Martin et al,
Not a lawyer... but I know law and I have studied the issue of law and
filtering of the public information and I gave consulting to many
congressmen that were the ones that establish the peruvian laws about
what children can see and cannot see (I will not get in the debate
about
Hello John and all,
Tip 1: Due to one of my previous works I have been able to check the
log of huge servers here in Peru.
I was looking for technical reasons for some weird behaviour on a small
network. Then, suddenly, I realize
that the word sex and sex related websites were all over the
b) The filtering software MUST be installed on each computer (not in a
proxy or any other intermediary device). Article 2 (El cumplimiento
de esta obligacion se hace efectivo mediante la instalación, en todas
las computadoras, de programas o software especiales de filtro y
bloqueo...)
On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 4:58 PM, Martin Dengler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, May 08, 2008 at 04:06:03PM -0700, Edward Cherlin wrote:
[. . .]
It is sufficient if we clearly obey the law, and don't seek
to go beyond it.
Any lawyers around? go beyond implies interpret -- the only
safe
I don't know why Hal... that was not one of my suggestions to the law.
Been in the law is not a guarantee that is related to justice or related
to technical stuff.
Be totally sure that the kids will disable the filters by themselves...
(go kids! :-) )
but the problem is the same: we need
On May 7, 2008, at 4:28 PM, Eben Eliason wrote:
On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 4:24 PM, Joshua N Pritikin
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, May 07, 2008 at 04:17:04PM -0400, Eben Eliason wrote:
On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 4:09 PM, Joshua N Pritikin
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That doesn't mean it's a
On Thu, May 08, 2008 at 02:52:52PM -0400, John Watlington wrote:
It appears acceptable for the filtering to be done external to the
laptop/computer,
as long as it can't easily be circumvented. Hence my questions to devel
a while back about forcing Gecko to use a non-transparent proxy.
Why
On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 4:24 PM, Joshua N Pritikin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I believe
we MUST error on the conservative side, especially for American
deployments.
If you're sending home user modifiable wifi-capable computers with
kids, you're already a long way from the conservative side of
On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 4:46 PM, Carl-Daniel Hailfinger
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
An acceptable middle ground for you would probably be software which
mangles the US constitution like this: Congress shall make no law
abridging the freedom of sXXXch, or the right of the people peaceably to
On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 1:46 PM, Carl-Daniel Hailfinger
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 08.05.2008 22:29, Joshua N Pritikin wrote:
On Thu, May 08, 2008 at 04:16:48PM -0400, Tom Hoffman wrote:
On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 4:24 PM, Joshua N Pritikin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I believe we MUST error on the
On Thu, May 08, 2008 at 04:06:03PM -0700, Edward Cherlin wrote:
[. . .]
It is sufficient if we clearly obey the law, and don't seek
to go beyond it.
Any lawyers around? go beyond implies interpret -- the only
safe course is to comply exactly and minimally, IMHO.
Martin
pgpDcz8IyqO41.pgp
On May 8, 2008, at 7:58 PM, Martin Dengler wrote:
On Thu, May 08, 2008 at 04:06:03PM -0700, Edward Cherlin wrote:
[. . .]
It is sufficient if we clearly obey the law, and don't seek
to go beyond it.
Any lawyers around? go beyond implies interpret -- the only
safe course is to comply
On Wed, May 07, 2008 at 02:35:07AM -0400, Albert Cahalan wrote:
Child-safe web filtering on XO
Regardless of its merits, CIPA requires it for XO deployments
in US schools:
Here are the requirements: http://ifea.net/cipa.pdf
The easy way out is child ownership. The requirements only
On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 10:04 AM, Joshua N Pritikin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That is totally half-assed. As a parent, I would be pissed off when I
became aware of the quality of such an OLPC web filtering solution.
How about if we place a DansGuardian transparent proxy on a public IP
[Already sent to Cahalan, forgot to CC devel]
On Wed, May 07, 2008 at 02:51:27PM -0400, Albert Cahalan wrote:
On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 10:04 AM, Joshua N Pritikin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That is totally half-assed. As a parent, I would be pissed off when I
became aware of the quality of
On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 4:09 PM, Joshua N Pritikin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[Already sent to Cahalan, forgot to CC devel]
On Wed, May 07, 2008 at 02:51:27PM -0400, Albert Cahalan wrote:
On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 10:04 AM, Joshua N Pritikin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
That is totally
On Wed, May 07, 2008 at 04:17:04PM -0400, Eben Eliason wrote:
On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 4:09 PM, Joshua N Pritikin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That doesn't mean it's a good idea to allow them to read filthy stories.
It's one thing to comply with the law, but we should try to comply with
the
On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 4:24 PM, Joshua N Pritikin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, May 07, 2008 at 04:17:04PM -0400, Eben Eliason wrote:
On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 4:09 PM, Joshua N Pritikin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
That doesn't mean it's a good idea to allow them to read filthy stories.
18 matches
Mail list logo
