Sections
Advertising
Information
IRC Introduction
Introduction
What
is IRC?
IRC
Software
Installing
IRC Software
IRC
Tutorial
mIRC
Basics Article
Connecting
to an IRC Network
Making
Smileys :)
Etiquette
Internet Based
Internet Safety
Safety
Kids
Safety'
Handling
Abusers
Meeting
in Person
Relocating
"Posers"
Safety Articles
Internet
Scams AskMSN
Online
and Real Life Relationships by Caryl
Safety Software
News
Find out the latest in chat related issues.
Information for Operators and Internet Service Providers.
If You Find a
Link That is Not to a Chat Room, or Have any Other Concerns About a Link,
Please
Let Us Know
JOIN OUR
MESSAGE
BOARD
IRC has basically been an unmoderated and unmediated medium for as long as I have been on it. The reason for this is that most IRC networks are all voluntary. The few that aren't are really small and (quite frankly) aren't that good a place to chat.
Adding real-life police to the situation would not only cost more money than I think the networks could afford, and it would demand constant resources. It would also require major modifications to the network's setup, because these police have to have a special userlevel or something (userlevel as in something like @, +, and all the other symbols -- but the symbol has to be
unused by anyone but the police).In an open protocol like IRC, it would be really hard to make everybody allow police in and give them a special mode without breaking the protocol in some manner. With a closed protocol, like MSN Chat's protocol, it would be rather easy to add some sort of police "icon", because they have full control over who uses their protocol and in what way.
While I think IRC cops are a good idea in general, I personally wouldn't want to be talked to/arrested for talking about something that's mildly illegal (you know, like, a misdeameanor). So, in my opinion, there should be some rules for the cops,
too. You know, like, you can only use the information gained here against child predators, but not against any other party. I've
always thought of IRC as a place where you can be free and speak your mind, and I sure hope it stays that way. I personally
don't think it'd be cool or fair for me to mention something illegal (examples: file sharing, explosives, etc.) and suddenly have to
figure out if a cop saw it or not. You know, kind of how you look in your mirrors when you do something illegal in your car
(run a stop sign), to see if a cop saw it. That's not at all cool, but I suppose that if they were clearly designated, and it was very
clear a cop was there and monitoring, I wouldn't have too big a problem with it. I just don't want the police to have "free reign"
over the server.P.S. If you want to print this, let me know (saw your post on alt.irc)
--
Keith Gable
Lead Programmer of the Ignition Project
http://www.ignition-project.com/
ICBM: 35.540383, -94.988756
Philippians 4:13 :: Worldwide English (New Testament): I can do all things because Christ gives me strengthSubject:
As an admin
Date:
Wed, 23 Jun 2004 20:39:00 -0400
From:
"bscabl"
Of 2 networks, I will not support this invasion of irc...
Irc is an international medium and isnt subject to Bush's laws... And ill be
the first person to ban any "uni" I see
Subject:
con concerning the patrolling of chat rooms via a virtual cop.
Date:
Thu, 24 Jun 2004 20:07:44 -0400
From:
droolin
I think this would be a good idea if it could be administered properly
and the officer could be identified without a doubt to his authority
and personality. But I forsee many problems of this being affective.
The problems that I forsee in something like this are just off the top
of my head.
1). The identification of this virtual cop.
I would think that there would have to be some type of
standardizations of difference IRCd's so that some type of digital
certificate could be used to identify these individuals and allow them
to only then use this icon/ircop status to identify themselves. And
that the only way this status could be achieved would be through this
electronic certificate identification. Unfortionally, because IRCd's
for the most part open source code I still do not see this being a
sure fire method, for open source code can be changed by any network
that has the technoligy to do so. And the requirement of a electronic
certificate for identification could be bypassed by the modification
of the code. Open source IRCD source is modified now for mnay
legitimate reasons. The requrements and special needs of any given
network.
2). How would this virtual cop identify that a predatory crime is happening?.
As you know, the converstaions that occur within an IRC chat room
are not all the conversations that are occuring. Many chatters appear
to be idle when they are actualy carrying on conversations in private.
Either via /msg, or via /dcc. The initiation of this conversation
doesnt even have to start in the channel where people can see. How
many of us have been in a chat room, and a nick joins and the first
thing you get is a /msg, /query, or /dcc chat without anything being
said in the channel from the nick. Shoot, I carry on most of my
conversations on in private with the people that I am friends with. I
actualy have evolved over the years where I enjoy conversing this way
more. I usualy have 4/5 windows open to different people that I am
yacking with. And I know people that have lots and lots more then
that.
So, unless this virtual cop is told about something that is
occuring. Or this virtual cop is able to monitor private
conversations. I do not see how the virutal cop would be able to be
truely affective. And, as much as I hate these sick individuals that
prey on children. I also value my personal privacy of conversing with
people. I personaly have initiated SSL connections on the network
that I am apart on due this firm beleif of privacy so that individuals
that wish to go the extra step in protecting their privacy can. Which
brings up another question, SSL/encrypted conversations? I have had
the unfortionate occurance to have to investigate accusations of
someone taking advantage of a underage child on IRC. Its hard to
gather evidence. Logs can be changed, if their are logs. It's hard,
its very hard to know when something like this is for real or not. As
I previously stated, most of these conversations occur in private and
not in any active channel.
3). Once a virtual cop has identified a predatory crime is occuring,
or has occured. How will they without a doubt identify the individual
doing this crime.
A request for this oppinion was placed on an IRC security
newsletter that was origionally created to combat attack bots and
individuals machines that have been exploited via virus's/trojens so
that attacks can occur against IRC networks.
It use to be that people hid their identify behind proxy's, which
were able to be detected via various defense's. Now with so many
machines being infected and exploited for all kinds of criminal
activity. Spam, ddos attacks, bot attacks, and what ever else I have
no idea about. How would a virtual cop know that the ip of the
individual being investigated for preditory crimes is the actual ip of
the person performing the crime. How many innocent people would go
into cardiac arrest, or be arrested and placed in prision due to their
computer being exploited by individuals unknown to them because their
computer has been infected with a virus or trojen. Even with people
that use up to date virus scanners, there are new variants comeing out
every day that are not caught by these virus scanners. We see this
problem on the IRC security newsletter with people trying to track
down various viri executables for analysis and their virus scanner not
identifying the executable/file as a virus.I have a daughter who is 12 years old. My daughter is an active
chatter as most 12 year olds are. My worse nightmare is to have
someone try to pull some type of crap on my child.
I think that the best method of catching these pigs would be multi steped.
1). Educate your child to always say their age, so that their are
question by anyone as to the age of the person that is chatting.
