PA Child Porn-Blocking Law Challenged, Suspended 283
An anonymous reader submits: "Pennsylvania's controversial child porn controls have been challenged in court, and in a surprising twist, suspended by the state. If you recall, PA required ISPs within the state to block access to sites hosting child porn. The list (which used IP addresses) is compiled solely by the State Attorney General's Office. The use of IPs resulted in the unnecessary snagging of other sites on the same hosting service. The plaintiffs are the ACLU, CDT, and a Doylestown PA ISP. The State AG, in an odd move, suspended the law and the list indefinitely. [Note: Philly.com appeared to suffer a DDoS earlier today. Please be kind to their admins.]"
Read the article (Score:5, Informative)
Fisher suspends tactic in fighting child porn
By Joseph A. Slobodzian
Inquirer Staff Writer
Pennsylvania Attorney General Michael Fisher today agreed to halt his behind-the-scenes effort to get Internet service providers to block child pornography Web sites until a federal judge rules whether Fisher's tactic violates the First Amendment by indiscriminately blocking legitimate sites.
The decision was announced at a federal court hearing on a request by civil rights groups for a temporary restraining order to stop Fisher's year-old program.
U.S. District Judge Jan E. DuBois approved the compromise and set a hearing for Nov. 21 on the merits of a lawsuit.
The suit against Fisher was filed earlier today by the Center for Democracy and Technology, a Washington, D.C.-based Internet policy group; the American Civil Liberties Union in Philadelphia; and PlantageNet Inc., a Doylestown Internet service provider, or ISP, that provides local dial-up numbers for much of the Philadelphia region in Pennsylvania and New Jersey.
John O.J. Shellenberger, chief of the Attorney General's Eastern Regional Office, said his office may still move against child pornography Web sites under state law by seeking a formal court order. He also agreed that his office would contact the ACLU before seeking such an order so that ACLU lawyers could protect the interests of legitimate Web sites that might also be closed.
Pennsylvania is the first - and only - state to try to tackle the thorny problem of fighting purveyors of illegal child pornography, which has become as pervasive on the Internet as legal sexually explicit sites.
The problem has confounded Congress and software developers because the technology of the Internet makes it impossible to filter out, or block, offensive Web sites without also blocking some legitimate sites about sexual, medical or social issues.
Fisher spokesman Sean Connolly defended the law, which went into effect in April 2002, and Fisher's informal policy of contacting ISPs by letter, which advises of a child porn site and threatens legal action if the ISP does not block the site.
An ISP that receives the warning has five days to block the Web site from view by Internet users in Pennsylvania. Failure to do so could result in fines of up to $30,000 and jail terms of up to seven years.
"This informal notification process was developed at the request of ISPs," Connolly said. "We are perfectly willing to obtain a court order. We've done it in the past and we're willing to do it again."
In Doylestown, the president of PlantageNet Internet Limited, James Smallacombe, said that the way the law is written makes it "impossible" for him and others to comply.
"If we received an order to block access to a particular IP address, since we started outsourcing dial-up networks, we have no physical way to prevent any user from accessing any site, because we don't control the network that the users dial into," Smallacombe said. "But the way the law is written, we can still be ordered to do this and, if we fail to comply, suffer the consequences."
Stefan Presser, the ACLU's legal director, said Fisher's informal process effectively blocks legitimate Web sites without the owners' knowledge - or the chance for them to challenge the action in court.
"We do not support child pornography. Regardless of [Fisher's] goal, he is not complying with what the legislature suggested be used," Presser said.
Fisher's informal policy does "little or nothing to combat the crime of child pornography or the problem of child pornography on the Internet," Presser said, because it does not go after the purveyors but the communications links they and legitimate Web sites use.
Because of the Internet's technical architecture, in which multiple Web sites share the same numerical Internet address, or IP number, the lawsuit contends that numerous owners of legitimate Web sites have found themselves blocked from custom
Re:Read the article (Score:3, Interesting)
I have to wonder whether the person who wrote this is wildly exaggerating the amount of child pornography on the internet (or in the UNIVERSE, for that matter) or wildly understating the amount of regular porn.
Re:Read the article (Score:2)
But the ISPs were ordered to block websites. Although the original quote said "Internet", one would have to assume that this referred to the Web via the Internet...
