AT&T and AOL block child porn newsgroups

[gonzo]

ALBANY, N.Y. — Attorney General Andrew Cuomo says two of the nation's largest Internet providers have removed newsgroups that featured child pornography.

AT&T, the nation's largest Internet service provider, and AOL, the third largest, also agreed to purge their servers of child porn Web sites.

Cuomo announced similar agreements last month with Verizon, Sprint, and Time Warner Cable.

Cuomo also announced a new Web site Thursday, http://www.nystopchildporn.com. The site provides details on which Internet service providers have signed agreements with his office to eradicate access to child porn through their servers.

It also provides information on how to contact providers that have failed to make the same commitment to eliminate child porn.

[ali25extreme]

glad to see them doing the right thing!

[RawAlex]

I don't get it - since pretty much any of the alt.binaries could have CP in it (and I am sure the CP will just migrate around) then they pretty much need to drop the newsgroups entirely (which would be a very, very good thing, 10 years late).

[Toby]

And dropping newsgroups from their own service doesn't prevent people from using an AOL or AT&T Internet connection to access those same newsgroups via another source.

It makes for nice press, but is completely ineffective.

[ali25extreme]

Originally Posted by Toby

And dropping newsgroups from their own service doesn't prevent people from using an AOL or AT&T Internet connection to access those same newsgroups via another source.

It makes for nice press, but is completely ineffective.

Really? that sucks!!! I am a little confused as to why besides a press release they would state this! I need to read this thread over!

[ali25extreme]

sounds like they are at least trying to make an effort...

[RawAlex]

Toby, it's like not listing girls with pigtails... it isn't solving the problem outright, but it is certainly making it less of an issue. Removing newsgroup access to a significant number of websurfers, and forcing them to pay for access through a third party certainly changes the dynamic of the situation.

If those ISPs apply that to their entire network, millions of US citizens will stop having free ranging access to the one of the webs biggest open sewers, the newsgroups (and particularly the CP ones). It is a step in the right direction.

[Toby]

Originally Posted by RawAlex

If those ISPs apply that to their entire network, millions of US citizens will stop having free ranging access to the one of the webs biggest open sewers, the newsgroups (and particularly the CP ones). It is a step in the right direction.

Yes, IF they apply it to their entire networks. But that isn't what they've agreed to.

A step in the right direction, but only one step.

[RawAlex]

It's like the first day sober... don't spank them for drinking yesterday, congratulate them for taking the step forward... the first one is the hardest.

[Hell Puppy]

It makes a good press release. It makes families feel perhaps safer about using their service.

That's about it.

Other than that, it's not really such a wise idea. They are a carrier. At the point a carrier starts censoring, then they are become not just a carrier but an editor. There was a case back in the early 90's where Compuserve did this that serves as a precedent. By censoring one thing, you are taking responsibility for your content. You've lost the immunity you have as merely a carrier.

[RawAlex]

Originally Posted by Hell Puppy

It makes a good press release. It makes families feel perhaps safer about using their service.

That's about it.

Other than that, it's not really such a wise idea. They are a carrier. At the point a carrier starts censoring, then they are become not just a carrier but an editor. There was a case back in the early 90's where Compuserve did this that serves as a precedent. By censoring one thing, you are taking responsibility for your content. You've lost the immunity you have as merely a carrier.

They aren't censoring content per se, rather they are choosing not to carry and provide access to a service that is packed full of CP. They are not stopping people from getting that service from a third party (if it is available). It would be like saying that they no longer offer email, but you can get email service elsewhere. Censorship would involve inspecting all traffic and blocking certain material regardless of source.

I think that the ISPs are going the right way, and further, they are probably going to save a few dollars too by not buying this service or maintaining equipment to support it. Remember with the newsgroups, the ISPs were often actually hosting all the content (in replication with other ISPs), so in a sense they already were past the point of being innocent hosts anyway.

[Jim_Gunn]

What they really did was remove ALL the binary newsgroups from their service, the overwhelming majority of which never carried any child porn. I have At&T DSL service and I have Usenet for a long time, so I am disappointed.

[softball]

I have never understood why newsgroups still exist. With all the palava over copyright infringement and throttling isp's, the newsgroups fly under the radar and are a wealth of free porn. And for about ten bucks, pictureview will provide you with all the sleazy, nasty porn you want all thumbnailed and good to go.