View Full Version : Blocking the web
Cool, a new forum! But so empty... Let's find something to talk about.
Currently, there are debates about blocking access to websites at the provider level at many places in the world. It's all about websites that have illegal content, but where taking it down may not be practical. Examples include:
- The most intense debate is about child porn.
- Websites that infringe copyrights (The Pirate Bay and similar)
- Online gambling, especially noteworthy since gambling is often legal in the site's home country, but not in a different one.
In all these cases, there are several problems. The web was not built to allow for easy blocking, and most solutions that do content blocking are relatively easy to circumvent for someone who really wants to see that site. Also, blocking only works in one jurisdiction, but the site will still exist and make money from people in other countries. In the case of gambling, that is acceptable, in case of child pornography definitely not.
Some countries have already implemented such blocks, and it turns out that there is a high risk of false positives. Getting off such a list can be very difficult for the owner of a legitimate website.
Finally, there is the question of freedom and slippery-slope-iness: Once the infrastructure is in place, it becomes much easier to block anything the government doesn't like. When the german government debated web blocks for child porn (a project it eventually abandoned), it didn't take long until the licensed gambling organizations called for blocks against illegal gambling, which is, as crimes go, probably a lesser evil.
---
I don't think that web blocks actually help. If the content is really bad, then taking down the website and deleting it is always a better solution. I also think that giving the government the power to block websites as it sees fit is too dangerous from a free speech point of view. If it took a lengthy court trial every time to block a website, I might see things differently, but nobody has ever proposed that.
What do you think?
What if certain types of sites (like legal gaming sites) and web providers (?, or the party that is able to make blocks or access restrictions) would co-operate and try to create a way to prevent the access of unwanted usergroups (like underage people) to the site? I'm certainly not an expert on this one, but just a thought... And when legal sites would make such co-operation, perhaps illegal sites would be easier to spot and actions to take them down could be made..?
Of course taking down harmful, illegal content is difficult, block lists seem like an easy way to prevent access. But how are the lists made? Is there a bot somewhere that automatically searches sites and adds them to a list of blocked sites? Because automatic systems tend to do those false positives.
Sites are created to the web constantly, with new content flowing in cyberspace every second. After one harmful site has been taken down and the content deleted, a new one will pop out. Endless amount of work...
In principle I'm opposed to censorship of the internet but I feel all child pornography websites should be blocked. That's probably the most clear of them all for me. I know there is the "slippery slope" argument but if the law that blocks all child pornography websites explicitly states that it will block those websites and nothing else then I don't see the problem. I'm not so sure about the other websites though.
In principle I'm opposed to censorship of the internet but I feel all child pornography websites should be blocked. That's probably the most clear of them all for me. I know there is the "slippery slope" argument but if the law that blocks all child pornography websites explicitly states that it will block those websites and nothing else then I don't see the problem.
I agree entirely.
I don't understand the complication of this. I mean, I remember a few months ago there was an article on some sort of paedophile from some state in podunk nowhere, and the child pornography websites were logged on his computer. It was concrete evidence against him and there were links to the website. Someone please explain to me why those websites weren't blocked.
A law might specifically say that it is just there to block child pornography, but once the expensive hardware is installed at the provider's offices, there is a real risk that politicians will want to use it for other purposes, too. And there is also the risk that politicians and law enforcement will go "Okay, that's blocked, job done here".
A law might specifically say that it is just there to block child pornography, but once the expensive hardware is installed at the provider's offices, there is a real risk that politicians will want to use it for other purposes, too. And there is also the risk that politicians and law enforcement will go "Okay, that's blocked, job done here".If it's a choice between no child pornography websites being blocked or having them blocked but having hardware with the potential to block other websites therefore the potential for politicians to use said hardware to block other websites then I think I'll take the latter, since there are only potential dangers.
interstellardave
19-07-11, 20:00
"Child porn" is the straw-man in this argument. Set up to be a target that everyone can agree upon, and a convenient "in" towards governments--and quasi-governmental agencies--getting more and more power and control over the internet. There's more talk about child porn than there is child porn, I'd bet. What there is is likely traded person to person; there are probably no--or very few--actual permanent "sites" for it... 'cause those would be closed down quite easily, I'm sure.
First thanks for admins for this new section on forum, I like it :)
Second thank you Catracoth for this topic, but Im not talking about and continue your converstion here.
I'm start explain a bit what is going on behind my internet connective on Iran. Probably I've would follow and track too, you know thats possible, (by searching key words and store IPs) but I've take some risks here!
Here on Iran, we have such a quarantine internet, speeds are too low! Even you can not really image int, for example I've using only 128kb DSL, its totally worth! This limitation is by political, more than I've to pay much for it! I've pay over 20$ for one month, so with this price in any other country beside in US, Euro, UK, Asia you can order and use much high speed and quality of connection.
