IWF report -> ISP removal of ng turnaround time
Wm...
both groups, you decide about your reply.
===
In mid February this year I reported a group that Demon carried to the
IWF and included an example posting (I think the posting, which was part
of a series, was cancelled at the time).
Sometime in the last few days Demon pulled the ng, presumably as a
result of a notification from the IWF along with a few others [1]
What I'm wondering about is the turnaround time and where the bottleneck
was.
Two and a half months seems a bit long to me (though I did wonder for a
while if it had been decided that the group's content was deemed OK) for
the report to ng pull turnaround time.
Does this amount of time match with other people's experience?
Before anyone in d.s yells hypocrite I think the group in question ought
to have been pulled yonks ago, unlike some of the others that those with
long memories may recall I think shouldn't have been pulled at all.
[1] why alt.binaries.erotica.teen was pulled at the same time but
alt.binaries.erotica.teen.female wasn't defies all sensibility to me.
I suppose the reason for my posting is that I still don't think this is
working. Groups that should be pulled take (relatively) ages to be
pulled and groups that shouldn't be pulled do get pulled.
Maybe someone that understands it will have the courage to explain it
all to us. Or at least try ...
--
Wm ...
address valid for at least 31 days from date of posting
Chris Newport
>
> I suppose the reason for my posting is that I still don't think this is
> working. Groups that should be pulled take (relatively) ages to be
> pulled and groups that shouldn't be pulled do get pulled.
>
> Maybe someone that understands it will have the courage to explain it
> all to us. Or at least try ...
Please try to keep up.
The police group involved in such matters (according to several reports
in demon.service and elsewhere) are Demon customers.
It would probably not be a good idea to pull the groups that they
are interested in.
Wm...
01:07:48 Chris Newport <c...@NOSPAM.netunix.com>:
>"Wm..." wrote:
>>
>> I suppose the reason for my posting is that I still don't think this is
>> working. Groups that should be pulled take (relatively) ages to be
>> pulled and groups that shouldn't be pulled do get pulled.
>>
>> Maybe someone that understands it will have the courage to explain it
>> all to us. Or at least try ...
>
>Please try to keep up.
In what way do you think I am not keeping up?
>The police group involved in such matters (according to several reports
>in demon.service and elsewhere) are Demon customers.
So? What is the relevance of that to what I said?
>It would probably not be a good idea to pull the groups that they
>are interested in.
Ha, fucking, ha, no doubt your joke about policemen and internet gurus
will follow. Please make sure you include a lightbulb.
Mike Mann
<tcn...@tarrcity.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In mid February this year I reported a group that Demon carried to the
>IWF and included an example posting (I think the posting, which was part
>of a series, was cancelled at the time).
>
>Sometime in the last few days Demon pulled the ng, presumably as a
>result of a notification from the IWF along with a few others [1]
>
>What I'm wondering about is the turnaround time and where the bottleneck
>was.
You're assuming that your report and Demon deciding to drop the group
were connected. Perhaps they were; perhaps they weren't. You don't
seem to have offered any evidence of a causal relationship between the
two events.
You also seem to be under the impression that dropping groups is a
"good thing" and to be further assuming that this view is widely held.
I think you are mistaken: the dropping of newsgroups, especially by a
small parochial ISP, has hardly any effect on the availability of
those groups and probably makes it more difficult to detect those who
use the groups for illegal purposes. There's certainly no consensus
that dropping groups achieves anything much.
Regards, Mike.
--
Solaris at home: http://www.kempston.org/solaris/
Wm...
Wed, 8 May 2002 20:41:02 Mike Mann <mi...@kempston.net>:
>On Tue, 7 May 2002 23:10:52 +0100, "Wm..."
><tcn...@tarrcity.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>In mid February this year I reported a group that Demon carried to the
>>IWF and included an example posting (I think the posting, which was part
>>of a series, was cancelled at the time).
>>
>>Sometime in the last few days Demon pulled the ng, presumably as a
>>result of a notification from the IWF along with a few others [1]
>>
>>What I'm wondering about is the turnaround time and where the bottleneck
>>was.
>
>You're assuming that your report and Demon deciding to drop the group
>were connected.
Please note I said "presumably as a result of a notification from the
IWF"
I have my correspondence with the IWF, you don't.
> Perhaps they were; perhaps they weren't. You don't
>seem to have offered any evidence of a causal relationship between the
>two events.
How true. Y'know funny thing is I *can't* offer any connection because I
am not part of the IWF and just a customer of Demon's. Hence I asked.
Having said that if you've worked with data for a while you sort of
start seeing patterns and they repeat themselves (no, my name is not
William Gibson).
>You also seem to be under the impression that dropping groups is a
>"good thing" and to be further assuming that this view is widely held.
No, I think dropping groups is a bad thing, perhaps you missed the last
part of my posting on purpose. The group in question was, however
(unlike other groups I've looked into and found un-offensive) entirely
filled with images that I think would be illegal in the uk unlike many
of the other groups that have been pulled by demon.
>I think you are mistaken: the dropping of newsgroups, especially by a
>small parochial ISP, has hardly any effect on the availability of
>those groups and probably makes it more difficult to detect those who
>use the groups for illegal purposes. There's certainly no consensus
>that dropping groups achieves anything much.
I agree entirely. If you send me an e-mail I'll tell you the group I
reported that got pulled and I think ought to have been pulled and why.
Part of what I'm asking is why demon and the IWF don't bother saying why
they are pulling groups. In this case I was involved. I have e-mails
from the IWF saying yes, we'll investigate further, demon pull the group
a few months later. Maybe you're right, maybe the events are
unconnected but I don't think they are. Point is I can no easily prove
that demon's pull was connected than you can easily prove that demon's
pull was disconnected. You with me?
In the case of the group concerned I'm happy it was pulled.
But what I am also doing is pointing out the lack of transparency. In
general I don't think groups should be pulled and have said so before.
I'm also not a stuck record.
Mike Mann
<tcn...@tarrcity.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>You also seem to be under the impression that dropping groups is a
>>"good thing" and to be further assuming that this view is widely held.
>No, I think dropping groups is a bad thing, ...
I assumed that you meant what you said when you wrote:
>Before anyone in d.s yells hypocrite I think the group in question ought
>to have been pulled yonks ago
and:
>Groups that should be pulled take (relatively) ages to be
>pulled
and:
>If you send me an e-mail I'll tell you the group I
>reported that got pulled and I think ought to have been pulled and why.
and:
>In the case of the group concerned I'm happy it was pulled.
Now that you've contracticted yourself [dropping groups is bad,
pulling groups is good], I really don't know what you think :-(
Unless the words "drop" and "pull" don't mean the same.
>perhaps you missed the last
>part of my posting on purpose.
No. Perhaps you could try again?
>But what I am also doing is pointing out the lack of transparency.
I understand that point. It's the rest of your argument that's beyond
me.
Wm...
Fri, 10 May 2002 09:22:22 Mike Mann <mi...@kempston.net>:
>On Fri, 10 May 2002 00:59:58 +0100, "Wm..."
><tcn...@tarrcity.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>>You also seem to be under the impression that dropping groups is a
>>>"good thing" and to be further assuming that this view is widely held.
>
>>No, I think dropping groups is a bad thing, ...
>
>I assumed that you meant what you said when you wrote:
>
>>Before anyone in d.s yells hypocrite I think the group in question ought
>>to have been pulled yonks ago
Yes, the stem group was dropped and the group should have been dropped.
It was a content specific group. Perhaps you've never come across a
group that is intended to contain images illegal in the UK? (I'm not
suggesting that the majority of the posters were UK residents just that
the group was, primarily, about images illegal in the UK).
