Here’s something to be upset about.
We’ve mentioned it before, but it popped up in the news again this week, in The Globe and Mail and ABC News.
I won’t go on at great length describing what the articles I linked already have, but there appears to be a trend of self-described pedophiles operating websites that, while not technically illegal, cross all kinds of ethical boundaries by actually providing a resource for pedophiles.
Parents, Internet citizens, and generally anyone with an intact sense of right-and-wrong is understandably outraged at the existence of this type of site. But fighting these sites seems to be more difficult than it ought to be.
The site mentioned in the links is hosted in Amsterdam, outside the jurisdiction of American law enforcement. And, though the site has been shut down before by its host, other items I’ve read have said the operator is hosting now with a provider known for turning a blind eye to unwholesome content.
Incidentally, I had some conversations with colleagues and readers when we last covered this site about whether talking about this type of site did any good at all. Is it worth trying to “expose” something objectionable if the coverage could also be considered publicizing it? Well, that debate is still open, I suppose. I personally think it’s worth trying to do something about.
What can we do?
To start, there’s making sure it can’t happen to you. You have an acceptable use policy, and a terms of service. You can craft those documents in such a way that you are legally able to remove anything you consider patently objectionable from your servers. There are, after all, hosts that refuse to host pornographic images. It is worth mentioning that my “legal advice” comes backed by no credentials whatsoever. So don’t plan on holding up a printout of this blog post in a courtroom at any point. However, it is worth looking into these means of protecting yourself from this kind of content.
As for protecting children from this kind of predator, the more important issue, hopefully bringing attention to this kind of site can help put a stop to it.
I mentioned last week that I felt more confident about the existence of a hosting community, and impressed by the potential power of that community. I think this is exactly the sort of situation that an organized community would have the power to affect. As an industry, Web hosts ought to be able to exert their influence, to define what is acceptable ethically, whether that is an accepted definition for “carbon neutral” or shutting down a website that caters to sexual predators.
Websites have Web hosts, and Web hosts have network providers and hardware suppliers. Even if one host doesn’t mind hosting a site like this, I’d imagine the industry at large would be quite unanimous in its desire to exert its will in this situation.
One more thing: the lawyer quoted in the Globe and Mail article, Perry Aftab, posted a comment on the online story pointing out that his organization wiredsafety.org, can always use volunteers to help stop sexual exploitation of children and other abuses online.
welcome the help!
Parry