British Telecom to block all child porn sites

[Plekhanov]

The Observer

BT puts block on child porn sites

Martin Bright, home affairs editor
Sunday June 6, 2004
The Observer

British Telecom has taken the unprecedented step of blocking all illegal child pornography websites in a crackdown on abuse online. The decision by Britain's largest high-speed internet provider will lead to the first mass censorship of the web attempted in a Western democracy.
The move, previously thought to be at the limits of technical possibilities of the internet and prohibitively expensive, was given the personal backing of BT chairman Sir Christopher Bland at a board meeting last month after intense pressure from children's charities.

Known as Cleanfeed, the project has been developed in consultation with the Home Office and will go live by the end of the month, The Observer can reveal. Other major players in the internet market, such as Energis and Thus, which owns rival Demon Internet, are said to be preparing to block banned sites.

Subscribers to British Telecom's internet services such as BTYahoo and BTInternet who attempt to access illegal sites will receive an error message as if the page was unavailable. BT will register the number of attempts but will not be able to record details of those accessing the sites.

A list of illegal sites compiled by the Internet Watch Foundation, the industry's watchdog, has been available for some time, but until now there has been no way to prevent people accessing them because most are based outside the UK.

The initiative would not have been possible a year ago, but improvements in computer processing speeds means that the company is now able to block websites, offensive pages and even individual images of abuse.

The move is the brainchild of John Carr, internet adviser to children's charity NCH, who wrote to Home Office Minister Paul Goggins last July urging action on paedophile websites after a successful campaign to block internet newsgroups (electronic message boards which paedophiles used to share images of children). Goggins approached internet providers last September to ask them to investigate if it would be possible. At first they were resistant, but BT came back to the Home Office last month to announce early tests of Cleanfeed had been successful.

Blocking websites is highly controversial and until now has been associated only with oppressive regimes such as Saudi Arabia and China, which have censored sites associated with dissidents. But many in the field of child protection believe that the explosion of paedophile sites justifies the crackdown.

'British Telecom deserve to be congratulated on this bold move,' Carr said. 'I expect every other service provider will now look at what they are doing to see if they can achieve a similar result.'

Pierre Danon, chief executive of BT Retail, added: 'You are always caught between the desire to tackle child pornography and freedom of information. But I was fed up with not acting on this and always being told that it was techically impossible.'

An interesting development, I wander how successful this will be at blocking the intended sites and just how many non-child porn sites will find their way onto the banned list and how easy it is to get off it. Should we be concerned that less scrupulous companies and governments may abuse system such as this to block a wider range of sites?

[MKSheppard]

China already got Google news to block any anti-chnese stories

[Trytostaydead]

It depends I guess on what they deem to be child pornography. At least here in the US, it's a slippery slope. Nudists and artists like David Hamilton might be considered Child Pornography.. those college coed websites that feature those webcams might be running the line as well.

[The Kernel]

Why can't they simply shut these sites down rather than play big brother with filtering?

[Plekhanov]

I think they're outside our jurisdiction

[Plekhanov]

Sorry that last post should have read
I think they're hosted outside our jurisdiction

[Trytostaydead]

Why can't they simply shut these sites down rather than play big brother with filtering?

Because.. some countries say child porn is anything to do with someone under 18. Others say only if they're under 18 and involved in gratuitous acts of sex. Others say 16, 17.. so it's hard to get other country's involved.. usually only when that website is clearly CHILD-exploitation, associated with a known child-molestor, etc etc.. will the other country get involved. England and Canada take the firmest stance against child porn, such as when that 20 year old was arrested for taking pictures of his 17 year old girlfriend, but even then.. only because it was reported because he posted it on the web.

[Sharp-kun]

If they know of the sites and can't shut them down themselves then they should report them to those who can. Much as I support actions against child porn, I do not like the idea of blocking websites, mostly due to the fact that they'll likely block some innocent stuff as well.

