4 ms·

>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 i

>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
> This is assuming the servers are known. As far as I know child porn servers aren't sitting out in the public view. This is not a different problem for governments. Somebody has to go find them. > I don't know if hacking a server hosting child porn is actually violating a country's sovereignty. How would you feel about it if China or Russia or Iran did this to servers in the US? > Governments already do this so it isn't setting a precedent. It is just going further on what they will attack. Maybe precedent is the wrong word. If you did this once decades ago and have since realized the error of your ways, it's valid to condemn someone else for doing a bad thing you used to do, because it was bad both times. If you're actively still doing it, how are you going to argue that they shouldn't do it to you? Or are we just going with might makes right? > Routers are provided by the ISP for most people so it would still require the ISP to be involved. Your argument was that people don't have competition for ISPs. There is plenty of competition for routers. Anyone can go to Walmart or Best Buy and get one for $30. > The problem is not stopping the general public, but those who seek it out. This is not the problem for C&C servers. Nobody is purposely pwning their own devices and adding them to a botnet. Or if they are then they're security researchers and government interference in their research is not warranted. Blocking works when the endpoints want it, and only then, because then they don't try to get around it. If the user actually wants to contact the thing, they'll just use a foreign VPN or any of a dozen other alternatives.

AnthonyMouse 5y ago

> This is assuming the servers are known. As far as I know child porn servers aren't sitting out in the public view. This is not a different problem for governments. Somebody has to go find them. > I don't know if hacking a server hosting child porn is actually violating a country's sovereignty. How would you feel about it if China or Russia or Iran did this to servers in the US? > Governments already do this so it isn't setting a precedent. It is just going further on what they will attack. Maybe precedent is the wrong word. If you did this once decades ago and have since realized the error of your ways, it's valid to condemn someone else for doing a bad thing you used to do, because it was bad both times. If you're actively still doing it, how are you going to argue that they shouldn't do it to you? Or are we just going with might makes right? > Routers are provided by the ISP for most people so it would still require the ISP to be involved. Your argument was that people don't have competition for ISPs. There is plenty of competition for routers. Anyone can go to Walmart or Best Buy and get one for $30. > The problem is not stopping the general public, but those who seek it out. This is not the problem for C&C servers. Nobody is purposely pwning their own devices and adding them to a botnet. Or if they are then they're security researchers and government interference in their research is not warranted. Blocking works when the endpoints want it, and only then, because then they don't try to get around it. If the user actually wants to contact the thing, they'll just use a foreign VPN or any of a dozen other alternatives.