Beta
×

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!

France Votes Tuesday On Net Censorship

timothy posted more than 4 years ago | from the to-go-with-ebay-censorship dept.

Censorship 134

angry tapir writes "French lawmakers will vote next Tuesday on a proposal to filter Internet traffic. Part of a new security bill, the measure is intended to catch child pornographers. However, once the filtering system is in place it will allow the government to censor other material too. Slashdot has previously discussed Australia's proposed ISP-level filter."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Can't we all just get along? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31110518)

The UK and AUS are doing this so it looks like Germany in 41

Re:Can't we all just get along? (1)

eparker05 (1738842) | more than 4 years ago | (#31110566)

The religious minority in France is probably going to be the deciding factor in this vote. I'm not talking about the catholics here.

Re:Can't we all just get along? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31110638)

The lawmakers are voting this, it has nothing to do with mulsim vote by the population.
As a mater of fact, the vote will be mostly by the (watered down) equivalent to repulicans, so expect a lot of christian.

NOT and NEVER WAS about Child porn, of course (1)

Smegly (1607157) | more than 4 years ago | (#31110590)

Censoring the Internet is: A) A band aid solution that does not compare to tracking down and prosecuting the culprits, and B) A powerful tool for political control. Governments choose it because point A) means it is cheaper than actually solving crimes and point B) is all gravy for controlling an unruly population.

Censorship on the internet has nothing to do with stopping [insert favorite bogyman here]. For example: If Governments of the world really really cared about Child porn, there is no way in hell they would subscribe to TRIPS, GATS and other trade agreements that push so fervently for expansion of intellectual property (IP) rights worldwide. The majority of Child porn comes from poor developing countries - called "Source Country" exploitation. Many research and commissions inquires have overwhelmingly [References below] found these trade agreements severely disadvantage developing countries. Basically it guarantees keeping poor countries poor by denying them the same abilities to develop as the first world countries once enjoyed (refs below) .
Do we see your government moving to solve this major worldwide source of child porn? No of course not - they are too busy negotiating ACTA [michaelgeist.ca] in the backrooms. Child porn is just another bogyman to push through controls on the internet - and as a result your going to get worse IP restriction AND internet censorship == the complete opposite of actually solving the child porn problem (and the closely related human trafficking, and poverty, starvation...). It could be said: If you support internet censorship then your also supporting the continuation of child porn... I know of no other place where we can debate and call into question/try to pressure our leaders to answer questions about draconian restrictions on the third world like ACTA will impose.

References (of many) you can find on the internet linking IP laws and trade agreements to continuing poverty of the developing world:

The GATS and TRIPS are both examples of rich countries investing their most vigorous negotiating efforts on agendas where the gains will accrue overwhelmingly to companies located in rich countries. They are examples of a one-size-fits-all approach being imposed and, most strikingly, of rich countries now pulling up the ladder, trying to deny developing countries the very policy options that rich countries used to manage their own economic development.

http://www.cid.org.nz/advocacy/Phil_Twyford_-_CID_Trade_Forum.pdf [cid.org.nz]

Commission on Intellectual Property Rights declared the internationally-mandated expansion of intellectual property (IP) rights unlikely to generate significant benefits for most developing countries and likely to impose costs, such as higher priced medicines or seeds. This makes poverty reduction more difficult. The intensively researched, 180-page report is entitled Integrating Intellectual Property Rights and Development Policy. It is the culmination of much study and follows on more than a dozen meetings and workshops, 17 working papers, an exhaustive literature review of the field, visits to several developed and developing nations and a major conference. The report makes some 50 recommendations aimed at aligning IP protection with the goal of reducing poverty in developing nations. Topics include IP and health; agriculture; traditional knowledge; copyrights, software and the Internet; and the role of WTO and WIPO in advancing developing country interests. The Commission is an independent international body made up of Commissioners from both developed and developing countries with expertise in science, law, ethics and economics. The Commissioners come from industry, government and academia* (see list of Commissioners below). "Developed countries often proceed on the assumption that what is good for them is likely to be good for developing countries," said Professor John Barton, Commission Chair and George E. Osborne Professor of Law, Stanford University. "But, in the case of developing countries, more and stronger protection is not necessarily better. Developing countries should not be encouraged or coerced into adopting stronger IP rights without regard to the impact this has on their development and poor people. They should be allowed to adopt appropriate rights regimes, not necessarily the most protective ones."

http://www.biotech-info.net/independent_commission.html [biotech-info.net]

Re:NOT and NEVER WAS about Child porn, of course (1)

Smegly (1607157) | more than 4 years ago | (#31110618)

Child porn comes from poor developing countries - called "Source Country" exploitation.

Sorry I forgot to add the references for that statement. Here is as good a list as any [google.com] , there are just too many.

Re:NOT and NEVER WAS about Child porn, of course (1)

c6gunner (950153) | more than 4 years ago | (#31111046)

It's cute how you hijacked the issue to try and prop-up your favorite cause, but c'mon .. really? You're going to try and argue that an abolition of IP laws would eliminate child pornography? Let's not be silly here.

Not that off-topic after all (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31111164)

The point GP was making is that poverty in the so-called Third World is a factor in child abuse/porn. And that IP laws are designed to keep so-called Third World pauper.

And I'd say she/he has a point...

Re:Not that off-topic after all (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31111382)

Patents and copyrights keep the third world poor, but overpopulation, tribalism and despotic governments don't?

Re:Not that off-topic after all (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31111938)

Especially when said despotic governments are kept in power by first world countries [odiousdebts.org] in order to rubber stamp any local exploitation by foreign companies...

Re:NOT and NEVER WAS about Child porn, of course (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31112204)

c'mon .. really? You're going to try and argue that an abolition of IP laws would eliminate child pornography? Let's not be silly here.

IP laws that are not so draconian, allowing for developing world to, well, develop will reduce poverty in these countries. GP provider plenty of research references supporting his/her claim. Reducing the list of third world countries laws would reduce the "Source Countries" for human trafficking (i.e. major if not the principle source of child exploitation and pornography). It's not that hard to understand, really, c'mon you can do it.

Re:NOT and NEVER WAS about Child porn, of course (1)

erroneus (253617) | more than 4 years ago | (#31111082)

Sorry to post off-topic, but this one was a fork of the topic in the first place.

I have to say much of what you say is well said. However, if you want to be taken for an educated person, please learn the difference between "your" and "you're." In fact, if you can't keep them straight, avoid confusion entirely by never using "you're" at all and simply write "you are" and then the difference will always be apparent.

Re:NOT and NEVER WAS about Child porn, of course (2, Insightful)

TheVelvetFlamebait (986083) | more than 4 years ago | (#31111422)

Your argument makes no sense.

Censorship on the internet has nothing to do with stopping [insert favorite bogyman here]. For example: If Governments of the world really really cared about Child porn, there is no way in hell they would subscribe to TRIPS, GATS and other trade agreements that push so fervently for expansion of intellectual property (IP) rights worldwide. The majority of Child porn comes from poor developing countries - called "Source Country" exploitation. Many research and commissions inquires have overwhelmingly [References below] found these trade agreements severely disadvantage developing countries. Basically it guarantees keeping poor countries poor by denying them the same abilities to develop as the first world countries once enjoyed (refs below) .

Right, because:

a) The only way for us to stop child porn is to economically prop up every country in need, at our great, great expense, and
b) Governments should reject the wealth of positives about these treaties in the vain, completely unfounded hope that it will inspires child pornographers to pack up and go home.

I mean, it's like saying if governments cared about child porn, then they would kill all the children.

Re:NOT and NEVER WAS about Child porn, of course (1)

Bastard of Subhumani (827601) | more than 4 years ago | (#31111616)

I mean, it's like saying if governments cared about child porn, then they would kill all the children.

I always knew King Herod was a good guy, deep down.

Re:NOT and NEVER WAS about Child porn, of course (1)

Smegly (1607157) | more than 4 years ago | (#31112080)

Woosh! You really have a simple world view going on there!

a) The only way for us to stop child porn is to economically prop up every country in need, at our great, great expense

It's not about propping up. It is about giving third world countries the same opportunity to develop that we had. Do you the the good old US of A would have progressed if it had to pay top Pound for seeds, medicine, steam engines and any other modern technology for the day, all the while not being able to produce these things for themselves due to English "IP" Laws. I think not, and there is plenty of research out there to back it up. The only "expense" your talking about it losing out on profits from exploitation.

b) Governments should reject the wealth of positives about these treaties in the vain, completely unfounded hope that it will inspires child pornographers to pack up and go home.

double . You really dont get it: Human Trafficking and the closely related child porn originate in developing countries... to use your simple world view: That is its home. Any policy to help the third world develop is an Anti-child porn stance. If you bothered to check the references you would see that all reports show that the "positives" you mention are all for companies based in first world countries, at the expense of the developing countries. What your really saying is: "Governments should reject the wealth of positives about these treaties for our companies. Better to pursue exploitative profits at the expense of the third world than subscribe to treaties that foster third world sustainable development.". Bravo, you effectively supporting the continuation of child exploitation, including pornography.

Ah, those french (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31110542)

Well, we're gonna build our own internet! With blackjack and hookers! Hmm, wait a minute...

Won't someone think of the downloaders? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31110554)

"French lawmakers will vote next Tuesday on a proposal to filter Internet traffic."

Don't shoot! We surrender.

And now... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31110562)

Cue the jokes about the french net surrendering in 3... 2... 1...

Re:And now... (1)

M8e (1008767) | more than 4 years ago | (#31110746)

0.????
-1. profit!

Alex P. Keaton for President (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31110568)

Please vote for Alex P. Keaton for President!

Nick: Yo, Alex!

yo (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31110594)

"catch child pornographers"
AKA, pour apprendre ce qui piratent les filmes et musiques par internet....

Tabarnac!

Re:yo (0, Offtopic)

AmonTheMetalhead (1277044) | more than 4 years ago | (#31110612)

"AKA, Pour apprendre ce qui piratent les filmes et musiques par internet..." Translated this gives us "AKA, to learn those that pirate movies & music on the internet...", i don't think you're using the right verb there mate, maybe you meant 'arreter'? That means stop for you non french speaking people ;)

Re:yo (1)

golden age villain (1607173) | more than 4 years ago | (#31110726)

I guess he meant "appréhender".

Re:yo (1)

AmonTheMetalhead (1277044) | more than 4 years ago | (#31111054)

That still isn't correct, that would turn his sentence into "AKA, to understand those that pirate movies & music on the internet" :)

Re:yo (1)

Narishma (822073) | more than 4 years ago | (#31111370)

"Appréhender" means to catch (someone), among other things. I think that's what he wanted to say.

Re:yo (1)

AmonTheMetalhead (1277044) | more than 4 years ago | (#31111446)

That's the beauty of languages, some words have multiple meanings, "appréhender" can indeed also mean to catch someone, the verb 'attraper' would be a better suited verb i think, and is more used in dialogue then 'appréhender' in that context, at least in this part of the world

Re:yo (1)

golden age villain (1607173) | more than 4 years ago | (#31111656)

"attraper" is not much used in that context in French (at least in France). That's what a school kid would say. "appréhender" definitely sounds better. And you would certainly not use "attraper" while discussing with your buddies in front of a beer but rather "coincer", "gauler" or even "piquer" all of them meaning originally something else (ok I don't know for "gauler").

Re:yo (1)

AmonTheMetalhead (1277044) | more than 4 years ago | (#31111976)

Fair enough, i don't live in France, it's funny how different a language can be used across different places :)

Re:yo (1)

M8e (1008767) | more than 4 years ago | (#31110832)

Apprenez-leur à quoi? Une leçon!

Re:yo (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31111180)

I'd say he was shooting for "to detect those that..." which in proper french grammar would be "pour apprendre QUI téléchargE" (where "qui" is the subject of the sentence) or "pour trouver CEUX qui téléchargent" (where the plural "ceux" (not to mistake with the asexual demonstrative "ce") is the subject

On the other hand, "apréhender" also has the meaning of "arrest" (as in Law and Order and spinoffs).

Plus, the "tabernac" in the end tends to suggest a regional accent that may or may not change the meaning and sentence structure. I'm thinking Quebec, but being of parisian origin, my knowledge of accents is limited (people from paris are stereotypically known to be convinced that the french they talk is the only true french language, and are discouraged from learning regional accents, even if the southern accent is very common and usually recognised)

Yeah, our grammar is fucked up. But we like it.

Child pornography? Does it exist? (1)

mangu (126918) | more than 4 years ago | (#31111572)

"catch child pornographers"
AKA, pour apprendre ce qui piratent les filmes et musiques par internet....

I have been surfing the web since 1993 and have yet to see one single picture of a child engaged in sex. I see pornographic pictures everywhere in the internet, it's "rule 34", but not a single one of these pictures has a child in it.

However, inexistence of proof is not proof of not existence. If you start from the assumption that child pornography does exist somewhere, then you must create very powerful search tools to find it.

And a very powerful tool is too tempting to be left alone, if it does not accomplish its primary task there might be other uses for it...

Re:Child pornography? Does it exist? (1)

Ltap (1572175) | more than 4 years ago | (#31112600)

I assume that you've never been on Usenet, then.

