Pennsylvania law: ISPs must block child porn

[Phantasm66]

http://salon.com/tech/wire/2002/03/18/child_porn/index.html

Starting next month, Internet service providers with customers in Pennsylvania will be legally responsible for blocking access to child pornography.

The law, with maximum penalties including prison time for repeat offenders, is believed to be the first of its kind.

But by putting the onus on the state attorney general's office to notify ISPs of what should be blocked, the law is expected to have limited success.

"This is a community that already knows it is on the edges of legality and as a result, they don't do things to bring attention to themselves," said Chris Hunter, a free-speech researcher at the University of Pennsylvania.

Under the law, signed last month, prosecutors would, after obtaining a court order, give ISPs a list of Web sites and other items to block.

But child pornographers -- many of whom operate from overseas -- can quickly move to other sites. Child porn sites are generally temporary fixtures that disappear after a few hours anyway, said John Philip Jenkins, a Penn State professor who has researched Internet pornography issues.

"There's probably more out there than anybody knows, but this probably won't be an effective way of doing anything about it," Jenkins said.

The law carries penalties of $5,000 for the first offense and $20,000 for the second. After that, violators are subject to fines of $30,000 and up to seven years imprisonment.

The law has the blessing of the state chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union. Larry Frankel, the chapter's executive director, said someone whose material is cut off could seek a court hearing.

But ISPs consider the law impractical from a technical standpoint.

"Once you use my service to get on the Internet, I have no way of controlling where you go and what you see," said Sue Ashdown, director of the American Internet Service Provider Association, an organization of small ISPs.

ISPs serve as conduits and do not actually control content -- the way the postal service delivers letters without knowing what's inside the envelopes.

The law does not require ISPs to actively monitor their service -- only to block specific sites or services when notified. But more technically astute users can often bypass blocks by using so-called proxy services.

And while some ISPs now market themselves as "family friendly," they often do so by restricting access to legitimate sites as well.

Kevin Harley, a spokesman for the state attorney general's office, said the agency plans to expand its child sexual exploitation unit and will monitor the Internet for sites that traffic in child pornography.

Two years ago, a congressional commission called for law enforcement agencies to develop a list of Web sites, newsgroups and other Internet destinations that contain child pornography.

The commission's own lists indicated that about 100,000 Web sites show simulated or real child pornography.

Three federal laws aimed at restricting pornography -- involving minors or otherwise -- have all been challenged.

One was overturned, another is pending before the Supreme Court and a third is scheduled for a trial in Philadelphia this month. None requires ISPs to do the blocking.

Officials at America Online and the National Conference of State Legislatures said they knew of no other state law like Pennsylvania's.

A South Dakota law merely requires employees of ISPs to report any child pornography to law-enforcement officials, while South Carolina has a law requiring the same of computer-repair technicians.

I think this is about time.

I only hope that this serves as an example to other states and nations, who I hope in turn emulate these laws.

This comes on the eve of a new study suggesting that the distribution of child pornography is rife on the internet, as are child abuse rings and groups.

Its ALL involved.... http, ftp, irc, newsgroups, icq! All of these technologies that I love dearly are being used by these foul little perverts to organise, distribute and meet.

It makes me ashamed that I am involved in working in an industry that is helping these people.

Whoever you are out there, if you are listening, I defy you! If I EVER come across you, you will regret the day you ever met me. I will always report you. I will provide the authorities with evidence if I have it. If I find you on irc, http or ftp I will report you. If I ever repair your machine, you will be reported. I hope you burn in hell like you deserve. :evil: You are everything about the internet that I despise!!!!

 

[Arris]

Hear hear.
I can't believe that took so long...

 

[uncleel]

90 people in more than 20 states

FBI Arrests Priests, Police for Internet Child Porn
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20020318/wr_nm/crime_pornography_dc_2&printer=1
Mon Mar 18, 5:42 PM ET By James Vicini
WASHINGTON (Reuters) -

Catholic priests, a police officer, a nurse, a teacher's aide and a school bus driver were among those charged in a 14-month nationwide crackdown known as "Operation Candyman" that targeted child pornography on the Internet, the FBI said on Monday.

Now if they could just pass legislation about SPAM!
http://www.3dspotlight.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=724

 

[Didou]

It would be nice if that could become a generalized Law.

 

[TS | Thomas]

While I'm obviously against those sort of things I'm not sure how they can effectively block it fully (Other than what's listed). It's a bit like passing a law that says its the parents responsibility to ensure their kids don't curse, not sure how that can be worked effectively are you?

 

[Phantasm66]

I think one way of reading it is that if you are knowingly aware of someone using your service to deal in child porn, then you should report them.

It should be the same for computer techs. If I repair a computer, and whilst doing so find child porn on it, then it should be an offence for me not to report that.

But I would anyway...

 

[SNGX1275]

Do not flame me for this

I do not condone child porn! Let that be known before you read this.
But really, is it that much of a problem that ISP's have to block sites that you can go to?
Once again, I am not advocating child porn. I do not ever care to see a 7 year old chick having sexual things being done to her. I am just wondering why it has to be blocked
I'm sure there are some places in the world where you can get on the internet, and Child Porn is not illegal.

 

[Arris]

But then you have the problems of people claiming that they didn't put it there and its possible that in some cases their machine could have been hacked and someone on the net was using it as an ftp....
These things do happen. I don't know how easy it is to prove either way though

 

[uncleel]

Originally posted by Phantasm66
Whoever you are out there, if you are listening, I defy you! If I EVER come across you, you will regret the day you ever met me. I will always report you. I will provide the authorities with evidence if I have it. If I find you on irc, http or ftp I will report you. If I ever repair your machine, you will be reported. I hope you burn in hell like you deserve. :evil: You are everything about the internet that I despise!!!!

HADES Awaits Oh Ye Pediophiles

here's your Candyman

 

[SNGX1275]

Valid point Arris.
But those people that route through another computer might also find a way to get around the ISP blocking.? Hey I don't know. Just contributing to discussion.

 

[Arris]

May all pedophiles be forced to share a cell with Gary Glitter!!!
And listen to his music!!!! :evil:

 

[poertner_1274]

Originally posted by Arris
May all pedophiles be forced to share a cell with Gary Glitter!!!
And listen to his music!!!! :evil:

Who is Gary Glitter???? Never heard of him

But obviously he isn't something good.

 

[Phantasm66]

http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/vanderlinden/glitter.htm

The glam rock star Gary Glitter received a four-month prison sentence, after pleading guilty to a string of child pornography charges.
Sentencing Glitter, Mr Justice Butterfield said "This is not a victimless crime. The victims are the little children whose images you wished to view. Without the ultimate consumer, men like you prepared to pay for this material, there would be no market for this filth."

John Royce QC, prosecuting, said: "The investigation demonstrated that he had an appetite for child pornography that was bluntly voracious.
"He spent literally hundreds of hours logged on seeking out material of the sickest kind." He was often logged on for six or 12 hours at a time.

Dressed in a dark blue suit and wearing the bouffant pony-tailed wig he uses to hide his baldness, Glitter bowed to cheering supporters in the public gallery as the last of the not guilty verdicts was read out by the jury foreman.

 

[uncleel]

Originally posted by poertner_1274
Who is Gary Glitter????

The '70's Glam Rocker w/ the famous 'The Hey Song'
LISTEN-->
http://www.apbnews.com/media/celebnews/1999/11/15/glitter_sound.wav

 

[Ai Hate]

Re: Do not flame me for this

Originally posted by SNGX1275
and Child Porn is not illegal.

there's the problem.

 

[Phantasm66]

As I said, this comes on the eve of a new study suggesting that the child pornography problem is MUCH WORSE on the internet than anyone had imagined.

There are IRC channels that are essentially paedophile rings where people OPENLY ADMIT TO CHILD ABUSE! They use these to organise child abuse rings, parties, meetings, and so forth.

All this time the courts are tied up with music companies suing everyone under the sun for swapping mp3s - where are the multi-million dollars being spent on finding people swapping child porn and contacts for these paedophile rings??

This world has its priorities in the wrong place. We are content to let this continue because its not costing any big companies any revenue, but are instead pumping millions of dollars into creating a computer that will not participate in piracy.

Why are we not pumping millions of dollars into creating a computer that shops paedophiles to the authorities????

But oh, no, no.... We are more concerned about me getting a copy of Madonna's latest track as an mp3 than we are about these sick SOBs using the great power of the internet to organise, meet, swap their filth....

It makes me sick. Sick that I am working to promote the technology of an industry that is helping these people.

I wish they would all burn.

And one day, I shall invent a technology that sees that the internet is NOT a place where these people flourish. Unless someone else beats me to it.

 

[Arris]

Gary Glitter 'seduced girl, 14'

Gary Glitter in child porn probe

Pop star Gary Glitter is at the centre of a child pornography inquiry after images were allegedly discovered stored on a computer he took for repair.

Would you like to be in close proximity to this??? I think not

Ai Hate : Child pornography is certainly not legal in the UK!

 

[Phantasm66]

Personally, Arris, I'd like to see the Sicko put to death.

Its bad enough that he's a famous person with a fan base (God knows why....) who should be an example to the public, but also that he turned up in court dressed in all that "glitter" outfit and hair, quite blatantly giving a big two fingers to the court, that girl and her family and the good people of the public.

:evil:

 

[TS | Thomas]

Gary Glitter was a music, ermmm, icon. He actually got caught by, as far as a I recall, he sent his PC in to get repaired & whoever was repairing it musta have decided to check out his files/internet explorer history, etc.
So he got found out like that.
I also read him & his wife are moving to CUBA as "that sort of thing is more accepted over there". Or so the report said.

Surprising how easy it is to catch anyone at this sorta thing. I remember using my bosses laptop which happened to have 3 avi's I'm sure his wife wouldn't appreciate (errr, all adult of course) "hidden" away, not to mention the stuff he had asked at ask jeeves (tsk, tsk not disabling autocomplete).

 

[MrGaribaldi]

I agree with you all that paedophiles are a stain on this wonderful world we're living on, and especially on the net...

But I ask you, what is paedophilea? Where does the age limit go? Is it 18 years? Is it 16? is it 13? where? And why?

I Norway it was quite common to get married when the girl was 13/14 years old, as she then was mature enough to conceive a child. (Though this is quite a while ago...)
And I do believe it was the same in the UK...

And whilst I find it disgusting to think that there are 30+ year old men looking at nude 14 year old girls, I don't have the same problem with a 14 year old boy looking at nude 14 year old girls...

What are your views on this? Is it ok for people of the same age to look at other people of the same age nude? Why/why not?


NOTE: In this post I talk about softcore porn i.e. nude pic's, where no sexual act is underway!

To answer some of the Q's myself:

I'd say agelimit for pics: 16 years old, as that is the age when you are allowed to become sexually active (in norway). If you can have sex, you should also be able to pose for pics imo...

As for what paedophilea is, I'd have to say it's men looking at nude girls under the sexual age, be it pics/ videos/whatever.
I.e. If I were looking at nude 14 year olds, I'd consider myself a paedophile... (please note that I do not have any interest in any pics of underage girls!)

I do however find it acceptable that a 13/14/15 y.o. looks at nude pics (not sexual act!) of other 13/14/15 y.o.... Though I'm a bit unsure about this, as the pics are most likely taken by an older person, which I would find unacceptable... A bit of a problem there, I know, but...


I'd very much like to hear what you think about this...

 

[Arris]

Well the definition of pedofile/paedofile is of an adult (someone of legal age of consent) who has an interest, sexual, in people who are under that age of consent.

I don't have a problem with 14 year olds looking at each other, I think most of us will have played Doctors and Nurses at some point in our lives, but if there are pictures then the policing and control of such material is the problem. How do you make sure that only 14 year olds see the pictures of other 14 year old. Surely the easier thing to enforce is no pictures of anyone under the legal age of consent. IMO a 14 year old looking at a picture of another 14 year old would not be a paedophile but he would be in possession of paedophilia, which could get into the hands of adults.

 

[MrGaribaldi]

Originally posted by Arris
I don't have a problem with 14 year olds looking at each other, I think most of us will have played Doctors and Nurses at some point in our lives, but if there are pictures then the policing and control of such material is the problem. How do you make sure that only 14 year olds see the pictures of other 14 year old. Surely the easier thing to enforce is no pictures of anyone under the legal age of consent. IMO a 14 year old looking at a picture of another 14 year old would not be a paedophile but he would be in possession of paedophilia, which could get into the hands of adults.

Good point! The reason I said what I said is the following:

Imagine you're at a LAN party... You find a couple of 20+ trading childporn, you report them to the police (and offcourse stop them from deleting the evidence)... A little later you come across a 14 y.o. boy with nude pics (no sexual act) of a ~14 y.o. girl... What do you do? Do you call in the police? He is in possesion of something illegal... Or do you turn a blind eye, though telling the boy not to share/trade the files?

As you said, we've all been playing doctor once in our lves, and what if this is that guys only chance at doing that... (There are quite a few computer interested boys which has about 0% chance of hitting it off with a girl...)

So what would you do, if the guy looked/seemed to fall into that category?

 

[Arris]

Well its a hard thing to decide upon.
Myself I would be tempted to ask him to delete it under the threat of informing the authorities. I don't think reporting him would do much anyway, depending on your countries laws. In the UK a 14 year old gets a stern talking to for most offences so reporting him would only waste tax payers money and possibly put something on his criminal record that might damage his future prospects. But since it is still paedophilia it should be destroyed.
A similar argument could be put forth about pirate software. Should you look the other way because the person that has it is poor????

 

[Phantasm66]

Originally posted by Arris
Well the definition of pedofile/paedofile is of an adult (someone of legal age of consent) who has an interest, sexual, in people who are under that age of consent.

Exactly. We are not talking about a couple of kids playing doctor, or even a 14 year old looking at snaps of a semi-clothed other 14 year old.

We are talking about evil minded adults who are sexually dysfunctional in that they are not sexually attracted to adults, as they should be, but instead are sexually attracted to children. And for some of them, the younger the better. :evil:

These people are the lowest type of human being. Already I feel contaminated by the extents of their deprived natures. They use the internet to organise, participate and condone the sexual abuse of children. :evil: They deserve no advocation, no support, no defence and no mercy.

They do deserve, however, to be taken away and have their sex hormone producing glands removed, so that they are no longer a threat to society. We are talking about people here who do not care about the damage or the suffering they cause, just so long as their perverse and odd desires are satisfied. And they are using the internet as a tool to these objectives. That is why they must be found and stamped out.

To suggest anything else is utterly ridiculous.

 

[MrGaribaldi]

Originally posted by Phantasm66
Exactly. We are not talking about a couple of kids playing doctor, or even a 14 year old looking at snaps of a semi-clothed other 14 year old.

Phantasm, I just wanted to get that clarified...
As peoples definition of paedophilea can vary...

Originally posted by Phantasm66
They do deserve, however, to be taken away and have their sex hormone producing glands removed, so that they are no longer a threat to society. We are talking about people here who do not care about the damage or the suffering they cause, just so long as their perverse and odd desires are satisfied. And they are using the internet as a tool to these objectives. That is why they must be found and stamped out.

Oops, that seemed to have slipped out of my posts... I suggested that male paedophiles should end up women, if you get what I mean... Just a quick cut and into prison for (preferably) life...!

Originally posted by Phantasm66
To suggest anything else is utterly ridiculous.

Is this directed at me, or?

.02$