backtop


Print 75 comment(s) - last by LyCannon.. on Jul 15 at 8:41 AM

Kiddie porn agreement will delete large portions of Usernet from ISPs' servers

Per a recent child-porn blocking agreement with the New York Attorney General’s Office, Verizon announced Thursday that it will block subscriber access to a large number of decades-old Usenet structures, including the entire alt.* hierarchy.

According to a CNET report, Verizon subscribers will lose access to all newsgroups that don’t fall under the “Big 8” family of officially-sanctioned Usenet hierarchies, including important-but-unofficial newsgroups such as microsoft.windows, us.military, and symantec.customerservice.general.

The “Big 8” hierarchies include comp.*, misc.*, news.*, rec.*, sci.*, soc.*, talk.*, and humanities.*. alt.*, short for “alternative,” was created in rebellion of its more orderly counterparts.

The agreement to block such a large swathe of Usenet – one of the internet’s oldest applications, predating popular adoption of the World Wide Web by over a decade – comes not from the command of law, but “arm-twisting” from an undercover investigation headed by New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, which found over 11,000 images of child pornography being circulated among 88 different newsgroups. Announcements last week revealed an agreement between the state of New York and Verizon – as well as fellow ISPs Sprint and Time Warner Cable – to block the offending newsgroups after the Cuomo threatened the three with a costly legal campaign.

“The pervasiveness of child pornography on the Internet is horrific and it needs to be stopped,” said Cuomo in a press release last week.

As a result of the agreement, a recent Sprint announcement revealed that it will also block the alt.* hierarchy – though it will leave other, non-Big 8 hierarchies intact – and Time Warner announced that it will be dropping Usenet entirely. With Usenet usage eclipsed by the popularity of WWW mailing lists, message boards, and services like Yahoo! Answers, most subscribers won’t even notice; a handful of other ISPs, including AOL, have already dropped the service to a minimal fuss.

Usenet’s backers, however, remain critical of the decision. One of Usenet’s biggest strengths, they say, is the medium’s decentralized nature. Unlike internet message boards, mailing lists, and centralized services, Usenet discussions are carried via a mesh network with a weak – if present – central authority. The resulting freedom – which works both ways, as some groups contain spam while others contain spirited discussion – allowed the medium to flourish and survive in a way that other pre-Web structures (such as Gopher) have not.

CNET notes that a recent survey of the “sprawling” alt.* hierarchy showed it to contain over 18,000 discussion boards, hosting innocuous topics such as adoption (alt.adoption), The Simpsons (alt.tv.simpsons), and Goth culture (alt.gothic). On the other hand, the alt.* hierarchy is also home to a large number of “binary” newsgroups, used for passing around data files as opposed to conversations; some groups specialize in image files – some pornographic, some not – and others, much to the content industry’s ire, specialize in music, software, or movies.

“This is ridiculous. I actually met my wife on alt.personals, 14 years ago,” said an unnamed CNET reader. “I still use Usenet - there are a lot good discussions and a person can get answers to questions on specific topics pretty quickly. It's nice to have a decentralized place to hold discussions, one that is not beholden to a sysadmin to correctly run a forum, one that's free of blinking gifs and flash ads.”

“The Internet service providers should not be blocking whole sections of the Internet, all Usenet groups, because there may be some illegal material buried somewhere," said the ACLU’s Barry Steinhardt. “That's taking a sledgehammer to an ant.”

Cuomo said he “commends” Time Warner, Sprint, and Verizon for their initiative, and called their actions a “new standard of responsibility” that should serve as a “new model” for the industry as a whole.

Customers affected by the block will still be able to use third-party services like EasyNews, however this will, naturally, incur additional costs.



Comments     Threshold


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

Wow, this makes sense
By Polynikes on 6/16/2008 8:22:14 PM , Rating: 5
But it's not enough. Why stop there? I think the internet should be shut down, to get rid of all the kiddie porn that's distributed over it via countless applications and protocols. We really need to crack down, our efforts thus far simply have not been enough.

We should also ban the sale of blank VHS tapes and any computer-readable blank media of any type.

