Today, we’re proud to announce a major step forward in this mission with the launch of our “Not on My Network” initiative. We’ve partnered closely with the nonprofit Internet Watch Foundation (IWF) to systematically restrict access to all known dedicated CSAM domains across our entire global server network.
We’re actively inviting other VPN providers, internet service providers, and cloud platforms to adopt this technology and join the “Not on My Network” initiative. We’re thrilled that CyberGhost VPN and Private Internet Access have already stepped forward to join us in this critical industry-wide effort.
The IWF appears to be one of several organisations using horrific child-abuse cases to push for mass surveillance in the EU. Leveraging the abuse of children to advance political objectives is abhorrent and undermines effective, concrete measures to protect victims.
I want to agree with you but I don’t quite follow. How is requiring network services, like VPNs & ISPs, to block CSAM where possible not a measure (among many) that protects victims? I understand the anti- censorship / anti-surveillance counter angle here, but in terms of concrete measures, what else are these orgs not doing, or these orgs rather do differently?
To be clear, I think blocking access to known CSAM sites is a good thing. I have concerns, though. I think that the power of censorship should rest with an accountable body like a judicial authority and should be based on law. If it has to be an unaccountable non-profit, I’d rather it be one that isn’t morally corrupt.
Censoring websites hosting such content seems like a last-resort measure that is the least effective at protecting victims. I’d want to know why these non-profits have a list of websites hosting known CSAM, yet no action is taken to actually seize the web servers. Even then, I’d like to see more concrete measures to actually prevent the victimisation of children.
These orgs are also doing a lot of harm by pursuing their political agendas for mass surveillance, since police are already being overwhelmed with reports that are criminally irrelevant which wastes the time and resources needed to prevent these crimes.
government now has a standing ground for censorship since DNS filtering infrastructure now exists on Kape.
Nonprofits are proxies for the government. IWF was given money to “minimize criminal internet content”. Governments run politico, WSJ like operations to whitewash their narratives by referencing the supposed non-profit NGOs as a validation of their agenda coming from a civil society.
But now that ExpressVPN has a way to filter domain names what is to stop a judge to send them a Court order demanding to block domain A too because they are distributing pirate movies or leaked top secrets? They are using the IWF URL list to block the domains but the technology is already in place to add a second list with whatever URLs the UK government decides must be blocked too.
And the IWF, if they have a list of child abuse domains why don´t they contact the host or domain registrar to take that content down? It seems it would be more effective than getting VPNs to filter sites, according to ChatGPT, “companies typically pay to use the Internet Watch Foundation’s (IWF) list of sites to block through an annual membership fee”, it is in their own financial interest that everybody must use that list of secret sites to block.
But now that ExpressVPN has a way to filter domain names
They already have a way. Every DNS provider has one, the question is do they use it.
And most use it to block Malware, phishing, trackers and ads.
They are using the IWF URL list to block the domains but the technology is already in place to add a second list with whatever URLs the UK government decides must be blocked too.
Exactly it is already in place even before this.
And the IWF, if they have a list of child abuse domains why don´t they contact the host or domain registrar to take that content down?
If they Feds are getting this list, which they mostly do, they try to take it down, however this takes time to take down a website and if you take down on two new will pop up. You need to fight against the abuse rather than fighting against the spreading.
Also, it is a bit of a jurisdiction problem.
In the meantime you can try to block this domains.
It’s clear that Governmets traded trust in their authority and good faith for keeping the power. Too many episodes. Children? Abuse? What’s up with lack of video of Epstein’s suicide, explained by a technical maintenance?
Actions like blindly believing a government’s censorship tool are a telltale sign that a VPN/service provider isn’t to be trusted.
First of all, most of what the UK’s internet censorship organization lists as child porn websites, are in fact, not child porn websites at all. The UK’s Internet Watch Foundation has blacklisted Wikipedia before. Should ExpressVPN join in, too? The closest to “child pornography” sites that they block are anime websites. IWF regularly blocks sites that it doesn’t politically disagree with as “Child Pornography”, even when there is no CP involved.
This isn’t 2008 - dedicated child porn/modeling websites don’t actively live on the clearnet anymore. This hasn’t really been a thing in ages. No hosting providers, even bulletproof ones, are willing to host it. And obviously self-hosting a clearnet CP website at home would immediately get you in prison anywhere. For those who aren’t aware - the clearnet CP websites that did exist around 2 decades ago were primarily “modeling agencies” and general-purpose nudist websites that were legal (or attempted to be) at the time in their respective countries, but eventually caved to Western pressure.
It’s kind of sad how quickly people fall to the “protect the children” fad and happily cheer for any censorship, and then complain when the censorship turns on themselves.
Dedicated child model sites DO currently live on the clearweb. Saying otherwise is just ignorant. Until just a few years ago where it was taken down there was a massive set of 3 known as trichan (144chan, 188chan, and one other that I forget were all under the trichan umbrella). There is even a paper talking about the challenges that project arachnid faced trying to get it taken down. It’s absolute fantasy land to pretend these things don’t exist
Child modeling sites - as in “legitimate” ones for actors/actresses that play in advertisements and TV shows - certainly exist. What I mean by “child model sites” are things like the ones in Ukraine and Japan from the 2000s that distributed original content with kids and/or teens posed in skimpy or nonexistant clothes. This just isn’t a thing anymore, its pretty much impossible to do because of how monitored the internet is, facial recognition, the ease of deanonymization.
The closest to this that existed were forums dedicated to sharing SFW media posted by child Instagram/YouTube influencers & child actors from tv shows, etc. Those have already shifted to Tor & messengers because of the pressure server hosting providers get from organizations that label SFW content as “CSAM” when shared by such communities. I mean we’re talking about stuff like fandoms for teen actresses - and even this doesn’t survive on the clearnet.
I guess government censorship & scare tactics works when people are deliberately misinformed - or just too afraid to verify.
I know what you were talking about. This is what trichan was. Wasn’t official but it was an imageboard for posting those exact images you described. There are new ones that took its place, it hasn’t gone away you just don’t know about it.
