Slashdot Mirror
Getting Tech Law Info Past Filters The Eezy Way
geekotourist writes: "
The NYTimes reports that the
Tech Law Journal's emailed newsletter started misspelling words to get around filters at "law firms, universities or government agencies." Good to know that this well-informed audience (given the newsletter's content) knows the best reaction to mindless censorship: "...accepted the misspellings as a necessary evil." In future news on how to live with badly designed filters, identity theft victims will be asked to adopt new names ('cause it's a little too hard for credit card reporting agencies to provide authentication and privacy. Just ask Oprah.) And people who can't handle being pulled over for looking different will now be given blond wigs and white makeup to prevent it." (And censorware.net scooped The Times, too.)
Don't we have the same thing here on Slashdot with people inserting lowercase junk to get past the lameness filter?
Another example was the 'readability checker' in use at one large company - it made sure sentences were short enough on average in all electronic mail. People got round it by adding a row of full stops to the bottom of each message.
Any computer-based attempt to filter human-readable content based on its _meaning_ is bound to fail - at least until AI gets to the stage where computers can understand as well as a human. (In other words, not for a long while...) The only kind of filtering that works is crude looking for strings, eliminating 'fuck' but allowing 'fuq'. Some people would be offended by the former but not the latter, so that kind of filtering might be useful.
-- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
Is that becasue if they were any better, then they WOULDN"T HAVE BEEN CAUGHT?
Doesn't this make misspelling a way of circumventing a content restriction system? So doesn't that make misspelling illegal under the DMCA?
A Plan for the Improvement of English Spelling by Mark Twain
For example, in Year 1 that useless letter "c" would be dropped to be replased either by "k" or "s", and likewise "x" would no longer be part of the alphabet. The only kase in which "c" would be retained would be the "ch" formation, which will be dealt with later. Year 2 might reform "w" spelling, so that "which" and "one" would take the same konsonant, wile Year 3 might well abolish "y" replasing it with "i" and Iear 4 might fiks the "g/j" anomali wonse and for all.
Jenerally, then, the improvement would kontinue iear bai iear with Iear 5 doing awai with useless double konsonants, and Iears 6-12 or so modifaiing vowlz and the rimeining voist and unvoist konsonants.
Bai Iear 15 or sou, it wud fainali bi posibl tu meik ius ov thi ridandant letez "c", "y" and "x" -- bai now jast a memori in the maindz ov ould doderez -- tu riplais "ch", "sh", and "th" rispektivli.
Fainali, xen, aafte sam 20 iers ov orxogrefkl riform, wi wud hev a lojikl, kohirnt speling in ius xrewawt xe Ingliy-spiking werld.
Makes perfect sense to me!
--Ford Prefect
On the other hand I'm going to have to add bom, assinate,kil, and more to my eachelon sig
________
Does anyone actually have a Java program designed to control air traffic, or for the operation of a nuclear facility?
I say good fir them! It wouldn't surprise me if some of those law firms and gov't agencies that read the TechLaw Journal are asking themselves, "If our email filter works this poorly, maybe the ones we are lobbying for in libraries and schools are POS' too!"
While this isnt the most glaring and painfull ramification of censorship it might be the pebble that starts the landslide. I hope so anyway.
BOSTON SUCKS!