Ett slag för barnens rättigheter

29 mars 2010 in Cecilia Malmström | Tags: barn, Europaparlamentet, internet, trafficking | by Cecilia Malmström

Idag har jag presenterat två direktiv som jag fått igenom i kommissionen. Det handlar om ett förslag mot trafficking och människohandel och ett om övergrepp mot barn, inte minst barnpornografi på nätet. Båda förslagen är hett efterfrågade av medlemsländer, frivilligorganisationer, Europaparlamentet samt enskilda och själv känner jag ett stort engagemang i detta. Övergrepp mot barn är bland de grövsta brott som kan begås och vi behöver bättre verktyg i EU för att tillsammans bekämpa detta.

Förslagen tar ett helhetsgrepp och utgår från behovet att förebygga, beskydda, lagföra och arbeta i partnerskap (På engelska blir det bättre: prevent, protect, pursuit och partnership).

Det handlar bland annat om att definiera brotten på samma sätt i hela EU, att delvis harmonisera straffskalorna, att se till att traffickingoffer (som förvisso inte bara är barn) får ett antal grundläggande rättigheter beträffande rätt till vård, rättshjälp och stöd vid vittnessituationen. Jag ska vidare anställa en anti-trafficking coordinator som kan hålla kontakt med alla medlemsländer och samordna erfarenhtsutbytet.

Vad gäller övergrepp mot barn så föreslår vi också här gemensamma definitioner, straffharmonisering och att s.k ”sexturister” utomlands skall kunna lagföras i EU. Jag föreslår också att medlemsländerna, förutom att försöka stänga ner barnpornografiska websiter också ska hitta sätt att blockera tillgången till dem. Detta görs redan i dag i flera länder, bland annat i Sverige och det fungerar bra.

Detta förslag har i vissa kretsar rönt viss uppmärksamhet då de hävdar att kommissionen censurerar nätet. Det argumentet kan jag dock inte förstå – barnpornografiska bilder kan aldrig ses som en yttranderättsfråga, det är en grovt kriminell handling som kränker samhällets allra mest sårbara. Blockeringer skall givetvis ske efter noggrann prövning, med tydlig information till användaren och det finns juridiska möjligheter att överklaga.

Jag hoppas nu att medlemsländerna och europaparlamentet snarast tar sig an förslagen så att nya skärpta regler och verktyg så snart som möjligt kan komma på plats.

Inför förberedelsen av presentationen idag hade jag mycket god hjälp av ett besök hos Stockholmspolisen i torsdags natt. Kommissionen mot människohandel arbetar systematiskt med trafficking och prostitution i Stockholm och de berättade om ett tillslag de precis gjort mot en liga som organiserat sexköp med flickor i Sverige som sålt sina tjänster via internet. De berättade om spaning, avslöjande, hur tillslaget planerades och jag fick också besöka de helt vanliga lägenheter där flickorna tog emot kunder. Skrämmande, men intressant. Jag var också med några timmar på Malmskillnadsgatan på spaning efer sexköpare och var med om några tillslag. En vanlig torsdagkväll i Stockholm…

111 kommentarer

Comments feed for this article

29 mars 2010 den 15:24

Alvar Freude

Using access blocking against child abuse pictures is one of the worst and most stupid things one can do.

We had the full discussion about this over the last year in germany. It is very strange, that you now have the same arguments (and lies), which are long time ago disproved.

The policy must be to remove pictures of child abuse from the Internet and to investigate the perpetrators instead of hiding the contents and protecting those perpetrators. Internet blocking is pure nonsense because it is globally possible to delete these images. The criminal prosecution of the perpetrators must be prioritised, in the interests of the victims. The Internet sites on the blocking lists that have become public are located exclusively in countries that have signed the UN Child Rights Convention and/or the Optional Protocol on Child Pornography – mainly the USA and Western Europe, including Germany.

You are making a mistake if you really believes that it is possible to tackle the ”dark corners of the Internet”, simply by sticking a ”stop sign” in front of them, thereby hiding the crimes. Instead of proposing short-term populist solutions, it should be the job of the European authorities, in the framework of global cooperation, to ensure that such contents are quickly and durably removed from the Internet and that the criminals are prosecuted. Attempts to block images of abuse are also the wrong solution as a complementary measure.

The German Working Group against Access-Blocking and Censorship regret that the you want to push forward a measure that was promoted by former German Family Minister, Ursula von der Leyen and subsequently recognised as the wrong approach by all German political parties.

29 mars 2010 den 15:39

SBartsch

Sehr geehrte Frau Malmström,

als deutscher Bundesbürger fühle ich mich durch Ihren Vorstoß zur Sperrung von Webseiten – man verzeihe mir die Ausdrucksweise – gelinde gesagt verarscht.
Wir hatten hier in Deutschland exakt die selbe Diskussion vor einem halben Jahr und wohl nicht zuletzt wegen dem Aufstand der Netzgemeinde und vieler besorgter Bürger hat die Regierung von ihrem gefährlichen Vorhaben abgesehen.

Heute muss ich also feststellen, dass die Zensurinfrastruktur über die Hintertüre, nämlich über die EU, eingeführt werden soll.
Ich bin zu tiefst in meinem Bürgerrechtsempfinden erschüttert, das eine solche Gesetzesinitiative ausgerechnet von Ihnen ausgeht.

Ich hoffe Sie lassen sich noch zur Vernunft bringen und informieren sich über den Sinn und Unsinn einer Maßnahme, die das schaffen einer Zensurinfrastruktur beinhaltet.

Mit freundlichen Grüßen aus Deutschland, ein Pirat

PS: I hope there will be a good translation for you, but I’m not in the mood to translate it by my self – not now!

29 mars 2010 den 16:13

Christian Wetzel

Dear Mrs. Malmström,

while blocking access to child pornography sounds like a good idea in the first second, it is actually making things worse. It is a curtain drawn over the crime instead fighting and stopping it. It is protecting criminals instead of prosecuting them. Through blocking sites we would create warning signs also _for the perpetrators_; lists of blocked sites (which will leak to the public sooner or later, as these things always do) would be even a perfect guide for people who are actively searching for such content. And, the worst thing, behind the curtain, the humiliation of victims would endure.

In a time when fake bank sites are removed completely within less than half a day, worldwide!, blocking sites which reveal a much more terrible crime, proscribed in all countries of the world, should not be possible?

The reason which is currently preventing for example the german authorities (Bundeskriminalamt) to ask foreign countries for support in removing a site is fear of political touchiness. Here you could do great things on european level to overcome such wrong cautiosness, e.g. by creating interfaces which would support an international, concerted course of action.

Please campaign for the only measure which will actually help current and protect future victims of abuse: Remove sites, prosecute the perpetrators.

Thank you.

29 mars 2010 den 16:35

Hörtnichauf. | bertdesign.de

[…] Freude hat im Namen des AK Zensur in Malmströms Blog per Kommentar kompakt auf den Punkt gebracht, wo die Fehler in der Argumentation […]

29 mars 2010 den 16:52

Diana von Webel

Dear Ms. Malmström,

probably you are aware of the big discussion in Germany on blocking sites that contain child pornography. Even conservatives at a certain point understood that the concerns protesters have are serious and that none of them wants to ”justify” child pornography as ”free speech”. That is – in my opinion – an intended, malicious misunderstanding of protesters.

I despise everyone who does harm to a child and I want people who abuse children prosecuted and punished. And I strongly believe that access blocking is in no way helping to do that.

I am very concerned that it is possible to utterly delete (not just block access to) phishing sites within a few hours to days but the same effort is not made with child porn sites. Instead politicians want to make me believe that for that purpose there is no other way than access blocking. I think THAT is scandalous and really a violation of the abused children’s dignity. It’s like saying: Sorry, we are not able to invest as much money in chasing your abusers as the banks and credit card issuers invest in chasing thieves. Blocking access is no alternative to taking down these sites. It is a way of capitulation.

I am also concerned that when proposing access blocking no politician ever thinks about the most basic democratic principles we were taught are essential to preserve freedom and prevent abuse of power. It is not very democratic in my view to give only the executive (police) the power to decide what to block and also the command over blocking. This opens every path to abuse.

Also, experience in Germany shows that, once the possibility of access blocking is out there, suddenly a lot of (lobby)groups demand blocking of some sites: adult pornography sites, gambling sites, filesharing sites, just to name some…

So, please, when you are trying to do something against the exploitation of children, don’t be satisfied with symbolic politics that doesn’t help to save one child. Don’t just hide the abuse from the eyes of the public. REALLY DO something to delete it (virtually and in reality).

Thanks for your attention,
Diana

29 mars 2010 den 18:14

vasistas

Dear Ms Malmström,

your proposal to block child porn websites could reveal itself as counterproductive and even dangerous. The only way to deal with such websites is to delete them quickly and definitely. It is very easy to evade any kind of blocking and hence your plans for a directive will not contribute to stop access to such sites.

Wouldn’t it be far more effective to work towards an international cooperation in order to definitely eliminate child porn content?

Internet censorship is unfortunately becoming more and more popular throughout the world (Golden Shield, Iran etc.). It is growingly endangering online freedoms and thus the freedom of speech.

Thank you for your attention.

Best regrads,
Kirsten & Marine, vasistas?

29 mars 2010 den 18:50

L’UE veut introduire une censure d’Internet « vasistas?

[…] avons laissé un petit commentaire à Cecilia Malmström ici sur son blog, que vous pouvez faire traduire vers l’anglais ici (vers le français ne marche […]

29 mars 2010 den 20:29

Eva

Bra Cecilia. Kämpa på! Barnpornografin måste bekämpas och som du säger, det handlar inte om yttrandefrihet utan om barnens rättigheter.

Hälsningar Eva

29 mars 2010 den 20:58

Juhana Siren

Dear Mrs. Malmström,

I think most of your ideas were good. There’s only one that I have problems with, and it’s the one about blocking web sites.

Here’s an expert opinion: Censorship of web sites will do nothing to prevent child abuse. In my opinion, it will only waste resources that would be better utilized investigating the crimes and prosecuting the perpetrators. After all, how is hiding a crime from public view better than stopping it altogether?

We’ve had this discussion before in several individual EU countries. There are more ways to distribute content than the public web, such as encrypted web sites, email (which also can be encrypted), file transfer servers (which can use encrypted protocols, and can be very effectively hidden), peer-to-peer (p2p) networks (where sources can remain anonymous)… A purveyor of any illegal activity is most likely to use channels that are encrypted, hidden, or anonymous.

Also, this not being China, any blocking scheme is easily circumvented. Therefore, for the criminals out there, any web blocking scheme is at most a nuisance.

If you want to do something about the web, I suggest implementing a EU-wide system where anybody can file a report about a site that seems to have any kind of suspicious content, and providing resources to investigate.

Sincerely,
Juhana Siren
internet technology specialist
Oulu, Finland

29 mars 2010 den 23:18

Patrik Engström

Hej Cecilia,

Det verkar som om de flesta kommentarerna handlar om förslaget att blockera tillgången till bilder av sexuella övergrepp mot barn på nätet och inga kommentarer om förslaget på harmoniserade straffskalor och enhetlig definition av brottet människohandel.

Rent generellt är jag en varm anhängare av enhetlighet när det gäller att bekämpa brott som till sin karaktär främst är gränsöverskridande (även om människohandel enligt de flesta definitioner inte måste ske över en nationsgräns) eftersom det minskar möjligheten för brottslingar att hitta och utnyttja kryphål och olikheter i lagstiftning.

I just detta fall undrar jag dock vad som egentligen är nytt och om detta är ett förslag som sparkar in redan öppna dörrar, eller om det handlar om verklig handlingskraft från Bryssel?

Faktum är att det redan finns en gemensam definition av brottet människohandel; samtliga EU’s medlemsstater har undertecknat och ratificerat den s.k. Palermokonventionen samt dess tillhörande protokoll, varav ett innehåller en definition av brottet människohandel. Den definitionen är för övrigt också (med vissa smärre tillägg) den definition som det nya Rådsbeslutet om inrättandet av Europol använder. Så vad är det egentligen för behov av ytterligare lagstiftning för att skapa en enhetlig definition.

Vittnets/brottsoffrets situation i en människohandelsutredning, under åtal, rättegång och senare är en annan viktig fråga som jag ser att du inkluderat i ditt förslag. Utan att ha sett detaljerna i ditt förslag när det gäller stöd, skydd och service till offren undrar jag i vilken utsträckning det är möjligt att gå längre än Europarådets (inte att blanda samman med Europeiska Rådet) konvention om åtgärder mot trafficking.

Denna konvention innehåller föredömligt detaljerade regler om vilket skydd, stöd och service ett offer för människohandel skall erbjudas. Konventionen är undertecknad av i stort sett samtliga EU’s medlemsstater (utom Tjeckien) och trädde i kraft redan den första februari 2008, men är sorgligt bortglömd, också i Sverige.

Nu är det ju inte alls så att jag är motståndare till nya lagstiftningsinitiativ, tvärt om. Enhetlig lagstiftning och väl fungerande system för att utreda brotten internationellt och erbjuda stöd, skydd och service till offren, också det internationellt är bara av godo. Det är dock här som det idag brister, inte på grund av bristfällig lagstiftning utan på bristfälligt intresse.

Be att få en detaljerad redogörelse för hur många faktiska ärenden om människohandel som Europol behandlat de senaste åren, hur många misstänkta människohandlare förekommer i organisationens informationssystem eller analysfiler och kring hur många av dessa pågår aktiv analys/utredning? Svaret (om helt sanningsenligt) kommer vara skrämmande lågt och det är där som det stora problemet ligger.

Mvh
Patrik

30 mars 2010 den 1:40

Johan Lindén

Too bad Sweden´s only export commodities nowadays seem to be moral panic. censorship, and moralism. EU stand clear of the Swedish policy of repression, and lack of legal certainty!

30 mars 2010 den 9:07

Eric

Internet´s message to Cecilia Malmström:

30 mars 2010 den 9:54

Berit Krantz

Jättebra jobbat Cecilia – gratulerar! Mot trafficking måste vi alla arbeta alltid, ingen människa ska i något sammanhang bli behandlad som en vara och i synnerhet inte barnen. Hur blir deras vuxna liv om de ska bära med sig sådana erfarenheter. Ge oss gärna tips på hur vi kan arbeta aktivt med detta förutom att informera oss om problemet.

30 mars 2010 den 10:46

E. Remarque

Dear Mrs. Malmström,

I am flabbergasted how you could have missed the fruitful debate regarding the blocking of Internet websites in Germany. The lack of knowledge by the vast majority of politicians, regarding how the Internet works, made it a tough process. But argumentations based on reason in combination with a lot of patience, trying to find ways to make it understandable to them, led to success in finding better approaches.

Yet still focussing on the Internet does not really fight the actual abuse itself, this takes place in the real world. It would be far more important to make people not look away, when these terrible crimes are committed in their personal environment. Are you really convinced, that fighting the symptoms is smarter and more effective than actually fighting the roots?

But as you were talking about the Internet, let me take reference to that. Yes, it is wrong that such material is available over the Internet, I absolutely agree on that. We can not deny the fact though, that the Internet is a picture of reality, a picture of our society – call it a mirror. This does not make it any better, nor is it supposed to serve as an excuse.

Now why did German politicians finally realize that blocking would be less effective than deleting this illegal content ? Information can so easily be duplicated in the digital era and not taking such content offline but leaving it ”hidden behind a curtain” (blocking/redirecting), which can be pulled aside by those who try hard enough (matter of minutes?!), will undoubtedly be more easily available than content which is backup’ed for prosecution and then taken offline. I am convinced that if you are serious about, you can only agree to this.

So even if this particular content could have been copied beforehand to a different location and made accessible again, I fail to understand why you can not or do not want to understand that deleting will be far more effective than leaving the content that will continue to show these victims online. I doubt that one will ever attain a situation in which all illegal content, including the so called CP, will be gone unless you completely shut it down.

You think that deleting will not work? Well, why are banks capable of removing so called phishing sites within hours, shown by a study by the University of Cambridge?! Or are you seriously saying and/or believing that you will not get the needed support by any of the known countries hosting this content, to have this illiegal content of the sexual abuse of children and it’s documentation removed?

Or could it be, that you are well aware of all these facts, the whole debate that took place in Germany and all it’s arguments but strive for something completely different? I seriously hope that our politicians are acting with a clear conscience and are not abusing these victims once more in their political interests.

Bear in mind, every invention has it’s pros and cons. Nuclear fission can power a city or wipe it from the map. History has shown, that mankind does not solely use things for good purposes, so we have to be careful with what we do. I used this drastic and black/white example to show you, why people are so concerned regarding the blocking, rather than a serious approach to eradicate such content, and is understood by many as the opening of the Pandora’s box regarding (possible) future censorship once this infrastructure would be installed.

You regard remarks that this blocking could lead to censorship as wrong and exaggerated? Well, then please check on the filter lists e.g. in Australia, currently being criticised by the U.S. government; initially installed to fight CP on the Internet but a lot more is to be found on that list these days. Having such a filter technology will just be too tempting to many to not use it for other purposes as well and I am certain that you are well aware of this!

Making mistakes and wrong decisions based on insufficent information is no Nemesis. Learning something new is not a shame. Maybe you want to reconsider your point of view.

Regards

30 mars 2010 den 11:52

Love Berggren

Thank you all for your comments.

Let me on behalf of Cecilia Malmström address some of your points:

– A few of you have suggested that we should not block sites, but remove them from the internet if there is illegal content on the web site. There is, however, no contradiction betwee these two measures. Removing content at source is, of course, the best solution and we will certainly continue to cooperate with other countries to close down web sites with illegal content. In fact, Cecilia Malmström suggests in the Directive a legal obligation for Member States to remove content at source where that is at all possible in practice.

Even though skilled internet users surely will find ways to evade the filter, the experience from the countries who do have different solutions to block web sites with child pornographic content – such as Sweden, Denmark, the UK and Italy – is that it is efficient and considered useful by NGOs working with children and the police.

– The proposal is not about censorship, but about fighting a serious crime. The police can and will confiscate books, films and leaflets containing child pornography. If the same content is online, it should be blocked and closed down. There is no question of shutting off the internet access of users, or of blocking any content other than child pornography as defined in the Directive (i.e. images of children being sexually abused).

Best regards
Love Berggren
Cabinet of Cecilia Malmström

30 mars 2010 den 12:40

E. Remarque

Thank you very much for having responded and showing the willingness to make use of this two-way blog platform for a prolific exchange of information and views.

You have mentioned that the proposal is not about censorship, but fighting a serious crime. If there could be a 100% certainty, that this highly powerful instrument of control over the Internet would not be extended to other ”fields of possible interest” by many stakeholders, which we could witness taking place over here in Germany, and that a sustained improvement would be achieved to quickly secure such content for prosecution, followed by taking this content off-line so that the victims are no longer exposed to those still being able to access this content, then I believe people would be less concerned.

You also mentioned that you have different solutions to block web sites. Over here in Germany DNS blocking was the discussed approach, what are your measures and plans? Deep packet inspection? Live tapping of all Internet communication, this removing privacy ?

I assume that you will have to agree that fighting a problem in society by technology does not really sound promising.

So, as I really want to believe that you are seriously interested in fighting this terrible grievance in society, what are your specific plans to fight the root of evil itself, rather than just this one symptom?

What are your exact plans once this infrastructure, with enhanced abilities that make it tougher to find workarounds, may have been put into place, to absolutely _guarantee_ that it will be never used or extended for any other purpose like certain other stakeholders?

30 mars 2010 den 13:00

Benjamin Smythe

The people pretending to be helping children, the so-called Child Protective Services, are actually running an international child sex slavery ring.

When people like Senator Nancy Schaefer reveal this information, they get murdered:
http://www.infowars.com/cps-warrior-nancy-schaefer-gunned-down/

When commenters reveal this information on blogs like this one, the comments get censored.

30 mars 2010 den 13:39

Michael

Dear Mrs. Malmström,

The establishment of a Europe-wide censorship infrastructure, pretended to fight against documented child abuse will empower authorities, governments and network providers to constrain net neutrality, freedom of speech and media, as a corollary. This is for sure. It won’t, on the other hand, help to reduce the number of penal content on the net and it won’t protect minors either, but it might actually assist the offenders to better manage their content as they’ll benefit from a rapid alert system.

You’ll be unable to impede this ominous progress, as it will become independent: There are and there always will be politicians, lobbyists or business kingpins that are powerful enough to use such an instrument to pursue their very intentions at the expense of everybody else. It’s merely a question of influence!

As a responsible politician you are supposed to consider extensively the enormeous drawbacks of an encroachment on net neutrality!
In june 1961, a politician of the German Democratic Republic, Walter Ulbricht, stated: “Nobody has the intention of building a wall.”
The infamous German Wall then became a reality just two months after Ulbricht emphatically denied that there were such plans. We know very well that this wall didn’t become an all-peaceful ”anti-capitalism protection wall” as how it was promoted, don’t we?

History will repeat itself, if politicians don’t stop short and avoid making the same mistakes over and over again …
So please, Mrs. Malmström, don’t fall for the alluring but terribly wrong and ineffective idea of fighting whatever crime by legalizing censorship or one day we will end up in dire, iranean*, circumstances!

Sincerely,
Michael

P.S.: I’d like to encourage you to read up on the nascency of the iranean censorship project and how it could grow what it is nowadays.
Here’s a little hint: It all began with ”(juvenile) pornographie” …

30 mars 2010 den 14:47

Mirko Gustony

Dear Mrs. Malmström,

as some of the other commenters already pointed out: most of the documented child abuse is not shared on websites but via other channels like p2p networks, chats, mobile phones etc..

Access blocking only works for blocking websites. So in the majority of cases access blocking will not work at all.

Could it be that you are trying to solve a problem by actually hiding its symptoms? Child abuse will not stop just because you hide pictures and movies of it behind a curtain that most people will be able to push aside quickly.

If you really want to fight this crime you should:
– improve the technical equipment for the police,
– provide more human resources to the police,
– improve the education of the investigators, and
– tighten the international cooperation with investigators all over the world.

Of course looks easier to create a technical solution for a social problem. Unfortunately this will not work.

If your Directive is not about censorship then its sections on access blocking are useless. Deleting works. Just ask the guys of AK Zensur (http://ak-zensur.de/2009/05/loeschen-funktioniert.html) and carechild (http://www.carechild.de/news/politik/internetzensur_carechild_versuch_blamiert_deutsche_politiker_566_1.html).

What I fear is that there will be collateral damage. And if you say, there was none so far, you are clearly wrong: Just have a look at the case of Matti Nikki (http://lapsiporno.info/english-2008-02-15.html and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lapsiporno.info) or ask the Electronic Frontier Finland on the true amount of documented child abuse websites in the finnish black list.

Regards,
Mirko Gustony

30 mars 2010 den 14:51

Kritiker

@Love Bregren

[quote]
Even though skilled internet users surely will find ways to evade the filter, the experience from the countries who do have different solutions to block web sites with child pornographic content – such as Sweden, Denmark, the UK and Italy – is that it is efficient and considered useful by NGOs working with children and the police.[/quote]

don´t you realise the wrong entries on the block lists of this countries? how should someone help himself to get off the blacklists when they are not open? and how can a open blacklist help to block child abuse?
All Webspace Hosters have terms of service and react very fast about reporting abuse sent by users. so why should this not work in the same way like it does just with the diffrence now local police is sending reports about child pornography to the WSHs? The ”Internetpatrol” of the local police finds childporn, send an abuse to the hoster and start a criminal complaint. content is gone in 5h and the police can start with investigation or send the information about it to the local police where the host is located. Only if you delete the childporn faster then it is uploaded you will clean the net.

30 mars 2010 den 14:58

M. Hanauska

Dear Mr Berggren,

When the filter lists from Denmark, Sweden and Australia leaked onto the Internet, people opened all the sites on those lists and the results were:

– 1/3 of those sites did not exist at all any longer (probably those stopped existing months ago)

– 1/3 of those sites still existed, but there was nothing even close to child pornography found on those sites (probably the material in question was removed by the administrators ages ago)

– 1/3 of those sites still existed and still contained child pornography. When the hosting services of those sites were informed about the illegal content, 90% of them removed the content in 24-48 hours after only a single mail.

After reading about that, I must ask myself:

1) Why are there so many dead sites on those filter lists? Is anybody ever checking the sites on the list again? Does anyone ever notice when those sites go offline? Maybe blocking non existing sites is not really problematic, but it’s also rather pointless, do you disagree?

2) Why were those sites that removed the problematic material a long time ago not removed from the filter lists? You can claim the lists that leaked where not up-to-date, but people in the appropriate countries confirmed that those sites are in fact really still blocked. Keeping those sites on the list is nothing more than pure censorship of sites that don’t violate any known law of their country or any international law. On the base of what *right* do you justify blocking those sites? If that is not unjustified censorship, how would you call that?

3) Why has nobody ever tried to take those sites down? When the providers were asked, why they have not taken down the sites earlier, they replied ”This is the first time anyone has ever reported those sites to us; we had no idea what is on those sites”. So basically the policy in this country thinks ”Let’s put the URL on the filter list, case closed”. They don’t even try to take down the site first! Why, it’s much easier if you just put an URL onto a list, right? On the other hand, sending out an e-mail to the provider had hardly taken a lot more time and had removed the site permanently and for everyone in the world; but if you take down sites like that, how are you then going to justify a filter system, well, I see.

You say that pages can be filtered and still be taken down, reality is, if they are taken down, there is no reason to filter them and if they are filtered, nobody will make himself the work to try taking them down anymore. So what you say is totally illogical and far away of reality. Further being once on such a list, justified or not, means being on that list forever, as all your paragon countries have proven, that there are no resources available to ever remove sites of those lists again.

Last but not least you admit yourself, that skilled people can circumvent the filters. I tell you something, not skilled people, people who really want to access this material at any price. Since even if they don’t have the skill, they will learn it if they have to. And if I was a victim of child abuse and if pictures showing my abuse were found on the Internet, what do you think, how do I feel if you post a statement like:

”Yes, we have not put much effort into taking your images down. But don’t worry, we have blocked them, now people who never wanted to see those won’t accidentally see them… only people that really want to have them, will still have access to them by circumventing the filter and will live out their sexual preferences”.

I’d think you want to make fun of me and my abuse; as this cannot really be the reply of a government that takes the matter serious.

And please don’t try to come up with the myth, that there is nothing you can do if site hoster are not cooperating with you. According to the filter lists of Sweden, Denmark and Australia, over 90% of all addresses found there were in countries were any form of child pornography is strictly prohibit. Informing the local law enforcement agencies will make them take the site down, and if they have to confiscate the server directly for that, but they will take it down.

To make it easier for you to reply to this statement, just answer this simple question:

”What for do you need a European wide filter system, if you are really planing to taking the sites down and if almost all hosting providers will follow such a request within less than 2 working days?”

30 mars 2010 den 16:04

Manuel

There is contradiction between both. One is like a curtain and one is really doing something against it. Deleting as fast as possible is the only answer, not blocking. Blocking is like ”a pedestrian walks by and does see that a child is beeing raped and closes his eyes for not seeing it” instead of fighting this crime. The curtain, you know – out of sight, out of the mind. Europe should not be seen as pedestrian which closes the eyes. Europe should not become a second China, which blames China for their censorship. If this becomes reality I’m ashamed to be a European.

Btw.: ”Skilled internet users”:
It takes just 1 second to have a work-around for DNS-blocking, it takes just two minutes to have a work around for simple http-blocking, it just takes 3 minutes to use a VPN…and so on. Those you try to fight will laugh about it. They get the chance to get to know if they are in danger or not.

30 mars 2010 den 16:13

Manuel

One more (short) comment:
Imagine your blog gets blocked and you are kind of marked as child molester…

30 mars 2010 den 16:31

Drizzt

@Love Berggren: I’ll do the answering between your claims.

A few of you have suggested that we should not block sites, but remove them from the internet if there is illegal content on the web site. There is, however, no contradiction betwee these two measures. Removing content at source is, of course, the best solution […]
No, it is the only solution. Putting up some sort of curtain in front of media depicting the exploitation of children isn’t going to do any good. Simply because the media stays online, the perpetrators get warned and the block list can be read out automatically which produces just a perverse sort of a ”top ten list”.

[…] and we will certainly continue to cooperate with other countries to close down web sites with illegal content. In fact, I suggest in the Directive a legal obligation for Member States to remove content at source where that is at all possible in practice.

Then you don’t need access blocking, because removal is possible in every country you’re already blocking content from in Sweden. This was shown e.g. by the AK Zensur.

Even though skilled internet users surely will find ways to evade the filter […]
Just so you can get an idea how ”skilled” one needs to be:
– http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1NNG5I6DBm0
– http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jVh7Oj5pNeM

[…] the experience from the countries who do have different solutions to block web sites with child pornographic content – such as Sweden, Denmark, the UK and Italy – is that it is efficient and considered useful by NGOs working with children and the police.

This is simply wrong: the chief of your (Swedish) anti child abuse task force told the Focus (German magazine) last year, that blocking has no beneficial effect. A lot of NGOs like INHOPE tell us, that blocking is complete nonsense and deletion the only way.

The proposal is not about censorship, but about fighting a serious crime.

But it is. We had the discussion last year in Germany and shortly after the access blocking was proposed for the first time a lot of other interest groups came along and demanded blocking of various other things ranging from gambling to violation of copyrights. And on the Swedish list were sites listed which criticized the blocking. This whole access blocking is intransparent, doesn’t work and binds a lot of resources for something utterly pointless.

Please don’t push this, stop it,
Drizzt

30 mars 2010 den 16:47

Antipattern

Dear Cecilia Malmström, dear Love Berggren,

Taking such websites off-line is the only feasible solution for this dilemma. That this is possible has been shown by phishing websites that tend to only last a few hours online, until taken down. In my opinion it is appalling that this is not possible for child pornography. The mechanisms for such a take down are already implemented, but they are not used appropriately. What’s the best law worth if it’s not properly implemented?

– Unlike other sources claim, virtually all states that host websites have laws that ban either child pornography, or pornography in general. Thus there are neither legal obstacles, nor ”safe havens”.

– In fact, looking at states that already implemented content filtering shows its severe weaknesses. The lists are often out-dated or filter websites that are not hosting illegal content. In Australia, the site of a local dentist even made it on the list, after it had been hacked. And I remember the Swedish head of police stating that content filtering is merely a symbolic measure.

– Regarding the ease of evading filtering, the adaptations necessary to circumvent filtering are so basic and simple. They are based on standardized internet technologies and changing the DNS server takes less than ten minutes. (including googling the instructions) Because ”official” dns servers are bypassed, it is impossible to get any statistics on how often these websites are accessed. However, as mentioned earlier in the comments, it is very likely that these filter lists leak or that their content is reverse engineered. In either case, they would be counterproductive, a ”pedophile’s telephone book”. They have to be taken down, and this is possible if the appropriate authorities were willing to act.

I assume you have the best intentions and want to use content filters only against child pronography, but once installed there is a high incentive to use them for other purposes, too. Whether that’s to block file sharing websites, or – and much worse – sites like wikileaks. This is what we are worried about. As said, I do not think that this is what you intend to do (unless I have evidence suggesting otherwise), but given the current political circumstances (i.e. ACTA) I lack the faith that content filtering will not be used against other content sooner or later.

I used to be very pro-European, and I still consider myself a European citicen, but I fear that the EU is abused by taking issues that fail on national level onto the European Level, and then skapegoating the EU for such laws.

30 mars 2010 den 18:18

Joe

”Even though skilled internet users surely will find ways to evade the filter,”

Here in Belgium there is a particular website that is blocked for reasons of data protection.

If I type the name (URL) of the website into my browser, I get a ”stop page”.

If I go to this website http://www.zend2.com/ and type the same name (URL) of the website into that page, I can access the ”blocked” page.

Could you kindly explain why the European Commission believes that this is a technically complex task that could only be achieved by a ”skilled” internet user and that web blocking is difficult to work around?

”the experience from the countries who do have different solutions to block web sites with child pornographic content – such as Sweden, Denmark, the UK and Italy – is that it is efficient and considered useful by NGOs working with children and the police.”

Why is *none* of this evidence included in the European Commission’s so-called ”impact assessment” on this measure?

Many thanks,

Joe

30 mars 2010 den 18:36

B.Bommer

Love Berggren wrote:
”There is no question of shutting off the internet access of users, or of blocking any content other than child pornography as defined in the Directive (i.e. images of children being sexually abused).”

Excuse me, but this is a lie. Something this discussion does not need.
The Directive explicitly includes pictures of adults with ”child-like appearance”.

So there will have to be some censoring institution that will decide weather this 25 year old porn star with braces and small breasts is a molested child now.

Which, by the way, is a heavy insult to abused children.

Please rethink your position. Fight pedophiles, not pictures.

30 mars 2010 den 18:56

”The experience from the countries who do have different solutions to block web sites with child pornographic content – such as Sweden, Denmark, the UK and Italy – is that it is efficient and considered useful.”

This is hearsay. There is no scientific evidence for that claim.

Has there been a visible decrease in child abuse crime since the introduction of site blocking in Sweden, Denmark, the UK and Italy compared to other European countries without it? Not that we can tell. Crime levels across Europe are about the same, with our without blocking.

One problem in this discussion is, there is no valid definition of ”efficient” or ”useful”. All we have here is a moral panic: Quick, we gotta do something, fast!

Efficient is not ”the filters blocked x thousand visits to illegal sites”. Useful is not ”we are able to block unwanted content fast (and then forget about it)”.

We do not know if these visits were real living people or bots. Search engines, spam crawlers and web bots generate a lot of web traffic, as any webmaster can tell you. And since the lists are secret, we do not know if they really list illegal sites, only – leaked censor lists from various countries suggest otherwise.

We need to define our goals first. Then we need to research if our options will lead to these goals. The goal is to reduce child abuse – great! Blocking web sites may sound like a good idea at first, but so far, independent research has not given any proof that it reduces child abuse crime in any significant way.

I don’t want my tax money spent on useless measures that will lead to a mandatory censorship infrastructure. And yes, it WILL be used for censorship beyond the blocking of child porn, once it is installed.

Cecilia, here’s a suggestion: Put some money into crime research. Hire social workers to help the victims. Hire a few more policemen and have them trained to fight crime online. Most policemen and judges don’t even know how to use a mouse. The last time I tried to report a Nigeria scammer to my police, all I got was a blank stare.

30 mars 2010 den 18:57

Ralf Bendrath

Dear Mrs. Malmström,

I’d be interested in hearing how your former boss, prime minister Reinfeldt, can go to China with a straight face and tell them that unfiltered internet is important for human rights and democracy, as he did according to news reports yesterday. The Chinese government has already used the filtering infrastructure in place in a few Western countries as an excuse for their own ”Green Dam” censorship system.

You can again reply ”But we will only filter child abuse”. Two of the many problems are: The filtering lists have to be secret by definition. So how can concerned citizens be sure that nothing else ends up on these lists? And how can you be sure that the next government is also run by people who only have best intentions?

Karl Popper wrote wisely on the open society: We have to build our political institutions in a way that neither evil nor incompetent rulers can do too much harm. The same principle now has to be applied to our technological infrastructures. This is why people are so concerned about your proposal – not because they think you or the current European governments are evil (well… maybe except for the Italian one), but because of the inherent risks such technologies of information control create.

On a more empirical note: The Danish filtering list from 2008/2009, according to the German Federal Criminal Police Agency, has websites from these countries blocked:

USA: 1148
Germany: 199
Netherlands: 79
Canada: 57
Russia: 27
Japan: 20
Korea: 19
Czech Republic: 15
UK: 14

Maybe you should mention this to the US secretaries of Justice and Home Affairs when you next talk to them about access to European SWIFT and PNR data – before you start setting up a dangerous technology in Europe.

Best regards, Ralf Bendrath

30 mars 2010 den 19:34

Ludwig

Dear Mrs. Malmström,

one news source I read reports that, when you were asked about the worries of net activists, you replied: ”Child pornography does not fall within the freedom of opinion.” I don’t know if this quote is accurate. If it is, then I am disappointed – and offended, too.

Child pornography is a horrible crime. Nobody is disputing that. Nobody wants to defend it or suggests that it is a legitimate use of the freedom of opinion. So, whenever I hear someone giving a reply like yours in a discussion about internet blocks, I tend to dismiss that person out of hand. It shows me that I am dealing with someone who doesn’t get the point at all.

You may have good intentions, Mrs. Malmström, but you don’t seem to understand what the discussion is about. Your reply ”Child pornography does not fall within the freedom of opinon!” is, at best, a display of ignorance. At worst, a malicious attempt to defame critics of the proposed internet blocks such as myself. I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt, so I assume it is not the latter.

So, like the commenters before me, I will try to enlighten you about the real reasons for our criticism. They are twofold:

1) We believe that the proposed internet blocks will be largely ineffective at combatting child pornography

2) We believe that the proposed blocks would create an infrastructure of censorship which, once established, could be abused by various interested parties and self-appointed ”moral guardians” for their own goals

If you believe that 2) is a conspiracy theory, you should look at Australia, where legislation is being proposed to filter all nude pictures of small-breasted women. The justification is that women with small breasts are, apparently, indistinguishable from children, and that therefore, such pictures could attract pedophiles!

http://theweek.com/article/index/105766/Australias_small_breast_ban

I should not have to point out what an utterly stupid argument this is. It is also sexist and offensive to women with small breasts, who are in effect being told that they aren’t real, grown-up women.

So, Australia is banning women with small breasts, the UK has already banned so-called ”extreme images”, and critics of the internet blocks are themselves being blocked in Finland, in order to silence them (see the links given by another commenter in this thread). I don’t think it is unreasonable to assume that the EU-wide blocks would be abused in such ways, too.

Terrorism and child pornography, these are the two bogeymen to justify the establishment of an architecture of surveillance and censorship. An architecture which can, and most likely will, then be used by those in power for much more far-reaching aims.

Mrs. Malmström, I urge you to listen to common sense and re-think your proposal. These internet blocks are Pandora’s box. Do not open it.

Sincerely,

Ludwig

30 mars 2010 den 20:46

Internet-Sperren sind Unfug « …Kaffee bei mir?

[…] Placebo-Gesetze: Warum Netzsperren sinnlos und gefährlich sind. Ralf Bendrath hat auf Cecilia Malmströms Blog seine Anmerkungen gemacht, zusammen mit Alvar Freude, vasistas und einigen anderen bekannten […]

30 mars 2010 den 21:36

opalkatze

Dear Ms Malmström,

when the sun shines into your room and dazzles you, you draw the curtain. Nevertheless the sun is still in its place.

Regards,
Vera Bunse

31 mars 2010 den 0:07

go.

… da die Zeit meinen Kommentar entweder gar nicht veroeffentlicht oder sich Zeit lasst damit … wollte ich dies hier zu bedenken geben …

http://www.zeit.de/digital/internet/2010-03/internetsperren-bruessel-eu

Und in NRW sind in Kürze Landtagswahlen ( waere der Titel )

… irgendwo las ich, derzeit seien in der BRD alle Parteien, ausser der CDU, fuer das Loeschen …, dann koennte der ‘Kompromiss’ sehr leicht so aussehen: wir einigen uns darauf, eine Loesung anzustreben, die es ‘uns’ ermoeglicht, den ‘Regierten’ glaubhaft zu erzaehlen, dass in all diesen Faellen ( Kinderpornografie ) … ( nach rechtlichem Vorgehen ) eine sofortige Loeschung erfolgt, aber wir lassen die Inhalte, moeglich durch die Applikation eines besonderen technischen Hoechststandards, doch ‘im Netz’, zu besonderen Forschungszwecken.

Meine Position :
Sperren ! Wenn moeglich nur die genauen Stellen und nicht mehr ( Kennzeichnung des jeweiligen Verstosses durch geeignete tag’s ), keine Strafe fuer’s Ueberschreiten der Sperren, aber eine gezielte, nur netzinterne und neutrale, ( also nicht experimentelle ), Ueberwachung genau desjenigen Personenkreises, welcher die Sperren selbst ueberschreitet; je haeufiger, desto intensiver, durch die wissenschaftliche, universitaere und interdisziplinaere Forschung.

Ziel der Forschung muss es auch sein, immer schneller und fehlerfrei herauszufinden, wer was ins Netz stellt. Somit kann, wer sich navigierend im Internet bewegt, stets mitverfolgen, naemlich dort, wo Sperrungen angezeigt sind, dass dort juristische Prozesse ( mit allerhoechter Wahrscheinlichkeit schon ) in Gang gekommen sind.

Ich bin gern bereit meine Position zu aendern, wenn mich bessere Argumente ueberzeugen.

Zum Schluss noch ein interessanter Link:

http://de.altermedia.info/general/schritt-eins-zur-totalen-netzkontrolle-kohler-unterzeichnet-websperrengesetz-17-02-10_40512.html

Ich zitiere daraus nur folgende Ueberlegung: “Wenn man immer sofort sanktioniert, weiss ja jeder wo genau die Grenze des Machbaren verläuft.”

Ist da nicht Loeschen geradezu die ideale Idee ?

Auch dabei wird beruecksichtigt: nicht koenne man “das Betrachten derartiger Bilder mit der Zeit womöglich als normal ansehen.”

… nach langer Zeit: “Welcher Bilder ?“

31 mars 2010 den 0:40

go.

Durch das Loeschen werden solche Bilder immer interessanter, relativ schnell sogar.

Selbst der Urheber soll sie nicht mehr loeschen duerfen, wenn die Gesetzesebene ersteinmal eingeschaltet ist. Auch nicht, wenn er
in solchen Zeugnissen sich selbst verewigt hat. Das geschieht ihm
ganz besonders recht. Angehoerige waeren dann gefordert, im
persoenlichen Umgang mit solchen Gesellschaftsmitgliedern,
zu zeigen, wo sie selber stehen.

Waehrend das Sperren mit straffreiem Zugang unter den oben von mir
vorgeschlagenen Bedingungen im Idealfall dazu fuehren sollte, dass wer
sich fuer die Grenze des Machbaren interessiert, indem er selbst nur beobachtet, dies tun kann, ohne deswegen bestraft zu werden.

Die EU- Verantwortlichen sollten ihn umgkehrt dann aber auch im Netz beobachten duerfen; und dieses jedoch nicht, ohne es ihm deutlich,
naemlich per Gesetz, gesagt zu haben.

Und ihn nicht dann, zu etwaigen ‘Versuchszwecken’ sozusagen, auch noch gezielt manipulieren duerfen, durch irgendwelche Tricks und Kniffe.
Dies muss fuer immer ausgeschlossen werden.

Google muss diesbezueglich schon geruegt werden; vielleicht liesse sich da in diesem Zusammenhang etwas erreichen.

31 mars 2010 den 11:43

Drizzt

I just like to add a source for my claim, that the Swedish police officer said, that the Swedish access blocking is without any effect: Detlev Borchers mentions this in his reply in the FAZ to Commissioner Malmström’s guest article there: http://www.faz.net/-00LUP8

The relevant part reads:
Die schwedische Politikerin Cecilia Malmström könnte Björn Sellström fragen, den Chef der schwedischen Polizeiermittlungsgruppe gegen Kinderpornographie und Kindesmisshandlung. „Unsere Sperrmaßnahmen tragen leider nicht dazu bei, die Produktion von Webpornographie zu vermindern“, hat dieser im „Focus“ erklärt.
which can be translated to:
The Swedish politician Cecilia Malmström could ask Björn Sellström, head of the Swedish task force against child pornography and child abuse. He explained in the ”Focus”, that ”our access blocking hasn’t helped in reducing the production of web pronography”.

Cheers,
Drizzt

31 mars 2010 den 12:23

Oh no, now you have some weirdos commenting in this blog. Don’t listen to their paranoid drivel, listen to our paranoid drivel. 😉

31 mars 2010 den 15:39

Love Berggren

Dear all,
Two short points, upon which many of you focus, to explain why Cecilia Malmström thinks the proposal is needed.

1. The reality is that removal at source is not effective because the illegal content is hosted in many different third countries, and may even move around between countries from day to day. A check of the internet by hotlines in 35 countries recently found 144 web sites in the USA, Russia, Ukraine and other countries. One year later, a majority of the sites were still operating.

There is evidence that codes of good conduct backed up by (voluntary) agreements with the competent authorities can be effective. A report from the CIRCAMP police project shows that between 90 and 100% of all internet users are covered by the filters applied in Denmark, Sweden and Norway. Other member states – who introduced filtering more recently – like Malta have only 50% coverage, but that is increasing fast.

2. All over Europe, we do agree that watching child porn is a crime. My impression is that you agree that it should so be, and that your concerns lie in what this could lead to. Let me therefore once more underscore that the proposal is about child porn, and nothing else. I can assure you that if freedom of expression were to be threatened, Cecilia Malmström would join you on the barricades. But child pornography must never be seen as a legitimate expression of an opinion.

Best regards
Love Berggren

31 mars 2010 den 15:48

Joe

”There is evidence that codes of good conduct backed up by (voluntary) agreements with the competent authorities can be effective. A report from the CIRCAMP police project shows that between 90 and 100% of all internet users are covered by the filters applied in Denmark, Sweden and Norway.”

This is evidence of activity – not evidence of effectiveness. Where is the evidence that this has been of any value whatsoever – apart from for the gambling industry in Denmark, who will soon ”benefit” from an expansion of blocking to cover foreign gambling websites?

”But child pornography must never be seen as a legitimate expression of an opinion.” I *implore* you to stop misunderstanding the arguments of opponents of blocking in this way. NOBODY but NOBODY is saying that child abuse images are a legitimate expression of an opinion.

31 mars 2010 den 16:20

Manuel

”The reality is that removal at source is not effective because the illegal content is hosted in many different third countries, and may even move around between countries from day to day”

…which leads to the fact that blocking will be totally useless.

”A check” is not informing the hosters about illegal content. Did the hosters get the information about illegal content? I’m sure they didn’t get anything. The same in Europe’s countries with a blocking system…

http://ak-zensur.de/2009/05/loeschen-funktioniert.html

”Let me therefore once more underscore that the proposal is about child porn, and nothing else”

…and after that for racism too, for intellectual property, for having a different opinion, for first person shooters…(in fact, some politicians wanted to do this in Germany after Ursula von der Leyen tried to install a filter)

And again:
Blocking is protecting the criminals!
Europe’s blocking will be a Chinese version in the future!
Only efficient way is to delete! And to delete again after it comes up again…and so on!
Blocking will put also every blogger at the risk to be mentioned as child abuser if the stop page is on their page – which can also affect this blog!
There is only one way to cope with these things: international work for faster detection and deletion!

31 mars 2010 den 18:37

Michael Jäger

Hey Cecilia,

ett par punkter från mig. Ja skriver pa engelska, mit svenska är inte so bra.

1. Don´t call it child porn. It is no porn. Porn means, all the people want, what they do!!!

2. Talk with people like me and many others who suffered from one of these crimes and still do. Go and ask them, what they think will help the childs.

3.Putting a wall instead of a window, so the crime still happens is the wrong way.

4. Don´t call the people ”Lögnarer”, being concerned about the future of the democratic system. Even if you say, you won´t use the infrastructur for more, who gives us the security another government will not use the possibilities? The past shows, everything will be used.

Alla de bästa för Dig.

Michael Jäger

31 mars 2010 den 18:56

Dominik Boecker

”The reality is that removal at source is not effective because the illegal content is hosted in many different third countries, and may even move around between countries from day to day.”

So, please tell me: if the content is moved on a day to day-basis: how could the Malmströms proposal help?

How come that a swedish police official states, that access blocking does not help at all?

31 mars 2010 den 21:01

Drizzt

@Love Berggren: I contacted the American embassy as of today and they assured me that as soon as a provider was notified of such content he is legally bound to act. And I’m pretty sure the Russian or Ukrainian embassies would tell me the same. Also the eco (the German Internet Business Association), which runs the German part of INHOPE, had a press release (so far only available in German but I’m sure you can have it either translated or request an English version) posted that contained information, that they’re able to get all websites (containing media documenting the abuse of children) deleted internationally.
Really, even if it’s not as flashy and isn’t as visible (publically) as a virtual stop sign, nothing is going to replace hard police work (which is really needed to bring the perpetrators before a court and to justice).

To your second point: you certainly are aware that Australia is filtering for some time now and they stated the exact same thing as you do now (only documentation of child abuse is going to be blocked) and guess what one can read what is blocked too by now: normal pornography featuring women with small breasts because ”publications featuring small-breasted women were encouraging paedophilia”.
In Germany, shortly after Mrs. von der Leyen proposed access blocking for the first time, there were many powerful interest groups ranging from the music industry to politicians which demand to extend the blocking to other content too (copyright violations, offensive websites against certain groups, internet gambling platforms and many more). The same will happen while or after you’ve pushed the directive through council and parliament. And then (I would actually bet on it even though I never betting otherwise) you or your colleagues in the commission will extend that. And pretty soon you’ll find out that a lot of people are slipping through the cracks so you need something more powerful… welcome on the route to the Great Firewall.

Please invest all (y)our efforts, power and money into the right thing and work towards the deletion of these kind of materials. Make sure the perpetrators will be prosecuted. Rescue the children and don’t abuse them for the second time. (And yes a lot of them, at least those who survived this hell, think like this, check out the homepage of MOGIS e.V..)

Regards,
Drizzt

P.S.: A German lawyer, Udo Vetter, author of the Lawblog, posted an article on ”the legend of the multi-million market of child pornography”. Judging from his article, which is based on his professional insight, the majority of the documentations of child abuse are not traded on the World Wide Web (the part of the Internet you’ll hit with your access blocking) but by traditional mail.

31 mars 2010 den 21:40

Michael

Dear Love Berggren,

1. This is — if you’ll pardon the expression — utter bullshit:
There’s a plethora of valuable references on the Net that will prove you wrong. You are taken in by lies that are long since refuted by thorough checks!
I won’t cite all of them, that would go beyond the scope of this comment, but mention just one (even though the language is German, an english version should be disposable as well):
http://ak-zensur.de/2010/03/sperren-ueber-eu.html

2. Bullshit once more:
As blogged, discussed, printed and commented hundreds of times before by many political scientists and civil-rights activists (and others, too), the only rational reason one would strive to establish a censorship infrastructure for the Internet is that it is tempting for governments, political parties or industrial companies fearing a loss of influence or volume due to the democratic and open structure of the Internet.
Whoever controls Internet access, affects the public opinion and might benefit from it!

Furthermore, playing off freedom of expression and civil rights against combatting of ”child porn” shows a disastrously wrong understanding of democratic, modern values! Nobody here (neither myself) is happy about the fact, that ”child porn” (in correct terms: depicted child abuse) *could* be distributed via Internet — or more probable ”offline” by mail, in families, boarding schools, sports clubs, catholic establishments …
However, Internet censorship is no solution for this offence, no victim will be saved by web ”curtains”; the heinous offence happens amidst our society, offline!

Introducing censorship in the EU will in the long run provide Chinese circumstances: an anti-democratic, monitored, restricted ”EU filtered web” devoid of freedom of speech. An instrument of trade and ”harmonized official media” — after knocking out displeasing blogs and individuals. There are politicians who envy China for their ”efficient internet administration”, wishing something similar for their countries! This is a sad fact (I can name you names, too) but unfortunately it isn’t paranoia of mine!

Please don’t fall for agreeable-sounding lies or so-called studies of lobbyists and industry consultants whose only concern is pecuniary (work orders by governmental organisations) …

Många hälsningar,

Michael

31 mars 2010 den 21:51

Andreas Busch

Dear Love,

there is no point in repeating the point that child pornography is not a legitimate expression of an opinion — simply because noone who objects to Commissioner Malmströms proposal says that. We are all agreed that child pornography is NOT a legitimate expression of opinion! Please repeat after me: WE ARE ALL AGREED…

So if the Commissioner keeps stressing that point, this is a red herring.

I am pleased to hear that if freedom of expression were threatened, she would join us on the barricades. Please accept that those who oppose her proposal make two essential points:

1. Blocking on the internet is not an effective strategy against child pornography.

2. Any technical infrastructure that would be erected to implement blocking could easily be used in the future for blocking other content. There are various political and business voices who have already called for blocking of Nazi websites, illegal music sharing websites, hate speech websites, etc. So this is not some far-fetched fear, but opposition to what is commonly referred to as ”the thin end of the wedge”.

Apparently we are disagreed on the first point. I would appreciate a reply to the second point.

Best wishes,

Andreas

31 mars 2010 den 22:45

Yosh

Dear Mr. Berggen,

indeed you confirm what is known for a long time: most of the hosters of the terrible crime of abuse of children is in countries that belong toeither to the EC or the so called ”western world”.

May I ask you, if the commission of the EC considers child abuse, like all of us do, considers *DRASTIC* measures against eg. the United States? For example abondon all trade agreements with the USA? Freeze all accounts of US companies until this evil country stops hosting child pornography?

Deny US citizins to travel to EC countries until hosters in the USA stop hosting child pornography?

No? Child abuse is such a tremendous crime next to homizide! – Why do the EC commision not propose the above mentioned measures?

Instead, let’s put a curtain above crime being commited on helpless, abused childs and let’s do business as usual! At least, that’s what indeed seems to be the suggestion?

Black or White??? – Either those states allowing child pornography are to be banned and accused in front of the interantional curt or… Yes ”or” – what is it???

Shades of ”grey”? Why does the EC use the same demagogic, pathetic, emotional misleading, false ”arguments” that don’t withstand any scientific research?

Is it, like a geraman newspaper suspects, because of Spain wants to use the directive as an excuse for local politics?

Many postings before mine have pointed out the arguments. You should know better. And – as pointed out by a former member of the German parliament, you do! Who is gaining most of your stubborn initiative? I can assure you, not the abused children – and that is a scientific fact!

Mr. Berggen,
I can only speculate if you know, how insulting the propaganda of Mrs. Malmstörm is for anyone, who takes the time to investigate the facts, or – Mrs. Malmström being a politician and thus kissing babies for votes – playes chess.

”Not guilty unless proved otherwise” – I will give this to Mrs. Malmström. You, Mrs. Malmström, have got enough sources and evindence to proove that your initiative is false, misleading, and dangerous.

I am awaiting your next actions.

01 april 2010 den 2:19

E. Remarque

Dear Love Berggren,

regarding your two remarks:

1. I miss your reference to sources. Would you please be so kind to tell us from when those studies are, who made them and where they can be found, thanks. Which countries in particular are you referring to ? I assume you support transparency.
So instead of having data removed, you seriously believe that leaving it in it’s place (from where it can still be duplicated even more easily as if you had just deleted it) and simply redirecting traffic is more successful, when your specified aim is to have this removed from the internet?! Sounds like a contradiction to me.
You mention countries like Russia, Ukraine and the long time it takes to take this content off-line. Well, please update your data as these response times are not up-to-date any more. Let me help you doing that, I will add some links, amongst those an official document from the German Bundeskriminalamt.

2. Yes, watching child porn is a crime BUT even worse is the content depicted, produced in the real world, where family members, neighbors etc. look away and keep quiet about it. So by only focusing on the internet, not even removing the content – just cloaking it, you are not helping any victim at all.

And last but not least, no-one, no-one concerned about what this infrastructure you are wishing to install is of the opinion that making such material public on the Internet or in any other way is of the opinion that this is/was/shall be covered by freedom of expression. No-one! It is a crime. And most countries that actually host such content and are found on filtering lists are countries in which CP is a crime. In all due respect, the arguments I have read so far from ”you” are pure populism to me and many others, even many politicians over here changed their minds once they understood the whole matter and got the big picture. And as arguments based on logic and reason are ignored, of course people have serious doubt about what the true intention behind this is.

”… if freedom of expression were to be threatened …”, well, how can she _guarantee_ that once this infrastructure is installed that future governments won’t use it for any other purpose, but the one you specified.

Please, save us and yourself a lot of time and headaches and read the article by Spiegel Online; link to be found below.

Thank you very much.

1. Reseach by the German Bundeskriminalamt

Klicka för att komma åt bka-antwort-spd-bulmahn.pdf

2. Spiegel Online article on results of months of debates
http://www.spiegel.de/netzwelt/netzpolitik/0,1518,686562,00.html
This article contains continuative links, that may save ”you” plenty of time on researches – yes, qualified links.

01 april 2010 den 3:08

scusi

@Love Berggren and Cecilia Malmström

The Problem is you can swear, guarantee,… what ever you tell us, there is no assurance that once the golden-shield (that is how they call it in china) is installed, it will not be used or should i say misused to block, whatever.

Can you also guarantee that none in power after Cecilia Malmström will use the technical infrastructure to block other communication. In Lativia they try to enforce ‘family values’ with internet blocking, how far is that from chinese ”internet harmonization”? And what is the guarantee you can offer to the people in Europe? Do you have an army to conquer Europe when we turn into little-internet-china? I don’t think so. It’s more likely you and cecilia sitting on a beach somewhere while the rest of europe struggels to reach google, twitter or slashdot.org like they do in china and iran today.

The lobbygroups are standing on the startline in order to block filesharing, bad press, political and religious views, information about drugs, sex, musik, movies, books, essentially free speech online. They will lobby and sue their way onto the blacklists that you try to install to protect children. Children are in danger in the real world there the misuse happens. The internet is just a medium, a mirror of our society. You try to cover the mirror instead of acting on the problem itself. That is not only useless but also very dangerous to freedom of expression and free speech online.

Look at Italy they started 2006 to block child abuse content. Of course this was just about child porn, guaranteed. A year or two later they used the same technical infrastructure to block online gambling, a few weeks ago an italian court ruled all ISPs in italy to block a famous filesharing site from sweden entirely including the legal usage. By now they block some more filesharing pages. The far majority of blocked websites in italy today has nothing to do with child abuse. That’s just a few hundred, mostly outdated URLs. The most blocked pages today in Italy are gabling an bet sites and others. Webpages of sport-bet shops where italians can legaly travel to and spend their money but if they ‘travel’ there by internet it’s illegal and blocked by the child-abuse-filters. That is reality in italy today and you try to bring this viral censorship concept to all over Europe. Just back off, you – or better Cecilia Malmström is about to do a massive epic mistake on this.

Cecilias Proposal states on page 5 or 6 (depending on language) that:
”There was no need for external expertise.”
Yeah we see, you’d better had external expertise, that’s for sure.

01 april 2010 den 9:29

European Citizen

Thank you for censoring unpleasing comments for contributing facts instead of lies and wrong allegations.

Why do you maintain a web blog if you dislike people’s comments?

01 april 2010 den 9:34

Walker

”The reality is that removal at source is not effective because the illegal content is hosted in many different third countries, and may even move around between countries from day to day.”

The reality is that in thousands years of civilization, society has not been able to ”solve” crime. It has always been there and will remain so. The same goes for child porn. Internet blocking will not ”solve” child porn.

The only thing we have against crime is laws, effective police work and prosecution.

So go ahead, hire policemen and judges, train them to fight online crime and things will be better. But crime will always be with us, online or offline.

”Let me therefore once more underscore that the proposal is about child porn, and nothing else.”

I don’t believe you. Really, I don’t.

Internet blocks, once installed, will be used against other things than child porn. This has been proven by other countries who began with the very same argument as you did, and then used their blocks against other unwanted things.

Heck, even China and Iran say that their internet blocking infrastructure is ”only” used to protect their citizens against indecent content ”such as child porn” and don’t understand that anyone could call it censorship.

01 april 2010 den 10:19

Concerned citizen

It’s a confession of failure that you switched over to simply censor all the comments pointing you to attestable facts.

What you’re aiming at is hazardous symbolic politics that will abolish freedom of media and net neutrality to a tremendous extent.

Fy skäms!

01 april 2010 den 11:13

oscar

@Love Berggren
”1. The reality is that removal at source is not effective because the illegal content is hosted in many different third countries, and may even move around between countries from day to day.”
So how are you going to block content that is moving around? You can’t! You are putting up strawmen to justify your unjustifyable actions.

2.
”Let me therefore once more underscore that the proposal is about child porn, and nothing else. … But child pornography must never be seen as a legitimate expression of an opinion.”
Yes, but you will have no control about what happens after this censorship system is in place. This is what we are all concerned about. So please address these concerns and stop your indirect accusations that we are somehow saying that child porn is legimitate speech. We are against a _technological system_ that will do more harm then good.

01 april 2010 den 12:08

Fab

Dear Mrs Malmstroem,

I read your proposals to the EU government regarding the ban of child pornography in the internet in combination with several other acts like the prohibition of ”grooming” (which I have to admit I have never heard of).
You stated that in several european countries such as Sweden and Great Britain unlawful content is already blocked by internet service providers according to laws in those countries. I have no doubt that you investigated the experiences those countries made thoroughly before you came up with your proposals.
Furthermore I’m convinced you have already received a lot message of concerned German people. This might be mainly due to the fact that we already discussed blocking of websites in Germany in great detail over the past month, since we just passed a law very similar to what you suggested. Fact is, we still have the law, but it is not enforced because the German government itself, as well as the opposition (including the parties that passed the law) recognized the little use and the great danger that this law contains.
So my question is, have you also investigated the experiences Germany had with its law before you made your proposals? Or did you just have a look at the countries you mentioned?

I’m looking forward to read your reply,
deeply concerned,

Fabian K.

01 april 2010 den 19:50

John Forte

Sorry, but this is nonsense. Experience shows that child porn sites can be taken down, if just eneough effort is put into this. Most of them are located in Europe and the US. Hiding those sites by messing with the DNS infrastructure is like putting a curtain in front of them – it does not remove them! Instead of filtering content, take action to delete those sites!

What would you do if a site showed murder? Simply hide it? Or take all necessary means to delete it and prosecute the murderer?

01 april 2010 den 20:00

Alexander Plahr

Dear Commissioner Malmström,
Dear Cecilia.

we are writing you regarding your recently published proposals for a directive to block access to websites that show images of child abuse. While we fully support you in your fight against this cruel and loathsome crime, we are deeply worried about this recent initiative of yours. We believe the approach of blocking websites is counterproductive and outright dangerous.

Blocking access to these websites does not make them go away. They are still on the internet and can be accessed by anybody capable of circumventing the filters. And since circumventing the filters is as easy as entering a new DNS server in your computer, it can be done in 10-15 seconds.

Your proposal requires the instalment of a censorship infrastructure. Experience tells us that such infrastructure can easily be misused and that it–once in place- will wet politicians’ appetite to extend it on other areas such as copyright violations, hate speech, and many more.
Even without misuse, the mechanisms employed to censor access and the technical infrastructure of the internet make it quite probable that when blocking some websites which you want to target, you also block numerous others, which are located with the same webhoster. This is what is called overblocking and which certainly is not desirable.

In our opinion, blocking websites is too easy an answer to a difficult problem and not an ambitious policy goal which really would benefit the victims or prevent further crimes. Instead of easy populist answers, the policy must be to remove pictures of child abuse from the Internet and to investigate the perpetrators. Priority must go to hunt the culprits down through international cooperation of law enforcement agencies.

Sexual abuse of children is one of the few crimes that is outlawed on a global scale. Experience from leaked blocking lists –such as from your own homecountry Sweden- indicates that most websites in question are located in the USA and Western Europe. Taking them down and getting information on who uploaded them is not black magic, but rather should be the standard.

Dear Cecilia, unlawful content should be deleted, not simply hidden by creating censorship infrastructure! Perpetrators should be investigated and jailed, not providing with shopping lists in form of leaked blacklists.

Instead of employing a useless but dangerous tool, please make sure that European law enforcement agencies finally start cooperating in fighting these awful crimes!

Kind regards,

Aloys Rigaut Alexander Plahr

President of LYMEC Vice President of LYMEC

02 april 2010 den 17:44

Eric

A big problem inpelmenting this censorship is that it lacks a possibility of checking the blacklist, since it will be classified. Blocking sites is not an effective way to fight child porn. A ban against viewing (not only possessing or downloading) child porn lacks legal certainty. Also, many young people under 18 years of age experiment with undressed or half undressed pictures over the net.

Should people be punished for accidentaly stumbing over these pictures? Or their friend viewing them? A common argument is that a certain pattern of behaviour towards child porn must be established before convicting anyone. But how should this pattern be established by the authorities without a complete surveillance society, and by violating the right of protected correspondence for individuals. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

02 april 2010 den 18:05

Eric

Forgot to mention. Whrn the Swedish version of this filter accidently leaked it became obvious that many innocent sites were blacklisted. A site of growing Bonsai trees and many adult porn sites for example.

Regarding prostitution I have a hard time understanding why Malmstrom is unable to recognize voluntary prostitution which is very common in Europe. The state in a democacy should not interfere with the sexlife of consenting adults. That is just horrible. In Europe sex workers are organizing and prostesting this marxist and radical feminst view. We have a right to our bodies!!

02 april 2010 den 20:44

Sophia Mars

Dear Mr Berggren,

you are saying that the proposal is about removal then why is Cecilia Malmstroem insisting on blocking. Sources are saying that the ‘removal’ text was only added at the eleventh hour because of internal pressures from other Commissioners who did not want to be labeled as ‘censorship cops’. I guess that your boss, not least for her insistence for internet blocking deserves that title fully. By the way, what is next in your plans? What other ‘dark sides of the Internet’ is Cecilia planning to censorship? Let me guess; online casinos, filesharing sites, web pages promoting ‘exotic or alternative lifestyles’? where will your moral police reflexes end?

Sophia Mars

03 april 2010 den 10:46

mbutscher

@Love Berggren:

”Even though skilled internet users surely will find ways to evade the filter, the experience from the countries who do have different solutions to block web sites with child pornographic content […] is that it is efficient and considered useful by NGOs working with children and the police.”

Some years ago I had a drippy water-faucet in my home, so I read the appropriate part in a do-it-yourself book and replaced a gasket. If I had been asked before this event if I can repair this my answer would have been ”no”.

Same applies here: if the filter is a real obstacle for the consumer of child pornography he/she will learn how to fix this ”problem”. There are enough manuals.

The problem with the definition of ”efficient” and ”useful” was mentioned already.

”In fact, Cecilia Malmström suggests in the Directive a legal obligation for Member States to remove content at source where that is at all possible in practice.”

So it depends here on the definition of ”possible in practice”.

The German internet blocking law had a similar wording that content can only be blocked if the BKA (German Federal Criminal Agency) thinks that removal of the material wouldn’t be feasible, so it would depend on the mood of the responsible officers.

”A check of the internet by hotlines in 35 countries recently found 144 web sites in the USA, Russia, Ukraine and other countries. One year later, a majority of the sites were still operating.”

Can you give a source for this, a link if possible? It would be interesting to have details, especially why the sites were still available.

”A report from the CIRCAMP police project shows that between 90 and 100% of all internet users are covered by the filters applied in Denmark, Sweden and Norway.”

Same question: Source? I couldn’t find it on http://www.circamp.eu/

”Let me therefore once more underscore that the proposal is about child porn, and nothing else. I can assure you that if freedom of expression were to be threatened, Cecilia Malmström would join you on the barricades.”

First, many people in the EU, probably most people in the world have (reasonable!) doubts about the promises of politicians.

Second, there is no guarantee that Cecilia Malmström’s opinion will be of any importance when the blocking is extended, she won’t have her current position forever.

”But child pornography must never be seen as a legitimate expression of an opinion.”

There was already a comment about this suggestive and insulting fake-argument.

03 april 2010 den 12:13

EU-kommissionen vill censurera nätet « Christian Engström, Pirate MEP

[…] Cecilia Malmström (FP) har lagt ett förslag om att införa censur på internet, så att vissa sajter ska blockeras. Till att börja med ska det […]

03 april 2010 den 12:37

Fiket · Censilia löst Zensursula ab

[…] “Censilia” ein und die Aktiven machten sich trotz des verständlichen Frusts sofort an die Gegenargumentation. […]

03 april 2010 den 17:42

Feli Grunden

Tänk om, gör rätt.

03 april 2010 den 21:57

Mikael Ståldal » Arkiv » Oroväckande förslag om Internetcensur från EU

[…] Den svenska kommissionären Cecilia Malmström presenterar och försvarar förslaget. Tyvärr hon uppvisar en arrogant brist på förståelse för vad yttrandefrihet innebär: […]

04 april 2010 den 8:29

Allvarligt förslag om censur på internet : Tejpad.se

[…] Cecilia Malmström (FP) har lagt ett förslag om att införa censur på internet, så att vissa sajter ska blockeras. Till att börja med ska det gälla sajter med […]

04 april 2010 den 10:26

Nu kommer censuren « ConnyT funderar

[…] vecka sedan, att EU vill censurera Internet, är redan på väg att omvandlas i ett förslag från kommisionär Malmström (FP) (hittat via Christian […]

04 april 2010 den 13:24

Fredrik Larsson

First they blocked the child pornografy – I did not complain since I loath child abuse.
Then they blocked the fantic religious sites – I did not complain since Im not religious.
Then they blocked the fascistic politic sites – I did not complain since Im not a facist.
Then they blocked the communistic sites and the union sites – Since I am not a member of either I did not complain.
Then they blocked uneuropean news and communications – and I could not complain any more…

The road to hell i lined with good intentions.

Fredrik Larsson

04 april 2010 den 15:20

Johan Lindén

Since Ms. Malmstrom is supporting the Swedish law prohibiting the exchange of sexual services between consenting adults, a clearly moralistic approach, I see no reason why there is a risk the filter will be extended to other ”immoral” areas. Beware citizens of the EU!

View our blog (can be auto translated) about sex workers conditions in Sweden, and the crazy laws we have here. Click on my name to get there.

04 april 2010 den 15:26

Johan Lindén

Correction: i meant that there is a huge risk of the filter being extended in the long term.

04 april 2010 den 18:36

Snälla Cecilia, rör inte Internet! | Liberati

[…] ditt förslag för att stoppa barnpornografi på internet lider av ett antal grava problem, men de 73 kommentarerna på din blogg berättade att andra redan uppmärksammat det. Jag kan bara instämma i vad de […]

04 april 2010 den 19:08

Sam

Som en person som blivit utsatt för sexuella övergrepp som barn tycker jag det här förslaget är helt sanslöst. Tror du att ett sånt här förslag skyddar de barn som blir utsatta? Nej, du kommer bara dölja problemet än mer. Och du kommer dessutom genomföra censur av den fria kommunikation som sker på internet idag. Du kommer kränka människor som mig igen. Inte nog med att jag blev kränkt som barn, nu ska jag kränkas som vuxen när det fria ordet tas från mig. Skandal.

04 april 2010 den 19:18

Regeringen inför TV-censur – bryr sig Piratpartiet? « Nemokrati

[…] får nu dessutom också veta, att Piratpartiet upprörs högeligen av Cecilia Malmströms förslag om att filtrera Internet för barnporr, samtidigt som man inte säger ett pip om det […]

04 april 2010 den 21:53

Gage

Blockering är inte censur, hur får man till det? Nyspråk?

Du kan argumentera för att censur är bra, men du kommer att få svårt att få med mig på det tåget. Men att hävda att blockering inte är censur är bara löjeväckande.

Det enda tillfälle jag kan se att censur kan ha en roll är i krigstillstånd, där fördröjande av information kan vara kritiskt, men det är knappast fallet här.

Sedan, vem är det som tror att det är universellt ansett som brottsligt att SE barnporr? Hur tror du fördelningen mellan de som ser det är mellan de som gillar det och de som vill leta vidare för att sätta dit förövarna är? Allvarligt?

Hela detta beteende är god hjälp för att skydda de som begår övergrepp, när man förbjuder de goda krafterna att gräva i det. Naturligtvis tycker de organisationer som kontrollerar barnporrlistan i åtminstone Sverige (ECPAT) att den är bra, konstigt vore det väl annars. Men det är också helt klart att denna organisations syften är långtifrån bara att hindra övergrepp mot barn, och jag räknar inte dem till de goda krafterna, goda krafter ägnar sig inte åt att förvanska statistik, utan kan underbygga sina ståndpunkter med oberoende forskning.

Om censur fungerar, borde vi inte kunna lösa problemet med världssvälten genom att censurera bort bilder på svältande människor? För om vi inte ser det finns det inte, eller hur?

04 april 2010 den 22:57

Barnpornografi är lika oacceptabelt som censur « Andreas Froby – kandidat till kommunfullmäktige i Botkyrka

[…] är det glädjande att EU-kommission med Sveriges EU-kommissionär Cecilia Malmström i spetsen bland annat lägger fram detta förslag mot trafficking och människohandel, där det […]

05 april 2010 den 4:53

Censur på internet är en farlig idé « Liberal i Timrå

[…] hela förslaget och Cecilia Malmströms uttalande om förslaget. april 5th, 2010 | Tags: Cecilia Malmström, censur, demokrati, EU, kommissionen, […]

05 april 2010 den 13:25

Kallisti

Kära kommissionär Malmström,

Det verkar onekligen som att det finns ganska goda skäl att ifrågasätta blockeringsdelen av det paket du föreslagit (och antagligen till stora delar ärvt). Riktigt stor styrka vore nu att göra det rätta och ändra förslaget. Det låter fint men antagligen är det i praktiken omöjligt för en kommissionär med ändrad övertygelse att driva igenom en ny linje i sin kansliorganisation, i sitt DG i kommissionen och i rådet – och samtidigt hantera misstroendet från de som kommer ihåg det tidigare förslaget.

Jobbigt läge men jag hoppas att det kan finnas någon medelväg att ta, som att öppna för en översyn inom två år (under samma kommission) där specifikt de två om och om här lyfta punkterna ska utredas, alltså effektiviteten och risken av maktmedlet blockering.

05 april 2010 den 16:23

Sophia Mars

amazingly Censilia made public her proposal on the very same day as her Prime Minister Reinfeldt was telling Chinese officials about the merits of uncensored Internet access… what is good for the goose is not good for the gander…

see link…
http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9EO89GO0.htm

amazing… DO AS I SAY DO NOT DO AS I DO… Swedish double standards and morality… we are good, nice and liberal… yet we sell lots of weapons and block access to the Internet… nice…

05 april 2010 den 17:03

johnnyryan

Dear Love,
You noted that ”A check of the internet by hotlines in 35 countries recently found 144 web sites in the USA, Russia, Ukraine and other countries. One year later, a majority of the sites were still operating.”

Can you post more details of this study?

Johnny

05 april 2010 den 19:10

Karl Madden

Cecilia is just like the Pope and the child sex abuse scandals. rather then taking action to sort the problem, well, just block access to the sites and pretend the problem isn’t there. as nobody can see it. out of sight out of mind.

06 april 2010 den 23:29

Rick

I simply can’t believe anyone in this day and age is as clueless as Cecilia Malmström. Ignorance is no excuse – you’re either part of the solution or part of the problem. And pushing conspiracy theories aside for the moment, it’s still clear that Cecilia Malmström is part of the problem and a cringeworthy embarrassment for Sweden.

07 april 2010 den 10:35

Demokrati förutsätter ett ocensurerat nät « hmmm…

[…] vår rätt att fritt ta del av den information vi söker. Det senaste exemplet i raden är Cecilia Malmströms censurinitiativ. Hon får rättmätigt en hel del mothugg eftersom den goda tanken överskuggas av de vidare […]

07 april 2010 den 19:43

mia

It is a grandiose insult against abused children to suggest censorship of IPnumbers or domain names as a solution, instead of identify and help the victims and prosecute the predators.
Draw down the curtains, wash the hands and pretend child abuse does not exist.

Where is the scientific studies and data which suggest this is the efficient solution for preventing child abuse?
Where are all the data from the countries mentioned, which have done this with ”successful” results? (Real data).

Unfortunately Wikileaks is not available just now, but there weresufficient data from their site, to show this ”voluntary” filters (mandated by governments) is a two-egged sward.

When I read
”The reality is that removal at source is not effective because the illegal content is hosted in many different third countries, and may even move around between countries from day to day”
I fear Europe has a large problem with technology challenged politicians who does not understand the impact of their proposals.
If sources move around from one day to another, it certainly can not be ”filtered” out either.
Some hints about censorship: http://opennet.net/about-filtering

Next:
When is a child becoming an adult? While it is easy to understand that a 10-15 year old is a child, it might not be similar easy to define a 16, 17 or 18 year old as a adult with their own rights to sexual activities. Or, is it like some moralist have found; small breasts must be censored as it does not fit stereotypes about women as sexual objects. And so on.

It is a very dangerous thing to start censorship of whatever one does not like or does not approve.

I see ”Ett slag för barnens rättigheter” as a Head-in-the-sand approach lacking understanding of technology, neglecting the already abuse of ”filtering” and neglection of abused children.

08 april 2010 den 9:33

Jakob

Jag undrar om du tänker igenom ditt sätt att debattera och vad du egentligen säger. I debatten i radio säger du till christian ”Med all respekt för Piratpartiet och era medlemmar och sympatisörer, det är säkert så att ni inte söker på barnpornografiska sajter. Det finns väldigt många barnporrsajter där ute på nätet.”
1. Guilt by association. Om man vänder på det… Med all respekt för dig Cecilia och dina kamrater, det är säkert så att ni inte söker på barnpornografiska sajter. (med ett underförstått eller?…)
2. ”det finns väldigt många barnporrsajter där ute på nätet” Källa? Att registret blockar sökningar är inte bevis för att det faktiskt är sådana sighter den blockerar.
3. Väldigt naivt att tro att inte andra sidor som inte har barnporr också blockeras. Säkerligen kommer upphovsrättsmaffian trycka på att piratebay mfl blockas. Antar att det är för dessa du egentligen lägger förslaget då som någon tidigare påpekat förslaget varit uppe i diskussion i tyskland redan och förkastats.
4. Om det är så att bara ha sett barnporr är straffbart låter det väldigt konstigt. Det måste väl vara innehavet som är brottsligt? Hur kan det vara brottsligt att se något? Ponera att google byter ut förstasidan mot en barnporrbild. Skulle alla som då sett den bli dömda för pedofili eller är det google som ska dömas?

Svara gärna på mail. Mvh / Jakob

08 april 2010 den 11:29

Internetfestung Europa « No size fits all

[…] nätet för att se vad som är fel med hennes förslag, det räcker om hon läser kommentarerna på sin egen blogg. Som väl är får kommissionären inte bara mothugg från vanliga medborgare och debattörer, utan […]

08 april 2010 den 22:53

mia

Jakob: You should not encourage Cecilia Malmström, who takes the same stand as the catholic church, (to block and censor child abuse) to hide communication by private mails to you.
Whatever this lady has to say, she has to state her voice for the public.

09 april 2010 den 14:23

Referenslänkar om nätcensur « Christian Engström, Pirate MEP

[…] folkpartistiska EU-kommissionären Cecilia Malmström har just lagt ett EU-förslag om att införa censur av nätsajter som anklagas för att innehålla barnpornografi. Förslaget har […]

09 april 2010 den 14:40

Drizzt

Just for reference: a current analysis of the Danish access blocking list: http://blog.odem.org/2010/04/daenische-liste.html

Now the question: can you please point out the countries on that list, where deletion isn’t possible – at least if the provider/law enforcement authorities were informed of the blocking?

Thanks,
Drizzt

P.S.: Is it just my perception or a general one that neither Commissioner Malmström nor her employees show up any more in these comments?

12 april 2010 den 7:09

atos

Låter verkligen som rätt väg att gå för LIBERALERNA. Ungefär lika troligt som att SD får den. Jävla tomta att använda barnpornografi som ett skältill censur.

13 april 2010 den 18:42

Fråga till Cecilia Malmström om nätcensur « Christian Engström, Pirate MEP

[…] jag debatterade nätcensur med EU-kommissionär Cecilia Malmström (FP) i radions Studio Ett förra veckan, kom hon med ett antal ganska häpnadväckande […]

13 april 2010 den 22:09

nejtillpirater

Det här är ett väldigt bra förslag som är för de drabbade barnens bästa och för att minska spridningen. Självklart ska man försöka släcka ner sajter med barnporr men det räcker inte, parallellt med detta behöver man blockera sidorna.

Detta är inte censur, vilket Piratpartiet påstår. Barnporr kan knappast kallas för en åsikt som man ska mänskliga rättigheter att sprida eller ta del av.

14 april 2010 den 13:46

Klaus-Peter M.

Sehr geehrte Damen und Herren,
Sehr geehrte Frau Malmstroem,

ich bitte Sie, diesen Kommentar ernstzunehmen und durch ihre Mitarbeiter Ihnen vorlegen zu lassen und darüber nachzudenken.

Ich stimme Ihnen und den 99,99% der Bürger der Europäischen Union zu, das Kindesmißbrauch und die Herstellung, Verkauf, Verbreitung und der Besitz von Medien mit kinderpornographischem Inhalt ein verabscheuungswürdiges Verbrechen ist, das mit aller Härte bestraft werden muss. Hier gibt es wohl einen Konsens, eine Übereinstimmung von sittlichen Vorstellungen und Gesetzeslagen innerhalb jeder Gesellschaft und jeden Staates weltweit (!).

Jeder verantwortungsbewußte Vater mit Kindern im schulfähigen Alter installiert auf dem eigenen Rechner oder auf dem Rechner seiner Kinder bzw. in seiner heimischen Netzinfrastruktur eine entsprechende Kindersicherung, um den Zugang zu Webinhalten mit extremen Gewaltdarstellungen, pornographischen Darstellungen und Inhalte, die sittlichen Vorstellungen widersprechen, wirksam zu blockieren und solche Darstellungen in Webseiteninhalten zu filtern.
Aber jeder, der sich zuhause mit solchen Kindersicherungen beschäftigt weiß auch, das solche Inhalte vielleicht nicht mehr zugänglich sind, aber immer noch da draußen im Internet vorhanden sind – und das solche Sperren durch den versierten Anwender oder mittels entsprechender Anleitungen (die im Internet erhältlich sind) umgangen werden können.

Auch erstreckt sich die Verbreitung solcher Inhalte längst nicht mehr über das Internet, sondern vielmehr auf alternative Medien, insbesondere über Mobiltelefone mit Multimedia-Messaging. Die Medienberichte über die Ermittlungen gegen das Mitglied des Deutschen Bundestages, Jörg Tauss, haben dies eindeutig belegt.
Auf den Schulhöfen werden heute bereits von Jugendlichen Bilder und Videos mit Gewaltexzessen und pornographischem Inhalt über Bluetooth getauscht. Dies kann weder vom Staat durch Zensur noch von den Eltern durch Verbot unterbunden werden, höchstens durch Wegnahme des Mobiltelefons.

Ich habe mit sehr großen Interesse Ihr Interview in der deutschen F.A.Z. gelesen und war sehr schockiert, wie wenig Sie sich mit der Materie auskennen oder überhaupt beschäftigt haben. Auch wenn Ihr Vorstoß sicherlich löblich ist, weder die Europäische Kommission, noch die Regierungen der Mitgliedsstaaten und hier besonders die deutsche Bundesregierung, dürfen sich als ”Übereltern” aufspielen und ihren Bürgern entsprechende Sperren auferlegen. Klar ist, das Kinderpornographie nicht zur freien Meinungsäußerung gehört, aber Sperren – egal in welcher Form – sind Beschränkungen der Meinungsfreiheit und nicht ein Bekämpfungsmittel gegen Kindesmißbrauch und Kinderpornographie.

Durch Sperren wird weder Kindesmißbrauch noch Kinderpornographie unterbunden, sie existieren weiter. Desweiteren ist Kindesmißbrauch und die Herstellung und Verbreitung von Kinderpornographie eine Straftat und in welchem Rechtsstaat lebten wir, wenn in Zukunft Straftaten nicht verfolgt, sondern durch die Abschaffung oder Eingrenzung von Menschenrechten einfach ”verschwiegen” werden? Es erinnert nicht nur, wie Kommentatoren oben geschrieben haben, an die römisch-katholische Kirche, sondern auch an das sozialistische Regime der DDR, die durch Medienzensur die rechtsextremen Strömungen und Neonazismus im eigenen Land vertuscht haben. ”Es kann nicht sein, was nicht sein darf” scheint in allen Zeiten die Ansicht der Politik zu sein.

Kindesmißbrauch ist eine Straftat und EUROPOL als übergeordnete europäische Behörde der Kriminalpolizeien der Länder wäre bei einer entsprechenden (personellen, infrakstrukturellen und vor allem rechtlichen) Ausstattung in der Lage, die Organisierte Kriminalität im Bereich Kindesmißbrauch und Kinderpornographie paneuropäisch zu bekämpfen – und genau das kann sie derzeit nicht.
Sie sollten zunächst versuchen die Kompetenzen von EUROPOL zu stärken, um die Hersteller und Verbreiter von Medien mit kinderpornographischem Inhalt strafrechtlich zu verfolgen. In der EU gibt es diesbezüglich ein Kompetenzgerangel, das bisher dazu führte, daß die Organisierte Kriminalität profitiert (!!!) und zwar nicht nur im Bereich kinderpornografischer Medien, sondern auch auf allen anderen Bereich wie Menschenhandel, Waffenhandel, Drogenhandel, Wirtschaftskriminalität… Das Sie als Kommissarin für Inneres und damit Zuständige für EUROPOL nicht als erstes ansetzen, lässt mich zweifeln.

Sperren gleich welcher Form sind nicht hilfreich, sie behindern nur und ganz besonders die Strafermittlungsbehörden.

Ich darf Sie, Frau Malmstroem, sowie Ihre Kollegen in der EU-Kommission auf folgendes hinweisen: Im deutschen Grundgesetz ist das Widerstandsrecht verbrieft und gilt für jeden Bundesbürger. Ich zitiere aus Art. 20 GG :
”(1) Die Bundesrepublik Deutschland ist ein demokratischer und sozialer Bundesstaat.
(2) Alle Staatsgewalt geht vom Volke aus. Sie wird vom Volke in Wahlen und Abstimmungen und durch besondere Organe der Gesetzgebung, der vollziehenden Gewalt und der Rechtsprechung ausgeübt.
(3) Die Gesetzgebung ist an die verfassungsmäßige Ordnung, die vollziehende Gewalt und die Rechtsprechung sind an Gesetz und Recht gebunden.
(4) Gegen jeden, der es unternimmt, diese Ordnung zu beseitigen, haben alle Deutschen das Recht zum Widerstand, wenn andere Abhilfe nicht möglich ist.”
Ich sehe hier eindeutig, das von der Europäischen Kommission versucht wird, von außen wesentliche Grundrechte (das Recht auf freie Meinungsäußerung, das Recht auf eine unabhängige Presse) abzuschaffen. Hier greift mein Widerstandrecht als Bürger der Bundesrepublik Deutschland, das für innere als auch äußere Gefährdungen der freiheitlich demokratischen Grundordnung gilt.
(siehe hierzu auch http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artikel_20_des_Grundgesetzes_f%C3%BCr_die_Bundesrepublik_Deutschland für diejenigen Leser, die eher unbedarft sind)

Ich bin gegen Kindesmißbrauch und verabscheue diejenigen, die sich an Kindern vergehen und noch mehr diejenigen, die versuchen daraus Profit zu schlagen. Solche Verbrechen gehören in einem ordentlichen Rechtsstaat vor ein Gericht gebracht und bestraft. Hierfür existieren bereits harte Gesetze in jedem Land der Welt (!).
Aber wissen Sie, was ich noch mehr verabscheue? Ich verabscheue Versuche, über die Hintertür mir meine verfassungsmäßig verbrieften Grundrechte abzunehmen. Und zwar nicht nur durch unsere eigenen gewählten Volksvertreter sondern vor allem durch eine ”übergeordnete Instanz” wie der EU-Kommission, die nicht demokratisch legitimiert wurde (!).

Ich habe trotz innerer Aufgewühltheit versucht, meine Argumente möglichst sachlich und zusammenhängend niederzulegen und bitte um entsprechende Beachtung durch Sie und ihre Mitarbeiter.

Mit freundlichen Grüßen

Klaus-Peter M. (Pseudonym)

15 april 2010 den 12:25

Fråga till Cecilia Malmström | Sultans Blogg

[…] Also, according to worrying information provided by Commissioner Malmström’s office at her blog, “A check of the internet by hotlines in 35 countries recently found 144 web sites in the USA, Russia, Ukraine and other countries. One year later, a majority of the sites were still operating.” https://ceciliamalmstrom.wordpress.com/2010/03/29/ett-slag-for-barnens-rattigheter/#comment-589 […]

21 april 2010 den 15:37

Scary Devil Monastery

Cecilia & Love

Given that internet ”filtering” is ridiculously easy to circumvent and that the filter lists are not only classified but also that leaked lists contain a significant proportion of sites which do NOT contain child pornographic material, we already have a case where it is demonstrably proven that the filtering not only doesn’t work, but that sites which should not be blocked, in fact, are.

What on earth is wrong with the german solution which has already gained significant success, whereas the Swedish ”solution” is, quite simply, toothless, obsolete, ineffective and shows clear indications of making the problem worse?

The problem here is quite simply that a ”solution” to a problem which does not work and relies on censorship filter lists which must be kept secret from the public is completely unacceptable. In fact, is the very existence of such a list not in clear and flagrant violation of, for instance, Sweden’s policy of governmental transparency?

I find the concept of child pornography loathsome, but if your solution is to implement a tool whose only real effectiveness would be in censoring web pages from ”John Q Public” (who doesn’t look for child pornography anyway) by way of a list which must be kept a secret, then you are not fighting child pornographers. You are fighting democracy.

And you are using our tax money to do so. If this is out of ignorance, then please read up on your ”facts”. You are certainly receiving a salary mandating that you utilize better judgment.

24 april 2010 den 15:34

Anonymous

Dear Mrs Malmström,

I thought it may be of interest to you that there is ”support” for your ideas of Internet censorship:

http://cleanternet.org/

Sincerely,

A concerned citizen

25 april 2010 den 1:05

Anders S Lindbäck @ Kunskapssamhället » Benny Lindholm vill ha mer barnporr på Internet ?!?

[…] man Cecilia Malmströms och Benny Lindholms linje så tar man bort en del av resurserna som används för att stänga ner de fåtal siter på Internet […]

25 april 2010 den 19:03

EU-kommissionär hjälper pedofiler? « Kapten TOQigs piratskepp

[…] hjälper pedofiler? 10 04 25 EU-kommisionären Cecilia Malmström kommer med flera förslag mot trafficking och barnpornografi. Största delen av det är bra, men en del får mig bara att ta […]

27 april 2010 den 15:02

IFPI’s child porn strategy « Christian Engström, Pirate MEP

[…] they found one in the newly appointed Swedish EU commissioner Cecilia Malmström. In March 2010 she presented an EU directive to introduce filtering of the net, exactly along to the lines that Johan Schlüter was advocating […]

27 april 2010 den 21:38

Der „Steigbügel” Kinderpornographie | bertdesign.de

[…] one in the newly appointed Swedish EU commissioner Cecilia Malmström. In March 2010 she presented an EU directive to introduce filtering of the net, exactly along to the lines that Johan Schlüter was […]

27 april 2010 den 22:07

IFPI utnyttjar oskyldiga barn! « Full Mental Straightjacket

[…] läckte och en blogstorm satte P för planerna. Men nu är det alltså dags igen att spela barnporrkortet på EU-nivå och Cecilia Malmström är alltså, medvetet eller omedvetet, den nyttiga idioten som […]

28 april 2010 den 17:59

Kolla själv vad som filtreras | Sagor från livbåten

[…] tillnamnet ”liberalerna”. Trots det ser hon det tydligen som helt oproblematiskt att propagera och verka för filtrering. Hon blir till och med direkt stött om någon vågar kritisera henne för att hon […]

29 april 2010 den 14:06

Astrid Lindgren

Just think what Astrid would say if she saw you exploiting children to help your greedy friends in the IP lobby. There are only two ways about this, Cecilia, and neither is very flattering.

1. You’re incomparably stupid and a retard could sell you the Brooklyn Bridge.
2. You’re filling your pockets and your life with cash and perks from the IP lobby.

You lose either way. You should be taken off that chair and out of politics and public responsibility now.

30 april 2010 den 13:33

Ola Nyström » Censur föder censur

[…] läste Cecilia Malmströms förslag om att blockera sidor på nätet och tänkte för mig själv, hur kan det komma sig att hon ser blockering som någonting […]

30 april 2010 den 16:21

Chris Marsden

Dear Messrs Bergren/Malmstrom
Its facile to point out yet again that your proposals make no sense and divert police resources from dealing with the criminals. They obviously have the potential for greater mischief later, as political philosophers from Benjamin Franklin to J.S.Mill have continually pointed out.
But thank you for posting all comments – this is a great resource for my international LL.M. students in open consultation and how crazy laws can be passed against all expert advice.
Sincerely
Chris Marsden

28 maj 2010 den 16:09

DUH24.de

Gratis Aktie von ONEVECO Media Inc….

I found your entry interesting thus I’ve added a Trackback to it on my weblog :)…

30 maj 2010 den 13:07

Question to EU Commissioner Malmström on net censorship « Christian Engström, Pirate MEP

[…] six weeks ago, I met EU Commissioner Cecilia Malmström in a Swedish radio debate on Internet censorship [transcript in English]. Ms. Malmström is […]

23 juni 2010 den 14:49

Cecilia Malmström svarslös om barnpornografi « Christian Engström, Pirate MEP

[…] frågade också om uppgifter som lämnats av Malmströms kansli på hennes blogg, om att ett stort antal barnpornografiska webbplatser i USA, Ryssland, Ukraina och andra länder […]

25 juni 2010 den 19:15

Oxydaydryprof

To start earning loaded with your blog, initially use Google Adsense but step by step as your traffic increases, subsistence adding more and more shin-plasters making programs to your site.

14 juli 2010 den 15:42

Mårten

”Detta görs redan i dag i flera länder, bland annat i Sverige och det fungerar bra.”

Hur kan du säga att det fungerar bra när en grupp anonyma människor sitter och mer eller mindre godtyckligt censurerar internet utan insyn eller ansvar?

Probelemet är inte att de blockerar barnporr, det är det ingen som klagar på. Problemet är att de blockerar sådant som *inte* är barnporr. Det sker eftersom allmänheten inte har möjlighet att granska vad som blockeras eller ens vem som bestämmer vad som ska blockeras.

När olika länders blockeringslistor läckt ut visade det sig att en stor del av de blockerade sidorna inte handlade om barnporr. I Sverige tex en sida om bonzaiträd, och försöket att blockera thepiratebay.org får väl anses vara politiskt motiverat (vad man än tycker om sidan i sig). Tittar man på andra länder ser man samma mönster, det är inte bara barnporr som blockeras, utan det handlar om politiskt motiverad censur.

Lägg till detta att barnporr i första hand *inte* sprids öppet på websidor på internet, utan med tekniker som inte påverkas av censuren.

(Skulle någon som vill sprida barnpornografi sätta upp affischer på sin egen ytterdörr eller skicka det som vykort på posten? Knappast.)

Den självklara lösningen vore att låta polisen stänga ner sidorna i respektive land (det är trots allt olagligt överallt i världen), istället för att som nu föreslagits, sopa problemet under mattan.

Låt oss ej glömma att det verkliga problemet är övergreppen på barn, om man satsade på att lösa det problemet istället skulle all barnpornografi helt försvinna och inte bara från Internet.

02 december 2010 den 3:31

Småttingar och sånt « Stenskott

[…] oförklarliga anledningar har nu Cecilia Malmström föreslagit att barnen ska få rättigheter som de redan haft sedan 2000. Alla Europaunionens medlemsländer har nämligen redan skrivit på […]

04 december 2010 den 23:40

Kids and stuff « Stenskott

[…] inexplicable reasons, Commissioner Malmström has now suggested that children shall be granted rights they’ve already had since the year 2000. How progressive. All member states have already signed […]

28 maj 2012 den 22:13

Filtrage, Censure, et Pédopornographie » Politique du Netz

[…] Malmström (surnommée Censilia) fait partie de cette espèce de politiciens. En mars 2010, elle a présenté une directive européenne pour introduire le filtrage du Netz, en suivant exactement le plan de […]

05 augusti 2014 den 20:50

Piratpartiet – yttrandefrihetstalibanerna | Kryssa Benny!

[…] EU-kommissionen har lagt ett förslag till direktiv om åtgärder mot sexuella övergrepp på barn. Direktivet är tänkt att ersätta rådets rambeslut om bekämpande av sexuellt utnyttjande av barn. Som kuriosa kan nämnas att direktivet kommer antas med stöd av de nya regler som infördes med Lissabonfördraget. Enligt dessa kan EU fastställa minimiregler för brottsoffers rättigheter och minimiregler om fastställande av brottsrekvisit. […]

05 augusti 2014 den 21:25

Vill piratpartiet legalisera publicering av barnporr? | Kryssa Benny!

[…] så var cirkusen igång igen. Cecilia Malmström vill exportera det svenska systemet med blockering av barnpornografiska sajter, piratpartiet […]

Ett slag för barnens rättigheter

Prenumeration

Malmström på Twitter

Länkar

Senaste kommentarer

Netikett

Arkiv

Ämnen

111 kommentarer

Lämna en kommentar

Ett slag för barnens rättigheter

Dela detta:

Relaterade

Prenumeration

Malmström på Twitter

Länkar

Senaste kommentarer

Netikett

Arkiv

Ämnen

111 kommentarer

Lämna en kommentar