Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Germany Legislates For Mandatory Web Filters

CmdrTaco posted more than 5 years ago | from the i-got-a-finger-you-can-filter dept.

The Internet 309

An anonymous reader writes "Germany's Minister for Families has announced a legislative initiative to force ISPs to implement a government-mandated block list (in English), which will be updated daily. The BKA (Germany's equivalent of the FBI) will be in charge of generating and maintaining the list. As usual, this is being brought in under the 'fight child porn' guise. The minister is quoted as saying: 'We must not water down the problem' in reply to being challenged that this law and technology could be used to censor other content. She then went on to say: 'I can't know what wishes and plans future governments will develop.' She has agreed the principle of the legislation with the interior minister and the technology minister, which in German coalition government terms means it's pretty much a done deal."

cancel ×

309 comments

Well, someone has to say it. (2, Insightful)

LordKaT (619540) | more than 5 years ago | (#26467403)

Heil.

Re:Well, someone has to say it. (2, Interesting)

Hognoxious (631665) | more than 5 years ago | (#26467651)

Impressive, a Godwin first post.

Re:Well, someone has to say it. (0, Offtopic)

Thanshin (1188877) | more than 5 years ago | (#26467777)

Impressive, a Godwin first post.

A one word Godwin first post.

And on topic.

Impressive indeed.

Re:Well, someone has to say it. (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26468191)

Impressive, a Godwin first post.

If the brown shirt fits ...

Re:Well, someone has to say it. (3, Funny)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 5 years ago | (#26468305)

Silence anybody who accuses you of wearing it...

Re:Well, someone has to say it. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26469297)

HoGAN!!!

Re:Well, someone has to say it. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26469261)

this was not the first post! wtf?

Re:Well, someone has to say it. (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26467819)

Arbeit macht frei.

Re:Well, someone has to say it. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26468645)

Jedem das Seine.

Re:Well, someone has to say it. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26468909)

Verliebt in Aspik!

In other words... (4, Insightful)

Thanshin (1188877) | more than 5 years ago | (#26467461)

in reply to being challenged that this law and technology could be used to censor other content. She then went on to say:

"I can't know what wishes and plans future governments will develop."

In other words... MWAAAHAHAAAAAAAAAA!

Re:In other words... (3, Informative)

reeeh2000 (1328037) | more than 5 years ago | (#26467567)

Stop it. The internet isn't yours to censor. All you accomplish by this is that you force regular people to break the law to get information.

Re:In other words... (3, Insightful)

pondermaster (1445839) | more than 5 years ago | (#26467597)

I think you meant...

MUUUWHAHAHAHAHA.

If you're going to have an evil laughter, do it right, man!

Re:In other words... (0, Flamebait)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 5 years ago | (#26468355)

Your being modded informative is proof that Slashdot is a joke in the shitter. Looks like it's time for me to revert to anonymous professional troll mode again so that I can let dumbass mods waste their points on myself as well.

Re:In other words... (0, Troll)

pondermaster (1445839) | more than 5 years ago | (#26468647)

You being modded flamebait is proof that Slashdot is a joke on your behalf.

Sod off.

Re:In other words... (2, Insightful)

StreetStealth (980200) | more than 5 years ago | (#26467951)

One thing that I'm certain would be a part of future "wishes and plans" to censor (if not already part of the proposed filter) would be Nazi paraphernalia. Of course, it starts with the indefensible neo-Nazi sites and hate groups, but gradually, this sort of thing can begin to erode the historical record.

Could this ultimately help Germany develop historical blind spots?

Re:In other words... (5, Insightful)

mraudigy (1193551) | more than 5 years ago | (#26468213)

Censorship for "the good of the people" will inevitably lead to "whats good for the govenment". And whats good for the government is hardly ever good for the people.

Re:In other words... (4, Insightful)

Belial6 (794905) | more than 5 years ago | (#26469285)

The ban on Nazi paraphenalia in Germany has always seemed a little bit off to me. I understand the reasons why they have the ban, and I am not suggesting embracing a Forth Reich, but when I hear about the ban, the quote that always comes to mind is:

When the Nazis came for the communists, I remained silent; I was not a communist. When they locked up the social democrats, I remained silent; I was not a social democrat. When they came for the trade unionists, I did not speak out; I was not a trade unionist. When they came for the Jews, I remained silent; I wasn't a Jew. When they came for me, there was no one left to speak out.

Surly the communists were at the time, considered as bad as the Nazis.

Re:In other words... (1)

jmcvetta (153563) | more than 5 years ago | (#26469287)

Of course, it starts with the indefensible neo-Nazi sites and hate groups, but gradually, this sort of thing can begin to erode the historical record.

Indefensible? I dunno about you, but I tend to think freedom of political speech is entirely worthy of defense, even when the it applies to unpopular or offensive ideas.

The world had its taste of freedom... (2, Insightful)

night_flyer (453866) | more than 5 years ago | (#26467643)

and couldnt handle it... welcome to the new world order

Re:The world had its taste of freedom... (5, Insightful)

HungryHobo (1314109) | more than 5 years ago | (#26467733)

It really is depressing, so many states are bringing in their own petty versions of the chinese firewall that it's getting close to critical mass where in any country where it isn't done the call will become "well they're doing it in all these other countries!They care about the children there! Protect the children!"

Re:The world had its taste of freedom... (0, Troll)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 5 years ago | (#26467871)

This is called a slippery slope argument and it is a logical fallacy.
Blocking sites with illegal content can be done without destroying freedom of speech.
The blacklist MUST be public. If it isn't then yes political speech can be restricted. Frankly it all ready is in much of the EU anyway.
Before throwing up your hands and crying foul why not see if it can be done correctly.
While I really don't think this will solve the problem with kiddie porn I am also not going to scream foul over it.

Re:The world had its taste of freedom... (2, Insightful)

sqlrob (173498) | more than 5 years ago | (#26467995)

Can be and will be are two completely different things.

See the UK block of Wikipedia and Wayback Machine.

Re:The world had its taste of freedom... (0, Troll)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 5 years ago | (#26468295)

That is a given. But trying to stop people from accessing Kiddie Porn is a good thing. You will get zero traction from the general population trying to keep access to kiddie porn.
You can get traction trying to keep it from being abused.

Re:The world had its taste of freedom... (2, Insightful)

HungryHobo (1314109) | more than 5 years ago | (#26468503)

Which is like trying to stop politicians from abusing their power, wait that's exactly what it is.
If it's a public list then the argument is that it's basicly a list of interesting sites for any pedophile who's looking for sites.
If it's not public then it's utterly open for abuse.
Either way if you are told a URL is on the list either you are not able to check if it's really an abuse of the system or you can check meaning the system isn't working.

So take your pick.
A system which can be abused or a system which actually blocks content.
Even if a system effectively blocks content the pedophiles will just switch to a darknet and ignore your puny blocks making it ineffective.

So take your pick.
A system which is expensive,ineffective and an affront to freedom of speach.
A system which is expensive,ineffective ,easily abused and an affront to freedom of speach.
A system which doesn't exist.

Re:The world had its taste of freedom... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26468175)

The blacklist MUST be public.

If the filter actually works, though (so far, no one has come up with one that does), even a public blacklist can't be reviewed for accuracy. If you can check the blacklist, then the filter doesn't work.

Before throwing up your hands and crying foul why not see if it can be done correctly.

Because there's no such thing as "correctly." The whole point is to take discretionary power away from the people and put it into the hands of government. How could doing that, ever work as well as not doing it? It's a bad idea, so I encourage people to throw up their hands as soon as possible.

Re:The world had its taste of freedom... (1, Troll)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 5 years ago | (#26468495)

The thing is that if the list is public and they try and slip in a site that shouldn't be blocked then people in an other country will find out and post it on news sites. If the German government blocks Slashdot, Digg, or CNN then you will know that they are censoring political speech.
"Because there's no such thing as "correctly." The whole point is to take discretionary power away from the people and put it into the hands of government."
The Government is elected by the people in Germany at least. The people of Germany have decided that some speech isn't protected. Actually a LOT of political speech is not protected in a lot of EU countries. Things like pro Nazi speech is a good example. I kind of have a mixed feeling about that. While a world without Nazis really makes me smile it is still political speech even if it is ugly, nasty, stupid speech.
But that is my opinion and frankly it really has no standing. It is up to the people of Germany to decide what is best for them. What I think and what you think if you are not a German citizen really doesn't matter.

Re:The world had its taste of freedom... (2, Insightful)

roemcke (612429) | more than 5 years ago | (#26468361)

There is no way you can block illegal content without destroying freedom of speech. Even if the blacklist is public, there is no way of knowing what kind of content has been blocked.

The right way to treat illegal content is prosecution and/or take-down notices.

Re:The world had its taste of freedom... (0, Redundant)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 5 years ago | (#26468641)

You depend on checks in other countries. Odds are very high that any political speech that is blocked will not be blocked in another country. People on other countries will see that it is blocked and post it on news sites. If you start seeing news sites being blocked then will know that your government are censoring political sites.
So yes you really can as long as you don't classify blocking kiddie porn as destroying freedom of speech.
Frankly Germany already blocks political speech that is totally legal in the US.

Re:The world had its taste of freedom... (1)

MightyYar (622222) | more than 5 years ago | (#26468961)

You depend on checks in other countries.

Isn't this rather analogous to how the Amish live? Sure, not everyone could live that way, but as long as everyone else around them is willing to live in a modern way, defend the borders, and run the hospitals it works out great...

What happens when everyone decides to live like the Amish? Uh, oh.

Do you really want your country's political bodies to be held in check by outside interests? What happens if the outside interests decide to adopt similar lists, even collaborate?

Re:The world had its taste of freedom... (1)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 5 years ago | (#26469177)

Interesting except that until all the countries in the world decide to unite they will never all block the same sites.
What else can you do but set up checks and balances.
One of those checks would be to keep the black list public.

Re:The world had its taste of freedom... (1)

HungryHobo (1314109) | more than 5 years ago | (#26468965)

Talk to a random granny in the UK.
What are the chances do you think that they'll have heard about the blacklists/greylists?
It's a tiny fraction of the population who'll be looking for this kind of thing. Not everyone is a slashdoter. now even if the tiny fraction start noticing it, so what?
If they complain to the media they get called pedophiles,pedophile sympathisers or crackpots and no matter how bad the systems are, how many pages they block which they shouldn't it doens't matter because it's "for the children".

Re:The world had its taste of freedom... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26468549)

The slippery slope might be a logical fallacy, but it's Standard Operating Procedure for the governments of today. It's more like get your foot in the door, and pry it open from there.

Re:The world had its taste of freedom... (1)

IndustrialComplex (975015) | more than 5 years ago | (#26468569)

This is called a slippery slope argument and it is a logical fallacy.

The Slippery Slope is a logical fallacy. But with respect to politics and shaping opinion things are hardly ever logical.

How often do you hear government officials claiming "This lays the groundwork for future legislation regarding..."

Incremental, deliberate, and with the best of intentions.

Re:The world had its taste of freedom... (1)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 5 years ago | (#26468973)

Can you use the slippery slope to manipulate people? Of course you can. Logical fallacies are often very good tools for that.
But that is exactly what the the original post was all about. It was manipulating people's emotion Slashdot style.
Being emotionally manipulated and not dealing with facts is always a tool that takes away ones freedom to choose based on facts! It is evil, it is FUD, and it is wrong unless you are willing to live with "the end justifies the means".
I love it when I see it because way to many people on Slashdot are sure that only fools can be manipulated like that.

Re:The world had its taste of freedom... (1)

HungryHobo (1314109) | more than 5 years ago | (#26469047)

So you really don't believe it is a slipery slope in this case?
Would wager money on that?
You really believe that this won't be adopted by more and more countries in the name of "protecting the children"?
Or are you just playing devils advocate and know full well that this will be badly abused and will be utterly ineffective.

Re:The world had its taste of freedom... (1)

MightyYar (622222) | more than 5 years ago | (#26468827)

The blacklist MUST be public. If it isn't then yes political speech can be restricted. Frankly it all ready is in much of the EU anyway.

But this makes the whole exercise pointless, in fact perhaps counter-productive. Anyone interested in looking at kiddie porn is going to have a field day surfing the government blacklists. It's like a government-sponsored ad for kiddie porn.

So then you are back to secret lists, which I think is far more dangerous than kiddie porn.

Re:The world had its taste of freedom... (1)

HungryHobo (1314109) | more than 5 years ago | (#26469203)

very true, it makes it totally ineffective.
Public blocklist:
1:It becomes a list of interesting sites to view through a vpn.
2:Pedos add every address in it to their hosts file directing at something else so they'll never be flagged while following links from sites not on the list.
3:Everyone else can either verify that it's not being abused hence making it ineffective or they can't and it means it can be abused.

Private blocklist.
1:Massive massive massive potential for abuse.
2:do I have to go on? that's a good enough reason.

Re:The world had its taste of freedom... (1)

compro01 (777531) | more than 5 years ago | (#26469207)

This is called a slippery slope argument and it is a logical fallacy.

It CAN BE a logical fallacy. If each stepping is logically supportable, the slippery slope argument is non-fallacious.

Re:The world had its taste of freedom... (1)

sleeponthemic (1253494) | more than 5 years ago | (#26468085)

Exactly. Time to protect the children. The only way to do this is to make abortion mandatory and seal up all vag. That way, instead of pursing the pedophiles, we can cut off the source.

Re:The world had its taste of freedom... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26468201)

Exactly. Time to protect the children. The only way to do this is to make abortion mandatory and seal up all vag. That way, instead of pursing the pedophiles, we can cut off the source.

I think he's onto something...

Can I make a politically incorrect observation? (1)

GuloGulo (959533) | more than 5 years ago | (#26468997)

I don't give two shakes about the children.

Re:The world had its taste of freedom... (1)

rwalker429 (1452827) | more than 5 years ago | (#26467735)

I, for one, welcome our new Deutsch overlords.

Re:The world had its taste of freedom... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26467797)

I thought it was planned to take over only on december 12th, 2012?

We were supposed to have three more years!

KHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAN! (you will be missed)

Re:The world had its taste of freedom... (1)

Yvanhoe (564877) | more than 5 years ago | (#26467809)

Welcome to Tor...

Re:The world had its taste of freedom... (1)

zappepcs (820751) | more than 5 years ago | (#26467947)

Can someone explain something to me? If they want to block things harmful to children, and theoretically such things are illegal already, why don't they just arrest those responsible for all this horrible activity?

Oh yeah, the Internet allows you to see stuff from other countries. Hmmm Isolationist much? When does the book burning start? I don't think there is anything new about this kind of world order... except the information media. Sounds like regular old fashioned authoritarianism, or whatever 'ism' you'd like to call it.

It's a shame that it won't work, and sometimes kind of fun watching idiots attempt to nail gelatin to the wall.

Has anyone set up an unofficial official mockery site? Or perhaps a farm of servers that proxy information past the censoring systems? Sort of a pirate bay for censored material?

Re:The world had its taste of freedom... (1)

denis-The-menace (471988) | more than 5 years ago | (#26468699)

"why don't they just arrest those responsible for all this horrible activity?"

That requires REAL work and you can't abuse it as easily as an Internet Filter.
If it can't be abused, then the politicians cannot is it to get more $ "for their campaign".

Follow the money. You always get your answer.

Re:The world had its taste of freedom... (4, Insightful)

night_flyer (453866) | more than 5 years ago | (#26468875)

because it is not about Child Porn, it is about control.

Freedom is only "free" if blood is freely spilt... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26467679)

This is outrageous. No government has the right to censor the intertubes or determine what people look at. I am disgusted that people did not fight for freedoms, like freedom of speech so that we could give it up and turn ourselves into a totalitarian dictatorship.

The UK is not a free society, it has become a totalitarian dictatorship and its government has no right or validity to do this. Censorship is one of the most significant hallmarks of a totalitarian prison state. No free society can allow for censorship. Stand up for your rights people!

This is what we call the totalitarian underwear creepies, just take a little piece of material creeping in your crack - one at a time - and people don't notice what happens til they sneeze. And in the UK they have been chipping away at the expectations of freedom and privacy for a while and getting people used to living with greater intrusions upon their freedoms and privacy all the time.

Years ago, if we would have suggested that one day the government would demand to block access to content and just blatantly censor anything it pleases and monitor all of your communications, Rob Malda is a fucking asshole, you would have been called a nutty conspiracy theorist. The conspiracy theorists were right and it is becoming increasingly obvious by the day that there are those in power who want to implement a total surveillance and censorship klingon romulan society prison like thingy state, which would weaken dramatically the framework of a free society, leading to greater atrocities and establishment of "Staci" like agencies and secret police is next.

Censorship of any kind is an atrocity and a violation of basic human rights and so is mass censorship and the presence of this are a sure sign you are not living in a free society.

PS -> This is McGrew [slashdot.org] posting as AC for obvious reasons.

Re:Freedom is only "free" if blood is freely spilt (1)

DanTheStone (1212500) | more than 5 years ago | (#26467943)

This made more sense when you posted it in the article about the UK. This one is obvious trolling. http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1093209&cid=26466199 [slashdot.org]

Re:Freedom is only "free" if blood is freely spilt (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26468461)

This made more sense when you posted it in the article about trolling. This one is obvious troll-food. http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1093351&cid=26467943 [slashdot.org]

PS -> This is DanTheStone [slashdot.org] posting as AC for obvious reasons.

Re:Freedom is only "free" if blood is freely spilt (1)

Weh (219305) | more than 5 years ago | (#26468155)

most governments do have the right to determine what you look at; child porn is illegal in most countries and in some countries regular porn is even illegal.

so, yes, governments already censor other media (what do you think happens when customs find kiddy porn in your luggage?), thus it is to be expected that they try to censor the internet as well.

Off course there's a fine line between censoring and censoring. However, if your government is doing a reasonable job of providing relative free "old" media like tv, print, radio etc. I don't see a reason why they can't be trusted with the internet, there's no reason to be so paranoid.

And let's not focus on the government here, let's focus on the scum that brought this about; the child abusing kiddy porn people. Yes, some people will always find a way to do evil but let's make it as difficult as reasonably possible for them.

Re:Freedom is only "free" if blood is freely spilt (1, Insightful)

Anon E. Muss (808473) | more than 5 years ago | (#26468607)

most governments do have the right to determine what you look at

No, they don't. I never granted them that right. That they do it anyways is due to an imbalance in power. As a practical matter, I have no effective way to stop them (e.g. their army is bigger than mine). That doesn't make it right.

Re:Freedom is only "free" if blood is freely spilt (1)

RobotRunAmok (595286) | more than 5 years ago | (#26469317)

I never granted them that right.

You don't grant yourself rights. In the U.S., we have the notion that The Creator grants people "certain inalienable rights," and that's fine (unless you're an atheist, in which case I guess you're out of luck). The practical matter of "rights" is merely governmental quid pro quo. Your nation offers you something -- whether it's healthcare, or a high minimum wage, or paid maternity leave, or whatever, and also makes some demands on you: mandatory military service, restricted Internet access, driving speed limits, a ban on personal assault weaponry, etc. Every nation has a different mix, and you get to choose where you live.

Believe me, there are plenty of people in the US who would happily give up their "right" to an all-access Internet in exchange for their "right" to free healthcare.

Re:Freedom is only "free" if blood is freely spilt (2, Insightful)

Anon E. Muss (808473) | more than 5 years ago | (#26468825)

... some people will always find a way to do evil but let's make it as difficult as reasonably possible for them.

I agree, right up until the point where making things difficult for evil people impinges on the freedom of non-evil people. When forced to make that choice, I always choose the rights of the non-evil, even if it means allowing some evil to exist. Others, apparently including you, would optimize in the other direction. I doubt anything either of us could say would change the other's mind.

they don't get it (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26467775)

When will legislators learn that censoring the Internet will not fix the problem, it will force it deeper underground. The creeps who want to look at child porn will still have access to it, they'll just get better at hiding it.

Re:they don't get it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26467983)

Take away the CP, and the pedophiles become rapists. Allow the CP, and it becomes pervasive to the point that non-pedophiles are exposed to younger and younger models, and become pedophiles -- but it's OK, they're just looking at pictures, right? Just don't take away their CP!

But, they do get it (2, Insightful)

conureman (748753) | more than 5 years ago | (#26468135)

It's all about hosing off the slippery slope. This is why the filthy speech movement had to be crushed at all cost. There must also always be a creep du jour to shine a light on the problem, remember. Once we run out of perverts we'll see about YOUR vile proclivities.

Lignts out (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26467789)

It looks like the lights ( of freedom ) are going out in Europe again, and this time it's world wide.

D-oh! (1)

conureman (748753) | more than 5 years ago | (#26468215)

I hate when that happens.

Where exactly is child porn legal to host (3, Insightful)

sleeponthemic (1253494) | more than 5 years ago | (#26467799)

.. to the point where it is easier to filter the entire pipe rather than having the sites taken down?

Re:Where exactly is child porn legal to host (2, Insightful)

Thanshin (1188877) | more than 5 years ago | (#26467885)

Where exactly is child porn legal to host to the point where it is easier to filter the entire pipe rather than having the sites taken down?

1.- It's always easier to filter the entire pipe.
2.- Questioning the filter clearly indicates you must be a pedophile. Or a terrorist.

Or both. ... Somehow. .... Maybe you strap kiddy porn to your bombs, or something.

No, Kiddy Porn Bombs. (1)

plasmacutter (901737) | more than 5 years ago | (#26468165)

1.- It's always easier to filter the entire pipe.
2.- Questioning the filter clearly indicates you must be a pedophile. Or a terrorist.

Or both. ... Somehow. .... Maybe you strap kiddy porn to your bombs, or something.

Everyone knows those who question the filter are conspiring to plant porn bombs [salon.com] in public places.

While descriptions of porn bombs are vague, palistinian terror groups are known to construct similar devices consisting of a cylinder of C4 wrapped in several inches of hustler magazines.

Re:Where exactly is child porn legal to host (1)

Aladrin (926209) | more than 5 years ago | (#26468939)

The internet, being truly world-wide, has countries involved which do not have the same laws that you have in your country. There is -always- somewhere to post those sites you would take down.

Re:Where exactly is child porn legal to host (1)

discord5 (798235) | more than 5 years ago | (#26469117)

.. to the point where it is easier to filter the entire pipe rather than having the sites taken down?

The legality of hosting doesn't really matter. Consider for a moment how easy it is to implement a national filtering proxy and add an entry to blacklist, compared to how much work actually goes into taking down a site.

After someone reports an offending site to the national authorities, they have to contact the authorities of the nation where the site is hosted (either directly, or by an organization like interpol or whatever). Then that nations authorities have to find out where this particular site is hosted, get a warrant (if the police in that nation need one), and shut down the site, etc etc etc. This requires trained personnel, which many nations still do not have in their police force. Instead of weeks of paperwork before something goes offline, now you only have 10 seconds of copy pasting the reported URL and have at least on your side of the border dealt with the problem as much as you can.

I'm not particularly fond of censorship on the Internet, but I can see why governments are exploring it "for the children" (and let's assume for the sake of argument that it's only for the children at this point in time). The problem with it is that it's all too easy to circumvent with open proxy lists readily available on the internet, and anonymous networks like Tor. They'd have to lock every possible port, and hope that nobody is able to tunnel traffic over the few ports they allow through (good luck with that).

Finally, blacklists in general are prone to misuse, abuse and human error. There's probably far more filth out there than can ever be blacklisted so it's a never ending process to start with. What is to prevent someone from blacklisting family albums with kids in the bathtub (really, parents please stop doing this), because that has been mistaken for child pornography in the past before the internet became the second most popular boogieman? And what if your website suddenly got blacklisted by mistake (think: typo in the domainname)?

And we haven't even entered the whole "what if they're not doing it for the children" line of thinking at this point.

Der China (3, Insightful)

mark72005 (1233572) | more than 5 years ago | (#26467811)

Everyone should watch the film "The Lives Of Others"

It appears Germany is returning to the days of East Germany

Re:Der China (1)

he-sk (103163) | more than 5 years ago | (#26468117)

The Life Of Others dealt with the secret police spying on the people. That's not the same as censorship.

Re:Der China (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26468447)

Ich bin ein jelly donut

Re:Der China (1)

garry_g (106621) | more than 5 years ago | (#26468755)

It appears Germany is returning to the days of East Germany

GDR would have been happy to have had the possibilities that recent legislature (and technological progress) have introduced ...

in a word (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26467919)

DeutschBags

Re:in a word (1)

plasmacutter (901737) | more than 5 years ago | (#26468057)

DeutschBags

This is the first funny pun i've ever heard.

u can never filter us (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26467979)

archive.org... ups...

how they want to filter, any technical details ?
ip or url/dns based hmmmm ?!

"The not-for-profit wants to make it clear that "we only add URLs to our list and blocking is implemented by our member companies to ensure only access to specific URLs is blocked. "

hmmmm this means url based is your choice ?! pf tsss.

so what does it take ? a cname randomize gateway ?

u can never filter us.

Because everyone knows CP traders cant use proxies (0, Troll)

plasmacutter (901737) | more than 5 years ago | (#26467997)

Ok.. CP rings and traders know how to host websites in nations either without laws or with rampant corruption, but they don't know how to run a proxy?

What manner of idiots are these bureaucrats? I think they make this woman look intelligent. [slashdot.org]

Heck, ted stevens understands the internet more than these schmoes.

Anyway, ZEIG HEIL germany! Lets whip out those arm bands next!

. . . and in English, she told ISPs . . . (1)

PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) | more than 5 years ago | (#26468019)

Vee haf Vays, of making you block", and slapped them in the face with her black leather gloves, that matched perfectly with her black leather coat.

Ilsa, she-wolf of the Internet.

FTFA, she also stated: "Die meisten Menschen werden diese Stopp-Seite nie sehen." Which means something like, "Most people will never see this stop (block) page."

... until the BKA boys add heise.de, spiegel.de or bild.de to the list.

Come on! Censor all you want. (3, Insightful)

Thanshin (1188877) | more than 5 years ago | (#26468041)

The only thing we need to implement a fully encrypted internet is a reason to do so.

And then the real fun will come.

Fuckers.

More people should read "the art of war" and concentrate on the paragraph about not starting battles you're going to lose until they finally understood it's meaning.

Re:Come on! Censor all you want. (2, Informative)

Urza9814 (883915) | more than 5 years ago | (#26468933)

You mean something like Freenet?
Or I suppose I2P?
Or even Tor I believe...

Someone knows? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26468047)

Why once they are in power they forget about the people and go dick crazy doing whatever they want for our "own good" despite our opposition? I don't get it.

Re:Someone knows? (1)

conureman (748753) | more than 5 years ago | (#26468543)

Perhaps stirring up opposition IS the idea. A database of civic minded and rational-thinking dissidents should be set up now so We The People know who to keep an eye on, then send to camp (for their protection) when the time comes.

Seamless progression (2, Insightful)

gmuslera (3436) | more than 5 years ago | (#26468079)

1st block sites that show/promotes child pornography... looks ok
then go after sites that shows models that look underage... a bit more debatable
then go after all porn... something is about to explode
then block "by mistake" the opposite party web sites around next election... oops!

Filtering is not about censorship (4, Insightful)

pieterh (196118) | more than 5 years ago | (#26468233)

There is a global push by certain interests to get governments and ISPs to support filtering. The reason has nothing to do with child porn, that is a justification that ensures no-one will complain... would you defend the rights of child pornographers?

The real motivation here from big business is first to block the global trade in copyrighted digital goods: music, movies, TV (Vivendi, IFPI, et al). Second, to sell masses of shiny technology (Cisco et al). Third, to lock down the computer and turn it into a controlled environment where FOSS is not permitted (MSFT et al).

Governments are eager for this because they trust big business to draw the line, and because they do not trust their citizens. They fear the end of the State thanks to a flat global digital economy, and the firewalls are about stopping and controlling that.

Note the Data Retention Directive passed three years ago which mandated the storage of data on every communication (phone call, email, web click), which banned anonymous wifi, cybercafes, and mobile phones, and which was also passed as a tool against "child pornographers and organised criminals".

This would be very depressing, since the State (and don't forget, every State in existence was born in blood) has all the power.

However, the digital society seems to have its first world leader, and IMO the old industrial world, with its censorships and tolls anti-social property models, is already on the way out.

The statistics are mind-boggling. (4, Insightful)

girlintraining (1395911) | more than 5 years ago | (#26468239)

Well, let's do the math...

Approximately 23% of the world population is online now. There are approximately 6.7 billion people on the planet right now. So about 1.5 billion people. And let's say 5% of them are regularily active and have contribute 1 web page per month; and everybody else is a lurker and never contribute anything. That's 900 million web pages per year, or 246,564 per day. Now we know the growth is far higher than this, but let's humor ourselves with the low-ball estimate.

Now, let's also assume that someone is going to be looking at these websites. We'll say it takes 20 seconds for them to view and categorize a website for their black list. and let's assume they're slaved to their desk for the entire 8 hours, never blinking. That's 480 minutes of slaving, which gives us 1,440 reviews they can make per day. So to keep up with our low-ball estimate, they need 172 net slaves doing nothing but reviewing web pages. All day. Every day. And they will not stop until all the pr0n is found. Now... stop and realize the numbers are orders of magnitude higher. -_- Also realize that the internet is not the web. There are dozens if not hundreds of protocols to monitor, across many mediums -- cell phones, telecommunications, wifi, and good old fashioned sneaker-net.. e-mails, text messages, picture messages... the list goes on.

This, fundamentally, is the problem with large-scale surveillance of the population. It's too resource intensive. Even if you have algorithms that are 99.9% accurate in identifying "bad" material, with 900 million new web pages per year, that's 900,000 webpages that are incorrectly flagged -- 2,500 people's lives ruined by false accusation. Per day.

And just like sex offender registries and other draconian measures to keep someone who's been "touched" by the system in it forever, as soon as the technology exists to do the same thing to people on the internet... They too shall be endlessly recycled and chewed on by a faceless and uncaring system. And the justification shall be that it's okay to ruin a few innocent lives if it protects the rest of us from the big bad boogie men.

Here's my point, fundamentally. Let's say there are a 200,000 -- in Germany alone -- that are pedophiles. Out of about 8 million. And let's say that you have a method of detection where you run these people through it and 99.9% of the time, it gives the right result. What that means is for 8,000 people -- would guess wrong if you ran the entire population through it. What that means is your "99.9%" accurate system flags about 1 person in 20 as a bad guy when they're not. Of course, this assumes that 1 person per 40 is a pedophile. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that's unreasonably high... So that means that the 1 per 20 is an optimistic case. Think about that. 1 in 20 people that the system flags is innocent. When the hysteria over the crime is such that the mere accusation is enough to destroy a person, is this a number we're comfortable with?

And if you're thinking it's "just" a black list.. Don't forget that your access attempts are logged. Just why were you trying to access a site we know to have child porn on it, Citizen?

But the intent is clear (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26468919)

This has nothing to do with slowing the flow of child porn. The "save the children" battle cry serves one purpose and one purpose only: to get legislation passed. So, legislation of any variety can have this intent stamped on the front regardless of its actual intent, and people will accept it.

But the government doesn't actually care about child porn. What they DO care about is stable cash flow through the economy. They care about this because their primary actual (as opposed to theoretical) sources of political power are wealthy individuals/corporations who care about a stable cash flow. This should all be quite obvious to anyone who is paying attention.

This filtration technology will allow them to erect not-perfect-but-sufficient barriers to international trade to ensure that regional price controls can remain intact (while labor trade can freely shift from region to region, allowing for a minimization of production costs).

As a side benefit, it will allow them to block politically-charged sites or individuals, thus strengthening their control over society's activities (control which they want, of course, for the same reason...stable cash flow).

While this legislation will be completely ineffective in reducing the transmission of child porn, it will have a significant economic and political impact (despite its imperfections), and that is what the real goal is.

Re:The statistics are mind-boggling. (2, Insightful)

a-zarkon! (1030790) | more than 5 years ago | (#26469105)

There you go, applying analysis and logic to political grandstanding... Seriously - if they have identified sites they want to blacklist, why blacklist instead of investigate and prosecute? I have to assume there are probably some jurisdictions that don't have resources to investigate and prosecute KP, but probably not too many. Go after the people posting and accessing the content, collect evidence, build a case, and put them on trial. I would suspect that actually doing the law enforcement and legal legwork will yield more benefit in the long run, the people accessing KP on unencrypted, public access websites could likely lead to exposing less public transfer methods. Simply blocking the general public from hitting sites creates new opportunities for abuse of power, poor implementation, etc. and doesn't seem to actually do much to advance the effort to stop the exploitation of children. At best it forces it further underground. My 2 cents, I could be wrong.

think positiv (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26468275)

this might open quite new and effective Denial of Service attacks ... the so call "cross child pron scripting".

happy owning

Useless (5, Insightful)

scwizard (941758) | more than 5 years ago | (#26468379)

Most chlid porn isn't distributed over http, this is a complete waste.

Voters' apathy has consequences... (3, Interesting)

Lazy Jones (8403) | more than 5 years ago | (#26468385)

Finally, the formerly democratic governments have realized that the voter does not punish legislation (and illegal actions on behalf of the government agencies that are legalized later) against his own interests and now they are beginning to exploit it.

I am opposed to elitism in general, but people who are so easily manipulated with FUD tactics and those who think voting expresses only ideological affinity, should not be allowed to vote.

Re:Voters' apathy has consequences... (1)

wile_e8 (958263) | more than 5 years ago | (#26469205)

What is the voter supposed to do, vote for the other guy that will also vote for this legislation?

book burning (2, Interesting)

muckracer (1204794) | more than 5 years ago | (#26468485)

Why would anyone have a problem with burning pages deemed degenerate by ze deutsche government? Only degenerates themselves (who'll be next).

Videogame wisdom.... (2, Insightful)

CharonX (522492) | more than 5 years ago | (#26468533)

Or what Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri taught me: Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master.

Goodwin's Law (2, Interesting)

Anon E. Muss (808473) | more than 5 years ago | (#26468659)

Does Goodwin's Law still apply even if references to Nazi Germany are factually correct? :-)

That's just the beginning... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26468823)

Cisco SONA (Service Oriented Network Architecture) will be the end of the internet as we know it. Once fully implemented, applications will request resources from the network. Then, not only the data can be filtered, but what applications access the network.

Is anyone keeping tabs? (1)

synthespian (563437) | more than 5 years ago | (#26468835)

Is anyone keeping tabs on internet censorship legislation?

Is there a site?

It seems, like "terrorism" was an excuse for anything and everything under Bush and his bitch (Blair), "child porn" seems likewise an excuse for internet censorship.

Re:Is anyone keeping tabs? (1)

Gallomimia (1415613) | more than 5 years ago | (#26469209)

Would love a URL to any such site. If not, wanna get together and make such a site?

Opportunistic Encryption (1)

Greyfox (87712) | more than 5 years ago | (#26469079)

It's not that hard to set up opportunistic encryption, [wikipedia.org] especially if you own your own name servers. That would be a good first step toward a more private internet. All we need is an excuse for people to start using it...

cat got my tongue (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26469099)

Sieg Heil.

im boss who r u

So don't open the damn door! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26469169)

She then went on to say: 'I can't know what wishes and plans future governments will develop.'

If you don't know what they'll do then don't start a trend in a direction and with an open door which can be abused. Let individuals and families protect themselves from what they don't want to see. Arrest those who abuse children and leave the rest of us alone!

save our children .. (1)

rs232 (849320) | more than 5 years ago | (#26469181)

Of course, in order to protect our children from porn, they'll have to monitor all our online access. Instead of mandating the web sites put porn tag in the Metadata, that way we can decide for ourselves what web site to look at .. :)

Blogspot (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26469255)

Talk about illicit content... I find Google's turn-the-other way with respect its Blogspot.com blogging site to be interesting. I guess Google-hosted porn is OK, but private citizens' is not?!? What a joke. I bet you never see a Google site on a blacklist...

Monitor that LIST (1)

Gallomimia (1415613) | more than 5 years ago | (#26469269)

All discussion aside, opinions, reasoning, solutions, workarounds, and moot points, let us all who are interested in this issue pay careful attention to this list which the BKA is maintaining. Much will be learned by simply examining the particulars of who they wish to censor.

Its an initiative and not legislation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26469337)

It seems to me that most people misread this article. It's an _initiative_ and not legislation. That someone is trying to legislate internet censorship doesn't mean that there is censorship.

It won't necessarily go through, but if it does it might get kicked out again by the constitutional court for violating the constitution.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...