The culture is different from the US. Sex (or at least in public) is treated differently.
When at the Jinan University, I spent some time in the computer center. The head of the networking department (who got paid $250/month) was married to one of the doctors in the acupuncture department (in the university hospital) that I was being treated at.
The university (in October 1996) had a 28.8 line that went to the filtering office in Beijing (sp?). I had ping times of over 1 second. It may have improved since.
When watching the TV news from a Hong Kong station (in English before the handover) they used a test pattern to block stories that they did not like.
As we all know, there is a way around any security. But this censorship does allow the government to keep more control.
This control will be lost over time. Some of it will be lost, some of it will be given up.
The way to prove blocking is just to show the site being blocked. Maybe a printscreen of the blocked attempt.
If the site is blocked, say for nudity, when there is none, there probably would not be a case for libel. For libel to apply, you have to show ridicule or hatred. You also have to show that the information was published with either negigence, recklessness, or malice. Negligence is not needed in the case of a public figure or an issue of public interest.
There may have a case for intentional interference. Also, there may be a case of unfair and deceptive business practices.
Encoding the session information into the host name will do a number on internet filter software that does look ups by IP.
Just think, the next porn site you are on, if it uses this method will have a different address for each session/user. I guess they will have to block by domain. And you thought blocking software couldn't cause more problems.
Mattel won't allow me to get on with my life. They are the ones who continue with their frivilous countersuit. Their intent is to shut me up. They don't like to hear disent (just like Symantec).
If you want me to quiet down, you convince Mattel to dismiss their countersuit with prejudice. Then I'd have less to talk about.
I don't agree with Symantec on this, by a long shot.
As I had said before, this censor list can be used a "Hot List" of the web. Buy your list here, you will save much time not having to search for porn yourself.
Some companies actually spend time and money checking their list, it may not get all of it right, but it may improve.
But with the list hidden, you don't know if it's valid, since you can't check yourself.
Copyright law allows fair comment. Tradmark law allows fair comment.
Symantec does not like having their mistakes made public! This is what is being done.
This is not being done so people can sell a forbidden list, hmmmm....
This is like some database companies not allowing benchmarks to be published w/o their permission (they would probably only give permission to publish what would make them look good).
if you had bothered to read, you would see that they did not settle, but they took a judgment. It's not because they wanted to, it's that they did not want to risk a jury ruling on this!
How do you get "6 year old case?" The case was filed in 1998, Mattel paid in 1999. Is this the new math?
If you really bothered to read, Mattel is suing me for libel. They are trying to shut me up, though you would love that. They will lose! I don't have any Laura Croft pictures. I would borrow yours, but they probably are too sticky.
With the proliferation of the internet in a country, the control of the government will weaken.
In 1996 I was at the Jinan University getting accupuncture at the hospital (details). The head of the accupuncture department (married to one of the doctors) explained to me that all of their internet access went through a a filtering center. This would keep people from some of the subversive sites.
As we all know, filtering is not totally effective.
In a country where the news media is controlled by the government, the internet will people to access non-government approved information.
Those government will lose control, and it will have to adapt to that.
Unless the employer is prohibited from accessing my data, I would be very leary of puting anything of value on the machine. It's still use it for surfing.
Companies will spend large amounts of money to try to eek out an advantage, if they see an issue as an advantage. A large corporation will spend money to keep out competition, or even negative comments (like Mattel).
They will do this by either spending money on getting the laws passed, or just trying to litigate oposition into oblivion.
I can advertise software that will be able to do anything. Then once, they click on the "I Accept" button, they are SOL. I does not matter if the machine wipes their drive, and destroys their monitor.
I can pirate software, then include it in my program. How would anyone know, unless they decompile portions of code? But that won't be allowed under the "click wrap" agreement!
There have been cases where because the site was accessible to citizens of that state.
The web messes up traditional jurisdictional arguments. What about stores with no physical presence? Or companies that have 6 employees that are spread out over the world?
Slashdot Mirror
Everyone is out to get you by making you paranoid, once they succeed, are they still out to get you?
