×

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!

Finnish Censorship Expanding

kdawson posted more than 6 years ago | from the as-it-always-does dept.

Censorship 196

Thomas Nybergh lets us know about the secret list maintained by the Finnish National Bureau of Investigation, containing an estimated 1,700 foreign "child pornography'" sites. These are mostly in the US and the EU, and certainly not all of them contain child porn or even links to it. Finnish ISPs are required by law to block access to sites on the list, according to The Register. Finland's EFF has information about the block list, which reportedly includes a musical instrument store, a doll store, and a site of Windows tips in Thai. Recently added to the list — which by law should contain only child pornography sites — is the text-only site of a Finnish free-speech advocate who criticizes the censorship law. Evading the ISPs' block is trivial, of course.

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

196 comments

Windows tips (3, Funny)

calebt3 (1098475) | more than 6 years ago | (#22470734)

Windows tips in Thai
That may or may not be a bad thing depending on whether the tip was get rid of it.

Wikipedia - News for Nerds, Stuff That Matters (4, Interesting)

I confirm I'm not a (720413) | more than 6 years ago | (#22470752)

This was on Wikipedia's front page the other [wikipedia.org] day [wikipedia.org] .

Final Solution: Kill the Children (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22472200)

As every true die-hard anti-cp fanatic knows, this scourge will only end with the final solution: killing the children.
It must be done to protect us from cp and make it's production impossible. Together with outlawing sex, this will be the final solution that protects the planet from cp.

Re:Final Solution: Kill the Children (3, Insightful)

fastest fascist (1086001) | more than 6 years ago | (#22472628)

No, no. You must kill all the adults. After all, no measure is too harsh if it protects the children.

I think I know a couple of hundred Finnish ministers of parliament who constitute a clear and present danger to the children of Finland.

Foriegners (3, Informative)

milsoRgen (1016505) | more than 6 years ago | (#22470754)

Well Finnish culture is pretty alien to me, but digging into the article a bit, it ends up making a little more sense...

"Without knowing any details, a good guess is that the police suspect that having a clickable link to a web site allegedly containing child pornographic images is equivalent to aiding the distribution of such images," the EFFI surmised in this blog post on the censoring of Nikki's site.
Here is Nikki's list. [lapsiporno.info]

Re:Foriegners (1)

esocid (946821) | more than 6 years ago | (#22471008)

Of the 700 or sites that have been tested, only two are known to contain inappropriate images of children, said Tapani Tarvainen chairman of the Electronic Frontier Finland (EFFI). The remainder tend to be sites with adult-oriented themes, such as those offering legal porn, and forums for gay sex. In some cases, the sites - which include an online doll store, a Thai Windows advice forum and a computer repair service - have no visible link to porn or sex at all.
So instead of actually investigating themselves they blanket censor a list of 1700 websites that of the 700 tested, only 2 are child porn.
That seems like unwarranted censorship, and/or even possibly some sort of ulterior motives behind this move.

Nikki has been one of the most vocal critics of the government's net censorship project.
I see this, if nothing changes and it is maintained, as providing that slippery slope necessary to propose a growing blacklist of sites to block that are perfectly legal with the guise of protecting the children, and doing absolutely nothing of the sort (minus those 2 sites).

Re:Foriegners (5, Interesting)

muzzy (164903) | more than 6 years ago | (#22471206)

Actually, Someone's been checking through the whole list I've published and it now appears perhaps ~15 out of 1000 might be child porn. I haven't verified this yet and I'll have to go sleep soon too so I'll do it later. Still, that's a fairly small portion. I might have to back down my claims that 99% appear legit and say that 98.5% seem legit :)

Re:Foriegners (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22472120)

My ISP isn't blocking that site (yet), so I went through the links. Guess what I found from a blocked russian image board? Yep, child porn.
Of course the whole image board wasn't about illegal porn, but there were nevertheless lots of people, provoked by the media attention or not, posting illegal images.
So, does this mean the filter works? No. It should only block the illegal images, not the whole site.

Re:Foriegners (1)

rdradar (1110795) | more than 6 years ago | (#22472624)

The funniest thing is that only one human maintains the list as his side job. And he seems to suck at it. Expect Slashdot getting added to the list in 3.. 2.. 1..

Re:Foriegners (5, Insightful)

dgatwood (11270) | more than 6 years ago | (#22471284)

That is, of course, a mind-bogglingly fallacious argument, though I'm sure you're well aware of that.

Based on what I've seen from phishing sites and other similarly illegal activity, I would suspect that most child porn sites (assuming they are not hosted in a country with lax laws on the subject) are either A. being hosted by somebody on a commercial server that hosts a truckload of sites and the person hosting them is hoping nobody will notice or B. being hosted on a cracked server.

In the case of A., if you try to do an IP match, you'd get truckloads of "false positives"---sites that appear to link to a child porn site, but in fact link to Ned's Used Cars and Auto Emporium's website. If you don't do an IP match, though, you miss the case where somebody creates their own DNS record for a child porn site that doesn't support virtual hosts to get around the blocking lists, so you get lots of false negatives. Either way, you lose.

In the case of B., it is probably safe to assume that 99.9% of those links existed prior to the site being hijacked to distribute child porn, and thus the owners of the site doing the linking would have no idea that the site was being used in that way, and thus should not be treated as though they were intentionally contributing to child porn.

Further, in such cases, the main page of the compromised site almost certainly wouldn't have links to the offensive content, as this would tip off the owners of the compromised site. Thus, linking to the compromised site, with the exception of links to some specific part of the directory hierarchy, wouldn't be contributing to the spread of child porn at all....

Even if a website intentionally links to porn-oriented sites that contain child porn, it is still not automatically reasonable to say that the linking site is promoting child porn unless either A. the website is linking directly to a child porn section or page on the site, or B. the primary focus of the destination website is child porn. If somebody uploaded a piece of child porn to Wikipedia, would everyone linking to Wikipedia be considered "contributing to the spread of child porn"? Why should any other website be treated differently even if it is a porn site? For that matter, if someone adds a link to a child porn site from a Wikipedia page, should Wikipedia be blocked? If the Finnish lawmakers don't have a damn good answer for these question, they need to seriously rethink this policy.

And then, there's the question about the sites hosting the porn being listed themselves. Those IP numbers on the list might contain dozens of other unrelated websites. If the server was compromised, it might not even be appropriate to block the host by its domain name, as you might be blocking a legitimate business. The correct course of action is always to notify first, allow reasonable time for response (whether in the form of removal, photo ID proof of age, etc.), then block if circumstances warrant it. The same goes for suspected copyright violations, suspected phishing sites, etc.

Re:Foriegners (1)

fastest fascist (1086001) | more than 6 years ago | (#22472454)

IMO the correct course of action for the police would be to get a court order. Right now the law makes the police into judges.

Re:Foriegners (4, Interesting)

TapioNuut (615924) | more than 6 years ago | (#22472474)

I would like to point out that the censorship law says nothing about links, or listing sites with links. And in the law itself its purpose is said to be to promote measures which can be used to prevent access to foreign child porn sites. Lapsiporno.info is neither foreign nor contains any child porn.

Also let it be known that Matti Nikki (muzzy) himself has actively reported actual child porn sites before, and some of them have been closed. Some was active even a year after reporting it. Of course, these sites are not Finnish.

The EFFI statement linked in the article is very thorough. In this case there really can be only one bias: the law is bad and the way of enforcing it is even worse.

What happens when lists go wrong (5, Insightful)

Mr. Roadkill (731328) | more than 6 years ago | (#22470760)

I work for a University, and we have a commercial web-filter to try to keep objectionable and time-wasting material off people's machines and out of labs.

$WEB_FILTER_VENDOR has decided that http://www.littlebigshots.com.au/ [littlebigshots.com.au] belongs under "Adult/Sexually Explicit" - whereas it is, in fact, about a childrens' film festival. I've filed a report, and locally whitelisted it until they get around to doing something about it, but still... can you imagine what kind of damage could be done by a secret ISP-level list required by government, and the embarrassment associated with challenging such listings? Who would admit to saying they tried to view a site listed by the government as a child-porn site? Well, I would - if I knew for a fact that the listing was wrong - but most people aren't like me. I wonder what else, perhaps of a political nature, might make its way onto such lists?

Re:What happens when lists go wrong (3, Insightful)

calebt3 (1098475) | more than 6 years ago | (#22470798)

Problems occur when we start automating the identification process. Bots just aren't accurate enough, and humans just aren't fast enough.

Re:What happens when lists go wrong (1)

Original Replica (908688) | more than 6 years ago | (#22470886)

Bots are a fine place to start, they should just include a notice sent to the site owner that let's them know they have been flagged and provides them an opportunity to object to explain their content's legality. That's where you bring in the humans to investigate further. A site blocked for a day or two isn't oppressive censorship, but when a reasonable, verifiable explanation is made and the site is still blocked then you have oppression.

Re:What happens when lists go wrong (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22471292)

then you have oppression.

That's what they said when the cops shot and killed me for just a day or two.

Re:What happens when lists go wrong (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22471980)

That's what they said when the cops shot and killed me for just a day or two.

Having your site blacklisted for 2 days, is so very similar to being shot and killed that I don't think I could have thought of a more apposite analogy. Congratulations, you should be given a Doctorate in formal logic on the basis of your published work!

Re:What happens when lists go wrong (1)

cheater512 (783349) | more than 6 years ago | (#22472340)

I'd use bots to find possible sites and then get them reviewed by humans.
Never block and ask questions later.

Re:What happens when lists go wrong (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22470830)

Yes, most people aren't like you, you must be "special". Congrats, elitist pig! It really takes talent to report mislistings - go rot in hell.

Gay sites (4, Insightful)

phorm (591458) | more than 6 years ago | (#22470846)

I notice also that a lot of the sites appear to be gay-oriented, and as least as far as the names go, don't indicate child content. I'm not going to click on them (who knows what *my* ISP is logging), but I do wonder if they're just in there because of somebody's dislike of that particular content.

Re:Gay sites (3, Insightful)

corbettw (214229) | more than 6 years ago | (#22471692)

I do wonder if they're just in there because of somebody's dislike of that particular content.
Strictly speaking, even if the site does contain child porn, it's still on the list because of someone's dislike for that content. Whether that dislike is well founded or not, and whether it serves a greater good to society to block it or not, are different questions entirely.

Re:Gay sites (4, Insightful)

Capsaicin (412918) | more than 6 years ago | (#22472138)

Strictly speaking, even if the site does contain child porn, it's still on the list because of someone's dislike for that content. Whether that dislike is well founded or not, and whether it serves a greater good to society to block it or not, are different questions entirely.

A world of difference exists between the scenarios where something is banned on the basis of someone's arbitrary dislike of content and whether it is banned on the basis of duly enacted laws governing non-acceptable content. In a society governed by the rule of law the question of "[w]hether that dislike is well founded or not, and whether it serves a greater good to society" is not one properly left to nameless government bureaucrats. "Strictly speaking", the relevant question is whether the compilers of the list are giving proper expression to the legislative framework under which they labour.

Re:What happens when lists go wrong (3, Insightful)

sys_mast (452486) | more than 6 years ago | (#22470850)

How do you KNOW to complain if you are unable to view the site to confirm that it does not contain objectionable material? I know if I'm blocked by work/library/etc that I can go home, check, and complain if they block something OK. But here they are talking about the whole country.(ignoring workarounds)

Re:What happens when lists go wrong (1)

Mr. Roadkill (731328) | more than 6 years ago | (#22470980)

How do you KNOW to complain if you are unable to view the site to confirm that it does not contain objectionable material? I know if I'm blocked by work/library/etc that I can go home, check, and complain if they block something OK. But here they are talking about the whole country.(ignoring workarounds)
A very good point. You don't know - unless you have work-arounds like an alternate DNS server or maybe something like TOR or one of those free-but-dodgy proxying websites that also try to rape your Windows install. That's the problem, you just won't know, and that works to the advantage of whoever constructs the lists. Anyone who complained about inaccuracies and was able to provide proof would also draw attention to themselves as someone who was bypassing the government-mandated filtering... and that might not be a good thing to do. Hell, any Dictator worthy of the title would put in place mandatory blocks with all kinds of extra dissent-blocking - and a nice, friendly, easy-to-use reporting mechanism for mis-classified sites (and, by extension, self-reporting of potential dissidents).

If a sexually explicit tree falls in a forest... (5, Insightful)

BeeBeard (999187) | more than 6 years ago | (#22471204)

While I'm sure we all applaud your efforts at whitelisting an innocuous site, it begs the question of how much demand there really was to visit "http://www.littlebigshots.com.au" in the first place?*

I raise this question not to criticize this particular site for not being more popular or well-known, but strictly to point out that it really is the "littlebigshots.com"s of the world that are most likely to be hurt by filters in a practically irreparable way that is also difficult to quantify: How many people, worldwide, tried to access the site before it will be whitelisted by this particular filter provider?

Picture this: Somebody Google searches "children's festival," clicks on the aforementioned site, but it appears to be down. Or even worse, a warning message appears warning the user that they've just attempted to access sexually explicit material. "Well!" our hapless Google searcher says to themselves, "This is certainly not the family-friendly activity I had in mind!" and the search continues.

The site has lost potential revenue because of the spam filter, sure. But even worse, now "littlebigshots" resonates in the mind of our Google searcher as just another porn site. It is nothing short of libel by proxy.

So you can restore access to the site all you want (and again, it's a kind and responsible thing for you to do), but it doesn't fix the residual image problem that a miscategorized site may still have to cope with. This is a relatively new issue, and what I've been waiting for is the first case that's exactly on-point with this type of situation, to help sort out what kinds of rights and remedies a miscategorized plaintiff may have. So far, no good. I guess we'll just have to keep waiting.

*(I'm not linking to it again because I'm sure they don't enjoy the unsolicited ./ web traffic.)

Re:If a sexually explicit tree falls in a forest.. (3, Interesting)

huckamania (533052) | more than 6 years ago | (#22471666)

This whole situation reminds me of Duty Call formations when I was in the Marines. Before putting into a port, they get all of the enlisted together and tell us what places not to visit. Sometimes we would take notes so we could get to these places faster.

Having a list of child pornography sites would seem to be a bad idea simply because now those sites are getting free advertising. Maybe they should think about encrypting the list or something.

Re:If a sexually explicit tree falls in a forest.. (1, Redundant)

corbettw (214229) | more than 6 years ago | (#22471710)

This whole situation reminds me of Duty Call formations when I was in the Marines.
Ever notice how, at least some of the time, when you showed up at one of those spots, the officers from the ship had already beaten you to it? I had one JO (Junior Officer for you non-Navy types) that I worked for tell me flat out that he and his roommate put the name of their favorite bar in Hong Kong on the list, because they didn't want to end up drinking with the same guys they'd been working with for the previous four months at sea. Can't say I could blame 'em, and at least they were good sports about it and bought a round for the four of us who crashed their little party.

Re:What happens when lists go wrong (5, Funny)

nguy (1207026) | more than 6 years ago | (#22471502)

I work for a University, and we have a commercial web-filter to try to keep [...] time-wasting material off people's machines and out of labs.

It can't be working very well if you manage to connect to Slashdot :-)

Re:What happens when lists go wrong (1)

shermozle (126249) | more than 6 years ago | (#22471852)

Yep, had a similar experience at my work. One morning, I was using the OpenCMS wiki site. That afternoon, it was blocked. WTF? So I couldn't do my job. Brilliant piece of software, that!

Re:What happens when lists go wrong (1)

Das Modell (969371) | more than 6 years ago | (#22472490)

I visited five completely legal mainstream porn sites that were classified as "child porn" before I switched to OpenDNS. This list is a complete joke, and I'd be suprised if there are even ten actual child porn sites on it.

Re:What happens when lists go wrong (1)

fastest fascist (1086001) | more than 6 years ago | (#22472506)

I wonder what else, perhaps of a political nature, might make its way onto such lists?

And that's the thing right there. Societies stay more or less free as long as the inhabitants understand why fundamental rights such as freedom of speech are important to their personal safety. That does not seem to be the case these days, a lot of people are willing to sell their freedom for perceived security, or just because they see no use for it. So right now a lot of groundwork is being laid for the new coming of totalitarianism in western countries, with laws just like this one.

A lot of the more questionable laws eroding civic liberties aren't that damaging if you can trust the government. And maybe, in some places, you still can. The problem is, the main function of those liberties is not to defend individuals against oppressive governments, but to defend societies against the rise of such governments in the first place. Remove those protections, even in good faith, and sooner or later society will suffer for it in a big way.

Good idea (4, Interesting)

Compuser (14899) | more than 6 years ago | (#22470824)

Is there an open blacklist like this. Those of us who do use net porn are often afraid of accidentally clicking a link to something illegal like this. Once it is in your cache, you go prove you are innocent. So it'd be nice to have a blacklist of sites for personal use. It would be even better if it were like a custom DNS service which would not resolve bad sites and I were free to choose to use it.

Re:Good idea (1)

I confirm I'm not a (720413) | more than 6 years ago | (#22470836)

You've had a great idea, but the Finnish government haven't. The Finnish list is an arguably erroneous list (it contains many sites that are seem to be perfectly legal), foisted on ISPs who are supposed to "voluntarily" ensure their paying customers can't access the sites on the list.

Re:Good idea (3, Interesting)

ultranova (717540) | more than 6 years ago | (#22472408)

You've had a great idea, but the Finnish government haven't.

The Finnish government is a sad parody of what it once was. Once it dealt with both Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia and came up on top and turned the country from an economically abused agricultural colony (located at the arctic circle, as an icing on the cake) suffering from a civil war into a peaceful, democratic, industrial first-world country. The current version, on the other hand, falls all over itself trying to bow down to Russia, EU and the USA simultaneously while passing one bad, freedom-removing law after another. The new finnish copyright law, the so-called "Lex Karpela", is a perfect example: even the government which passed it itself admitted it doesn't know what it actually forbids or allows, but passed it anyway.

The Finnish list is an arguably erroneous list (it contains many sites that are seem to be perfectly legal), foisted on ISPs who are supposed to "voluntarily" ensure their paying customers can't access the sites on the list.

I assure you, the list contains exactly the entries it's supposed to: specifically, it already contains sites which merely criticize censorship. It was perfectly obvious from the beginning that this was the true purpose of the list. If these creeps actually thought of children, they wouldn't be constantly cutting funds from education to finance rising their own pay.

Is it just me, or does every country have at its helm the most disgusting subhuman slimemolds it manages to produce ? I'm starting to wonder if those medieval theories about incubi and succubi producing demonic half-human children actually have some merit; it is kinda hard to explain the origin of our Great Leaders otherwise.

You asked ... (1)

WillRobinson (159226) | more than 6 years ago | (#22470878)

Please visit http://www.opendns.com/ [opendns.com] for your needs. They have exactly what your hunting for!

Re:You asked ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22471556)

Near as I can tell, OpenDNS does not filter legit adult sites from ones that contain illegal or potentially illegal material.

Re:You asked ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22471934)

I really don't understand why anyone would advocate using OpenDNS, especially to avoid filtering. They are a DNS service that distinguishes themselves BY filtering requests. And they redirect NXDOMAIN errors to advertising pages! They are probably selling that NXDOMAIN data, too. Why should they make money off my private data?

I also think their claim about being a faster DNS service than your local ISP is misleading. I seriously doubt that their servers can answer my DNS requests faster than a server owned by my ISP. And even they can, at least I don't get advertising from my ISPs DNS servers.

Re:You asked ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22472054)

I really don't understand why anyone would advocate using OpenDNS, especially to avoid filtering.

Sure, but who was doing this? Re-read OPs question, he wanted a site to filter out illegal material while trolling the net for legal pr0n. He likes pr0n, doesn't care for kiddie-porn and doesn't want it in his cache.

Re:Good idea (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22470954)

"Once it is in your cache, you go prove you are innocent". Well, for starters, in order for it to be counted as possession, it must be intentionally downloaded, not just in your cache. There has been at least one court case in the U.S. which has demonstrated this. A jury found a man guilty of downloading CP, even though the images resided only in his cache. He appealed to his state's supreme court, which reversed his conviction. According to the decision, mere accumulation in the cache does not equal downloading. (Although this decision applies in only one particular state, it could be used as a defense in similar cases in other states.)
A person should use good cleaning programs like Clean Disk Security and Tracks Eraser Pro to ensure items in his cache, history, index files, etc., will be wiped away and unrecoverable.

Re:Good idea (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22471020)

*cough* How inconspicuous. How much do they pay you per product mention?

Re:Good idea (1)

WillRobinson (159226) | more than 6 years ago | (#22471112)

Guess your talking to me. No this is a FREE as in beer service, with customizations. Been using it on our networks for over a year.

Re:Good idea (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22471268)

I thought he was taking to ME, hence the second part of my post. If he wasn't, oh well...
(Note to Slashdot: Don't tell me to slow down, buckaroo!)

When I made my post... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22471130)

I was obviously speaking of law in the U.S., not Finland or anywhere else. But the use of cleaning programs is sound advice in any country.
"They"? Ah, the mysterious "they". I am not a paid endorser. I mention these products because I have experience with them, I use them daily, and they work. Although they are both considered shareware, passwords for fully-functional versions can easily be found on the net.

Re:Good idea (2, Interesting)

asuffield (111848) | more than 6 years ago | (#22472462)

Is there an open blacklist like this.


No. There's a classic catch-22 in here designed to funnel money to certain interests at the exclusion of all others. Here's the trick: it's illegal to access this data. You cannot create an accurate blacklist without accessing this data, since you would have to review the content. Hence, creating an accurate blacklist is illegal. Anybody who wants to create a blacklist will therefore need political cover to avoid prosecution (this doesn't mean it's legal, it just means that the government "chooses" not to prosecute them). This effectively excludes anybody who might want to create some kind of "open" blacklist.

Just to make it even tighter, a comprehensive review of any blacklist would have to involve accessing the illegal sequences of numbers in order to review them, so any such review is effectively blocked. This means that the people who do collude with the government to produce blacklists have no motivation to make them even remotely accurate.

Re:Good idea (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22472516)

OK, but one could make a whitelist of legit and responsible sites which would have none of the problems you outline to begin with.

A disgrace to Finland (5, Interesting)

klmth (451037) | more than 6 years ago | (#22470844)

Simply put, this entire list is a disgrace to the nation. The entire list was lobbied through by appealing to simple-minder think-of-the-children rhetoric without any thought given to the implication of this list. Anyone even remotely knowledgeable about technology in gneeral knew that this idea could not possibly work and would end up being abused in no time flat.

The mere existence of this kind of censorship disgusts me.

Re:A disgrace to Finland (2)

Skreech (131543) | more than 6 years ago | (#22472264)

lobbied through by appealing to simple-minder think-of-the-children rhetoric
Appealing to the simple-minded seems to be the popular thing to do these days! Or actually forever.

Re:A disgrace to Finland (5, Interesting)

10Ghz (453478) | more than 6 years ago | (#22472392)

Tell me about it. I'm fucking PISSED OFF at the legislators! How in the fuck did they manage to pass a bill that is so blatantly against the constitution? And not only that, the law is already being misused, since the blacklist contains tons of websites that have nothing to do with pedophilia! And it's supposed to only deal with foreign websites, but now they are using it to silence a Finnish website as well! So that's already three ways this law has failed! And the goddamned recording-industry is already salivating by the idea of using this technology to block access to websites that "infringe on their IP". Fuck this shit!

What I want to know is the names of each and every MP who voted for this travesty of a law! I will swear to FSM that during the next elections, I will go talk to them during their campaign and grill them about "supporting censorship". If those fucking fascists want censorship, maybe they should move to China or North Korea? Why in the hell we have such a bunch of fucking retards deciding things for us?

Speaking as a Finn, I'm deeply ashamed and fucking pissed off!

What Finland needs right about now is MASSIVE amount of bad publicity! We have this thing that we are always concerned what others might be thinking about us. And if Finland starts to be compared to China and North Korea in the international media, that just might be the trick to get this law overturned.

you too? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22470876)

Finland! Not you guys too?

An extrovert Finn (5, Funny)

superash (1045796) | more than 6 years ago | (#22470918)

Well, nobody in finland will protest as there is an old joke about extrovert Finns - "How do you identify an extrovert Finn? -- When he looks at your feet when talking to you instead of looking at his own" :)

Re:An extrovert Finn (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22471032)

Still, many finnish women are incredibly hot in a gothy kind of way. It's a pity they don't tend to date the likes of me, but still.

Re:An extrovert Finn (2, Informative)

flyingfsck (986395) | more than 6 years ago | (#22471352)

Try looking at their feet, not their tits - maybe then you won't creep them out so much.

Not "required" by the law (5, Informative)

muzzy (164903) | more than 6 years ago | (#22470952)

"Finnish ISPs are required by law to block access to sites on the list, according to The Register"

Actually, The Register doesn't say this. There exists a law specifically crafted due to this child porn censorship program, but it technically doesn't mandate ISPs into participating to the censorship. Well, except for the fact that the people behind the law have made public statements that if voluntary "self-regulation" isn't enough, then there will be such a law. So, it's not exactly voluntary when the ISPs are being threatened, but technically they can claim it's not required by the law...

Anyway, regarding the free speech advocate who has gotten his site censored, that's me. I've written a little bit of text in English about my page and the situation [lapsiporno.info] .

Re:Not "required" by the law (0, Offtopic)

catmistake (814204) | more than 6 years ago | (#22471372)

I'm way way way off topic here, but all I know about the Finns is that their language is beautiful. I do not know this from personal experience but from a biography I read about my favorite author as a child. J.R.R. Tolkien was a philologist and studied many languages, and claimed that, by far, the Finnish language (is it called Finnish?) was the most beautiful human language there was (what about French you ask? Tolkien hated French, called it barbaric). Also, again off topic (but getting closer) its been theorized that he stole ancient Finnish mythology and redressed it as The Lord of the Rings (Gandalf is a Merlin-type wizardish archetype from this mythology??). Apparently, we would all be aware of and well versed in this ancient Finnish mythology, but, presumably, its all been censored (and were back on topic).

MOD PARENT OFFTOPIC (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22472260)

all I know about the Finns is that their language is beautiful

Must you share with us your ignorance about Finland? Also FYI, Tolkien regarded Italian as perhaps the best sounding language, certainly in terms of its vowel-system (yes he hated French). He was influenced by the case based grammar of Finnish in constructing the Elvish language known as Quenya. And the influence of the Kalevala on his work, far from being merely "theorized" was acknowledged.

Now, do you have anything on-topic to say, or does the mere mention of the word 'Finland' start you off on a tangential rave about Tolkien?

Re:Not "required" by the law (1)

phorm (591458) | more than 6 years ago | (#22471420)

Personally, I'd like to learn more about the procedure for getting a site on the block list. Who can do so, and what oversight is there?

Re:Not "required" by the law (1)

Upphew (676261) | more than 6 years ago | (#22471884)

Anyone can tell cops (infact one cop doing half of his time) to block site. Then that one cop decides if that site belongs to sencored list. Because list is secret there is no oversight right now. And rumour says that list goes from police to ISPs by email and excel file... top zekret, I say!

Re:Not "required" by the law (1)

nyri (132206) | more than 6 years ago | (#22471490)

Muzzy wrote:

I've written a little bit of text in English about my page and the situation [lapsiporno.info] .


Could someone paste the content of the document. I am from Finland, hence I am unable to read it.

--
Jari Mustonen

PS. I feel like living in some kind of totalitarian state. Well, this is what we get for electing this jackass for our prime minister.

Re:Not "required" by the law (3, Informative)

DMUTPeregrine (612791) | more than 6 years ago | (#22471578)

About the site
Lapsiporno.info is run by Matti Nikki to participate in the discussion of Internet censorship, child porn on the internet and the problems related to these things. Nearly everything is written in Finnish with a few pages in English when I've wanted to target it to a larger audience. My primary purpose has been to provide information and knowledge about the subject matter from my own point of view. It was my concern that all the factual information available was from childs' rights organizations and this information tended to be biased and overly supportive towards censorship.

I started the site back in december 2005 with only one article online, outlining what I knew about Internet censorship and it would and wouldn't apply to child porn distribution. It has been my belief that censorship isn't any kind of solution to child porn, and I actually believe it'll only worsen the situation as it'll give a reason for the people involved to tighten their security and anonymity.

Over the years I've covered a bunch of issues around the subject matter, and lately I've been writing almost daily about the Internet censorship since it unfortunately was finally implemented in Finland. One of the first things I did was to publish a list of a few hundred censored sites.

Update 2008-02-17: I said above "one of the first things", I meant after the censorship was activated. Before this, I've written my opinions about why the censorship doesn't work and what should be done instead of it to fight the distribution of child porn online. Now, since I've seen some people thinking I published a list of child porn sites, I'd like to mention that nearly none of the sites on the child porn list seem to contain child porn. I certainly would not have published the full list had I considered it accurate!
About the censorship

The Internet censorship was being planned for years, and apparently three successive Ministers of Communications have been supportive to the Internet Censorship until it was finally implemented. When the ministry asked for statements about the planned censorship law from various parties, they were told by the Faculty of Law of the University of Turku that the censorship would be against The Constitution of Finland. Despite this, the ministry insisted there were no legal problems and that the censorship would be implemented.

The Ministry of Telecommunications has ordered and published some investigations about the legal possibility of censorship, and made its own interpretations of what these investigations say. For example a document that goes by the name "Railaksen Selvitys" and dated 2005-12-16 lists several critical problems and unanswered questions regarding the censorship. These problems are listed in the very beginning of the document and include things like effectiveness of the filtering solutions, the problem of collateral damage when censorship affects more material than it should, freedom of speech, what kind of crimes the censorship should exactly target, etc. Most of these went unanswered and the problems are seen with the current implementation of the censorship. Some of the issues were only addressed partially, for example the freedom of speech regarding reception of illegal material was touched but the police has now been found censoring even sites that do not contain illegal material themselves. What is being practiced now isn't what was planned.

Apparently the censorship had already been decided to be implemented even before the legality of the censorship had been touched at all. In the beginning of the resulting paper from the above mentioned investigation it's stated that "A decision of principle has been made to take action against distribution of child porn over telecommunication networks". Apparently the ministry had told the law firm that they will implement the censorship no matter what, and requested a paper to support it and to interpret the law in a way to make it look legal. Where this wasn't possible, the paper suggested what laws would be the easiest to change. From this point of view, it makes sense that the investigation would conclude that the censorship can be implemented.
The secret censorship list

Starting from when the Internet censorship was found to be active, I've been releasing lists of the censored domains. It is my firm belief that these lists should be public so that anyone could make sure the list isn't being abused. I found that majority of the sites on the list were censored for wrong reasons, making the censorship illegal even if it's planned and intended use would somehow be considered legal.

The police has shown no interest in the release of these lists and I haven't been asked to remove the lists from my site. I've discussed the legality of releasing the list on IRC chat, but the only concern anyone saw was the requirement of secrecy. The law declares the list of censored sites secret, but effectively this means it's illegal to publish by those who have been given access to see it. I haven't received the list from police directly, and thus obtaining it by scanning through a large amoung of domain names is not illegal and I have no obligation whatsoever to keep it secret.

The situation changed when I challenged the police about a huge amount of sites on the list which apparently contained no child porn and were mere traffic trading sites for legal porn sites. The police responded by telling that sites containing links to other child porn sites are also added to the list of child porn sites. There is no basis for this in the law, since the law only says the police may give a list of actual child porn sites to teleoperators and "child porn site" is defined in the law to mean any transfer of child porn pictures through the internet. It is thus against the law to add sites without child porn images on them to the secret list. In response to this, and to protest what I believe was illegal action by police, I added a link to my list of censored sites to display all entries as clickable links. At the same time I released some critique about blocking sites which only link to illegal sites, and questioned how police finds such sites in the first place. I thought they only received tips about sites with child porn images, so how would they know what sites linked to them? I suggested that they might be surfing porn sites on their own as one possible explanation.
Censoring the critique

Once I had released my critique and made the change to turn the entries in my list to clickable links, my site was censored less than one week later in the next update of the censorship list. Police refuses to comment about it, but has given plenty of comments to several news reporters about my site having functioning links to child porn in it. They try to claim that this minor technical change changed the nature of my site and that it is now a "child porn portal".

I've tried to send mail to the police asking if I'm suspected of any crime now, and if I should come meet them for an interrogation. So far I've received no response, but in the comments they gave to a large newspaper Helsingin Sanomat, police says it's too early to estimate if any legal action will be taken against me. Apparently it wasn't too early to censor my site, though, and I interpret this to mean the decision to censor my site came before they even considered the possibility that anything there might be illegal.

It is clear, however, that censoring a Finnish site isn't what the censorship lists were intended to be used for. The law itself speaks of only censoring foreign child porn sites, and the law exists because foreign sites can be in countries where the police isn't responsive or laws are too lax. It is intended as a measure to prevent access to illegal sites when they cannot be closed down, and this doesn't apply to a site hosted in Finland and ran by Finnish person. The police tries to defend itself by claiming that the law speaks of measures to prevent access to foreign child porn sites, and says the list of censored domains I've published contains links to foreign child porn sites. They try to rationalize that this would allow them to place my site on the censorship list as well. I disagree with their interpretation of the law, as the list should only contain child porn sites.

Update 2008-02-15, 14:35: The police has finally asked me to arrange time for an interrogation. The request came from the violence crime unit, which also deals with sex crimes. I haven't yet gotten confirmation, but apparently they'll want to investigate me about aiding the distribution of child porn. Since there's now officially a police investigation, I won't be commenting much more about it until I've discussed the situation with a lawyer.
Defamation, aggravated defamation

The law requires that an announcement page is displayed every time an access is prevented to a blocked site. This page should contain information such as the reason why the access was denied. When people try to access my page they're presented a page which says that the blocked site is a child porn site, and that the images it contain are illegal to possess and distribute. It says these images are evidence of sex crimes towards children. Practically this means the police is wrongly accusing me of possession and distribution of child porn! In several discussion forums, people have already expressed their disgust towards my site and said I'd deserve to go to jail for hosting a child porn site. Some have even called me a child molester only because the police has listed my site as a child porn site. In news articles, the police has been quoted saying that my site could be considered a "child porn portal".

It should come as no surprise that I find these kind of accusations extremely offending. On my site, I've tried to present a view that resources would be better spent doing something that actually helps prevent child abuse instead of implementing censorship which doesn't save a single child. No criminals are caught with censorship, and actual child abuse has never needed the Internet. Even the distribution of child porn can be better prevented if resources are focused on international cooperation of police forces and tackling generic cyber crime. Commercial child porn operations tend to also involve spam, hijacking computers, money laundering, etc. In the future it's likely that child porn operations will also significantly feature identity theft, botnets, viruses, illegal black markets and other things. Fighting these things also helps the fight against the distribution of child porn, with concrete results.

Being presented as an administrator of an illegal child porn portal and as someone who is distributing child porn images from a web site is one of the most offending things I can imagine. Seriously speaking, people have been killed and murders have been attempted for mere suspicion of pedophilia, so these unfounded accusations could end up having severe consequences for me! Due to grave seriousness of these accusations, and the fact that police authority has been used to present these views to thousands of people who try to visit my site, I think it fits the definition of "aggravated defamation" as defined in the penal code of Finland.

Of course, I'm not alone in this. There are thousands of sites that are censored either as collateral damage or because they contain links the police doesn't like. For all of these pages, the censorship information page claims the blocked site contained child porn.
Indifferent silence of the police

The police doesn't bother answering all questions they've been asked. As a matter of the fact, the first month after the censorship began they didn't answer anything at all because they claim they accidently placed a wrong address on the block page. It took them a month to realize no mail was going through, and their mail servers are somehow configured in a way that bounce messages aren't sent for invalid addresses. This is against all reason and email specifications, and for a month everyone was thinking the police just didn't bother answering anything.

One of the questions they've sidestepped is the question of "gay porn" censorship. If you do a google search for "gay porn", first four hits are censored as child porn even though the sites contain no illegal images! Many have questioned if the police has something against gay porn, and this is something they simply aren't answering at all.

Another important thing they haven't answered about is involvement of EU and the CIRCAMP project. The censorship page states: "The Child Sexual Abuse Anti-Distribution Filter (CSAADF) is part of the COSPOL Internet Related Child Abusive Material Project (CIRCAMP). The project is initiated by the European Police Chief Task Force - aimed at combating organized criminal groups behind commercial sexual exploitation of children." However, officially the censorship is voluntary action on behalf of the Internet operators, and not something that originates from the police in any way. Despite multiple requests, the police hasn't told anything about CIRCAMP or given names or addresses of people who could answer questions about it. The legal aspects of the current censorship system are based on the fact that police is only aiding ISPs in their own self-regulation, but this is in strong contradiction with the claim that the censorship is initiated by EU's police forces.

One newspaper quoted the head of Ministry of Social Affairs and Health claiming that the censorship system is already used to block access to money laundering sites in addition to child porn. The law only permits censoring of child porn and the police wants to give an impression that they're only censoring material that the law permits them to. However, when asked directly if they're censoring money laundering sites, there's no answer at all. Either they're hiding something, or they're just too indifferent to answer the question.

I asked these over a week ago, and since then they've answered other people's questions just fine, often the same day the questions were sent. They've likely read the questions and chosen not to answer them. Perhaps I'm asking too difficult things?

As the tip of the iceberg, I present you one of the questions and its answer from their official FAQ, translated from Finnish to English by me

        Question: Can a site with no child pornography end up targeted by the blocking measures?

        Answer: Notions of what is considered child porn differ. Because the age of consent in Finland [ed.note: for porn] is 18 years, the blocking measures can also include pages in which there are exclusively people who have passed the puberty. Additionally the blocking measures are also targeted towards sites which contain a functioning link to a page that contains child pornography. The blocklist contains only a fraction of all the pornography on the Internet anyway.

Can you believe it? I'm not making this up! Let's ignore their strange choice of words for a while now and concentrate on the last bit of it. It's as if the police is saying it doesn't matter that a few hundred legal sites are blocked because there are plenty of other sites on the internet to browse! I don't know who exactly has written these answers, but they certainly do originate from the police and are linked from the censorship announcement page.
Closing words

This page grew a little bit larger than I had originally intended, and it still feels like there's so much more to say. I hope this page still serves its purpose to outline the general purpose of my site and the recent developments regarding its censorship by the police. If you have any additional questions, don't hesitate to send me email.

There you go.

Re:Not "required" by the law (4, Interesting)

weicco (645927) | more than 6 years ago | (#22472352)

I've tried to discuss this with many others at Helsingin Sanomat message board. But it is hard because when ever you try to convince someone that this isn't the right kind of tool to prevent child porn you get labeled as a child porn consumer or even a pedofile. Those who understands this issue can't do much and those who don't are closing their eyes and ears and shouting I CAN'T HEAR YOU, YOU SICK BASTARD.

I'll think I write nice letter to minister Katainen about this. I have Kokoomus membership card in my pocket and I live in Pohjois-Savo, as does Katainen, so hopefully he reads my mail. But I'm not sure how to phrase the mail so that it is polite and informative at the same time :) I'll have to think about this a little ...

Re:Not "required" by the law (1)

fastest fascist (1086001) | more than 6 years ago | (#22472558)

I would personally emphasize the long-term effects of laws such as this. How it is deeply troubling that the lawmakers are willing to ditch fundamental liberties like freedom of speech for no actual, demonstrable gain, except maybe the political points they themselves get. How those liberties are in place to ensure the health of the society in the long run, to prevent a slide into totalitarianism. How freedom is retained by fighting for it at all times, and lost by becoming complacent.

It's on the DNS Level (4, Informative)

Coopjust (872796) | more than 6 years ago | (#22470956)

For those of you who do not want to RTFA, this blocklist is within the ISP DNS server, so switching to a non-Finnish DNS server or running your own is all that is necessary to bypass it and access the numerous falsely blocked sites.

Re:It's on the DNS Level (1)

Upphew (676261) | more than 6 years ago | (#22471942)

According to lapsiporno.info some ISPs are now using proxies to block sites on the list.

DSN blocklist (1)

hurtta (659055) | more than 6 years ago | (#22471976)

For those of you who do not want to RTFA, this blocklist is within the ISP DNS server, so switching to a non-Finnish DNS server or running your own is all that is necessary to bypass it and access the numerous falsely blocked sites.
Well, according of lapsiporno.info, some ISPes use transparent WWW proxy instead. But Welho (my ISP) uses just DSN, so I used

sudo aptitude install bind
sudo -e /etc/resolv.conf
DNS queries clearly are not blocked.

maybe there *really was* child porn there. (2, Interesting)

SuperBanana (662181) | more than 6 years ago | (#22470998)

Finland's EFF has information about the block list, which reportedly includes a musical instrument store, a doll store, and a site of Windows tips in Thai.

Right, because someone hosting child porn would be stupid enough to link to it on their legitimate business site.

Child porn could have very well been there- maybe the site owner has a /kiddieporn/ directory, or maybe someone put porn on the server without them knowing- either someone who just needed a server to distribute said porn, or someone who wanted to exact revenge.

A server I helped run was hacked and it had an IRC bot on it providing sample clips of a group's movie rip (incidentally, Rizon IRC admins refused to do anything about it, claiming "you could have faked logs". I suppose then, that it's normal to have a channel with 10,000+ members all sitting idle, eh? With a group name that's easily googleable to see that they do pirate movie releases? Make no mistake: Rizon is 100% about supporting movie and software piracy.)

Re:maybe there *really was* child porn there. (5, Interesting)

muzzy (164903) | more than 6 years ago | (#22471162)

The references to and instrument store and doll store both relate to same blocked domain. Specifically, it's a whole Japanese ISP's web server. One of the users probably has something the Finnish Police doesn't like, and that's all it takes to block the entire server.

The reference to "Windows tips in Thai" is to a whole ISP's server blocked in Thailand. They provide free web boards, so it's fairly reasonable to assume that those free boards are used to post child porn links. Child porn groups tend to communicate over forgotten guestbooks, forums, they use freesites to publish stuff, etc.

The whole point is that these legit sites are collateral damage, and the police doesn't care the slightest about it. As a matter of fact, the police has released a FAQ which quite directly suggests that since there are so many sites on the internet it doesn't matter if a few of them are blocked.

Re:maybe there *really was* child porn there. (1)

unchiujar (1030510) | more than 6 years ago | (#22472324)

As a matter of fact, the police has released a FAQ which quite directly suggests that since there are so many sites on the internet it doesn't matter if a few of them are blocked. That is similar to saying "since there are so many people in the world it doesn't matter if we censor a few voices".

Re:maybe there *really was* child porn there. (1)

Lehk228 (705449) | more than 6 years ago | (#22471222)

if you ran a private IRC channel would YOU want people to have access to private information about members because they claimed they were hacked?

that's exactly why we love rizon.

you did more to help piracy by failing to properly configure your server than rizon did by ignoring your requests that they go snooping into their users business without a court order.

Re:maybe there *really was* child porn there. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22471428)

klined from rizon are you? Too bad for you. You also lie.

This doesn't make any sense! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22471002)

This simply doesn't make any sense - they have a list of illegal sites, but instead of tracking down the owners and prosecuting them and shutting the sites down they just block access to them. Wha...???

Re:This doesn't make any sense! (1)

I confirm I'm not a (720413) | more than 6 years ago | (#22471104)

> This simply doesn't make any sense - they have a list of illegal sites,
> but instead of tracking down the owners and prosecuting them and shutting the
> sites down they just block access to them. Wha...???

Firstly... one of the sites on the list was a Thai Windows tips site, another was a Japanese doll (the toy kind, perv!) site. The Finnish authorities can only prosecute and shut down Finnish sites.

Secondly... the point of this is that many of the sites *aren't* illegal, even in Finland.

Re:This doesn't make any sense! (4, Insightful)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 6 years ago | (#22471588)

Secondly... the point of this is that many of the sites *aren't* illegal

True dat. What happens when the legal age for sexual consent is 14, and pictures of naked 14 year olds engaged in sexual acts are viewed by someone where the legal age of consent is 18? How are you going to make a case against the website that is doing nothing wrong in its country? Are you going to go after the person viewing the content? Then you can make the argument that how can you know what is on a website without seeing it first?

Re:This doesn't make any sense! (1)

fastest fascist (1086001) | more than 6 years ago | (#22472616)

Viewing the content isn't illegal according to Finnish law, perhaps because the opportunities for trolling would be enormous. Imagine someone plastering CP images all around the city, or, say, on the front doors of parliament, and calling the cops on anyone who sees them... Possession and distribution are illegal. Of course, computers being what they are, viewing an image pretty much ensures a copy is left on your hard drive. I read about a recent finnish case where a man was fined for possession of CP, which according to his own words he had accidentally downloaded from newsgroups with a bunch of legal porno. Apparently the fact he hadn't deleted all of the material was the crucial thing in leading to his conviction.

So if you ever accidentally stumble upon any illegal porno, be sure to wipe your cache...

I only clicked there by accident! Honest! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22471006)

How nice of Matti Nikki to publish a list of all of the sites.

*ahem*

Shut the door, I'm researching.

Where's the free INTERNET? (1)

Ralph Spoilsport (673134) | more than 6 years ago | (#22471188)

Wasn't the web supposed to be this great fun free place of personal self expression?

Well it seems to have turned into yet another tool for the police state. Yeah - kiddie porn is evil - no doubt, but the bloom is off - it's not a wide open frontier. It's dead and calcifying as we speak.

RS

Re:Where's the free INTERNET? (1)

khraz (979373) | more than 6 years ago | (#22471412)

> Wasn't the web supposed to be this great fun free place of personal self expression? As with all things which became overly popular; too many stupid people took an interest in it, ruining the fun for everyone else.

Re:Where's the free INTERNET? (1)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 6 years ago | (#22471554)

It's dead and calcifying as we speak.

      No it's not. Evolution is just leaving you behind. But the people will always be one step ahead of the government in this. That's what happens when you allow cheap, instant communication between people all over the world. The only way to prevent people finding different ways to share information is to prevent that means communication and take everyone off the net.

      I don't justify child pornography, after all children under the age of consent should not be exploited or sexualized. But information will always flow as long as you keep the taps open. It just finds a different way to do it.

Most are US based, 20+ Porn Actresses! (3, Informative)

urbanriot (924981) | more than 6 years ago | (#22471280)

In the US waivers MUST be signed by performing actresses that they're 18 years or older. I perused the list and every US based server I looked at had known porn actresses that are 20+, let alone 19 or even 18. Guaranteed that some old guy, completely out of touch with his youth (ie. over 50), and probably unable to meet young attractive women banned anything that remotely looked under 30. This is religious conservatism at its worst and the Finnish people shouldn't stand for this repression!

but even then (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22471414)

Even if there are 800 wrong ones there are still 900 genuine cp sites. which I find genuinely disturbing.

