Four men have been sentenced today for their parts in running a news group service used for the distribution of child abuse images. The news service, Athenanews.com, earned the four men about £2.2m - police will be applying to the courts to seize that money. Ian Frost, 35, and his civil partner Paul Rowland, 34, of Martin Dales …
...drop them into general population of any Class A prison and they will not be around for long. Prisoners have kids too.
This is The Register...
... the Daily Mail forums are over there --->
These people should be made to take a long walk on a very short pier.
It disgusts me that my taxes will be used to feed them while they're locked up.
Makes No Sense...
"These people should be made to take a long walk on a very short pier."
That makes no sense. If you take a long walk off a short pier you will fall off the end. It's only a short pier though, so they can just swim back to shore...
"It disgusts me that my taxes will be used to feed them while they're locked up."
Really? It's the fact that you have to pay taxes that disgusts you, not the harm done to the children?
On the face of it, good result...
"protecting and safeguarding of 132 young people in Britain as a direct result of our work"
Still don't know where they pull these kind of figures from.
"Police seized raid arrays and servers - one so large that it dimmed the lights in the room were it was switched on for forensic examination."
Really need to get a better power supply for the building then....
Does anyone know if this was a usenet host (if so then dumb) or a forum provider? And how much of the content was CP. If mostly CP, then I am happy they are going after people who used the site and in effect paid for CP. As I do think that that incentivizes and financializes the creation of new CP and further abuse vs freely available CP.
Changed my mind....
After looking around below and the links provided, it does look like it was a usenet service, like giganews or even the one I get chucked in from my ISP. This on the face of it then is dumb. And I am quite surprised that for a tech savy site how little people here, who are jumping up and down, seem to know about usenet and the way it works.
If they were only providing access to news groups with pedo somewhere in the title and charging a premium over other usenet providers, then OK they deserve what they are getting.
If they were providing access to all newsgroups uncensored, then to me it is the same as an ISP providing an internet service without the voluntary IWF blocking. Finding that ISP guilty of distribution of CP is then over the top. And also everything that is posted to Usenet is done so for free, so their is no financial incentive for more CP to be created. Which ever sicko's are posting the material, they are not doing it for profit, when they post it on usenet.
And the final scenario, if they had blocked all newsgroups with pedo in the title, the same as every other usenet service out there, then this is way over the top. You cannot control and police when people unfortunately post CP material to groups that have noting to do with CP, like 'alt.binaries.pictures.cars' for example.
The posters may not even be subscribers of their usenet service, If this comes as a surprise to you please read up on how usenet works before getting up in arms. Usenet is an old technology, which is not at all suited to policing apart from the obvious blocking of particular news groups. I bet even my ISP (one of the UK's largest) is hosting a large number of CP on their newsgroup service as we speak even though they have blocked groups with bad titles.
If the third option is right I would not be surprised if ISP left right and center start pulling their usenet services. And the precedent means that next in the dock is rapidshare for CP distribution, as I am sure that at any one time there are thousands of items of CP they are housing. Of course out weighed by the millions of non CP things hosted, like usenet.
In fact if they were running a service like every other provider out there, giganews etc, they should actually be getting pats on the back for setting up their service with so much logging. That logging has meant that they could trace who was uploading and downloading this material via their service (the real bad guy's) as this is normally pretty difficult with most usenet providers and the way usenet works. Just saying....
Just a usenet provider ?
So was this a dedicated server for the purpose of distributing dodgy child images or just a usenet provider like easynews for example that doesnt filter their content that passes through them?
I imagine any usenet provider is going to have some illegal images on their servers?
More info please!
You are correct that Easynews does not filter the newsgroups it carries. However they do not carry those groups that deal in images of child abuse. If a group is reported to them as carrying such images they will remove it.
Trying to figure out...
I'm trying to figure out - was this just a newsgroup hosting service, like Giganews, that happened to contain newsgroups that had child porn posted (not by them), or was this a website that specialized in child porn?
If it's the latter, then throw the book at them, but there are chilling implications for free speech if it was the former...
Free Speech ?
Sorry but IMHO "free speech" doesn't apply to people who publish things like this. As far as I am concerned, sickos like these deserve no rights.
Going by Google, it seems to be newsgroup hosting, and carried a lot of newsgroups. Though one reference says the servers were in the USA.
Defunct now, of course, but I can see a lot of people paying them for newsgroup access. It was a flat monthly fee for a Gigabyte per day, and so something more than half a million customer-months of fees that the Police want to get their hands on.
With the Police saying 1,300 suspects, that 2.2 million quid would pay for downloading a gigabyte per day per suspect for around 35 years. I'm guessing a bit, but I reckon most of the downloading was dodgy, ordinary porn and illicit movies perhaps. There's something disturbing about the likelihood that the Police are going after the company's whole profit or income, as though it all came from child porn.
Oh, and there may be a placename typo. No "Martin Dale" in Lincolnshire that I know of, but there is a "Martin Dales", on the opposite side of the River Witham to Woodhall Spa. Well south of Lincoln, so I'm not likely to have heard of the case, though there was a big farmer down that way who built his own railway for the potato harvest.
RE: "people who publish things like this"
Am I reading The Register or the Sun?
Since when is usenet a ring?
At first sight they ran a small subscription usenet service.
When you can get 6 months for possession of a dozen kiddy porn images 33 month sentences don't indicate they were any kind of peedyfile child abusing ringleaders. 2.2 million turnover in 7 years is less than an average banker's bonus FFS.
Apart from not carrying a set of newsgroups rather arbitrarily selected by name does any usenet provider monitor and censor what they carry?
If they carried any non-peered newsgroups containing kiddy porn then they might have a bit more to answer for.
Maybe the Reg could do some investigative journalism instead of regurgitating crap about rings and light dimming servers.
Inb4 this thread turns into something that looks like Private Eye's "From the messageboards" column.
Sadly it looks like I'm already a few posts too late.
We Need To Know More
The Guardian has a couple of articles on this:-
El Reg reports:-
"The news service ran between 2002 and 2009 and members paid according to how much content they wished to download."
The first Guardian article reports:-
"Officers first received intelligence from German police in November 2005 that Ian Frost was running a news service that had an association with indecent images of children."
I'm wondering why it took over three years for the police to stop this "abuse images ring".
The second Guardian article reports:-
"Sentencing them at Nottingham Crown Court on Monday Mr Justice Calvert-Smith said the case was the first of its kind in England and Wales because it was prosecuting individuals for distribution through news servers.
He said he believed that each defendant had knowledge of the fact that indecent images of children were available on the service but chose not to remove them for financial gain."
I think we need to know more about this case.
Protecting children from abuse is undoubtedly a good thing. But losing our rights and freedoms in the name of protecting children can also be dangerous. History has shown this many times.
Is a lack of censorship itself now a potentially criminal matter? Where would that leave ISPs and other service providers and hosts? Is this a step towards service providers having to actively police content, lest they face criminal conviction as child sex offenders? Will Theresa May and the coalition expand this to include other illegal material, such as extremist material?
@We Need To Know More
No we don't! They're obviously a bunch of kiddy fiddling paedos who should be locked up with Class A prisoners in order for lynch mob "justice" to be served, why should we bother ascertaining facts or asking questions when all we need to do is to throw away the key!
(Note to certain commentards: The above post may contain irony or even sarcasm...)
Some More Articles
This is Lincolnshire have four articles, dated 7th May 2011 (see links at the end of the first article for the other three):-
The first article is about some of the other investigations that this particular case led to. It seems there are genuinely good results, with good work being done to protect children and deal with actual abuse. I don't object to that.
But that doesn't explain why those running a news service business have been convicted. It all sounds a bit like a variation of "shooting the messenger", where it's telecommunication service providers being held criminally liable for not policing and censoring the content they carried. I'm concerned about the implications for other service providers, and, in turn, society more generally.
On the question of dates, the other three articles reveal that the first arrest was in 2006, and that they were able to continue running their news service business until 2009. This means the men running this "abuse images ring" knew, for something like three years, that they were being investigated by the police, while they kept running their news service business.
This really doesn't add up, does it?
So far - other than the guilty pleas - there doesn't seem to be anything to indicate that this was anything other than an uncensored news service that was being criminally abused by others.
Could this be the case that some have been predicting and warning about for years?
A BBC article might help answer that:-
"Det Supt Paul Gibson, of Lincolnshire Police, said ... "I think the really important message to send is that the distribution of indecent images of children will not be tolerated and internet service providers who do this in the future, or anybody else, will receive a custodial sentence.""
How do you know I don't? Answer: You don't, you're just making assumptions like many others posting here. As the AC says in the post "We Need To Know More", not simply take as read that they're "evil paedos" etc etc.
What I am defending which is the Justice System, the Right to Presumption of Innocence, the Right to a Fair Trial and, if convicted, the Right to only suffer the punishment prescribed by law (rather than being lynched or getting kicked about by prisoners or even prison guards) to mention just a few.
If we start throwing away Rights because we have to Think of the Children we are on a very slippery slope.
You have personal knowledge of the impact Ian Frost, Paul Rowland, Paul Frost, and Ian Sambridge had? By all means, please share. In case you hadn't noticed about half of the posts here are complaints about the lack of information. Some fist-hand info would be most welcome.
It is clear from your post that we agree on some things as I fundamentally believe that the most important thing about Rights is you *CANNOT* protect one person's rights by taking away someone else's and you *CANNOT* pick and choose who has rights and who doesn't.
Unfortunately in your previous post you said "They were part of the industry and deserve all they get.....and some" which I disagree with and the post above titled "Some More Articles" suggests that they were not "part of the industry" (an "industry" which I consider to be mostly fictitious and a creation of the minds of empire builders like Jim Gamble) and that although you say these guys "have the same basic rights" you then appear to agree with the "give them a good kicking" Daily Mail brigade posting here.
The link in the article above says that "The police investigation into AthenaNews.com found some of its customers had actually abused children" it doesn't say that those who ran the service had abused children, nor that they knew that they were "in possession" of illegal images or that (as the BBC article says) they knew that they were "circulating" the images to "45 countries". I'd think that what that actually means is that their news server had subscribers in 45 countries who downloaded these images which is *not* necessarily the same thing.
The article also quotes DS Gibson who says "to operate a news service like this is not something a normal person could do, it needed a great deal of IT knowledge" which is IMO typical Police bollocks, it's not that difficult to set up a news service, mostly what you need is the money to run the thing, not mega IT skills.
GIven the comment from the Judge of "It seems that never once did the defendants pause to reflect that they were contributing significantly to the international market and to the abuse of children, and even if that did not concern them they did not consider that they were at risk of criminal prosecution." perhaps the reason for this is that they were *NOT* deliberately contributing to some putative "international industry" and they were the unwitting victims of the actions of others, so they chose to plead guilty simply *for* leniency.
As to you being "in the minority" regarding the sentences, that is why we have an independent judiciary who determine sentences based on the law. Having a sentence determined in this way is, of course, another Right.
"you *CANNOT* protect one person's rights by taking away someone else's"
So you cannot take away the right to liberty of someone trying to stab someone in order to protect that's person's right to life?
Independent Article - Lack of Censorship Illegal?
There's also an article on the Independent:-
It includes the following bits:-
"Det Supt Gibson said illegal news services, which are legal if censored, were "unique" because they operate like a virtual noticeboard containing folders of particular interest that can be shared around the world because linked news servers talk to one another and share information."
""I think the really important message to send is that the distribution of indecent images of children will not be tolerated and internet service providers who do this in the future, or anybody else, will receive a custodial sentence.""
Certainly the distribution of indecent photographs and pseudo-photographs of children is illegal, but that doesn't make lack of censorship per se illegal. Det Supt Gibson is wrong to say that uncensored news services are illegal, if that actually is what he's saying. It certainly sounds like that's what he's implying.
We should not allow such attempts to illegitimately expand specific laws against abusive images of children into more general laws against lack of censorship per se to stand unchallenged.
Let's not just rage indiscriminately here.... hosting a news server is not an act of publication.
Unfortunately the Reg has only given us half a story :-(
In your humble opinion
Rage all you like, it's just your opinion.
Let's get one thing clear here. It is easy to configure a news server to NOT carry certain newsgroups. These guys knowingly chose to carry those clearly used predominantly to distribute images of child abuse and profited from doing so to the tune of £Millions.
How is it not an act of publication exactly, other than that you wish it not to be?
In actual fact your point is totally irrelevant as the offence is 'distribution' NOT publication.
Section 1 of the protection of children act 1978 (amended):
1 Indecent photographs of children.
(1)It is an offence for a person—
(a)to take, or permit to be taken [F1or to make], any indecent photograph [F1or pseudo-photograph]of a child F2. . .; or
(b)to distribute or show such indecent photographs [F3or pseudo-photographs]; or
(c)to have in his possession such indecent photographs [F3or pseudo-photographs], with a view to their being distributed or shown by himself or others; or
(d)to publish or cause to be published any advertisement likely to be understood as conveying that the advertiser distributes or shows such indecent photographs [F3or pseudo-photographs], or intends to do so.
(2)For purposes of this Act, a person is to be regarded as distributing an indecent photograph [F4or pseudo-photograph]if he parts with possession of it to, or exposes or offers it for acquisition by, another person.
(3)Proceedings for an offence under this Act shall not be instituted except by or with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions.
(4)Where a person is charged with an offence under subsection (1)(b) or (c), it shall be a defence for him to prove—
(a)that he had a legitimate reason for distributing or showing the photographs [F5or pseudo-photographs]or (as the case may be) having them in his possession; or
(b)that he had not himself seen the photographs [F5or pseudo-photographs]and did not know, nor had any cause to suspect, them to be indecent.
The key points here are that:
1) They DID distribute indecent photographs contrary to paragraph 1.1.b. Distribution being defined in 2) as 'exposes or offers for acquisition'.
2) That they had cause to suspect the images to be indecent as per 4.b. The names of many of the groups carried were clear about the content of the groups. The prosecution will have had to prove this point to the satisfaction of the jury for a guilty verdict to have been passed.
Hope that clears it up for you.
why should usenet servers be exempt from possession?
Seems like some posters here see Usenet servers' right to store *all* content as something worth protecting. Why exactly? It's not as if the big binaries servers are providing anything other than a convenient way to get warez/music/movies/porn. I have no issue with that, let the content industries go after them if they want to play whack a mole with piracy, but if they can serve child porn with no consequences, why protect that? Illegal and reviled everywhere, for sound reasons. If Usenet services were made accountable for carrying it, they would just have to police the content better. They are after all getting a bit of a free ride, the business model is monetized piracy...there are more worthy free speech conduits.
Completely exmept, No.
I don't think anyone is in favor of giving news servers a special carte blanche to host absolutely anything. But it still makes people nervous when we see them aggressively prosecuted because of the potential chilling effect on legitimate services. It raises alot of questions we don't so far have answer for. Like what percent of traffic on this service was illegal? Did the owners ever get a warning, or was it just assumed why knew?
I think the authorities should assume good faith on the part of any sort of general purpose content delivery service. If illegal content is found, then the correct course of action would be to alert them and give them a chance to correct the situation. If they don't correct it, or if the problem keeps coming back, then of course legal action might be necessary. Since we don't knew if that happened, I think I and the other posters you alluded to are right to be concerned.
Regarding your good faith remarks.
There are two basic things that have to be proven in any criminal case in this country:
1) Actus Reus. The 'guilty act' in this case the distribution of indecent images of children.
2) Mens Rea. The 'guilty mind' in this case the prosecution would have to have proved, to the satisfaction of a jury of 11 peers, that the people behind this were fully aware of the Actus Reus and did not take reasonable steps to prevent it.
Nobody expected them to view every posting and censor those which were illegal, but not holding groups like alt.binaries.pictures.pedophillia would have been regarded as reasonable.
By sheer virtue of the fact that prosecutions of those accessing this indecent material have occurred it can be seen that the logging on this server recorded specific newsgroups accessed and possibly even messages downloaded. With that level of logging the prosecution will have been easily able to demonstrate the number of subscribers who used the service to access this material.
The lack of your 'good faith' will have been proven.
They were not a 'legitimate service', what is 'chilling' is your cavalier attitude to the welfare of children.
It never ceases to amaze me how register readers automatically attack the prosecution of these cases. Free speech is a good thing, but when that free speech involves the perpetuation of the abuse of children by the distribution of their suffering I don't think it's unreasonable to curtail that 'speech'.
For the record, before another regtard tries to deny anything other than naturist pictures exist, there are 5 level in the Sentencing Guidelines Council scale:
1 Images depicting erotic posing with no sexual activity
2 Non-penetrative sexual activity between children or solo masturbation by a child
3 Non-penetrative sexual activity between adults and children
4 Penetrative sexual activity involving a child or children, or both children and adults
5 Sadism or penetration of or by an animal
Images and videos at ALL these levels are regularly discovered on offender's computers and are distributed via newsgroups, P2P, bittorrent, IM, email, etc, etc, etc. We are also talking about children of ALL ages. Think about these points in relation to a child you know before you post another 'free speech above everything else' post!
Apart from the obvious trolling, the sign of a dearth of cogent argument is when a commenter resorts to adding "tard" to whatever group he is trying to belittle the opinion of.
"Free speech is a good thing, but when that free speech involves the perpetuation of the abuse of children by the distribution of their suffering I don't think it's unreasonable to curtail that 'speech'."
We all agree child abuse is wrong, and no one here is trying to perpetuate it. If I understand correctly, the people who disagree with you do so on the basis that there is no reasoned argument behind the removal of that free speech as you call it. Merely suggesting that the Actus Reus is child abuse is enough for a lot of people to take Mens Rea as read, and to not look any deeper at the basis on which the charge built.
There are many unanswered questions, and the technically savvy readership, who are not retards (and that is your implication) are uneasy about some of the vague and woolly language used which seems to have been chosen to lead the non techinal majority to a conclusion that may be justified by the language used, but not necessarily by all of the facts.
I'll repeat - no one here is defending child abusers, it is about the correct and fair application of the law.
Feel better for getting that off your chest? Ok, let's clear up some points.
1) Trolling? Responding to peoples comments is trolling? I made multliple posts as I was replying to multiple posts, I was keeping them in context. Or is it simply that you don't agree with my stance that makes it trolling?
2) I used the term Regtard as an attempt at humour, in the same way Linux users are sometimes referred to as Freetards, I was trying to make a heavy conversation less heated. Sorry that was missed on you. My implication (did you mean insinuation?) was not that people were retards, that is your interpretation, what gives you the right to tell me what I was thinking?
3) I know it suits your 'arguement' but I've reviewed my post and at no point did I say that the Actus Reus in this instance was actual child abuse.
Either *very* naive or *very* stupid.
Naive. Did not think their servers *could* be hosting CP.
Stupid. *Knew* they were but continued to host them in the UK.
Depending on how well they have managed to secure their £2.2m cash. They *could* come out of jail and could (having paid their debt to society) start up a new service.
Having demonstrated that their "Business model" has generated robust profits in a recession they might even be courted by various VC providers.
Capitalism, eh? Got a love it.
Umm - one moment..
Re. the "they were just hosting usenet": as far as I can tell from the reporting, they were charging serious money for access. This implies there was something of value on those systems which in turn implies knowledge of the content. Otherwise I'm interested to hear how they could collect £2.2M for running a bit of usenet.
Happy to support free speech, but to me this doesn't look like an "innocent mistake"...
@We Need To Know More
"Is a lack of censorship itself now a potentially criminal matter?"
Yes, and has been for some time. The decision to do nothing is a decision to allow these files to exist, and to provide a means of distribution. Regardless of the fact that you're not making these pictures/films, you're knowingly providing a way of distributing them.
Someone soon is going to ask why Royal Mail doesn't get done for distributing dodgy stuff. The simple answer is that if Royal Mail was distributing transparent envelopes containing clearly-dodgy photos, dope or anything else illegal, then they definitely *would* be in some difficulties.
At last! The voice of reason in a sea of regtards!
Just an excersize in idle brainfarting ...
I wonder where RM stands if it handles packages which are transparent but have opaque flaps on them which have to be deliberately moved to see inside. Do they have a legal obligation to look, or a professional responsibility not to?
The real issue with Usenet servers has always been that it is impossible to manage several hundred thousand Newsgroups. It certainly cannot be cost effectively to look at millions of images contained in that many forums. This is why most of them are out of business now.
If someone publishes kiddie porn to a newsgroup server, the poster should be the one who is handed over to the police. The news server operator should be provided with a takedown notice and only arrested if they refuse to take down the offending newsgroup.
As far as "charging for access" all newsgroup providers have a fee of some kind as there is no way to monetize the services they provide.
However, if they charge "special fees" for "certain clients" and the plod gets wind of that, then the service provider should be completely liable.
God Bless Those CEOP Heroes
"Operation Alpine began after a tip-off from German police received via CEOP."
So CEOP's role in this operation was ... receptionist.
its late/early but theres more info on this story here
Thanks, exexpat. That's a most interesting and informative article. We seem to be learning a lot more from This is Lincolnshire than from elsewhere.
One thing I note is this:-
"The court heard Rowland received the additional charges after police discovered posts on an online forum where he talked about "struggling for years" with his feelings towards young boys.
Speaking for Rowland, Nigel Godsmark QC said: "Paul Rowland has a problem and he knows he has a problem. He knows it is wrong and he is frightened of why this is.
"In relation to the business, there is no creation of images, no posting of images.""
If this is what it sounds like, then the additional charges were brought not because he'd actually committed those additional offences, but because he's a paedophile.
Clearly not *that* technical
Leaving aside collecting evidence using outside access as a "subscriber", there's plenty of ways to make these servers dismount a trucrypt or whatever partition upon unauthorised access to the building.
RIPA allows 3 years bird for not handing over a decryption key. Whether that could be provable with the "hidden partition" (i.e. a second key to unlock data in the unused areas of the first partition) thingy I'm not sure.
Longer than that
It's 5 years for indecent images.
Freedom of the press
I read this article with some concerns. From the reporting on the news the impression given was clearly that the four men involved had a sexual interest in children, and were actively trading illegal images themselves.
To now hear that this was merely a small part of an otherwise legal business venture does not diminish the effect of the activity, but certainly damages my faith in British reporting accuracy. Just more scandal mongering and sensationalism.
"132 children protected"...probably based on the "offenders included teachers and youth workers" statement - but other than the internet offences, no actual suspicion that these people had committed any crime with children in their care. More sensationalism.
The media have identified that it is "okay to hate", and so normal rules don't apply. The only time you see extracts from police interviews? Pedophiles. The only time people sanction brutal and violent murder? Pedophiles. (Newsflash, we don't have a death penalty any more, for good reason...look up "Stefan Kiszko" before you rail that we should have). One man in the Northeast WAS actually murdered a few years back, despite the courts acquitting him. No one has ever been arrested for the crime. So we're worried about pedophiles wandering free, but we don't mind the odd murderer being on the loose who thinks they know better than our justice system.
I have a technical question too...if all Usenet servers block access to the offensive groups, how do people get access to them to upload the content that others then download?
In answer to your last question...
...it depends on how the server is set up and the same situation on the servers it peers with.
Suppose that these people operated a server that did not use the IWF list of groups that cannot be carried legally in the UK, as a small ISP that is quite likely. Then people would be able to post articles to any group they chose covered within the probably quite broad globbed group names the server would carry/fetch. Similarly others would be able to access the server and read those articles.
Now add in some peering hosts in other places/countries, also not using the IWF or other block list and you have peered servers sending articles in these groups between themselves.
It looks to me as if the people running the service deliberately took no action after being notified of the type of content found on their servers, so they are probably being done on that basis rather than because they had read the articles themselves and kept copies of the content on their own machines. Stupid really, because once they were aware of what was alleged they should have simply closed the groups concerned and continued to run the business as a normal Usenet hosting service.
The law is a blunt instrument, it doesn't see the provision of a service which contains illegal material that the operators do not monitor as any different to the provision of the illegal material itself, although from the sentences handed out it's clear that they are not being treated in the way they would have been if they were responsible for consuming or creating the material in question. If that were the case the sentences would be much longer I feel.
Why is a small ISP more likely to not use the IWF illegal list?
Well, possibly because...
...of the law of diminishing returns, if the biggest ISPs do then 95%+ of consumers are covered by it. The political pressure to encourage the last 5% to be covered is then much reduced.
It could also be because the operators of these smaller ISPs don't trust the IWF not to block non-infringing stuff, after all they won't tell you what they block and there is no way of checking. Some people don't believe in censorship because it is always used to the benefit of the powerful.
IWF blocklist does not work woth usenet
The IWF blocklist is normally setup by ISP's as a webproxy and therefore only blocks web (port 80) traffic. Usenet uses a completely different not http setup (normally port 113 or ssl if available) so is immune to IWF blocking, the same as P2P and VPN traffic.
There is no block list for usenet apart from admin's not replicating groups with pedo in the title. And since people on usenet can post whatever they want to which ever group they want the above group disabling will only stop so much material getting through. A post put on your local usenet server in tim buck too is replicated to all usenet servers world wide. And user names are optional so you cannot block a certain user. This is the beauty of usenet that it is very hard to suppress communication with it, but that means it is a double edged sword. Really am surprised it was not used more during certain revolutions recently, as it is very low bandwidth so would work well over an international modem connection when your local country has turned of local internet access.
Still shocked by the lack of knowledge of how usenet works here.
- Product round-up Ten excellent FREE PC apps to brighten your Windows
- Analysis Pity the poor Windows developer: The tools for desktop development are in disarray
- Chromecast video on UK, Euro TVs hertz so badly it makes us judder – but Google 'won't fix'
- Product round-up Ten Mac freeware apps for your new Apple baby
- Review Tough Banana Pi: a Raspberry Pi for colour-blind diehards