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 9:14:07 AM , Rating: -1
How do you give a boy a woody? Answer: you can't. They don't get them. The people who look at those boys get the woodies. That pic I listed via wikipedia is classic porn. Cherubs are classic porn. Posting pics of naked children is porn, whether they're photographed having sex or not. Naked pictures might not be as bad as actually photographing kids getting raped, but it's still properly illegal. Allowing kids to be portrayed nude, with their willies in full view like that, regardless of when, where, or with what medium the pose is recorded, should be illegal so as to unblur the line and make it clear.

Women in foreign countries
what countries are you talking about? I know that in Indonesia some folks are like that in the small tribes. But they also practice cannibalism. It doesn't mean that these things are accepted in the general public.

Americans are just prudish
You know, I've actually traveled a bit over recent years. I wouldn't call myself a globe trotter, but I have discovered that what is legal in a lot of the Asian countries I've been to is far more conservative than in the US. Pornography - showing genitalia or the sphincter in S. Korea is illegal. Japan requires them to be blurred or in some other way marred. Indonesia had a big fight over Playboy, which wasn't even daring to publish nude shots - yet. Americans have a lot more sexual leniency than most countries.

In any case, my point is that art or otherwise, that kids shouldn't be nude. I don't know about you, but looking at hot art is a big turn on. Another moment in wikiporn - Rossetti is another great porn artist. It might not be hard core like what like, but it's designed to turn people on. You think folks didn't have sex back in the Victorian era? You think priests didn't molest children after looking at those cherubs, etc? Cherubs don't turn me on, but Venus/Aphrodite is an altogether different story.

I'm not trying to blur the lines, I want them cleared.

RE: Nice try, but...
By Kenenniah on 6/11/2008 10:09:52 AM , Rating: 1
Tough call for me. I'd have to think more on the subject of old art like cherubs etc. There is one major difference however. In child pornography, an actual living child is being exploited. A child is being made to pose nude or sexually suggestive.

In the case of art, is the same thing ocurring? Is an actual child being exploited? Possibly, they could have made a child pose while painting or sculpting, but there is that possible difference.

Of course there is always the matter of someone being turned on by child pornography then later acting on those feelings. In that sense I see the possibility of art being able to "feed the monster" if you will as well.

Hmm, guess I don't really need to think about it more. I'm with wordsworm on this one.

RE: Nice try, but...
By Digimonkey on 6/11/2008 10:55:53 AM , Rating: 5
Again it's the question of where to stop. Obviously we need to do everything in our power to stop the creation and distribution of pictures/videos of children being portrayed in a sexual manner.

However this talk of censoring of art that has already been produced and has been around for hundreds of years is asinine and a step in the wrong direction. If this were to happen you'd also have to censor books that depict sexual acts involving characters under 18.

If that goes through then what would be next? There has to be a line drawn and that line should be where actual exploitation of real, thinking, feeling children are involved. Not to try to fully eliminate some creep getting a woody. More than likely that same cretin could find arousal at a park where children we ban children from playing in public to protect them?

RE: Nice try, but...
By mindless1 on 6/12/2008 5:56:46 AM , Rating: 2
In my mind the question of where to stop is easy. Photorealistic images of nude children should not be presented, except possibly some exemption when they are not the primary object of the photo, such as when National Geographic goes to some impoverised country or a native tribe and there might be blurry background, distanced children without proper clothes on.

As for art, if a child was improperly handled during it's production, and inquiries should be made about that if the art seems a little too realistic or subject specific (not sure of the right words to write what I mean, if it seems to be identifying of an individual child) then the art should be seized, destroyed, and the artist charged with a crime. If it is simply some person's imagination, no nude child posing, that made a sculpture or similar even today, I might begin to wonder if that artist needed some psychological help, but wouldn't consider that - without any children being exposed to this undertaking - a crime in itself.

I agree the line has to be exploitation of real children, but also those who profit from it. We can't just put away the (perhaps one?) person who films a child porn flick then not equally go after those who peddle it, and ultimately those who continue to distribute it for free even if these people never directly caused any profit gain for the porn producer or themselves. These latter groups may not be even indirectly responsible for the exploitation of the children involved, but they need a stop put to their activites so they can have a controlled environment where they can get the psychological help they need.

RE: Nice try, but...
By wordsworm on 6/12/2008 9:28:00 AM , Rating: 2
when National Geographic goes to some impoverised country or a native tribe and there might be blurry background

The technology exists to blur a child's genitalia in both video and photos. As you say, since it's not the primary object of the photo, then there should be no issue with forcing National Geographic to follow a simple protocol.

no nude child posing
Ok, so fantasy depictions of children being molested is ok for you? I would have a problem with it.

These latter groups may not be even indirectly responsible for the exploitation of the children involved,
If people who are interested in nude children get access to this material in any form whatsoever, they will then fantasize that it is them that are committing the act. They might get ideas as to how to do it without getting caught, or simply forget the consequences in their desire to fulfill their fantasy. In any case, I'd love to see all child porn cease. I know killing it in newsgroups isn't going to fix the issue. Simply encrypting the files and sharing keys can keep the trade up. However, it would keep out the folks who don't understand this stuff, which in itself might reduce, in at least some way, both demand and the actualization of these sick fantasies.

In any case, the lines get blurry when young men/women look like young girls. I wish that there was a rule that could be made up that would kill the whole industry. I know there's no easy cure. However, I still think that attacking it in newsgroups is a good thing.

RE: Nice try, but...
By mindless1 on 6/13/2008 4:26:07 AM , Rating: 2
But I do not approve of blurring genitalia. There is a middle ground between censorship and pron. I would not even be looking at a child's genitalia, but when there's large blurs on the screen it is distracting, it stands out. Similarly so when anything is blurred on a screen. Maybe if the child were very close up blurring would be a good idea, but I don't think there is a need at all for a very close up picture of a nude child even for national geographic -like purposes.

Fantasy depictions of children being molested is very disturbing, but it is not abusing any child. Define fantasy depiction. If it is some crude sketch I'm not saying it should be publically acceptible but I don't think some perv is going to be captivated by it, jerk off to it, or whatever these pedos have in mind when they seek such (other) material. I would hold such works as more similar to a fantasy depiction of killing people or most other horrible acts, that it is just an indication a person has poor mental health.

As for killing a whole industry, certainly that would be great, but the problem is (I suspect) that a lot of it isn't an industry, just some sick old man who gets a kick out of filming and possibly molesting someone, then shares his exploit. It shouldn't be on usenet, that is certainly a good start and driving these people underground may not be the best solution but it is better than the way things stand at present.

RE: Nice try, but...
By jlips6 on 6/11/08, Rating: 0
RE: Nice try, but...
By Drexial on 6/11/08, Rating: 0
RE: Nice try, but...
By wordsworm on 6/11/2008 7:23:52 PM , Rating: 2
It was about celebrating how amazing the human body was, not sexually, but scientifically.

So what's to stop any pedophile from making the same claim about some nude pics of kids? I mean, as long as they're not engaged in getting raped, then it must be art. So, for as long as children are photographed nude in classic poses, soft core porn using children will live long and strong. Unfortunately, people continually defend soft core 'art' child porn. So be it. By the negative points on my comments, I can see that I'm obviously in the minority here.

RE: Nice try, but...
By Mortando on 6/12/2008 1:18:28 AM , Rating: 1
Cherubs don't turn me on, but Venus/Aphrodite is an altogether different story.

But... presumably you think that Venus/Aphrodite (along with Michelangelo's David, etc.) should *also* be banned, since they could turn certain people on and incite them to commit rape. Or is rape okay?

RE: Nice try, but...
By wordsworm on 6/12/2008 9:32:07 AM , Rating: 2
Man, that is the heck of a leap of logic I can't quite follow. Venus/Aphrodite are depictions of fully, sexually mature women. As far as I know, David isn't getting raped.

RE: Nice try, but...
By Mortando on 6/12/2008 12:52:24 PM , Rating: 2
"David isn't getting raped"? Uh, yeah, no doubt you can't quite follow the 'leap' of logic.

"Death Is Very Likely The Single Best Invention Of Life" -- Steve Jobs
Related Articles

Most Popular Articles5 Cases for iPhone 7 and 7 iPhone Plus
September 18, 2016, 10:08 AM
No More Turtlenecks - Try Snakables
September 19, 2016, 7:44 AM
ADHD Diagnosis and Treatment in Children: Problem or Paranoia?
September 19, 2016, 5:30 AM
Walmart may get "Robot Shopping Carts?"
September 17, 2016, 6:01 AM
Automaker Porsche may expand range of Panamera Coupe design.
September 18, 2016, 11:00 AM

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