This blogger seems to think so and he is making clearly his case that fearmongering doesn't support your case, even if it is for the good cause and to prevent harmship to children.
"This paper does not contend that there is not a serious problem in relation to the use of Internet technologies to distribute/obtain child sexual abuse material. The core point made herein is that the use of web sites for such purposes has long been, and still is being, vastly exaggerated in the media, by advocacy organisations, etc. Meanwhile little if any attention has been given to credible evidence that there is a much larger problem involving the use of non-Web Internet technologies which will not be affected in any way by the Federal Government's plan to spend AUD$44.5 million on 'blocking' of accidental/unintentional access to web sites. The problem can only be reduced by better funded and resourced specialist units of law enforcement agencies"
"Christopher Handley, an Iowa manga and comic book collector is facing obscenity charges based on erotic manga that he ordered from Japan. The government alleges that the drawings contain images that appear to be depictions of minors engaged in sexual conduct. Comic legend Neil Gaiman spoke out about the issue, reminding us that the laws being used against the comic collector are supposed to be for actual depictions of child porn, and that such an extreme prosecution could be leveled at Gaiman himself for comics he himself has created and sold for decades. This appears to fly in the face of a Supreme Court ruling this year stating that "virtual child pornography," featuring computer-generated or manipulated images but no actual children engaged in sex acts, cannot be constitutionally prohibited (unless it is deemed "obscene"). The person has to believe that they are seeing depictions of illegal sex acts. The Comic Book Legal Defense Fund is working with the defense in Handley's case. " source
When I think of it some of these manga's seem to have
* young girls in school uniform
* hard and brutal sex
so what is next, Manara ? There are Manara's with some explicit scenes in it that fall under the description of what is in the FCCU subject list.
"A laboratory test of six filters for the Australian Communications Media Authority found they missed 3 percent to 12 percent of material they should have barred and wrongly blocked access to 1 percent to 8 percent of Web sites. The most accurate filters slowed browsing speeds up to 86 percent."
and this with a huge investment
"The government has allocated 45 million Australian dollars ($30.7 million) for the filter, the largest part of a four-year, AU$128.5 million ($89 million) cybersafety plan, which also includes funding for investigating online child abuse, education and research"
This is half so fast. Would this have influence on the hosters in that network and the accessability of their sites ? THis would have a big business impact I think. Imagine that the Belgian internet would become half so fast. How do you explain that to all the international clients and institutions and possible investors around here ? And the ISP that refuses to do it, will be double so fast.... if that ain't a difference.
I am not sure if it would have the same effect. It is true that if you only filter you lose speed, but if you have a proxy at the same time that delivers copies of unchanged content you will win that back many times more. Question is how you set up such a proxy for so many people. And there are other issues with proxies that you can accept in a private environment but that aren't acceptable on a national scale.
Every day there are new hidden services in TOR. The newest is a program that lets you surf these TOR services from a service like this http://anegvjpd77xuxo45.tor2web.org/pe/ but there seem to be much more like this. The problem is that they can change the location at will or even make them change often.
Off course you can block TOR readers in a network but it would be difficult with this new tool http://www.tor2web.org to block any access surely for a country.
It is true that the TOR protocol is a bit broken and that there are ways to find the real IP adresses in certain circumstances, but it is harder than with real IP adresses.
You must also accept that it is much slower with this webbased service.
How they are going to filter this is a big question. Close off Tor ? All these intelligence services that use that (with the risks) will have a problem than....
And here we have a hilarious piece of background for this finnish mess: when
representative of finnish police was asked "how come The Google was
not among those cencored pages as it contains the same links as
now-cencored list of Matti Nikki" the answer from Lars Henriksson was
"it is not a website, it is a browser" (original audio here for those
who understand finnish is at http://autorata.com/files/seonselain.mp3 :-)
It is clear that if you are writing and working on such a proposal that you should have a very good understanding of how the internet works today.
It is today much more difficult to block things on the internet and it is becoming even harder every day. Even if you are on a commercial network with a very expensive and strict filtering policy and infrastructure you will find that it is sometimes so simple to circumvent them and that you continuously have to update your techniques and infrastructure just to hold the same filtering level.
If one wants to control if a site is a childporn site, one will have to connect to the site, and in many cases, become a client or user and download proof to keep to be able to proof your case.
All this can be monitored by x number of intelligence and blocking agencies and based upon the IP adress (which may also be another one than the official ones) can be the basis for a legal procedure. Also having that material on the computers (or even undercover computers on other places than the office) can also give way to legal procedures. And before you know it, they are calling you attracted to this kind of material and a suspicious person.
Personally I don't think I could see or treat such stuff, just would make me sick and I ask myself how one could treat such stuff without becoming sick after a while. As a filtering man I have already seen stuff that is just disgusting, that you just would like to throw up, so I ask myself how could a normal human control such stuff without becoming sick ?
Belgium will need to change its cybercriminality and other laws to let researchers and police do their dirty work without having the fear of being prosecuted if they follow certain rules to be sure that no one is really becoming sick or loses control.
that is to say a minister
and fairly someone who doesn't do any googling and research before launching an idea and just goes for it when it sounds right. This is the wrong question. THe question is not what sounds right, but how to do it in such a way that the endresult is right. This means it protects the freedoms at one side and at the other side blocks the worst and most dangerous things with the best technical means. Filtering is very hard to do and one should be absolutely sure that you have the intelligence and means to do it correctly or you will find yourself in a technical and legal mess that will ask more time than just to take down the sites themselves.
So why not look at what happened in Holland when they have tried to install this list
"In the Netherlands, UPC is the only provider who has implemented a
child porn filter. UPC subscribers who try to access a filtered site
are presented with an ominous warning on their screen: 'STOP. Your
browser tried to access a page that is being used to distribute
files that depict the sexual abuse of children. This is illegal
under article 240b of the Dutch Criminal Law.'
UPC uses a blacklist that has been compiled by the National Police
Forces (KLPD). All other providers have refused, arguing that the
list has not been reviewed and that the criteria whereby a site gets
blacklisted are unclear and not open to any kind of public scrutiny.
There is no method to check whether nasty but legal sites are
blacklisted as well, or to check that it is _only_ child porn that
is being filtered"
Part of the sites that Finland labels as child porn sites are accessible via
UPC, which means that they are not on the Dutch blacklist.
`Evidently, the Fins and the Dutch authorities disagree
spectacularly on what qualifies as child pornography, which, in
turn, is another reason for ISPs to demand to know on the basis of
which criteria the lists are compiled. If specialised police squads
can't figure out which sites should and which sites shouldn't be
blocked, how can a provider make a responsible choice?
The Dutch child porn filter contains Dutch child porn sites. To state it bluntly: the
Dutch KLPD and the department of Justice are clamouring for a law
that will oblige ISPs to make their own insufficiency invisible to
the general audience.
According to the KLPD, Leaseweb and Webazilla host child
pornography. In that case, they had better do something about it and
serve Leaseweb and Webazilla with orders to shut down these sites.
Surely, the KLPD and the Department of Justice shouldn't expect ISPs
to do their cleaning for them.
"CNET has uncovered an unusual and controversial investigative technique in which FBI agents post hyperlinks that purport to lead to illegal videos of minors having sex and then raid the homes of people who click on them.
The links directed users to a secret, government-controlled server that had no illegal images on them. But that hasn't stopped FBI agents from staging armed raids on the homes of at least three individuals alleged to have clicked on the links, according to the story.
"I thought it was scary that they could do this," Anna Durbin, an attorney representing one of the defendants, told the online rag. "The whole idea that the FBI can put a honeypot out there to attract people is kind of sad. It seems to me that they've brought a lot of cases without having to stoop to this." source
will an internetfilter block also access to those, or not and if not will the fact that it is not blocked not just indicate that it is a honeypot set up by police services....
This is the total list
some of the sites are on domains that would be difficult to block (countries) or are maybe hosted by countries that are difficult to block but Belgium has an antichildporn law that could be used to take down these sites if they were such a sites.
I am not sure if this is what everybody agrees upon as childporn......
and it is not because a site has been called incest or lolita that the girls themselves are always underage, they pretend or seem to be but how do you know sometimes ?
Without a clear definition of what you want to block, it is difficult to block.
We copy those parts of the messages that are important for the discussion
* There appears to be some form of transparent proxy in place in Virgin/NTL's
network for all traffic routed through it, including transit customers.
Possibly only for destination rr.knams.wikimedia.org. When one subjected
network (Virgin transit customer) routed around Virgin, the problem
note : as nobody was informed about the blocking and rerouting (what a new investment for the ISP's .....) everybody thought that the mistake was with them. The users, the network admins and wikimedia thought at first the mistake was theirs and were scrambling to find out why this was happening and who was responsable. What a loss of time and effort. This is not a porn site, it is the biggest writing community online, so it is very scary that nobody took any effort to contact them to look if things could be done any other way.
* Note that this mystery proxy does not appear to be sending us X-Forwarded-For
headers, so we can't display the "real" source IP address
* Actually, this is where UK users of certain ISPs (at least UK Online) get
proxied trough when a site has been flagged by the UK Internet Watch Foundation
* In a way I hope it's not true because it means a media shitstorm, but... meh.
Someone ought to contact, er, whoever the relevant authorities are. (my note as if they have nothing else to do)
* It seems, alas, that they don't notify organizations when they block their
content. Nor can I find anywhere on their website where I can report a falsely
blocked site, only report inappropriate content.
* However, the link http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Virgin_Killer works
perfectly. So they've taken a bit of a half-hearted approach to it, proving yet
again that censorship does not work.
* You can see it in other languages:
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin_Killer - page OK.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Virgin_Killer - page OK.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Virgin_Killer.jpg - 302 redirect to
Demon/IWF "403" error (http://iwfwebfilter.thus.net/error/blocked.html)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Virgin_Ki... - page OK.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/33/Virgin_Kill... - image OK.
IT was cleared afterwards, but the incident makes you think. Cooperation before blocking on such a scale is the only method to go by. And for that you need a CERT in Belgium.
This happened and shows the unforeseen impact hard blocking without cooperation can have
" Virgin Killer is the fourth studio album by the German heavy metal band Scorpions. It was released in 1976, and was the first album of the band to attract attention outside Europe. The title is described as being a reference to time, as the killer of innocence. The original cover, featuring a naked prepubescent girl, stirred controversy in the UK, US, and elsewhere. As a result, the album was reissued with a different cover in some countries.
In December 2008, the image again gave rise to controversy, when the British Internet Watch Foundation placed certain pages from the encyclopedia Wikipedia on its internet blacklist, since it considered the image to be "potentially illegal" under current UK law. This resulted in much of the UK being prevented from editing Wikipedia, and significant public debate of the decision. The decision was reversed by the IWF after four days of blocking. " source
this is the basis of the Belgian project, although it is clear that there is already mission creep setting in :
CSAADF is the result of the COSPOL working group on 'Internet related child abusive material', named CIRCAMP (Cospol Internet Related Child Abusive Material Project). COSPOL stands for Comprehensive, Operational, Strategic Planning for the Police. It is a multilateral law enforcement instrument under the guidance, support and direction of the European Police Chiefs Taskforce (EPCTF) and was set up in 2004 under the Dutch presidency of the European Union.
COSPOL working groups aim at achieving operational results in police investigations across EU Member States and at dismantling criminal networks whilst ensuring that the EU Member States' competent authorities make use of Europol’s analytical support.
