Slashdot Mirror

How would you feel if your webmaster maliciously took your web-site offline, then, when you demanded its return, put up a site attacking your company at your old URL? It happened to a group I was involved in, the Censorware Project, currently at http://www.censorware.net/. The purpose of this essay is to put the behavior on record, and to give you some impressions and inferences about it.

The Censorware Project was originally an informal collective of six people who collaborated online to fight censorware: Seth Finkelstein, Bennett Haselton, Jamie McCarthy, Mike Sims, Jim Tyre and myself. Several of us had never met or even spoken on the phone, yet for some time -- around two years as I recall -- we had a remarkably easy collaboration. There was no funding, no hierarchy, no titles, not even project managers. Someone would suggest a project and take the responsibility for a part of it, others would sign up for other elements, and proceeding this way we got a remarkable amount of work done, including reports on X-Stop, Cyberpatrol, Bess and other censorware products.

Even though two of us were attorneys -- Jim and myself -- we never incorporated the group or wrote a charter or any contracts among ourselves. Mike Sims was obliging enough to register the domain, just as other members paid for press releases and the other incidental expenses which came along. Mike also served as webmaster of the censorware.org site and did substantial work for the group, including writing contributions to several of the reports and lead authorship of at least one. Seth was the source of our decrypted censorware blacklists and managed many technical tasks, but later felt he had to leave the group because of the increasing prospects of a lawsuit, particularly under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). After Seth left the group, the remaining five continued.

Robert Frost said that "nothing gold can stay," and the Censorware Project was no exception. Over the summer of 2000, Mike Sims' reaction to a perceived slight from Jim Tyre was to take the site down for a week. He sent us mail at the time saying something like "The Censorware Project is now closed." I replied to him that, given that the group was a collective and we all had an interest in its work product, the domain, and the goodwill it had achieved, the decision was not his to make. Sims did not reply.

After Seth created a partial, text, mirror, Mike put the site back up a week later without explaining, let alone apologizing for, his actions. Given his continuing failure to answer any email from me (and I think from others) and the overall signs that Sims thought the group was exclusively his, I wrote him several emails requesting that he turn the domain over to Jamie or Bennett, as I felt we could no longer trust him to administer it. We also found out during that time that important email from people trying to contact us, including members of the press, was not being answered by Sims, nor being forwarded to other members.

I ultimately became exasperated that my name was listed as a principal on what had

(What is the smiley for an evil grin? ;]

Hah, you think he's a dick now, have you read about what he did before joining /.?

Recognition is the first step on the road to recovery.

At least it would explain your Past Behavour

I'm posting this anonymously because Michael Sims deleted my account. If you care about your civil liberties, please click here to sign a petition to get me reinstated!

As a famous libertarian, you know that I am profoundly opposed to the sort of government interference that heretofore has prevented businesses from owning what is rightly theirs. In an interview with the Fox News Channel, I said, and I quote, "The media are a bunch of bloodthirsty wenches looking for eels with which to make their stew." I also saved the quote on my world-famous web site.

In conclusion, please reinstate my account, or I'm going to sue you all.

Please check my web site, www.sethf.com. I have posted untold thousands of words on the subject of Fair Use, and I am proud to say that I have untold gigabytes of movies that I have fairly and legally downloaded.

According to the law, which is cited on my web site, it is legal to download something if it causes no monetary harm to a company. For example, I'm boycotting DVDs, so I can't buy DVDs and I don't own a DVD player. Therefore, by downloading DVDs from KaZaA Gold, I am depriving the studios of no money whatsoever.

Honestly, I don't know why Michael Sims tolerates uneducated ignorami like yourself.

strange, the OSX solution is free. hmm.

That should be free*.

* Requires purchase of Macintosh and yearly $129 point release upgrades.

Also, I don't trust that Expansys link, because its domain doesn't end in a .com like most reputable web sites do.

and Michael gets to keep his job. See? Everybody's happy!

Well, everybody except Seth Finkelstein. :)

Frankly, I'm surprised that Slashdot didn't come to me, internationally known cybersecurity activist Seth Finklestein, for advice on the matter. I have been abused like a tattered rag doll by Slashdot's own editor, Michael Sims.

Ever since Michael Sims' message "The Censorware Project is Closed," I have been kept awake at night by persistent phone calls and very loud e-mails sent by Michael. Mr. Sims has called me, my wife, my five internationally acclaimed children, and even my wife with vague threats against me.

I did absolutely nothing wrong at any point in my life. I am a shining beacon in a godless, hateful world. Please help me. I'm a victim.

As all of you are aware, Michael Sims is the Jerry Falwell of the 21st Century. He stole away my award winning project, the Censorware project, in what can only be called the crime of the century. (Do revisit, I've added many updates.)

When Michael Sims took away my project, he left me angry and bitter. From his first message "The Censorware Project is now closed" to his current propagation of lies and slander, Michael Sims has desecrated the freedom that I and every American stand for.

Sex.com is a pitiful excuse for a "hijacking." I implore you, Slashdot, do a story about Michael Sims taking away a web site that is far more enticing than any "Sex" site.

As all of you are aware, Michael Sims is the Jerry Falwell of the 21st Century. He stole away my award winning project, the Censorware project, in what can only be called the crime of the century. (Do revisit, I've added many updates.)

When Michael Sims took away my project, he left me angry and bitter. From his first message "The Censorware Project is now closed" to his current propagation of lies and slander, Michael Sims has desecrated the freedom that I and every American stand for.

Sex.com is a pitiful excuse for a "hijacking." I implore you, Slashdot, do a story about Michael Sims taking away a web site that is far more enticing than any "Sex" site.

Seth Finkelstein. Michael was completely in the wrong for pulling that site down, I won't argue with that. The rest was between them.

You know, I was just talking about this over coffee with my good friend Bill Brown. He runs a tour of New York's security cameras, so that protesters such as myself can easily point out the cameras and mock them. I've been going on this tour every week with Dr. Brown, and every time he has even more incisive insights.

As a very famous cybersecurity researcher, I feel that I am highly qualified to talk about Homeland Security. My deep knowledge of computers -- which came with no formal training, just my own intelligence -- can easily be applied to solving real-world security problems. My award-winning research has led to landmark decisions in the field of security.

I have the right to control every aspect of my identity, both in "interspace" and in "meat-space." When someone takes a picture of me in the real world, I have every right to walk up to that person and shout at them until they agree to delete the picture from their "mini-hard drive card" or burn the film in front of me. I know that most of you don't have to deal with these issues on a daily basis, but of course most of you are not prominent cybersecurity researchers such as myself.

Visit my web site -- do revisit, I've added a lot lately. And oh yeah, down with Michael Sims, who stole the Censorware Project from me as if it were candy and I were a baby! I'm not a baby.

As a famous cybersecurity and anti-censorship advocate, I've done a lot of research for companies. One thing I can tell you is that $95 is simply too much for a single report. My services are not cheap -- I probably charge more per hour than you make in a day. If you see my bio, you'll know why. I'm a self-taught genius who learned everything about computers without even taking a single class! Now I know a lot of the MSCEs (Microsoft Certified Engineers) out there might disagree, but my trade is incredibly challenging. There's one difference between me and these know-nothings at the so-called "Gartner Group." I give away my award-winning insights on the web (do visit; I've added a lot recently) and my clients are so amazed with this free content that they give me money. Lots of money. The only thing I can't buy with my tankards of money is the Censorware Project, which Michael Sims selfishly took away from me. He's a bad man.

You are a whiney little backstabbing JERK! You ABUSE your position as a slashdot editor for your own personal gain. How could you sell your friends at the CensorWare Project Out?

You will justify this to yourself by assuming I am the only person who thinks your a jerk. That is not true - Most slashdot readers wish you would shut up with your rants. How else could this account ('Michael's a Jerk') get excellant karma? The fact is we are sick of your moderation abuse.

Take This comment. You broke the rules and had more then question per comment. You then modded yourself up to make it into the question list.

Michael: GROW UP OR LEAVE SLASHDOT.

Actually, I have achieved a whole lot in my meaningful, bountiful life. Please read my award-winning home page for the details.

You are a whiney little backstabbing JERK! You ABUSE your position as a slashdot editor for your own personal gain. How could you sell your friends at the CensorWare Project Out?

You will justify this to yourself by assuming I am the only person who thinks your a jerk. That is not true - Most slashdot readers wish you would shut up with your rants. How else could this account ('Michael's a Jerk') get excellant karma? The fact is we are sick of your moderation abuse.

Take This comment. You broke the rules and had more then question per comment. You then modded yourself up to make it into the question list.

Michael: GROW UP OR LEAVE SLASHDOT.

IF YOU THINK MICHAEL HAS ABUSED HIS POWERS AS A SLASHDOT EDITOR, PLEASE MOD THIS COMMENT UP!

Another Tidbit: I have some some research, and I have discovered that Michael Sims is a War Criminal

Well, I don't know about you, but I'm not all that fond of them filtering results based on where people are searching from.

Not sure I buy the first part of his theroy. I see some screenshots, but when I do the search myself, I get no results.
One should question anything from an internet stalker like Seth though.

Well, I don't know about you, but I'm not all that fond of them filtering results based on where people are searching from.

And they take all manner of porn ads but the only alcohol related ads are for hangover cures - so exploiting messed up men and women is ok, but exploiting your own liver is not?

This can be done.

When you call up Verizon (your local phone company) request form PH-650, "Instructions for Transferring a Phone Number." Under new legislation that has just been approved by the U.S. House of Representatives, it is now possible to move a landline phone number to a mobile phone. Once you have reviewed PH-650, call the number listed on it (each state has its own number to call) and ask to be transferred to "phone number transfer services."

As I documented on the web recently, it is preferable to use a mobile phone instead of a landline phone for a large number of reasons. Now that I have followed the instructions on PH-650, I can use my home number on my mobile phone to call all of my many friends and acquaintances.

For more information, please send e-mail to mobilephone@sethf.com. Thanks!

I've worked with Jim Tyre before on the Censorware Project, and I enjoyed every minute of it. In fact, I am directly in favor of every last one of his opinions.

I've worked with Jim on the Censorware project, before Michael Sims destroyed it. Jim wrote some incredibly nice things about me, and all the work that I've done to make this world a better place.

Jim Tyre deserves more credit on this web site, but not quite as much as I do.

Why doesn't anyone mention Google censorship? - Oh wait... I'm doing that right now! :-)

The very fact that Google gives in to any kind of censorship is very sad, especially the fact that they're not admitting it openly. There is no reason at all why Google should comply in any way, shape or form to foreign government 'requests' (orders) to make certain materials harder to find. Google should always attempt to be as complete as possible, including whatever its spiders find.

It's very simple: If a government doesn't want its people to look for something, educate the people! - Don't try to find half-assed ways to implement censorship through bullying or technical means. Yes, information still wants to be free. All of it actually.

Read more about Google censorship here

I am calling for a boycott of Michael Sims, America's number one enemy in the fight against anti-anti-censorware, until he gives me an apology for his rampant goatse'ing and usurping of the Censorware Project , my pride and joy.

Frankly, I'm shocked that I am not revered by all of Slashdot. My contributions to the world of anti-censorware research are comparable to the contributions of Jesus Christ to the field of religion. I won more awards from that project than Michael won in his whole damned life.

Do not underestimate me. I will be heard.

Though this message is posted anonymously, I will attest to it and verify it if needed. Other message posted by similar-looking accounts, or not attested, are frauds. - Seth Finklestein, uid#582901

I am calling for a boycott of Michael Sims, America's number one enemy in the fight against anti-anti-censorware, until he gives me an apology for his rampant goatse'ing and usurping of the Censorware Project , my pride and joy.

Frankly, I'm shocked that I am not revered by all of Slashdot. My contributions to the world of anti-censorware research are comparable to the contributions of Jesus Christ to the field of religion. I won more awards from that project than Michael won in his whole damned life.

Do not underestimate me. I will be heard.

Though this message is posted anonymously, I will attest to it and verify it if needed. Other message posted by similar-looking accounts, or not attested, are frauds. - Seth Finklestein, uid#582901

I am calling for a boycott of Michael Sims, America's number one enemy in the fight against anti-anti-censorware, until he gives me an apology for his rampant goatse'ing and usurping of the Censorware Project , my pride and joy.

Frankly, I'm shocked that I am not revered by all of Slashdot. My contributions to the world of anti-censorware research are comparable to the contributions of Jesus Christ to the field of religion. I won more awards from that project than Michael won in his whole damned life.

Do not underestimate me. I will be heard.

Though this message is posted anonymously, I will attest to it and verify it if needed. Other message posted by similar-looking accounts, or not attested, are frauds. - Seth Finklestein, uid#582901

That is typical of Mr. Michael "I think I'm smarter than Seth Finklestein" Sims. First he took away the Censorware Project, which earned me hundreds of awards and millions of acclaim. Now he's making cheap shots at big hardware companies. Hey, michael! Why don't you actually do something meaningful with your life, like I have?

I am calling for a boycott of Michael Sims, America's number one enemy in the fight against anti-anti-censorware, until he gives me an apology for his rampant goatse'ing and usurping of the Censorware Project , my pride and joy.

Frankly, I'm shocked that I am not revered by all of Slashdot. My contributions to the world of anti-censorware research are comparable to the contributions of Jesus Christ to the field of religion. I won more awards from that project than Michael won in his whole damned life.

Do not underestimate me. I will be heard.

Though this message is posted anonymously, I will attest to it and verify it if needed. Other message posted by similar-looking accounts, or not attested, are frauds. - Seth Finklestein, uid#582901

I am calling for a boycott of Michael Sims, America's number one enemy in the fight against anti-anti-censorware, until he gives me an apology for his rampant goatse'ing and usurping of the Censorware Project , my pride and joy.

Frankly, I'm shocked that I am not revered by all of Slashdot. My contributions to the world of anti-censorware research are comparable to the contributions of Jesus Christ to the field of religion. I won more awards from that project than Michael won in his whole damned life.

Do not underestimate me. I will be heard.

Though this message is posted anonymously, I will attest to it and verify it if needed. Other message posted by similar-looking accounts, or not attested, are frauds. - Seth Finklestein, uid#582901

I am calling for a boycott of Michael Sims, America's number one enemy in the fight against anti-anti-censorware, until he gives me an apology for his rampant goatse'ing and usurping of the Censorware Project , my pride and joy.

Frankly, I'm shocked that I am not revered by all of Slashdot. My contributions to the world of anti-censorware research are comparable to the contributions of Jesus Christ to the field of religion. I won more awards from that project than Michael won in his whole damned life.

Do not underestimate me. I will be heard.

Though this message is posted anonymously, I will attest to it and verify it if needed. Other message posted by similar-looking accounts, or not attested, are frauds. - Seth Finklestein, uid#582901

Date: Fri, 31 May 2002 10:41:18 -0400
From: Seth Finklestein
To: Seth Finklestein's InfoThought list
Subject: IT: Federal censorware law down! (and Seth Finkelstein's reports!)

I'm ecstatic that the court seems to have used my pioneering efforts in anticensorware work as one factor in its decision, in passages such as these:

Another technique that filtering companies use in order to deal with a structural feature of the Internet is blocking the root level URLs of so-called loophole Web sites. These are Web sites that provide access to a particular Web page, but display in the user's browser a URL that is different from the URL with which the particular page is usually associated. Because of this feature, they provide a loophole that can be used to get around filtering software, i.e., they display a URL that is different from the one that appears on the filtering company's control list. Loophole Web sites include caches of Web pages that have been removed from their original location, anonymizer sites, and translation sites.

Caches are archived copies that some search engines, such as Google, keep of the Web pages they index. The cached copy stored by Google will have a URL that is different from the original URL. Because Web sites often change rapidly, caches are the only way to access pages that have been taken down, revised, or have changed their URLs for some reason. For example, a magazine might place its current stories under a given URL, and replace them monthly with new stories. If a user wanted to find an article published six months ago, he or she would be unable to access it if not for Google's cached version.

Some sites on the Web serve as a proxy or intermediary between a user and another Web page. When using a proxy server, a user does not access the page from its original URL, but rather from the URL of the proxy server. One type of proxy service is an anonymizer. Users may access Web sites indirectly via an anonymizer when they do not want the Web site they are visiting to be able to determine the IP address from which they are accessing the site, or to leave cookies on their browser.(8) Some proxy servers can be used to attempt to translate Web page content from one language to another. Rather than directly accessing the original Web page in its original language, users can instead indirectly access the page via a proxy server offering translation features.