I've all ways have problem with high ping and lagg on game servers! Normally 200-300 on Euro game servers, or US 300-500! Its quite high!
Another big problem for us is: Blocking many I meant many web sites and services on Iran (again by political), examples: Youtube.com, Facebook.com, Twitter.com, Flicker.com, and many others.
And another problem for Iranian people on the internet are electronic business, internet services are boycotted for Iran (by them), examples: Paypal, VISA, MasterCard, and like Google Services, its quite been awful!
This is my supposition of Free Internet on Iran: High Speed and Quality of internet connection and realise those web sites and services. Its just like a nice dream for me ...
Maybe you thinking many things and have some points, tell me pls ...
P.S: Do not Quote on my replay, just say your comments, thanks :)
"Child porn" is the straw-man in this argument. Set up to be a target that everyone can agree upon, and a convenient "in" towards governments--and quasi-governmental agencies--getting more and more power and control over the internet. There's more talk about child porn than there is child porn, I'd bet. What there is is likely traded person to person; there are probably no--or very few--actual permanent "sites" for it... 'cause those would be closed down quite easily, I'm sure.So what do you suggest happens instead? While blocking child pornography websites could lead to governments gaining more and more control over the internet it's all just potential. Almost any kind of government action could be seen as a "slippery slope" towards more control and oppression.
"Child porn" is the straw-man in this argument. Set up to be a target that everyone can agree upon, and a convenient "in" towards governments--and quasi-governmental agencies--getting more and more power and control over the internet. There's more talk about child porn than there is child porn, I'd bet. What there is is likely traded person to person; there are probably no--or very few--actual permanent "sites" for it... 'cause those would be closed down quite easily, I'm sure.
That makes a lot of sense to me. It's like - and this isn't an apples to apples comparison, exactly - how the City of Houston installed red light cameras to cut down on the number of traffic accidents. Houstonians never got to vote the cameras in, but as soon as we got a chance, we voted them out! And you know what happened? The camera company threatened to sue the city for breaking its contract, then the city caved and turned the cameras back on. And they still won't disclose how much profit they're raking in from the cameras. Do the cameras deter red light runners? Yes and no. People will still run the red like they always have if they can afford the ticket, and folks who don't want those tickets might slam on their breaks at a yellow light and get rear ended.
Long story short, once a system is in place for a government entity to make money or have control over the public, good luck ever getting them to let it go! Just look at countries where the government actively and aggressively blocks certain sites (case in point, Saman's report on Iran's internet policies) and you'll see that the slippery slope is the real deal.
Minty Mouth
19-07-11, 20:44
I don't see the benefits of blocking child pornography websites. Perhaps I'm being naive, but I don't think making it harder to distribute would reduce the number of children being abused. You don't have paying markets for that material because you can trace credit cards, so uploading that content is just--excuse the use of trivial language--'gravy' to the criminals who are abusing children. People who want to download that stuff already have to layer themselves up to the ears with proxies and other forms of protection if they don't want the party van pulling up at their front door.
Blocking the CP websites is a slippery slope that we don't need to start. That sort of content will be spread around the same viral/encrypted (etc) way it always has been. People who want it wil still find it. They're no stranger to jumping through hoops for their 'material'. Interstellardave is right, there aren't any steady websites that share CP that you can just block, and if there are, they are the tip of the iceberg. It's all done behind the scenes. These people are slimy and that's how they operate.
If explicitly banning child pornography websites and only that from the internet is a slippery slope then so to is the banning of pretty much anything else that is almost universally agreed on to be bad. I can't think of any examples, but I'm sure there are some.
I don't like this slippery slope argument. It's basically a way of arguing against any kind of government control whatsoever. Let's get one thing straight, I am not in favor of a big and powerful government but with certain things government control is necessary. While banning all child pornography websites doesn't get rid of the problem it does at least help to stop the spread of the indecent material that these websites host, and that to me can only be a good thing.
Minty Mouth
19-07-11, 21:06
While banning all child pornography websites doesn't get rid of the problem it does at least help to stop the spread of the indecent material that these websites host, and that to me can only be a good thing.
Why does it matter, really? This kind of content is always going to be produced for a niché market. It's not like it will get too popular and desensitise us.
The problem isn't the distribution of the material, it's the events happening in the material. I don't think you can effectively purge child pornography from the internet. It's a waste of time trying because it's all done underground, anyway.
It might not be a very steep slope, but it's a slope nevertheless, and I don't think it is warranted.
Why does it matter, really? This kind of content is always going to be produced for a niché market. It's not like it will get too popular and desensitise us.
The problem isn't the distribution of the material, it's the events happening in the material. I don't think you can effectively purge child pornography from the internet. It's a waste of time trying because it's all done underground, anyway.