I think with these measures, we'll eradicate kiddie porn for good, just like we'll soon eradicate the illegal drug problem in this country.




RE: Wow, this makes sense
By wordsworm on 6/16/2008 9:47:27 PM , Rating: 5
Still not good enough. People would still molest kids. What would work better than that is to stop having kids. So, maybe the government should make a law against kids.


RE: Wow, this makes sense
By rhangman on 6/16/2008 10:00:29 PM , Rating: 2
Surely the most direct way would be to ban cameras. No camera = no pictures = no kiddy porn. Who cares about legitimate use of cameras?

Surely paedophiles would be using premium services already due to the lack of logging anyway? Those that were using their ISP's servers, surely it would have been better to use the logs to track them down and given sufficient evidence (make sure that they didn't accidentally download something); charge them.


RE: Wow, this makes sense
By Motley on 6/16/2008 10:45:41 PM , Rating: 5
Actually, the most direct and efficient route, is ban kids. No more kids, and in 18 years, there will be no more subject for kiddie porn.


RE: Wow, this makes sense
By Adonlude on 6/17/2008 2:05:49 PM , Rating: 4
You are all far to short sighted. The real problem is people. People are responsible for all the problems from kiddie porn to priating. We need a comprehensive ban on people!

Government sanctioned people banning injections will come with your stimulus checks. Initiate self banning at 0900 hours on July 4th.


RE: Wow, this makes sense
By flydian on 6/18/2008 2:42:35 PM , Rating: 3
Bah! Not at the start of a 3 day weekend! How about July 7th instead?


RE: Wow, this makes sense
By MrBlastman on 6/17/2008 10:01:14 AM , Rating: 2
Perhaps instead of killing all the children, we should genetically engineer all humans to instead birth out as elderly and grow younger throughout life.

This of course would require systemic eradication of all uterine-pregnancy bearing and a transition towards a more pure, and of course "controlled" monitoring, production and artificial incubation process within a factory. Wipe out the urge to breed by the young and you eliminate half the problem. You see, by reversing the aging process (however you do NOT reverse brain development), young "old" humans would spend their early years in old bodies, unable to procreate when they most need to...

I would suggest the starting age would be about, say 100 years old. This would provide optimal prevention of early-stage desire to breed. The "young" man would essentially be 80 years old in his sexual prime. The "young" woman would be 70 years old in her sexual prime. Dysfunction of the proboscis would alleviate all desire to copulate, likewise petrification of the ovaries would prevent all desire to have children.

But what about hormones? This is a simple problem to cure. You provide hormone suppressants and supplements through the water supply... secretly. The humans will be unaware of this manipulation except in the tightest of circles - circles which would be run by mad scientists who have no desire at all to allow the humans to copulate freely.

When the flock become young, the suppressants kick in and prevent any urge to breed as they get younger. Likewise, you change the biological destruction mechanism to elminate all life at approximately 70 - 80 years of age (or when they are 20 - 30 years old). They disspear at their reversed sexual peaks once again.

There is one side effect to all of this and it is up to the populace to decide in its indecency or not. Instead of young-spawn paraphanalia, you will instead have Geriatric Porn.

Weather droopy images would be desireable or not is purely up to discussion. The problem that is at hand would be solved though.

Cut off usenet and you kill an all-important part of the internet. :( Not all of us that use usenet are sickos.

If this solution doesn't suffice, you could instead put stakes in everyones eyes before they reach maturity. If you can't see it, it doesn't exist, right?


RE: Wow, this makes sense
By onelittleindian on 6/17/2008 1:31:48 PM , Rating: 1
I really don't see all the hubbub. Yeah, this shouldn't be being done, but who really uses Usenet any more anyway?

Save your energy for the really important fights IMO.


RE: Wow, this makes sense
By MrBlastman on 6/17/2008 1:47:46 PM , Rating: 2
I do.

So do others.

That is why. You are apparently missing the important concept.


RE: Wow, this makes sense
By Oregonian2 on 6/17/2008 1:53:49 PM , Rating: 2
With gazzillions of postings there, there probably are a few that aren't spambots.


RE: Wow, this makes sense
By mindless1 on 6/16/2008 10:45:59 PM , Rating: 4
I have a modest proposal.

Let's just kill all children. Continually so that there can be no new child porn, and with any luck in about 100 years there won't be any child porn viewers either, unless some evil genius scientist hides a perv away in a lab somewhere and clones it. Therefore, we kill all scientists too.


RE: Wow, this makes sense
By Chadder007 on 6/16/2008 11:57:22 PM , Rating: 1
You sir, deserve a 6.


RE: Wow, this makes sense
By greylica on 6/17/08, Rating: 0
RE: Wow, this makes sense
By seamonkey79 on 6/17/2008 9:24:52 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The same stupids are also saying that they are doing a "good thing to Irak"


Maybe you should talk to some of the soldiers who are over there rather than read the news. My boss has a number of relatives over there and back again and back over there that are always calling home with good stories. Some bad ones, for sure, but overall the people over there like us.

So stuff it.


RE: Wow, this makes sense
By OldProgrammer on 6/17/2008 11:34:46 AM , Rating: 3
Talk to these soldiers, at least the ones who are still alive.

http://www.salon.com/news/primary_sources/2007/09/...

The Iraqis sure don't want us there.

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/br...


RE: Wow, this makes sense
By kyleb2112 on 6/17/2008 6:04:00 PM , Rating: 2
Those same left wing sites refuse to ever acknowledge there's been any progress at all in Iraq. I'm fine with people being anti-war, but at least form your opinion from a balanced assessment.
For example:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080616/ap_on_re_mi_ea...

A mixed bag, but definite progress. And the AP's not exactly a neocon bastion.


RE: Wow, this makes sense
By OldProgrammer on 6/17/2008 7:25:19 PM , Rating: 1
Open your eyes. The "left wing sites" don't acknowledge progress, because there isn't any.

Progress would be bringing the US troops home. But we have only brought out a few thousand troops since the height of the surge, so we are still close to the maximum number of troops that we have ever had in Iraq, a number that we cannot sustain much longer. Despite this Bush and his hand chosen generals have no plans to bring any more troops home.

Bush says we can't leave, because if we do, the violence will escalate, the so called "government" will fall, and Islamic radicals will take over. But even if we stay for ten more years the government we want in place will fall as soon as we leave.

We have made no progress and every day we stay we make more enemies. We should never have invaded, and the sooner we leave the better for us and the Iraqis.

We need to get out of the way and let the Iraqis decide for themselves what they want to do. Maybe they will choose an Islamic government, in which case we might have been smarter to leave Saddam in place.


RE: Wow, this makes sense
By seamonkey79 on 6/17/2008 9:18:17 AM , Rating: 2
We should just kill kids and adults. That way we won't have any more kiddie porn.


RE: Wow, this makes sense
By omnicronx on 6/17/2008 1:57:17 PM , Rating: 2
Where there is a will, there is a way. Shutting down one way of accessing child porn is only going to spawn another. From IRC, to pay usenet services, to the countless sites that probably exist that we do not know about, if these sick people want to continue their illegal activities, they will, as the fear of getting *ss raped every night in jail doesnt seem to be enough of a deterant.


Not right
By TomCorelis on 6/16/2008 9:21:43 PM , Rating: 5
Personally, I think it is outrageous that the New York state Attorney General is able to affect this kind of change on a national level. Sprint/Verizon/TWC customers on the opposite side of the country will receive lesser service, while presumably paying the same fee. Crusaders in the government of New York are overstepping their bounds, plain and simple.

I'm sure I'm not the only one who's noticed this. Simply unacceptable!




RE: Not right
By slashbinslashbash on 6/17/2008 1:35:27 AM , Rating: 3
This is another tactic that started with the gun-grabbers. NYC filed lawsuits on gun stores in other states, and gun makers nationally:

http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/04/30/us-co...
http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/cobb/storie...


RE: Not right
By DASQ on 6/17/2008 10:46:08 AM , Rating: 1
As a gun owner in Canada, this is disheartening.

