Pennsylvania Refuses to Disclose Banned Website List 418
koehn writes "In an interesting turn of events, the Attorney General of Pennsylvania has ordered all PA ISPs to block sites that have child porn. If that's not bad enough, they won't tell you which sites those are because - so the excuse goes - that could be construed as 'disseminating pornography.' So much for public review, huh?" See the previous story.
Bad for Who? (Score:5, Funny)
Waa... Hunh... I had to read this a few times to realize it's not supposed be a joke.
Bad enough for who?
Re:Bad for Who? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Bad for Who? (Score:2)
Little Timmy surfing around doesn't want to mistakenly see little Sarah on some illegal site.
Re:Bad for Who? (Score:5, Insightful)
1. It's a slippery slope. Once the goverment decides that its job is to censor web sites, where does it stop? All pornography? Terrorist sites? Legitimate news sites from "terrorist countries"? Legitimate news sites period? Bad precedent, in my opinion.
2. This is a job that should be done at the end-user location. Want to surf safely? Don't surf on machines that don't have content filtering programs on them. Want your child to surf safely? Don't let him/her surf on machines that don't have content filtering programs on them.
3. Lastly, what are we protecting people from? It's an evil world, and evil stuff exists out there. We can't ignore it. And hiding it doesn't make it go away. I'm not sure what this fundamentally accomplishes.
Re:Bad for Who? (Score:4, Insightful)
1) They think its gross that someone gets aroused looking at a child.
2) Making child pornography requires a child to be put into a sexual situation, before they are of the age to know that such a thing could possibly be wrong.
Now, legally and constitutionally, the government cannot play thought police. You're allowed to think of gross things all day, as long as you don't hurt anyone with them. So, if someone sits around jacking off to thoughts of children, its gross, but you can't stop it.
However, if you start taking pictures of it, and forcing real children into that position, you are hurting someone (the child in question). Because of that, the production of child pornography CAN be deemed completely illegal, outlawed, and censored. Its a matter of stopping children from being sexually abused.
But, simply stopping people from producing this pornography is not enough for most people. They fundamentally feel that anyone who would look at this stuff, even if they haven't produced it, is a sicko who deserves to be punished. Furthermore, they argue that by allowing existing child pornography to be obtained, even though it causes no further harm to the child, it encourages the phedophile to think about his problem even more, and ultimately, will result in more sexual child abuse. The link between viewing porn and increased chances of sexual abuse is not very well proven. Some studies say maybe. Some studies say no.
Thus, the rationale isn't to stop people from things they shouldn't be looking at. Its two fold. First, they want to stop children from being used in this abusive manner for the photo shoots. Killing the market, kills the abuse. Second, they argue that viewing child pornography makes you more likely to commit sexual child abuse, and on those grounds they try to block it, for the good of the children.
As a side note, the Supreme Court heard a case about the possibility of virtual child pornography, where you have a computer generated child being sexually depicted, without ever having a real child involved. I forget how the court ultimately ruled, but I believe they found the law to be overbroad, and struck it down.
Re:Bad for Who? (Score:4, Insightful)
Furthermore, they argue that by allowing existing child pornography to be obtained, even though it causes no further harm to the child, it encourages the phedophile to think about his problem even more, and ultimately, will result in more sexual child abuse.
I know you're just summarizing key points, but don't forget that those photos are of people who are still alive and/or have families. I think it could be easily argued that the act of distributing this stuff continues to victimize the survivor, even if no money changes hands, no other children are touched etc.
But your sentiment seems to be that this whole thing is a savage witch hunt... which I agree with.
If they really want to stop child pornography and child abuse, they should have a two-sided message. The other side being "if you have a problem..." But everyone seems to be more interested in projecting their hatred... It is socially encouraged to demand that pedophiles be dragged through the streets by their testicles, flayed to the bone, drawn, quartered then set on fire.
(Pause for cheers from the peanut gallery)
As it is now, the severe punishments and public shaming means that for a pedophile, it is in their best interest to beat or threaten a child into silence, or to kill them.
(Pause for morbid silence)
It's a sad and screwed up situation.
