According to Surfwatch's very own PR, their censorware has over 100,000 sites on their blacklist. That's ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND. One with five zeros after it. No-one could examine this list in a reasonable time. It's not humanly possible. At one per minute, that's around 500 per workday. A whole work-year (200 days) to go through it once. Seth (who, for those who do not know him, was one of the earliest, most vocal and dead-on accurate critics of censorware) understates the case to make a point. First, if the SurfWatch list has 100,000 entries, in fact SurfWatch blocks far more than 100,000 sites, because of keyword blocking. Second, many vendors block by IP numeric addresses in addition to domain name blocking. If your site is blocked because it happens to share an IP address with a porn site, you may never see your domain name on an open blacklist. Third, although the vendors like to tout the size of their blacklists, in one area, they have an interesting way of counting. For example, many vendors block some or all of the free webpage hosts in their entirety, but if, for example, they block members.xoom.com, they will count that as a single entry on their list, rather than a block of however many hundreds of thousands of member sites there may be at xoom.com. Last, 100,000 is a conservative number these days. Many of the vendors say on their sites that their lists are in excess of 500,000 entries, a few have passed the million mark. Open blacklists are less bad than closed ones, but that is very different from saying that they are good.
I think one of the best counter-arguments about these filter products is the fact that most of them block any discussion or critisism about themselves.. That is only partially correct. Some certainly do block critical commentary, but not all, not necessarily most. One of the blocked sites Jamie mentions in his open letter is a mini-essay of mine, which is critical of SurfWatch. However, the reason why SurfWatch blocks it is not because it is critical of the product; rather, it is blocked because the URL contains the word "sex", and "sex" is one of many keywords which, if in a URL, automatically will be blocked by the client version of SurfWatch. The page would be blocked by SurfWatch if the URL was the same but the content was a tirade against the evils of premarital sex. Of course, in many ways, blocking on that basis is even more pernicious than just blocking criticism, but unlike some of our adversaries, we at The Censorware Project do like to deal in facts, not myths or scare tactics.
Maybe the writer wears suits, but he's hardly a typical non-tech user. As soon as he talks about compiling and vi v. emacs, he's disqualified. Gee, I'm a suit, a middle-aged lawyer suit fer chrissakes, but I've been known to fool around with vi and emacs. A lot of posts on this story take the attitude that this guy can't be representative, that the "average" suit wouldn't know that emacs has little to do with a Mac, etc. That may be true, but while I make no claim to being a spokesmodel for the entire suitworld, let me tell you that the suits are paying a lot more attention to Linux now than they were even 10 months ago, let alone a few years ago. This type of article won't convince millions of suits to switch, but as I see how suits react to Linux on various suitlists I'm on, I can be fairly sure that it will influence a few. Then those influence some more, and some more.... Some here don't want the suits to invade the Linux world, and that's fine. But for those who would prefer that The Word of Linux be spread, rather than getting all elitist about it, articles like this one do help. And the fact that I'm a member of The Censorware Project does not make me unsuitable to know what suits suits.
Whew, was afraid I would be a first post.;-) The idea of international cooperation was a good one in theory, but the Russians have no money, no resources. There is no sense in continuing to rely on them for the sake of international relations if it will impede the progress of science. Notwithstanding screwups with the Mars missions, it is a (depressing) fact that if the space station is to succeed, the best chance of success is if the U.S. goes it mostly alone. I am happy to have the government spend my tax dollars for space exploration.
I think one of the things that makes us (the tech community) look bad here is that the writers of the program won't stand up and say "I did it." It's great that John is standing up to everyone like this, but where are the other members of MoRE? If DeCSS isn't wrong, why are they hiding? I call for those two to stand up and say "I wrote it, I'm proud of it, and I have the write to keep writing software like it."
I have a problem with that argument. If the other members have chosen to remain anonymous, how can this poster know what their reasons are? Do they run legal risks? Are they employed in a situation where knowledge of what they did might get them fired from a job they want or need? It is great when someone is willing to attach his name to an accomplishment, but without knowing why the others have not come forward, I find it difficult to criticize them for not doing so. Is it not more important what they did than who they are?
REDMOND -- M$ is both delighted and saddened to learn of the proposed merger of VA Linux and Andover.net.
M$ is delighted because the merger of a leading hardware provider with a leading information content provider demostrates to DoJ and Judge Jackson that M$ is not nearly the biggest monopolist on the block.
M$ is saddened because the merger of a leading hardware provider with a leading information content provider might actually upset the careful mono^H^H^H^H and loyal user base of satisfied customers which M$ has worked so hard to cultivate over the years.
