New York banishes kiddie porn from the Internet

happygeek 0 258 Views

Andrew Cuomo, New York Attorney General, has been fighting one of those fights that you sadly cannot win: to rid the Internet of child pornography. Believe me, as a father of four I would love to say that it was possible but as a technology journalist with some 20 years experience of writing about the online world and the people who inhabit it I know that it isn't. It would take a sea change in terms of international cooperation, both legal and political, for starters and that's without even thinking about the technological hurdles that would need to be jumped. Still, according to the New York Times Cuomo has won a small victory in the battle against the paedophiles, even if the war itself looks set to wage on indefinitely.

That victory comes as three of the bigger US service providers have agreed to block child sex abuse sites and bulletin boards alike. Sprint, Time Warner Cable and Verizon have all come clean and admitted that they will bring a broad brush to the likes of Usenet which has been exploited by paedophiles as both an avenue of communication and a system of image exchange for as long as I can remember.

The Inquirer reveals that coming to this conclusion was not as straightforward as you might imagine, however. "Despite the fact that service providers clearly state in their customer service agreements that certain activity (including child sex abuse) is severely discouraged, they rarely do anything to prevent it, or to remove the sites once they are up" says reporter Sylvie Barak, continuing "Sprint, Verizon and Time Warner only agreed to enter negotiations after a sting type operation proved that the companies totally ignored any 'consumer' (or undercover attorney general employee) complaints about illicit material."

It appears that only after threatening to bring charges against the ISPs for fraud and deceptive business practises, if the reports are to be believed, did the acts get cleaned up. Which kind of proves, I guess, that where there is a will there is a way. Indeed, several more ISPs are said by the New York Times to be in negotiation with Cuomo on following suit. The trouble is that while I agree you have to start somewhere, New York is a little fish in a hug international Internet sea. Heck, where there is precious little evidence of a groundswell of other US States taking the same approach as New York, let alone other nation states around the world, the hopelessness of the situation starts to become clear.

Unfortunately, I do not have a workable answer to the problem although I look forward to reading yours…

Dani AI

Generated

This thread raises two linked issues: technical scale (can the network be “cleaned”) and civil‑liberty/contract risk from provider‑level filters. ’s realism about scale, ’s concern about overreach and chilling effects, and ’s warning about blocking an entire medium are all points that inform a practical response rather than a single silver‑bullet solution.

If an individual encounters suspected child sexual abuse material (CSAM) online, follow these steps rather than trying to “solve” it alone:

  1. Do not download or share the file.
  2. Capture precise evidence (page URL, time, any account handle) but avoid saving illegal images.
  3. Report immediately to the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children (CyberTipline) and to local law enforcement; the FBI also lists reporting routes and guidance for parents and caregivers.
  4. Report the URL or account to the hosting platform and the ISP/host abuse contact so providers can act.
    (Authoritative reporting and takedown channels are maintained to route cases to investigators.) ()

How platforms and hotlines actually stop repeat distribution: they use non‑reversible image fingerprinting (hashing) to match known illegal images (PhotoDNA is a widely used example) and hotlines maintain lists or hashes that partners consume; services for victims (e.g., “Take It Down”) generate hashes to request removal without uploading the image itself. These tools scale better than blunt network blocks but have limits (edited or AI‑generated images, encrypted messaging, new material). (microsoft.com)

Blanket ISP techniques (DNS redirection, IP blocking, DPI or throttling) carry real technical and civil‑liberty costs: they cause collateral blocking, break security features like DNSSEC or encrypted DNS, and drive evasion. Independent, targeted takedown + hash‑matching, transparency reporting, oversight, and survivor‑centred services are the pragmatic balance most experts recommend. For regionally coordinated URL lists and filtering used by some providers there are well‑documented procedures and audits, but also documented risks and critiques. (eff.org)

Practical takeaway tied to the discussion: pressure that improves reporting pathways, industry use of hashed matching, and funding for hotlines/cloud‑takedown workflows tends to produce measurable removals; blanket blocking is a blunt tool with predictable side effects. For parents and caretakers, combine safe‑search/parental controls with the reporting steps above and the victim support options NCMEC publishes. ()

Member Avatar for jwenting
jwenting 1,905 duckman

next step, sueing these ISPs for violation of their contracts with their customers to provide unlimited access.
Even though I don't like child porn, and would never knowingly download any (sometimes one does get tricked into visiting sites one doesn't want when they're misrepresented by search engines), blocking them when you sign a contract with your customers that you won't limit their internet access is a contract violation.
But I doubt anyone will dare take that step lest they be branded a pedophile themselves, loose their jobs, get forced to change their name and move out of state to avoid the vigilantes firebombing their houses and cars, etc. etc.
And of course the ACLU won't be anywhere near when it happens.

Next step, force ISPs to block content that radical Muslims don't like because such content would upset radical Muslims...

Member Avatar for michinobu_zoned
michinobu_zoned 0 Light Poster

Duckman, I don't think it's in the way in which you just said it. Blocking a communication medium because it's occassionally used as a means to commit illegal activity would be grounds for blocking the internet, TV, phone conversations, and just "talking" to another person as a whole. Also, it alienates customers from them, and since corporations - when evaluated as a single individual - would fit psychological profile of serial killer, thus having no concious, are only doing this as a PR act. Going from completely ignoring complaints about illegal websites to using a broad brush on something that doesn't appear to make them much money only goes to show how indifferent they are to the matter.

Member Avatar for anthonyms666
anthonyms666 0 Newbie Poster

I'm not sure if I'm in the right place here - I am responding to the thread about some company getting mad at Wikipedia for allowing
a nude photograph of a child on their site.

People are extremists. The people producing porn never film
anything beautiful or natural about the human body. The people
ay Hollywood try to show as much skin and lovemaking as
possible in their films - so long as they don't get an X (or MA)
rating. And the religeous extremists? Duh.

As far as a picture of a naked child? That's like a picture of a
baby bird, or a flower, or whatever. People are simply too
immature and corrupt (themselves) to handle such a thing.

Alls I can say about that is "naughty naughty! you filthy old
simpka!"

(Who cares anyway).

- - - a member of Daniweb.

Be a part of the DaniWeb community

We're a friendly, industry-focused community of developers, IT pros, digital marketers, and technology enthusiasts meeting, networking, learning, and sharing knowledge.

Edit Preview