ISP as Internet Watchdog

Just like e-mail or spam filtering or free web space. If you think of Child porn blocking as just another service that some ISPs will offer, or all if the demand is there, I see no problem. ISPs are not the internet Watchdog they are a business trying to make $$$

True, but then there is a problem waiting to be created. First, it places the ISP in a moral-ground position to say what is right/wrong. Then, its places what they think is best and forces it in a potential censorship condition.

This can then lead into situations in which sites are of a different topic and who then will say when their ISP has gone too far. What if an ISP decides that some disgruntled subscribers need to have their websites blocked as well.

Good thing this is outside of the USA as I feel the retribution of subscribers would show itself if such an action took place in America with an American ISP.

For me, this has nothing to do with child pornography and a lot to do with someone playing parent.

it should be an option. just like parental control.

"it should be an option. just like parental control."

Ummm so we should be able to "optionally" be able to view images and videos of people abusing kids? That's kind of twisted logic. I'm all for free speech and junk but when it comes to kids... there should be censorship on the internet and more than that, there should be more international action taken against those responsible for posting such content.

But whatever they do at the moment will only help minimally and probably will cause problems with "legit" sites. Just like email spam filters that any ISP I know of already uses. Sometimes they block the wrong stuff and we all still get spam anyways.

In the end it's a sad world we live in where every other day you hear about some little girl getting abducted, someone being tortured and killed or someone being beheaded for a stupid cause. And then we can all watch this crap from our homes and worse yet our children can see this crap.

wanna know a good way to stop the child porn people, start a campaign to trackdown and kill all of them, after you get about 4 or 8 of them the rest will start to doubt their saftey and most likely pull out, and the ones that still do their "thing" track them down and kill them too.

and people say you can't solve anything with violence and fear.

most of the people making these are most likely to go to jail when caught, and as allot of people know, that's a "real" big deturrent. death by a blunt instrument is a better one.

and finding their info is easy

_________________________________________________________
Ummm so we should be able to "optionally" be able to view images and videos of people abusing kids? That's kind of twisted logic. I'm all for free speech and junk but when it comes to kids... there should be censorship on the internet and more than that, there should be more international action taken against those responsible for posting such content.
_____________________________________________________________

I believe that we need more law enforcement on the internet to shut down child porn sites and then find the people who are responsible in creating them. If you shut down the sites then no one can visit them because they won't exist.

If an ISP wants to get into content filtering, it should be an optional service. If they want to make it part of their core offering, then they should only be allowed to do so in markets where there is like kind competition that does not force the service on you.

For example, in this area, there are some "christian ISPs" that do this type of filtering. So, if you find that service valuable, you use them. However, because they are one of a number of like-kind ISPs, potential customers retain the option of getting unfiltered service.

Overall, I think it would be a bad thing not to be able to opt out of such a "service".

-tom

I hate regulation, but I think that maybe you should be required to obtain some kind of liscense to run a website. (Something similar to a liscense to drive which verifies who you are)

Yes it can hurt.

There are thousands of porn sites that say they are child porn websites, yet clearly state that the models are 18 and older, blah blah blah.

You are going to start filtering out those sites and they are perfectly legal.

And if BT can in fact filter actual child porn sites, then those sites are identifyable, and if they can be identified, they shouldn't be filtered they should be prosecuted.

said by Wills9:

---

Yes it can hurt.

There are thousands of porn sites that say they are child porn websites, yet clearly state that the models are 18 and older, blah blah blah.

---

What kind of sick mind would say they have a child porn website???? I think they need to be removed also.
By the way, I'm sure there are plenty of porn sites to go around, God forbid your's gets censored.

_________________________________________________________
What kind of sick mind would say they have a child porn website
__________________________________________________________

A lot of ISP's in third world countries condone these scum-bags hosting their websites on equipment they own.

Both the scum-bags that run these sites along with their ISP or hosting service are only motivated by greed.

Morals aren't the issue. Legality is. If you block legitimate sites, you'll end up on the wrong end of a lawsuit.

And these porn sites pull more money than an ISP so they'll have the legal weight they need to win.

said by jsmarkbrown:

---

What kind of sick mind would say they have a child porn website???? I think they need to be removed also.
By the way, I'm sure there are plenty of porn sites to go around, God forbid your's gets censored.

---

Well, we're really sorry, but until a new law is passed that states people can only do what you approve of, you can kiss my ass, along with every other webmaster's on the planet.

______________________________________________________________
There are thousands of porn sites that say they are child porn websites, yet clearly state that the models are 18 and older, blah blah blah.
_____________________________________________________________

There are thousands of legitimate porn sites that look legal on the outside , but once you pay and access the site, they contain images of children. It's almost impossible to regulate the images inside the website.

I have seen nudist websites that show children that are nude. Are we going to start saying that nudity at any age is offensive and that we should block it. I think their is a huge difference between porn and nudity. Child porn is images of sexual abuse towards children. A image of a child nude on the beach is nudity. It's all in how you look at it. I see nothing wrong with nudity (of adults) but think images of any child without clothes on should not be on the internet because of the risk of paedophiles.

A lot of counties in Europe are very open about nudity at any age. But this doesn't mean that it should be displayed on the internet for all to see.

I am one hundred percent against child porn so don't put put a "spin" on what is written here.

(Putting my flame retardant suit on)

A license to run a website is a very bad idea. It would mean a mammoth amount of regulation and would be very ineffective at controlling anything. In addition, it would violate my right to free speech and freedom of the press. I don't need a license to start up my own newspaper, why should I need a license to start my own website?

You don't need a liscense to start a newspaper; however, if your newspaper was about where to get child porn,(whether it's really child porn or not) you'd be run out of town.

said by jsmarkbrown:

---

You don't need a liscense to start a newspaper; however, if your newspaper was about where to get child porn,(whether it's really child porn or not) you'd be run out of town.

---

But your suggestion (unless I misunderstood) was to require licenses for all websites even if they didn't have any connection to child porn. I don't see how that would accomplish anything except create a huge bureaucracy, invite abuse of the system ("license to make a website dedicated to a legal, but unpopular viewpoint denied"), and infringe on a US citizen's constitutional rights. Just like spammers don't abide by CAN-SPAM, the scum that make child porn websites will ignore the laws and find ways around it.

_________________________
liscense to run a website
__________________________

To make sure your domain name Whois record is one hundred percent legitimate. That might be a good idea if it was implemented

lol That would be a good idea. As long as you could get a 24 hour response as to whether or not you['ve got a liscense or not.

What I wonder, is if there was a demand for the filtering, or if it was BT pulling a PR stunt. I have a tough time buying into any sort of filtering....for starters they never work as they should, blocking legit material. Secondly, I am leery of a government agency watching over my shoulder and saying what I can/cannot watch I am doubly leery of a business doing it. There is simply too much room for abuse.

All other arguments aside I agree with wills. There should be no filtering, just prosecution by the proper authorities done by proper method prescribed by the law. Besides, since were capitalists ever moral? Is that not a contradiction?

and what's next? BT "unapproved" content? ads from competitors? Content that BT doesn't own?

If the customer doesn't have the choice of whether this service is enabled or not, it's a dangerous precedent.

Who cares as long as you can choose your ISP choose one that does what you want. If that means filtered material so be it, if you want all the junk to come through fine. The ISP is in business and they have a right to choose what they provide.

_________________________________________________________
While the world certainly isn't worse off without child pornography, does the shift of ISP toward the role of internet watchdog set a dangerous precedent?
________________________________________________________

The words "believed child porn websites" in my opinion allow a ISP to filter on the basis of a certain set of rules that could block legitimate legal sites. This is the wrong way to stop people from viewing child porn.

I'm pretty sure that BT also has to look at this situation as them being a delivery system for child pornography. This helps eliminate any liability issues for them.

Child pornography is not one of those moral grey areas unless you are a proud NAMBLA member. Should BT begin blocking other type of websites and/or content, then I'll be concerned.

the age old question. who is the pos that gets to veirfy these sites contain the content-in-question ..
....
....
anywho,i agree with those who say it should be an optional service. "omfg ur gonna go to kiddy sites." Wait a minute. the reason i say this is because they are gonna start blocking sites that don't even pertain to "that stuff". Ya man i tried to go to your site but since your daughter was in a bathing suit my isp said thats a big nono. And don't go to sixflags.com cause they are in a pool ::OMG!::. I don't need isps baby sitting me and determining what i look @. i can do that on my own k thx.

When I pay for an Internet connection, I want just that: a connection to the Internet. I WILL DECIDE what I want to see. Thank you very much.

[all replies calling me a pedophile will soon follow below]

It may be an issue of free speech for individuals, but for the ISP's it's an issue of legal liability. Most ISP's run scared at anything that makes them responsible for content that passes through their network. Why? Because it could expose them to immense legal liability. e.g. the unsuccessful lawsuit in Canada hoping to get payments from ISP's for file sharing.

Imagine class-action lawyers going after ISP's for failing to filter viruses, for failing to block material that violates copyright, for allowing libellous content to pass through their network, for failing to block spam. Once they take any action that suggests they are responsible for filtering content, the flood of lawsuits starts.

Why don't the MPAA and RIAA sue ISP's for their losses on file-sharing? One reason is that some of the same companies that provide content also own parts of the very networks that are carrying the illegal material e.g. the company formerly known as AOL-Time-Warner. So they would end up suing themselves!

I'll just stay away from their communism.

They have banned and censored everything already. Time for the internet. Next they will say you can't tatoo nude images on your body because some kid might see them at a beach. hey that's an idea for a law actually. it should fall right in there with indicent exposure.

it's all about the principle, as there will always be a reason.

Michael Jackson was quoted in saying that "he saw nothing wrong with sharing his bedroom with children on overnight visits"

It is because of statements like this, we can not allow images of children being nude on the internet. I strongly believe that Michael Jackson is a paedophile who could harm more children if he is allowed to view child porn in the near future.

»www.reuters.com/newsArti ··· =5788341