measures taken to protect children. However, documents presented during the conference reflect a broader debate.
The Theme Paper on Child Pornography presented at the conference does focus on
the challenges of sustained interaction. It highlights the successes and challenges of
coordinated efforts of law enforcement agencies from multiple states to arrest and prosecute those involved with the production and exchange of child pornography. It noted
that ‘‘closer working relationships’’ were required between law enforcement agencies
worldwide to further ‘‘greater co-operation within the international law enforcement
community.’’ 26 In conjunction with the need to cooperate, the paper also makes clear
that technology can play a role. The technological focus of the paper was devoted
to technologies that can identify and remove, as opposed to filter, child pornography
online.
Software developers have a particular responsibility to develop technologies which can locate
child pornographic images on the Internet more swiftly, and allow for their rapid identification
and removal. 27
The report noted the increased use of filtering technology at the individual level but
warned that ‘‘none of this software is perfect and it would be wrong if parents thought
of it as being a substitute for sound advice and appropriate supervision.’’ 28 Moreover,
the report noted that increasing public demand to do something about the problem of
child pornography online was leading to the preference of restrictive technologies,
such as filtering at the national level, and warned of possible negative unintended
consequences:
Unless the Internet industry, Governments and the civil society can find a convincing way of
assuaging these strong concerns which are beginning to surface, public opinion will sooner or
later force politicians to consider forms of intervention which could rob us of much that it is truly
marvellous, dynamic and revolutionary about the Internet. 29
With the exception of a growing number of authoritarian countries using filtering to
impose political censorship, democratic states had not implemented filtering at the national level. 30 In 2004 the role of filtering technology was thrust into the international
spotlight. In the United States, the Pennsylvania state legislature passed a law in 2002
that required ISPs to block access to Web sites suspected of hosting child pornography.
When the Pennsylvania attorney general’s office identified Web sites containing child
pornography, they issued an informal notice to ISPs requiring that access to these Web
sites be blocked. The ISPs subsequently blocked access to these Web sites. Because of
the nature of ISP networks, these ISPs blocked access nationally, since they were technically unable to differentiate users located in Pennsylvania. 31
However, civil liberties organizations challenged the law in court, arguing that these
informal notices constituted ‘‘secret blocking orders’’ issued by the state and thus violated the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Moreover, they argued that the
Barriers to Cooperation
61
The Theme Paper on Child Pornography presented at the conference does focus on
the challenges of sustained interaction. It highlights the successes and challenges of
coordinated efforts of law enforcement agencies from multiple states to arrest and prosecute those involved with the production and exchange of child pornography. It noted
that ‘‘closer working relationships’’ were required between law enforcement agencies
worldwide to further ‘‘greater co-operation within the international law enforcement
community.’’ 26 In conjunction with the need to cooperate, the paper also makes clear
that technology can play a role. The technological focus of the paper was devoted
to technologies that can identify and remove, as opposed to filter, child pornography
online.
Software developers have a particular responsibility to develop technologies which can locate
child pornographic images on the Internet more swiftly, and allow for their rapid identification
and removal. 27
The report noted the increased use of filtering technology at the individual level but
warned that ‘‘none of this software is perfect and it would be wrong if parents thought
of it as being a substitute for sound advice and appropriate supervision.’’ 28 Moreover,
the report noted that increasing public demand to do something about the problem of
child pornography online was leading to the preference of restrictive technologies,
such as filtering at the national level, and warned of possible negative unintended
consequences:
Unless the Internet industry, Governments and the civil society can find a convincing way of
assuaging these strong concerns which are beginning to surface, public opinion will sooner or
later force politicians to consider forms of intervention which could rob us of much that it is truly
marvellous, dynamic and revolutionary about the Internet. 29
With the exception of a growing number of authoritarian countries using filtering to
impose political censorship, democratic states had not implemented filtering at the national level. 30 In 2004 the role of filtering technology was thrust into the international
spotlight. In the United States, the Pennsylvania state legislature passed a law in 2002
that required ISPs to block access to Web sites suspected of hosting child pornography.
When the Pennsylvania attorney general’s office identified Web sites containing child
pornography, they issued an informal notice to ISPs requiring that access to these Web
sites be blocked. The ISPs subsequently blocked access to these Web sites. Because of
the nature of ISP networks, these ISPs blocked access nationally, since they were technically unable to differentiate users located in Pennsylvania. 31
However, civil liberties organizations challenged the law in court, arguing that these
informal notices constituted ‘‘secret blocking orders’’ issued by the state and thus violated the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Moreover, they argued that the
Barriers to Cooperation
61