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,
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
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
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
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
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:-)
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
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
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
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
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 - AS9583
* 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
19 matches
Mail list logo