PFY's Job (R) (Score:3, Funny)
Bofh - So, you told me you found a job on the side ? And what could that be, seing you spend all your time either here or at home browsing porn ?
PFY - Well, Actually, I found a job at Pennsylvannia's Attorney General Office....
ROFL 8p
The good, the bad, and the opportunity (Score:5, Interesting)
Bad implementation is a little dissapointing
So, who's gunna make the next filter for the ISPs to block the sites without hurting others sharing the IP?
I think something like this is just waiting for the proper implementation to really get it going and then other states (countries?) might follow suit.
Keep up the good work.
Re: The good, the bad, and the opportunity (Score:5, Interesting)
> Good to see an effort to stop child porn
Bad implementation is a little dissapointing
So, who's gunna make the next filter for the ISPs to block the sites without hurting others sharing the IP?
If they know the IPs, why don't they just raid the creeps and cut it off at the source?
Re: The good, the bad, and the opportunity (Score:2, Informative)
Re: The good, the bad, and the opportunity (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: The good, the bad, and the opportunity (Score:2, Insightful)
1) These sites probably have nothing to do with sources of child porn.
2) Many people that you think you know, including potentially some of your friends and relatives regularly view child porn. Are they creeps?
Re: The good, the bad, and the opportunity (Score:5, Insightful)
The fact that you feel like you can even pose such a question and have anyone take it seriously is a sad, sad commentary on what we as a society have become.
If I said to you "my brother-in-law regularly takes truckloads of toxic sludge in the dead of night and dumps it in the local river. Does that mean he's a creep?" I can almost guarantee your reaction.
Yet you apparently think the "consumers" of child porn--the ultimate reason for its existence, and for the exploitation of helpless innocent children--are blameless to the extent we can't even consider them "creeps" if they are friends or relatives?
What kind of monster did your parents rear?
Re: The good, the bad, and the opportunity (Score:2, Insightful)
Consumers of child porn are different. There are apparently many innocent consumers, whose only wrongdoing is that they are sexually aroused by scenes of kids in erotic/sexual situations. These people do not pay for child porn (so no money for the producers) and they do not act on their fantasies (if
Re: The good, the bad, and the opportunity (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: Phaedrus (Score:2)
One cannot condemn paedophilia without condemning Plato.
Most intelligent people have come to this conclusion as well, when I have brought it up. Read the Phaedrus, it is one of the b
Re: The good, the bad, and the opportunity (Score:2)
Consumers of child porn are different. There are apparently many innocent consumers, whose only wrongdoing is that they are sexually aroused by scenes of kids in erotic/sexual situations. These people do not pay for child porn (so no money for the producers) and they do not act on their fantasies (if they even have paedophilic fantasies). What is wrong with having on
Re: The good, the bad, and the opportunity (Score:5, Insightful)
Yep. So what? People who are aroused by images of pregnant chicks or by wearing diapers are a minority as well. Does that mean these practices should also be prohibited?
Fact: The vast majority of people are sickened by such images.
False. Reality is that the majority of people have never seen such images. And just like everyone and his dog in the USSR was against Boris Pasternak when party started the famous defamation campaign without even reading any of his poems. There are some sick child porn images, but then there are many normal ones that would probably make a normal person aroused, not sick. As for the sick porn, the sickest I ever saw was some sadistic anime with some pretty girls cut into slices alive.
Fact: Viewing of such images is very strongly correlated with acting on the fantasies represented there, in other words having sex with children.
First, any data is skewed, because as you are well aware, people do not normally reveal the fact that they enjoy child porn. The only ones that we know about are those that were busted by the police. Not a very representative sample. Second, correlation does not equal causation. Obviously, child abusers would be interested in child porn, but that doesn't mean that child porn viewers are likely to become child abusers.
Do straight guys seek out gay porn?
Do straight guys seek out lesbian porn? Again, there is some correlation between your tastes in porn and your sexual preferences, but trust me, not every hentai fan wants to be raped by a giant squid.
Coercing children to have sex--raping children--causes profound psychological damage which takes at minimum years for them to get over.
1) You can have sex without coercing anyone. You ignore the fact that some kids might be ok with having sex with adults. Consensual sex with kids is illegal in the US, but there is nothing unethical about it.
2) Raping kids is not much different from raping adults. And nobody is advocating raping humans of any age (of course, I mean real rape, statutory rape is ok in many cases). But there is no proof that child porn viewers will turn to raping kids in reality.
3) There are some indications that psychological damage is caused by joint efforts of police, family and psychologists. Many kids are just fine after having sex with adult, but are royally screwed by people who care more about jailing a paedophile than about the well-being of the child.
some never manage to live normal lives.
Fact: Consensual sex with other kids before 18 doesn't not lead to any harm and is perfectly ok in most cases.
Please tell me how it is so much different in case of an adult? Physically sexual contact with adult is possible as early as in 5 years or so. Psychologically some kids are ready as early and many are ready around 12 years or so.
I don't believe you are a monster; I just believe you are an ignorant fool.
Re: The good, the bad, and the opportunity (Score:3, Insightful)
The so-called "innocents" that you describe are not quite so innocent. They continue to feed an industry which has real victims, which is the problem.
Your twisted rationality is that these children are so much better off...but are they? Do you really think that the children are the true beneficiaries of any of that money?
If you were in the U.S. and dirt poor with a couple of ki
Re: The good, the bad, and the opportunity (Score:4, Interesting)
So, you obviously agree that there is nothing wrong with prosecuting these folks:
http://www.debaser.us/content/news/000307.shtml
Summary: Two 14 year-olds are charged with raping each other. The ridiculous claim is that they are both rapists AND victims simultaneously because they were having sex with one another, both incapable of consent.
Your Black-And-White-World mentality is why we paint so many people as criminals these days.
Re: The good, the bad, and the opportunity (Score:3, Insightful)
That's hilarious.
The so-called "innocents" that you describe are not quite so innocent. They continue to feed an industry
Tell me please, how downloading a child porn image from a free anonymous website feeds any industry? I
Re: The good, the bad, and the opportunity (Score:4, Insightful)
But not with all.
Replace "a child porn image" with "an mp3" and you'll have 100,000 people here jumping on your throat to explain you.
These are very different industries. You can't really imagine a person downloading a crappy MPEG child porn video, enjoying it and then ordering a DVD, can you?
My point about grey areas was simply to illustrate that the whole problem is not as black and white as many people in this discussion assume. You see, I agree that making child porn generally (on average) is a bad thing, but I disagree that one photo equals one completely maimed, twisted, fucked up innocent kid with incurable psychological problems for the next 1000 years. There are much worse things that are done to kids, like simply raping them without photos, like killing them, like bombing them from the sky, like suicide-bombing them when they have a disco or a wedding, like destroying the school system and fucking up their mentality more than any paedophile ever could. And then you have bullying in school, you have all kinds of crap that kids have to endure every day in every corner of this beautiful blue speck flying through space... And to single out one particular problem and proclaim it the root of all evil is simply untrue and it smells like a witchhunt.
If you remove the negative impact of parents+police+psychiatrist from the child abuse case, I am not sure if the long-term damage is greater than from a very bad teacher at school. Exploring their sexuality is natural for kids, often they do it with other kids of the same age, sometimes with older children, sometimes with teenagers and sometimes with adults. There are many well-known cases when there is no psychological damage to kids whatsoever. Sex doesn't kill.
Yes, if the abuser kidnaps the child, rapes him/her, enslaves and forces to pose for child porn, this is bad. No doubt about it. But the fact that the child is exploited for child porn is irrelevant. It's not the picture that harms him/her, it's the abuse from the adult authority figure who somehow controls the kid. Poor treatment of the child is not a requirement of child porn. It's simply a consequence of the socio-economic situation. If you can buy a same kid for 100$ in that country, you won't treat him/her well. When child porn was legit a few decades ago, it was definitely a much smaller problem (in Europe and the US). Yes, it never was mainstream, because the sexual revolution didn't not penetrate the whole society to a necessary extent, but it was a much lighter topic. If child porn was to be legalised today, models would be treated the same or better as child actors in movies, TV films and fashion industry are treated. There are definitely many kids (defined as younger than 18) who can have sex without going crazy after it. Some of them would probably be happy to earn good money by starring in child porn. Of course, we can't expect legalisation any time soon, although I hoped that virtual child porn would emerge as a substitute for real child porn. Apparently, people/companies are so scared by the government and the media, that they are afraid to touch this in any way.
I hope you see that there is nothing inherently bad about child porn photos/videos. Now the question of is it moral/ethical to download child porn now, when most of it isn't made in noble ways. We
Re: The good, the bad, and the opportunity (Score:3, Informative)
But what I can guarantee you is that there definitely are some people who look at child porn, but who are normal people, just like you and me. I know some and I would even trust them to lo
Re: The good, the bad, and the opportunity (Score:2)
Another thing, these kids aren't just posing. Many of them
Re: The good, the bad, and the opportunity (Score:5, Interesting)
Be careful, your reasoning cuts both ways:
Automobile accidents cause more than 40,000 deaths each year in the US alone (far more than child pornography and terrorism combined!!), and yet you, the consumer, are the ultimate reason for the existance of these horribly deadly "Automobiles!", and ultimately, the death and destruction of millions of dollars of property and loss of countless lives.
Does that mean you are a creep because you use said product? NO!
In fact, the (by far) most likely scenario (that I can see) is that you are a nice, "normal" person who doesn't use his car for bank robbery, vehicular homicide, etc.
However, since those creeps cause deaths and destruction, and you use the same end product, by your logic YOU ARE THE CREEP WHO SHOULD BE LOCKED UP!
What kind of creep did your parents raise? How can you (the consumer, and ultimate reason for the existence of these automobile tools-of-death) live with yourself?
Right?
Of course not.
Please, PLEASE don't fall for (or propegate) the "save the children" rant. They are plenty safe, and people who view said pictures are NOT hurting them or causing them pain, anymore than you are responsible for other people's automobile deaths because you use a car.
Do you see the problem with your reasoning?
I doubt that you will, because it involves children, and (as politicians know) that is the way to influence anyone to agree with anything.
-dave-
Re:The good, the bad, and the opportunity (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:The good, the bad, and the opportunity (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The good, the bad, and the opportunity (Score:3, Insightful)
When such arbitrary information is used to identify people for crimes (think of the truncated passenger name lists in CAPPS), people get harassed. It may not be the intention, but it is the effect. It is also inexcusabl
Re:The good, the bad, and the opportunity (Score:2)
Freudian slip, may be? Because this really is an affective, not effective, way to keep child porn out of the US.
The fact is that there is already child porn in the US and some of it originates there. But may be, just may be, you should pay more attention to fighting parental abuse, not child porn. Much more kids are screwed by bad (as in horrific) parenting than by being forced into kiddie porn.
Re:The good, the bad, and the opportunity (Score:2)
No. My point is that child porn is far from being the ultimate evil. Yes, it sucks when kids are forced to have sex with adults so that perverts can watch photos/videos of it. But this is not the end of the world and the attention paid to this issue is disproportionate to its seriousness. Child porn scare is 10% real problem and 90% hysterics fueled by media and other irresponsible parties.
I think it is rational to tackle problems starting from most serio
Well (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Well (Score:3, Insightful)
I also think states must work together to track down the providers of child porn and arrest and jail these scumbags. They should be forced to go to jail.
Re:Well (Score:2)
I also agree with you.
But I think we need to implement curfews to prevent night crimes like robbery, outlaw smoking to prevent deaths, and ban drinking because too many people drink and drive. What isn't acceptable is doing nothing about those issues.
I also think stat
Re:Well (Score:2)
Re:Well (Score:3, Insightful)
If you're a business doing, say, $1000 of sales a day on the web to customers in PA, and they accidentally block you, what do you do when sales all of the sudden drop by that amount. You wouldn't know anything about your server's IP address being blocked by ISP's, nobody would have told you. Then it takes 2-3 days to find out. Goodbye $3000. A few more d
Re:Well (Score:2)
Re:Well (Score:2, Insightful)
What does having children have to do with understanding the nature of the crime? In fact, the people that commit the crime of creating child porn are far more likely to actually have children than not.
no, no crime deserves total abrogation of civil liberties, but this is hardly that.
You're right, this is hardly that. This is people that have committed no crime at all having their sites blocked w
Re:Well (Score:2, Insightful)
So, people would rather be murdered than deal with child porn?
Seems to me society has a more serious problem to deal with than people wanting to look at naked children.
Re:Well (Score:2, Insightful)
-AX
Re:Well (Score:2)
Re:Well (Score:3, Insightful)
Brilliant! As the region's Office of DoubleTruth Information, I would like to thank you for your clever idea. We will now being the campaign to populate the 10% misinformation buffer. "Oh, I'm sorry, we heard that that Democratic Party page was child porn.". Or even better "accept it or imply that you support child porn".
I also think states must work together to track down the providers of child porn and
Re:Well (Score:2)
Brilliant! As the region's Office of DoubleTruth Information, I would like to thank you for your clever idea. We will now being the campaign to populate the 10% misinformation buffer. "Oh, I'm sorry, we heard that that Democratic Party page was child porn.". Or even better "accept it or imply that you support child porn".
If we aimed for absolute accuracy, no innocent people would've been killed in the war
Re:Well (Score:2)
A pedophile doesn't necessarily break any law. Pickpockets, by definition, do.
I stand corrected - I was just trying to vary my word usage to avoid the grammar police. So I get nailed anyway.
Moving on, just replace "pedophile" in my message with "illegal pornographer". My point is that these are real scumbags who need to face the music, even if there is some possible risk to innocents which can be justifie
Re:Well (Score:5, Funny)
the people who are not kitty porn or spam sites can just call and have their ip's removed from the list. the ACTUAL kitty porn peddlers wouldn't have the audacity to call and lie about it
Re:Well (Score:2)
So... you get off on seeing young cats engaging in sexual congress??
Re:Well (Score:5, Insightful)
People can always write to the Attorney General and appeal that they are not a child porn site. I would say even if 10% of the sites which are blokced are not child porn, then that is acceptable. What is not acceptable is doing nothing.
This is, in formal logic, what's known as a false dichotomy. You can do _something_ without blocking legitimate sites. For example, you can attempt to identify and prosecute the creators and distributors of child pornography. "Deputizing" ISPs without their consent is just silly. If they're aware of any kiddie porn, they should act, but forcing them to monitor everything that passes through their network is just silly. Anybody seriously suggest that telecomm companies be liable for stopping drug deals that occur over the phone?I also think states must work together to track down the providers of child porn and arrest and jail these scumbags. They should be forced to go to jail.
I agree. But we, as a society, pay people to round up these scumbags (the kiddie pornographers, not the ISPs). Foisting off the responsibility onto someone who isn't employed to do so is just passing the buck.
Yes, there's shades of grey here. Hotel proprietors are often required to run off any known prostitutes, but you don't see laws requiring them to monitor all rooms at all times to prevent it, nor would such laws be feasable.
Similarly, requiring that ISPs report known child pornographers is reasonable (and is currently the law, AFAIK). Requiring ISPs to monitor and make a judgement on everything that passes through their servier is not reasonable.
Re:Well (Score:3, Informative)
That logic works when you're talking about death sentences, but in this case it just plain doesn't work. If 1 in a million sites are getting blocked, then it seems like it'd be easier just to work with that site to get its block removed. Move to a new ISP? Use different terminology? Use a whitelist?
If you had said 1 in 10, the
Re:Well (Score:2)
And if you are being blocked, what are you going to do about it? Quietly change ISPs and hope that the damages of having your addresses, DNS hosts, mailservers, etc. change are minimal? Call up the AG office and demand they unblock your site?
And if the AG blocked your site because it was y
Re:Well (Score:2, Redundant)
A> Contact the ISP and have the site shutdown, as well as supbeona all logs of the people accessing the site.
-AND-
B> Arrest the mutherfucker
Re:Well (Score:2)
Re:Well (Score:2)
Even in places where it is technically illegal, so much goes on behind the scenes and generates hoards of income from degenerate fucking tourists (*cough* Thailand *cough*) that the police are told to look the other way. Coincedentally, these are the same places that also allow th
Suspend Kiddi porn law and sue them (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Suspend Kiddi porn law and sue them (Score:5, Insightful)
Did you read the article? Legitimate businesses, and other sites are being blocked by these filters. If they want to remove these sites, they need to do it by prosecution, not by technical workarounds.
Re:Suspend Kiddi porn law and sue them (Score:2, Interesting)
I imagine that quite a few people would say the same thing about the USA's legal pornographers who recruit "barely-legal" girls into the buisness. When you talk about "kiddie porn", you should realize that defintion is used quite broadly here. What's the difference between a Dutch porn merchant who peddles photos of 16-17 year old girls and an American who does exactly the same thing with 18 year olds? "How could they even think
Porn and spam (Score:5, Interesting)
Of course, unlike receiving spam, surfing a porn site is a personal choice (excepting porn viruses etc).
Re:Porn and spam (Score:3, Interesting)
Of course, if they were blocking SPECIFIC sites which weren't related to the law, I would have cause for alarm.
Re:Porn and spam (Score:2)
Re:Porn and spam (Score:2, Informative)
Hello, thiis is your friendly ISP. We notice that you are hosting a website on our network. Be advised that you must provide us with advance copies of any and all material that you intend to post on your website (including material submitted by your users, if any) and give us at least 2 months to review it (due to the fact that there is a lot of material to review ahead of your stuff) before posting it on your site. Any
Re:Porn and spam (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Porn and spam (Score:2)
This is not different depending on whether the list is voluntary or mandatory. In fact the impact will be greater if the list is mandatory.
Re:Porn and spam (Score:2)
I don't think so. It is because name-based virtual hosting is used to save IP addresses. Name-based virtual hosting means that many web sites can be hosted on the same single IP address.
Re:Porn and spam (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Porn and spam (Score:2)
By the time some future "Google AI" is able to recognize childporn as accurately and "objectively" as a human filter could (but faster), it would ALSO be obscenely fast enough to digitally simulate and render it all locally anyway. So this ultimate AI that prevents my kid from seeing harmful content would also be capable of creating it virtually without harming any actual childrens' mind or body.
Even more outlandish is the idea that the childporn problem won't
Off topic - PA Child Porn-Blocking (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Off topic - PA Child Porn-Blocking (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Off topic - PA Child Porn-Blocking (Score:2)
and then when spam hits their servers they can sue the spammers for sending porno to underage kids.
What they should do... (Score:4, Interesting)
But the tricky thing is separating the baby from the bathwater, if you catch my meaning. Some sites are hosted on IP blocks that share with kiddie-pron sites. I for one, would like to be aware if my ISP was allowing this kind of hosting going on and I would want to stop it.
I'm all for the blue ribbon campaign, but I'm certain it doesn't protect kiddie porn dealers (scum).
Re:What they should do... (Score:3, Insightful)
Sorry, but being involved with a hosting company and being in charge of finding it and deleting, I will tell you this: There is so much of it, in so many places, that it will be impossible to stop. A US customs agent once told me that the internet has made things next to impossible for them. He had been in it for thirty years. He used to hunt them down in person and arrest the people who
Re:What they should do... (Score:2, Funny)
Question about that figure... (Score:2)
Is that just the child porn that was in the clear, or does that also include such things as renamed/encrypted/password protected files, where the passwords are pos
Re:What they should do... (Score:2)
Re:What they should do... (Score:2)
Child porn is like drugs in that if the demand withered up, or all the suppliers went away, then it would cease to be produced (in quantity, in a commercial fashion.) However unlike drugs, someone is necessarily being exploited, and in the case of kiddie porn which is not just children romping nude solo, a child is being abused. You could argue that happy children playing naked being filmed are not being harmed, though the problem of where to draw the line makes that a difficult call, legally.
The media
I used to work for a porn host (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:I used to work for a porn host (Score:3, Interesting)
No, not unless you're a mental health professional, believe it or not.
Good intentions, Bad laws, Potential Solution (Score:4, Interesting)
As a side note, the RIAA should also not be allowed to infiltrate the Pennsylvania legislature as the vast majority of P2P distributors are not facilitators of kiddie porn distribution despite the current propaganda.
A suggestion for Google (Score:3, Funny)
Gotta be cruel to be kind (Score:3, Funny)
The DDoSer is... (Score:2, Funny)
His hatred of David Hasslehoff rages on. 2 mysteries solved in one.
More information here (Score:2)
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid
Who's going to teach who a lesson? (Score:2)
I think the RIAA's going to learn that most corps don't pull this kind of shit because they fear they'll be boycotted.
Block the ISP (Score:4, Interesting)
If the ISP doesn't comply, block ALL their IP's if they reside in another country. Lock them up as an accessory to the crime if they are located in a semi-moral country.
If I was a legit business owner who lost access to my site because of this, I doubt I would have a problem with relocating my site. It isn't like there aren't plenty of other hosting services that have a bit of decency.
makes me wonder (Score:3, Funny)
Finding reliable people who are emotionally capable of such a job must be an HR nightmare. I can just see the job description:
Researchers needed to evaluate questionable online material of an extremely graphic nature. Must have a professional outlook, neat appearance, and an ironclad stomach. Must also be able to pass a polygraph, and extensive background check. Computer literacy a plus, but willing to train candidates with the right enthusiasm. Benifits include full medical, dental, and a comprehensive psyciatric plan.
Actually this sounds like a shoe-in for de-frocked clergyman. I guess I answered my own question. Carry on.
Child porn? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Child porn? (Score:2, Interesting)
There are a dozen groups out there working to prevent sexual abuse, but Social Services itself is badly badly underfunded and can't handle the cases of *simple* abuse.
Simple as it is called, it's no walk in the garden and I think resources from other areas should be re-directed in that direction. So in essence, I'm just saying...
"I agree"
Stewey
My, how your views change (Score:2, Interesting)
In another topic, the entirety of the board would be up in arms, but on this subject it is stirring up hot debate with the pro-block and anti-block camps looking to be about equal in numbers (at least in numbers of posts).
What does this say? That a good number of us really don't care *as much* about those freedoms that we pr
Re:My, how your views change (Score:2)
Are you unfamiliar with the statistics that say ninety-odd percent of child abuse is perpetrated by family members and/or close family friends ?
It will take the cooperation of ALL the world's governments to take down these sites, which I can't see happening soon. Then the
It's already on Freenet (Score:2)
I hate to break it to people, but Freenet already has kiddie porn on it, and snuff, and other stuff which is not socially acceptable to the wider community. However, as the premise of Freenet clearly states, if you are going to truly believe in the value of anonymity then you must accept that with the good comes the bad.
That means
Well duh (Score:2, Interesting)
Remember how easy it was to block alt.sex.pedophilia? "Don't like it? Then don't go there." But the existence of this group was deemed "wrong", so a.s.p no longer exists, and as predicted this hasn't actually stopped the CPs who are now inhabiting alt.grannies.knitting instead, thus leading to the dual problem of people wanting knitting patterns getting a nasty shock and CP blocking now being impossibl
Yes but bad blocks are not the only thing..... (Score:2)
Trying to block anything is near impossible. I wonder...how does Saudi Arabia do this? They have a severely choked inernet pipe thanks to the laws th
"The plaintiffs are the ACLU, CDT...." (Score:2)
Re:For the sake of accuracy (Score:2)
Re:For the sake of accuracy (Score:2, Informative)
There is an interesting side note concering the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
Re:Yay! (Score:2)
Re:IP instead of domain name (Score:5, Informative)
It isn't. But it might get expensive on the hardware side. You'd need to filter everything based on the HTTP request instead of the IP. A lot of ISP are probably not prepared for that and would require investing in router/switches capable of this or forcing everyone thru a proxy server.
is this an intentional disruption by bad co-operation? when things are badly implemented, court order got suspended and no more need to handle blocking requests?
The implementation was not appropiate and was disruptive. Two wrongs don't make a right.
or are those ISPs have the same mind as Code-Red writer, who tried to DDOS whitehouse.gov's IP instead of the domain name itself.
Oh, I get it now... You are joking and I fell for it. Dang!
Easy fix (Score:2)
Just do this for those listed within the offending IPs. For example, if pedo.com (random URL) was hosted on IP block 127.0.0.1...
Keep a list of offending IP, in which 127.0.0.1 is pedo.com (they already keep the IPs)... scan attempts to 127.0.0.1 for pedo.com, ignore others. No need to scan every request, and they already have to process blocked IP's anyhow.
Oh, and b
Re:Easy fix (Score:2)
Re:IP instead of domain name (Score:2)
Re:IP instead of domain name (Score:2)
So don't block it. Just terminate the account and delete the site. Do you really want to host child porn on your system just because only PA has told you to block it from PA-based browsers? Just get rid of it altogether
Re:IP instead of domain name (Score:2)
Re:Why isn't song sharing like radio (Score:2)
But what does this have to do with kiddie porn. No
Re:Why isn't song sharing like radio (Score:2)
"criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research,"
Typically fair use is also limited to a portion of the song or copyrighted item and not the entirety there of. I'm glad to see tha tyou can link to a website in genera
Re:DDoS attack? (Score:2)
Re:DDoS, you say? (Score:2)
How do you know philly.com wasn't hosting kiddie pr0n?