Re: [swinog] Censurship in Germany Take 2

2009-04-30 Diskussionsfäden Martin Ebnoether
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

Re: [swinog] Censurship in Germany Take 2

2009-04-30 Diskussionsfäden Tonnerre Lombard
Salut, Peter, On Tue, 21 Apr 2009 11:25:55 +0200, Peter Keel wrote: > Stupid pricks. If they legalized possession, all of those people > accidently discovering such things would inform the police, thus > mabye really doing something useful against ist. If the site is blocked it has already been

Re: [swinog] Censurship in Germany Take 2

2009-04-30 Diskussionsfäden Tonnerre Lombard
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

Re: [swinog] Censurship in Germany Take 2

2009-04-21 Diskussionsfäden Peter Keel
* 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

Re: [swinog] Censurship in Germany Take 2

2009-04-21 Diskussionsfäden Peter Guhl Listenempfänger
Andy Davidson schrieb: > On 20 Apr 2009, at 21:49, Peter Guhl Listenempfänger wrote: > >> Well, it depends. While blocking without loggin isn't good for >> anything at all > > In the UK we have -- we are told -- blocking without logging, because > the intent of the blocking is to prevent the

Re: [swinog] Censurship in Germany Take 2

2009-04-20 Diskussionsfäden Andy Davidson
On 20 Apr 2009, at 21:49, Peter Guhl Listenempfänger wrote: > Well, it depends. While blocking without loggin isn't good for > anything at all 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

Re: [swinog] Censurship in Germany Take 2

2009-04-20 Diskussionsfäden Peter Guhl Listenempfänger
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

Re: [swinog] Censurship in Germany Take 2

2009-04-20 Diskussionsfäden Andreas Fink
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