It might not be a very steep slope, but it's a slope nevertheless, and I don't think it is warranted.Well, we both agree that child pornography is bad right? Surely then it is also bad the more of it there is around? Remember, the more demand there is for it the more children will be abused.
Minty Mouth
19-07-11, 21:13
Well, we both agree that child pornography is bad right? Surely then it is also bad the more of it there is around? Remember, the more demand there is for it the more children will be abused.
People don't create child pornography because there is a demand; there's no money involved. I can only assume they do it because they get a thrill out of it. The children that are abused in this material will be abused whether there is a camera there or not.
It would be a better world if there was no child porn. But the simple fact is that it is impossible to create that world with the values of freedom of expression, privacy and liberty that we have. You can never crack down on it because, like I said, it's all so 'covert' and hidden.
People don't create child pornography because there is a demand; there's no money involved. I can only assume they do it because they get a thrill out of it. The children that are abused in this material will be abused whether there is a camera there or not.
It would be a better world if there was no child porn. But the simple fact is that it is impossible to create that world with the values of freedom of expression, privacy and liberty that we have. You can never crack down on it because, like I said, it's all so 'covert' and hidden.I know there's no money involved, but demand does play a part. Demand doesn't necessarily mean money. If there wasn't a demand for it online the sick people who create such images/videos wouldn't bother putting that content online. I know blocking the websites wouldn't eliminate the demand altogether but it would reduce it.
I think we can all agree that deleting the websites is a good idea. But blocking is different, because it requires new technology but still does not work that great - and leaves the content accessible.
An interesting question that few dare to ask is: How much of a problem is child pornography? Don't get me wrong, every single case is one too many. And there can be no doubt that it has increased due to the internet. But is it happening so much that normal police work (especially when coordinated internationally) has stopped being effective? And if yes, is it enough to justify these means?
As interstellardave said, child pornography is a moral end-all argument. Nobody wants to be the one who argues for it, which allows people to justify just about anything in the course of fighting it. But it should be looked at just like any other crime, in relation to its severeness, and that includes the question: How much freedom are we willing to give up in order to fight this type of crime? For me, implementing a censorship system (even though it's meant only against evil people) is a step to far.
Deleting them is even better. Didn't even think of that.
I don't agree with it in any case because the internet is merely a place where crimes take place - without it, they would take place somewhere else. There was human traficking and child pornography before the internet - they had these underground markets where people traded tapes with the illicit videos, etc. There was gambling long before the internet too. As for piracy, I don't even want to go there because there's a lot of things labeled piracy which in my opinion shouldn't even be illegal in the first place.
Basically, the internet is just a forum. A really huge, global forum, but still nothing more than that.
And its benefits, IMO, far outweigh its dangers, so IMO the freedom of speech that the internet provides should be protected above all else, because its role in criminality (IMO) is questionable to say the least.
Ward Dragon
19-07-11, 23:11
I agree with Cochrane. I don't think censorship will have any benefits, and certainly not enough to justify the obvious and severe risks of allowing the government to block websites. I think it would be much better and more effective to focus on finding the people who are uploading child porn and putting them in prison. Blocking the websites won't make it go away, but putting the responsible people in prison ought to help fight the real problem.
I agree with Cochrane. I don't think censorship will have any benefits, and certainly not enough to justify the obvious and severe risks of allowing the government to block websites. I think it would be much better and more effective to focus on finding the people who are uploading child porn and putting them in prison. Blocking the websites won't make it go away, but putting the responsible people in prison ought to help fight the real problem.
Pretty much this. Once somethings on the net, it will stay there forever, so blocking sites is so not the problem(im looking at you Australia)
Weemanply109
20-07-11, 00:04
I agree with Cochrane. I don't think censorship will have any benefits, and certainly not enough to justify the obvious and severe risks of allowing the government to block websites. I think it would be much better and more effective to focus on finding the people who are uploading child porn and putting them in prison. Blocking the websites won't make it go away, but putting the responsible people in prison ought to help fight the real problem.
I agree with this, but what about the weird stuff like videos of people getting killed and stabbed and stuff. :(
I agree with this, but what about the weird stuff like videos of people getting killed and stabbed and stuff. :(
Seriously? that's vile and sick if such sites exist :( I know sites relating to post mortems exist but wasn't aware of sites you describe.
Ward Dragon
20-07-11, 00:21
I agree with this, but what about the weird stuff like videos of people getting killed and stabbed and stuff. :(
Even in those cases, blocking the site won't solve anything (and I'm sure people could find a way to see the site anyway if they really wanted to). The police need to hunt down the murderers and put them in prison to stop the killings. Blocking the site is more like, "Out of sight, out of mind," without actually solving the problem.