2). Educate your child on how to log the conversations so that if
anyone does try anything with them, that they can show you everything
that transpired. And these logs can be taken to the proper
authorities. This may require you placing a third party program on
your childs computer to log everything your child does, which would
need to be reviewed on a regular basis.
3). IRC networks creating or having in place proticols that
address any accusations or occurances of a child being preyed on. To
be truthfull, I still have no idea what these proticols would be. And
I have tried to read up on this, and have asked for advise on this.
If the authorities wanted to help IRC become a safer place for
children, they could assist in this area right now. Post a web site
for IRC admins on what can be done, how things can be made safer. Not
everything is apparent to everyone. This information being presented
as a sugested guide line would be appriceated I would think by the
network I am apart of. I just a lowley csop on our network.
4). Shoot, how about creating a IRC child safety newsletter where
admins and such can exchange ideas, known preditors, any anything else
that could assist in the safety of children. I know that the IRC
security newsletter is a gold mind of information for me for
monitoring what to watch out for, I do not see how a IRC child safety
newsletter would be anything else but that also.This is only my 2 cents worth. And the reason that I do not think a
virtual cop patrolling chat rooms is not because I dont think it
should be done. Just that it could be done properly. Something must
be done to assure the safety of our children while they are online.droolin
grunt, peon, general gopher of AwesomeChat.net
Subject:
Re: [IRC-Discussion] Feedback requested for an Op/Ed story
Date:
Thu, 24 Jun 2004 23:31:15 -0400
From:
"BarkerJr"
> A story recently appeared from Reuters, regarding a proposal to place
> "uniformed police" in certain chat rooms. The Reuters story is at:
> http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=internetNews&storyID=5381871
>
> Another write up appeared on CNN, at:
> http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/internet/06/09/crime.internet.reut/index.htmlIt sounds like a good idea. However, it could be a first step towards censoring
chatrooms. There are many networks (EFnet, for example) that pride themselves
on absolute freedom for users to do what they want to. With the exception of
damaging the network, of course.That aside, I don't see how it could be feasible to police chatrooms. According
to SearchIRC.com, there are nearly 600,000 chatrooms on public IRC networks
alone. It would take a lot of "beat cops" to police it. I'm also interested in
what these "cyber badges" or icons are. They sound more like Yahoo! chatrooms
than IRC.-BarkerJr
IRC Network Co-admin
_______________________________________________
IRC-Discussion mailing list
IRC-Discussion@lists.irc-unity.org
http://lists.irc-unity.org/mailman/listinfo/irc-discussion_lists.irc-unity.org
Subject:
RE: [IRC-Discussion] Feedback requested for an Op/Ed story
Date:
Fri, 25 Jun 2004 13:13:04 +0100
From:
"pak000"
The idea in theory is great, get some legal backing on irc in an attempt to
reduce this sort of crime, however putting it into practice is I would say
impossible with the complete coverage required.Firstly, and most obviously is the numbers required, there are far too many
chat rooms, far too many networks for the police to monitor. But lets
disregard this, lets say the police can come up with a computer bot that
will spot key phrases, trends in a conversation and highlight people that
need to be watched more carefully. I doubt very much doubt any predator is
going to grab a child in a public channel, more likely they will try to find
likely candidates, by talking normally in a public channel, then attempt
private messaging of the potential target. To get around this there would
have to be active monitoring of private conversations.Here enters a whole new grey area of legality - can the police monitor the
private messages on irc? The answer of course is roundabout, if the network
advertises the fact that they log all conversations then it is possibly
legal in some countries, but what networks are going to do this? What
decent network wants to invade the privacy of their users like this? What
users are going to accept this monitoring? You may find the odd network
that will be created specially for children, a "safe" environment that
watches over your kid and all that they do. This I can accept, it’s a niche
market and may work, I can personally see a company like AOL introducing it,
and charging. But here we come to where ultimate responsibility lies - the
parent.It is the parent that should control their child, they should monitor where
the child goes and make sure that they only visit safe places. The parent
should impress upon the child the importance of not disclosing any
information about themselves, not meeting strangers that they have met over
the internet. The majority I imagine do, they monitor their child as
closely as possible on the internet, they put blocks on various websites,
the block pictures containing too much skin, they try, but they can't be
there all the time, they can't anticpate everything. If someone really
wants to talk to the child they will. It is just a matter of will the child
listen and remember all of their parents warnings? A young child is naïve,
they see the best in everyone, everything.The parent must make a decision; do they want to protect the innocence of
their child? the state that the love so much, and have to watch over the
child until they are old enough to understand. Or, do they want to remove
that naivity, introduce the child to the harsh world that is out there?
This child will be safer, the parent will not have to watch so carefully,
but what of their childhood?In the real world, the only way I can see something like this working is by
creating an network solely for children, monitored 24/7 by police. Parents
would have to get their children to join that network only and no others.Identification as a police officer would use services of some sort, an
officer would login to the network and identify to services, services would
query a database at the police headquarters to confirm their identity. It
would not be possible to leave this in control of server admins as one could
easily be a person that children should be protected from.On the network they would essentially be an ircop, able to kill, gline,
kline and be able to look up ips (I'm from a network that hides them, and
this would be a good idea on any child safe network). They would have to
have contacts with all major isps, for quick lookups of who is actually on
the end of a computer, another legal minefieldThis leaves the other networks, places like efnet or my network, children
will still join them despite having their own place to go. So what do we
do? I can only say what I think would be the case on ZiRC, I have no idea
about other networks, but I cannot see ZiRC allowing this kind of control
for police officers, don't get me wrong, we would be willing to help police
if they came to the network and requested it from staff, but I would want
assurances, confirmation that they were actually police.So what is the way forward? I think there is a possibility for a network
run and monitored by police designed solely for children, with all the
safeguards that go with it - word filters, pm monitoring. There also needs
to be some form of easy worldwide identification of police credentials, so
operators from other networks can decide whether to respond to a request for
help or confidential information.Sorry about the continuous rambling blurb, am a little tired and can't think
too straightPak000
Services administrator
Routing committee
Irc.zirc.org-----Original Message-----
To: General discussion of IRC related issuesA story recently appeared from Reuters, regarding a proposal to place
"uniformed police" in certain chat rooms. The Reuters story is at:
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=internetNews&storyID=5381871Another write up appeared on CNN, at:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/internet/06/09/crime.internet.reut/index.htmlWhile the original intent is to go after Internet predators (which we agree
is a problem that needs to be dealt with), the proposal brings up a lot of
questions; how to implement this unless they have a good deal of cooperation
from the various networks, what kind of powers will they have within the
chat network, and how can they assure chat users the "officers" are real and
not posers.
We're interested in hearing opinions from Server Admins, IRCops, and anyone
using IRC. Unless requested, all comments will be sorted as to pro or con
and used in an Op/Ed story on Chatmag.com Just mark your comment "anon" and
we will not post it. Anonymous comments will be tallied but not reprinted.
Not all comments will be used as we cannot post every comment due to length
restrictions of the Op/Ed story.
_______________________________________________
IRC-Discussion mailing list
ISubject:
RE: [IRC-Discussion] Feedback requested for an Op/Ed story
Date:
Fri, 25 Jun 2004 13:42:34 +0100
From:
"Alex_SGR"
I personally have a feeling the person who proposed this system
has little to know detailed knowledge about the technical side of
that they are proposing. As has already been said, the system is
totally infeasible with two exceptions: Firstly, that a network
or company [e.g. Yahoo] sponsors and supports such a system -
then publicises the fact it is monitored. Or secondly, the 'cops'
in question join a specific set of supporting networks and
through legal mechanisms disallow access to all others.Of these, only the first option is realistic. Looking in more
detail, have the people who have suggested such a scheme looked
at the logistics of what would be required in even the smallest
scale implementation of this plan? Training for tens if not
hundreds of individuals - round the clock monitoring and
attention to the chat rooms in question. How could you monitor if
someone was 'grooming' in a private chat session without
breaching privacy - something guarded not only by law but by many
networks policies and core ethics? Furthermore, how are police to
actually stop any of this? Surely it will just move the problem
elsewhere on the internet - to different servers.What about the powers the police would have? As far as I'm aware
it takes quite a lot of evidence to prise customer information
from an ISP, and even then you need to of found someone who you
can prove has done or is deemed to be a significant threat. What
about those chatting via public proxy systems or bouncing through
compromised connections? How would one track them down unless
impersonating a victim? Even then, its not illegal in anyway to
ask someone you have spoken to over the web to meet you. No crime
has been committed.An implementation of this can be done - as I said, it would be
possible to have a monitored system, perhaps sponsored by a
company 'guarded' by police. Non the less, this is unlikely to
change anything in my opinion. Surely the best was is to EDUCATE
people in the risks and dangers of meeting people from internet
chat rooms. After all, we used to [and still do] teach kids how
to cross a road safely in schools. Why not lessons on using ICT
equipment safely too?Anyway, in summary, the current very broad suggestion would
appear to be utterly infeasible in implementing - from the
technical, social and legal views. I think this is the wrong
approach and that good awareness and education could be the way
forward. That said, there are other possibilities, i.e.. on IRC
for example, have the IRC server message both clients a warning
when they start a private message conversation - something like
"Remember: The person you are chatting to might not be who they
appear. Never give out your address, real name, phone number or
banking details over an IRC conversation". This is something MSN
messenger used to do (and I think still does). It is unlikely to
stop what's happening from happening - but it will help in a way
that can easily be implemented.Alex Forbes [UK]
-----Original Message-----
The idea in theory is great, get some legal backing on irc in an
attempt to
reduce this sort of crime, however putting it into practice is I
would say
impossible with the complete coverage required.Firstly, and most obviously is the numbers required, there are
far too many
chat rooms, far too many networks for the police to monitor. But
lets
disregard this, lets say the police can come up with a computer
bot that
will spot key phrases, trends in a conversation and highlight
people that
need to be watched more carefully. I doubt very much doubt any
predator is
going to grab a child in a public channel, more likely they will
try to find
likely candidates, by talking normally in a public channel, then
attempt
private messaging of the potential target. To get around this
there would
have to be active monitoring of private conversations.Here enters a whole new grey area of legality - can the police
monitor the
private messages on irc? The answer of course is roundabout, if
the network
advertises the fact that they log all conversations then it is
possibly
legal in some countries, but what networks are going to do this?
What
decent network wants to invade the privacy of their users like
this? What
users are going to accept this monitoring? You may find the odd
network
that will be created specially for children, a "safe" environment
that
watches over your kid and all that they do. This I can accept,
it’s a niche
market and may work, I can personally see a company like AOL
introducing it,
and charging. But here we come to where ultimate responsibility
lies - the
parent.It is the parent that should control their child, they should
monitor where
the child goes and make sure that they only visit safe places.
The parent
should impress upon the child the importance of not disclosing
any
information about themselves, not meeting strangers that they
have met over
the internet. The majority I imagine do, they monitor their
child as
closely as possible on the internet, they put blocks on various
websites,
the block pictures containing too much skin, they try, but they
can't be
there all the time, they can't anticpate everything. If someone
really
wants to talk to the child they will. It is just a matter of
will the child
listen and remember all of their parents warnings? A young child
is naïve,
they see the best in everyone, everything.The parent must make a decision; do they want to protect the
innocence of
their child? the state that the love so much, and have to watch
over the
child until they are old enough to understand. Or, do they want
to remove
that naivity, introduce the child to the harsh world that is out
there?
This child will be safer, the parent will not have to watch so
carefully,
but what of their childhood?In the real world, the only way I can see something like this
working is by
creating an network solely for children, monitored 24/7 by
police. Parents
would have to get their children to join that network only and no
others.Identification as a police officer would use services of some
sort, an
officer would login to the network and identify to services,
services would
query a database at the police headquarters to confirm their
identity. It
would not be possible to leave this in control of server admins
as one could
easily be a person that children should be protected from.On the network they would essentially be an ircop, able to kill,
gline,
kline and be able to look up ips (I'm from a network that hides
them, and
this would be a good idea on any child safe network). They would
have to
have contacts with all major isps, for quick lookups of who is
actually on
the end of a computer, another legal minefieldThis leaves the other networks, places like efnet or my network,
children
will still join them despite having their own place to go. So
what do we
do? I can only say what I think would be the case on ZiRC, I
have no idea
about other networks, but I cannot see ZiRC allowing this kind of
control
for police officers, don't get me wrong, we would be willing to
help police
if they came to the network and requested it from staff, but I
would want
assurances, confirmation that they were actually police.So what is the way forward? I think there is a possibility for a
network
run and monitored by police designed solely for children, with
all the
safeguards that go with it - word filters, pm monitoring. There
also needs
to be some form of easy worldwide identification of police
credentials, so
operators from other networks can decide whether to respond to a
request for
help or confidential information.Sorry about the continuous rambling blurb, am a little tired and
can't think
too straightPak000
Services administrator
Routing committee
Irc.zirc.org-----Original Message-----
A story recently appeared from Reuters, regarding a proposal to
place
"uniformed police" in certain chat rooms. The Reuters story is
at:
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=internetNews&storyI
D=5381871Another write up appeared on CNN, at:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/internet/06/09/crime.internet.reut/i
ndex.htmlWhile the original intent is to go after Internet predators
(which we agree
is a problem that needs to be dealt with), the proposal brings up
a lot of
questions; how to implement this unless they have a good deal of
cooperation
from the various networks, what kind of powers will they have
within the
chat network, and how can they assure chat users the "officers"
are real and
not posers.
