Slashdot Mirror
ACLU Joins Fray Over Cyber Patrol Censorware
Links:
Text of the ACLU's Press Release:
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Friday, March 24, 2000
NEW YORK -- The American Civil Liberties Union will enter a Boston court this Monday to argue that a ban on a program allowing users to decode the Internet blocking software Cyber Patrol constitutes a "classic prior restraint on speech" in violation of the U.S. Constitution.
The Cyber Patrol controversy is but the latest round in a heated debate over flaws in so-called filtering software that both "overblocks" non-pornographic Web sites on subjects like Super Bowl XXX and fails to block many sites parents may not deem appropriate for their children.
In legal papers filed with the court today, the ACLU said that Cyber Patrol's lawsuit is unnecessary because the company can easily block their customers from accessing any Web site or page on which the decoding program appears, whereas some of the Web sites may be out of the jurisdiction of the court.
Acting on behalf of three U.S. Web site operators who posted "mirror" copies of the decoding program, the ACLU said their free speech rights would be violated if the court granted the company's request for a preliminary injunction against the Swedish and Canadian creators of the program.
"Under Cyber Patrol's logic, I'd be breaking the law if I bought a Ford Mustang and looked under the hood," said Chris Hansen, a senior ACLU staff attorney and lead counsel in the case. "I don't think it is asking too much for Cyber Patrol and other software companies to tell the American public exactly what their software blocks, especially when Congress wants to force both children and adults to use it."
Last Friday, March 17, U.S. District Judge Edward F. Harrington granted a 10-day temporary restraining order against the creators of the program. Cyber Patrol then sent subpoenas to the ACLU's clients, suggesting that they would be bound by that order and any future court bans.
In addition, at least one American reporter has confirmed receipt of subpoena from Cyber Patrol ordering him to reveal the name of "each and every person who produced, received, viewed, downloaded or accessed" the decoding program from his site.
The Web site operators, Waldo L. Jaquith, Lindsay Haisley and Bennett Haselton, each said that they posted the decoding program as a form of political protest against Cyber Patrol's legal actions and against "censorware" in general. Their Web sites can be found at: www.peacefire.org (Haselton), www.fmp.com (Haisley) and www.waldo.net (Jasquith).
"We thought it would be educational for some politicians, who are recommending blocking software for use in every school in the country, to see the mistakes that the codebreakers found in Cyber Patrol's list," said Haselton, 21, operator of Peacefire.org, a Web site he founded specifically to defend the free-speech interests of people under 18 on the Internet.
Haselton said that Peacefire recently decrypted the lists of sites blocked by two other programs -- I-Gear and X-Stop -- and found that they had error rates between 68 and 76 percent for blocking pages in the educational ".edu" domain.
Haselton, Jasquith, and Haisley are represented as "nonparties" to the Cyber Patrol lawsuit by Hansen of the national ACLU, Sarah Wunsch, an attorney with the ACLU of Massachusetts, David Sobel, general counsel for the Electronic Privacy Information Center based in Washington, and Jessica Littman, a visiting professor of law at New York University.
In 1998, a federal district judge said that forcing adults to use blocking software like Cyber Patrol in public libraries "offends the guarantee of free speech." Last month, a proposal aimed at forcing a Michigan public library to install Web filtering software on computers was defeated by voters.
"With Congress renewing efforts to mandate use of such flawed software in public schools and libraries, the Cyber Patrol battle only serves to emphasize that information on what is blocked must be made available to consumers, let alone libraries and schools," Hansen said.
The hearing in Microsystems Software, Inc. V. Scandinavia Online, IslandNet.com, Eddy L.O. Jansson and Matthew Skala, Civil Action No.00-10488-EFH, will take place on Monday, March 27, at 2:00 p.m. in U.S. District Court in Boston.
The ACLU's opposition to motion for preliminary injunction in the case is online at http://www.aclu.org/court/cyberpatrol_motion.html. The motion to quash subpoenas is online at http://www.aclu.org/court/cyberpatrol_quash.html.
Cyber Patrol is a subsidiary of toy company giant Mattel Inc., which is publicly traded on the New York Stock Exchange.
Ever since the thing happened with that AOL .mp3 napster thingy. ( I can't rember what it was ) I have decied that when ever I run into things like the cyber patrol crack, DVD "crack". I am going to download a copy of it and store it away. This way, if some bs happens. Copys would suddenly "come out of the wood work" I am sure I am not the only one to do this. But, I encorage everyone else too. If there are 5 web sites that have it. Its pretty simple to have shutdown. but, when there are 50,000+ thats a differant story.
Anyone really interested in an examination of the matter of militia and the people mentioned in the 2nd Amendment in a historicalc context should visit here: http://www.guncite.com/jo urnals/gun_control_hardhist.html
Note the phrase "the right of the states".
Now here's the 2nd amendment of the US constitution. It's very short. One sentence:
Note the phrase "the right of the people".
That's a whopping revisionist statement by the ACLU there. Still think their mission is to defend the rights of individuals. Think again.
--
The best weapon is the one provided to you by your opponent.
I'm maintaining a news site for the cphack situation right now at cp.waldo.net. Good way to stay updated, IMHO.
See, this post had some content. Yay, me.
-Waldo
To tell me that you are always in favor of them when they oppose you is a total abdication and abnegation of your own reason.
:) The KKK got to march.
I want to start off by saying that I agree with most everything that you said. Anytime that I over-simplify something, I open myself up to criticism. But I hope that this one response will clear things up a bit.
Remember when the ACLU defended the KKK a few years back? I think that the KKK wanted to hold a parade or something. Anyhow, the ACLU backed them. (And the lawyer that the provided was black.
Remember the ACLU case against a town, because they were plowing the town church's parking lot? The town, if I recall correctly, had to agree to stop helping people get to church on snowy Sunday mornings.
Do I feel that the ACLU behaved in a manner that I would have? Hell no. The KKK can go bugger themselves, and I don't think that there's anything wrong with plowing a church's parking lot, if that's where 1/2 the town goes the morning that it snows.
But I believe that the ACLU *ought* to pursue cases like this, and I'm extremely thankful that they do. I do not agree with their positions on a moral level. But I aboslutely support their right to do this, and I think that the ACLU has single-handledly reshaped the manner in which our country applies our Constitution to every day life.
Think Palmer raids, Scopes monkey trial, James Joyce's "Ulysses," Japanese concentration camps and Brown v. Board of Education. The ACLU was part of all of those. Not because they were trendy causes, or because you and I would support them. But because people in a morally unpopular position needed legal defense.
I don't think that it's a matter of blind support. I think that the vision is very clear. As long as the ACLU continues to support cases that assist in refining our interpretations of the US Constitution, no matter what those interpretations may end up looking like, they will remain an important organisation that I feel it essential that we all support.
We may not always like their positions on a gut level. But can't we like them on a patriotic one?
-Waldo
I don't understand how any reasonable American that supports constitutional rights could ever be opposed to the ACLU. They support constitutional rights, fairly, every time. Even when they do something that I don't like, which is a good chunk of the time, I'm entirely in favour of it.
The way I figure it, either you're a supporter of the ACLU, or you're opposed to portions of the US constitution.
-Waldo
I do believe that the issue is addressed in the MGLA (Massachusetts General Laws Annotated) which would have significant (but not comprehensive) application in this case.
.sig: Join AMSAT
Among the many (scattered) relevant passages are:
Chapter 223: Section 31. Summons; leaving at last known address, etc.
Section 31. In an action brought in the district court, if service is made at the last and usual place of abode, the officer making service shall forthwith mail first class a copy of the summons to such last and usual place of abode. The date of mailing and the address to which the summons was sent shall be set forth as required by section thirty-five in the officer's return.
Chapter 223: Section 34. Further notice to absent defendant.
Section 34. If the defendant is out of the commonwealth, or if his residence is not known to the officer, and no personal service is made on him or on his agent appointed under section five of chapter two hundred and twenty-seven, he shall, in addition to the service herein prescribed, be entitled to further notice of the action as provided in said chapter.
Though, in my experience, arguing improper service doesn't always get too far, since judges tend to feel 'you know you did something wrong" unless your lawyer is very diligent about arguing that this is a far cry from knowing you were actually required to appear in a certain place at a certain tim. [that asssumption makes a judges life much easier - though I'd blame the court clerk for not at least trying to confirm proper service)
BTW, Ch 227 sect 5, cited above. seems to apply only to those doing business in Massachusetts, but even entities doing business in Mass are entitled to more than e-service. To wit:
Chapter 227: Section 5. Agents for service of process; duty to appoint by certain individuals; penalty.
