NY Pressures ISPs Into Blocking Child Porn Websites, News Groups
from the good-goal,-bad-approach dept
New York's Attorney General, Andrew Cuomo, has a history of using his position to threaten big companies into agreeing to take responsibility for something that isn't their responsibility. He did it when he got advertisers to pay fines because their ads showed up in adware -- without ever explaining what was actually illegal. And, now he's done it again in getting a bunch of ISPs (Verizon, Sprint and Time Warner) to agree to block a list of websites and newsgroups that are listed as being purveyors of child porn. The ISPs are also giving Cuomo's office over a million dollars, ostensibly to help wipe child porn off the internet. If that's Cuomo's goal, this isn't the best way to do it -- though, it will get him plenty of press coverage for bullying companies into doing something they aren't required to do under law.In fact, the state of Pennsylvania tried to do pretty much the same thing, back in 2002, but focused on actually passing a law (unlike Cuomo, who just bullied the companies into "agreeing.") And, of course, a federal court tossed out the law as unconstitutional. The goal is certainly noble. Getting rid of child porn would be great -- but having ISPs block access to an assigned list isn't going to do a damn thing towards that goal. The blocked sites will reappear elsewhere. Those who want access, even to the blocked sites, will simply find encrypted tunnels to hide their paths. Basically, this won't do much of anything, other than increase costs for ISPs.
Even worse, it runs a huge risk of starting ISPs down a very slippery slope of being willing to ban access to online content. No one's against that when it's child porn, but who's reviewing the list to make sure it's really child porn? How hard is it to slip a site that someone just doesn't like into the list? Furthermore, once these ISPs have shown that they're willing to block certain sites, then politicians will quickly look to increase that list beyond just child porn to other types of sites that they find objectionable. It sets a dangerous precedent.
Putting the responsibility on the ISPs is the wrong solution (and, honestly, the folks who are pro-net neutrality should be seriously worried about this -- as it's a clear violation of what they say net neutrality is all about). If the content itself is illegal, go after those actually responsible for the content. Not the service providers. Sure they make for easy targets and big headlines (backed up with that hefty cash "settlement" right to Cuomo's office), but they're not the ones responsible.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: andrew cuomo, isp blocking, new york, porn
Companies: sprint, time warner, verizon
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Sets a dangerous precedent?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Sets a dangerous precedent?
Plus the fact that this isn't solving any problems. Let's stop the illegal stuff by going after the people doing it. If he continues this way, it's going to be vary hard to find these people when this idiot (Andrew Cuomo) actually decides to go after the source of the problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Sets a dangerous precedent?
They do not provide its content and should not be made to restrict it in any manner for any reason.
This does not provide a higher quality of service, it just threatens to dramatically lower the quality of service in the future when other large groups start trying to force ISPs to block something they think is offensive.
It will start with the stuff almost everyone finds offensive, then the stuff most find offensive, then just some, then just a few, etc..
Its a very bad precedent and those ISPs should be lambasted for it.
For once, I feel a little glad I have ComCast.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
don't hold your breath
However, this is something that would easily be called into court as a first amendment issue....so now we'll have to wait for verizon, etc to get sued and realize "hey, maybe this isn't such a good idea" or "hey, we're losing business".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Sets a dangerous precedent?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Sets a dangerous precedent?
"ISPs have never, as far as I know, been legally required to allow access to all websites"
That's not the point. The issue is that ISPs have "common carrier" status (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_carrier). This means that since they treat all access equally, they are not liable for any illegal activity on their network. It's not the same as "safe harbor" - that was put into place for websites.
Put it this way - at the moment ISPs are like the postal service or the phone company. Just as the postal service aren't required to open your parcels to check for illegal goods or the phone company to listen to your phone conversations, ISPs are not required to block certain sites.
Once they start to do this, they are no longer common carrier, so future attempts to block sites for other reasons suddenly have weight - if you can block a site containing child porn, why not one referring to terrorists? Why not one criticising the government or exposing corruption? Why not one simply belonging to people that certain politicians don't like?
Once ISPs accept the responsibility for blocking some data, they gain responsibility for policing it all. This *cannot* be a good thing.
"Who do you want providing you access to the internet--a company with a track-record of blocking websites, or a company that understands Safe Harbor and won't compromise?"
You assume that you will have the choice. That may not be the case.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Sets a dangerous precedent?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
looking through the NY times article, a couple things noteworthy
(quote from NYT article)"“The I.S.P.s’ point had been, ‘We’re not responsible, these are individuals communicating with individuals, we’re not responsible,’ ” he said, referring to Internet service providers. “Our point was that at some point, you do bear responsibility.”"
This is clearly untrue when one looks at the law, it is not the ISPs doing anything illegal, and they are under no obligation to do this
The article also mentions that they have 11,000 hash values they will be scanning for, which all this will do is force the creation of new illegal content if the old illegal content is blocked, it is not going to solve any problems.
(another NYT article quote)"“No one is saying you’re supposed to be the policemen on the Internet, but there has to be a paradigm where you cooperate with law enforcement, or if you have notice of a potentially criminal act, we deem you responsible to an extent,” he said. “This literally threatens our children, and there can be no higher priority than keeping our children safe.”"
Once again, this is untrue, the people who are doing the illegal activity are the people responsible, not the ISPs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Blocking NEWGROUPS? Clearly this guy has never been on Usenet
Hell, the text vs. binary group thing isn't even actually ENFORCED - some servers will ignore images posted to a text group, but many will not, and since Usenet is completely decentralized, there is no "official" version of what has and hasn't been posted to a group, there's only what your server chooses to keep and trash.
What's next? Are they going to shut down Craigslist for its drug and sex ads (which don't get removed until users flag them?)
How long before the only forums that can survive are ones where a moderator has to read and manually approve your message - and are afraid to allow anything remotely controversial because not they're responsible since they gave it the ok?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Blocking NEWGROUPS? Clearly this guy has never been on Usenet
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Blocking NEWGROUPS? Clearly this guy has never been on Usenet
> to every binary group in existence? Pretty much nothing.
I believe that was exactly what caused the 80+ newsgroups to be flagged in the first place. There was off-topic stuff posted in newsgroups which was found and the newsgroups were deemed as being bad.
What's sad about this is that it solves absolutely nothing since you can easily pay a 3rd party for Usenet access, including ALL newsgroups.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fighting the distribution of it is like trying to stop a leak by mopping the floor.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wonder what skeletons are in this 'closet'?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not Common Carrier
Why yes, they did lobby for this special class for just themselves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Who controls this "list" ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Seriously, this is an end run around net neutrality with the blessing of government. It cleverly avoids court review by making it a voluntary censorship program by non-government third parties. Since CP is so evil, anyone who complains about collateral damage will be seen as in favor of exploitation of children.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But I don't live in New York
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Block it!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Slippery slope
It has to start somewhere and the news is getting more disturbing everyday that goes by. We've started down the slippery slope of regulation. I don't mean to be an alarmist, but it has to start somewhere. It starts with child pornography, then regular pornography, and then movies, and then music, and then Youtube, and then dissent...It's like slowly boiling a frog. Pretty soon your free speech is only free when they deem it to be. Obviously child pornography is a horrible atrocity, but you're dealing with the bottom of the food chain, and Cuomo knows it. He just wanted a headline, but he's also eroding our rights in the process.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Please!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Analogy
Personally, I think forcing ISPs to block sites and newsgroups is more akin to stopping people from urinating in the pool by roping off the warm spots.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
FIRST, RICH COUNTRIES MUST TACKLE POVERTY IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
child porn
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
recheck NYT link
They made a mistake in reporting. At the bottom of the article they explain that the agreement between the AG and ISPs does *not* require that the ISP block access to kiddie porn websites, but instead that they remove such websites that they are hosting. That is a *huge* distinction -- the latter does *not* have common-carrier ramifications.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
how tha hell
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
new file engine search!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]