Time Warner Cable Denies They Block Websites Though newsgroups will be going away.... Yesterday, reports surfaced that Time Warner Cable, Sprint and Verizon would begin blocking user access to websites that contain child pornography. Some were concerned that an ISP acting as content gatekeeper sets a dangerous precedent down the line. Time Warner Cable's director of Digital Communications, Jeff Simmermon, stops by our forums to note that the NYTimes story incorrectly stated the company would be blocking content: Time Warner Cable does not block access to Web sites -- but we actively enforce our acceptable use policies, which prohibit illegal activities. We will not block our customers' access to legitimate newsgroups made available by other newsgroup providers. We reserve -- and will cheerfully exercise -- the right to take down any website that exists on the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children's list of sites that carry child pornography, if those sites exist on RoadRunner servers.
I've already seen a fair amount of criticism leveled at us and our partners for this move, suggesting that this is the first step down a short road to greater Internet censorship. It's not. This issue isn't about predicting the future, and it's not about free speech. It's about doing what's right, right now. It looks like the NY Times screwed up the first paragraph of their story, which claims the carriers will "block access to Internet bulletin boards and Web sites." According to the NY AG press release, the companies will be blocking just newsgroup access and pulling offending websites on their servers offline. I contacted Jeff for further clarification. "We're not blind to the implications of making that sort of decision -- and the precedent it could set," he says. "So we will weigh that very, very heavily. We've been very clear to everyone up to this point that we're not blocking content, and we're not interested in blocking content in the future." An insider had already alerted me to the fact that Time Warner Cable was going to stop using newsgroups, a move that may be as much about cost savings and anti-piracy as it is about child pornography.
|
  tshirtPremium,MVM
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:3
 ·Comcast
| The blocks are reasonable. But why the convoluted denial about blocking website EXCEPT for...?
" cost savings and anti-piracy as it is about child pornography."
Two out of 3 are illegal, and they should be proud/happy to do so, and cost savings seems like a reasonable basis for business decision. | |
|  | | | Re: The blocks are reasonable. I'm inclined to agree. In my past jobs, I worked security and abuse for UUNET (prior to the whole MCI debacle) and then AOL/Time warner (aka roadrunner). I can tell you, in the course of my duties, I have seem some of the sickest shit possible, both illegal and just plain downright wrong. I am also against censorship in general, but there has to be a point where we draw the line. Most of the things I took down were involved with spamming, and while distasteful, not necessarily illegal (take down the revenue generator of the spam message and kill off the spammer, whack a mole game, but it was something that had to be done). The child related stuff was a no brainer, it goes down, all records get passed to law enforcement once a warrant was served (we would usually get notified about the material from law enforcement, but occasionally find things on our own, notify them, retain the logs and wait for a warrant).
On the flip side, the "for the children" argument gets thrown around an awful lot, when it comes to child porn, its a no brainer, but whats next, sex education sites, game sites with sexual content, all those laws aimed at child porn seem to include all sorts of broad contexts, rife for abuse, and I am sort of against that. | |
| | | CorydonCultivant son jardinPremium
join:2008-02-18
Denver, CO | Re: The blocks are reasonable. said by jvanbrecht:On the flip side, the "for the children" argument gets thrown around an awful lot, when it comes to child porn, its a no brainer, but whats next, sex education sites, game sites with sexual content, all those laws aimed at child porn seem to include all sorts of broad contexts, rife for abuse, and I am sort of against that. This is what scares me. To add to Sinclair Lewis' famous quote, fascism in the US will come about "for the children".
Considering how phenomenally rare actual sexual abuse of children by strangers is (on the order of 1 in a million), I often wonder just what agenda is really being pushed here (Cui bono? as L. Cassius used to say).
I suspect that the entire abuse issue is a red herring used to chip away at the First Amendment by the usual suspects pushing their idea of a culture war.
--
My opinions are my own. No-one else would want them! | |
| | | |  wmcbrine213 251 145 96
join:2002-12-30
Laurel, MD
1 edit | Re: The blocks are reasonable. said by Corydon:Considering how phenomenally rare actual sexual abuse of children by strangers is (on the order of 1 in a million), I often wonder just what agenda is really being pushed here (Cui bono? as L. Cassius used to say). Yeah. I heard the most phenomenally absurd claims about this story on my local "News Channel 8" last night -- they said, with a straight face, that child porn was "a billion-dollar business" and "the fastest-growing business on the Internet". I don't think they even attributed these credulous statements.
Then I got an updated Terms of Service from Verizon last night with a clause about child porn. But I'm not sure it really does anything that they weren't already doing... I don't have access to it right now; I'll post it later.
I suspect that the entire abuse issue is a red herring used to chip away at the First Amendment by the usual suspects pushing their idea of a culture war. No kidding... it's been used for perhaps fourteen years now as the pretext for sweeping attacks on the Internet.
--
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 | |
| | | | | wmcbrine213 251 145 96
join:2002-12-30
Laurel, MD
1 edit | Re: The blocks are reasonable. Here's the Terms of Service update from Verizon:
quote:
1. Reporting of Actual or Potential Violations of Child Pornography Laws. We have added language to our Acceptable Use Policy (AUP) making clear that the Service cannot be used in any fashion for the transmission or dissemination of images containing child pornography. In addition, in Section 5, Privacy Policy; Legal Compliance, we have added language making clear that (a) we are required by law to report any facts or circumstances reported to us or which we discover from which it appears there may be a violation of the child pornography laws; and (b) that we reserve the right to report any such information, including the identity of users, account information, images and other facts to law enforcement personnel.
(The "1" is because this was just point one of five in the message, the others relating to billing, etc.) Nothing about blocking here, nor anything else proactive.
--
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 | |
| | | | | | wmcbrine213 251 145 96
join:2002-12-30
Laurel, MD
1 edit | Re: The blocks are reasonable. Well, I take it back -- I've just read on 0.verizon.announce that Verizon is planning to drop the alt.* hierarchy, just like Sprint. This is shocking overkill... although it will certainly spare them a lot of resources.
--
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 | |
|
| | | Vadork
join:2005-09-01
Winnebago, IL | You obviously never had a mother that worked for DCFS. This type of sexual abuse is quite common up here in northern illinois. But, it never makes the normal news broadcast.
Want to know something REALLY sick? My friend was told by an FBI agent at college, that the youngest sexual abuse victim he dealt with was only several hours old.
Hacker | |
| | | | | | | Re: The blocks are reasonable. If they block a single website, then I am done with them. I pay Time Warner $250/month for digital cable on multiple televisions, digital phone, and Roadrunner. If they implement this system, all of those services will be canceled. I'll use all of the money I'll save towards a T-Carrier instead which I know won't be censored.
I don't like hypocrites. In the same paragraph, Time Warner says they do not block websites and then says they will happily block websites on the NCMEC list. Way to contradict yourself.
I do not pay them to filter my content. I do not like the idea of an independent body getting sole discretion over what constitutes child pornography or what sites contain them with no government oversight. I've seen cases where things were blocked for supposedly having child pornography when they infact had none. In this case, there is no appeals process; it is a dictatorship. The NCMEC has sole discretion over what sites should be blocked.
No thanks. | |
|
| |  tiger72SexaT duorPPremium
join:2001-03-28
Saint Louis, MO
kudos:1
 ·T-Mobile US
| Re: The blocks are reasonable!!! - THINK OF THE CHILDREN OMG! said by jvanbrecht:On the flip side, the "for the children" argument gets thrown around an awful lot, when it comes to child porn, its a no brainer, but whats next, sex education sites, game sites with sexual content, all those laws aimed at child porn seem to include all sorts of broad contexts, rife for abuse, and I am sort of against that. Look at the french, and you'll see what's next: "racist" sites, "terrorism" sites. You know, for the children.
--
"What makes us omniscient? Have we a record of omniscience? ...If we can't persuade nations with comparable values of the merit of our cause, we'd better reexamine our reasoning."
-United States Secretary of Defense (1961-1968) Robert S. McNamara | |
| | | | patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
kudos:1
1 edit | Re: The blocks are reasonable!!! - THINK OF THE CHILDREN OMG! said by tiger72:said by jvanbrecht:On the flip side, the "for the children" argument gets thrown around an awful lot, when it comes to child porn, its a no brainer, but whats next, sex education sites, game sites with sexual content, all those laws aimed at child porn seem to include all sorts of broad contexts, rife for abuse, and I am sort of against that. Look at the french, and you'll see what's next: "racist" sites, "terrorism" sites. You know, for the children. Slippery slope. If you don't do anything now, the time will come when nothing can be done to help you.
said by »en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came :
When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.
When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.
When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.
When they came for the Jews,
I remained silent;
I wasn't a Jew.
When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.
| |
| | | | | | | Re: The blocks are reasonable!!! - THINK OF THE CHILDREN OMG! You win at Godwin's Law | |
| | | | | | tiger72SexaT duorPPremium
join:2001-03-28
Saint Louis, MO
kudos:1 Reviews:
·T-Mobile US
| Re: The blocks are reasonable!!! - THINK OF THE CHILDREN OMG! You win at misapplying Godwin's Law.
I see no direct comparison between TWC and Hitler as is necessary to invoke Godwin's Law.
I do see a comparison between TWC's increasing censorship and the mindset of "I don't care because it doesn't effect me yet".
--
"What makes us omniscient? Have we a record of omniscience? ...If we can't persuade nations with comparable values of the merit of our cause, we'd better reexamine our reasoning."
-United States Secretary of Defense (1961-1968) Robert S. McNamara | |
| | | | | | |
1 edit | Re: The blocks are reasonable!!! - THINK OF THE CHILDREN OMG! said by tiger72:You win at misapplying Godwin's Law. I see no direct comparison between TWC and Hitler as is necessary to invoke Godwin's Law. I do see a comparison between TWC's increasing censorship and the mindset of "I don't care because it doesn't effect me yet". Well, the Wikipedia article I linked to says "usenet" conversations, so if you want to be technical it doesn't apply to a web forum conversation ... but assuming it does, the link defines Godwin's law with the phrase "the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one." And the original post I responded to quoted: "When the Nazis came for the communists, I remained silent" which I'm pretty sure qualifies as "a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler."
EDIT: quoted response for clarity | |
|
| | | |
| | patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
kudos:1 | Re: The blocks are reasonable. said by jvanbrecht:I'm inclined to agree. In my past jobs, I worked security and abuse for UUNET (prior to the whole MCI debacle) and then AOL/Time warner (aka roadrunner). I can tell you, in the course of my duties, I have seem some of the sickest shit possible, both illegal and just plain downright wrong. Perhaps thats a job a certain internet population should pursue.
Speaking of the catching these rings, how do police get into child porn rings, when there are very high entrance requirements of lots of feature length child porn movies required? Do they secretly buy some stuff (possibly custom made, think of the horror) from real producers in untouchable foreign countries? Or they just phish/sniff/security exploit existing members for passwords? Or do they make it themselves? 
It worries me sometimes that these investigators like their job too much in the wrong way.  | |
| | | | CorydonCultivant son jardinPremium
join:2008-02-18
Denver, CO | Re: The blocks are reasonable. Considering how much illegal activity on the Internet is done pretty much out in the open (copyright infringement is the obvious example), I'd suspect the purveyors of child porn are no different.
I suspect that it's largely a matter of hanging out in the right chat rooms or getting on the right mailing lists. Websites may be pretty effectively secured, but when you're chatting there's plenty of opportunities for social engineering.
As for some investigators getting way too involved in what they're doing, check out the Perverted Justice website...a lot of those people are almost as creepy as the people they're going after.
--
My opinions are my own. No-one else would want them! | |
| | | | |
1 edit | Re: The blocks are reasonable. said by Corydon:Considering how much illegal activity on the Internet is done pretty much out in the open (copyright infringement is the obvious example), I'd suspect the purveyors of child porn are no different. And considering how many completely meritless DMCA warnings are issued for alleged copyright infringement, I'd suspect that kiddie porn fans are few and far between. Let's get something straight here...child porn = bad. But that doesn't mean that we surrender wholesale control of the Net over to Big Bro for him to decide what is for us to see or not see. But considering the path we're already on, the U.S. will make China's Internet gatekeeping policies look generous and liberal in no time. | |
|
| | | | What is reasonable for one person does not make reasonable for all, next we need to silence the scientist teaching us all those dirty latin words telling us that sudo science is not science, how dare them.
I for one hate spam and child porn but blocking anything online is wrong, that should be done by people not companies, if the intenet is not open then lets just do what the chinese do, or maybe let religion rule our lives again and forget science or anything that contradicts faith.
At first blocking makes sense, but over time a lot more stuff gets added for the children and for the people who can't handle truth, that is a dangerous way for a develop country to go. | |
|
| |
1 edit | Re: TW is blocking Well after reading the AG release from Cuomo's office You can only take a stab that either the AG's office didn't understand what cooperation they were getting, although most matches with what Jeff says or Jeff isn't telling the whole truth.
Coming from a background of working with government offices in the IT realm it wouldn't be a shock if what the AG thought they were getting wasn't what they were getting because they just plain don't understand IT (internet filtering in this case). | |
| |  cdruGo ColtsPremium,MVM
join:2003-05-14
Fort Wayne, IN
kudos:5
 ·Frontier FiOS
| That press release cracks me up...
quote:
The companies will eliminate access to child porn Newsgroups, a major supplier of these illegal images
So you mean they are going to get rid of alt.binaries.pictures.underage? Gosh. Who would have ever of thought to have already done that.  What happens though when someone posts an illegal picture into alt.binaries, a non-child-porn group. Or maybe something not even a binary group like rec.computers. You going to get rid of all the groups? It's not like Usenet is real organized and policed like a DSLR or user forums are.
quote:
An undercover investigation by the Attorney General’s office uncovered a major source of online child pornography known as “Newsgroups,” an online service not associated with websites.
...
The Attorney General’s investigation reviewed millions of pictures over several months, uncovering 88 different Newsgroups that contained a total of 11,390 sexually lewd photos featuring prepubescent children
Is it really an "undercover" investigation when you are just reading usenet posts? Anyways, it took them several months looking at millions of pictures (most likely mostly porn)?!?!? And they only found 11k? The appalling nature of child porn aside, where do I sign up for a job where I get paid to look at porn on the internet for several months?
quote:
As part of the undercover investigation, the Attorney General’s office developed a new system for identifying online content that contains child pornography. Every online picture has a unique “Hash Value” that, once identified and collected, can be used to digitally match the same image anywhere else it is distributed.
I wonder how long and how much money it took them to develop this high tech "hash value" method of comparing pictures. Hopefully the evil doers don't resize the photos, or recompress them, or add a water mark, or anything else that might alter the image making said hash function fairly worthless.
I'm all for preventing child porn on the internet, but that press release looks like just a bunch of people patting each other on their back like they've just solved the problem when in reality they've done nothing. They patched a single hole in a tire driving across a bed of nails.
As to TW blocking sites, if the sites are based on a blacklist of sites provided by the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, then I don't have a problem with that IF those sites have been verified to be offending. But if they are based on just a user complaining once and are automatically blocked, then I have a problem as that type of system is just ripe for abuse and false positives. I look at the list not all that different then a spam blacklist. | |
| | | | | Re: TW is blocking said by cdru:...but that press release looks like just a bunch of people patting each other on their back like they've just solved the problem when in reality they've done nothing. IMO most government offices are about posturing and nothing more. From what I have seen they do things like this just to look good. They usually had no clue to what they were doing to make themselves look good or they are doing it to push something else under the rug. Instead of fixing the real issue they do something to make it look like they are fixing the problem. It is all a dog and pony show. | |
|
Lazlow
join:2006-08-07
Saint Louis, MO | How? I suspect all the ISPs are doing is dropping access to the "offending" groups from their newservers provided as part of their package (which would save them money). Most of the 3rd party newservers now offer SSL, so I really do not see how this is anything more than a publicity stunt(like most of the save the children projects). | |
|
1 edit | ... quote:
An undercover investigation by the Attorney General’s office uncovered a major source of online child pornography known as “Newsgroups,”
Scrolling through publicly available newsgroups is "uncovering" and "undercover"? What integrity! Why not tell it like it is? They are attempting to shut down what has for many years been flagrantly open an unaddressed. Wait, that doesn't sound so good does it?  | |
| | | Censorship is Censorship / Money is Money As someone who has sent several people to prison for several years for child porn and other child predator crimes, let's call this what it is.....
Time Warner is trying to save money by using child porn as an excuse to block all Usenet access, thereby reducing broadband use and slightly delaying the need to improve their dismal networks, not to mention saving the money it costs for them to contract with a third party usenet provider.
There are many legitimate uses for Usenet (read this excellent article: »news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-9964895-38.html), and I am a legitimate user.
I will now be forced to pay at least $8/month for this service. I've already asked Time Warner to credit me this amount, and, surprise, surprise, they told me to pound sand.
It's a reduction in services without a corresponding reduction in price. | |
| |  sivranBack to Opera againPremium
join:2003-09-15
Arlington, TX
kudos:1 | Re: Censorship is Censorship / Money is Money And my question is - when were they planning on informing their customers? I found out via this site that RR's newsgroups were going away. | |
|
| | So what they are really doing...... is blocking access to their OWN private news server. And thats it! But TW doesn't have a news server, do they? No they give you a puny one gig a month access to giganews, a worthless feature if you do any downloading since it hardly covers headers for a popular binary group. And now they are not even giving you that. Usenet users have always known they need to pay for access from a dedicated news server. Actually it looks like its business as usual except for some silly posturing by the ISP for the benefit of the New York Times. Makes you wonder if any other stories in their world class paper are as far off the mark.
BTW, somebody told me the posts to the worst sounding news groups were mostly spam; invitations to adult websites pretending to be kid sites or attempts to send out trojans. Do you suppose this is true? | |
| | | Does anybody KNOW what child porn is anyway??? I guess we all assume these are pics of little kids getting tortured and maimed for sexual gratification. When you hear about big, tough FBI agents who throw people in jail for life without a care breaking down and sobbing when they see the pics....well, they must be really bad.....right? Yet if a 17 yr 11 month and 28 day old girl poses willingly for some cheesecake shots in an attempt to break into the modeling business, she is a victim and the photographer is a child pornographer! If she does it again a week later, the photog is a businessman in need of copyright protection and she is a slut. So how much of this stuff is really dirty, how much is "technically" dirty, and how much is computer created images of people who don't even exist. And how much is pure B. S.? | |
| Reviews:
 ·mybrighthouse
| only way is to block all images groups child porn can and sometime is posted to all images groups on usenet.
So just blocking teens,child etc groups would not be enough in my book.
Besides Time Warner/BrightHouse usenet service sucks anyway most binaries are incomplete anyway. | |
| SipSizzurpFo' ShizzlePremium
join:2005-12-28
Houston, TX
kudos:3 | Is this stupid or what ? If the ISP is able to identify a source of child porn sufficiently to block access to it, why in the fuck isn't that source of child porn on the fast track of being investigated by the authorities, having the criminals prosecuted and imprisoned, and the source eliminated ? What are we missing here ? Is this an admission that prosecuting known sources of child porn is beyond the capacity of the government and that a band-aid is needed ? The website or source should not exist long enough to bother having the ISP block it. From the time a source of child porn is discovered it should only take a day or two for the black van to pick up the perpetrators, unless the site is allowed to run for a time as in a sting operation to identify and subsequently prosecute more participants. | |
| | | wtf I'm surprised this hasnt made bigger headlines.
This is HUGE news because of Timewarner/Roadrunners claims.
Everyone knows its BS, but no news websites or tech ones even call them out on the fact that,
1. Its no different than shutting down the entire WWW because it exists there to.
2. Timewarner never even carried binary child groups
3. They do block WWW sites despite what they say. | |
|
| |
|
|