As noted above, filtering companies often block loophole sites, such as caches, anonymizers, and translation sites. The practice of blocking loophole sites necessarily results in a significant amount of overblocking, because the vast majority of the pages that are cached, for example, do not contain content that would match a filtering company's category definitions. Filters that do not block these loophole sites, however, may enable users to access any URL on the Web via the loophole site, thus resulting in substantial underblocking.

This is an aspect which I've been trying to get into the censorware debate for ages. I'm overjoyed that the court heard, they got it, they listened, and it helped strike down Federal censorware law! These are the reports which seem to have made a difference in the above:

BESS's Secret LOOPHOLE: (censorware vs. privacy & anonymity) - a secret category of BESS (N2H2), and more about why censorware must blacklist privacy, anonymity, and translators
http://sethf.com/anticensorware/bess/loophole.php

BESS vs The Google Search Engine (Cache, Groups, Images) - BESS bans cached web pages, passes porn in groups, and considers all image searching to be pornography.
http://sethf.com/anticensorware/bess/google.php

SmartFilter's Greatest Evils - why censorware must blacklist privacy, anonymity, and language translators
http://sethf.com/anticensorware/smartfilter/greate stevils.php

The Pre-Slipped Slope - censorware vs the Wayback Machine web archive - The logic of censorware programs suppressing an enormous digital library.
http://sethf.com/anticensorware/general/slip.php

-- Seth Finklestein Consulting Programmer http://sethf.com
Anticensorware Investigations: http://sethf.com/anticensorware/
Seth Finklestein's Infothought list - http://sethf.com/infothought/
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/07/19/technology/circu its/19HACK.html
TROLL ALERT! I now seem to have attracted troll imposters. The real Seth Finklestein has uid#582901

Date: Fri, 31 May 2002 10:41:18 -0400
From: Seth Finklestein
To: Seth Finklestein's InfoThought list
Subject: IT: Federal censorware law down! (and Seth Finkelstein's reports!)

I'm ecstatic that the court seems to have used my pioneering efforts in anticensorware work as one factor in its decision, in passages such as these:

Another technique that filtering companies use in order to deal with a structural feature of the Internet is blocking the root level URLs of so-called loophole Web sites. These are Web sites that provide access to a particular Web page, but display in the user's browser a URL that is different from the URL with which the particular page is usually associated. Because of this feature, they provide a loophole that can be used to get around filtering software, i.e., they display a URL that is different from the one that appears on the filtering company's control list. Loophole Web sites include caches of Web pages that have been removed from their original location, anonymizer sites, and translation sites.

Caches are archived copies that some search engines, such as Google, keep of the Web pages they index. The cached copy stored by Google will have a URL that is different from the original URL. Because Web sites often change rapidly, caches are the only way to access pages that have been taken down, revised, or have changed their URLs for some reason. For example, a magazine might place its current stories under a given URL, and replace them monthly with new stories. If a user wanted to find an article published six months ago, he or she would be unable to access it if not for Google's cached version.

Some sites on the Web serve as a proxy or intermediary between a user and another Web page. When using a proxy server, a user does not access the page from its original URL, but rather from the URL of the proxy server. One type of proxy service is an anonymizer. Users may access Web sites indirectly via an anonymizer when they do not want the Web site they are visiting to be able to determine the IP address from which they are accessing the site, or to leave cookies on their browser.(8) Some proxy servers can be used to attempt to translate Web page content from one language to another. Rather than directly accessing the original Web page in its original language, users can instead indirectly access the page via a proxy server offering translation features.

As noted above, filtering companies often block loophole sites, such as caches, anonymizers, and translation sites. The practice of blocking loophole sites necessarily results in a significant amount of overblocking, because the vast majority of the pages that are cached, for example, do not contain content that would match a filtering company's category definitions. Filters that do not block these loophole sites, however, may enable users to access any URL on the Web via the loophole site, thus resulting in substantial underblocking.

This is an aspect which I've been trying to get into the censorware debate for ages. I'm overjoyed that the court heard, they got it, they listened, and it helped strike down Federal censorware law! These are the reports which seem to have made a difference in the above:

BESS's Secret LOOPHOLE: (censorware vs. privacy & anonymity) - a secret category of BESS (N2H2), and more about why censorware must blacklist privacy, anonymity, and translators
http://sethf.com/anticensorware/bess/loophole.php

BESS vs The Google Search Engine (Cache, Groups, Images) - BESS bans cached web pages, passes porn in groups, and considers all image searching to be pornography.
http://sethf.com/anticensorware/bess/google.php

SmartFilter's Greatest Evils - why censorware must blacklist privacy, anonymity, and language translators
http://sethf.com/anticensorware/smartfilter/greate stevils.php

The Pre-Slipped Slope - censorware vs the Wayback Machine web archive - The logic of censorware programs suppressing an enormous digital library.
http://sethf.com/anticensorware/general/slip.php

-- Seth Finklestein Consulting Programmer http://sethf.com
Anticensorware Investigations: http://sethf.com/anticensorware/
Seth Finklestein's Infothought list - http://sethf.com/infothought/
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/07/19/technology/circu its/19HACK.html
TROLL ALERT! I now seem to have attracted troll imposters. The real Seth Finklestein has uid#582901

Date: Fri, 31 May 2002 10:41:18 -0400
From: Seth Finklestein
To: Seth Finklestein's InfoThought list
Subject: IT: Federal censorware law down! (and Seth Finkelstein's reports!)

I'm ecstatic that the court seems to have used my pioneering efforts in anticensorware work as one factor in its decision, in passages such as these:

Another technique that filtering companies use in order to deal with a structural feature of the Internet is blocking the root level URLs of so-called loophole Web sites. These are Web sites that provide access to a particular Web page, but display in the user's browser a URL that is different from the URL with which the particular page is usually associated. Because of this feature, they provide a loophole that can be used to get around filtering software, i.e., they display a URL that is different from the one that appears on the filtering company's control list. Loophole Web sites include caches of Web pages that have been removed from their original location, anonymizer sites, and translation sites.

Caches are archived copies that some search engines, such as Google, keep of the Web pages they index. The cached copy stored by Google will have a URL that is different from the original URL. Because Web sites often change rapidly, caches are the only way to access pages that have been taken down, revised, or have changed their URLs for some reason. For example, a magazine might place its current stories under a given URL, and replace them monthly with new stories. If a user wanted to find an article published six months ago, he or she would be unable to access it if not for Google's cached version.

Some sites on the Web serve as a proxy or intermediary between a user and another Web page. When using a proxy server, a user does not access the page from its original URL, but rather from the URL of the proxy server. One type of proxy service is an anonymizer. Users may access Web sites indirectly via an anonymizer when they do not want the Web site they are visiting to be able to determine the IP address from which they are accessing the site, or to leave cookies on their browser.(8) Some proxy servers can be used to attempt to translate Web page content from one language to another. Rather than directly accessing the original Web page in its original language, users can instead indirectly access the page via a proxy server offering translation features.

As noted above, filtering companies often block loophole sites, such as caches, anonymizers, and translation sites. The practice of blocking loophole sites necessarily results in a significant amount of overblocking, because the vast majority of the pages that are cached, for example, do not contain content that would match a filtering company's category definitions. Filters that do not block these loophole sites, however, may enable users to access any URL on the Web via the loophole site, thus resulting in substantial underblocking.

This is an aspect which I've been trying to get into the censorware debate for ages. I'm overjoyed that the court heard, they got it, they listened, and it helped strike down Federal censorware law! These are the reports which seem to have made a difference in the above:

BESS's Secret LOOPHOLE: (censorware vs. privacy & anonymity) - a secret category of BESS (N2H2), and more about why censorware must blacklist privacy, anonymity, and translators
http://sethf.com/anticensorware/bess/loophole.php

BESS vs The Google Search Engine (Cache, Groups, Images) - BESS bans cached web pages, passes porn in groups, and considers all image searching to be pornography.
http://sethf.com/anticensorware/bess/google.php

SmartFilter's Greatest Evils - why censorware must blacklist privacy, anonymity, and language translators
http://sethf.com/anticensorware/smartfilter/greate stevils.php

The Pre-Slipped Slope - censorware vs the Wayback Machine web archive - The logic of censorware programs suppressing an enormous digital library.
http://sethf.com/anticensorware/general/slip.php

-- Seth Finklestein Consulting Programmer http://sethf.com
Anticensorware Investigations: http://sethf.com/anticensorware/
Seth Finklestein's Infothought list - http://sethf.com/infothought/
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/07/19/technology/circu its/19HACK.html
TROLL ALERT! I now seem to have attracted troll imposters. The real Seth Finklestein has uid#582901

Date: Fri, 31 May 2002 10:41:18 -0400
From: Seth Finklestein
To: Seth Finklestein's InfoThought list
Subject: IT: Federal censorware law down! (and Seth Finkelstein's reports!)

