Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

W3C.org Briefly Censored In Finland

timothy posted more than 5 years ago | from the well-they-do-inspire-impure-thoughts dept.

Censorship 115

k33l0r writes "The web site of W3C, w3.org or w3c.org, was briefly censored (Google Translation) by at least some of the local ISPs. For an unknown reason the URL was mistakenly entered into the Federal Police's censor database. Some of the Finnish ISPs use the database to filter out questionable content such as child pornography." Finnish online activist Matti Nikki describes some of the problems with this database-based censorship.

cancel ×

115 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

penis! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25180799)

now that's what i'm talking 'bout...

Re:penis! (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25180831)

You ruined my chance at a frosty piss for this fucking shit! This guy (parent) is a cuntdot fag!! Normally I only troll on idle, but you Ms. AC decided to talk about your boytoy's penis. You should be posting spam links to woot.com under the text w00t, but no. You have to talk about somebody's damned dick!

IT'S OK. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25181697)

your' (grammar knottsees know what eye ham tryink to shay) the dick that shemale was talking about. We see the resemblance. Now, troll my pretties: troll! *hehakracackackackakchaaah*

Re:penis! (2, Funny)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 5 years ago | (#25180919)

Not in Finland you're not.

That's no biggie... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25180805)

In Redmond, Washington w3.org has been blacklisted for the developers of Internet Explorer for years!

Re:That's no biggie... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25181003)

They don't like the competition for making baby Jesus cry.

Human translation (5, Informative)

plj (673710) | more than 5 years ago | (#25181479)

Sorry for the bad quality, it is 5 AM in Finland, and I'm very tired. But I bet I can still beat Google's translation service.

W3C's site on Finnish censorship list

(Updated on 27/9/08 at 19:31: DNA wasn't the only operator affected by the censorship.)

Customers of telecom operator DNA were unable to access the web server of World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), an organisation developing web standards, on Friday evening and early Saturday, because the address of the site had erroneously became included on the censorship list of National Bureau of Investigation.

Many readers of Tietokone magazine informed us late Friday evening and early Saturday that a police information page was opened instead of www.w3.org. The information page says that the target page includes child pornography. The problem was fixed on early Saturday, and currently DNA's customers should be able to access W3C's site normally.

Different operators use the same filtering list provided by the NBI, but different operators may fetch the updated list at different times.

Internet activist Matti Nikki also describes of these observations on his lapsiporno.info -site (lapsiporno == child pornography), which still cannot be accessed by those operators' connections that use the filtering list. (Translator's note: using the list is not mandatory for operators.)

Operators have kept filtering webpages by domain, even though this is not the first time the practice has caused ambiguousness in censorship.

NBI and operators assured last spring, that ambiguous domain-based filtering can be replaced by URL-based filtering, but implementation of this change has been delayed. Many operators have also announced that they will make the filtering voluntary to their customers due to technical problems and negative publicity.

Censorship list in the hands of the NBI

Internet operators gave an estimate for Tietokone magazine last spring, that implementing a precise URL-based filtering system will cost millions of euros. Present domain-based filtering methods are based on domain name redirects or so-called mandatory proxies, i.e. transparent proxies.

Public relationship officer of DNA, Sinikka Veneranta, says that the police removes and adds addresses to the list as they see best, and the operator does no processing for the addresses on the list by itself.

But there are still differences in the time how quickly the addresses on the list will end up in systems of different operators. W3C's address is known to have been end up also to the systems of Mikkeli Telecom Co-operative (MPY).

Grammar Nazi nitpicking (0, Offtopic)

Phroggy (441) | more than 5 years ago | (#25182471)

Thanks for translating for us. :-) A few grammatical notes for your reference:

because the address of the site had erroneously became included

The correct conjugation is "had become". I blame lack of sleep.

NBI and operators assured last spring, that...

The verb "assure" is never used without an object. You need to either provide an object (whom did they assure?) or use a different verb. Also, this comma should be omitted.

Many operators have also announced that they will make the filtering voluntary to their customers due to technical problems and negative publicity.

Did they announce this to their customers, or will they make filtering voluntary to their customers? If the former, you need to rearrange as "Many operators have also announced to their customers that they will..." If the latter, "to" is the wrong word here. I'm not sure the best thing to replace it with.

Internet operators gave an estimate for Tietokone magazine last spring, that implementing...

This comma needs to be removed as well, for the same reason. Also, this is somewhat awkward sentence structure.

Public relationship officer of DNA

This should be "DNA's public relations officer".

But there are still differences in the time how quickly the addresses on the list will end up in systems of different operators. W3C's address is known to have been end up also to the systems of Mikkeli Telecom Co-operative (MPY).

I suspect you got extra tired here. I'm pretty tired too though.

Re:Grammar Nazi nitpicking (0, Troll)

Yetihehe (971185) | more than 5 years ago | (#25182891)

Are you probably from grammar salvation army?

Re:Grammar Nazi nitpicking (0, Troll)

electrictroy (912290) | more than 5 years ago | (#25183225)

>>>URL was mistakenly entered into the Federal Police's censor database.

Someday a new president will rise-up in Finland, and this new president will start adding W3C.org, constitution.org, freespeech.com, and other legitimate websites. And it won't be a mistake.

Government should NEVER be allowed to censor anything, because some future leader might abuse the censorship to limit liberty.

Re:Grammar Nazi nitpicking (1)

barometz (1307743) | more than 5 years ago | (#25183289)

Governments should NEVER be allowed to limit freedom X, because some future leader might abuse this ability to limit it in a way that isn't cool. Effectively you're saying that a government should have their hands tied to their back or not exist. Not that I'm explicitly opposed to anarchism in some of its implementations, but I wonder whether you're aware of what you're saying.

Re:Grammar Nazi nitpicking (1)

electrictroy (912290) | more than 5 years ago | (#25186967)

I'm saying I believe in the First Amendment (free speech and free access to that speech). NOTHING on the internet gets censored. Ever. If you don't like what you see on some Webpage (like playboy.com), add it to your personal block list, so you never have to see it again.

The government should not censor my & everybody else's access to it.

Re:Grammar Nazi nitpicking (1)

barometz (1307743) | more than 5 years ago | (#25188107)

Yes, and while I tend to agree with your point your reasoning was painfully flawed, effectively being "the government could possibly some day abuse this so it shouldn't exist".

Re:Grammar Nazi nitpicking (2, Interesting)

plj (673710) | more than 5 years ago | (#25183025)

Thank you for your corrections. Some of the mistakes, like the extra commas, I noticed right away after posting (It's funny how you can never spot something in preview you spot right after posting). Some of them are clearly due to my tiredness, and my hastiness (I didn't really spend any time checking grammar to get the post out faster). Some are probably genuine mistakes.

Many operators have also announced that they will make the filtering voluntary to their customers due to technical problems and negative publicity.

Did they announce this to their customers, or will they make filtering voluntary to their customers? If the former, you need to rearrange as "Many operators have also announced to their customers that they will..." If the latter, "to" is the wrong word here. I'm not sure the best thing to replace it with.

The latter is the right meaning, and the correct preposition is "for". Sorry for the ambiguousness.

But there are still differences in the time how quickly the addresses on the list will end up in systems of different operators. W3C's address is known to have been end up also to the systems of Mikkeli Telecom Co-operative (MPY).

I suspect you got extra tired here.

Indeed; at that point I just wished to finish the thing quickly.

Re:Grammar Nazi nitpicking (3, Insightful)

Hognoxious (631665) | more than 5 years ago | (#25183879)

I could certainly write better English than the person you're replying to. On the other hand it wouldn't bear much relation to the original, since I don't understand Finnish. Cut the guy some slack already.

Re:That's no biggie... (2, Insightful)

Z00L00K (682162) | more than 5 years ago | (#25182409)

Now - this actually presents us with the reality that the filtering that occurs on the web is flawed.

If they only could filter junk like spam emails and annoying commercials the filtering would be better.

It's also worth to realize that "illegal" content is available in so many places that it's like filtering water with a colander. ("illegal" because not everything filtered is illegal - or only illegal in one country but not another).

Another impact this has is that whole domains/sites can be filtered out just because there is one single section that may have questionable content or that the site has been hacked.