M$ intends to ask the DoJ to investigate whether the VA - Andover merger is anti-competitive; but not until Judge Jackson rules that M$ really, really was serious when it argued that Linux is proof positive that there are viable alternatives to the Windows Operating System.
As always, M$ remains committed to spinning the news however it best suits M$. Please direct all inquiries to borg@microsloth.com.
one of the most striking but still largely unrecognized legacies of the Net has been the death blow it's dealt to the very idea of censorship.
Comments like that have been made for hundreds of years, each time a new means of publishing has enabled more to published wider and cheaper, but have any been the death blow? If they had, Jon wouldn't be writing that sentence, would he? Among many, the urge to censor runs strong and deep. It always has, it always will. Many with that urge are just now beginning to pay attention to the Internet. The battle lines have been drawm, but the war is not remotely close to over. I will dance in the streets if and when the day comes when the Internet has dealt a death blow to the very idea of censorship. But to argue that the day is already upon us is fatuous at best
If anyone should care to write to the L.A. Times about Valenti's piece, it is on page M5 of today's Opinion section in the dead-tree paper. According to the Times, letters "must include valid mailing address and telephone number. Pseudonyms and initials will not be used." mailto:letters@latimes.com Or, if you are inclined to communicate by forms other than email (Hah!):
Letters to the Editor, Los Angeles Times, Times Mirror Square, Los Angeles, CA 90053 Or Fax to 213-237-7679 Purely a hypothetical question, of course, but has a fax machine ever been slasdotted?
This is not a court ruling. There has been no trial. The judge granted a Preliminary Injunction, ordering ICrave to cease broadcasting these programmes into the USA, until the trial is over. To be technical, it was a Temporary Restraining Order, which will only be in force until the Preliminary Injunction hearing, probably in a few weeks. But it most certainly is a court ruling. It is not a final order, but if iCraveTV violates it while it is in effect, it can be held in contempt the same as if it was a final order. So please do be sure that you know of what you speak before criticisizing the headline. Thanks.
One interesting thing about the lawsuit is that it is brought in California, by a California resident. California is one of a handful of States which, by State Constitution, gives its residents more privacy rights than afforded to the U.S. at large by the U.S. Constitution. It is unclear from reporting I've seen so far whether this Plaintiff is claiming privacy rights under the California constitution, but I am a California lawyer, and I would think about it seriously. The beauty of this would be that, if the Plaintiff does have a good case under California privacy law, then even if (hypothetically) she doesn't under federal law, as a practical matter DoubleClick would have to modify its behavior throughout the country, since it would be untenable for them to have one set of rules for California web users, another for everyone else.
what was that saying about "they came for the {mumble} and I wasn't a {mumble} so I didn't speak up. then they came for the {...} and I wasn't a (...} so I didn't speak up. then they came for me and there was no one left to speak up for me". That half-mumbled quote refers to the Nazis. So, Godwin's Law almost applies.. The saying, by Reinhold Niemoller, has nothing to do with Godwin's Law, but it is worth thinking about in many contexts (this doesn't affect me, why should I care?), so here it is:
When Hitler attacked the Jews I was not a Jew, therefore I was not concerned. And when Hitler attacked the Catholics, I was not a Catholic, and therefore, I was not concerned. And when Hitler attacked the unions and the industrialists, I was not a member of the unions and I was not concerned. Then Hitler attacked me and the Protestant church -- and there was nobody left to be concerned.
Has anyone ever had a great judge who understood computers and the net? Partial list: Three Judge District Court Panel in CDA I, and, to a lesser extent, The Nine in that same case; District Court Judge in CDA II; District Court Judge and two of three Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Judges in Bernstein; Ninth Circuit panel ruling morphed child porn provisions unconstitutional; Various federal District Court and Appellate Judges in Blumenthal v. AOL and Zeran v. AOL holding that service providers are not liable for (alleged) libel of content provider; District Court Judge Leonie Brinkema, in Virginia, for holding that Loudoun County's mandatory censorware policy in the public library was unconstitutional; Any number of judges, state and federal, who have held that the mere fact that a web site can be accessed in the State of the Plaintiff does not mean that the Defendant automatically can be sued in that State. There are any number of other examples -- and IAAL -- but the basic points are these: Like anything else in the law, it takes time for the the law, and the Judges who rule on it, to catch up; Despite that, and not ignoring the "bad" cases, there are plenty of good rulings, plenty of good judges already out there, and as more do "get it", the numbers figure to grow.
The Federal Freedom of Information Act applies only to federal records, not to State records, but the filing here was in the California state court case. The California equivalent is the Public Records Act, Government Code sections 6250 and following:
In enacting this chapter, the Legislature, mindful of the right of individuals to privacy, finds and declares that access to information concerning the conduct of the people's business is a fundamental and necessary right of every person in this State. (Government Code 6250 [the Legislature's declaration of purpose in enacting the California Public Records Act].)
In any event, without the need to resort to either FOIA (federal) or PRA (California) all court records are, by default, public, unless there is a specific seal order by the Judge. I do not believe that there has been one here. Anyone can walk into the courthouse and copy non-sealed court records to their heart's content, for only the copying charges set by the court.
By the way, does anyone know what "IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plantiff DVD-CCA shall post a bond in the amount of $10,000 pursuant to CCP 529" is all about? A preliminary injunction is a preliminary interpretation by the court that it is more probable than not that the Plaintiff will prevail on the merits. A preliminary injuction falls under the category of "extraordinary relief." The purpose of the injuction bond is to provide a fund against which defendants can collect any damages caused to them if, after a full trial, it turns out that the court's preliminary determination was in error, and the Plaintiff was not entitled to the relief.
I've seen concerns on the Debian mailing lists that Corel is simply trying to raise stock price by jumping on the Linux bandwagon and isn't really contributing anything back to the community. Well, I'm glad that at least Cowpland justified their position by saying that they are focusing on the "newbie" market. OSS Purists probably thinks that anything less than source-level contribution doesn't count, but I'd like to say this: I'm also a hardcore OSS advocate, but this is the real world. Agreed. Folks who've been in the Linux world may not understand this (it is not necessarily sensible), but in the Windows world, people pay a good deal more attention to what Corel is doing than to what is going on with traditional Linux distros. They do this because Corel is an established player in the Windows world, so its shift to Linux attracts attention. But never fear, Corel is not completely abandoning the Windows world. Today, Corel announced a multi-millon dollar deal with DoJ to supply WordPerfect Suite to 55,000+ seats. Another small blow against MS, never a bad thing.
In the press release, Jack Valente, head of the MPAA, says:
"The MPAA is striking a blow today in defense of the future of American movies. We have filed suit in federal court to stop internet hackers from distributing the software designed to circumvent the encryption technology that prevents the unlawful copying of DVDs."
It matters not at all, but every time I see Valente's name, I am reminded of what he said thirtysomething years ago, when the C-in-C escalated the bombIng of North Vietnam:
"I sleep better every night just knowing that Lyndon Baines Johnson is my President."
Should a 17 year old be scrutinized as closely as a 9 year old?
Yes, they should! What is this, a new country called "internetland"? We still live in a country where it is illegal for a 9 year old OR a 17 year old to buy pornography from the magazine rack at a store
Actually that is incorrect. It is illegal for an adult to sell to a minor, but it is not illegal for the minor to buy.
Slashdot Mirror
According to Surfwatch's very own PR, their censorware has over 100,000 sites on their blacklist.
That's ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND. One with five zeros after it. No-one could examine this list in a reasonable time. It's not humanly possible. At one per minute, that's around 500 per workday. A whole work-year (200 days) to go through it once.
Seth (who, for those who do not know him, was one of the earliest, most vocal and dead-on accurate critics of censorware) understates the case to make a point.
First, if the SurfWatch list has 100,000 entries, in fact SurfWatch blocks far more than 100,000 sites, because of keyword blocking.
Second, many vendors block by IP numeric addresses in addition to domain name blocking. If your site is blocked because it happens to share an IP address with a porn site, you may never see your domain name on an open blacklist.
Third, although the vendors like to tout the size of their blacklists, in one area, they have an interesting way of counting. For example, many vendors block some or all of the free webpage hosts in their entirety, but if, for example, they block members.xoom.com, they will count that as a single entry on their list, rather than a block of however many hundreds of thousands of member sites there may be at xoom.com.
Last, 100,000 is a conservative number these days. Many of the vendors say on their sites that their lists are in excess of 500,000 entries, a few have passed the million mark.
Open blacklists are less bad than closed ones, but that is very different from saying that they are good.
I think one of the best counter-arguments about these filter products is the fact that most of them block any discussion or critisism about themselves..
That is only partially correct. Some certainly do block critical commentary, but not all, not necessarily most.
One of the blocked sites Jamie mentions in his open letter is a mini-essay of mine, which is critical of SurfWatch. However, the reason why SurfWatch blocks it is not because it is critical of the product; rather, it is blocked because the URL contains the word "sex", and "sex" is one of many keywords which, if in a URL, automatically will be blocked by the client version of SurfWatch. The page would be blocked by SurfWatch if the URL was the same but the content was a tirade against the evils of premarital sex.
Of course, in many ways, blocking on that basis is even more pernicious than just blocking criticism, but unlike some of our adversaries, we at The Censorware Project do like to deal in facts, not myths or scare tactics.
Maybe the writer wears suits, but he's hardly a typical non-tech user. As soon as he talks about compiling and vi v. emacs, he's disqualified.
Gee, I'm a suit, a middle-aged lawyer suit fer chrissakes, but I've been known to fool around with vi and emacs.
A lot of posts on this story take the attitude that this guy can't be representative, that the "average" suit wouldn't know that emacs has little to do with a Mac, etc. That may be true, but while I make no claim to being a spokesmodel for the entire suitworld, let me tell you that the suits are paying a lot more attention to Linux now than they were even 10 months ago, let alone a few years ago. This type of article won't convince millions of suits to switch, but as I see how suits react to Linux on various suitlists I'm on, I can be fairly sure that it will influence a few. Then those influence some more, and some more
Some here don't want the suits to invade the Linux world, and that's fine. But for those who would prefer that The Word of Linux be spread, rather than getting all elitist about it, articles like this one do help.
And the fact that I'm a member of The Censorware Project does not make me unsuitable to know what suits suits.
Whew, was afraid I would be a first post.
The idea of international cooperation was a good one in theory, but the Russians have no money, no resources. There is no sense in continuing to rely on them for the sake of international relations if it will impede the progress of science.
Notwithstanding screwups with the Mars missions, it is a (depressing) fact that if the space station is to succeed, the best chance of success is if the U.S. goes it mostly alone. I am happy to have the government spend my tax dollars for space exploration.
I have a problem with that argument. If the other members have chosen to remain anonymous, how can this poster know what their reasons are? Do they run legal risks? Are they employed in a situation where knowledge of what they did might get them fired from a job they want or need?
It is great when someone is willing to attach his name to an accomplishment, but without knowing why the others have not come forward, I find it difficult to criticize them for not doing so. Is it not more important what they did than who they are?
M$ is delighted because the merger of a leading hardware provider with a leading information content provider demostrates to DoJ and Judge Jackson that M$ is not nearly the biggest monopolist on the block.
M$ is saddened because the merger of a leading hardware provider with a leading information content provider might actually upset the careful mono^H^H^H^H and loyal user base of satisfied customers which M$ has worked so hard to cultivate over the years.
M$ intends to ask the DoJ to investigate whether the VA - Andover merger is anti-competitive; but not until Judge Jackson rules that M$ really, really was serious when it argued that Linux is proof positive that there are viable alternatives to the Windows Operating System.
As always, M$ remains committed to spinning the news however it best suits M$. Please direct all inquiries to borg@microsloth.com.
Katz writes:
Comments like that have been made for hundreds of years, each time a new means of publishing has enabled more to published wider and cheaper, but have any been the death blow? If they had, Jon wouldn't be writing that sentence, would he?
Among many, the urge to censor runs strong and deep. It always has, it always will. Many with that urge are just now beginning to pay attention to the Internet. The battle lines have been drawm, but the war is not remotely close to over.
I will dance in the streets if and when the day comes when the Internet has dealt a death blow to the very idea of censorship. But to argue that the day is already upon us is fatuous at best
If anyone should care to write to the L.A. Times about Valenti's piece, it is on page M5 of today's Opinion section in the dead-tree paper.
According to the Times, letters "must include valid mailing address and telephone number. Pseudonyms and initials will not be used."
mailto:letters@latimes.com
Or, if you are inclined to communicate by forms other than email (Hah!):
Letters to the Editor, Los Angeles Times, Times Mirror Square, Los Angeles, CA 90053
Or Fax to 213-237-7679
Purely a hypothetical question, of course, but has a fax machine ever been slasdotted?
This is not a court ruling. There has been no trial. The judge granted a Preliminary Injunction, ordering ICrave to cease broadcasting these programmes into the USA, until the trial is over.
To be technical, it was a Temporary Restraining Order, which will only be in force until the Preliminary Injunction hearing, probably in a few weeks.
But it most certainly is a court ruling. It is not a final order, but if iCraveTV violates it while it is in effect, it can be held in contempt the same as if it was a final order. So please do be sure that you know of what you speak before criticisizing the headline. Thanks.
