🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <840993449snz@howl.demon.co.uk> JW@howl.demon.co.uk  writes:

> Did anyone see the item all over the front page of the Observer today?
> It has an item quoting the Internet Service Providers Association as
> saying that Demon Internet was undermining the fight against child
> pornography.
 
That's hardly surprising.  It's the same sanctimonious tack that is 
always used when people start using the pornography bandwaggon to 
further their own agenda.  (Point to note - you don't catch the 
miscreants by cutting their lines of communication.  You just *appear* 
to improve matters by pushing the real problem further form view.)  
I'm not surprised Demon haven't joined the ISPA.  I wouldn't want some 
regally minded association officer setting policy for and speaking on 
behalf of my company.

The ISPA formed when the first Home Office rumblings appeared, but 
instead of having the balls to stand up and demand common carrier 
status, they lifted their shirts and bent over.  In other words, they 
completely failed to stand up for the industry they supposedly represent.  
They've become a self-congratulatory boys club which instead of 
improving matters by pro-active endeavour, seeks to bolster its members' 
(appropriate word that) positions by deprecating the non-members.

> Demon director Clive Feather says "if we could block this stuff
> without doing more harm to ourselves, we would".  He says he does not
> believe there is any evidence to suggest that pornographic photos of
> children encourage paedophiles.

That was either a foolish response or a misrepresentation.  There are 
plenty of justifications for not complying.  Not least is that it 
will make sod all difference.  But primarily, once the onus has been 
placed on the ISPs for content, and it becomes a legal precedent, the 
same principle will become applicable to any other subject the authorities 
deem appropriate.  All of a sudden they become potentially responsible 
for any part content of anything.  Remember the problems in recent years 
with the government trying to hush up various TV reports for their own 
political convenience?  Imagine how much easier it would be for them to 
hush similar reports in this environment if they actually had a precedent 
in their favour.
 
> Personally I feel that there is no evidence one way or the other, so
> therefore we should take the attitude that many of the pictures shown
> were taken in appalling circumstances and should be banned.  Even if

Instead of banning the sypmtom, and pretending it's a cure, you'd be 
better off attacking the cause.  Catch the abusers.  Instead of pretending 
it's not your responsibility, and that the whole deal is Somebody Elses 
Problem, leave the responsibility for action with the individual, where it 
belongs.  Or are you one of these people who if they see something 
suspicious turns in another direction and leaves it for someone else 
to report.  There's some pretty abhorrent stuff floating around, but it's 
not going to cease to circulate just because some technical ignorant 
takes it upon themesleves to ban the current means.

> Anyhow, what do other people think.  And does anyone have an address for
> Clive Feather, so I can write to him personally?

I don't intend to write to him, or any of the other directors.  But I 
congratulate them on their stand.
-- 
Raj Rijhwani        (umtsb5/16) |  This is the voice of the Mysterons...
raj@courtfld.demon.co.uk        |  ... We know that you can hear us Earthmen
scarlet@fido.zetnet.co.uk       |  "Lieutenant Green:  Launch all Angels!"
http://www.courtfld.demon.co.uk/raj/ (demon, and gods, willing...)