A famous author can be full of shit as easily as a nobody!
I was actually in the city of Guangzhou.
When at the Jinan University, I spent some time in the computer center. The head of the networking department (who got paid $250/month) was married to one of the doctors in the acupuncture department (in the university hospital) that I was being treated at.
The university (in October 1996) had a 28.8 line that went to the filtering office in Beijing (sp?). I had ping times of over 1 second. It may have improved since.
When watching the TV news from a Hong Kong station (in English before the handover) they used a test pattern to block stories that they did not like.
As we all know, there is a way around any security. But this censorship does allow the government to keep more control.
This control will be lost over time. Some of it will be lost, some of it will be given up.
If the site is blocked, say for nudity, when there is none, there probably would not be a case for libel. For libel to apply, you have to show ridicule or hatred. You also have to show that the information was published with either negigence, recklessness, or malice. Negligence is not needed in the case of a public figure or an issue of public interest.
There may have a case for intentional interference. Also, there may be a case of unfair and deceptive business practices.
It's good that they did put this up on the web and took results via email.
Will they listen to us?
P.S. You project too much.
Just think, the next porn site you are on, if it uses this method will have a different address for each session/user. I guess they will have to block by domain. And you thought blocking software couldn't cause more problems.
I would guess that you might be able to sue for tortious interference or libel.
But for that, you probably need a lawyer and lots of money.
If you want me to quiet down, you convince Mattel to dismiss their countersuit with prejudice. Then I'd have less to talk about.
The censorware is not very good, but letting the government regulate is worse!
As I had said before, this censor list can be used a "Hot List" of the web. Buy your list here, you will save much time not having to search for porn yourself.
Some companies actually spend time and money checking their list, it may not get all of it right, but it may improve.
But with the list hidden, you don't know if it's valid, since you can't check yourself.
Who will watch the censors?
Symantec does not like having their mistakes made public! This is what is being done.
This is not being done so people can sell a forbidden list, hmmmm....
This is like some database companies not allowing benchmarks to be published w/o their permission (they would probably only give permission to publish what would make them look good).
if you had bothered to read, you would see that they did not settle, but they took a judgment. It's not because they wanted to, it's that they did not want to risk a jury ruling on this!
How do you get "6 year old case?" The case was filed in 1998, Mattel paid in 1999. Is this the new math?
If you really bothered to read, Mattel is suing me for libel. They are trying to shut me up, though you would love that. They will lose! I don't have any Laura Croft pictures. I would borrow yours, but they probably are too sticky.
In 1996 I was at the Jinan University getting accupuncture at the hospital (details). The head of the accupuncture department (married to one of the doctors) explained to me that all of their internet access went through a a filtering center. This would keep people from some of the subversive sites.
As we all know, filtering is not totally effective.
In a country where the news media is controlled by the government, the internet will people to access non-government approved information.
Those government will lose control, and it will have to adapt to that.
This also brings in the cost of internet access (and speed).
What about support? Will the employee expect MIS support at home? When the kid trash the system, what happens?
Some people don't want a computer at home, others would want it.
This could be considered an educational expense, or be a reason for divorce.
Unless the employer is prohibited from accessing my data, I would be very leary of puting anything of value on the machine. It's still use it for surfing.
Companies will spend large amounts of money to try to eek out an advantage, if they see an issue as an advantage. A large corporation will spend money to keep out competition, or even negative comments (like Mattel).
They will do this by either spending money on getting the laws passed, or just trying to litigate oposition into oblivion.
I can pirate software, then include it in my program. How would anyone know, unless they decompile portions of code? But that won't be allowed under the "click wrap" agreement!
[sarcism mode off]
The web messes up traditional jurisdictional arguments. What about stores with no physical presence? Or companies that have 6 employees that are spread out over the world?
Have cablemodem, will telnet.
Mattel has locations in China, and they can try to claim that the China location is hurt by the US based website.
But on your point, doesn't MIT and Harvard have exhange programs with schools in France? Is that enough to cover them?