Thread

Internet: Liz Longhurst backs MP

zak, 07 Nov 2005 20:12:29

Original Message:
-----------------

pearl_maude1@hotmail.com, 07 Nov 2005 20:12:29

clare, 07 Nov 2005 21:24:55

Zak, you've missed the point. Cleanfeed is not a clunky filter. Its url specific. It filters only named urls. It is not a commercial retail product. It will be used by the ISPs.

This Bill will not increase Cleenfeed's share price. On the contrary, if CleenFeed is used, this Bill will become irrelevant.

The question I posed was whether it would not be better to support the Cleenfeed model, so that the possession offence becomes irrelevant. Then argue later about accountability of the Cleenfeed censorship process.

Author wrote:
> Original Message:
> -----------------

: pearl_maude1@hotmail.com, 07 Nov 2005 21:24:55

> Subject: RE: [backlash] "Internet: Liz Longhurst backs MP"
> Clean feed operates by filtering identified URLs, rather than by content
> indicators.
> But to say, "possession offences do not mend the ill, the definitions are
> too hard, will
> lead to miscarriages of justice while benefitting no one. Look instead to
> cleanfeed which
> can replicate electronically, what customs does physically".
> Also, any future battle against unregulated use of Cleanfeed system will
> have the support
> of the ISPA and many others interested in net freedoms who do not wish to
> get involved in
> this particular proposal.
> "The UK's ISP trade body, ISPA, said the Cleanfeed solution would "only
> prevent 'casual'
> browsing of known websites...It will not hinder organised distribution of
> such images. It
> will not prevent access to new websites offering illegal content, nor will
> it prevent
> children being abused." Ž
> WOuldn't it also be handy to query if the anti-porn campaigners stand to
> make any money
> out of this cleanfeed stuff? Given that most of these filters are a bit
> clunky, miss some
> smut and ban things like breast cancer advice sites, should we perhaps
> suggest that this
> Bill is something of a handy share-price hike for the Cleanfeed mak
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> mail2web - Check your email from the web at
> http://mail2web.com/ .

Lothario, 07 Nov 2005 21:52:11

All filters are clunky. None of them work in any way that is useful.

The efficacy of this "solution" assumes:

1. You've got a list of all the bad URLs.
2. The list doesn't include any innocuous URLs.
3. You have the means to keep the list up to date with 100% accuracy, forever.
4. There are no other means of distributing prohibited content.

None of these things are true or possible.

I believe that if people are ignorant to be using filtering at their
own end of the pipe in the mistaken belief that it gives them some
kind of protection, they should be free to do so but not obliged to do
so.

I believe that ISPs should be providing access to the whole,
unfiltered Internet. They should then have "common carrier" legal
protection as a supplier of communications conduits, not as a
publisher.

End users, of course, will be responsible for what they do online.

--
Lothario.

"I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death my right
to stop you saying it." - Charles Clarke (attributed)

guy, 07 Nov 2005 22:18:58

> Zak, you've missed the point. Cleanfeed is not a clunky filter. Its url
> specific. It filters only named urls. It is not a commercial retail product.
> It will be used by the ISPs.
>
> This Bill will not increase Cleenfeed's share price. On the contrary, if
> CleenFeed is used, this Bill will become irrelevant.
>
> The question I posed was whether it would not be better to support the
> Cleenfeed model, so that the possession offence becomes irrelevant. Then argue
> later about accountability of the Cleenfeed censorship process.
>
I will argue that if its an internet problem, then it requires an internet
solution. But I see no reason to take responsibility for suggesting or
advocating a specific or particular solution at this stage.

Academy Incorporated: turning fantasy into reality
Miss Prim's Muir Academy, Muir Academy For Maids,
The Academy Club and The Tawsingham Society:
fast friendly, helpful, discreet service, with integrity
www.academy-inc.com www.muir-academy.com guy@tawse.com
PO Box 135, Hereford, HR2 7WL, UK +44(0)1432 343100

Graham Marsden, 07 Nov 2005 22:46:01

zak, 07 Nov 2005 22:52:11

Original Message:
-----------------

pearl_maude1@hotmail.com, 07 Nov 2005 22:52:11

Zak, you've missed the point. Cleanfeed is not a clunky filter. Its url
specific. It
filters only named urls. It is not a commercial retail product. It will be
used by the
ISPs.

OK, so just how long does it take an evil peddler of filth to make up a
*new* name for
his/her fiendish URL?

This Bill will not increase Cleenfeed's share price. On the contrary, if
CleenFeed is
used, this Bill will become irrelevant.

Are there fairies at the bottom of your garden?

The question I posed was whether it would not be better to support the
Cleenfeed model, so
that the possession offence becomes irrelevant. Then argue later about
accountability of
the Cleenfeed censorship process.

Nope. Censorship is always undesirable, so meekly offering to self-censor
is not a good
campaign strategy. Far better to work on discrediting Cleanfeed and/or its
owners or at
least making people aware that there's a lot more going on here than
banning a few
pictures that only appeal to a minority audience. The old argument that "if
you don't do
anything naughty, nothing bad will happen to *you*, honest" remains bu

--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .

guy, 07 Nov 2005 23:03:24

** Reply to message from graham on Mon, 07
Nov 2005 22:48:03 +0000

> Sir Guy Masterleigh wrote:
>
> > I will argue that if its an internet problem, then it requires an internet
> > solution.
>
> Except that if people send kiddie porn through the post, is that a
> "postal problem" that requires a "postal solution"?
>
Of course it would be if there were a 'legislative gap'; but we already have
the long-standing Post Office Act that makes it a criminal offence to send
anything "indecent" (a far lower standard of obscenity than 'likely to corrupt
or deprave') via Royal Mail. So no legislation is likely to be considered
necessesary on that front.

Academy Incorporated: turning fantasy into reality
Miss Prim's Muir Academy, Muir Academy For Maids,
The Academy Club and The Tawsingham Society:
fast friendly, helpful, discreet service, with integrity
www.academy-inc.com www.muir-academy.com guy@tawse.com
PO Box 135, Hereford, HR2 7WL, UK +44(0)1432 343100

zak, 07 Nov 2005 23:05:00

Original Message:
-----------------

graham graham@affordable-leather.co.uk, 07 Nov 2005 23:05:00

Sir Guy Masterleigh wrote:

> I will argue that if its an internet problem, then it requires an internet
> solution.

Except that if people send kiddie porn through the post, is that a
"postal problem" that requires a "postal solution"?

Cheers,
Graham.

Such as all of us 'going postal'?

z

--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .

guy, 07 Nov 2005 23:24:59

** Reply to message from "zak@missdemeanour.idps.co.uk"
on Mon, 7 Nov 2005 17:51:57 -0500

> Nope. Censorship is always undesirable, so meekly offering to self-censor
> is not a good
> campaign strategy.

In opposition, oppose. Irresponsibily if necessary, because your duty is
prinicipally to challenge, test, probe. Achieve something if you can (I did)
but accept that for now you're mostly preparing.

If there is a chance that someone will cut you into responsibility, make sure
you have a plan. But do not take on the responsibility that those in power must
accept, until they share authority too.

Power goes with authority.

Accept power, accept responsibility.

Accept responsiblility without power and you're a martyr, and who needs them?

Take power without responsibility and you're a tyrant, and we need them even
less!

Any group shuts you out of power or influence, by whatever means, you have no
responsibility to play by their rules. But you do have a responsibility to
'society' as a whole.

Any moral dilemma in life can usually be resolved against those tests.

That theme has run through my professional careeer, my personal relationships,
my political careeer, my scene involvements. It is that basic.

IMHO this government wants it both ways; to exercise power without the
responsibilities that ought to go with it; and to deny a say to their critics,
whilst demanding they exercise responsibility.

Nice trick if they aree allowed to get away with it!

Academy Incorporated: turning fantasy into reality
Miss Prim's Muir Academy, Muir Academy For Maids,
The Academy Club and The Tawsingham Society:
fast friendly, helpful, discreet service, with integrity
www.academy-inc.com www.muir-academy.com guy@tawse.com
PO Box 135, Hereford, HR2 7WL, UK +44(0)1432 343100

clare, 08 Nov 2005 00:35:11

Author wrote:
> Original Message:
> -----------------

> OK, so just how long does it take an evil peddler of filth to make up a
> *new* name for
> his/her fiendish URL?

Maybe not too long. But if the Home Office are keen to go the CleenFeed route, as suggested by the 10 minute bill that started this thread, that should be supported. It should be supported because it will enable opponents of this proposal to say "you don't need a possession offence to "control" material, you have the technology to enforce the OPA by blocking material. The inability to enforce the OPA is after all, the reason for this proposal.

I don't have fairies at the bottom of my garden but I am interested in arguments that will defeat this proposal.

Crying that there should be no censorship at all will not defeat this proposal or gain broad support. No censorship may very well be your wish and mine too, but we already live with the OPA. Start a separate campaign if you want that law repealed.

If the government go the Cleenfeed route, there are plenty of interest lobbies who will join a campaign to ensure that CleenFeed censorship is properly accountable, required to give reasoned decisions and subject to the same pressures of changing social values as the OPA.

You are quite wrong to suggest that I am meekly accepting censorship. This approach, if succesful, would prevent people being criminalized and imprisoned for possession. That seems to me to be the principle objective.

No censorship is not a current option. We are already subject to the OPA and parliament will continue to support that.

Would you rather that the most extreme images were censored, leaving the middle ground available or would rather that people self-censor to avoid the risk going to jail when they surf?

--------------------------------------------------------------------
> mail2web - Check your email from the web at
> http://mail2web.com/ .

*** This message has been edited by clare on 08 Nov 2005 01:03:36 ***

clare, 08 Nov 2005 00:59:33

Maybe it doen't work in a way that's useful for the government. That would be useful for people who want to see stuff that the process fails to effectively block.

The IWF seem to be impressed by it, and Margaret Moran MP too.

If they are promoting something that they believe will achieve the result they want, it makes the need for a possession offence obsolete, and infinitely harder to justify.

Surely its better that they use an ineffective means of control, than criminal justice.

ISP's already have common carrier legal protection. That protection has been modified by the obligation to take down material notified by the IWF. At present that includes any obscene material hosted in the UK. The internet is already filtered.

As Guy says, an internet problem should have an internet solution. A filter, then a counter technology to evade it, another block and so on.

Holding a belief in absolute freedom from internet control will not defeat this proposal or the self-censorship that will result from fear.

An argument about the accountability of the censoring body and the scope of its activities will attract much greater public attention and interest than this proposal on extreme pornography. Especially if it is also responsible for censoring alleged indirect incitements to Terrorism.

clare

Author wrote:
> All filters are clunky. None of them work in any way that is useful.
> The efficacy of this "solution" assumes:
> 1. You've got a list of all the bad URLs.
> 2. The list doesn't include any innocuous URLs.
> 3. You have the means to keep the list up to date with 100% accuracy, forever.
> 4. There are no other means of distributing prohibited content.
> None of these things are true or possible.
> I believe that if people are ignorant to be using filtering at their
> own end of the pipe in the mistaken belief that it gives them some
> kind of protection, they should be free to do so but not obliged to do
> so.
> I believe that ISPs should be providing access to the whole,
> unfiltered Internet. They should then have "common carrier" legal
> protection as a supplier of communications conduits, not as a
> publisher.
> End users, of course, will be responsible for what they do online.
> --
> Lothario.
> "I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death my right
> to stop you saying it." - Charles Clarke (attributed)

AV8R, 08 Nov 2005 01:39:52

I think Clare has a very valid point here.

whilst I abhor the idea of the govt blocking sites, if they seem inclined to do so anyway, and if this could somehow be used to remove the threat of criminal penalties for possesion, then it is a position worth considering.

Av8r

Graham Marsden, 08 Nov 2005 02:26:03

pearl_maude1@hotmail.com wrote:

>>OK, so just how long does it take an evil peddler of filth to make up a
>>*new* name for his/her fiendish URL?
>
> Maybe not too long. But if the Home Office are keen to go the CleenFeed
> route, as suggested by the 10 minute bill that started this thread, that
> should be supported. It should be supported because it will enable
> opponents of this proposal to say "you don't need a possession
> offence to "control" material, you have the technology to enforce the
> OPA by blocking material. The inability to enforce the OPA is after
> all, the reason for this proposal.

I'm sorry, but that is most certainly *not* an argument for supporting
the Cleenfeed proposal because it will not succeed in blocking child
porn or any other such material, but it will just give credibility and
legitimacy to the idea that ISPs should be responsible for the content
that passes through them.

This will let the proposers of the Extreme Pornography legislation the
ability to say that the Cleenfeed system should then be extended to
*their* list of "abhorrent" material and give them the power to impose
even *more* censorship.

> I am interested in arguments that will defeat this proposal.

And so am I, but not if, by defeating it, we give them the opportuntity
to enforce an even more indiscriminate and arbitrary regime!

> Would you rather that the most extreme images were blocked,
> leaving the middle ground available or would rather that
> people risk going to jail when they surf?

I'm sorry, but I think you are being extremely naiive if you think that
this "middle ground" you are talking about is actually going to be
anywhere near the "middle"!

I have little doubt that the Cleenfeed system would be targetted at
anything that is in breach of the OPA and the BBFC R-18 classification
ie banning anything that shows gags, marks from canes, piercings or,
indeed, anything but the most mild material.

As has already been discussed we cannot afford to give ground in the
hope that if we say "ok, you can ban *that* stuff if you'll leave us
*this* stuff" because if we give them an inch they will take a mile.

Cheers,
Graham.

Graham Marsden, 08 Nov 2005 02:40:37

pearl_maude1@hotmail.com wrote:

> The IWF seem to be impressed by it, and Margaret Moran MP too.

Of course the IWF are impressed by it, because it will give them a never
ending opportunity to add more and more sites to the "banned" list!

And Margaret Moran hasn't got the slightest clue about what she's
talking about, read the margin notes left by someone who does:

> If they are promoting something that they believe will achieve the
> result they want, it makes the need for a possession offence
> obsolete, and infinitely harder to justify.

No, it just means that they will want *BOTH* because it will let them
criminalise people who *already* have this stuff as well!

> Surely its better that they use an ineffective means of control,
> than criminal justice.

No, because their "ineffective means of control" will end up casting its
net *much* wider than its initial remit "just to be on the safe side"
and impacting sites that it should not even go near.

> ISP's already have common carrier legal protection.

No they do not. If they did, it would not have been possible for Demon
Internet to be sued and it would have stopped the decision to withdraw
the defence of innocent dissemination from Internet Service Providers.

http://www.netfreedom.org/news.asp?item=70

Unfortunately this has now set a precedent that "all ISPs in England and
Wales are prima facie liable for any defamatory material that they know
they are carrying, irrespective of where it originated." and, as you say...

> That protection has been modified...

Read "seriously weakened"

> ... by the obligation to take down material notified by the IWF. At
> present that includes any obscene material hosted in the UK. The
> internet is already filtered.

And this is a *mistake*. We cannot weaken our position whereby further
mistakes and thus greater control and censorship are imposed because it
will *not* benefit us in any way.

> As Guy says, an internet problem should have an internet solution. A
> filter, then a counter technology to evade it, another block and so on.

Thus putting people in the position of, if they want to access certain
types of material, effectively trying to evade the law.

I don't want to have evade the law to look at something that someone
else doesn't like, I want to tell them to get stuffed because it is
*NOT* their decision!

> Holding a belief in absolute freedom from internet control will not
> defeat this proposal or the self-censorship that will result from fear

Giving in to a ludicrous proposal that will not block the real criminals
(ie the purveyors of child porn) will also not defeat this proposal and
will only make matters worse.

And, if you look at the situation across the Atlantic where many adult
sites are now pulling content or closing down entirely (eg insex)
because of a desire by The Powers That Be to go against their own
Constitution and effectively harass these sites out of business, you
will see that if we let proposals like this or the Cleenfeed ones get
passed, the situation here can only go down hill.

> An argument about the accountability of the censoring body and the
> scope of its activities will attract much greater public attention
> and interest than this proposal on extreme pornography.

By which time it will be *TOO LATE*!

Cheers,
Graham.

Graham Marsden, 08 Nov 2005 02:45:28

av8r0344@hotmail.com wrote:

> I think Clare has a very valid point here.

I don't. See my other posts.

> whilst I abhor the idea of the govt blocking sites, if they seem
> inclined to do so anyway, and if this could somehow be used to
> remove the threat of criminal penalties for possesion, then it
> is a position worth considering.

We have already discussed at length (and I think it's fair to say that
the vast majority on here have dismissed) the idea of thinking that if
we give in a little way, somehow we'll get a bit of what we want protected.

I will lay very good money that it won't happen. All we'll get is *more*
censorship *and* criminalisation of possession to boot and we'll be even
worse off than if just the current consultation proposals go through!

Cheers,
Graham.

Paul C. Dickie, 08 Nov 2005 04:57:17

In message <436FD9A3.2010000@affordable-leather.co.uk>, graham

wrote:
>Sir Guy Masterleigh wrote:
>
>> I will argue that if its an internet problem, then it requires an internet
>> solution.
>
>Except that if people send kiddie porn through the post, is that a
>"postal problem" that requires a "postal solution"?

Certainly. I expect the plods would "go postal"...

--
< Paul >

Paul C. Dickie, 08 Nov 2005 05:22:26

In message <43701073.2080402@affordable-leather.co.uk>, graham

wrote:
>pearl_maude1@hotmail.com wrote:
>> The IWF seem to be impressed by it, and Margaret Moran MP too.
>Of course the IWF are impressed by it, because it will give them a never
>ending opportunity to add more and more sites to the "banned" list!
>And Margaret Moran hasn't got the slightest clue about what she's
>talking about, read the margin notes left by someone who does:
>
And, if one wanted another reason for believing this idiocy to be
somewhat suspect, just look at the MPs supporting it:

"Bill ordered to be brought in by Margaret Moran, Anne Snelgrove, Helen
Goodman, Kitty Ussher, Sandra Gidley, Ian Stewart, Judy Mallaber, Lynda
Waltho, Ms Sally Keeble, Mr. Paul Burstow, Sir George Young and Martin
Salter."

Yes, that's the same Sir George Young who superintended the
privatisation of the railways and helped to produce the shambles that
resulted in the Hatfield and Potters Bar fatal accidents...

>> If they are promoting something that they believe will achieve the
>> result they want, it makes the need for a possession offence
>> obsolete, and infinitely harder to justify.
>No, it just means that they will want *BOTH* because it will let them
>criminalise people who *already* have this stuff as well!

They will also want to use that system to block sites alleged to condone
or "glorify" terrorism, then whatever else they deem at the time to be
contrary to the public interest.

>> ISP's already have common carrier legal protection.
>No they do not. If they did, it would not have been possible for Demon
>Internet to be sued and it would have stopped the decision to withdraw
>the defence of innocent dissemination from Internet Service Providers.
>
>http://www.netfreedom.org/news.asp?item=70
>
>Unfortunately this has now set a precedent that "all ISPs in England and
>Wales are prima facie liable for any defamatory material that they know
>they are carrying, irrespective of where it originated."

Which they always were. If a person or persons unknown were to affix a
defamatory statement on the local parish notice-board, the parish
council would only become liable for the publication (that is, for the
continued publication) of the offending statement once they had been
told of the statement and had chosen to do nothing about it.

The article at netfreedom.org is inaccurate, anyway, as there were *2*
cases in re Godfrey v. Demon Internet; the newsgroup article in the
first case originated overseas but the newsgroup article in the second
case originated from a Demon customer who, I seem to recall, had quite a
history of posting defamatory statements.

--
< Paul >

zak, 08 Nov 2005 09:24:03

Original Message:
-----------------

pearl_maude1@hotmail.com, 08 Nov 2005 09:24:03

Manniq, 08 Nov 2005 09:49:01

Author wrote:
> pearl_maude1@hotmail.com wrote:

> No, it just means that they will want *BOTH* because it will let them
> criminalise people who *already* have this stuff as well!

> Cheers,
> Graham.

Who are the 'they' who want this thing? Maybe there are some individuals (Paul Goggins, the Scottish woman, etc.) who are dead set against porn in all its glory.

But at the end of the day, the very first thing that one needs to focus on is the same sort of calculation Tony Bliar is making this week over his Terrorism Bill. Can he win it - even by ONE vote?

At present, I think the most optimistic count gives Labour a majority of c. 80 on any Bill emerging from the consultation. Why?

Because a lot of MP's are in favour really - and many more have no reason whatsoever to oppose it.

Therefore, give them a reason to oppose.

At present, they have a stark choice: vote to ban possession and (allegedly) stop the tide of filth that is coming down the line or vote NOT to ban possession and be pilloried in the tabloid press for allowing filth into the country.

One way to change the dynamic of the debate is, as clare points out, to explain to them very carefully that, to achieve the stated aim, the police state style criminalisation of people who look at material is NOT necessarily the only solution.

You don't have to back Clean Feed to understand that introducing it into the debate is a certain way of opening up a dialogue with those MP's (20? 30?) who want to vote against 'porn' - but who would be very nervous of the measures proposed.

Win the debate against THIS proposal - THEN win any further future battles.

Regards,

M

Amelie, 08 Nov 2005 10:27:49

in the end, since BT is carrying all internet content, they should be
legally responsible if we pursue their argument. Amelie
----- Original Message -----

, 08 Nov 2005 10:27:49

To:
Sent: Tuesday, November 08, 2005 12:58 AM

> Maybe it doen't work in a way that's useful for the government. That would
> be useful for people who want to see stuff that the process fails to
> effectively block.
>
> The IWF seem to be impressed by it, and Margaret Moran MP too.
>
> If they are promoting something that they believe will achieve the result
> they want, it makes the need for a possession offence obsolete, and
> infinitely harder to justify.
>
> Surely its better that they use an ineffective means of control, than
> criminal justice.
>
> ISP's already have common carrier legal protection. That protection has
> been modified by the obligation to take down material notified by the IWF.
> At present that includes any obscene material hosted in the UK. The
> internet is already filtered.
>
> As Guy says, an internet problem should have an internet solution. A
> filter, then a counter technology to evade it, another block and so on.
>
> Holding a belief in absolute freedom from internet control will not defeat
> this proposal or the self-censorship that will result from fear.
>
> An argument about the accountability of the censoring body and the scope
> of its activities will attract much greater public attention and interest
> than this proposal on extreme pornography. Especially if it is also
> responsible for censoring alleged indirect incitements to Terrorism.
>
> clare
>
> Author wrote:
>> All filters are clunky. None of them work in any way that is useful.
>> The efficacy of this "solution" assumes:
>> 1. You've got a list of all the bad URLs.
>> 2. The list doesn't include any innocuous URLs.
>> 3. You have the means to keep the list up to date with 100% accuracy,
>> forever.
>> 4. There are no other means of distributing prohibited content.
>> None of these things are true or possible.
>> I believe that if people are ignorant to be using filtering at their
>> own end of the pipe in the mistaken belief that it gives them some
>> kind of protection, they should be free to do so but not obliged to do
>> so.
>> I believe that ISPs should be providing access to the whole,
>> unfiltered Internet. They should then have "common carrier" legal
>> protection as a supplier of communications conduits, not as a
>> publisher.
>> End users, of course, will be responsible for what they do online.
>> --
>> Lothario.
>> "I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death my right
>> to stop you saying it." - Charles Clarke (attributed)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> If you want to share pictures, use the calendar, or start a vote
> visit http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/Backlash
>
> To leave the Group, email: Backlash-unsubscribe@smartgroups.com
>
> Report abuse
> http://www.smartgroups.com/text/abusereport.cfm?gid%3D3271426&mid%3D3278
>

Amelie, 08 Nov 2005 10:27:49

in the end, since BT is carrying all internet content, they should be
legally responsible if we pursue their argument. Amelie
----- Original Message -----

, 08 Nov 2005 10:27:49

Manniq, 08 Nov 2005 10:32:07

Never give in, never surrender?

Methinks someone has watched too much Galaxy Quest!

Personally, I never give a damn about what opponents think of me, so long as I get my way at the end of the day.

I have walked away from meetings with individuals believing I have sold out every principle under the sun - but when I check my little list of what I wanted out of the meeting beforehand...somehow, I seem to have got EVERYTHING on it.

There is a definite difference between appearing to surrender.... and actually so doing.

Ask King William....who might not have ever been King, had his rather second rate cavalry just continues battering away at Harold's well-positioned elite troops on top of that hill!

Regards,

M

Author wrote:
> Original Message:
> -----------------

: pearl_maude1@hotmail.com, 08 Nov 2005 10:32:07

> Subject: RE: [backlash] Internet: Liz Longhurst backs MP
> Author wrote:
> > Original Message:
> > -----------------
> > OK, so just how long does it take an evil peddler of filth to make up a
> > *new* name for
> > his/her fiendish URL?
> Maybe not too long. But if the Home Office are keen to go the CleenFeed
> route, as
> suggested by the 10 minute bill that started this thread, that should be
> supported.
> Nope. Fuck what the Home Office want. Never begin a campaign by offering to
> give in, fight
> for the earth and you might at least get a back garden at the end of the
> day.
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> mail2web - Check your email from the web at
> http://mail2web.com/ .

Amelie, 08 Nov 2005 10:39:02

ban BT? and children? and sex? and all other media? end of all problems.....
----- Original Message -----

"Amelie" , 08 Nov 2005 10:39:02

To:
Sent: Tuesday, November 08, 2005 10:25 AM

> in the end, since BT is carrying all internet content, they should be
> legally responsible if we pursue their argument. Amelie
> ----- Original Message -----

: , 08 Nov 2005 10:39:02

> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, November 08, 2005 12:58 AM
> Subject: Re: [backlash] Internet: Liz Longhurst backs MP
>
>
>> Maybe it doen't work in a way that's useful for the government. That
>> would
>> be useful for people who want to see stuff that the process fails to
>> effectively block.
>>
>> The IWF seem to be impressed by it, and Margaret Moran MP too.
>>
>> If they are promoting something that they believe will achieve the result
>> they want, it makes the need for a possession offence obsolete, and
>> infinitely harder to justify.
>>
>> Surely its better that they use an ineffective means of control, than
>> criminal justice.
>>
>> ISP's already have common carrier legal protection. That protection has
>> been modified by the obligation to take down material notified by the
>> IWF.
>> At present that includes any obscene material hosted in the UK. The
>> internet is already filtered.
>>
>> As Guy says, an internet problem should have an internet solution. A
>> filter, then a counter technology to evade it, another block and so on.
>>
>> Holding a belief in absolute freedom from internet control will not
>> defeat
>> this proposal or the self-censorship that will result from fear.
>>
>> An argument about the accountability of the censoring body and the scope
>> of its activities will attract much greater public attention and interest
>> than this proposal on extreme pornography. Especially if it is also
>> responsible for censoring alleged indirect incitements to Terrorism.
>>
>> clare
>>
>> Author wrote:
>>> All filters are clunky. None of them work in any way that is useful.
>>> The efficacy of this "solution" assumes:
>>> 1. You've got a list of all the bad URLs.
>>> 2. The list doesn't include any innocuous URLs.
>>> 3. You have the means to keep the list up to date with 100% accuracy,
>>> forever.
>>> 4. There are no other means of distributing prohibited content.
>>> None of these things are true or possible.
>>> I believe that if people are ignorant to be using filtering at their
>>> own end of the pipe in the mistaken belief that it gives them some
>>> kind of protection, they should be free to do so but not obliged to do
>>> so.
>>> I believe that ISPs should be providing access to the whole,
>>> unfiltered Internet. They should then have "common carrier" legal
>>> protection as a supplier of communications conduits, not as a
>>> publisher.
>>> End users, of course, will be responsible for what they do online.
>>> --
>>> Lothario.
>>> "I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death my right
>>> to stop you saying it." - Charles Clarke (attributed)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> If you want to share pictures, use the calendar, or start a vote
>> visit http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/Backlash
>>
>> To leave the Group, email: Backlash-unsubscribe@smartgroups.com
>>
>> Report abuse
>> http://www.smartgroups.com/text/abusereport.cfm?gid%3D3271426&mid%3D3278
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> If you want to share pictures, use the calendar, or start a vote
> visit http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/Backlash
>
> To leave the Group, email: Backlash-unsubscribe@smartgroups.com
>
> Report abuse
> http://www.smartgroups.com/text/abusereport.cfm?gid%3D3271426&mid%3D3311
>

Chris, 08 Nov 2005 12:04:44

There are several issues here:

1 Unless I've misread it, the 10 minute bill is to require ISPs to
declare whether they use a product like Cleenfeed, not to require them to
install it. This is no different from, say, requiring pubs to put up
notices saying whether or not they allow smoking - those who wish to smoke
have a choice to go elsewhere. So it would be with ISPs; the likes of BT,
AOL and all the other big corporations would take what htey perceive as a
"moral" approach; the rest would be able to make a free speech justification
for not doing so.

2 If there was a proposal to *require* installation of Cleenfeed, that
should be opposed with every breath in our bodies since it represents yet
another step towards control of the internet by commercial interests and
would undoubtedly lead rapidly to an internet experience akin to watching
cBBC.

3 The OPA may be a fact, but it sort of adapts to changing times and
attitudes; there is nothing to be gained by debating it now, or by endorsing
any move (like supporting obligatory implementation of Cleenfeed) that would
effectively give it an impact beyond our borders.

4 There is no middle ground. You can have a bit of freedom of expression
any more than a person can be slightly pregnant. There is only winning or
losing. If we try to take the middle ground now, then the final result will
be a position we didn't want at the outset. There is no advantage in giving
up all of your ground at the start of the argument.

----Original Message Follows----

graham , 08 Nov 2005 12:04:44

pearl_maude1@hotmail.com wrote:

>The IWF seem to be impressed by it, and Margaret Moran MP too.

Of course the IWF are impressed by it, because it will give them a never
ending opportunity to add more and more sites to the "banned" list!

And Margaret Moran hasn't got the slightest clue about what she's
talking about, read the margin notes left by someone who does:

>If they are promoting something that they believe will achieve the
> result they want, it makes the need for a possession offence
> obsolete, and infinitely harder to justify.

No, it just means that they will want *BOTH* because it will let them
criminalise people who *already* have this stuff as well!

>Surely its better that they use an ineffective means of control,
> than criminal justice.

No, because their "ineffective means of control" will end up casting its
net *much* wider than its initial remit "just to be on the safe side"
and impacting sites that it should not even go near.

>ISP's already have common carrier legal protection.

No they do not. If they did, it would not have been possible for Demon
Internet to be sued and it would have stopped the decision to withdraw
the defence of innocent dissemination from Internet Service Providers.

http://www.netfreedom.org/news.asp?item=70

Unfortunately this has now set a precedent that "all ISPs in England and
Wales are prima facie liable for any defamatory material that they know
they are carrying, irrespective of where it originated." and, as you say...

>That protection has been modified...

Read "seriously weakened"

>... by the obligation to take down material notified by the IWF. At
> present that includes any obscene material hosted in the UK. The
> internet is already filtered.

And this is a *mistake*. We cannot weaken our position whereby further
mistakes and thus greater control and censorship are imposed because it
will *not* benefit us in any way.

>As Guy says, an internet problem should have an internet solution. A
>filter, then a counter technology to evade it, another block and so on.

Thus putting people in the position of, if they want to access certain
types of material, effectively trying to evade the law.

I don't want to have evade the law to look at something that someone
else doesn't like, I want to tell them to get stuffed because it is
*NOT* their decision!

>Holding a belief in absolute freedom from internet control will not
> defeat this proposal or the self-censorship that will result from fear

Giving in to a ludicrous proposal that will not block the real criminals
(ie the purveyors of child porn) will also not defeat this proposal and
will only make matters worse.

And, if you look at the situation across the Atlantic where many adult
sites are now pulling content or closing down entirely (eg insex)
because of a desire by The Powers That Be to go against their own
Constitution and effectively harass these sites out of business, you
will see that if we let proposals like this or the Cleenfeed ones get
passed, the situation here can only go down hill.

>An argument about the accountability of the censoring body and the
> scope of its activities will attract much greater public attention
> and interest than this proposal on extreme pornography.

By which time it will be *TOO LATE*!

Cheers,
Graham.

--
If you want to share pictures, use the calendar, or start a vote
visit http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/Backlash

To leave the Group, email: Backlash-unsubscribe@smartgroups.com

Report abuse
http://www.smartgroups.com/text/abusereport.cfm?gid%3D3271426&mid%3D3284

SnowdropExplodes, 08 Nov 2005 15:56:24

--- graham wrote:

>
>
> av8r0344@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > I think Clare has a very valid point here.
>
> I don't. See my other posts.
>
> > whilst I abhor the idea of the govt blocking
> sites, if they seem
> > inclined to do so anyway, and if this could
> somehow be used to
> > remove the threat of criminal penalties for
> possesion, then it
> > is a position worth considering.
>
> We have already discussed at length (and I think
> it's fair to say that
> the vast majority on here have dismissed) the idea
> of thinking that if
> we give in a little way, somehow we'll get a bit of
> what we want protected.
>
> I will lay very good money that it won't happen. All
> we'll get is *more*
> censorship *and* criminalisation of possession to
> boot and we'll be even
> worse off than if just the current consultation
> proposals go through!

This is my reading of the situation as well.

We've been busy discussing why the CleenFeed system
has plenty of loopholes, and is stands to reason that
the legislators will see that, not as a reason not to
use CleenFeed, but rather, as a reason to use both
CleenFeed *and* a new law criminalising simple
possession. And they will see that "Look, they are
still evading the CleenFeed, so we still need to stomp
on them once they've got the icky stuff".

That's one angle.

The other angle is that a simple possession offence
gives them the right not merely to bash us for getting
more (which is what CleenFeed would prevent us doing)
but also to bash us for having it already.

And, call me a cynic, but I think they want to be able
to do that anyway, and so supporting CleenFeed would
not help us in any way at all.

If we supported CleenFeed, we would find we got both
the new law and the CleenFeed control.

Ta,
SnowdropExplodes

___________________________________________________________
Yahoo! Messenger - NEW crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with voicemail http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com

Graham Marsden, 08 Nov 2005 16:19:33

manniq@hotmail.com wrote:

>>No, it just means that they will want *BOTH* because it will let them
>>criminalise people who *already* have this stuff as well!
>
> Who are the 'they' who want this thing? Maybe there are some
> individuals (Paul Goggins, the Scottish woman, etc.) who are dead set
> against porn in all its glory.

Yes and all the others who have put their names to Moran's bill as well.

> a lot of MP's are in favour really - and many more have no
> reason whatsoever to oppose it.
>
> Therefore, give them a reason to oppose.

Yes, that's fair enough.

> One way to change the dynamic of the debate is, as clare points out, to
> explain to them very carefully that, to achieve the stated aim, the
> police state style criminalisation of people who look at material is
> NOT necessarily the only solution.

I agree, but I don't think your suggested tactics are the right ones...

> You don't have to back Clean Feed to understand that introducing it
> into the debate is a certain way of opening up a dialogue with those
> MP's (20? 30?) who want to vote against 'porn' - but who would be
> very nervous of the measures proposed.
>
> Win the debate against THIS proposal - THEN win any further future
> battles.

Except, to cut and paste from another of your messages:

> There is a definite difference between appearing to surrender....
> and actually so doing.
>
> Ask King William....who might not have ever been King, had his
> rather second rate cavalry just continues battering away at
> Harold's well-positioned elite troops on top of that hill!

Err, but the point is that *we* are the beleagured defenders (ie Harold
Godwinson's troops) who are standing up on that hill, trying to hold our
position.

If we start chasing after different targets attempting short term
victories we lose our cohesiveness and allow our enemies to "divide and
conquer" us, as we lose a bit here, a bit there until we have nothing left!

Cheers,
Graham.

zak, 09 Nov 2005 16:49:18

Original Message:
-----------------

pearl_maude1@hotmail.com, 09 Nov 2005 16:49:18

clare, 09 Nov 2005 16:59:30

> But you're not going to 'persuade' anti-porn campaigners of anything that
> might make them
> have to take their heads out of their arses and accept that not everyone
> has the same sort
> of fucked-up, supertitious, stupid attitude towards sexuality that they
> have. people
> who hate porn will carry on sticking their fingers in their ears and going
> "ner ner ner
> can't hear you."

But that is, apparantly, exactly what Lothario and Paul C Dickie believe they can achieve.

And exactly why I was proposing taking the debate to a place where it is not just about porn, but about all the other restrictions on net censorship that the government would like to see, but which many groups will oppose.

zak, 09 Nov 2005 17:23:08

Original Message:
-----------------

pearl_maude1@hotmail.com, 09 Nov 2005 17:23:08

> But you're not going to 'persuade' anti-porn campaigners of anything that
> might make them
> have to take their heads out of their arses and accept that not everyone
> has the same sort
> of fucked-up, supertitious, stupid attitude towards sexuality that they
> have. people
> who hate porn will carry on sticking their fingers in their ears and going
> "ner ner ner
> can't hear you."

But that is, apparantly, exactly what Lothario and Paul C Dickie believe
they can achieve.

And exactly why I was proposing taking the debate to a place where it is
not just about
porn, but about all the other restrictions on net censorship that the
government would
like to see, but which many groups will oppose.

You are so apocalyptically fucking clueless I wonder how you manage to pull
your pants up
before leaving the house.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .

Lothario, 09 Nov 2005 17:31:19

On 11/9/05, pearl_maude1@hotmail.com wrote:

>
> But that is, apparantly, exactly what Lothario and Paul C Dickie believe they can achieve.
>
> And exactly why I was proposing taking the debate to a place where it is not just about porn, but about all the other restrictions on net censorship that the government would like to see, but which many groups will oppose.

I don't believe that and I hope I haven't given anyone that impression.

Some people are just not open to persuasion on this issue. Does anyone
expect that a well-argued response to the consultation that opposes
the whole thing in principle is going to make the government change
its mind? Of course not.

Is there any point arguing the toss with the Longhurst people? None
whatsoever. No more so than there would be any point them trying to
persuade us.

I'm all in favour of having the wider debate about censorship, control
of the internet and the points where they intersect. I hope it's clear
that I've tried very hard to put the current proposal in what I
believe is its broader context.

But we will only persuade the swing voters. We will be able to
convince some of those that are indifferent to take an interest and to
take our side. We can contribute to a debate in which those that are
undecided come round to our point of view. We can skilfully point out
to people that already subscribe to principles of freedom and free
speech that this is also an issue that they should be concerned about.
And we will do all of those things by establishing the principles
which we believe in, not by horse-trading over the details of
implementation.

I don't see why we should waste a single moment trying to convert our
ideological opponents directly. If we say clearly what we mean, one
day they might open their eyes. But the problem they have isn't that
we don't use the kind of language that they understand, but that they
hate us for what we do. No amount of diplomacy is going to evade that
reality.

--
Lothario.

"I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death my right
to stop you saying it." - Charles Clarke (attributed)

ŤNo Name Setť, 09 Nov 2005 18:45:22

AIUI - and please tell me if I'm wrong - they could be used to
block access to known scam or "phishing", and similar *real*
internet crime sites.

Thus could be a useful took in doing something - attacking the
real internet crime and real criminals - that we might want to
argue should be the real priorities.

So any idea of making ISPs disclose whether they have it
installed, or even compeeling them to have it installed, is a
total red herring. Of course, they are all going to want to have
something of that ilk installed, so they can block the known
fraudster sites.

The real question is not whether they have it and use it, but
how they populate its database.

--
Rosemary

Paul C. Dickie, 09 Nov 2005 21:52:24

In message <380-220051139171749925@M2W037.mail2web.com>,
zak@missdemeanour.idps.co.uk wrote:

pearl_maude1@hotmail.com, 09 Nov 2005 21:52:24

>Subject: Re: [backlash] Internet: Liz Longhurst backs MP
>>> But you're not going to 'persuade' anti-porn campaigners of
>>>anything that might make them have to take their heads out of their
>>>arses and accept that not everyone has the same sort of fucked-up,
>>>superstitious, stupid attitude towards sexuality that they have.
>>>people who hate porn will carry on sticking their fingers in their
>>>ears and going "ner ner ner can't hear you."
>>
>>But that is, apparantly, exactly what Lothario and Paul C Dickie
>>believe they can achieve.
>>
>>And exactly why I was proposing taking the debate to a place
>>where it is not just about porn, but about all the other
>>restrictions on net censorship that the government would
>>like to see, but which many groups will oppose.
>
>You are so apocalyptically fucking clueless I wonder how you manage
>to pull your pants up before leaving the house.

:-) But has the existence of her pants been *proved*? ;-)

Moreover, do you suppose she is clueless because:

1) she seemed to support censorship, or
2) she changed her claims more than once, or
3) she seems to think that folk haven't noticed how her claims have
changed?

--
< Paul >

AV8R, 09 Nov 2005 21:56:38

> >You are so apocalyptically fucking clueless I wonder how you manage
> >to pull your pants up before leaving the house.
> :-) But has the existence of her pants been *proved*? ;-)
> Moreover, do you suppose she is clueless because:
> 1) she seemed to support censorship, or
> 2) she changed her claims more than once, or
> 3) she seems to think that folk haven't noticed how her claims have
> changed?
> --
> < Paul >

I'm sure this constant bickering is turning a lot of people off these boards and the cause.

Whilst I havent really been following that closely, I am fully aware that peoples positions can and do change to evolve to an ever changing political reality.

Idealists with positions set in stone rarely succeed.

adrian, 09 Nov 2005 22:28:46

>I'm sure this constant bickering is turning a lot of people off these
boards and the cause.

>Whilst I havent really been following that closely, I am fully aware
that peoples positions can and do change to evolve to an ever changing
political reality.

>Idealists with positions set in stone rarely succeed.

All true, and I certainly don't intend to bicker.

I do tend to agree with the principle that if this is wrong we should
fight it. This is not the time to be making concessions, and I don't
think we should make that sort of concession at any time in this
current battle.

That's because like Lothario (I think it was), I believe this is just
part of a bigger war. In some ways it might be to our advantage if we
lost this, as it might be the start of a larger movement that would
only benefit from the absurdity of this really bad and stupid thing
becoming law. I'm not hoping we lose it, but we need to look beyond
this one campaign whatever its outcome.

Graham Marsden, 09 Nov 2005 23:57:23

Rosemary wrote:

> Cleenfeed and things of that ilk:
>
> AIUI - and please tell me if I'm wrong - they could be used to
> block access to known scam or "phishing", and similar *real*
> internet crime sites.

Unfortunately, as with the other arguments against it, it would not
succeed in doing this and would most probably end up blocking perfectly
innocent sites.

The best way to deal with phishing frauds etc is to use a system like
http://www.spamcop.net to report them to their ISPs who (in the main)
don't want them on their servers any more than anyone else.

Cheers,
Graham.

Paul C. Dickie, 10 Nov 2005 02:26:13

In message <7514492.1131573386265.JavaMail.root@thallium.smartgroups.com
>, av8r0344@hotmail.com wrote:
>> >You are so apocalyptically fucking clueless I wonder how you manage
>> >to pull your pants up before leaving the house.
>> :-) But has the existence of her pants been *proved*? ;-)
>> Moreover, do you suppose she is clueless because:
>> 1) she seemed to support censorship, or
>> 2) she changed her claims more than once, or
>> 3) she seems to think that folk haven't noticed how her claims have
>> changed?
>
>I'm sure this constant bickering is turning a lot of people off these boards and
>the cause.
>
>Whilst I havent really been following that closely, I am fully aware that
>peoples positions can and do change to evolve to an ever changing political
>reality.

Her (supine?) "position" hasn't changed, but her 'reasons' why we all
should do likewise have altered day by day even though she claims they
haven't. First of all, it was to be a panacea for everyone, then it was
claimed to be the lesser of two evils, then it was supposed to be a
stop-gap solution for a problem most of us do not believe exists, then
it was supposed to open up public debate...

--
< Paul >

Amelie, 10 Nov 2005 11:55:09

Whilst I accept that she is probably an effective activist in her own way,
Zak's private agenda, the demand that others be more tolerant of offence, is
actually getting in the way of the kind of mature negotiation and
interpersonal tolerance that gets things done. I am sorry to see good
people leave backlash because they do not agree with and are not
comfortable with this aggressive and confrontational stance which they see
as an obstacle to our credibility as a mature and responsible pressure
group. Amelie

----- Original Message -----

"Paul C. Dickie" , 10 Nov 2005 11:55:09

To:
Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2005 2:24 AM

> In message <7514492.1131573386265.JavaMail.root@thallium.smartgroups.com
>>, av8r0344@hotmail.com wrote:
>>> >You are so apocalyptically fucking clueless I wonder how you manage
>>> >to pull your pants up before leaving the house.
>>> :-) But has the existence of her pants been *proved*? ;-)
>>> Moreover, do you suppose she is clueless because:
>>> 1) she seemed to support censorship, or
>>> 2) she changed her claims more than once, or
>>> 3) she seems to think that folk haven't noticed how her claims have
>>> changed?
>>
>>I'm sure this constant bickering is turning a lot of people off these
>>boards and
>>the cause.
>>
>>Whilst I havent really been following that closely, I am fully aware that
>>peoples positions can and do change to evolve to an ever changing
>>political
>>reality.
>
> Her (supine?) "position" hasn't changed, but her 'reasons' why we all
> should do likewise have altered day by day even though she claims they
> haven't. First of all, it was to be a panacea for everyone, then it was
> claimed to be the lesser of two evils, then it was supposed to be a
> stop-gap solution for a problem most of us do not believe exists, then
> it was supposed to open up public debate...
>
> --
> < Paul >
>
>
>
>
> --
> If you want to share pictures, use the calendar, or start a vote
> visit http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/Backlash
>
> To leave the Group, email: Backlash-unsubscribe@smartgroups.com
>
> Report abuse
> http://www.smartgroups.com/text/abusereport.cfm?gid%3D3271426&mid%3D3495
>

ŤNo Name Setť, 10 Nov 2005 19:32:18

edible stuff here....

av8r0344@hotmail.com writes:
I'm sure this constant bickering is turning a lot of people off these boards and the cause.

Yes.

What's more, I can no longer suggest any interested potential
allies go and take a look at Backlash on the web, because if
they see this type of exchange, they'll run.

What/where can they be pointed at? = other than the HOme Office
site, to try to find the consultation document??

--
Rosemary

adrian, 10 Nov 2005 22:12:37

To the Backlash website which is not the same as the smartgroup, and
which is the link on the flyers and other publicity, or should be.

It could do with cleaning up at the moment, plus the finding aid to
resources, but content-wise it is OK.

On 10/11/05, Rosemary wrote:
> What/where can they be pointed at? = other than the HOme Office
> site, to try to find the consultation document??

ŤNo Name Setť, 11 Nov 2005 18:15:05

stuff here

...
...

...

graham writes:
Rosemary wrote:
> Cleenfeed and things of that ilk:
>
> AIUI - and please tell me if I'm wrong - they could be used to
> block access to known scam or "phishing", and similar *real*
> internet crime sites.

Unfortunately, as with the other arguments against it, it would not
succeed in doing this and would most probably end up blocking perfectly
innocent sites.

Well, clearly, as it works on a database of known culprit URLs
to be blocked, it will only block the *known* ones. But how
does it block the innocent ones?

graham again:
The best way to deal with phishing frauds etc is to use a system like
http://www.spamcop.net to report them to their ISPs who (in the main)
don't want them on their servers any more than anyone else.

I take your word for it. One side-effect of 80-90% of the web
being inaccessible is that so are most of the fraudsters!

--
Rosemary

Paul C. Dickie, 11 Nov 2005 18:52:13

In message <47842@umbilical.demon.co.uk>, Rosemary emon.co.uk> wrote:
>graham writes:
> Rosemary wrote:
> > Cleenfeed and things of that ilk:
> >
> > AIUI - and please tell me if I'm wrong - they could be used to
> > block access to known scam or "phishing", and similar *real*
> > internet crime sites.
>
> Unfortunately, as with the other arguments against it, it would not
> succeed in doing this and would most probably end up blocking perfectly
> innocent sites.
>Well, clearly, as it works on a database of known culprit URLs
>to be blocked, it will only block the *known* ones. But how
>does it block the innocent ones?

It depends on whether it blocks just specific sites or a netblock of IP
addresses; if it does the latter -- or blocks access to an entire
hosting company -- then wholly innocent sites will also suffer as a
result.

--
< Paul >

Graham Marsden, 11 Nov 2005 20:08:25

Rosemary wrote:

[Re: Cleenfeed and things of that ilk]

> Unfortunately, as with the other arguments against it, it would not
> succeed in doing this and would most probably end up blocking perfectly
> innocent sites.
>
> Well, clearly, as it works on a database of known culprit URLs
> to be blocked, it will only block the *known* ones. But how
> does it block the innocent ones?

First of all that database has to be *correct*!

There have been more than a few cases of porn sites using mis-spellings
of genuine URLs to get people to come to their sites, now imagine that
someone tries to block one of those sites but accidentally uses the
*correct* spelling!

Secondly where does the block come in? If someone starts a site that is
based on hostingservice/toplevel/site, clearly you can't block it at
"hostingservice" or "toplevel" because that would affect every other
site below that level, but then the crafty culprits move their site
tohostingservice/toplevel/site2 and so on. So either you keep chasing
the new name or someone might think "well, the hostingservice domain
doesn't want to do anything about it, let's block everything from them
to teach them a lesson!"

And then what do you do about "borderline" cases? Who is going to make
the decision about which sites are acceptable and which aren't? Is there
going to be a defined list that if it shows activities A or B or C then
it is blocked, but anything else is ok?

What if the site only has *one* image of A or B or C? Will the whole
site be blocked because of *one* image?

That's just a few examples of how such a system might fail and, of
course, it still doesn't deal with stuff being spread through IRC, or
p2p or MSN or usenet...!

Cheers,
Graham.

ŤNo Name Setť, 12 Nov 2005 16:40:15

Ahhhhh...

oh.... ermmm..

I'd been thinking the discussion group was got to through the
web site. Isn't that right? Or the web vrsion thereof, that is.

In message <56dbeda20511101407s647a6d1am@mail.gmail.com> Adrian writes:
To the Backlash website which is not the same as the smartgroup, and
which is the link on the flyers and other publicity, or should be.

It could do with cleaning up at the moment, plus the finding aid to
resources, but content-wise it is OK.

On 10/11/05, Rosemary wrote:
> What/where can they be pointed at? = other than the HOme Office
> site, to try to find the consultation document??

--
Rosemary