Salut, Peter,
On Mon, 20 Apr 2009 22:49:29 +0200, Peter Guhl Listenempfänger wrote:
Of course the police will be swamped with useless data. Of course
crawlers will cause most of the traffic; lots of them beeing spam
harvesters hard to track.
If I'm really mean I put an iframe on my website
On the Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 10:15:22PM +0200, Tonnerre Lombard blubbered:
Hallo.
Of course the police will be swamped with useless data. Of course
crawlers will cause most of the traffic; lots of them beeing spam
harvesters hard to track.
If I'm really mean I put an iframe on my website
* on the Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 10:28:14PM +0100, Andy Davidson wrote:
In the UK we have -- we are told -- blocking without logging, because
the intent of the blocking is to prevent the *accidental* discovery of
child abuse images.
Stupid pricks. If they legalized possession, all of those
its getting worse:
http://www.heise.de/newsticker/Kinderporno-Sperren-Provider-sollen-Nutzerzugriffe-loggen-duerfen--/meldung/136450
On 18.04.2009, at 17:00, Pascal Mainini wrote:
Hi all
Very good article about the reality versus View of Politicians.
I think we will have this discussion in
Andreas Fink schrieb:
its getting worse:
http://www.heise.de/newsticker/Kinderporno-Sperren-Provider-sollen-Nutzerzugriffe-loggen-duerfen--/meldung/136450
Well, it depends. While blocking without loggin isn't good for anything
at all and logging without blocking would be a rather good idea
5 matches
Mail list logo
