DrunkenBlog

We need .xxx, .sex or .adult

Salon is reporting that the PA state courts have ruled that ISP's have to block child porn sites from subscribers. Since Salon is probably going to go the way of the dodo, here is an excerpt...

"Pennsylvania is forcing Internet providers to block Web sites that include child pornography, a new legal strategy that technology and civil liberties experts worry will unintentionally interfere with legitimate surfing."

"The center, which focuses on Internet freedoms, compared the blocking technique to disrupting mail delivery to an entire apartment complex because of one tenant's illegal actions. It said it prefers aggressive prosecution of those who publish obscene materials to wholesale blocking of Web destinations.

"It's sort of this weird world where we're not prosecuting the people producing child pornography," said Alan Davidson, the center's associate director.

Pennsylvania's attorney general, Republican Mike Fisher, is leading the state's effort, which already has forced Internet providers to block subscribers from at least 423 Web sites around the world.

The state's Legislature passed a law last year permitting the blocks and imposing first-offense fines of up to $5,000 on companies that don't comply. "

For the record, no party in this situation thinks child porn is ok. It is a blight on the world, one of those few things that you can point to as an evil that scars the rest of someone's life.

But there are some problems with the action that PA has taken, namely:

• It endagers Internet Service Providers common carrier status
• The court is telling them that they have to block all of these sites, but not telling them how to do it. They are responsible for blocking the content (with fines), but there are no realistic ways to do so.

The problem is that it is well known that filtering doesn't work. Sure if you have a list of specific sites it makes it a lot easier, but that often just isn't the case. Too often these sites pop up all over the place, in different countries and from different individuals. The most effective filtering systems simply block entire netblocks, often times just if they are known to be owned by a hosting company. This isn't realistic, and there is a similar problem with blocking spam.

Ie, geocities. Geocities has a ton of websites that it hosts for free, in exchange for advertising banners. They could be anything from adult content to your grandmother's website... You would have to block any and all geocities traffic.

ISP's could be more stringent about who they host, but in many cases they already are very careful. If getting a site up was the equivalent of getting a thawte security certificate, hosting your average website would be an order of magnitude more expensive than it already is.

Which brings us to having a .sex or .xxx domain. I'm the first one to say that this wouldn't end the problem, especially for something as underground as child pornography, but it would improve the effectiveness of filters dramatically.

Here's the dirty little secret: Most people who operate adult sites consider it an adult activity, and abhore minors having access to it. These are the easiest ones to find, as they aren't underground. There are measures you can take to try to lock out minors, but they just don't work.

These people want to operate a business, and they don't want minors to have access. Either for moral reasons, or liability. These people want a .sex or .xxx domain, which filter programs could easily filter out. Plus it would help ISP's and hosting companies seperate out adult traffic from normal traffic, which is good because adult traffic is usually more bandwidth intensive.

Why don't we have this? I'm honestly not sure. I've found emails of people (even some from MCI) suggesting this since 1996 or 1997. Some of the top adult producers have spoken before the senate saying we should have a .xxx or .adult domain.

In 2000, this was rejected by ICANN, and they weren't very clear about their reasoning. It would be hard to enforce, as if you have a company in sweden who decides not to use it the only thing you could do would be to block it specifically or block all of sweden.

But at this point it becomes a social issue, where those in the adult content are able to switch to .adult and know that their stuff is blocked by those who want to filter, and the consumer who decides they want the material can choose to support those who allow their software to be easily blocked just as some consumers look for the dolphin-safe tuna.

I have a suspicion that the social issue is what is very often holding it back, as there is a feeling that you are now "legitimizing" adult content which is distasteful to conservatives, just as sexual education is, or needle programs or the distribution of condoms. This becomes a situation where you're cutting off your nose to spite your face.

The best argument I've heard on the subject has been the American Civil Liberties Union's fear that it would open the door to having segrated speech.

The gist is if you had a site that talked frankly about sex, such as one focused on birth control or stopping the spread of AIDS, you may be forced or pressured into moving onto a .adult domain which when filtered would block the content from those who may need to see it the most. It's a very valid argument, and something that needs to be taken into consideration and worked around.

Not my call, it's too much of a gray area. But we have a problem where many people are trying to make a living in ways that are not illegal, however you feel about them morally. If we had a .xxx or .adult domain, and even the top 15% of the adult sites moved over to them filters, while not perfect, would be hugely more successful in their goal than they are now.

 Posted by drunkenbatman
    February 20, 2003, at 11:21 AM