We're interested in hearing opinions from Server Admins, IRCops,
and anyone
using IRC. Unless requested, all comments will be sorted as to
pro or con
and used in an Op/Ed story on Chatmag.com Just mark your comment
"anon" and
we will not post it. Anonymous comments will be tallied but not
reprinted.
Not all comments will be used as we cannot post every comment due
to length
restrictions of the Op/Ed story.Please send your comments to feedback@chatmag.com or post them
here :)Thanks,
Pete
---
Peter J. Carr
Owner
Chatmag.com_______________________________________________
IRC-Discussion mailing list
IRC-Discussion@lists.irc-unity.org
http://lists.irc-unity.org/mailman/listinfo/irc-discussion_lists.
irc-unity.o
rg
Subject:
RE: [IRC-Discussion] Feedback requested for an Op/Ed story
Date:
Fri, 25 Jun 2004 16:01:19 +0100
From:
"Alex_SGR"
Apologies at that glaring grammatical error in the 1st sentence
of my last reply, obviously 'know' was meant to be 'no'.I should proof-read before hitting submit :P
From:
"Chris ."
Hi,
I think this is inherently problematic. Now, from the technical side, and
perspective of the IRC network, it would be easy to have a specific user
mode for the police, identifying them as such, give them access to real IP
addresses, like operators see, and provide general support. They might also
look into issues of hacking, DDos, and similar "crimes" perpetrated online,
where IRC is typically the conduit groups engaging in this conduct meet and
conspire from.The issues, however, comes from an enforcement perspective once someone is
detected. Law enforcement is jurisdictionally based. Federal agents
(secret service, FBI) are restricted to enforcing federal crimes. State and
local agents are similarly restricted. Laws from jurisdiction to
jurisdiction are different, and most are locally based. Federal crimes
generally require a jurisdictional hook and widespread activity. If someone
is doing something that is illegal somewhere else, but not where they
reside, you get into due process and jurisdiction. This is especially
complicated in an international setting, especially where the U.S.
government is loathe to allow foreign governments the ability to arrest and
extradict U.S. citizens in this type of setting.If mere chat is being monitored, at least within the United States, you get
into First Amendment issues (freedom of speech, freedom to associate). Look
at the U.S. Supreme Court case of Library Association v. Reno, for example.
Moreover, putting law enforcement openly and notoriously in chat mediums
doesn't really catch the predators -- you need to be far more sneaky to pull
that off.Where I live, for instance, we have pandering laws, often enforced where
agents go undercover, posing as a minor, and arrange a meeting with the
would-be perpetrator. At the meeting, the would-be peadophile is arrested.
It is the act of going to the meeting, and not the chat about such conduct
that is the proscribed conduct. The issue is that international treaties
would need to be enacted to serve as the basis for this type of operation.
I, however, have advocated international criminal laws regarding Internet
crimes due to the hairy jurisdictional issues currently in place, with
special courts set up to specifically deal with these types of crimes. To
enact such a thing, countries would need to give up some sovereignty, which
is unlikely to happen.Chris Wiest
admin, bohica.tx.us.austnet.org
(J.D., University of Cincinnati College of Law)
>From: "Kevin J Pledger"
>Subject: [Austnet/Admin] FW: Police on IRC
>Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2004 10:27:12 +0800
>
>
>Hi All,
>
>Do we have any comments on these articles ..
>
>I think we should discuss this and then give our views, but
>collectively. Once everyone has had their say, AustNet as a Network will
>Officially reply.
>
>kevin
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Dathi Oxencroft
>Sent: Friday, June 25, 2004 07:03
>To: Kevin
>Subject: Police on IRC
>
>
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>
>Hi Kev,
>
>This may interest you, or other austnet admins.
>
>- ---------- Forwarded Message ----------
>
>Subject: [IRC-Discussion] Feedback requested for an Op/Ed story
>Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2004 10:50 am
>From: Pete Carr
>To: "General discussion of IRC related issues (except security.. use the
>
>other list)" <IRC-Discussion@lists.irc-unity.org>
>
>A story recently appeared from Reuters, regarding a proposal to place
>"uniformed police" in certain chat rooms. The Reuters story is at:
>http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=internetNews&storyID=53818
>71
>
>Another write up appeared on CNN, at:
>http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/internet/06/09/crime.internet.reut/index.ht
>ml
>
>While the original intent is to go after Internet predators (which we
>agree is a problem that needs to be dealt with), the proposal brings up
>a lot of questions; how to implement this unless they have a good deal
>of cooperation from the various networks, what kind of powers will they
>have within the chat network, and how can they assure chat users the
>"officers" are real and not posers.
>
>
>
>We're interested in hearing opinions from Server Admins, IRCops, and
>anyone using IRC. Unless requested, all comments will be sorted as to
>pro or con and used in an Op/Ed story on Chatmag.com Just mark your
>comment "anon" and we will not post it. Anonymous comments will be
>tallied but not reprinted. Not all comments will be used as we cannot
>post every comment due to length restrictions of the Op/Ed story.
>
>Please send your comments to feedback@chatmag.com or post them here :)
>
>Thanks,
>
>Pete
>
>- ---
>Peter J. Carr
>Owner
>Chatmag.com
>
>
>
>- --
>o--------------- Dathi E Oxencroft ----- Australia -----------------:)
> CompTIA A+, Network+
> If one learns from others but does not think, one will be bewildered
> If one thinks but does not learn from others, one will be in peril
> -Confucius
>
>
>
>
Subject:
RE: [IRC-Discussion] Feedback requested for an Op/Ed story
Date:
Fri, 25 Jun 2004 13:33:28 -0500 (CDT)
From:
Anthony
Hmm Here's a question. How many people here actually "WANT" their network
'policed' by outside sources? What of the privacy issues at stake?
Forget the logistics for a moment, think about the atmosphere... Where
would said 'policing' stop? child porn? yeah we all hate that... but does
everyone else get monitored for their other words and actions; no matter
how benign? Where does it stop? I don't want it, nor do I need it. I'm
not looking to be quoted, just pointing out a few things.
On Fri, 25 Jun 2004, Alex_SGR wrote:
> I personally have a feeling the person who proposed this system
> has little to know detailed knowledge about the technical side of
> that they are proposing. As has already been said, the system is
> totally infeasible with two exceptions: Firstly, that a network
> or company [e.g. Yahoo] sponsors and supports such a system -
> then publicises the fact it is monitored. Or secondly, the 'cops'
> in question join a specific set of supporting networks and
> through legal mechanisms disallow access to all others.
>
> Of these, only the first option is realistic. Looking in more
> detail, have the people who have suggested such a scheme looked
> at the logistics of what would be required in even the smallest
> scale implementation of this plan? Training for tens if not
> hundreds of individuals - round the clock monitoring and
> attention to the chat rooms in question. How could you monitor if
> someone was 'grooming' in a private chat session without
> breaching privacy - something guarded not only by law but by many
> networks policies and core ethics? Furthermore, how are police to
> actually stop any of this? Surely it will just move the problem
> elsewhere on the internet - to different servers.
>
> What about the powers the police would have? As far as I'm aware
> it takes quite a lot of evidence to prise customer information
> from an ISP, and even then you need to of found someone who you
> can prove has done or is deemed to be a significant threat. What
> about those chatting via public proxy systems or bouncing through
> compromised connections? How would one track them down unless
> impersonating a victim? Even then, its not illegal in anyway to
> ask someone you have spoken to over the web to meet you. No crime
> has been committed.
>
> An implementation of this can be done - as I said, it would be
> possible to have a monitored system, perhaps sponsored by a
> company 'guarded' by police. Non the less, this is unlikely to
> change anything in my opinion. Surely the best was is to EDUCATE
> people in the risks and dangers of meeting people from internet
> chat rooms. After all, we used to [and still do] teach kids how
> to cross a road safely in schools. Why not lessons on using ICT
> equipment safely too?
>
> Anyway, in summary, the current very broad suggestion would
> appear to be utterly infeasible in implementing - from the
> technical, social and legal views. I think this is the wrong
> approach and that good awareness and education could be the way
> forward. That said, there are other possibilities, i.e.. on IRC
> for example, have the IRC server message both clients a warning
> when they start a private message conversation - something like
> "Remember: The person you are chatting to might not be who they
> appear. Never give out your address, real name, phone number or
> banking details over an IRC conversation". This is something MSN
> messenger used to do (and I think still does). It is unlikely to
> stop what's happening from happening - but it will help in a way
> that can easily be implemented.
>
> Alex Forbes [UK]
>
>
> On Behalf Of
> pak000
> Sent: 25 June 2004 13:13
> To: 'General discussion of IRC related issues (except security..
> usetheother list)'
> Subject: RE: [IRC-Discussion] Feedback requested for an Op/Ed
> story
>
>
> The idea in theory is great, get some legal backing on irc in an
> attempt to
> reduce this sort of crime, however putting it into practice is I
> would say
> impossible with the complete coverage required.
>
> Firstly, and most obviously is the numbers required, there are
> far too many
> chat rooms, far too many networks for the police to monitor. But
> lets
> disregard this, lets say the police can come up with a computer
> bot that
> will spot key phrases, trends in a conversation and highlight
> people that
> need to be watched more carefully. I doubt very much doubt any
> predator is
> going to grab a child in a public channel, more likely they will
> try to find
> likely candidates, by talking normally in a public channel, then
> attempt
> private messaging of the potential target. To get around this
> there would
> have to be active monitoring of private conversations.
>
> Here enters a whole new grey area of legality - can the police
> monitor the
> private messages on irc? The answer of course is roundabout, if
> the network
> advertises the fact that they log all conversations then it is
> possibly
> legal in some countries, but what networks are going to do this?
> What
> decent network wants to invade the privacy of their users like
> this? What
> users are going to accept this monitoring? You may find the odd
> network
> that will be created specially for children, a "safe" environment
> that
> watches over your kid and all that they do. This I can accept,
> it’s a niche
> market and may work, I can personally see a company like AOL
> introducing it,
> and charging. But here we come to where ultimate responsibility
> lies - the
> parent.
>
> It is the parent that should control their child, they should
> monitor where
> the child goes and make sure that they only visit safe places.
> The parent
> should impress upon the child the importance of not disclosing
> any
> information about themselves, not meeting strangers that they
> have met over
> the internet. The majority I imagine do, they monitor their
> child as
> closely as possible on the internet, they put blocks on various
> websites,
> the block pictures containing too much skin, they try, but they
> can't be
> there all the time, they can't anticpate everything. If someone
> really
> wants to talk to the child they will. It is just a matter of
> will the child
> listen and remember all of their parents warnings? A young child
> is naïve,
> they see the best in everyone, everything.
>
> The parent must make a decision; do they want to protect the
> innocence of
> their child? the state that the love so much, and have to watch
> over the
> child until they are old enough to understand. Or, do they want
> to remove
> that naivity, introduce the child to the harsh world that is out
> there?
> This child will be safer, the parent will not have to watch so
> carefully,
> but what of their childhood?
>
> In the real world, the only way I can see something like this
> working is by
> creating an network solely for children, monitored 24/7 by
> police. Parents
> would have to get their children to join that network only and no
> others.
>
> Identification as a police officer would use services of some
> sort, an
> officer would login to the network and identify to services,
> services would
> query a database at the police headquarters to confirm their
> identity. It
> would not be possible to leave this in control of server admins
> as one could
> easily be a person that children should be protected from.
>
> On the network they would essentially be an ircop, able to kill,
> gline,
> kline and be able to look up ips (I'm from a network that hides
> them, and
> this would be a good idea on any child safe network). They would
> have to
> have contacts with all major isps, for quick lookups of who is
> actually on
> the end of a computer, another legal minefield
>
> This leaves the other networks, places like efnet or my network,
> children
> will still join them despite having their own place to go. So
> what do we
> do? I can only say what I think would be the case on ZiRC, I
> have no idea
> about other networks, but I cannot see ZiRC allowing this kind of
> control
> for police officers, don't get me wrong, we would be willing to
> help police
> if they came to the network and requested it from staff, but I
> would want
> assurances, confirmation that they were actually police.
>
> So what is the way forward? I think there is a possibility for a
> network
> run and monitored by police designed solely for children, with
> all the
> safeguards that go with it - word filters, pm monitoring. There
> also needs
> to be some form of easy worldwide identification of police
> credentials, so
> operators from other networks can decide whether to respond to a
> request for
> help or confidential information.
>
> Sorry about the continuous rambling blurb, am a little tired and
> can't think
> too straight
>
> Pak000
> Services administrator
> Routing committee
> Irc.zirc.org
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: IRC-Discussion-bounces@lists.irc-unity.org
> [mailto:IRC-Discussion-bounces@lists.irc-unity.org] On Behalf Of
> Pete Carr
> Sent: 25 June 2004 01:51
> To: General discussion of IRC related issues (except security..
> use the
> other list)
> Subject: [IRC-Discussion] Feedback requested for an Op/Ed story
>
> A story recently appeared from Reuters, regarding a proposal to
> place
> "uniformed police" in certain chat rooms. The Reuters story is
> at:
> http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=internetNews&storyI
> D=5381871
>
> Another write up appeared on CNN, at:
> http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/internet/06/09/crime.internet.reut/i
> ndex.html
>
> While the original intent is to go after Internet predators
> (which we agree
> is a problem that needs to be dealt with), the proposal brings up
> a lot of
> questions; how to implement this unless they have a good deal of
> cooperation
> from the various networks, what kind of powers will they have
> within the
> chat network, and how can they assure chat users the "officers"
> are real and
> not posers.
>
>
>
> We're interested in hearing opinions from Server Admins, IRCops,
> and anyone
> using IRC. Unless requested, all comments will be sorted as to
> pro or con
> and used in an Op/Ed story on Chatmag.com Just mark your comment
> "anon" and
> we will not post it. Anonymous comments will be tallied but not
> reprinted.
> Not all comments will be used as we cannot post every comment due
> to length
> restrictions of the Op/Ed story.
>
> Please send your comments to feedback@chatmag.com or post them
> here :)
>
> Thanks,
>
> Pete
>
> ---
> Peter J. Carr
> Owner
> Chatmag.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> IRC-Discussion mailing list
> IRC-Discussion@lists.irc-unity.org
> http://lists.irc-unity.org/mailman/listinfo/irc-discussion_lists.
> irc-unity.o
> rg
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> IRC-Discussion mailing list
> IRC-Discussion@lists.irc-unity.org
> http://lists.irc-unity.org/mailman/listinfo/irc-discussion_lists.
> irc-unity.org
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> IRC-Discussion mailing list
> IRC-Discussion@lists.irc-unity.org
> http://lists.irc-unity.org/mailman/listinfo/irc-discussion_lists.irc-unity.org
>_______________________________________________
IRC-Discussion mailing list
IRC-Discussion@lists.irc-unity.org
http://lists.irc-unity.org/mailman/listinfo/irc-discussion_lists.irc-unity.org
Subject:
RE: [IRC-Discussion] Feedback requested for an Op/Ed story
Date:
Fri, 25 Jun 2004 20:37:46 +0100
From:
"Alex_SGR" <Alex_SGR@NTLWORLD.com>
Reply-To:
"General discussion of IRC related issues \(except security.. use the other list\)" <IRC-Discussion@lists.irc-unity.org>
To:
"General discussion of IRC related issues \(except security.. usethe other list\)" <IRC-Discussion@lists.irc-unity.org>
Though I don't deny I might object to my private conversations
being monitored; for me personally its not a *huge* issue. Being
someone who abides by a strict moral code, meaning I would never
wilfully break the law [Except in exceptional and necessary
circumstances] - I don't see a major issue with my "private"
IRC/Chat messages being monitored by a trusted 3rd party.One can always hide their identify on IRC should they wish - at
least to the extent that the average person can't uncover who
they are without significant time and effort. Of course, if the
police needed to in this scenario, they could, but for reasons
mentioned earlier and the strict guidelines on when and why the
authorities could use their powers, I'd agree with their use.All that said, I'd be willing to sacrifice some privacy if it
meant other crimes could be tackled as well. E.g., if it helps in
getting rid of botnet masters, virus writers and digital content
thieves (pirates) as well as paedophiles - it might be more
worthwhile.Alec Forbes. [UK]
-----Original Message-----
From: IRC-Discussion-bounces@lists.irc-unity.org
[mailto:IRC-Discussion-bounces@lists.irc-unity.org]On Behalf Of
Anthony
Sent: 25 June 2004 19:33
To: General discussion of IRC related issues (except security..
use the
otherlist)
Subject: RE: [IRC-Discussion] Feedback requested for an Op/Ed
story
Hmm Here's a question. How many people here actually "WANT" their
network
'policed' by outside sources? What of the privacy issues at
stake?
Forget the logistics for a moment, think about the atmosphere...
Where
would said 'policing' stop? child porn? yeah we all hate that...
but does
everyone else get monitored for their other words and actions; no
matter
how benign? Where does it stop? I don't want it, nor do I need
it. I'm
not looking to be quoted, just pointing out a few things.
Anthony @ AbleNET dot org
On Fri, 25 Jun 2004, Alex_SGR wrote:
> I personally have a feeling the person who proposed this system
> has little to know detailed knowledge about the technical side
of
> that they are proposing. As has already been said, the system
is
> totally infeasible with two exceptions: Firstly, that a network
> or company [e.g. Yahoo] sponsors and supports such a system -
> then publicises the fact it is monitored. Or secondly, the
'cops'
> in question join a specific set of supporting networks and
> through legal mechanisms disallow access to all others.
>
> Of these, only the first option is realistic. Looking in more
> detail, have the people who have suggested such a scheme looked
> at the logistics of what would be required in even the smallest
> scale implementation of this plan? Training for tens if not
> hundreds of individuals - round the clock monitoring and
> attention to the chat rooms in question. How could you monitor
if
> someone was 'grooming' in a private chat session without
> breaching privacy - something guarded not only by law but by
many
> networks policies and core ethics? Furthermore, how are police
to
> actually stop any of this? Surely it will just move the problem
> elsewhere on the internet - to different servers.
>
> What about the powers the police would have? As far as I'm
aware
> it takes quite a lot of evidence to prise customer information
> from an ISP, and even then you need to of found someone who you
> can prove has done or is deemed to be a significant threat.
What
> about those chatting via public proxy systems or bouncing
through
> compromised connections? How would one track them down unless
> impersonating a victim? Even then, its not illegal in anyway to
> ask someone you have spoken to over the web to meet you. No
crime
> has been committed.
>
> An implementation of this can be done - as I said, it would be
> possible to have a monitored system, perhaps sponsored by a
> company 'guarded' by police. Non the less, this is unlikely to
> change anything in my opinion. Surely the best was is to
EDUCATE
> people in the risks and dangers of meeting people from internet
> chat rooms. After all, we used to [and still do] teach kids how
> to cross a road safely in schools. Why not lessons on using ICT
> equipment safely too?
>
> Anyway, in summary, the current very broad suggestion would
> appear to be utterly infeasible in implementing - from the
> technical, social and legal views. I think this is the wrong
> approach and that good awareness and education could be the way
> forward. That said, there are other possibilities, i.e.. on IRC
> for example, have the IRC server message both clients a warning
> when they start a private message conversation - something like
> "Remember: The person you are chatting to might not be who they
> appear. Never give out your address, real name, phone number or
> banking details over an IRC conversation". This is something
MSN
> messenger used to do (and I think still does). It is unlikely
to
> stop what's happening from happening - but it will help in a
way
> that can easily be implemented.
>
> Alex Forbes [UK]
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: IRC-Discussion-bounces@lists.irc-unity.org
> [mailto:IRC-Discussion-bounces@lists.irc-unity.org]On Behalf Of
> pak000
> Sent: 25 June 2004 13:13
> To: 'General discussion of IRC related issues (except
security..
