Slashdot Mirror
Pot Calls Kettle Censor
Here's an actual quote from SafeSurf's legislative proposal, I just love this:
"Negligence [failure to label] in the absence of damages may be a civil violation of the rights of the receivers of that data, but it shall not be a criminal offense unless the data is deemed to be harmful to minors. ... Publishers may be sued in civil court by any parent who feels their children were harmed by the data negligently published. The parents shall be given presumption in all cases and do not have to prove that the content actually produced harm to their child..."
Note: since SafeSurf's press release, their site has been taken off the RBL. But for some reason TeleGlobe is still blocking them (click "trace", type "safesurf.com", and wait several minutes for the blocked pings to time out inside TeleGlobe's network). I thought this was supposed to be the realtime blackhole list. Anyway, TeleGlobe is the same ISP that promises it will not "review, censor, or edit the material that is accessible through Teleglobe's network," and adds:
Q. Does Teleglobe support blocking access to ISPs and their non-spamming customers as a method of curtailing spam?
A. No. Teleglobe believes that advocates seeking to punish unwitting collateral ISPs and users who may be tenuously linked to a spam source are acting against the best interests of the Internet community as a whole.
TeleGlobe is one of the few backbones or major ISPs that still uses the RBL to censor websites, since I think AboveNet quit doing it. Anyone know of any others?
MAPS is voluntary, and if you don't like it, switch. If your ISP is screwing you over with it, switch! And if you're too stupid to know that you're being blocked, then you likely deserve to be, anyhow.
:(
As for the 'intended' consequences of MAPS -- I was one of the ones hoping that the 'unintended victims' would bring pressure to bear on the hosts to kick the spammers or the spammer software corporations off -- too bad none seem to be doing so.
Here's an idea: instead of wasting their time whining about how awful MAPS is, why doesn't SafeSurf simply take their business elsewhere? Quit using TeleGlobe's service, tell them why you are leaving their service, and set up shop elsewhere. If using the RBL is so evil and dangerous, ISPs will quit using it when enough customers leave because of it.
Finally, raise your hand if you've ever been in a life-threatening emergency and chose to dial-up and check a disaster relief site as opposed to getting somewhere safe and calling 911. SafeSurf's use of that analogy (Think of the children! Think of the children's lives!) to further their point is sickening.
My legal education, in nifty podcast format
Imagine trying to connect to a crisis assistance site after a devastating earthquake, only to find its among a vast IP group being blocked by RBL
Do people really use the internet for such a purpose? I would think a cellphone would be the best means to contact help after a major accident.
Imagine trying to connect to a crisis assistance site after a devastating earthquake, only to find its(sic) among a vast IP group being blocked by RBL. People can die as the result of their blind imprecision. They MUST be regulated
Imagine trying to connect to a crisis assistance site after a devastating earthquake, only to find it's down for routine maintenance. People can die as the result of their innocent actions. They MUST be regulated
.. SafeSurf has changed their old SS-style logo, which was quite reminiscent of the nazi SS logo. Their new logo, however, still looks pretty creepy.
Does this remind anyone else of the end of Jurassic Park (the first movie) when the tyrannasaur and the raptors go at it? Neither of these groups are my favorite so let 'em duke it out!
Of course we torture people, we need the information --Gen. Pinochet
I'm tired of everyone blasting the MAPs service and similar services. SPAM sucks - MAPs helps. Its not perfect. But I'm tired of all these people acting like email is a God given right - its not. If your ISP choses to utilize MAPS or any other blacklist that is THEIR right as the company providing you teh service. Should they notify you? Sure, but if not - too bad.
The bottom line is MAPs is not frocing things down peoples throats. If your ISP choses to use it - well that may be a good thing or bad thing to you just like other stuff such as port blocking, etc. You take that into accont. Remember folks - internet service is provided to you by a provider that sets the rules - don't like it? Go elsewhere or if no alternative exists, deal with it.
It seems more and more groups are trying to shut down MAPs - which personally would piss me off big time. Its a good service. Plus it allows me to utilize it in any manner I choose. I cna have sendmail block emails or use it to add headers, etc. But in teh end - its up to the ISP (I'm my own ISP for services - yay!) to determine how they will handle SPAM. procmail may work for you, but its not for everyone!
As for SafeSurf - that legislation is hilarious. Rating every web page on teh Internet - as if. The scary part is knowing our esteemed leaders - they'll think its a great thing. If it got passed? Well, instead of spending the time rating all my pages I'd form a LLC for my web sites with no assets :) They want to sue? Fine - sue the shell and I'll start another one or move overseas (my servers anyway) :)
Top Most Bizarre/Disturbing Error Messages
SafeSurf does not use any of the services that they are complaining about. They don't use TeleGlobe. Other people use an ISP that connects via TeleGlobe, which blocks the site. SafeSurf has no say in the matter.
"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." - Thomas Jefferson
There's not much MAPS could have done to prevent this from happening, assuming an RBL listing was necessary. It looks like their ISP is using IP-less virtual hosting, relying upon the browser-provided Host: header to determine where the user is sent.
$ host www.safesurf.com
www.safesurf.com. is an alias for safesurf.com.
safesurf.com. has address 63.107.146.25
$ host 63.107.146.25
25.146.107.63.in-addr.arpa. domain name pointer ustoyou.com.
25.146.107.63.in-addr.arpa. domain name pointer safesurf.com.
25.146.107.63.in-addr.arpa. domain name pointer us2you.com.
WARNING: Browse the 'us2you.com' sites at your own risk. Porn pop-ups abound.
Their analogy of MAPS blocking an entire telephone prefix isn't very sound. It's more like safesurf.com using a party line, and MAPS blocks access to their very specific phone number. It's not their fault you chose to get your site connectivity with a shared IP address.
*shrug* I personally think this is pretty amusing. I would definitely be asking my provider for a new IP address, though, one that wasn't being used by the types of people the MAPS RBL targets.
At last the RBL is available to search through.
I looked all over the SafeSurf web site and didn't see their block list anywhere.
Karma: Marginal (mostly due to the border around the website)
Note that I am making an assumption here that it was (or could have been) their specific IP targeted by the RBL. It's equally possible, though, that the RBL included this ISP's entire subnet, if the ISP itself were targeted by the MAPS RBL. This has its own set of religious debates.
In either case, I would be interested in knowing WHY my subnet was blacklisted. If my ISP is indeed involved in some shady, spam-friendly business practices, this kind of fall-out is hardly unexpected. I'd take my business elsewhere.
let's start with cnn.com ... they are at least partly responsible for the average united states IQ and that is responsible for ... well ....
precision bombing (AGAIN)
terror laws (well, one cannot argue that the name isn't accurate)
they're firing on our invasion force !!! THE BASTARDS (ok you didn't do it, but you provided the invasion force)
America's online losers
Microsoft Stupidity Network (this is slashdot, and there was no mention of microsoft in this post, I'm no karma whore, but I'm not stupid
If you don't want your kids to see things you don't like on the internet then SUPERVISE your kids. Educate your kids. Teach your kids to respect themselves. Trust your children to use their own good judgement when they are old enough. (If you don't trust your kids you screwed up as a parent) BUT don't try to legislate away a problem that is only a problem for the lazy, apathetic, and those willing to force their narrow views on everyone.
Anarchists never rule
What a dick. People lile Soular can die as the result of their own extreme stupidity.
Lets dump them all and start a new rating system... called Word of Mouth.
.... so client could then "change" the rating system to look for responces by others with a simular belief or heritage.
Everyone is required to run the client software. When any site is accessed the client will ask the reviewer (person) what they think of it... Good / Bad, Adult, Hatred,... These responces will then be logged so the next time someone accesses the site and the say... Adult thresshold is not low enough they will be blocked.
Then the communtiy at large will be the raters. Allowes for new site (unrated) to come on line and soon to be blocked for what ever or if a search in like google starts to use the info - be placed at the top of lists for being the BEST.
You could even register as a Jew, Christian, Afro-American,
This could even work for TV and dump those stupid VChips.
I'd say the vast, vast majority of people (90 percent or more) have no idea what MAPS is, how it works, or that it does work. So the option to "fight back" really isn't available for most, because most people don't know that there is an enemy.
Unfortunately the end user will often simply not be able to access a particular web site, and when that happens simply assume that it's the fault of the web site.
I'm not sure that it is possible or practical to educate the masses about this stuff. That's where I think that a good Internet watchdog organization or activist group can do a real service.
I can't seem to get to SafeSurf's page. Mozilla keeps telling me it doesn't exist.
Either they're a jackbooted Schutzstaffel officer stealing Einstein's violin, or they're Bruce Willis, saving the day once more (in a tank top no less), then crackin' open a cold one and getting the girl.
So hard to decide...
-Kasreyn
Kasreyn: Cheerfully playing the part of Devil's Advocate to hairtrigger
Once again we see an american group forgetting that all the world is not the USA.
What happens when a webmaster simpy hosts in say.. Russia?
What then? do they block all countries without similar laws?
The rampant hypocrisy of SS is truly entertaining. I'm sure they don't see it, and would insist that any censorship is GOOD censorship as long as it's "for the children".
o in t.html
http://www.theonion.com/onion3534/missing_the_p
this is getting old and so are you
blog
What ever happened to parents making sure their kids weren't going to sites that they felt were "inappropriate"?
Hell, what ever happened to parental involvement in their childrens' lives?
Blame everybody but yourselves...yeesh.
http://pebkac.net
...who noticed that ...by any parent who feels their children were harmed..."
...do not have to prove that the content actually produced harm to their child..."
"... Publishers may be sued
but
"...The parents
So the publishers can be sued by any parent, and they will AUTOMATICALLY LOSE the case because the parent's don't have to prove any wrongdoing?
Where's my passport? If this shit gets passed, I'm outa here.
"A terrorist is someone who has a bomb but doesn't have an air force." -William Blum
MAPS is the voice of the community speaking, as with one voice, and they are quoting Monty Python at that: "I DON'T LIKE SPAM!!!" You're free to find an ISP that doesn't use MAPS, and failing that, to start your OWN ISP that doesn't use MAPS. The rest of us, who don't like spam, will gladly blacklist you so we don't have to deal with your spam, and go on with our lives. Yes, MAPS is using pressure. Why is this a bad thing? Societies always do this to enforce behavioral norms. MAPS and its subscribers are exerting to try to enforce the behavioral norm, "do not spam". If you spam, this pressure will be brought to bear in an effort to dissuade you from doing so.
This is democracy at work, like it or not.
Suppose there's only two or three ISPs where you live. Imagine if they all subscribe to MAPS. What's your fucking solution now?
Here's a hypothetical for YOU: Say I'm Jeffrey Dahmer. I like to kill people, drill holes in their heads so as to have sex with their corpses, and then eat their bodies. But for some strange reason, society is against this and exerts pressure upon me to try to prevent me from carrying out my desired course of action. They threaten imprisonment, disenfranchisement, and execution for the things I think are my right to do. So what's my solution?
The only "solutions" are to go with society or against it. If you go against society like Dahmer did, you'll be sent to jail for life. If you go against society like spammers do, you'll be blackholed. You do not have a constitutional right to email.
-Kasreyn
Kasreyn: Cheerfully playing the part of Devil's Advocate to hairtrigger
As a libertarian, I believe censorship is wrong. As a parent, I believe censorship is sometimes necessary. I do not, however, advocate government sponsered censurship. I am my daughter's censure. When she surfs the web, I sit with her. When she does a google search, sometimes I will not let her click on one of the resultant links. On several occassions I've had her leave the room so I can check out a site first.
There is one case where I think the government should come down hard, fast, and without mercy. I want to hurt those scumbags who use urls that are common variations of sites kids might go to, but are really porn sites, e.g. whitehouse.com and disny.com.
Finally, I can justify shutting down spammers even though I am a libertarian. I pay for my internet access. The spammers do not. Your freedom stops at my front door. You can go to a park and spout your beliefs all you want. You can not demand entry into my home using the argument of "free speech". If you insist on forcing entry, I'll introduce you to another one of my rights. My right to own a gun.
-- Will program for bandwidth
Ok, isn't SafeSurf among the guys responsible for not letting me do research on breast cancer, transsexualism, gay rights, the second amendment, and drug abuse, among other things not suited for the children? Here are a few points:
Join the Slashcott! Stay away entirely Feb 10 thru Feb 17! Close all tabs to prevent autorefresh!
I just sent the safesurf people this email. It will be interesting to see what their response is:
I just read your proposal for regulating the Internet.
Three questions:
1. The Internet is international. How do you propose to enforce this law (assuming that you get it passed) against a site hosted in Russia, Zimbabwe, Cuba or Pakistan? If it can't be enforced "internationally" then it will be zero value because any "questionable" content will be hosted somewhere out of reach of your proposed law.
2. How do you propose to deal with differing community and cultural standards? For instance, nudity is accepted in Europe much more than in America. What about religious bans? For example, I'm sure that the Taliban would be opposed to any anti-Muslim statements being made on a web site. The government of China would be opposed to anti-Communist web pages. And so on. How do you propose to please everyone? Once again, the Internet is international and any proposal must take into account the differing nature of the various world-wide communities.
3. What about personal web sites? "Hi, my name is Jack and this is a picture of my sister and my cat and my budgie bird". Do you propose that all web sites of this nature must be rated as well? Who will pay the cost for doing that? And who will pay for and re-certify the site when it changes? How much change constitutes "change". If Jack puts up a new picture of his budgie bird, does the site have to be re-certified? What if he adds a new picture of his budgie bird in addition to the one that he already has posted?
Thank you for reading this. I look forward to receipt of your response to these questions.
If you're a zombie and you know it, bite your friend!
The skillet (slashdot) reports on the pot calling the kettle censor.
we will either loudly hold on to our liberty or it will become clear that we gave up our rights by our silence.
This is the reason some of us refuse to shut up on the topic
Now before this is modded down as a troll, I don't troll. Flamebait, guilty on odd occasions. Offtopic? who does not stray off topic from time to time, eh? Over/Under rated.. ego slap/stroke... had overrated applied to me so much it is almost a punishment because it so over used (especially when it is used less than 2 to 5 minutes after posting...oye veigh!).
Censorship takes on many forms; from the subtle "I don't like this person for reason X" lets mod him down every chance we get; to the not so subtle "Just SHUT UP, will ya!".
In either case, is it warranted?
In my case (and a few vocal slashdot minorities) who knows? If every time someone gets modded down the moderator has to post a 20 word reason I think there would be a change in thinking. Heck, if I got a (in vivian's voice) You're a complete bastard, and we all hate you! (end voice)...Ok, cool, that is a reason (not a good one, but a reason none the less).
As for the Article, side A and B think they are right...somewhere in the middle is the truth.
Read the quote again.
Applying punishment to the many for the failure/stupidity of one is applicable in the military, not on the internet.
Oh, well, here sometimes "It is better to be silent and thought a fool, than to start typing and prove otherwise (with apologies to the author of such wisdom..Confucious?)
Moose out....
Have you read the moderator guidelines? Well, have you, PUNK? (and I want a Karma: Gnarly option)
MAPS doesn't blacklist sites for sharing a network with spammers; they blacklist networks that have a spam problem. This is different, just as there's a difference between hitting someone who jumps in front of your car and trying to run someone down.
I know everyone likes to stick up for the little guy, but when the little guy would rather work with companies that host spammers than companies that don't, I guess I don't have a lot of sympathy left for him.
My blog: http://www.seebs.net/log/ --- My iPhone/iPad app: http://www.seebs.net/seebsfrac/
Don't Teleglobe realise that the RBL is actually intented for use on mail blocking? Using it to block all traffic from a listed network is extremely stupid, especially for a backbone provider.
;-)
I'm not sticking up for SafeSurf, I'm sick and tired of stupid censorware providers whining when someone censors them, and justifying everything 'for the sake of the children', but it appears to me, that Teleglobe, are dumb.
--
ALL YOUR BASE ARE BELONG TO US!
safesurf.com is IP address 63.107.146.25 There were a bunch of spammish sites at OTHER places in the 63.107.146.* netblock. And MAPS will blacklist every single address within a netblock when it "escalates" their dispute.
See this long list of spammish sites once in the 63.107.146.* netblock (June 22 2001)
Note many if not all of these sites have changed address by now.
Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)
Last I checked they sold software. By requiring this kind of filtering on the web, they're making thier job alot harder to compete.
Figure this
Standard in Net content is established.
Microsoft incorporates said standard into IE. Which is free. even if you're still using Win95..
Microsoft may very well end up killing another company unintentionally. Or intentionally? In this case I think the software giant my just roll over and accidentally squish a smaller vendor.
Well
It's either microsoft doing it for free, or Norton or someone else doing it with a big brand name, or for cheap(cheaper).
Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
a url with a .kid would be easy to use for the children. having this used for kids makes sense.
.sfk (or whatever you can think of) to say it`s (S)afe (F)or (k)ids. pretty simple to me. this way parents and kids would know right away which sites would be good or safe for them to view.....
and for sites that can be deemed kid safe but isn`t just for kids only they could use a url with a
Read this whole thread about the spammish sites at safesurf.com's ISP
Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)
Shouldn't this have the Monty Python Foot "Humor" icon?
Funniest thing I've seen all day. Couldn't even get to the end of the press release.
I hadn't realized that stealth censorship was so much worse than real censorship.
Ironheart
So much for the "end of irony."
you just managed to articulate the blindingly obvious!
> unashamedly blacklist websites for just
> sharing a network with sites that "support"
> spam
What does MAPS have to be ashamed of? Also, those quotes around the word "support" imply that MAPS is not truly blacklisting spammers, their supporters and the customers of their supporters.
Once again I would like to ask Slashdot to get off it's anti-MAPS kick. If the editors actually read the comments they would realize that most of their readers do not share their poorly informed negative opinions of MAPS.
Jamie doesn't like MAPS.
It's because a website he's associated with (peacefire.org) got put onto the RBL. The circumstances around it are vague, but it would appear that peacefire was *deliberately* placed onto a netblock already RBL'd because of spammer infestation, just to make a point.
Personally, MAPS is too weak, spews.org is much more effective, since they don't pretend to try to educate spam-friendly ISP's, they just blackhole them until they whine. Hopefully teleglobe will start to use spews, just so Jamie have have another aploplectic fit over someone remembering that the internet is made up of PRIVATE networks, and they can block anyone they bloody well please.
Cause that was so funny I just ruined a keyboard.
Mod Article: +1 Funny
Why is MAPS blocking web sites? I want SPAM to be blocked, not web sites. I don't get SPAM from web sites, I get SPAM from mail servers. So I want mail servers to be blocked when they send SPAM. And if a network of mail servers is sending it (determined by SPAM having come from 2 or more in the same netblock), then block all the mail servers from sending SPAM. The ISP need not even be blocked, unless the ISP makes the blocking difficult by either not properly identifying the spammer network assignment, or changing the spammer network address range (unless actually required to enlarge their network, or the ISP has to renumber everything). This would be for "spamhaus" type operations. Open relays and direct spam from dynamic IP customers is another matter (but can be dealt with).
MAPS is misleading people by blocking more than SPAM. They are using those who subscribe to their black hole to push their agenda on others (even though I personally agree with some of it, I don't agree with their methods).
MAPS is also mismanaged, but I don't really care about that anymore. The fact that they are mismanaged helped keep me from inadvertently being one of their pawns.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
Thousands of family friendly Web sites, for no fault of their own, are being rendered inaccessible by "stealth censorship" and it may be putting people's lives at risk, warned SafeSurf, the online safety organization.
That's pretty good, but what they really needed to do here was say that it put children's lives at risk. Orphan children. Orphan children who have been raising money for their local church community center. And who own puppies.
You don't want to see church fund raising, puppy owning, orphan children be put at risk, do you?
Simple solution is for safe surf to explain to their customers how they can access their site by going through one of the anonymous proxy servers...
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
Then they'd make a goatse.sfk
"Its like shutting off phone service to thousands of people simply because they have the same prefix as an obscene caller," explained Soular."
Well, it's more like shutting off phone service to a house that's got more than one jack. You can only really be as granular as one IP address, and if that hosts 1000 sites...
When all is said and done it's funny to see militant anti-spammers fighting militant censors. Although at least the anti-spammers are improving quality of life...
"To make matters worse, MAPS has no idea of what content it may be blocking. Imagine trying to connect to a crisis assistance site after a devastating earthquake, only to find its among a vast IP group being blocked by RBL. People can die as the result of their blind imprecision."
During the eruption of Mount Vesuvius, no one was able to access any crisis assistance sites, and they are all dead now.
Does anyone read text emphasized like that ? !
I mean, who was writing that statement for SafeSurf? A six year old who cries about someone breaking their toys? Maybe they should've used this (warning, popupbanner) little toy to make their text look even better. But form follows content, and the content is even worse. They even dare to suggest someone might die because of MAPS' actions and proceed to construct a, however unlikely, scenario for this.
SafeSurf very obviously have it on their agenda to impose their will on anyone running a website all over the world, and their drivel about not wanting to censor, but only to enforce "correct labeling" of websites is just a heap of steaming bullshit, because after everything is labelled someone will start sorting out the 'bad' stuff, after all the effect is very obviously censoring, and all that nicely worded (in fact quite nauseating) writeup of theirs doesn't change that fact a bit.
So someone put the label 'spammer' over their block of ip addresses and as a consequence noone can hear them. Maybe that should give them a bit to think about. But no, when you're the only one, who knows what's best fore everyone else, you better don't think too much or you'll never get the job done.
"By the way if anyone here is in advertising or marketing... kill yourself." -- Bill Hicks
Has anyone noticed their (claimed) trademark on "SS~~"? Are these guys going to try to extract royalties from sites that want to be voluntarily self-rated? If I have to pay these guys even a penny to be allowed to use their trademark to be rated, it won't ever happen. If they want a law to require it (bad idea, anyway) they better not ask that the law require using their trademark.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
Spamming is not an accepted activity and thus, spammers must resort to great measures to continue their trade. Lucky for them, one doesn't have to maintain a presence to spam. Its a very hit-and-run activity. Spammers therefore use a variety of resources - incorrectly configured mail relays, throw-away accounts, and stolen accounts.
Blocking email servers helps limit the damage from questionable business contracts and misconfigured relays. It might even put pressure on those who provide easy access to throw-away accounts... though usually the damage is already done. It does very little to prevent the damage done with stolen accounts using otherwise valid resources.
So if you can't go after the source of the spam, the only thing left to target is the spam's goal. The item being advertised (and likely the real source of the spam since most activities are being conducted by, or for-hire by, those being advertised). If that involves a web site (or another spammer resource), you point that site out and allow the community that uses the MAPS service to block it - essentially shunning it from the shared network. And by doing so, attempt to remove (or at least limit) the incentive to spam (and in some cases, some of the tools that help spammers).
So that might explain the reason that anti-spam efforts would extend beyond email servers. But this activity also brings forward a whole slew of other questions; power-plays, censorship, etc.
Anyone else notice that their technical, billing and admin contacts are all one putz at an AOL address?
Something tells me they don't know very much about the technology they're trying to control....
Registrant:
SafeSurf (SAFESURF-DOM)
1304 Newbury Road Unit E
Newbury Park, CA 91320
US
Domain Name: SAFESURF.COM
Administrative Contact, Technical Contact, Billing Contact:
Soular, Ray (RS588) superfixer@AOL.COM
Dazzle.net
16209 Victory Blvd. PMB 256
Van Nuys, CA 91406
(310) 572-6560 (FAX) (209) 821-7132
Record last updated on 21-Sep-2001.
Record expires on 17-May-2002.
Record created on 16-May-1995.
Database last updated on 27-Oct-2001 09:29:00 EDT.
Domain servers in listed order:
PRIMARY.CBPOL.NET 63.107.147.5
SECONDARY.CBPOL.NET 63.107.147.6
"Live Free or Die." Don't like it? Then keep out of the USA
MAPS lists networks that are not the source of actual spam. Then MAPS supporters say those networks ``have a spam problem.'' Sorry, I think that jamie is dead on the mark here.
The ``little guy'' isn't the issue. The sleazy nature of MAPS is. Some people like to speak out against censorship whenever they see it. An alien concept to MAPS supporters, I guess.
I especially like this off their site:
Anything illegal off the Internet shall be illegal on the Internet.
So since different states in the US have different laws concerning obscenity and pornography and other countries differ to a large extent in defining the same, who has the last say?
MAPS is a bad joke, as it safesurf. John Gilmore one of the founder of Sun had a lengthy run in with them several monnths ago, which he detailed on toad.com and the EFF site. To sum it up MAPS is owned by Paul Vix, who personally profits from selling "secure" sendmail versions and its all bullshit and all about the usual things: making money for the not so secret owners of MAPS and their other corporations, who exist to "help you" and "save you" from spam.
Yeah right.
SPEWS is not any better than MAPS. I won't use it because I don't like their mode of collertal impact, either. What SPEWS apparently is trying to do is just make it hard for ISPs to respond, perhaps out of fear of being sued (this is not a fear that should be allowed to exist, but creating a screwed up system is not the answer, either).
I just wish I had the resources to build a better system. I know what to do to make it; I just don't have the cash to put it together.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
the new logo looks like someone with their ass in the air. That's funny, I bet they're saying "You don't like our site, kiss our ass, I mean logo!"
-- Dan
I'm surprised I didn't see this post already.
SafeSurf, an Internet blocking company, is complaining... about... censorship...
(Post ends abruptly as Mr. Obvious departs to address the burning smell eminating from his irony meter.)
Caveat Emptor is not a business model.
Last I checked, you were not gauranteed to have your message readable by everyone. There is no internet regulation. When Anal-Rapage.com gets blocked by NetNanny (I'm certain they didn't get notification of the blockage and a list of ways to become unblocked) they don't SUE NetNanny over it, they just accept it.
These sort of BS conflicts only seem to occur around spam. You know why? SPAM=MONEY. Marketing people are IDIOTS.
SPAM = MARKETING
SPAM = EVIL
MARKETING = EVIL
Marketing is also LOUD AND ABNOXIOUS (I'm going for a theme here, can you find it?) They have to be, to come up with the STUPID ads they do. Because they are so LOUD AND ABNOXIOUS, they protest LOUDLY when their business is threatened.
smb
Hey! I was actually thinking that same thing last night ( moderators having to justify their reason to moderate).
I've noticed that a lot of moderation lately has focused on modding down, not up. Browsing at -1, you see alot of ACs and trolls modded to -1. I have to ask, for what?!? If I am browsing at 0 or below, maybe I'm looking for a good chuckle? Maybe ACs sometimes have something insightful to say, even though it conflicts with the status quo. Some of those trolls are pretty funny, simply because they are so absurd. Perhaps my sense of humour is juvenile, but I honestly cannot see the point in the following moderator trends:
Posts that blatantly state that they are offtopic, or the author puts OT or similiar in the subject, then being modded as offtopic. Can you not think for yourself? The author knows its OT, we know, you know, so why waste the mod points then? Save them for modding someone UP!
The continous modding of ACs and trolls down. From what I've seen most of these are posted at 0, and most hardcore slashdotees don't browse at 0 anyway, hate ACs and will generally never see the posts. Again, why waste the mod points? Your decision to toss away your points on obvious trolling or flamebait is detrimental to the conversations here. Some good posts get ignored, and others dissapear altogether.
I agree with the above poster, that moderators should have to submit a brief reason for their decision to moderate a comment. Then the reason should accompany the post during meta-mod, so that when others meta-mod, we will understand the frame of mind the moderator was in when they made the call.
That way when someone is about to piss away a point by modding some AC who posted "linus is an ass clown Wh007!", they might stop for a moment to think about their decision, and how utterly obvious it is that they are being FUCKING LAZY. Perhaps then they will move on and search for a proper post to mod.
I never mod down, only up. Do your worst.
MAPS' RBL blocking is censorship in its worst manifestation. It is a extremist system that seeks to censor people simply because they happen to be with the same ISP that has a particular individual that MAPS does not like.
...
As opposed to blocking sites that use one word you don't like. EG: 2600.com has nothing but news reports and an online store, but using the word "hacking" got them banned by this and similar systems. Several history sites were also banned because "nazi", "hitler" and "kill jews" were all used...so now 'the children' can't even do their homework. Guess they'll go play Diablo instead, since their computers are useless for that homework thing.
MAPS may claim that their actions are in the interest of good, but in reality they would easily trade in the good of children to achieve their goal.
...and you claim you actions are in the interest of good, but in reality you easily trade in the good of people as a whole to achieve your goal.
Censorship is a broad brush that drips paint on the pure, as well as the tainted.
Imagine trying to connect to a crisis assistance site after a devastating earthquake, only to find its among a vast IP group being blocked by
You? Imagine being in an internet cafe and trying to check emergency sites or news sites after the WTC attack, only to find that cafe uses your product, thus banning sites with words like "terrorist/ism" "bombs" "kill americans" and "fuck america". Sound too weird to be true? Sorry...it happened!! But since you love analogies so much here's one: Just like I complained to the owner of that internet cafe who uses your software, maybe you should be complaining to the ISP's who chose to use MAPS.
People sicken me more by the minute.
Spammers are an annoyance. They want you to read their crap, not destroy our way of life. There is a big difference between porn providers/bulk junk mailers and wacko terrorists.
The safesurf release keeps talking about blocking websites based on MAPS. This would require firewall software that would have to match every outbound IP packet, or at least every outbound http session request, to the MAPS database. To use the MAPS database in realtime, the firewall would have to send an extra DNS query to MAPS (a DNS query that no normal application would use, other than email MTA configured to use MAPS), therefore requiring it to be custom firewall software. For a large ISP this would need to be a monstrous piece of gear. I just don't believe it. Yes they may be having their outbound email stopped by MAPS, but inbound access to their websites? Seems very unlikely.
"that's not encryption - it's a new perl script that I'm working on..." - from some Matrix parody
Most importantly, any Internet law must not censor thought. It may regulate the labeling on the packaging but never the content.
This is on it's face, a pair of completely contradictory statements. The two goals cannot be reconciled.
The labelling is based on the content, and the regulation is based on the labelling. Therefore, the regulation IS based on the content, contrary to what is asserted in the first statement. One degree of indirection cannot hide the fact that this is censorship, if the government is mandating the labelling.
Edith Keeler Must Die
They're like the vigilante USENET Cabal! (Motto: There Is No USENET Cabal.)
Hmm. I suppose if you don't know all about MAPS, you're unlikely to remember the Cabal, either.
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
and BTW ... you and I do not seem to be that far apart on quite a lot of things. I was going to send you private email, but your address is not in revealed /. user info. But I bet you can track mine down pretty easily.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
I sure hope you are not your daughters censure.
Perhaps the word you were looking for was censor.
I recall hearing about people using the internet to let family and friends know they where fine after one of the earthquakes in California because the phone systems(cell and wire) were overwhelmed.
A few other cases have gone through various courts in the US with similar results. No case has ever found in favor of the spammer and no spam-specific[1] case has ever been heard at the appellate level.
Actually, one case did make it up a state appeals ladder. Washington state passed the first US anti-spamming law. Under that law the state's attorney general filed suit against a spammer (Jason "Natural Instincts" Heckel) and won.
The spammer appealed the case and had it overturned at the appellate level (spammers rejoiced worldwide). But luckily the state's Supreme Court was not composed of idiots and threw out the appellate decision in June of this year.
This made the law golden in that state and only a VERY extensive and expensive appeals process though the federal court system could change it.
One can still spam under the law, but must follow certain rules. The state Supreme Court stated the law only really required the spammers to do one thing: Be Truthful
Now we know why spammers hate the law so much.
[1]Link to COAngler's "Rowan v. US Postal Service" note
This is not what the DNS was designed for.
Imaging trying to connect to a crisis assistance site after a devastating earthquake , only to find that YOU HAVE NO STEENKING ELECTRICITY, NO STEENKING PHONE LINES, NO STEENKING INTERNET ACCESS because the freakin' earthquake took out all the lines. Duh!
I just blocked 63.* and it was amazing how much spam delivery diminished on my site.
Normally don't follow myself, but "this just in" . It seems the spammer did try go to the Supreme Court of the United States to ensure his "god given right" to annoy us.
He appealed the Washington State Supreme Court's decision and on Monday (29-oct-2001) the US' highest court said "we don't want to hear this", which means they agree with the state court's decision and find it constitutional. There's a blurb about it in the LA Times.
The spammer's lawyers must be running the show as Heckel can barely afford a dial-up connection. Back to district court the case goes and since the spammer violated the law, a decision should come down against him. The lawyer says if this is the case he'll start a whole new set of appeals. He probably loves all the press. [Dale Crandall Bar#: 781708; 280 Court St NE #14; Salem OR 97301; Phone No: 503-363-4971]
Upon further reading, my first post was in error, there were two sets of idiots involved in the Washington state court system, the appellate court and the trial court judge - King County Superior Court Judge Palmer Robinson (palmer.robinson@metrokc.gov). Judge Palmer somehow found, in her mind, that the state anti-spam law was unconstitutional and the spammer was right. This was supported by the state appellate court, but was smacked down when it reached people who actually know constitutional law.
SafeSurf needs to find an ISP that doesn't host spammers. That's the business that needs to be taken elsewhere. SafeSurf should complain to their ISP about the situation, instead of whining pathetically to the Internet at large. Basically, their ISP is being a bad netizen, and MAPS has called them on it. The actions of MAPS and by proxy TeleGlobe may be extreme, but once you look at the whole context, they make a lot more sense. Sucks for SafeSite that they need to move, but if their ISP is giving them a cheap rate by subsidizing it by hosting spammers, then well you get what you pay for.
At least mafia-owned pizzarias make excellent pizza. Compare to Bill Gates.