I'm ecstatic that the court seems to have used my pioneering efforts in anticensorware work as one factor in its decision, in passages such as these:

Another technique that filtering companies use in order to deal with a structural feature of the Internet is blocking the root level URLs of so-called loophole Web sites. These are Web sites that provide access to a particular Web page, but display in the user's browser a URL that is different from the URL with which the particular page is usually associated. Because of this feature, they provide a loophole that can be used to get around filtering software, i.e., they display a URL that is different from the one that appears on the filtering company's control list. Loophole Web sites include caches of Web pages that have been removed from their original location, anonymizer sites, and translation sites.

Caches are archived copies that some search engines, such as Google, keep of the Web pages they index. The cached copy stored by Google will have a URL that is different from the original URL. Because Web sites often change rapidly, caches are the only way to access pages that have been taken down, revised, or have changed their URLs for some reason. For example, a magazine might place its current stories under a given URL, and replace them monthly with new stories. If a user wanted to find an article published six months ago, he or she would be unable to access it if not for Google's cached version.

Some sites on the Web serve as a proxy or intermediary between a user and another Web page. When using a proxy server, a user does not access the page from its original URL, but rather from the URL of the proxy server. One type of proxy service is an anonymizer. Users may access Web sites indirectly via an anonymizer when they do not want the Web site they are visiting to be able to determine the IP address from which they are accessing the site, or to leave cookies on their browser.(8) Some proxy servers can be used to attempt to translate Web page content from one language to another. Rather than directly accessing the original Web page in its original language, users can instead indirectly access the page via a proxy server offering translation features.

As noted above, filtering companies often block loophole sites, such as caches, anonymizers, and translation sites. The practice of blocking loophole sites necessarily results in a significant amount of overblocking, because the vast majority of the pages that are cached, for example, do not contain content that would match a filtering company's category definitions. Filters that do not block these loophole sites, however, may enable users to access any URL on the Web via the loophole site, thus resulting in substantial underblocking.

This is an aspect which I've been trying to get into the censorware debate for ages. I'm overjoyed that the court heard, they got it, they listened, and it helped strike down Federal censorware law! These are the reports which seem to have made a difference in the above:

BESS's Secret LOOPHOLE: (censorware vs. privacy & anonymity) - a secret category of BESS (N2H2), and more about why censorware must blacklist privacy, anonymity, and translators
http://sethf.com/anticensorware/bess/loophole.php

BESS vs The Google Search Engine (Cache, Groups, Images) - BESS bans cached web pages, passes porn in groups, and considers all image searching to be pornography.
http://sethf.com/anticensorware/bess/google.php

SmartFilter's Greatest Evils - why censorware must blacklist privacy, anonymity, and language translators
http://sethf.com/anticensorware/smartfilter/greate stevils.php

The Pre-Slipped Slope - censorware vs the Wayback Machine web archive - The logic of censorware programs suppressing an enormous digital library.
http://sethf.com/anticensorware/general/slip.php

-- Seth Finklestein Consulting Programmer http://sethf.com
Anticensorware Investigations: http://sethf.com/anticensorware/
Seth Finklestein's Infothought list - http://sethf.com/infothought/
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/07/19/technology/circu its/19HACK.html
TROLL ALERT! I now seem to have attracted troll imposters. The real Seth Finklestein has uid#582901

Date: Fri, 31 May 2002 10:41:18 -0400
From: Seth Finklestein
To: Seth Finklestein's InfoThought list
Subject: IT: Federal censorware law down! (and Seth Finkelstein's reports!)

I'm ecstatic that the court seems to have used my pioneering efforts in anticensorware work as one factor in its decision, in passages such as these:

Another technique that filtering companies use in order to deal with a structural feature of the Internet is blocking the root level URLs of so-called loophole Web sites. These are Web sites that provide access to a particular Web page, but display in the user's browser a URL that is different from the URL with which the particular page is usually associated. Because of this feature, they provide a loophole that can be used to get around filtering software, i.e., they display a URL that is different from the one that appears on the filtering company's control list. Loophole Web sites include caches of Web pages that have been removed from their original location, anonymizer sites, and translation sites.

Caches are archived copies that some search engines, such as Google, keep of the Web pages they index. The cached copy stored by Google will have a URL that is different from the original URL. Because Web sites often change rapidly, caches are the only way to access pages that have been taken down, revised, or have changed their URLs for some reason. For example, a magazine might place its current stories under a given URL, and replace them monthly with new stories. If a user wanted to find an article published six months ago, he or she would be unable to access it if not for Google's cached version.

Some sites on the Web serve as a proxy or intermediary between a user and another Web page. When using a proxy server, a user does not access the page from its original URL, but rather from the URL of the proxy server. One type of proxy service is an anonymizer. Users may access Web sites indirectly via an anonymizer when they do not want the Web site they are visiting to be able to determine the IP address from which they are accessing the site, or to leave cookies on their browser.(8) Some proxy servers can be used to attempt to translate Web page content from one language to another. Rather than directly accessing the original Web page in its original language, users can instead indirectly access the page via a proxy server offering translation features.

As noted above, filtering companies often block loophole sites, such as caches, anonymizers, and translation sites. The practice of blocking loophole sites necessarily results in a significant amount of overblocking, because the vast majority of the pages that are cached, for example, do not contain content that would match a filtering company's category definitions. Filters that do not block these loophole sites, however, may enable users to access any URL on the Web via the loophole site, thus resulting in substantial underblocking.

This is an aspect which I've been trying to get into the censorware debate for ages. I'm overjoyed that the court heard, they got it, they listened, and it helped strike down Federal censorware law! These are the reports which seem to have made a difference in the above:

BESS's Secret LOOPHOLE: (censorware vs. privacy & anonymity) - a secret category of BESS (N2H2), and more about why censorware must blacklist privacy, anonymity, and translators
http://sethf.com/anticensorware/bess/loophole.php

BESS vs The Google Search Engine (Cache, Groups, Images) - BESS bans cached web pages, passes porn in groups, and considers all image searching to be pornography.
http://sethf.com/anticensorware/bess/google.php

SmartFilter's Greatest Evils - why censorware must blacklist privacy, anonymity, and language translators
http://sethf.com/anticensorware/smartfilter/greate stevils.php

The Pre-Slipped Slope - censorware vs the Wayback Machine web archive - The logic of censorware programs suppressing an enormous digital library.
http://sethf.com/anticensorware/general/slip.php

-- Seth Finklestein Consulting Programmer http://sethf.com
Anticensorware Investigations: http://sethf.com/anticensorware/
Seth Finklestein's Infothought list - http://sethf.com/infothought/
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/07/19/technology/circu its/19HACK.html
TROLL ALERT! I now seem to have attracted troll imposters. The real Seth Finklestein has uid#582901

Date: Fri, 31 May 2002 10:41:18 -0400
From: Seth Finklestein
To: Seth Finklestein's InfoThought list
Subject: IT: Federal censorware law down! (and Seth Finkelstein's reports!)

I'm ecstatic that the court seems to have used my pioneering efforts in anticensorware work as one factor in its decision, in passages such as these:

Another technique that filtering companies use in order to deal with a structural feature of the Internet is blocking the root level URLs of so-called loophole Web sites. These are Web sites that provide access to a particular Web page, but display in the user's browser a URL that is different from the URL with which the particular page is usually associated. Because of this feature, they provide a loophole that can be used to get around filtering software, i.e., they display a URL that is different from the one that appears on the filtering company's control list. Loophole Web sites include caches of Web pages that have been removed from their original location, anonymizer sites, and translation sites.

Caches are archived copies that some search engines, such as Google, keep of the Web pages they index. The cached copy stored by Google will have a URL that is different from the original URL. Because Web sites often change rapidly, caches are the only way to access pages that have been taken down, revised, or have changed their URLs for some reason. For example, a magazine might place its current stories under a given URL, and replace them monthly with new stories. If a user wanted to find an article published six months ago, he or she would be unable to access it if not for Google's cached version.

