"Paul Cummins" <agree2pay4uce@spam.vlaad.co.uk> wrote in message
news:memo.20040127201939.3552Q@0007148297.gst-group.co.uk...
-snip-

Gary

In article <4016e102$0$244$fa0fcedb@lovejoy.zen.co.uk>,
riddler@joker.pllus.ccom () wrote:

As someone who used to deal with this issue with Telewest - I'll agree.
Interact with me when you know my subject.

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

begin Who gives a fsck about Outlook Express anyway.exe

"Paul Cummins" <agree2pay4uce@spam.vlaad.co.uk> wrote in message
news:memo.20040127235905.3552c@0007148297.gst-group.co.uk...
-snip-
Abuse! period!

Gary

On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 23:03:40 -0000, "\"intolerance\""
<riddler@joker.pllus.ccom> wrote:

what they do know about actually is constantly bombarding peoples
letter boxes with their advertising nonsence . I get at least two
brochures a month in my box from them and this is after ringing their
head office in Woking at lest 12 times in the past 12 months telling
them to stop it but it just carries on coming .
I wouldn't subscribe to any Twest service it they where the last
telecoms provider in the country damn it Twest make BT seem bloody
great .
Which reminds me I received yet another cummuncation from them on
Saturday I must ring them again tomorrow and give them yet another
helping of apeshit.
Useless bastards they are nothing but.
Grant .

In article <40184078$0$235$fa0fcedb@lovejoy.zen.co.uk>,
riddler@joker.pllus.ccom () wrote:

That's because they made the abuse team redundant in 2000.

Which 'ex-bosses'?

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

begin Who gives a fsck about Outlook Express anyway.exe

"Paul Cummins" <agree2pay4uce@spam.vlaad.co.uk> wrote in message
news:memo.20040128235049.2692D@0007148297.gst-group.co.uk...
-snip-

Wango

On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 22:06:52 -0000, "intolerance" <riddler@joker.pllus.ccom>
wrote:
I do know my subject, and what Paul has written (that for PlusNet
employees to proactively view child abuse images present on their
news server, even as part of an exercise to identify such content to
arrange for its removal and/or the removal from their news server's
active file of newsgroups containing such content, would constitute
a serious criminal offence for which there is no defence in court)
is absolutely correct.

You may find the IWF site informative:

http://www.iwf.org.uk/index.html

Internet users, *and* UK ISP employees in all circumstances, should
not investigate such matters themselves but should report areas of
concern of this type to the IWF Hotline, linked to at the URL above.
The IWF have excellent procedures and policies in terms of both
arranging for the immediate removal of potentially illegal content and
also liaising with ISPs to ensure that newsgroups which are a cause
for current concern, based on the result of current and previous IWF
investigations, are not carried.

http://www.iwf.org.uk/news/press/det...ID=152&RECORD_
SKIP_FIRST=1

--
Anthony Edwards * anthony.edwards@uk.easynet.net
Abuse Team Manager * Tel: 0800 053 0588
Easynet Ltd * DDI: 0161 227 0707
http://www.uk.easynet.net * Fax: 0845 333 4503

"Anthony Edwards" <anthony.edwards@uk.easynet.net> wrote in message
news:101hpgujblj4992@news.supernews.com...
-snip-
so daily I have full awareness of the IWF, and NHTCU (Worked directly with
them on abuse cases for ISP's) - My team and I do regularly check content of
news servers and the groups and content contained within threads as well as
follow up links (if connected to any EU's on the ISP's concerned) and report
the details accordingly to the appropriate authorities.

We have written into our contracts of employment and terms and conditions an
exception for the purposes of viewing said content in the execution of work
and that has been legally approved before they could be signed.

ISP's can and still do (Some of them) work proactively on removing content
reported to them and which is carried on their news platforms.

The IWF section you refer to is advisory on their part as an organisation
set-up for the explicit purpose of dealing solely with Internet Abuse. They
also state,

"it is against the law to actively seek out such images and doing so in
order to report to the IWF - snipped"

That means don't go looking for it specifically but if your advised that you
appear to have content on your service you are legally entitled to go and
check that before deciding what to do with it, and that includes then
reporting it to the IWF, NHTCU etc.

Gary

On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 12:05:02 -0000, "\"intolerance\""
<riddler@joker.pllus.ccom> wrote:

Hm? You can't do that.

You may find you need better lawyers... :-)

This has been the subject of considerable debate in the computing
press. The law is clear - viewing illegal material is a crime and "I
was only following orders" is not a defense, any more than it would be
a defense if you committed some other crime at the behest of your
boss.

Without viewing it.

