Hi
I just read about the blocking of archive.org (which is for me an ususal site(!) (http://www.heise.de/newsticker/Britische-Jugendschuetzer-lassen-Internet-Arc... ) is one source, which refers to http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/01/14/iwf_details_archive_blacklisting/
Do We have to expect that the ISP using the white clean box do block archive.org soon (and as the article states, probably completely?)
regards Silvan
Silvan Gebhardt wrote:
Hi
I just read about the blocking of archive.org (which is for me an ususal site(!) (http://www.heise.de/newsticker/Britische-Jugendschuetzer-lassen-Internet-Arc... ) is one source, which refers to http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/01/14/iwf_details_archive_blacklisting/
Do We have to expect that the ISP using the white clean box do block archive.org soon (and as the article states, probably completely?)
Guess Google Cache will be next then ;)
These "blocks" are sooooo futile, there are way too many ways around them.
Greets, Jeroen
I know that it is futile. there it's about the "Prinzip" - I hate to have to use some anonymizer to use archive.org (where I did download some stuff in the past years, as they don't only host "websites"
In this regard, I still trust my ISP not to put one of these boxes in use any time.... I mean, there is not only "child p..." anymore, we begin to see the collateral damage, on wikipedia or now this try, I remember reading about germany asking to block online gambling sites next - what comes next?? Perhabs the hacker tool sites get blocked in germany?
silvan
Am 15.01.2009 um 20:16 schrieb Jeroen Massar:
Silvan Gebhardt wrote:
Hi
I just read about the blocking of archive.org (which is for me an ususal site(!) (http://www.heise.de/newsticker/Britische-Jugendschuetzer-lassen-Internet-Arc... ) is one source, which refers to http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/01/14/iwf_details_archive_blacklisting/
Do We have to expect that the ISP using the white clean box do block archive.org soon (and as the article states, probably completely?)
Guess Google Cache will be next then ;)
These "blocks" are sooooo futile, there are way too many ways around them.
Greets, Jeroen
swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
maybe some hacker getting hired to locate a child-porn pic on the first page of some unwanted politician. that would be then a reason for filtering this page.
slowly the internet starts to get unusable ... and be the playground of some organisation and government.
Roger
I know that it is futile. there it's about the "Prinzip" - I hate to have to use some anonymizer to use archive.org (where I did download some stuff in the past years, as they don't only host "websites" In this regard, I still trust my ISP not to put one of these boxes in use any time.... I mean, there is not only "child p..." anymore, we begin to see the collateral damage, on wikipedia or now this try, I remember reading about germany asking to block online gambling sites next - what comes next?? Perhabs the hacker tool sites get blocked in germany? silvan Am 15.01.2009 um 20:16 schrieb Jeroen Massar:
Silvan Gebhardt wrote: Hi I just read about the blocking of archive.org (which is for me an ususal site(!) ( http://www.heise.de/newsticker/Britische-Jugendschuetzer-lassen-Internet-Archiv- blockieren--/meldung/121754 ) is one source, which refers to http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/01/14/iwf_details_archive_blacklisting/ Do We have to expect that the ISP using the white clean box do block archive.org soon (and as the article states, probably completely?) Guess Google Cache will be next th
well, that is not even required - only a lookalike with some "Zöpfen" could be sufficient
Am 15.01.2009 um 20:34 schrieb roger@mgz.ch:
maybe some hacker getting hired to locate a child-porn pic on the first page of some unwanted politician. that would be then a reason for filtering this page.
slowly the internet starts to get unusable ... and be the playground of some organisation and government.
Roger
I know that it is futile. there it's about the "Prinzip" - I hate to have to use some anonymizer to use archive.org (where I did download some stuff in the past years, as they don't only host "websites" In this regard, I still trust my ISP not to put one of these boxes in use any time.... I mean, there is not only "child p..." anymore, we begin to see the collateral damage, on wikipedia or now this try, I remember reading about germany asking to block online gambling sites next - what comes next?? Perhabs the hacker tool sites get blocked in germany? silvan Am 15.01.2009 um 20:16 schrieb Jeroen Massar:
Silvan Gebhardt wrote: Hi I just read about the blocking of archive.org (which is for me an ususal site(!) ( http://www.heise.de/newsticker/Britische-Jugendschuetzer-lassen-Internet-Arc... blockieren--/meldung/121754 ) is one source, which refers to http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/01/14/iwf_details_archive_blacklisting/ Do We have to expect that the ISP using the white clean box do block archive.org soon (and as the article states, probably completely?)
Guess Google Cache will be next th
swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
So now that they are trying to "destroy" the Internet as we know it, I seem to understand what people invented Internet2 for ... or was it Internet3? :-)
At least you're free to find yourself a good access-provider. And if none exists, find a place to house a server and build a tunnel to there.
What's next? A great firewall? I never expected China "in the middle of Europe" could become reality.
Regards, Stefan
Silvan Gebhardt wrote:
well, that is not even required - only a lookalike with some "Zöpfen" could be sufficient
Am 15.01.2009 um 20:34 schrieb roger@mgz.ch mailto:roger@mgz.ch:
maybe some hacker getting hired to locate a child-porn pic on the first page of some unwanted politician. that would be then a reason for filtering this page.
slowly the internet starts to get unusable ... and be the playground of some organisation and government.
Roger
I know that it is futile. there it's about the "Prinzip" - I hate to have to use some anonymizer to use archive.org (where I did download some stuff in the past years, as they don't only host "websites" In this regard, I still trust my ISP not to put one of these boxes in use any time.... I mean, there is not only "child p..." anymore, we begin to see the collateral damage, on wikipedia or now this try, I remember reading about germany asking to block online gambling sites next - what comes next?? Perhabs the hacker tool sites get blocked in germany? silvan Am 15.01.2009 um 20:16 schrieb Jeroen Massar:
Silvan Gebhardt wrote: Hi I just read about the blocking of archive.org (which is for me an ususal site(!) ( http://www.heise.de/newsticker/Britische-Jugendschuetzer-lassen-Internet-Arc... blockieren--/meldung/121754 ) is one source, which refers to http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/01/14/iwf_details_archive_blacklisting/
Do We have to expect that the ISP using the white clean box do block archive.org soon (and as the article states, probably completely?)
Guess Google Cache will be next th
* on the Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 08:22:47PM +0100, Silvan Gebhardt wrote:
I mean, there is not only "child p..." anymore, we begin to see the collateral damage, on wikipedia or now this try, I remember reading about germany asking to block online gambling sites next - what comes next?? Perhabs the hacker tool sites get blocked in germany?
Yes, the bloody aim does not sanctify the means. If you want to stamp out kiddie porn, you've got to do it with legal and democratic means, you can't just turn to inherently fascist devices like "censorship" (or torture, or coercive detention or data retention or whatever other sick ideas of GESTAPO- or STASI-vintage might crop up) to achieve that. The damage to democracy, the constitutional state and the society at large will be devastating.
And we've fucking seen to where this "culture of prohibition" which is so terribly en vogue nowadays (ban smoking! alcohol misuse! drugs! bullterriers! firearms!) ultimately leads. No thank you, Sir.
Nizkor
Seegras
On the Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 09:48:56PM +0100, Peter Keel blubbered:
Hallo.
Yes, the bloody aim does not sanctify the means. If you want to stamp out kiddie porn, you've got to do it with legal and democratic means, you can't just turn to inherently fascist devices like "censorship" (or torture, or coercive detention or data retention or whatever other sick ideas of GESTAPO- or STASI-vintage might crop up) to achieve that. The damage to democracy, the constitutional state and the society at large will be devastating.
And we've fucking seen to where this "culture of prohibition" which is so terribly en vogue nowadays (ban smoking! alcohol misuse! drugs! bullterriers! firearms!) ultimately leads. No thank you, Sir.
How many children will actually be safed from being raped by their daddy/uncle/friend of the family when we have these filters in place?
CU, Venty
How many children will actually be safed from being raped by their daddy/uncle/friend of the family when we have these filters in place?
dont say that venty, this doesnt exists, the only bad thing and work of devil is the net, responsible for all bad things on earth. </ironiemode>
next step will be the paper company which sells paper to an print shop wich print childporn magazin will be sued and shutdown by law. or somebody copy such material in an copyshop...
and how many child will be "ordered" by phone for some "service" ? should the phoneprovider be sued as well ?
whats about shared internetconnection ? a company ? Wireless lan community ? (winterthur)
again some political decission from people which doesnt have the glue what they are doing.
Roger
CU, Venty
-- What we're planning here is World-Domination!
On the Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 06:46:33PM -0400, roger@mgz.ch blubbered:
Hallo.
How many children will actually be safed from being raped by their daddy/uncle/friend of the family when we have these filters in place?
dont say that venty, this doesnt exists, the only bad thing and work of devil is the net, responsible for all bad things on earth. </ironiemode>
next step will be the paper company which sells paper to an print shop wich print childporn magazin will be sued and shutdown by law. or somebody copy such material in an copyshop...
and how many child will be "ordered" by phone for some "service" ? should the phoneprovider be sued as well ?
whats about shared internetconnection ? a company ? Wireless lan community ? (winterthur)
again some political decission from people which doesnt have the glue what they are doing.
"Oh, you broke your leg and it hurts really bad? Don't worry, I'll prescribe you a strong pain killer then."
Politics are really hard trying to fight the symptoms but not the cause. And then they're even failing at that!
We're all screwed.
CU, Venty
On 15 Jan 2009, at 19:08, Silvan Gebhardt wrote:
I just read about the blocking of archive.org (which is for me an ususal site(!) (http://www.heise.de/newsticker/Britische-Jugendschuetzer-lassen-Internet-Arc... ) is one source, which refers to http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/01/14/iwf_details_archive_blacklisting/
Hi,
The IWF in the UK 'blocked' Wikipedia recently because of the portrayal of cover art from a 1970s LP record on their website.
Information about this is here.
https://publicaffairs.linx.net/news/?p=821
You may find this interesting, if you found the above story interesting.
Thanks Andy
demon is allways the first one which blocks. they dont take care if they are on a black list, they dont resolve any email problems .. but shure they use all the resources to maintain the filtering.
Roger
On 15 Jan 2009, at 19:08, Silvan Gebhardt wrote:
I just read about the blocking of archive.org (which is for me an ususal site(!) (http://www.heise.de/newsticker/Britische-Jugendschuetzer-lassen-Internet-Arc... ) is one source, which refers to http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/01/14/iwf_details_archive_blacklisting/
Hi,
The IWF in the UK 'blocked' Wikipedia recently because of the portrayal of cover art from a 1970s LP record on their website.
Information about this is here.
https://publicaffairs.linx.net/news/?p=821
You may find this interesting, if you found the above story interesting.
Thanks Andy _______________________________________________ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
Thanks Andy for this interesting post. ("Destroying the internet", "STASI" etc, on the other hand... give me a break).
The goal of a layer 4+ (above layer 4) filtering device is to refine the granularity at the full URI level, not just the domain name. So the blocking of archive child porn could be implemented with a regexp in a white box, if the guys building the blacklist take the time to do so.
The drawback beeing it (the whitebox) may become a neat target and tool for intruders: a tcpdump on steroid on your backbone, waiting to be hacked, to start inject /32 in your BGP mesh, deviating traffic, and looking for unencrypted password, emails, etc.
About the sensitivity and subjectivity of whoever compile the blacklist, for sure, it will always be a topic of flamewar.
Regards.
On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 11:03 PM, Andy Davidson andy@nosignal.org wrote:
On 15 Jan 2009, at 19:08, Silvan Gebhardt wrote:
I just read about the blocking of archive.org (which is for me an ususal site(!) (
http://www.heise.de/newsticker/Britische-Jugendschuetzer-lassen-Internet-Arc...
) is one source, which refers to
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/01/14/iwf_details_archive_blacklisting/
Hi,
The IWF in the UK 'blocked' Wikipedia recently because of the portrayal of cover art from a 1970s LP record on their website.
Information about this is here.
https://publicaffairs.linx.net/news/?p=821
You may find this interesting, if you found the above story interesting.
Thanks Andy _______________________________________________ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
-
Andy Davidson -
Jeroen Massar -
Martin Ebnoether -
Peter Keel -
roger＠mgz.ch -
Silvan Gebhardt -
Stefan Neufeind -
Zorg 421