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 *accidental* discovery of
> child abuse images.
I must say that I havent's often found real child porn sites by
accident. Even looking for "child porn" in normal search engines
normally only finds ordinary porn pages only using the keyword "child
porn" as a marketing gag. To find the real stuff you still normally have
to want to find it.
But the idea to block some ugly stuff is not the worst. The worst thing
is that somebody we, the people, didn't have elected and can't control
is editing the blocklist (foreign countries and private organisations).
A friend of mine can't do his work in the office because the company is
using a blocklist (bought from a specialised company) blocking most
technology related web forums as unwanted stuff. He can ask the IT-staff
to open the sites but he can only ask for specific websites so it takes
months to get them all.
Even more the problem is that today every photo of a naked child is
automatically banned as child porn. There is an exhibition somewhere in
Germany (I guess) showing photos which have been shocking people when
they came out. It includes some completely harmless pictures of naked
children too - I wonder what kind of attacks they are facing! And nobody
looks what happens in countries where it's normal to go around mostly
naked. Nobody asks if there sexually motivated violation is a real problem.
Regards
Peter
_______________________________________________
swinog mailing list
swinog@lists.swinog.ch
http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