Re:but even then (1)

not flu (1169973) | more than 6 years ago | (#22471622)

There aren't 900 genuine CP sites, out of all the hundreds of known blocked sites only a few contain anything that the censorship list was actually supposed to block.

Also art censored (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22471432)

"Police in Helsinki have confiscated a work on display at the show in the Kluuvi Gallery by Ulla Karttunen. The item in question was the material in one particular artwork, which criticised child pornography and which had images of young girls and boys." Article at Helsingin Sanomat [www.hs.fi] in English.

Timecops??? (0)

Ecuador (740021) | more than 6 years ago | (#22471484)

From the linked article:

After a public outcry on the censorship practices the police decided to suspect Nikki of aiding the distribution of material violating sexual chastity. They called him for questioning on Wednesday 20 February 2008.

Oh my god! I time-travelled 2 days in the future? Or maybe Finland is on GMT+42?

Re:Timecops??? (3, Informative)

muzzy (164903) | more than 6 years ago | (#22471758)

>> They called him for questioning on Wednesday 20 February 2008.
> Oh my god! I time-travelled 2 days in the future? Or maybe Finland is on GMT+42?

The date is accurate for the questioning, the news just travels so fast that the actual questioning hasn't happened yet. They sent the "invitation" last friday (15th), and it arrived in mail this monday (18th). I got a prior notice about it through email though.

Ashamed to be Finnish nowadays (1)

Kennu (159046) | more than 6 years ago | (#22471678)

This censorship issue was discussed before the law was passed, but the politicians did not understand at all how the Internet works. Now we're in a situation where it's actually easier to find child porn (by scanning the net and checking which sites are blocked). And now they're censoring the people who try to criticize and alert everybody about the situation. Sad times for Finland.

Why does a list even exist? (1)

rowanparker (1154877) | more than 6 years ago | (#22471746)

Maybe I'm missing something here but, if I had a list of websites that had child pornography available, I'd go and arrest the site owner rather than filter it. Is there a place in the world where child pornography is legal and you can actually host the stuff with out breaking any laws? I'm not aware of one. The logic applied here is like saying the government has a list of addresses for murder clubs, but rather than go and close these clubs where people murder each other, they'll just hid the addresses from you.

Re:Why does a list even exist? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22471764)

The filter list exists because practically they can't be charged by finnish authorities. Most of the sites are US and EU based, and nothing can be done about them.
Still, filtering is wrong and a waste of money.

Lapsiporno.info reported to Google ? (2, Interesting)

hurtta (659055) | more than 6 years ago | (#22472076)

Searching lapsiporno.info [google.fi] from Google produces:

In response to a legal request submitted to Google, we have removed 1 result(s) from this page. If you wish, you may read more about the request [chillingeffects.org] at ChillingEffects.org.

ChillingEffects.org:

Google has received notice of a list of web sites from the Internet Watch Foundation (web site URL) that contain child pornography. Google has removed the related web sites from its search results.

Re:Lapsiporno.info reported to Google ? (1)

hurtta (659055) | more than 6 years ago | (#22472144)

Answering to myself: Not necessary lapsiporno.info is reported, because there is one file from lapsiporno.info also on search results.

Norway has the same kind of list (3, Interesting)

ymgve (457563) | more than 6 years ago | (#22472378)

Norway has the same kind of list. [aftenposten.no]

It seems to be more lenient, though. Lapsiporno isn't blocked, and out of a sampling of the least offensive sounding sites, "only" three out of eight were blocked.

Re:Norway has the same kind of list (1)

hurtta (659055) | more than 6 years ago | (#22472586)

"On the other hand, it is depressing that so many clearly want to surf to such sites. The number is incredibly high," Lessum said.
It newer occur to them, that censorship list also gives wrong positives?

Finnish guy here (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22472580)

A large majority of those sites are in EU or USA. Thus, if they really did hold any illegal content, they would be shut down. Don't you think that if finnish police contacted FBI "We have a list of... Uh... 500 Childporn sites in the USA", FBI wouldn't do anything? Sure they would but finnish police can't contact them because were they ever to tell FBI that and FBI would glance at the list once, they would laugh their assess off.

I challenge any of you to find a single CP site in the list of 1000. As far as I am aware, the owner of lapsiporno.info only found 1 and removed it. He found it because he had himself informed the authorities about it a year ago but instead of it getting shut down, it had just been added to the list. Because of this censorship, authorities no longer fight CP, just add the sites to the list.

Now, as anyone can tell, the system is very ineffective. Proxy (vtunnel.com, anonymouse.org, TOR, just googling proxy...) lets you access them even from Finland. Why was such an ineffective law passed, then? Well, it was passed in order to "prevent children from accidentally visiting CP sites and being traumatized". I shit you not. But how often do you remember accidentally hitting such sites when browsing very regular and legitimate sites? And if you are concerned of such, why not buy one of those many internet filter services that already exist...

The main problem with the system is how sites are added to the list. It is taken care of by a single person, whose identity isn't revealed. Anyone can submit him links and he supposedly checks them and adds to the list as necessary. However, it seems he is not given enough time and doesn't have enough brains to only submit those he has throughly checked, so anyone submitting a porn site there can pretty automatically get it approved and blacklisted. For example, top three gay porn sites from google are on the list.

The police refuses to give info on why any specific site is on the list as the lists are secret.

The law was passed simply to combat those CP sites outside the US and EU that the authorities can do nothing about. Those that are kept online even despite the authorities being informed. Actually, the law states that only foreign childporn sites containing image material. lapsiporno.info fills none of these three criteria but as it has a LONG list that MIGHT contain CP sites, it was seen as helping distribute CP.

This is rather humorous. The owner has not been charged anything because no court would give him a sentence. He has broken no laws. So he is just censored.

Whole helping to distribute CP is humorous reason for censorship. If it works, all those sites are unaccessible. If it won't work, censoring that site won't help either.

Now, let's compare this 1700 links list (though only about 1000 at the lapsiporno.info) to similar list in the UK (yup, there is one). The UK list doesn't include 1700 domains but about 70 exact URLs and subdomains, about 40 of them being subdomains of the same site... I will not link to this list as that could actually contain a lot of CP but really, this difference should show what Finland does wrong

In Finland and clicked on a link (1)

PrayingWolf (818869) | more than 6 years ago | (#22472636)

I just clicked on the music store link (http://www.nn.iij4u.or.jp/~nekokubo/) and three other links mentioned in TA. I got through without problems - in Finland. I guess my ISP isn't blocking it.
The blacklist idea is dumb, but I can see how linkfarms or gay sites may actually contain CP or links to CP somewhere under the domain/website in question. Its probably just hard to find - the banning has been done at a too high level...
At least my ISP isn't blocking anything, go figure...
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>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...