.01 (66.35.250.1 in base 8)?
Note: if you use slashdot's IP instead of hostname it looks like you're entering the backend. It isn't that way with most sites.
Re:Most ISPs can't even block spam.... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Most ISPs can't even block spam.... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Most ISPs can't even block spam.... (Score:3, Interesting)
i guess some one's got look like the dunce, might as well be a commonwealth and not a state.
why don't they create a pensylvania mail trafficing sytem to block porn from entering their state via snail mail?
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Huh? (Score:2)
Obviously they can't. They have to identify the site first.
If they know where the sites are, why haven't they been shut down?
I assume, because of jurisdiction. Remember this is a Pennsylvania court.
double standards (Score:5, Insightful)
Pennsylvania's attorney general, Republican Mike Fisher, is leading the state's effort, which already has forced Internet providers to block subscribers from at least 423 Web sites around the world.
423 kiddie porn sites?! I hope the Attorney General has his office raided and his computers inspected for that, the man should be in jail. Anyone else would be in jail for that kind of collection.
This is arguably one of the worst pieces of news in a while. Once, we laughed at places like Saudi Arabia for trying to censor the internet. Now we are to have state mandated censorship as well.
Mr. Fisher, your efforts are not appreciated. You conclude that everyone in your state is into kiddie porn and that gives you a right to interfere with the press also known as the internet. It's offensive and unconstitional. Kiddie porn is vile and illegal already, but you are going to have to respect the rights of the rest of us while you catch people who can tell you where the best kiddie porn is. Your monitoring of my web surfing or email is a violation of the fourth amendment. Any restrictions you might place on my web surfing, however well intentioned, are violations of the first amendment. If you have reasonable suspisions backed with evidence you are ready to swear to in a public court of law, then you might be able to look in a particular place at a particular time. You might even be able to watch the web surfing of an individual for a limited time.
In the end, the only way to end the kiddie porn industry is to teach the world to have respect for their fellow man. Children would not be violated if people would not violate each other. Abuse of state power, presumption of guilt, and disrespect for your fellow citizens are all steps in the wrong direction. Aid to countries where this occurs would be a better use of your money.
issues with these kind of precedings (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
Exactly. I'd have to require a list to impose anything per court order. To expect otherwise would be like asking the police to "just go get all the criminals out there - we don't have names, but make sure you get them all."
This issue will certainly be moved up on appeal, and I'd have to believe it will lose as it violates the framework of common carrier. You can trust that no service provider will permit themselves to operate without those protections - Prodigy's embarrassing loss in the 90s (due to its policy of filtering some content and therefore providing a guarantee thta the content was free from offensive material, vs. the Compuserve case where they clearly disclaimered "life has risk" and let people determine where they wanted to go) is enough of a reminder of where we service providers do not want to go.
I think it'd be wonderful to demand the list from the State of Pennsylvania, and then when they miss a site, hold them accountable. Or if they accidentally block a site, nail them for interfering with commerce.
BTW, it'd help if people would quit electing nanny-wannabees...
*scoove*
Double-Huh? (Score:3, Informative)
A few select Senators try to get their twisted bible-belted nazi regime ideas to work in the vision of tring to change things in their own visions.
So which is it? The Democrat baby-sitters or the Republican bible-thumping nazis?
Nice rant, and I do actually agree with the fundamental point that you are making... I do however have a problem with some of what you have to say...
You see, yes, some democrats seem to want to be babysitters for the rest of the country. But if you actually had RTFA, you would have taken note to the following quote:
Pennsylvania's attorney general, Republican Mike Fisher, is leading the state's effort, which already has forced Internet providers to block subscribers from at least 423 Web sites around the world.
Also, you would have noticed that the Center for Democracy and Technology is trying to stop the Pennsylvania govt from doing this. The CDT promotes "democratic values and constitutional liberties in the digital age."
Granted, there are democrats that want to censor the internet, but there are far more republicans that want to do this. Even worse, the republicans tend to be more likely to use religion in the argument.
So, I am not sure if you were attacking democrats and democratic policy in your post or if you were just talking in general but I hope for the sake of open-mindedness the later is the case...
They just need to ask for a list... (Score:5, Insightful)
Now, how is this going to work? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Now, how is this going to work? (Score:2)
Re:Now, how is this going to work? (Score:2, Interesting)
Okay... english isn't my native lingo, but the way I read this the web-hosting companies will be asked to find (pinpoint) the illegal porn. To me, this seems to mean that someone working for the ISP will have to search through all the 'net for illegal porn...
Somehow, I don't think thats the best way to make illegal porn go away...
Great Point (Score:2)
The PA ISP's need YOU! Make $50/hr scouring the net for kiddie porn!
Sad thing is, they might have to...
Q. Why doesn't PA require the post office to ban ordering of kid pr0n through the mail? Maybe because that's more intuitive and they see how ridiculous it is?
Re:Now, how is this going to work? (Score:3, Informative)
Most assuredly.
A friend of mine spent two years in an Alabama jail for running a "porn" BBS from his home in Florida. There was nothing on his site that was any more explicit than what you would see in Playboy (some fur but no pink.) It didn't stop a grandstanding bible-thumping asshole from sticking him in jail.
Not their call (Score:5, Interesting)
Do they stop the US Mail from delivery Kiddie-Porn within the state?
Re:Not their call (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Not their call (Score:2)
But.... (Score:4, Interesting)
I don't care (Score:2, Interesting)
I understand that people that run businesses online can't afford to be so blase, but hey. I'm just a turd with a website.
You should care. (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:I don't care (Score:3, Insightful)
Again, the problem is definition (Score:5, Interesting)
Yes, child porn is bad. So intensely bad that the website owners need to be hung up by their testicles, and then drawn and quartered.
But...let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. If the webhost can be identified, and the website known....why are we not going after the website owner/designer?
Don't just block it....put the ass in jail.
Re:Again, the problem is definition (Score:2, Insightful)
I know what child pornography is, you know what child pornography is.
I think we would both agree that the coppertone ad where the dog is tugging at the little girls swimsuit isnt child pornography.
But then there are the crackpots. I was watching some news show where they interviewed some little old biddy who thinks that Huggies commercials are pornographic.
So this whole scheme is utterly useless. The people who create and disseminate child pornography need to be tracked down and prosecuted, or hunted down and shot, but not simply hidden.
This is a "look at my tough stance on internet child porn" play for votes in a fairly conservative state, and not a feasible solution to the problem.
Because that would place responsibility (Score:3, Insightful)
This punts responsibility to the poor ISP who all government officials can now point their scrawny little finger at while cackling "There's the bad guy" to the voters.
This is actually a quite common tactic and if you examine laws closely you'll find any number of examples.
The fact that this ruling makes no sense, is impossible to comply with, and thus defines every ISP as a child pornographer is beside the point.
Shit rolls downhill.
KFG
If you read the complete article... (Score:3, Informative)
"Connolly, the spokesman for the Pennsylvania attorney general, said Wednesday that in such cases involving a Web site with a shared address, authorities contact the Web-hosting companies and order them -- under threat of legal action -- to pinpoint and shut down the illegal pornographic sites."
I think there's still some question about exactly how they're enforcing this law, and as the article says, attorneys are requesting information from the PA Attorney General.
There's no good excuse for child porn, and while this law (and therefore method) may not be the way to go about it, it's a start.
Re:If you read the complete article... (Score:4, Insightful)
There's no good legal definition of it either. That's the real problem.
And another thing .... (Score:5, Insightful)
What if they download that child porn via FastTrack or Gnutella?
Where is the line drawn
enforcement across national boundaries? (Score:3, Insightful)
So Pennsylvania authorities are going to call a Web-hosting company in Denmark and threaten legal action? In addition to being silly, I think that also violates US law. Foreign policy is the domain of the federal government.
John Sauter (J_Sauter@Empire.Net)
Re:enforcement across national boundaries? (Score:2)
I imagine in this case they will simply contact law enforcement agencies in Denmark or whereever. Child porn is illegal in many countries. Also, I do not think local law enforcement needs an OK from the federal government for this.
To my knowledge our (Dutch) police already work extensively with European and US police to find purveyors of child porn and bring them to justice.
Great, and this is how they need to do it (Score:5, Interesting)
Ah, nevermind I'll stop beating the horse.
the point here is... (Score:3, Insightful)
are you suggesting that the STATE decide what content ISP customers can see and what they can't ? what if the Democratic Senator from that state decides that you can't see Republican websites ? or Catholic ones ? or Jewish ones ? yes, child porn is bad. so are a lot of things that are in newspapers, cable TV, and on the radio.
but to give the control of that content to the people RUNNING the network flies in the face of the end-to-end design the Internet was built with.
once you put control within the network, not at its ends, you have a situation where the vested interests (in this case, the state) can decide what is good and what is bad. that, my friend, is worse than ANY child porn you can find.
Not meant to be 100% (Score:2)
I don't think policies like this are meant to actually block 100% of the targeted sites, but simply to make them as unaccessible as possible. If such a targeted site is found to not be blocked I'm sure all it takes is reporting it to the ISP and it will be added to the block list.
What I'm curious is if something like this will start going to other levels like P2P and newsgroups, where ISPs have to block any file or newsgroup that matches in a list of keyword regexp that denote child porn, I know RCN [rcn.com], my ISP, already does it for newsgroups [rcn.com].
ISPs block, govt censors.. (Score:2)
In
Headline is misleading (Score:5, Insightful)
The post makes it sound like some judge woke up one morning and decided to order blocking. That's not quite the case. The Pennsylvania legislature passed a law requiring such blocks. Since county courts (in most states; I assume PA is similar in this respect) do not have the power to declare a law unconstitutional, the judge has no choice but to order the blocking.
Ultimately this is a good thing. The order gets appealed to (the PA equivalent of) a state court, which will (as those tend to lack the power to declare a law unconstitutional) uphold the county ruling. Once a state court issues an order, then the (PA equivalent of the) state Supreme Judicial Court would be able to take an appeal and (finally) declare the law unconstitutional (especially if the PA Constitution has a free speech clause).
Re:Headline is misleading (Score:3, Informative)
Whereas if the highest court of appeal in the state rules on unconstituionality based on the state's constitution that state law is *void* everywhere in the state.
Rinse and repeat as needed until you reach the Supremes.
The county cannot overide the state, the state cannot overide the federal. Think of it as the chain of command.
This does not mean that the county can't issue *local* orders, like to ignore a law.
re: medicinal use of marijuana in California
Which also serves to illustrate that there are consequences for lower jurisdictions to so act.
KFG
cowboyneal (Score:2, Funny)
no more slashdot for pensilvanians if cowboyneal's secret stash is discovered then
New category? (Score:2)
This may be unconstitutional as it may put too much of a burden on interstate commerce.
A confused European writes... (Score:3, Interesting)
Is it not possible to argue that child porn is a bad thing, socially unacceptable, with devastating consequences for innocent lives. Therefore if the constitution has some kind of loophole which permits child porn, perhaps there is something wrong with the constitution? Guys, lots of us are software engineers here. If the specification for your project is causing massive problems, consider getting the spec changed!
Don't get me wrong. The constitution was a wonderful thing back in the eighteenth century and a vast improvement not only on its predecessors but its sucessors too in many ways. I'm just baffled how so many folks in the USA act as though the constitution was handed on tablets of stone from Mount Sinai by Founding Fathers who were acting in some infallible capacity.
Not a troll, just curious. And yes, I live in a land with no constitution, cameras on every street corner, and elective dictatorship and bad dentistry blah blah blah. Before you tell me what's so bad about my world, please satisfy my curiosity about yours.
Re:A confused European writes... (Score:3, Informative)
And yes, I live in a land with no constitution, cameras on every street corner, and elective dictatorship and bad dentistry blah blah blah.
You just answered your own question.
Anyway... for the ignorant. The Constitution itself says nothing about specific rights that cannot be denied. That is all in the Bill of Rights which consists of the first 10 amendments to the Constitution. The Constitution just defines our system of government. Things like, how the constitution can be amended... length of terms for the President, senators, etc... requirements for holding office (presidents must be at least 35 years old and natural born citizens). It defines how our government works, it sets the boundaries for what the goverment can and cannot do. This is why it is so important. Without boundaries, you have dictatorship.
Re:A confused European writes... (Score:2, Insightful)
what *is* happening here is law (whether temporary or not) empowering the state to inject control of content WITHIN the network. this goes against the original design of the Internet, which allowed for control only at the ENDs of the network (i.e. your house, the library, school, etc.)
not having control of content *within* the network is a good thing. in fact, it is for that exact reason that the innovations we have seen with the Internet (and its protocols) have been able to come about. once their is control placed WITHIN the network (i.e. the ISPs or Tier1 providers) then the entire network is affected in a controlled way.
that is BAD for innovation and creativity, and can kill any future creations that might come about.
now, about the freedom of speech part of the constitution. that's actually the best part of the constitution. it guarantees that someone who asks questions of his government (and therefore inact change in it) cannot be punished or held silent by anyone who might not agree. it is exactly that part of the constitution that would ALLOW us to "change the specs" of our project.
p.s. it's the US government, not a software design project. there are some great parts of it, and some not so great parts of it. believe me when i say that not everyone thinks that it is handed down on stone tablets. far from it. that's the beauty of it.
Re:A confused European writes... (Score:2, Insightful)
On the other hand, there is plenty of historical evidence of the harms caused by lack of free expression. If people cannot communicate their sincerely held beliefs in a meaningful way, they become unhappy, and agitate for what they want in clandestine ways. Ultimately, this pressure can build up enough to lead to a revolution that changes the rules in radical ways. Anyone familiar with history who prefers a stable society will advocate free expression rather than censorship.
In order for free expression to work, there cannot be some authority saying what expression is permitted and what is not. Such authority quickly becomes corrupted: the first thing it will forbid is any criticism of itself! Therefore, all expression, even the most repugnant, must be permitted.
John Sauter (J_Sauter@Empire.Net)
Re:A confused European writes... (Score:2, Insightful)
Now, as far as laws go, anything which conflicts with the Constitution *is* illegal. It's not about good and bad, it's about law. People may be saying, in the examples you notice, not "Hey, that's Bad because it conflicts with the Constitution", but "Hey, that's illegal because it conflicts with the Constitution." If Congress passes a law taking the right to vote from people with blue eyes, it will be struck down as unconstitutional, which is short for illegal because the Constitution says so.
Hope that helps.
Re:A confused European writes... (Score:2, Insightful)
A Better Idea... (Score:5, Insightful)
How are ISPs supposed to enforce this law? If I were a small or medium-sized ISP, and I were starting or contemplating doing business in Pennsylvania, I'd cancel the plans. There's way too much at risk, and if authorities themselves can't track down and properly prosecute paedophiles, they shouldn't force ISPs to do such or possibly face prosecution, when all they're doing is running a legitimate business of connecting people to the largest public network in the world...
This is an "enabling" law? (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't know why people are asking questions about jurisdictions since this law does not seem to address the hosting of these sites, just peoples access to them. And it looks like the counter argument is focused on the fact that the law requires the blocking based on ip vs url, thereby possibly blocking many potentially unrelated sites (like someone complaining about msn communities and having them all blocked).
Won't this just worse-ify the problem? (Score:3, Insightful)
No good can come from this.
Here's a sig for someone...
--
Pennsylvania: Michael Jackson free since 2003!
Re:Won't this just worse-ify the problem? (Score:5, Interesting)
Is there a good essay that examines just "what is wrong with child porn?"
I keep seeing posts like "Child porn is bad. So bad that
I understand perfectly well the problems inherent to the creation of child porn and the mental problems associated with the people interested in child porn, but wouldn't it be better to fix the problems, not the symptoms?
Or does it depend on context? What about high school yearbooks, where parents often send in "embarassing" naked-little-kid pictures? Isn't that child porn? What about parents who take pictures of their kids in the tub because the kid is doing something cute? That's also child porn...
And how does child porn relate to age of consent? In many states, the age of consent is 16, yet you can't take nude photos of someone under 18 (legally, anyway), even if they are begging you to. I've never quite understood this, either.
I suppose the lawmakers assume the typical person interested in naked 16-year-olds is a 45-year-old male, but what about other male 16-year-olds who always click the "Yes, I am over 18" button anyway?
Bah, OK. I tried to come up with some interesting questions, so I'm expecting some interesting answers (and probably many trolls, too).
Re:Won't this just worse-ify the problem? (Score:3, Interesting)
Here's another interesting piece [misanthropic-bitch.com] by the same author.
Re:Won't this just worse-ify the problem? (Score:3, Interesting)
Excellent post, BTW. ;)
I agree with you here - pr0n is in the eye of the beholder, not always the taker. Some sicko is probably going to spank off at the picture of the cute kids in the tub, even though that wasn't the intention of the parents. Likewise, I rather enjoy looking at the Victoria's Secret catalog... Does that make it pornography, and if so, is my mailman a pusher?
Unfortunately, you can't define and classify something as obscene without knowing what the person viewing it will think.
And how does child porn relate to age of consent? In many states, the age of consent is 16, yet you can't take nude photos of someone under 18 (legally, anyway), even if they are begging you to. I've never quite understood this, either.
Again, good point - more so, what about other countries where the age of consent AND the picture-taking age is 16 (i.e. Denmark, I believe). Is that kiddie porn or adult porn?
-T
Re:Won't this just worse-ify the problem? (Score:3, Interesting)
It's the same with the age of consent. The U.S. age (usually 18) is high by international standards. You can argue that this is because the U.S. is a more advanced country than other areas and so has decided to protect its teenagers from predatory adults for a longer portion of their lives, or that it's because America has very immature teens (I mean psychologically and emotionally, not phsically) and more puritcanical adults. Or, avoid antagonism and say cultural differences.
Perosnally, I think that regardless of the age of consent, it should be graduated: lower than usual where there isn't much age difference between the two parties (eg. Romeo and Juliet), but higher where the older party is in a position of power (eg. teacher and student).
You've got a friend in Pennsylchina (Score:2, Insightful)
Aside from the various technical flaws in their approach, which others have already pointed out, the court's action sets a terrible example.
On the bright side, though, perhaps the federal government could finally win the war on drugs simply by requiring state transportation departments to not permit vehicles containing drugs to use any roads maintained by the states. I'm sure that would solve the problem handily.
Crackdown on child porn = good (Score:2, Flamebait)
Tough. If they are they hosting "legitimate" sites as long as their kiddies porn, they get what they deserve. Perhaps they will think twice next time, or at least keep the kiddy porn stuff where it belongs (to /dev/null).
Re:Crackdown on child porn = good (Score:2)
Well yes, they might be. I don't have anything to hide, and certainly no kiddy porn. Do you ?
Re:Crackdown on child porn = good (Score:2)
Yes, they ought to. If they see borderline or right down illegal stuff, I don't see a problem with them enforcing the agreement binding their users to their operating policy. And if they prove themselves incapable to do so, I don't see a problem either in someone else (big brother) to "assist" them.
What about google? (Score:2)
There are some people that I have had this discussion with and once you start extrapolating into other areas that they didn't think of they back off thier original arguement. Hasn't anyone talked/e-mail/wrote thier representatives explaining this crap to them? ARGH!
Terrific new DoS attack / web redirectors? (Score:2)
Funny, I wonder if this will work with URL redirection, like if you use yahoo's little web redirector to visit a porn site? Will yahoo.com be blocked?
Something to think about.... (Score:3, Insightful)
I believe that these people can't control their fetish (or choose it) so isn't this the most preferable thing? I mean child fetishes are not going to go away once all these sites are closed down or blocked. It is the same reason I believe that prostitutes and brothels should be allowed to operate freely, as it keeps the rape rate down.
Thoughts? It would be interesting to hear what you guys think.
Why just the Internet? (Score:4, Interesting)
Ease of blocking (Score:2)
Finding bad sites, tracking down some underage porn dealing scumbag, successfull prosecuting him/her in a local venue - that's all a lot of work. In the case of offshore sites, it's difficult if not impossible to nail the foreign owners - and rightfully so since they don't fall under US law (we all know where this ends up).
So, that leaves us with a few solutions:
a) We can tag and nail users who go to these sites. Can anyone who hasn't gotten disturbing mislabeled pictures from kazaa, or shipped to a rauncy site (maybe not one of the ones in question, but bad enough) when surfing warez.
b) We can block the sites. This will almost assuredly end up blocking legitimate sites, being used as a weapon to control internet traffic (oh, that anti-gov't site is unavailable because it shares IP's with an illegal porn site).
c) They can be smarter. I mean, disgusting sites aside, what about freakin' newsgroups? To my knowledge ISP's actually locally cache these things, and on my ISP I've seen some newgroups that blatantly indicate illegal porn (whether they actually contain it, I dunno, but likely they do).
Really, we should be nailing owners as many US-born sites as possible, and then try and find a way to deal with the rest. Simply blocking won't give the same deep-seated satisfaction as slamming some underage pornsite owner is a federal PMITA prison. My-kid-in-bathtub pictures not applying, I'm talking about sites with intent to promote this type of material.
The last question of course is... that do people who view this stuff do? Do they go out and target possible victims? Are they actively damaging young children themselves.
