NY — Online forums where thousands of child-porn images have been posted have been stricken from three Internet providers, including two of the nation's five largest, New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo announced Tuesday.
Verizon, Time Warner Cable and Sprint agreed with Cuomo to block access to child pornography disseminated through newsgroups and user groups, a hard-to-regulate sector of the Internet designed to bring together users with like interests.
With the agreement announced Tuesday, Cuomo skipped over the untold number of individual users accessing child porn and went to the portals that, unwittingly they all say, provided the route to sharing the illegal obsession.
Cuomo said the service providers blocked child pornography found in 88 newsgroups by his investigators. Newsgroups, a mainstay of the Internet from its early days, are essentially online message boards in which users can post text and files in any of thousands of categories.
The companies also agreed to eliminate the material from their servers and will pay $1.125 million to help fund efforts to remove child porn from the Internet.
The agreements follow a six- to eight-month undercover investigation of child porn newsgroups and will affect customers nationwide.
But, as Cuomo said, such online pornography is difficult to stop. When one point of Web access is closed, the same perpetrators are likely to open another. And his agreements with the online services end at the nation's borders.
"They are very inventive and obviously a lot of this industry moves offshore very quickly," said Professor Christine Corcos of the Louisiana State University Law Center. "As long as the people who produce this material think they have markets, and they think they can reach that market, they are going to continue and the thing is they can just move to other countries."
Cuomo's investigators found more than 11,000 images in the newsgroups using software that identifies child pornography by tracking patterns in the pixels of the images.
Cuomo said the companies acted immediately when told of the concern. He said too many people posted the pornography to prosecute them individually, so he worked to shut off the "faucet" they were using to share the illegal material.
"People are very creative and there is a market for this filth," Cuomo said at a news conference. "We have to work together."
Time Warner Cable acted when it learned users were posting objectionable material and eliminated the newsgroups, said corporate spokesman Alex Dudley. The company will eliminate all newsgroups by the end of the month, he said.
"We are not admitting to any guilt," he said of the agreement with Cuomo. He emphasized that Time Warner didn't provide any of the content and was simply a portal, allowing groups to be created with content provided by the users.
"As soon as we were made aware of the issue ... we took steps to correct," Dudley said Tuesday.
Verizon acted immediately to shut down the sites and was never accused of wrongdoing, said Eric Rabe, the company's vice president for communications.
"There are people doing whatever they do on the Internet all the time and we can't possibly scan every use group," he said. "But there are some things we can do and as soon as it's brought to our attention, we work very quickly."
"The tension there is between allowing customers the ability to communicate with their privacy rights protected and preventing people from doing things that are illegal," Rabe said.
Sprint spokesman Matthew Sullivan said the company also responded. "We embrace this opportunity to build upon our own long-standing commitment to online child safety," he said.
Verizon and Time Warner Cable are two of the five largest Internet service providers in the nation. Sprint is one of the three largest wireless companies in the U.S.
Cuomo said his investigation of two other large national service providers is continuing, but he wouldn't name them. He has used similar probes and the possibility of civil or criminal charges to extract concessions on Internet safety in the past.
Last year, Cuomo reached agreement with the social networking sites MySpace and Facebook to toughen protections against online sexual predators.
It is about time. I've always wondered why providers can't block certain things. I know that we live in a democracy, but child pornography should NOT be protected speech, I'm sorry.
The ice is too thin to walk, I think I'll pass.
I'll equate this to the assault weapons ban.
I agree there's some thin ice, but I'm willing to carefully skate on this one.
Child porno is not protected, it's illegal at both the Federal and state levels. It's not just objectionable, it's illegal. They are, I believe accessing public forums and newsgroups, not looking into somebody's private images or randomly trolling their hard drives.
This kind of action won't eliminate child porno, they'll presumably encrypt it or something, but it trips the perverts up and makes it incrementally more difficult and expensive to distribute it. And it has the effect of sending a message at the societal level: we won't turn away from this filth.
Child pornography is abhorrent. That much I'll say. But when it comes to all kinds of censorship, who says what is pornographic?
Take for example. the image of Phan Thị Kim Phúc. For those of you that don't know this photo, this woman, an adolescent at the time it was taken, 9 to be exact, is running naked while crying and screaming. It is an image that you cannot see without having a disheartened reaction to. But the question then arises, does this fall under their definition of child pornography? If so it's a disservice to the people that have not been stirred by this horrific photo.
I hate to be the devils advocate on this, really I do. But you know what they say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Where is cablevision in this? And to Hamlet- When the founding fathers started America freedom of speech was used to spread knowledge and thoughts to advance and improve the life of the Union and its people. Child Pornography degrades and ruins the children involved and thus in the exact opposite of what freedom of speech is.
More than 11,000 images were collected using software that identifies child pornography by tracking patterns in the pixels of the images, Cuomo's office said.
I don't know how this works but, somehow I bet it's pretty funny.
I have to agree that I'm happy to see child pornography being battled, though ultimately I don't think it'll really put a stop to it at all, or even greatly hender it.
I am worried though. At what point to we draw the line?
Terrorist websites?
Pirating sites?
Hacking How Tos?
Government documents?
Even if you say yes to all of these my question again is asked, where does it stop?
Well, if the activity isn't per se illegal, and the material passes the clear-and-present danger test, it is protected speech. A child porno image is per se illegal, so it's not protected.
But what if it's illegal in the US but not in another country? I believe child pornography is an easy case because it's globably distained but I don't believe other issues will be as clear cut.
I don't believe the we, the US, should own the internet. What we say counts as "free speech" could just as refuted by another country. The Internet is a global exchange of ideas, and I don't think we should be its police force.
I am worried though. At what point to we draw the line?
This is my main fear too. Politicians seem to always start out with child pornography on the net because it is objectionable to the vast majority, but then almost inevitably end up including much more than the original complaint.
The alarming part of this story is that large national ISPs are using the child porn issue as a "Reichstag Fire" to rid themselves of Usenet support.
Say what you will about Usenet (it's archaic and inefficient, it's clogged wth spam, it's a haven for illegal activity from piracy to child pornography) but it's one of the last free places on the net. Nobody can really control what happens there; they can only block access to it. Unlike private sites/forums and even p2p, the Usenet cannot be sued into submission by anyone. Where else can one say anything they want and not be beholden to any moderator, company policy, or public pressure?
Usenet is a constant thorn in the side of ISPs. It's expensive to support, most customers don't know or care about it, they can't control it, and they take heat for what people do on it. They've kept it around because they don't want to deal with the nerd rage that would arise by denying access to a huge swath of the Internet. This child porn issue is perfect for them: They're cooperating with the government and they can justify the gross overreaction with public disgust over child porn.
The AG gets a nice anti-child porn headline, the ISPs get to rid themselves of a costly service, and we lose the biggest public forum on the net. Huzzah!
Interesting point of view. I think I agree though I'll want to look more into Usenet.
Yes, I do find it interesting (and illegal) to block all of the Usenet groups in order to prevent people from accessing 88 groups associated with child pornography. There are thousands of Usenet groups, if not more.
You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead. |