@Nate you are looking for https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/may/25/facebook-moderator-underpaid-overburdened-extreme-content
On Tue, Feb 6, 2018 at 11:33 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: > I made that point during a legislative conference call. Ping has a > payload area. > > Ping me baby, ping me so goood! > > *From:* Adam Moffett > *Sent:* Tuesday, February 6, 2018 9:24 AM > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] blocking > > I bet we could embed porn in the data portion of ICMP echo requests. > > > ------ Original Message ------ > From: "Adam Moffett" <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Sent: 2/6/2018 11:22:53 AM > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] blocking > > > Cannot be a 3rd party solution? All ISP's must re-invent the same wheel. > > For an exhaustive list show all Layer7 protocols. If the protocol can > send binary, then it can send porn. If the protocol can send text, then it > can send base64 encoded porn. > > They're saying internet while thinking of the web, but even that is not > easy to monitor from the network side. Install the best porn blocking > network appliance in the world and then open a VPN connection to see it > completely circumvented. If you install something on the endpoint rather > than the network, then the user has access to tamper with it. Kids are > clever, they have free time, and they have motive. Once one figures out > how to bypass your blocking he'll show his buddies and then then porn is > back on. > > > > ------ Original Message ------ > From: [email protected] > To: [email protected] > Sent: 2/6/2018 11:09:24 AM > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] blocking > > > The proposed solution is that any ISP over 500 customers has to provide > some kind of blocking technology to prevent harm to minors. And it cannot > be a 3rd party solution. > > I want to come up with an exhaustive list of all the potential ways minors > can select harmful things on the internet. There is more than just web > pages out there. > > *From:* Zach Underwood > *Sent:* Tuesday, February 6, 2018 9:01 AM > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] blocking > > Are you talking about https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/ > 2017/04/states-introduce-dubious-legislation-ransom-internet this style > of blocking? > If you are talking about that style of blocking then as ISP we fight this > as it is not the ISP job to block. > > If someone wants to block this type of content when the parent should be > in change of installing blocking software and picking what should be > blocked. > > On Tue, Feb 6, 2018 at 10:48 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I have some proposed legislation I am facing about porn blocking again. >> But they are not defining the type of service. It is one thing to block >> web traffic, but how about netflix or twitter or skype or...... >> >> I want to play defense here and force the lawmakers to define exactly >> what we need to block. >> So can you guys help me develop a list of all the things we would have to >> analyze and block if we were going to attempt to create a true device that >> protects kids. >> >> >> > > > > -- > Zach Underwood (RHCE,RHCSA,RHCT,UACA) > My website <http://zachunderwood.me> > advance-networking.com > > -- Zach Underwood (RHCE,RHCSA,RHCT,UACA) My website <http://zachunderwood.me> advance-networking.com
