how-to block ads
|
jeffsimmermontwc
@rr.com
| Time Warner Cable isn't blocking content
I'm the director of Digital Communications here at Time Warner Cable, and I'd like to clarify something for you.
According to the New York Times, Time Warner Cable is blocking access to Web sites, boards, etc. that display images of child pornography. Here's the relevant article:
»www.nytimes.com/2008/06/10/nyreg···&_r=2&hp
That first line is incorrect. Time Warner Cable does not block access to Web sites -- but we actively enforce our acceptable use policies, which prohibit illegal activities. However, we are sunsetting our newsgroups, which have been abused in the past by a small minority of users who use them to traffic some material that is not only illegal but seriously repugnant to anyone with a soul.
We will not block our customers' access to legitimate newsgroups made available by other newsgroup providers. We reserve -- and will cheerfully exercise -- the right to take down any website that exists on the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children's list of sites that carry child pornography, if those sites exist on RoadRunner servers. We are also enhancing our procedures to handle complaints and escalate any relevant issues directly to the federal government.
Furthermore, we are partnering with the New York Attorney General and the NCMEC to devote attention and resources toward eliminating child pornography. We're contributing $375,000 to the NCMEC, its Technology Coalition and the AG's office and working closely with them to prevent child pornography from surfacing in area that we control.
I've already seen a fair amount of criticism levelled at us and our partners for this move, suggesting that this is the first step down a short road to greater Internet censorship. It's not. This issue isn't about predicting the future, and it's not about free speech. It's about doing what's right, right now.
Another part of my job is to transmit the hummings of the Internet's hive mind to relevant decision-makers internally, and I wouldn't have this job if I didn't believe in the Internet as a powerful tool for innovation and change. If any of our critics on this issue have alternate, realistic, and usable solutions to this problem, I'm happy to hear them and pass them along.
Nobody involved thinks this is going to stop child pornography from happening altogether -- but we have a responsibility to do as much as we can as soon as we can.
Feel free to contact me directly for followup at this e-mail address : jeff.simmermon@twcable.com | |
ELRefugee
join:2002-02-07
Boulder Creek, CA
 ·Comcast
 ·Pacific Bell - SBC
edit:
June 10th, @07:37PM
| YOU HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY TO PROVIDE INTERNET ACCESS. Everything beyond that is your own stupidity and abysmal short-sightedness. If there was any doubt about that, your announcement regarding usenet puts it to rest. Why punish the vast majority of your customers for something a "small minority" are doing?
And tell us, do you also believe FedEx and UPS should open every one of their packages to check for child porn? Next time my family gets an unsoliticed flyer in our snail mail from a phone-sex company, should we yell at our mailman?
WAKE UP.
I've saved your post and fully intend to cram it back in your face a few years from now, when your company is blocking all P2P traffic. | |
MrMoody
Liberal Capitalist
join:2002-09-03
Smithfield, NC
 ·magicjack.com
·Embarq
| reply to jeffsimmermontwc
said by jeffsimmermontwc :
we are sunsetting our newsgroups, which have been abused in the past by a small minority of users who use them to traffic some material that is not only illegal but seriously repugnant to anyone with a soul.
Nobody involved thinks this is going to stop child pornography from happening altogether -- but we have a responsibility to do as much as we can as soon as we can.
So you throw the baby out with the bathwater, and completely eliminate your newsgroup servers, not just the illegal posts on them as you are required. (Not) coincidentally, usenet is a stated target of the RIAA.
If you have to do as much as you can, you'd better cut everyone off and get out of the ISP business. Frankly, I'd rather see Comcast here anyway.
Folks, look for Supernews et al to be pressured out of existence next, at least in the US and other countries the RIAA controls.
--
The public is a poor business manager. | |
patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
| reply to jeffsimmermontwc
said by jeffsimmermontwc :
I've already seen a fair amount of criticism levelled at us and our partners for this move, suggesting that this is the first step down a short road to greater Internet censorship. It's not. This issue isn't about predicting the future, and it's not about free speech. It's about doing what's right, right now.
Wasn't this »en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_A···ternment the "right thing, right now" to do back then? | |
AnyName
@ltdomains.com
| reply to jeffsimmermontwc
From the Times article:
As part of the agreements, the three companies will also collectively pay $1.125 million to underwrite efforts by Mr. Cuomo’s office and the center for missing children to purge child pornography from the Internet. Sounds like an extortion job to me. | |
La Luna
Surviving Ashraful
Premium
join:2001-07-12
Warwick, NY
clubs:
·Optimum Online
·Vonage
| reply to jeffsimmermontwc
What Cuomo didn't say is that his agreement with broadband providers means that they will broadly curb customers' access to Usenet--the venerable pre-Web home of some 100,000 discussion groups, only a handful of which contain illegal material.
Time Warner Cable said it will cease to offer customers access to any Usenet newsgroups, a decision that will affect customers nationwide. Sprint said it would no longer offer any of the tens of thousands of alt.* Usenet newsgroups. Verizon's plan is to eliminate some "fairly broad newsgroup areas."...
»news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-99648···1_3-0-20
Instead of punishing all, why not deal with that "small minority of [your] users" who are trafficking in child porn?
You have no idea what *usenet really is or all that is contained therein, do you?
