[LINK] ISP filtering a pipe dream: Telstra
rene
rene.lk at libertus.net
Mon Dec 8 16:11:36 AEDT 2008
On Mon, 08 Dec 2008 14:32:21 +1100, Rick Welykochy wrote:
> Bernard Robertson-Dunn wrote:
>
>> The trial will test against ACMA's blacklist that currently contains
>> 1300 URLs and may expand to approximately 10,000 links.
>>
>> The list mainly contains web pages of child sexual abuse web sites.
>>
> So why aren't these *blatant* child abuse sites being tracked,
> investigated and charges laid?
The entire situation is complex.
First, it is Conroy who has claimed that the ACMA blacklist contains "1300
URLs" and that they are "mostly child pornography". Whether or not that is
the number and what the majority of URLs on ACMA's blacklist actually
contain is imo questionable/doubtful:
How many web addresses (URLs) are on ACMA's blacklist?
http://libertus.net/censor/ispfiltering-au-govplan.html#s_21
Does ACMA's blacklist contain "mostly child pornography"?
http://libertus.net/censor/ispfiltering-au-govplan.html#s_22
Does the ACMA blacklist contain only "potential/prohibited content"?
http://libertus.net/censor/ispfiltering-au-govplan.html#s_25
Regardless of the actual number of URLs on ACMA's blacklist that are said
to be child sexual abuse web sites, the issue of whether they are 'being
tracked, investigated and charges laid' depends on where the sites are
hosted; what the law is in those countries; and whether LEAs in such
countries are adequately funded.
The IWF, for example, has long been claiming that some 50% of the URLs
(specific page or a domain) on its blacklist (which is says has between 800
and 1200 URLs at any given time) are hosted in the US. Various proponents
of ISP blocking, including the IWF, claim that US law enforcement agencies
do not do enough etc. However, if one researches history over the last
decade, one finds that the US FBI and US Customs have been at the forefront
of the fight against 'cp' on the Net since the mid 1990s, unlike most other
countries, including AU - so one may question claims that US LEAs ignore
reports of 'cp'. As the recent Wikipedia incident makes clear, there is
material on the IWF list that does not meet the definition of 'cp' under US
law nor, imo, under AU law. There is very likely other material on IWF's
and ACMA's blacklist that is not illegal in the US, e.g. images of persons
who are in fact 18 years of age, but 'look like' they are under 18.
Similarly in some countries, and also some States of AU, the 'looks
like'/'appears to be' under age is 16 not 18.
I doubt however that that accounts for all of the URLs on blacklists. For
*at least* the last 5 years, an organisation known as the "Russian Business
Network" has existed and been alleged to be the source of hosting of the
majority of spammer, phishing etc scams and 'cp' material. This group would
certainly one of the ones that IWF has referred to (without naming them)
when saying that 'cp' sites hop hosting servers very frequently and that
71% of the (2755) domains they knew about during 2007 were live for less
than 50 days. One may wonder whether such organised crime groups monitor
what is blocked by ISPs in the UK, EU, etc, and on discovering their latest
domain has been added to a blacklist, deletes the evidence from the host
server and moves on. IWF says blocking is intended to "disrupt" these
sites' activities and prevent "inadvertent" access. One may wonder whether
it also disrupts the attempts of LEAs to identify and catch these criminals
and their customers. One may also wonder whether as soon as they move a
site, they send out another bunch of spam, and people inadvertently click
on the links in such spam long before the new site gets added to a blocking
blacklist.
Whatever the number of 'cp' websites, all indications are that the number
is a drop in the ocean in comparison to the use of non-Web Protocols to
distribute/access child sexual abuse material. Recent statistics are here:
Recent (2007-2008) Statistics
http://libertus.net/censor/resources/statistics-laundering.html#other
It seems likely that many people incorrectly assume the bulk child sexual
abuse material is distributed via web sites due to AU media mis-reporting.
For examples of such mis-reporting see:
Media Misreporting about Web Sites and Police Operations
http://libertus.net/censor/resources/statistics-laundering.html#notweb
In summary, after a significant amount of research since Jan this year,
I've concluded that the Labor government's web site 'blocking' plan is the
equivalent of placing road blocks at street intersections which currently
have traffic lights for the purpose of preventing transportation of illegal
drugs.
Putting aside all the issues about 'censorship', 'freedom to read', 'speed
loss' and everything else, what annoys me the most about AU govt plan is
that it is completely and utterly useless in terms of effectively
addressing the problem of child sexual abuse and distribution of images of
such crimes. Instead it directs a significant amount of taxpayer funding to
putting in place circumventable 'road blocks' that would be much more
usefully and effectively spent on increased funding of LEAs' specialist
units directed to catching people who abuse children and distribute
pictures of their crimes via use of Internet technologies.
Irene
More information about the Link
mailing list