EU Realizes That You Fight Child Porn At The Source... Not By Trying To Hide It
from the common-sense? dept
We've noted recently, that more and more governments are looking to deal with crime online by censoring it via filters, rather than actually going after those responsible. At least some people are finally realizing that this doesn't make much sense. DH's Love Child points us to the news that some EU politicians, in response to an initial plan to require filters to block sites deemed to have child pornography, have decided that a smarter plan is to actually go after the sources of child pornography:Members of the Parliament's Civil Liberties Committee ruled that complete removal "at source" must be the main aim in tackling child pornography online and that blocking access to websites is acceptable only in exceptional circumstances -- when the host server in a non-E.U. country refuses to cooperate or when procedures take too long.Surprising, but nice to see that not all politicians are so clueless when it comes to dealing with crimes that happen online.
The original Commission proposal would have made blocking of child porn websites mandatory for all E.U. member states, prompting concern among Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) who tend to support Internet freedom.
"The new generation of MEPs has shown it understands the Internet and has courageously rejected populist but ineffective and cosmetic measures in favor of measures aimed at real child protection," said Joe McNamee, of the European digital rights movement EDRi. "This is a huge and implausible success for an army of activists campaigning to protect the democratic, societal and economic value of the Internet," he added
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
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
more governments are looking to deal with crime online by censoring it via filters... some people are finally realizing that this doesn't make much sense.
Filtering out child porn websites is bad. - Mike Masnick
OK way too far with putting words in people's mouths plus is that not technically libellous?
Good luck with that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Are you shocked them someone else calls Mike out on his weird views?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If it were a signed up user then they'd have a profile button. It's just someone who typed a name into the comment box. TAM had an account until they stopped using it, although some seem to believe they still post anonymously.
"Are you shocked them someone else calls Mike out on his weird views?"
Are you calling out the EU parliament for the same views?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So you're making a random rape references to provoke a response now?
Here you go: please keep doing that. Even better, use it as your signature. I'm sure people will take you more seriously then.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It is amazing that you cannot see the benefits of an "A and B" approach. Even the quote provided indicates that in the end, they still support filtering if the server is outside of the EU or if the process to get them shut down takes too long. They support "A and B" options, why can't anyone grasp that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Also your analogy is wrong, the right one is to take away an ad or sign and do nothing to go after the criminals because the minute you took down their sign they scattered and will not be coming back.
Is like a early warning sign for criminals.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Newsflash, filtering it wont make it go away, and filters are easily bypassed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Troll detected.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Your incongruent statements suggest you are a troll, but of course I could be wrong and you could just be a normal idiot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The suggestion is not that filtering does not occur but a recognition that it must be very carefully controlled and targeted as it is basically ineffective for enforcement. The additional suggestion is that if a blanket filtering system were set up as originally suggested that it is open to abuse and it's negative effect is not in any filtering of child porn but the wider filtering that would inevitably happen in it's name. Depending on the type of filter used for example this site could have been filtered by now for the repeated use of the worlds "child porn"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Censorship good!
Falsely accusing people good!
Actually stopping crime bad!
- Anonymous
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"Please don't shut down my sources of child porn" - TAM
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Note that this does NOT IN ANY WAY condone the actions of paedophiles. It just points out the flaws in the logic of governments like the US and ICE. IT has a time and a place. Just not all the time and everywhere.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
First off, if you drive people into darker corners, they are not as easy for the casual "pedo in training" to find. Think of it as the difference between street corner drug dealing and deals made quietly in the back of a bar. Yes, you can still buy drugs, but it isn't in everyone's face all the time, teaching them that drugs are okay or tolerate. In the same manner, filtering websites does remove the stuff from general public view, and puts the pedos on notice that someone is actively looking at them.
Second, things are not mutually exclusive. I don't think anyone in the US government thinks that filtering websites solves the problem. Are we not allowed to have a multi-pronged attack? Do you not think that perhaps in the hours after they took over these domains that they didn't log every IP that hit them?
Mike's answer is pretty typical of what is going on here: Just lie still, don't fight, and it won't hurt so much.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
And giving a paedophile warning is probably the most stupid thing you can do. I refer you, of course, to the Soham murders in the UK, where a convicted sex offender got through the system designed solely to be more 'secure' for our children. Moral outrage is not the answer; a carefully designed operation, targeting those distributors surgically, is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Presuming that the inclusion of 'casual' means there's, what, a 'formal' "pedo in training"?
If either or both of these is true, how do you know it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The internet allows isolated people who might never have considered acting on their impulses to meet other people to chat, to discuss, and in the end to encourage each other toward ultimately taking action. They learn scenarios, they see other people being "successful" in their attempts to lure children, and so on.
No, it doesn't mean "turn off the internet", it just means that this is a problem amplified by the ease of communication. Make that initial contact harder, or make that initial contact more risky, and perhaps some may not do it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That doesn't seem good enough to me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
There fixed for you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Call be me a cynic but...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Does Filtering Make Sense?
a) Implement filtering technology on the phone system, to stop the obscenties getting through,
b) Go after the callers and shut them down
c) Both of the above?
Imagine somebody, possibly from overseas, is sending obscene letters through the postal system. Sometimes they even get addressed to children. Do you
a) Implement filtering technology in the postal system, to prevent the obscene letters getting through
b) Go after the senders and shut them down
c) Both of the above?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Does Filtering Make Sense?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Does Filtering Make Sense?
http://dilbert.com/strips/comic/1998-10-07/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The idea that filtering websites somehow protects children is ludicrous. Pedophiles will find what they are looking for on the internet no matter how hard they have to dig, and the general population - who are not looking for such content - will never see it either way. But the harder pedophiles have to dig for what they're looking for, the harder it is for law enforcement to track them down. In a lot of ways, not filtering this material - leaving it out in the open *for those who specifically look for it* - makes it far easier to put a stop to those who are producing and consuming child porn. So yes, the real time and money should be spent on tracking down those involved, not pointlessly filtering the internet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
streisand effect?
Am I the only one that sees a problem with blocking a "list of child porn sites"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: streisand effect?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: streisand effect?
Want to see a video that is just awesome?
Cleanternet
Cleanternet For A Cleaner And Safer Internet
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If implemented, this will cause the removal of many within the governemnt and therefore this will not happen anytime soon.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Where are the sources?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
For example:
In other words, blocking websites will happen all the time.
Look, I'd love to see some rational thought applied to this area, but why are we deluding ourselves that this story is anything but typical moral panic? Does Techdirt need the page views that badly?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Will he renounce his hatred for patent laws tomorrow?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It's clear that you're creating child porn, which explains why you are so in favour of ineffective filtering over targeted enforcement.
Since you are clearly profiting off of paedophilia, you have lost all moral grounds, and will be ignored henceforth (after Mike reports your IP to the police).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
As for suggesting I profit from pedophilia, all I can say is those words are actionable (but I won't).
Look behind you. You can see the line you crossed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Actionable how? You're posting anonymously.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I want child porn filtered, I want it blocked, and I want the poeple who make it prosecuted. I want anything that has any positive effect to be used.
Mike wants them to leave the sites up while they try to figure out who is doing it, only to discover the miracle of proxies, bounces, and rootkit equiped PCs.
My clear intent in these messages is to ask Mike why he is so intent in leaving child porn sites up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
b) It is not the government premise to tell others what is good or bad and it is dangerous to let it do it as noted by judges in the past, that is why people have the power to censor what they don't like but not the government.
c) If it is blocked is an early warning sign to any predator that they are being watched. Those predators are not all dumb, they adapt and learn and this type of action only improves their knowledge about how to evade the law.
d) It doesn't stop the violence against the children, it just hide it, so out of sight is out of mind.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Mike is in fact arguing that blocking/filtering is ineffective due to the fact that merely filtering leaves the websites up (not taken down), allows the people to continue producing their porn (creators and distributors not caught) and when they discover the miracle of proxies and vpns (filters no longer working), they'll have access again. It also makes it harder to catch them later since they have been forced to have a more specialized and dedicated infrastructure to evade law enforcement as a side effect.
Mike is saying that it's better (easier and more effective) to just pluck out those weeds together with their roots rather than waste time triming each weed till they can't be seen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So is it access to child porn or laws open to abuse that you want? Or is it both?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Pornographic pictures (and movies) are to catching the sons-of-bitches who create them as flies are to a rotting cow corpse. Until you remove the source carcass, swatting at the flies isn't going to help much.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
All filtering does is hide the problem. Pretend it isn't happening, whilst all these kids continue to be abuse. And the pedophiles are there at home getting their jollies from child porn sites which they accessed by bypassing the filter, which is incredibly easy to do.
Then they go and say "I support the filter, so I definitely don't like child porn. Meanwhile these other people oppose the filter. They're evil." Happens all the time. They don't fool anyone (except stupid people).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]