TRfan23: Much, much simpler in practice. They simply try and find a web hosting company that does not care. This is less difficult than it may seem: Almost no web hosting company has enough people to watch what all their customers are doing with the webspace. There are also some hosts specifically for criminals; most of them are set up in countries where the justice system does not care that much. Russia is a favorite, for example.
All that is risky for the ones child porn distributors, because they have to deal with a company that will want to know their name, although it can be possible to set up accounts under fake names. Still, police in various countries have made arrests by finding out who had rented what webspace.
Setting up a home computer as a web server, as you describe, is possible, but in practice way too brittle and too much hassle. Plus, it gives authorities a direct link to one's home, since they can simply ask the ISP who is currently using a particular IP address. When they then arrest the one living there, they will be much happier than if they had simply shut down the website. And obviously, they will take the computers as evidence, so the site will be down, too.
As for simple, I don't care about Porno in the web, like I said most matter what for me is having a better internet connection and free surfing on those web site and services ...
But I can control my computer for dangerous behavior, install some parental control software's, take control of web sites.
You know in China, familiar sense, its a huge of ppl having internet activity, most of political web sites or others is blocked, at least they (or have) plan for an internal internet, just for use their own self, no connect to outside internet, as I know even in Turkey Youtube was blocked before, but its available now!
Its not it all in here, people protest it, but there inst does even point! No one of leaders really care about what I we want, some ppl for politic and their social behavioral on internet arrested, like blog writers.
scoopy_loopy
20-07-11, 05:42
They're going ahead with this in Australia, and frankly it's pathetic. It won't work, it will **** with our already **** network, and costs a buttload of money.
Not to mention the bugs, and of course the fact that the government has total and secret control. Moshi moshi, China desu.
The Great Chi
20-07-11, 06:50
The internet is a powerful tool to allow the public to organise against any politics that they do not like.
All goverments know this, and some would like to control this, and some do like Iran and China.
As for chid porn sites well they are hellish, but if we allow blockage to start, we go the same way as the countries mentioned above.
I would say that the best solution to child porn sites is to inindate them with virusues, to disable users computers :p
Another tatic at present to try to reduce the internet freedom in the west, is the recent push on even stricter copyright law, that would make any 3rd party pictures, sounds and video content illegal to be used.
Sites like youtube would just have to shut down, as no content except the origional owners of the copyright material could be shown.
We must keep vigilant about any blockage of the web, now and future.
They're going ahead with this in Australia, and frankly it's pathetic. It won't work, it will **** with our already **** network, and costs a buttload of money.
Not to mention the bugs, and of course the fact that the government has total and secret control. Moshi moshi, China desu.
ikr..
True! The power of internet, hands by governments! They let us to use it as they want!
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a7/Switch_off_internet_in_case_of_political_dissent.j pg/210px-Switch_off_internet_in_case_of_political_dissent.j pg
But notice here: It wont stop people, they all ways just find another way to contact each other, using anonymous proxies, or virtual connection, passing by filters ...
Uzi master
21-07-11, 00:33
I think enough peopel have explained that blocking child porn sites just isn't that viable for getting rid of them, we would all like to get rid of it but its not going to happen, when you have the abbility to block bad sites you have the ability to block goo sites, and morraly grey sites. the possibility for governmentopression is to big, if you ask me. maybe not that big a risk, but I'm not going to trust polititions to decide whether or not people should be alloud to go on certain sites.
I don't think that web blocks actually help. If the content is really bad, then taking down the website and deleting it is always a better solution. I also think that giving the government the power to block websites as it sees fit is too dangerous from a free speech point of view. If it took a lengthy court trial every time to block a website, I might see things differently, but nobody has ever proposed that.
I don't think that that would work either, though. Such a trial would give the website's authors more than enough time to simply move the content to a new website. Not too mention that content gets downloaded and reposted on other sites by the users, as well. Court trials take too long considering how quickly things work on the internet (and not having them, as you said, would give the government too much control over what gets blocked).
Besides, with problems like child porn, blocking websites is not going to help. These people are going to find ways to satisfy their needs even without these websites.
Weemanply109
21-07-11, 18:28
Regarding what I said about websites with videos of people getting killed and such.
I have never actually came across a website dedicated to killing people. :( I have came across websites that do show seriously gory death videos and "some" killing videos and gory pictures of REAL events. Though all of these aren't pictures taken from the owner, and he takes no joy in peoples pain and suffering, he just wants to show what weird stuff happens in the world.
His website also has the video of the 3 russian teens killing that old man. 3 guys 1 hammer if thats what I remember what people call it. Its really sad and disgusting tbh.
perfect timing for this thread Cochrane.....and so it begins.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-14322957
BT ordered to block pirate website.
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2013, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.