underage porn spam, what to do?
An Metet
No effort was made to verify the identity of the sender.
--------------------------------------------------------
most (all?) uk based news services are sorted about underage
porn thanks to the IWF and the efforts of responsible ISPs.
this is good.
my problem, which I would like people to think about, is what to
do about *spam* to an otherwise "decent" newsgroup that includes
images that are probably illegal in the uk and elsewhere.
take for example:
Path:
[snip]
c03.at
l99.us
enetse
rver.c
om!new
s.usenetserver.com!fe47.usenetserver.com.POSTED!29c52d84!not-for-
mail
From: ver...@popoweo.st (VerneR)
Sender: ver...@popoweo.st
Newsgroups:
alt.binaries
.pictures.er
otica.breast
.small,alt.b
inaries.pict
ures.erotica.breasts.small,alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.early-
teens
Subject: 116.jpg more explicit young lolas (1/1)
X-Newsposter: YENC-POWER-POST-A&A-v11b (Modified POWER-POST
www.CosmicWolf.com)
Lines: 1506
Message-ID: <1Xdgd.14638$Eb....@fe47.usenetserver.com>
X-Complaints-To: ab...@usenetserver.com
X-Abuse-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your
complaint properly.
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 17:57:17 EDT
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 21:57:17 GMT
most of the images in the group are of women with small breasts
(big and particularly artificial breasts do not turn me on so I
don't look for them) but someone is spamming illegal (in the uk)
images to the group. I don't want the group to be taken away
but how can I stop the spammer of illegal images?
usenetserver.com provide no trace info and claim at
http://usenetserver.com/
"Anonymous access and posting"
the site being advertised is silly-teens.com which a whois
provides a real address in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA.
what should I do? usenetserver.com don't provide a trace ...
John Hall
An Metet <anm...@freedom.gmsociety.org> writes:
>what should I do? usenetserver.com don't provide a trace ..
Have you done the obvious, and used the info in these headers to
complain:
X-Complaints-To: ab...@usenetserver.com
X-Abuse-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your
complaint properly.
I imagine that the images in question are likely to be as illegal in the
country in which Usenetserver is based as they are here, so that there
is a good chance that they will take action if you explain the basis of
your complaint.
--
John Hall
"Sir, I have found you an argument;
but I am not obliged to find you an understanding."
Dr Samuel Johnson (1709-1784)
An Metet
No effort was made to verify the identity of the sender.
--------------------------------------------------------
In article <HkkA7qDd...@jhall.demon.co.uk>
John Hall <nospam...@jhall.co.uk> wrote:
>
>In article <13a44558f18bbb9f...@anonymous.poster>,
> An Metet <anm...@freedom.gmsociety.org> writes:
>>what should I do? usenetserver.com don't provide a trace ..
>
>Have you done the obvious, and used the info in these headers to
>complain:
>
>X-Complaints-To: ab...@usenetserver.com
>X-Abuse-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
>X-Abuse-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your
>complaint properly.
complain about what? they say they don't have a trace
>I imagine that the images in question are likely to be as illegal in the
>country in which Usenetserver is based as they are here, so that there
>is a good chance that they will take action if you explain the basis of
>your complaint.
i am sure of that too
but have you looked at the route to photosvirgins.com ?
have you looked at the
>--
>John Hall
> "Sir, I have found you an argument;
> but I am not obliged to find you an understanding."
> Dr Samuel Johnson (1709-1784)
i am not sure if that is a joke or not.
oh, the record has changed in the last 24 hours
Registrant:
XXL-cash.LLC
ATTN: PHOTOSVIRGINS.COM
c/o Network Solutions
P.O. Box 447
Herndon VA. 20172-0447
Domain Name: PHOTOSVIRGINS.COM
Administrative Contact Technical Contact:
Glomure
ke65c...@networksolutionsprivateregistration.com
Big-XXXCASH.LLC
ATTN: PHOTOSVIRGINS.COM
c/o Network Solutions
P.O. Box 447
Herndon VA 20172-0447
570-708-8780
Record expires on 14-Oct-2005.
Record created on 14-Oct-2004.
Database last updated on 1-Nov-2004 19: 16: 04 EST.
Domain servers in listed order:
NS1.PHOTOSVIRGINS.COM 209.8.23.114
NS2.PHOTOSVIRGINS.COM 209.8.23.116
This listing is a Network Solutions Private Registration. Mail
correspondence to this address must be sent via USPS Express
Mail(TM) or
USPS Certified Mail(R); all other mail will not be processed.
Be sure to
include the registrants domain name in the address.
that is odd; it was different yesterday (or maybe it was
saturday when I first noticed the child porn spam)
John Hall
An Metet <anm...@freedom.gmsociety.org> writes:
>NOTE: This message was sent thru a mail2news gateway.
>No effort was made to verify the identity of the sender.
>--------------------------------------------------------
>
>In article <HkkA7qDd...@jhall.demon.co.uk>
>John Hall <nospam...@jhall.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>In article <13a44558f18bbb9f...@anonymous.poster>,
>> An Metet <anm...@freedom.gmsociety.org> writes:
>
>>>what should I do? usenetserver.com don't provide a trace ..
>>
>>Have you done the obvious, and used the info in these headers to
>>complain:
>>
>>X-Complaints-To: ab...@usenetserver.com
>>X-Abuse-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
>>X-Abuse-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your
>>complaint properly.
>
>complain about what? they say they don't have a trace
So you _have_ spoken to them, then? If they are saying that they can't
identify who posts through them, it's rather pointless - even
disingenuous - for them to insert those headers.
>
>>I imagine that the images in question are likely to be as illegal in the
>>country in which Usenetserver is based as they are here, so that there
>>is a good chance that they will take action if you explain the basis of
>>your complaint.
>
>i am sure of that too
>
>but have you looked at the route to photosvirgins.com ?
No.
>
>>--
>>John Hall
>> "Sir, I have found you an argument;
>> but I am not obliged to find you an understanding."
>> Dr Samuel Johnson (1709-1784)
>
>i am not sure if that is a joke or not.
It's one of my sigs, and came up purely at random. It has no particular
relevance to your post. It's in my list of sigs because it seems rather
apt for Usenet as a whole.
>
>oh, the record has changed in the last 24 hours
<snip>
I'm afraid that I don't have sufficient expertise to advise you on where
you should take it from here. You could try looking at the IWF's
website, where I imagine you would be likely to find some guidance.
--
John Hall
"Banking was conceived in iniquity and born in sin"
Sir Josiah Stamp, a former president of the Bank of England
An Metet
No effort was made to verify the identity of the sender.
--------------------------------------------------------
In article <9FXSxNJr...@jhall.demon.co.uk>
John Hall <nospam...@jhall.co.uk> wrote:
>
>In article <bc7f0e37f5b73f5b...@anonymous.poster>,
>>complain about what? they say they don't have a trace
>
>So you _have_ spoken to them, then? If they are saying that they can't
>identify who posts through them, it's rather pointless - even
>disingenuous - for them to insert those headers.
that is what I saw as the problem. they're getting money from
them posting so they don't seem to care
>It's one of my sigs, and came up purely at random. It has no particular
>relevance to your post. It's in my list of sigs because it seems rather
>apt for Usenet as a whole.
OK, sorry I mentioned it.
>>oh, the record has changed in the last 24 hours
><snip>
>
>I'm afraid that I don't have sufficient expertise to advise you on where
>you should take it from here. You could try looking at the IWF's
>website, where I imagine you would be likely to find some guidance.
i will write to them tomorrow. my confusion was because i
thought people that made child porn hid it away rather than
advertaising it with spam. i still don't understand it.
bubba
look way down on the bottom of the page it states that all models are
18yo or old so dont sweat it.
An Metet
No effort was made to verify the identity of the sender.
--------------------------------------------------------
In article <bde47109.04110...@posting.google.com>
virginsphotos.com not virginphotos.com although they also say on
the website that models are 18 or over. but some of the usenet
posts that are advertising the site are definately not over 18,
so the site might be OK but the spam is not. up to the IWF now
Clive D. W. Feather
<nospam...@jhall.co.uk> writes
>I imagine that the images in question are likely to be as illegal in the
>country in which Usenetserver is based as they are here,
There is a class of "child porn" images - a large one - that are illegal
in the UK but legal in the USA and, probably, many other countries.
--
Clive D.W. Feather | Home: <cl...@davros.org>
Tel: +44 20 8495 6138 (work) | Web: <http://www.davros.org>
Fax: +44 870 051 9937 | Work: <cl...@demon.net>
Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is: <cl...@davros.org>
Wm...
uk.net.regulation Clive D. W. Feather <cl...@on-the-train.demon.co.uk>
>In article <HkkA7qDd...@jhall.demon.co.uk>, John Hall
><nospam...@jhall.co.uk> writes
>>I imagine that the images in question are likely to be as illegal in the
>>country in which Usenetserver is based as they are here,
>
>There is a class of "child porn" images - a large one - that are
>illegal in the UK but legal in the USA and, probably, many other
>countries.
Is the difference publicly available somewhere?
I haven't looked at every bit of the IWF site recently (so it may be
there and I just didn't find it) but I can't see anything saying "don't
report this sort of stuff because it is OK in merka if it comes from a
merkin"
The OP was obviously confused and it would be good if there was a
resource for him (I presume a him) to know what he should report.
--
Wm ...
Reply-To: address valid for at least 7 days from date of posting
Richard Clayton
not-spam.me.uk> writes
>Wed, 10 Nov 2004 10:28:00 <7p3BCYTw...@romana.davros.org>
>uk.net.regulation Clive D. W. Feather <cl...@on-the-train.demon.co.uk>
>
>>There is a class of "child porn" images - a large one - that are
>>illegal in the UK but legal in the USA and, probably, many other
>>countries.
>
>Is the difference publicly available somewhere?
the US position is encapsulated in the Supreme Court ruling in the case
of Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition (No. 00-795, April 16, 2002)
the UK position is in the Protection of Children Act 1978 s1 (as
amended) [with the amendments being especially relevant, since the
important matter is whether the image is of a real child]
>I haven't looked at every bit of the IWF site recently (so it may be
>there and I just didn't find it) but I can't see anything saying "don't
>report this sort of stuff because it is OK in merka if it comes from a
>merkin"
the IWF will still process reports of illegal material even though it is
hosted overseas and legal overseas -- in practice, they just ensure that
it is removed from Usenet servers in the UK, or if web based they add
the URLs to their database (as used by various blocking solutions)
>The OP was obviously confused and it would be good if there was a
>resource for him (I presume a him) to know what he should report.
anything he believes to be illegal
--
richard Richard Clayton
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. Benjamin Franklin
Roland Perry
2004, Richard Clayton <ric...@highwayman.com> writes
>the UK position is in the Protection of Children Act 1978 s1 (as
>amended) [with the amendments being especially relevant, since the
>important matter is whether the image is of a real child]
Also the age issue: S45(2) of the SOA 2004
In section 2(3) (evidence) and section 7(6) [of the PCA 1978]
(meaning of "child"), for "16" substitute "18".
--
Roland Perry
Wm...
<fQtJBYOG...@donald.internetpolicynews.co.uk> uk.net.regulation
Roland Perry <rol...@internetpolicyagency.com>
URL?
I thought in the US it depended on state laws and that was leveraged by
porn merchants.
John Hall
part of Richard's article makes quite clear.
--
John Hall
"Hegel was right when he said that we learn from history
that man can never learn anything from history."
George Bernard Shaw (1856-1950)
Wm...
uk.net.regulation John Hall <nospam...@jhall.co.uk>
>In article <yY6RtYFQj8lBFwwY@[127.0.0.1]>,
> Wm... <tcn...@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> writes:
>>Sun, 14 Nov 2004 12:53:26 <fQtJBYOG...@donald.internetpolicynews.c
>>o.uk> uk.net.regulation Roland Perry <rol...@internetpolicyagency.com>
>>
>>>In message <$69co8MN...@highwayman.com>, at 17:29:49 on Fri, 12 Nov
>>>2004, Richard Clayton <ric...@highwayman.com> writes
>>>>the UK position is in the Protection of Children Act 1978 s1 (as
>>>>amended) [with the amendments being especially relevant, since the
>>>>important matter is whether the image is of a real child]
>>>
>>>Also the age issue: S45(2) of the SOA 2004
>>>
>>> In section 2(3) (evidence) and section 7(6) [of the PCA 1978]
>>> (meaning of "child"), for "16" substitute "18".
>>
>>URL?
>>
>>I thought in the US it depended on state laws and that was leveraged by
>>porn merchants.
>>
>Richard and Roland were talking about _UK_ legislation, as the quoted
>part of Richard's article makes quite clear.
I know, I was encouraging them to be more clear.
IIRC they may not be clear, which is silly
Roland Perry
2004, Wm... <tcn...@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> writes
>>>the UK position is in the Protection of Children Act 1978 s1 (as
>>>amended) [with the amendments being especially relevant, since the
>>>important matter is whether the image is of a real child]
>>
>>Also the age issue: S45(2) of the SOA 2004
>>
>> In section 2(3) (evidence) and section 7(6) [of the PCA 1978]
>> (meaning of "child"), for "16" substitute "18".
>
>URL?
http://www.legislation.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts2003/30042--b.htm#45
--
Roland Perry
Wm...
<5NMQWk4M...@donald.internetpolicynews.co.uk> uk.net.regulation
Roland Perry <rol...@internetpolicyagency.com>
Thanks, Roland.