Qu'ils mangent de la brioche (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31110608)

As an Australian, dare I say I'm waiting with bated breath. The French dumping that section wouldn't help our cause, but passing it would hurt it - the Aus govt is already looking for rationalisation and "me too!" works for voters here.

The whole bureaucracy we have to put up with in these times is far worse when they attempt this bullshit to lead attention away from false promises and actual governmental improvement. Fuck the system basically, especially when there's no history of revolution over here.

filtering systems seriously degrade performance (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31111106)

one of the things which I do is manage some web sites which take several thousand hits per second. We don't even notice the slashdot effect for example.

Anyway. In China we have a problem with 'clipping'. The traffic looks like a square wave rather than a sine wave. It indicated a performance limitation or choke point. So we opened up a second datacenter and balanced the connections between them. entirely different network, everything.
So the square wave remains, but now half the connections to each site. I.e the problem isn't our network or systems. The customers all come from different networks, so the most likely issue is a proxy or filter which is running out of connections or capacity.

No such problems in europe or america.

Re:Qu'ils mangent de la brioche (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31111448)

I feel sorry for you.
Once I had a dream about living in Australia - not anymore.
Well, I can forget about living in France too - not that I care much about France.

Re:Qu'ils mangent de la brioche (1)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 4 years ago | (#31111944)

The reason the leaders of France and Australia want to censor/monitor the internet is the same reason President Obama wants to track/monitor our cellphones.

Control.

They want the power to run our lives, as if they were lords of the manor, and we were mere serfs.

Re:Qu'ils mangent de la brioche (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31112092)

Wow... incredible, that's the first time I see a grammatically correct French sentence on slashdot, bravo !

In Germany a similar law is defacto rejected (5, Interesting)

saibot834 (1061528) | more than 4 years ago | (#31110644)

In Germany, a law was passed called Zugangserschwerungsgesetz [wikipedia.org] . It said the Federal Criminal Police Office [wikipedia.org] delivers secret list of blocked domains to the ISPs. After the elections in 2009 the government changed and even though the law has come into effect, the new coalition prevented the feds to give out the list. So de facto, Zugangserschwerungsgesetz has been rejected now.

This is partially the success of the German Pirate Party, which both thrived because of this law proposal (membership decupled [piratenpartei.de] in a few months) and forced a public discussion about this law (otherwise it'd just be rubber-stamped: "oh, this law is against kiddie porn. Good!"). It astonished me that the PP actually succeeded to bring common sense into the debate, because politicians often tend to turn of their brain when they hear "kiddie porn". Partially the success was also due to an online petition which had 134,000 signatures (which made it by far the most successful petition in German history).

It is also doubtful that the Zugangserschwerungsgesetz will pass German's highest court, the Federal Constitutional Court [wikipedia.org] , which in the past has proven to value human rights (such as article 5 [btg-bestellservice.de] of Germany's constitution) very highly.

France pwned by Germany again =) (0, Flamebait)

[KERNEL32]_ (164808) | more than 4 years ago | (#31111372)

Germany pwns France since the Franco-prussian war, so, there is nothing really newsworthy here...

But, may is this a good time for the Germans take another holyday trip in Paris?

Re:In Germany a similar law is defacto rejected (1)

RobVB (1566105) | more than 4 years ago | (#31111394)

Excellent post. Regarding your last statement, it does indeed seem that such a law is against the German constitution. From your link [btg-bestellservice.de] (I added the bold):

Article 5
[Freedom of expression, arts and sciences]
(1) Every person shall have the right freely to express and disseminate his
opinions in speech, writing and pictures, and to inform himself without hindrance
from generally accessible sources. Freedom of the press and freedom
of reporting by means of broadcasts and films shall be guaranteed.
There shall be no censorship.

Re:In Germany a similar law is defacto rejected (1)

ArsenneLupin (766289) | more than 4 years ago | (#31111608)

There shall be no censorship.

Wouldn't the new European Constitution (Lissabon treaty) overrule the German Constitution here?

In the same spot, the European Constitution has "Intellectual Property is protected" instead.

Re:In Germany a similar law is defacto rejected (1)

jeti (105266) | more than 4 years ago | (#31111470)

More interestingly, the German law would not only have blocked sites featuring CP, but also sites linking or referring to CP. This would have included pages like Wikileaks that provide leaked blocking lists of other countries. These lists are interesting because only a miniscule minority of the blocked sites feature actual CP.

Re:In Germany a similar law is defacto rejected (1)

Asic Eng (193332) | more than 4 years ago | (#31112108)

It's actually not quite so clear whether the law has come into effect. The German president (whose job it is to sign the law) has requested some clarifying information - so far the parliament has not answered the request and the president has not signed. The legal situation in Germany is a little murky in that respect - the constitution doesn't give the president a veto on signing laws, he is supposed to be nothing but a rubber stamp. Then again - the constitution does require that laws don't violate the constitution and that is likely not the case here, and likely not believed to be the case by the parliament.

Apart from that, the web site of the French pirate party is here: http://www.partipirate.org/ [partipirate.org] - I hope our neighbors in France will support them and retain free access to the internet.

Re:In Germany a similar law is defacto rejected (1)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 4 years ago | (#31112898)

If it's one thing that has always amazed me about Germany, it's the drive that Germans have towards reducing even the most complex of concepts to a single word--however many syllables it involves. There are single words in German that require entire paragraphs in English to translate.

VOTING in france - isn't that banned these days? (3, Insightful)

BestNicksRTaken (582194) | more than 4 years ago | (#31110652)

I thought Sarkoszy was essentially a dictator when it comes to all things MAFIAA.

he pushes in laws that have been voted against all the way up to the european parliament.

Re:VOTING in france - isn't that banned these days (4, Insightful)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 4 years ago | (#31110700)

It's no secret that he's pretty strongly pro MAFIAA, thinking how his wife is directly involved in the pressure for more IP protection.

And he has to. I mean, be honest, if you look like her, would you stay with a troll if he couldn't collect your bridge toll?

Re:VOTING in france - isn't that banned these days (3, Funny)

ArsenneLupin (766289) | more than 4 years ago | (#31111632)

She could use him to perfect her dwarf tossing skills...

Re:VOTING in france - isn't that banned these days (1)

ArsenneLupin (766289) | more than 4 years ago | (#31111626)

I thought Sarkoszy was essentially a dictator when it comes to all things MAFIAA.

Not only when it comes to MAFIAA. He wants to be a dictator in all areas of life.

How about a different approach (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31110676)

If they didn't make possession illegal then ordinary citizens with spare time would be able to help track down those who actually make the material.

Re:How about a different approach (2, Insightful)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 4 years ago | (#31111208)

Just what we need, groups of gang-stalking self-righeous zealots violating privacy with the blessing of the feds. Great, more dickheads to flag people as "suspicious" or "pedophiles" because they downloaded pics of hentai or Simpsons family fucking or of-age women whose boobs are too small. Last I checked, hanging out in chat rooms pretending to be 12 year-old girls was legal anyway.

