In article <ggvQb.27163$qx2.3161272@stones.force9.net>, stinky@poo.com
(Amigo Entertainments) wrote:

Still waiting...

--
Paul Cummins - Always a NetHead
Wasting Bandwidth since 1981

begin Who gives a fuck about Outlook Express anyway.exe

In article <68m7105vqbmldtk1dvl1m67dkd2vvdkr2b@4ax.com>,
afton370@yahoo.co.uk (Jock) wrote:

Yes, of course. The point being that the weather isn't going to affect
my ADSL.

--
Paul Cummins - Always a NetHead
Wasting Bandwidth since 1981

begin Who gives a fuck about Outlook Express anyway.exe

In article <pan.2004.01.25.12.38.52.801442@uk.me.buzzard>, Jonathan
Buzzard wrote:
Despite your doubts, I think legality still depends on verifiable facts
about what somebody is actually doing, not guesswork. Do you expect anyone
to take seriously a request to withdraw a service because you think some
people *might* be using it for illegal purposes, though you haven't looked
and can offer no evidence whatsoever that they are?

As has been pointed out, a title needn't mean anything at all. For
instance, I once read a book (by Martin Amis if you're interested) called
"Dead Babies". What do you think that was about? Now read it, and tell me
again.

It has also been pointed out (though you seem to have missed this too),
that a newsgroup doesn't really have "contents" in the same way as a
published work from one source, and therefore cannot be thought about in
the same way. A newsgroup is a conduit rather than a container, and the
material passing through it at any time can be from anyone who uses it,
including you.

Rod.

In article <pan.2004.01.25.12.30.38.297769@uk.me.buzzard>, Jonathan Buzzard
wrote:
I didn't think any UK internet provider, or indeed any internet provider
anywhere, was offering any pictures at all, of anything. Whatever is carried
by these newsgroups (whose temporary content seems to be the subject of
speculation based on their titles), it will have been placed there by
internet *users*, not the service providers.

Rod.

"Jonathan Buzzard" <jonathan@uk.me.buzzard> wrote in message
newsan.2004.01.24.22.26.47.86874@uk.me.buzzard.. .
-snip-
There is no way on earth that you can describe
The minimum age allowed under current UK law is 18 as far as I can recall
-snip-

Wango

On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 10:19:06 +0000, Jonathan Buzzard
<jonathan@uk.me.buzzard> wrote:

indeed, and all bills now seem to have a declaration about their
compatibility with the HR act

Phil

On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 04:47:07 GMT, G Crozier <grant@thepeople.net>
wrote:

You're wrong on that one.

What complete and utter balderdash.

Not that it is clear what you mean by "discriminating against the
internet and its customers"

Probably, but so what?

It is all dependent on the circumstances and apparent reasons. It is
normally quite clear from the overall content of a web site whether
the images are "innocent" or are there for sexual reasons.

And similarly with a newsgroup. Not that you are likely to get many
photos of naked or near naked children in groups not dedicated to
sexual matters.

Very very few.


In the opinions of the VAST majority of reasonable people, those that
things like Operation Ore are aimed at are amongst the most serious
criminals there are.

Murder is *maybe* more serious than paedophilia.

--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
HARDWARE: n. The part you kick.

To reply by email, my address is aDOTjDOTheneyATbtinternetDOTcom

In article <40141b73$0$230$fa0fcedb@lovejoy.zen.co.uk>,
·.¸¸.·´¯`Wango´¯`·.¸¸.·@shotmail.com (·.??.·?¯`Wango?¯`·.??.·) wrote:

You;d best have the Sun, the Mirror and the Star prosecuted then. All of
them have shown pictures of topless girls under the age of 18.

--
Paul Cummins - Always a NetHead
Wasting Bandwidth since 1981

begin Who gives a fuck about Outlook Express anyway.exe

On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 12:39:00 +0000, Jonathan Buzzard
<jonathan@uk.me.buzzard> wrote:

Hi Jonathan,

As I said on Friday, we are working with the IWF in relation to this
entire area. If you go via them with any information you have, they
are in a better position than us to analyse the specifics of your
report and advise appropriately. What's more, the IWF will ensure that
the same information is used to assist all member ISPs, not just one.

You are of course welcome to contact the abuse team here, but for
obvious reasons I do think these sort of things are more suited to
those who are highly trained and experienced in this specific area -
That way, they can simply advise us as to exactly what needs to be
done on a technical level. I'm not sure, but we may even ask the IWF
to directly investigate future reports of this nature on our behalf...

Regards,

Ian
--
| Ian Wild Unmetered & ADSL solutions
| Customer Support for Home & Business
| PlusNet Technologies Ltd. @ http://www.plus.net
+ ------- My Referrals - It pays to recommend PlusNet -------

On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 16:13:21 +0000, Roderick Stewart wrote:

Yes I do. While someone could post child porn to
alt.binaries.pictures.fine-art they are more likely by several orders
of magnitude to post it to
alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.early-teens.firsthair a group the title
of which suggest an entirely illegal activity.


Indeed it can, however as I also pointed out this is not something that
is generally the case with Usenet. If group titles had no bearing on
their contents then Usenet would be useless. It only works because if
I go to alt.fan.harry-potter, I find a discussion of Harry Potter.
If I found a discussion on say Winnie the Pooh Usenet would be useless.

Therefore a reasonable person can have a reasonable expectation that
certain groups contain illegal material. This is significant from
a legal standpoint.