Re:The point... (Score:2, Interesting)
Yes, that's exactly the point (though misguided). The idea among law enforcement is that if you make child porn too difficult to get, too risky to get, or prevent it from being obtainable in the first place, the market will dry up and the producers will stop making it. Thus we are "protecting the children" by cutting the demand, which cuts the supply, which stops the stuff from ever being made in the fi
Re:The point... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The point... (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem with this situation is that no one but the isp and the attorney general knows which sites are being blocked. There was a story in theregister.com a few weeks ago about a site that the city of Chesterfield wanted blocked by google. Seems that Chester the Molester was supposedly a child porn site. Google blocked them. The site had no idea they were being blocked.
Re:The point... (Score:4, Insightful)
This is a moronic law, because it hides rather than addressing an issue. And the AG needs a beating with the dumbass stick for refusing to release the list, for which there is NO valid argument.
This has not one thing in common with immigration, so I'm not sure where you got that from.
This law, and support of it, belies a fundamental misunderstanding of what law is for. It's not the job of the state to protect you. If the state wants to stop kiddy porn, it has to seek out purveyors of it and arrest them. Blocking it at the ISP level won't do a damn thing.
Some other problems, which I'm sure the AG is aware of but doesn't care about:
a) No oversight. Since there's no way to confirm that a site is actually listed, there's no way to tell whether or not a site is listed incorrectly.
b) Related to a). No evaluation. If a site is listed incorrectly, or if the domain is bought by someone else (for example) and is no longer a porn site, there's no way to unlist it. There's not even any way to evaluate if it should be unlisted, since access to it from within PA is supposedly impossible and illegal.
c) Prevents law enforcement from prosecuting kiddy porn, for the same reason. Law enforcement officers can't access kiddy porn sites from within PA, and therefore can't investigate them.
This is exactly the sort of law that should be under immediate suspicion of abuse, because it fails to addess the problem it purpots to solve, it's overly broad and allows broad leway on behalf of legislature and law enforcement, and because there's no oversight. If it's not being abused right now, it certainly will be in the future.
don't make me laugh (Score:2)
Says who? A bunch of libertarians? Come on. The ISP is in the perfect position to filter content on a regional basis. Yes, this means state- or province-wide.
If it is efficient to block child porn at the ISP level then so be it. I don't care if information wants to be free, that stuff SHOULD be censored, and the people who make it should never see the light of day again.
Re:don't make me laugh (Score:2)
Re:Bad for Who? (Score:2, Insightful)
If you can't get to the content providers to arrest them, that's not the ISP's fault.
Re:ISP's As Carriers Notion Is Bogus (Score:3, Insightful)
This statement borders on incoherent, but seems to be asserting that prohibtions on child porn are themselves illegal because enforcing the law entails viewing the illegal material. The absurdity of this notion is readily apparent.
Re-read it carefully! I'm saying that having a secret list of illegal sites that must be blocked, and at the same time claiming that turning that list over to the press (or other members of the press) is contrary to our system of checks and balances.
It's fine that the materi
Re:Bad for Who? (Score:2, Insightful)
Rus
Re:Bad for Who? (Score:3, Insightful)
You are ASSUMING it is just child pornography that is being blocked.
How do you know? What if some site showing the current Governor of Pennsylvania's wife in a "compromising" position is also blocked?
Re:Bad for Who? (Score:4, Insightful)
If the AG knows of child porn sites he should shut them down directly, by law. If they aren't in PA he can send the URLs to the federal government. But nothing in the Constitution can be construed to permit prior restraint of expression that has not been deemed illegal.
Re:Bad for Who? (Score:2)
Re:Bad for Who? (Score:2)
This is bad for everyone. (Score:5, Insightful)
Even if the program were honest and verifiable, it would still be a bad idea. This essentially closes off sites that alow user posts, such as Slashdot. All you have to do to kill Slashdot in Pensylvania now is persistenlty place kiddie porn links into your posts. But it is not honest and it is not verifiable so the state could just block Slashdot as it pleases. If people noticed and complained that they can't find Slashdot anymore, the State can claim it was an honest mistake. The damage would have been done as the people would have been kept from knowledge in a timely manner. Other sites that few no about can be blocked with impunity.
Re:Bad for Who? (Score:2)
Ok, how about I start a list?
(1) A "site" can have ten thousand webpages from hundreds of different people/companies. This is bad for these innocent people/companies that share the "site".
(2) This is bad for the people who wish to access the perfectly valid and valuable mentioned above.
(3) If you read the article you'd see that this Pennsylvania censorship law is going to impact people outside Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania has no right to censor people outside the state from accessing mat
Penn seems to be the leader in regulating ISPs (Score:2, Interesting)
But what about this? [lasvegassun.com]
Oh BTW, Pajonet's Hot or Not News Site has been totally redone [pajonet.com]
Search strings (Score:3, Insightful)
On the other side just blocking things is just as bad. The only way to make sure the list is fair is to have a independant review board. If that is going to happen then it might not be so bad.
Rus
Re:Search strings (Score:5, Insightful)
And who watches *them?*
Review boards almost always end up being just another branch of the government itself and are no substitute for public scrutiny.
This is why *all* laws against the mere possession, or mere *viewing* of certain documents is always a bad idea and counter to *any* theory of democratic freedoms.
We have these laws out of a combination of a cultural disgust at certain things, which is a *social* issue and ought to be dealt with on the social level, not the criminal, and the fact that it's easier to "catch" and prosecute "viewers" as opposed to the people actually producing and distributing such documents, who in the traditional view are the only ones actually breaking a law in the first place.
Not to mention the simple historical fact that once a certain threshold has been crossed in banning certain documents that the principle has been set and the law of the slippery slope has *always* come in to force.
Bear in mind that those furthest to the right in the fight against child pornography are now fighting to ban the dissemination of erotic materials that feature people who have reached the age of majority, i.e. are *adults*, but who "appear" as if they might be younger.
And who decides what "looks" young, and what right do they have to remove the rights of an adult based on appearance?
The slope leads ever downward. Crimes of possession and "viewing" are all counter liberty, and thus all evil.
Please do not allow your own disgust at child pornography to lead you to the knee jerk conclusion that I'm supporting child pornography. Far from it. I'm merely *supporting* certain priciples of liberty.
Go after the *child pornographers,* by all means, but do *not* deal with the problem that that might cause by simply, as is the modern wont, defining everyone as a child.
Unless of course the *child* has done something morally repulsive enough to raise public ire. Then we'll decide that the child was "old enough to know better" and insist on trying them as an adult.
The law is, as ever, schizophrenic.
This unpopular point of view ( as opposed to a troll or a flamebait, a subtle difference not understood by many) is brought to you by:
KFG
Re:Search strings (Score:2)
Reminds me of Milton's argument against censorship boards in his essay Areopagitica: basically anybody with the moral character to be worthy of sitting on such a board would find the duties too replusive to perform.
Re:Search strings (Score:2)
Excellent; then add this to your hosts file:
127.0.0.1 sitetoblockrepeatasnecessary
I would expect that the Attorney General has said not to make the list public for the very fact that it does advertise which sites kiddie fiddlers would like to visit
WTF is a kiddie fiddler?
On the other side just blocking things is just as bad. The only way to make sure the list is fair is to have a independant review board.
Re:Search strings (Score:4, Funny)
Traditionally violin strings are made out of sheeps intestines. Kiddie fiddlers are those evil violin players who snatch children in the night and use kiddie intestines to make their violin strings.
You know those old Buggs Bunny cartoons where you'd hear really fast violin music when they ran around? Yep! That was a kiddie fiddler.
-
Re:Search strings (Score:4, Insightful)
child porn is ILLEGAL. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:child porn is ILLEGAL. (Score:2)
The sites the AG wants blocked are probably all hosted somewhere where he has no jurisdiction. Possibly even hosted somewhere where they aren't illegal under local law.
Re:Search strings (Score:2)
At the end of each link is a photo that i
Re:Search strings (Score:5, Insightful)
Then you don't hate censorship.
Re:Search strings (Score:2)
Rus
Let me get this straight (Score:3, Interesting)
And does this apply to p2p apps as well, or IRC for that matter? If someone downloads child porn or anything considered illegal material by Pennsylvania, could their ISP face fines?
Get 'em (Score:3, Funny)
Alternately, just publish the list on
-Maher-
Maybe they don't *have* a list? (Score:5, Insightful)
It seems likely to me that they simply don't have a list, and they want to make it the ISP's problems. The best law enforcement agencies in the country can't stop kiddy-porn rings, so let's see if overworked sysadmins can! If it fails, at least we'll be able to pass the blame...
I think ISPs should simply declare that, to the best of their knowledge, there is no kiddy porn on the web, and only block things if they get complaints (then report the complainant as having viewed kiddy-porn.)
Re:Maybe they don't *have* a list? (Score:2)
LOL. I suggest you work on getting the law changed then. According to current law you are GUILTY if it's on your computer. Even if you weren't looking for it. Even if you delete it. Even if you report it. It would
Re:Maybe they don't *have* a list? (Score:2)
why not shut em down? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:why not shut em down? (Score:2, Interesting)
In the mean time, ISP's can act on their own accord by blocking access to known child porn sites. This is a good thing (TM).
Re:why not shut em down? (Score:2)
All those in favor of mob rule, lynch the next guy I point to!
Re:why not shut em down? (Score:2, Insightful)
in other words, yeah, exactly, if they had a target to pin the bulls-eye on, they would, so instead they blame the guys proiding access (can you say newsgroups?).
Kiddie porn is bad. If the government know where it is, it should be THEIR job to stop the spread of it, not some ISP.
What if the site is via a membership. Should every ISP join EVERY site that their members (who get only access to the Internet) join, so they can va
Re:why not shut em down? (Score:5, Insightful)
Define kiddie porn, please; beauty pageants for preteens give me a much ickier feeling than watching a 17 year old screw a guy. Who should be the judge of what's indecent? Or illegal?
Re:why not shut em down? (Score:3, Insightful)
beauty pageants for preteens give me a much ickier feeling
Urgh, yes. Was watching a TV show about one the other day, and some adults were talking about "how beautiful some of these girls are", "how important it is to be beautiful", and were saying things like that "that one has such beautiful legs" and "what a nice body that one has" etc. It was kind of creepy and kind of sad. These girls were no older than 10 or 11, and were trying so hard to behave grown-up. The adults 'dressing up the girls in pretty d
Re:why not shut em down? (Score:2)
Re:Where is child porn legal? (Score:2)
I guess the problem would come from one country having a lower age of consent than another. So if the age of consent is 17 years in Country A, but the age of consent is 18 years in Country B, then a porno featuring Miss 17 yrs old would be legal in A, while being kiddie porn in B. This is pure speculation btw.
Re:Where is child porn legal? (Score:2)
Gee, that'd be a mess.
What if a 15 y-o stores self pics in the computer ? Is this a felony ?
Re:Where is child porn legal? (Score:2)
14 is horrible horrible kiddy porn in America.
Furthermore, if the site is in some country where it is illegal, like Pakistan, what is the FBI to do if the Pakistani police force just doesn't have time for their crap due to more pressing problems?
CDT Calls Penn Blocking Law Unconstitutional (Score:5, Informative)
CDT.org [cdt.org]
More News
How often is this list updated? (Score:3, Informative)
Fisher has so far instructed Internet providers with customers in the state to block subscribers from at least 423 Web sites around the world.
First, I find it hard to believe that there are only 423 web sites that offer kiddie porn, based soley on the amount of spam I get advertizing it. And in what way is this list updated? Porn sites move around constantly, and use any number of tricks to fool browsers (fake.site.com@real.site.com tricks, IP addresses instead of host names, etc.) so I think this list must be changing every few minutes. Do they reall y have someone sitting and watching as the porn sites get a new IP address?
I'm not saying anything for or against the block itself, I'm just saying this must be one hell of a headache to manange.
Re:How often is this list updated? (Score:3, Informative)
The unfortunate side effect is that blocking by IP permeates over the whole backbone, effectively shutting everyone out from our network and anyone else who uses us for transit...regardless if they live in PA or not.
Also, once each request is made, that's it...we don't keep tabs on it...especially since they don't pay us for that kind of service.
OK, to explain why it's a bad thing... (Score:3, Insightful)
If I was in charge of the list, and I knew that it would never be seen by anyone but me and my cronies, then I've got a really big stick to wave around the heads of those people I don't agree with. Child porn is bad, but the potential to lose some bit of freedom is worse. Eventually those kids grow up and either adjust or they don't, but lost freedoms are usually gone forever and they affect everybody in the country. There is no bigger superpower than us that can come and bail us out if our govt becomes a totolitarian regime, so we have to defend our liberty at all cost while we have the chance.
feel-good laws! (Score:3, Insightful)
Because who the hell expects to get any votes after voting against a child-porn law?
They only get away with stupid laws like this because most people don't look past the title, so we get things like "The Patriot Act"...
Umm... (Score:2, Insightful)
Wha...? (Score:3, Insightful)
Were all the internet child porn cases coming through his court cutting into his golf time? Did someone forget to give him the memo that would have clued him in to the fact that a lot of this shit is hosted by the russian mafia and isn't exactly a stationary target because (suprise!) even people on the internet hate kiddie porn?
Am I missing something? (Score:3, Interesting)
that dosn't make any sense (Score:2)
Doesn't matter (Score:3, Interesting)
Unconscionable law (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Unconscionable law (Score:2)
Blocking sites make it impossible for Pennsylvania enforcement officers to find child porn traders in their own state, pushing them farther underground!
Meh. There's a long tradition of trying to attack social behavior deemed unacceptable by direclty supressing the behavior. You'd have to change a *lot* of things if you didn't want to take this approach.
Misuse of secre
Re:Unconscionable law (Score:2)
A) if the server is using name-based virtual hosting, legitimate web sites with different names hosted on the same IP will be blocked, and nobody will have the slightest idea why.
B) AFAIK the only way an ISP can block access to a URL is by redirecting port 80 to a transparent proxy server, which will take the request from the client, check the URL, and if the URL is not on the list, make a query to the web server, and return the r
I just thought of something (OT) (Score:5, Interesting)
Possession (Score:5, Insightful)
Or maybe the music industry is selling what people want but are ashamed to admit they want. Heck, it wouldn't be the first time [asismanagement.com].
I think people over-react to child porn. Just look at the replies in this topic. Everybody seems to have to put "I don't like kiddie-porn but..." in every message. It's almost like "I'm not a communist but..." Does anybody really think that someone who doesn't include that disclaimer goes out and rapes kids?
Exploitation of anybody, including children is bad. No question. I fully support going after anybody who makes, sells or buys child porn, but I'm not 100% sold on going after people who possess it. If it is simply found "in their possession", which could possibly even mean that it showed up in their browser cache. Should you be in trouble because you mistype a URL and get one of the many porn typo sites [whitehouse.com]?
Maybe intentionally seeking out child porn online should be illegal, but the penalty should reflect the crime. Someone who doesn't buy, sell, or make kiddie porn hasn't hurt any kids. Now the the argument is of course that viewing child porn leads to other crimes against kids. But isn't that the kind of thing that Slashdotters hate when it comes to other things? Just because someone loves playing violent video games and perhaps even makes a level that reflects their school or office doesn't necessarily mean they're going to go shooting up their school or office. Perhaps the punishment for seeking out child porn should be giving up all their privacy in case they can't control their urges.
This isn't intended to be flamebait. I'm sure there's many a libertarian who would agree with me that any action that doesn't actually hurt somebody else shouldn't be illegal. If you're going to moderate it down because you don't like what I'm saying, consider posting a reply instead. And it's not offtopic, the topic is child-porn and law, isn't it?
Re:Possession (Score:5, Insightful)
By using a definition that says anything representing any sort of sexual act of anyone "underage" we get into situations that make this illegal (yes, I'm in Canada, and I'm technically going to break the old version of our laws):
It is reccomended that anyone under the age of 18 use a condom during sex to prevent the possibility of conceiving a child. A condom is worn by simply removing it from its wrapper and then rolling it down one's penis.
Because I mentioned sex, and a sexual act between minors I have broken the law. Does anyone else here think that's silly? Insane, perhaps?
Don't believe me? Click here [allaboutsex.org].
That's why child porn laws should be used to protect children from abusers, and not from information such as the above which they have a right to know. But an incensed public just doesn't seem to understand the difference, unfortunately, and only listens to police who clamour for such broad-scope laws that let *them* decide who gets raided and who doesn't, rather than you.
Remember, you can tell someone's true support for free speech by seeing if they're willing to support those they detest who harm no-one. And I detest pedophiles, but if they aren't abusing children, it's hard for me to find a reason they need to go to jail for. Really hard. Mental hospital, sure, but jail...
I think this site [misanthropic-bitch.com] puts it better than I ever could have.
For those wondering what goes through the mind of a pedophile, read this [wanadoo.nl]. I'm surprised I even found it.
Re:well... (Score:2)
Interstate vs. Intrastate commerce? (Score:3, Insightful)
-jag
Uneducated lawmakers - Or why this law is wrong (Score:2, Informative)
why? (Score:2)
Kiddie porn is illegal so they can find just cause. I know it's drastic, but damn, individual ISP's shouldn't be forced to filter access. Most ISP's are struggling just to keep afloat as is. people in PA will just get the nation-wide Long distance and dialup to NY or California for that matter.
A better analogy (Score:2)
Lawyers for the civil liberties group said the technique undermines the Internet's global connectivity by regularly blocking Web surfers visiting harmless sites that may be located on the same server computers as sites with child pornography. They have compared the tactic to disrupting mail delivery to an entire apartment complex over one tenant's illegal actions.
I've heard that analogy before, but it seems lacking. Few people would care much about a "disruption" of snail mail. It's
In Other News... (Score:5, Funny)
It's going to be interesting when they try to prosecute somebody.
Prosecutor: This guy looked at child porn.
Defendant: It isn't child porn!
Judge: OK, let's show the jury this alleged porn.
Prosecutor: No, we can't do that! It's illegal for the jurors to look at child porn!
Judge: Well, then let me look at it.
Prosecutor: But, Your Honor, it's illegal for you to look at child porn, too!
Judge: Well, dammit, what if it's not porn?
Prosecutor: Well, then you could look at it. But you realize that if you deem it porn, we can charge you with having viewed it.
Judge: Well, then, I don't want to risk it. Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, you're just going to have to take his word for it.
[Jury deliberates.]
Jury: Not guilty due to lack of evidence.
Exactly the same thing happening in Australia (Score:3, Informative)
Electronic Frontiers Australia have been trying to get a list of sites from the authorities over here. While there isn't an all-encompassing list of sites that ISPs must block, there is a list of sites that have been reported to the authorities. If these sites are deemed sufficiently offensive by the same governmental body that issues classifications for movies, and the site falls under Australian jurisdiction, it will be issued a takedown notice.
So far the government has managed to weasel it's way out of complying with EFA's Freedom of Information requests, due to exemptions in the law. Whether the exemptions should protect the government in this case isn't an open and shut case though - in fact, the government is worried enough that they're currently pushing legislation that would explicitly put such information outside of the scope of the FOI Act.
The problem with keeping this information from the public is that there is no ability to properly review the process. Many in Australia are of the opinion that our content regulation regime is a farce.
More information at EFA [efa.org.au]
How the hell are ISPs supposed to be able .... (Score:5, Insightful)
How the hell are ISPs supposed to be able to implement and deploy this blocking according to the official list if they are not given a copy of the list? And doesn't that law at least claim it applies to any ISP, even out of state, as long as it serves customers in Pennsylvania ... at least for the Pennsylvania customers? I'd like to know if the list consists of IP addresses, domain names, or complete URLs (or some mix of these).
If the list has IP addresses only, then it would be theoretically possible to deploy this in a router access list. But many routers don't scale well with large lists because of sequential implementation. And what if the web site in question changes IP address periodically? Does the IP address list get updated equally as often?
If the list has domain names, perhaps those can be remapped to IP addresses regularly, and put in the access list.
In either case, using IP addresses has "collateral damage" effects on other web sites sharing the same server, and maybe even other services if not deployed to specific ports (e.g. other connections like SMTP won't work). I'm sure that Mike Fisher, who is so full of himself that he tries to make people think he is the only attorney general around by registering attorneygeneral.com and attorneygeneral.gov, won't care (using the same theory spam fighters use that if the ISP hosts bad customers, then everyone should suffer until the ISP stops hosting them or goes out of business).
Or perhaps the list consists of URLs, including path names to specific site areas or user pages. The problem is most routers can't deal with that at all. You need a web proxy. That means ISPs now have to pay out more money to run web proxies, with all their associated problems, such as DNS lookup failures for users accessing web sites in different DNS realms (e.g. DNS name spaces NOT rooted at the normal ICANN root servers) or with add-on TLDs (e.g. pseudo-realms that take normal TLDs and combine with special TLDs like ... uh ... the ".xxx" and ".sex" TLDs). And what about accessing HTTPS sites via the proxy? The certificates won't match up unless the browser is configured to "trust" the proxy (e.g. accept the proxy's certificate for that half the end-to-end path, or just connect to the proxy unencrypted and ask for an HTTPS URL). If the ISPs don't filter on HTTPS, then the porn sites that are intended to be blocked can just make HTTPS work. OTOH, if the ISPs force proxying HTTPS, that becomes a major privacy violation.
So one way or the other, porn sites can evade the blocking. If blocked by IP address, they just move around ... maybe as often as every 5 minutes with very dynamic DNS or other very highly distributed methods. And if blocked by URL, they can use HTTPS to bypass proxies or force the ISPs to invade secure web privacy. And if blocked by domain name in the DNS server (using local authoritative zones) users can get around that by not using the ISP DNS servers, running their own DNS servers, or the porn site can register more domain names (they're cheap for porn operators).
And with tens of thousands of open proxies around the world (check today's load of spam for more addresses), there's going to be plenty of ways for perverts to get their fix once they learn these methods. Is the PA AG going to track all the open proxies out there, too?
But in either of these cases, there isn't much the ISP can do without the list. And I didn't see anything in the text of the law that says the list has to be held in strict confidence by the ISP (as if that would apply to an out of state ISP anyway).
ISP's use publc lines (Score:2)
if an isp laid (no pun intended) its own lines, and ran its own vpn or whatever, and had its own backbone, etc., than the issue is different. but, unless i am wrong, and that possibility does exist, most isp's are leasing lines and connect over a public backbone
PA ISPs? (Score:3, Insightful)
What about a national DSL ISP that doesn't have a POP in Pennsylvania, but instead backhauls all their Pennsylvania customers over the phone company's ATM cloud to a POP in a neighboring state? It could be argued that the customer is not technically connected to the Internet in Pennsylvania.
In order to block specific URLs (rather than IP addresses), PA ISPs would be required to redirect port 80 through a transparent proxy server. This can potentially cause problems (although it's not a problem for most people). If the law does not apply to ISPs that are not based in Pennsylvania, could non-local ISPs to advertise that they don't redirect, block or monitor traffic, possibly giving them a competitive advantage over local PA ISPs?
Of course I'm all for getting rid of child porn, but this doesn't sound like the way to do it.
Re:PA ISPs? (Score:2)
Who maintains the list? (Score:2)
Reminds me of the "Index librorum prohibitorum" (Score:4, Interesting)
Once the list got out, nearly every book on it became a best seller and eventually the list itself was put on the "Index librorum prohibitorum" [newadvent.org]. So the Catholics arrived at the same point. The Catholics maintained a secret list of prohibited books but wouldn't disclose what was on the list for fear of promoting that which was prohibited.
Either this guy knows his history or it's a clear case of "There is nothing new under the Sun." I wonder if he also knows that in 1966 the Index was abolished. I suspect the list was abolished because the Catholics could no longer keep up with the volume of books being released and they had probably had their fill of p0rn too. So, if history does repeat itself, this list will fade away too. I just hope he doesn't start making claims that "heavy bodies fall faster than lighter bodies."
No one expects the Spanish Inquisition! [cam.ac.uk]
And they thought I was paranoid (Score:3, Interesting)
Often, but not always, I use proxy servers to mask my location and avoid the possible censorship; especially while looking for information regarding the Iraq invasion. Aljezerra for one has blocked the USA at times from fully accessing their site. I would not doubt if my ISP or government has been censoring or monitoring the activities of their customers/citizens.
Don't trust anyone.
Re:good! (Score:2, Interesting)
What bothers me about this issue is the government seems to be holding ISPs responsible for filtering content, and there's no oversight here, who knows what's being banned.
This is a stupid, unneccesary law. Possession of child porn is ALREADY illegal. Let's not force the ISPs to filter bad stuff.
Re:good! (Score:2)
Re:good! (Score:4, Insightful)
Someone else may look at a picture of a naked kid and say, "That's art," where you might say, "That's porn!" Who is right? Both of you.
When you talk about shutting stuff down, I suggest you take a torch to your neighborhood library, then move on to the art museum: there are lots of 'unnatural' and 'indecent' items contained in both. Don't forget to prance around the fire! When you have kids, you can tell them you were at Kristallnacht [schoolnet.co.uk] 2003.
Re:good! (Score:2)
By the way, I personally feel it's much more evil for parents to showcase a 6 year old in a beauty contest than for an x year old to decide for themselves to do porn because they want to for the money (or any other reason).
Re:good! (Score:2)
Re:good! (Score:2)
Re:good! (Score:2)
Re:good! (Score:3, Informative)
That's irrelevant. Whether or not law enforcement chooses to enforce a law does not affect whether that law is just or appropriate. One should not be dependent upon the whim of law enforcement in enforcing a law. The laws exist specifically to codify what is accepted and what is not accepted. Otherwise, there's really no point in having a written legal sys
Re:good! (Score:2)
But can you be sure they (or whoever is putting together this secret list) will never under any circumstances believe that a photo of a really young looking 22 year old (especially if retouched) is of a 10 year old?
The political opinion in your sig could easily be declared to be sexual, and therefore pornographic, by those not sharing your political opinion. Do you want to give them the power to censor you with
Re:good! (Score:2)
Actually, it's a list of blocked sites, not porn.
The difference is that since you don't get to see what sites are blocked, you have no idea whether the reason you cannot access aclu.org is because they happen to be down or because the Ministry of Truth want to "protect" you from them and have added them to the secret "child porn" list.
Re:Blocking Child Porn? (Score:2, Insightful)
Fact is, people who look at child porn already have their hookup, they don't need a list to figure out where to go. (ie, USENET)
Open up the damn list so the paranoid people can judge for themselves, and so we're not hypocritical when
Operation Pipe Dreams (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: Goddamnit. (Score:2, Insightful)
>
Which ones are left on your list?
Re: Goddamnit. (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Goddamnit. (Score:2)
although I understand what to many of you this means and your general complaint/fear. Do relize bitching about this does make you look like a petaphile (sp?). I think people should be clear if they are complaining about people getting blocked from sites or complaining you can't get kiddy porn. If your in the later I think you should have life blocked from you, not just the kiddy porn
Re:/me marks (Score:2)
* No offense to conservatives (for once
Re:There's a reason they don't... (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, sure, you'll say again, no slippery slope. And o
Re:There's a reason they don't... (Score:2)
No, they aren't. It would not be too terrible if socialistworker.org posted "and here are some pictures to clarify why we are against child-pornography...". Just like they could say "and here are some pictures to explain why we are against war in Iraq..." (and do). Of course, the former is illegal under current law, and they will not do it.
Bu
Re:Two-edged sword (Score:2)
Re:PA ISPs to block sites that have child porn. (Score:2)
It's a crime to make, possess, or facilitate it. And it should be.
Interesting to see that you feel that the morality of pornography changes completely upon the subject's eighteenth birthday.
Re:PA ISPs to block sites that have child porn. (Score:2)
"Failing that?" Either they're disseminating unlawful material, or they're not. If the AG has enough evidence to arrest and prosecute, then they should arrest and prosecute, or provide their evidence to the agency that can arrest and prosecute. There is no provision for "failing that" anywhere in the process. Pawning this responsibility off onto private ISPs smacks of an inexcusable level of laziness.
Re:Child Porn Isn't Stopped By Stupid Legislation (Score:2)
When a major news story goes up on TV, what's a poor politican to do? Ideally, he'd realize that the existing body of law already overs this, and announce to the world that they'd work harder to enforce them. Of course, what kind of press release would that make. "We're going to try harder not to fuck up in the future!" The public outcry demands...something "new." Something "innovative." You have to throw all sorts of "reforms" and "initiatives" at the problem. Once