the police have started
Peter McDermott
I've been busy for a few days and so may have missed it if this
issue has already been raised here.
>>From: Jim Dixon <j...@vbc.net>
>>Date: Wed, 14 Aug 1996 16:16:02 gmt
>>To: euro-cu...@vbc.net
>>Cc:
>>Subject: police censorship
>>
>>Like other UK ISPs, VBCnet today received a demand from the
>Metropolitan
>>Police that some 134 news groups be deleted from our news machines.
>>The letter makes it clear that this is only the beginning, that they
>>will be banning more groups and requiring ISPs to enforce their
>>dictats. We have with great reluctance complied with their demand.
>>
>>While we do not disagree that the articles in some of these groups are
>>often objectionable, we disagree in principle with this form of censorship.
>>
>>We urge all of you to make it clear to your customers why these news
>>groups have been withdrawn and we urge you to contact your MPs and
>>the media about this arbitrary action by the police. If there is no
>>protest, if a precedent is established, the UK Internet is going to
>>fall under the control of the Clubs and Vice Unit at Charing Cross
>>Police Station.
>>
>>VBCnet is setting up a Web page to protest this action. It should be
>>available at
>> http://www.uk.vbc.net/censorship
>>by the end of the day. We will add pointers to other protesting Web
>>pages -- well, the ones that are calm and reasonable. ;-)
>>
>>--
>>Jim Dixon VBCnet GB Ltd +44 117 929 1316 fax +44 117 927 2015
>>http://www.uk.vbc.net VBCnet West +1 408 971 2682 fax +1 408 971 2684
>>
>>---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>Date: 9th August 1996
>>
>>METROPOLITAN POLICE SERVICE
>>
>>Clubs and Vice Unit
>>Charing Cross Police Station
>>Agar Street
>>London WC2N 4JP
>>
>>Telephone: 0171 321 7752
>>Facsimile: 0171 321 7762
>>
>>To: All Internet Service Providers
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>Dear Sir / Madam
>>
>>Pornographic Material on the Internet
>>
>>Further to the seminar held at New Scotland Yard on 2nd August I enclose,
>>as promised by Superintendent Mike Hoskins, a list of those Newsgroups
>>which we believe contain pornographic material.
>>
>>We have attempted to confirm that the Newsgroups listed currently contain
>>this offensive material but as you will be only too aware the content is
>>continually changing and you will need to satisfy yourself about the
>>nature and content before taking any action. Furthermore, this list is
>>not exhaustive and we are looking to you to monitor your Newsgroups
>>identifying and taking necessary action against those others found to
>>contain such material. As you will be aware the publication of obscene
>>articles is an offence.
>>
>>This list is only the starting point and we hope, with the co-operation
>>and assistance of the industry and your trade organisations, to be moving
>>quickly towards the eradication of this type of Newsgroup from the
>>Internet. At the seminar we debated the means of maintaining an up to
>>date list and you will recall that ISPA volunteered to pool information
>>and assist in this initiative. However, we are very anxious that all
>>service providers should be taking positive action now, whether or not
>>they are members of a trade association.
>>
>>We trust that with your co-operation and self regulation it will not be
>>necessary for us to move to an enforcement policy.
>>
>>Yours Faithfully
>>
>>
>>Stephen French
>>Chief Inspector
>>
>>
>>List
>>alt.binaries.pictures.boys
>>alt.binaries.pictures.child.erotica.female
>>alt.binaries.pictures.child.erotica.male
>>alt.binaries.pictures.children
>>alt.binaries.pictures.erotic.children
>>alt.binaries.pictures.erotica child
>>alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.child.female
>>alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.child.male
>>alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.children
>>alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.lolita
>>alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.pre-teen
>>alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.teen.fuck
>>alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.young
>>alt.binaries.pictures.lolita.fucking
>>alt.binaries.pictures.lolita.misc
>>alt.sex.boys
>>alt.sex.children
>>alt.sex.fetish.tinygirls
>>alt.sex.girls
>>alt.sex.incest
>>alt.sex.intergen
>>alt.sex.pedophile.mike-labbe
>>alt.sex.pedophilia.
>>alt.sex.pedophilia.boys
>>alt.sex.pedophilia.girls
>>alt.sex.pedophilia.swaps
>>alt.sex.pedophilia.pictures
>>alt.sex.pre-teens
>>alt.sex.teens
>>alt.sex.weight-gain 0000000928 0000000418 y
>>alt.fan.cock-sucking 0000001482 0000001311 y
>>alt.binaries.pictures.voyeurism 0000005117 0000004495
>>alt.binaries.pictures.lolita.fucking 0000001097 00000861 y
>>alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.voyeurism 0000011396 0000010495 y
>>alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.young 0000006499 0000005208 y
>>alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.uniform 0000001274 0000001110 y
>>alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.urine 0000005542 0000004911 y
>>alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.teen.fuck 0000003398 0000003162 y
>>alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.uncut 0000002220 0000001970 y
>>alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.spanking 0000005484 0000004927 y
>>alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.teen.female.masturbation 0000003770
>>0000003085 y
>>alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.pornstars 0000010919 0000010192 y
>>alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.pre-teen 0000004945 0000004100 y
>>alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.oral 0000013599 0000012668 y
>>alt.binaries.fetish.scat 0000000958 0000000842 y
>>alt.binaries.pictures.erotic.anime 0000001886 0000001724 y
>>alt.binaries.pictures.erotic.centerfolds 0000015743 0000014219 y
>>alt.binaries.pictures.erotic.senior-citizens 0000004426 0000003944 y
>>alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.animals 0000001511 0000001403 y
>>alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.art.pin-up 0000003274 0000002916 y
>>alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.breasts.small 0000004812 0000004400 y
>>alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.butts 0000010763 0000010048 y
>>alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.cheerleaders 0000010297 0000009498 y
>>alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.disney 0000001471 0000001281 y
>>alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.fetish.feet 0000008454 0000007840 y
>>alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.fetish.hair 0000003162 0000002804 y
>>alt.binaries.pictures.erotic.senior-citizens 0000004042 0000003695 y
>>alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.teen 0000005349 0000005098 y
>>alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.male.anal 0000004414 0000004164 y
>>alt.sex.pedophile.mike-labbe 0000001015 0000000752 y
>>alt.sex.masturbation 0000004038 0000002204 y
>>alt.sex.fetish.tickling 0000014620 0000011227 y
>>alt.sex.fetish.waifs 0000007005 0000005391 y
>>alt.sex.fetish.watersports 0000015798 0000012599 y
>>alt.sex.fetish.wrestling 0000008522 0000006281 y
>>alt.sex.first-time 0000007333 0000005072 y
>>alt.sex.fetish.girl.watchers 0000006418 0000003795 y
>>alt.sex.homosexual 0000025299 0000020411 y
>>alt.sex.incest 0000016099 0000009889 y
>>alt.sex.intergen 0000012715 0000010756 y
>>alt.sex.jp 0000003101 0000002194 y
>>alt.sex.magazines 0000016261 0000012956 y
>>alt.sex.masturbation 0000066212 0000058405 y
>>alt.sex.movies 0000090182 0000084718 y
>>alt.sex.necrophilia 0000003469 0000002177 y
>>alt.sex.pedophilia 0000040531 0000026257 y
>>alt.sex.pictures 0000120660 0000097707 y
>>alt.sex.pictures.female 0000091859 0000067880 y
>>alt.sex.pictures.male 0000040412 0000032695 y
>>alt.sex.services 0000038170 0000032355 y
>>alt.sex.spam 0000000717 0000000283 y
>>alt.sex.spanking 0000043401 0000037424 y
>>alt.sex.stories 0000130604 0000115635 y
>>alt.sex.strip-clubs 0000035850 0000030078 y
>>alt.magazines.pornographic 0000005618 0000003705 y alt.magick.sex
>>0000007227 0000006197 y
>>alt.personals.spanking.punishment 0000006983 0000005028 y
>>alt.sex. 0000318682 0000299098
>>alt.sex.anal 0000028283 0000020514 y
>>alt.sex.bestiality 0000039473 0000035720 y
>>alt.sex.bondage 0000175209 0000162338 y
>>alt.sex.breast 0000035836 0000029671 y
>>alt.sex.enemas 0000009235 0000007242 y
>>alt.sex.exhibitionism 0000046981 0000035201 y
>>alt.sex.fat 0000015956 0000013563 y
>>alt.sex.fetish.diapers 0000012816 0000010872 y
>>alt.sex.fetish.fa 0000015012 0000010470 y
>>alt.sex.fetish.feet 0000025850 0000022025 y
>>alt.sex.fetish.hair 0000011779 0000010356 y
>>alt.sex.fetish.orientals 0000047159 0000044315 y
>>alt.binaries.multimedia.erotica 0000094765 0000092313
>>alt.binaries.pictures.boys 0000025827 0000025062 y
>
>>alt.binaries.pictures.children 0000009753 0000009586 y
>>alt.binaries.pictures.erotica 0000387356 0000382534 y
>>alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.amateur.d 0000012832 0000012505 y
>>alt.binaries.pictures.amateur.female 0000104107 0000100909 y
>>alt.binaries.pictures.amateur.male 0000020070 0000019186 y
>>alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.anime 0000031144 0000030438 y
>>alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.bestiality 0000022378 0000021836 y
>>alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.blondes 0000061623 0000059763 y
>>alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.bondage 0000060612 0000058636 y
>>alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.cartoons 0000023721 0000023233 y
>>alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.female 00000155979 0000152810 y
>>alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.furry 0000007251 0000007021 y
>>alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.gaymen 0000047272 0000045207 y
>>alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.male 0000137705 0000135723 y
>>alt.binaries.pictures.erotica. orientals 0000096484 0000094139 y
>>alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.pregnant 0000000038 0000000039 m
>>alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.teen 0000048099 0000046561 y
>>alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.teen.d 0000005063 0000004755 y
>>alt.binaries.pictures.girlfriend 0000029946 0000029100 y
>>alt.binaries.pictures.girlfriends 0000055197 0000053838 y
>>alt.binaries.pictures.girl 0000022149 0000021105 y
>>alt.binaries.pictures.horny.nurses 0000001839 0000001704 y
>>alt.binaries.pictures.pictures.nudism 0000032432 0000031050 y
>>alt.binaries.pictures.tasteless 0000036867 0000036442 y
>>alt.homosexual 0000080096 0000072533 y
>>alt.sex.swingers 0000027930 0000020021 y
>>alt.sex.telephone 0000027530 0000021705 y
>>alt.sex.trans 0000015985 0000011104 y
>>alt.sex.wanted 0000082382 0000071809 y
>>alt.sex.watersports 0000005838 0000003666 y
>>alt.sex.bestiality.pictures 0000000791 0000000300 y
>>alt.sex.children 0000001311 0000000690 y
>>alt.sex.cu-seeme 0000001049 0000000273 y
>>alt.sex.fetish.scat 0000002756 0000001143 y
>>alt.sex.fetish.tinygirls 0000003322 0000001229 y
>>alt.sex.fetish.wet-and-messy 0000003209 0000001432 y
>>alt.sex.oral 0000007820 0000003177 y
>>alt.sex.orgy 0000004025 0000001330 y
>>alt.sex.pedophilia.girls 0000001130 0000000267 y
>>alt.sex.pedophilia.pictures 0000001138 0000000276 y
>>alt.sex.pictures.d 0000005114 0000002086 y
>>alt.sex.stories.gay 0000002918 0000000997 y
>>alt.sex.stories.tg 0000001831 0000001078 y
>>alt.sex.super-size 0000001987 0000000711 y
>>alt.sex.tasteless 0000001003 0000000202 y
>>alt.sex.teens 0000002394 0000000540 y
>>alt.sex.video-swap 0000001363 0000000489 y
>>alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.black.male 0000012581 0000012054 y
>>alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.children 0000005812 0000005117 y
>>alt.sex.sm.fig 0000006729 0000004915 y
>>
>>
>
Malcolm McMahon
>I've been busy for a few days and so may have missed it if this
>issue has already been raised here.
>
>>>From: Jim Dixon <j...@vbc.net>
>>>Date: Wed, 14 Aug 1996 16:16:02 gmt
>>>To: euro-cu...@vbc.net
>>>Cc:
>>>Subject: police censorship
>>>
>>>Like other UK ISPs, VBCnet today received a demand from the
>>Metropolitan
>>>Police that some 134 news groups be deleted from our news machines.
>>>The letter makes it clear that this is only the beginning, that they
>>>will be banning more groups and requiring ISPs to enforce their
>>>dictats. We have with great reluctance complied with their demand.
>>>
>>>While we do not disagree that the articles in some of these groups are
>>>often objectionable, we disagree in principle with this form of censorship.
>>>
>>>We urge all of you to make it clear to your customers why these news
>>>groups have been withdrawn and we urge you to contact your MPs and
>>>the media about this arbitrary action by the police. If there is no
>>>protest, if a precedent is established, the UK Internet is going to
>>>fall under the control of the Clubs and Vice Unit at Charing Cross
>>>Police Station.
>>>
This seems an extremely cowardly response to what is essentially a
piece of bluff and bluster.
---------------------------------+----------------------------------
I was born weird: This terrible | Like Pavlov's dogs we are trained
compulsion to behave normally is | to salivate at the sound of the
the result of childhood trauma. | liberty bell.
---------------------------------+----------------------------------
Malcolm
Phil Payne
In article <32144099...@news.demon.co.uk>
mal...@pigsty.demon.co.uk "Malcolm McMahon" writes:
> Not his problem is it? In fact if ISPs are perpetually vulnerable to
> prosecution and he gets to decide where the axe will fall he can do
> pretty much what he likes, can't he? And if the ISPs go out of
> business that solves his problem.
Hmm. What's the next move - alt.showbiz.gossip for libel,
alt.religion.scientology for almost anything, rec.tech.autos because of the
discussion about odometer tampering?
--
Phil Payne (ph...@sievers.com, despite what Demon's bounces say.)
Phone: +44 385302803 Fax: +44 1536723021 CIS: 100012,1660
(c) Copyright Phil Payne/Sievers Consulting 1996
Ian Sharrock
Could Malcolm, Cliff, Clive F. or Giles give some form of 'official'
response to this issue.
I understand the general intention to press for common carrier status,
but what is Demon's response to this very specific, ahem, "request".
If there is no comment at present, can we have a date when Demon's
position *on this specific request from the Met* will be publicly
announced?
What progress, if any, came from the Home Office meeting held a few
months ago (details of which are posted on Clive Feather's home pages,
which I've naturally lost the URL for)? Does the Met's request tie in
with this at all?
<Fx: places tongue firmly in cheek> Should this restriction be enforced,
will a full newsfeed be available from news.demon.nl, which I assume is
outside the reach of UK law?
Ian
--
Ian Sharrock
Principle at stake; content is irrelevant.
Malcolm Muir
Ian Sharrock (i...@bertie.demon.co.uk) wrote:
> Could Malcolm, Cliff, Clive F. or Giles give some form of 'official'
> response to this issue.
In due course, yes.
Currently the letter is being considered and advice being taken.
--
Malcolm S. Muir Demon Internet Ltd.
Sunderland 322 Regents Park Road
England London N3 2QQ
Phil Payne
In article <v03007800ae38a51f0f40@[158.152.22.244]>
pe...@petermc.demon.co.uk "Peter McDermott" writes:
> >>Date: 9th August 1996
> >>
> >>METROPOLITAN POLICE SERVICE
> >>
> >>Clubs and Vice Unit
> >>Charing Cross Police Station
> >>Agar Street
> >>London WC2N 4JP
> >>
> >>Telephone: 0171 321 7752
> >>Facsimile: 0171 321 7762
> >>
> >>To: All Internet Service Providers
[snipped]
> >>This list is only the starting point and we hope, with the co-operation
> >>and assistance of the industry and your trade organisations, to be moving
> >>quickly towards the eradication of this type of Newsgroup from the
> >>Internet.
I feel the man does not understand the basic principles of the Internet.
The only way for an ISP to be safe, according to the good inspector, is
for it to carry only newsgroups it moderates itself. What's to stop
anyone, anywhere in the world, whacking their porn in any newsgroup they
choose? Is their act now Demon's responsibility?
David G. Bell
It should be easy enough to check whether or not the Police Officer the
letter is attributed to actually exists.
What I find a little odd is that the list of newsgroups starts out with
just the newsgroup names, mostly pedophile-associated, and then switches
to a less well sorted list of names and message numbers, possibly taken
un-processed from a configuration file.
I wonder if something has been tacked on by another party.
This ISPA the letter refers to -- is Demon a member? I suspect not, in
which case Demon may not have received a similar letter. The reference
to the meeting suggests that we're also seeing the letter badly out of
context, since it looks like a list intended to clarify something said
at the meeting.
Anyway, if the entire letter is genuine, the shift in format makes it
look much more a product of ignorance, rather than something produced by
somebody who knows how the Internet works.
In any event, the first set of newsgroup names do appear to indicate
they contain blatantly illegal material, and I'm not sure, if I were
newsmaster on an ISP, that I would want to risk carrying them.
--
David G. Bell -- Farmer, SF Fan, Filker, Furry, and Punslinger..
Malcolm McMahon
On Fri, 16 Aug 96 12:29:11 GMT, Phil Payne <Ph...@sievers.com> wrote:
>In article <32144099...@news.demon.co.uk>
> mal...@pigsty.demon.co.uk "Malcolm McMahon" writes:
>
>> Not his problem is it? In fact if ISPs are perpetually vulnerable to
>> prosecution and he gets to decide where the axe will fall he can do
>> pretty much what he likes, can't he? And if the ISPs go out of
>> business that solves his problem.
>
>Hmm. What's the next move - alt.showbiz.gossip for libel,
>alt.religion.scientology for almost anything, rec.tech.autos because of the
>discussion about odometer tampering?
>
Probably uk.politics.* - there's _lot's_ of libel there.
Malcolm McMahon
On 16 Aug 96 13:42:50 GMT, mal...@muir-et2.staff.demon.net (Malcolm
Muir) wrote:
>Ian Sharrock (i...@bertie.demon.co.uk) wrote:
>> Could Malcolm, Cliff, Clive F. or Giles give some form of 'official'
>> response to this issue.
>
>In due course, yes.
>
>Currently the letter is being considered and advice being taken.
>
Well, if you want _my_ advice I think ISPs had better try to put
together a common front against this stuff because I'm guessing that
if some hang tough and some cave in there will be raids on some of the
smaller, and more corperately vulnerable providers. The kind of thing
the Bavarians did. The Bavarian incident was, of course, what gave
them the idea they could get away with this stuff.
This looks like the latest shot in a war many of us have been
expecting for years.
John Winters
In article <84021728...@office.demon.net>, <cl...@demon.net> wrote:
>In article <TpCRSDA2...@bertie.demon.co.uk>,
>Ian Sharrock <i...@bertie.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> Could Malcolm, Cliff, Clive F. or Giles give some form of 'official'
>> response to this issue.
>
>the DTI, and the Metropolitan Police in about two weeks time. I do *not*
>promise to make a report to this newsgroup about it.
Is that an official not promise, or merely a personal non-undertaking?
John
--
John Winters. Wallingford, Oxon, England.
cl...@demon.net
In article <TpCRSDA2...@bertie.demon.co.uk>,
Ian Sharrock <i...@bertie.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Could Malcolm, Cliff, Clive F. or Giles give some form of 'official'
> response to this issue.
We are considering our position. There is a meeting arranged between Demon,
the DTI, and the Metropolitan Police in about two weeks time. I do *not*
promise to make a report to this newsgroup about it.
> What progress, if any, came from the Home Office meeting held a few
> months ago (details of which are posted on Clive Feather's home pages,
> which I've naturally lost the URL for)?
<http://www.gold.net/users/cdwf/>
Nick Sellors
>>>As you will be aware the publication of obscene
>>>articles is an offence.
So the coppers are claiming that Demon and the other ISPs are
publishers then ? Surely the person who published the material is
the one who posted it ?
>>>This list is only the starting point
Oh that's just great, that is. What next ? Arrest people for
swearing on Usenet ?
--
Nick Sellors http://www.cheese.org/~nicks/
My opinions are mine and mine alone and I do not speak
for anyone else. All rights reserved.
Ian Sharrock
In article <84021728...@office.demon.net>, cl...@demon.net writes
>In article <TpCRSDA2...@bertie.demon.co.uk>,
>Ian Sharrock <i...@bertie.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> Could Malcolm, Cliff, Clive F. or Giles give some form of 'official'
>> response to this issue.
>
>We are considering our position. There is a meeting arranged between Demon,
>the DTI, and the Metropolitan Police in about two weeks time. I do *not*
>promise to make a report to this newsgroup about it.
Thanks for responding so quickly.
Can you at least report back how you diplomatically told the DTI and the
police that they're clueless :-)
Can we assume that any change to Demon's service (in terms of
monitoring, policy on newsgroups or whatever) *will* be reported back
in an appropriate manner?
Ian
--
Ian Sharrock
John Hall
In article <840198...@zhochaka.demon.co.uk>, "David G. Bell"
<db...@zhochaka.demon.co.uk> writes
>It should be easy enough to check whether or not the Police Officer the
>letter is attributed to actually exists.
He exists, all right. He was interviewed on "Today" on Radio 4 this
morning. I wonder whether he acted on his own initiative or with Home
Office backing.
<snip>
>
>This ISPA the letter refers to -- is Demon a member? I suspect not, in
>which case Demon may not have received a similar letter.
Demon, together with most of the bigger UK ISPs, is a member (IIRC).
> The reference
>to the meeting suggests that we're also seeing the letter badly out of
>context, since it looks like a list intended to clarify something said
>at the meeting.
Or possibly someone blundering in without regard to how the Home Office
wants to handle things.
--
"Do you have cornflakes in America?"
"Well, actually, they're American."
"So what brings you to Britain then if you have cornflakes already?"
Bill Bryson: "Notes from a Small Island"
Mark Lowes
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On Sat, 17 Aug 1996 15:22:52 +0100, in <9T+w4wA8...@jhall.demon.co.uk>
John Hall <jo...@jhall.demon.co.uk> wrote.....
[...]
>He exists, all right. He was interviewed on "Today" on Radio 4 this
>morning. I wonder whether he acted on his own initiative or with Home
>Office backing.
Personally i reckon it's with the unofficial nod of whichever chinless
wonder is in the Home office these days that way he can deny responsibility
if he needs to.
Mark
- --
Mark <ham...@lspace.org> http://www.flyhmstr.demon.co.uk/
The Elendor MUSH Shire Home Page http://www.flyhmstr.demon.co.uk/shire/
The Flying Hamster Listserver : list...@flyhmstr.demon.co.uk
I went to a general store. They wouldn't let me buy anything specifically.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2i
iQB1AwUBMhYnh3dEofm1SPhBAQEi4wL+MvLAa/au48o+g7DGcbSYyuh+wP8nrdz3
tXCoec4FYuBbhFUl7OeEW3DgpzpBMF4cfQ/EepWHlMQVa9WhYkxHNhWR0GIBwX+h
43XI3dJpT1QPuLYewddUxRs2q0w5DSUQ
=/B8Q
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Lilian J White
Look what cl...@demon.net wrote:
>In article <TpCRSDA2...@bertie.demon.co.uk>,
>Ian Sharrock <i...@bertie.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> Could Malcolm, Cliff, Clive F. or Giles give some form of 'official'
>> response to this issue.
>
>We are considering our position. There is a meeting arranged between Demon,
>the DTI, and the Metropolitan Police in about two weeks time. I do *not*
>promise to make a report to this newsgroup about it.
I for one will be glad to see the newsgroups go. I do not want to know
that I can access child pornography from my computer. Nor see the names
of these newsgroups as I scroll thru my list. Of course it is
censorship, but what is the alternative?
However, I must add that Demon can never hope to prevent porn (soft or
hard) from being posted to other newsgroups, or new newsgroups created
with names that will fool the police (eg: alt.pictures.nice, or
alt.pictures.clean which are made-up examples of deliberate covers for
porn groups.)
Someone once said that all censorship will do anyway is force this porn
back to where it came from - bulletin boards.
Let's also face facts: removal of these groups is coming whatever.
Either the police raid IPs that continue to supply them, or each IP in
turn agrees to remove them to prevent being charged.
What's also clear is that even if ALL British IPs get rid of offending
groups, they'll still be available in other countries. People will
naturally find a way round the problem, perhaps by getting their mates
in these countries to send the stuff via email!
To reiterate: I'll be glad if Demon decide to announce they are to
remove what are blatantly ILLEGAL groups. Soft porn for consenting
adults is one thing, but child porn, bestiality and so on are another.
If Demon try to "hold the fort" and continue to supply these groups in
the name of free speech, then they will be acting foolishly, IMO.
_ _ _
__( )____( )____( )__
(_ _) (_ _)
_) La(dy Lily!_) (_
(__ __)__ __(__ __)
(_) (_) (_)
http://www.crusher.demon.co.uk/
David G. Bell
In article <3215c501...@news.demon.co.uk>
jo...@pegase.demon.co.uk "John Wright" writes:
> >In any event, the first set of newsgroup names do appear to indicate
> >they contain blatantly illegal material, and I'm not sure, if I were
> >newsmaster on an ISP, that I would want to risk carrying them.
>
> Some of them perhaps.... but then again some of them might contain a *very*
> high proportion of images and discussion which are totally legal. It seems
> that the list has been written on the basis that if there is any
> possibility at all of child porn - the only area of obscenity where the
> law is at all clear - being present, then it goes on the list.
Yes, I had another look, and noticed the possibly-innocent
alt.binaries.pictures.children in amongst the blatantly paedophile
section that opens the list.
I'm just glad I'm not a chicken farmer, or I wouldn't dare put a picture
of a cock onto the Internet....
John Wright
On Fri, 16 Aug 96 12:33:33 GMT, David G. Bell wrote:
>It should be easy enough to check whether or not the Police Officer the
>letter is attributed to actually exists.
French was interviewed on the Radio 4 "Today" program this morning.
He made it clear then that *he* regards ISP's as responsible for *any*
material that people access through the internet. That is, if I get some
smutty pics. from an ftp site somewhere, then he regards demon as being
responsible. This seems to be an example of the police making up the law as
they go along....
>This ISPA the letter refers to -- is Demon a member? I suspect not, in
>which case Demon may not have received a similar letter. The reference
>to the meeting suggests that we're also seeing the letter badly out of
>context, since it looks like a list intended to clarify something said
>at the meeting.
Oddly enough, the membership list of ISPA includes Cityscape, but Demon
have made it clear in the past that they have no desire to be members. Try
http://www.ispa.org/ (I think, from memory).
>Anyway, if the entire letter is genuine, the shift in format makes it
>look much more a product of ignorance, rather than something produced by
>somebody who knows how the Internet works.
>
>In any event, the first set of newsgroup names do appear to indicate
>they contain blatantly illegal material, and I'm not sure, if I were
>newsmaster on an ISP, that I would want to risk carrying them.
Some of them perhaps.... but then again some of them might contain a *very*
high proportion of images and discussion which are totally legal. It seems
that the list has been written on the basis that if there is any
possibility at all of child porn - the only area of obscenity where the
law is at all clear - being present, then it goes on the list.
--
John Wright
Time is an illusion, lunchtime doubly so - Ix (Ford Prefect)
Fingerprint = D3 80 D9 38 F8 C9 D9 86 6B F1 DC F5 56 DF BC 82
Michael Ashton
>Currently the letter is being considered and advice being taken.
Go get 'em, Malc.
Mike, who thinks that an officer wasting public money on personal crusade
that the police neither have the legal responsibility or right to enact
constitutes `gross misconduct'
--
"Arousing me, now, with a sense of desire"
"Possessing my soul 'till my body's on fire"
Gary Cooper
In article <08171996...@flyhmstr.demon.co.uk>
Ma...@flyhmstr.demon.co.uk "Mark Lowes" writes:
>
> Personally i reckon it's with the unofficial nod of whichever chinless
> wonder is in the Home office these days that way he can deny responsibility
> if he needs to.
Given the *astoundingly* co-incidental appearance of an article
on this very subject in Pravda^H^H^H^H^H The Daily Telegraph,
last week, I think we might safely assume that the Government
(sic) has its hand firmly on Plod's strings.
And lest anyone accuse me of bias - no, I *don't* think
it'd be any better if that bastard with the red eyes was
in power.
Nor the boy Blair, for that matter.
--
Gary Cooper
Phil Payne
In article <Wwk1DiAX...@crusher.demon.co.uk>
li...@crusher.demon.co.uk "Lilian J White" writes:
> Let's also face facts: removal of these groups is coming whatever.
> Either the police raid IPs that continue to supply them, or each IP in
> turn agrees to remove them to prevent being charged.
In every jurisdiction around the world? I can define a Taiwanese news server
to my software as easily as I can define a UK server.
> To reiterate: I'll be glad if Demon decide to announce they are to
> remove what are blatantly ILLEGAL groups. Soft porn for consenting
> adults is one thing, but child porn, bestiality and so on are another.
What makes a group "blatantly ILLEGAL"? Its name? One illegal post a year?
One a month? One a day? Who is to monitor for these posts - and who is to
judge each one for legality? Remember the Lady Chatterley trial?
It can take considerable adroitness to recover all of the parts of a large
posting to one of the binaries groups - some have permanently missing parts,
others UNZIP passwords that don't work, etc. I'm absolutely certain that some
of these unrecoverable binaries are deliberate.
I think it could be quite hard to prove that all of this stuff, or even a
majority, is in fact illegal. IMO - HM Fuzz are trying it on.
And I believe the good residents of Cockermouth _still_ can't register their
true addresses on AOL.
Nick Reid
Ian Sharrock wrote:
> <Fx: places tongue firmly in cheek> Should this restriction be
> enforced, will a full newsfeed be available from news.demon.nl,
> which I assume is outside the reach of UK law?
Demon.co.uk hosts cannot access news.demon.nl (nor vice versa), an
established company policy - based soley on bandwidth and other
technical considerations - which is extremely unlikely to be
changed on the basis of any other (e.g. socio-political) factors.
News.demon.nl is indeed "outside the reach" of UK law, but comes under
Dutch law (which you may read about at http://www.xs4all.nl/~meldpunt).
--
Peter Ceresole
In article <9T+w4wA8...@jhall.demon.co.uk>,
John Hall <jo...@jhall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>This ISPA the letter refers to -- is Demon a member? I suspect not, in
>>which case Demon may not have received a similar letter.
>
>Demon, together with most of the bigger UK ISPs, is a member (IIRC).
Miss-typed? "Is *not* a member", is correct.
--
Peter
David Hough
In article <Wwk1DiAX...@crusher.demon.co.uk>
Lilian J White <li...@crusher.demon.co.uk> writes:
> I for one will be glad to see the newsgroups go. I do not want to know
> that I can access child pornography from my computer. Nor see the names
> of these newsgroups as I scroll thru my list. Of course it is
> censorship, but what is the alternative?
>
> However, I must add that Demon can never hope to prevent porn (soft or
> hard) from being posted to other newsgroups, or new newsgroups created
> with names that will fool the police (eg: alt.pictures.nice, or
> alt.pictures.clean which are made-up examples of deliberate covers for
> porn groups.)
>
Which is why it is better to leave the stuff where it is. At least if
you try to download something from an alt.sex.* newsgroup you know
vaguely what to expect.
> Let's also face facts: removal of these groups is coming whatever.
> Either the police raid IPs that continue to supply them, or each IP in
> turn agrees to remove them to prevent being charged.
>
Far better if the police make the effort to investigate the posters of
the material than hassle the ISPs. After all, as mentioned above,
removing access to the signposted groups will only cause the posters to
move elsewhere, which doesn't solve the problem at all.
It also doesn't help that the police list appears to be a quick grep of
alt.* looking for certain words, regardless of actual content of the
groups.
> To reiterate: I'll be glad if Demon decide to announce they are to
> remove what are blatantly ILLEGAL groups. Soft porn for consenting
> adults is one thing, but child porn, bestiality and so on are another.
>
If you notice, very few of the groups under threat are related to child
porn, hence demonstrating that the current police approach is poorly
thought out.
> If Demon try to "hold the fort" and continue to supply these groups in
> the name of free speech, then they will be acting foolishly, IMO.
>
I would like them to make a stand, if only to get the police to do their
job properly and target the posters of dodgy material.
Dave
--
da...@llondel.demon.co.uk
Any advice above is worth what I paid for it.
Mark Lowes
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On Sat, 17 Aug 1996 13:32:21 GMT, in <3215c501...@news.demon.co.uk>
jo...@pegase.demon.co.uk (John Wright) wrote.....
>On Fri, 16 Aug 96 12:33:33 GMT, David G. Bell wrote:
>>It should be easy enough to check whether or not the Police Officer the
>>letter is attributed to actually exists.
>
>French was interviewed on the Radio 4 "Today" program this morning.
>He made it clear then that *he* regards ISP's as responsible for *any*
>material that people access through the internet. That is, if I get some
>smutty pics. from an ftp site somewhere, then he regards demon as being
>responsible. This seems to be an example of the police making up the law as
>they go along....
Does he really understand how the net works, somehow i don't think so. The
only way Demon could police this would be to block all access outside the
demon network and the (probably for a fee) check out sites which people
wished to visit and allow access to that site once vetted. Utterly
impractical and it would bugger up any form of comerical use of the net.
How would they handle the situation of some fuckwit posting a binary to
alt.cuddles? Ban that group as well for being a front for illegal acts.
Can we have a collection of clues for these cops before things get out of
hand?
Mark
- --
Mark <ham...@lspace.org> http://www.flyhmstr.demon.co.uk/
The Elendor MUSH Shire Home Page http://www.flyhmstr.demon.co.uk/shire/
The Flying Hamster Listserver : list...@flyhmstr.demon.co.uk
Give a sceptic an inch and he'll measure it.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2i
iQB1AwUBMheCZ3dEofm1SPhBAQGE9AL6A0z+xmg//xwCr7EH3iXi6USwD1pvGBSe
AnqW66VEljzOq/HZ6pPr4CQUlAnjxo9ocKGHD3KMvmW+xi+Naz/yXN/skEIctJbB
whhGEwC/VfXJfDC8RZnqYz1uA2+cVQOt
=Z1fv
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Malcolm McMahon
>To reiterate: I'll be glad if Demon decide to announce they are to
>remove what are blatantly ILLEGAL groups. Soft porn for consenting
>adults is one thing, but child porn, bestiality and so on are another.
>
Of the dozens of groups listed perhaps three or four might actually be
expected to material which is actually illegal. Most of the groups
are, in fact, purely discussion groups which rarely or never contain
binaries which are generally against the charter of all groups but
alt.binaries.*
If I thought, for one moment, that censorship might save one child
from molestation I might be somewhat sympathetic. The reality is that,
for the evil people that take these pictures, censorship is their
life's blood. Censorship is their equivalent of copyright protection.
Do you imagine these people are pleased when they see pictures they've
taken at considerable risk to themselves being distributed for _free_?
The police should concentrate on obtaining copies of as many of these
pictures as possible and tracking down the people who took them and
took part in them. Censorship actually makes that more difficult.
As to the consumers of such material - well I assume that for every
peodophile that molests children there are probably several who are
restrained by either morality or fear of the consequences from
actually expressing their sexuality. For _them_ I have a lot of
sympathy. It's not like we get to chose our sexual preferences (though
we are, of course, fully responsible for whether or how we excercise
that preference). I imagine it must be a pretty miserable condition.
If they can get some kind of release from pornography then the only
harm they are doing is in creating a market for the pictures. If they
don't pay they don't contribute.
Phil Payne
> French was interviewed on the Radio 4 "Today" program this morning.
> He made it clear then that *he* regards ISP's as responsible for *any*
> material that people access through the internet. That is, if I get some
> smutty pics. from an ftp site somewhere, then he regards demon as being
> responsible. This seems to be an example of the police making up the law as
> they go along....
From Teletext:
___________________________
TORIES PROBE SPOOF ON INTERNET
The Tories are investigating how
pornographic pictures and offensive
comments were broadcast on the Internet
under the party's official logo.
The material was issued on the official
home-page of the University of York
Conservative and Unionist Association.
The page carries information about the
student society and can be read by
millions of computer users worldwide.
_______________________________________
Headlines 300 Regional 331
Who, I wonder, would Inspector French chase in this case?
Pete Robinson
Rather than let bureaucrats decide which groups our ISP's provide, couldn't
we just decide ourselves?
Votes for child porn.....anyone??
--
Pete Robinson
Richard Lamont
In article <840381...@madhippy.demon.co.uk>,
Pete Robinson <pe...@madhippy.demon.co.uk> writes:
> Rather than let bureaucrats decide which groups our ISP's provide, couldn't
> we just decide ourselves?
>
> Votes for child porn.....anyone??
If you ask, "Is child porn a Good Thing or a Bad Thing?", we would have
little difficulty reaching an agreement.
That, however, is not the question.
If you look at Chief Inspector French's letter to the ISPs, you will
see that the question it raises is a much broader one. He are dressing
it up as a child porn issue, because that provides a convenient
shock-horror soundbite to hide what he is really doing.
He has asked ISPs to examine a list of newgroups to see if they
contain any material which, if published in the UK, would be illegal.
He goes on to suggest that any such newsgroup should be banned.
He completely ignores the fact that (a) material not posted in the UK
is not "published" in the UK, just as radio and TV programmes on foreign
broadcasting stations are not published here, (b) that the presence of an
`offending' post in a newgroup does not make the newsgroup itself
`illegal', (c) that an attempt to prevent information flowing into
the UK from abroad (except printed information) is a clear violation
of the Final Act of the Conference on Co-operation and Security in
Europe, which the UK government signed up to at Helsinki in 1975, (d)
that there are already effective legal sanctions against the posters
of `child porn' in most countries, including the UK, as a researcher
at Birmingham University learned the hard way earlier this year, (e)
it is a practical impossibility for ISPs to ensure that Usenet postings
do not contain `illegal' material.
French is clearly trying to bully the ISPs into accepting a
draconian extra-Parliamentary extension to the law with an overt
threat of unspecified "enforcement", which could mean a dawn raid
in which sufficient hardware would be removed as "evidence" to put
the ISP out of business. (Such a raid would be quite unneccessary, as
the "evidence" can be downloaded by anyone with an nntp client.)
IMHO what French is playing at is rank, old-fashioned despotism, and
it needs to be contested by every means at our disposal.
--
Richard Lamont
ric...@stonix.demon.co.uk
http://www.stonix.demon.co.uk/
Michael Ashton
>I for one will be glad to see the newsgroups go. I do not want to know
>that I can access child pornography from my computer. Nor see the names
>of these newsgroups as I scroll thru my list. Of course it is
>censorship, but what is the alternative?
Er, leave them where they are, of course.
Stupid question...
>Let's also face facts: removal of these groups is coming whatever.
Removal of discussion groups pertaining to sexual subjects is a retrograde
step back to our Victorian heritage.
>To reiterate: I'll be glad if Demon decide to announce they are to
>remove what are blatantly ILLEGAL groups.
alt.sex.* are not illegal.
Mark Lowes
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On Sun, 18 Aug 96 10:15:31 GMT, in <840388...@llondel.demon.co.uk>
David Hough <da...@llondel.demon.co.uk> wrote.....
[...]
>> If Demon try to "hold the fort" and continue to supply these groups in
>> the name of free speech, then they will be acting foolishly, IMO.
>>
>I would like them to make a stand, if only to get the police to do their
>job properly and target the posters of dodgy material.
A properly thought out approach to policing the net, on an International
basis would be far more welcome than local forces trying to control a force
which is basicly uncontrollable.
- --
Mark <ham...@lspace.org> http://www.flyhmstr.demon.co.uk/
The Elendor MUSH Shire Home Page http://www.flyhmstr.demon.co.uk/shire/
The Flying Hamster Listserver : list...@flyhmstr.demon.co.uk
How come wrong numbers are never busy?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2i
iQB1AwUBMhdpuXdEofm1SPhBAQE3vAL6A5q3gPqakJ20TSW/R7RU7MkfOXC06XJa
EQUcEdQ7fZ++rG/n/reZvjGty5hRTSTQa7E06AGSJ9PkB6T1EwqoVhk8GS6UBDPB
SUif90ncyAK0RA4tX+Bsnr+KAimyaIYs
=SKGL
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Rick Hewett
At 22:58:39 UTC on Sat 17 Aug,
Lilian J White <li...@crusher.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>I for one will be glad to see the newsgroups go. I do not want to know
>that I can access child pornography from my computer.
Get rid of the more obvious groups, and new ones will appear, with names
that don't scream "avoid me" quite so loudly, as you pointed out later...
>or new newsgroups created with names that will fool the police
>(eg: alt.pictures.nice, or alt.pictures.clean which are made-up
>examples of deliberate covers for porn groups.)
Alternatively posters will simply cross-post to less appropriate groups
to get their stuff through.
>Of course it is censorship, but what is the alternative?
Removing the groups isn't going to help much. Stopping the production
of the stuff might, but this is undoubtedly the _difficult_ way of
solving the problem. I suspect the Met's taking the action it is
because it's an easy cheap thing they can wave to say "look, we're
doing something". (Am I *too* cynical?)
>Someone once said that all censorship will do anyway is force this porn
>back to where it came from - bulletin boards.
More likely web-sites these days I guess, but the idea's the same.
>Let's also face facts: removal of these groups is coming whatever.
Probably. The trouble is, where do the police stop ?
Will they go away once they've closed down just those groups obviously
dedicated to child pornography ?
Will they also go for groups that _might_ contain, or _once_ contained
a post or two of an illegal nature ?
What about groups used by cross-posters to help propagate illegal stuff ?
And how will they define "illegal" ?
>Either the police raid IPs that continue to supply them, or each IP in
>turn agrees to remove them to prevent being charged.
I can't see the present news-group issue being resolved without the
courts becoming involved. I wonder whether they will be able to come
up with some sensible precedents...
>What's also clear is that even if ALL British IPs get rid of offending
>groups, they'll still be available in other countries.
Yep. The Met's action will not help solve the problem.
>If Demon try to "hold the fort" and continue to supply these groups in
>the name of free speech, then they will be acting foolishly, IMO.
I guess they may _have_ to try to "hold the fort", not in the name of
free speech, but because if they accept responsibility for one news
group then it'll be only a small step for them to be held responsible
for the contents of _all_ the groups.
--
..Rick Hewett mailto:ri...@chocky.demon.co.uk http://www.chocky.demon.co.uk/
One day, if he could master GCSE maths and reliably pick up a soldering iron
by the end that wasn't hot, he was going to be a Big Man in computers.
-- (Terry Pratchett, Only You Can Save Mankind)
Chris Croughton
In article <Wwk1DiAX...@crusher.demon.co.uk>
li...@crusher.demon.co.uk "Lilian J White" wrote:
>I for one will be glad to see the newsgroups go. I do not want to know
>that I can access child pornography from my computer. Nor see the names
>of these newsgroups as I scroll thru my list. Of course it is
>censorship, but what is the alternative?
That *you* don't look if *you* don't want to know. Don't try to tell me
how I should behave or what I should talk about, if you don't want to
read the newsgroups then fine but don't stop other people from reading
them.
Incidentally, in that list was alt.sex.homosexuality, which is a
discussion group for gays - are you an opponent of gays as well? If you
ban gay newsgroups can I please ban all public displays of affection on
the grouds that it upsets me?
>However, I must add that Demon can never hope to prevent porn (soft or
>hard) from being posted to other newsgroups, or new newsgroups created
>with names that will fool the police (eg: alt.pictures.nice, or
>alt.pictures.clean which are made-up examples of deliberate covers for
>porn groups.)
So why ban the groups where the stuff is containd and cause it to go
into inappropriate newsgroups?
>Someone once said that all censorship will do anyway is force this porn
>back to where it came from - bulletin boards.
And 'dirty' pictures swapped behind bicycle sheds, etc. Exactly - what
will stopping those newsgroups gain?
>Let's also face facts: removal of these groups is coming whatever.
>Either the police raid IPs that continue to supply them, or each IP in
>turn agrees to remove them to prevent being charged.
Or they all stand together and tell their business users that there will
be no British access at all to the Internet in a few years time (because
if these nasty things appear on comp.os.linux etc. we must ban those
newsgroups as well). I suspect that British business will not welcome
being cut off from the rest of the world...
>What's also clear is that even if ALL British IPs get rid of offending
>groups, they'll still be available in other countries. People will
>naturally find a way round the problem, perhaps by getting their mates
>in these countries to send the stuff via email!
Of course. And encrypted and taking up far more bandwidth because the
same message will be sent to thousands of users instead of one
newsgroup - just look at the amount the WWW uses because each person
fetches the binaries separately instead of it going into a common
server.
>To reiterate: I'll be glad if Demon decide to announce they are to
>remove what are blatantly ILLEGAL groups. Soft porn for consenting
>adults is one thing, but child porn, bestiality and so on are another.
How about the rape and sexual disorder counselling groups? How are you
going to distinguish them? Is alt.sex.teenage a forum for procuring
teenage hookers or for counselling parents of pregnant teenagers, or for
discussions about sexuality of teenagers? Or all of them or none?
>If Demon try to "hold the fort" and continue to supply these groups in
>the name of free speech, then they will be acting foolishly, IMO.
Yes, standing up for rights is always 'foolish' until they come for you.
If the ISPs band together then the government has the choice of taking
down the whole network and killing business or giving up this 'crusade'.
Meanwhile, I'll do the same as with the (now defeated) American CDA:
Bestiality's best, boys,
Bestiality's best...
(The only people who have a case to complain about bestiality are the
"animal rights" people, and they'd have to prove that the animal doesn't
enjoy it...)
.-------------------------------.-------------------------------------.
| ch...@keris.demon.co.uk | FIAWOL (Filking Is A Way Of Life) |
`-------------------------------^-------------------------------------'
Markus Weber
On Sun, 18 Aug 1996 13:42:37 GMT, Mark Lowes <Ham...@lspace.org>
wrote:
>How would they handle the situation of some fuckwit posting a binary to
>alt.cuddles? Ban that group as well for being a front for illegal acts.
I'm making the names up as I go, but what happens if child porn is
consistently crossposted to alt.christianity, alt.abortion,
alt.random-political-party,...?
Cheers
-Markus
--
Markus Weber
hu...@kinky.demon.co.uk 1015...@compuserve.com
Prune juice. A warrior's drink.
Richard Lamont
In article <DwC3...@news.home.ml-associates.co.uk>,
msm...@ml-associates.co.uk (Matthew Smith) writes:
> Let's just hope news.demon.nl allows demon.co.uk. nntp connections....
It didn't when I tried it yesterday.
David G. Bell
In article <v03007800ae38a51f0f40@[158.152.22.244]>
pe...@petermc.demon.co.uk "Peter McDermott" writes:
> >>Stephen French
> >>Chief Inspector
I am quite certain that this gentleman had already heard all the jokes
about French letters....
David G. Bell
In article <32147...@muir-et2.staff.demon.net>
mal...@demon.net "Malcolm Muir" writes:
> Ian Sharrock (i...@bertie.demon.co.uk) wrote:
> > Could Malcolm, Cliff, Clive F. or Giles give some form of 'official'
> > response to this issue.
>
> In due course, yes.
>
> Currently the letter is being considered and advice being taken.
Malcolm, I don't know if Demon has received a copy of the letter direct
from the police, or from some other source more trustworthy than news.
But I'm sure that you will have noticed that the newsgroup list is
obviously divided into two sections, and many of the newsgroup names in
the first section are repeated in the second.
I don't know whether this is down to incompetence or malice, but I
wouldn't like to have to rely on that posting.
Since it has been posted, I hope that you will soon be able to confirm
whether or not it is an accurate text. I have contributed material to
such e-zines as the Computer Underground Digest in the past, but the
letter feels just that little bit too inept to be wholly genuine, and I
wouldn't myself like to take a chance on passing it on without some
checking.
To...@herrflik.demon.co.uk
Lilian J White <li...@crusher.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>I for one will be glad to see the newsgroups go. I do not want to know
>that I can access child pornography from my computer. Nor see the names
>of these newsgroups as I scroll thru my list. Of course it is
>censorship, but what is the alternative?
Leave them there. If it makes you happy, pretend that they don't exist,
and don't look at their names (or delete them from the list on your
machine). And don't suscribe to them, of course.
Simply deleting them from the list on demons server won't make them
non-existent, any more than tackling your own machine.
>However, I must add that Demon can never hope to prevent porn (soft or
>hard) from being posted to other newsgroups, or new newsgroups created
>with names that will fool the police (eg: alt.pictures.nice, or
>alt.pictures.clean which are made-up examples of deliberate covers for
>porn groups.)
It can happen - the groups just reform under misleading names. The
result is that the status remains the same, only that people who do not
want to see it now stand a chance of stumbling across it, and that a
reasoned method of blocking access for those considered at risk
(children?) is less likely to succeed (btw, the issue of general
pornography really ought to be considered as a seperate issue to child
porn).
Doesn't strike me as a major step forwards.
>Let's also face facts: removal of these groups is coming whatever.
>Either the police raid IPs that continue to supply them, or each IP in
>turn agrees to remove them to prevent being charged.
Assuming that it is legal for them to do so... But it does nothing to
actually solve anything, just gives the appearance of action (good for
the egos of public figures, I suppose).
>If Demon try to "hold the fort" and continue to supply these groups in
>the name of free speech, then they will be acting foolishly, IMO.
In the name of free speech, I agree. On the grounds that the proposed
action is ill-considered and potentially counter-productive, no.
IMHO, it would be better to decide what the aims are, then choose a
course of action which might actually achieve them, rather than blindly
stumbling in waving a truncheon at the first visible target.
Just a final thought, do the police really have the power to censor
material which is legally OK? Some of the groups mentioned might be
innocent?
Just my opinion,
Tony.
Brian {Hamilton Kelly}
> And I believe the good residents of Cockermouth _still_ can't register their
> true addresses on AOL.
Nor those of Scunthorpe, AIUI.
--
Brian {Hamilton Kelly} b...@dsl.co.uk
Tony Blair's New Labour: The Windows'95 of Political Parties
(c/w Plug'n'Pray and a pretence of offering object-orientation)
Shaun Hollingworth
>French was interviewed on the Radio 4 "Today" program this morning.
>He made it clear then that *he* regards ISP's as responsible for *any*
>material that people access through the internet. That is, if I get some
>smutty pics. from an ftp site somewhere, then he regards demon as being
>responsible. This seems to be an example of the police making up the law as
>they go along....
Will the police accept responsibility for every burglary, and crime,
they *fail* to detect, or prevent and pay compensation for the
victims ?
This would seem to me, to be an easier job, for them, than to ask
Demon to control the whole of the Internet.
Shaun.
Malcolm McMahon
On Sun, 18 Aug 1996 12:19:38 +0100, Nick Reid <ni...@dreamy.demon.nl>
wrote:
>Ian Sharrock wrote:
>
>> <Fx: places tongue firmly in cheek> Should this restriction be
>> enforced, will a full newsfeed be available from news.demon.nl,
>> which I assume is outside the reach of UK law?
>
>
>Demon.co.uk hosts cannot access news.demon.nl (nor vice versa), an
>established company policy - based soley on bandwidth and other
>technical considerations - which is extremely unlikely to be
>changed on the basis of any other (e.g. socio-political) factors.
>
Oh, I should thing the "socio-policital" factor of Demon subscribers
going elsewhere in droves might be persuasive.
Shaun Hollingworth
On Fri, 16 Aug 96 18:41:24 BST, cl...@demon.net wrote:
>In article <TpCRSDA2...@bertie.demon.co.uk>,
>Ian Sharrock <i...@bertie.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> Could Malcolm, Cliff, Clive F. or Giles give some form of 'official'
>> response to this issue.
>
>We are considering our position. There is a meeting arranged between Demon,
>the DTI, and the Metropolitan Police in about two weeks time. I do *not*
>promise to make a report to this newsgroup about it.
>
According to the "News of the World" a certain Detective Constable
Kevin Smith, OF THE METROPOLITAN POLICE Aged 36, has been 'detected'
accepting bribes, from a MS. Valerie Marfo, who runs a brothel in
Lewisham, South London.
This issue is dated Sunday August 18 1996.
These are the boys in blue, that want to protect our morality folks!
Perhaps they want the censorship, so they can be 'bunged' even more
money from new sources. It wouldn't suprise me! Anyway, protection of
children aside, (which can be done technically) I want full Usenet
access, so that I've a clear ABSOLUTELY clear picture of what goes on
in the world. I cannot trust the MET to decide on my behalf.
Especially after this.
Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone.
It seems the Metropolitan Police no longer qualify, and should retire,
with a damage limitation exorcise.
The very least they should now do, is to enter into dialogue with
Internet users, on the Internet, and let us voice our opinions, to
those honourable officers, that remain, if indeed there are any.
God, it makes me sick!
Shaun.
Nick Sellors
On Sat, 17 Aug 1996 21:45:34 GMT, mi...@kempston.demon.co.uk (Mike
Mann) wrote:
<snip, police censorship letter>
>I'm sure that Demon will take note of the fact that UK law cannot be
>enforced in Holland. Expanding into Europe is looking like a good
>move.
So, thinking laterally, if news.demon.co.uk was in actual fact
sitting in an office in Amsterdam, would that get around the
"problem" ?
X-posted to other groups as well as demon.service
--
Nick Sellors http://www.cheese.org/~nicks/
My opinions are mine and mine alone and I do not speak
for anyone else. All rights reserved.
Mark Lowes
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On Sun, 18 Aug 96 01:03:00 GMT, in <840330...@wordshop.demon.co.uk>
Gary Cooper <Coo...@wordshop.demon.co.uk> wrote.....
>In article <08171996...@flyhmstr.demon.co.uk>
> Ma...@flyhmstr.demon.co.uk "Mark Lowes" writes:
[...]
>Given the *astoundingly* co-incidental appearance of an article
>on this very subject in Pravda^H^H^H^H^H The Daily Telegraph,
:)
>last week, I think we might safely assume that the Government
>(sic) has its hand firmly on Plod's strings.
>And lest anyone accuse me of bias - no, I *don't* think
>it'd be any better if that bastard with the red eyes was
>in power.
I didn't know Giles was running for office.
>Nor the boy Blair, for that matter.
Nope, i don't trust any of them to do anything except think of their
collective back pockets, pay rises and making sure they con the public into
voting for them next time.
</RANT>
- --
Mark <ham...@lspace.org> http://www.flyhmstr.demon.co.uk/
The Elendor MUSH Shire Home Page http://www.flyhmstr.demon.co.uk/shire/
The Flying Hamster Listserver : list...@flyhmstr.demon.co.uk
Remember -
Once you have removed the pin, Mr Grenade is no longer your friend.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2i
iQB1AwUBMhbOkndEofm1SPhBAQF69AL/QRkan6MmSrKT8eTYnEP9smRRAxE84KXk
ChE5pWRzfNIkQ05QwNRgDlVAVJfVav3wMzY61liSt4dzvX6oWRqJxUO+mEfj3KF5
fV1Mu6pTqCQWv1SntaynjON7WTGOOIlE
=dJDt
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Ian Sharrock
In article <Wwk1DiAX...@crusher.demon.co.uk>, Lilian J White
<li...@crusher.demon.co.uk> writes
>Look what cl...@demon.net wrote:
>>In article <TpCRSDA2...@bertie.demon.co.uk>,
>>Ian Sharrock <i...@bertie.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>> Could Malcolm, Cliff, Clive F. or Giles give some form of 'official'
>>> response to this issue.
>>
>>We are considering our position. There is a meeting arranged between Demon,
>>the DTI, and the Metropolitan Police in about two weeks time. I do *not*
>>promise to make a report to this newsgroup about it.
>
>that I can access child pornography from my computer. Nor see the names
>of these newsgroups as I scroll thru my list. Of course it is
>censorship, but what is the alternative?
>
I won't be glad to see them go. Not because the content may be/is
illegal, because I *abhor* the "real" content personally, because I
believe in freedom of speech... I can go on, but you've missed an
important point.
You can access the child porn groups - this may be offensive to you
(hopefully, the *content* is) but count your blessings. You are a grown
up. Choose not to view them.
Like a moth to a candle, people do post "real content" to these
newsgroups.
Do you think the right people don't notice? Yes, action *is* taken.
Maybe not as often as it should be, but it *does* happen. Many a good
person prompts it, sees the reports of success (not just in Blighty, but
around the world) and is happy at the news.
I don't want to belittle your stance (*very* well meaning as it is), but
if these named groups didn't exist, then life would be a little easier
for some Bad People. If I believe the front cover of some of the
computer trade rags, then the last attempt resulted in the Bad Stuff
appearing in alt.disney - something that should be a purely innocent,
child oriented newsgroups. To me this is a bad idea.
Give them a forum - and let the electronic rope hang them.
I am only commenting on child porn - this appears to be the named motive
for censorship for *most* people - although the letter from the Met.
appears to go against all the 'adult' newsgroups ( I have not seen an
original and as such cannot make a definitive comment ).
I applaud your intention and emotions. I just *know* that the <insert
swear words> people that do this don't give a shit about your feelings,
and understand the medium of technology for distribution *very* well.
Ian
--
Ian Sharrock
Ian Sharrock
Can I bring up one point for discussion?
If I commit a crime, be it <insert crime> or <insert worse crime>, I
would like to be tried and convicted - or not - on my own actions.
I don't want Demon or any other bugger to be my brother's keeper, and I
don't want the government to force them to be.
Discuss.
Ian
--
Ian Sharrock
Matthew Smith
>>In article <TpCRSDA2...@bertie.demon.co.uk>,
>>Ian Sharrock <i...@bertie.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>> Could Malcolm, Cliff, Clive F. or Giles give some form of 'official'
>>> response to this issue.
>>We are considering our position. There is a meeting arranged between Demon,
>>the DTI, and the Metropolitan Police in about two weeks time. I do *not*
>>promise to make a report to this newsgroup about it.
>I for one will be glad to see the newsgroups go. I do not want to know
>that I can access child pornography from my computer. Nor see the names
>of these newsgroups as I scroll thru my list. Of course it is
>censorship, but what is the alternative?
>hard) from being posted to other newsgroups, or new newsgroups created
>with names that will fool the police (eg: alt.pictures.nice, or
>alt.pictures.clean which are made-up examples of deliberate covers for
>porn groups.)
>back to where it came from - bulletin boards.
>Either the police raid IPs that continue to supply them, or each IP in
>turn agrees to remove them to prevent being charged.
>groups, they'll still be available in other countries. People will
>naturally find a way round the problem, perhaps by getting their mates
>in these countries to send the stuff via email!
>remove what are blatantly ILLEGAL groups. Soft porn for consenting
>adults is one thing, but child porn, bestiality and so on are another.
>the name of free speech, then they will be acting foolishly, IMO.
o The pics will move to new groups or existing other groups by different
names, after say two months, these will be identified, banned, and by
the definition of recursion, we start the process again....
o Any user with any knowledge of the internet will figure this for him/her-
self, anyone else by following the signposts: set the news server to
some public server, in say USA, South Africa.... and read unsensored
news from there. Anyone using Netscape et. al. will be able to set
different news servers for different groups.
Banning the groups and making ISP/NP/IAP liable for its user's downloads is
not workable when a user has a TCP/IP connection. AOL's solution of
screening certain words has left people of sc_u_nthorp (so that AOL'ers can
read this) invisible to AOL....
Since Demon act like the Post Office (not opening all letters before users
get delivery), why should they be treated differently?
If parents are seriously concerned, then they should use one of the net nanny
style products on their machine to restrict/nanny access to the Net.
anyway, got that out of my system now, so....
-M
Matthew Smith
mi...@kempston.demon.co.uk (Mike Mann) wrote:
>In article <32147...@muir-et2.staff.demon.net>,
>mal...@muir-et2.staff.demon.net (Malcolm Muir) wrote:
>
>>Currently the letter is being considered and advice being taken.
>
>enforced in Holland. Expanding into Europe is looking like a good
>move.
Let's just hope news.demon.nl allows demon.co.uk. nntp connections....
-M
Charlie Freckleton
In article <840377...@cobalt.demon.co.uk>
fri...@cobalt.demon.co.uk "Friday" writes in response to someone:
> > Soft porn for consenting adults is one thing, but child porn,
> > bestiality and so on are another.
>
> Dif'rent strokes, for dif'rent folks.
>
There's a pun in there somewhere :-)
Charlie
--
******************************************************************************
* Charlie Freckleton * Email at Home : cha...@genest.demon.co.uk *
* * Email at Work : cha...@datamast.demon.co.uk *
******************************************************************************
Paul Civati
In article <9T+w4wA8...@jhall.demon.co.uk>,
John Hall <jo...@jhall.demon.co.uk> writes:
>>It should be easy enough to check whether or not the Police Officer the
>>letter is attributed to actually exists.
>
> He exists, all right. He was interviewed on "Today" on Radio 4 this
> morning. I wonder whether he acted on his own initiative or with Home
> Office backing.
One problem as I see it is that this current Police action is trying to
force ISPs like Demon, who want to go for the common carrier status, into
doing something they don't want to do, making themselves responsible for
content.
Currently UK obscenity laws don't really cater for the internet AIUI,
and are geared torwards magazines, videos etc.
So, we're seeing the Police using current UK laws as they see them, and
applying them to ISPs to 'get something done' about the kind of news
content currently available in the UK.
Demon have to decide from a commercial point of view, whether they want to
maintain an uncensored news feed, and from a legal point of view, the
various risks of trying to go for common carrier or being responsible for
content.
-Paul-
--
Paul Civati =O= Home: pa...@xciv.org =O= http://www.xciv.org/
London UK =O= Home: pa...@xciv.demon.co.uk =O= Slackware is.
Peter McDermott
In article <DwC3...@news.home.ml-associates.co.uk>,
msm...@ml-associates.co.uk (Matthew Smith) wrote:
>o Any user with any knowledge of the internet will figure this for him/her-
> self, anyone else by following the signposts: set the news server to
> some public server, in say USA, South Africa.... and read unsensored
> news from there.
South Africa? I think not, somehow...
Dave Reader
These words of wisdom came from Lilian J White (li...@crusher.demon.co.uk):
: What's also clear is that even if ALL British IPs get rid of offending
: groups, they'll still be available in other countries. People will
: naturally find a way round the problem, perhaps by getting their mates
: in these countries to send the stuff via email!
hah.. it's easier than that. use a public access newsserver in another
country. plenty exist, and carry the groiups they'd like to see banned.
They cannot eradicate these groups and the material carried by them, this
is simply a public relations stunt.
: To reiterate: I'll be glad if Demon decide to announce they are to
: remove what are blatantly ILLEGAL groups. Soft porn for consenting
: adults is one thing, but child porn, bestiality and so on are another.
hmm.. but illegal in what sense>? the argument in the letter posted jere
is that it is illegal to publish.. but the publisher of the material is
the person who posts it to the newsgroup surely... it is they who are
breaking the law by publishing that material in this country, as far as i
am aware?
: If Demon try to "hold the fort" and continue to supply these groups in
: the name of free speech, then they will be acting foolishly, IMO.
whilst there are good arguments for removibng these groups, if anyone is
seen to "give in" on any of these, it will be hard to stop the ball
rolling once it has started, and the 'net will become moderated by the
police and polititians... that IMHP is more dangerous than thesew groups.
If you don;t want your kids to view these groups don;t let them, there are
plently of ways of making it difficult to access groups, or to simply log
which groups have been accessed, if you choose your software carefully.
and besides, since demon;s news service is so "brilliant" i doubt they'd
manage to download so many multi-part binaries anyway...
~dave
apologies for the typos etc.. this connection is too slow to correct
them...(this is a 64K leased line, and i get faster access via demon at 9600)
--
Dave Reader - http://www.cus.umist.ac.uk/~dar/
D.A.R...@Bradford.ac.uk d...@ps.cus.umist.ac.uk d...@nifoc.demon.co.uk
Known as 'Undone' on MBA4 (telnet jumper.mcc.ac.uk 3214) and Monochrome BBS
Malcolm McMahon
>
>A properly thought out approach to policing the net, on an International
>basis would be far more welcome than local forces trying to control a force
>which is basicly uncontrollable.
>
But then the question is: To _who's_ standards? Shall we have a net
ruled by the sexual liberalism of the English, the religious tolerance
of the Iranians, the openness to political discussion of the Chinese?
A net, in short, where about the only thing you can safely discuss is
vegan wholefood recipies?
Or shall we have a net ruled by the ethical consensus of the people on
it? Netizens are the Avant Guard of this decade. Their standards would
satisfy _none_ of the aforementioned governments.
To my mind the net needs to be granted a kind of extraterritoriality
with those that access it deemed as "importing" the material.
Matthew Smith
Phil Payne <Ph...@sievers.com> wrote:
>In article <3215c501...@news.demon.co.uk>
> jo...@pegase.demon.co.uk "John Wright" writes:
>
>> French was interviewed on the Radio 4 "Today" program this morning.
>> He made it clear then that *he* regards ISP's as responsible for *any*
>> material that people access through the internet. That is, if I get some
>> smutty pics. from an ftp site somewhere, then he regards demon as being
>> responsible. This seems to be an example of the police making up the law as
>> they go along....
>
> ___________________________
> TORIES PROBE SPOOF ON INTERNET
>
> The Tories are investigating how
> pornographic pictures and offensive
> comments were broadcast on the Internet
> under the party's official logo.
>
> The material was issued on the official
> home-page of the University of York
> Conservative and Unionist Association.
>
> The page carries information about the
> student society and can be read by
> millions of computer users worldwide.
> _______________________________________
> Headlines 300 Regional 331
>
>Who, I wonder, would Inspector French chase in this case?
Probably each ISP which allowed its user's access to it ;-)
gareth buxton
ni...@sellors.demon.co.uk (Nick Sellors) wrote:
><snip, police censorship letter>
>>I'm sure that Demon will take note of the fact that UK law cannot be
>>enforced in Holland. Expanding into Europe is looking like a good
>>move.
>So, thinking laterally, if news.demon.co.uk was in actual fact
>sitting in an office in Amsterdam, would that get around the
>"problem" ?
For the users yes... but a UK company would still be charging UK
residents money for access to "obscene material" regardless of where
the news server is located, isn't that illegal?
They could make the dutch news box a public access server, not a good
idea..... or get a dutch registered company to take our 10UKP
subscription money....
Gareth
Hoppy
ni...@sellors.demon.co.uk (Nick Sellors) wrote:
>On Sat, 17 Aug 1996 21:45:34 GMT, mi...@kempston.demon.co.uk (Mike
>
><snip, police censorship letter>
>
>>I'm sure that Demon will take note of the fact that UK law cannot be
>>enforced in Holland. Expanding into Europe is looking like a good
>>move.
>
>So, thinking laterally, if news.demon.co.uk was in actual fact
>sitting in an office in Amsterdam, would that get around the
>"problem" ?
Should do the trick!
______________________________________________________________________________
Paul D. Lee Division Limited
"Hoppy" 19 Apex Court, Woodlands
Bristol BS12 4JT, UK
Tel: +44 1454 615554
Fax: +44 1454 615532
Email: ho...@division.co.uk
Nigel Whitfield
In article <84039964...@herrflik.demon.co.uk>,
<To...@herrflik.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>Just a final thought, do the police really have the power to censor
>material which is legally OK? Some of the groups mentioned might be
>innocent?
Some of them would like to think so. They have, for instance,
attempted many prosecutions for people possessing videos or magazines
with material that the police officers think is obscene. A friend of
mine is a fairly well known lawyer in this field, and manages to fight
quite successfully. Even some magistrates are tiring of the police
trying to crack down on pictures of people doing things that they're
allowed to do...
Nigel.
--
Nigel Whitfield
ni...@diversity.org.uk Digital Diversity
ni...@stonewall.demon.co.uk and uk-motss
***** All demon.co.uk sites are independently run internet hosts *****
Malcolm Muir
David G. Bell (db...@zhochaka.demon.co.uk) wrote:
> In article <32147...@muir-et2.staff.demon.net>
> mal...@demon.net "Malcolm Muir" writes:
>
> > > Could Malcolm, Cliff, Clive F. or Giles give some form of 'official'
> > > response to this issue.
> >
> >
> > Currently the letter is being considered and advice being taken.
>
> from the police, or from some other source more trustworthy than news.
> But I'm sure that you will have noticed that the newsgroup list is
> obviously divided into two sections, and many of the newsgroup names in
> the first section are repeated in the second.
We received an official copy.
> I don't know whether this is down to incompetence or malice, but I
> wouldn't like to have to rely on that posting.
We would not react simply from a posting on a web site / newsgroup
by a 3rd. party.
> Since it has been posted, I hope that you will soon be able to confirm
> whether or not it is an accurate text. I have contributed material to
> such e-zines as the Computer Underground Digest in the past, but the
> letter feels just that little bit too inept to be wholly genuine, and I
> wouldn't myself like to take a chance on passing it on without some
> checking.
The letter was a private correspondence between the Police and
named recipients. As such I am not at liberty to comment on the
content. I am sure you wold not be happy if we openly commented on
a private letter sent to us by yourself.
--
Malcolm S. Muir Demon Internet Ltd.
Sunderland 322 Regents Park Road
England London N3 2QQ
Malcolm McMahon
>
>Does he really understand how the net works, somehow i don't think so. The
>only way Demon could police this would be to block all access outside the
>demon network and the (probably for a fee) check out sites which people
>wished to visit and allow access to that site once vetted. Utterly
>impractical and it would bugger up any form of comerical use of the net.
>
What you've got to understand is that the ISPs have already had the
opportunity to explain all the tecnical stuff at a meeting in the Home
Office a few months back.
I deeply offended one of the participants by saying, ahead of this
meeting, that they were, in reality, going along to be given their
orders. I was slightly off. The orders have come through by letter,
not face to face.
Basically though as far as I can see what's happened is almost exactly
as I expected.
The meeting with the home office was arranged a few weeks after the
Bavarian/Compuserve incident when Compuserve was succesfully
intimidated into shutting down all the groups whose names contained
either "sex" or "gay" (I don't know it what the current situation is).
It would appear the Home Office thought something of the sort would
work here.
The Home Office people appear to have behaved exactly as one would
expect. They seem to have listened politely to the ISPs, said "OK so
_you_ work out some guidelines then", and once the ISPs
representatives had left proceded with their original idea exctly as
if the meeting had never taken place. This is consistent with the
normal pattern of consultation excercises throughout the British civil
service.
I'm afraid that those who imagine that all that is needed is for the
technical realities of the net to be explained to these people just
don't understand the situation.
Malcolm Loades
In article <840402...@zhochaka.demon.co.uk>, "David G. Bell"
<db...@zhochaka.demon.co.uk> writes
<snip>
>Unfortunately, as with parents of teenagers worrying about porn on the
>net, if you're old enough to be a Chief Inspector, it is somewhat
>unlikely that you are young enough to have been a computer nerd.
>
>That is the danger.
<snip>
Thanks a bunch for categorising all us 50+ers as a danger because we
don't understand computers!
Do you suggest we all give up on this new fangled technology and revert
to writing letters with a quill pen before using our zimmer frames to
assist in the walk to the red box on the corner of the street. Followed
by a cup of hot cocoa and bed at 8.00pm?
Just because my 1940's school classroom wasn't full of Pentium 133mhz,32
mb RAM, 2 gbyte hard disk computers linked to 28,800 modems doesn't mean
that I can't understand anything invented after that period.
The only disadvantage for most older computer users is that we lose time
online, every Thursday, whilst queuing for our pensions at the Post
Office.
You, young man, need need educating in the skills of the elderly!
Nigel Whitfield
In article <08181996...@flyhmstr.demon.co.uk>,
Mark Lowes <Ham...@lspace.org> wrote:
>
>Can we have a collection of clues for these cops before things get out of
>hand?
You could try, but the Clubs & Vice unit are people on a moral crusade
of their own. On the Digital Diversity web pages,
http://www.diversity.org.uk/diversity/hotnews.html I've mentioned a
few of their other little ventures lately. They don't like people who
have anything other than sex in the missionary position, and they'd
like it stopped.
Giolla Decair
Previously ric...@stonix.demon.co.uk (Richard Lamont) said:
>In article <840381...@madhippy.demon.co.uk>,
> Pete Robinson <pe...@madhippy.demon.co.uk> writes:
[snip]
>French is clearly trying to bully the ISPs into accepting a
>draconian extra-Parliamentary extension to the law with an overt
>threat of unspecified "enforcement", which could mean a dawn raid
>in which sufficient hardware would be removed as "evidence" to put
>the ISP out of business. (Such a raid would be quite unneccessary, as
>the "evidence" can be downloaded by anyone with an nntp client.)
And of course such evidence is as easily placed on the ISP's
equipment as it is retrieved, so if an ISP won't cooperate
look there's a truck load of very illegal material on one
of the groups listed.
Malcolm McMahon
South Africa just passed major anti-censorship laws. There's nothing
like a recent totalitarian history to remind one of the value of free
speach.
OTOH it's not a very efficient use of the net.
I hope that if Demon is eventually forced to capitulate on what it
stores on the newservers at Finchely they will put in some extra
capacity to Amsterdam and open their newservers there for our use.
Ian Stirling
Peter McDermott (pe...@petermc.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: I've been busy for a few days and so may have missed it if this
: issue has already been raised here.
: >>From: Jim Dixon <j...@vbc.net>
: >>Date: Wed, 14 Aug 1996 16:16:02 gmt
: >>To: euro-cu...@vbc.net
: >>Cc:
: >>Subject: police censorship
: >>
: >>Like other UK ISPs, VBCnet today received a demand from the
: >Metropolitan
: >>Police that some 134 news groups be deleted from our news machines.
: >>The letter makes it clear that this is only the beginning, that they
I find some oddities in this list, apart from several utterly irrelevant
and legal groups (alt.sex.stories for example)
There are duplications, as well as some spaces where there should not
be. I notice that all the duplicates (apart from one or two)
are groups possibly carrying paedophilic material.
This might support the idea that it's been added to later.
The lines with the numbers after are the standard format of the
active file, which holds the list of exising groups.
Those lines seem tyo have come from two different news servers.
alt.binaries.pictures.children
alt.binaries.pictures.children 0000009753 0000009586 y
alt.binaries.pictures.erotic.senior-citizens 0000004042 0000003695 y
alt.binaries.pictures.erotic.senior-citizens 0000004426 0000003944 y
alt.binaries.pictures.erotica 0000387356 0000382534 y
alt.binaries.pictures.erotica child
alt.binaries.pictures.erotica. orientals 0000096484 0000094139 y
alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.children
alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.children 0000005812 0000005117 y
alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.pre-teen
alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.pre-teen 0000004945 0000004100 y
alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.teen 0000005349 0000005098 y
alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.teen 0000048099 0000046561 y
alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.teen.fuck
alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.teen.fuck 0000003398 0000003162 y
alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.young
alt.binaries.pictures.lolita.fucking
alt.binaries.pictures.lolita.fucking 0000001097 00000861 y
alt.sex.children
alt.sex.children 0000001311 0000000690 y
alt.sex.fetish.tinygirls
alt.sex.fetish.tinygirls 0000003322 0000001229 y
alt.sex.incest
alt.sex.incest 0000016099 0000009889 y
alt.sex.intergen
alt.sex.intergen 0000012715 0000010756 y
alt.sex.masturbation 0000004038 0000002204 y
alt.sex.masturbation 0000066212 0000058405 y
alt.sex.pedophile.mike-labbe
alt.sex.pedophile.mike-labbe 0000001015 0000000752 y
alt.sex.pedophilia 0000040531 0000026257 y
alt.sex.pedophilia.
alt.sex.pedophilia.girls
alt.sex.pedophilia.girls 0000001130 0000000267 y
alt.sex.pedophilia.pictures
alt.sex.pedophilia.pictures 0000001138 0000000276 y
alt.sex.teens
alt.sex.teens 0000002394 0000000540 y
Mark Lowes
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On Mon, 19 Aug 1996 11:55:58 GMT, in <32183d36...@news.demon.co.uk>
mal...@pigsty.demon.co.uk (Malcolm McMahon) wrote.....
>On Sun, 18 Aug 1996 13:42:37 GMT, Mark Lowes <Ham...@lspace.org>
>wrote:
[..stuff]
>What you've got to understand is that the ISPs have already had the
>opportunity to explain all the tecnical stuff at a meeting in the Home
>Office a few months back.
Which means either they cocked it up big time or the Police/Home Office
really didn't understand. Me, i reckon the latter.
[....]
>The meeting with the home office was arranged a few weeks after the
>Bavarian/Compuserve incident when Compuserve was succesfully
Exactly this incident went through my mind when i first heard about this,
they haven't leant on the ISP's heavily ... yet and forced them to ban the
groups but if they do the same thing will happen again. The crossposting
will go nuts and i'll get a load of crap in the groups i read crossposted
from the alt.sex.* and alt.binaries.* groups. With forged headers so
killfiles are ineffective. Great :(
[...]
>It would appear the Home Office thought something of the sort would
>work here.
I sincerely hope we can correct them on that assumption.
>The Home Office people appear to have behaved exactly as one would
>expect. They seem to have listened politely to the ISPs, said "OK so
>_you_ work out some guidelines then", and once the ISPs
>representatives had left proceded with their original idea exctly as
>if the meeting had never taken place. This is consistent with the
>normal pattern of consultation excercises throughout the British civil
>service.
Yup, should we have expected any different. Nope. Even if the other mob
were in power i don't think anything would be different. Governments come
and go but the civil service is always there.
>I'm afraid that those who imagine that all that is needed is for the
>technical realities of the net to be explained to these people just
>don't understand the situation.
I think a 10mt LART on the center of London taking out Parliment and the
entire civil service might just do the trick.
- --
Mark <ham...@lspace.org> http://www.flyhmstr.demon.co.uk/
The Elendor MUSH Shire Home Page http://www.flyhmstr.demon.co.uk/shire/
The Flying Hamster Listserver : list...@flyhmstr.demon.co.uk
I'm not a complete idiot - several parts are missing
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2i
iQB1AwUBMhi2VHdEofm1SPhBAQHYLAMAgLWSsBkXneKreRGhM+rc6wG/dopWM9kv
gSt+PerktIRXpC2kndVcCRX5ZcdqFmnhBvJE96W8UkiZnKKscBLhDPigRSPW1KmJ
+Mr6J+2GBGn84Wb8NtPK9NdhdmHa137S
=GwAl
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Lee Miles
In article <32181ea2...@news.demon.co.uk>
mal...@pigsty.demon.co.uk "Malcolm McMahon" writes:
> Yes, from what I hear the seizure of "evidence" as a means of putting
> companies out of business is absolutely characteristic of this team as
> is bankrupting people with court costs.
>...
> Of course Demon is in business to make money, not political points so
> their decision is going to be based on their estimate of the number of
> subsribers who will leave if they decide to surender. Judging by the
> traffic in the red light areas of USENET this number could be quite
> high.
>
Just a thought, but what about AOL?
Their news machines are based outside the UK (be it the US or Ireland),
as is their entire operation. Which means, nothing to raid, and
dubious whether they would be affected by any UK legislation.
Ironic, that the company which is at the forefront of Internet censorship
is also in the best position to benefit from the current frenzy.
And yes, AOL already carries many of the "offending" newsgroups - which
should indicate to all concerned, what an overkill this list is.
--
Lee
Ray Auchterlounie
Michael Ashton <mi...@unixsoft.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>Currently the letter is being considered and advice being taken.
>Go get 'em, Malc.
[...]
You trust Demon to do anything related to news right ? ;-)
ray
--
Ray Auchterlounie Research Student (still) at:
<r...@kythera.demon.co.uk> Signal Processing Group
<r...@eng.cam.ac.uk> Cambridge University Engineering Dept.
"No"
Paul L. Allen
In article <840377...@cobalt.demon.co.uk>
Friday <fri...@cobalt.demon.co.uk> writes:
> In article <Wwk1DiAX...@crusher.demon.co.uk>
> li...@crusher.demon.co.uk "Lilian J White" writes:
> > I do not want to know
> > that I can access child pornography from my computer.
>
> You can also access in your local pub, if you know the right people.
> Will this prevent you from going to the pub? Just because such material
> is available in your newsfeed does not force you to download it, look
> at it, or do anything with it.
That is true at present. It won't be true if the Met has its way.
> > Someone once said that all censorship will do anyway is force this porn
> > back to where it came from - bulletin boards.
>
> That's all censorship ever does. It hides things away from the "nice"
> people. It never provides a "solution".
Actually, it won't hide things from the nice people. Quite the opposite,
in fact.
At the moment there are newsgroups whose names indicate their purpose, and
all you have to do to avoid seeing stuff you don't like is not to download
those newsgroups. Come the Met censorship, and the perverts will create
new groups with innocuous names that you might well download thinking them
to be completely different. Or they'll post their stuff into other
mainstream groups, and you'll end up with something vile and disgusting
in the middle of demon.service [cue all the jokes].
> > What's also clear is that even if ALL British IPs get rid of offending
> > groups, they'll still be available in other countries. People will
> > naturally find a way round the problem, perhaps by getting their mates
> > in these countries to send the stuff via email!
>
> Indeed; so what's to be gained from restricting access?
They won't use mail if they can avoid it - gives away the ID of the
recipient unless they all start using anonymous re-mailers. I hope they
don't do this, because the impact on bandwidth will be not nice at all.
> I don't think that placing restrictions on distribution will have any effect
> on production anyway.
It is said that most of the paedophile porn on the net is endlessly
recycled material from Holland in the 70s when they had a brief experiment
with legalizing it.
> Distribution channels will merely re-route, or use traditional mthods.
The re-routeing will mean a load of stuff you don't want appearing in
places you least expect it. Having porn newsgroups is more a convenience
for those who *don't* want to see it than for those that do...
--Paul
Malcolm McMahon
On 19 Aug 96 11:50:28 GMT, mal...@muir-et2.staff.demon.net (Malcolm
Muir) wrote:
>The letter was a private correspondence between the Police and
>named recipients. As such I am not at liberty to comment on the
>content. I am sure you wold not be happy if we openly commented on
>a private letter sent to us by yourself.
>
If the letter was leaked with a distortion which made me look like a
serious ashole then I might actually be rather pleased if you
publicity stated that that _wasn't_ what I wrote.
But then if someone sent _me_ a threatening letter I would feel no
duty of confidentiality anyway.
I think I can understand why Demon and the ISPA want to play this
close to their chest. You are trying to be the voice of reason, not
take an openly adversarial stance. You don't want to associate with
the natural enemies of censorship.
But I seriously hope you are looking for allies behind the scenes
because nothing I've heard suggests that the forces you are dealing
with are amenable to either reason or compromise. There's nothing in
this latest letter to suggest that your reasoned arguments to date
have moved them one iota from the Bavarian model.
Malcolm McMahon
On Mon, 19 Aug 1996 07:57:03 +0100, pe...@cara.demon.co.uk (Peter
Ceresole) wrote:
>In article <3217330f...@news.demon.co.uk>,
>mal...@pigsty.demon.co.uk (Malcolm McMahon) wrote:
>
>>Oh, I should thing the "socio-policital" factor of Demon subscribers
>>going elsewhere in droves might be persuasive.
>
>Given that so far, Demon have been in the lead in supplying a full
>newsfeed, and that the only thing that might stop them would be action by
>legal authorities or the police which would certainly apply to all UK
>providers, where would you propose to go?
>
Some provider that did set up an efficient offshore newsfeed perhaps.
Colin Walker
In article <3215c501...@news.demon.co.uk>, John Wright
<jo...@pegase.demon.co.uk> writes
>On Fri, 16 Aug 96 12:33:33 GMT, David G. Bell wrote:
>>It should be easy enough to check whether or not the Police Officer the
>>letter is attributed to actually exists.
>
>He made it clear then that *he* regards ISP's as responsible for *any*
>material that people access through the internet. That is, if I get some
>smutty pics. from an ftp site somewhere, then he regards demon as being
>responsible. This seems to be an example of the police making up the law as
>they go along....
>
Welcome to the UK. Surely you didn't think that you had any rights did
you?
The Police do have the power to act as judge and jury, simply because
there is nothing to stop them. Perhaps you remember the reign of the
Chief Constable of Greater Manchester. Much more interested in the
Festival of Light than the problems in his own patch.
I have sympathy with the views of Lilian White, but that as other
posters have already stated could have been solved by the use of a
"Nanny Key". But she then qualifies her statement by listing what she
would find acceptable. But this is not what French is proposing. He is
proposing that he sets himself up as the Nation's thought Police.
Sorry, but until such time as there is a real constitution in this
country that defines the rights of the people ala the USA, then your
just going to have to put up with being treated like sheep.
By the way, was alt.christnet.sex on the list?
- - - - - - - - - - - -
Colin Walker
Michael Ashton
>mi...@kempston.demon.co.uk (Mike Mann) wrote:
>>In article <32147...@muir-et2.staff.demon.net>,
>>mal...@muir-et2.staff.demon.net (Malcolm Muir) wrote:
>>
>>>Currently the letter is being considered and advice being taken.
>>
>>I'm sure that Demon will take note of the fact that UK law cannot be
>>enforced in Holland. Expanding into Europe is looking like a good
>>move.
>Let's just hope news.demon.nl allows demon.co.uk. nntp connections....
Those that were watching the nine o'clock news will note that the home office
has threatened to "pull the plug" if these groups aren't banned. I took this
to mean the banning of Internet connectivity in the U.K.
--
"Arousing me, now, with a sense of desire"
"Possessing my soul 'till my body's on fire"
Michael Ashton
>Does he really understand how the net works, somehow i don't think so. The
>only way Demon could police this would be to block all access outside the
>demon network
This appears to be something the home office are considering.
>Can we have a collection of clues for these cops before things get out of
>hand?
The battle has been going on all along. The war has been fought and you are
now seeing the chicken-pox spots of defeat rising to the surface.
Unfortunately, since we weren't involved in it, I honestly couldn't tell you
who has won. We will found out.
Michael Ashton
>French is clearly trying to bully the ISPs into accepting a
>draconian extra-Parliamentary extension to the law with an overt
>threat of unspecified "enforcement", which could mean a dawn raid
>in which sufficient hardware would be removed as "evidence" to put
>the ISP out of business. (Such a raid would be quite unneccessary, as
>the "evidence" can be downloaded by anyone with an nntp client.)
>IMHO what French is playing at is rank, old-fashioned despotism, and
>it needs to be contested by every means at our disposal.
Well, I'm on board. What do you propose we do about it.
Michael Ashton
>In article <Wwk1DiAX...@crusher.demon.co.uk>
> li...@crusher.demon.co.uk "Lilian J White" writes:
>> Nor see the names
>> of these newsgroups as I scroll thru my list.
>That's "through". Didn't you attack {R} for his spelling elsewhere?
and wrongly, at that.
Michael Ashton
>The letter was a private correspondence between the Police and
>named recipients.
Cue arguments about correspondence between two peoples whose wages we
pay... ;)
Andy Fawcett
In article <840390...@dsl.co.uk>
Brian {Hamilton Kelly} <b...@dsl.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <840361...@sievers.com> Ph...@sievers.com "Phil Payne" writes:
>
> > And I believe the good residents of Cockermouth _still_ can't
> > register their true addresses on AOL.
>
> Nor those of Scunthorpe, AIUI.
Good. Does this mean I will have the undoubted privilege of _never_
having an AOL account?
Tap - from Scunthorpe...
--
Andy Fawcett a.f.p. recipes (recip...@lspace.org)
http://www.afawcett.demon.co.uk/ send mail with subject 'send index'
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not schizophrenic. It's this guy beside me!
Thomas Lee
In article <4v7sb6$9...@stonix.demon.co.uk>, Richard Lamont
<ric...@stonix.demon.co.uk> writes
>IMHO what French is playing at is rank, old-fashioned despotism, and
>it needs to be contested by every means at our disposal.
Does he or anyone remotely connected to him have email?
Just a thought...
Thomas
--
Thomas
Curiously, at Home.
Andy Hawkins
In article <4v7qfb$8...@stonix.demon.co.uk>,
Richard Lamont<ric...@stonix.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <DwC3...@news.home.ml-associates.co.uk>,
>
>> Let's just hope news.demon.nl allows demon.co.uk. nntp connections....
>
How is this done? By the domain? The thought occurs that if I'm in Holland
and log on to download news using one of their PoPs, wouldn't using the news
server in Finchley be a bit of a waste of the trans-channel bandwidth?
Andy
--
Andy Hawkins aka Chopper http://jumper.mcc.ac.uk/~andyh
adha...@iee.org
Michael Ashton
In <Snews.960818.20...@keris.demon.co.uk> Chris Croughton <ch...@keris.demon.co.uk> writes:
[article]
I agree with all that.
>(The only people who have a case to complain about bestiality are the
>"animal rights" people, and they'd have to prove that the animal doesn't
>enjoy it...)
I take issue with the above. I would also complain, on the grounds that this
is rape, since it is non-consensual. IMO, The onus is on you to prove
consent. Of course, this is my opinion and since I'm not one of the YKINO
group, I can accept that you may not share it. I'll stand a better chance of
persuading you my view was "correct", of course, while we still have
newsgroups in which to discuss these matters.
Mark Lowes
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On Mon, 19 Aug 1996 08:15:04 GMT, in <32181e99...@news.demon.co.uk>
mal...@pigsty.demon.co.uk (Malcolm McMahon) wrote.....
>On Sun, 18 Aug 1996 19:24:45 GMT, Mark Lowes
><Ma...@flyhmstr.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>A properly thought out approach to policing the net, on an International
>>basis would be far more welcome than local forces trying to control a force
>>which is basicly uncontrollable.
>
>But then the question is: To _who's_ standards? Shall we have a net
>ruled by the sexual liberalism of the English, the religious tolerance
>of the Iranians, the openness to political discussion of the Chinese?
>A net, in short, where about the only thing you can safely discuss is
>vegan wholefood recipies?
Sure about that? What about the vegetable liberation front ;)
[...]
>To my mind the net needs to be granted a kind of extraterritoriality
>with those that access it deemed as "importing" the material.
Agreed, in other words give the ISPs a common carrier status and let *them*
decide which groups they wish to carry (the Tories god Market Forces would
decide) and let the UK Police go after those who create and post illegal
material in the UK, ie not the Guy in the Netherlands who isn't breaking
the law locally. How we deal with those who download the 'offending'
newsgroups is another matter, it would be difficult for the Police to prove
intent to download dodgy material, unless they could get hold of logs from
the ISP.
- --
Mark <ham...@lspace.org> http://www.flyhmstr.demon.co.uk/
The Elendor MUSH Shire Home Page http://www.flyhmstr.demon.co.uk/shire/
The Flying Hamster Listserver : list...@flyhmstr.demon.co.uk
Never have so many known so little about so much.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2i
iQB1AwUBMhjP6ndEofm1SPhBAQGB+gL/anGkTVWE8Q2qBhNx6cVis/CkdF2UrayU
KBYLBL5ZI4oLeAlxzmXgA2BlfqsbegHwQyAkO3S8zrtNeTmyo2+MqGNGuFyNVq4f
H0MI6A5FOrtRXXAUUzcIcQnZwvb8Z2qS
=ik+2
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Jonathan Waland
John Wright (jo...@pegase.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: On Fri, 16 Aug 96 12:33:33 GMT, David G. Bell wrote:
: >It should be easy enough to check whether or not the Police Officer the
: >letter is attributed to actually exists.
:
: French was interviewed on the Radio 4 "Today" program this morning.
: He made it clear then that *he* regards ISP's as responsible for *any*
: material that people access through the internet. That is, if I get some
: smutty pics. from an ftp site somewhere, then he regards demon as being
: responsible. This seems to be an example of the police making up the law as
: they go along....
[snip]
In this case, will they be prosecuting BT, Energis et al for 'carrying'
the data to my modem?
jon
--
Jonathan Waland - wa...@abstruse.demon.co.uk - Running off an A4000/030/882
Now Hands up who knows what ABSTRUSE means???
Peter's Theorem - Incompetence plus incompetence equals incompetence.
Michael Ashton
In <32171340...@news.demon.co.uk> ni...@sellors.demon.co.uk (Nick Sellors) writes:
>On Sat, 17 Aug 1996 21:45:34 GMT, mi...@kempston.demon.co.uk (Mike
>Mann) wrote:
><snip, police censorship letter>
>>I'm sure that Demon will take note of the fact that UK law cannot be
>>enforced in Holland. Expanding into Europe is looking like a good
>>move.
>So, thinking laterally, if news.demon.co.uk was in actual fact
>sitting in an office in Amsterdam, would that get around the
>"problem" ?
No, since importing them material is often just as (sometimes more so)
illegal as producing it. C&E would have to look into Internet issues. Be
afraid.
Michael Ashton
In <840381...@madhippy.demon.co.uk> Pete Robinson <pe...@madhippy.demon.co.uk> writes:
>Rather than let bureaucrats decide which groups our ISP's provide, couldn't
>we just decide ourselves?
>Votes for child porn.....anyone??
Yes please. So long as I don't have to download it.
Ian Dickson
In article <32171340...@news.demon.co.uk>, Nick Sellors
<ni...@sellors.demon.co.uk> writes
>
>
>So, thinking laterally, if news.demon.co.uk was in actual fact
>sitting in an office in Amsterdam, would that get around the
>"problem" ?
>
>
I don't know if would prevent the police harrassing Demon, but it would
certainly affect the march of UK ISPs into Europe if they cannot carry a
full news feed and their European customers want it.
Chalk another lost opportunity and sacrifice of what will soon be a
multi hundred million pound market. Either that or watch Demon move lock
stock and barrel to Holland, and pay their taxes on all our monthly
tenners to the Dutch.
--
Ian Dickson 01451 844468
Moneyweb http://www.demon.co.uk/moneyweb/index.html
"probably the UK's most comprehensive Personal Finance site" - The FT
"Charming.....5 (out of 5) for content" - The Web Magazine
Three Stars, "clearly written" - Magellan ( Search Engine / Review )
Ray Auchterlounie
Lilian J White <li...@crusher.demon.co.uk> wrote:
[...]
>I for one will be glad to see the newsgroups go. I do not want to know
And how do you propose Demon get rid of them ?
Do you really think that if Demon rmgrouped them the message would be
honoured around the world ?
>that I can access child pornography from my computer. Nor see the names
Once you have a modem you can access anywhere in the world from your
computer, including places where what you regard as "child
pornography" may be considered legal/normal, and other places where
things regarded here as legal/normal are "child pornography".
Or do you have an internationally agreed definition of "child" and
"pornography" ?
If you want to know that you can't access such material from your
computer, it's quite simple: unplug your modem and jump on it, hard.
>of these newsgroups as I scroll thru my list. Of course it is
So delete them - they aren't on any list on my machine.
>censorship, but what is the alternative?
The only alternative to "censorship" is "no censorship" - your point ?
[...]
>Let's also face facts: removal of these groups is coming whatever.
Uh huh, usenet will probably die and be replaced by something else,
probably web-based.
>Either the police raid IPs that continue to supply them, or each IP in
>turn agrees to remove them to prevent being charged.
And how do they do that, Mr Policeman ?
>What's also clear is that even if ALL British IPs get rid of offending
>groups, they'll still be available in other countries. People will
>naturally find a way round the problem, perhaps by getting their mates
>in these countries to send the stuff via email!
Er, no, they will simply access other servers in just the same way as
they do Demon's (or using http). They will also probably clog up
Demon's international bandwidth doing so. Which would you rather - one
copy on Demon's server or 100s of copies on the DS3 ?
>To reiterate: I'll be glad if Demon decide to announce they are to
>remove what are blatantly ILLEGAL groups. Soft porn for consenting
What is a "blatantly ILLEGAL" group ?
A group with completely illegal content ?
A group with mostly illegal content ?
A group with some illegal content ?
>adults is one thing, but child porn, bestiality and so on are another.
What is a "consenting adult" - even this country's own laws aren't
consistent on that.
Consider a middle-aged man and a 16yr old (girl - not boy, we
"protect" them) having sex whilst watching soft porn - legal ?
- in most civilised countries it'd be statutory rape / child abuse.
- in this country it's illegal because the girl is too young to watch
the film (18 cert - it's got sex in it)...
You want to impose a nonsensical set of laws like this on an
international network ?
>If Demon try to "hold the fort" and continue to supply these groups in
>the name of free speech, then they will be acting foolishly, IMO.
I don't think they are doing it in the name of free speech - they are
doing it because there is no effective means of censoring the internet
(without shutting it down). Demon's news servers are simply there to
give you a faster response, and them a more efficient use of bandwidth.
Phil Payne
In article <32179b41...@news.demon.co.uk>
sh...@moatlane.demon.co.uk "Shaun Hollingworth" writes:
> According to the "News of the World" a certain Detective Constable
> Kevin Smith, OF THE METROPOLITAN POLICE Aged 36, has been 'detected'
> accepting bribes, from a MS. Valerie Marfo, who runs a brothel in
> Lewisham, South London.
Are we getting close to the real issue - that the Metropolitan Police get no
backhanders off the Internet?
--
Phil Payne (ph...@sievers.com, despite what Demon's bounces say.)
Phone: +44 385302803 Fax: +44 1536723021 CIS: 100012,1660
(c) Copyright Phil Payne/Sievers Consulting 1996
Phil Payne
In article <32185...@muir-et2.staff.demon.net>
mal...@demon.net "Malcolm Muir" writes:
> The letter was a private correspondence between the Police and
> named recipients. As such I am not at liberty to comment on the
> content. I am sure you wold not be happy if we openly commented on
> a private letter sent to us by yourself.
The police are not yet, I hope, entitled to the same privacy as a private
individual. As a body funded by the public and supposedly ultimately
answerable to the public, each and every one of their actions is subject to
scrutiny.
Any privilege of confidentialty to which the police are entitled is limited
only to matters where it is expedient - where revealing the progress of their
investigations might reduce the chance of criminals being brought to justice.
If they start, however, to develop laws of their own they should be subject to
the same publicity as business in Parliament.
Chris Croughton
In article <32181e99...@news.demon.co.uk>
mal...@pigsty.demon.co.uk "Malcolm McMahon" wrote:
>A net, in short, where about the only thing you can safely discuss is
>vegan wholefood recipies?
Don't you dare offend us carnivores and omnivores with that nasty Vegan
stuff! Do you realise that billions of plants are raised IN CAPTIVITY
and then killed by cutting them and plunging them still alive into
boiling water? That still more aren't even killed before being eaten?
>Or shall we have a net ruled by the ethical consensus of the people on
>it? Netizens are the Avant Guard of this decade. Their standards would
>satisfy _none_ of the aforementioned governments.
So shoot the fucking government. Or as some of us used to say 30 years
ago, "Kill the Pigs!" (now they probably all have BSE anyway)...
>To my mind the net needs to be granted a kind of extraterritoriality
>with those that access it deemed as "importing" the material.
(I agree with you, sir. To quote a tag from another newgroup, "It's you
and me against the world: when do we attack?")
.-------------------------------.-------------------------------------.
| ch...@keris.demon.co.uk | FIAWOL (Filking Is A Way Of Life) |
`-------------------------------^-------------------------------------'
Chris Croughton
In article <DwDqx...@stonewall.demon.co.uk>
ni...@stonewall.demon.co.uk "Nigel Whitfield" wrote:
>They don't like people who
>have anything other than sex in the missionary position, and they'd
>like it stopped.
Could you please tell me what other things than sex one can do in the
missionary position, and whether they are fun or painful? I'd like to
try some of them before they are stopped...
And I suspect that eating comes under that ban as well, since I don't
know many people who eat in the missionary position.
(Ain't language superb? I know exactly what you meant but there were
at least two other interpretations of what you said which are equally
valid. I like ambiguity (so that's probably the next thing they'll
ban)...)
Paul Terry
In article <4v7upd$c...@xciv.demon.co.uk>, sent to demon.service, Paul
Civati <pa...@xciv.org> writes
>One problem as I see it is that this current Police action is trying to
>force ISPs like Demon, who want to go for the common carrier status, into
>doing something they don't want to do, making themselves responsible for
>content.
>
>Currently UK obscenity laws don't really cater for the internet AIUI,
>and are geared torwards magazines, videos etc.
The Met's Clubs and Vice Unit has had singularly little success even in
this area. The head of the Unit (Supt. Mike Hoskins - French's boss?)
recently stated that obscenity law leaves juries confused. "Defense
lawyers stand up in court and say you may be shocked, abused and
violated by what you see - but are you depraved and corrupted? No."
He seemed particularly incensed that juries no longer find one of the
traditional tests of obscenity (viz. an erect penis as opposed to a
flaccid one) obscene.
This was after the collapse of the O'Sullivan case - a chain of 14
London sex shops selling pornographic magazines and videos - which was
the culmination of 18 months work and vast waste of public money by the
Clubs and Vice Unit.
The ultimate decision of the jury amounted to a statement that if you
are an adult knowingly going into an area labelled "Sex Shop: Adult
Material", you may be shocked but you will not be depraved and corrupted
by the material found there (and the Met dredged up some pretty
unsavoury material apparently).
>So, we're seeing the Police using current UK laws as they see them, and
>applying them to ISPs to 'get something done' about the kind of news
>content currently available in the UK.
Testing, in court, the application of current obscenity law to digital
media - when the police already admit those laws are "very unclear" - is
likely to be another futile waste of time and money.
It is quite possible that juries would see a parallel between knowingly
walking into a sex shop to view the stock and subscribing to a group
such as alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.animals - don't be surprised by
what you get! You may be shocked but you won't be depraved ... etc.
(i.e. it fails the rather hazy test of obscenity). Of course, there is a
problem in that not all newsgroups are as clearly described by their
name (and the circumscribed list does seem very confused). There is also
the problem that many "minors" have access to the Net (although the
goverment's quest for "parental responsibility" seems to resonate here).
>Demon have to decide from a commercial point of view, whether they want to
>maintain an uncensored news feed, and from a legal point of view, the
>various risks of trying to go for common carrier or being responsible for
>content.
Censoring the feed is, as others have pointed out, playing right into
the Met's hands. For then dubious binaries might appear almost anywhere
without warning and thus a jury might well conclude that material could
corrupt and deprave those who were not expecting to see it.
This would, of course, make the Met's task very much easier, and I
expect that CI. French is aware of this - as, I hope, Demon are.
Ultimately, I suspect that there will have to be a test case. I am
doubtful that this would be successful under the Obscene Publications
Act, but the provisions of the Criminal Justice Act (particularly Part
XI, "indecent photographs of a child ... ") might be used. Perhaps if
ISPs were proactive in helping to pursue posters of this type of
material (as perhaps they already do - I don't know), questions of wider
and unworkable censorship of the newsfeed might be avoided.
[I have used your article, Paul, as a hook for some thoughts of my own -
I am not actually taking issue with anything you said!]
--
Paul Terry (Email: pa...@musonix.demon.co.uk)
Nigel Whitfield
In article <aD+peBAZ...@tancomm.demon.co.uk>,
Don't think so. But take a close look at the list (you can get to a
copy via http://www.diversity.org.uk/diversity/hotnews.html if no
other way). It's not alpabetical at all. It's long, so it'll take a
few pages to print out.
And all the kiddie stuff has been put together right at the top, to
make sure that the yuk factor is there. A lot of people will just
glance at that, and not realise that buried further down is the
*really* kinky, completely unallowable stuff, like
alt.sex.fetish.tickling.
Nigel.
--
Nigel Whitfield
ni...@diversity.org.uk Digital Diversity
ni...@stonewall.demon.co.uk and uk-motss
***** All demon.co.uk sites are independently run internet hosts *****
Peter Galbavy
Shaun Hollingworth wrote:
> Perhaps they want the censorship, so they can be 'bunged' even more
> money from new sources. It wouldn't suprise me! Anyway, protection of
> children aside, (which can be done technically) I want full Usenet
> access, so that I've a clear ABSOLUTELY clear picture of what goes on
> in the world. I cannot trust the MET to decide on my behalf.
> Especially after this.
On a personal level, I agree with your general view on the subject,
however I do not understand the note about protecting children
"technically". Do you mean by things like the net nanny programs or do
you mean a more obscure way of preventing kiddy porn being posted ? I
hope you mean the former, as the latter is pretty much impossible (with
current technologies).
Regards,
--
Peter Galbavy +44 181 371 1000
Demon Internet Ltd work: http://www.demon.net/
rest: http://www.whirl-y-gig.org.uk/
play: http://www.wonderland.org/
Ray Auchterlounie
Malcolm McMahon <mal...@pigsty.demon.co.uk> wrote:
[...]
>A net, in short, where about the only thing you can safely discuss is
>vegan wholefood recipies?
I don't think that's a safe topic around most farmers right now...
Richard Lamont
In article <4v7upd$c...@xciv.demon.co.uk>,
pa...@xciv.org (Paul Civati) writes:
> Demon have to decide from a commercial point of view, whether they want to
> maintain an uncensored news feed, and from a legal point of view, the
> various risks of trying to go for common carrier or being responsible for
> content.
The real risk for the ISPs is the prospect of a heavy-handed raid on the
pretext of collecting "evidence". Demon should offer to provide the
"evidence" of what is on its news servers to the Vice Squad on request,
and then seek a court injunction restraining the police from raiding
their premises unneccessarily.
If there was a test case to determine whether an ISP is a common
carrier or a publisher, the ISPs would probably win. That is why the
government / police are resorting to Stalinist tactics instead of
trying to minimise the threat of force and resolve the issue properly
in a court of law.
--
Richard Lamont
ric...@stonix.demon.co.uk
http://www.stonix.demon.co.uk/
Ian Sharrock
Can I ask a simple question of the Demon management (and any Demon
techies that happen to be watching). If I ask you (nicely) to remove my
access to a newsgroup, is the will or the infrastructure in place to do
this?
Is it feasable to set up a censored newsfeed by default, with people
able to 'opt in' to a full feed at will? (I'm asking for opt-in as I
suspect that the powers that be would find it more acceptable.)
Such a facility would go part way towards satisfying the Home Office
stance on 'self regulation'.
Ian
--
Ian Sharrock
Richard Lamont
In article <4valm1$o...@unixsoft.demon.co.uk>,
Michael Ashton <mi...@unixsoft.demon.co.uk> writes:
> Well, I'm on board. What do you propose we do about it.
I don't know whether writing to our MPs will do any good. I think
it is worth a try. I wrote to mine yesterday (Monday).
Someone once said that if an MP gets ten letters from constituents
saying the same thing, he sits up and takes notice. If those letters
appear to have arrived independently of each other (rather than being
orchestrated by a lobby group) then he *really* takes notice.
There are I think 625 MPs in the House of Commons. Can we send 6,250
letters between us?
Hoppy
Michael Ashton <mi...@unixsoft.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In <32171340...@news.demon.co.uk> ni...@sellors.demon.co.uk (Nick Sellors) writes:
>
>>On Sat, 17 Aug 1996 21:45:34 GMT, mi...@kempston.demon.co.uk (Mike
>>Mann) wrote:
>
>><snip, police censorship letter>
>
>>>I'm sure that Demon will take note of the fact that UK law cannot be
>>>enforced in Holland. Expanding into Europe is looking like a good
>>>move.
>
>>sitting in an office in Amsterdam, would that get around the
>>"problem" ?
>
>illegal as producing it. C&E would have to look into Internet issues. Be
>afraid.
Who's doing the importing though?
______________________________________________________________________________
Paul D. Lee Division Limited
"Hoppy" 19 Apex Court, Woodlands
Bristol BS12 4JT, UK
Tel: +44 1454 615554
Fax: +44 1454 615532
Email: ho...@division.co.uk
David Hough
In article <8E$KJEANi...@bertie.demon.co.uk>
Ian Sharrock <i...@bertie.demon.co.uk> writes:
>
> Can I ask a simple question of the Demon management (and any Demon
> techies that happen to be watching). If I ask you (nicely) to remove my
> access to a newsgroup, is the will or the infrastructure in place to do
> this?
>
> Is it feasable to set up a censored newsfeed by default, with people
> able to 'opt in' to a full feed at will? (I'm asking for opt-in as I
> suspect that the powers that be would find it more acceptable.)
>
so I would only get alt.sex.* if I specifically requested such groups.
Dave
--
da...@llondel.demon.co.uk
Any advice above is worth what I paid for it.
Michael Ashton
In <08191996...@flyhmstr.demon.co.uk> Mark Lowes <Ham...@lspace.org> writes:
>Exactly this incident went through my mind when i first heard about this,
>they haven't leant on the ISP's heavily ... yet and forced them to ban the
>groups but if they do the same thing will happen again. The crossposting
>will go nuts and i'll get a load of crap in the groups i read crossposted
>from the alt.sex.* and alt.binaries.* groups. With forged headers so
>killfiles are ineffective. Great :(
Actually, I doubt that this will happen. It hasn't happened when anyone else
has banned the groups (Janet, AOL, Compusmurf, etc.) and the UK ISP is
relatively small.