Those inclined to think that this is a good idea are advised to see
Google News for the mess a similar proposal in Australia is causing.

News article:
============================================
Make the unfiltered web illegal, says children's coalition

The Guardian, UK: 15 June 2009
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/blog/2009/jun/15/internet-file-sharing
[ http://tinyurl.com/mmx5r6 ]

Internet companies should be forced to filter the web in order to
reduce the volume of indecent material being shared online, according
to children's charities.

In a new "digital manifesto" published today, a leading group of
charities including the NSPCC, the Children's Society and the National
Children's Bureau argue that the government should legally compel ISPs
to screen out images of child abuse and underage sex.

Compulsory filtering is just one of a number of recommendations made
by the Children's Charities Coalition on Internet Safety (CCCIS),
which believes that action must be taken now to prevent new
technologies from being used to proliferate abusive images online.

"The problem of child abuse images is directly linked to the growth of
the internet and new technologies," said Zoe Hilton, an NSPCC
spokeswoman and co-author of the manifesto.

"A large number of people continue to seek out these images in any way
possible. The UK government must be tenacious in its efforts to put in
place measures to protect children online."

According to government figures, more than 1,400 people were either
prosecuted or cautioned in relation to images of child abuse in 2007,
a figure which the NSPCC says could be reduced by blocking such
material at source.

The report suggests that ISPs should be forced to subscribe to a
blacklist of websites compiled by the Internet Watch Foundation, an
independent charity that has become Britain's de facto regulator of
online content.

The IWF, which was founded in 1996, scans the web and responds to
reports from members of the public to block sites containing
objectionable content. While the group largely focuses on blocking
images of child abuse and indecent pictures of anyone under 18 found
anywhere on the internet, its blacklist also includes obscene or
racially offensive material hosted in the UK.

The service is used by many large internet providers to filter out
illegal images and content - including BT and Virgin Media - but there
is no legal compulsion for them to do so.

However, the foundation's role has been called into question in the
past, particularly over claims that its criteria are opaque and its
decisions unaccountable.

Last winter the group banned a Wikipedia page for the album Virgin
Killers by German rock group The Scorpions, claiming that the cover
image of a young girl was potentially illegal. That was despite the
fact that the album had been on sale in high street shops for more
than 30 years.

In January the IWF blocked the entire catalogue of the Internet
Archive - an American group that maintains a library of old web pages
- following what the foundation's chief executive, Peter Robbins,
called a "technical hitch".

The IWF blacklist is believed to cover around 95% of British web
users, but smaller internet providers have argued that compulsory
filtering is an expensive and ineffective way of censoring internet
content.

The other recommendations made by the CCCIS urge the government,
hi-tech companies and regulators to take urgent action to make a
number of other technologies less open to abuse. Among them:

- peer-to-peer filesharing systems, which say are often used to
distribute images of child abuse. Filesharers have been targeted in
the past by the music and film industries, but the CCCIS suggests
better enforcement is required to prevent private filesharing networks
focused on child abuse.

- anonymity and encryption services, which can be used to make online
communications unreadable or untraceable.

- pre-paid credit cards, which are often used to pay for illegal
material since they make it easier for criminals to mask their real
identities.

The calls come more than a year after the government agreed to back
the findings of Tanya Byron, who published a report last March
detailing the steps that should be taken to help protect children
online.

Among her suggestions were the increased use of parental control
software, better education for families and the establishment of a new
organisation to oversee the safety of children online.

On Jun 16, 10:42 am, Cub Reporter  wrote:
> Those inclined to think that this is a good idea are advised to see
> Google News for the mess a similar proposal in Australia is causing.
>
> News article:
> ============================================
> Make the unfiltered web illegal, says children's coalition
>
> The Guardian, UK: 15 June 2009http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/blog/2009/jun/15/internet-file-s...
> [http://tinyurl.com/mmx5r6]
>
> Internet companies should be forced to filter the web in order to
> reduce the volume of indecent material being shared online, according
> to children's charities.
>
> In a new "digital manifesto" published today, a leading group of
> charities including the NSPCC, the Children's Society and the National
> Children's Bureau argue that the government should legally compel ISPs
> to screen out images of child abuse and underage sex.
>
> Compulsory filtering is just one of a number of recommendations made
> by the Children's Charities Coalition on Internet Safety (CCCIS),
> which believes that action must be taken now to prevent new
> technologies from being used to proliferate abusive images online.
>
> "The problem of child abuse images is directly linked to the growth of
> the internet and new technologies," said Zoe Hilton, an NSPCC
> spokeswoman and co-author of the manifesto.
>
> "A large number of people continue to seek out these images in any way
> possible. The UK government must be tenacious in its efforts to put in
> place measures to protect children online."
>
> According to government figures, more than 1,400 people were either
> prosecuted or cautioned in relation to images of child abuse in 2007,
> a figure which the NSPCC says could be reduced by blocking such
> material at source.
>
> The report suggests that ISPs should be forced to subscribe to a
> blacklist of websites compiled by the Internet Watch Foundation, an
> independent charity that has become Britain's de facto regulator of
> online content.
>
> The IWF, which was founded in 1996, scans the web and responds to
> reports from members of the public to block sites containing
> objectionable content. While the group largely focuses on blocking
> images of child abuse and indecent pictures of anyone under 18 found
> anywhere on the internet, its blacklist also includes obscene or
> racially offensive material hosted in the UK.
>
> The service is used by many large internet providers to filter out
> illegal images and content - including BT and Virgin Media - but there
> is no legal compulsion for them to do so.
>
> However, the foundation's role has been called into question in the
> past, particularly over claims that its criteria are opaque and its
> decisions unaccountable.
>
> Last winter the group banned a Wikipedia page for the album Virgin
> Killers by German rock group The Scorpions, claiming that the cover
> image of a young girl was potentially illegal. That was despite the
> fact that the album had been on sale in high street shops for more
> than 30 years.
>
> In January the IWF blocked the entire catalogue of the Internet
> Archive - an American group that maintains a library of old web pages
> - following what the foundation's chief executive, Peter Robbins,
> called a "technical hitch".
>
> The IWF blacklist is believed to cover around 95% of British web
> users, but smaller internet providers have argued that compulsory
> filtering is an expensive and ineffective way of censoring internet
> content.
>
> The other recommendations made by the CCCIS urge the government,
> hi-tech companies and regulators to take urgent action to make a
> number of other technologies less open to abuse. Among them:
>
> - peer-to-peer filesharing systems, which say are often used to
> distribute images of child abuse. Filesharers have been targeted in
> the past by the music and film industries, but the CCCIS suggests
> better enforcement is required to prevent private filesharing networks
> focused on child abuse.
>
> - anonymity and encryption services, which can be used to make online
> communications unreadable or untraceable.
>
> - pre-paid credit cards, which are often used to pay for illegal
> material since they make it easier for criminals to mask their real
> identities.
>
> The calls come more than a year after the government agreed to back
> the findings of Tanya Byron, who published a report last March
> detailing the steps that should be taken to help protect children
> online.
>
> Among her suggestions were the increased use of parental control
> software, better education for families and the establishment of a new
> organisation to oversee the safety of children online.

Zoe Hilton, shipped in when even John Carr knows the proposal is a
load of bollocks.

WM
www.critest.com

"Cub Reporter"  wrote in message 
news:a2qe35ta6inmegslugjv5eqi2mldkqf4rv@4ax.com...
> Those inclined to think that this is a good idea are advised to see
> Google News for the mess a similar proposal in Australia is causing.
>
> News article:
> ============================================
> Make the unfiltered web illegal, says children's coalition
>
> The Guardian, UK: 15 June 2009
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/blog/2009/jun/15/internet-file-sharing
> [ http://tinyurl.com/mmx5r6 ]
>
> Internet companies should be forced to filter the web in order to
> reduce the volume of indecent material being shared online, according
> to children's charities.
>
> In a new "digital manifesto" published today, a leading group of
> charities including the NSPCC, the Children's Society and the National
> Children's Bureau argue that the government should legally compel ISPs
> to screen out images of child abuse and underage sex.
>
> Compulsory filtering is just one of a number of recommendations made
> by the Children's Charities Coalition on Internet Safety (CCCIS),
> which believes that action must be taken now to prevent new
> technologies from being used to proliferate abusive images online.
>
> "The problem of child abuse images is directly linked to the growth of
> the internet and new technologies," said Zoe Hilton, an NSPCC
> spokeswoman and co-author of the manifesto.
>
> "A large number of people continue to seek out these images in any way
> possible. The UK government must be tenacious in its efforts to put in
> place measures to protect children online."
>
> According to government figures, more than 1,400 people were either
> prosecuted or cautioned in relation to images of child abuse in 2007,
> a figure which the NSPCC says could be reduced by blocking such
> material at source.
>
> The report suggests that ISPs should be forced to subscribe to a
> blacklist of websites compiled by the Internet Watch Foundation, an
> independent charity that has become Britain's de facto regulator of
> online content.
>
> The IWF, which was founded in 1996, scans the web and responds to
> reports from members of the public to block sites containing
> objectionable content. While the group largely focuses on blocking
> images of child abuse and indecent pictures of anyone under 18 found
> anywhere on the internet, its blacklist also includes obscene or
> racially offensive material hosted in the UK.
>
> The service is used by many large internet providers to filter out
> illegal images and content - including BT and Virgin Media - but there
> is no legal compulsion for them to do so.
>
> However, the foundation's role has been called into question in the
> past, particularly over claims that its criteria are opaque and its
> decisions unaccountable.
>
> Last winter the group banned a Wikipedia page for the album Virgin
> Killers by German rock group The Scorpions, claiming that the cover
> image of a young girl was potentially illegal. That was despite the
> fact that the album had been on sale in high street shops for more
> than 30 years.
>
> In January the IWF blocked the entire catalogue of the Internet
> Archive - an American group that maintains a library of old web pages
> - following what the foundation's chief executive, Peter Robbins,
> called a "technical hitch".
>
> The IWF blacklist is believed to cover around 95% of British web
> users, but smaller internet providers have argued that compulsory
> filtering is an expensive and ineffective way of censoring internet
> content.
>
> The other recommendations made by the CCCIS urge the government,
> hi-tech companies and regulators to take urgent action to make a
> number of other technologies less open to abuse. Among them:
>
> - peer-to-peer filesharing systems, which say are often used to
> distribute images of child abuse. Filesharers have been targeted in
> the past by the music and film industries, but the CCCIS suggests
> better enforcement is required to prevent private filesharing networks
> focused on child abuse.
>
> - anonymity and encryption services, which can be used to make online
> communications unreadable or untraceable.
>
> - pre-paid credit cards, which are often used to pay for illegal
> material since they make it easier for criminals to mask their real
> identities.
>
> The calls come more than a year after the government agreed to back
> the findings of Tanya Byron, who published a report last March
> detailing the steps that should be taken to help protect children
> online.
>
> Among her suggestions were the increased use of parental control
> software, better education for families and the establishment of a new
> organisation to oversee the safety of children online.


Why don't they just educate the children to aware of the pitfalls of looking 
at pictures and videos of sexual activity and let them make up their own 
minds. Trying to suppress information only encourages interest.

Smolley wrote:
> "Cub Reporter"  wrote in message 
> news:a2qe35ta6inmegslugjv5eqi2mldkqf4rv@4ax.com...
>> Those inclined to think that this is a good idea are advised to see
>> Google News for the mess a similar proposal in Australia is causing.
>>
>> News article:
>> ============================================
>> Make the unfiltered web illegal, says children's coalition
>>
>> The Guardian, UK: 15 June 2009
>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/blog/2009/jun/15/internet-file-sharing
>> [ http://tinyurl.com/mmx5r6 ]
>>
>> Internet companies should be forced to filter the web in order to
>> reduce the volume of indecent material being shared online, according
>> to children's charities.
>>
>> In a new "digital manifesto" published today, a leading group of
>> charities including the NSPCC, the Children's Society and the National
>> Children's Bureau argue that the government should legally compel ISPs
>> to screen out images of child abuse and underage sex.
>>
>> Compulsory filtering is just one of a number of recommendations made
>> by the Children's Charities Coalition on Internet Safety (CCCIS),
>> which believes that action must be taken now to prevent new
>> technologies from being used to proliferate abusive images online.
>>
>> "The problem of child abuse images is directly linked to the growth of
>> the internet and new technologies," said Zoe Hilton, an NSPCC
>> spokeswoman and co-author of the manifesto.
>>
>> "A large number of people continue to seek out these images in any way
>> possible. The UK government must be tenacious in its efforts to put in
>> place measures to protect children online."
>>
>> According to government figures, more than 1,400 people were either
>> prosecuted or cautioned in relation to images of child abuse in 2007,
>> a figure which the NSPCC says could be reduced by blocking such
>> material at source.
>>
>> The report suggests that ISPs should be forced to subscribe to a
>> blacklist of websites compiled by the Internet Watch Foundation, an
>> independent charity that has become Britain's de facto regulator of
>> online content.
>>
>> The IWF, which was founded in 1996, scans the web and responds to
>> reports from members of the public to block sites containing
>> objectionable content. While the group largely focuses on blocking
>> images of child abuse and indecent pictures of anyone under 18 found
>> anywhere on the internet, its blacklist also includes obscene or
>> racially offensive material hosted in the UK.
>>
>> The service is used by many large internet providers to filter out
>> illegal images and content - including BT and Virgin Media - but there
>> is no legal compulsion for them to do so.
>>
>> However, the foundation's role has been called into question in the
>> past, particularly over claims that its criteria are opaque and its
>> decisions unaccountable.
>>
>> Last winter the group banned a Wikipedia page for the album Virgin
>> Killers by German rock group The Scorpions, claiming that the cover
>> image of a young girl was potentially illegal. That was despite the
>> fact that the album had been on sale in high street shops for more
>> than 30 years.
>>
>> In January the IWF blocked the entire catalogue of the Internet
>> Archive - an American group that maintains a library of old web pages
>> - following what the foundation's chief executive, Peter Robbins,
>> called a "technical hitch".
>>
>> The IWF blacklist is believed to cover around 95% of British web
>> users, but smaller internet providers have argued that compulsory
>> filtering is an expensive and ineffective way of censoring internet
>> content.
>>
>> The other recommendations made by the CCCIS urge the government,
>> hi-tech companies and regulators to take urgent action to make a
>> number of other technologies less open to abuse. Among them:
>>
>> - peer-to-peer filesharing systems, which say are often used to
>> distribute images of child abuse. Filesharers have been targeted in
>> the past by the music and film industries, but the CCCIS suggests
>> better enforcement is required to prevent private filesharing networks
>> focused on child abuse.
>>
>> - anonymity and encryption services, which can be used to make online
>> communications unreadable or untraceable.
>>
>> - pre-paid credit cards, which are often used to pay for illegal
>> material since they make it easier for criminals to mask their real
>> identities.
>>
>> The calls come more than a year after the government agreed to back
>> the findings of Tanya Byron, who published a report last March
>> detailing the steps that should be taken to help protect children
>> online.
>>
>> Among her suggestions were the increased use of parental control
>> software, better education for families and the establishment of a new
>> organisation to oversee the safety of children online.
> 
> 
> Why don't they just educate the children to aware of the pitfalls of looking 
> at pictures and videos of sexual activity and let them make up their own 
> minds. Trying to suppress information only encourages interest.
> 
> 
> 



It's just part of bringing the web to heel. For political purposes as 
much as anything else. This will continue incrementally. It's for the 
children you see.