Images and videos depicting sexual abuse of children are freely accessible from all computers and devices with Internet capability, regardless of country and legislation. Child sexual abuse material is, however, also commercially distributed through pay-per-view websites which are known to be controlled by organised crime networks. Therefore the EPCTF has advised that CIRCAMP should focus on the commercial sexual exploitation of children, in removing or limiting the customer base of commercial sites distributing child sexual abusive material.
The primary aims of domain based filtering and displaying a STOP page on the computer or mobile device of an Internet user accessing a web site with child abuse content are:
- To prevent the re-victimization of those children who are or have been the victim of abuse.
- To prevent accidental access to this illegal and harmful content by the public
- To prevent deliberate access to child abuse material on the Internet
- To reduce the customer base of these illegal websites with the assistance of participating Internet Service Providers (ISP)
This is a preventive measure. It is NOT aimed at initiating an investigation against the user, nor to replace traditional investigations into child sexual abuse on the Internet.
In participating countries, police services receive complaints from the public through Hotlines in relation to websites displaying child sexual abuse material. Based on these complaints and investigations, a list of websites containing child abuse material is provided to participating Internet Service Providers by National Police Services. This list is carefully created according to national legislation. Therefore the number of sites being blocked and the nature of these will differ between the participating countries.
If we look at the listing that is being used in Finland to block against child pornography the most important fact that comes out of the list is that most of the websites are located or hosted in countries that have themselves laws against child pornography and as in the case of Holland have a voluntary take-down agreement with the police.
One should set up red telephone lines between the national cybercrime units so when in the case of real danger and real illegal content one can intervene swiftly. With the present technology that could be done immediately.
Finland has also a system that is blocking so called childporn sites at the ISP level. Instead of taking the police at their word, someone tested the sites and published his report. His sites was blocked for it and called a childporn portal by the police. There is an investigation going on against him but he hasn't been heard yet. It shows that such a listing would need some democratic oversight if it is going to work and be accepted.
"Being presented as an administrator of an illegal child porn portal and as someone who is distributing child porn images from a web site is one of the most offending things I can imagine. Seriously speaking, people have been killed and murders have been attempted for mere suspicion of pedophilia, so these unfounded accusations could end up having severe consequences for me! Due to grave seriousness of these accusations, and the fact that police authority has been used to present these views to thousands of people who try to visit my site, I think it fits the definition of "aggravated defamation" as defined in the penal code of Finland" source So would he be blocked by the Belgian filters to come ?
and also in Finland there is mission creep
"One newspaper quoted the head of Ministry of Social Affairs and Health claiming that the censorship system is already used to block access to money laundering sites in addition to child porn. The law only permits censoring of child porn and the police wants to give an impression that they're only censoring material that the law permits them to. However, when asked directly if they're censoring money laundering sites, there's no answer at all. Either they're hiding something, or they're just too indifferent to answer the question" same source
and proof that the definition of childporn is used to block any access to any sites with links to sex with people under the national accepted age is here for Finland
"Answer: Notions of what is considered child porn differ. Because the age of consent in Finland [ed.note: for porn] is 18 years, the blocking measures can also include pages in which there are exclusively people who have passed the puberty. Additionally the blocking measures are also targeted towards sites which contain a functioning link to a page that contains child pornography. The blocklist contains only a fraction of all the pornography on the Internet anyway." same source
The list can be checked here, but a year later about half of it isn't functional or isn't used anymore. So on 700 sites only half of it is really worth longtime blocking. If you read the list you will see that there are a lot of sites that seem to be just pornsites (or not at all) - maybe infected with underage links of pix. It is normal that the webadministrator hasn't renewed his research as the police is still investigating him.
and how effective is that list
"By February 19, a group of Finns had gone through Nikki's list of 1047 censored websites and published their research, according to which nine of the sites contained child pornography, nine were unrelated to pornography, 28 had content hard to categorize as legal or illegal, 46 were (legal) child modeling sites and 879 contained only legal pornography."
Is that what will happen if a Belgian will investigate the list of blocked sites ? Freedom of speech online will be diminished once again.