Re: Should ISP block child pornography?

["Lotia, Pratik M" <Pratik.Lotia () charter com>]

Thank you everybody for sharing your views. I think I've got a clear answer. It's better to not go down this slippery 
path.

With Gratitude,
 
Pratik Lotia  
 
“Security is like legos. You can build pretty much whatever you want if you have a clear vision of the final product 
and the skill to put the pieces together correctly.”

On 12/11/18, 12:27, "NANOG on behalf of Max Tulyev" <nanog-bounces+pratik.lotia=charter.com () nanog org on behalf of 
maxtul () netassist ua> wrote:

    Yes, in some countries (NOT in US, AFAIK) court can issue an order to
    block IP/domain/URL.
    
    If home operator of crime man is blocking the direct access - he have to
    use TOR/VPN/... to avoid blocking (or may be you really believe he just
    stop any tries to watch his lovely CP?)
    
    If he use TOR/VPN/... to avoid blocking - the original home IP address
    will be changed to the exit node of TOR/VPN - and we will lost any
    chance to catch the crime man.
    
    Is it clear?
    
    11.12.18 21:06, John Lee пише:
    > It is my understanding that ISPs block IP addresses and domains under
    > court order now for copyright violations, criminal activity which would
    > include CP. They require a court order as they cannot ascertain if it is
    > CP or not, that is a Law Enforcement decision. The US Supreme Court
    > decision's was just being nude is not lewd, also with aging software
    > which can regress photos, LEOs in the US have to ascertain if this is CP
    > or photo shopped. 
    > 
    > On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 12:54 PM Max Tulyev <maxtul () netassist ua
    > <mailto:maxtul () netassist ua>> wrote:
    > 
    >     ...and you will see the TOR exit nodes instead of crime home IP if
    >     censorship is implemented.
    > 
    >     11.12.18 19:35, Aaron1 пише:
    >     > ... The only thing I can think of is the idea that I’ve heard
    >     before is
    >     > the way to catch someone is to watch them well they are accessing, the
    >     > concept of honeypots comes to mind
    >     >
    >     > Aaron
    >     >
    >     > On Dec 11, 2018, at 10:43 AM, Larry Allen <mrallen1971 () gmail com
    >     <mailto:mrallen1971 () gmail com>
    >     > <mailto:mrallen1971 () gmail com <mailto:mrallen1971 () gmail com>>> wrote:
    >     >
    >     >> I can't imagine a single rational argument against this. 
    >     >>
    >     >> On Tue, Dec 11, 2018, 10:56 William Anderson <neuro () well com
    >     <mailto:neuro () well com>
    >     >> <mailto:neuro () well com <mailto:neuro () well com>> wrote:
    >     >>
    >     >>     On Fri, 7 Dec 2018 at 06:08, Lotia, Pratik M
    >     >>     <Pratik.Lotia () charter com <mailto:Pratik.Lotia () charter com>
    >     <mailto:Pratik.Lotia () charter com <mailto:Pratik.Lotia () charter com>>>
    >     wrote:
    >     >>
    >     >>         Hello all, was curious to know the community’s opinion on
    >     >>         whether an ISP should block domains hosting CPE (child
    >     >>         pornography exploitation) content? Interpol has a ‘worst-of’
    >     >>         list which contains such domains and it wants ISPs to
    >     block it.
    >     >>
    >     >>
    >     >>     This already happens in the UK, and has done for years.
    >     >>
    >     >>     https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_abuse_image_content_list 
    >     >>
    >     >>
    >     >>     -n
    >     >>
    > 
    

E-MAIL CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: 
The contents of this e-mail message and any attachments are intended solely for the addressee(s) and may contain 
confidential and/or legally privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient of this message or if this 
message has been addressed to you in error, please immediately alert the sender by reply e-mail and then delete this 
message and any attachments. If you are not the intended recipient, you are notified that any use, dissemination, 
distribution, copying, or storage of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited.