EU Realizes That You Fight Child Porn At The Source... Not By Trying To Hide It

from the common-sense? dept

Thu, Feb 24th 2011 1:09am — Mike Masnick

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.

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

Surprising, but nice to see that not all politicians are so clueless when it comes to dealing with crimes that happen online.

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: europe, filtering, porn

61 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous, 24 Feb 2011 @ 1:31am

Filtering out child porn websites is bad. - Mike Masnick
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Not an electronic Rodent, 24 Feb 2011 @ 1:38am

Call be me a cynic but...
A possible EU directive that actually makes sense? It'll have been ammended and say something totally different by the time it actually becomes a directive or have something additional like in order to comply all your country's interenet traffic has to go through Germany. Either that or much of central Europe will be sucked into the hole in the fabric of reality caused by twisting it so badly.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Not an electronic Rodent, 24 Feb 2011 @ 1:42am

Re:
OK way too far with putting words in people's mouths plus is that not technically libellous?
li�bel (lbl)
n.
1.
a. A false publication, as in writing, print, signs, or pictures, that damages a person's reputation.
b. The act of presenting such material to the public
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Poster, 24 Feb 2011 @ 1:52am

Re:
Letting pedophiles keep distributing child porn while implementing filters that will inevitably used to censor other "objectionable" material is even worse. - Anonymous Poster
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Lawrence D'Oliveiro, 24 Feb 2011 @ 1:57am

Does Filtering Make Sense?
Imagine somebody, possibly from overseas, is making obscene phone calls. Sometimes even children are picking up the phone, and being the targets of these calls. Do you

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 thread ]
Anonymous, 24 Feb 2011 @ 2:15am

Re: Re:
EU Realizes That You Fight Child Porn At The Source... Not By Trying To Hide It

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 thread ]
Rob, 24 Feb 2011 @ 2:16am

The problem with filtering is that we've already seen time and time again that it is used improperly and/or overzealously, and it's a gateway to more filtering, well beyond easy targets like child porn. And the idea that by filtering websites you can stop an activity is ridiculous. The activity just goes further underground, into darknets and the like, where it is FAR more difficult for law enforcement to track down the people who are actually participating in these activities.

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 thread ]
Anonymous, 24 Feb 2011 @ 2:16am

Re: Re:
Filtering out child porn websites is bad. - Anonymous Poster
[ link to this | view in thread ]
J.J. (profile), 24 Feb 2011 @ 2:20am

Re: Re: Re:
yes yes we get it ... you'd rather hide a problem than deal with it at the source.

Newsflash, filtering it wont make it go away, and filters are easily bypassed.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Feb 2011 @ 3:16am

Re:
Moral panic good!
Censorship good!
Falsely accusing people good!
Actually stopping crime bad!

- Anonymous
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DS, 24 Feb 2011 @ 3:37am

Re:
We get it, you'd rather pretend a problem does not exist rather than take actual steps to combat the issue.

"Please don't shut down my sources of child porn" - TAM
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The eejit (profile), 24 Feb 2011 @ 3:50am

Re:
Yes, but only because it drives people to the darker areas of the Internet, and encourages the use of VPNs and other such tools to hide their actions.

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Feb 2011 @ 4:24am

Re:
Filtering out child porn websites and alerting the criminals in the process allowing them to learn and evade authority is bad.

There fixed for you.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Not an electronic Rodent, 24 Feb 2011 @ 4:37am

Re: Re:
IT has a time and a place. Just not all the time and everywhere.
Which is exactly what the article says pejorative stupidity notwithstanding:
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.
Emphasis added
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Feb 2011 @ 4:59am

Re: Does Filtering Make Sense?
Obviously B in both cases. And anyway A can't be done so its not really worth mentioning. Which makes C an invalid option.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Feb 2011 @ 5:07am

Re: Re: Does Filtering Make Sense?
Unless they use boss logic :)

http://dilbert.com/strips/comic/1998-10-07/
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Berenerd (profile), 24 Feb 2011 @ 5:10am

Re: Re: Re:
So a few lines taken out of context really can mean something opposite. Great job pointing that out TAM
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Coward, 24 Feb 2011 @ 5:24am

Re: Re: Re: Re:
Anonymous probably has a job in the filtering business. OR they love child porn, either one.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Bengie, 24 Feb 2011 @ 5:32am

streisand effect?
Precompiled list of child porn sites that are blocked + proxy = Streisand Effect

Am I the only one that sees a problem with blocking a "list of child porn sites"?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Feb 2011 @ 5:36am

Re: Re:
Two issues here:

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Feb 2011 @ 5:38am

Re: Re: Re: Re:
That would be an impressive snarky comment, except the original poster isn't TAM or anyone like him. It's an actual signed up user, "anonymous".

Are you shocked them someone else calls Mike out on his weird views?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Feb 2011 @ 5:46am

Re: Re: Re:
[citation needed]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
abc gum, 24 Feb 2011 @ 5:47am

"Members of the Parliament's Civil Liberties Committee ruled that complete removal "at source" must be the main aim in tackling child pornography ..."

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 thread ]
The eejit (profile), 24 Feb 2011 @ 5:47am

Re: Re: Re:
ON the contrary, the argument is that there will be places that become 'reputable' for their hiding. And as for the multi-pronged thing, paedophilia seems to be the excuse du jour for restricting liberty.

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 thread ]
DCX2, 24 Feb 2011 @ 6:01am

Re:
Trying to save the children being exploited by child porn websites is bad. - Anonymous
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Feb 2011 @ 6:02am

Re: streisand effect?
Can you say "intent"? If you are willing to go to that level to access the stuff, you have shown intent. Would you care to meet Bubba now?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Feb 2011 @ 6:05am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
ALERT!
Troll detected.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Feb 2011 @ 6:12am

Re: Re: streisand effect?
Only if you actually can separate the millions of people who will access that list to implement themselves from the true predators who will use such lists as a shopping list.

Want to see a video that is just awesome?

Cleanternet

Cleanternet For A Cleaner And Safer Internet
[ link to this | view in thread ]
vivaelamor (profile), 24 Feb 2011 @ 6:12am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
'It's an actual signed up user, "anonymous".'

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Feb 2011 @ 6:13am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes weird views like governments not censoring the internet. Law enforcement has their job to do and that's stopping the crime at it's source. You won't be putting child pornography on the internet if you're in jail.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Feb 2011 @ 6:18am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
How is what I said possibly trolling?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Feb 2011 @ 6:26am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
yeah, weird views like telling local police to no longer arrest street level drug dealers, and that the only acceptable arrest is the actual farmer producing the drugs.

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Feb 2011 @ 6:28am

Re: Re: Re: Re:
Why do you insist that it is an "either / or" choice? Can't it be both?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The Groove Tiger (profile), 24 Feb 2011 @ 6:52am

Re: Re: Re:
Out of sight, out of mind. - Anonymous
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chris in Utah (profile), 24 Feb 2011 @ 6:58am

Re:
Not to mention the Vatican.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chuck Norris' Enemy (deceased) (profile), 24 Feb 2011 @ 7:00am

Where are the sources?
I am sure there will be some 'local' sources of child porn but what happens when this stuff is created in other countries wherein the EU or the censoring nation has no jurisdiction, which I think is most often the case. Sounds like a good excuse to send in the troops. 'War on Drugs' 'War on Terror' ...coming soon... 'War on Child Porn (for the children)'
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Not an electronic Rodent, 24 Feb 2011 @ 7:33am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Why do you insist that it is an "either / or" choice? Can't it be both?
Whatever he is suggesting the article and the proposed directive do allow for both. It was the anonymous troll that first suggested otherwise.

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Feb 2011 @ 7:33am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"I really see no problem with it. At least half of the people involved are enjoying it. Why spoil their fun?" - Zach Braff on Rape
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Not an electronic Rodent, 24 Feb 2011 @ 8:21am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Non sequitur.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chris Rhodes (profile), 24 Feb 2011 @ 8:50am

Re:
And yet you complain that other users here are just too hostile towards your comments and you can't understand why. Cognitive dissonance much?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Feb 2011 @ 8:59am

Mike... Why is this news? Despite your proclamations of this being something new and having "common sense", this is just business as usual.
For example:
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.

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Feb 2011 @ 10:01am

Damn, Mike is having a good week. It's only Thursday, and already we have that filtering child porn is bad, and that copyright doesn't seem to stop creation of new content.

Will he renounce his hatred for patent laws tomorrow?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Feb 2011 @ 10:04am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
There is no benefit, censor laws always, always get expanded and encompass more than they initially intended too.

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Feb 2011 @ 10:09am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Because any idiot that says somebody is part of the filtering industry and not noting that the other part is attacking the filtering industry is either dumb or a troll.

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 thread ]
vivaelamor (profile), 24 Feb 2011 @ 10:54am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
'"I really see no problem with it. At least half of the people involved are enjoying it. Why spoil their fun?" - Zach Braff on Rape'

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Feb 2011 @ 11:01am

Re:
I see you are opposed to targeting the source of Child Porn.

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 thread ]
JMT, 24 Feb 2011 @ 11:31am

Re:
It's amusing that you don't seem to realise that your comment makes you look like you don't want "effective" measures taken against child porn, just ineffective ones that would almost certainly be abused for other purposes.

So is it access to child porn or laws open to abuse that you want? Or is it both?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Feb 2011 @ 11:43am

Re:
Pft, I've told you before. Mike trollbaits you to get 100 comment articles. It hasn't failed yet; good job!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Bruce Ediger (profile), 24 Feb 2011 @ 12:20pm

Re: Re: Re:
Does such a beast as 'casual "pedo in training"' exist?

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 thread ]
Anonymous a-hole, 24 Feb 2011 @ 1:46pm

Re:
Filters don't work in much the same way that removing the adult section of CL didn't work in stopping child trafficking.

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Feb 2011 @ 3:15pm

Re: Re: Re: Re:
You have to sort of read up on the concepts of pedophilia and how people progress some "just a thought" to "testing out scenarios" to "actual action", and a bunch of other steps in between. This sort of thing is common in many different types of crimes that require planning, ranging from rapists to bank robbers. Most normal people stop themselves at the "just a thought" level.

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Feb 2011 @ 3:17pm

Re: Re:
Did anyone say that? Nope.

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 thread ]
vivaelamor (profile), 24 Feb 2011 @ 3:23pm

Re: Re: Re:
"all I can say is those words are actionable (but I won't)."

Actionable how? You're posting anonymously.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Not an electronic Rodent, 24 Feb 2011 @ 4:39pm

Re:
I'm guessing you're not a European then?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Feb 2011 @ 6:13pm

Re: Re: Re:
You didn't have to say it, it was clearly the intent of your messages on this topic. Your blatant support for hiding the symptoms shows that you have some vested interest in obscuring the subject from prying eyes.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Feb 2011 @ 7:13pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You are asking people to risk their freedom for a maybe?

That doesn't seem good enough to me.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Feb 2011 @ 8:15pm

Re: Re: Re: Re:
Your logic makes Mike look like a totally straight shooter, which just isn't the case.

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 thread ]
Not an electronic Rodent, 25 Feb 2011 @ 12:36am

Re: 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
The first 2 clauses are partially contradictory with the second 2, which is the point of the article and the EU's suggestion.
Mike wants them to leave the sites up while they try to figure out who is doing it,
That's nowhere close to what it says, and I suspect you know it and are just trying to paint Mike with a black hat in a particularly disgusting way, either that or I'm impressed you can find all the letters on the keyboard. I'm not suprised he hasn't responded to you - were I he I wouldn't dignify such a ludicrous, baseless and vile assertion with a response either.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Feb 2011 @ 4:39am

Only pedophiles would support the filtering of child porn sites.

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Feb 2011 @ 7:43pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
a) You have the power to filter the internet on your own, why don't you do it?

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 thread ]
mirradric, 28 Feb 2011 @ 3:32am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Did you even read???
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 thread ]