3 ms·

>Are there pedophiles abusing children in your country? Then go arrest them. They won't be posting anything on the internet while they're in prison. And how do

>Are there pedophiles abusing children in your country? Then go arrest them. They won't be posting anything on the internet while they're in prison. And how do you stop the spread of the child porn already on the internet? Just leave it up since you can arrest people who make it or consume it? There are other things the government should probably stop as well. C&C servers for malware. What is your solution when the people involved in malware are in another country and that country isn't taking care of the problem?

AnthonyMouse 5y ago
> And how do you stop the spread of the child porn already on the internet? Just leave it up since you can arrest people who make it or consume it? Who is paying for bulletproof hosting of controversial materials when anyone producing or consuming it is in prison? > C&C servers for malware. What is your solution when the people involved in malware are in another country and that country isn't taking care of the problem? What's your solution? Hacking the C&C servers in violation of the laws of whatever country they're in? That already is the "wild west" solution. The alternative would be something like voluntary blocking by endpoints and firewalls, which nobody would have any reason not to use as long as the block list contains only things like this which nobody actually wants, and therefore doesn't require any government mandates.
- _-david-_ 5y ago
  >Who is paying for bulletproof hosting of controversial materials when anyone producing or consuming it is in prison? Who said anything about bullet proof hosting? You just need to host in a country who isn't going to do anything about it. I'm going to go out on a limb and say there are some people producing and consuming it not in prison. You can try to arrest everyone involved but you will never get everybody. That was my point. If the solution is to just arrest people doing it then how do you stop the spread by people who didn't get caught? >What's your solution? Hacking the C&C servers in violation of the laws of whatever country they're in? That already is the "wild west" solution. Perhaps. If the country the server is hosted in isn't dealing with it, then maybe that is the best solution. I don't know, but this does feel like a thing for the government to be involved in. If the government hacks a server to bring it down is it really different than a more official way? >The alternative would be something like voluntary blocking by endpoints and firewalls, which nobody would have any reason not to use as long as the block list contains only things like this which nobody actually wants, and therefore doesn't require any government mandates. Who is doing this voluntary blocking? The average person couldn't handle it so it would have to be ISPs or the government. Many people don't have choices in their ISP so they could be stuck with an ISP not doing blocking.
  - AnthonyMouse 5y ago
    > Who said anything about bullet proof hosting? You just need to host in a country who isn't going to do anything about it. Everybody hates child pornography. Random internet trolls will autonomously DDoS you into oblivion and no one will come to your defense when they do, because it's child pornography. > If the solution is to just arrest people doing it then how do you stop the spread by people who didn't get caught? If it's being hosted in another country, how is your government going to stop it? By violating another nation's sovereignty? > I don't know, but this does feel like a thing for the government to be involved in. If the government hacks a server to bring it down is it really different than a more official way? That seems like a bad precedent. You do it for child pornography, now somebody else wants to do it for blasphemy or lèse-majesté or "misinformation" as defined by a corrupt foreign government, and then what are you going to say? Those things are illegal in their country. > Who is doing this voluntary blocking? The average person couldn't handle it so it would have to be ISPs or the government. Many people don't have choices in their ISP so they could be stuck with an ISP not doing blocking. It doesn't need to be the ISP, it could be your own internet router. There is plenty of competition there.
    - _-david-_ 5y ago
      >Everybody hates child pornography. Random internet trolls will autonomously DDoS you into oblivion and no one will come to your defense when they do, because it's child pornography. This is assuming the servers are known. As far as I know child porn servers aren't sitting out in the public view. >If it's being hosted in another country, how is your government going to stop it? By violating another nation's sovereignty? I wouldn't advocate for a country to go send in the military to a data center to seize servers or anything like that. I don't know if hacking a server hosting child porn is actually violating a country's sovereignty. >That seems like a bad precedent. You do it for child pornography, now somebody else wants to do it for blasphemy or lèse-majesté or "misinformation" as defined by a corrupt foreign government, and then what are you going to say? Those things are illegal in their country Governments already do this so it isn't setting a precedent. It is just going further on what they will attack. >It doesn't need to be the ISP, it could be your own internet router. There is plenty of competition there. Routers are provided by the ISP for most people so it would still require the ISP to be involved. The problem is not stopping the general public, but those who seek it out. If you do the blocking at the router level people would easily get around it.

AnthonyMouse 5y ago

> And how do you stop the spread of the child porn already on the internet? Just leave it up since you can arrest people who make it or consume it? Who is paying for bulletproof hosting of controversial materials when anyone producing or consuming it is in prison? > C&C servers for malware. What is your solution when the people involved in malware are in another country and that country isn't taking care of the problem? What's your solution? Hacking the C&C servers in violation of the laws of whatever country they're in? That already is the "wild west" solution. The alternative would be something like voluntary blocking by endpoints and firewalls, which nobody would have any reason not to use as long as the block list contains only things like this which nobody actually wants, and therefore doesn't require any government mandates.

_-david-_ 5y ago
>Who is paying for bulletproof hosting of controversial materials when anyone producing or consuming it is in prison? Who said anything about bullet proof hosting? You just need to host in a country who isn't going to do anything about it. I'm going to go out on a limb and say there are some people producing and consuming it not in prison. You can try to arrest everyone involved but you will never get everybody. That was my point. If the solution is to just arrest people doing it then how do you stop the spread by people who didn't get caught? >What's your solution? Hacking the C&C servers in violation of the laws of whatever country they're in? That already is the "wild west" solution. Perhaps. If the country the server is hosted in isn't dealing with it, then maybe that is the best solution. I don't know, but this does feel like a thing for the government to be involved in. If the government hacks a server to bring it down is it really different than a more official way? >The alternative would be something like voluntary blocking by endpoints and firewalls, which nobody would have any reason not to use as long as the block list contains only things like this which nobody actually wants, and therefore doesn't require any government mandates. Who is doing this voluntary blocking? The average person couldn't handle it so it would have to be ISPs or the government. Many people don't have choices in their ISP so they could be stuck with an ISP not doing blocking.
- AnthonyMouse 5y ago
  > Who said anything about bullet proof hosting? You just need to host in a country who isn't going to do anything about it. Everybody hates child pornography. Random internet trolls will autonomously DDoS you into oblivion and no one will come to your defense when they do, because it's child pornography. > If the solution is to just arrest people doing it then how do you stop the spread by people who didn't get caught? If it's being hosted in another country, how is your government going to stop it? By violating another nation's sovereignty? > I don't know, but this does feel like a thing for the government to be involved in. If the government hacks a server to bring it down is it really different than a more official way? That seems like a bad precedent. You do it for child pornography, now somebody else wants to do it for blasphemy or lèse-majesté or "misinformation" as defined by a corrupt foreign government, and then what are you going to say? Those things are illegal in their country. > Who is doing this voluntary blocking? The average person couldn't handle it so it would have to be ISPs or the government. Many people don't have choices in their ISP so they could be stuck with an ISP not doing blocking. It doesn't need to be the ISP, it could be your own internet router. There is plenty of competition there.
  - _-david-_ 5y ago
    >Everybody hates child pornography. Random internet trolls will autonomously DDoS you into oblivion and no one will come to your defense when they do, because it's child pornography. This is assuming the servers are known. As far as I know child porn servers aren't sitting out in the public view. >If it's being hosted in another country, how is your government going to stop it? By violating another nation's sovereignty? I wouldn't advocate for a country to go send in the military to a data center to seize servers or anything like that. I don't know if hacking a server hosting child porn is actually violating a country's sovereignty. >That seems like a bad precedent. You do it for child pornography, now somebody else wants to do it for blasphemy or lèse-majesté or "misinformation" as defined by a corrupt foreign government, and then what are you going to say? Those things are illegal in their country Governments already do this so it isn't setting a precedent. It is just going further on what they will attack. >It doesn't need to be the ISP, it could be your own internet router. There is plenty of competition there. Routers are provided by the ISP for most people so it would still require the ISP to be involved. The problem is not stopping the general public, but those who seek it out. If you do the blocking at the router level people would easily get around it.