N.Y. AG says AOL will curb access to Usenet. It already did
It's no secret that politicians tend to churn out press releases touting their accomplishments, no matter how mean or insignificant. But it is still possible to be surprised on occasion, which brings us to today's announcement by New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, a Democrat.
In his press release, which was reproduced uncritically, Cuomo claimed that AOL has "agreed to eliminate access to child porn newsgroups, a major supplier of these illegal images" and said that the company will "purge" its "servers of child porn websites." By newsgroups, Cuomo is referring to Usenet, a free-flowing discussion area that predates the Web.
The press release included the obligatory encomiums from the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children's Ernie Allen, who added: "This is another tremendous step forward in ridding the Internet of child pornography. Attorney General Cuomo continues to lead the fight against child pornography and I applaud his efforts to cut this horrific material off at the source."
There's just one problem with the press release. AOL isn't doing anything different today than it did yesterday. "We have not changed any policies or procedures as part of today's announcement," AOL spokeswoman Allie Burns told me via e-mail.
Someone on the New York attorney general's staff probably should have informed his or her boss that AOL actually ceased to offer all Usenet newsgroups more than three years ago--for business reasons, not political reasons. Even in the bizzaro world of politics, an Internet provider can't very well cease to offer what it already has ceased to offer. (AOL will continue to allow its customers to access third-party Usenet providers such as Giganews, and Usenet.com.)
Nor is AOL doing anything different in terms of deleting illegal images on its servers. "We've had an agreement in place with the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children since January 2007 to purge any known URLs and IP addresses that are identified by NCMEC as carrying child pornography," AOL's Burns said.
To be sure, Cuomo's press release also talked about AT&T changing its policies, and it was at least accurate in that respect.
AT&T spokesman Marty Richter told me that the company is going to cease offering the alt.binaries.* hierarchy, which include sex-themed newsgroups but also ones such as alt.binaries.pictures.aviation, alt.binaries.drwho.pictures, and alt.binaries.pictures.vehicles. Customers will continue to be able to access third-party Usenet providers.
AT&T's existing policy has been to investigate all complaints of child porn hosted on its servers--and promptly remove any illegal images--within three business days. That will not change. On Thursday, AT&T said it will enter into an agreement with the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children to consult the group's lists in addition to complaints received from other sources.
All of this might be normal political posturing, except that it points to a troubling trend. Cuomo, like his predecessor Eliot Spitzer, seems to be trying to legislate through threats of selective prosecution or public embarrassment.
That's what happened last month when Cuomo announced that Verizon Communications, Time Warner Cable, and Sprint would curb Usenet (here's exactly what Verizon is doing). It happened today with AOL and AT&T. It's true that child sexual abuse is a horrific crime--but it's also true that, last we checked, setting rules and policies for companies to follow is a job for a duly elected legislature, not the police.
Declan McCullagh, CNET News' chief political correspondent, chronicles the intersection of politics and technology. He has covered politics, technology, and Washington, D.C., for more than a decade, which has turned him into an iconoclast and a skeptic of anyone who says, "We oughta have a new federal law against this." E-mail Declan. 
"Child porn" is simply one of the current, bogus, "wars" which is being intentionally used, and abused, for the same old reason... CONTROL (...through fear and manipulation).
And, its only going to get worse (MUCH WORSE).
Frankly, if they REALLY wanted to protect children, they would LEGALIZE pedosexuality and having sex with children, bring it out into the open, and start looking MORE at the people who still tried to hide those relationships once they were legal and quasi-accepted, unless they had a good reason to hide it (like the parents were ******** who were trying to control their children's sexual lives and threatening anyone who propositions them with physical harm).
They would also legalize 'child pornography' and make it a quasi-regulated business like adult pornography is a regulated business, with a few more added protections for adults and children in the business (mental health screenings on a regular, annual or quarterly basis, etc.).
The only thing that our 'War against predators' (and most pedosexuals are not predators, coming from being a pedosexual myself and having people tell me I am definitely NOT the definition of a predator who know what I am and accept me) is doing is wasting tax money, putting mostly productive citizens in prison (most pedosexuals are, by and large, MORE educated, intelligent and productive than most of the rest of society), and making a 'under-class' of citizens.
That said, if a person forcibly rapes someone.... I want them to be put into mental health therapy, not in prison, and for some of the blame to be put where it belongs: on the women, men, children, etc. who turn down men and women in the most....... terrible ways, and make them hate the people who they are propositioning, thereby making their sexual impulses blend and distort with their hatred.
I say delete the thing off the internet. 100% worthless.
In any case the A.G. is a JOKE, exploiting this do-nothing crusade so he can get his 2 minutes of fame. Way to go ANDY! Bring back Spitzer even though he broke the law, at least he was the real deal.
- by waldolc July 11, 2008 12:41 PM PDT
- I am all for eliminating child pornography. But why does everything else have to suffer? Is there an ulterior motive? Is the government going to tell me what I can do in my own house? What is next? Why not charge me for playing catch with my kids in my own backyard? I'm sure that offends someone who hates kids or baseball or exercise. Why not ban free speech across the board? Oops! I may have offended someone by saying this...
- Reply to this comment
-
(9 Comments)