backtop

Internet More ISPs Sign up to Block Usenet
Tom Corelis (Blog) - July 15, 2008 7:55 AM
Print E-mail del.icio.us 40 comment(s) - last by MatthiasF.. on Jul 28 at 12:57 PM
AT&T and AOL join New York's campaign against child pornography

The New York State Attorney General’s office won another pair of victories (PDF) in its fight against kiddie porn on Usenet, and announced last week that it successfully convinced ISPs AT&T and AOL to drop large chunks of alt.* hierarchy in their Usenet offerings.

“These agreements with two of the nation’s largest ISPs to eradicate child porn websites from their servers tighten the noose around this despicable trade,” said New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo in a press release. “Today’s agreements with AT&T and AOL send a message to Internet Service Providers across the nation that they can no longer drag their feet when it comes to protecting our children and instead must quickly purge child porn from their servers.”

AT&T and AOL are the nations’ first and third largest ISPs, respectively. As such, their recruitment in Cuomo’s ongoing child pornography campaign represents both a major victory for Cuomo, and a major disappointment for Usenet surfers who make use of the alt.* structure. AT&T says it will drop service to the entire alt.binaries.* sub-hierarchy, and AOL – whose parent company, Time Warner, previously agreed to block child pornography on Cuomo’s terms by dropping Usenet service entirely  – is already in compliance.

Cuomo’s campaign also includes an instruction for ISPs “purge” their servers of “all child pornography websites,” although the meaning of that statement is unclear.

Last month, Cuomo concluded an investigation against Usenet that found over 11,000 images of child pornography scattered on 88 separate newsgroups. The N.Y. Attorney General’s office anonymously requested that ISPs remove the images via their each company’s normal complaint system; when the ISPs failed to respond appropriately, it made its identity known and threatened the ISPs with a breach of contract lawsuit. Sprint, Verizon, and Time Warner signed on in response, and agreed to provide $1.125 million to underwrite Cuomo’s investigation.

ISPs typically maintain a policy of noninterference when it comes to policing their networks, citing legal safe harbors that evaporate if they demonstrate that they can, and are willing, to step in.

“The ISPs’ point had been, ‘We’re not responsible, these are individuals communicating with individuals, we’re not responsible,’ ” said Cuomo in a previous press release.  “Our point was that at some point, you do bear responsibility.”

Cuomo’s office also opened a new website, showcasing its ongoing campaign and providing visitors with a form letter and contact points for 20 other ISPs that do business in the state of New York.

A similar movement against child pornography is beginning to take place in California, with governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and Attorney General Edmund Brown Jr. urging California ISPs to block access to kiddie porn. While the state’s request is not legally binding, the California ISP Association issued a response stating that it is open to working together in the future.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
2 sides
By mfed3 on 7/15/2008 8:09:16 AM , Rating: 2
child pornography is despicable, but this is horrible news for any interference by telecomunications service providers! this is along the same lines as the bit torrent "problem." now what will prevent them from encrypting all of this so called contraband data so that is impossible to tell what is on the servers / transmitted in the packets (just like what was done with bt). if isps are allowed to manipulate the data they are transmitting, then in the future, nothing will be able to police, for instance, a verizon router operator from blocking all data transmitted to/from comcast servers to prevent their services from working properly?? just think about it.




RE: 2 sides
By LyCannon on 7/15/2008 8:24:11 AM , Rating: 5
The fundamental issue you are talking about is already pretty hot on the net. For those uninitiated, it's called Net Neutrality (www.savetheinternet.com)

My UseNet needs have for the longest time gone outside what my ISP can provide. The solution: A dedicated and paid UseNet subscription, one that offers 10+ simultaneous connections and 256-bit encryption.

Don't get me wrong, kiddie porn is horrible, but how exactly are dropping UseNet support going to solve the problem?

Since the files aren't on MY servers...the problem doesn't exist anymore! Yeah! We killed child porn!

****ing idiots!


RE: 2 sides
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 7/15/2008 8:37:42 AM , Rating: 3
It's all about deniability.


RE: 2 sides
By Polynikes on 7/15/2008 9:43:57 AM , Rating: 3
As you pointed out, there are subscription services with good encryption. What kind of idiot thinks that child porn peddlers would use public, unencrypted usenet services, instead of something like that?


RE: 2 sides
By BladeVenom on 7/15/2008 6:07:33 PM , Rating: 2
Since piracy is bad for business, banning groups that pirate it is good for the child porn industry. So Cuomo is helping child pornographers stay in business by reducing piracy.


RE: 2 sides
By Gul Westfale on 7/15/2008 11:00:33 PM , Rating: 3
this is retarded no matter how you look at it:

1- by trying to enforce rules in their service, the ISPs make themselves vulnerable to lawsuits. previously they always said they are like the post office: they deliver the package, but they are not responsible for what's in it. now they cannot say that anymore, since they ARE trying to be responsible for the content their users can access.

2- they are not removing childporn from usenet, they are simply blocking their subscribers from accessing it. so i guess those people could just switch ISPs, and then everything would be accessible to them again.

3- i'm pretty sure usenet is not the only place where paedophiles hang out. by blocking access to usenet those people will simply go elsewhere... i doubt that this will puit a dent in their activities at all.

so i can only conclude that this is a publicity stunt by cuomo, and that the ISPs wanted some of that PR pie. a politician and some corporations that sell you on something they cannot deliver in order to get more votes/customers/better public image? who would have thought?


RE: 2 sides
By MatthiasF on 7/16/2008 9:48:29 PM , Rating: 2
I don't think you guys are looking at this quite the right way.

They know you can get a subscription and bypass, but you wouldn't be doing it anonymously anymore. You'd be signing up for an account LyCannon mentioned, or setting up your own server, both which leave a paper trail that don't require going through your ISP's records.

They're forcing the use to be condensed so anything illegal can be traced easier with less invasion of privacy of other users.


RE: 2 sides
By exploderator on 7/17/2008 10:27:36 PM , Rating: 2
^ MatthiasF, you got that ass backwards wrong.

Anyone serious about newsgroup access will use an independant NNTP provider. It's cheap, and even though you have a paid account, these services DO NOT LOG any information on downloading. Many don't log even any information on posting. You might say they take privacy, anonymity, and neutrality very seriously, and that's their explanation for this policy. Furthermore, they offer strongly encrypted feeds, so there is absolutely no possibility of intercepting or monitoring the communications. As a result, there is no practical way to catch downloaders and posters who use good NNTP servers.

In light of this, the effort to sanitize the entry-level ISP provided NNTP servers is laughable. It can only be a poitical maneuver. It will simply finalise the need for any lazy users to pay for a proper high quality service, which is only good for them since they get full coverage, long retention times, and solid security.

A truly serious effort would see public ISP's, who are amenable to the crackdown, actually turn on logging, and chase down the users who are trading this filth. But perhaps that would require actual work, in trade for the political coverage.

If you think that the dedicated NNTP providers will cooperate with any kind of monitoring, censorship, or control, then you better pull your head out of your sand. True absolute anonymity and privacy are a rare and precious commodity, and NNTP has a nearly exclusive corner on the market. For many reasons, it's a valid and important service, and if child porn moves around as well, then too bad. We need other methods to go after them. At least we can take refuge in the FACT that neither the posters or downloaders can make any money through NNTP, and indeed anyone making child porn commercially will suffer because anyone can download for free, as soon as even one person posts the content. On ballance, newsgroups have probably saved tens of thousands of children from exploitation for this reason, even though they have been one of the most visible methods of propagating the tragic evidence of the crimes.


RE: 2 sides
By MatthiasF on 7/28/2008 12:57:58 PM , Rating: 2
Not only did you miss the point of what I was saying, you seem to think people swap child porn for profit. Most of child porn is for ego, not money.

The whole "NNTP stands for freedom" diatribe is mute. If a court goes after a NNTP provider, they'll cough up the information or go to jail. The fact that they charge money requires them to keep logs in some countries.

As far as the general tone of your response, perhaps you're angry after realizing the the World Wild Web is ending and you just can't get use to anonymity disappearing? Nothing I said seems to warrant such hostility.


RE: 2 sides
By myhipsi on 7/15/2008 8:43:16 AM , Rating: 2
Not to mention that this will do nothing the curb child pornography. If there's market and production, distribution is inevitable by whatever means possible. It's like the drug war in many ways, as long as there is supply and demand, you can't stop it. This is just an example of the usual BS political pandering; "Where such a great company that we're going to stop child pornography at all costs, where here for the children." It never ends. ISPs and governments won't be happy until they have a death grip on all internet communications, and they're starting with Newsgroups. I suspect this isn't only about child pron either, considering it's a tiny percentage of the illegal material being uploaded to usenet, most being copyrighted movies, music, games, etc. I'd imagine that's what this is really about. But while ISPs are busy censoring and controlling to try and please the "do gooders" and their corporate buddies out there, the rest of us will be using premium news providers that offer infinitely more bandwidth, a 100x more retention, and encrypted connections.


RE: 2 sides
By MPE on 7/15/08, Rating: -1
RE: 2 sides
By frobizzle on 7/15/2008 10:14:41 AM , Rating: 1
Dude, try skipping the Jolt Cola for breakfast tomorrow!

As others have stated here, this action in itself will do little or nothing to curtail kiddy porn. It is a lame excuse, based upon:

...a political agenda of Cuomo (who obviously aspires to run for Governor in the not too distant future)

...attempts to appease the RIAA and MPAA because of all the pirating.

Personally, while I have strong objections to any type of censorship (and this mass dropping of certain hierarchies or Usenet all together is nothing but censorhip,) there is a good side to it in that it will keep a lot of lamers from accessing usenet. Usenet was a lot nicer back in the days before AOL started offering it to their totally lame subscribers.

Sheesh! I'm feeling old! :-D


RE: 2 sides
By phattyboombatty on 7/15/2008 10:18:00 AM , Rating: 4
Ironically, you're the gullible fool who thinks this has anything at all to do with child pornography. Myhipsi was correct with his assumption that this is actually about illegal file sharing. The public does not have much sympathy for the RIAA. So instead of trying to fight the newsgroups based on copyright violations, they argue that the newsgroups are the tools of child pornographers that must be stopped at all costs. After all, how can any sane person argue against any policy that fights child pornography? They count on the real idiots like you to stand up and defend them, while they laugh their way to the bank and chalk up one more success at limiting the rights of citizens.

Based on your reasoning the ISP's should also block all file-sharing programs, and heck, even all websites, because to do so would slow down child pornography.


RE: 2 sides
By Oregonian2 on 7/15/2008 3:29:32 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Myhipsi was correct with his assumption that this is actually about illegal file sharing.


I think it's all just an excuse for ISPs to save money big time on their USENET server expenses.


RE: 2 sides
By johnbuk on 7/16/2008 10:06:46 AM , Rating: 2
Time Warner here just dropped all Newsgroups stating the reasons as being the cost to maintain their servers and that few of their customers actually access them and encouraged customers who still wanted access to sign up for a usenet service.

I wasn't happy about it but I think a good argument can be made for what they did using their stated reasons.


RE: 2 sides
By Oregonian2 on 7/16/2008 1:32:50 PM , Rating: 2
I agree, it was good of them to actually state that. I used to use USENET quite a bit before what's now yahoo mailing lists as well as forum sites (and this one which is a news/blog/forum sort of thing).


RE: 2 sides
By xphile on 7/17/2008 10:43:08 PM , Rating: 2
But hey - they are running to a tried and proven US formula -

We cant find Osama in Afghanistan - so logically we should instead invade Iraq - because that awful dictator Sadam is no doubt somehow helping him, and they threaten daily to fly even more planes into our buildings - or probably right into your Gran's sitting room, and how can you possibly ignore that America! They must be stopped and we must do whatever it takes.

Rubbish says George - it has NOTHING whatsoever to do with the billions of barrels of oil they are sitting on, nor the billions of dollars these defense contracts are worth to my buddies.

Face it - as bait and switch scams go - it's all just based on the rules laid out by the boss. So it MUST be alright.


RE: 2 sides
By onwisconsin on 7/15/2008 1:05:38 PM , Rating: 2
Using your logic, it sounds like you thought in 2000 that shutting down Napster would have stopped illegal file sharing...


RE: 2 sides
By vhx on 7/15/2008 3:47:09 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, a lot of people and companies did thing that.


