Slashdot Mirror
U.S. Gov Agency Blunders With Keyword Blacklist
Anonymous Submitter writes "There's an interesting CNet article which highlights a report released by the OpenNet Initiative. The report examines how "a U.S. government agency charged with fighting Iranian and Chinese Internet censorship is quietly censoring the Web itself". Among some of the sites this U.S. agency accidentally blocks are breastcancer.com, teens.drugabuse.gov, several gay rights websites, and even usembassy.state.gov. Some of the members of the group who prepared this report were responsible for a previous Slashdot discussion entitled "Academics Take On Government Net Censorship". The report raises questions about the potential inaccuracy of proprietary and other secretive filtering mechanisms: who should be responsible for ensuring their accuracy?"
Is this just an excuse to /. the US embassy? Seems like this article is a terrorist plot.
Perhaps the Department of Homeland Accuracy.
Given that the mood in Washington is fairly anti-gay rights, what makes you think that one was 'accidental'
</tinfoil hat mode>
binladen, linux, communism.
Those topics are generally disturbing and harmful to both the security and the economy of America.
Berman said. "Basically, we said, 'Implement a porn filter.' We were looking for serious, hard-core nasty stuff to block...I couldn't come up with a list (of off-limits words) if my life depended on it." ;)
Rrriite...
Because he Never Looks at porn
Portland, North Dakota Puppies
Comment removed based on user account deletion
"The official naughty-keyword list displays a conservative bias that labels any Web address with "gay" in them as verboten--a decision that affects thousands of Web sites that deal with gay and lesbian issues, as well as DioceseOfGaylord.org, a Roman Catholic site.
...
What? Never heard of
push @naughtywords, $banned =~ m/gay\./
?
Is this the improper setup of a filter? I know that a lot of filters have settings for say, blocking explicit sites (pr0n), but it is possible to tell them to also allow them to visit medical related sites (breast cancer). Did someone not configure it?
um... they blocked the word 'my'.... this tells me the people running this program are stupid... nothing more.. I see no evil plot here
Selling software wont make you money, selling a service will.
I wish they'd use common sense...
In school environments, we've always set the Squid filters to allow pages containing health, medical, rights, etc - words likely to give context to what may or may not be blocked
"We know what happens to people who stay in the middle of the road. They get run over." - Aneurin Bevan
The list includes "ass" (which inadvertently bans usembassy.state.gov), "breast" (breastcancer.com), "hot" (hotmail.com and hotels.com), "pic" (epic.noaa.gov) and "teen" (teens.drugabuse.gov). Goodbye any site with the word topic.
So, we want the Iranians to visit websites, but instead of allowing their government to censor what they can see, we'll make their choices for them.
Brilliant. Now I've heard it all. So, when do we start "conserving bandwidth" in the US?
Later . . . . . . WebBug
wow....Bush and Dick are both on the banned word list...ooops.....
Just try to team up with a reasonable company like Secure Computing and use their Smartfilter list to block URLs. Keywords will aways produce tons of false-positives. We have to deal with this everyday and no matter what you hippies want to believe, you DON'T have a right to browse pornography on work computers. Go jerk off at home.
And I dount they have much choice. Government agencies often have this stuff mandated on them to "protect" the workspace, avoid having citizens groups screaming about government employees surfing porn on the job, hostile workplace regulation, etc.
You are in a maze of twisted little posts, all alike.
How hard is it to understand that the government doesn't want its employees to surf objectionable web sites on government time and using government resources?
It's not filtering content for non-government users.
The report raises questions about the potential inaccuracy of proprietary and other secretive filtering mechanisms: who should be responsible for ensuring their accuracy?
Nobody needs to ensure their accuracy if no one will use them.
I think they should quit trying to filter out pr0n and drugs etc, and instead focus on scam and advertizing cites. Then maybe I might use their filter.
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
Any content-based restriction on what sites people can visit is improper. Not only does the government have no business playing censor, but it sends the wrong message to people elsewhere, namely that censorship is okay, as long as it is the right kind.
If they really didn't want to waste resources on anything other than pro-democracy web sites, they could provide access just to specific sites, or they could provide open access but limit bandwidth. The images from porn sites will generally use much more bandwidth than the text of a political discussion. As it stands, the keyword list the contractor used is really hopeless. It just goes to show that there aren't very many words that are likely only to be associated with porn cites. I bet that any number of Catholic sites, for example, are blocked by the "virgin" keyword. In any case, where foreign countries are concerned, keyword blocking should be easy to get around. Instead of putting the sexual terms in your domain name, you put them in meta tags and site text, and you put them there in Chinese and Persian and so forth. How halfway intelligent people with the serious mission of spreading freedom and democracy can waste their time on such a thing is beyond me.
Luckily, the U.S. Government has not blocked you.
Sincerely,
A Happy TWATTRAVEL.COM User
I remember by father's inability to access the Middlesex county government page from work because of the string "sex" in the URL. This was 12 years ago. They switched to a different filter system a few months afterwards.
Why does America have so much control over the 'net these days? It's not a research experiment anymore. It is a way of life. Gotta let it grow even if it's not in all the best interests...
MY SECRET DIARIES
To get this sort of lashup requires the unique combination of prudery, stupidity, and incompetence that you only get at the Federal level.
Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.
Christ, you know the world is doomed when your government deploys Nazi-based information control and can't even do THAT right.
I am NOT a number! I am a - oh wait, I'm number 761710. Look! 761710!
The IBB has justified a filtered Internet connection by arguing that it's inappropriate for U.S. funds to help residents of China and Iran--both of which receive dismal ratings from human rights group Freedom House--view pornography.
In the abstract, the argument is a reasonable one. If the IBB's service had blocked only hard-core pornographic Web sites, few people would object.
In other words, censorship is a perfectly acceptable thing to do when the majority doesn't complain about it? What kind of fucked up, idiotic logic is that?
Whether the majority cares or not is irrelevant, it's not a reasonable argument because censorship is censorship. I'm sure someone will try to spin it that "oh, well, it's the government censoring ANOTHER country", but that's just bullshit too. If you can't extend the beliefs of this country to non-citizens, there's no particularly compelling reason to believe they should apply to us, either.
Why is it that every time I turn around these days, some sort of idiotic bullshit like this is coming out of the government? Who the fuck let them off their leash anyway?
Alito: A vote for Alito is a punch in the eye to put that bitch back in her place!
You all seem to have missed the point of why this filter was put into place.
The US government is trying to help the people of China bypass the censorship that their country has put into place. Why? Simple, to defend the human rights of the people of China. Quite obviously, the US Government has no fear of any possible backlash from the Chinese government in doing this.
However, the squeals from the many church organizations that would be offended by the US Government giving unrestricted access to p0rn and gay rights websites would be unbearable!
Fear the church! Fear it more than you fear the largest communist country in the world!
One the banned list is the word "kitt". pr0n surfers will think this refers to sites like Persian Kitty, but those of us in the know realize that this is all a plot by Knight Industries to prevent the Iranians from stealing plans for the Knight Industries Two Thousand.
John.
At least poor Mr. Powell will be ok.
Until filters can understand context, keyword filters will always be stupid. Ass.
We are one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively. Back to you with the weather, Bob!
Among some of the sites this U.S. agency accidentally blocks ... several gay rights websites.
The submitter obviously is not familiar with the Bush Administration's stance towards anyone who is not hetereosexual. Anything that happens towards us these days that is negative, do not believe for a moment it was just an "accident".
If you're not convinced, check out The Human Rights Campaign website.
"PC Load Letter? What the $@#% does that mean?!"
example of the underhanded nature of governments. We as cybercitizens should be be psszt ngah naghh @!!6 fghar';!) nraaghg!!!! pleased with the way things are going. Go back to your cubicles, the contents of this web-site is nothing but propaganda paid for by none other than the evil Kim Il Jong
Instead of spending time helping others route around censorship, the U.S. government hires people to censor the web. These people then accidentally censor U.S. government sites.
At this point, the intelligent response would be to say, "Oh, we forgot that idiotic ideas tend to attract idiots. Our bad. We're going to go back to sowing free thought around the world now."
However, the government response will be, "We'll just hire some more people for even more money to implement a better filter. In fact, we've already outsourced a lot of the development work to the same companies that set up China's filter. They've got lots of experience."
Porn, apparently, is a greater threat to the U.S. than a nuclear-armed ex-Communist dictatorship. Sounds like one of John Ashcroft's buddies. Now, if you'll excuse me, I need to go put the burqa back on Blind Justice. We tried to stone her to death, but they kept bouncing off and our arms got tired.
Stop learning! Only you can prevent esoterrorism.
Come on. This is a pile of Orwellian BS. What's next. GoodNet (tm) instead of Goodspeak?
As the amount of information and its accessibility increases the whole idea that you can selectively censor the right things 100% accurately all the time becomes comical. You simply can't have a proliferation of easily accessible information and censor the "bad information" since what is bad is subjective anyway.
If you must place controls, its more practical to do so on the tools and materials required to perpetrate the "evil" you wish to combat.
I for once like the access to information that the internet gives me. Its empowering and I've used this information practically not just for entertainment or frivolous uses.
When doctors have given me and the ones I love incomplete or inaccurate information as they have on a couple of occassions I've been able to get better information and present it back to them to act on it. Its sped up a couple of key diagnoses for my girlfriend and I. In both cases not working out what the problem was as soon as we did would have resulted in each of us spending significant amounts of time out of work (not to mention feeling miserable). We'd each for different medical reasons have been permanently excluded from driving, and would almost certainly have had our lives shortened. Had the information been buried in some public library without any access to anecdotal evidence (usenet) life today for me would be very much worse.
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
Given that the purpose of the exercise is to undermine China and Iran, two countries whose policies on homosexuality make Ashcroft look like J. Edgar Hoover in comparison, it's still an accident.
We're presently engaged in a global war against a culture that prohibits the viewing of women's faces... a culture that - when when its adherents come to Australia, they see our women as whores fit only to be "fucked Leb style", and when they come to France and Norway, they "take turns" on 14-year-olds, then I say desensitizing these animals to sexual stimuli through regular exposure to pr0n is a feature, not a bug.
If we're serious about winning the war on terror, we shouldn't just be letting this stuff through the filter, we should be phoning up Larry Flynt, Bob Guccione, and Hugh Hefner and placing enough orders to load up a fleet of C-130s with copies of every wankmag that gets remaindered and bomb the fuckers into the sexual revolution. Fuck Islam. Bring on the w33ners and b00bies.
Err... I'm glad that everyone has the best interests of the populations of Iran at heart, but I think there's some confusion about how anonymizer.com actually works.
Anonymizer.com is intended to keep your identity a secret only from the target web server. From the original article: "they can use Anonymizer.com as a kind of jumping-off point, also called a proxy server".
This is correct. The client sends a request for a web page (say google.com) from anonymizer.com (or sedayama.com, or barandaz.com, or whichever). The anonymizer goes out, fetches the page for them, and then feeds it back. In this way, google.com has no idea who they are.
Since anonymizer.com's server is in California, all data must be sent between the server in California and the client in Iran, through the country's firewall and whatever sniffer programs they have running.
In no way whatsoever does this process prevent the Iranian government from snooping the connection between the browser and anonymizer.com to see whatever the heck the client is looking at. In fact, it makes the censor's life easier. All they have to do now is scan for all data to or from anonymizer.com, sedayama, etc. Then they can either parse the data and see what banned sites the client is viewing, or just assume that they're up to no good, raid their house, confiscate their computer and look at the browser cache.
According to the Opennet report, the only real "anonymizing" functionality of this site comes from converting URLs from text to hexadecimal, and the obfuscation from the anonymizer site having to change URLs and IP addresses whenever the Iran government blocks one.
I think the IBB is doing these people a grave disservice by advertising that sites can be viewed anonymously, when in fact they can't. Even if the connection was completely encrypted with SSL, the government censors could determine that a connection was made to an anonymizer site, and that the client is worthy of further investigation.
Again, from the OpenNet report: "Iranian users may not be aware that their use of the service may identify them to Iranian government authorities as citizens wishing to view forbidden content, or as supportive of the ideas found within that content."
Enough said. The people who run the IBB Anonymizer project should realize it was a well-meaning but flawed concept from the start, and it can actually be counter-productive by exposing Iranians who trust the claims of anonymity.
Those claims should be retracted and a big warning banner posted on the site(s), or the project should be killed outright.
Does the US government also attempt to help circumvent other countries' internet censorship laws, such as, say, those of certain Western European countries? Or is it just the countries we're not quite married to (yet)?
Agreed that this is a poor implementation of an internet filter, but... Calling this censorship is not quite right: the service opens up big chunks of the internet for people who never had it before, and that is a fact. It's like a complaining that someone didn't hand over the keys to their car instead of just giving you a ride. Calling it prudery is also unfair. There are several arguments for a (properly done) filter, some of them mentioned in the article. 1. US Taxpayers don't want to fund porn surfing. 2. The propaganda value within the restrictive countries is reduced somewhat if the authorities there can claim that it's just used to surf porn. 3. Likewise, people within that country that could be forces for democratic reform may be turned away by the idea that it's used for "unwholesome" purposes.
Nice to see that the browser screenshots are Mozilla with the Modern theme instead of Internet Explorer.
Porn is free speech too even in China and Iran!
Think about it!
Grundgesetz * 23. Mai 1949 - 30. November 2007 - http://www.vorratsdatenspeicherung.de/
I'm currently setting up a website that has the word 'blown' in the name (no, it has nothing to do with pr0n, I'd just prefer not to have my server start on fire). Do I have anything to worry about? I noticed today that my site no longer shows up in Google searches.
So, I may be missing something obvious here, but can someone tell me why China and Iran don't just block anonymizer.com?
From: http://www.eeoc.gov/types/sexual_harassment.html
"Unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature constitute sexual harassment when this conduct explicitly or implicitly affects an individual's employment, unreasonably interferes with an individual's work performance, or creates an intimidating, hostile, or offensive work environment."
The "offensive work environment" has been defined to include porn. See this on Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/harris.html
"Even though CP had not been offended by her co- workers' bawdy remarks, she believed that the posting of pornographic pictures demeaned women. She complained to her supervisor who refused to ask the employees to remove the pictures. Shortly thereafter, more pictures were posted. After again receiving no response to her complaint, CP filed a charge.
Based on these facts, an investigator should find that the conduct was unwelcome, i.e., that CP subjectively considered the pornographic pictures to be abusive. Her willingness to engage in sexual banter is not material to assessing her perception of the pictures."
IANAL, but at this point it is a completely reasonable argument that employers should install anti-porn software by default and that failure to do so constitutes neglect. And I'm sorry, but these issues about sexual harrassment were brought up far before Bush. And mostly by left-wing feminists (see Tailgate, Clarance Thomas, et al). If the government didn't install these filters and someone was viewing porn and it offended someone else then there would be a big scandal about it and Bush would be portrayed as the anti-feminist woman hating porno president.
And the poster forgot the obvious difference here between Iran and the US is that you can go home to your own computer if you want porn! You do not have the right to view porn on government (ie tax payer owned) computers. Heck, technically you don't have the right to view breastcancer.com unless it pertains to your work! So if you don't like the government's filters, tough. If you need the site to do your work email the admin. Otherwise, don't view the site on the taxpayer's dime.
Brian Ellenberger
The article links to the word list.
Blocking sites with "asian" in it must really help out those poor Chinese..
maybe it could come with a default corpus (body of knowledge)? Either way, I volunteer to do the training!
It used to be that when people started talking
about Net censorship it was 'over my dead body.'
Now it is just a matter of finding out who
should control these things and making them
accountable for it? Fight this! It is
important paradigm changed that is happening
without people really being aware of it.
Wtf what kind of heathen barbarian monsters would block off anime from the chinese. It's inhumane!
Starbucks, Harbuckle of Breath.
Could you still view blocked sites through the IBB service if you enter the IP address instead of the domain name?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Some of the keywords, like "anime", "chat", "tv" seem to be aimed at non-pornographic entertainment sites. They also block "proxy". Maybe they don't want people to use a proxy to bypass their proxy (if that's at all possible). I still don't get "my" and "you". I also don't get why they blocked "anime" but not "hentai".
Wait, two men over 18 have sex, they are both adults and consent to the act. What the fuck is wrong? Now, a man has sex with a 12 year old, this is WRONG. A 12 year old is not an adult and cannot yet consent to the act of sex. Animals too, cannot defend themselves or even say "no". Dude, you're a christian fuck up that needs to look long and hard at the world you live in.
"you" is on the blocked words list?
actually, you can't. the protocols are open standards. it can easily be rebuilt in a matter of days.
It's nobody's fault but his own he insists on pronouncing his first name like that. He could pronounce it like any sane person would, to rhyme with "pollen"...
What is the robbing of a bank, compared to the founding of a bank? -- Bertolt Brecht
After all, keyword blacklisting worked for "hierbal v!aggra" and "peenes emlargermint" so it should work for terrorists and drug dealers as well... Seriously though, the fact that keyword blacklisting is totally useless should be obvious to anyone who ever watched a gangster movie. The question is which keywords do you blacklist? Should there be words like "bomb" or "heroine"? No, because gangsters don't use them. Does it mean we should blacklist "object" and "good shit"? No? So I ask you, which exactly keywords should we blacklist? Only then, when we have this question answered, we can discuss whether blacklisting or censorship is a good idea. Because I, for one, don't want Project Gutenberg be foolishly forced by some fucking illiterate imbeciles to remove the literature of Fyodor Dostoyevsky and Franz Kafka!