[Montcalm]

Sorry that last post should have read
I think they're hosted outside our jurisdiction

Its still in the Interpol jurisdiction,unless they don't give a fuck about it.

[Ma Deuce]

China already got Google news to block any anti-chnese stories

And people used to say that the internet's very nature would make control of information impossible .

[Keevan_Colton]

China already got Google news to block any anti-chnese stories

And people used to say that the internet's very nature would make control of information impossible .

So, you think google news is the only access to information?

[Ma Deuce]

So, you think google news is the only access to information?

No, but there's really nothing to stop the Chinese government from forcing ISPs in the PRC to block anything the government wants, now is there?

[Vohu Manah]

China already got Google news to block any anti-chnese stories

And people used to say that the internet's very nature would make control of information impossible .

Those people were idiots, me thinks. The infrastructure of the Internet has always allowed such localized filtering.

[Pu-239]

China already got Google news to block any anti-chnese stories

And people used to say that the internet's very nature would make control of information impossible .

Those people were idiots, me thinks. The infrastructure of the Internet has always allowed such localized filtering.

But people are still getting information though lesser known places on the Internet. Gov cracks down, they move. Right???

[fgalkin]

Hopefully, patkelly's site will make the list. Please please please, can it make the list? *prays*

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[Stormbringer]

Hopefully, patkelly's site will make the list. Please please please, can it make the list? *prays*

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

You can always direct their unfriendly attention to it.

[Darth Wong]

This list had better be public. The idea of a secret blacklist which blocks certain unnamed websites using a popular justification is very disturbing.

[Sea Skimmer]

This list had better be public. The idea of a secret blacklist which blocks certain unnamed websites using a popular justification is very disturbing.

Don't worry, you can be sure it won't be public; after all we can't have the pedophiles using the list to find the sites via other Internet providers now can we?

[Sarevok]

China already got Google news to block any anti-chnese stories

And people used to say that the internet's very nature would make control of information impossible .

By using proxy servers it may be possible to get around Chineese goverment bans.

[The Kernel]

By using proxy servers it may be possible to get around Chineese goverment bans.

When the penalty for being caught for such a thing is to have you and anyone you have talked to for the last six months "disappear", I'd say that there is probably very little of this going on.

[Oddity]

Hopefully, patkelly's site will make the list. Please please please, can it make the list? *prays*

Who's patkelly?

[Keevan_Colton]

By using proxy servers it may be possible to get around Chineese goverment bans.

When the penalty for being caught for such a thing is to have you and anyone you have talked to for the last six months "disappear", I'd say that there is probably very little of this going on.

Using that to say something is impossible is roughly akin to saying it's impossible to throw a tennis ball in the air...if 5 people are pointing guns at you and telling you not to do it

There's a massive difference between unwise and impossible.

[Sarevok]

Hopefully, patkelly's site will make the list. Please please please, can it make the list? *prays*

Who's patkelly?

Patkelly runs a kiddie porn site. She supports pedophilia and tried to make arguments supporting it on SD.net. As far as I know she was banned here.

[fgalkin]

He, not she.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[sketerpot]

Are they going to block sites like Anonymizer? If they do, can Anonymizer sue? Any HTTP proxy running over an SSL connection is going to be an untraceable loophole. Look at the advantages and disadvantages of this:

Advantages: It becomes ever so slightly more difficult for pedophiles to get their fix online. Hooray.

Disadvantages: In order to do this effectively, you have to block large numbers of loophole sites, many of which may decide to sue your ass off, and this will cost money, and child porn sites will almost certainly move around, so it'll be nearly impossible to keep the list current, and this makes covert abuse of power difficult to question because child porn is really unpopular.

In the past, internet filtering has usually had a lot of problems. For example, blocking Amnesty International as a "hate site", or applying a double standard to personal web sites and sites like "Focus on the Family", even when the content was identical. I do not trust censors, and they have a really bad track record. I don't like this.