Three ISPs Agree To Block Child Porn 572
Goobergunch and other readers sent in word that Sprint, Time Warner, and Verizon have agreed to block websites and newsgroups containing child pornography. The deal, brokered by New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, occurred after Cuomo's office threatened the ISPs with fraud charges. It's of some concern that the blacklist of sites and newsgroups is to be maintained by the Center for Missing and Exploited Children, an NGO with no legal requirement for transparency. Here are two further cautions, the first from Lauren Weinstein: "Of broader interest perhaps is how much time will pass before 'other entities' demand that ISPs (attempt to) block access to other materials that one group or another feels subscribers should not be permitted to see or hear." And from Techdirt: "[T]he state of Pennsylvania tried to do pretty much the same thing, back in 2002, but focused on actually passing a law ... And, of course, a federal court tossed out the law as unconstitutional. The goal is certainly noble. Getting rid of child porn would be great — but having ISPs block access to an assigned list isn't going to do a damn thing towards that goal."
Killing the Internet. (Score:5, Informative)
Let's see:
If all of these things come about, the internet will be like cable TV and there will be no free press.
Let's go ahead and get this out of the way (Score:2, Informative)
This is stupid. (Score:2, Informative)
Blocking vs. not subscribing (Score:2, Informative)
People confuse where responsibility lies.
Libel? Common carrier? (Score:3, Informative)
Also, if ISPs become censors, don't they lose their Common Carrier status under the DMCA, and put themselves on the hook for any bad stuff that comes over their wires?
Re:Not that I read TFA, but... (Score:3, Informative)
The AG got the companies because they had in their TOS a clause that specificly prohibited child pornography. Therefore when the sting operation's user complained about it and the ISP's did their standard "nothing" it became fraud.
The ISP's will use a hash database provided by the Center of pictures they've collected, blocking anything tha matches the hash.
Re:Common Carrier Safe Harbor (Score:3, Informative)
Insightful my ass.
Re:Are you sure? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Worse than useless. (Score:3, Informative)
I think they coordinate their drop-off points and move them around, instead of having one group where they could go and get their fix.
Re:Libel? Common carrier? (Score:3, Informative)
IOW, if your innocent website gets on such a blacklist, you certainly can sue them AND the blacklist-keeping organization for libel, provided the ISP(s) doesn't take steps (or takes way too long) to remove you from it.
'course, can't guarantee that you'd win, but you certainly could sue them and stand at least a snowball's chance in hell.
Hash values are not "fuzzy" (Score:1, Informative)
Re:slippery slope (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Block for all? (Score:3, Informative)
This would be precisely the wrong reason for implementing a block on these newsgroups. From my extensive watching of television, my understanding is that people who enjoy child pornography will go to great lengths to view it [and/or participate in creating it]. Just disabling access to a couple of newsgroups moves the posts to other newsgroups, mixing it in with the adult porn that I like.
To put it in Slashdot terms, it would be like trying to make people to not drive on freeways [if it were illegal] by digging up the 2 lane on-ramps, while leaving all the 1 lane on-ramps unmonitored.
I would think that from a law-enforcement perspective, knowing the psychology of this problem, instead of blocking one particular way of getting this information which just causes offenders to find another way of getting the same information, they would want the ISP's to turn over records of which clients are downloading which files from these newsgroups. It would at least catch the low-hanging fruit [namely the stupid child-pornographers].
Of course, they may or may not be able to get a warrant for the records, and just getting the ISP's to turn over the records may make the records inadmissible in court...
That's not what's being done (Score:1, Informative)
http://foia.fbi.gov/cvip.htm [fbi.gov]
According to CNET, they are blocking all of USENET (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, it's far worse than anyone thought. They aren't filtering a few minor websites, they are actually blocking major portions of USENET:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-9964895-38.html?part=rss&subj=news&tag=2547-1_3-0-5
Time Warner will now block all of USENET
Sprint will now block all alt.* newsgroups
Verizon will now block large, unnamed sections of USENET.
So, whoever said "USENET will be shut down in the name of 'protect the children'" on the poll last week, you win!
Re:slippery slope (Score:4, Informative)
On that note, things may become worse now that the UK Government has decided to start criminalising adult porn [slashdot.org](!). The scope of material that could be banned is far greater, especially due to the vagueness of the law (since the IWF will likely err on the side of caution, whether or not the material has been declared to be "extreme" in a court of law). There is also the point that unlike child porn, there is no divide between "extreme" adult porn and non-extreme porn (there is no legal or ethical consensus - it's only the UK Government that imagines this), so plenty of more mainstream sites risk getting banned because of a single naughty image that is too "extreme". The Register speculates on this issue [theregister.co.uk].
citation (Score:3, Informative)
Possession laws suck....
Re:Worse than useless. (Score:1, Informative)
Why is Road Runner discontinuing their own Newsgroups service?
Due to low subscriber usage Road Runner has decided to discontinue Newsgroups service as of June 23, 2008.
Re:Child porn is NOT the problem (Score:4, Informative)
A common misconception: Child porn laws have generally been expanded - at least here in Scandinavia - to also include paintings, drawings and text, and non-nude photos "interpreted" as raunchy. But the public believes that child porn == abuse pictures.
Re:Car analogy (Score:2, Informative)
If I want to filter I can choose to on my own (work on my own car), and if I can't or don't want to I can pay the ISP extra cash and have them do it (hire a mechanic). If I "stumble" across kiddie porn that is my fault and I will pay the repercussions.
Better yet, this is like driving on the freeway, there is a known speed limit and people are free to choose to obey or break the law. Law abiding citizens will choose to obey the limit. Speeders take the chance of getting caught. Now the ISPs (by direction of quasi govt agency) are putting governors on our vehicles.
This seems to be where our society is headed...we are no longer allowing ourselves the freedom to obey or break the laws we have set for ourselves. Free will be damned.
Re:False positives, misleading true positives (Score:5, Informative)
I think you misread it (Score:2, Informative)
Now, T-W will just stop carrying USENET, and leave it to end-users to get their USENET fix from third parties such as their school, a subscription service, or a web/usenet gateway.
This is the moral equivalent of turning off your hosted IRC server or your mail server.
Now, if they block third-party USENET services that aren't specifically catering to child porn, that would be bad. If they only block port 199 to news.getyourchildpornhereport199iswideopen-alt-kiddies-cuties.com then that's no worse than blocking http://www.getyourchildpornhereport199iswideopen-alt-kiddies-cuties.com/ [getyourchi...cuties.com].
Re:Child porn is NOT the problem (Score:3, Informative)
Re:scratches head (Score:1, Informative)
Every single Perverted Justice case that has ACTUALLY gone to trial has been thrown out.
The problem is that the other 900-some took plea bargains because they couldn't afford a good lawyer, felt guilty, or were afraid of the consequences of losing at trial.
Re:According to CNET, they are blocking all of USE (Score:4, Informative)
Who would've thought the day would come when you'd have to use a German news server to ensure freedom of speech.
Re:According to CNET, they are blocking all of USE (Score:3, Informative)
If the latter, it's honestly no great loss. ISP hosted usenet has been effectively dead for at least a year, as retention and article completion has gone to shit in recent penny pinching.
I'm sure the ISPs are thrilled to have a excuse to finally kill it.
That said, welcome to the magical world of internet censorship in America. I wonder what's next on the kill lists.