On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 12:05:02 -0000, "intolerance" <riddler@joker.pllus.ccom>
wrote:

If you wish to take such risks with your liberty, that is entirely
a matter for you. I do hope, though, that you are not persuading
subordinate staff that your "exception" has any legal force whatsoever,
since it plainly does not. In addition, you may (or your employers
may) wish to consider the possibility of a consequent lawsuit should an
employee seek to sue either you personally (if you are in a management
role) or (or possibly and, and more likely) your organisation, if a
compulsion to view illegal child abuse images as part of their job
role should cause that employee to suffer consequent psychiatric or
psychological trauma.

In such a circumstance, if your posting is accurate, your organisation
(and possibly yourself) would appear to have no defence against
such a claim, and the level of assessed damages would be likely to
be colossal.

--
Anthony Edwards
easynet Ltd - Manchester
http://www.uk.easynet.net
anthony.edwards@uk.easynet.net

On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 13:20:16 +0000, Mark McIntyre <markmcintyre@spamcop.net>
wrote:

Quite so. Various industry bodies including the London Internet
Exchange ("LINX", with Regulation Officer Malcolm Hutty leading
representations on behalf of that organisation) are currently
involved in consultations with the Home Office in terms of attempting
to clarify and amend the existing situation, however at present the
only available defence in circumstances of deliberately making (which
includes viewing, in almost all situations related to computers)
an indecent photograph or pseudo-photograph of a child is set out in
Section 46 of Sexual Offences Act 2003, which may be viewed at:

http://www.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts2003/30042--b.htm#46

Since no UK ISP employee is currently also an employee of the Security
Service or GCHQ (at least, one presumes not), that defence is clearly
not available (it is worth noting, as a point of interest, that even
IWF staff do not fall within the parameters of the available defence,
a situation which I am aware does concern the IWF somewhat). If the
poster to whom you are responding truly does hold the job role that
he or she claims to (of course, the individual could be trolling),
I would strongly recommend that individual contact Malcolm Hutty as a
matter of urgency (if his employers are LINX members) to seek advice
from Malcolm in terms of this issue.

--
Anthony Edwards * anthony.edwards@uk.easynet.net
Abuse Team Manager * Tel: 0800 053 0588
Easynet Ltd * DDI: 0161 227 0707
http://www.uk.easynet.net * Fax: 0845 333 4503

In article <4018f6f7$0$32146$fa0fcedb@lovejoy.zen.co.uk>,
riddler@joker.pllus.ccom () wrote:

Where do you work?

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

begin Who gives a fsck about Outlook Express anyway.exe

In article <qs1i101f7ohdv50nm90v3l6ijal5ao2jl4@4ax.com>, Mark McIntyre wrote:
The more I see written about this subject, the more it reminds me of the
Monty Python "Funniest Joke in the World" sketch.

For those who don't know or have forgotten, this concerned a joke so funny
that all who heard it would die laughing, and its use as a weapon of war by
translating it into the enemy's language. The translation had to be done one
or two words at a time by different people to avoid the consequences of
anyone accidentally hearing the whole joke. It really was that silly.

Rod.

"Anthony Edwards" <anthony.edwards@uk.easynet.net> wrote in message
news:101i2c1hosov713@news.supernews.com...
Yeah whatever!

Gary

On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 20:11:20 GMT, Roderick Stewart <me@privacy.net>
wrote:

indeed. Its a laughable piece of legislation - AFAIR even a police
officer in pursuit of a criminal could be prosecuted if he viewed
evidence. Gark.

"Mark McIntyre" <markmcintyre@spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:0v3j10h30kgb54h944ldtofc75c273i7pt@4ax.com...
-snip-
they have had to remove content in the course of their work.

Wango

On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 22:58:39 +0000, Mark McIntyre wrote:

They could, and if you show the evidence to the jury, you should
by rights bang them up, along with the prosecution and defence
lawyers, any barristers and the judge.

However with it being a criminal matter the only people who can bring
the prosecution are the CPS and provided it was part of the police
officers work, i.e. they where working in a unit dealing this sort
of offence the CPS are extremely unlikely to bring a prosecution.

Also note that there are at least two cases where computers have
been hacked and had child porn uploaded where the case has been
thrown out. Lets face it a list of email address and you could turn
most internet users in the UK into criminals.


JAB.

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

PlusNet Support Team wrote:

Completely academic if you are buying streams or hosting the news yourself.
Most of your binaries content is illegal and as YOU are delivering it the
buck stops with YOU.

Most other ISP's removed them a long time ago. Depends on if you want to be
seen as a porn supplier or a family isp.

In fact lets be specific about the material plusnet carry

alt.binaries.erotica.preteen
alt.binaries.erotica.preteens
alt.binaries.erotica.teen.female

I could rattle off a dozen more - most of these offering indecent
photographs of children.

Dress it up any way you like plusnet - you peddle porn to sell accounts.