--
11,237 DEADLY TERROR ATTACKS SINCE 9/11~~SARAH BRIGHTMAN SYMPHONY WORLD TOUR | |
amartinas
join:2007-11-19
USA
edit:
June 11th, @02:56AM
| reply to MrMoody
said by MrMoody  :(Not) coincidentally, usenet is a stated target of the RIAA. oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooowned!!!
DO YOU SEE?? SEE HOW THEY PULL THE WOOL OVER YOUR EYES WHILE SECRETLY ENFORCING THEIR OWN AGENDA? | |
tiger72
SexaT duorP
Premium
join:2001-03-28
Kansas City, MO
clubs:
·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to jeffsimmermontwc
said by jeffsimmermontwc :I'm the director of Digital Communications here at Time Warner Cable, and I'd like to clarify something for you. According to the New York Times, Time Warner Cable is blocking access to Web sites, boards, etc. that display images of child pornography. Here's the relevant article: » www.nytimes.com/2008/06/10/nyreg···&_r=2&hpThat first line is incorrect. Time Warner Cable does not block access to Web sites -- but we actively enforce our acceptable use policies, which prohibit illegal activities. However, we are sunsetting our newsgroups, which have been abused in the past by a small minority of users who use them to traffic some material that is not only illegal but seriously repugnant to anyone with a soul. As others have said, because a small minority have used newsgroups to traffic in illegal and morally repugnant material, you're going to throw them all out?
Other providers have (successfully) merely stopped providing the specific newsgroups where child porn is traded, and left the rest of the binaries and text groups free. Why is TWC unable to do the same?
We will not block our customers' access to legitimate newsgroups made available by other newsgroup providers. We reserve -- and will cheerfully exercise -- the right to take down any website that exists on the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children's list of sites that carry child pornography, if those sites exist on RoadRunner servers. We are also enhancing our procedures to handle complaints and escalate any relevant issues directly to the federal government. And who determines what newsgroups are "legitimate" on other newsgroup providers? Moreover, why are you implying that you can block access to illegitimate newsgroups on other providers, but refuse to do the simple task of restricting them on your own news service instead of cutting of the news service altogether?
...
I've already seen a fair amount of criticism levelled at us and our partners for this move, suggesting that this is the first step down a short road to greater Internet censorship. It's not. This issue isn't about predicting the future, and it's not about free speech. It's about doing what's right, right now. That's a line that has been used to justify EVERY offense against free speech and justice in the history of the world. No, this issue isn't about predicting the future, however this issue does set a precedent for ISP's to act as the government's little internet filters. When you bundle this up with NSA wiretapping and telecom companies happily giving the government mounds of customer data without warrants, it's quite easy for any rational being to see a pattern. I can easily argue that the next step is to censor anarchy sites. Then adult porn. Then "radical" conservative and liberal websites. Etc. You know, since your justification is at least partially based on "morals" which are highly subjective.
Deny all you want, but so long as you begin censoring the internet, I can guarantee you that your most loyal customers (me being one of them) will happily switch to your competitors, and tell everyone else we know not to use TWC because of your censorship practices.
Another part of my job is to transmit the hummings of the Internet's hive mind to relevant decision-makers internally, and I wouldn't have this job if I didn't believe in the Internet as a powerful tool for innovation and change. If any of our critics on this issue have alternate, realistic, and usable solutions to this problem, I'm happy to hear them and pass them along. And you support said innovation and change as long as you (and the company) can make money from it. If you cannot, you have no reason to care if certain sites are censored. See: Net Neutrality.
Nobody involved thinks this is going to stop child pornography from happening altogether -- but we have a responsibility to do as much as we can as soon as we can.
Feel free to contact me directly for followup at this e-mail address : jeff.simmermon@twcable.com
Your responsibility as a company is to provide *paying subscribers* with an unrestricted internet. It is the subscriber's responsibility to abide by the rules of your TOS. It is the GOVERNMENT's responsibility to enforce the laws.
Here's your solution: If your subscribers are violating the TOS, BOOT THEM. If you have illegal content on YOUR network, BOOT IT. If you see something illegal happening, REPORT IT to the Law Enforcement Agency that can handle it. But don't punish everyone for the violations of the few, and don't censor content which doesn't originate in your network.
--
"What makes us omniscient? Have we a record of omniscience? ...If we can't persuade nations with comparable values of the merit of our cause, we'd better reexamine our reasoning."
-United States Secretary of Defense (1961-1968) Robert S. McNamara | |
sivran
God Save The Suite
Premium
join:2003-09-15
Arlington, TX
clubs:
·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to MrMoody
said by MrMoody :said by jeffsimmermontwc :
we are sunsetting our newsgroups, which have been abused in the past by a small minority of users who use them to traffic some material that is not only illegal but seriously repugnant to anyone with a soul.
Nobody involved thinks this is going to stop child pornography from happening altogether -- but we have a responsibility to do as much as we can as soon as we can.
So you throw the baby out with the bathwater, and completely eliminate your newsgroup servers, not just the illegal posts on them as you are required. (Not) coincidentally, usenet is a stated target of the RIAA. If you have to do as much as you can, you'd better cut everyone off and get out of the ISP business. Frankly, I'd rather see Comcast here anyway. Folks, look for Supernews et al to be pressured out of existence next, at least in the US and other countries the RIAA controls. Getting rid of newsgroups entirely? Oh dear. It's too bad I'm stuck with TWC. Then again, maybe DSL is worth at least an attempt, even if it does mean the modem'll have to go into the kitchen.
--
Think outside the fox...Seamonkey | |
|