Sincerely,
Pan Tarhei Hosé, PhD.
"Homo sum et cogito ergo odi profanum vulgus et libido."
Alright, I'm going to burn my own karma here, but why did *I* get modded +5 and this guy hasn't? He's right on the money!!! He said this far more eloquently than I ever could have hoped. MOD HIM UP!!!
Hardware, software, and blinking lights!
In my numerous past experience with gays and dikes, I've found that most of them are very queer.
http://bl.freeshell.org
Compile the source if you don't trust the bytecode.
Really, who cares what a person's sexual orientation is.
I'm in my forties and it dawned on me a long time ago that gay people aren't fundamentally different than straight people. Its your uncomfortableness with the situation that's the problem, not the sexual orientation of who you're dealing with.
I've heard all the nonsense about how gays destroy the "esprit de corp". What utter utter crap.
Live and let live. And if the guy next to you is attracted to guys, what do you care?
A couple weeks ago I was trying to find some information at work and I went to...
http://www.w3.org
Only to get the BIG RED BANNER OF GOODNESS telling me I was obviously mistaken for wanting to go there.
Little did I realize that the W3C is a terrorist organization intend on spreading sex and disease amongst our children.
Whatever the reason, it's actually gotten worse at work, not better.
I guess you and the like just want to get away with anything you do as "long as it doesn't hurt anyone".
Tell that to the police officer when you are raped, robbed, beaten, shot, fondled, etc and he says that since you don't believe in rules, then no rules apply to the person that committed a crime against you.
I recently read an article in the American Journal of Primatology with the following keywords. infant-licking, attractiveness of mothers with newborns, female relationships, and ring-tailed lemurs. The keywords would direct you to the paper; Intra-troop affiliative relationships of females with newborn infants in wild ring-tailed lemurs. Can you imagine the flags this would raise with monitoring software or your success with blocking? Out of context the keywords would paint you as an extreme pedophile or someone with obscure sexual attractions. A question to ask is whether this practice is merely censorship or another way to functionally define what is normal or deviant behavior within society? Homosexuality is taboo, so the word gay is taboo. Our historical relationship with the female body to sin is represented as well as other 'deviant' sexual behavior. On a lighter side, at least microsoft, georgebush, and arnold-schwarzenegger.com were blocked!
There's a simple solution for people who sue because they did something a toddler should be expected to be smart enough not to do and it bit them:
They have admitted in open court that they are unable to take care of themselves or handle adult responsibilities. Therefore, they should be put in a home, and any money they collected from that lawsuit should be turned over to the home to pay for their lifetime care.
This would not only solve the problem of frivolous lawsuits and the quest for deep pockets, but it would also help the employment situation by removing these people from the job market and creating jobs for people to take care of them. After all, someone who doesn't know that coffee is hot can't even be trusted to feed themself, or to eat anything that they might choke on, so there will be a need for caretakers to feed them their pureed food blend, help them go potty, and tend to them at all times.
Uhuh sure he was, using what protocol on what connection and what computer and why the hell did the middlesex county have any kind of digital profile in 1992 that was accessable by anything other than a BBS and what URL was being parsed by what software? If I were your father I'd slap you silly
A quote for the content challenged:
But an independent report released Monday reveals that the U.S. government also censors what Chinese and Iranian citizens can see online. Technology used by the IBB, which puts out the Voice of America broadcasts, prevents them from visiting Web addresses that include a peculiar list of verboten keywords.
The issue isn't that the government is controlling what its employees can do online, or whether they can surf objectionable sites like usembassy.gov -- it's that the US government is offering a way around the censorship imposed by the governments of China and Iran, but substituting its own censorship instead.
U.S. tax dollars are being used to promote and protect piracy!
Never knew that geeks can have such a sense of humor. ---NOT!
When you are flaming other people's lack of wit, you might want to avoid using "...NOT!"-jokes.
This seems strange. I fails to understand why, if a repressive government like Iran/China is blocking a ton of websites they disagree with, they would allow a US proxy site to go unblocked. Surely they could just block all access to anonymizer.com and the IP ranges used by its servers?
== Jez ==
Do you miss Firefox? Try Pale Moon.
I demand that the internet remain safe for children looking for pictures of our valiant leader in his college days when they google image search "cheerleader bush!" Won't somebody think of the children?!?!?!11
I was sitting by the computers at school, typed in slasdot.org, pushed enter. Big red screen popped up, saying "the website you were trying to access has been blocked because it contains information of related to: Criminal skills"... Maybe there was some story about Mitnick or something on the frontpage?
It is almost an exercise in futility to try to find any actual facts on this government propaganda site. Useful for educating my children in recognising lies though.
In fact we can do entirely without NIDA and their lies.
> Do you ever forget things you did while using
> alcohol or drugs?
Do you ever forget things when you're sober?
But advocates of filters in libraries (and in your school) have been saying stuff like that for years. "C'mon, we can stop people from viewing explicit pRon in the library. All we have to do is install common-sense filtering." The librarians are radicals to oppose such a simple idea, and so on.
The questions in this /. posting aren't going to vanish because of common sense. Maybe the breast cancer site gets blocked accidentally, maybe not. The huge question is, who gets to oversee which sites get blocked? And who looks over that person's shoulder? Especially if the companies selling the filters regard their blacklists or blacklisting techniques as proprietary, competitive-advantage information, it ain't easy to even figure out what's blocked and why.
Isn't that situation inherently open to abuse? Do we want political appointees determining what "common sense" is? When they might, for example, have extremely strong views about abortion one way or another? How do we correct stuff that was censored inappropriately, accidentally or not?
(I dunno... I guess when I heard Minnesota's chief sponsor of capital punishment legislation for the last five years invoking "common sense" as the way to address all the problems with the death penalty, I lurched toward cynicism about people trying to wave away complicated problems that way. The guy didn't seem to know that crime "rates" were adjusted for populations, and frankly didn't seem to even have heard all the usual objections to the D.P., but he thought "a committee" could resolve everything through common sense. The words sort of took on a different quality after that, for me.)
"Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
If they want to block porn and save bandwidth, all they need do is not serve images.
-- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
Recently my employer started using one of those keyword filters. Basically it blocks any website with "sex", "porn", "girl", etc. in its URL. Frankly, it just makes it a pain to find things I need for work - largely because if I am doing a google search, the words I am searching for appear in the search url. For example, it will block the word "computation" because it has the word "puta" in the middle of it (I never would have figured THAT one out if I hadn't had a Mexican girlfriend a long time ago - I don't know exactly what it means, but I know its not something you call your mother). I can't visit any site with "girl" in its url, even if its something like "smartgirl" or "computergirl". So basically it just makes finding legitimate info a bit harder. Now, as far as blocking porn - well, I can GIS for (insert random pornstar name here) anytime I want. It's easy to work around the porn part of the block, if I wanted to - what I want to work around are its stupid side effects, which is much, much harder!!!
The failure here was not in neglecting to install a monitoring/blocking system, but to take proper action upon notification.
Read: her supervisor who refused to ask the employees to remove the pictures
Employees were posting pictures, and the employer didn't make them stop nor offer disciplinary measures. I wouldn't expect to get away with pr0n at work, and I'd definately expect to be disciplined (perhaps fired) if I tried to. It appears that both the other employees and the employer were definately at fault - but not for lack of filtering.
So Yeah, those of you who are risking your lives by using the service should feel free to send an easily traceable stamped self-addressed postcard with your complains to: insecure_morons@usembassy.gov
> I guess you and the like just want to get away with anything you do as "long as it doesn't hurt anyone".
> he says that since you don't believe in rules, then no rules apply to the person that committed a crime against you.
Are you seriously that braindead? Christ man, buy a clue. "As long as no one is hurt..." of course, no one gets hurt during A RAPE?!?!?! You are an absolute moron. You can't even come up with a decent TROLL? Fer fuck's sake, man, try using your brain.
Should not be censored. people should just get used to the fact that everyone has there own little twisted corner of the internet. If you don't wan tto see that kind of stuff, then don't look at it. And as for parents not liking the fact of their kids seeing stuff that they don't want them to see...then ether teach them how to surf correctly, or invest in a cyber nanny. Anyways, if the kid really wants to see somthing that there parents don't want them to see, they'll (the kids) will find a way to see it. I know i did.
-Pizentios