I mean Christ, good guns are hard enough to buy up here already.


RE: Not right
By FITCamaro on 6/17/2008 8:47:50 AM , Rating: 2
Given the people in office in New York and New York City, does this surprise you?


RE: Not right
By seamonkey79 on 6/17/2008 9:20:35 AM , Rating: 4
Hey, people want to keep voting Liberal, they're going to get this kind of crap. (PLEASE OH PLEASE Note Liberal, not Democrat. Not the same thing you people!)

Liberal politicians think we're all too stupid to take care of ourselves, so they need to do everything they can to protect us.


RE: Not right
By Belard on 6/17/2008 9:39:04 AM , Rating: 1
Er... how about its the "Self Rightous" Right that gets into everyone business.... so they can "protect" us.

Yet how many "right-wing" people end up being hypocrates?

A certain Leader of the Evanglist group who saw Prez Bush many times gets busted doing drugs and having gay sex.

You guys really don't know what your talking about... never hear yourselves talk.


RE: Not right
By BBeltrami on 6/17/2008 11:34:19 AM , Rating: 5
Dude, give it a rest. While I'm told how evil Bush and the Patriot act are and how my freedoms are being stolen and how 9/11 was a government conspiracy, I'm supposed to be perfectly OK with forced recycling, motorcycle helmets and seatbelt laws. Here in California I can be stopped and detained (that's a loss of freedom for the slow among us) simply for not being buckled in. A curious officer might ask to search the vehicle. But I'm sure you have nothing to hide, right? Oh, but wait, that's what those Bush supporting yokels say about the Patriot Act...

You bring up a right-winger evangelist having gay sex... (Should I be shocked? Aren't I supposed to embrace diversity?) What are your thoughts relating to the left-wing judge presiding over a benchmark obscenity case hosting porn on his site? No big deal, right?

quote:
You guys really don't know what your talking about... never hear yourselves talk.


Seems to me the far left and the far right are equally undesirable places to park your mind.


RE: Not right
By TomCorelis on 6/17/2008 2:49:19 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Seems to me the far left and the far right are equally undesirable places to park your mind.
Here here. Best comment in the entire thread.


RE: Not right
By Belard on 6/22/2008 11:42:05 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Seems to me the far left and the far right are equally undesirable places to park your mind.


NO SHIT?! I agree with ya 100%

How about common sense, simple laws. leave people alone, get religion out of govt. and make lobbiest illegal.

About the gay evangelist, he was the leader of the group that attacked peopel for being non christian in any way shape or form. THey are hypocrate!

I meet a person who was "Obama will destory our country, we'll need to move to Canada, welfare for the poor, etc" (okay, what about welfare for the rich?) Then later, talked about trying to get medicare for their kid. Uh-huh.


RE: Not right
By geddarkstorm on 6/17/2008 1:24:03 PM , Rating: 3
You guys don't get it: politicians want power, they want control, they want to set the limits to their liking. Doesn't matter what name and guise they come under--most are all the same. They do a good job trying to distract everyone with empty terms like "republican" and "democrat" when in the end they do pretty much the same darn stuff.


RE: Not right
By mcnabney on 6/17/08, Rating: 0
RE: Not right
By killerroach on 6/17/2008 11:20:11 AM , Rating: 2
I think Andrew Cuomo is recoiling at horror at you calling him a Republican.

At the end of the day, this is just a naked publicity grab for the New York Attorney General's office, a chance to get headlines and look like a hero, while at the same time just ticking off industry and accomplishing next to nothing.

I guess he learned from his predecessor well. Of course, if that's the case, will he leave office in disgrace before or after becoming Governor like Spitzer did?


RE: Not right
By McGuffin on 6/17/2008 6:16:40 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Liberal politicians think we're all too stupid to take care of ourselves, so they need to do everything they can to protect us.

Not sure what definition of "Liberalism" you're using, but it's not the one in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

‘the burden of proof is supposed to be with those who are against liberty; who contend for any restriction or prohibition…. The a priori assumption is in favour of freedom…’ - J.S.Mill[http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/liberalism/#PreF...]

By that definition, restricting people's access to usenet is illiberal.


RE: Not right
By LyCannon on 7/15/2008 8:32:52 AM , Rating: 2
Here is the problem...do you want to be the one company that doesn't want to block access to kiddie porn?

It doesn't matter that removing UseNet access to your subscribers will have no effect on the problem...damn it! you are doing something about it!! If you don't block alt.* then your company supports kiddie porn, terrorism, murder, piracy, and cancer!

Seriously, imagine the PR nightmare if a single large ISP were to come out and tell the world how useless this is. The guys in NY are on too much of a powertrip to let that one pass.


???????
By Reclaimer77 on 6/16/2008 8:44:16 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Customers affected by the block will still be able to use third-party services like EasyNews, however this will, naturally, incur additional costs.


It took the very last line of the story to reveal the true goal of this. It ain't about child porn. Its a usenet service tax.

So let me get this straight. Its not ok to view " child porn " on the ISP's usenet service, but its ok to use third party providers for it as long as you pay an extra fee to your ISP ?

Sounds like a liberal, once again, using the children argument to push an agenda.




RE: ???????
By Reclaimer77 on 6/16/2008 8:50:13 PM , Rating: 1
self edit : Doh ! After reading that line again, I think I might have taken it the wrong way. I think the author meant the additional costs were the fee for third party usnet access. Like Giganews, which I use. NOT a fee from the ISP's for using them. Right ?? I donno.


RE: ???????
By mindless1 on 6/16/2008 10:49:56 PM , Rating: 2
Your ISP cannot charge you a fee for using their advertised service within the terms of that service, so yes, obviously it meant you would pay a fee as a subscriber to a third party usenet service. If these alt.* bans keep coming I get the feeling there will be more and more usenet servers. I ought to look into starting one myself actually, but no binaries.


RE: ???????
By cparka23 on 6/16/2008 9:00:31 PM , Rating: 2
It didn't say anything about a tax. The point that your quote was making is that you can still get newsgroup service if your ISP is Verizon or Sprint, but you'll probably have to pay for it.

EasyNews and other premium usenet servers aren't free. The trade off is that you get much better article retention and usually faster speeds. The improvement in article retention requires ridiculously massive storage space, hence the fee.


RE: ???????
By cparka23 on 6/16/2008 9:03:17 PM , Rating: 2
Just noticed your 'self edit.' Yeah, that's what it meant.


RE: ???????
By BladeVenom on 6/16/2008 10:07:22 PM , Rating: 1
Maybe they should block .com sites to.


fserve?
By vapore0n on 6/17/2008 8:16:17 AM , Rating: 2
Im kinda surprised IRC hasnt gone down yet.
It used to be the major hub for piracy and CP. Before Napster and Torrent.




RE: fserve?
By MrBlastman on 6/17/2008 9:41:20 AM , Rating: 2
Actually, usenet was a hub and around far before IRC.

daniel.haxx.se/irchistory.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usenet

To squash usenet is like lopping off both legs of the internet. It is that old and that important. Well, was back in the days. Nowadays it is an obscure corner that us old-timers still use while the kids play elsewhere.


RE: fserve?
By TomCorelis on 6/17/2008 2:51:58 PM , Rating: 2
IRC will never go down, as long as server administrators run IRC servers. There are open-source IRC servers available for *nix and Windows. IRC is completely distributed independent of ISPs, whereas most people connect to Usenet via their ISP's servers.


By psychobriggsy on 6/17/2008 5:24:50 AM , Rating: 5
Conveniently cuts off access to media binary groups.

I really think this Kiddy Porn thing is a cover story to kill off Usenet once and for all, and the massive music and video propagation that goes on there. The remaining, text-only, newsgroups won't take up much server space at all and the load will be vastly reduced.

It'll just push people to buy service from third party usenet subscribers, where all this content will remain.




I smell a civil war coming
By dare2savefreedom on 6/17/2008 12:46:42 AM , Rating: 2
The damn northern people are at it again.

The people living in the north always cause trouble for the south.

american civil war,
korea,
vietnam




RE: I smell a civil war coming
By cparka23 on 6/17/2008 8:55:33 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah, life was great on the plantation until the North seceded. Now they're taking away my alt.*?!

Cuomo definitely hates the Southern way of life. He knows that nobody in New York City uses the interwebs. I wonder if the neighborhood militia knows about this.


Don't blame the picture...
By MBlueD on 6/17/2008 2:56:52 AM , Rating: 2
Are pictures of children being molested really bad enough to justify restricting people? The crime already happened! Shut down usenet and the molester will find other outlets for their 'products'. Shut down the molester however, and the 'products' won't be any more. In my opinion, the negative value of these pictures is in their disturbing, repulsive nature, the same negative value of a picture of a man who had his head shotgunned! The picture is really bad, but it's not the criminal here, it's not to blame...

The way I see it, this is just a ploy so that a couple of years later someone can stand up in a an election campaign of some sort and claim that they 'took the initiative in stopping child molestation' by making it a little bit harder for pedophiles to post pictures.




RE: Don't blame the picture...
By Belard on 6/17/2008 9:38:53 AM , Rating: 2
Perhaps we, the people all over the USA can sue the NY AG - since he's effecting those who are NOT even in NY!

18000 newsgroups and those jerks kill off newsgroups because a few of them have porn? As you say, they always find a way. Like anything else that people do around the world.

Lets ban computers all together... Lets be like CHINA or N.Korea or middle-east where you have no or very limited govt. Controled Internet access.

It's called CENSORSHIP. Yeah, go after the kiddie porn people, but don't shut down newsgroups. I and others do use it for things that are somestimes more helpful than the "standard" wwww.

What next? BAN cars so the bad guys can't drive to work to make money to pay for their porn? Lets ban air so perverts can't live... How about this. Quote from Bender:

Kill All Humans


To be expected
By tmouse on 6/17/2008 8:35:26 AM , Rating: 2
Well the method used was guaranteed to quash all binaries, I'm a bit suprised by the scope of the other cuts. After all child pornography is not the only restriction in most Eula’s on most ISP's. This just ensures Cuomo some Hollywood (Riaa, Mpaa)money when he runs for governor.




RE: To be expected
By Oregonian2 on 6/17/2008 2:03:26 PM , Rating: 2
It's a lot more than that. They are quashing all local text-only groups as well (as well as text-only alt.* groups). alt.* groups is only one of a huge number of usenet "sets" being done away with. Although I don't use usenet very often (mostly doing google searches which presumably will still work) I just switched to Verizon from a small local ISP that presumably isn't doing the cut. So my outrage is mostly theoretical, but still....


sledgehammer to an ant is right
By tastyratz on 6/17/2008 9:06:11 AM , Rating: 2
I do have to say that the newsgroups servers of ISP's remaining up as long as it has truly surprises me. Newsgroups are a massive amount of data and draw to keep up with.

How many people think this is really about kiddy porn? seriously. This is about **aa lawsuits and binary files altogether.

The way they went about this is POOR. This is online censorship to the extreme. how long do you think its going to be before they block the nntp ports?

EVEN if they just stopped carrying binary files they could have kept the community up and afloat. If you cant post files you cant post pictures. That would have been poor overkill but it would have been less asinine as this. The statistics of child porn on there sound like a lot - but because newsgroups are so massive why not put that side by side next to totals. Those numbers would be dwarfed and its probably sub 1% - try searching on kazaa and tell me how much comes up.

Anyone using CP over your local isp usenet is just stupid. Anyone who uses usenet usually knows about things such as logs and header information. If you download or upload to it there's logs of it. They could have very easily allowed government access to the log information to search for CP history. That would have been invasive but at least not censorship.

As much as I hate invasion of privacy I hate censorship of the entire venue even more. Id rather know someone is watching then not be allowed to in the first place.




By lemonparty2 on 6/20/2008 8:50:50 AM , Rating: 2
That newsgroups contain a massive amount of data is actually the incentive for providing the service. If people use the ISP's local server to download they want, then for an ISP that means saved external bandwidth.


...
By shabby on 6/16/2008 8:09:34 PM , Rating: 2
Im surprised isp's still have their own usenet servers...




What's the point?
By Pirks on 6/16/08, Rating: 0
RE: What's the point?
By vexingv on 6/16/2008 10:52:30 PM , Rating: 2
No restrictions, but it was free w/ the internet service. Now one will have to look for 3rd part providers for complete access.


gone too far...
By vexingv on 6/16/2008 10:48:47 PM , Rating: 2
When I heard this announcement last week that they were going to drop some newsgroups I feared that some innocuous ones would taken out as well. Now they shutdown all of it? Verizon had relatively good, for an ISP at least, usenet access. This blows...




By EricMartello on 6/16/2008 11:49:51 PM , Rating: 2
I saw the article last week about this, and the fact that this is moving forward pretty much flushes the US Constitution down the crapper. The mentality of picking a random "social taboo" and using it to justify a broad censorship is pretty much what China has been doing for many years.

Kiddie porn may be a problem, but shutting down newsgroups isn't going to stop it. They're simply going to find another way to distribute that shit. I'm 99% certain there is a hidden agenda here...it's nice to see our "democracy" at work. :)




sure...
By gehx on 6/17/2008 10:37:33 AM , Rating: 2
sure it's all 'bout kiddie porn...i'm not buying it, you can't tell me the media mafia didn't have something to do w/ this....

always trying to find a socially acceptable moral agenda to slip in there "woo is me, everyone is stealing from me" cries..I'm not buying it (figuratively and literally)

yeah, this is non-sense! instead of cutting newgroups, internet access and banning future children why not castrate all males @ birth....that'd prolly eliminate a good 75% of kiddie porn...

Get a f'ing grip man, this is throughly retarded!




Do the exact opposite
By japlha on 6/17/2008 11:16:17 AM , Rating: 2
They are going about this the wrong way. I say, don't restrict any illegal or sick stuff like this. In fact, don't allow anyone to setup sites that allows anonymous, non-logged activity.
Log and track anyone's activity to this content with as much vigor and holy determination as they are trying to stop it. Have fake "secure" sites where they pay for the content. Once they put in their financial information it's a no brainer to find them.
There will be nowhere else to go for these sickos.
Censoring causes alternatives to be discovered that are more difficult to trace.




The California Solution
By Indianapolis on 6/17/2008 1:05:29 PM , Rating: 2
Maybe an all-wise judge in California will come along and legalize kiddie porn, thereby making all these measures unnecessary.




Good
By BruceLeet on 6/16/08, Rating: -1
RE: Good
By overzealot on 6/17/2008 2:08:27 AM , Rating: 5
They aren't complaining about the blocking of child porn.
It's the blanket banning of the entire alt.* hierarchy(18000 groups) to get rid of 40-80 groups.


RE: Good
By sporr on 6/17/2008 4:18:12 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
This is good stuff why are you guys reacting negatively? Affected much?


Er, yea, people are affected much you idiot. Blocking 18,000 groups just to rid access of around 40, of which can just be viewed elsewhere anyway.

This only hurts legitimate users. Sicko's will just find another way, spend abit more money maybe, but another way nonetheless.

When will they learn that quick fixes like this never fix anything.


RE: Good
By BruceLeet on 6/17/08, Rating: 0
RE: Good
By sporr on 6/17/2008 11:55:16 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
Well why cant legitimate users find another way like the sickos?


Because they shouldn't have to.


RE: Good
By BruceLeet on 6/17/08, Rating: 0
RE: Good
By Icelight on 6/18/2008 10:23:26 AM , Rating: 2
I say we put everyone in jail for a month or two, just to see if they are criminals or not. What's the harm?!


Nice Excuse
By FS on 6/16/08, Rating: -1
RE: Nice Excuse
By slashbinslashbash on 6/16/2008 9:09:01 PM , Rating: 3
It's the same excuse that they have used for decades to pass stricter gun control laws. Same with the lead-paint nazis, the playground safety "experts", and numerous other bloated bureaucrats who have nothing better to do with their lives than tell everybody else how to live theirs: people who would love it if they could force everybody to live inside a nice, sterile, padded cell where there's no way that any harm could ever come to them. "If this saves even one child's life, it will be worth it!!" they wail hysterically as they chip away at your rights.

It's the Nanny State, kids, and it's here to help!


RE: Nice Excuse
By TheJian on 6/16/2008 9:49:49 PM , Rating: 4
ROFL. How did this help kids? IF you cared about kids you'd police your OWN kids instead of affecting ME to do it. In case you missed it, for $8-13/mo you can get all the porn you want (usenetserver.com $13.33/mo unlimited). It saves them bandwidth, they don't give a damn about your kids...LOL. Oh, and neither do I... :) Verizon is screwing their customers...Last I checked, that's BAD. And I'm not even a verizon customer...I also pay for my server...LOL. Since it's secure the ISP can't see what PR0N I'm looking at...ROFLMAO. Nazi's make me laugh.

All they did was cause people to get smarter today. You could watch child porn people yesterday as they weren't secure. Today they learned about news servers and security is advertised on the front page of all news server sites. So tomorrow child porn people will be downloading securely and NOT being tracked by ISP's logs. Way to go losers. You can't even count on catching the DUMB ones now.


RE: Nice Excuse
By SandmanWN on 6/17/2008 9:32:34 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
In case you missed it, for $8-13/mo you can get all the porn you want (usenetserver.com $13.33/mo unlimited).

I was part of the company that bought webusenet out and used its equipment to setup usenetserver many years ago.

Verizon and AT&T will lose money on this. The first thing you do when setting up a network is put in place a usenet of some kind to generate transport across your lines so you can charge the other carriers and build a name. I suppose for Verizon and AT&T this is no longer an issue. We did the same thing and spun off usenet when our traffic was established. Quite simply because usenet is a major liability these days with the likes of RIAA, MPAA, etc breathing down everyones neck.


RE: Nice Excuse
By Homerboy on 6/17/2008 10:36:06 AM , Rating: 2
What?

quote:
generate transport across your lines


"transport" is the PHYSICAL copper/fiber itself. WTH are you talking about?


RE: Nice Excuse
By SandmanWN on 6/19/2008 8:09:38 AM , Rating: 2
Well I was thinking transit and wrote transport. I've been working on a transport problem all month. Think you knew what I meant anyway @sshat.


RE: Nice Excuse
By Indianapolis on 6/17/2008 1:17:34 PM , Rating: 1
I think you guys missed his sarcasm. It's always to "help the kids." If you aren't on board with [insert controversial social policy here] then "you don't care about the kids." Doesn't matter whether you're talking about the war on drugs or the welfare system.

Our society is saddled with an innumerable number of ill-conceived policies that did not receive sufficient opposition because opponents were afraid of being labeled as "not caring about the kids."

That being said, I'm not sure where I stand on this particular policy. I've never used the newsgroups, but if it really is just a bunch of message boards, then I don't really see the point anymore since the internet already has message boards and websites covering virtually every interest.


RE: Nice Excuse
By LyCannon on 7/15/2008 8:41:37 AM , Rating: 2
What if there was a collection of websites that hosted child porn. The Attorney General of New York says that in order to protect our children, ISPs must block access to any webserver.

How would you feel about that?

This is essentially what is going on here.

GigaNews Total Newsgroups: 108,906
Number of Newsgroups with Kiddie Porn: 88

Percent of kiddie porn groups: 88 / 108906 = .08% (0.000808)

Clearly UseNet has no other use than porn! Why that other 99.02% of UseNet is totally and utterly useless!

Come on guys, WTFU!


RE: Nice Excuse
By cparka23 on 6/17/2008 2:14:58 PM , Rating: 1
[sarcasm] Sarcasm works really well around these parts [/sarcasm]


"I mean, if you wanna break down someone's door, why don't you start with AT&T, for God sakes? They make your amazing phone unusable as a phone!" -- Jon Stewart on Apple and the iPhone

Related Articles













botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki