I'm browsing the RFC, and it sounds like they're planning on having people's firewalls spit out IIALP messages in response to port scans, etc. In my opinion, this is a really bad idea!
You don't know the half of it. Slashdot actually port scans every computer that posts anonymously looking for proxies. If this protocol went into affect, Slashdot would be at the top of the list, continually proxy scanning the hundreds of anonymous posters it gets per minute. If ISPs implemented it, no one would even be able to route to Slashdot.
Consider the effectiveness of Slashdot's own "excessive bad posting" filter, which (to overcome DHCP) has subnet-banned class C's all over the Internet, blocking hundreds of people from posting.
I'd say that just based on the examples give above, this kind of banlisting would be a false-positive-ridden nightmare scenario.
Something is only censorship when imposed by the gov't, or by any private party upon material which they don't have rights to.
What you're missing is that no one has accused Slashdot of Censorship; therefore you are refuting an assertion that has not been made. The assertion is that Slashdot contains Censorware. The difference between these terms is vast.
Jamie McCarthy of the Censorware Project defines Censorware here as:
"software which is designed to prevent another person from sending or receiving information (usually on the web)."
I hate to break it to you, but the lameness filter is designed to prevent a person from sending information on the web. So are the negative moderation subnet bans, account bans, and IP bans. I'm not saying that they're not a good idea; they may actually improve the signal to noise ratio. However, to remain objective we must accept that all of these components meet the technical definition of Censorware, and must be referred to as such.
The anti-abuse mechanisms in Slash 2.2.0 are probably the most sophisticated "selective Censorware" mechanisms available in a weblog product, and they're going to a be large "value-added" in this release for administrators everywhere. Whether users will embrace them as well remains to be seen.
"In an earlier interview with the Wall Street Journal, Massachusetts attorney-general Tom Reilly said the deal was "full of loopholes and does little more than license Microsoft to crush its competition".
Thank you for the sound bite, Mr Reilly: the DoJ has handed Microsoft a "license to kill".
My question is this: 6 states oppose the settlement, 6 states are undecided (want more money), and 6 states are for it (we're already paid off). Of these three groups, are any of them actually interested in protecting their businesses from this predatory monopoly? Is anyone truly acting on principle?
In an era where it's easy to be cynical, it would be a wonderful thing to be able to believe in people like Tom Reilly.
Slashdot Mirror
You don't know the half of it. Slashdot actually port scans every computer that posts anonymously looking for proxies. If this protocol went into affect, Slashdot would be at the top of the list, continually proxy scanning the hundreds of anonymous posters it gets per minute. If ISPs implemented it, no one would even be able to route to Slashdot.
Consider the effectiveness of Slashdot's own "excessive bad posting" filter, which (to overcome DHCP) has subnet-banned class C's all over the Internet, blocking hundreds of people from posting.
I'd say that just based on the examples give above, this kind of banlisting would be a false-positive-ridden nightmare scenario.
Something is only censorship when imposed by the gov't, or by any private party upon material which they don't have rights to.
What you're missing is that no one has accused Slashdot of Censorship; therefore you are refuting an assertion that has not been made. The assertion is that Slashdot contains Censorware. The difference between these terms is vast.
Jamie McCarthy of the Censorware Project defines Censorware here as:
"software which is designed to prevent another person from sending or receiving information (usually on the web)."
I hate to break it to you, but the lameness filter is designed to prevent a person from sending information on the web. So are the negative moderation subnet bans, account bans, and IP bans. I'm not saying that they're not a good idea; they may actually improve the signal to noise ratio. However, to remain objective we must accept that all of these components meet the technical definition of Censorware, and must be referred to as such.
The anti-abuse mechanisms in Slash 2.2.0 are probably the most sophisticated "selective Censorware" mechanisms available in a weblog product, and they're going to a be large "value-added" in this release for administrators everywhere. Whether users will embrace them as well remains to be seen.
Quoth Tom Reilly, my new hero:
"In an earlier interview with the Wall Street Journal, Massachusetts attorney-general Tom Reilly said the deal was "full of loopholes and does little more than license Microsoft to crush its competition".
Thank you for the sound bite, Mr Reilly: the DoJ has handed Microsoft a "license to kill".
My question is this: 6 states oppose the settlement, 6 states are undecided (want more money), and 6 states are for it (we're already paid off). Of these three groups, are any of them actually interested in protecting their businesses from this predatory monopoly? Is anyone truly acting on principle?
In an era where it's easy to be cynical, it would be a wonderful thing to be able to believe in people like Tom Reilly.