Forum Moderators: open
Verizon, Sprint and Time Warner Cable have agreed to block access to Internet bulletin boards and Web sites nationwide that disseminate child pornography.The move is part of a groundbreaking agreement with the New York attorney general, Andrew M. Cuomo, that will be formally announced on Tuesday as a significant step by leading companies to curtail access to child pornography. Many in the industry have previously resisted similar efforts, saying they could not be responsible for content online, given the decentralized and largely unmonitored nature of the Internet.
The agreements will affect customers not just in New York but throughout the country. Verizon and Time Warner Cable are two of the nation’s five largest service providers, with roughly 16 million customers between them.
Verizon, Sprint and Time Warner Cable To Block Access Illegal Sites [nytimes.com]
...
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
*pfft*
...if you have notice of a potentially criminal act, we deem you responsible to an extent...
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.
WebmasterWorld is classed as "WebChat" and as a site that could hold content harmful to minors.
Truly.
Getting a definition that catches the bad guys without criminalising the innocent is never as easy as it seems at first sight.
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.
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.
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.
FarmBoy
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.
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.
Yay.
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]
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.
[news.cnet.com...]
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.
