Thread

"Internet: Liz Longhurst backs MP"

John Thow, 07 Nov 2005 16:59:56

"7/11/2005 - Mother's support for child porn bill

Internet: Liz Longhurst backs MP

THE mother of murdered Jane Longhurst has backed a new Parliamentary
move to curb child pornography by targeting internet service providers.

Liz Longhurst is joining Reading West MP Martin Salter in supporting a
new 10-minute rule bill.

The bill would force internet service providers and commercial
organisations giving access to the net to declare whether or not they
have taken steps to filter out websites containing sick pornographic
images of children.

The bill has been drawn up by Margaret Moran, Labour MP for Luton South.

Her move follows conclusive proof from BT that technology now exists to
allow internet service providers to block access to child pornography.

The filtering system called 2Cleanfeed2 has been available for more than
18 months and allows users to access the internet with illegal websites
screened out. Several internet providers already use this technology but
many do not.

The purpose of the bill is to name and shame the providers which have
not cleaned up their act.

Mrs Longhurst, supported by Mr Salter, has been campaigning against
violent internet porn since her daughter, 30, was murdered in Brighton
in 2003 by sex-website addict Graham Coutts.

Her own campaign has been to outlaw the kind of violent porn sites such
as those featuring necrophilia and women being tortured which Coutts had
been viewing before he killed her daughter.

Mrs Longhurst, of Whitley, said: ?The internet really does need to start
acting more responsibly. There is no excuse for refusing to take steps
to filter out extreme and abusive pornographic images which could cause
long-term damage to the vulnerable or maladjusted.

?I welcome the bill and hope it will act as a wake up call to the industry.?

Mr Salter said he was pleased to sponsor the bill as part of his
on-going campaign to combat extreme internet porn.

He said: ?Access to these sickening images must be stopped. We must put
every obstacle in the path of those who seek to profit from the
exploitation of women and children in order to feed the sick fantasies
of perverts and abusers.?

Introducing her bill in the House of Commons on Wednesday, October 26,
Margaret Moran said: ?Just two years ago the NSPCC estimated that 20,000
new images of child pornography go online every week.

That is 20,000 new cases of child abuse and rape that go online every
week. Through the internet, criminal gangs both at home and abroad are
making money out of this misery.?

A 10-minute rule bill allows MPs to put forward proposals for new laws
at the beginning of Parliamentary business on Tuesdays and Wednesdays.

Mrs Longhurst has been collecting a petition to ban the possession of
extreme pornographic material including images of necrophilia and violence.

The on-line petition can be accessed at www.jltrust.org.uk

The closing date is Wednesday, November 16, and Mr Salter plans to
submit the petition to the House of Commons at the end of the month.

n Coutts was jailed for 30 years, but his sentence was reduced to 26 on
appeal."
http://www.getreading.co.uk/story.asp?intid=13214

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.

Manniq, 07 Nov 2005 18:03:36

Actually - and possibly - a tactical mistake by their campaign. Ten-minute bills don't tend to get through. They allow an issue to be aired, allow the fan club around a particular bill to identify itself - but also begins to shake out the opposition.

Regards,

M

Author wrote:
> "7/11/2005 - Mother's support for child porn bill
> Internet: Liz Longhurst backs MP
> THE mother of murdered Jane Longhurst has backed a new Parliamentary
> move to curb child pornography by targeting internet service providers.
> Liz Longhurst is joining Reading West MP Martin Salter in supporting a
> new 10-minute rule bill.
> The bill would force internet service providers and commercial
> organisations giving access to the net to declare whether or not they
> have taken steps to filter out websites containing sick pornographic
> images of children.
> The bill has been drawn up by Margaret Moran, Labour MP for Luton South.
> Her move follows conclusive proof from BT that technology now exists to
> allow internet service providers to block access to child pornography.
> The filtering system called 2Cleanfeed2 has been available for more than
> 18 months and allows users to access the internet with illegal websites
> screened out. Several internet providers already use this technology but
> many do not.
> The purpose of the bill is to name and shame the providers which have
> not cleaned up their act.
> Mrs Longhurst, supported by Mr Salter, has been campaigning against
> violent internet porn since her daughter, 30, was murdered in Brighton
> in 2003 by sex-website addict Graham Coutts.
> Her own campaign has been to outlaw the kind of violent porn sites such
> as those featuring necrophilia and women being tortured which Coutts had
> been viewing before he killed her daughter.
> Mrs Longhurst, of Whitley, said: ?The internet really does need to start
> acting more responsibly. There is no excuse for refusing to take steps
> to filter out extreme and abusive pornographic images which could cause
> long-term damage to the vulnerable or maladjusted.
> ?I welcome the bill and hope it will act as a wake up call to the industry.?
> Mr Salter said he was pleased to sponsor the bill as part of his
> on-going campaign to combat extreme internet porn.
> He said: ?Access to these sickening images must be stopped. We must put
> every obstacle in the path of those who seek to profit from the
> exploitation of women and children in order to feed the sick fantasies
> of perverts and abusers.?
> Introducing her bill in the House of Commons on Wednesday, October 26,
> Margaret Moran said: ?Just two years ago the NSPCC estimated that 20,000
> new images of child pornography go online every week.
> That is 20,000 new cases of child abuse and rape that go online every
> week. Through the internet, criminal gangs both at home and abroad are
> making money out of this misery.?
> A 10-minute rule bill allows MPs to put forward proposals for new laws
> at the beginning of Parliamentary business on Tuesdays and Wednesdays.
> Mrs Longhurst has been collecting a petition to ban the possession of
> extreme pornographic material including images of necrophilia and violence.
> The on-line petition can be accessed at www.jltrust.org.uk
> The closing date is Wednesday, November 16, and Mr Salter plans to
> submit the petition to the House of Commons at the end of the month.
> n Coutts was jailed for 30 years, but his sentence was reduced to 26 on
> appeal."
> http://www.getreading.co.uk/story.asp?intid=13214
> --
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.

clare, 07 Nov 2005 18:34:56

Clean feed operates by filtering identified URLs, rather than by content indicators.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/07/21/ispa_bt_cleanfeed/

I start from the position that I am not challenging the current laws against the publication and distribution of obscene material in the OPA. I start from that position because the OPA is not up for repeal/reform and this consultation is definitely not the place to argue that there should be no censorship at all.

Restrictions on distribution protect the innocent from the harm of corruption. Or that is the theory. Those restrictions are at least founded on the idea that they are preventing harm, which is much more than can be said about the new proposals. The European Court accepts that a right to restrict distribution is in the interests of preventing harm (protecting public morals). For the purpose of this campaign I don't see that any advantage could come from disputing that.

One of the principal objections to the current proposals is that they criminalize people deemed to be deviants while doing nothing to restrict the availability of the material and therefore nothing to prevent the alleged harm to public morals.

I wonder if we should support the use of systems like BT cleanfeed, which operates in the same way as other domestic control of obscene material - identify the material, block its distribution. But subject of course to an almighty argument another day about who and how those URLs are identified.

It just seems to me that the corollary of opposing a possession offence is to support a mechanism for controlling distribution.
Unless of course one wants to argue that there should be no censorship whatsoever. As much many here may hold that belief, its not a good tactic for opposing this particular proposal; it would require a repeal of the OPA.

But to say, "possession offences do not mend the ill, the definitions are too hard, will lead to miscarriages of justice while benefitting no one. Look instead to cleanfeed which can replicate electronically, what customs does physically".

Also, any future battle against unregulated use of Cleanfeed system will have the support of the ISPA and many others interested in net freedoms who do not wish to get involved in this particular proposal.

"The UK's ISP trade body, ISPA, said the Cleanfeed solution would "only prevent 'casual' browsing of known websites...It will not hinder organised distribution of such images. It will not prevent access to new websites offering illegal content, nor will it prevent children being abused." Ž

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/07/20/bt_internet_block/

And ISPA's challenge to Cleanfeed stats
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/07/21/ispa_bt_cleanfeed/

Don't crucify me for supporting censorship. This is nothing to do with my personal opinions, It's a strategic suggestion.

Author wrote:
> "7/11/2005 - Mother's support for child porn bill
> Internet: Liz Longhurst backs MP
> THE mother of murdered Jane Longhurst has backed a new Parliamentary
> move to curb child pornography by targeting internet service providers.
> Liz Longhurst is joining Reading West MP Martin Salter in supporting a
> new 10-minute rule bill.
> The bill would force internet service providers and commercial
> organisations giving access to the net to declare whether or not they
> have taken steps to filter out websites containing sick pornographic
> images of children.
> The bill has been drawn up by Margaret Moran, Labour MP for Luton South.
> Her move follows conclusive proof from BT that technology now exists to
> allow internet service providers to block access to child pornography.
> The filtering system called 2Cleanfeed2 has been available for more than
> 18 months and allows users to access the internet with illegal websites
> screened out. Several internet providers already use this technology but
> many do not.
> The purpose of the bill is to name and shame the providers which have
> not cleaned up their act.
> Mrs Longhurst, supported by Mr Salter, has been campaigning against
> violent internet porn since her daughter, 30, was murdered in Brighton
> in 2003 by sex-website addict Graham Coutts.
> Her own campaign has been to outlaw the kind of violent porn sites such
> as those featuring necrophilia and women being tortured which Coutts had
> been viewing before he killed her daughter.
> Mrs Longhurst, of Whitley, said: ?The internet really does need to start
> acting more responsibly. There is no excuse for refusing to take steps
> to filter out extreme and abusive pornographic images which could cause
> long-term damage to the vulnerable or maladjusted.
> ?I welcome the bill and hope it will act as a wake up call to the industry.?
> Mr Salter said he was pleased to sponsor the bill as part of his
> on-going campaign to combat extreme internet porn.
> He said: ?Access to these sickening images must be stopped. We must put
> every obstacle in the path of those who seek to profit from the
> exploitation of women and children in order to feed the sick fantasies
> of perverts and abusers.?
> Introducing her bill in the House of Commons on Wednesday, October 26,
> Margaret Moran said: ?Just two years ago the NSPCC estimated that 20,000
> new images of child pornography go online every week.
> That is 20,000 new cases of child abuse and rape that go online every
> week. Through the internet, criminal gangs both at home and abroad are
> making money out of this misery.?
> A 10-minute rule bill allows MPs to put forward proposals for new laws
> at the beginning of Parliamentary business on Tuesdays and Wednesdays.
> Mrs Longhurst has been collecting a petition to ban the possession of
> extreme pornographic material including images of necrophilia and violence.
> The on-line petition can be accessed at www.jltrust.org.uk
> The closing date is Wednesday, November 16, and Mr Salter plans to
> submit the petition to the House of Commons at the end of the month.
> n Coutts was jailed for 30 years, but his sentence was reduced to 26 on
> appeal."
> http://www.getreading.co.uk/story.asp?intid=13214
> --
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.

clare, 07 Nov 2005 18:46:11

I can't imagine the proposal to use Clean feed to block child porn is going to shake out much, if any, opposition.

Author wrote:
> Actually - and possibly - a tactical mistake by their campaign. Ten-minute bills don't tend to get through. They allow an issue to be aired, allow the fan club around a particular bill to identify itself - but also begins to shake out the opposition.
> Regards,
> M
> Author wrote:
> > "7/11/2005 - Mother's support for child porn bill
> > Internet: Liz Longhurst backs MP
> > THE mother of murdered Jane Longhurst has backed a new Parliamentary
> > move to curb child pornography by targeting internet service providers.
> > Liz Longhurst is joining Reading West MP Martin Salter in supporting a
> > new 10-minute rule bill.
> > The bill would force internet service providers and commercial
> > organisations giving access to the net to declare whether or not they
> > have taken steps to filter out websites containing sick pornographic
> > images of children.
> > The bill has been drawn up by Margaret Moran, Labour MP for Luton South.
> > Her move follows conclusive proof from BT that technology now exists to
> > allow internet service providers to block access to child pornography.
> > The filtering system called 2Cleanfeed2 has been available for more than
> > 18 months and allows users to access the internet with illegal websites
> > screened out. Several internet providers already use this technology but
> > many do not.
> > The purpose of the bill is to name and shame the providers which have
> > not cleaned up their act.
> > Mrs Longhurst, supported by Mr Salter, has been campaigning against
> > violent internet porn since her daughter, 30, was murdered in Brighton
> > in 2003 by sex-website addict Graham Coutts.
> > Her own campaign has been to outlaw the kind of violent porn sites such
> > as those featuring necrophilia and women being tortured which Coutts had
> > been viewing before he killed her daughter.
> > Mrs Longhurst, of Whitley, said: ?The internet really does need to start
> > acting more responsibly. There is no excuse for refusing to take steps
> > to filter out extreme and abusive pornographic images which could cause
> > long-term damage to the vulnerable or maladjusted.
> > ?I welcome the bill and hope it will act as a wake up call to the industry.?
> > Mr Salter said he was pleased to sponsor the bill as part of his
> > on-going campaign to combat extreme internet porn.
> > He said: ?Access to these sickening images must be stopped. We must put
> > every obstacle in the path of those who seek to profit from the
> > exploitation of women and children in order to feed the sick fantasies
> > of perverts and abusers.?
> > Introducing her bill in the House of Commons on Wednesday, October 26,
> > Margaret Moran said: ?Just two years ago the NSPCC estimated that 20,000
> > new images of child pornography go online every week.
> > That is 20,000 new cases of child abuse and rape that go online every
> > week. Through the internet, criminal gangs both at home and abroad are
> > making money out of this misery.?
> > A 10-minute rule bill allows MPs to put forward proposals for new laws
> > at the beginning of Parliamentary business on Tuesdays and Wednesdays.
> > Mrs Longhurst has been collecting a petition to ban the possession of
> > extreme pornographic material including images of necrophilia and violence.
> > The on-line petition can be accessed at www.jltrust.org.uk
> > The closing date is Wednesday, November 16, and Mr Salter plans to
> > submit the petition to the House of Commons at the end of the month.
> > n Coutts was jailed for 30 years, but his sentence was reduced to 26 on
> > appeal."
> > http://www.getreading.co.uk/story.asp?intid=13214
> > --
> > No virus found in this outgoing message.
> > Checked by AVG Free Edition.

Graham Marsden, 07 Nov 2005 20:09:46

pearl_maude1@hotmail.com wrote:

> I can't imagine the proposal to use Clean feed to block child
> porn is going to shake out much, if any, opposition.

Not amongst MPs, no.

But in the industry I think there would be a lot of opposition for all
sorts of reasons.

Cheers,
Graham.

Clean feed operates by filtering identified URLs, rather than by content
indicators.

But to say, "possession offences do not mend the ill, the definitions are
too hard, will
lead to miscarriages of justice while benefitting no one. Look instead to
cleanfeed which
can replicate electronically, what customs does physically".

Also, any future battle against unregulated use of Cleanfeed system will
have the support
of the ISPA and many others interested in net freedoms who do not wish to
get involved in
this particular proposal.

"The UK's ISP trade body, ISPA, said the Cleanfeed solution would "only
prevent 'casual'
browsing of known websites...It will not hinder organised distribution of
such images. It
will not prevent access to new websites offering illegal content, nor will
it prevent
children being abused." Ž

WOuldn't it also be handy to query if the anti-porn campaigners stand to
make any money
out of this cleanfeed stuff? Given that most of these filters are a bit
clunky, miss some
smut and ban things like breast cancer advice sites, should we perhaps
suggest that this
Bill is something of a handy share-price hike for the Cleanfeed mak

--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .

Graham Marsden, 07 Nov 2005 20:12:45

pearl_maude1@hotmail.com wrote:

> Clean feed operates by filtering identified URLs, rather than
> by content indicators.

Of course that 230,000 figure is totally meaningless because it doesn't
say whether it's that many accesses on one site, or on 1,000 also I
doubt it can distinguish between someone actually trying to access
kiddie porn and a search engine wanting to archive a site or a piece of
hacking software looking for vulnerabilities.

There's also the fact that, as has happened with spam blocking systems,
legitimate sites have been caught by mistake.

> It just seems to me that the corollary of opposing a possession offence
> is to support a mechanism for controlling distribution.

I don't see how this follows. Why should I support controlled
distribution simply because I don't want to be arrested for having
something in my possession?

If my having that does me no harm and cannot be proven to do others
harm, why should there be any restriction at all?

> Unless of course one wants to argue that there should be no censorship
> whatsoever. As much many here may hold that belief, its not a good
> tactic for opposing this particular proposal; it would require a
> repeal of the OPA.

I don't think there should be *no* censorship (eg I think that images
featuring the abuse of children should be illegal) but that it should be
done with a very light touch, not a heavy boot.

> But to say, "possession offences do not mend the ill, the definitions
> are too hard, will lead to miscarriages of justice while benefitting
> no one. Look instead to cleanfeed which can replicate electronically,
> what customs does physically".

What, cause miscarriages of justice, you mean...?

See this case of what happened when a guy brought in the Japanese
equivalent of a St Trinians film...

http://www.derbygripe.co.uk/state2.htm

> Don't crucify me for supporting censorship. This is nothing to
> do with my personal opinions, It's a strategic suggestion.

Sorry, but I see it as a bad idea that could lose us support and risk
damaging our case!

Cheers,
Graham.

Graham Marsden, 07 Nov 2005 20:21:29

John Thow wrote:

> The bill would force internet service providers and commercial
> organisations giving access to the net to declare whether or not they
> have taken steps to filter out websites containing sick pornographic
> images of children.

Ah, I love reasoned discussion and a nice unbiased argument...!

> Her move follows conclusive proof from BT that technology now exists to
> allow internet service providers to block access to child pornography.

"Conclusive proof"? ROFLALALAL!

It will, possibly, stop *some* websites. It won't stop it going out in
newsgroups, via p2p or through MSN and many other such services!

> The purpose of the bill is to name and shame the providers which have
> not cleaned up their act.

Or those who don't agree with unworkable State imposed censorship.

> Mrs Longhurst, of Whitley, said: \x{201C}The internet really does need to start
> acting more responsibly. There is no excuse for refusing to take steps
> to filter out extreme and abusive pornographic images which could cause
> long-term damage to the vulnerable or maladjusted.

There is no evidence to back up the claims that these images *DO* cause
"long-term damage to the vulnerable or maladjusted.", still why let the
facts get in the way?

> He said: \x{201C}Access to these sickening images must be stopped. We must put
> every obstacle in the path of those who seek to profit from the
> exploitation of women and children in order to feed the sick fantasies
> of perverts and abusers.\x{201D}

Oh look, more reasonable discussion!