RE: 2 sides
By Lazarus Dark on 7/15/2008 7:01:40 PM , Rating: 2
Dude, I don't want cops on my block. I have never met a good cop in my life. Even the best cops I have met still get drunk on their own power eventually.

This blocking Usenet entirely is deplorable in my opinion.
I equate ISP's to landlords and apartment owners. Might there be drug addicts or wanted criminals in my rented space? Possibly. And if I know this for a fact, I would surely be held responsible and report them. But I don't go sticking my nose in everyones business, knowing that probably most are just regular people who have every right to privacy.
It's the same with the ISP, if they have definite reports of abuse, they should certainly investigate and possibly take action. But they shouldn't police the net and they certainly shouldn't kick an entire group out.


RE: 2 sides
By Noya on 7/15/2008 8:53:08 PM , Rating: 2
That's all this is, a cover for the RIAA/MPAA to stop pirates from using usenet.


another blow for who?
By vapore0n on 7/15/2008 8:15:34 AM , Rating: 2
Another action based on the "think of the children"!" slogan, when in reality is more based on "think of the pirates!

Next in line, IRC.
Good thing that ISPs dont host them and most people dont use IRC anymore




RE: another blow for who?
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 7/15/2008 8:41:07 AM , Rating: 2
IRC is still quite abundant in the right circles.


RE: another blow for who?
By napalmjack on 7/15/2008 11:12:13 AM , Rating: 3
Shhh!


RE: another blow for who?
By HrilL on 7/15/2008 11:59:12 AM , Rating: 2
I have to agree. Keep IRC on the low down. It is soon to be the last free place on the internet.


RE: another blow for who?
By BladeVenom on 7/15/2008 7:52:37 PM , Rating: 2
Gopher FTW!


Really???
By ineedaname on 7/15/2008 8:49:57 AM , Rating: 2
Call me a conspiracy theorist but it seems way more likely that the New York State Attorney General’s office was convinced to give this "child porn" excuse so that the ISP's could have a reason 2 block usenet and not the other way around.

Child porn is wrong but it sounds like a shitty excuse 2 block usenet. That's like saying child porn requires a monitor or TV so lets just ban all monitors and TV's.

I wouldn't b surprised if ppl @ the NY Attorney General's office has some friends or something in the ISP business.




RE: Really???
By tmouse on 7/15/2008 9:17:37 AM , Rating: 2
I don't know, Cuomo is a publicity hound with a strong desire for the governor’s office like his daddy. This is his public crusader image; after who is for child porn? The ISP's choose how to implement the request (ie strong arm tactics). For them Usenet costs and probably means little for the majority of their subscribers. Limiting files or groups would require constant monitoring which is a cost they did not want to have so the simplest answer is to cut out large unmoderated portions. I do not think its the best solution but it does not require conspiracies between the AG's office the ISP's and groups like RIAA or the MPAA.


RE: Really???
By saiga6360 on 7/15/2008 11:44:26 AM , Rating: 2
Exactly. Also, correct me if I am wrong here but didn't AOL discard Usenet access years ago? So that's like taking credit for doing ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.

This move is utterly useless. People who use Usenet for legit reasons will be hurt the most here but it is not like they can't buy access somewhere else like most users who have already done it for illegitimate reasons.


it was one or the other
By tastyratz on 7/15/2008 8:40:09 AM , Rating: 5
Well usenet is a large resource to manage and costs them a large amount to keep it up. The Riaa/Mpaa has been whining for some time now and this is a win win situation for everyone who wants money.

They were either going to run with saying usenet facilitated terrorism or child porn so they had an excuse to shut down part of the demanding file sharing.

Now we know what angle they took.

God bless the greedy exec's for being such heroes to humanity and thinking of someone else...

Or something like that.




Horrible as Child Pornography is ...
By psychobriggsy on 7/15/2008 8:53:29 AM , Rating: 3
Like I said before, this has nothing to do with Child Pornography.

It has everything to do with blocking Usenet Binaries, and is probably supported by the RIAA and MPAA.

If it was only about child pornography, then only the relevant newsgroups would be blocked, or indeed only the relevant posts would be blocked using a standard Usenet cancel request. And maybe the images weren't illegal in their country of origin anyway.

Next step will be to label anyone using Usenet as a "likely" or "probably" child molester. A couple of years down the line the entire system will be dead, and lots of companies would love that.




By Digimonkey on 7/15/2008 9:26:15 AM , Rating: 2
I doubt it has anything to do with the RIAA or MPAA. It's just lame brain politics like a poster above stated. If you only block certain alt.binaries groups dedicated to child porn then they'll just post to another group. So it's really not easy to monitor or filter. Hence why most ISPs chose the easy way out and just got rid of alt.binaries* or usenet access altogether.

Usenet will always remain alive and well, just like IRC. They are pretty much the shady bars in the back alleys of the internet.


By greylica on 7/15/2008 10:18:09 AM , Rating: 2
This is the signal that they loose the battle, and that the FBI don´t want to spend resources to investigate and combat persons that are causing atrocities to childs.
They will find another way of making it, with or without sharing it in the Internet, but, without the exposition to the public, it will be harder and harder to find them , and then, they will simply say "That kind of crime diminished", but the problem could be bigger than before, they wil find another way of making it.
And the cryptographic services are getting much better than before, and their appliances will be like a Older 286 to decipher what is reeeeally going on througout their routers.
The sand will to slip trough their hands.




By ultra laser on 7/15/2008 3:52:21 PM , Rating: 3
AT&T customer here. It's true, I just opened up my newsgroups browser, and yes, alt.binaries has been removed. However, these idiots decided to leave alt.sex and alt.sex.pedophilia.

They're using the name of child safety to save a buck. I think I'll be changing services shortly.


$1.125 million
By Digimonkey on 7/15/2008 8:39:57 AM , Rating: 3
It really cost that much money to surf through usenet groups on a few servers to find child porn? I'm pretty sure it was a waste of time and money for everyone. Seriously, shutting down a few usenet servers is not going to deter those who make or watch child porn. It's unfortunately not that easy.




RE: $1.125 million
By nekobawt on 7/15/2008 10:49:12 AM , Rating: 1
I expect a large amount of that money will go to salaries and equipment, and perhaps rent of office space. You think your paycheck comes out of the air? They budget for that shit.


More ISPs Sign up to Block Internet !
By Gatos7 on 7/16/2008 11:03:55 AM , Rating: 2
In a surprising move 2 major ISPs decided today to block the internet. Andrew Cuomo who was working closely with the isps to achieve the block said its a win win situation. "Not only do we stop child pornography, we also stop pirates and potential terrorist who use the internet to communicate"




By ultra laser on 7/16/2008 2:30:12 PM , Rating: 2
I pay $42 a month for DSL that includes unlimited access to newsgroups. Now that this feature has been removed, shouldn't my monthly payment be lowered?

Screw you, AT&T. Comcast here I come.


Not blocking
By scavio on 7/15/2008 8:09:14 AM , Rating: 2
ISPs are paring down the groups they are offering (Verizon) or are dropping them altogether (AOL stopped years ago), but not blocking anything. You can still go to a paid service and get all the access you want.




A Terrible Slippery Slope
By ImJustSaying on 7/17/2008 2:27:29 PM , Rating: 2
Barring going into any technical aspects/implications of this agreement b/t ISP's and NYC's DA et al. - like legalities such as responsibility as well as the cost to ISP's of policing the net - this slippery slope agreement has the potential to generate vague 'decency' laws such as those that existed during the 50's that hindered the distribution of 'adult' content such as 'alternative' lifestyle magazines, porn, and even comic books (which were the equivalent to current 'taboo' videogame content).

The only thing that can stop this sort of inevitable infringement of the public's ability to freely access information and content, regardless of how offensive some may deem it to be, is to canonize via constitutional ammendment, 'Net Neutrality.'

Once ISP's and the government begin to collude to censor and police the internet, using the gateway 'do it for the children' argument, we (the public) are going to get the big brother/nanny-state shaft, and will ultimately have to go 'underground'...kinda like weed...sorta. (I smoked it but I didn't inhale)




"So, I think the same thing of the music industry. They can't say that they're losing money, you know what I'm saying. They just probably don't have the same surplus that they had." -- Wu-Tang Clan founder RZA

DailyTech Poll
Do you use copy/paste on your smartphone? 




14 Comments









botimage
Copyright 2010 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki