backtop


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