On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 6:33 AM, Tomasz Ganicz polime...@gmail.com wrote:
Well, the story with IWF have shown that the current system of
blocking vandals by their IP has to be changed ASAP. In fact it is
causing a lot of problems even without action of IWF and other similar
wachdogs. There are
2008/12/12 Florence Devouard anthe...@yahoo.com:
We all perfectly know that if this particular image was borderline,
there are images or texts that are illegal in certain countries. I am
not even speaking of China here, but good old westernish countries.
In some countries, it may be
On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 6:26 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
The censorship issue isn't really an issue - if an image (or content
or whatever) is genuinely illegal in a given country then of course
that country has every right to block it. If countries block legal
images (as
Not a response to your email, but the reaction in general strikes me
as very inconsistent. With China they have been censored, they try and
use TOR, and we block them, and say for years that there is
regrettably nothing we can do about this situation. UK gets blocked
for a day and we are
On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 9:01 AM, Judson Dunn cohes...@sleepyhead.org wrote:
Not a response to your email, but the reaction in general strikes me
as very inconsistent. With China they have been censored, they try and
use TOR, and we block them, and say for years that there is
regrettably
On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 6:43 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
Indeed, I don't see any alternative way to block anonymous users. Even
forcing people to register wouldn't help since, without IP addresses,
we can't block account creation by people creating new accounts every
time
Long-time ago, I suggested adding a short-duration cookie whenever a
block was triggered that would allow the software to detect the most
obvious IP jumping vandals (asumming they used the same browser on the
same machine each time). It doesn't get at the bulk of Tomek's
criticism, but it
On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 7:50 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
Long-time ago, I suggested adding a short-duration cookie whenever a
block was triggered that would allow the software to detect the most
obvious IP jumping vandals (asumming they used the same browser on the
same
On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 10:50 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
Long-time ago, I suggested adding a short-duration cookie whenever a
block was triggered that would allow the software to detect the most
obvious IP jumping vandals (asumming they used the same browser on the
same
2008/12/12 David Moran fordmadoxfr...@gmail.com:
I absolutely agree with Judson that we should be devoting exactly zero of
our material and mental resources to thinking of ways to assist in the work
of censors. The problems presented in this example are almost entirely
those of a national
On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 6:33 AM, Tomasz Ganicz polime...@gmail.com wrote:
2008/12/12 Florence Devouard anthe...@yahoo.com:
We all perfectly know that if this particular image was borderline,
there are images or texts that are illegal in certain countries. I am
not even speaking of China
2008/12/12 Anthony wikim...@inbox.org:
On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 5:52 AM, Florence Devouard anthe...@yahoo.comwrote:
If tomorrow, a really illegal-in-UK image is reported to the IWF, they
will block it for real. And they will block again editing.
They didn't block editing. You did.
2008/12/12 Anthony wikim...@inbox.org:
The IWF said that contextual issues are important in the decision of whether
or not they will keep the webpage on their list. They specifically
reiterated that they still consider the image to be potentially illegal.
The head of the IWF is potentially
Mike Godwin wrote:
Anthony writes:
I'm sure they're in the process of changing their review system to
take
these issues into account. At the same time, requiring *all* images
to be
found illegal before taking action, would not be a good idea.
In this particular instance, however, it is
The IWF said that contextual issues are important in the decision of whether
or not they will keep the webpage on their list. They specifically
reiterated that they still consider the image to be potentially illegal.
You expected them to actually admit to having made a mistake? Why
would they
15 matches
Mail list logo
