EU Realizes That You Fight Child Porn At The Source... Not By Trying To Hide It

from the common-sense? dept

We've noted recently, that more and more governments are looking to deal with crime online by censoring it via filters, rather than actually going after those responsible. At least some people are finally realizing that this doesn't make much sense. DH's Love Child points us to the news that some EU politicians, in response to an initial plan to require filters to block sites deemed to have child pornography, have decided that a smarter plan is to actually go after the sources of child pornography:
Members of the Parliament's Civil Liberties Committee ruled that complete removal "at source" must be the main aim in tackling child pornography online and that blocking access to websites is acceptable only in exceptional circumstances -- when the host server in a non-E.U. country refuses to cooperate or when procedures take too long.

The original Commission proposal would have made blocking of child porn websites mandatory for all E.U. member states, prompting concern among Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) who tend to support Internet freedom.

"The new generation of MEPs has shown it understands the Internet and has courageously rejected populist but ineffective and cosmetic measures in favor of measures aimed at real child protection," said Joe McNamee, of the European digital rights movement EDRi. "This is a huge and implausible success for an army of activists campaigning to protect the democratic, societal and economic value of the Internet," he added
Surprising, but nice to see that not all politicians are so clueless when it comes to dealing with crimes that happen online.

Filed Under: europe, filtering, porn


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  1. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 24 Feb 2011 @ 5:36am

    Re: Re:

    Two issues here:

    First off, if you drive people into darker corners, they are not as easy for the casual "pedo in training" to find. Think of it as the difference between street corner drug dealing and deals made quietly in the back of a bar. Yes, you can still buy drugs, but it isn't in everyone's face all the time, teaching them that drugs are okay or tolerate. In the same manner, filtering websites does remove the stuff from general public view, and puts the pedos on notice that someone is actively looking at them.

    Second, things are not mutually exclusive. I don't think anyone in the US government thinks that filtering websites solves the problem. Are we not allowed to have a multi-pronged attack? Do you not think that perhaps in the hours after they took over these domains that they didn't log every IP that hit them?

    Mike's answer is pretty typical of what is going on here: Just lie still, don't fight, and it won't hurt so much.

Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Insider Shop - Show Your Support!

Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

This site, like most other sites on the web, uses cookies. For more information, see our privacy policy. Got it
Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.