Re: Network Level Content Blocking (UK) for people who cant be bothered to read the article..
On 6/7/07, Leigh Porter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Since only port 80 is passed through the filter then of course there are all manor of things you could do to circumvent the filter and this will of course always be the case as people will use whatever they can to get what they want. After all, all yuo really need to do in order to get all the dodgy material you want is to subscribe to a decent USENET service and get it all from that. For what it's worth though it works well for what it is and we certainly get a few hits on it. Have you been asked by the Dibble for the squid's server log yet? It's the obvious next step - if you had a URL request blocked, obviously you were where you shouldn't have been. You're either with us...or you're with the terrorists.
Re: Network Level Content Blocking (UK) for people who cant be bothered to read the article..
Alexander Harrowell wrote: On 6/7/07, Leigh Porter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Since only port 80 is passed through the filter then of course there are all manor of things you could do to circumvent the filter and this will of course always be the case as people will use whatever they can to get what they want. After all, all yuo really need to do in order to get all the dodgy material you want is to subscribe to a decent USENET service and get it all from that. For what it's worth though it works well for what it is and we certainly get a few hits on it. Have you been asked by the Dibble for the squid's server log yet? It's the obvious next step - if you had a URL request blocked, obviously you were where you shouldn't have been. You're either with us...or you're with the terrorists. I actually removed the code in Squid that logs so it's impossible to log without significant development work ;-) -- Leigh Porter
Re: Network Level Content Blocking (UK)
On Thursday 07 June 2007 23:15, Deepak Jain wrote: I can't imagine this would fly in the US. Such systems have already been ruled unconstitutional in the US. -- The Home Office Minister has already said he expects it in place, thats not far from a precondition of operation. We are kind of use to the home office minister saying all sorts of cranky things. Chances are he'll be gone by the end of the month. My personal dealing with the IWF (stop emailing me, we don't have any NNTP servers anymore) don't fill me with confidence. If the government mandate this, they'll have to provide a list of images to block under a more accountable regime than some random voluntary body, and they'll have to take responsibility when people point out the government is blocking access to specific sites that contain material that criticises them. I think complying with a voluntary censorship regime is a bad idea all around. I'm one of James's employers customers when I'm surfing at home. Simon
Re: Network Level Content Blocking (UK) for people who cant be bothered to read the article..
ssshhh David Freedman wrote: Its too late, you've already admitted that the data exists and can be captured. This is always where it starts... Dave. Leigh Porter wrote: Alexander Harrowell wrote: On 6/7/07, Leigh Porter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Since only port 80 is passed through the filter then of course there are all manor of things you could do to circumvent the filter and this will of course always be the case as people will use whatever they can to get what they want. After all, all yuo really need to do in order to get all the dodgy material you want is to subscribe to a decent USENET service and get it all from that. For what it's worth though it works well for what it is and we certainly get a few hits on it. Have you been asked by the Dibble for the squid's server log yet? It's the obvious next step - if you had a URL request blocked, obviously you were where you shouldn't have been. You're either with us...or you're with the terrorists. I actually removed the code in Squid that logs so it's impossible to log without significant development work ;-) -- Leigh Porter
Re: Network Level Content Blocking (UK) for people who cant be bothered to read the article..
Its too late, you've already admitted that the data exists and can be captured. This is always where it starts... Dave. Leigh Porter wrote: Alexander Harrowell wrote: On 6/7/07, Leigh Porter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Since only port 80 is passed through the filter then of course there are all manor of things you could do to circumvent the filter and this will of course always be the case as people will use whatever they can to get what they want. After all, all yuo really need to do in order to get all the dodgy material you want is to subscribe to a decent USENET service and get it all from that. For what it's worth though it works well for what it is and we certainly get a few hits on it. Have you been asked by the Dibble for the squid's server log yet? It's the obvious next step - if you had a URL request blocked, obviously you were where you shouldn't have been. You're either with us...or you're with the terrorists. I actually removed the code in Squid that logs so it's impossible to log without significant development work ;-) -- Leigh Porter
Re: Network Level Content Blocking (UK) for people who cant be bothered to read the article..
On 6/8/07, Leigh Porter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I actually removed the code in Squid that logs so it's impossible to log without significant development work ;-) -- Leigh Porter Internet governance by benevolent conspiracy:-)
RE: Network Level Content Blocking (UK) for people who cant be bothered to read the article..
Have you been asked by the Dibble for the squid's server log yet? It's the obvious next step - if you had a URL request blocked, obviously you were where you shouldn't have been. You're either with us...or you're with the terrorists. If this website blocking is voluntary and if your goal is to protect your customers from inadvertently loading one of their pages, then you would not want to log any details, would you? If you want to help the police by reducing the number of spurious hits on this known illegal website so that they have a higher chance of tracking real criminals from the website hits, then you would not want to muddy the waters by sending your useless data to them, would you? Situations like this are always very complex and it does not help when people throw around simplistic analyses that are not grounded in reality. There was recent media coverage in the UK that indicates there are far more pedophiles than was thought and that real pedophiles don't fit the common stereotypes that people have of them. To me, this indicates that the police are struggling with data explosion and need help in reducing that data to increase their chances of catching SOME of the criminals. It does not suggest that police want to catch ALL the criminals and some number of innocent people as well. After all, any arrests will have to be processed through the court system and when you throw lots of innocent people and marginal cases into the courts, the cases drag on for a long time and clog up the system. That would be counterproductive wouldn't it? The objections that I see from people in regard to things like website blocking and network tapping, seem to assume that governments are very narrowminded, very efficient and have evil intent. In my experience, there is a lot more systems thinking in governments that you think, they are not terribly efficient, and they do not collectively have evil intent. They do make a lot of mistakes, but these get corrected. If nothing else, governments have learned that it is very bad to cover up mistakes, but you can make a lot of political hay by admitting them and proposing the next bold new solution. If you really don't like something that governments do, you are better off not attacking it in a narrow way, but suggesting that it was a mistake and pushing government into the next bold new initiative to fix the mistake. This works especially well around election time, but it can also be done between elections because even the party in power changes tack from time to time. In this case I would suggest that it is in ISPs best interests to get involved with network content blocking, so that ISPs collectively become deep experts on the subject. We are then in a position to modify these activities in a way that is beneficial to ISPs and their customers (who happen to be voters too). And we are in a position to advise government on future actions as well. If ISPs choose not to get involved, then they are less likely to be listened to by government partly because they have less credibility and partly because they simply don't understand the issue and therefore fail to communicate effectively. Inter-ISP cooperation is a big problem that needs to be solved on a global scale. Fortunately, there is a growing number of international forums in which ISPs do get together to deal with specific flashpoints. If your company has any part of your network in the UK, please do get involved by contacting LINX as requested: We have 13 companies involved so far but really want to get as many ISP's together to make sure that people understand the implications of the governments request. Whilst the intent is to focus the content on the technical side we are keen to make sure that the all parts of the ISP industry are brought up to date so may run multiple strands with different levels of technical content if we have the numbers. If you are interested please contact John Souter ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) or Malcolm Hutty ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) for more details. --Michael Dillon
Re: Network Level Content Blocking (UK) for people who cant be bothered to read the article..
On 8-jun-2007, at 12:01, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In this case I would suggest that it is in ISPs best interests to get involved with network content blocking, so that ISPs collectively become deep experts on the subject. We are then in a position to modify these activities in a way that is beneficial to ISPs and their customers (who happen to be voters too). Your assumption that blocking parts of the internet is a useful activity is flawed. The only positive effect that this has is that it protects users from accidentally running into stuff they'd rather not come into contact with. But this is much more effeciently and effictively done using commercially available filters. I talked to some people from the Dutch equivalent to http:// www.iwf.org.uk/ This was a very curious experience. What they want to achieve is protecting children from abuse. This is of course a laudable goal. But they think they can do that by ridding the internet of images depicting said abuse. There are pretty strong laws against that in the Netherlands*, but this woman thought that wasn't enough: she felt it would be good to also outlaw _text_ describing child abuse. This is really scary. If these well-intentioned but extremely dangerous people get their way, someone can end up in jail for simply writing some text. All the while, children in known dangerous situations go on a waiting list before they can be removed from the dangerous (home) environment. So apparently, it's more important to go after the results of child abuse in the past, and maybe even go after people who only fantasize about this stuff, rather than help kids that are in danger NOW. But hey, removing kids from abusive homes costs money and results in angry parents on the news. Strongarming ISPs into taking voluntary action on the other hand, is free and only results in angry threads on NANOG. I'm not one to give up my civil liberties without a struggle, but protecting kids may be important enough to make it worth giving up a few. But is it too much to ask for something that actually works in return? * Not long ago, a man was convicted because he had 10 images of this kind on his computer. They were part of a 10 image porn collection. His claim that the 10 images were downloaded accidentally wasn't accepted by the judge: he should have been more careful.
Re: Network Level Content Blocking (UK) for people who cant be bothered to read the article..
On Fri, Jun 08, 2007, David Freedman wrote: Its too late, you've already admitted that the data exists and can be captured. This is always where it starts... The logging code in release versions of Squid is pretty horrible and won't handle the loads modern ISPs will put under it. You have to disable it to get any decent performance. Adrian
The Cidr Report
This report has been generated at Fri Jun 8 21:50:57 2007 AEST.
The report analyses the BGP Routing Table of an AS4637 (Reach) router
and generates a report on aggregation potential within the table.
Check http://www.cidr-report.org/as4637 for a current version of this report.
Recent Table History
Date PrefixesCIDR Agg
01-06-07219260 141171
02-06-07219747 141104
03-06-07219470 141087
04-06-07219660 141277
05-06-07219574 141444
06-06-07219651 141176
07-06-07219639 141141
08-06-07220594 141147
AS Summary
25321 Number of ASes in routing system
10752 Number of ASes announcing only one prefix
1482 Largest number of prefixes announced by an AS
AS7018 : ATT-INTERNET4 - ATT WorldNet Services
89916672 Largest address span announced by an AS (/32s)
AS721 : DISA-ASNBLK - DoD Network Information Center
Aggregation Summary
The algorithm used in this report proposes aggregation only
when there is a precise match using the AS path, so as
to preserve traffic transit policies. Aggregation is also
proposed across non-advertised address space ('holes').
--- 08Jun07 ---
ASnumNetsNow NetsAggr NetGain % Gain Description
Table 219880 1411607872035.8% All ASes
AS4755 1231 266 96578.4% VSNL-AS Videsh Sanchar Nigam
Ltd. Autonomous System
AS4134 1262 320 94274.6% CHINANET-BACKBONE
No.31,Jin-rong Street
AS18566 1010 97 91390.4% COVAD - Covad Communications
Co.
AS9498 1002 96 90690.4% BBIL-AP BHARTI BT INTERNET
LTD.
AS4323 1271 373 89870.7% TWTC - Time Warner Telecom,
Inc.
AS6478 1103 259 84476.5% ATT-INTERNET3 - ATT WorldNet
Services
AS11492 1075 381 69464.6% CABLEONE - CABLE ONE
AS22773 715 56 65992.2% CCINET-2 - Cox Communications
Inc.
AS19262 775 206 56973.4% VZGNI-TRANSIT - Verizon
Internet Services Inc.
AS18101 556 40 51692.8% RIL-IDC Reliance Infocom Ltd
Internet Data Centre,
AS17488 699 189 51073.0% HATHWAY-NET-AP Hathway IP Over
Cable Internet
AS6197 1026 517 50949.6% BATI-ATL - BellSouth Network
Solutions, Inc
AS7018 1482 982 50033.7% ATT-INTERNET4 - ATT WorldNet
Services
AS19916 568 101 46782.2% ASTRUM-0001 - OLM LLC
AS15270 538 80 45885.1% AS-PAETEC-NET - PaeTec.net -a
division of
PaeTecCommunications, Inc.
AS17676 504 65 43987.1% JPNIC-JP-ASN-BLOCK Japan
Network Information Center
AS4766 743 317 42657.3% KIXS-AS-KR Korea Telecom
AS8151 825 432 39347.6% Uninet S.A. de C.V.
AS9443 474 82 39282.7% INTERNETPRIMUS-AS-AP Primus
Telecommunications
AS2386 1148 759 38933.9% INS-AS - ATT Data
Communications Services
AS4812 459 80 37982.6% CHINANET-SH-AP China Telecom
(Group)
AS5668 600 239 36160.2% AS-5668 - CenturyTel Internet
Holdings, Inc.
AS7029 594 238 35659.9% WINDSTREAM - Windstream
Communications Inc
AS16852 405 79 32680.5% BROADWING-FOCAL - Broadwing
Communications Services, Inc.
AS7011 804 484 32039.8% FRONTIER-AND-CITIZENS -
Frontier Communications of
America, Inc.
AS9942 431 121 31071.9% COMINDICO-AP SOUL Converged
Communications Australia
AS4668 3147 30797.8% LGNET-AS-KR LG CNS
AS14654 3035 29898.3% WAYPORT - Wayport
AS721564 267 297
BGP Update Report
BGP Update Report Interval: 25-May-07 -to- 07-Jun-07 (14 days) Observation Point: BGP Peering with AS4637 TOP 20 Unstable Origin AS Rank ASNUpds % Upds/PfxAS-Name 1 - AS647861867 1.0% 56.0 -- ATT-INTERNET3 - ATT WorldNet Services 2 - AS958351441 0.8% 45.3 -- SIFY-AS-IN Sify Limited 3 - AS17486 46604 0.8% 435.6 -- SWIFTEL1-AP Swiftel Communications Pty Ltd/People Telecom Ltd 4 - AS238644118 0.7% 38.0 -- INS-AS - ATT Data Communications Services 5 - AS701837936 0.6% 25.0 -- ATT-INTERNET4 - ATT WorldNet Services 6 - AS413435415 0.6% 27.9 -- CHINANET-BACKBONE No.31,Jin-rong Street 7 - AS11492 31478 0.5% 29.0 -- CABLEONE - CABLE ONE 8 - AS462129376 0.5% 205.4 -- UNSPECIFIED UNINET-TH 9 - AS619828459 0.5% 50.0 -- BATI-MIA - BellSouth Network Solutions, Inc 10 - AS432326663 0.4% 20.7 -- TWTC - Time Warner Telecom, Inc. 11 - AS815126368 0.4% 19.7 -- Uninet S.A. de C.V. 12 - AS949826202 0.4% 25.7 -- BBIL-AP BHARTI BT INTERNET LTD. 13 - AS477525664 0.4% 167.7 -- GLOBE-TELECOM-AS Telecom Carrier / ISP Plus + 14 - AS475524373 0.4% 19.6 -- VSNL-AS Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Autonomous System 15 - AS24326 24165 0.4% 215.8 -- TTT-AS-AP TTT Public Company Limited, Service Provider,Bangkok 16 - AS619722829 0.4% 21.9 -- BATI-ATL - BellSouth Network Solutions, Inc 17 - AS24731 22629 0.4% 526.3 -- ASN-NESMA National Engineering Services and Marketing Company Ltd. (NESMA) 18 - AS453821902 0.4% 8.1 -- ERX-CERNET-BKB China Education and Research Network Center 19 - AS17974 21413 0.3% 59.2 -- TELKOMNET-AS2-AP PT TELEKOMUNIKASI INDONESIA 20 - AS475021291 0.3% 102.9 -- LOXLEY-TH Loxley Information Co., Ltd. TOP 20 Unstable Origin AS (Updates per announced prefix) Rank ASNUpds % Upds/PfxAS-Name 1 - AS270961814 0.0%1814.0 -- DDN-ASNBLK1 - DoD Network Information Center 2 - AS343781648 0.0%1648.0 -- RUG-AS Razguliay-UKRROS Group 3 - AS124081448 0.0%1448.0 -- BIKENT-AS Bikent Ltd. Autonomous system 4 - AS413273516 0.1%1172.0 -- MT-ITTELECOM IT T AS number 5 - AS10178 12601 0.2%1145.5 -- KBTUS-AS Korea Baptist Theological University/Seminary 6 - AS306001979 0.0% 989.5 -- CSDI-ASN01 - Corbett Systems Development, Inc. 7 - AS134053867 0.1% 966.8 -- AS-OCNET - oc-net inc 8 - AS224087547 0.1% 943.4 -- WKNET - West Ky Networks 9 - AS363244167 0.1% 833.4 -- VOSTROM-PUBLIC - VOSTROM Holdings, Inc. 10 - AS36103 821 0.0% 821.0 -- CENTRALUTAH - Central Utah Telephone, Inc. 11 - AS307072296 0.0% 765.3 -- 12 - AS176458343 0.1% 758.5 -- NTT-SG-AP ASN - NTT SINGAPORE PTE LTD 13 - AS342081431 0.0% 715.5 -- ZMP-GDANSK-AS Zarzad Morskiego Portu Gdansk S.A. 14 - AS289771346 0.0% 673.0 -- UN-UNLB United Nations Logistics Base Brindisi, Italy 15 - AS228181826 0.0% 608.7 -- Directnet Prestacao de Servicos Ltda. 16 - AS23910 598 0.0% 598.0 -- CNGI-CERNET2-AS-AP China Next Generation Internet CERNET2 17 - AS31254 560 0.0% 560.0 -- IPSTUDIO-AS IP Studio 18 - AS227201108 0.0% 554.0 -- LEXENT-INC-3NYP-301 - Lexent, Inc. 19 - AS24731 22629 0.4% 526.3 -- ASN-NESMA National Engineering Services and Marketing Company Ltd. (NESMA) 20 - AS22433 522 0.0% 522.0 -- HRMC - Human Resource Management Center, Inc. TOP 20 Unstable Prefixes Rank Prefix Upds % Origin AS -- AS Name 1 - 203.17.214.0/24 18320 0.3% AS17486 -- SWIFTEL1-AP Swiftel Communications Pty Ltd/People Telecom Ltd 2 - 203.11.108.0/24 18320 0.3% AS17486 -- SWIFTEL1-AP Swiftel Communications Pty Ltd/People Telecom Ltd 3 - 203.177.10.0/24 10718 0.2% AS4775 -- GLOBE-TELECOM-AS Telecom Carrier / ISP Plus + 4 - 203.177.132.0/24 10698 0.2% AS4775 -- GLOBE-TELECOM-AS Telecom Carrier / ISP Plus + 5 - 203.23.208.0/248224 0.1% AS7604 -- HWY1-AS Highway 1 6 - 221.135.253.0/24 6244 0.1% AS9583 -- SIFY-AS-IN Sify Limited 7 - 194.42.208.0/205411 0.1% AS705 -- UUNET - MCI Communications Services, Inc. d/b/a Verizon Business 8 - 89.4.128.0/24 4636 0.1% AS24731 -- ASN-NESMA National Engineering Services and Marketing Company Ltd. (NESMA) 9 - 89.4.130.0/24 4591 0.1% AS24731 -- ASN-NESMA National Engineering Services and Marketing Company Ltd. (NESMA) 10 - 89.4.129.0/24 4374 0.1% AS24731 -- ASN-NESMA National Engineering Services and Marketing Company
Re: Network Level Content Blocking (UK)
* Jeroen Massar: I wonder how this solves the, from what I found out, common situation that people rent cheap root servers in a country like Germany where they VPN into and thus have full access to everything. In Germany, the legal framework for filtering transit traffic already exists, so if the UK precedent shows that it's technically and economically feasible, this will be implemented over here, too. I doubt the situation is much different in most European countries. Of course, when the blocking is pretty much universal, I don't really see how the list maintainer verifies that the reason for blocking still exists. On the other hand, this might also provide an opportunity to shut down some of the most egregious malware distributors and controllers.
Re: Network Level Content Blocking (UK) for people who cant be bothered to read the article..
Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote: On 8-jun-2007, at 12:01, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In this case I would suggest that it is in ISPs best interests to get involved with network content blocking, so that ISPs collectively become deep experts on the subject. We are then in a position to modify these activities in a way that is beneficial to ISPs and their customers (who happen to be voters too). Your assumption that blocking parts of the internet is a useful activity is flawed. The only positive effect that this has is that it protects users from accidentally running into stuff they'd rather not come into contact with. But this is much more effeciently and effictively done using commercially available filters. I talked to some people from the Dutch equivalent to http://www.iwf.org.uk/ This was a very curious experience. What they want to achieve is protecting children from abuse. This is of course a laudable goal. But they think they can do that by ridding the internet of images depicting said abuse. There are pretty strong laws against that in the Netherlands*, but this woman thought that wasn't enough: she felt it would be good to also outlaw _text_ describing child abuse. This is really scary. If these well-intentioned but extremely dangerous people get their way, someone can end up in jail for simply writing some text. All the while, children in known dangerous situations go on a waiting list before they can be removed from the dangerous (home) environment. So apparently, it's more important to go after the results of child abuse in the past, and maybe even go after people who only fantasize about this stuff, rather than help kids that are in danger NOW. But hey, removing kids from abusive homes costs money and results in angry parents on the news. Strongarming ISPs into taking voluntary action on the other hand, is free and only results in angry threads on NANOG. I'm not one to give up my civil liberties without a struggle, but protecting kids may be important enough to make it worth giving up a few. But is it too much to ask for something that actually works in return? * Not long ago, a man was convicted because he had 10 images of this kind on his computer. They were part of a 10 image porn collection. His claim that the 10 images were downloaded accidentally wasn't accepted by the judge: he should have been more careful. I agree that it will not protect children at all. Presumably there are already a large number of images (I hear figures of people having n * thousand images) so there is already enough material for there not to be a reason to generate more which would of course involve abuse. So what then is the aim of the filtering? Is it just the latest political bandwagon It is quite odd really that governments want to implement something to prevent people from breaking a law. And some posts have been correct in asking what's next? Automatic copyright/patent infringing filtering? -- Leigh
Re: Network Level Content Blocking (UK) for people who cant be bothered to read the article..
On Fri, Jun 08, 2007, Leigh Porter wrote: It is quite odd really that governments want to implement something to prevent people from breaking a law. And some posts have been correct in asking what's next? Automatic copyright/patent infringing filtering? Obviously you've not paid much attention to what Youtube have been doing lately.. Adrian
Re: Network Level Content Blocking (UK) for people who cant be bothered to read the article..
This was a very curious experience. What they want to achieve is protecting children from abuse. This is of course a laudable goal. But they think they can do that by ridding the internet of images depicting said abuse. There are pretty strong laws against that in the Netherlands*, but this woman thought that wasn't enough: she felt it would be good to also outlaw _text_ describing child abuse. This is really scary. If these well-intentioned but extremely dangerous people get their way, someone can end up in jail for simply writing some text. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding. -Judge Louis Brandeis Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies, The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. - C.S. Lewis I'm not one to give up my civil liberties without a struggle, but protecting kids may be important enough to make it worth giving up a few. But is it too much to ask for something that actually works in return? They that would give up essential liberty for a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. -Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759 Experience teaches us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government's purposes are beneficent. -Judge Louis Brandeis I am not willing to give up any of my own liberties to protect children. We already have laws that do that and judging by the number of people arrested they seem to work. You reach a point of diminishing returns. At some point you have to accept that the world is a dangerous place and that bad things happen. There is a balancing point and a greater good to think about. Making everyone elses life less free does not balance out with the prospect of maybe saving a few kids. As the laws become more invasive they will eventually breed resentment and hatred for the government and fellow citizens. The end result will be civil unrest and fighting and that helps noone. Sadly it's already happening. Americans hate each other more than at any almost any other time in our history- and the hatred is becoming vicious. -Don
Re: Network Level Content Blocking (UK) for people who cant be bothered to read the article..
Well, it seems to be a standard operating procedure that anyone in a high profile case gets accused of possessing child porn via anonymous leaks from the police to the national press. (See the Forest Gate incident - not only did they tear the guy's house apart looking for nonexistent chemical weapons, they accidentally shot him, then they briefed the tabloids that his computer was riddled with evil images of children. Naturally, he was never prosecuted for same.) If any UK ISP is willing to NOT do this, you've got my business.
Re: Network Level Content Blocking (UK) for people who cant be bothered to read the article..
It is quite odd really that governments want to implement something to prevent people from breaking a law. And some posts have been correct in asking what's next? Automatic copyright/patent infringing filtering? On that subject- we should probably change the language as well. Make it so that people can't even think of breaking the law because the words for such an action no longer exist. That would be doubleplusgood! -Don
Re: Network Level Content Blocking (UK) for people who cant be bothered to read the article..
Why did they even go for him in the fist place? Has anybody heard of operation Ore in the UK? It looks like a bit of a disaster, who would have thought that stolen credit Card details would have been used to buy illegal porn? -- Leigh Alexander Harrowell wrote: Well, it seems to be a standard operating procedure that anyone in a high profile case gets accused of possessing child porn via anonymous leaks from the police to the national press. (See the Forest Gate incident - not only did they tear the guy's house apart looking for nonexistent chemical weapons, they accidentally shot him, then they briefed the tabloids that his computer was riddled with evil images of children. Naturally, he was never prosecuted for same.) If any UK ISP is willing to NOT do this, you've got my business.
Re: Network Level Content Blocking (UK) for people who cant be bothered to read the article..
On Fri, 8 Jun 2007, Donald Stahl wrote: The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding. -Judge Louis Brandeis snip I am not willing to give up any of my own liberties to protect children. We already have laws that do that and judging by the number of people arrested they seem to work. You reach a point of diminishing returns. Hello, Before *this* thread spins out of control, I would like to draw your attention to NANOG-L AUP, available at http://www.nanog.org/aup.html , particularly #6: Postings of political, philosophical, and legal nature are discouraged. In other words, it is on-topic to discuss operational effect of filtering - what the original post started with. It is on-topic to discuss how to filter and comply with government or corporate mandates to filter. It is on-topic to discuss existing logging/filtering solutions and their operational impact. It is not so much on topic to discuss legalities of filtering, but I think most agree that it still belongs here. It is clearly off-topic to discuss lists of british colonies, or civil liberties or protection of children - there are better forums to do this. Please follow any replies to this message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] -alex (acting mlc chair)