One interesting thing about the lawsuit is that it is brought in California, by a California resident.
California is one of a handful of States which, by State Constitution, gives its residents more privacy rights than afforded to the U.S. at large by the U.S. Constitution. It is unclear from reporting I've seen so far whether this Plaintiff is claiming privacy rights under the California constitution, but I am a California lawyer, and I would think about it seriously.
The beauty of this would be that, if the Plaintiff does have a good case under California privacy law, then even if (hypothetically) she doesn't under federal law, as a practical matter DoubleClick would have to modify its behavior throughout the country, since it would be untenable for them to have one set of rules for California web users, another for everyone else.
what was that saying about "they came for the {mumble} and I wasn't a {mumble} so I didn't speak up. then they came for the {...} and I wasn't a (...} so I didn't speak up. then they came for me and there was no one left to speak up for me".
That half-mumbled quote refers to the Nazis. So, Godwin's Law almost applies..
The saying, by Reinhold Niemoller, has nothing to do with Godwin's Law, but it is worth thinking about in many contexts (this doesn't affect me, why should I care?), so here it is:
Has anyone ever had a great judge who understood computers and the net?
Partial list:
Three Judge District Court Panel in CDA I, and, to a lesser extent, The Nine in that same case;
District Court Judge in CDA II;
District Court Judge and two of three Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Judges in Bernstein;
Ninth Circuit panel ruling morphed child porn provisions unconstitutional;
Various federal District Court and Appellate Judges in Blumenthal v. AOL and Zeran v. AOL holding that service providers are not liable for (alleged) libel of content provider;
District Court Judge Leonie Brinkema, in Virginia, for holding that Loudoun County's mandatory censorware policy in the public library was unconstitutional;
Any number of judges, state and federal, who have held that the mere fact that a web site can be accessed in the State of the Plaintiff does not mean that the Defendant automatically can be sued in that State.
There are any number of other examples -- and IAAL -- but the basic points are these:
Like anything else in the law, it takes time for the the law, and the Judges who rule on it, to catch up;
Despite that, and not ignoring the "bad" cases, there are plenty of good rulings, plenty of good judges already out there, and as more do "get it", the numbers figure to grow.
Actually, no.
The Federal Freedom of Information Act applies only to federal records, not to State records, but the filing here was in the California state court case. The California equivalent is the Public Records Act, Government Code sections 6250 and following:
In any event, without the need to resort to either FOIA (federal) or PRA (California) all court records are, by default, public, unless there is a specific seal order by the Judge. I do not believe that there has been one here. Anyone can walk into the courthouse and copy non-sealed court records to their heart's content, for only the copying charges set by the court.
By the way, does anyone know what "IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plantiff DVD-CCA shall post a bond in the amount of $10,000 pursuant to CCP 529" is all about?
A preliminary injunction is a preliminary interpretation by the court that it is more probable than not that the Plaintiff will prevail on the merits. A preliminary injuction falls under the category of "extraordinary relief."
The purpose of the injuction bond is to provide a fund against which defendants can collect any damages caused to them if, after a full trial, it turns out that the court's preliminary determination was in error, and the Plaintiff was not entitled to the relief.
I've seen concerns on the Debian mailing lists that Corel is simply trying to raise stock price by jumping on the Linux bandwagon and isn't really contributing anything back to the community.
Well, I'm glad that at least Cowpland justified their position by saying that they are focusing on the "newbie" market. OSS Purists probably thinks that anything less than source-level contribution doesn't count, but I'd like to say this: I'm also a hardcore OSS advocate, but this is the real world.
Agreed. Folks who've been in the Linux world may not understand this (it is not necessarily sensible), but in the Windows world, people pay a good deal more attention to what Corel is doing than to what is going on with traditional Linux distros. They do this because Corel is an established player in the Windows world, so its shift to Linux attracts attention.
But never fear, Corel is not completely abandoning the Windows world. Today, Corel announced a multi-millon dollar deal with DoJ to supply WordPerfect Suite to 55,000+ seats. Another small blow against MS, never a bad thing.
It matters not at all, but every time I see Valente's name, I am reminded of what he said thirtysomething years ago, when the C-in-C escalated the bombIng of North Vietnam:
Says a lot about the guy, if anyone gives a shit.
Yes, they should! What is this, a new country called "internetland"? We still live in a country where it is illegal for a 9 year old OR a 17 year old to buy pornography from the magazine rack at a store
Actually that is incorrect. It is illegal for an adult to sell to a minor, but it is not illegal for the minor to buy.