On 16 June, 10:42, Cub Reporter  wrote:
> Those inclined to think that this is a good idea are advised to see
> Google News for the mess a similar proposal in Australia is causing.
>
> News article:
> ============================================
> Make the unfiltered web illegal, says children's coalition
>
> The Guardian, UK: 15 June 2009http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/blog/2009/jun/15/internet-file-s...
> [http://tinyurl.com/mmx5r6]
>
> Internet companies should be forced to filter the web in order to
> reduce the volume of indecent material being shared online, according
> to children's charities.
>
> In a new "digital manifesto" published today, a leading group of
> charities including the NSPCC, the Children's Society and the National
> Children's Bureau argue that the government should legally compel ISPs
> to screen out images of child abuse and underage sex.
>
> Compulsory filtering is just one of a number of recommendations made
> by the Children's Charities Coalition on Internet Safety (CCCIS),
> which believes that action must be taken now to prevent new
> technologies from being used to proliferate abusive images online.
>
> "The problem of child abuse images is directly linked to the growth of
> the internet and new technologies," said Zoe Hilton, an NSPCC
> spokeswoman and co-author of the manifesto.
>
> "A large number of people continue to seek out these images in any way
> possible. The UK government must be tenacious in its efforts to put in
> place measures to protect children online."
>
> According to government figures, more than 1,400 people were either
> prosecuted or cautioned in relation to images of child abuse in 2007,
> a figure which the NSPCC says could be reduced by blocking such
> material at source.
>
> The report suggests that ISPs should be forced to subscribe to a
> blacklist of websites compiled by the Internet Watch Foundation, an
> independent charity that has become Britain's de facto regulator of
> online content.
>
> The IWF, which was founded in 1996, scans the web and responds to
> reports from members of the public to block sites containing
> objectionable content. While the group largely focuses on blocking
> images of child abuse and indecent pictures of anyone under 18 found
> anywhere on the internet, its blacklist also includes obscene or
> racially offensive material hosted in the UK.
>
> The service is used by many large internet providers to filter out
> illegal images and content - including BT and Virgin Media - but there
> is no legal compulsion for them to do so.
>
> However, the foundation's role has been called into question in the
> past, particularly over claims that its criteria are opaque and its
> decisions unaccountable.
>
> Last winter the group banned a Wikipedia page for the album Virgin
> Killers by German rock group The Scorpions, claiming that the cover
> image of a young girl was potentially illegal. That was despite the
> fact that the album had been on sale in high street shops for more
> than 30 years.
>
> In January the IWF blocked the entire catalogue of the Internet
> Archive - an American group that maintains a library of old web pages
> - following what the foundation's chief executive, Peter Robbins,
> called a "technical hitch".
>
> The IWF blacklist is believed to cover around 95% of British web
> users, but smaller internet providers have argued that compulsory
> filtering is an expensive and ineffective way of censoring internet
> content.
>
> The other recommendations made by the CCCIS urge the government,
> hi-tech companies and regulators to take urgent action to make a
> number of other technologies less open to abuse. Among them:
>
> - peer-to-peer filesharing systems, which say are often used to
> distribute images of child abuse. Filesharers have been targeted in
> the past by the music and film industries, but the CCCIS suggests
> better enforcement is required to prevent private filesharing networks
> focused on child abuse.
>
> - anonymity and encryption services, which can be used to make online
> communications unreadable or untraceable.
>
> - pre-paid credit cards, which are often used to pay for illegal
> material since they make it easier for criminals to mask their real
> identities.
>
> The calls come more than a year after the government agreed to back
> the findings of Tanya Byron, who published a report last March
> detailing the steps that should be taken to help protect children
> online.
>
> Among her suggestions were the increased use of parental control
> software, better education for families and the establishment of a new
> organisation to oversee the safety of children online.

In fairyland (where this will actually happen) you will get a return
to the days of private bulletin boards for people of a like mind to
share. This will of course make it much harder for law-enforcement
agencies to track what's being distributed.

Jethro wrote:
> On 16 June, 10:42, Cub Reporter  wrote:
>> Those inclined to think that this is a good idea are advised to see
>> Google News for the mess a similar proposal in Australia is causing.
>>
>> News article:
>> ============================================
>> Make the unfiltered web illegal, says children's coalition
>>
>> The Guardian, UK: 15 June 2009http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/blog/2009/jun/15/internet-file-s...
>> [http://tinyurl.com/mmx5r6]
>>
>> Internet companies should be forced to filter the web in order to
>> reduce the volume of indecent material being shared online, according
>> to children's charities.
>>
>> In a new "digital manifesto" published today, a leading group of
>> charities including the NSPCC, the Children's Society and the National
>> Children's Bureau argue that the government should legally compel ISPs
>> to screen out images of child abuse and underage sex.
>>
>> Compulsory filtering is just one of a number of recommendations made
>> by the Children's Charities Coalition on Internet Safety (CCCIS),
>> which believes that action must be taken now to prevent new
>> technologies from being used to proliferate abusive images online.
>>
>> "The problem of child abuse images is directly linked to the growth of
>> the internet and new technologies," said Zoe Hilton, an NSPCC
>> spokeswoman and co-author of the manifesto.
>>
>> "A large number of people continue to seek out these images in any way
>> possible. The UK government must be tenacious in its efforts to put in
>> place measures to protect children online."
>>
>> According to government figures, more than 1,400 people were either
>> prosecuted or cautioned in relation to images of child abuse in 2007,
>> a figure which the NSPCC says could be reduced by blocking such
>> material at source.
>>
>> The report suggests that ISPs should be forced to subscribe to a
>> blacklist of websites compiled by the Internet Watch Foundation, an
>> independent charity that has become Britain's de facto regulator of
>> online content.
>>
>> The IWF, which was founded in 1996, scans the web and responds to
>> reports from members of the public to block sites containing
>> objectionable content. While the group largely focuses on blocking
>> images of child abuse and indecent pictures of anyone under 18 found
>> anywhere on the internet, its blacklist also includes obscene or
>> racially offensive material hosted in the UK.
>>
>> The service is used by many large internet providers to filter out
>> illegal images and content - including BT and Virgin Media - but there
>> is no legal compulsion for them to do so.
>>
>> However, the foundation's role has been called into question in the
>> past, particularly over claims that its criteria are opaque and its
>> decisions unaccountable.
>>
>> Last winter the group banned a Wikipedia page for the album Virgin
>> Killers by German rock group The Scorpions, claiming that the cover
>> image of a young girl was potentially illegal. That was despite the
>> fact that the album had been on sale in high street shops for more
>> than 30 years.
>>
>> In January the IWF blocked the entire catalogue of the Internet
>> Archive - an American group that maintains a library of old web pages
>> - following what the foundation's chief executive, Peter Robbins,
>> called a "technical hitch".
>>
>> The IWF blacklist is believed to cover around 95% of British web
>> users, but smaller internet providers have argued that compulsory
>> filtering is an expensive and ineffective way of censoring internet
>> content.
>>
>> The other recommendations made by the CCCIS urge the government,
>> hi-tech companies and regulators to take urgent action to make a
>> number of other technologies less open to abuse. Among them:
>>
>> - peer-to-peer filesharing systems, which say are often used to
>> distribute images of child abuse. Filesharers have been targeted in
>> the past by the music and film industries, but the CCCIS suggests
>> better enforcement is required to prevent private filesharing networks
>> focused on child abuse.
>>
>> - anonymity and encryption services, which can be used to make online
>> communications unreadable or untraceable.
>>
>> - pre-paid credit cards, which are often used to pay for illegal
>> material since they make it easier for criminals to mask their real
>> identities.
>>
>> The calls come more than a year after the government agreed to back
>> the findings of Tanya Byron, who published a report last March
>> detailing the steps that should be taken to help protect children
>> online.
>>
>> Among her suggestions were the increased use of parental control
>> software, better education for families and the establishment of a new
>> organisation to oversee the safety of children online.
> 
> In fairyland (where this will actually happen) you will get a return
> to the days of private bulletin boards for people of a like mind to
> share. This will of course make it much harder for law-enforcement
> agencies to track what's being distributed.

Probably not, but it'll create an extra post or two for the child 
protection people in CEOP in London...

-- 
Robbie

"Jethro"  wrote in message 
news:5842b6a7-cbe8-4155-8dda-490342ba741c@k2g2000yql.googlegroups.com...
> In fairyland (where this will actually happen) you will get a return
> to the days of private bulletin boards for people of a like mind to
> share. This will of course make it much harder for law-enforcement
> agencies to track what's being distributed.

Many of the old BBs are still there and can be Telnet-ed into.
Almost every web filtering net-nanny only deals with Usenet, email, MSN-type 
chat software and the WWW. It does not bother with IRC or Telnet as they are 
often regarded as dead technology.
IRC is where a lot of the dodgy stuff goes on nowadays. A lot of pron and 
warez gets shared by DCC on IRC nowadays.
Web warez sites and NGs are largely abandoned to scriptkiddies and spammers.

I'm pretty sure gopher still exists as well.

Really showing my age now......1200/75 baud modems....blah blah.....acoustic 
couplers.......ZX Spectrum and Prism modems.....NASCOM etc etc etc

Andy

On 16 June, 14:49, "AndyW" 
wrote:
> "Jethro"  wrote in message
>
> news:5842b6a7-cbe8-4155-8dda-490342ba741c@k2g2000yql.googlegroups.com...
>
> > In fairyland (where this will actually happen) you will get a return
> > to the days of private bulletin boards for people of a like mind to
> > share. This will of course make it much harder for law-enforcement
> > agencies to track what's being distributed.
>
> Many of the old BBs are still there and can be Telnet-ed into.
> Almost every web filtering net-nanny only deals with Usenet, email, MSN-type
> chat software and the WWW. It does not bother with IRC or Telnet as they are
> often regarded as dead technology.
> IRC is where a lot of the dodgy stuff goes on nowadays. A lot of pron and
> warez gets shared by DCC on IRC nowadays.
> Web warez sites and NGs are largely abandoned to scriptkiddies and spammers.
>
> I'm pretty sure gopher still exists as well.
>
> Really showing my age now......1200/75 baud modems....blah blah.....acoustic
> couplers.......ZX Spectrum and Prism modems.....NASCOM etc etc etc
>
> Andy

In my 1st year at Uni (1984), I wrote a terminal emulator for the
ZXSpectrum,and borrowed an old acoustic coupler to allow me to dial
into the PR1ME mainframe at ... 300baud

Jethro wrote:
> On 16 June, 14:49, "AndyW" 
> wrote:

>> Really showing my age now......1200/75 baud modems....blah blah.....acoustic
>> couplers.......ZX Spectrum and Prism modems.....NASCOM etc etc etc
>>
>> Andy
> 
> In my 1st year at Uni (1984), I wrote a terminal emulator for the
> ZXSpectrum,and borrowed an old acoustic coupler to allow me to dial
> into the PR1ME mainframe at ... 300baud

You were lucky, I had to construct the modem as well (for the NASCOM). I 
think Prime were minis rather than mainframes.

On 16/06/09 11:42, Cub Reporter wrote:
> The IWF, which was founded in 1996, scans the web and responds to
> reports from members of the public to block sites containing
> objectionable content. While the group largely focuses on blocking
> images of child abuse and indecent pictures of anyone under 18 found
> anywhere on the internet, its blacklist also includes obscene or
> racially offensive material hosted in the UK.

The IWF - an organization that actively seeks out and views child 
pornography. Doesn't that sound rather illegal? To my knowledge they 
have no exemption in law.

"Jethro"  wrote in message 
news:234670a1-950f-4e2e-8bef-2345844cf3a5@k2g2000yql.googlegroups.com...

> In my 1st year at Uni (1984), I wrote a terminal emulator for the
> ZXSpectrum,and borrowed an old acoustic coupler to allow me to dial
> into the PR1ME mainframe at ... 300baud

My first mainframe (also in 1984) was a pr1me too. sod all security on it as 
well; we used to cruise the directory system and find the Tutors directories 
to see what the next exam was going to be.

Ahhh happy days, using JANet to play text MUDs in the USA all night long 
using the cheapest computer time we could find.

Andy

"Martin"  wrote in message 
news:4a37ad6d$0$24004$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk...
> Jethro wrote:
>> On 16 June, 14:49, "AndyW" 
>> wrote:
>
>>> Really showing my age now......1200/75 baud modems....blah 
>>> blah.....acoustic
>>> couplers.......ZX Spectrum and Prism modems.....NASCOM etc etc etc
>>>
>>> Andy
>>
>> In my 1st year at Uni (1984), I wrote a terminal emulator for the
>> ZXSpectrum,and borrowed an old acoustic coupler to allow me to dial
>> into the PR1ME mainframe at ... 300baud
>
> You were lucky, I had to construct the modem as well (for the NASCOM). I 
> think Prime were minis rather than mainframes.

In my case I had to make the NASCOM as well as the modem. And I had to make 
my Acorn Atom - lovely machine that was, I still have it in the loft.

Andy

On 16 June, 15:34, Martin  wrote:
> Jethro wrote:
> > On 16 June, 14:49, "AndyW" 
> > wrote:
> >> Really showing my age now......1200/75 baud modems....blah blah.....acoustic
> >> couplers.......ZX Spectrum and Prism modems.....NASCOM etc etc etc
>
> >> Andy
>
> > In my 1st year at Uni (1984), I wrote a terminal emulator for the
> > ZXSpectrum,and borrowed an old acoustic coupler to allow me to dial
> > into the PR1ME mainframe at ... 300baud
>
> You were lucky, I had to construct the modem as well (for the NASCOM). I
> think Prime were minis rather than mainframes.

Well they supported 60-70 interactive users, and just as many batch
jobs ... I quite liked PR1MOS ... kept me away from the PDP-11 running
Unix ....

Jethro wrote:
> On 16 June, 15:34, Martin  wrote:
>> Jethro wrote:
>>> On 16 June, 14:49, "AndyW" 
>>> wrote:
>>>> Really showing my age now......1200/75 baud modems....blah blah.....acoustic
>>>> couplers.......ZX Spectrum and Prism modems.....NASCOM etc etc etc
>>>> Andy
>>> In my 1st year at Uni (1984), I wrote a terminal emulator for the
>>> ZXSpectrum,and borrowed an old acoustic coupler to allow me to dial
>>> into the PR1ME mainframe at ... 300baud
>> You were lucky, I had to construct the modem as well (for the NASCOM). I
>> think Prime were minis rather than mainframes.
> 
> Well they supported 60-70 interactive users, and just as many batch
> jobs ... I quite liked PR1MOS ... kept me away from the PDP-11 running
> Unix ....

Yes, me too. One time about 1am, a couple of us had snaffled our course 
tutors password (off a punched card) and logged onto his account to join 
a network MUD (as someone else mentions above actually) and bugger me 
what happens? He walks in, comes over and starts talking to us 
discussing the game and strategies. WTF he was doing at 1am in the 
computer centre we never did discover.

I'd like to apologize to Dr. Marsh now :) We logged off before he logged 
on and scarpered. Oh the punched cards were for the ICL 1904 (which 
*was* a mainframe)

Primos was great though, it was unique in coming with a built in 
relational database.

On 17 June, 08:08, "AndyW" 
wrote:
> "Jethro"  wrote in message
>
> news:234670a1-950f-4e2e-8bef-2345844cf3a5@k2g2000yql.googlegroups.com...
>
> > In my 1st year at Uni (1984), I wrote a terminal emulator for the
> > ZXSpectrum,and borrowed an old acoustic coupler to allow me to dial
> > into the PR1ME mainframe at ... 300baud
>
> My first mainframe (also in 1984) was a pr1me too. sod all security on it as
> well; we used to cruise the directory system and find the Tutors directories
> to see what the next exam was going to be.
>
> Ahhh happy days, using JANet to play text MUDs in the USA all night long
> using the cheapest computer time we could find.
>
> Andy

Our Computer Centre had a "charging" system for connect time, and CPU
time. Unfortunately the software which ran it had been written in-
house and was no match for the Hacker squad of the day. ISTR it ran as
a daemon, and recieved connections on network ports. After a mini-hack
in which we snaffled the source code, we were able to work out the
variouls messages, and happily reset our connect time and CPU time.

My best hack involved a logout handler which completely baffled the CC
staff ... they hadn't realised that the OnLogout event trumped the
OnError handler which they used to prevent people breaking out of
code.  So we ran the mail program in one session from a CPL batch
file, logged into another terminal and forced logged-out the first
session, whereby the logout handler took over, with an open file
handle into the mail directory ...

Then they switched to Norsk Data's running SINTRAN (not Unix) and
nobody ever used the computer centre again ....

On Wed, 17 Jun 2009 10:14:52 +0100, Martin wrote:

> I'd like to apologize to Dr. Marsh now :) We logged off before he logged
> on and scarpered. Oh the punched cards were for the ICL 1904 (which *was*
> a mainframe)

I was a computer operator on an ICL 1904 back in The Day. A proper
computer.

On Wed, 17 Jun 2009 02:43:50 -0700, Jethro wrote:

> On 17 June, 08:08, "AndyW" 
> wrote:
>> "Jethro"  wrote in message
>>
>> news:234670a1-950f-4e2e-8bef-2345844cf3a5@k2g2000yql.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > In my 1st year at Uni (1984), I wrote a terminal emulator for the
>> > ZXSpectrum,and borrowed an old acoustic coupler to allow me to dial
>> > into the PR1ME mainframe at ... 300baud
>>
>> My first mainframe (also in 1984) was a pr1me too. sod all security on
>> it as well; we used to cruise the directory system and find the Tutors
>> directories to see what the next exam was going to be.
>>
>> Ahhh happy days, using JANet to play text MUDs in the USA all night
>> long using the cheapest computer time we could find.
>>
>> Andy
> 
> Our Computer Centre had a "charging" system for connect time, and CPU
> time. Unfortunately the software which ran it had been written in- house
> and was no match for the Hacker squad of the day. ISTR it ran as a
> daemon, and recieved connections on network ports. After a mini-hack in
> which we snaffled the source code, we were able to work out the variouls
> messages, and happily reset our connect time and CPU time.
> 
> My best hack involved a logout handler which completely baffled the CC
> staff ... they hadn't realised that the OnLogout event trumped the
> OnError handler which they used to prevent people breaking out of code. 
> So we ran the mail program in one session from a CPL batch file, logged
> into another terminal and forced logged-out the first session, whereby
> the logout handler took over, with an open file handle into the mail
> directory ...
> 
> Then they switched to Norsk Data's running SINTRAN (not Unix) and nobody
> ever used the computer centre again ....

I recall speeding up the clock on the ICL 1904 mainframe when we were
working overtime. It counted 5 200ms interrupts as a second. Change the
preset value to 4 and 4 hours appeared to be 5.

"Jethro"  wrote in message 
news:12cec9ce-a73d-4109-b1b9-0736cdcfc750@f19g2000yqo.googlegroups.com...
> Our Computer Centre had a "charging" system for connect time, and CPU
> time. Unfortunately the software which ran it had been written in-
> house and was no match for the Hacker squad of the day. ISTR it ran as
> a daemon, and recieved connections on network ports. After a mini-hack
> in which we snaffled the source code, we were able to work out the
> variouls messages, and happily reset our connect time and CPU time.

Sadly we could not hack the system and so since the cost of computer time 
between 10pm and 6am at the weekends was about 1/20th of that of using it on 
a weekday afternoon we became nocturnal at the weekends.

Andy

On Jun 16, 8:25 pm, Chris Hills  wrote:
> On 16/06/09 11:42, Cub Reporter wrote:
>
> > The IWF, which was founded in 1996, scans the web and responds to
> > reports from members of the public to block sites containing
> > objectionable content. While the group largely focuses on blocking
> > images of child abuse and indecent pictures of anyone under 18 found
> > anywhere on the internet, its blacklist also includes obscene or
> > racially offensive material hosted in the UK.
>
> The IWF - an organization that actively seeks out and views child
> pornography. Doesn't that sound rather illegal? To my knowledge they
> have no exemption in law.

They do.

WM

On 17/06/09 12:50, Webmanager_CritEst wrote:
> They do.

[citation needed]

On Jun 17, 12:50 pm, Chris Hills  wrote:
> On 17/06/09 12:50, Webmanager_CritEst wrote:
>
> > They do.
>
> [citation needed]

"For fairly obvious reasons, the law allows certain individuals to
possess certain images at certain times: the law allows certain
individuals to possess certain images at certain times: s.46 of the
Sexual Offences Act 2003 specifically allows an individual to retain
an indecent image for the 'prevention, detection or investigation of
crime, or for the purposes of criminal proceedings' – but only so long
as they are working on such matters.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/06/17/bates_hard_drives_home/

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2003/ukpga_20030042_en_4#pt1-pb11-l1g46

***
WM

Jethro wrote:
> On 17 June, 08:08, "AndyW" 
> wrote:
>> "Jethro"  wrote in message
>>
>> news:234670a1-950f-4e2e-8bef-2345844cf3a5@k2g2000yql.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>> In my 1st year at Uni (1984), I wrote a terminal emulator for the
>>> ZXSpectrum,and borrowed an old acoustic coupler to allow me to dial
>>> into the PR1ME mainframe at ... 300baud
>> My first mainframe (also in 1984) was a pr1me too. sod all security on it as
>> well; we used to cruise the directory system and find the Tutors directories
>> to see what the next exam was going to be.
>>
>> Ahhh happy days, using JANet to play text MUDs in the USA all night long
>> using the cheapest computer time we could find.
>>
>> Andy
> 
> Our Computer Centre had a "charging" system for connect time, and CPU
> time. Unfortunately the software which ran it had been written in-
> house and was no match for the Hacker squad of the day. ISTR it ran as
> a daemon, and recieved connections on network ports. After a mini-hack
> in which we snaffled the source code, we were able to work out the
> variouls messages, and happily reset our connect time and CPU time.

Hee, this is taking me back a bit.

We had a charging system as well, what we discovered was that if you ran 
a batch job from cards, you could issue JCL commands to tell the 
computer that the run-time was 1ms the priority was Z (so it wasn't 
charged). Given the alomost zero runtime it would quickly get to the top 
of the list between other jobs.

The only other command was "wait 300" which told the computer to wait 
300 seconds.

If you monitored the job queue then you could get to a terminal and run 
a 'connect' command to take over the queued job. From there you had an 
actual live session on the mainframe that cost nothing.

I accidentally discovered how dangerous a live session is when I crashed 
the mainframe, not once, but twice - the second time to verify I'd 
screwed up the first time and got one heck of a bollocking from the ops 
staff :)

Mind you, bringing down the entire NW Computer Network was spectacular 
when we patched the OS on the mainframe to allow us to issue PW 
<username> and it returned the password of any user, including all the 
ops staff. I think it was down for a week before they figured out what 
we'd done and fixed it.

Another bollocking and we got thrown off the mainfrmae for that one. Now 
we'd be locked up most likely.
> 
> My best hack involved a logout handler which completely baffled the CC
> staff ... they hadn't realised that the OnLogout event trumped the
> OnError handler which they used to prevent people breaking out of
> code.  So we ran the mail program in one session from a CPL batch
> file, logged into another terminal and forced logged-out the first
> session, whereby the logout handler took over, with an open file
> handle into the mail directory ...
> 
> Then they switched to Norsk Data's running SINTRAN (not Unix) and
> nobody ever used the computer centre again ....

On 17 June, 14:30, Martin  wrote:
> Jethro wrote:
> > On 17 June, 08:08, "AndyW" 
> > wrote:
> >> "Jethro"  wrote in message
>
> >>news:234670a1-950f-4e2e-8bef-2345844cf3a5@k2g2000yql.googlegroups.com..> >>> In my 1st year at Uni (1984), I wrote a terminal emulator for the
> >>> ZXSpectrum,and borrowed an old acoustic coupler to allow me to dial
> >>> into the PR1ME mainframe at ... 300baud
> >> My first mainframe (also in 1984) was a pr1me too. sod all security on it as
> >> well; we used to cruise the directory system and find the Tutors directories
> >> to see what the next exam was going to be.
>
> >> Ahhh happy days, using JANet to play text MUDs in the USA all night long
> >> using the cheapest computer time we could find.
>
> >> Andy
>
> > Our Computer Centre had a "charging" system for connect time, and CPU
> > time. Unfortunately the software which ran it had been written in-
> > house and was no match for the Hacker squad of the day. ISTR it ran as
> > a daemon, and recieved connections on network ports. After a mini-hack
> > in which we snaffled the source code, we were able to work out the
> > variouls messages, and happily reset our connect time and CPU time.
>
> Hee, this is taking me back a bit.
>
> We had a charging system as well, what we discovered was that if you ran
> a batch job from cards, you could issue JCL commands to tell the
> computer that the run-time was 1ms the priority was Z (so it wasn't
> charged). Given the alomost zero runtime it would quickly get to the top
> of the list between other jobs.
>
> The only other command was "wait 300" which told the computer to wait
> 300 seconds.
>
> If you monitored the job queue then you could get to a terminal and run
> a 'connect' command to take over the queued job. From there you had an
> actual live session on the mainframe that cost nothing.
>
> I accidentally discovered how dangerous a live session is when I crashed
> the mainframe, not once, but twice - the second time to verify I'd
> screwed up the first time and got one heck of a bollocking from the ops
> staff :)
>
> Mind you, bringing down the entire NW Computer Network was spectacular
> when we patched the OS on the mainframe to allow us to issue PW
> <username> and it returned the password of any user, including all the
> ops staff. I think it was down for a week before they figured out what
> we'd done and fixed it.
>
> Another bollocking and we got thrown off the mainfrmae for that one. Now
> we'd be locked up most likely.
>
>
>
>
>
> > My best hack involved a logout handler which completely baffled the CC
> > staff ... they hadn't realised that the OnLogout event trumped the
> > OnError handler which they used to prevent people breaking out of
> > code.  So we ran the mail program in one session from a CPL batch
> > file, logged into another terminal and forced logged-out the first
> > session, whereby the logout handler took over, with an open file
> > handle into the mail directory ...
>
> > Then they switched to Norsk Data's running SINTRAN (not Unix) and
> > nobody ever used the computer centre again ....- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

My first hack was 2 days into 1st term, when I discoved the password
which protected the directory used for the the program message store
was in plaintext in the executable (it was ^E^X^I^L^E). I was caught 2
days later, my account suspended and a lecture from the CSC head
ensued. Luckily I hadn't done anything other than spoof a mail, with
not obscenity or profanity, so he let it ride. But he made it clear in
no uncertain terms that if I (or anyone else) had done that it would
have been grounds for expulsion ....

This was 1984, so none of the Computer Misuse acts had been dreamt of
then ... happy days.