just read the article.
the title would have suggested that 'they knew, they just didn't take action' and I was like WHAT? WHat do you mean they "agree to block it" ? You mean they could "block" certain content but had to be asked to do so ?
and only well into the article you start to learn that no, of course they didn't know, and now that it was brought to their attention, they didn't block but *erase* every related newsgroup off from the face of the earth.
the best medicine against low blood pressure is reading news
|...if you have notice of a potentially criminal act, we deem you responsible to an extent... |
Wow. I would think this is some pretty thin ice. I hope they are quite specific in their definition of responsibility... I don't want to go to jail for spam that I don't even know about. However, I look forward to severe punishments for people who participate in the trafficking of that kind of material. I don't want to start a rant but I have absolutely no tolerance for those pervs. I have pictures of my 4 year old daughter all over my office. The thought of some scumbag doing explicit things with an innocent child absolutely infuriates me. There had better be a special place in hell for those dirtbags.
I'm all for blocking this type of content. I just hope this won't turn into a "war on drugs" type scenario.
If you take the time (very little required) you can find some highly disturbing content online. Everything from murder, mutilation, rape, etc., and I'm sure it's not just Joe Sixpack posting some dirty pictures he came across on a news group. There are organized groups out there who distribute this stuff. It will be difficult to crack down on this. Once you stamp out one roach, three more come crawling out of the woodwork.
But no need to be cynical. As long as this "blocking" is limited to illegal content they have my blessings. If they start blocking "offensive" but not necessarily illegal content, they will have crossed the line. And besides, I much rather see some criminal action taken against these low-lives as opposed to simply nuking their website(s), in other words, don't just block the IP (or whatever the mechanism will be), but actually track them down and put the cuffs on them.
My local library has public net access for all, and it blocks access to THIS forum.
WebmasterWorld is classed as "WebChat" and as a site that could hold content harmful to minors.
ANY site can hold harmful or illegal content. Once you start going this direction it's a slippery slope. Can you always tell the difference between illegal and offensive? Blocking access to a web site is best left to the consumer...not some faceless corporation or politically motivated government entity.
This should be a federal issue and not a state issue.
In the UK, before digital was so widespread, we have seen photo developing shops calling the police because people took photos of their kids in the bath.
Getting a definition that catches the bad guys without criminalising the innocent is never as easy as it seems at first sight.
As a previous poster said, the police ought to try and trace the people who put up this material and actually arrest them, as they're the real source of the problem. It's far too cheap and easy to post material elsewhere, I don't think blocking in itself will solve the problems of illegal material online. You have to actually get to the sources if you want to stop this.
My main worry though is if this goes beyond blocking material we all agree is wrong. What is the mechanism for public debate on this issue? How can we judge whether a site should be taken down if we're blocked from seeing it for ourselves? And what would be the appeals process for those who have had a site blocked which they feel isn't illegal?
There's a real danger of censorship by the back door here, with no judicial process to oversee it.
One interesting area to watch might be political sites, especially those that express some kind of sympathy for armed groups. For decades there's been a lack of clear consensus over how exactly you define a terrorist group, and whether that extends to those who express support for them rather than actually taking part in the terrorist acts themselves.
Various laws banning incitement to violence have blurred the line even further, because they make it illegal to express written or verbal support for terrorism. The laws usually fail to say exactly which acts of violence are considered terrorism, so we're back to the same problem of definition.
By the way, I'm not defending ANY acts of violence or political extremism here, I'm just trying to raise the point that censorship of controversial political websites might provoke a severe backlash with international implications.
This is the thin end of a very big wedge. I am not a user of pornography and I believe in an extreme physical punishment for self confessed and convicted child abusers. However, the definition of pornography including child pornography is never objective. Here in the UK we have reports of schools banning parents from photographing their children on sports day or in the school play because some tight ar5ed moron thinks the pictures could be used by paedophiles.
I believe censorship like this lets the ultra conservatives set the agenda because the majority of "normal" people wont get excited about such things.
I'm worried about people imposing their own blinkered "moral" viewpoint on the rest of us. To me there is more of a case for banning sites about suicide than any site about porn.
|I believe censorship like this lets the ultra conservatives set the agenda because the majority of "normal" people wont get excited about such things. |
I'd also suspect that suspect that some supporters of this arrangement would accuse those who oppose them on privacy or censorship grounds (or even crazy thoughts of one of these companies using their newfound role of content filter to engage in anti-competitive practices -- I know it is a crazy thought since the large telecoms always have the customer's best interests in mind) of being for child pornography.
Illegal sites? What exactly is an "illegal site?" If a site is illegal, why doesn't law enforcement just arrest the owner/operators and shut it down?
This sounds like the police know drugs are being sold from a house but instead of arresting those involved, they decide to erect a barrier around the house.
|As long as this "blocking" is limited to illegal content they have my blessings. If they start blocking "offensive" but not necessarily illegal content, they will have crossed the line. |
In that case, the government will just use its power to declare content it doesn't approve of as being illegal.
This is New York, the same state that made the affiliate/residency decision.
|This should be a federal issue and not a state issue. |
I don't think it's a government issue at all. It's a personal issue. If enough people want to block sites from being accessed on their computer, the marketplace will develop products that perform that task.
|I believe censorship like this lets the ultra conservatives set the agenda ... |
For every conservative who doesn't want porn online there is a liberal who doesn't want, for example, any dissent to the idea of man-made global warming online. This is an issue where conservatives, liberals and others should set aside their differences and realize they are all about to end up disappointed.
|I believe censorship like this lets the ultra conservatives set the agenda ... |
For every conservative who doesn't want porn online there is a liberal who doesn't want, for example, any dissent to the idea of man-made global warming online.
I agree, I was meaning on this specific issue. The global warming industry (invented by Margaret Thatcher) is another matter but we've already had that debate...
I'm certain that any censorship imposed from the state or other outside influences is morally wrong and usually ineffective.
Actually, it gets worse...
According to <a particular blog> (back in action after all these years):
|...Sprint will be blocking particular Usenet hierarchy, Time Warner Cable will just stop offering all Usenet access, while Verizon is still considering options. |
A couple of wanks post child porn on usenet, so an incredibly valuable resource as a whole gets blocked. Usenet is still massively important in academic and research circles. What are these guys thinking?
Granted, people who deal in child porn should be dropped down a very deep hole.
But blocking Usenet entirely?
I need to make enough to cash out, move to the countryside, and ignore the planet. The fools are officially running the show.
[edited by: lawman at 2:25 am (utc) on June 12, 2008]
While this will stop the average person/child from finding child porn online, it won't stop the hard core pervs. So in some ways it will be better, and in others the police will find it harder to track those creating the stuff.
I agree with others here, the authorities have gone too far with their crackdown. It's become paranoia about single men being a threat to children or any photo of children being illegal.
In the end making people paranoid does great harm to society.
i just visited the loeb gallery at vassar college today.
(back in the day this school was like ivy league college for women.)
several rooms of classic art going back a millenia or three.
nekkid babies all over the place...
There's a fine line between art and filth.
Looks like Verizon will be blocking more than just groups associated with child porn.
Verizon Communications confirmed on Thursday that it will stop offering its customers access to tens of thousands of Usenet discussion areas, including the alt.* groups that have been a free-flowing area for discussions for over two decades.