Some sites on the Web serve as a proxy or intermediary between a user and another Web page. When using a proxy server, a user does not access the page from its original URL, but rather from the URL of the proxy server. One type of proxy service is an anonymizer. Users may access Web sites indirectly via an anonymizer when they do not want the Web site they are visiting to be able to determine the IP address from which they are accessing the site, or to leave cookies on their browser.(8) Some proxy servers can be used to attempt to translate Web page content from one language to another. Rather than directly accessing the original Web page in its original language, users can instead indirectly access the page via a proxy server offering translation features.

As noted above, filtering companies often block loophole sites, such as caches, anonymizers, and translation sites. The practice of blocking loophole sites necessarily results in a significant amount of overblocking, because the vast majority of the pages that are cached, for example, do not contain content that would match a filtering company's category definitions. Filters that do not block these loophole sites, however, may enable users to access any URL on the Web via the loophole site, thus resulting in substantial underblocking.

This is an aspect which I've been trying to get into the censorware debate for ages. I'm overjoyed that the court heard, they got it, they listened, and it helped strike down Federal censorware law! These are the reports which seem to have made a difference in the above:

BESS's Secret LOOPHOLE: (censorware vs. privacy & anonymity) - a secret category of BESS (N2H2), and more about why censorware must blacklist privacy, anonymity, and translators
http://sethf.com/anticensorware/bess/loophole.php

BESS vs The Google Search Engine (Cache, Groups, Images) - BESS bans cached web pages, passes porn in groups, and considers all image searching to be pornography.
http://sethf.com/anticensorware/bess/google.php

SmartFilter's Greatest Evils - why censorware must blacklist privacy, anonymity, and language translators
http://sethf.com/anticensorware/smartfilter/greate stevils.php

The Pre-Slipped Slope - censorware vs the Wayback Machine web archive - The logic of censorware programs suppressing an enormous digital library.
http://sethf.com/anticensorware/general/slip.php

-- Seth Finklestein Consulting Programmer http://sethf.com
Anticensorware Investigations: http://sethf.com/anticensorware/
Seth Finklestein's Infothought list - http://sethf.com/infothought/
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/07/19/technology/circu its/19HACK.html
TROLL ALERT! I now seem to have attracted troll imposters. The real Seth Finklestein has uid#582901

Date: Fri, 31 May 2002 10:41:18 -0400
From: Seth Finklestein
To: Seth Finklestein's InfoThought list
Subject: IT: Federal censorware law down! (and Seth Finkelstein's reports!)

I'm ecstatic that the court seems to have used my pioneering efforts in anticensorware work as one factor in its decision, in passages such as these:

Another technique that filtering companies use in order to deal with a structural feature of the Internet is blocking the root level URLs of so-called loophole Web sites. These are Web sites that provide access to a particular Web page, but display in the user's browser a URL that is different from the URL with which the particular page is usually associated. Because of this feature, they provide a loophole that can be used to get around filtering software, i.e., they display a URL that is different from the one that appears on the filtering company's control list. Loophole Web sites include caches of Web pages that have been removed from their original location, anonymizer sites, and translation sites.

Caches are archived copies that some search engines, such as Google, keep of the Web pages they index. The cached copy stored by Google will have a URL that is different from the original URL. Because Web sites often change rapidly, caches are the only way to access pages that have been taken down, revised, or have changed their URLs for some reason. For example, a magazine might place its current stories under a given URL, and replace them monthly with new stories. If a user wanted to find an article published six months ago, he or she would be unable to access it if not for Google's cached version.

Some sites on the Web serve as a proxy or intermediary between a user and another Web page. When using a proxy server, a user does not access the page from its original URL, but rather from the URL of the proxy server. One type of proxy service is an anonymizer. Users may access Web sites indirectly via an anonymizer when they do not want the Web site they are visiting to be able to determine the IP address from which they are accessing the site, or to leave cookies on their browser.(8) Some proxy servers can be used to attempt to translate Web page content from one language to another. Rather than directly accessing the original Web page in its original language, users can instead indirectly access the page via a proxy server offering translation features.

As noted above, filtering companies often block loophole sites, such as caches, anonymizers, and translation sites. The practice of blocking loophole sites necessarily results in a significant amount of overblocking, because the vast majority of the pages that are cached, for example, do not contain content that would match a filtering company's category definitions. Filters that do not block these loophole sites, however, may enable users to access any URL on the Web via the loophole site, thus resulting in substantial underblocking.

This is an aspect which I've been trying to get into the censorware debate for ages. I'm overjoyed that the court heard, they got it, they listened, and it helped strike down Federal censorware law! These are the reports which seem to have made a difference in the above:

BESS's Secret LOOPHOLE: (censorware vs. privacy & anonymity) - a secret category of BESS (N2H2), and more about why censorware must blacklist privacy, anonymity, and translators
http://sethf.com/anticensorware/bess/loophole.php

BESS vs The Google Search Engine (Cache, Groups, Images) - BESS bans cached web pages, passes porn in groups, and considers all image searching to be pornography.
http://sethf.com/anticensorware/bess/google.php

SmartFilter's Greatest Evils - why censorware must blacklist privacy, anonymity, and language translators
http://sethf.com/anticensorware/smartfilter/greate stevils.php

The Pre-Slipped Slope - censorware vs the Wayback Machine web archive - The logic of censorware programs suppressing an enormous digital library.
http://sethf.com/anticensorware/general/slip.php

-- Seth Finklestein Consulting Programmer http://sethf.com
Anticensorware Investigations: http://sethf.com/anticensorware/
Seth Finklestein's Infothought list - http://sethf.com/infothought/
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/07/19/technology/circu its/19HACK.html
TROLL ALERT! I now seem to have attracted troll imposters. The real Seth Finklestein has uid#582901

Date: Fri, 31 May 2002 10:41:18 -0400
From: Seth Finklestein
To: Seth Finklestein's InfoThought list
Subject: IT: Federal censorware law down! (and Seth Finkelstein's reports!)

I'm ecstatic that the court seems to have used my pioneering efforts in anticensorware work as one factor in its decision, in passages such as these:

Another technique that filtering companies use in order to deal with a structural feature of the Internet is blocking the root level URLs of so-called loophole Web sites. These are Web sites that provide access to a particular Web page, but display in the user's browser a URL that is different from the URL with which the particular page is usually associated. Because of this feature, they provide a loophole that can be used to get around filtering software, i.e., they display a URL that is different from the one that appears on the filtering company's control list. Loophole Web sites include caches of Web pages that have been removed from their original location, anonymizer sites, and translation sites.

Caches are archived copies that some search engines, such as Google, keep of the Web pages they index. The cached copy stored by Google will have a URL that is different from the original URL. Because Web sites often change rapidly, caches are the only way to access pages that have been taken down, revised, or have changed their URLs for some reason. For example, a magazine might place its current stories under a given URL, and replace them monthly with new stories. If a user wanted to find an article published six months ago, he or she would be unable to access it if not for Google's cached version.

Some sites on the Web serve as a proxy or intermediary between a user and another Web page. When using a proxy server, a user does not access the page from its original URL, but rather from the URL of the proxy server. One type of proxy service is an anonymizer. Users may access Web sites indirectly via an anonymizer when they do not want the Web site they are visiting to be able to determine the IP address from which they are accessing the site, or to leave cookies on their browser.(8) Some proxy servers can be used to attempt to translate Web page content from one language to another. Rather than directly accessing the original Web page in its original language, users can instead indirectly access the page via a proxy server offering translation features.

As noted above, filtering companies often block loophole sites, such as caches, anonymizers, and translation sites. The practice of blocking loophole sites necessarily results in a significant amount of overblocking, because the vast majority of the pages that are cached, for example, do not contain content that would match a filtering company's category definitions. Filters that do not block these loophole sites, however, may enable users to access any URL on the Web via the loophole site, thus resulting in substantial underblocking.

This is an aspect which I've been trying to get into the censorware debate for ages. I'm overjoyed that the court heard, they got it, they listened, and it helped strike down Federal censorware law! These are the reports which seem to have made a difference in the above:

BESS's Secret LOOPHOLE: (censorware vs. privacy & anonymity) - a secret category of BESS (N2H2), and more about why censorware must blacklist privacy, anonymity, and translators
http://sethf.com/anticensorware/bess/loophole.php

BESS vs The Google Search Engine (Cache, Groups, Images) - BESS bans cached web pages, passes porn in groups, and considers all image searching to be pornography.
http://sethf.com/anticensorware/bess/google.php

SmartFilter's Greatest Evils - why censorware must blacklist privacy, anonymity, and language translators
http://sethf.com/anticensorware/smartfilter/greate stevils.php

The Pre-Slipped Slope - censorware vs the Wayback Machine web archive - The logic of censorware programs suppressing an enormous digital library.
http://sethf.com/anticensorware/general/slip.php

-- Seth Finklestein Consulting Programmer http://sethf.com
Anticensorware Investigations: http://sethf.com/anticensorware/
Seth Finklestein's Infothought list - http://sethf.com/infothought/
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/07/19/technology/circu its/19HACK.html
TROLL ALERT! I now seem to have attracted troll imposters. The real Seth Finklestein has uid#582901

Date: Fri, 31 May 2002 10:41:18 -0400
From: Seth Finklestein
To: Seth Finklestein's InfoThought list
Subject: IT: Federal censorware law down! (and Seth Finkelstein's reports!)

I'm ecstatic that the court seems to have used my pioneering efforts in anticensorware work as one factor in its decision, in passages such as these:

Another technique that filtering companies use in order to deal with a structural feature of the Internet is blocking the root level URLs of so-called loophole Web sites. These are Web sites that provide access to a particular Web page, but display in the user's browser a URL that is different from the URL with which the particular page is usually associated. Because of this feature, they provide a loophole that can be used to get around filtering software, i.e., they display a URL that is different from the one that appears on the filtering company's control list. Loophole Web sites include caches of Web pages that have been removed from their original location, anonymizer sites, and translation sites.

Caches are archived copies that some search engines, such as Google, keep of the Web pages they index. The cached copy stored by Google will have a URL that is different from the original URL. Because Web sites often change rapidly, caches are the only way to access pages that have been taken down, revised, or have changed their URLs for some reason. For example, a magazine might place its current stories under a given URL, and replace them monthly with new stories. If a user wanted to find an article published six months ago, he or she would be unable to access it if not for Google's cached version.

Some sites on the Web serve as a proxy or intermediary between a user and another Web page. When using a proxy server, a user does not access the page from its original URL, but rather from the URL of the proxy server. One type of proxy service is an anonymizer. Users may access Web sites indirectly via an anonymizer when they do not want the Web site they are visiting to be able to determine the IP address from which they are accessing the site, or to leave cookies on their browser.(8) Some proxy servers can be used to attempt to translate Web page content from one language to another. Rather than directly accessing the original Web page in its original language, users can instead indirectly access the page via a proxy server offering translation features.

As noted above, filtering companies often block loophole sites, such as caches, anonymizers, and translation sites. The practice of blocking loophole sites necessarily results in a significant amount of overblocking, because the vast majority of the pages that are cached, for example, do not contain content that would match a filtering company's category definitions. Filters that do not block these loophole sites, however, may enable users to access any URL on the Web via the loophole site, thus resulting in substantial underblocking.

This is an aspect which I've been trying to get into the censorware debate for ages. I'm overjoyed that the court heard, they got it, they listened, and it helped strike down Federal censorware law! These are the reports which seem to have made a difference in the above:

BESS's Secret LOOPHOLE: (censorware vs. privacy & anonymity) - a secret category of BESS (N2H2), and more about why censorware must blacklist privacy, anonymity, and translators
http://sethf.com/anticensorware/bess/loophole.php

BESS vs The Google Search Engine (Cache, Groups, Images) - BESS bans cached web pages, passes porn in groups, and considers all image searching to be pornography.
http://sethf.com/anticensorware/bess/google.php

SmartFilter's Greatest Evils - why censorware must blacklist privacy, anonymity, and language translators
http://sethf.com/anticensorware/smartfilter/greate stevils.php

The Pre-Slipped Slope - censorware vs the Wayback Machine web archive - The logic of censorware programs suppressing an enormous digital library.
http://sethf.com/anticensorware/general/slip.php

-- Seth Finklestein Consulting Programmer http://sethf.com
Anticensorware Investigations: http://sethf.com/anticensorware/
Seth Finklestein's Infothought list - http://sethf.com/infothought/
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/07/19/technology/circu its/19HACK.html
TROLL ALERT! I now seem to have attracted troll imposters. The real Seth Finklestein has uid#582901

Date: Fri, 31 May 2002 10:41:18 -0400
From: Seth Finklestein
To: Seth Finklestein's InfoThought list
Subject: IT: Federal censorware law down! (and Seth Finkelstein's reports!)

I'm ecstatic that the court seems to have used my pioneering efforts in anticensorware work as one factor in its decision, in passages such as these:

Another technique that filtering companies use in order to deal with a structural feature of the Internet is blocking the root level URLs of so-called loophole Web sites. These are Web sites that provide access to a particular Web page, but display in the user's browser a URL that is different from the URL with which the particular page is usually associated. Because of this feature, they provide a loophole that can be used to get around filtering software, i.e., they display a URL that is different from the one that appears on the filtering company's control list. Loophole Web sites include caches of Web pages that have been removed from their original location, anonymizer sites, and translation sites.

Caches are archived copies that some search engines, such as Google, keep of the Web pages they index. The cached copy stored by Google will have a URL that is different from the original URL. Because Web sites often change rapidly, caches are the only way to access pages that have been taken down, revised, or have changed their URLs for some reason. For example, a magazine might place its current stories under a given URL, and replace them monthly with new stories. If a user wanted to find an article published six months ago, he or she would be unable to access it if not for Google's cached version.

Some sites on the Web serve as a proxy or intermediary between a user and another Web page. When using a proxy server, a user does not access the page from its original URL, but rather from the URL of the proxy server. One type of proxy service is an anonymizer. Users may access Web sites indirectly via an anonymizer when they do not want the Web site they are visiting to be able to determine the IP address from which they are accessing the site, or to leave cookies on their browser.(8) Some proxy servers can be used to attempt to translate Web page content from one language to another. Rather than directly accessing the original Web page in its original language, users can instead indirectly access the page via a proxy server offering translation features.

As noted above, filtering companies often block loophole sites, such as caches, anonymizers, and translation sites. The practice of blocking loophole sites necessarily results in a significant amount of overblocking, because the vast majority of the pages that are cached, for example, do not contain content that would match a filtering company's category definitions. Filters that do not block these loophole sites, however, may enable users to access any URL on the Web via the loophole site, thus resulting in substantial underblocking.

This is an aspect which I've been trying to get into the censorware debate for ages. I'm overjoyed that the court heard, they got it, they listened, and it helped strike down Federal censorware law! These are the reports which seem to have made a difference in the above:

BESS's Secret LOOPHOLE: (censorware vs. privacy & anonymity) - a secret category of BESS (N2H2), and more about why censorware must blacklist privacy, anonymity, and translators
http://sethf.com/anticensorware/bess/loophole.php

BESS vs The Google Search Engine (Cache, Groups, Images) - BESS bans cached web pages, passes porn in groups, and considers all image searching to be pornography.
http://sethf.com/anticensorware/bess/google.php

SmartFilter's Greatest Evils - why censorware must blacklist privacy, anonymity, and language translators
http://sethf.com/anticensorware/smartfilter/greate stevils.php

The Pre-Slipped Slope - censorware vs the Wayback Machine web archive - The logic of censorware programs suppressing an enormous digital library.
http://sethf.com/anticensorware/general/slip.php

-- Seth Finklestein Consulting Programmer http://sethf.com
Anticensorware Investigations: http://sethf.com/anticensorware/
Seth Finklestein's Infothought list - http://sethf.com/infothought/
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/07/19/technology/circu its/19HACK.html
TROLL ALERT! I now seem to have attracted troll imposters. The real Seth Finklestein has uid#582901

Date: Fri, 31 May 2002 10:41:18 -0400
From: Seth Finklestein
To: Seth Finklestein's InfoThought list
Subject: IT: Federal censorware law down! (and Seth Finkelstein's reports!)

I'm ecstatic that the court seems to have used my pioneering efforts in anticensorware work as one factor in its decision, in passages such as these:

Another technique that filtering companies use in order to deal with a structural feature of the Internet is blocking the root level URLs of so-called loophole Web sites. These are Web sites that provide access to a particular Web page, but display in the user's browser a URL that is different from the URL with which the particular page is usually associated. Because of this feature, they provide a loophole that can be used to get around filtering software, i.e., they display a URL that is different from the one that appears on the filtering company's control list. Loophole Web sites include caches of Web pages that have been removed from their original location, anonymizer sites, and translation sites.

Caches are archived copies that some search engines, such as Google, keep of the Web pages they index. The cached copy stored by Google will have a URL that is different from the original URL. Because Web sites often change rapidly, caches are the only way to access pages that have been taken down, revised, or have changed their URLs for some reason. For example, a magazine might place its current stories under a given URL, and replace them monthly with new stories. If a user wanted to find an article published six months ago, he or she would be unable to access it if not for Google's cached version.

Some sites on the Web serve as a proxy or intermediary between a user and another Web page. When using a proxy server, a user does not access the page from its original URL, but rather from the URL of the proxy server. One type of proxy service is an anonymizer. Users may access Web sites indirectly via an anonymizer when they do not want the Web site they are visiting to be able to determine the IP address from which they are accessing the site, or to leave cookies on their browser.(8) Some proxy servers can be used to attempt to translate Web page content from one language to another. Rather than directly accessing the original Web page in its original language, users can instead indirectly access the page via a proxy server offering translation features.

As noted above, filtering companies often block loophole sites, such as caches, anonymizers, and translation sites. The practice of blocking loophole sites necessarily results in a significant amount of overblocking, because the vast majority of the pages that are cached, for example, do not contain content that would match a filtering company's category definitions. Filters that do not block these loophole sites, however, may enable users to access any URL on the Web via the loophole site, thus resulting in substantial underblocking.

This is an aspect which I've been trying to get into the censorware debate for ages. I'm overjoyed that the court heard, they got it, they listened, and it helped strike down Federal censorware law! These are the reports which seem to have made a difference in the above:

BESS's Secret LOOPHOLE: (censorware vs. privacy & anonymity) - a secret category of BESS (N2H2), and more about why censorware must blacklist privacy, anonymity, and translators
http://sethf.com/anticensorware/bess/loophole.php

BESS vs The Google Search Engine (Cache, Groups, Images) - BESS bans cached web pages, passes porn in groups, and considers all image searching to be pornography.
http://sethf.com/anticensorware/bess/google.php

SmartFilter's Greatest Evils - why censorware must blacklist privacy, anonymity, and language translators
http://sethf.com/anticensorware/smartfilter/greate stevils.php

The Pre-Slipped Slope - censorware vs the Wayback Machine web archive - The logic of censorware programs suppressing an enormous digital library.
http://sethf.com/anticensorware/general/slip.php

-- Seth Finklestein Consulting Programmer http://sethf.com
Anticensorware Investigations: http://sethf.com/anticensorware/
Seth Finklestein's Infothought list - http://sethf.com/infothought/
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/07/19/technology/circu its/19HACK.html
TROLL ALERT! I now seem to have attracted troll imposters. The real Seth Finklestein has uid#582901

Date: Fri, 31 May 2002 10:41:18 -0400
From: Seth Finklestein
To: Seth Finklestein's InfoThought list
Subject: IT: Federal censorware law down! (and Seth Finkelstein's reports!)

I'm ecstatic that the court seems to have used my pioneering efforts in anticensorware work as one factor in its decision, in passages such as these:

Another technique that filtering companies use in order to deal with a structural feature of the Internet is blocking the root level URLs of so-called loophole Web sites. These are Web sites that provide access to a particular Web page, but display in the user's browser a URL that is different from the URL with which the particular page is usually associated. Because of this feature, they provide a loophole that can be used to get around filtering software, i.e., they display a URL that is different from the one that appears on the filtering company's control list. Loophole Web sites include caches of Web pages that have been removed from their original location, anonymizer sites, and translation sites.

Caches are archived copies that some search engines, such as Google, keep of the Web pages they index. The cached copy stored by Google will have a URL that is different from the original URL. Because Web sites often change rapidly, caches are the only way to access pages that have been taken down, revised, or have changed their URLs for some reason. For example, a magazine might place its current stories under a given URL, and replace them monthly with new stories. If a user wanted to find an article published six months ago, he or she would be unable to access it if not for Google's cached version.

Some sites on the Web serve as a proxy or intermediary between a user and another Web page. When using a proxy server, a user does not access the page from its original URL, but rather from the URL of the proxy server. One type of proxy service is an anonymizer. Users may access Web sites indirectly via an anonymizer when they do not want the Web site they are visiting to be able to determine the IP address from which they are accessing the site, or to leave cookies on their browser.(8) Some proxy servers can be used to attempt to translate Web page content from one language to another. Rather than directly accessing the original Web page in its original language, users can instead indirectly access the page via a proxy server offering translation features.

As noted above, filtering companies often block loophole sites, such as caches, anonymizers, and translation sites. The practice of blocking loophole sites necessarily results in a significant amount of overblocking, because the vast majority of the pages that are cached, for example, do not contain content that would match a filtering company's category definitions. Filters that do not block these loophole sites, however, may enable users to access any URL on the Web via the loophole site, thus resulting in substantial underblocking.

This is an aspect which I've been trying to get into the censorware debate for ages. I'm overjoyed that the court heard, they got it, they listened, and it helped strike down Federal censorware law! These are the reports which seem to have made a difference in the above:

BESS's Secret LOOPHOLE: (censorware vs. privacy & anonymity) - a secret category of BESS (N2H2), and more about why censorware must blacklist privacy, anonymity, and translators
http://sethf.com/anticensorware/bess/loophole.php

BESS vs The Google Search Engine (Cache, Groups, Images) - BESS bans cached web pages, passes porn in groups, and considers all image searching to be pornography.
http://sethf.com/anticensorware/bess/google.php

SmartFilter's Greatest Evils - why censorware must blacklist privacy, anonymity, and language translators
http://sethf.com/anticensorware/smartfilter/greate stevils.php

The Pre-Slipped Slope - censorware vs the Wayback Machine web archive - The logic of censorware programs suppressing an enormous digital library.
http://sethf.com/anticensorware/general/slip.php

-- Seth Finklestein Consulting Programmer http://sethf.com
Anticensorware Investigations: http://sethf.com/anticensorware/
Seth Finklestein's Infothought list - http://sethf.com/infothought/
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/07/19/technology/circu its/19HACK.html
TROLL ALERT! I now seem to have attracted troll imposters. The real Seth Finklestein has uid#582901

Date: Fri, 31 May 2002 10:41:18 -0400
From: Seth Finklestein
To: Seth Finklestein's InfoThought list
Subject: IT: Federal censorware law down! (and Seth Finkelstein's reports!)

I'm ecstatic that the court seems to have used my pioneering efforts in anticensorware work as one factor in its decision, in passages such as these:

Another technique that filtering companies use in order to deal with a structural feature of the Internet is blocking the root level URLs of so-called loophole Web sites. These are Web sites that provide access to a particular Web page, but display in the user's browser a URL that is different from the URL with which the particular page is usually associated. Because of this feature, they provide a loophole that can be used to get around filtering software, i.e., they display a URL that is different from the one that appears on the filtering company's control list. Loophole Web sites include caches of Web pages that have been removed from their original location, anonymizer sites, and translation sites.

Caches are archived copies that some search engines, such as Google, keep of the Web pages they index. The cached copy stored by Google will have a URL that is different from the original URL. Because Web sites often change rapidly, caches are the only way to access pages that have been taken down, revised, or have changed their URLs for some reason. For example, a magazine might place its current stories under a given URL, and replace them monthly with new stories. If a user wanted to find an article published six months ago, he or she would be unable to access it if not for Google's cached version.

Some sites on the Web serve as a proxy or intermediary between a user and another Web page. When using a proxy server, a user does not access the page from its original URL, but rather from the URL of the proxy server. One type of proxy service is an anonymizer. Users may access Web sites indirectly via an anonymizer when they do not want the Web site they are visiting to be able to determine the IP address from which they are accessing the site, or to leave cookies on their browser.(8) Some proxy servers can be used to attempt to translate Web page content from one language to another. Rather than directly accessing the original Web page in its original language, users can instead indirectly access the page via a proxy server offering translation features.

As noted above, filtering companies often block loophole sites, such as caches, anonymizers, and translation sites. The practice of blocking loophole sites necessarily results in a significant amount of overblocking, because the vast majority of the pages that are cached, for example, do not contain content that would match a filtering company's category definitions. Filters that do not block these loophole sites, however, may enable users to access any URL on the Web via the loophole site, thus resulting in substantial underblocking.

This is an aspect which I've been trying to get into the censorware debate for ages. I'm overjoyed that the court heard, they got it, they listened, and it helped strike down Federal censorware law! These are the reports which seem to have made a difference in the above:

BESS's Secret LOOPHOLE: (censorware vs. privacy & anonymity) - a secret category of BESS (N2H2), and more about why censorware must blacklist privacy, anonymity, and translators
http://sethf.com/anticensorware/bess/loophole.php

BESS vs The Google Search Engine (Cache, Groups, Images) - BESS bans cached web pages, passes porn in groups, and considers all image searching to be pornography.
http://sethf.com/anticensorware/bess/google.php

SmartFilter's Greatest Evils - why censorware must blacklist privacy, anonymity, and language translators
http://sethf.com/anticensorware/smartfilter/greate stevils.php

The Pre-Slipped Slope - censorware vs the Wayback Machine web archive - The logic of censorware programs suppressing an enormous digital library.
http://sethf.com/anticensorware/general/slip.php

-- Seth Finklestein Consulting Programmer http://sethf.com
Anticensorware Investigations: http://sethf.com/anticensorware/
Seth Finklestein's Infothought list - http://sethf.com/infothought/
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/07/19/technology/circu its/19HACK.html
TROLL ALERT! I now seem to have attracted troll imposters. The real Seth Finklestein has uid#582901

If you are interested in Civil and Constitutional rights without the rabid left-wing agenda, check out the Rutherford Institute. They seem to get alot of the cases where organizations like the ACLU try to mute people's religeous freedoms though, so if you kneejerk at their defense of such things, just pass it by.

Yes...he did...then told a bullshit story about the website he hijacked ON that website and lied about it. Blatantly.

Check out this for the part of the story Michael doesn't like to talk about.

He's one of the more inflammatory editors on this site IMHO...he's about a Junis away from Jon Katz. :)

the business model has changed. They can't go for days without posting many stories...even if there isn't much good news on those days. Then they wouldn't get page hits and generate ad revenue...which is why you often see old news, and crap dressed up like news, instead of something actually new and interesting.

This is why I seriously think they'd LIKE to keep a few rediculously biased jerks with political agendas on the editor staff...like it or not - they crank out page hits with the flamewars that follow some of their dumber stories. Junis from Afghanistan took the freaking cake! That one was so rediculous I think they had to get rid of Katz just to save some image. Then there is Michael who posts 80% crap (usually with twisted politics), and has some interesting little exploits himself...and then lies about it on the very project site he basically hijacked...and even the other editors know it. Seriously...the editors need to clean up their freaking acts...it's been said that they don't even read their own site anymore, and I'd believe it, what with all the dupes and typos, etc. They can just keep milking it like the little cash cow it is.

I am not trying to be a troll myself for saying it - it's my humble opinion. Mod me troll if you want...at least I had the balls to say it while logged in.

Now, if we could wire Michael up with this kind of thing and send him a signal to stop squatting on the censorware.org domain, that wouldn't be ethical either - but it would definitely be cool.

1. You can have multiple whitelists, and choose the set of censors that will edit your information for you.
2. A whitelist system doesn't assume the Internet is American (what was that - did someone mention the Land of the Free?).
3. This would be a second-level domain, under .us; you don't need legislation to create such a domain. You can just register it.
4. It's hardly ever a good thing when politicians start meddling with the internet - it's a threat to them in general, and they don't like it.
5. The internet is generally pretty resistant to censorship; effective censorship involves blocking access to anonymisers, translators, search-engines, and no end of other valuable resources, not because they are themselves 'harmful', but because they undermine the censorware (see Seth Finkelstein's LOOPHOLE article).

Oh, well - I'm obviously out-of-line with the majority sentiment in this thread, but ISTM that only a fool would volunteer to have their information sources censored by someone else.

This is what happened to the Censorware Project (censorware.org), for anyone wondering why the domain name has changed.

Sorry, a library is not a daycare that you can dump your kids at and ignore. It isn't a Disneyland created to keep your children safe at all costs. Libraries exist to help create a well educated public, to encourage the spread of information and to support the spread of new ideas necessary to keep democracy flourishing. To support these goals, information that you may object to your children seeing must be available to adults. Any restriction on this information for adults is unacceptable.

There's plenty I want to keep away from my kids while they are kids.

And somewhere there is someone who wants to keep your kids away from things you think are perfectly safe. When the paranoid religious group decides to bar links to Harry Potter fan sites as "Occult" or breast cancer information sites as "Sexual". It's not possible for a library to come up with a perfect filter for everyone. Unless you filter to the extreme, some parents will be horrified that their child has access to to information about halloween. Unless you have no filter, some parent will find some information filtered that they want their child to have access to. (And do you think a child that encounters a "Access Denied" is going to ask the librarian to unblock it? Heck, most adults would be too embarrassed to do so!)

No system will work for everyone. Heck, no system will work for most people. And any system will irritate many patrons doing legitimate research.

Ultimately responsibility for filtering what you child sees is your responsibility. If you're not confident that you child is mature enough to handle whatever he comes across, you are responsible for keeping your eye on him. Even before the internet, you could find novels with graphic descriptions of sex and violence and books encouraging racism and violence, yet you don't seem to worry about that.

Your child is your responsibility. Just because you're too lazy to keep an eye on your child is no reason that my library experience should be diminished.

...it's fun to see where they flubb because it is so rare. And these can only get better with time.

Censorware can't work. It simply can't. The internet is growing too fast to restrict. New pages with "bad" content are being added rightnow, and new pages with "good" content are being added. Censorware has no hope to keep up. Search engines with an easier job (find everything, and try to find everything) can't keep up. How can a censorware manufacturer accurately make all of those decisions? Deciding that a given page is "reasonable political commentary" or "hate speech" is extremely difficultt, even for humans. A computer has no hope. Check out Michael Sims' "Why Censorware Can't Work" article for more details. Furthermore, censorware must filter any web site that could possibly redisplay content from another web site. This means that all censorware must always restrict translation software web pages. There are a number of articles documenting this problem, here are just a few: "BabelFish blocked by censorware", "SmartFilter's Greatest Evils", and BESS's Secret LOOPHOLE (censoreware vs privacy & anonymity"

Sorry, a library is not a daycare that you can dump your kids at and ignore. It isn't a Disneyland created to keep your children safe at all costs. Libraries exist to help create a well educated public, to encourage the spread of information and to support the spread of new ideas necessary to keep democracy flourishing. To support these goals, information that you may object to your children seeing must be available to adults. Any restriction on this information for adults is unacceptable.

There's plenty I want to keep away from my kids while they are kids.

And somewhere there is someone who wants to keep your kids away from things you think are perfectly safe. When the paranoid religious group decides to bar links to Harry Potter fan sites as "Occult" or breast cancer information sites as "Sexual". It's not possible for a library to come up with a perfect filter for everyone. Unless you filter to the extreme, some parents will be horrified that their child has access to to information about halloween. Unless you have no filter, some parent will find some information filtered that they want their child to have access to. (And do you think a child that encounters a "Access Denied" is going to ask the librarian to unblock it? Heck, most adults would be too embarrassed to do so!)

No system will work for everyone. Heck, no system will work for most people. And any system will irritate many patrons doing legitimate research.

Ultimately responsibility for filtering what you child sees is your responsibility. If you're not confident that you child is mature enough to handle whatever he comes across, you are responsible for keeping your eye on him. Even before the internet, you could find novels with graphic descriptions of sex and violence and books encouraging racism and violence, yet you don't seem to worry about that.

Your child is your responsibility. Just because you're too lazy to keep an eye on your child is no reason that my library experience should be diminished.

...it's fun to see where they flubb because it is so rare. And these can only get better with time.

Censorware can't work. It simply can't. The internet is growing too fast to restrict. New pages with "bad" content are being added rightnow, and new pages with "good" content are being added. Censorware has no hope to keep up. Search engines with an easier job (find everything, and try to find everything) can't keep up. How can a censorware manufacturer accurately make all of those decisions? Deciding that a given page is "reasonable political commentary" or "hate speech" is extremely difficultt, even for humans. A computer has no hope. Check out Michael Sims' "Why Censorware Can't Work" article for more details. Furthermore, censorware must filter any web site that could possibly redisplay content from another web site. This means that all censorware must always restrict translation software web pages. There are a number of articles documenting this problem, here are just a few: "BabelFish blocked by censorware", "SmartFilter's Greatest Evils", and BESS's Secret LOOPHOLE (censoreware vs privacy & anonymity"