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
> I am not willing to give up any of my own liberties to protect children.
> We already have laws th
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 wo
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 att
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
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 stan
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 p
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 po
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
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
act
> 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 go
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:-)
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 th
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 the
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 ge
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,
Sean Donelan wrote:
On Thu, 7 Jun 2007, Chris L. Morrow wrote:
Its not "content" blocking, its source/destination blocking.
oh, so null routes? I got the impression it was application-aware, or
atleast port-aware... If it's proxying or doing anything more than
port-level blocking it's likely
16 matches
Mail list logo