Child porn is bad, but it happens and it's gonna continue happen and you're not going to stop those scum from exploiting children. Why not spend your free time rallying for a political cause or raising money for charity?

Sure, it sucks that you had an unhappy childhood and probably watched too many cop shows to escape from that harsh reality, but your life was empty before you thought you could make a name for yourself and it will be empty long after.

Ah, (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31110678)

Child porn, the European root password to society. In America, it's "terrorism". I'm sure the politicians rejoice that the people let themselves be programmed to respond in such a simple way to these root passwords...

Re:Ah, (5, Insightful)

calmofthestorm (1344385) | more than 4 years ago | (#31111184)

Child porn works over here too, you just have to use sudo.

Re:Ah, (1)

dnahelicase (1594971) | more than 4 years ago | (#31112030)

In America, our child pornographers are also considered terrorists. That's how we limit sexting -> texting -> texting while driving...

Re:Ah, (2, Insightful)

ArsenneLupin (766289) | more than 4 years ago | (#31111636)

Pssht!, or else the Yanks will point out that child pornography consumers pay their warez with SWIFT bank transfers...

Moving on to the next boogieman? (4, Insightful)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 4 years ago | (#31110682)

Appearantly the terrrrrists don't cut it anymore, so we pulled another one out of the hat. Or maybe just that terrrrrists don't work in this context because, well, there's really little harm done by webpages that tell us how we infidels will all go to hell, so someone else had to fill the void.

So let's imagine how this works for a moment. Someone sets up a webpage with kiddy porn in a country where such a thing is legal and the only way to fight that would be that ISPs in France are required to block it.

Anyone here able to point out the three problems with this approach?

First, there is NO country on this planet where child porn is legal. Not a single one. Instead of blocking such a server, go there and raid it. It's illegal where it's hosted. Shut it down. Simple solution.

Second, blocking does jack in a world where international proxy servers exist. So unless such a law is installed worldwide, the blocking means jack.

Oh, one might argue that they're pushing for it, to get it internationally installed. That leads to the third problem:

It's not distributed through webpages. It's not on webpages you could filter. It's working along the same channels that most illegal content travels. Hacked FTP servers, P2P and usenet.

So there's now two possibilities. Either our politicians don't know what they're doing and they're trying to appear like they're "doing something". Or the whole thing is just a strawman for something you could not push through because of public resistance. Personally, I think it's a combination of the two.

Re:Moving on to the next boogieman? (2, Interesting)

golden age villain (1607173) | more than 4 years ago | (#31110794)

In the case of France right now, I think that it is a lot of the first option, i.e. they want to appear like they are doing something. Regional elections are coming soon (March) and discontent is growing in the population plus most of the moderate people who once voted for NS are disillusioned since he failed to implement anything serious but minor reforms. Finally his personal behavior is getting on the nerves of many. I think that the government is afraid of losing votes on the far right so they are pushing some sort of a security agenda. In recent months they already talked of banning the veil for women in public spaces and tried to have some national debate on the "French identity".

Re:Moving on to the next boogieman? (1)

ArsenneLupin (766289) | more than 4 years ago | (#31111642)

I think that the government is afraid of losing votes on the far right so they are pushing some sort of a security agenda.

You mean, this isn't already a far right government?

Re:Moving on to the next boogieman? (1)

golden age villain (1607173) | more than 4 years ago | (#31111700)

Nope sir. It seems that there is always room on the flank for that.

Re:Moving on to the next boogieman? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31110826)

First, there is NO country on this planet where child porn is legal. Not a single one. Instead of blocking such a server, go there and raid it. It's illegal where it's hosted. Shut it down. Simple solution.

(replying as AC because I just moderated some folk. hoping this doesn't revert it..)

Wikipedia says that Child Pornography is illegal in 'most' countries. Of course, I know Wikipedia is no guarantee of truth and no citation is provided there, so I wonder if you have one..?

Another issue is that this 'child' pornography you speak of is not well defined. If you are talking about pre-pubescent children then perhaps it is always illegal. If you are talking about 17yr olds, small breasted women or drawings of Lisa Simpson then perhaps not (and perhaps those jurisdictions where it is, it should not necessarily be - prosecuting teenagers for sexting each other is not right in my book)

..I like the rest of your comments btw..

Re:Moving on to the next boogieman? (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 4 years ago | (#31111546)

If there are laws in the country that make some depictions illegal that are legal in other countries (I don't want to get into the argument whether a drawing of a child should be illegal)? In this case there is a very good reason to NOT block access to such sites. At least if you really want to prosecute those that try to access this content.

Why? Because the strongest drive of a human being is the sex drive. He (or she) WILL get his fix, one way or another. If you block access to such pages, the very first thing someone will do is find a way past your block. They will eventually find things like tor.eff.org and as long as there is a single country where that content is legal, s/he will be able to access it.

The difference is that now you are dealing with encrypted traffic that you can't even use to prosecute this person. He can simply access that page without you, the law enforcement agency, having any chance to actually catch him doing it.

Note: This isn't an argument about whether or not such laws should exist. The argument is that filtering is the best way to teach your population how to circumvent them.

Re:Moving on to the next boogieman? (1)

ArsenneLupin (766289) | more than 4 years ago | (#31111680)

The difference is that now you are dealing with encrypted traffic that you can't even use to prosecute this person. He can simply access that page without you, the law enforcement agency, having any chance to actually catch him doing it.

  • The far right might just make all encrypted traffic illegal
  • If you slip up just once and go to a dodgy site directly rather than via tor, your IP will show up in the site's log, and police will haul off your computer if ever they get a hand on the server logs. And then they'll find loads of evidence of your other (encrypted) traffic as well.
  • If the tor exit node (or other proxy) that you happen to use isn't actually in a country where kiddie porn is legal, you just got some unsuspecting chap into serious trouble

Re:Moving on to the next boogieman? (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 4 years ago | (#31112778)

1) Who's gonna tell all the corporations that all their VPN connections and their Blackberries are now illegal?

2) Where's the difference to not blocking and those people going there with their plain IP address? I mean, besides them not having to slip up to show up on the logs?

3) Do you think these people care?

Re:Moving on to the next boogieman? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31111580)

It depends on your definition ofcourse. There are things available in Japan for instance that could get you arrested elsewhere. Very easily arrested...

Re:Moving on to the next boogieman? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31111548)

It's working along the same channels that most illegal content travels. Hacked FTP servers, P2P and usenet.

Just wait....pretty soon they will start holding the owners of the FTP sites accountable for not properly locking down their sites.
Get hacked....go directly to prison.

And I don't know about France or Austrailia, but they're waging a pretty successful war on P2P and usenet over here. Most ISPs either don't offer usenet, or block the binaries, in response to illegal pressure by the then-Attorney General of NYS.
And all ISPs are looking for ways to block P2P so they can pocket the network improvement money.

Re:Moving on to the next boogieman? (1)

Mornedhel (961946) | more than 4 years ago | (#31111558)

It's working along the same channels that most illegal content travels. Hacked FTP servers, P2P and usenet.

In other news, French lawmakers intend to make all FTP, P2P and usenet traffic, as well as non-sanctioned HTTP traffic, illegal.

The Commission Nationale Informatique et Libertés' only comment on the matter was "TIMEOUT REACHED".

Seriously, don't give them any ideas.

Re:Moving on to the next boogieman? (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 4 years ago | (#31112942)

Now, let's be sensible and try to find out how such a law could be implemented.

Goal: Blocking not-allowed traffic. Ok. How? Blocking port 21 or $torrent_standard_port? Ok, people will set up their FTP servers on other ports (like, say, it's NOW already). Blocking everything but a selected few ports that are deemed allowed? Ok, then the FTP server will listen on 23, 80, 445 or 3306, depending on what's allowed and not in use on that machine. Deep packet inspection? The whole deal gets a valid HTTP header. Forbid encrypted traffic? Watch corporations go ballistic on you when you take away their VPN and Blackberry mail. Outlaw it for everyone but corporations? Watch their managers go berserk over not being allowed to VPN to their office anymore (or pay expensive weekend overtime for their IT people because they'd have to sit on site instead of remoting in in case of a problem, France has pretty tough work laws here).

And we haven't even touched the problem of WoW addicts no longer being able to play, dating hungry singles no longer being able to use IRC chat embedded in webpages and instant messengers.

I'd guess shutting the "illegal" traffic down would cause enough problem for the "legal" uses to cause enough people to get irate about it that these laws would quickly vanish again.

Re:Moving on to the next boogieman? (1)

Aceticon (140883) | more than 4 years ago | (#31111654)

Any law which is trully meant to protect people from unwanted/illegal content would pass the following check list:

  1. Is the list of sites that are blocked openly available for examination?
  2. Is it a voluntary (for the consumer) mechanism working on the basis of opt-in (for example users would be able to go to their control page on their ISP and enable/disable the filter)?
  3. Is there a working mechanism for independent reviewing of complaints about sites which were incorrectly added to the list and, if the complaint was found valid, remove said sites from the list in a timelly manner?

Any law that fails one or more of this checks is just a censorship mechanism being created by those currently in power which is designed to silence dissent and critical political speech.

Re:Moving on to the next boogieman? (1)

mdwh2 (535323) | more than 4 years ago | (#31111668)

Indeed. Here in the UK, the IWF's blocking system isn't even capable of blocking the images on the web, anyway! The Wikipedia fiasco showed us that. They blocked a page - containing perfectly legal text - that happened to inline the image, but the image was still available via the URL of the image, as well as via other HTML pages that inlined it.

Re:Moving on to the next boogieman? (1)

Bearhouse (1034238) | more than 4 years ago | (#31111738)

there is NO country on this planet where child porn is legal. Not a single one. Instead of blocking such a server, go there and raid it. It's illegal where it's hosted. Shut it down. Simple solution.

Would that it was simple. Many things are 'illegal' in many places, yet still carry on. If the US & EU can't/won't stop Iran & N. Korea from getting/having the bomb, (and increasingly, the means to deliver it via ICBM), then what's the chance they'll go to the mat with Russia, China et al over attack sites / spammer / kiddie porn / whatever?

Re:Moving on to the next boogieman? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31111792)

It's about votes, which falls I guess into your first option. And I'm not just talking about the votes of the Right leaning blue rinse set. In the Australian Senate, the balance of power is held by two independant and five Greens party senators. To get any legislation through the Upper House, the current Labor government has to negotiate with these seven people.

This means that these individuals hold an incredible amount of power, and can pretty much ask for anything they want.

One of those independants is from the Family First party, a Christian Right movement. I strongly suspect that this whole internet filter idea is from them, and is being kept afloat by promises made by Labor to Family First in return for a vote in the Senate. With the government not being very popular with the Greens right now (due to environmental policies) keeping Family First on side is even more important. So Senator Stephen Conroy, Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, is the nominated fall guy to keep Family First appeased while Labor get about getting what they need through the Senate.

Family First, after a noisy arrival to the Senate, have been very quiet of late. I would not be surprised if the deal included a "shut the hell up" clause as well, as Family First campaigning for the filter would put a lot of people off-side who don't agree with the rest of their policies (eg abortion, same-sex marriage, etc).

The government is not stupid; they know the filter wont work. And either the whole thing will fall over and never get passed into Law, but was worth it to get the Family First senate vote; or it will become Law and this and future governments will have a tool for regulating the Internet. Either way, it's a win for the government.

Re:Moving on to the next boogieman? (1)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 4 years ago | (#31111946)

> First, there is NO country on this planet where child porn is legal.

Different governments define it differently. In the USA drawings are never child pornography (though they may be obscenity). In Sweden and several other countries they can be. Thus your tenacle porn hentai may be legal in New York but get you busted in Stockholm.

Re:Moving on to the next boogieman? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31112678)

First, there is NO country on this planet where child porn is legal. Not a single one. Instead of blocking such a server, go there and raid it. It's illegal where it's hosted. Shut it down. Simple solution.

That's expensive, and when you're just fishing for votes rather than actually caring about abuse of children, "out of sight, out of mind" works just as well.

Stop crying (1)

ZeroExistenZ (721849) | more than 4 years ago | (#31110754)

This will lead to one thing only; those savvy enough or caring about privacy and freedom will jump off in darknets, shadownets, unionrings and dissapear from the "radar" and jump through proxies or VPNs.

It'll create these "underground movements" with a club-like and elitist sense of self, as annonymous, with secret handshakes and what have you.

Those using the internet to chat up girls, share their pictures on facebook or what have you, will continue to use their computers as glorified TV-sets.

And why would that be a bad thing? You are concerned about "your internet experience being taken away", it'll just get more cool and secretive for you, while for the 9yo cousin the internet is "pretty with rainbows and unicorns" and not fapping old men trying to have them send pictures.

Don't get me wrong; I'm all against censorship and muffling freedom of speech, but the internet has grown a bit out of the "lets see what we can do with it" as alot of peopel are exposed to it. We'll just have to bend into a few curves to have the same experience, but is that really an issue?

To me it just seems these lawmakers at one hand are worried about what can potentially come out of the internet biting teens butt, but otoh not wanting to kill freedom of speech alltogether.