Utterly irrelevant in the eyes of the law. PlusNet would be the legal
owners of machines carrying illegal images. This is a criminal offence.

There only possible defence is that they could not reasonably be expected
to know that alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.early-teens.firsthair would
contain illegal material. I highly dubious claim, and not one that I
would like to be making.

JAB.

--
Jonathan A. Buzzard Email: jonathan (at) buzzard.me.uk
Northumberland, United Kingdom. Tel: +44 1661-832195

On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 21:13:42 +0000, Anonymous wrote:

[SNIP]

Such as?

JAB.

--
Jonathan A. Buzzard Email: jonathan (at) buzzard.me.uk
Northumberland, United Kingdom. Tel: +44 1661-832195

I came across a binary group a while ago with a three-letter-acronym (I
won`t name it) which contained what I would consider to be decidedly iffy
images of children in various states of undress and unnatural poses.

The originating server of a lot of this material was in the US, and the
host didn`t see anything wrong with the content.

--
Please add "[newsgroup]" in the subject of any personal replies via email
* old email address "btiruseless" abandoned due to worm-generated spam *
--- My new email address has "ngspamtrap" & @btinternet.com in it ;-) ---

"PlusNet Support Team" <iwild@plus.net.uk> wrote in message
news:aaq9101872en9ennp7h1n6i8audscs06sh@4ax.com...
-snip-
If you go via them with any information you have, they

Ian, sorry but that's a cop out in part. By all means contact the IWF but
as an ISP you have control over the groups and threads you carry and as such
need to act on any alleged illegal content.

If I was the end users I'd report my findings to the police who in turn
through the SPOC's can work with the ISP concerned to remove after
investigation content that is illegal.

IWF are only part of the solution and the sooner ISP's take more
responsibility in this the better.

Your not the only one by any means and this is not an attack on Plusnet per
se but I really am getting hacked off at what appears to be a fobb off to
end users who report possible abuse of Usenet groups and the content
contained within.

Regards
Gary

"Anonymous" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:1kva105eh4qs1jfam7pmiej0ej5sqv0nr6@4ax.com...
-snip-
Prestel a while back where we carried at the time paedophile groups (In name
only) however on investigation they appeared to be discussion groups for
social workers, child protection and medical experts.

The immediate reaction is to ban on name only. The other consideration is
that by removing and banning groups simply drives these people underground
and makes them harder to track.

The investigative authorities I have worked with on this subject have
advised us that they at times prefer the groups to remain rather than
driving people underground.

That said paedophiles and those involved in this activity are very
organised, are very good at hiding their tracks and usually stay away from
groups that they know will have a modicum of interest.

ISP's, and industry bodies should monitor the content closely and remove the
content that is deemed to be illegal rather than cart blanche removing
groups without checking.

Wango

In article <pan.2004.01.26.21.29.16.888548@uk.me.buzzard>,
jonathan@uk.me.buzzard (Jonathan Buzzard) wrote:

alt.binaries.pictures.underwater for starters.

--
Paul Cummins - Always a NetHead
Wasting Bandwidth since 1981

begin Who gives a fsck about Outlook Express anyway.exe

In article <isvb10d6g8ftfu9l56em8cd8c75vitaom6@4ax.com>, Anonymous
wrote:
I would suggest the most appropriate attitude for ISPs to adopt towards
this matter is the same as I would suggest for any responsible citizen
to adopt towards illegality of any kind:- don't go looking for trouble
because it's not your job, but deal with it if it is pointed out to
you.

It should go without saying that somebody's *opinion* on what they
think somebody *might* be doing with a newsgroup they don't like the
name of doesn't count as evidence of anything. Stick to the facts.

Rod.

In article <pan.2004.01.26.21.29.16.888548@uk.me.buzzard>,
jonathan@uk.me.buzzard says...
alt.alien.vampire.flonk.flonk.flonk
alt.walter-cronkite.swedish-chef.bork.bork.bork

Ever been to alt.babylon5.uk? Not much B5 talking about in there!

alt.disney had child porn posted to it at some point in the not too distant
past.

Pete.

--
NOTE! Email address is spamtrapped. Any email will be bounced to you
Remove the news and underscore from my address to reply by mail

"Anonymous" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:isvb10d6g8ftfu9l56em8cd8c75vitaom6@4ax.com...

I'm not saying IWF aren't but if Plusnet (long established ISP in this
industry) don't have the experience or can't look at a groups content and
make that decision for themselves based upon that content then I'm sorry but
they shouldn't be providing a newsfeed that is so generous in it's content.
That goes for all ISP's not just +.

By all means refer to the IWF if in doubt but don't push EU's of your
service to them deflecting responsibility for the content you carry and
provide.

Gary

In article <4016bc82$0$208$fa0fcedb@lovejoy.zen.co.uk>,
riddler@joker.pllus.ccom () wrote:

IOW, if plusnet staff are not prepared to potentially commit a criminal
offence (that of makig indecent photographs) then the company should not
be allowed to provide a newsfeed.

In which case, as youbare not prepared to commit the same offence, then
you should not whine about it.

--
Paul Cummins - Always a NetHead
Wasting Bandwidth since 1981

begin Who gives a fsck about Outlook Express anyway.exe

"Anonymous" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:hifd109evab1plhog85o3v1e6epk59pbl4@4ax.com...
-snip-
I'd like to see the court case ;-)

Gary