This is a very different issue to someone deciding ng abc contains too
many images of young people which I'd object to the pulling of.
The ng I'm talking about was *for* images of young and very young girls.
Nothing else was posted to that obscure corner of usenet in the times I
checked.
>and:
>
>>Groups that should be pulled take (relatively) ages to be
>>pulled
that was something I was questioning and still question.
>and:
>
>>If you send me an e-mail I'll tell you the group I
>>reported that got pulled and I think ought to have been pulled and why.
So? Why don't you ask me via e-mail?
>and:
>
>>In the case of the group concerned I'm happy it was pulled.
I am.
>Now that you've contracticted yourself [dropping groups is bad,
>pulling groups is good], I really don't know what you think :-(
>
>Unless the words "drop" and "pull" don't mean the same.
Unless you're playing with words (I am not) dropping and pulling amount
to the same for me.
At the moment I sort of feel that you're standing in the way, Mike.
If you think I'm a bad person for thinking that a group dedicated to
illegal images should be dropped and that other groups shouldn't have
been dropped (and I believe Demon have dropped many groups they
shouldn't have) then I am a bad person in your eyes and you should,
please, step aside and leave me free to go on and ask "Having asked in
public and received no answer, etc." from the relevant bodies
>>perhaps you missed the last
>>part of my posting on purpose.
>
>No. Perhaps you could try again?
If what I've said above doesn't suffice then no. I'll try talking to
people more directly. I wanted to know about other people's
experiences.
Apparently no one has had an experience like mine. OK, I'm off to talk
to the IWF and Demon directly. Not something you need to bother
yourself about, Mike.
>>But what I am also doing is pointing out the lack of transparency.
>
>I understand that point. It's the rest of your argument that's beyond
>me.
You're allowed to ask about that, I'm a little surprised you did in the
first place TBH. I thought my "record" on this fairly clear.
Mike Mann
<tcn...@tarrcity.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>So? Why don't you ask me via e-mail?
I'm really not interested in the name of the group or its content.
Those quotations were intended only to show that you repeatedly
advocated pulling groups and yet in the same article you said:
>No, I think dropping groups is a bad thing, ...
It was that obvious contradiction I was trying to clear up.
Never mind.
Denis Mcmahon
>You're allowed to ask about that, I'm a little surprised you did in the
>first place TBH. I thought my "record" on this fairly clear.
I think it is.
Rgds
Denis
--
Denis McMahon / +44 7802 468949 / de...@pickaxe.demon.co.uk
sulfnbk is not a virus, see the symantec virus encyclopaedia!
Now restocking killfile, new entrants welcome: trolls, spam,
xpost cascades, OT ads, top posters & terminally clueless!
Wm...
00:36:53 Richard Clayton <ric...@highwayman.com>:
[demon.service added as per thread beginning]
>In article <N0g8AMNv...@tarrcity.demon.co.uk>, Wm...
><tcn...@tarrcity.demon.co.uk> writes
>
>>Yes, I can see that. If what you are saying is right could we have a
>>few quite innocent newsgroups mentioned a number of times back, please,
>
>You are confusing two rather different issues.
I was doing it on purpose. In part because my ISP has not been clear
about *their* decisions versus those of the IWF.
>The IWF has created a list of newsgroups that at the current time (for
>some value of "current time") regularly (for some value of "regularly")
>contain illegal-to-possess material
Yes, one of those hopefully now on that list was reported by me --
actually it was there anyway but someone forgot to think about the
.repost being added so the idea wasn't working very well was it?
>The list of newsgroups not carried on UK ISP news servers is "supposed"
>(for some value of "supposed") to be at least this long. However,
>individual ISPs may have chosen not to carry other groups as well. It
>has been a principle of Usenet since the earliest days that a server
>owner may make their own decision as to which newsgroups are to be
>carried on that server.
Yes, I understand that. Do you not understand my and other people
asking over a considerable amount of time "why?" about some groups not
being carried. Maybe you know and won't tell us? Maybe the person who
knows won't tell you? The point is that the *excuse* (long since made
rubbish by AndrewG) was that it was "the IWF wot did it" -- remember?
Time passes, now we know the IWF didn't do it, now we know that the IWF
forgot the .repost group for one of the (I presume) main places for
young girls being put on show and indeed collected by those with an
interest in such things but ...
... I have yet to hear a peep from anyone at THUS saying why the groups
I think shouldn't have been pulled were. At least when I say I think a
group should be pulled I say why -- images illegal to posses in the UK
-- can Demon / Thus apply the same standard? I think not.
>There is little point discussing these other newsgroups (and I know you
>have particular ones in mind - which you are characterising as
>"innocent" and I would characterise as "not listed by the IWF") here
>since this is entirely a matter for individual ISPs and not a matter of
>"regulation" - the topic of this newsgroup.
So? Get the ISP to say why male penises are bad viewing material for
$deity's sake
I don't particularly want to look at them but Demon / THUS decided
people shouldn't look at them and years have passed and they still
haven't said why? Do you not get it yet, Richard?
I accept the fact that I am a pain in your rectum because I keep on
returning to this point but you will, I hope, accept that you are a pain
in your defence of something I think is (and was) wrong.
>>since the IWF is no longer interested in Usenet much
>
>I cannot see how you deduce this. The position is that they don't have
>to spend a high proportion of their time on it these days.
Well, it shouldn't be complicated to deduce then should it?
>>and some people
>>never spotted an illegal or possibly illegal image in those newsgroups.
>
>Depending upon the reason for the ISP removing the newsgroup,
Oh, please tell, all-seeing-Richard
>this may
>or may not be relevant ...
>
>... mind you, it's also irrelevant to the IWF list as well since it's
>what the IWF staff have seen which matters, not "some people". However,
>none of the many people who are in a position to "blow a whistle" has
>ever suggested that the IWF's listing of a newsgroup is anything other
>than justified. viz: the newsgroups that the IWF report as regularly
>containing illegal-to-possess material do indeed regularly contain
>illegal-to-possess material.
You point being? Unless I am mistaken you're pointing out the "ISPs
just do some stupid things and we can't account for them" bit again.
Richard Clayton
<tcn...@tarrcity.demon.co.uk> writes
>I don't particularly want to look at them but Demon / THUS decided
>people shouldn't look at them and years have passed and they still
>haven't said why? Do you not get it yet, Richard?
Of course Thus said why! Thus published a press release giving their
criteria for removing newsgroups in February 2001.
http://www.demon.net/pressreleases/2001/pr2001-02-20a.shtml
it says that "known paedophilic newsgroups" are removed. It has never
said that "only newsgroups on the current IWF list are removed".
You'll have seen that discussion of the policy by Thus staff mainly
consists of referring you to the statement of the policy. Given the
sensitivity of the topic, I don't think you can be surprised.
>I accept the fact that I am a pain in your rectum because I keep on
>returning to this point but you will, I hope, accept that you are a pain
>in your defence of something I think is (and was) wrong.
I am not defending the change of policy, for which I was not responsible
at the time and certainly am not responsible for now -- I'm just
continuing to draw your attention to the fact that Thus have a policy
for removing newsgroups.
You don't accept that some of the newsgroups that have been removed were
done in accordance with that policy -- however, there seems some doubt
that you understand what the policy is, since you continue to refer to
the IWF in connection with it.
>>... mind you, it's also irrelevant to the IWF list as well since it's
>>what the IWF staff have seen which matters, not "some people". However,
>>none of the many people who are in a position to "blow a whistle" has
>>ever suggested that the IWF's listing of a newsgroup is anything other
>>than justified. viz: the newsgroups that the IWF report as regularly
>>containing illegal-to-possess material do indeed regularly contain
>>illegal-to-possess material.
>
>You point being?
I thought that point was relatively clear but I'll restate it carefully.
There is no evidence that the list of newsgroups promulgated by the IWF
contains anything other than newsgroups that regularly (for some value
of regularly) contain illegal-to-possess material. Since there are a
number of people capable of gathering that evidence and none of them has
ever found any evidence, one concludes (unless of course one wishes to
believe in a massive conspiracy) that the list is correct.
The initial part of the point is that the IWF look at lot harder at
these groups than members of the general public (and have access to
newsfeeds that many members of the general public will not use). So if
such a member of the public says "but I have not seen anything", one
cannot view this as being inconsistent with the IWF having detected
illegal-to-possess material in that newsgroup.
--
richard Richard Clayton
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. Benjamin Franklin
Mike Mann
<tcn...@tarrcity.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>At least when I say I think a
>group should be pulled I say why -- images illegal to posses in the UK
Since you've dragged this thread back into d.s., I trust you will
excuse me if I comment on just this one point while ignoring the rest
[1].
Have you considered that supporting Demon's actions in pulling certain
newsgroups [2] may actually make it easier for Demon customers to find
illegal material, if they wish to?
All they have to do is open an account with one of the "uncensored"
news providers, compare the active file from this provider with the
file available from Demon's news server and note the differences.
[1] It really is difficult to follow your arguments when you keep on
contradicting yourself. See [2]
[2] Despite saying earlier in this thread:
>No, I think dropping groups is a bad thing, ...
Regards, Mike.
Wm...
Fri, 17 May 2002 21:15:41 Mike Mann <mi...@kempston.net>:
>On Thu, 16 May 2002 21:29:19 +0100, "Wm..."
><tcn...@tarrcity.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>At least when I say I think a
>>group should be pulled I say why -- images illegal to posses in the UK
>
>Since you've dragged this thread back into d.s., I trust you will
>excuse me if I comment on just this one point while ignoring the rest
>[1].
Certainly.
>Have you considered that supporting Demon's actions in pulling certain
>newsgroups [2] may actually make it easier for Demon customers to find
>illegal material, if they wish to?
Who said I was supporting Demon's actions in pulling newsgroups? I am
positively against Demon pulling most of the newsgroups *they* have
decided to do so and they and other people seem to be aware of that even
if you aren't.
Query: are you perhaps muddling newsgroups that the IWF say should be
pulled versus those Demon have pulled?
I think the answer to your question is "no, I am not making it easier".
I have not signposted any groups that I know to have contained illegal
to possess material. Hmmn, OK, maybe I alluded to one (partial group
name), but no signpost that I recall and if anyone bothers reading the
uk.net.regulation archives they could dig a lot out of there and, of
course, the IWF docs. All me? I think not.
>All they have to do is open an account with one of the "uncensored"
>news providers, compare the active file from this provider with the
>file available from Demon's news server and note the differences.
Yes, well, I suppose someone could do that. They'd probably find about
20K+ newsgroups in the diff. So what? If someone is looking for
illegal to possess material they'll find it regardless; in any event it
appears the IWF hotline is busy with websites rather than newsgoups
nowadays. I'm still pondering about that.
>[1] It really is difficult to follow your arguments when you keep on
>contradicting yourself. See [2]
As far as I know you are the only person that thinks I "keep on
contradicting" myself. Other people seem to be managing OK. You seem
to be stuck on the fact that I reported a newsgroup to the IWF and then
wondered about the delay. You don't seem to think there is any room for
someone thinking *a* newsgroup should be pulled but that others
shouldn't be pulled and have been.
Obviously it would be easier for you if I took a "no group should ever
be pulled" or "any vaguely suspicious group should be pulled at Demon
management's whim" stance but I'm not like that. Sorry if that
inconveniences you.
>[2] Despite saying earlier in this thread:
>
>>No, I think dropping groups is a bad thing, ...
If you don't follow the conversation it isn't surprising that you miss
some things people say, is it?