> Introducing her bill in the House of Commons on Wednesday, October 26,
> Margaret Moran said: \x{201C}Just two years ago the NSPCC estimated that 20,000
> new images of child pornography go online every week.
>
> That is 20,000 new cases of child abuse and rape that go online every
> week.

Err, it is? I don't know where that 20,000 figure comes from (and
perhaps it's a lot of the *same* stuff coming from new sources), but
unless you count *every* image as a *single* "case of child abuse", it
could be a few people putting out *lots* of images of a few abuse victims.

> Through the internet, criminal gangs both at home and abroad are
> making money out of this misery.\x{201D}

Ah "criminal gangs", another reasonable argument backed up with proof...!

> A 10-minute rule bill allows MPs to put forward proposals for new laws
> at the beginning of Parliamentary business on Tuesdays and Wednesdays.

And which are generally completely ignored by the majority of Parliament
and which die a death after the MP has had their "10 minutes of fame".

Cheers,
Graham.

Paul C. Dickie, 08 Nov 2005 04:39:40

In message <436F882A.1080807@petml.com>, John Thow
wrote:
>"7/11/2005 - Mother's support for child porn bill
>Internet: Liz Longhurst backs MP

Ah, the poor dear has decided to replace her dead daughter by jumping on
a band-wagon...

>THE mother of murdered Jane Longhurst has backed a new Parliamentary
>move to curb child pornography by targeting internet service providers.
>Liz Longhurst is joining Reading West MP Martin Salter in supporting a
>new 10-minute rule bill.

Which, like almost all "10 minute rule bills", stands not a chance of
ever becoming law; they exist only for parliamentarians to shew how
silly they can be.

>The bill would force internet service providers and commercial
>organisations giving access to the net to declare whether or not they
>have taken steps to filter out websites containing sick pornographic
>images of children.
>The bill has been drawn up by Margaret Moran, Labour MP for Luton South.

Moran my name, moron by nature.

>Her move follows conclusive proof from BT that technology now exists to
>allow internet service providers to block access to child pornography.
>The filtering system called 2Cleanfeed2 has been available for more than
>18 months and allows users to access the internet with illegal websites
>screened out. Several internet providers already use this technology but
>many do not.

Does it permit access to sites about Scunthorpe?

And how the merry hell can a program determine how old was a wench in a
photograph?

>The purpose of the bill is to name and shame the providers which have
>not cleaned up their act.

And is about as sensible as that newspaper "name and shame" campaign
which hounded a paediatrician out of house and home.

>Mrs Longhurst, supported by Mr Salter, has been campaigning against
>violent internet porn since her daughter, 30, was murdered in Brighton
>in 2003 by sex-website addict Graham Coutts.

... even though he'd probably have committed his crimes whether or not
such sites existed, as he was already more than slightly deranged.

>Her own campaign has been to outlaw the kind of violent porn sites such
>as those featuring necrophilia and women being tortured which Coutts had
>been viewing before he killed her daughter.

Did he also visit a site called Google and, if so, ought that not be
closed down AT ONCE?

>Mrs Longhurst, of Whitley, said: \x{201C}The internet really does need to start
>acting more responsibly. There is no excuse for refusing to take steps
>to filter out extreme and abusive pornographic images which could cause
>long-term damage to the vulnerable or maladjusted.

There is also no excuse whatsoever for telling a grieving mother such
utter twaddle as this, or suggesting that a computer program can tell
how old a naked wench might be.

>Mr Salter said he was pleased to sponsor the bill as part of his
>on-going campaign to combat extreme internet porn.
>
>He said: \x{201C}Access to these sickening images must be stopped. We must put
>every obstacle in the path of those who seek to profit from the
>exploitation of women and children in order to feed the sick fantasies
>of perverts and abusers.\x{201D}
>
>Introducing her bill in the House of Commons on Wednesday, October 26,
>Margaret Moran said: \x{201C}Just two years ago the NSPCC estimated that 20,000
>new images of child pornography go online every week.
>
>That is 20,000 new cases of child abuse and rape that go online every
>week. Through the internet, criminal gangs both at home and abroad are
>making money out of this misery.\x{201D}

And that is despite even possession of such images having been unlawful
for well over a decade. Do Moran and Moron seriously suppose that their
bill could stop this problem?

And, if they do, which parts of Cuckooland do they represent?

>A 10-minute rule bill allows MPs to put forward proposals for new laws
>at the beginning of Parliamentary business on Tuesdays and Wednesdays.
>Mrs Longhurst has been collecting a petition to ban the possession of
>extreme pornographic material including images of necrophilia and violence.
>The on-line petition can be accessed at www.jltrust.org.uk

I think we should all sign that, unless she has a clever program to
exclude names such as Donald Canard or Michael Souris...

--
< Paul >

Paul C. Dickie, 08 Nov 2005 04:39:50

In message <201033.1131388424484.JavaMail.root@thallium.smartgroups.com>
, pearl_maude1@hotmail.com wrote:
>Clean feed operates by filtering identified URLs, rather than by content
>indicators.

And thus it won't work.

>I wonder if we should support the use of systems like BT cleanfeed, which
>operates in the same way as other domestic control of obscene material -
>identify the material, block its distribution. But subject of course to an
>almighty argument another day about who and how those URLs are identified.

You'd still end up with a situation not unlike mainland China, where the
gerontocratic kakistocracy seeks to prevent access to any/all sites even
superficially involved with freedom of speech. Had the web and
"Cleanfeed" been around during the tenure of TBW in No.10, she'd have
sought to block all references to the IRA, the sinking of the Belgrano
or to 'Spycatcher'.

>It just seems to me that the corollary of opposing a possession offence is to
>support a mechanism for controlling distribution.

Not at all, for you seem to have fallen into the trap of deeming
censorship of images and/or control of thought to be desirable.

Once you allow that to be done, where (and *how*) does it stop?

>Unless of course one wants to argue that there should be no censorship
>whatsoever. As much many here may hold that belief, its not a good tactic for
>opposing this particular proposal; it would require a repeal of the OPA.

Not at all; the present situation is not too bad and the law would be
better left alone. It's not actually busted so it's daft to fix it.

>Don't crucify me for supporting censorship. This is nothing to do with my
>personal opinions, It's a strategic suggestion.

It's a strategy that leads straight to "1984".

--
< Paul >

Paul C. Dickie, 08 Nov 2005 04:40:53

In message <1858209.1131389161635.JavaMail.root@thallium.smartgroups.com
>, pearl_maude1@hotmail.com wrote:
>Author wrote:
>> Actually - and possibly - a tactical mistake by their campaign. Ten-minute
>bills don't tend to get through. They allow an issue to be aired, allow the fan
>club around a particular bill to identify itself - but also begins to shake out
>the opposition.
>
>I can't imagine the proposal to use Clean feed to block child porn is going to
>shake out much, if any, opposition.

It might shake out those (if any) who understand Cleanfeed and who
therefore appreciate why it won't and can't work.

--
< Paul >

clare, 08 Nov 2005 07:48:42

Can you explain why the fact that Cleanfeed won't work is a bad thing? From our point of view.

Author wrote:
> In message <1858209.1131389161635.JavaMail.root@thallium.smartgroups.com
> >, pearl_maude1@hotmail.com wrote:
> >Author wrote:
> >> Actually - and possibly - a tactical mistake by their campaign. Ten-minute
> >bills don't tend to get through. They allow an issue to be aired, allow the fan
> >club around a particular bill to identify itself - but also begins to shake out
> >the opposition.
> >
> >I can't imagine the proposal to use Clean feed to block child porn is going to
> >shake out much, if any, opposition.
> It might shake out those (if any) who understand Cleanfeed and who
> therefore appreciate why it won't and can't work.
> --
> < Paul >

clare, 08 Nov 2005 08:16:27

Author wrote:
> In message <201033.1131388424484.JavaMail.root@thallium.smartgroups.com>
> , pearl_maude1@hotmail.com wrote:
> >Clean feed operates by filtering identified URLs, rather than by content
> >indicators.
> And thus it won't work.

And that is a bad thing, why?

> Not at all, for you seem to have fallen into the trap of deeming
> censorship of images and/or control of thought to be desirable.
> Once you allow that to be done, where (and *how*) does it stop?

Not at all. And I said so clearly. It's not helpful to diss a discussion that a position could be strategically useful by hysterical suggestions that I am suddenly pro-thought control.

As you said in another post, they will also use cleenfeed to block sites that glorify terrorism. Have you not noticed that there is a substantial and widespread concern about that Bill? Do you really think they are going to get away with the IWF deciding what amounts to glorification of terrorism.

> Not at all; the present situation is not too bad and the law would be
> better left alone. It's not actually busted so it's daft to fix it.

Do you mean the present situation under the OPA? Or what?

Apart from repeating loudly that you think there should be no censorship at all, how would you answer the question "But the OPA is already law. How do you justify material on the internet being excluded from existing laws that cover other media?"

All the responses on this thread just say "censorship is bad".... well duh!!

So is self-censorship under fear of prison.

None of them you seem prepared to actually consider in a disapassionate way whether supporting something you don't like could to a better solution.

When I say that Margaret Moran thinks Cleanfeed is good, I don't for a moment suggest that she knows what she is talking about or is not an idiot. You're probably right, so what? I'm interested that we are seeing political support for a system that all you superior beings think won't work anyway.

If an opponent makes a bad point that could lead me to win, I don't trouble to point out that the point is bad.

> < Paul >

*** This message has been edited by clare on 08 Nov 2005 08:38:25 ***

SnowdropExplodes, 08 Nov 2005 16:00:45

--- "Paul C. Dickie"
wrote:

> >The purpose of the bill is to name and shame the
> providers which have
> >not cleaned up their act.
>
> And is about as sensible as that newspaper "name and
> shame" campaign
> which hounded a paediatrician out of house and home.

It's even less sensible than that - naming and shaming
would mean that all those ISPs who were "named and
shamed" would suddenly find that their subscribers
increased by hundreds of thousands overnight as all
the conspiracy theorists, porn-lovers and
civil-liberties campaigners flocked to sign up with an
ISP that stands for freedom of expression.

Talk about hare-brained schemes!

Ta,
SnowdropExplodes

___________________________________________________________
To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo! Security Centre. http://uk.security.yahoo.com

Paul C. Dickie, 08 Nov 2005 16:22:29

In message <7572793.1131437787278.JavaMail.root@thallium.smartgroups.com
>, pearl_maude1@hotmail.com wrote:
>Author wrote:
>> In message <201033.1131388424484.JavaMail.root@thallium.smartgroups.com>
>> , pearl_maude1@hotmail.com wrote:
>> >Clean feed operates by filtering identified URLs, rather than by content
>> >indicators.
>> And thus it won't work.
>And that is a bad thing, why?

It is "a bad thing" for two reasons:

1) you have already conceded that you believe the 'net should be
censored

2) the failure of that form of censorship would only encourage the
neopuritans whilst weakening any remaining opposition.

>> Not at all, for you seem to have fallen into the trap of deeming
>> censorship of images and/or control of thought to be desirable.
>> Once you allow that to be done, where (and *how*) does it stop?
>Not at all. And I said so clearly.

Did you?

Where?

What you actually wrote was, in part:

>>>Don't crucify me for supporting censorship. This is nothing to
>>>do with my personal opinions, It's a strategic suggestion

Please explain how supporting censorship does not mean deeming
censorship and/or thought control to be desirable. Do you willingly
support ideas that you consider to be undesirable?

>It's not helpful to diss a discussion that a position could be
>strategically useful by hysterical suggestions that I am
>suddenly pro-thought control.

Firstly, you seem confused about the respective meanings of "strategy"
and "tactics".

Secondly, I did not and would not "diss" anything, for I am not a
colonial and hence do not use their debased dialect of English.

Thirdly, my objections to this nonsense are not "hysterical".

Finally, I really do believe that you are politically rather naive.

>As you said in another post, they will also use cleenfeed to block sites that
>glorify terrorism. Have you not noticed that there is a substantial and
>widespread concern about that Bill? Do you really think they are going to get
>away with the IWF deciding what amounts to glorification of terrorism.

The Home Office and/or the rest of the 'government' would probably
*hope* that they might, for the IWF isn't even as accountable to them as
might be a quango. They could just reply to any/all questions about the
antics of the IWF that it had nothing to do with the 'government' and
that all questions about their activities should be directly addressed
to the IWF.

In other words, it would grant them absolute deniability.

>> Not at all; the present situation is not too bad and the law would be
>> better left alone. It's not actually busted so it's daft to fix it.
>Do you mean the present situation under the OPA? Or what?

Yes.

>Apart from repeating loudly that you think there should be no censorship at all,
>how would you answer the question "But the OPA is already law. How do you
>justify material on the internet being excluded from existing laws that cover
>other media?"

I remain to be convinced that material *is* available on the 'net that
would be excluded from the UK were it on other media.

And how would you excuse asking loaded and biased questions that are
framed in much the same way as those in the putative "consultation
document"?

>All the responses on this thread just say "censorship is bad".... well duh!!

Why do you seem to think it is worth supporting?

Do you still miss mummy holding your hand whenever you ventured forth
into the big, bad, wide world lest an ogre grab you when you
accidentally walked on a crack in the pavement?

>So is self-censorship under fear of prison.
>None of them you seem prepared to actually consider in a disapassionate way
>whether supporting something you don't like could to a better solution.

Is it really so difficult to understand that the lesser of two evils is
still inherently evil?

Bills introduced under the Ten Minute Rule hardly ever become law and I
cannot recall a single instance when such bills even got through their
second reading. Even with an abundance of public support, there would
be no way this bill would be passed, whilst any expression of support
would only help the gormless, the gogginses and the gormless Goggins.

--
< Paul >

Lothario, 08 Nov 2005 17:15:57

What's so wrong about ISPs deciding how they run their businesses and
how they present their offer to the public, and customers deciding for
themselves which ISP suits them best based on the criteria that matter
to them. This would include whether or not a particular ISP discloses
its filtering policy, and the nature of that policy if disclosed.

Why does this have to be yet another matter for government regulation?
If there is sufficient demand for "family-friendly" ISPs then the
market will provide them, while leaving space in the market for those
that don't want one.

I don't expect politicians to be able to understand complex technology
if they're not from a technological background. But I do expect them
to be able to commission research, take advice and understand the
social context of their proposals.

When presenting her bill, Margaret Moran said, "This is a wake-up call
to the slow learners in the ISP community." I think it's time we sent
a wake-up call to the slow learners in Parliament.

--
Lothario.

"I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death my right
to stop you saying it." - Charles Clarke (attributed)

Graham Marsden, 08 Nov 2005 17:42:23

Lothario wrote:

> What's so wrong about ISPs deciding how they run their businesses and
> how they present their offer to the public, and customers deciding for
> themselves which ISP suits them best based on the criteria that matter
> to them.

Nothing, however Moran's bill is talking about the government *forcing*
them to say if they use a filtering policy or be "named and shamed"
because if they don't then they'll be accused of supporting child abuse
and the spread of kiddie porn etc.

> Why does this have to be yet another matter for government regulation?

Because someone sees the opportunity to get her name in the papers and
making herself look good to the mass of public who have no real
comprehension of what she is proposing other than "ban kiddie porn = good".

> I don't expect politicians to be able to understand complex technology
> if they're not from a technological background. But I do expect them
> to be able to commission research, take advice and understand the
> social context of their proposals.

Excuse my cynical laughter...!

> When presenting her bill, Margaret Moran said, "This is a wake-up call
> to the slow learners in the ISP community." I think it's time we sent
> a wake-up call to the slow learners in Parliament.

Sounds like a good idea.

Cheers,
Graham.

Lothario, 08 Nov 2005 17:56:02

> Lothario wrote:
>
> > What's so wrong about ISPs deciding how they run their businesses and
> > how they present their offer to the public, and customers deciding for
> > themselves which ISP suits them best based on the criteria that matter
> > to them.
>
> Nothing, however Moran's bill is talking about the government *forcing*
> them to say if they use a filtering policy or be "named and shamed"
> because if they don't then they'll be accused of supporting child abuse
> and the spread of kiddie porn etc.

I'm opposing the proposal, not supporting it. Having read Moran's
speech, almost every point is either debatable, dubious or downright
wrong.

The idea that ISPs need to be forced by law to disclose their
filtering policies is ridiculous. Those that are keen to filter are
also keen to advertise the fact. Those that are not will do likewise.
Customers and prospective customers can make their own minds up about
an ISP that declines to answer the question. The need for regulation
here quite escapes me.

It's not the job of government to "name and shame" companies. If
there's something they think business should do or not do, they should
enact laws to mandate it, rather than leaving it to "choice" but
pillorying those that don't make the "right" choice.

It's just a pathetic attempt to mandate filtering without appearing to
be too repressive about it, thus avoiding a more fundamental debate.

> Excuse my cynical laughter...!

It's an aspiration, not an expectation!

Two things really rankle about this. First is the clear technological
illiteracy of it. Second is the shameless promotion of a specific
business.

At least it's only a ten minute rule bill. Such a short life for such
a stupid idea. But I suspect it'll be back, one way or another.

The BT salesmen that presented Clearfeed to Moran's Mob obviously got
their money's worth.

--
Lothario.

"I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death my right
to stop you saying it." - Charles Clarke (attributed)

clare, 09 Nov 2005 13:30:49

Author wrote:
> In message <7572793.1131437787278.JavaMail.root@thallium.smartgroups.com

> It is "a bad thing" for two reasons:
> 1) you have already conceded that you believe the 'net should be
> censored
> 2) the failure of that form of censorship would only encourage the
> neopuritans whilst weakening any remaining opposition.

Many MPs want to see a control on extreme material on the internet. I understood that was the nature of the opposition we face and that is what we have to overcome. Forgive me if that is naive.

The Consultation Paper presents these proposals as a way to fill a gap in the OPA that has arisen because of technological developments and will "control" material. We understand that the proposals do not do what is claimed. Some MP's seem to believe, in error, that the proposals would do what is claimed. For example Graham's MP.

Surely our job is to persuade MPs that this proposal doesn't actually do the thing that they believe should be achieved, but actually does something quite different. Certainly Graham's MP was arguing that he felt some form of control was necessary. Maybe you believe that all MPs will be content that the proposals do not achieve any control, but punish anyway. If you believe that, then I don't understand on what basis you think this campaign could ever succeed.

Maybe one way to attract MPs of that type, is to emphasize that these proposals will not control material, protect children etc. The MP will then ask himself, or us, well then if not by this means then how should control be addressed.

The answer to that is already on the Longhurst 4 point plan, and in the 10 minute bill. We know that opposing mandatory CleenFeed or similar is going to be our next task not very far into the future. However, from perspective of undermining these proposals the position that an internet problem has to be addressed by an internet solution, rather than by imprisoning those who have viewed, is our strongest card. Unless you have a better trump?

Does that mean supporting censorship? Not necessarily, no. It means taking a position that the question of net censorship needs to be addressed as a major public policy discussion, rather than by these incremental back door attacks on net users. It means saying "If you believe that material needs to be controlled, then the government needs to debate the needs and the means, in a public debate."

In that public debate we would be in a much stronger position than we are now. Part of the debate on glorification of terrorism is about whether the words are causative of any harm. The same point we make in this context.

Maybe it's naieve to think that our campaign could push for a full debate on net censorship. However, I thought there are a lot of groups that are equally concerned about that issue. It has wider appeal than being stuck on the sex aspect.

How do you get MPs to beleive that this proposal should be rejected in favour of addressing the real issues that concern them? Maybe one way is to say... punishment is not the answer. The answer you are looking for may be found in CleanFeed or similar solutions, but the net censorship that would result is a major public policy issue that should not be addressed in the context of terrorism, kiddie porn and extreme pornography. If the government is to sponsor a net censorship regime, it needs rational debate and an accountable body, with clear guidelines, that is influenced by changing social mores, in control of it.

This is the point you made about why the existing OPA is "not too bad".

> Please explain how supporting censorship does not mean deeming
> censorship and/or thought control to be desirable. Do you willingly
> support ideas that you consider to be undesirable?

Yes, if I think it can persuade an MP to reject this proposal because it doesn't actually achieve what he perceives to be necessary, and if it can lead to a fuller debate on net censorship in which we would have more allies.

Since we will face the net censorship debate anyway, I can only see advantages in using the necessity for that debate as a way to undermine the current proposals.

> >It's not helpful to diss a discussion that a position could be
> >strategically useful by hysterical suggestions that I am
> >suddenly pro-thought control.

> Firstly, you seem confused about the respective meanings of "strategy"
> and "tactics".
> Secondly, I did not and would not "diss" anything, for I am not a
> colonial and hence do not use their debased dialect of English.

Apologies for my use of Queen's English. I am a colonial.

> Finally, I really do believe that you are politically rather naive.

Your basis for saying that appears to be that you believe the neocons will want and get both proposals anyway. In which case I am naive and you are defeatist. Or otherwise what is your preferred tactic?

> The Home Office and/or the rest of the 'government' would probably
> *hope* that they might, for the IWF isn't even as accountable to them as
> might be a quango. They could just reply to any/all questions about the
> antics of the IWF that it had nothing to do with the 'government' and
> that all questions about their activities should be directly addressed
> to the IWF.
> In other words, it would grant them absolute deniability.

Yes. That is an identified and major flaw with the IWF arrangement. Very few people seem to be aware of it outside the IT community. From what I can gather a lot of the IT community might not be aware of it. That is a major point that would be raised in the Campaign to have a full public debate on net censorship.

> >Apart from repeating loudly that you think there should be no censorship at all,
> >how would you answer the question "But the OPA is already law. How do you
> >justify material on the internet being excluded from existing laws that cover
> >other media?"

> And how would you excuse asking loaded and biased questions that are
> framed in much the same way as those in the putative "consultation
> document"?

Because I was playing devil's advocate. I am trying to approach this problem from seeing how the other side see it, and how to address their concerns in a way that broadens the territory to a place where we might have more chance of success.

> Do you still miss mummy holding your hand whenever you ventured forth
> into the big, bad, wide world lest an ogre grab you when you
> accidentally walked on a crack in the pavement?

I am not sure what you hope to achieve by this kind of comment. I thought we were on the same side, trying to work out what "tactics" might be productive.

> Is it really so difficult to understand that the lesser of two evils is
> still inherently evil?

No. It's easy. But the raising the lesser of the two evils with MPs might move the ground away from the greater evil and allow us to gather allies around the issue of the lesser evil.

If that fails, I would still regard the lesser of two evils as less evil.

Clare

*** This message has been edited by clare on 09 Nov 2005 14:29:30 ***

Lothario, 09 Nov 2005 14:26:41

The idea that this is "an internet problem that requires an internet
solution" is hopelessly simplistic. As we have seen in France, given
sufficient encouragement, cars burn. Is this "a car problem that
requires a car solution"? Of course not. It is a social problem that
requires a social and legal response. It doesn't require flameproof
cars.

Can I remind everyone that the position of Backlash is that this
proposed law addresses something that we do not consider to be a
problem?

We do not accept that there are some images so abhorrent that society
should not tolerate the people that view them. We do not accept that
viewing certain kinds of images causes people to go and harm others.

We say that people should be ethical in their (sexual) activity with
others based on consent. We say that there are sufficient laws and
mechanisms of control in place to prevent people causing harm to
others and to catch and punish those that offend.

By making tactical concessions, arguing the case of our opponents or
seeking to settle for the "lesser of two evils", we undermine the
entire principles behind our campaign. We alienate those that would be
our principled supporters by accepting the arguments of those that
seek to impose arbitrary repression of both free speech and
alternative sexuality.

The "Cleanfeed argument" is a technological variant of the "bobbies on
the beat" proposition. This says that to prevent crime, you need a
constant, visible police presence to act as a deterrent and to catch
offenders. But that is nonsense. Most people do not commit crime not
because of policing, but because their personal ethics tell them not
to, and because their personal needs are satisfied without having to
resort to crime. Thus, a call for more bobbies on the beat is a tacit
acknowlegement that some in society are ethically deficient and/or
socially deprived. It is also a call for limitless policing on the
basis that people cannot be trusted to behave themselves. It is, in
short, a recipe for a police state.

The various measures proposed to deal with the "problem" of
objectionable content on the internet take the same tack. Whether it's
Cleanfeed, laws on extreme pornography, mandatory client filtering or
whatever, the underlying proposition is that people cannot be trusted
to behave themselves and that society can only function properly under
strict, non-negotiable controls.

So rather than do the work of the repressive state for them, why don't we:

1. Make very clear that BDSMers have been at the forefront of
establishing sexual ethics, rather than trying to undermine them.

2. Challenge the dubious assumptions that Goggins, Moran and others
make about the links between some kinds of images and violent crime,
organised crime, etc.

3. Defend free speech so that people can discuss and understand things
on the basis of their personal experience and thus develop personal
ethics, rather than rely on policing to regulate their behaviour.

4. Leave no-one in any doubt that the various measures proposed are
solutions in search of a problem, rather than disagreeable solutions
to a problem that we acknowledge.

--
Lothario.

"I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death my right
to stop you saying it." - Charles Clarke (attributed)

clare, 09 Nov 2005 14:48:09

Author wrote:
> The idea that this is "an internet problem that requires an internet
> solution" is hopelessly simplistic.

> Can I remind everyone that the position of Backlash is that this
> proposed law addresses something that we do not consider to be a
> problem?

But "they" do. Are you not prepared to design your arguments to be attractive to your audience in order to increase your chance of persuading them?

> So rather than do the work of the repressive state for them

If you read my post carefully, you would have seen that was not what I was proposing.

None of your points 1 to 4 are inconsistent with my proposal. They are additional.

> 1. Make very clear that BDSMers have been at the forefront of
> establishing sexual ethics, rather than trying to undermine them.
> 2. Challenge the dubious assumptions that Goggins, Moran and others
> make about the links between some kinds of images and violent crime,
> organised crime, etc.
> 3. Defend free speech so that people can discuss and understand things
> on the basis of their personal experience and thus develop personal
> ethics, rather than rely on policing to regulate their behaviour.
> 4. Leave no-one in any doubt that the various measures proposed are
> solutions in search of a problem, rather than disagreeable solutions
> to a problem that we acknowledge.
> --
> Lothario.
> "I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death my right
> to stop you saying it." - Charles Clarke (attributed)

*** This message has been edited by clare on 09 Nov 2005 14:51:05 ***

Lothario, 09 Nov 2005 15:32:06

On 11/9/05, pearl_maude1@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> > Can I remind everyone that the position of Backlash is that this
> > proposed law addresses something that we do not consider to be a
> > problem?
>
> But they do. Are you not prepared to design your arguments to be attractive to your audience in order to increase your chance of persuading them?

Of course. But persuading them of what? I'm not interested in
persuading anyone that a technological method of controlling "extreme
pornography" is a better approach than locking up people for
possession, when I don't believe that such material causes harm to
anyone and does not require regulation of any kind.

I want to make very certain that I haven't misunderstood you.

Your original post said,

"It just seems to me that the corollary of opposing a possession
offence is to support a mechanism for controlling distribution. Unless
of course one wants to argue that there should be no censorship
whatsoever. As much many here may hold that belief, its not a good
tactic for opposing this particular proposal; it would require a
repeal of the OPA."

If the corollary of opposing a possession offence is to support a
mechanism for controlling distribution, we would have "legalise
cannabis" campaigners opposing simple possession laws while at the
same time supporting the criminalisation of growing and importing the
stuff.

You seem to accept that "extreme pornography" is a problem about which
something must be done. Your only dispute with the proposal is that
criminalisation of possession is less effective than controlling
supply.

This campaign is not about opposing censorship of all things, though
some here would agree with that idea. It is about opposing all
censorship of the materials that come within the scope of the "extreme
pornography" proposal. The immediate threat is the proposed law.
Different laws to mandate technological control are just as bad and
need to be opposed likewise, but there is no serious attempt to
implement one at present. Longer term, I'm sure many people would like
to look again at the OPA, but that is a battle that will have to wait
for another day.

--
Lothario.

"I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death my right
to stop you saying it." - Charles Clarke (attributed)

SnowdropExplodes, 09 Nov 2005 15:50:34

--- pearl_maude1@hotmail.com wrote:

>
>
> Author wrote:
> > The idea that this is "an internet problem that
> requires an internet
> > solution" is hopelessly simplistic.
>
> > Can I remind everyone that the position of
> Backlash is that this
> > proposed law addresses something that we do not
> consider to be a
> > problem?
>
> But they do. Are you not prepared to design your
> arguments to be attractive to your audience in order
> to increase your chance of persuading them?
>

The challenge before us is to convince them otherwise,
or at least place sufficient reasons before them that
they may question their prejudiced opinion.

At the moment, their mindset is that, "This is evil
and bad and must be stopped somehow". If we concede
on something like CleenFeed, then we allow them to
retain that mindset, rather than challenging it.

If we allow them to go on believing that, "This is
evil and bad and must be stopped somehow", then we
allow them to have the same argument in favour of the
Home Office proposals that we are fighting. After
all, if it is evil and bad, then *any* measure that
might have a chance of reducing its flow into the
country (and the law may very well scare of many
customers, if not a majority of them) is worth
pursuing.

So we would have conceded moral ground without gaining
any clear advantage, since we would have actually
surrendered our main argument outside the basic
"freedom of expression" argument, which is that
consensual BDSM activities, or creating depictions of
non-consensual activities with consensually
participating actors, are not evil or bad.

Some of us, myself included, see Backlash as at the
spearhead of a new campaign to see BDSM become more
legitimised within society, or at least within British
law. When I wrote to my MP, I specifically made a
case both for parliament to legislate out of existence
the Spanner judgement as well as arguing against the
current proposals; the result of which was a very
positive response by my MP, from the point of view of
our campaign.

If we publicly concede (or even, generally concede in
messages to MPs) that actually, this is stuff that
should not be allowed, then that hobbles any chance of
putting BDSM on a better footing at the end of the
day.

It seems to me that what you are arguing for is a
Pyrrhic victory at best ("another such victory and we
are lost!") and that the BDSM community would find
itself facing scorched earth in any future campaign to
gain better acceptance and recognition.

It would also mean betraying the civil-liberties wing
of this campaign, and so potentially deny the BDSMers
useful allies in those putative future campaigns.

All so that we can accept the lesser of two evils.

*****

I am reminded of a joke about the 1967 war between
Israel and the Arab States:

Arab leader: "What went wrong? Was the Soviet
weaponry not up to the task?"

Arab general: "No, the weapons were fine. It was
their military textbooks that let us down."

Arab leader: "In what way?"

Arab general: "They said, 'Step 1: Retreat into your
own territory. Step 2: Wait for the winter snows'."

*****

This is what conceding ground on something like
CleenFeed looks like to me.

Ta,
SnowdropExplodes

___________________________________________________________
Yahoo! Messenger - NEW crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with voicemail http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com

Paul C. Dickie, 09 Nov 2005 15:57:47