New State Law Put ISPs and Libraries at Risk

[nogle]

Originally Posted by petrucci

I agree with xg4bx in that the government is trying to control the net. The government stays in power because it controls business. Business now takes place on the net, so the government wants to control the net.

I think behind the scenes of this bill is a company that wants to put a competitor under, or a company that did not pay off lawmakers, who are now enacting revenge.

I will go waith Occam's Razor on this.

It is much easier to attribute the actions of government to idiot busybodies pandering to special interests in an attempt to keep their jobs in the senate/house/legislature than a well organized and intelligently run conspiracy.

[QuantumIguana]

Occam's razor suggests following the money. People don't spend all this money lobbying for nothing.

[ScalyFreak]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

Go after the escort service.

Better yet, make it legal. If you do, every single law about safety in the workplace, lack of discrimination, and age limits, now applies to them just as it does any other employer. It works in the European countries that does it that way.

[QuantumIguana]

Holding the ISPs responsible for content is dangerous. It gives them incentive to crack down on anything content someone might might go after them for. I look at the ISP like a toll road. It's not the responsibility of the owner of the toll road what where you are going or for what purpose, in fact it simply is none of their business. But hold the toll road owner responsible, your car is going to be searched, and you're going to be asked for your papers.

[wizwor]

I was involved with the launch of Prodigy Internet. This has been an issue since way back then. I think there is a simple solution. Here it is...

1) Authority creates definitions for content
2) Browsers support access restrictions based on these
3) Content creators voluntarily tag their content
4b) Authority audits compliance
4b) Authority investigates complaints
5) User configure browser to only pass rated content

The web remains open for those who choose open but filtered for those who prefer to see only certain categories of content. Untagged pages would be blocked by browsers configured to restrict.

I think a lot of content providers would tag to increase their audience. The authority would blacklist sites that mistagged their content and could support their policing by charging for reaccreditation (removal from blacklist).

The tags could be similar to movie/music/video games or far more detailed -- GLBT, political, mormon, whatever -- but the choice would be at the user, participation/compliance at the content creator, and enforcement at the authority.

[DarkScribe]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

If the police can't do it, what makes you think the ISP can?

Quite simple, the Police can't close down the offending web site, but the ISP can block links to it. Here we have a "BlackList" and when something is on that list, ISPs are obligated to block access to it. As a rule, it only child porn that is on that list.

[PeculiarPooch]

I remember the hub-bub when Stephen Conroy tried to push out a blanket filter here in Australia, and when WikiLeaks leaked the list of websites to be blacklisted, there was a website owned by a dentist in Queensland. In Australia, a judge has recently ruled that ISPs are not responsible for keeping their customers in check [link].

Since the current topic is child porn, though: restrictions aren't going to solve anything. If Google can't even manage to find deepweb sites, how does the government expect to control anything? Lobbying and changing laws won't solve a thing; we already have child pornography laws. All of the money being spent on campaigns should be invested into specialised units within the federal police forces of multiple countries to actually get onto the intneret, track down paedophiles, and charge them accordingly.

Originally Posted by ScalyFreak

Better yet, make it legal. If you do, every single law about safety in the workplace, lack of discrimination, and age limits, now applies to them just as it does any other employer. It works in the European countries that does it that way.

^ All of that. It would also make it far, far easier for the appropriate organisations to keep and eye on them. If they're a registered business, their employees have tax details on file, and it's as easy as having a look at the date of birth on the tax file to make sure that they're of legal age.

[Dulin's Books]

"directly or indirectly" provide access to any material that might constitute an "explicit or implicit" commercial offer for sex

that would mean search results on "adult recreation in Nevada" that include links to the cat houses. thats entirely too vague

[nogle]

Originally Posted by DarkScribe

Quite simple, the Police can't close down the offending web site, but the ISP can block links to it. Here we have a "BlackList" and when something is on that list, ISPs are obligated to block access to it. As a rule, it only child porn that is on that list.

How would you know? You can't see the blocked content.

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

Occam's razor suggests following the money. People don't spend all this money lobbying for nothing.

This should include the interest group that is quoted in the OP post.

From a more objective source:

Judge temporarily blocks Washington state’s sex-trafficking law from taking effect

A federal judge on Tuesday [June 6] temporarily blocked enforcement of a new Washington state law that would require classified advertising companies to verify the ages of people in sex-related advertisements. . . .

Gov. Chris Gregoire signed Senate Bill 6251 into law in an effort to cut down on child sex trafficking. It allows for the criminal prosecution of classified advertising company representatives who publish or cause publication of sex-related ads peddling children. Proof of a good-faith attempt to verify the age of the advertised person is considered a defense under the law.

[Dulin's Books]

thank you steve

[morriss003]

Originally Posted by DarkScribe

You must have been extraordinarily lucky. As recently as eight weeks ago I was searching on Google Images for an image suitable for the cover of a childrens' book and I was presented with a page of thumbnails that included what was clearly a pre-pubescent girl sexually engaged with adult males. She was about eight or nine. I contacted Google and their response was a suggestion to turn safe browsing on. I contacted the local Police, who are very active in tracking paedophiles, and they informed me that they were aware of it, but could do nothing about it as it was located in Russia and as soon as they blacklisted it, it would change its name and ISP.

My search criteria was absolutely innocent, just a family images search, but I will not detail the search terms here. Although it is difficult, I support legislation that controls ISPs limiting links to such things. We want freedom, but what we actually have is anarchy on the web. We don't need, nor should we support anarchy.

It's not that I disagree with stopping these images from being seen, but your own post shows how hard it would be to do this. An ISP or search engine can show a pic that it believes is perfectly legitimate, but only the human mind can know that it's not. And that doesn't even begin to discuss the problem of art which can be easily changed.

[DarkScribe]

Originally Posted by nogle

How would you know? You can't see the blocked content.

I know because they publicise the fact. They can't filter the entire internet, but they do bring pressure to bear on ISPs who don't act ONCE INFORMED of a breach.

[DiapDealer]

Click the "Back" button, the "Home" button, or even the button with the "X" on it: and the "evil bad image that makes you feel all icky" goes away. No need to waste state funds protecting the retinas of the innocent so long as eyes have lids.

[teh603]

Originally Posted by xg4bx

the government really is desperate to seize control of the internet, they're trying literally everything they can think of. i have trawled some of the deepest and darkest corners of the interwebs and not once have i ever seen an ad for 'underage sex trafficking'. its just one of those striking little names and agendas they stick on really onerous legislation because hey, who would possibly be for this? if you're against the bill you must just want kids sold into sex slavery.

Fairly standard political rhetoric, unfortunately. Take the moral high ground, and find a way to declare anyone who stands against you to be some kind of unconscionable monster.

and just like every single other bill that comes out of washington, its no surprise whatsoever that the language is 'vague' and 'broad'. if you want to target a problem then target a problem, they're not fooling anyone with their shotgun approach.

I don't see "government desperation" here as much as big business desperation. I'd have a look at who was the real author of the bill. If its anything like Stand Your Ground, it probably came from a business PAC through a sock puppet legislator. Big business has already tried to destroy the internet thru the likes of SOPA and PIPA, and successfully pinned the blame on the government for both. Now, its probably done the same thing at the state level.

Originally Posted by plib

Unfortunately it's not confined to Washington - State or DC.

Vic Toews draws line on lawful access: You’re with us, or the child pornographers.

Isn't this some kind of failure of rhetoric? I wasn't able to get into any kind of debate class in school, but I'm pretty sure there's a name for an argument like this.

He also seems to be unaware of a new style of child porn "site"- a P2P respository hosted on a malware-infected computer without the knowledge or consent of the computer's owner.