ISPs agree to block access to child porn sites, newsgroups

[Update 6/10/2008 1 p.m.: We've found out details about what's going to happen. Time Warner Cable will pull the plug on tens of thousands of Usenet discussion groups after the N.Y. attorney general's office found child porn on 88 of them. Verizon and Sprint plan to limit Usenet, too. Earlier reports that the three broadband providers would block access to, say, overseas Web sites may not have been accurate. --Declan McCullagh]

Internet service providers Verizon Communications, Sprint Nextel, and Time Warner Cable have agreed to block Internet newsgroups and Web sites nationwide that disseminate child pornography, The New York Times reported Monday.

The move--part of an agreement with New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo expected to be announced Tuesday--will affect customers across the country, the newspaper reported. Negotiations are reportedly continuing with other ISPs.

Part of the plan is to shut down access to Usenet newsgroups known to traffic such images, as well as Web sites that host child pornography.

"The ISPs' point had been, 'We're not responsible, these are individuals communicating with individuals, we're not responsible,'" the newspaper reported Cuomo as saying. "Our point was that at some point, you do bear responsibility."

The agreement was reportedly reached after the attorney general's office threatened charges of fraud and deceptive business practices when the companies ignored investigators' complaints.

Cuomo has made safety of children on the Internet a priority of his office. He subpoenaed Facebook in September 2007 after his office conducted an undercover investigation that he said yielded a slow response from the social network to complaints of harassment and inappropriate conduct. The subpoena eventually led to an agreement between Facebook and the attorneys general of 49 states.

Earlier in 2007, Cuomo joined a group of New York lawmakers in introducing a bill to crack down on the presence of sex offenders on the Internet, specifically on sites where they could get in touch with minors.

[ckought]

A good analogy for this is prostitution. There's a city that has a 2-block area where all the prostitutes hang out. The politicians see this large population of prostitutes in this one area and complain to the police. The police go in and chase the prostitutes out of that area. Since prostitution isn't going to stop, they just spread out over a larger area. The politicians may see a prostitute or two here and there (it seems in many cases paying for the privilege), but they pat themselves on the back and say that for the most part they got rid of prostitution in their city. Meanwhile, the police can't monitor the prostitutes as closely because they're more spread out and harder to keep track of.

This is the same thing that will happen on Usenet. The politicians chase the pedophiles out of known groups where the police can easily monitor them (and more easily compile evidence that leads to arrests). The pedophiles aren't going to stop -- they're just going to spread out to random unused newsgroups and then the police won't be able to monitor them as easily and it will make it harder for them to make arrests. But, the politicians will all be patting themselves on the back saying that they wiped out pedophilia on Usenet.

This happens with any illegal activity, both in real life and on the web . . . drugs, gambling, file-sharing, illegal immigrants.

If illegal activity is going to go on no matter what, it seems that it's best to keep it confined to the smallest area possible so that it can be monitored. It's not really a matter of ethics; it's a matter of reality.

[GypsyWeaver]

The REALITY of it is that if you don't do anything, it will continue to grow. Look at the garbage we can watch on television. No one does anything so it continues to grow and grow and, pretty soon, I'll be back to watching the 3 local stations on television because the rest of it is trash!

[Dalkorian]

Both of you are right. If you keep it concentrated to a known area, you can monitor it and even go after the real perpetrators. If you do nothing the problem will fester. If only the people in power could have that level of intelligence this problem would be solved, but instead what we have is that slippery slope of censorship instead. Typical of this administration, instead of solving problems let's just tear up the Constitution.

[c|net Reader]

"Typical of this administration, instead of solving problems let's just tear up the Constitution."

Umm, by "this administration," I presume you are referring to the Bush Administration. What have they to do with Cuomo's actions?

I think the ISPs are being reasonable when they say that they are merely conduits to what's available on the Net. Customers can avoid troublesome areas, they can install filters, or they can drop their Internet access. ISPs can choose to offer Usenet access or not. Customers can choose an ISP that doesn't offer Usenet access if the customer prefers that. ISPs could offer a package that excludes Usenet access if they think there's demand for it. Those are reasonable, laissez faire approaches to addressing the problem. Government control and coercion is a bad thing generally. It is necessary in many cases, but it must be limited. The Government should not intervene in this case as the result is throwing out the baby with the bath water.

[ashimmy]

I think this is a long overdue step. For too long ISPs have hid behind the "not my responsibility" shield. Web hosts were deemed responsible a long time ago for hosting illegal content. ISPs are no different. Of course the question is who watches what the ISPs filter. Are they too over zealous or filter for their own good? I have written more about his on my blog here

[GypsyWeaver]

It's about time the ISPs quit hiding behind it's not their responsibility. If you were walking down the street and saw some guy snatch a little child and start running off with them, would you stand there and let it happen or would you be responsible enough to holler, dial 911, anything to save that child? The ISPs (all of them) can have filters and monitors in place so that any word or picture or reference of any kind to child pornography can be found and, if it is not apparent, at least reported to the police for investigation. if it is apparent, SHUT THEM DOWN IMMEDIATELY!

And I know someone's going to say well there's an amendment that gives me rights to say whatever I want. I disagree or I would be able to say God Bless America whenever and wherever I want. My children would be able to pray outloud in school. I wouldn't have to wear a seatbelt in my own PERSONAL vehicle. You get the point! If I don't have the right or freedom to say or do these things, why in God's name should perverts have the right to exploit, harm, sell, and rape/murder children (or anyone for that matter).

Every ISP needs to do this. IT IS THE RIGHT AND RESPONSIBLE THING TO DO! SAVE A LIFE. IT COULD BE YOUR OWN SON OR DAUGHTER!

[ckought]

1. You can say God Bless America whenever and wherever you want. In fact, it's the title of one of our nation?s most patriotic songs and printed on every denomination of currency we have, and posted in pretty much every court of law in our country. I don't know what makes you think you can't say that.
2. Your children are under the age of 18, so therefore don't have full rights like an adult. Most school districts in the United States allow children to pray out loud . . . they just can't do it as an organization (i.e. a communal fellowship prayer at school functions) and they can't do it in a disruptive way (i.e. loud, in-your-face "preaching").
3. Your seatbelt usage isn't mentioned anywhere in the Constitution. If you don't like the laws in your state or locality, elect people that will repeal the law. As far as I know, there are no federal laws regulating seatbelt usage (other than maybe on airplanes).

Nobody is saying that "these perverts" have any right to exploit children . . . but do you want the Government (you know, the ones that have done such a fine job lately protecting it's populous and respecting it's rights and privacy) to make the decision on who or what gets blocked on the internet? What happens when they block ?alt.binaries.pedophile? and all the pervs start posting child porn on alt.binaries.church-of-your-choice? Not only will the church members who legitimately use that newsgroup have to deal with weeding through the child-porn in order to communicate with other parishioners, but the government could then come along and give orders to block the newsgroup because it contained child-porn.

There would also be other legal fallout for the ISPs. Once they start deciding what can and can?t flow across their network, they become ?editors? instead of providers. This sets them up for litigation if anything gets through that shouldn?t or if they accidently block anything that shouldn?t be blocked. Once you?re an editor, you?re pretty much damned-if-you-do and damned-if-you-don?t ? that?s why they?ve always tried to stay hands-off on the data going through their systems.

Also, once they block content for one thing that?s illegal, they?ll become legally obligated to block anything that?s illegal. That means they can be sued for allowing newsgroups that contain songs, videos, or any other copyrighted content.

Oh, and about your analogy of a child being abducted in the street. You may be ethically responsible to contact the authorities and report the incident, but you?re not legally obligated to do so. There?s a BIG difference between ethical behavior and legal requirements. I?m all for the ISPs reporting any illegal activity they find to the authorities, but I don?t think the government should require the ISPs to block certain things. Using your analogy of the child being abducted, if it were a legal requirement to report the abduction, then you could be arrested and sent to jail if an abduction happens around where you are and you don?t report it (even if you thought it was just a parent picking up their own child).

[Dalkorian]

Bottom line - ckought got it right and GypsyWeaver couldn't be more wrong. You can't police activity when it's scattered over the internet, but you can when it's concentrated to a more limited area like Usenet newsgroups. I especially love the comment about moving kiddy porn to alt.binaries.(favorite church org here), what an amazing way to restrict the freedom of religion! I hope they pick the scientology newsgroup, those people SHOULD be shut down! (LOL - though I hate scientologists, I love our Constitution more and don't really advocate censoring religions.)

[ckought]

1. You can say God Bless America whenever and wherever you want. In fact, it's the title of one of our nation?s most patriotic songs and printed on every denomination of currency we have, and posted in pretty much every court of law in our country. I don't know what makes you think you can't say that.
2. Your children are under the age of 18, so therefore don't have full rights like an adult. Most school districts in the United States allow children to pray out loud . . . they just can't do it as an organization (i.e. a communal fellowship prayer at school functions) and they can't do it in a disruptive way (i.e. loud, in-your-face "preaching").
3. Your seatbelt usage isn't mentioned anywhere in the Constitution. If you don't like the laws in your state or locality, elect people that will repeal the law. As far as I know, there are no federal laws regulating seatbelt usage (other than maybe on airplanes).

Nobody is saying that "these perverts" have any right to exploit children . . . but do you want the Government (you know, the ones that have done such a fine job lately protecting it's populous and respecting it's rights and privacy) to make the decision on who or what gets blocked on the internet? What happens when they block ?alt.binaries.pedophile? and all the pervs start posting child porn on alt.binaries.church-of-your-choice? Not only will the church members who legitimately use that newsgroup have to deal with weeding through the child-porn in order to communicate with other parishioners, but the government could then come along and give orders to block the newsgroup because it contained child-porn.

There would also be other legal fallout for the ISPs. Once they start deciding what can and can?t flow across their network, they become ?editors? instead of providers. This sets them up for litigation if anything gets through that shouldn?t or if they accidently block anything that shouldn?t be blocked. Once you?re an editor, you?re pretty much damned-if-you-do and damned-if-you-don?t ? that?s why they?ve always tried to stay hands-off on the data going through their systems.

Also, once they block content for one thing that?s illegal, they?ll become legally obligated to block anything that?s illegal. That means they can be sued for allowing newsgroups that contain songs, videos, or any other copyrighted content.

Oh, and about your analogy of a child being abducted in the street. You may be ethically responsible to contact the authorities and report the incident, but you?re not legally obligated to do so. There?s a BIG difference between ethical behavior and legal requirements. I?m all for the ISPs reporting any illegal activity they find to the authorities, but I don?t think the government should require the ISPs to block certain things. Using your analogy of the child being abducted, if it were a legal requirement to report the abduction, then you could be arrested and sent to jail if an abduction happens around where you are and you don?t report it (even if you thought it was just a parent picking up their own child).

[umbrae]

Its amazing that other posters do not see the danger in this. What is next? Force ISPs to block comments that speak out against the current administration. ISPs do not host content and are not responsible for their users action. If that changes you will surprised the amount of legal content you cannot get to because of fear of prosecution. Google has a lot of questionable content: BLOCK. There are ways to shut down newsgroups if something illegal is being done. All this is doing is trying to force ISPs to censor content and DOES NOTHING to stop the activity. This is just our government being lazy and trying to HIDE THE ISSUE RATHER THAN FIX IT. And in the end our view of the internet will be more censored than the Great Firewall of China.

[Lerianis]

Umbrae, there is no six for this issue, except for simply realizing that pedosexuality is a normal sexuality and bringing it out into the open, just like we did with heterosexuality outside of marriage and homosexuality.

Once we did that.... wow..... the number of rapes in both sexualities decreased, and people were less able to force others into sexual encounters because other people were watching them.

[Lord Paul]

First I need to state I have a child and I strongly oppose this action by a politician looking to gain media attention under the guise of children?s rights as all politicians do right before elections. My concern is where do you draw the line on censorship ??? These freaks that prey on children hang out in almost any chat room AOL, MSN, Yahoo or social networking site take your pick. So using his logic let?s just shut them all down and be done with it !! Or maybe we should take responsibility as parents and police our own children instead leaving it up to the government to protect us from ourselves.

[Dalkorian]

Parent's today are to busy to be bothered with piffling issues like raising their kids. That's what school, daycare, the police and the government is for. It's far easier to simply follow the examples given by the nazi's than it is to accept personal responsibility for your own actions. Sieg heil! (I think it's obvious, but I'm agreeing with you fully Lord Paul.)

[CougarAbogado]

To you people who say things like children are "willing participants" in illicit sex and that it is wrong to make immorality frowned upon, I ask this question, "What if it were YOUR child who was participating?" Or "What if it were your little sister?" Some have cried that censorship is WRONG, unfair, etc. This is the problem with our society today. Immorality is smiled upon as "freedom of speech," child abuse is sloughed off as a fact of life, and marijuana is pushed for legalization rather than, "GASP," create a black market! There's a reason why these types of behavior are labeled as "parasitic;" they ARE DESTRUCTIVE. Today, instead of trying to mold a descent and an upright society we say, let's be tolerant of filth, let's shake hands with the devil, so to speak. We constantly look to gratify our voracious appetite for sex, violence,and the EXCITING. We have come to disregard everything that our society used to hold dear, namely honesty, virtue, good will, and so forth. These values are now sneered at as archaic, foolish, and mundane.

I absolutely agree with Lord Paul in that WE should police our own families. However, I whole heatedly support the government and anyone who seeks to curb the enormous tide of sleaze and smut that has flooded our world today.

But just you wait, within a few moments I will be decried as a "zealot," "bigoted," and "close-minded." All I know is this: I WILL stand up for the rights of my children and family to live in a descent and wholesome society. Many will shoot back, "It's MY right to drown in poison and it doesn't harm anyone else." But herein lies the fallacy. Sex peddlers, drug dealers, and other purveyors of evil are NOT content to keep to themselves, they want everyone to be miserable just like they are.

Without rambling on more it comes down to one thing: wickedness never was happiness. And I refuse to call evil good and good evil.

[DigitalFrog]

Well said. I would also add - "What one generation tolerates, the next generation embraces". We need to stop the downward spiral.

[c|net Reader]

The only thing I disagree with in your rant is that the Government should not be involved in disabling legitimate Usenet groups because of some content. The right thing is to remove the illegal content, prevent its dissemination, track is purveyors and consumers, etc. In other words, the Government needs to find the perverts and prosecute them, not force ISPs to dump large subsets of Usenet groups because they have no way to filter for the illegal content in the few that have it. As has been stated by others, we don't want the Government doing the filtering.

[Far Star]

@ Lerianis

You need some serious help. It's a known fact that children below the age of 6 do not even understand the concept of right and wrong. If you were taught that having intercourse with kids as young as 2 is "right" then you need some serious help to correct the horrible mental programing your parents put you through.

---

Having said that I still don't agree with the government choosing what I can see/hear/read on the internet. Better to use social engineering and "guide" the pedos to places and sites where they can be watched. Then found and identified as soon as possible so as to bring them in to the light of day where all will know their sad little dirty secret.

I mean surely they can't be afraid of what they think is perfectly normal right?

[fdunn3]

As a long-time Time Warner customer I applaud and support this action. Not only is it a good step toward eliminating child pornography but it also protects it's customers from inadvertant prosecution under the new laws where if you visit a site serving such content you are considered guilty of a crime. Many a malware have been designed to redirect (as in cross site scripting attacks) an innocent user not even knowing they have done so.

More power to them.

[Dalkorian]

I guess the words "sieg heil" bring a smile to your face. Answer me this, since we've made it illegal to view this content and now made it illegal for the ISP to not filter it out, how are we supposed to catch the filthy buggers who are actually guilty of *producing* it? Or do we just let the guilty go and prosecute people who accidentally got a virus on their machines or clicked in the wrong window? Here's a fun thought experiment for you - alt.binaries.childporn is now filtered out by the ISP, so the perverts behind it start posing their disgusting smut to alt.church.firstbaptist (made up - I have no idea if such a newsgroup exists or not). Now the ISP's have to filter that newsgroup as well because it features child porn, so the smut dealers choose alt.church.christian.soldier (again intentionally made up). See the problem yet?

[ckought]

fdunn3

Did you read the article? This is about newsgroups (usenet). It has nothing to do with web sites. It's very unlikely you'd "accidentally" go to a newsgroup called "alt.binaries.pedophile". The actions of black-listing newsgroups of pedophiles does nothing to stop them -- it just makes them go to other newsgroups. There is no malware or cross site scripting in existence that can take you to a newsgroup -- any newsgroup -- you have to be using news-reader software to access newsgroups, not a web browser. The only way to inadvertently download child-porn from newsgroups is when they post stuff to non-child-porn groups (like alt.recipe.chicken.noodle.soup) in order to avoid the authorities -- which is what will happen much more often when their normal groups are black-listed -- and which will make grandmothers everywhere pedophiles-by-association when they try to view a chicken noodle soup recipe and instead download child porn.

Lerianis

That's f'ed up. Get help.

CougarAbogado

"To you people who say things . . . " Dude, there's only been one person that's said anything about making this stuff legal, and I don't think anyone is supporting that idea. Personally, my view is that there is evil in this world and I'd rather that scum stay in their own little corner of it where they can be monitored and prosecuted rather than making them scatter like roaches when the lights come on . . . and end up being unmonitored, untraceable, and unprosecutable. There has always been and will always be illegal activity and no government or society can ever stop it. If you think child porn and pedophilia didn't exist before the Internet, then you have led a very sheltered and uninformed life -- they've been around since before recorded history.

[GypsyWeaver]

Sorry ckought, but the article says "Internet service providers Verizon Communications, Sprint Nextel, and Time Warner Cable have agreed to block Internet newsgroups and Web sites nationwide that disseminate child pornography, The New York Times reported Monday." DID YOU READ THAT? Internew newsgroups and WEB SITES. *** As for Lerianis, I certainly hope the government has already obtained your name and address as you should definitely be on their Watch List or, better yet, in a sanitarium somewhere getting some MAJOR HELP! I cannot believe that you have the audacity to say such things. If I were allowed to say what I think of you, they would ban me from posting. You are DISGUSTING and a DISGRACE to mankind. *** I am not one who wants my rights taken away (like I originally stated about having to wear a seatbelt in MY PERSONAL vehicle...I would not be hurting anyone else but myself), but I do agree that the government needs to step in and take care of the children and DECENT people by prohibiting/censoring this type of garbage. I believe if it hurts or negatively affects another human being, then the government should be able to stop it!

[ckought]

I humbly stand corrected on the web site blocking aspect of my earlier statement. That said; could you elaborate on what entity you would like to give authority to for censoring Internet content, and what your definition of "this type of garbage" specifically is? Pedophiles become aroused by viewing things as innocuous as clothing ads for children and programs with children in them (like Barney or Sesame Street) -- does that mean that those should be banned also? The government has already tried several times to ban works of art that portrayed nude adolescents -- do we ban classical artwork containing children? The government has also tried to ban pictures of adults that appear to be underage; even drawings of adolescents in "sexually suggestive" poses -- although they refuse to define what that is exactly. We all want evil in this world to be stopped, but at what cost? When they decide that the picture you took of your child taking a bath or of your child's first diaper change (or even a family trip to the beach, because some perv could get off on kids in bathing suits) and the send you to prison and you're forever labeled a "sex offender", then maybe you'll see the slippery slope it can be when you hand over your rights in exchange for "public protection".

[GypsyWeaver]

I understand what you are saying about giving the government the right to censor advertising (and I think it should be on and off the Internet), how far is too far, who decides what should and shouldn't be censored, etc. I really am struggling with this too. I don't want the government to have full control or I'd go to some country where people live in fear day in and day out because their government has full control. We must have some type of oversight committe for censoring advertising both online and off, or one day we're all going to wake up and the floods and fires will be all around us. At that point, it will be too late! People have rights, I agree, but the people who only want to hurt others and take away their rights MUST BE STOPPED. *** You mention children's programs like Barney & Sesame Street, or ads in the paper with children in bathing suits, etc. that arouse these pervs and should they be censored because they arouse them? No. Just because some pervert is aroused by natural, normal sights and events that are not displaying children in the nude, having sex, or other things that children are not supposed to be doing because they are children, and do not arouse a "normal" person, does not mean it should be censored. We cannot control the thoughts of every pervert, but if we make life, advertising, and the Internet a decent place then there will be less places for them to go and they will be sought out and caught quicker. **** I have a picture of my daughter at about 2 years old that is perfectly innocent and adorable to us, her family. I would never put that picture online or in print for anyone else to see. It remains in a photo album as it is a personal and family picture. These people who do put photos in print or online that were done in a sexually explicit manner to solicit children are the ones who should go to prison so that they can be raped every single day they're alive.

[chuck_whealton]

I'm sorry, but I have absolutely NO PROBLEM with people being denied access to news groups and websites that promote pediphilia. I don't think it goes far enough. My only regret in reading the article is that I see no mention of bringing these people who post this trash to trial and putting them behind bars if/when found guilty.

To sit here and read some of the comments where people are actually advocating illegal activity with children and using the tired old "police your own children" argument, makes me sick.

Charles R. Whealton
Charles Whealton @ pleasedontspam.com

[PzkwVIb]

They are not blocking just those newsgroups. Read the article. Also keep in mind that newsgroups can also contain protected political speech.

I am more concerned with upholding the First Amendment than I am with allowing some politician to make brownie points with heavy handed censorship.

[PzkwVIb]

Their not hiding! It is NOT their responsibility! And banning thousands of newsgroups because objectionable content was found on 88 is an intolerable attack on protected speach. Maybe NY Atourney General would realize that if he wasn't so busy being a political hack

[i_made_this]

The whole conversation is idiocy. For those of us old enough to remember using the phone or the TV, did we ever BEG AT&T or CBS to invade our privacy rights? You feel abused by your own guilt as a lousy paren? You demand squeeky-clean? Rent PG-rated DVD's, lock your children in their bedrooms with no means of telecomm and put them in expensive parochial or private schools or better yet, military academies. If the telecomms succeed at pushing this through nationally, I hope all of you understand the one thing that this will guarantee - much higher fees for internet service. You can add that to your private school bills and gloat in the blissful state of bankruptcy that you brought on yourselves. And kids will still be kids. Heck, I remember climbing out my bedroom window to join my buds in high school when my parents put me on detention lol. But get with it - those parents - you and I - have always been and will continue to be our kids' first and last line of defense. The rest is nonsense that - you have my guarantee - won't protect any kids whatsoever.

[ZiggyBoomBox]

As far as I can tell, the ISPs in question fully comply & help law enforcement with removing & gathering info on child pornography. Usenet, like a public bulletin board should NOT be held accountable for the material posted on it, as long as they act swiftly to remove material when notified. This just seems like overkill since there are over 14,000 newsgroups and the AG only found child porn on 88 of them. True, the ISPs are not blocking access to the newsgroups but shutting down their own servers, but even giving the appearance of caving in to political pressure sets a dangerous precedent. Especially since Time Warner states on their site that they are doing it because of lack of use, while the AG states on his site that he forced them to do it. Free Speech and anonymity are worth protecting, while (we should never forget) Child Pornographers deserve a particularly nasty hell of their own.

[benjaminstraight]

I think that