British Telecom Blocks Access to Child Porn Sites - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

phredgreen · 06-06-2004, 09:23 AM

Quote:

as seen here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/online/new...232506,00.html
BT puts block on child porn sites

Martin Bright, home affairs editor
Sunday June 6, 2004

The Observer

British Telecom has taken the unprecedented step of blocking all illegal child pornography websites in a crackdown on abuse online. The decision by Britain's largest high-speed internet provider will lead to the first mass censorship of the web attempted in a Western democracy.
The move, previously thought to be at the limits of technical possibilities of the internet and prohibitively expensive, was given the personal backing of BT chairman Sir Christopher Bland at a board meeting last month after intense pressure from children's charities.

Known as Cleanfeed, the project has been developed in consultation with the Home Office and will go live by the end of the month, The Observer can reveal. Other major players in the internet market, such as Energis and Thus, which owns rival Demon Internet, are said to be preparing to block banned sites.

Subscribers to British Telecom's internet services such as BTYahoo and BTInternet who attempt to access illegal sites will receive an error message as if the page was unavailable. BT will register the number of attempts but will not be able to record details of those accessing the sites.

A list of illegal sites compiled by the Internet Watch Foundation, the industry's watchdog, has been available for some time, but until now there has been no way to prevent people accessing them because most are based outside the UK.

The initiative would not have been possible a year ago, but improvements in computer processing speeds means that the company is now able to block websites, offensive pages and even individual images of abuse.

The move is the brainchild of John Carr, internet adviser to children's charity NCH, who wrote to Home Office Minister Paul Goggins last July urging action on paedophile websites after a successful campaign to block internet newsgroups (electronic message boards which paedophiles used to share images of children). Goggins approached internet providers last September to ask them to investigate if it would be possible. At first they were resistant, but BT came back to the Home Office last month to announce early tests of Cleanfeed had been successful.

Blocking websites is highly controversial and until now has been associated only with oppressive regimes such as Saudi Arabia and China, which have censored sites associated with dissidents. But many in the field of child protection believe that the explosion of paedophile sites justifies the crackdown.

'British Telecom deserve to be congratulated on this bold move,' Carr said. 'I expect every other service provider will now look at what they are doing to see if they can achieve a similar result.'

Pierre Danon, chief executive of BT Retail, added: 'You are always caught between the desire to tackle child pornography and freedom of information. But I was fed up with not acting on this and always being told that it was techically impossible.'

so there you have it. a government authority is going to use that authority to block sections of the internet to an entire country. while i don't disagree with this specific move, it opens a broader spectrum of questions: is it okay for a governmental authority to prevent free access to citizens, or would it be considered better to depend on those citizens to make the right call. could a move like this be expanded to blocking hacking, warez, p2p, or even mainstream pornography? your intelligent opinions are appreciated.

tisonlyi · 06-06-2004, 09:47 AM

BT isn't a governmental organisation anymore, twas privatised in the 80's.

The case in point I wholly agree with, but have reservations about how useful it'll be... The problem wont go away, it'll be reduced and the devotees will move into other technologies/methods of disseminating their filth.

Time will tell, but it could be a case of better the devil you know...

phredgreen · 06-06-2004, 09:58 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by tisonlyi
BT isn't a governmental organisation anymore, twas privatised in the 80's.

apoligies. my knowledge of the british power structure is tenuous at best.

Cervantes · 06-06-2004, 11:00 AM

Don't see how this should solve the problem, it is just a move to score political goodwill points.

On the other hand even though i am against child pornography i don't see how censorship would have any effect on it. They will only find another way to obtain it.

It is a bit like opening Pandoras box. If you can censor one thing you can censor another thing and all of a sudden the internet isn't a democratic tool. It becomes the worlds largest propaganda machine that tells us what is "normal".

Even though they go after the right badguys they are using the wrong way to do it.

maleficent · 06-06-2004, 11:32 AM

I would love to be able to say that anything that helps to rid the planet of Child Pornography is a good thing, however, this is a can of worms that will be tough to close.

Are they going to do any tracking as to who might be going to these sites? Are they going to track your internet usage?

Child Pornography is illegal. OK. But instead of censorship, wouldn't it be better to go after those committing the illegal activity? Shut down the websites themselves?

ARTelevision · 06-06-2004, 11:35 AM

Good move as far as I'm concerned.

cowudders14 · 06-06-2004, 11:37 AM

The thought of someone developing such a tracking and blocking ability scares me. Sure, they are developing it for good reasons, but how many other things were developed for good reasons and then used by governments for things they were never intended and for purposes very different to that designed for...

This is a bad step, albeit one for a good cause.

mr sticky · 06-06-2004, 12:00 PM

Whilst I hate any infringement on the internet...I would rather they block this sort of material. Better yet, I would rather they use the net to hunt down these particular brand of bastards and slam them in the klink for the rest of their misery causing existence.

We do this sort of thing in the states, whereas local law enforcement, and I think moreso by the FBI, tracks down pedophiles by posing as kids and allowing themselves to be "seduced" by these bastards-set up a meeting and then "whammo" they get busted.

Internet cons, frauds and kiddie porn traffickers are the new law enforcement frontier. There will be growing pains. Although I'm fairly sure that the extrapolation of our Bill of Rights would cover the freedoms of the net.

But alas, I think the days of anonymity on the net are numbered. Nowhere in our society do we have freedom without responsibility. I'm all for accountability on the net. I think, much like this place, it would serve to remind those whose manners may be suspect.

Xell101 · 06-06-2004, 04:13 PM

I'm concerned it might force them deeper into whatever hole they bury themselves in to avoid detection and all that Justice jazz.

Daval · 06-06-2004, 04:29 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ARTelevision
Good move as far as I'm concerned.

I am all for this move. I hope they do this in Canada as well.

Nefir · 06-06-2004, 04:45 PM

Quote:

BT will register the number of attempts but will not be able to record details of those accessing the sites.

It frightens me that with just a few tiny changes, they can begin compiling a list of people accessing various sites.

I understand that their motives are honorable, but the means can and will be used for despicable purposes faster than you can say "thoughtcrime".

lurkette · 06-06-2004, 05:59 PM

I think it's a band-aid on the problem, and a step in the wrong direction. Granted, they're blocking access to something that is, in their country and most others, illegal, but they're only blocking a small amount of the traffic, not enough to dent the site's income and put them out of business. Going after a small segment of the consumers and not the producers just doesn't make sense. Sure, denying access to something as clearly illegal and harmful as child porn is hard to argue with, but I see the slippery slope...

It's kind of a moot point, since the technology is already out there, but the potential for abuse is frightening. Considering the number of consensual sexual activities that are still illegal in some states (fornication, sodomy, fellatio, use of sex toys) one could easily see fundie zealots in the U.S. applying this approach to block access to a lot of content.

zxello · 06-06-2004, 07:27 PM

I don't specifically disagree with the blocking of child porn, but having _ANY_ agency blocking a wide range of websites is bad in my opinion

Holo · 06-06-2004, 08:19 PM

The CP peddlers will just find a new way. They'll have normal site names and avoid common CP keywords, they'll turn to freenet and other anonymous means of distro. I think this is just a gateway to things we don't want.

MSD · 06-06-2004, 10:53 PM

Good concept, but in practice it opens a floodgate of censorship and restriction on the masses based on the will of a few.

06-06-2004, 09:47 AM	#2 (permalink)
tisonlyi Nothing	BT isn't a governmental organisation anymore, twas privatised in the 80's. The case in point I wholly agree with, but have reservations about how useful it'll be... The problem wont go away, it'll be reduced and the devotees will move into other technologies/methods of disseminating their filth. Time will tell, but it could be a case of better the devil you know... __________________ "I do not agree that the dog in a manger has the final right to the manger even though he may have lain there for a very long time. I do not admit that right. I do not admit for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race to put it that way, has come in and taken their place." - Winston Churchill, 1937 --{ORLY?}--

06-06-2004, 11:00 AM	#4 (permalink)
Cervantes Psycho Location: Above you	Don't see how this should solve the problem, it is just a move to score political goodwill points. On the other hand even though i am against child pornography i don't see how censorship would have any effect on it. They will only find another way to obtain it. It is a bit like opening Pandoras box. If you can censor one thing you can censor another thing and all of a sudden the internet isn't a democratic tool. It becomes the worlds largest propaganda machine that tells us what is "normal". Even though they go after the right badguys they are using the wrong way to do it. __________________ - "Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned.." - "Religions take everything that your DNA naturally wants to do to survive and pro-create and makes it wrong." - "There is only one absolute truth and that is that there is only one absolute truth."

06-06-2004, 11:32 AM	#5 (permalink)
maleficent Junkie Moderator Emeritus Location: Chicago	I would love to be able to say that anything that helps to rid the planet of Child Pornography is a good thing, however, this is a can of worms that will be tough to close. Are they going to do any tracking as to who might be going to these sites? Are they going to track your internet usage? Child Pornography is illegal. OK. But instead of censorship, wouldn't it be better to go after those committing the illegal activity? Shut down the websites themselves? __________________ Free your heart from hatred. Free your mind from worries. Live simply. Give more. Expect less.

06-06-2004, 11:35 AM	#6 (permalink)
ARTelevision I change Location: USA	Good move as far as I'm concerned. __________________ create evolution

06-06-2004, 11:37 AM	#7 (permalink)
cowudders14 Bringer of good Moos... Location: Midlands, UK	The thought of someone developing such a tracking and blocking ability scares me. Sure, they are developing it for good reasons, but how many other things were developed for good reasons and then used by governments for things they were never intended and for purposes very different to that designed for... This is a bad step, albeit one for a good cause. __________________ Moo! I'm mooey!

06-06-2004, 12:00 PM	#8 (permalink)
mr sticky Psycho Location: NC	Whilst I hate any infringement on the internet...I would rather they block this sort of material. Better yet, I would rather they use the net to hunt down these particular brand of bastards and slam them in the klink for the rest of their misery causing existence. We do this sort of thing in the states, whereas local law enforcement, and I think moreso by the FBI, tracks down pedophiles by posing as kids and allowing themselves to be "seduced" by these bastards-set up a meeting and then "whammo" they get busted. Internet cons, frauds and kiddie porn traffickers are the new law enforcement frontier. There will be growing pains. Although I'm fairly sure that the extrapolation of our Bill of Rights would cover the freedoms of the net. But alas, I think the days of anonymity on the net are numbered. Nowhere in our society do we have freedom without responsibility. I'm all for accountability on the net. I think, much like this place, it would serve to remind those whose manners may be suspect. __________________ The sad thing is... as you get older you come to realize that you don't so much pilot your life, as you just try to hold on, in a screaming, defiant ball of white-knuckle anxious fury

06-06-2004, 04:13 PM	#9 (permalink)
Xell101 Junkie	I'm concerned it might force them deeper into whatever hole they bury themselves in to avoid detection and all that Justice jazz.

06-06-2004, 05:59 PM	#12 (permalink)
lurkette My future is coming on Moderator Emeritus Location: east of the sun and west of the moon	I think it's a band-aid on the problem, and a step in the wrong direction. Granted, they're blocking access to something that is, in their country and most others, illegal, but they're only blocking a small amount of the traffic, not enough to dent the site's income and put them out of business. Going after a small segment of the consumers and not the producers just doesn't make sense. Sure, denying access to something as clearly illegal and harmful as child porn is hard to argue with, but I see the slippery slope... It's kind of a moot point, since the technology is already out there, but the potential for abuse is frightening. Considering the number of consensual sexual activities that are still illegal in some states (fornication, sodomy, fellatio, use of sex toys) one could easily see fundie zealots in the U.S. applying this approach to block access to a lot of content. __________________ "If ten million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing." - Anatole France

06-06-2004, 07:27 PM	#13 (permalink)
zxello Addict Location: P-Town, WA	I don't specifically disagree with the blocking of child porn, but having _ANY_ agency blocking a wide range of websites is bad in my opinion __________________ Old signature just wasn't doing it for me anymore, so now I have this new one. It's equally as stupid but at least it looks really long. I'm probably just going to keep typing until I run out of things to babble about and see how many people actually read this. I once ran down a hill, fell down and hurt my elbow; my mom said I would be ok, she kissed it and made it all better. I've run out of things to say now, so if you have read this whole thing, congratulations you get a gold star!

06-06-2004, 08:19 PM	#14 (permalink)
Holo A Real American	The CP peddlers will just find a new way. They'll have normal site names and avoid common CP keywords, they'll turn to freenet and other anonymous means of distro. I think this is just a gateway to things we don't want. __________________ I happen to like the words "fuck", "cock", "pussy", "tits", "cunt", "twat", "shit" and even "bitch". As long as I am not using them to describe you, don't go telling me whether or not I can/should use them...that is, if you want me to continue refraining from using them to describe you. ~Prince

06-06-2004, 10:53 PM	#15 (permalink)
MSD The sky calls to us ... Super Moderator Location: CT	Good concept, but in practice it opens a floodgate of censorship and restriction on the masses based on the will of a few.