During "Blackout Europe" (3 strike policy law on EU level), I've written my European representative to urge him to recognise the internet not just as "playground for innovation" but also as basic right and medium to exercise freedom of speech, which was received well. So in my naive world, I'd like to think they do care about free speech, but also protecting some weaker people in society. It's a difficult balance, but internet-censorship wont make a difference to all the crying nerds: we'll get our tools and methods to get around it and nobody is going to proscecute you for that. Its not that we've been desensitized and media got a bit like a loose whore people need to be exposed to that involentary: Make it a bit harder to get but not illegal... fe, like porn used to be in the 90s; being younger as 18 you had to get creative to get porn, but we got it anyway without it been blasted in our field of vision constantly.

Re:Stop crying (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31110804)

so, because you got a nice letter from your rep means that the politicians care about your freedom? are you serious? that's all you have? Get real. It's a balance alright. It's a balance between freedom and the power/greed of those who already have too much of everything. No, I'm no socialist, but these people fear things like the internet. censorship will affect everyone when the isps are forced (or do so to increase pricing) to limit/control bandwidth at the app level (think cellphone providers).

Re:Stop crying (1)

ZeroExistenZ (721849) | more than 4 years ago | (#31110946)

It's not my argument with the "weight I have is a letter of representative x", I just try to transpose myself into their decisionmaking and the concerns of some people leading up to these law-proposals resulting in a miscommunication between people more concerned about privacy (groups like slashdot) and people who feel they want a "clean" experience or want to limit the exposure to certain content as the internet isn't just a toy of academics, hackers, social castouts, or curious people; it's become something every layer of society is consuming. (and has been transformed into a "product", agreed, but by the nature of the internet it is punished off greatly if a brand-presence online takes away from the experience. Online marketting has evolved to "increasing or bettering the experience" through virals, games or the community presences or "related ads", if it sucks hard, the company is dumped by users or there is no userbase left to sqeeze).

It's a balance between freedom and the power/greed of those who already have too much of everything.

Stop crying about being poor, but turn off your "freedom computer", which binds you to your self-created and imposed cage (don't tell me WoW-gamers aren't caged while slowly extracting their money), and do something worthwhile instead of imposing "your freedom onto someone else" on chatroulette with your dick in your hand or something. If it's worthwhile enough, people will give you money for it. If you're knowledgable enough, people will give you money for it. If you're really smart, you'll make people with influence happy so you have greater leaverage to get your idealistic goals met, maybe something silly like pushing a companies "green energy"-initiatives trying to muffle the oil-industry with their connections. Yes, that's politics. Not fucking over you man, get a grip on your own life instead of finding some external factors to cry about, srsly. If the only thing you have to rally and fight for, passively, typing on your "freedom computa", you must be very comfortable and have most if not all primary needs taken care off under support of your goverment keeping it all together for you so nobody rapes you or takes your monnies from you, easily and without you thinking you want to give it to them.

Re:Stop crying (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31111270)

it's become something every layer of society is consuming.

this does not justify dumbing it down to what the most emotionally sensitive and insecure people can handle. Of course, this is only the stated reason. The real reason for the censorship is over control of information.

Stop crying about being poor,

Who said I was crying about it? Who even said I was poor? Don't talk to me about petulant whining. Talk to the world leaders who think they have the right to legislate in whatever way suits their personal interests...and then call it freedom/democracy/safety "for the people". Talk to the corporate interests that demand anticompetitive law so that they don't actually have to work to earn their billions. All I'm saying is that you can't take some kind of form letter as truth. If you think your words make a bigger difference to your politician than the loads of money he gets from various social and business special interest lobbies, you're fooling yourself. I don't care what country you hail from, this shit happens everywhere.

Re:Stop crying (1)

ZeroExistenZ (721849) | more than 4 years ago | (#31111338)

If you think your words make a bigger difference to your politician than the loads of money he gets from various social and business special interest lobbies, you're fooling yourself.

I do not. Even overhere politics is a joke, but I also know politics isn't easy and you have alot of stakeholders with power you have to ski around to get your personal agenda across (like idealistic persuits).

My strong sentiments are rather geared towards the "throw arms up in the air and point to the system". Maybe it's because it's a typical US thing where they bring politics in such a spectacular black/white way to the public, to gain support (because otherwise the public wouldn't be interested or engaged.) Based on reading slashdot this would be a "FOX"-level politics. In my country, Belgium, they try to engage the people by relating to "personal drama" and childlike accusations and xenophoby, dancing around and having media-appearances as retarded clowns wheras a very complex structure in layers makes it hard to get anything really done and even harder to understand for the layman. Yet those "crying out the loudest" are least willing to get into politics or to make a change themselves, nor have the inclination to try to understand and educate themselves about it.

But in all, I still believe there are people in politics trying hard to work around those blockages and difficulties. Just want to nuance the negative doomsday "they are out to rob us"-thinking...

Re:Stop crying (1)

myspace-cn (1094627) | more than 4 years ago | (#31111870)

"But in all, I still believe there are people in politics trying hard to work around those blockages and difficulties. Just want to nuance the negative doomsday "they are out to rob us"-thinking..."

Complete Delusion. They are in fact out to rob us.

Re:Stop crying (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31110896)

wait.. Anonymous has a secret handshake?!

I must be a newfag..

Re:Stop crying (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31110998)

You didn't get teh nota? Annonymous handshake [edgesuite.net]

Re:Stop crying (1)

myspace-cn (1094627) | more than 4 years ago | (#31111802)

Your representative, doesn't represent you. The sooner you stop eating the turds they're feedin you the better off things will be.
Your representative (sic) doesn't know or understand tcpip, which means he's more than likely just rubber stamping legislation which was prepared by the law enforcement and security industry who comprise his real corporate masters.
France ain't the only country they're trying to screw right now.
It's the treasonous GLOBAL control and takeover of information, all under a plethora of psyop names, reasons, and excuses.
Your only toolbox to fight is by exposing your representative and starting a grass roots force which train-wrecks your representative's next election. (Your electronic voting machine have probably already arrived in your country so now your mission is to get your corrupt rep's OFF the ballot before the election even begins)
While this advice is for the USA, pretty much goes to every country facing this (UN command and control) crap under it's zillion piddly ass issues the UN is using at local government level to trick your country into giving up it's sovereignty using climate, epa, and other half-baked UN nation usurping treaties.
The second thing you should to is actually LEARN TCPIP so you "know" when your representative is full of turds. Furthermore you'll have a better grasp on the details of the issue. This way you can look your rep in the face and say, "this won't work, and here's why." as opposed to taking even "my word" on this.

In short I want you to think for yourself, and stop trusting your representatives, they are all undeserving of your trust. Just because they made it into office doesn't mean they are correct.

Take that canned response and turn it against the corruption. Show a side by side. Here's what I asked, here's what they said in response. Expose their apathy and real agenda!

This will not be effective at all (4, Insightful)

Xenkar (580240) | more than 4 years ago | (#31110758)

The pedophiles will just use Tor or come up with some stenographic technique to hide their stuff. Meanwhile everyone else will suffer from burdening the costs of implementing and maintaining such a system.

Child porn occasionally gets posted to fetish image boards by Russian spammers. So France, say good bye to 4chan.

Your children won't be any safer if some random pervert can't get his jollies from images anymore. Without an outlet, these pervertss will bottle it up until they can no longer hold back. Innocent children will most likely suffer due to such legislation.

Pedophiles aren't something new. They have existed in humanity for at least as long as recorded history. Putting our fingers in our ears and going lalalala will do nothing to protect our children or get pedophiles the treatment that will enable them to participate in our society.

I would like to see the creation of programs where pedophiles can go in and receive counseling without getting a life long stigma. Perhaps we could create child-less towns out in the middle of nowhere so they can live their lives without temptation. We could do more research on the brains of pedophiles and develop drugs to re-orientate pedophiles to a more healthy age range, preferably in a delivery mechanism like the Norplant birth control so the pedophile just needs to get it replaced every few years.

My cousin was molested as a child by her father's boss. He fled to France to avoid prosecution. It did significant trauma to my extended family. I want to prevent such things from happening to other families and to do that we have to work with the pedophiles so they get help and don't hide in the woodwork, being consumed by their desires yet secluded due to fears of being expelled from society.

Locking up people who have thumbnails of child porn in their browser's caches does nothing to solve the problem either and creates a new class of victims, those who went to an image board for a legal fetish that is far removed from child porn but got spammed by the Russian child porn spammers. It is a crime in some places to delete it from your cache, leaving many people in a no-win situation caused by ignorant and useless politicians.

Please think before wasting tax dollars and giving people a false sense of security. Every wasted dollar could be better spent feeding, clothing, and educating children, or perhaps fix up a nation's crumbling transportation infrastructure or installing optical fiber to every house.

Re:This will not be effective at all (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31110928)

p>Your children won't be any safer if some random pervert can't get his jollies from images anymore. Without an outlet, these pervertss will bottle it up until they can no longer hold back.

The hydraulic theory of emotions, as introduced by Freud and popular in folk psychology and among counsellors, has more or less been rejected by science. Not being given this kind of outlet will generally make behavior less, not more (without me knowing any specifics about child pornography and sexual abuse of children).

The actual effect that occurs that is similar to the hydraulic model is that active cognitive suppression (when you actively try to repress a feeling in the moment) lead to higher overall activation, and higher activity in the emotional centers. However, according to behavioral researchers, actively following the emotion (e.g, hitting a pillow when you're angry) will overall increase the emotion over time (with a whole host of if, when's and buts, as usual when we do science on actual people.)

Deeper coverage should be available in
James Gross: Handbook of emotion regulation (2007), also Guilford press, the chapter by Thompson and Meyer

Miscellaneous related references:

Bohart, A.C. (1980). Toward a cognitive theory of catharsis. Psychotherapy: Theory Research & Practice, 17, 192-201.

Kennedy-Moore, E., Watson, J.C. (1999). Expressing emotion. New York: Guildford Press.

Nichols, M.P., Efran, J.S. (1985). Catharsis in psychotherapy: a new perspective. Psychotherapy, 22, 46-58.

Rachman, S. (2001). Emotional processing, with special reference to post-traumatic stress disorders. International Review of Psychiatry,13,164-171

Michael Lewis,Jeannette M. Haviland-Jones,Lisa Feldman Barrett: Handbook of emotions (2008), Guilford Press, page 497

Re:This will not be effective at all (2, Interesting)

Marcika (1003625) | more than 4 years ago | (#31111170)

I tried to look up the sources you cited. As far as I could see, none of them contained scientific studies or experimental evidence. They are "proposing models" of behavior (without trying to falsify them), or just spinning some literary narrative about catharsis based on spotty anecdotes. (I.e. your "rejected by science" claim is BS as far as I can see.)

I don't know whether the hydraulic theory has any more evidence to support it, but I think the onus of evidence is on those psychologists who want to jail people based on their urges rather than their crimes...

Re:This will not be effective at all (1)

Pecisk (688001) | more than 4 years ago | (#31111122)

You are trying to propose emotionally balanced and practical approach to problem. Nice, but it won't work, because it won't bring profit to anyone - nor politics, nor media. Hysteria sells. It gives politician's populism a base and possibility to be taken serious and voted in where you want to be. For media, it sells newspapers. And more or less, people don't want to think, they want to react and act. That's how we are built, to response to *stereotypical* threat. And if you point out that they can hurt lot of innocent people, that it can be treatible, and that you can actually try to forgive those people - it conflicts with their way how they're reacting to threats. It confuses them.

It is easy to "kill" the threat than act responsible. Like it or not, people's minds don't change so fast as we would like to, unfortunately.

I don't support pedoes, but... (1, Troll)

ElusiveJoe (1716808) | more than 4 years ago | (#31111126)

Homosexuals aren't something new. They have existed in humanity for at least as long as recorded history. Putting our fingers in our ears and going lalalala will do nothing to protect our children or get homosexuals the treatment that will enable them to participate in our society.

I would like to see the creation of programs where homosexuals can go in and receive counseling without getting a life long stigma. Perhaps we could create colony towns (or more like prisons) out in the middle of nowhere so they can live their lives without temptation. We could do more research on the brains of homosexuals and develop drugs to re-orientate homosexuals to a more healthy sex, preferably in a delivery mechanism like the Norplant birth control so the homosexual just needs to get it replaced every few years.

I just wanted to note the fruitlessness and the cruelty of your idea. Oh, I forgot, homosexuals are protected by law now.

Re:I don't support pedoes, but... (2, Insightful)

Xenkar (580240) | more than 4 years ago | (#31111322)

Two or more men engaging in consensual sex does not bother me or affect me at all. Well I guess it does bother me a little when the gay couple down the street hold loud parties but I'm pretty sure that it would still bother me if they were straight.

A man or woman molesting a child bothers me and affects me. I had to deal with my aunt during my teen years who saw every male regardless of age as a molester. I was falsely accused by her back before I hear even before I hit puberty. I was traumatized by that experience and make every effort to never be alone in a room with anyone under 18. Relations between my mother and aunt went down the drain. I dread family events because my aunt might be there. But the trauma I experienced is not even close to what my cousin went through.

So yes I think pedophiles should get treatment before they commit a crime against a family.

Homosexuals have a right to happiness.

Pedophiles don't have the right to molest children.

Politicians don't have the right to strip away our freedoms and waste our money with feel good measures that accomplish nothing.

Re:I don't support pedoes, but... (2, Interesting)

ElusiveJoe (1716808) | more than 4 years ago | (#31112294)

So it doesn't bother you... So what? I thinks, there are lot of people, who are bothered by it. Should we listen to them? Or should we not?

My post was ironic in that all your ideas were once offered to "cure" homosexuals. Yeah-yeah, psychology, colonies, medications, hypnosis, chemical castration, religion. Should I remind, how many of these worked? Now, if you offer to apply these "techniques" to homosexuals, rather than pedophiles (boo! boo!), you're modded troll on /. and punched in face or sued offline.

I agree (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31111884)

You had me up to the last two sentences. Saying we can't act against one form of perversion because another form is protected is excellent argument for why no forms of perversion should be protected.

Re:I don't support pedoes, but... (1)

ElectricTurtle (1171201) | more than 4 years ago | (#31112862)

For all the mods without brains, this isn't a troll post, if you read the GP you'd see he's using the GP's words and essentially replacing every mention of 'pedo' with 'homo' to expose the faultiness of the reasoning.

Re:This will not be effective at all (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31111376)

As much as I agree with your ideas, there's no way your proposals will be even considered anything other than pro-pedophile.
Governments couldn't be less interested in eliminating child abuse as it makes for a perfect strawman argument, with automatic, instinctive and not appealable lynching of everyone who opposes it. It is indeed the root password to society, as someone else pointed out.

Re:This will not be effective at all (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31111604)

Perhaps we could create child-less towns out in the middle of nowhere so they can live their lives without temptation.

That would be fun: watching it being burned to the ground by groups of vigilantes every time a child disappeared.

Re:This will not be effective at all (1)

ae1294 (1547521) | more than 4 years ago | (#31111824)

Your children won't be any safer if some random pervert can't get his jollies from images anymore. Without an outlet, these pervertss will bottle it up until they can no longer hold back. Innocent children will most likely suffer due to such legislation.

I think this is their goal. Once the filter doesn't work and makes things worse (even only if it's media hype) they will be able to pass more restrictive laws. It's a means to an end and that end is perfect control of the masses and information in general with no oversight by anyone.

Re:This will not be effective at all (1)

VShael (62735) | more than 4 years ago | (#31111914)

There are several humane ways to deal with paedophiles. But none are realistic.

Here's one, for example. The government has a large-ish database of realistic (and unrealistic) computer images of CP. To get access to the legal images, you register as a paedophile. This makes the possession of these government created images legal. But any other CP image, or derivative of the legal ones, is illegal.

You can live your live relatively normal, with access to legal CP for your own gratification, and without harassment. But if you commit a CP related crime, the penalty is harsh and your orientation is made public.

EU-Law and blocking internet content (1)

thayatal (1743854) | more than 4 years ago | (#31110894)

Well, again the discussion who should do what. Should these sites be blocked or should action be taken against the people who are responsible. My personal opinion is, that blocking traffic does not work, as it is hard to block IP addresses, as one IP Address can hold several websites, which normally are legitemate. So only blocking through the DNS server of the provider would be an option, which can be fooled so easily.So that kind of blocks have no impact or use. In my opinion, the governments should make sure that the provider/owner of the sites gets prosecuted in the country where the server is located. That will work, if measures of pressure will come in to effect, like blocking all that countries IP traffic to and from Europe. There is no country which can allow something like that to happen. The legal side though is different. The EU-Law says clearly and that has recently been confirmed by the EU Commission, that it is Governments and providers NOT allowed to block content on the internet. There is a EU-Law which provides the freedom to receive everything you want, either by means of the internet, air or other means. (if this law is good or not, I leave that for the reader to judge). The law is based on the fact, that not the receiver is to blame for something, but the one who causes it.) In my opinion, there should be a EU wide control organisation, part of the Justice Department / EU Court of Justice, which will take action for the EU against countries who enable People to have website which hold Child Pormografy or other illegal stuff. Only if it is done on a large scale there will be any chance for success. By the way, the EU already said it will bring France for the EU court(s) if they would vote for this law. That is also the reason, why Germany has not implemented the law, as they also got a negative advice on the implementation from the EU.

Re:EU-Law and blocking internet content (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31110990)

That will work, if measures of pressure will come in to effect, like blocking all that countries IP traffic to and from Europe. There is no country which can allow something like that to happen.

That's a great idea.... oh wait.

Mr New President of Moobah Island: I don't like pictures of frogs, it's now illegal.
Moobah Island NOC: We can't allow froggy pictures in, block Northern America, the froggy pr0n capitalist pigs!
Obama: We can't do business in Moobah because we allow froggy pr0n, this is no good. Presidential ban on froggies.
Mr Froggy Pics magnate: Darn, chapter 11 because some dufus in Moobah doesn't like pictures of frogs

You're saying that some third party should, for the purposes of 'protection', be able to dictate legislation to another sovereign nation and lord over the lives of that nations subjects? You're from the USA living on some army base in Germany, aren't you?

China (1)

ebonum (830686) | more than 4 years ago | (#31110962)

China holds that their internet censorship follows international norms. Sadly, France is proving them correct.

tubgi8L (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31111224)

grandstanders, the our chances And easy - only 7000 users of ofone single puny by clicking here 200 running NT itself backwards, t;o its laid-back they learn from our

*Sigh* (1)

AmonTheMetalhead (1277044) | more than 4 years ago | (#31111598)

What is it with all these internet filtering attempts all over the globe? There's the classic one, China, there is a project in Belgium (and it's actually in use, the purpose is to stop pedophiles, but ironically, the only site on the list so far was a site that outed pedophiles, it's blocked because it violated those 'people's' rights, but only on DNS level (*)), the Dutch also have a similar approach, and Australia wants to follow suit.

The good thing here in Belgium is that a judge has to order the site blocking, not some bureaucratic office, so there is a recourse through law to defend your site against it, if you must, but still, such attempts are futile, technology will work around them.

(*)http://www.ispam.nl/archives/9116/belgische-providers-blokkeren-anti-pedofielen-website/ [ispam.nl]

Re:*Sigh* (1)

Jackie_Chan_Fan (730745) | more than 4 years ago | (#31112622)

governments are scared when The PEOPLE have power.

Child Porn and Terrorists. Be SCARED! (1)

Jackie_Chan_Fan (730745) | more than 4 years ago | (#31112580)

I love when governments use Child Porn and Terrorism to control its people through fear and lies. Here's to hoping that France doesnt fall victim to this pathetic tactic.

The reality is, Child porn is a tiny fraction of everything on the Net, and It can be masked in encrypted files etc... So lets just fucking stop using these boogieman tactics to try and control the people, and their freedoms.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?