 | | This could be confusing to their customers... Does this mean Cablevision and Covad customers will no longer be able to shop Abercrombie & Fitch?
--
"I've learned that depression is merely anger without enthusiasm." | |
|
 |  EdrickI aspire to tell the story of a lifetimePremium
join:2004-09-11
Woburn, MA | Re: This could be confusing to their customers... said by burgermeister:Does this mean Cablevision and Covad customers will no longer be able to shop Abercrombie & Fitch? Thank god I hope so I hate those stores. Preppy ass people.
--
Ricky Smith
| |
|
| | | | Re: This could be confusing to their customers... preppy ass stuck up ass holes more like it. | |
|
| | Terrible I can just see it now. Some over concerned parent or parent group submitting anything they find obscene that is perfectly within the law via this sublink. And the cable companies just blindly banning content. Hopefully the EFF or another organization will audit this system and hopefully catch them censoring non child porn. Then suing them to hell. ISPs should only censor with a court order, period. | |
|
| | | Re: Terrible yep and that lawsuit will get you a nice higher bill so you can come back here and bitch about it.
I doubt the ISPs will just block anything. | |
|
| |
 MidakDoctors suckPremium
join:2002-02-26
Yonkers, NY | What's next? I'm all for this, 100% but I have to worry about what's next. Once ISP's start filtering out content, it can only snowball into complete censorship. | |
|
| | | Re: What's next? we'll end up somewhere in the middle. The middle is where the problem will be though, ISPs will solicite money from sites for some kind of preferred vendor status, otherwise your site content may deemed unacceptable for content that the site may carry.
My Orwellian thought for the day! | |
|
|  mrchrisOut and aroundPremium
join:2002-10-01
North Babylon, NY | As long as it does not balloon out to other stuff like extreme violence, political opinions, etc.
I wonder what they do to determine websites that are truely CP. | |
|
| | KearnstdElf WizardPremium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ | Re: What's next? said by mrchris:As long as it does not balloon out to other stuff like extreme violence, political opinions, etc. I wonder what they do to determine websites that are truely CP. mostly they just block the media based newsgroups for movie downloads.
i honestly see this as part of the war on piracy cloaked in protecting the children.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports | |
|
| |
 MrMoodyFree range slavePremium
join:2002-09-03
Smithfield, NC | Report it? quote:
Cablevision has also added a sublink to the site which allows people to easily report child porn if they see it online.
That would be stupid considering that (other than specific law enforcement individuals) anyone who actually SAW the image has already broken the law. It might be hard to imagine, but this COULD be used as a "please break down my door and cart me and my computers away" link.
--
Electile Dysfunction: the inability to become aroused over the choice for President put forth by either party. | |
|
IanR
join:2001-03-22
Madison, NJ | Does this mean... Does this mean that CV has created a group of people who will constantly search for and then block sites? Or does the AG's office give updated sites which are to be banned? I totally agree that child pornography is reprehensible, just I don't know how CV can meet their agreement with the AG? If CV misses sites will they then be liable for prosecution by the AG?
These things tend to be easy for Politicians and Lawyers (AGs) to pontificate, but the actual execution sounds most difficult. | |
|
 netwirePremium
join:2001-04-27
Shelby, NC
kudos:1
 ·AT&T Southeast
 ·RoadRunner Cable
| re: cablevision agrees to block child porn sites I think it's a good idea to block such sites in the sense that some people may accidentally happen upon these sites. However, shouldn't the sites which host such content be punished? I mean, seriously you cannot tell me that all of the servers hosting this content is outside US jurisdiction.
--
Visit my homepage »thinkequality.net | |
|
| | | Re: re: cablevision agrees to block child porn sites People know it is illegal. So they would have to be stupid to host something like that in a country that will hunt them down and prosecute them.
But if hosted in the US, the hosting site could be paid for with stolen credit cards and the users could have been using a proxy through an anti-american foreign country.
The site could easily be shut down, and content destroyed, but it would be impossible to track the person who did it. | |
|
| | So What your saying.... That Cocksucker caused me to lose The TW/RR Newsserver? I would like him to get run over by a BUS driven by a wetback illegal alien!
| |
|
| | | Re: So What your saying.... my saying? | |
|
| | No This sucks. ISPs should be dumb pipe providers. No tiered access, no search hijacks, no blocks. Nothing but a connection.
Illegal activities should be investigated by law enforcement. ISPs should not mess with this. | |
|
 KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
·AT&T DSL Service
| First they came for the Child Porn.... ... etc etc
Nobody can stand up and defend Child Porn and Pornographers that's why it makes such a great target.
The problem is this banning/blocking/blacklisting/censoring... it's a slippery slope, or to use another analogy, it's like opening Pandora's box. This type of thing, while well meaning... it will spread... far beyond the original goals when it was first implemented.
Freedom is always taken away in inches. Inch by inch, until there's little if any left.
You can see the signs of this happening on the internet now. This type of thing is only the first step.
--
"Regulatory capitalism is when companies invest in lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians, instead of plant, people, and customer service." - former FCC Chairman William Kennard (A real FCC Chairman, unlike the current Corporate Spokesperson in the job!) | |
|
 dvd536as Mr. Pink as they comePremium
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ
kudos:4
1 edit | Kiddie porn A big savings in NNTP under the guise of stopping child porn.
my guess is CV isn't going to be kicking anything back to the sub in exchange for the loss of newsgroups.
--
When I gez aju zavateh na nalechoo more new yonooz tonigh molinigh - Ken Lee | |
|
| | Just the beginning... They will classify things as 'child porn' that obviously aren't, and then they get their access removed. This is only the beginning folks.
The internet as an exchange of free information and ideas must be stopped in the name of the war on terror. And do not fight it, else you are un-American. Please, think about the children. | |
|
2 edits | What's the real problem? I think it more appropriate to have the state department (assuming it's foreign sites) work with the country or countries where the sites are hosted to take down the sites which presumably are illegal there.
Banning sites doesn't solve the problem, it's just an attempt at masking it. If one's house is starting to burn down, one should try to put out the fire, not to close one's eyes. The problem with child porn isn't really the looking, it's the making of it. That which is bad is the effect on the children involved, not the perverts looking at it. Take down the sources or those making money off of it. Banning sites on systems probably isn't effective other than making a political gesture and bad precedent for banning of other things that are objectionable (like perhaps the other political party's website...). | |
|
| sava700
join:2005-03-08
Buena Vista, VA | Re: What's the real problem? I agree that banning sites isn't the answer..and once we let them ban one or two sites then we only open a can of worms for them to be able to block whatever else. I don't agree with any site having child porn..but you have to nail the source of the site not limit ones viewing to it...thats like putting a drunk driver behind the wheel blind folded vs taking the keys away. | |
|
| | here's the cause of it, NOT cuomo.. »www.ncmec.org/missingkids/servle···eId=3747 cuomo is just doing what he was told to do BUT, he is doing it by intimidation, the ISP's are already doing what they are legally required to do, they just don't want to go through litigation.. | |
|
|
|
·
