Print 81 comment(s) - last by wordsworm.. on Jun 14 at 12:26 PM

Voluntarily censor one of the internet's oldest mediums

Sprint, Verizon, and Time Warner cable agreed to a nationwide block on access to Usenet newsgroups that offer child pornography, wrapping up an eight month undercover investigation and complaint from the New York Attorney General’s office.

“The pervasiveness of child pornography on the Internet is horrific and it needs to be stopped,” said New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, speaking in a press release.  “We are attacking this problem by working with Internet Service Providers to ensure they do not play host to this immoral business.  I commend the companies that have stepped up today to embrace a new standard of responsibility, which should serve as a model for the entire industry.”

Usenet – one of the internet’s oldest applications – dates back to a time long before the World Wide Web. Its popularity died down as web sites and web-based message boards came into vogue, relegating it to a forgotten “back alley” frequented by niche crowds. One thing Usenet hasn’t been forgotten for, however, is its ability to store and distribute files such as music and, in this case, pornography.

Traditionally, ISPs have stayed out of enforcing restrictions on what its users’ access, citing the legal immunity granted to them by maintaining a policy of noninterference. That immunity has come under attack from a wide variety of sources. Previous aggressors include the content industry, frustrated with ISPs’ permissive stance on piracy, as well as the ISPs’ themselves as they explore ways to further monetize their infrastructure. Now, with its investigation concluding, ISPs can add the New York state Attorney General’s office to that list.

Investigators had to take an unusual course of action, however. Traditional approaches failed; ISPs responded with a routine disclaimer of responsibility for the content of their networks. Instead, investigators chose to invoke a section of each their service agreements that promised to take action against users who distribute child porn; when the contacted ISPs failed to act after receiving a series of anonymous complaints from investigators, the Attorney General’s office pounced by threatening to charge them with fraud and deceptive business practices. The ensuing agreement was a result of these threats.

Cuomo says the unconventional approach was necessary, because traditional methods are not working. Attacking individual distributors has “limited effectiveness,” he said, because American demand for child pornography is often supplied internationally, frequently hailing from countries doing little in the way of enforcement.

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

As part of its agreement, the three ISPs will also pay $1.125 million to underwrite the investigation and “fund additional efforts by the Attorney General’s office and the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children to remove child pornography from the Internet.”

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: Nice try, but...
By wordsworm on 6/11/2008 8:47:21 AM , Rating: -1
Sadly, just like drugs, as long as there's demand for this kind of "content", production and distribution will never be stopped, only hindered.

Unlike drugs, child pornography hurts children. The people who get hurt over drugs are addicts who do it to themselves, people who are persecuted by the government for them, and people who fight over the profits.

I'm a big proponent over ending the war on drugs. It's retarded that they're illegal. Child porn, on the other hand, is a no brainer - nearly everyone is against it. In any case, it sucks that you put the two issues in the same sentence.

RE: Nice try, but...
By Digimonkey on 6/11/2008 9:01:50 AM , Rating: 2
Kids can buy/do drugs too. I remember hearing something about dealers adding flavor to meth like grape and cherry just for the kids.

RE: Nice try, but...
By Suntan on 6/11/2008 9:27:30 AM , Rating: 5
Unlike drugs, child pornography hurts children.

Yeah, it’s not like you hear a news story about the 4 year old’s dad that held his forearm onto a hot stove, severely burning it, because he was tweaked out on meth… …oh wait, that story was on the news last week.

If you don’t think drugs don’t affect children, go talk to any local grade school teacher in your area. No bias, no spin, they can just point out the children in their class that come from families that are affected by drugs. You can look at them yourself and then decide “if drugs don’t harm to children.”

My wife is a grade school teacher in a suburban school district, hardly anything even close to “the hood.” You can see it plan as day. It’s shocking, it’s obvious and it’s sad.

Feel free to have an ill informed view of what drugs do to society, but find a different lie than “drugs don’t harm children”.


RE: Nice try, but...
By MrBlastman on 6/11/08, Rating: -1
RE: Nice try, but...
By FITCamaro on 6/11/2008 10:37:51 AM , Rating: 1
How about we just kill them and spare ourselves the cost of housing them in our prison system? Regardless of whether they can procreate, it doesn't stop them from abusing more kids or raping someone else while they're still alive since the majority of them get out of jail.

RE: Nice try, but...
By PWNettle on 6/11/2008 2:31:42 PM , Rating: 3
"Legalize the rest of substances and that tragedy can only be increased greatly, particularly with our youth."

I disagree. If it's legal it's regulated and no child can just walk into any store and buy it. They have to have their parents or some other adult do it - someone more readily tracked than joe anonymous dealer on the street who will sell to anyone with cash.

In addition, if it's legal it can be taxed, and that money can be used for drug education and treatment. In the current system not only do the profits not go toward this but we're also spending tons on fighting the "war on drugs", wasting law enforcement resources, and lining the pockets of lawyers. All the profits are going to criminals (not that shifting them to corporations would really be a whole lot different).

Drugs are super cheap to make - if they were legal you could tax the crap out of them and they'd still be cheaper than current street prices. Quality (and safety) would be higher for those that choose to use them.

If people want to use drugs its their choice. Obviously there is huge demand for it. Prohibition didn't work because people want to use booze. The war on drugs doesn't work either - it just makes a lot of otherwise normal people into criminals.

Cigarettes are nothing but death and illness and they're legal.

Alcohol is incredibly unhealthy and leads to all kinds of irresponsible killing (drunk drivers) and abuse (spouse/child beating). It's legal.

Some currently illegal drugs are harmless, like weed, and some are incredibly destructive in lots of ways, like meth.

But it's kind of illogical to allow two proven killers and health disasters (cigs and alcohol) to be legal while making other drugs illegal. If you're gonna let people kill themselves and ruin their families with substances, why be picky about which substances they're using?

Why not regulate it all, educate people, let people make their own decisions, tax the crap out of it all (while still making it cheaper and higher quality), and unburden our legal system so they can deal with real crime?

As a side note. Some people are just irresponsible scumbags that shouldn't breed. It doesn't matter whether they do drugs, drink alcholol, or do neither - they aren't fit to raise children and shouldn't spawn. Substance abuse might escalate their inability to have a life, but they'd be losers and crappy parents with or without substances.

RE: Nice try, but...
By Noya on 6/11/2008 6:05:03 PM , Rating: 3
If it's legal it's regulated and no child can just walk into any store and buy it. They have to have their parents or some other adult do it - someone more readily tracked than joe anonymous dealer on the street who will sell to anyone with cash.

That's so true. I recall in high school even as a freshmen I could buy an 1/8 of weed so much easier than I could a 12-pack of brew.

RE: Nice try, but...
By mindless1 on 6/12/2008 6:29:22 AM , Rating: 2
I don't think you've thought through your argument very far, so I'll just point out the faults in it.

- We do know many drugs are harmful, it's not just the illegality of it creating a black market and the associated costs and crime. Some may not have started out as conventional recreational drugs but are still controlled substances because people need to be protected from taking drugs (especially for medicinal purposes) that could kill them without their physician's supervision.

- If it's legal and regulated, and kids have to have some adult get it for them, it is no different than when I bought booze being underage. Nobody tracked that person who either bought it for me or the store clerk. Maybe they rarely tried to do so, I mean the ATF stings on clerks, but we know underage kids readlily get alcohol as a contradition to your assumption.

- If it's legal and taxed we have even more users, and less productive citizens so the tax base could even go down. Causing an illness to profit from it to treat that illness is a horrific idea.

- Having drugs cheaper than street prices would tend to cause them to disrupt people's lives even more than they do. Enabling people to do more drugs, cheaper, is not the answer!

- Prohibition did work. "Work" almost always means reduce the targeted problem, even if it introduces new problems. Work doesn't have to mean perfect. Does exercise "work"? Yes. Does it make us all superhuman? No. It (prohibition) did significantly reduce the consumption of alcohol among the masses, regardless of the few who make a bundle on the black market and continued drinking. Don't believe everything you see glamorized in a old movie.

- Cigarettes are death and illness but you think weed isn't? Do you mean eating it instead of smoking it? You must, and yet if it were legal, would people only eat it? If weed were legal people would smoke enough to cause similar health problems to smoking. Perhaps a bit fewer as the nature of nicotine being a stimulant may cause greater amounts to be smoked, but it still falls into that death and illness category if we're going to start making such grand classifications.

- Alcohol is not incredibly unhealthy. Excessive consumption of it is. So is excessive consumption of fat, salt, even water if only you drank enough. Many studies have held that drinking a beer, glass of wine or two a day is more healthy than not doing so.

- You have no reasonable way to pre-judge who should and should not breed. It is true that some people make terrible parents, and if harming their child then the child should be removed from that situation, but never should people be denied the basic right to reproduce just because you don't approve of something they might believe, some way they might live, or for any other reason except non-adherance to the laws we have set forth to govern us.

Lastly, I think you are mistaken about root causes of typical parental child abuse. A very large portion of it is in fact due to (parental) substance abuse of some kind or a similar state of poor mental health because of being abused themselves. People aren't born being "scumbags", nor do they choose this. People inherantly choose to do what they feel benefits them, but some are prevented from learning the life skills they need to make the best choices. Some say drug abuse is hereditary, but I would sooner say child abuse is and drug abuse is only a symptom.

I would even go so far as to say child porn is a symption since many who are addicted to it seem drawn in by having power over someone presumed innocent, a similar kind of relationship to what their own parent may have had over them. In this context, you are right that we can see in retrospect some people shouldn't have been allowed to parent their child, but we cannot as a people pre-judge someone guilty of a crime they have not committed just because of what they might do - everyone has the ability to choose to do the wrong thing, and to turn around and depart from that behavior.

RE: Nice try, but...
By JonnyDough on 6/11/2008 12:28:15 PM , Rating: 2
Drugs hurt kids too moron. Looking up at all your down-rated posts I'd have to say that you should quit talking. Boys don't get woodies? I mean for crying out loud. How did we go there? But since you need some things cleared up, I will help you. Little boys DO get hard ons. It's a response to stimulus. Now granted, I haven't gone about testing this, but when you're a dad and you have to change the sheets and your sons underwear at night sometimes you notice that he has a boner. K? Grow up.

RE: Nice try, but...
By wordsworm on 6/11/2008 7:30:02 PM , Rating: 2
I guess you've have been checking out little boys more than I have. Your own children at that. I don't remember getting one until I was into puberty.

So, a lot of folks here defend art-based child porn and I get downrated for saying something against it. I feel so hurt... hmm, on second thought, I think I don't care.

In any case, how many paintings have you made of your son while he had that boner you were noticing? I'm sure you and Raphael would have loved your sons together.

RE: Nice try, but...
By JonnyDough on 6/11/2008 8:34:45 PM , Rating: 2
You got downrated, rightfully so. You seem to have some underlying issues, perhaps you should speak to a counselor/psychiatrist.

RE: Nice try, but...
By wordsworm on 6/11/2008 11:12:33 PM , Rating: 2
I don't like child porn in any format. You defend it. That's the quick of it. So, based on that, you think I'm sick? You're the one who's defending child porn.

RE: Nice try, but...
By CloudFire on 6/12/2008 3:46:42 AM , Rating: 2
that is just an ignorant and rude comment. please get your facts straight before you post such a reply.

my major in college was human development and as a grad student pursuing a Ph.D. i feel i should inform and teach you something about child sexuality. infants, whether male or female can have a state of arousal in their genitalia. infant males can and do have erections and infant females can have clitoral erection as well as vaginal lubrication. this is mostly due to emotional and physically pleasing stimulus as it is a natural response of the human body. children often engage in sexual exploration activities when they are young, and this can be seen very early on. as Jean Piaget described in the first stage of his development theories, the sensory-motor stage is where infants use their senses to navigate and explore their world (age 0-2). given their body is part of their world so naturally exploration of their genitalia is common and this can be another stimulus that would trigger an erection (penis or clitoral). here's a read online if you are curious about the subject, and please, knowledgeable researchers in the field of human development and psychology know a lot more about this subject than you do. just because you don't remember getting one, doesn't mean you never did. Search up the topic of "infantial amnesia" while you're at it too, it might be an informative read to you, as obviously you are severely lacking in this area.

and while you're at that. i also suggest "infants and children" by Laura E. Berk

and numerous books on infants and children by Laurence Steinberg. it might enlighten your feeble mind.

RE: Nice try, but...
By wordsworm on 6/12/2008 9:53:19 AM , Rating: 2
Oh wow, Piaget. Good thinker quoted by someone who thinks that by reading comprehension follows. Erickson would write that kids won't understand their erections (abstractions such as procreation are definitely out of their sphere of understanding). Therefore not remembering an erection has nothing to do with amnesia, but rather with the fact that there was no sexual importance to it.

There are endless books that would enlighten my feeble mind. The books you mentioned, while probably worth reading, aren't my area of interest. If I delve into psychology again, I'll probably gravitate towards Skinner. In any case, you hardly impress me with your intellect. It seems pretty ineffective.

RE: Nice try, but...
By CloudFire on 6/12/2008 3:03:57 PM , Rating: 2
"Therefore not remembering an erection has nothing to do with amnesia…”

Clearly, you didn’t get my point as I am not surprised. I brought up the issue of infantile amnesia to point out the fact that you don’t remember getting one until puberty. Infant males do get erections and this is a proven undisputable fact in developmental psy. and the field of human development. Let me clearly explain to you the notion of Infantile Amnesia as obviously, you have no clue what it is. The theory of infantile amnesia is the idea that few people can retrieve events and memories that happened to us roughly before the age of 3. There are several complementary theories that explains why it happens. First, one theory suggest that there are changes in the frontal lobes of the cerebral cortex that may pave the way for an explicit memory system (declarative LTM) (Boyer & Diamond 1992; Rovee-Collier & Barr, 2001) the explicit long term memory system is the system of your memory that you are CONSCIOUSLY aware of and can recall, which can furthermore be divided into two subgroups: semantic (the knowledge you know of the world such as facts, dates…etc) and episodic (autobiographical memories that pertains to you at certain important times in your life, such as you knew where you were during an event like 911). Now…because the research suggested that the changes in the FL of the CC may pave way to an EMS early on, this makes it more difficult for children to recall their implicit LTM as it is not as highly developed yet (LTM = long term memory for your reference). The implicit LTM system (or non-declarative LTM) is not more matured until later on in life around age 2-6, when synaptic pruning more readily occurs as the neurons are not used as frequently lose their connective fibers. This is when a child improves in their perception, physical coordination, attention, language, memory, logical thinking, and imagination (Berk, 2007). Basically what synaptic pruning is, is the way the brain reorganizes itself and structures itself in a way that all irrelevant neurons are disconnected which in turn makes the brain highly more efficient to pave the way for later development in cognition such as abstract and logical reasoning. Now, another theory to explain infantile amnesia takes into consideration of language development. Older children and adults use language as a verbal mean to store information as we can imply a mental representation to a physical object with a word. Please look into “symbolism or development of symbols” while you’re at this, because you clearly have very little knowledge of this. As again, quoting Piaget’s theories, as I admire him very much. It’s not until the 2nd stage of his development theories that children begin to inquire the knowledge to represent things as symbols, this stage would be called the pre-operational stage. Again, please look into that as well, also Lev Vygotsky for further developmental theories of children as he focuses in on language importance more so than Piaget. With the ability to represent things as symbol, it is highly suggested that recognition of memory is a lot easier. Infant’s memory processing is mostly non-verbal, so you can see that the development of language is of paramount importance for the development of memory. Verbal recall increased during which children “scramble over the amnesia barrier” (Simcock & Hayne, 2003). Other research done by Simcock and Hayne are what is known as the notion of “frozen in time” concerning their limited language. Here is what happened, there is a “magic shrinking machine”, one adult shows a kid how inserting an object into the top opening of the machine and with the turning of a crank, lights and sounds would go off, and the child could retrieve a smaller object on the bottom opening. (obviously, another adult put a smaller object into the bottom opening for the child to receive). Later, researchers tested to see how well the children were able to recall the event. The results indicated that their nonverbal memory based on acting out the shrinking event and recognizing the shrunken object in the photos was excellent. But even when children before the age of 3 had the vocabulary, they still had trouble describing the features of the “shrinking” machine and how it works and what happened. After 6 months to 1 year had elapsed, and the children’s vocab and lang. ability has significantly improved, their verbal reports were still limited due to their “frozen in time” language skills at the initial time (Simcock & Hayne, 2002). As language develops, children first use words to talk about the HERE AND NOW. Only after the age of 3 or so, do they represent their past experiences verbally. So I hope now you have a better understand of infantile amnesia and how it pertains to the fact that babies cannot recall their erections early on in life, such as in your case.

RE: Nice try, but...
By wordsworm on 6/14/2008 12:08:03 PM , Rating: 2
The theory of infantile amnesia is the idea that few people can retrieve events and memories that happened to us roughly before the age of 3.
You sure used a lot of words to misrepresent amnesia. Why don't you try the dictionary, wikipedia, or something a little simpler so that you can at least get those things straight before moving onto more complicated matters.

Children who are extremely young don't have cognitive abilities. Their ability to think is linked to instinct and survival rather than trying to make logical sense of their surroundings. They don't know how to think.

Unless something traumatic happens to the ultra young child, which surely not 100% of children suffer some such trauma to validate your claim or the claims of the authors to whose opinions you ascribe, then there would be no reason for this 'memory loss.' Rather, it's just that these very young don't have the mental faculty to understand their memories, and therefore their memories don't stick. If you can't understand what you see, it's much harder to remember it.

Through all your wordiness, you managed to conclude with what appears to be a false syllogism. Since you probably haven't played around much with philosophy, as you're too involved in psychology, you might need an explanation as to what that means. Dictionaries and wikipedia are great places for you to start, should you wish. I recommend Plato. Even my feeble mind has been able to grasp a majority of his logic.

That little infantile erection could be little more than unconscious circulation to the genitals which is entirely unrelated to sexuality beyond the fact that it's their sex (which is another word for genital - thought I'd throw that in for you since you're not much of one for dictionaries or semantics) that's simply undergoing physiological (as pertains to the body - there, I saved you the trip to the dictionary again) development. Certainly, due to the high density of nerves in the genitals, it wouldn't be surprising to me if young children learned in some way to control this.

Now, as to the first reply off of that fellow who was noticing the erections of his son, I was reacting to his insults regarding my intelligence, just as I have to yours. I was simply contending that art, even the display of cherubs, would be sexually exciting for pedophiles, and therefore they too should be, at the very least, censored. Now why don't you keep your asinine comments to yourself until you actually figure out where I am coming from.

RE: Nice try, but...
By CloudFire on 6/12/2008 3:05:37 PM , Rating: 2
As for your B.F Skinner interest if you were to delve back into psychology. He was a great man of his time, but as of the modern field of psy. and human dev., he is used mostly as a reference of history for his great work of operant conditioning and reinforcement theories when he proposed them in 1957. If you know anything about the history of developmental psychology at all, as i’m sure you do through your proven intellectual comment, behaviorism took an almost fatal blow when it could not describe readily the development of language. That was the turning point in behaviorism. Skinner stated through operant conditioning, as the baby makes sounds, parents reinforce those words with smiles, hugs, and speech in return. Yes, you go and try this out with your children, if you have any, and tell me how it goes. With roughly 10,000 words existing in the vocabulary of an educated adult who is literate, it is impossible to conceive that through operant conditioning, these words could be learned just by that process alone. By being very educated and knowledgeable as you have proven in your remarks, you would also know that human beings come into this world with a pre-constructed affinity to learn language and mathematics (suggested by the nativist perspective). As language is what separates us from the animals and our higher order thinking because of our development cerebral cortex. Also check out the history of the early description of the CC by Emanuel Swedenborg, who was a Swedish universal genius, but I’m sure you have done that already. Also, while you’re at it, look into Broca’s Area and Wernicke’s Area as they are of high importance to language development. As a concluding remark to your almost pointless reply, modern language development theories have turned to the interactions, physical and emotional, between the caregiver and the infant as a source of language development. Through social exchange such as “joint attention” (look that up too), social learning takes place in such a fluent way that could be describe as almost osmosis. This is called the interactionist perspective approach to language development, opposed to the behaviorist approach described by Skinner, which I should remind you, was shot down, mercilessly in the intellectual community. Noam Chomsky was one of the people that reputed Skinner back in 1957 with his theory of the “language acquisition device”, which is another interesting topic you should look into.

All the language development theories and theorists I’ve described above plays an important function in memory as it is clearly suggested that language is of great importance in the ability to recall your experiences and memory, hence my explanation to you about infantile amnesia. And for your almost insulting remark about me quoting Jean Piaget, I merely stated that in the sensory-motor stage, children explore their environments, given their body is part of their environment, so naturally, they would also explore their body which in turn, could be a physical stimulus for an erection, that you yourself never remembered.

Please take a few undergraduate classes on developmental psychology and physical development before you make any more remarks, it almost saddens that you insulted the poster you replied to, suggesting that the person made paintings of his son when his son had a “boner” that the poster noticed. Clearly and undoubtedly, you have very little background in the subject of development to not KNOW the SIMPLE FACT that children can and DO get erection. I am tired from writing this long response, and I feel you are not even a worthy person to respond to, but as I am pursuing a career in teaching at the university level, I felt it was my OBLIGATION to EDUCATE you on the basic theories of infantile amnesia and to CORRECT your OBVIOUSLY wrong statement suggesting that babies do not have erections just because YOU simply can’t remember having one. Epic fail indeed.

RE: Nice try, but...
By wordsworm on 6/14/2008 12:26:46 PM , Rating: 2
I felt it was my OBLIGATION to EDUCATE you on the basic theories of infantile amnesia

The reason you felt it was your obligation to educate me on these basic theories, as you call them, is because you yourself are insecure with what you are trying to force yourself to believe so that you can camouflage your own personality with that of those whom you feel drawn to become assimilated with.

My 'courses' have simply been books that piqued my interest with Desmond Morris being my first taste. I don't need lecturers telling me what to think, or some pedantic shrill.

The great thing about reading great thinkers' books, such as Skinner, Piaget, Freud, Plato, Aristotle, etc., is that they are raw. I don't need them to be chopped, broiled, and stewed to the point of the nutrition having been leeched from them, which is usually the practice of journal articles, masters' and doctorates' theses.

Please read a few books and learn to digest them without having some lecturer telling you what to think about them. Memorizing a few lines here and there from books and lectures isn't actually going to develop you as a thinker. A computer can memorize a million lines from 100,000 stories and not understand a single one of them. You can even create an algorithm to chop them up and regurgitate them so that it can pass a graduate course, but it doesn't mean it understands any of it. Fortunately, thinking isn't a requirement for a doctorate, but rather some intellectual Frankenstein.

Skinner interests me because he has a book called Walden Two, which is supposed to be Skinner's idea of a dystopia.

"So if you want to save the planet, feel free to drive your Hummer. Just avoid the drive thru line at McDonalds." -- Michael Asher
Related Articles

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki