DR_JAY
join:2002-04-23
Verdun, QC | ?!
There's a lot worst things than child exploitation on the usenet servers. |
|
raddicott
join:2002-12-29 | Ooooh Canada!
What a shame. |
|
rudnicke
Premium
join:2004-10-23
Rantoul, IL | Wow.
They really thought that one through. |
|
Davros866
join:2001-07-23
Houston, TX | Blocked
Why not block port 80 as well? I suspect a lot of child exploitation is done via the web browser.
Then there's email and IM. Those can be used also and should be blocked. |
|
dsanders16
join:2001-02-24
Auburn, AL | Don't give them any ideas. |
|
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
 ·Comcast
| reply to Davros866
said by Davros866  :Why not block port 80 as well? I suspect a lot of child exploitation is done via the web browser. Then there's email and IM. Those can be used also and should be blocked. <sarcasm>
Heck, block everything, inbound and outbound. This way, we will make sure no one's computer gets infected with viruses either!
</sarcasm>
--
Rove / Rumsfeld 2008! |
|
vincom1
join:2005-02-01
Wayne, NJ
1 edit |  Shady!
It's a cheap excuse to cut something they most likely did not want to continue the expense of operation. |
|
N3OGH
Bear patrol must be working like a charm
Premium
join:2003-11-11
Philly burbs
 ·Verizon FIOS
 ·Verizon Online DSL
| reply to Davros866
Re: Blocked
Virtually every avenue of the internet can be used to exploit children. Guess we should shut the whole thing down....
I've worked on child exploitation investigations in both my internship, and my current position. One things for sure, for as long as human beings wake every morning and move about, these sick bastards will find a way to do their evil (the child exploiters).
Shutting down any portion of any computer network will change that.... |
|
stephenju
Premium
join:2002-05-17
Bedford, MA
| Why don't they do this...
quote:
as a member of Canadian Coalition Against Internet Child Exploitation (CCAISE) Rogers is committed to reducing the effectiveness of Usenet as a distribution vehicle for child exploitation images.
Well. This reason alone is enough to shutdown the entire Internet. |
|
P Ness
You'Ve Forgotten 9-11 Already
Premium
join:2001-08-29
Mineola, NY
clubs: 
| said by stephenju : quote:
as a member of Canadian Coalition Against Internet Child Exploitation (CCAISE) Rogers is committed to reducing the effectiveness of Usenet as a distribution vehicle for child exploitation images.
Well. This reason alone is enough to shutdown the entire Internet. While you are at it they better shut down telephones too...and cars since preditors snatch kids from the streets in cars....
--
www.stopfcc.comI do not think the government needs to restrict free speech especially on a device that has an off knob. |
|
Topmounter
Sent By Grocery Clerks
join:2001-02-20
Evergreen, CO | Actually, you guys are thinking entirely too small scale, shutting down Canada entirely would end any child exploitation that may occur in Canada. |
|
athlon 11
join:2003-01-15
31400 | why not lunch all nuclear weapon to kill all human being?hahaha |
|
logidev
join:2004-05-09
Nepean, ON
| Ted's best interest.
I think the truth behind the matter is that they are blocking that service as a result of the amount of "warez" downloading.
In their attempt to make good, they have knowingly lied about the root cause of their reasoning behind the blocks. It sounds much better for them to say "we are blocking this access to rid these sick people from downloading their smut. When the truth is, they are simply doing it for the money factor.
My two cents, plus GST. |
|
packetscan
Premium
join:2004-10-19
Bridgeport, CT
clubs: | What a Pile of crap
I dont buy that.. |
|
aol suckest
@rr.com | reply to logidev
Re: Ted's best interest.
they need to shut down AOL.. the biggest of all child endangering networks...
 |
|
andreo
join:2001-03-30
Des Moines, IA | reply to P Ness
Re: Why don't they do this...
I think to nip this in the bud, you need to go to the source. Stop the sales of all video and photo cameras. If there's no way to take the pictures in the first place, then there are no pictures to be distributed. |
|
dudeisright
@67.98.x.x | reply to logidev
Re: Ted's best interest.
I tend to agree. If you put a child p0rn label or terrorism label on something the uninformed public is less likely to push the issue.
What it really boils down to is they are censoring their customers communication. |
|
phantom6294
join:2002-02-27
Abingdon, MD
·Comcast
1 edit | reply to andreo
Re: Why don't they do this...
Well... but then they will start drawing pictures by hand of children and send them via postal mail... so the logic would flow we would have to shut down the postal mail system. So, to nip that in the bud, we better get rid of paper and pens/pencils/etc so they can't draw. But then, they will just imagine images in their head... and talk to their buddies on the phone describing the images... so the logic flows we would need to shut down the phone system... so to nip that in the bud, we will have to take away their minds so that can't even imagine the images.... |
|
Bobcat
Premium
join:2001-02-04
Bedminster, NJ
·Verizon Online DSL
| Poor excuse
If they were really concerned with "reducing the effectiveness of Usenet as a distribution vehicle for child exploitation images", they would simply stop carrying binary newsgroups and retain the text newsgroups.
--
"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the president to explain to us what the exit strategy is."
» George W. Bush, April 9, 1999 |
|
jp10558
Premium
join:2005-06-24
Willseyville, NY | And text newsgroups aren't even that expensive to maintain. There are free text servers for goodness sake. |
|
