I'm definitely not an expert, but collaborative moderation doesn't seem like a bad idea. You could maybe have a separate, probably more centralised moderation server. (Or lots of them if people start running their own.) Users could rank the results they get from any given site, and when others run a search, the reliable replying sites come up first.
There are still lots of problems though, like how to stop anyone from just moderating their site to the top, and how to make sure the responding site is exactly who they say they are.. which is one of the major problems with spam these days anyway. It could also be really tedious working out how to distinguish a good result from a bad result.
In the last 2-3 years since I switched my email address I've always been very careful to read privacy policies before I give out personal details. If there's no privacy policy at all, I'll be very careful about ever giving away real details.
Lately since I bought my own domain, I've been giving custom email addresses to all the companies I give my address to. (eg. realaudio-zog@jester.net.nz). This way if it ever does get on someone's spam list when they said it wouldn't, I know exactly where it originated from and could hopefully make life really uncomfortable for them if I needed to.
I'm not a lawyer, but the main sections I watch out for in a privacy policy are anything to do with partners or not keeping details completely private. Every so often there's a risky one, but in the last couple of years I've had about 4-5 spam emails in total.
I can't remember the first ones - they were from early on when I wasn't entirely careful. But the irony is that the 2 that I've had in the past month were to a completely different address that I don't fill in on forms. It's only published on the web, so someone either had a crawler or they went around collecting them manually.
I remember years ago when the world tried to do this with pornography, and it didn't work. Instead, anyone who wants to block pornographic material can do it quite well by using third party software on the client side. If France wants to regulate something on the net they should do it themselves.
Logically this would mean ordering all French citizens not to view material that trades Nazi-related items. Since they don't trust their citizens to do so on their own, it's the citizens they should be regulating. There are lots of choices. For example, they can:
Regulate French ISP's to block yahoo, ebay, geocities, slashdot, and whatever other international sites they find remotely 'offensive'.
Set up filtering systems between ISP's and the outside world and regulate all traffic flow in and out of France. (China does this quite well, doesn't it?)
Disallow the use of the Internet in France at all.
If they're resourceful, maybe they could actually think of something that wouldn't cripple the entire internet structure in a country. But why should yahoo be singled out just because it's easy to find? All that blocking yahoo would do is redirect everyone who wants Nazi things badly enough to another site.
But in the end, why should the rest of us suffer just because a minority doesn't like something? If they don't like it outside, they should close the door. The same goes for all the other governments in the world trying to impose their localised values on the rest of the world. I despise nazi'ism, but at the same time I find this action very offensive.
I know I'm just preaching to the converted anyway so I won't keep going. Personally I hope yahoo tells them to grow up and it turns into a highly publicised international incident. Somehow I don't think they will, though.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm definitely not an expert, but collaborative moderation doesn't seem like a bad idea. You could maybe have a separate, probably more centralised moderation server. (Or lots of them if people start running their own.) Users could rank the results they get from any given site, and when others run a search, the reliable replying sites come up first.
There are still lots of problems though, like how to stop anyone from just moderating their site to the top, and how to make sure the responding site is exactly who they say they are.. which is one of the major problems with spam these days anyway. It could also be really tedious working out how to distinguish a good result from a bad result.
0|X|_
|X|X
Only if 0 doesn't cheat.
0|X|_
|X|
(me need to type here to avoid lameness filter) =P
In the last 2-3 years since I switched my email address I've always been very careful to read privacy policies before I give out personal details. If there's no privacy policy at all, I'll be very careful about ever giving away real details.
Lately since I bought my own domain, I've been giving custom email addresses to all the companies I give my address to. (eg. realaudio-zog@jester.net.nz). This way if it ever does get on someone's spam list when they said it wouldn't, I know exactly where it originated from and could hopefully make life really uncomfortable for them if I needed to.
I'm not a lawyer, but the main sections I watch out for in a privacy policy are anything to do with partners or not keeping details completely private. Every so often there's a risky one, but in the last couple of years I've had about 4-5 spam emails in total.
I can't remember the first ones - they were from early on when I wasn't entirely careful. But the irony is that the 2 that I've had in the past month were to a completely different address that I don't fill in on forms. It's only published on the web, so someone either had a crawler or they went around collecting them manually.
I remember years ago when the world tried to do this with pornography, and it didn't work. Instead, anyone who wants to block pornographic material can do it quite well by using third party software on the client side. If France wants to regulate something on the net they should do it themselves.
Logically this would mean ordering all French citizens not to view material that trades Nazi-related items. Since they don't trust their citizens to do so on their own, it's the citizens they should be regulating. There are lots of choices. For example, they can:
If they're resourceful, maybe they could actually think of something that wouldn't cripple the entire internet structure in a country. But why should yahoo be singled out just because it's easy to find? All that blocking yahoo would do is redirect everyone who wants Nazi things badly enough to another site.
But in the end, why should the rest of us suffer just because a minority doesn't like something? If they don't like it outside, they should close the door. The same goes for all the other governments in the world trying to impose their localised values on the rest of the world. I despise nazi'ism, but at the same time I find this action very offensive.
I know I'm just preaching to the converted anyway so I won't keep going. Personally I hope yahoo tells them to grow up and it turns into a highly publicised international incident. Somehow I don't think they will, though.