Or, are such sites sufficient to provide their fix of sick fantasy? Or do these sites string them on to sicker, more dangerous activities? I've heard these questions asked by psych-types for a long time, and as of yet I haven't seen anybody who really knows the answer.
Am I missing something? (Score:4, Insightful)
A problem with this is unless the ISP's announce a list or warn the site they are blocking, it does risk legal sites being blocked and not knowing it. Unlike the print industry, which knows if shipments are refused or returned, neither legitamite sites nor their attempted viewers would know why the connection didn't work.
Re:Am I missing something? (Score:3, Informative)
One word: Jurisdiction
Although the FBI can cooperate with foreign governments, the material may not be illegal where it is being hosted or the government in question may not be willing or able to stop it.
In some countries, 16 is not considered child porn, while in the US it is. In addition, certain types of nude material may be considered pornographic under Pennsylvania or US law but may be completely legal in the country in which it is being hosted.
Politics (Score:2, Insightful)
Not necessarily because the legislature doesn't understand how the technology works (although that is often also the case), but because if such a bill is proposed in your state, which politician is going to open himself up to the inevitable "he voted against a bill designed to reduce child pornography" campaign when he runs for re-election?
Ultra-conservatives would say... (Score:2)
More Blockage to come? (Score:3, Insightful)
What if some yahoo gets elected and thinks violence is bad and has all websites containing violence of any kind forcibly banned by court order. What about bad language? What about porn? What about sites about drugs and alcohol?
Hey why not ban every site that this anti-that judge or every site that is anti anything?
You can't just let courts force ISPs to censor things. I hate censorship so much, whatever happened to freedom of speech?
Alrighty then... (Score:3, Insightful)
What ignorant jackasses this court has proven itself to be governed by...
Anyways, I don't imagine this will be a serious problem. Just make the plaintiffs send you a list of all child-porn websites or show you where to get one, and have them show you where to get updates without breaking the law, such as seeking such sites out. Or plead with the court to make you immune while you do said searches. I don't think they'll do so. The court will then realize that this request is impossible for you to fulfill without you breaking the law to do so, and have them throw it out. It's not the USPS's job to make sure I don't order seventeen magazine in a brown wrapper. That responsibility belongs to a government investigative body that oversees the USPS. The same goes for ISPs.
And as for ISPs being liable, didn't the DMCA make that impossible?
Only _child_ porn is blocked in PA. (Score:5, Funny)
You almost gave me a fucking heart attack.
I read the title, and had this surreal tunnel-vision of a world without internet porn.
Lets just say its not a world I want to live in.
There goes what is left of the internet. (Score:2)
Once you can force a provider to block any content, its just a matter of time before more content is added to the 'list of the day', until even basic speech is blocked.
We are dangerously close to that now. just try to say things that our 'homeland security department' doesn't permit. If you don't believe me, post how to make a nuclear bomb, or a bio hazard, and see how fast your free speech disappears. ( and personal freedom, as you will be taken into custody )
I'm not saying kiddy porn isn't bad, but it sets a bad precedent that will be MUCH broader down the road and we will all suffer.
I don't understand this. (Score:2)
You're a judge, a DA, or a cop. One day, you become aware that there's a kiddy porn site up.
Should your priority be:
A) Immediately contact the ISP and make sure people can't see that site anymore!
B) Immediately get a warrant, contact the ISP and find out who the hell put the pictures up, so you can put them in jail. This will, of course, cause the pictures to be taken off the internet.
I mean, this is like saying "If someone murders someone in your house, you are now legally obligated to put up a curtain so nobody can see the blood. What? You think that sounds stupid? Aren't you against murder???"
Slippery Slope (Score:3)
I wonder what their criteria are for blocking? (Score:5, Insightful)
Same server.. (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm trying to imagine a context where a 'legitimate' site would be colocated with a child porn site on the same server. If the whoever's running the server knows its content, then they're clearly running a criminal operation and I wouldn't cry if his whole server was pulled. Otoh, if someone posts stuff to geocities, I think it's the responsibility of the host to keep the server clean and the threat of blocking all of their pages makes a strong enforcement tool. It's not that hard for a web operator, even of a large multi user site, to review its contents for illegal material.
All that being said, it *is* a slippery slope. However, the law is pretty clear about what is illegal and what is not.
What about Interstate ISPs? (Score:3, Interesting)
I live in New Jersey, just outside of Philadelphia. My ISP is Comcast (@home, cable modem). Comcast is based in Philadelphia. Does this mean that now those particular sites would be blocked to me, despite me being a resident of NJ?
Now don't get me wrong, I have no desire to see child pornography, but say one of those sites is on the same server as another site I go to. Am I blocked from that site? If I cross the Delaware river and go to PA, I legally have to be blocked, right?
This measure seems overly broad and without real solutions or merit.
What methods will they use? (Score:3, Interesting)
Dog shit (Score:3, Funny)
I once voted to ban dog shit in oatmeal cookies.
It was voted down because they said that might lead to removing chocolate chips, raisins, nuts, and other good things.
So we still eat our dog shit cookies.
Re:slippery slope? (Score:2)
Re:slippery slope? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:slippery slope? (Score:3, Informative)
Basically all it does is define it, and clarify that: "..are not (as in the case of deductive logic) 100% absolutely certain." Well duh.
It gives some examples of where it didn't work out, or strawman examples of it taken to the extreme. This is not the same as showing the logic has a fallacy.
Re:slippery slope? (Score:3, Insightful)
Does that make you happy?
As documented in your citation, slippery slope is an informal fallacy that rests on uncertainty in the premises in what is otherwise a deductively valid argument. It would make the debate more productive, if not easier, if you would address the premises rather than regurgitating your first semester logic course.
Re:slippery slope? (Score:5, Insightful)
The slipperly slope in this case is that ISPs will be made ever more responsible for the content they carry. But the phone company and the post office aren't responsible for what their infrastructure is used to deliver. Why should the web be a special case?
Re:slippery slope? (Score:3, Interesting)
http://www.newarchitectmag.com/documents/s=2445
Particularly this paragraph:
******
To me, the IAO [Information Awareness Office, www.darpa.mil/iao/] is scary enough on its own. The Web page (http://www.darpa.mil/iao/programs.htm) lists, without comment, a series of mysterious projects. In addition to the Total Information Awareness System, there is the Human ID at a Distance project, which is presumably a system for clandestine face and voice recognition. The Effective, Affordable, Reusable Speech-to-Text (EARS) system will be useful for converting intercepted telephone conversations into text that can be databased and mined for suspicious activity, and the Translingual Information Detection, Extraction, and Summarization (TIDES) system will likely be used for translating foreign language emails. But what do we make of the "Bio-Surveillance" project, "FutureMap," and "Babylon"?
*******
Re:slippery slope? (Score:2)
If we allow some violations of privacy and freedom in return for security, is this not a slipperly slope?
Sure expatriation of people based solely on suspicion is unacceptable to any sane person... but does that mean it isn't being thought about [slashdot.org]?
Thank you... (Score:2)
The "slippery slope" argument is nothing more than an appeal to irrational fear, and any person of reasonable intelligence should recognize it as such.
When a bill is proposed that actually crosses the line of common sense, then we should start forming the lynch mob. But we shouldn't allow ourselves to be emotionally manipulated "slippery slope" arguments.
Re:ISP blocking (Score:2)
Re:who draws the line? (Score:2)
Might be something like --
- Lacks artistic value, and
- Portrays children in a sexual situation to arouse prurient interest.
On the other hand...
(1) What if they subjects aren't minors, but are meant to look like them -- and the purchasers are misled into thinking they were?
(2) What if they don't exist, but are CGI? ISTR that SCOTUS received a case like that, but don't remember how it was resolved.
Re:You're Right (Score:2)
Although it's certainly rather hyperbolic to start screaming "they're going to take all of our civil liberties away", we should nonetheless pay attention to the smaller, seemingly 'justifiable' misappropriations of power because they *can* be suggestive of a 'slippery slope' - because a propensity to 'bend the rules' in one circumstance provides an indication of a willingness to do so in others.
I get irritated when I see people mindlessly spouting out whatever they may have read without actually putting their mind to work. Though a 'slippery slope' argument may not serve the orator too well, that shouldn't automatically exclude it from consideration.
Re:Censorship (Score:3, Interesting)
'Course, upon doing some more reading (ie., RTFAing): if they're talking about blocking child porn, I kinda wish 'em luck.
The slippery slope is, when you let government decide to block a website because it is outside the realm of protected speech, you have to make sure it doesn't start blocking websites just because the speech might not be protected, or because it doesn't agree with the party line of whomever's in the government at the time.