Putting up barriers to a free and open internet

thebman

HE GOVERNMENT has had extensive private discussions on introducing internet blocking – barring access to websites or domains – according to material obtained under a Freedom of Information (FOI) request.

The approach is used by some internet service providers (ISPs) and mobile network operators to block access to child pornography. But increasingly, governments and law enforcement agencies are pushing for much broader use, ranging from blocking filesharing sites to trying to tackle cybercrime and terrorism.

Critics say internet blocking creates many problems with little real effect on illegal activity. For example, internet users and businesses have complained about the side-effects of domain blocking, where barring access to domains can shut down hundreds of personal and business websites as well as e-mail addresses associated with them.

The exact nature of the Government discussions cannot be determined as many of the requests for key documents were refused by the Department of Justice. However, the ongoing high level of discussion on the subject is indicated in the detailed description of each refused item in the list of materials returned by the department.

The FOI request, made by privacy advocate Digital Rights Ireland and seen by The Irish Times, contains eight pages of listed documents. One refused item details a June 2009 meeting between the department and Vodafone on the “introduction of internet filtering in Ireland”. Another is an e-mail from mobile operator 3 listing filter technologies it is using.

Another refused item details minutes of a meeting between the Office for Internet Safety and the Garda “re proposed introduction of blocking technology”. Discussions on the international use of blocking and on proposed European legislation were also refused.

Possible interest in the wider use of such technologies is indicated by a refused document in which an e-mail and note on blocking child pornography sites was forwarded to the official in the Department of Justice in charge of casino gaming regulation.

Proponents of internet blocking argue that it removes offensive and illegal material from the internet and can make it more difficult for child pornographers and their customers to operate.

But critics say it is a blunt instrument that does little to combat pornography or other activities, while causing headaches for networks and ISPs. It can also cause inconvenience and costly disruptions to service for innocent companies and individuals if their websites, internet access and e-mail get cut off.

Ok so obviously this is moronic IMO as anyone with half a brain cell will get around their filters and its a bad road to go down because how soon before the government decide information that it negative about them is dangerous or falls under terrorism :rolleyes:

I don't trust the current government or any government with this and it should just not be allowed to be introduced.

Unfortunately so many people in Ireland are ignorant when it comes to technology and will probably not only allow this to happen but actively cheer that it is a good thing :rolleyes:

Child porn argument kind of falls apart IMO once looked at in real detail. Firstly lets assume the governments block does work. Why would you want to stop people going to Child porn sides when you can just track who is going to them and arrest them and then alert the authorities in those other countries to the website who can shut them down and investigate where the material actually came from.

If you just block the guys access and log it, you haven't really learned much especially since most likely nothing will be done with the logs or people who accidently clicked a link once will end up being brought down the garda station (although I'd say child porn links aren't on wikipedia or whatever but you get my point).

Amhran Nua

Internet filtering in Ireland? Ye gods, do we really want to join the ranks of countries like China in controlling information to the population? Also making ISPs responsible for this is ridiculous, its like holding vodafone responsible for phone calls made by drug dealers on its networks.

orourkeda

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Internet filtering in Ireland? Ye gods, do we really want to join the ranks of countries like China in controlling information to the population? Also making ISPs responsible for this is ridiculous, its like holding vodafone responsible for phone calls made by drug dealers on its networks.

Why else are they doing it?

God knows the government wouldnt want people actually thinking.

ei.sdraob

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Internet filtering in Ireland? Ye gods, do we really want to join the ranks of countries like China in controlling information to the population? Also making ISPs responsible for this is ridiculous, its like holding vodafone responsible for phone calls made by drug dealers on its networks.

Thats what happen when you make the:

state > citizen


the state tramples all over citizens liberty and starts doing retarded things like this, i suppose you will blame anarcho capitalists for this next

Amhran Nua

ei.sdraob wrote: »

Thats what happen when you make the:

state > citizen


the state tramples all over citizens liberty and starts doing retarded things like this, i suppose you will blame anarcho capitalists for this next

Want to bet that private corporate interests protecting IP are involved in this, playing the old think of the children card? They are certainly aiming for exactly this in ACTA.

eoin5

It feels like it should be illegal for them to do it. Anyone good on european legislation able to comment on it (sorry for being so lazy)?

PCPhoto

its typical governmental spin ..... lets do this and tell everyone it will stop child porn, but lets not tell them that in the future we wont allow them to hear about bad things we do.

Amhran Nua

eoin5 wrote: »

It feels like it should be illegal for them to do it. Anyone good on european legislation able to comment on it (sorry for being so lazy)?

The European Parliament already knocked out the three strikes law the corporations were trying to introduce, hinted at in the article by the mention of businesses getting their connections cut, so its unlikely to be allowed. The blocking of the pirate bay may have given them the idea that it was feasable however.

Nijmegen

Whilst I agree that internet censorship in general is bad, in the case of child pornography it's required. I think that we should approach it the same way that Norway does: They have a block list, but they have agreed specifically that it applies only to child pornography and they will not use it against sites, for example, that offer illegal downloads of copyright material.

Norway is a similar size to Ireland, and per day they block around 4,500 requests for child exploitation material. 1,642,000 requests per year, quite a figure.

BT also blocks this material in the UK.

The issue with 'tracing' people is that it is extremely difficult to do, these sites are extremely difficult to shut down (largely the 'site' hosts no material whatsoever, it is hosted in places like Russia, Ukraine and Thailand, and CP sites are set up in 5 minutes using pre-arranged code that hosts no CEM in the 'local' market), and I can't see the Gardai chasing 4,000 or so people per day for this kind of gear.

Yes, people really determined will get their hands on it. But you can block the majority of people looking for it.

Also, every time CEM is viewed, it is (in the eyes of the law and victims groups) a crime, a repeat offense against the victim, no matter how old they are (if they survived into adulthood), and so there is a real reason, for victims, to block as much of this gear as possible.

So, why not a simple agreement to work blocking for CEM alone, and explicitly ring fence it from any discussion of any other type of content?

SLUSK

Nijmegen wrote: »

Whilst I agree that internet censorship in general is bad, in the case of child pornography it's required. I think that we should approach it the same way that Norway does: They have a block list, but they have agreed specifically that it applies only to child pornography and they will not use it against sites, for example, that offer illegal downloads of copyright material.

Norway is a similar size to Ireland, and per day they block around 4,500 requests for child exploitation material. 1,642,000 requests per year, quite a figure.

BT also blocks this material in the UK.

The issue with 'tracing' people is that it is extremely difficult to do, these sites are extremely difficult to shut down (largely the 'site' hosts no material whatsoever, it is hosted in places like Russia, Ukraine and Thailand, and CP sites are set up in 5 minutes using pre-arranged code that hosts no CEM in the 'local' market), and I can't see the Gardai chasing 4,000 or so people per day for this kind of gear.

Yes, people really determined will get their hands on it. But you can block the majority of people looking for it.

Also, every time CEM is viewed, it is (in the eyes of the law and victims groups) a crime, a repeat offense against the victim, no matter how old they are (if they survived into adulthood), and so there is a real reason, for victims, to block as much of this gear as possible.

So, why not a simple agreement to work blocking for CEM alone, and explicitly ring fence it from any discussion of any other type of content?

LOL who on earth puts up child porn on an open website?

Nijmegen

Nijmegen wrote: »

Whilst I agree that internet censorship in general is bad, in the case of child pornography it's required. I think that we should approach it the same way that Norway does: They have a block list, but they have agreed specifically that it applies only to child pornography and they will not use it against sites, for example, that offer illegal downloads of copyright material.

Norway is a similar size to Ireland, and per day they block around 4,500 requests for child exploitation material. 1,642,000 requests per year, quite a figure.

BT also blocks this material in the UK.

The issue with 'tracing' people is that it is extremely difficult to do, these sites are extremely difficult to shut down (largely the 'site' hosts no material whatsoever, it is hosted in places like Russia, Ukraine and Thailand, and CP sites are set up in 5 minutes using pre-arranged code that hosts no CEM in the 'local' market), and I can't see the Gardai chasing 4,000 or so people per day for this kind of gear.

Yes, people really determined will get their hands on it. But you can block the majority of people looking for it.

Also, every time CEM is viewed, it is (in the eyes of the law and victims groups) a crime, a repeat offense against the victim, no matter how old they are (if they survived into adulthood), and so there is a real reason, for victims, to block as much of this gear as possible.

So, why not a simple agreement to work blocking for CEM alone, and explicitly ring fence it from any discussion of any other type of content?

Instead of blocking child pornography and giving those who would look at it no other choice but to go elsewhere to get their jollies is definitely not the answer in my opinion. Instead we should pursue people who access the stuff more vigorously and get dangerous people off the streets and into rehabilitation centers before they have a chance to act on their urges.

I remember seeing a Louis Theroux doc about such a center in California where the inmates simply can't leave until they are declared better. That is what we need for sex offenders.

Blocking of certain aspects of the internet should be seen as similar to the government putting big walls up around your house so that you may only access what they want you to. The internet is an amazing place, full of ideas and great thinkers. You can't mess with it's liberty...it's one of the best things we've ever done as a species.

Amhran Nua

Nijmegen wrote: »

The issue with 'tracing' people is that it is extremely difficult to do, these sites are extremely difficult to shut down (largely the 'site' hosts no material whatsoever, it is hosted in places like Russia, Ukraine and Thailand, and CP sites are set up in 5 minutes using pre-arranged code that hosts no CEM in the 'local' market), and I can't see the Gardai chasing 4,000 or so people per day for this kind of gear.

I'd imagine these sites are being run for profit though, its a lot easier to track the money trail, and thats something that international police force cooperation is very good at.

Nijmegen

Amhran Nua wrote: »

I'd imagine these sites are being run for profit though, its a lot easier to track the money trail, and thats something that international police force cooperation is very good at.

Which is why we see so many of these rings getting taken down? Police in Eindhoven (I believe) had to set up a sting operation to nab one of the guys running the technical back end of a CP ring. They had to camp out in the apartment across the street to him and monitor his screen with a telescopic lense (a common practice where tracing through sniffers is not feasible. Old fashioned coppery for new fangled crimes.) When, one day, they managed to film him accessing the material, they had to burst into his apartment and put a gun to his head to restrain him from wiping the machine.

The people behind the money are quite serious and technically proficient, and for the most part the people caught (financially) are idiots who punch in their credit card details to sites or fall into police honey pots. They are consumers, not producers, of material.

There are even CP sites out there now with 'customer service' lines.

LOL who on earth puts up child porn on an open website?

There are many different layers of users. The vast majority of people seeking to view CEM have no technical background and are not involved in any rings or similar. They are simply Joe Idiots behind their PC's, and there is a market there to satisfy their needs. One hosts the images on a server off in the ether, and then codes into a free web hosting service or similar the instructions to pull down these images. View the site without the images, and it's blank. It's quite difficult to trace, time consuming to shut down and simple to start back up again.

Instead of blocking child pornography and giving those who would look at it no other choice but to go elsewhere to get their jollies is definitely not the answer in my opinion. Instead we should pursue people who access the stuff more vigorously and get dangerous people off the streets and into rehabilitation centers before they have a chance to act on their urges.

I remember seeing a Louis Theroux doc about such a center in California where the inmates simply can't leave until they are declared better. That is what we need for sex offenders.

Blocking of certain aspects of the internet should be seen as similar to the government putting big walls up around your house so that you may only access what they want you to. The internet is an amazing place, full of ideas and great thinkers. You can't mess with it's liberty...it's one of the best things we've ever done as a species.

Whilst I agree that dealing with the people who view this material is a good question to ask, the majority of consumers will not touch a child. Those that would, do, regardless.

Amhran Nua

Nijmegen wrote: »

Which is why we see so many of these rings getting taken down?

We do see these rings being taken down all the time.

Nijmegen wrote: »

The people behind the money are quite serious and technically proficient, and for the most part the people caught (financially) are idiots who punch in their credit card details to sites or fall into police honey pots.

Exactly, these credit card details go somewhere, and there aren't any credit card companies that accept payment for child pornography. The money trail is clear and fairly easy to follow.

Nijmegen wrote: »

One hosts the images on a server off in the ether, and then codes into a free web hosting service or similar the instructions to pull down these images. View the site without the images, and it's blank.

So how would anyone know which site has the images?

Nijmegen

Amhran , INTERPOL and other organisations with an interest, have identified over 1 million individual children in CEM images. They have managed to recover or identify a handful. I don't care about credit cards, I care about the victims. Victims who, like in any industry with supply or demand, are exploited more or less depending on the amount of consumption in their 'industry.' If less people paid for porn, there would be less adult porn stars. If less people paid for less child pornography, there would be less children abused.

Find me an instance where a building full of children being exploited has been cracked? Very few.

So how would anyone know which site has the images?

I won't go into detail, sufficed to say that BT in the UK blocks this material by themselves, and they block 58,000,000 a year. Look and you will find it without issue.

According to NCMEC, one fifth of all pornography on the internet is child pornography.

Nijmegen

I think, also, that it is worth bearing in mind two things: The guidelines in UK courts for legally defining the 'class' of images; and the age profiles of victims.

Image 'levels' used by UK courts as a guidelines:

1. Images depicting erotic posing with no sexual activity.
2. Non-penetrative sexual activity between children or solo masturbation by a child.
3. Non-penetrative sexual activity between children and adults.
4. Penetrative sexual activity involving a child or children, or both children and adults.
5. Sadism or penetration of or by an animal.

Level 5 includes torture and death of the victim, which has been identified by law enforcement agents as a growing trend as the material becomes more niche and explicit to satisfy growing demand on the internet.

Age profile of victims:

Aged 0 -2 : 4%
Aged 3 -6 : 20%
Aged 7 -10 : 45%
Aged 11 -15 : 30%
Aged 16 -17 : 1%

Aged 0-2, 4%, some of which is Class 5.

You and I have a choice as to our position on this issue. The victim has no choice. And the more CEM is accessed, the more is paid for, and the more is produced.

thebman

Nijmegen wrote: »

Yes, people really determined will get their hands on it. But you can block the majority of people looking for it.

The majority of people don't look at kiddie porn to start with. Those that do have learned to cover their tracks and get around technological limitations or they'd have been caught already.

This is just DRM en masse. Screw the regular user in the hope to catch a few people that are too smart to walk into your net.

The content most likely isn't even hosted on a publicly viewable website so this is really for pure censorship of information by the government. Use kiddie porn as justification and then widen the criteria for what gets blocked.

Nijmegen wrote: »

I think, also, that it is worth bearing in mind two things: The guidelines in UK courts for legally defining the 'class' of images; and the age profiles of victims.

Image 'levels' used by UK courts as a guidelines:

1. Images depicting erotic posing with no sexual activity.
2. Non-penetrative sexual activity between children or solo masturbation by a child.
3. Non-penetrative sexual activity between children and adults.
4. Penetrative sexual activity involving a child or children, or both children and adults.
5. Sadism or penetration of or by an animal.

Level 5 includes torture and death of the victim, which has been identified by law enforcement agents as a growing trend as the material becomes more niche and explicit to satisfy growing demand on the internet.

Age profile of victims:

Aged 0 -2 : 4%
Aged 3 -6 : 20%
Aged 7 -10 : 45%
Aged 11 -15 : 30%
Aged 16 -17 : 1%

Aged 0-2, 4%, some of which is Class 5.

You and I have a choice as to our position on this issue. The victim has no choice. And the more CEM is accessed, the more is paid for, and the more is produced.

I'd question the statistics when you look at nonsense like this:
http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/teen-girl-posted-herself-nude/story-e6freo8c-1225700801444

Nijmegen

This is just DRM en masse. Screw the regular user in the hope to catch a few people that are too smart to walk into your net.

Firstly, I agree with you that blocking anything bar CEM is not the thing to do. We're in agreement on this issue, and I believe we should do as they have in Norway and make a specific agreement between lawmakers and law enforcement that the only content to be blocked in CEM. If the law enforcement people come across a website with anything else, be it copyright material for download or sites promoting racial hatred or whatever, they do not touch it.

I think that is an ideal way to approach it, where all concerned detach the issue of CEM, which we all believe to be black and white illegal, from more contentous areas of online censorship where - as I say - I agree completely with you.

The content most likely isn't even hosted on a publicly viewable website

That assertion is quite simply not true.

I'd question the statistics when you look at nonsense like this:
http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/t...-1225700801444

I'm afraid I have very little answer to your assertion here bar to point to the credibility of sources such as INTERPOL versus anecdotal examples. There is simply no question as to the nature of the majority of the content displayed in the images in which over 1 million individual children have been pictured, but not identified.

A dog being placed onto the back of a nude and distressed 4 year old by an adult for sexual intercourse with the child while another video tapes it is not ambigious.

Nor is a boy, between 11 and 13, being strangled and buggered by an adult while another takes photographs an ambigious example.

And so forth.

thebman

Nijmegen wrote: »

Firstly, I agree with you that blocking anything bar CEM is not the thing to do. We're in agreement on this issue, and I believe we should do as they have in Norway and make a specific agreement between lawmakers and law enforcement that the only content to be blocked in CEM. If the law enforcement people come across a website with anything else, be it copyright material for download or sites promoting racial hatred or whatever, they do not touch it.

I think that is an ideal way to approach it, where all concerned detach the issue of CEM, which we all believe to be black and white illegal, from more contentous areas of online censorship where - as I say - I agree completely with you.



That assertion is quite simply not true.


I'm afraid I have very little answer to your assertion here bar to point to the credibility of sources such as INTERPOL versus anecdotal examples. There is simply no question as to the nature of the majority of the content displayed in the images in which over 1 million individual children have been pictured, but not identified.

A dog being placed onto the back of a nude and distressed 4 year old by an adult for sexual intercourse with the child while another video tapes it is not ambigious.

Nor is a boy, between 11 and 13, being strangled and buggered by an adult while another takes photographs an ambigious example.

And so forth.

And how is blocking the site in Ireland alone going to stop kids being abused like that?

MagicSean

thebman wrote: »

Ok so obviously this is moronic IMO as anyone with half a brain cell will get around their filters and its a bad road to go down because how soon before the government decide information that it negative about them is dangerous or falls under terrorism :rolleyes:

I don't trust the current government or any government with this and it should just not be allowed to be introduced.

Unfortunately so many people in Ireland are ignorant when it comes to technology and will probably not only allow this to happen but actively cheer that it is a good thing :rolleyes:

Child porn argument kind of falls apart IMO once looked at in real detail. Firstly lets assume the governments block does work. Why would you want to stop people going to Child porn sides when you can just track who is going to them and arrest them and then alert the authorities in those other countries to the website who can shut them down and investigate where the material actually came from.

If you just block the guys access and log it, you haven't really learned much especially since most likely nothing will be done with the logs or people who accidently clicked a link once will end up being brought down the garda station (although I'd say child porn links aren't on wikipedia or whatever but you get my point).

Prevention is better to cure, especially when it comes to sex crimes.

MagicSean

thebman wrote: »

And how is blocking the site in Ireland alone going to stop kids being abused like that?

It blocks some of the demand for it. It's like all crime. If there's no demand for it it is less likely to occur.

Nijmegen

thebman wrote: »

And how is blocking the site in Ireland alone going to stop kids being abused like that?

I suppose if you assert that nobody in Ireland has ever paid for CEM then we have no impact on the industry and it would have no effect.

What fundamental issue is there in ring fencing child porn, as they have done in Norway, and blocking it?

That's how they made in work up there: By specifically ring fencing it.

thebman

Nijmegen wrote: »

I suppose if you assert that nobody in Ireland has ever paid for CEM then we have no impact on the industry and it would have no effect.

What fundamental issue is there in ring fencing child porn, as they have done in Norway, and blocking it?

That's how they made in work up there: By specifically ring fencing it.

Because it won't be limited to child porn because this is Ireland and when the government can exploit a situation for party gain they have done so in the past and there is no evidence they'll behave honestly in this situation.

They don't have morales either so why trust them. The traffic from Ireland is minimal and it doesn't stop the crime, better to track down the individuals viewing the site and interview them to get whatever information you can from them with no censorship required.

k_mac wrote: »

Prevention is better to cure, especially when it comes to sex crimes.

We aren't preventing sex crimes, we are blocking websites that feature sex crimes and its a short step from there to expanding to include anything any lobby group or the government themselves wants blocked. Lobby groups like the fanatical religious groups etc... which is why we have blasphemy laws in the country right now.

k_mac wrote: »

It blocks some of the demand for it. It's like all crime. If there's no demand for it it is less likely to occur.

If you arrest the people who are viewing the sites by ISP's reporting people going to those sites to the authorities then you achieve the same thing without blocking content. There is little difference between one or two views and zero on a website but there is a massive difference between censorship and reporting from ISP's of customers viewing sites with child porn on it for investigation by the relevant authorities.

MagicSean

thebman wrote: »

Because it won't be limited to child porn because this is Ireland and when the government can exploit a situation for party gain they have done so in the past and there is no evidence they'll behave honestly in this situation.

They don't have morales either so why trust them. The traffic from Ireland is minimal and it doesn't stop the crime, better to track down the individuals viewing the site and interview them to get whatever information you can from them with no censorship required.



We aren't preventing sex crimes, we are blocking websites that feature sex crimes and its a short step from there to expanding to include anything any lobby group or the government themselves wants blocked. Lobby groups like the fanatical religious groups etc... which is why we have blasphemy laws in the country right now.



If you arrest the people who are viewing the sites by ISP's reporting people going to those sites to the authorities then you achieve the same thing without blocking content. There is little difference between one or two views and zero on a website but there is a massive difference between censorship and reporting from ISP's of customers viewing sites with child porn on it for investigation by the relevant authorities.

You aren't really getting my point. You are hanging on to the big-brother fear. Would you be more comfortable if there was a published list of the banned domains and websites?

Preventing the demand for the crime is a very good way of preventing crime. If noone bought stolen property then thefts and burglaries would go down. If noone could view child porn then the number of websites would go down. Catching them afterwards is all very good but it doesn't help the child.

Nijmegen

That our government might try and pull a fast one on us is not a good reason to not block this stuff. You need a coalition of partners in the country who can copper fasten this to apply only to CEM.

Censorship of CEM is not the same as censorship of anything else.

The traffic from Ireland is minimal and it doesn't stop the crime

Firstly, I'd say that every country has a moral obligation to do its bit in this fight, no matter their size. We contribute to the United Nations, to charities... Saying my €5 a month doesn't make a difference is missing the point that all our combined efforts, be it me giving €5 a month or you leaving €5 million in your will to an effort will have an impact.

Secondly, every time CEM is viewed it is a repeat of a heinous crime perpetrated against an innocent, defenceless victim who, if they survive (and many do not), will carry the burden forever.

1 page view of child pornography is a crime.

Also, police forces do not have the ability to hunt down everyone who ever looks at CEM. If we face facts, there's too many people accessing it.
I was wrong about the Norwegian statistics, having checked it is actually 10,000 - 12,000 clicks per day that the Norwegian ISP's report. Norway has 4.9m people, we have 4.5m.
So let's say 9,000 clicks in Ireland per day if we follow the same trend (I know we are a country with no history of child abuse whatsoever, so perhaps you feel I am over egging the figures?). 9,000 clicks onto CEM. 9,000 times multiple images are being viewed.
How degrading would you feel if you were a victim of CEM and there is a possibility that your images are being accessed up to 9,000 times per day by people pulling their plumbs to your abuse? or 1 time per day? Would that be small fry?

johnnyjb

I think there the government are spitting in the face of abuse victims.This country is turning into the USA by our corrupt "politicians" pushing us around and trying to steal our freedom.

Child abuse is a thrillion times worse than downloading a torrent song or reading non flattering news about our government.Its a bloody disgrace we have to listen to them use victims as an excuse.

I dont know how much of internet is child porn but if its 1 fifth surely they can catch thousands of people a day without internet censorship

MagicSean

johnnyjb wrote: »

I think there the government are spitting in the face of abuse victims.This country is turning into the USA by our corrupt "politicians" pushing us around and trying to steal our freedom.

Child abuse is a thrillion times worse than downloading a torrent song or reading non flattering news about our government.Its a bloody disgrace we have to listen to them use victims as an excuse.

I dont know how much of internet is child porn but if its 1 fifth surely they can catch thousands of people a day without internet censorship

You have missed the point. Censorship reduces demand and hence reduces the occurence of the crime and helps to protect children from abuse. If you just catch the guy afterwards you're basicly using the child as bait for these people just so you can protect your right to download a movie.

SeanW

k_mac wrote: »

Baaaaa ....

My problem with "just" censoring child porn is quite simple: we cannot trust our government - or any government - to "ringfence" censorship to "just" child porn. It may have worked in Norway (and I don't know this I'm just taking another posters' word) but there is strong reason to fear that this is the exception, not the rule. Allowing censorship for "just" child porn would almost certainly be the thin end of the wedge.

The real push for censorship has come from the media industry. Has done for many years now. All this stuff about child porn is basically a distraction, a straw man. "Won't you please think of the children." Same argument is used any time someone needs to use propoganda to force an emotional response instead of a logical one. No-one here is going to argue that child porn is cool. It is also very much the case that in as much as child porn sites can be blocked, visits to them could be logged by the same system.

Fighting Irish

sounds like boards.ie

MagicSean

SeanW wrote: »

Baaaah. Dem govment troops gonna get me.

Works both ways. If your gonna put down my argument just because it is similar to others work away. Personally I see the opportunity to protect children as more important than being able to download a movie or song.

Even if the ban was only introduced to prevent file to file sharing it wouldn't bother me. It's just a method of enforcing the law. If you are so against the blocking of media sharing you should be trying to campaigning to change piracy laws rather than supporting ways to get around them.

johnnyjb

k_mac wrote: »

You have missed the point. Censorship reduces demand and hence reduces the occurence of the crime and helps to protect children from abuse. If you just catch the guy afterwards you're basicly using the child as bait for these people just so you can protect your right to download a movie.

Im not saying use children as bait im saying the government should be lookin for these criminals anyway and not using some see through lie to justify their means

MagicSean

johnnyjb wrote: »

Im not saying use children as bait im saying the government should be lookin for these criminals anyway and not using some see through lie to justify their means

But to prevent them committing the crime in the first place is surely better.

SeanW

k_mac wrote: »

But to prevent them committing the crime in the first place is surely better.

No. For a number of reasons:

Firstly, anyone could bypass the filter by using a proxy, as presumably all CP traffic is http protocol controlled by web browsers and web servers.

It would be easier to circumvent the censor for child porn than copyright infringment, since this uses custom protocols not so easily proxied.

Secondly, in a free society where the natural rights of the citizens are respected, we punish wrongdoing, i.e. if you shoot someone, you go to jail.
In a Statist society, which you seem to have no problem with, we let big government dictate everything and infringe our natural rights in the name of some statist goal, e.g. you might shoot someone so we'll ban weapons (and give the goverment and organised crime a monopoly on force), you might be a racist so we'll make it illegal to own a copy of Mein Kampf. We'll ban cannibis because (what harm might that do?) You might be intersted in "child porn" (remember this only the talking point, not the real objective) so we'll censor the Internet.

In short, the natural rights of a person to live in freedom so long as they respect the rights of others, is infringed, as the government grows in power, gets to the point where they say "hey little person, here's a little box that we and our vested interest friends will let you play in."

It's a simple choice between the above kind of society and a free society, and we have been moving perilously in the direction of the former.

MagicSean

So you believe that punishing someone for a crime is better than preventing it and I believe preventing a crime is better then punishing someone for it afterwards.

In your ideal free state there is no protection for the vulnerable, there is only retribution. I would be happy to give up minor rights if it meant better protection of human rights of the vulnerable.

In an ideal world of course a free state would be better but people have not evolved to a point were this is possible yet. There is still too much evil and greed in the world. Too many people eager to take advantage.

SeanW

k_mac wrote: »

So you believe that punishing someone for a crime is better than preventing it and I believe preventing a crime is better then punishing someone for it afterwards.

Yes. You are happy to have a (very fallible) big government "preempting" crime. I am not.

In your ideal free state there is no protection for the vulnerable, there is only retribution. I would be happy to give up minor rights if it meant better protection of human rights of the vulnerable.

In a free state there is far more protection for the vulnerable, as a bigger government often has an inverse relationship with protection for the vulnerable. One example, in the United States, they had a Prohbition of alcohol in the 1920s. The big nanny statists who thought this was a great idea probably had wolly visions of no more drunken behaviour and a more religious nation, or other great societal utopia. It was quite the opposite. The national murder rate soared every year between 1919 and the early 1930s when it was repealed.
Arguably among the most damaging criminal figures in human history was Al Capone. His main business: selling alcohol.
The same thing is happening with certain drugs today such as cannibis. It's a plant, natural, from the Earth, that is inherently incapable of doing large scale damage. Yet, there's open warfare by criminal gangs in Northern Mexico to the point where their society is on the verge of collapse, and the drug warriors want us to believe that a little plant is solely responsible for all of it and we just have to fight harder and give the state more power to fight the war on drugs.
Same thing with gun bans: if you wanted to go into the mugging, extortion, home invasion or hitman business tomorrow, you'd be laughing because your targets, law abiding citizens, would be by definition, totally helpless and unable to fight back.

This is what a strong state making arbitrary laws does - it makes the weak, weaker. Given the human nature you allude to, it tends to protect the strong, often at the expense of the weak. It's why freedom works and statism doesn't. Your state only provides retribution when someone commits a crime against a person, for example. A free society provides some prevention by limiting the scope of black markets and also preemption as an extension of a potential victims' natural rights.

Too many people eager to take advantage.

Which is exactly what happens with Big Goverment. Too many busybodies and special interests equally "eager to take advantage" and use government force in a way that hurts almost everyone.

thebman

k_mac wrote: »

You aren't really getting my point. You are hanging on to the big-brother fear. Would you be more comfortable if there was a published list of the banned domains and websites?

Preventing the demand for the crime is a very good way of preventing crime. If noone bought stolen property then thefts and burglaries would go down. If noone could view child porn then the number of websites would go down. Catching them afterwards is all very good but it doesn't help the child.

No I understand your point completely, I don't think you get mine. I've thanked the posts that probably explain it better.

MagicSean

SeanW wrote: »

Yes. You are happy to have a (very fallible) big government "preempting" crime. I am not.


In a free state there is far more protection for the vulnerable, as a bigger government often has an inverse relationship with protection for the vulnerable. One example, in the United States, they had a Prohbition of alcohol in the 1920s. The big nanny statists who thought this was a great idea probably had wolly visions of no more drunken behaviour and a more religious nation, or other great societal utopia. It was quite the opposite. The national murder rate soared every year between 1919 and the early 1930s when it was repealed.
Arguably among the most damaging criminal figures in human history was Al Capone. His main business: selling alcohol.
The same thing is happening with certain drugs today such as cannibis. It's a plant, natural, from the Earth, that is inherently incapable of doing large scale damage. Yet, there's open warfare by criminal gangs in Northern Mexico to the point where their society is on the verge of collapse, and the drug warriors want us to believe that a little plant is solely responsible for all of it and we just have to fight harder and give the state more power to fight the war on drugs.
Same thing with gun bans: if you wanted to go into the mugging, extortion or hitman business tomorrow, you'd be laughing because your targets, law abiding citizens, would be by definition, totally helpless and unable to fight back.

This is what a strong state making arbitrary laws does - it makes the weak, weaker. Given the human nature you allude to, it tends to protect the strong, often at the expense of the weak. It's why freedom works and statism doesn't.

Which is exactly what happens with Big Goverment. Too many busybodies and special interests equally "eager to take advantage" and use government force in a way that hurts almost everyone.

I would much rather the government pre-empt me from being murdered than punish the person who murders me yes.

I'm not going to dignify your whole "cannabis does no harm" stuff with a response. You've shown yourself as someone who can't see past their own selfishness to the suffering of others. I have no real interest in arguing with an anarchists(which I assume you are) values to be honest. I generally find them to be disconnected with the real world. I think this is proven by your point about banning firearms. If you think the ban makes murder easy I would ask you to look at what the "Freedom to bare arms" does for the U.S. Saying that people could protect themselves if they could have a gun shows a complete lack of awareness of reality.

thebman

k_mac wrote: »

I would much rather the government pre-empt me from being murdered than punish the person who murders me yes.

I'm not going to dignify your whole "cannabis does no harm" stuff with a response. You've shown yourself as someone who can't see past their own selfishness to the suffering of others. I have no real interest in arguing with an anarchists(which I assume you are) values to be honest. I generally find them to be disconnected with the real world. I think this is proven by your point about banning firearms. If you think the ban makes murder easy I would ask you to look at what the "Freedom to bare arms" does for the U.S. Saying that people could protect themselves if they could have a gun shows a complete lack of awareness of reality.

Big government is corrupt government and is just as bad as complete anarchy.

Its dancing a fine line trying to decide what to let government control.

SeanW

First of all, I am not an anarchist. Liberty is a happy medium between anarchy and statism. I consider myself a left-libertarian.

With anarchy, you basically have no goverment, no police force, no government services. With liberty, you have a government that protects your country and your natural rights. E.g. a "Night Watchman" State. That is what I favour in terms of social issues and personal freedom.

I noticed you haven't addressed my point about the U.S. Prohibtion era? Did I miss something? Was it the alcohol that singly to blame for all that criminal madness in the 1920s?

I would much rather the government pre-empt me from being murdered than punish the person who murders me yes.

Government cannot "pre-empt" you from being murdered. Criminals can have all the weapons they want because they're criminals and theres a thriving black market for weapons. Lunatics, ditto, nothing to stop them from using whatever means they have to do evil deeds.

Bad things happen to good people, all the time, in all countries and in all circumstances. It has always happened, it always will. And quite frankly, if you're some blind statist who thinks big nanny government can protect you from all of lifes evils and always has the best interest of the little person at heart, then I have no real interest in arguing with you either, because you're farther away in cloud cookoo land than anyone could ever accuse me of.

MagicSean

SeanW wrote: »

First of all, I am not an anarchist. Liberty is a happy medium between anarchy and statism. I consider myself a left-libertarian.

With anarchy, you basically have no goverment, no police force, no government services. With liberty, you have a government that protects your country and your natural rights. E.g. a "Night Watchman" State. That is what I favour in terms of social issues and personal freedom.

I noticed you haven't addressed my point about the U.S. Prohibtion era? Did I miss something? Was it the alcohol that singly to blame for all that criminal madness in the 1920s?

Government cannot "pre-empt" you from being murdered. Criminals can have all the weapons they want because they're criminals and theres a thriving black market for weapons. Lunatics, ditto, nothing to stop them from using whatever means they have to do evil deeds.

Bad things happen to good people, all the time, in all countries and in all circumstances. It has always happened, it always will. And quite frankly, if you're some blind statist who thinks big nanny government can protect you from all of lifes evils and always has the best interest of the little person at heart, then I have no real interest in arguing with you either, because you're farther away in cloud cookoo land than anyone could ever accuse me of.

You have said it yourself. Alcohol was banned and became an illegal substance. The demand for alcohol was so great that the illegal supply of it became very profitable and made many criminals rich. This in turn led to increase in violence which you refer to. So yes alcohol was responsable. If there had been no demand for alcohol there would have been no money for these criminals to make and no violence.

You think someone should protect your natural rights. This is what happens. Your right to life is protected by banning harmful weapons and substances. While your political ideal is admirable i don't think it is realistic in todays society.

SeanW

k_mac wrote: »

So yes alcohol was responsable.

And prohibition was totally blameless? If so, I'm very thankful people like you weren't policymakers in the 1930s because the U.S. and probably the world would still be fighting a "War on Alcohol" today, with all of its attendant problems.

You think someone should protect your natural rights. This is what happens.

No. your natural rights are your right to life, your right to freedom of expression, your right to make some personal decisions for your self (such as where to live, what jobs to seek, what to smoke, drink, eat, who to associate with, the right to defend yourself against evil etc). Big government usually infringes on these rights, either directly or indirectly through attendant social problems.

While your political ideal is admirable i don't think it is realistic in todays society.

Ditto. I find this doe-eyed blind faith in big government of yours to be rather unsettling. The idea that government is primarily concerned with "protecting the vulnerable" as you earlier put it, is while likewise admirable, largely unrealistic in all circumstances where government is composed of people with the normal human frailties.

Big Media for example, who for example are companies that have lots of money, obscene profits and multi-billion dollar "lobbying" (i.e. soft corruption) budgets, who want to take control of the Internet are - by your definition - "vulnerable," and even more so (as you earlier said you'd be happy if censorship just went after file sharing and left CP alone) than abused children in CP websites.

pooch90

How can you really stop any of this? Surely if you are downloading compressed or encoded files you cannot easily tell whats in them?

Would you not be aswell to ban wireless networks because, if i lived in an appartment block, I could just crack the key for my neighbours web (minutes is all it takes - with eircom anyway as Its easy) and download using his connection. If I need to pay with credit card, i would pay with someone elses credit card details (doubt its hard to get someone elses credit card details, if your that way inclined). He gets the blame, I walk away and we're left with another ineffective law which will be used later on to pursue political agenda.

MagicSean

SeanW wrote: »

And prohibition was totally blameless? If so, I'm very thankful people like you weren't policymakers in the 1930s because the U.S. and probably the world would still be fighting a "War on Alcohol" today, with all of its attendant problems.

So if something is hard to legislate against and enforce it shouldn't be done? I would be a very happy person if alcohol was still banned. Nicotine too. Alcohol is a contributory factor in a lot of crime in Ireland. It destroys people and their families. It's nothing but poison thats addictive.

SeanW wrote: »

No. your natural rights are your right to life, your right to freedom of expression, your right to make some personal decisions for your self (such as where to live, what jobs to seek, what to smoke, drink, eat, who to associate with, the right to defend yourself against evil etc). Big government usually infringes on these rights, either directly or indirectly through attendant social problems.

Your right to life is protected by banning people from carrying weapons that they could use to hurt you. Your right to freedom of expression is recognised as long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others. How would you proprose to protect a persons right to life if not to ban weapons being carried by everyone. If people were allowed carry knives the only people who would would be criminals and people who think they can protect themselves. Most likely these people would have their knives used against them anyway. Another way your right to life is protected is by the control of drugs. Many people would not be smart enough to know the damage drugs can do or would think it somehow won't affect them. Sometimes people need to be protected from themselves as well you know.

SeanW wrote: »

Ditto. I find this doe-eyed blind faith in big government of yours to be rather unsettling. The idea that government is primarily concerned with "protecting the vulnerable" as you earlier put it, is while likewise admirable, largely unrealistic in all circumstances where government is composed of people with the normal human frailties.

You misunderstand me. I don't have faith in the government. I have faith in the rule of law.

SeanW wrote: »

Big Media for example, who for example are companies that have lots of money, obscene profits and multi-billion dollar "lobbying" (i.e. soft corruption) budgets, who want to take control of the Internet are - by your definition - "vulnerable," and even more so (as you earlier said you'd be happy if censorship just went after file sharing and left CP alone) than abused children in CP websites.

I didn't say I'd be happy if they left CP alone. Or that copyright is more important to stop than child porn. That's a blatant misrepresentation. You seem to think that just because someone is rich or powerful their rights shouldn't be the same. If you wrote a song and a media company stole it and published it you'd be quite pissed. They have the same rights. You are not entitled to more rights just because they are very rich. If they want to charge €100 for a single its up to them. I said I have no problem with something being done to enforce the law as it is. If you have a problem with a law you don't break it. You get it changed. The only rights you seem to want to uphold are your own.

IrishTonyO

At least UPC is still fighting this, thank God.

http://www.siliconrepublic.com/news/article/15906/comms/upc-to-continue-to-fight-music-giants-over-three-strikes-policy

MagicSean

IrishTonyO wrote: »

At least UPC is still fighting this, thank God.

http://www.siliconrepublic.com/news/article/15906/comms/upc-to-continue-to-fight-music-giants-over-three-strikes-policy

UPC are fighting the opposite. Some people think that web domains and web sites should be blocked. Others think that internet users should be monitored and punished for breaking the law online and using these sites. UPC are arguing against monitoring web users as it is an invasion of privacy. This would indicate they see the blocking of these sites as the way to go. I doubt this is from a moral standpoint though. It is more likely the cheaper option and places less responsability on them.

IrishTonyO

k_mac wrote: »

UPC are fighting the opposite. Some people think that web domains and web sites should be blocked. Others think that internet users should be monitored and punished for breaking the law online and using these sites. UPC are arguing against monitoring web users as it is an invasion of privacy. This would indicate they see the blocking of these sites as the way to go. I doubt this is from a moral standpoint though. It is more likely the cheaper option and places less responsability on them.

I don't see how you can infer that they see blocking of sites the way to go because they are fighting against the 3 strike thing. That is a major suppositional leap to make

SeanW

k_mac wrote: »

So if something is hard to legislate against and enforce it shouldn't be done?

No. Choosing to fight a war on something, will always have attendant consequences. Sometimes it's worth it because that something is always wrong. Child Porn is one example, always wrong, always worth whatever cost it takes to fight them.

Other Big Government bans are NOT worth their costs because it's just meddling at best. Alcohol prohibtion, tobacco taxes (where smuggling increases at a proportional rate to tax increases), some drugs etc.

Your right to life is protected by banning people from carrying weapons that they could use to hurt you.

Has no effect on criminals and others sufficiently determined. Johnny Scumbag with a long rap sheet and plenty of scumbag contacts, can buy all the weapons he wants

Many people would not be smart enough to know the damage drugs can do or would think it somehow won't affect them. Sometimes people need to be protected from themselves as well you know.

Most people clearly understand that using substances such as tobacco, alcohol, cannibis etc, carry risks. If find this argument to be logically insolvent.

I didn't say I'd be happy if they left CP alone. Or that copyright is more important to stop than child porn. That's a blatant misrepresentation.

You did, in Post 30:

kmac wrote:

Even if the ban was only introduced to prevent file to file sharing it wouldn't bother me.

Emmm ...

I said I have no problem with something being done to enforce the law as it is. If you have a problem with a law you don't break it. You get it changed. The only rights you seem to want to uphold are your own.

For the record, I do not drink, have no personal interest in cannibis for example, don't particularly feel the need to hold a weapon (though if I lived in somewhere like Moyross or Finglas it might be a different story), and am not looking to "protect my right to download movies" or anything like that. I am only looking to protect our citizens basic rights.

Two things in particular concern me about Big Medias recent moves.

1. One of the things Big Media wants is a Three Strikes policy - i.e. you are accused of piracy three times, and are disconnected. That generally means that a civil punishment (disconnection from the Internet) can be exacted without proof, i.e. solely on the basis of a private accusation. That should concern anyone who doesn't want to live in a banana republic.
2. Censorship: once the genie gets out of the bottle, censorship could be arbitrary, for example supposing I want to distribute something I have the right to, i.e. a personal work (which I have done, and plan to continue), on a file sharing site like MediaFire, will this be banned? I.E. not just sites like The Pirate Bay. Will any site, even with substantial non-infringing & legitimate use, be subject to censorship, simply because some powerful megacorporation spends a few billion on lobbying to demand it?
   Additionally, how can we be sure that even infringement, terrorism and child porn will be limits of the rationale for censorship?
   
   Would you even complain if censorship became even more political, i.e. censoring opposition or non-mainstream parties, arbitrarily chosen NGOs and private news publications?
   
   I have seen nothing in any of your posts that you recognise a sensible boundary on government power.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

MagicSean

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

That's the equivalent of saying "If you cant beat them, join them". The same argument could be made for legalising heroin.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Because he probably wont be able to use the weapon to defend himself or will use it in such a way that it will hurt an innocent bystander. It is not his life that is protected it is everyone elses. The only people who should carry weapons are those trained in their use. Life isn't like movie. The reality is that by the time a regular person takes out their weapon and tries to use it they will probably be dead.

And I know that a ban has an effect. I've seen it. And I see people in prison for carrying weapons who would have used them to kill or injure someone if they had not been caught.

MagicSean

SeanW wrote: »

No. Choosing to fight a war on something, will always have attendant consequences. Sometimes it's worth it because that something is always wrong. Child Porn is one example, always wrong, always worth whatever cost it takes to fight them.

Other Big Government bans are NOT worth their costs because it's just meddling at best. Alcohol prohibtion, tobacco taxes (where smuggling increases at a proportional rate to tax increases), some drugs etc.

I think you underestimate the damage these drugs do to people.

SeanW wrote: »

Has no effect on criminals and others sufficiently determined. Johnny Scumbag with a long rap sheet and plenty of scumbag contacts, can buy all the weapons he wants

Yes it does. And I've seen it work.

SeanW wrote: »

Most people clearly understand that using substances such as tobacco, alcohol, cannibis etc, carry risks. If find this argument to be logically insolvent.

You are overestimating peoples intellignece and reasoning. Most people don't understand how bad these substances are and see them only as a bit of fun. But lets say they do understand. Are they in the right state of mind to make the decision to use these substances? Take the example of a suicidal person. If a friend of yours told you he was going to overdose on pills because he wanted to die. Would you let him? Would you respect his right to make that decision?

SeanW wrote: »

You did, in Post 30:
Emmm ...

I said I wouldn't mind a ban on only copyright material. I did not say that it would be more important than stopping child porn.

SeanW wrote: »

For the record, I do not drink, have no personal interest in cannibis for example, don't particularly feel the need to hold a weapon (though if I lived in somewhere like Moyross or Finglas it might be a different story), and am not looking to "protect my right to download movies" or anything like that. I am only looking to protect our citizens basic rights.

As am I. We just have different views on how that should be done.

SeanW wrote: »

Two things in particular concern me about Big Medias recent moves.

1. One of the things Big Media wants is a Three Strikes policy - i.e. you are accused of piracy three times, and are disconnected. That generally means that a civil punishment (disconnection from the Internet) can be exacted without proof, i.e. solely on the basis of a private accusation. That should concern anyone who doesn't want to live in a banana republic.
2. Censorship: once the genie gets out of the bottle, censorship could be arbitrary, for example supposing I want to distribute something I have the right to, i.e. a personal work (which I have done, and plan to continue), on a file sharing site like MediaFire, will this be banned? I.E. not just sites like The Pirate Bay. Will any site, even with substantial non-infringing & legitimate use, be subject to censorship, simply because some powerful megacorporation spends a few billion on lobbying to demand it?
   Additionally, how can we be sure that even infringement, terrorism and child porn will be limits of the rationale for censorship?
   
   Would you even complain if censorship became even more political, i.e. censoring opposition or non-mainstream parties, arbitrarily chosen NGOs and private news publications?
   
   I have seen nothing in any of your posts that you recognise a sensible boundary on government power.

Probably because you only see what you want. First of all civil proof is already much lower than criminal proof. Always has been. It's done on a probability basis and the burden of proof is usually reversed. This is nothing new. Big Media (whoever they are supposed to be) did not introduce it.

Secondly I have said in previous posts that any ban should be completely transparent. A list should be published of every site or domain that has been banned and the reason for the ban. And a ban should be allowed to be challenged in a court by the site owners. Don't try to paint me as some facist.

MagicSean

IrishTonyO wrote: »

I don't see how you can infer that they see blocking of sites the way to go because they are fighting against the 3 strike thing. That is a major suppositional leap to make

Not really. They are arguing that it shouldn't be up to them to police or monitor the copyright infringements. Which means it is up to the government to legislate against the sources of the infringement.