> usetheother list)'
> Subject: RE: [IRC-Discussion] Feedback requested for an Op/Ed
> story
>
>
> The idea in theory is great, get some legal backing on irc in
an
> attempt to
> reduce this sort of crime, however putting it into practice is
I
> would say
> impossible with the complete coverage required.
>
> Firstly, and most obviously is the numbers required, there are
> far too many
> chat rooms, far too many networks for the police to monitor.
But
> lets
> disregard this, lets say the police can come up with a computer
> bot that
> will spot key phrases, trends in a conversation and highlight
> people that
> need to be watched more carefully. I doubt very much doubt any
> predator is
> going to grab a child in a public channel, more likely they
will
> try to find
> likely candidates, by talking normally in a public channel,
then
> attempt
> private messaging of the potential target. To get around this
> there would
> have to be active monitoring of private conversations.
>
> Here enters a whole new grey area of legality - can the police
> monitor the
> private messages on irc? The answer of course is roundabout,
if
> the network
> advertises the fact that they log all conversations then it is
> possibly
> legal in some countries, but what networks are going to do
this?
> What
> decent network wants to invade the privacy of their users like
> this? What
> users are going to accept this monitoring? You may find the
odd
> network
> that will be created specially for children, a "safe"
environment
> that
> watches over your kid and all that they do. This I can accept,
> it’s a niche
> market and may work, I can personally see a company like AOL
> introducing it,
> and charging. But here we come to where ultimate
responsibility
> lies - the
> parent.
>
> It is the parent that should control their child, they should
> monitor where
> the child goes and make sure that they only visit safe places.
> The parent
> should impress upon the child the importance of not disclosing
> any
> information about themselves, not meeting strangers that they
> have met over
> the internet. The majority I imagine do, they monitor their
> child as
> closely as possible on the internet, they put blocks on various
> websites,
> the block pictures containing too much skin, they try, but they
> can't be
> there all the time, they can't anticpate everything. If
someone
> really
> wants to talk to the child they will. It is just a matter of
> will the child
> listen and remember all of their parents warnings? A young
child
> is naïve,
> they see the best in everyone, everything.
>
> The parent must make a decision; do they want to protect the
> innocence of
> their child? the state that the love so much, and have to watch
> over the
> child until they are old enough to understand. Or, do they
want
> to remove
> that naivity, introduce the child to the harsh world that is
out
> there?
> This child will be safer, the parent will not have to watch so
> carefully,
> but what of their childhood?
>
> In the real world, the only way I can see something like this
> working is by
> creating an network solely for children, monitored 24/7 by
> police. Parents
> would have to get their children to join that network only and
no
> others.
>
> Identification as a police officer would use services of some
> sort, an
> officer would login to the network and identify to services,
> services would
> query a database at the police headquarters to confirm their
> identity. It
> would not be possible to leave this in control of server admins
> as one could
> easily be a person that children should be protected from.
>
> On the network they would essentially be an ircop, able to
kill,
> gline,
> kline and be able to look up ips (I'm from a network that hides
> them, and
> this would be a good idea on any child safe network). They
would
> have to
> have contacts with all major isps, for quick lookups of who is
> actually on
> the end of a computer, another legal minefield
>
> This leaves the other networks, places like efnet or my
network,
> children
> will still join them despite having their own place to go. So
> what do we
> do? I can only say what I think would be the case on ZiRC, I
> have no idea
> about other networks, but I cannot see ZiRC allowing this kind
of
> control
> for police officers, don't get me wrong, we would be willing to
> help police
> if they came to the network and requested it from staff, but I
> would want
> assurances, confirmation that they were actually police.
>
> So what is the way forward? I think there is a possibility for
a
> network
> run and monitored by police designed solely for children, with
> all the
> safeguards that go with it - word filters, pm monitoring.
There
> also needs
> to be some form of easy worldwide identification of police
> credentials, so
> operators from other networks can decide whether to respond to
a
> request for
> help or confidential information.
>
> Sorry about the continuous rambling blurb, am a little tired
and
> can't think
> too straight
>
> Pak000
> Services administrator
> Routing committee
> Irc.zirc.org
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: IRC-Discussion-bounces@lists.irc-unity.org
> [mailto:IRC-Discussion-bounces@lists.irc-unity.org] On Behalf
Of
> Pete Carr
> Sent: 25 June 2004 01:51
> To: General discussion of IRC related issues (except security..
> use the
> other list)
> Subject: [IRC-Discussion] Feedback requested for an Op/Ed story
>
> A story recently appeared from Reuters, regarding a proposal to
> place
> "uniformed police" in certain chat rooms. The Reuters story is
> at:
>
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=internetNews&storyI
> D=5381871
>
> Another write up appeared on CNN, at:
>
http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/internet/06/09/crime.internet.reut/i
> ndex.html
>
> While the original intent is to go after Internet predators
> (which we agree
> is a problem that needs to be dealt with), the proposal brings
up
> a lot of
> questions; how to implement this unless they have a good deal
of
> cooperation
> from the various networks, what kind of powers will they have
> within the
> chat network, and how can they assure chat users the "officers"
> are real and
> not posers.
>
>
>
> We're interested in hearing opinions from Server Admins,
IRCops,
> and anyone
> using IRC. Unless requested, all comments will be sorted as to
> pro or con
> and used in an Op/Ed story on Chatmag.com Just mark your
comment
> "anon" and
> we will not post it. Anonymous comments will be tallied but not
> reprinted.
> Not all comments will be used as we cannot post every comment
due
> to length
> restrictions of the Op/Ed story.
>
> Please send your comments to feedback@chatmag.com or post them
> here :)
>
> Thanks,
>
> Pete
>
> ---
> Peter J. Carr
> Owner
> Chatmag.com
Subject:
RE: [IRC-Discussion] Feedback requested for an Op/Ed story
Date:
Fri, 25 Jun 2004 12:59:06 -0700
From:
DocJeff
At 11:33 AM 6/25/04, you wrote:
>Hmm Here's a question. How many people here actually "WANT" their network
>'policed' by outside sources?I expect none of us want that. Personally, I'd fight it unless they have
some sort of court order allowing it. Then I'd make sure they were
well-known on the service here so there would be no possibility of stealth
available for them.> What of the privacy issues at stake?
Indeed. That's a very big issue with me...
>Forget the logistics for a moment, think about the atmosphere... Where
>would said 'policing' stop? child porn? yeah we all hate that... but does
>everyone else get monitored for their other words and actions; no matter
>how benign? Where does it stop? I don't want it, nor do I need it. I'm
>not looking to be quoted, just pointing out a few things.I neither like it nor will I support it willingly.
However, based on the original article, I suspect they intended for this to
take place on AOL. The whole concept of a "special icon" for them kinda
screams "AOL!!" to me.
DocJeff
Peacefulhaven IRC
Network Manager &
Head of Security
http://www.peacefulhaven.net
irc2.peacefulhaven.net
_______________________________________________
IRC-Discussion mailing list
IRC-Discussion@lists.irc-unity.org
http://lists.irc-unity.org/mailman/listinfo/irc-discussion_lists.irc-unity.org
Subject:
Re: [IRC-Discussion] Feedback requested for an Op/Ed story
Date:
Fri, 25 Jun 2004 23:11:24 +0000
From:
Andy SmithOn Thu, Jun 24, 2004 at 05:50:41PM -0700, Pete Carr wrote:
> A story recently appeared from Reuters, regarding a proposal to place
> "uniformed police" in certain chat rooms. The Reuters story is at:
> http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=internetNews&storyID=5381871
>
> Another write up appeared on CNN, at:
> http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/internet/06/09/crime.internet.reut/index.html
>
> While the original intent is to go after Internet predators (which we
> agree is a problem that needs to be dealt with), the proposal brings
> up a lot of questions; how to implement this unless they have a good
> deal of cooperation from the various networks, what kind of powers
> will they have within the chat network, and how can they assure chat
> users the "officers" are real and not posers.Internet Predators are first and foremost, predators. That is, they
will hunt down kids, they will find them outside of policed
locations, and they will abuse them. There is no need to put the
emphasis on the "Internet" part, predators are predators.The idea that IRC or internet chat is such a new thing that it
requires different laws and behaviours is a bit odd to me, since
predators throughout the ages still find kids to exploit whether on
the Internet or at the local school. Kids throughout the ages are
also used to going where they should not go, posing as older, mixing
with people they shouldn't, just because they find it more fun than
being in a safe environment.When people make a big song and dance about how they will be
combatting the evil internet with its paedophiles and porn
merchants it's usually done more for the publicity to draw attention
to themselves and their organisation as opposed to doing any real
good.You could spend billions of $ making and promoting kids' chat rooms
where actual law enforcement officers are paid to sit and watch all
the chat, and guess what!? MANY KIDS WOULD AVOID THEM LIKE THE
PLAGUE! So in order to have the desired effect, all Internet
communication between anyone whatsoever would have to be monitored
and that quite simply is not feasible and will never happen.What would do a lot more good is if these people would also point
out that the best way to make sure your kids are safe is to actually
be a responsible parent, take an interest in just where your kid is
spending a lot of their time and who with. Is that too much to ask?If that happens to be on kids' chat sites then do your homework and
find out about what safeguards those sites have (not just trust that
the Internet Police will make sure it's all okay). If it happens to
be on IRC then for God's sake, supervise it yourself because IRC is
not for kids.Unsupervised IRC is not for kids. Unsupervised Internet is not for
kids. Being out late at night unsupervised in the club part of town
is not for kids. Lots of unsupervised things are not for kids, yet
they will still do them because, well, THEY ARE KIDS. Expecting the
Internet to be the *one* thing that is different in this regard is
IMHO totally nonsensical.> We're interested in hearing opinions from Server Admins, IRCops, and
> anyone using IRC. Unless requested, all comments will be sorted as to
> pro or con and used in an Op/Ed story on Chatmag.com Just mark your
> comment "anon" and we will not post it. Anonymous comments will be
> tallied
> but not reprinted.I think you're being rather too premature in asking *IRC* admins
what they think about a plan that has no technical detail. We don't
even know at this stage if it applies to IRC at all, or if it is for
places specifically designated as kids' chat areas.I don't see it as technically feasible that all forms of Internet
chat could be modified so that a law enforcement officer could log
on and be denoted as such, nor does it seem likely that all forms of
Internet chat that could/would not comply would be made illegal.What I see as a lot more likely is that *if* anyone wanted to spend
money on putting real police officers in kids' chatrooms then a
directory of such chatrooms might be created and it might be made
illegal for kids to go to chatrooms other than those listed. Then
it would be up to the operators of the chat rooms to enforce that as
best they could.That wouldn't be anything to do with us IRC admins though, unless
any of us also run kids' chatrooms. If such a law was passed then
anyone running kids' chatrooms might be forced to use software that
could comply with that law, so go ask them what they think. I help
run an IRC network, not chatrooms for kids, so at the moment the
issue is not really relevant to me. I feel it would be unwise at
this stage to jump to the conlusion that OMGZ0R THE MAN IS TRYING TO
SHUT US ALL DOWN, though I'm sure your website will read better if
you had a bunch of hysterical replies like that.If you want my technical opinion, as long as the plan provides some
secure open method to identify real law enforcement officers then I
don't see why any IRC server could not be modified to check and
display that. [1] *HOWEVER* it's unrealistic to expect all chat
services to accomodate that, and if it only applies to kids' areas
then people must realise that kids will actively search out other
areas anyway just to feel more grown up.If the plan doesn't accomodate open source developers then that's a
different issue, but we just don't know at this stage! I've seen
this sort of thing time and again and usually they fade away to
nothing so there's really no point getting whipped up over it yet.Please don't take any of my comments as a pro or a con since a) the
issue is too complicated for that and b) it's not clear what the
plan *is* exactly.Regards,
evil griffer
Blitzed -- officially not safe for kids[1] -!- grifferz
-!- ircname : I want to be good, is that not enough?
-!- channels : @#politics @#blitzed @#FreeBSDWiki #coattails @#help
-!- server : lik-m-aid.ca.us.blitzed.org [the CANDY that pours]
-!- : has registered this nick
-!- : IRC Operator - Server Administrator
-!- cops : PC Smith Badge no. 287134 Anti-Grooming Division
-!- idle : 0 days 0 hours 12 mins 41 secs [signon: Mon Jun 21 22:07:58 2004]?????
Part 1.1.2
Type:
application/pgp-signature
_______________________________________________
IRC-Discussion mailing list
IRC-Discussion@lists.irc-unity.org
http://lists.irc-unity.org/mailman/listinfo/irc-discussion_lists.irc-unity.orgSubject:
the op/ed story
Date:
Mon, 28 Jun 2004 07:46:50 -0400
From:
"JiLLy"
I think having police officers in chatrooms is the best idea since sliced bread! I would openly invite police officers to our network and
be thankful there's someone around with some authority to do something about pedophiles and other interne criminals! I'm definitely
for it and I would be a proud advocator!JMF
NetAdmin on Watnet.org
[HOME] [TOPICS INDEX] [CONTACT] [ADD A LISTING]
[LET CHATMAG HOST YOUR WEB SITE]
10% of the advertising revenue from this page will be donated to:
For More Information
on Our Contributions to Charities, Click
Here
copyright 1998-2004
chatmag.com