Section 5. Every individual not an inhabitant of the commonwealth and every partnership composed of persons not such inhabitants, having a usual place of business in the commonwealth, temporarily or permanently, or engaged here, temporarily or permanently, and with or without a usual place of business here, in the construction, erection, alteration or repair of a building, bridge, railroad, railway, or structure of any kind, shall, before doing business in the commonwealth, appoint in writing a person who is a citizen and resident thereof to be his or its true and lawful attorney upon whom all lawful processes against such individual or partnership may be served with like effect as if served on such person or partnership; and said writing or power of attorney shall contain an agreement on the part of the maker that the service of any lawful process on said attorney shall be of the same force and validity as service on such individual or partnership. The power of attorney shall be filed in the office of the state secretary, and copies certified by him shall be taken as sufficient evidence thereof. Such agency shall be continued so long as such individual or partnership does business as aforesaid in the commonwealth, and the power of attorney shall not be revoked until a similar power is given to another citizen and resident of the commonwealth and filed as aforesaid. If such individual or partnership fails to appoint an agent and does business in this commonwealth, service of process, in duplicate, may be made upon the state secretary. The secretary shall, upon a payment of a fee of five dollars by the plaintiff, give notice to the defendant of said action by mailing by registered mail, return receipt requested, a copy of the legal process to the defendant's last known address which shall be furnished to the secretary by the plaintiff or his attorney.
My new
If you can go to bed, knowing you did a valuable thing today, you're very lucky. If you can't... it's not bedtime
Why in hell doesn't you (parents) all realize that if a kid is grown up and educated enought to actually _search_ for porn, they are grown up enought not to be harmed by it... School kids talks about sex alot. And no one is screaming for teachers listening to all the kids says...
--The knowledge that you are an idiot, is what distinguishes you from one.
--The knowledge that you are an idiot, is what distinguishes you from one.
Its probably the nick.. I would guess :)
Although oddly enough, Barbie Benson's homepage advertises that it is registered with Cyber Patrol.
--
E_NOSIG
As someone who used to teach the medical management of CBR (Chemical Biological Radiological) casualties, I can tell you for a fact that with that amount of Anthrax bacillus, you could wipe out the entire world, several times over. Anthrax is NASTY NASTY NASTY stuff.
Hey Rob, Thanks for that tarball!
"Going to war without France is like going deer hunting without your accordion." - Jed Babbin
This, and the argument that the second half of the amendment is a subordanant clause are patently false. The second amendment does NOT say, 'A well regulated militia being necessary, the right of the STATE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.' It says '... the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear...'
What part of "... The right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." did you fail to understand the first time?
Hey Rob, Thanks for that tarball!
"Going to war without France is like going deer hunting without your accordion." - Jed Babbin
I agree that people who write blocker software can be well-meaning. But sueing people for trying to show how well your product works? Or would you interpret the law suit as being about something else?
perl -e 'fork||print for split//,"hahahaha"'
Excuse me, but I don't see anyone here hailing the ALCU as heroes. Not the front page story and not any of the posts (at the time of writing). Even the ACLU press release didn't exactly hail the ALCU as heroes.
Besides, it is possible to agree with one act someone does, but disagree with another. That's not hypocrisy, that's just having an opinion.
perl -e 'fork||print for split//,"hahahaha"'
I suppose this is a troll, but I'll reply anyway.
The Libertarians and Objectivists are properly classified as a non-religious right wing utopian movement. These philosophies are fundamentally flawed just like their left wing cousins (but it will probable take a while for these people to notice). You should check out the Critiques of Libertarianism page.
There are some pretty funny contradictions libertarianism, like supporting school vouchers, i.e. we don't like public funding of the schools via taxes, so lets publicly fund even more with taxes. It never crosses their minds to just require schools allow students to mix and match classes from diffrent public and private schools. The ideal outcome of the libertarian's proposed solution (school vouchers): more competitive education system where taxes pay for everything. The ideal outcome of my alternative libertarian proposal: an even more competitive education system where parents pay for everyhitng. Gee, I wonder which would be the more libertarian solution?
All this having been said, I'd be pretty surprised if the libertarians had much beef with the ACLU. I have heard argumentes from very concervative people that there is really no contraiction between being right wing and supporting the ACLU. I would be curious to read any specific account you can find about a conflict. Maybe the libertarians were just pissed about the ACLU actually getting the job done.. while they just lose ellections.
Actually, I'm pretty shure I know where the convlict lies. One of the things which makes the libertarian philosophy a failed utopian philosophy is it's idea that "only government can take away your rights," i.e. whatever the corperations want to do is fine so long as they do not hire gunmen. The ACLU takes the more realistic approach that corperations can abuse your rights too.
BTW> see who the ACLU has helped this year.
The Christian religion has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world. -- Bertrand Russell
Nah.. a piece of crap can be useful, ask any farmer. Pieces of crap regularly get used in constructive ways: Dump lots of pieces of crap in a forest and watch it grow. On behalf of all pieces of crap: please don't insult them by linking pieces of crap tosomething unconstructive as mattel
//rdj
No one can understand the truth until he drinks of coffee's frothy goodness.
--Sheikh Abd-Al-Kadir, 1587
BTW, that's Courtroom #19, 7th floor. Here are directions to the courthouse.
Waldo is letting all this attention go to his head!!!!
Quick, Quick... someone Troll him... Flamebait him! Bring him to his senses...
"Can of worms? The can is open... the worms are everywhere."
To: ischwartz@schwartz-nystrom.com
.. in the US and overseas as well!
.. tell those idiots to be SURE to put my web page on their banned list. That'll really make me feel bad, yes it will.
.. and you can bite me too. I mean that in the nicest possible way, of course.
Hey, guys! Guess what? Yep, I have copies of "CP4break.zip" AND "cphack.exe" on my web site! As do dozens of my buddies! Matter of fact, we even have a mailing list to distribute these packages as wide and as far as we possibly can
Aren't you going to have fun finding them all?
Please, PLEASE send me a subpoena too! I'd like ever so much to have one of my very own.
Because I don't own squat.
Why don't you jerks wake up and tell your employers (those morons at Microsystems Software, Inc. and Mattel, Inc.) to FIX the problem instead of trying to hide it!
Oh
Hell, in these days it'll be an HONOR!
Oh
Toad
Typicaly, I side with the ACLU. (really I do) However, on this one, they are either uninformed about certain facts, or just plain ignoring facts about CPHACK.EXE, the program that they are defending.
You see, the only people that are blocked from seeing the pages that CP blocks are those that are using a computer that someone relatively "in charge" installed the censorware software. Therefore, they are either fully aware that they will have limited access to the internet, or they are most likely children of "responsible" adults (wether or not they *are* responsible is besides the point) that have installed the censorware software. Therefore, the only people that a site is being "injured" from (no access granted) has implicitly requested that access be blocked. I just don't see any standing. (IANAL)
Let's put Standing aside for a minute.
It's common user interface design to put the "most important" or "most often used feature" on the default tab on a multi tabbed user interface (not that a multi tabbe dinterface is all that great to begin with)
When anyone downloads the win32 binary CPHACK.EXE and runs it, (as I have) they will see a multi tabbed user interface, with the default tab listing the user accounts and thier passwords. Among the user accounts will be the "administrator" account.
Assume that user A is the administrator, and controls to what level the filters are set. User B is a common user, and is being restricted by the settings of user A, the "administrator" of the computer. If you like, assume that A is a parent, and B is a child below the age of majority. (it makes this so much easier if you picture it this way) User A (the parent) purchased CP with the expectation that it will block sites with certain charecteristics from other users, including user B. (the child)
Now, someone comes up with a program that easily allows user B to obtain user A's password. Since it's the job of CP to block certain material from user B, it is not even a small stretch of the scope of it's list of items to block to include this program, wherever it may be. This is exactly what CP is intended to do. In fact, user A would have every right to expect that user B be blocked from sites that would allow him to bypass CP's protections.
The fact that this program also provides information on exactly what web sites and newsgroups are blocked is completely beside the point. Once the software provided the passwords, it's going to be blocked. It would not matter if it contained information on how to cheaply produce cold fusion, it would still be blocked. (I use cold fusion as a fictional example of something that would be of value to anyone)
If the situation was changed, and the program did not provide the passwords, and it was blocked by CP, then I would be right behind the ACLU on this one. It's a shame that the authors weren't content with making fools aut of CP's "not" list (the list of blocked sites), and chose instead to include password information as well. (Sometimes it is best to write a utility that does *one* thing very well. In this case, the authors of CPHACK.EXE should have weitten 2 utilities, one that provides the "not" list, and one that decrypts the passwords.
But, since I'm voicing an opinion contrary to the majority of /. postings, I'm sure to lose some karma over this one. I think that the most you can lose on a single post is 5 points, right?
goldmeer
Cyber Patrol (on "maximum protection", of course... we wouldn't want the fragile little darlings to see anything provocative, would we?). The result? It really didn't shield me from the big bad corrupting influences (i.e. porn, hate groups), which I wasn't interested in anyway.
It did cause some problems with my world history report on the Celts, however ("Pagan religions? Not on my watch!"). And humor sites like The Onion? Forget it.
While I agree that offensive stuff is readily available on the net, I don't think that software, or the government should be the babysitter.
If the net has things that are unsuitable for children, then maybe they shouldn't be using it unsupervised.
Or another perspective: the Internet is simply a view of the world, seen through your monitor. Most folks wouldn't let their children roam unsupervised through the real world, for fear that they might get harmed or go to the wrong places. But since the net removes that fear of physical harm, people let their kids go gangbusters.
Then parents find their kids viewing stuff that is morally objectionable to them. So rather than supervising, they scream for filtering and more government regulation of the net. Sounds a little goofy to me.
Best regards,
SEAL
Now, when they shell out the bucks to send a process server to your location, or if you actually sign for a certified letter, THEN I'd think about doing what they ask -- but only after consulting a lawyer first.
"Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney
I don't know how good it is, from reading over the buliten board it sounded like it has a way to go. Aparently they openned sourced it after their programmer went to work for a customer.
If you wanted to make an open source filter this one seems like a good place to start though.
I'm probably going to try setting it up at the school I mentioned over the summer.
Holy shit, I live about 30-40 minutes away from waldo!
The chance of accidently bumping into offensive stuff is not as low as most would like to beleive out here.
The real problem isn't people accidentally bumping into it... it's people "accidentally" bumping into the stuff. The kids go there willingly, then when they get caught, they say 'oops! it was an accident!!'
-- Dr. Eldarion --
In my case Mattel gave in on their saw they were going to lose against me. Not long before trial, they took a rule 68 judgment against them instead of risking a jury. At the summary judgment hearing (after opposing summary judgment) they moved to dismiss, then risk a ruling against them.
Mattel have threatened college students who put up Barbie jokes. Mattel has threatened a stripper named Barbie Benson for her website because she used her name in it.
Fight Spammers!
Fight Spammers!
Mattel's actions generated much of this publicity. If they just silently blocked the sites of the blocked lists and updated the softeware, noone would have notices.
There had been (for quite a while) published ways to bypass CyberPatrol. But I had not heard much of it until, they filed a lawsuit over CPHack. Very few people heard about my lawsuit until the counterclaim.
What most people didn't mention is that CyberPatrol can also block programs from being executed (including programs named CPHack.exe).
Fight Spammers!
Maybe she does not realize the link between Mattel and Cyber Patrol.
Fight Spammers!
Apparently CyberPatrol & Mattel suffered great losses when the recipe for hacking Cyberpatrol was mirrored on the net. So great losses, in fact, they think they will never recover - hence:
If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
If it's broken beyond repair, kill the messenger.
www.e.magazine.dk
www.e.magazine.dk
I find it interesting that people (read: I am probably talking about you) believe that it is okay for libraries to "filter" (i.e., make unavailable, especially to minors) certain books and magazines, yet somehow these same libraries should be disallowed from blocking this exact same material on their computers.
I (and many others here too I've noticed) don't have a problem with libraries filtering access to certain books/magazines for children. It's usually done accurately and is appropriate given the fact that the librarians are not supposed to provide access to books/magazines that would likely be deemed innappropriate for a child. If a parent wants the child to have access to such a book, the parent can get it for the child or perhaps make a special arrangement with the library. So that isn't a real issue.
The problem with Internet filtering is that it just plain doesn't work. You say they "are not 100% effective", but it's much worse than that. There were many many sites in the various lists that were incorrectly blocked or blocked for reasons that aren't disclosed to the consumer (i.e. sites that post lists of blocked sites or criticize the software). Not to mention the fact that parents (and even the libraries) don't get to see what sites are being blocked. These companies have deceived their customers and cannot be trusted. Then there's the problem of filtering access for adults, which should not be permitted. Adults know what they're doing and should not need to be protected.
As far as the Supreme Court's decision goes, they can decide that obscenity shouldn't be allowed, but people's definitions of obscenity will probably continue to change over time, just as they always have. Hell, Baywatch would have been considered obscene 40 or 50 years ago. (I still think it's obscene, but not because of the lack of clothing :)
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
I am glad that the ACLU is in the fray. At least this issue will not be lost because the people who care can't afford lawyers.
That said, i think will finally give some money to the ACLU. It is about time really. They helped me out when I got married. I wanted to keep my name and my husband wanted to take my last name. The county clerk said that we could not do that just by getting married but would have to fill out lots of forms and pay lots of money. The ACLU told us our rights and gave us the information to tell the clerk. When she found out we knew our rights, she stopped fighting.
--- If you don't want to know the answer, don't ask the question.
I agree you can come across dodgy stuff on the Internet, but I think you're much more likely to come across dodgy stuff at school. Schoolkids talk graphically about sex all the time. They can get pornographic magazines from newsagents. And you experience far more violence in the average playground than it's possible to experience through a computer screen. So I think real life and school is far more dangerous.
perl -e 'fork||print for split//,"hahahaha"'
Our Canadian provincials and global regional offices are connected, via dialup, to an ISP in lieu of an actual connection to the corporate intranet. Most of them have Cyber Patrol installed after a porno hungry secretary in Hong Kong got in trouble with the local authorities. During one visit to the Urbana, Illinois office, the software denied me access to 'www.freshmeat.net', 'www.rootshell.com', and to my own website at www.crosswinds.net. Most of Purdue University (including the job-relevant pages about PAPERS/AFAPI, a clustering API) was unavailable to me, as were most of the University of Michigan websites on a similar subject.
But these are just the unfair blocks. It failed to block 'karups.com' a porn site, as well as 'fuckfest.com', whose intent is obvious. I was consistantly able to access porno!!!
I confirmed (with the admin pass I used to finally make it through to FM) that the software was indeed set to 'sex'. Why the hell is this product still on the market? That was six months ago, and I bet I could still make it through to 'hard-core' porn in thirty seconds! So my review is this: It doesn't fucking work. Their blocked list is and has been wrong, C'mon! Freshmeat is going to corrupt me? What, I'm going to feel the power of the source? Is AFAPI really the anal fucking API? The U of M is going to turn me into a boozing sex fiend? I'm going to corrupt myself? CP is just shit. (My employer has realized this; We're switching the regionals over to mandatory VPN, travelling through the 'good' blacklist of the local firewall.)
.sig: Now legally binding!
I'm sure CyberPatrol will swiftly add ACLU and affiliated websites to the following block categories:
;)
Violence / Profanity
Partial Nudity
Full Nudity
Sexual Acts / Text
Gross Depictions / Text
Intolerance
Satanic or Cult
Drugs / Drug Culture
Militant / Extremist
Sex Education
Questionable / Illegal & Gambling
Alcohol & Tobacco
Reserved 4
Reserved 3
Reserved 2
Reserved 1
We wouldn't want to expose our children to the evils of the ACLU now, would we
Best Regards,
SEAL
The ACLU defends *individual* liberties. The second amendment gives states the right to operate militias, and therefore is not within the mandate of the ACLU.
The ACLU is one of the most important organizations in the history of political freedom. They chose their mission, and IMHO they do a damn fine job of it.
For more info on their position see http://www.aclu.org/library/aaguns.html.
The cure for 1933 is 1917.
What we hate is a list that someone else runs, wont reveal, and expects us to use. I want the freedom to turn off my own channels. I don't need someone else to do it for me.
Imagine this:
What if everyone had the ability to create and maintain their own censorware list. What if we had the ability to let it reference other lists dynamicly? What if it was a common standard, like HTML, and supported by open source censorware? What could we do?
Well, let's consider the following commands: (HTML's <> have been changed to [] in order to make typing easier)
- blk would block out anything where the destination address contained the text in question.
- [a blk="http://www.badporn.com"]badporn[/a] - blocks all html from www.badporn.com
- [a blk="ftp://3733t.org"]Cracks[/a] - blocks ftp (but not hypertext) from 3733t.org (but not it's subdomains).
- [a blk="doubleclick.com"]Doubleclick[/a] - blocks anything containing "doubleclick.com" - note that the ".com" is important or files such as "doubleclick.htm" would also be blocked. This means no ftp, no html, no subdomains. Nothing gets through.
- alw would always allow sites containing a string to be put through.
- [a alw="slashdot"]Slashdot[/a] - even http://www.badporn.com/slashdot/nakedhemos.gif would get through your filter. Hmmm. We need a better filter. Maybe I should put a [a blk="nakedhemos"]EEK![/a] just in case...
- [a alw=".edu"]Compus Crusade for Cthulhu[/a] - unblock all edu sites.
- lnk would include another file in your blocking. Anything blocked by that file or by a file called by that file would be blocked.
- [a lnk="http://www.virtualsurreality.com/popupads.ht
m "]Ken's list of annoying popups[/a]
The order of operations is easy. No rule overrules a previous rule. i.e. The top rule can never be broken. Rules at the bottom can be overturned repeatedly. The last alw or blk (working from bottom to top) that applies wins.Think about it.
-----
No Zen is good zen
Do it on their dime! That's what they have the number for
Fight Spammers!
They can block the CPHack.exe program from being executed.
There has been several 'hacks' to bypass/disable CyberPatrol that has been published for some time. now.
Fight Spammers!
Holy shit, my name is on the front page of Slashdot.
Yet my karma stays at 81. Quick, make like I'm Bruce Perens and make this a 5!
:)
I am not for censorship at all. But given the net and the fact that a parent cannot be expected to supervise all the time a kid is on the net some measures can be expected. The chance of accidently bumping into offensive stuff is not as low as most would like to beleive out here. Just my 2 cents. Farhat. ** Life is a sexually transmitted disease.
At the intersection of computation and biology.
But whoops, it also says that CyberPatrol only has about a 67% success rate at correctly blocking offending sites ...
Guess about 1/3 of the little cyberTimmies will be finding their way past CyberPatrol on the first try! DOH!
You know what to do with the HELLO. ...
Help create an open-source world
More argument about censorship... how much time have we officially wasted now?
If everybody is really worried about censorship, protesting against CyberPatrol and SurfWatch is the wrong place to start. I suggest the FCC. After all, this is the same government agency that "filters" your TV -- indeed, they have placed restructions on almost the entire electromagnetic spectrum! I find it interesting that people (read: I am probably talking about you) believe that it is okay for libraries to "filter" (i.e., make unavailable, especially to minors) certain books and magazines, yet somehow these same libraries should be disallowed from blocking this exact same material on their computers. There is a double-standard here: you cannot keep libraries from filtering the internet without also telling them to make pornography (in the form of books and magazines) readily available to anyone and everyone.
Right now, this entire campaign just smells like one big geekfest ("liberate our computers!") instead of a true free speech movement. If you're really worried about a perceived violation of your Constitutional rights, I suggest you get your priorities in line. Remember, however, that the Supreme Court has ruled that obscenity is not covered under the 1st Amendment. It has also ruled that government agencies such as the FCC are not unconstitutional either, even though the Constitution makes no mention of them. The reality is, pornography filtration is here to stay no matter what you try to do.
Thus I say to you, Good luck trying to get the FCC to lift its restrictions. Better yet, try going to your average American suburb or small town and tell them they are wrong for having city zoning laws that keep adult bookstores away from the middle of their neighborhoods. This is just pure craziness.
Part of the arguments I see here is that since software filters are not 100% effective, they shouldn't be used at all. Where is this logic coming from? This does not make sense. "People are trying to fix the problem, but are only human and are not 100% effective; therefore, we should eliminate all efforts to keep young children from being accidentally expose to pornography." That's the key: these libraries are not trying to keep every Joe Schmoe from being able to access pornography; they are only trying to keep kids from accidentally running across it (and don't give me that "you can't find pornography unless you go out and look for it" crap). Until a government agency does a study, we are not going to get true objective results as to the accuracy of the software filters, and even if/when one is completed, I'm still not certain that will matter; obviously the concensus up to this point has been, "something is better than nothing." Thus my prediction: pornography filters on library computers are here, and are going to be here, for a long time. Quit being puppets to liberalism and use a little common sense: software filtration is not illegal/unconstitutional, and if a community wants to have filters, let'em have'em, and go download your pr0n on the free computers at your nearest college library.
Well, there goes my precious karma...
Ryan Kirk
Be polite if you do.