> this kind of content isn't just laying around on publicly accessible websites anyway.
You're right about that. There was a study of Denmark and Sweden's child porn blacklist a while ago. It found that of 167 listed sites, only 3 actually contained child porn -- and those 3 were all taken down as soon as the researchers contacted their hosting providers. http://boingboing.net/2010/09/30/only-17-of-sites-blo.html On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 5:23 PM, Fred Wenzel <[email protected]> wrote: > I concur that the underlying government intent is usually the ability to > filter "unwanted" content on a general level, rather than the red herring > of child porn. This has been evidenced by all countries that have so far > implemented Internet content filters. > > From what I read on the topic over the years (Germany almost implemented > such a generic Internet filter infrastructure a few years ago, there were a > lot of articles about it), this kind of content isn't just laying around on > publicly accessible websites anyway. The kind of people who engage in this > kind of activity know full well that it is highly illegal and don't just > register a domain named illegal-porn dot com on GoDaddy and throw some pics > up there. > > It is therefore a valid question of yours to ask, if this kind of thing is > unfit for the purpose it supposedly serves, which real purpose might be > intended behind it? > > > > On Thu Dec 11 12:56:05 2014, [email protected] wrote: > >> The definition of child pornography varies by jurisdiction. Many popular >> sites such as 4chan allow material that would be filtered as child porn in >> the UK (i.e., drawings and text). Google and Bing are already censoring >> this stuff in their search engine globally despite its legality in the US. >> Also, any list of child porn sites would have to be curated by the >> government and kept secret for obvious reasons. So we're potentially >> dealing with a secret blacklist of sometimes legal material. >> >> No one is going to opt-out, either. I already feel like a criminal >> opting-out of the huge "invalid SSL certificate" warnings, let alone >> something billed as a child porn filter. >> >> And if we're going to filter "illegal" websites, child porn is just the >> start. Why not terrorist sites? Why not piracy? Almost every country with a >> child porn filter has followed the same path. >> >> On Thursday, December 11, 2014 3:14:38 PM UTC-4, Majken Connor wrote: >> >>> I am totally not informed on this, so please keep that in mind. >>> >>> We already include a similar form of censorship in the browser with our >>> security settings around malicious sites. I can imagine that a feature >>> that >>> works the same way would be the way to go if this were in fact in the >>> works. >>> >>> a) Most users would rather not see child porn (especially since it's >>> illegal), so providing warnings the same way we do for malicious sites >>> would be useful to many users >>> b) You still have the option to continue to a malicious site >>> c) You can turn the feature off >>> >>> So I will keep an open mind, but I would also definitely like to hear the >>> context behind these statements. >>> >>> On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 8:58 AM, Kate Black < >>> [email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>> The prime minister of the UK just said that Mozilla is considering >>>> implementing built-in Internet filters in Firefox. >>>> >>>> "Microsoft, Google and Mozilla were "working together to look at" having >>>> "built-in restrictions to block access" to child abuse material - Mr >>>> Cameron said this would be a "game changer"" >>>> http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-30426164 >>>> >>>> "Microsoft, Google and Mozilla will also announce plans to directly >>>> block >>>> people from accessing websites which are hosting child pornography from >>>> Internet browsers." >>>> >>>> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/ >>>> 11286683/Paedophiles-have-nowhere-to-hide-as-spies-and- >>>> police-target-dark-web.html >>>> >>>> If this is a lie, which I seriously hope, Mozilla needs to issue a >>>> statement immediately denying that they would even consider building >>>> censorship lists into their browser. Surely a company "dedicated to an >>>> open >>>> Internet" cannot ignore this kind of accusation from the leader of a >>>> country. >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> governance mailing list >>>> [email protected] >>>> https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance >>>> >>>> >> _______________________________________________ >> governance mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance >> > > > _______________________________________________ governance mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance
