dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
372
share rss forum feed


sfl0w

join:2010-07-20
Birmingham, AL
reply to swintec

Re: What usenet service everyone using now?

said by swintec:

They removed entire groups because just the group name sounded bad.

Easynews,Newshosting and UsenetServer are among many other responsible providers who have opted to be members of the Internet Watch Foundation - the IWF's purpose is to remove criminal content, primarily newsgroups that harbor child porn, from the Usenet. Anyone who really cares about the Usenet and loves it for what it is knows that there is no place for that kind of garbage anywhere. Before @swintec attacks other providers for censorship, it ought to known for anyone who is interested that Blocknews and UsenetNow both take no responsibility and openly support newsgroups that knowingly contain and are only online to spread child pornography.

Any decent provider filters child porn.


swintec
Premium,VIP
join:2003-12-19
Alfred, ME
kudos:5
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
·VoicePulse
·Sprint Mobile Br..
·RapidVPS

1 recommendation

said by sfl0w:

Easynews,Newshosting and UsenetServer are among many other responsible providers who have opted to be members of the Internet Watch Foundation - the IWF's purpose is to remove criminal content, primarily newsgroups that harbor child porn, from the Usenet. Anyone who really cares about the Usenet and loves it for what it is knows that there is no place for that kind of garbage anywhere. Before @swintec attacks other providers for censorship, it ought to known for anyone who is interested that Blocknews and UsenetNow both take no responsibility and openly support newsgroups that knowingly contain and are only online to spread child pornography.

Any decent provider filters child porn.

Except, as you know, because you say the same every time this comes up and I respond, a group name tends to not have anything to do with group content. Nothing was accomplished by simply removing groups with bad NAMES because it will simply push CP users to use one of the other thousands of obscure, no traffic groups for their activities, thus making it more difficult to find, track and catch the individuals involved.

Removing groups based on names was nothing other than a feel good move for each of the parties involved back then.

I have posted it before, but here is one of the write ups done on it several years ago: »www.privacylover.com/child-porno···ld-porn/ The author doesn't know or just doesnt distinguish between resellers though...but it appears at least at the time, Giganews, Highwinds and Astraweb all obliged in one form or another. Although i wonder if you requested one of the more obscure group names to be added back if it would be.
--
Usenet Block Accounts | Unlimited Accounts


sfl0w

join:2010-07-20
Birmingham, AL
@swintec, no disrespect, but seriously though, how can you justify hosting groups on your feed whose sole purpose is to spread child pornography...so your attitude is well the drug dealers are always going to be dealing on one street corner or another so why not just let them use mine, their going to do it anyway...

not a very good attitude if you ask me...just sayin


swintec
Premium,VIP
join:2003-12-19
Alfred, ME
kudos:5
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
·VoicePulse
·Sprint Mobile Br..
·RapidVPS
said by sfl0w:

@swintec, no disrespect, but seriously though, how can you justify hosting groups on your feed whose sole purpose is to spread child pornography...so your attitude is well the drug dealers are always going to be dealing on one street corner or another so why not just let them use mine, their going to do it anyway...

You seem to be being deliberately obtuse to the whole situation. Group NAME does not equal group CONTENT.

The groups chosen to be removed were chosen because the names sounded bad and I think it was also around the time that politician in NY was trying to get elected and managed to get TW and Comcast to discontinue providing usenet access to their end users as well.

Everybody felt better after because they think they put a dent in CP. Thinking logically though, CP traders didnt just give up their addiction / illness, they simply moved to other obscure groups...I would be surprised if they were even using the removed groups to begin with.

Don't you think if the groups "sole purpose is to spread child pornography..." were actually true, law enforcement would want them accessible? It would be like shooting fish in a barrel for them. They simply drove it further underground. I guess if it isnt seen though, it isnt happening right?

Will you sing the same tune when the recording industries realize they can pay a politician off and get a.b.dvdr removed or a.b.hdtv because the mere name MIGHT insinuate copyright infringement? Wonder how easy everyone will bend for that request.

Absolutely no reason to go after group names, you go after posters if there is an issue with posts.

Your drug dealer analogy is a stupid one and proves my point. Close off access and police one corner, drug dealers will go to a different corner. Secure that one and they will go to the alley or park. you need to take out the dealer directly.
--
Usenet Block Accounts | Unlimited Accounts

unoriginal
Premium
join:2000-07-12
San Diego, CA

1 recommendation

quote:
Before @swintec attacks other providers for censorship, it ought to known for anyone who is interested that Blocknews and UsenetNow both take no responsibility and openly support newsgroups that knowingly contain and are only online to spread child pornography.
Wow, way to take this thread off the rails. But if you are going to point fingers at anyone you might as well do it at Readnews since that is what usenetnow and blocknews resell.

Also take your pitchfork and torches and go raise bloody hell with Ngroups.net since they are a Readnews reseller as well.

If you are going to tar and feather people you might as well get all of them.


Mister M

join:2010-05-01
Vancouver, BC

1 recommendation

reply to sfl0w
said by sfl0w:

@swintec, no disrespect, but seriously though, how can you justify hosting groups on your feed whose sole purpose is to spread child pornography...so your attitude is well the drug dealers are always going to be dealing on one street corner or another so why not just let them use mine, their(sic) going to do it anyway...

not a very good attitude if you ask me...just sayin

Hi.

You just bought your first computer and you're new to the internet. Welcome and hope you enjoy your new toy.

There is much to learn, as evident from your posting here.

kalone
Premium
join:2002-07-02
Lexington, KY
said by Mister M:

said by sfl0w:

@swintec, no disrespect, but seriously though, how can you justify hosting groups on your feed whose sole purpose is to spread child pornography...so your attitude is well the drug dealers are always going to be dealing on one street corner or another so why not just let them use mine, their(sic) going to do it anyway...

not a very good attitude if you ask me...just sayin

Hi.

You just bought your first computer and you're new to the internet. Welcome and hope you enjoy your new toy.

There is much to learn, as evident from your posting here.

Not new. Been around for years promoting Highwinds.


sfl0w

join:2010-07-20
Birmingham, AL
reply to swintec
said by swintec:

said by sfl0w:

@swintec, no disrespect, but seriously though, how can you justify hosting groups on your feed whose sole purpose is to spread child pornography...so your attitude is well the drug dealers are always going to be dealing on one street corner or another so why not just let them use mine, their going to do it anyway...

You seem to be being deliberately obtuse to the whole situation. Group NAME does not equal group CONTENT.

The implication that these groups were just removed without anyone actually examining the content inside is completely ridiculous. Surely no one is stupid enough to buy into that sack of bull, there are to many folks at IWF and to many members do you honestly think that an organization whose mission is to eliminate criminal content is not actually going to go after the content? Don't know what planet your living on, but that just isn't the case and doesn't make any sense at all - but of course I guess you can keep telling people that the group name has nothing to do with content...hey everybody @swintec says we won't find anymore nude pics in the playboy groups(they are really filled with comic book art..)... ridiculousness

newster

join:2011-09-26
reply to kalone
said by kalone:

Not new. Been around for years promoting Highwinds.

Does anyone know how much they pay him? Highwinds is about the worst.

It's a ridiculous argument that eliminating group names stops content from being posted. Let's assume that people who post highly illegal and/or confidential stuff would do it in a way that can't easily be traced (ordinary usenet posts are highly traceable) or even noticed by casual observers, methods such as using multihop anonymous remailers (many only post to text groups) in groups such as alt.anonymous.messages.

One reason why most newsgroup providers don't want to sensor is that they know it's a slippery slope. Whenever torrent sites like Mininova were on trial, the prosecution would always drive in the point about how they could police the site for pornographic content but not copyrighted content. So the act of being a good citizen is used against them. This is also probably why the millions of harmful viruses that get posted get ignored by NSPs, as it's safer to do nothing than have to answer for partial enforcement.


DrWhovian

join:2012-06-15
T4022
said by newster:

Does anyone know how much they pay him? Highwinds is about the worst.

Highwinds gets a bad rap because of issues they had years ago but I have been using UsenetServer for two years and have nothing but good things to say about them.

Obviously this is a heated topic for some people but I think most people would agree that there is some stuff on the Usenet that doesn't have a place anywhere because it is so terrible. I have been using the Usenet for over a decade and have high respect for all the contributors of all the discussion groups and it is blatantly true that there are a set of binary groups whose contents tarnishes the Usenet as a whole and that is why I think most of your major NSPs have sided with the IWF to help protect the integrity of the Usenet. Unfortunately to often these days the Usenet is stereo typed into a place where you can find porn and music but anyone who has been a real member of the Usenet community for a long time knows this is not true. I agree at least in part with @sfl0w that the NSPs have a certain level of responsibility, I certainly don't want to see children being harmed on my newsfeed, most of the large providers including Astraweb, Highwinds and Giganews have all complied that sort of speaks for itself.

unoriginal
Premium
join:2000-07-12
San Diego, CA
quote:
I agree at least in part with @sfl0w that the NSPs have a certain level of responsibility, I certainly don't want to see children being harmed on my newsfeed, most of the large providers including Astraweb, Highwinds and Giganews have all complied that sort of speaks for itself.
Thanks for an epic first post. Besides your claim and sfl0w's rants does anyone actually have any proof that Readnews is refusing to comply with any laws that require them to remove harmful content from their servers? Child porn, warez, tv shows, or otherwise?

newster

join:2011-09-26
reply to sfl0w
said by sfl0w:

Easynews,Newshosting and UsenetServer are among many other responsible providers who have opted to be members of the Internet Watch Foundation - the IWF's purpose is to remove criminal content, primarily newsgroups that harbor child porn, from the Usenet. Anyone who really cares about the Usenet and loves it for what it is knows that there is no place for that kind of garbage anywhere. Before @swintec attacks other providers for censorship, it ought to known for anyone who is interested that Blocknews and UsenetNow both take no responsibility and openly support newsgroups that knowingly contain and are only online to spread child pornography.

Any decent provider filters child porn.

There is no effective way to "filter" CP. If you come across any, you can report it to the proper authorities and let them handle it.

Highwinds (i.e., Easynews,Newshosting and UsenetServer) for many years did nothing about child porn "prevention" until they were confronted by the NY Attorney General over the issue. They were handed a list of groups to remove and they complied as ordered. Since then, Highwinds has never removed the many additional *suggestive* names that have popped up since the original ban was executed. (and why not? maybe because they feel that group-name censorship is an endless battle that achieves nothing?) So it is really an empty argument to suggest that Highwinds (and no one else) is somehow "doing something" about illegal porn prevention.

Donating money to an activist charity (especially one that some might accuse of operating as a sort of 'protection-racket') is simply good business sense, and in this case has already been used for bragging rights as noted above (therefore not a "true" donation).

The AG only went after the biggest NSPs, so that's why today only a few NSPs censor group names while most others do not. (Giganews also complied with the AG's demands, but complained about being pressured to do something they felt was largely ineffective) Anyone who thinks Highwinds did this on their own initiative out of some sense of altruism is living in a fantasy world.

I can understand that it's hard to be a fanboy diehard for Highwinds these days, so maybe the best defense is to attack the other providers over a highly emotional (but deceptive) issue.



DrWhovian

join:2012-06-15
T4022
reply to unoriginal
said by unoriginal:

quote:
I agree at least in part with @sfl0w that the NSPs have a certain level of responsibility, I certainly don't want to see children being harmed on my newsfeed, most of the large providers including Astraweb, Highwinds and Giganews have all complied that sort of speaks for itself.
Thanks for an epic first post. Besides your claim and sfl0w's rants does anyone actually have any proof that Readnews is refusing to comply with any laws that require them to remove harmful content from their servers? Child porn, warez, tv shows, or otherwise?

Thank you for the compliment and forgive the way I worded the last part of my post. The point that I was trying to convey is that a company that hosts a usenet feed also hosts content in the binary groups and along with that content comes a certain level of corporate responsibility if you will with regard to providing access to groups that knowingly only exist to spread child pornography specifically. The reality is that today many NSPs have taken responsibility for those groups and removed them and have also become members of the Internet Watch Foundation(UK Based) whose sole existence is to prohibit and stop the spread of Child pornography. I would not attack any provider who is not a member of the IWF or who does not make any effort to filter this content, although I personally don't think this move is a responsible action and I would not choose to use them.

Also please do not drag me into this issue you guys have with Highwinds NSPs, but you aught to be aware that Giganews contributes at least 20X more to the IWF than does Highwinds. Most NSPs today filter groups based on the IWF's continually updated newsgroup list as an accepted best pratice.

Link showing members and contributions: »www.iwf.org.uk/members

While filtering known CP groups may not prevent the crimes from happening I do think that it is a responsible stop gap measure to help to prevent access to materials that may encourage would be sexual predators to actually go and commit a crime against a child.

newster

join:2011-09-26
reply to DrWhovian
said by DrWhovian:


Highwinds gets a bad rap because of issues they had years ago

Which of Highwinds "issues they had years ago" are you referring to? You could also say that Astraweb's annual completion holes are a thing of the past, and while that would be true, that doesn't mean it won't happen again.

Highwinds gets a bad rap because of issues they have RIGHT NOW, like downloads not completing.

said by DrWhovian:


The reality is that today many NSPs have taken responsibility for those groups and removed them

And this somehow prevents the child abusers from simply posting to other groups? Or worse yet, driving it underground to Freenet and Tor, where people are anonymous and virtually untraceable? It's rumored that those anonymous networks are full of child porn, yet the legal authorities are powerless to do much about it.

There is another side to this issue, that the newsgroups serve as a convenient honeypot, a baited trap that legal authorities can easily exploit to their advantage.

»nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2012/06···igation/

said by DrWhovian:

Most NSPs today filter groups based on the IWF's continually updated newsgroup list as an accepted best pratice.

Highwinds is nowhere "clean" by any means. A quick check through its group list shows that Highwinds has a lot of group names with flagrantly suggestive titles (and probably far more using CP codewords) but none of those groups are carried on Giganews. Could it be that Giganews gets a more complete list of groups to censor because it donates a lot more money to the IWF consecration machine than Highwinds does?