Re:That's no biggie... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25186027)

It's the JEWS, stupid...
The JEWS are censoring the internet, or trying to, in case anybody watches 'One third of the holocaust' and finds out about the whole Jewish house of cards...

Who runs 99% of the media in the USA? Who runs the government of the USA? Who was behind the war on Iraq? Who is pushing for a war on Iran?

THE ETERNAL JEW.

Clever strategy (5, Funny)

Chairboy (88841) | more than 5 years ago | (#25180845)

Obviously child-porn websites can't exist without protocol standards that designate how things like HTTP and HTML are to work.

The police who created this list were simply cutting off the head of the beast. Sure, there might be a little collateral damage... but won't somebody think of the children?

Anyhow, mission accomplished. You might even say it has been finnished.

Re:Clever strategy (3, Funny)

lysergic.acid (845423) | more than 5 years ago | (#25180879)

ah, but there are still analog transmission methods. the way i see it, eyeballs are the problem...

Re:Clever strategy (5, Funny)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 5 years ago | (#25180935)

[Finland censorship activated] ah, but there are still ****og transmission methods. the way i see it, eye***** are the problem...

Re:Clever strategy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25181257)

Soccer is a sport where players kick asterisks into a net

Re:Clever strategy (1)

ozphx (1061292) | more than 5 years ago | (#25182257)

Thats p***ers, you insensitive clod!

Re:Clever strategy (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25181063)

LOL the the hell, if you cut off HTML the internet is dead, everything served on a regular browser is in HTML.

But since it's for the children, and since parents have no control over their kids, it's OK.

I think the next step we should take to defend kids is banning beds/couches/counter tops, cameras and oxygen. Those tree are also used when taping porn.

Re:Clever strategy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25181141)

I wish Finland could become internationally known for censoring out stuff, much like China is known for the Great Firewall of China.
Why? Because then we could use enter the verb finnished into common usage for blocking or censoring.
E.g. "Our sysadmin accidentally finnished off all outgoing SSH connections, so I couldn't get any work done yesterday.", or "I downloaded her new porn movie, but it was no good, all the good bits were finnished."

Re:Clever strategy (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 5 years ago | (#25181575)

I downloaded her new porn movie, but it was no good, all the good bits were finnished."

Better than being sweeded I suppose.

Re:Clever strategy (1)

geminidomino (614729) | more than 5 years ago | (#25182075)

I downloaded her new porn movie, but it was no good, all the good bits were finnished."

Better than being sweeded I suppose.

Bwittorrent will die if you don't. Fucking Fweeloaders.

Re:Clever strategy (1)

GotenXiao (863190) | more than 5 years ago | (#25183087)

Shouldn't that be BitTowwent?

Re:Clever strategy (4, Funny)

Ortega-Starfire (930563) | more than 5 years ago | (#25182167)

"but won't somebody think of the children?"

That is precisely the situation they are trying to stop.

Re:Clever strategy (1)

jhol13 (1087781) | more than 5 years ago | (#25189249)

Unfortunately that is not funny ... Pelastakaa Lapset Ry (Save the Children NPO), among others, is strongly for the censorship.

Re:Clever strategy (3, Informative)

dgr73 (1055610) | more than 5 years ago | (#25183085)

Actually, this spring there was a demonstration against this crude and yet ineffective way of filtering kiddieporn. A finnish MP and EFF activist Jyrki Kasvi went on a morning TV show and laid out all the arguments why a deny list with no oversight can not work (anonymous proxies, etc) and why it creates collateral damage (false positives, pedos using the list as a list for kiddieporn addys, etc). He also said that blocking by itself is not an answer, it's much better to improve co-operation between police forces of different countries, so the sites themselves and their owners could be taken down. He was countered by a person from Mannerheimin Lastensuojeluliitto (a "leading" Finnish organization for child protection). The counter included no technical commentary, just a simple statement repeated many times with slight variation and a passionate voice. The statement roughly translates to "wont anybody think of the children". The debate ended there and you could clearly see she won the argument, atleast in the eyes of the "neutral" reporters conducting the interview. Emotional invocation of our primal instincts to protect our young can still outweigh any petty logic that can tickle our neocortex's fancy.

Blacklists suck. (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25180973)

This isn't news. Legitimate sites ending up on blacklists is normal. It happens all the time. Might as well report that the sun rises in the morning.

Re:Blacklists suck. (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25181043)

To my knowledge, only even remotely comparable situation where so obviously legal site has ended up on the list is the site criticising the list. Of course, in case of w3.org, block was removed in hours, in case of the other site, it has been there for months (and it's till there).

The fact that, for instance, some gay porn sites have ended up on this list so easily tells something about the list. At least about the fact that thanks to horribly badly designed legislation, nobody putting these sites on the list actually needs to fear getting punished for misconduct, caused harm... or anything else.

Re:Blacklists suck. (3, Funny)

Ihmhi (1206036) | more than 5 years ago | (#25181949)

So far all I've figured out is that W3C has a lot of clout and you're apparently looking for gay porn in Finland.

Re:Blacklists suck. (1)

shvytejimas (1083291) | more than 5 years ago | (#25184545)

*snicker*
Tom of Finland [tomoffinla...dation.org]

you miss the point (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25182951)

The fact that, for instance, some gay porn sites have ended up on this list so easily tells something about the list.

Ok. So your point is that the lists are not all bad. I think you're missing the point about censorship in general.

Re:Blacklists suck. (1)

alisson (1040324) | more than 5 years ago | (#25181205)

Especially since it was already fixed by the time the article was written!

The headline should have read "Police Make and then Fix Mistake!"

Re:Blacklists suck. (1)

schon (31600) | more than 5 years ago | (#25181625)

So, what you're saying is that it's OK to censor and wrongly accuse people of things, and we should all just roll over and be good sheep, because it "happens all the time."

After all, if it's "not news", and we should just ignore it, then it must be OK.

Re:Blacklists suck. (1)

RCL (891376) | more than 5 years ago | (#25181737)

Well, at least for me it is news that Finnish ISP do blacklist [arbitrary] sites. I'm not in Finland myself (have been there to Assembly demoparty though), but I didn't expect them (a pretty liberal nation, at least as it seems from Russian POV) to censor the internet.

This is a special case. (3, Insightful)

jd (1658) | more than 5 years ago | (#25181965)

Given everything the W3C has done over recent years, nobody is entirely sure if blocking the W3C is censorship or saving the planet from standards bloat.

Re:Blacklists suck. (1)

Hognoxious (631665) | more than 5 years ago | (#25183243)

Might as well report that the sun rises in the morning.

In Finland that is news [wikipedia.org] .

Here's how it happened... (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25180981)

Some child pornographers are very concerned with valid HTML, and linked to their validator on their pages. As a result, it was flagged as related to child porn.

It's up to the individual (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25180999)

If people don't want to see it then they will avoid it. If it's out in the public there is really no point in censoring it.

1984 didn't actually take place in 1984 you know (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25181013)

When they censor the metagovernment [metagovernment.org] , were screwed.

Easy to circumvent: (5, Informative)

WTF Chuck (1369665) | more than 5 years ago | (#25181045)

Effi: Finnish police censors a critic of censorship [effi.org]

This shows that they are using DNS based filtering. Very easy to get around, run your own DNS servers and bypass your ISP's DNS servers alltogether.

Re:Easy to circumvent: (1)

luvirini (753157) | more than 5 years ago | (#25181355)

Most people lack the knowhow to do this.

While knowing that you should run your own DNS server helps those who know how to do it, it will not help the majority of the victims if the police blocks some even more important site in the future.

Re:Easy to circumvent: (1)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 5 years ago | (#25181473)

You need not run your own server ... just point your system at any of the thousands of other public servers out there.

If what these idiots are doing becomes a problem, more and more people will figure out how to bypass simple DNS filtering. At that point, the powers-that-be will have to spend big bucks implementing a more capable filter. They probably don't want to do that.

Re:Easy to circumvent: (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 5 years ago | (#25181593)

At that point, the powers-that-be will have to spend big bucks implementing a more capable filter. They probably don't want to do that.

I think they probably will want to do that. Anything for the children you know.

Re:Easy to circumvent: (1)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 5 years ago | (#25181953)

At that point, the powers-that-be will have to spend big bucks implementing a more capable filter. They probably don't want to do that.

I think they probably will want to do that. Anything for the children you know.

Well, I meant "don't want to" as in "don't want to spend the money." DNS filtering is cheap, considering that they have the ISPs doing all the work. Sounds like they'd like nothing better than a Great Firewall if they could pull it off. Still, I guess it's a good thing that someone has the next generation's best interests at heart.

Re:Easy to circumvent: (2, Informative)

WTF Chuck (1369665) | more than 5 years ago | (#25181665)

Personally, I am running bind. My ISP's DNS servers were rather slow to respond.

With most linux distros, all you have to do is install it with your package manager, and then set your machine to use itself, rather than the ISP, as the DNS server. The default configuration that gets installed will generally query the root servers. You will need to check your distros documentation just in case.

Bind packages can also be found for DD-WRT. I don't run them, so I cant say how well they work.
DD-WRT Bind DNS-slave server [dd-wrt.com]
http://www.dd-wrt.com/dd-wrtv2/downloads/others/packages [dd-wrt.com]

For M$ users, DNS server packages, (including bind), are available. I don't have experience with them, as I dumped M$ shortly after XP was released.
Google Search [google.com]
ISC Bind [isc.org]

There is more than enough documentation on how to set-up and run DNS servers available on the net, it is pointless to do that here.

The biggest thing that I don't understand is why people who write such articles don't mention that there are solutions available. It would have simply been a 2 or 3 sentence paragraph in TFA to give links to a way around the censoring. TFAs that were linked to didn't even point out that it was DNS filtering, the link in my original post came from one of TFAs.

Re:Easy to circumvent: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25182403)

DNA (which is one of the Big Three ISP's here) uses something else - I need Tor to get to the blocked sites, OpenDNS for example doesn't help.

Re:Easy to circumvent: (3, Informative)

hydrofix (1253498) | more than 5 years ago | (#25182889)

No you dont even have to run your own DNS server and you can stil use your ISPs DNS (it's 99% time faster than say OpenDNS). If you end up on a site with the police cencorship notice, connect to any machine (SSH) or site (WWW) that can resolve domain names without the cencorship. I think all university networks, all foreign machines and sites like http://www.dnswatch.info/ [dnswatch.info] are good for this. Then just edit your /etc/hosts file and manually override the IP address for the domain on per-site basis. Add this line to your hosts:

83.145.201.47 lapsiporno.info www.lapsiporno.info

to access lapsiporno.info for example. It's that easy..

Re:Easy to circumvent: (1)

jhol13 (1087781) | more than 5 years ago | (#25189393)

The w3c filtering incident used a "forced proxy" (a proxy which interferes with http whether you want or not), at least with DNA. They were apparently experimenting with second generation filtering.

To circumvent that you need to use some external proxy, perhaps even through SSL.

Re:Easy to circumvent: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25184271)

Actually DNA is one of the few ISPs using a transparent proxy setup.

False Arrests (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25181111)

So I wonder how many people went to w3c.org and then had the police kicking down their down 10 minutes later for going to a kiddie-porn site....

Goose down? (1)

SlashdotTroll (581611) | more than 5 years ago | (#25181495)

kicking down their down 10 minutes later

In soviet Finland, Goose-stepping geese Down you!

Interesting. (5, Funny)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 5 years ago | (#25181123)

Clearly Finland only approves of mature web standards...

Clearly loose.dtd was the culprit (1)

Scott Kevill (1080991) | more than 5 years ago | (#25181239)

Automation for-the-loose.

Questionable content? (1)

jrothwell97 (968062) | more than 5 years ago | (#25181245)

Some of the Finnish ISPs use the database to filter out questionable content such as child pornography.*

To be fair, I think that's a bit beyond questionable... don't you?
(*emphasis added)

Re:Questionable content? (3, Insightful)

thermian (1267986) | more than 5 years ago | (#25181319)

Some of the Finnish ISPs use the database to filter out questionable content such as child pornography.*

To be fair, I think that's a bit beyond questionable... don't you?

(*emphasis added)

It has been my experience that such things become a problem when they aren't questioned.

Re:Questionable content? (5, Insightful)

porpnorber (851345) | more than 5 years ago | (#25181371)

Do you know, when I was a kid, pictures of naked children were socially acceptable (after all, kids often didn't wear clothes on the beach, and everyone washes their own kids, right? So you're not seeing anything you haven't seen a thousand times before), and pictures of naked adults were not (because that's just not ... right). I think this establishes that, yes, it is possible to ask some questions here. You'll note that I'm not trying to imply any particular answers, but then while politically I oppose the abuse of anyone, my sexual tastes run only to adult women, so I'm hardly in a position to judge this with any sensitivity.

Think. Think is good. Think of the adults, think of the children, think of the society we are trying to engineer, but please, couldn't we try to think?

No matter where the right and wrong lie, you can't build justice out of knee-jerk reactions, and egging people on to visceral responses makes you one of, to be blunt, the enemy. Because, you know, it's that kind of unthinking action on the basis of hormones that we are supposedly trying to fight when we jointly choose to try to limit people's proclivities.

Re:Questionable content? (3, Interesting)

jrothwell97 (968062) | more than 5 years ago | (#25181485)

By child pornography, I mean adult porn with children. A picture of a thirty-year-old man naked != porn. Picture af ten-year-old naked != porn. Picture of either of said persons engaging in sexual acts or behaving provocatively = porn.

That again: child running about naked on beach - NOT PORN. Child having sex or being filmed in a way intended to arouse the viewer - IS PORN, therefore far beyond questionable content.

Re:Questionable content? (2, Insightful)

LordLucless (582312) | more than 5 years ago | (#25181649)

behaving provocatively
a way intended to arouse the viewer

Care to define those terms so they are beyond question for us? I mean, there have been people who've said that skirts ending above the ankles are provocative, and there are people who can be aroused by just about anything.

Re:Questionable content? (2, Interesting)

corsec67 (627446) | more than 5 years ago | (#25181675)

What about a pair of 17 year olds filming themselves having sex.

Child porn?

Should they be charged with a felony? (For the video, assume the sex was in a state where that is legal)

Child-pornography by children (2, Informative)

supernova_hq (1014429) | more than 5 years ago | (#25181791)

There have actually been cases of this happening. Basically what usually happens is the children (up to 17) are punished without the law (suspended if done at school, etc) and any adults/companies/etc knowingly involved in the reproduction, distribution and/or storage of the material are slapped (rather viciously) with child-pornography charges.

The children are usually not charged legally, but after their parents, school administration, older siblings, etc get a hold of them, they wish they hadn't done it.

Re:Child-pornography by children (1)

corsec67 (627446) | more than 5 years ago | (#25182001)

The children are usually not charged legally, but after their parents, school administration, older siblings, etc get a hold of them, they wish they hadn't done it.

[Citation needed]. Sorry, but I can't provide a citation either way.

There sure are a lot of news articles where the person was charged, though.

I don't really know where to get statistics about this, like how many cases like this have been tried, convictions, alternative punishments as you suggest, etc.

I will say that "child porn" has been marketed by the media as being so "evil" that I would be surprised if a non-jail/sex offender list punishment was common, much less "usual". Also, if a prosecutor was willing to use these alternate punishments, then they might be made out by the media as being "friendly to child pornographers", etc.

Re:Child-pornography by children (1)

fatphil (181876) | more than 5 years ago | (#25187321)

Paedophilia is marketted by the media as so evil that even paediatricians are being hounded.

Re:Questionable content? (1)

jrothwell97 (968062) | more than 5 years ago | (#25183135)

Just to make my position clear, I think that the age of majority should be lowered by at least one year. It seems ridiculous to me that there are differing age restrictions based on PARTICIPATING IN and VIEWING OR CREATING DEPICTIONS OF sex acts - which is why I think it would be simpler and more logical to lower the age of majority to 16. It make sense considering most kids will have finished their (or be close to completing) GCSE or K-12 equivalent education courses.

Re:Questionable content? (4, Informative)

stephanruby (542433) | more than 5 years ago | (#25182827)

"By child pornography, I mean adult porn with children. A picture of a thirty-year-old man naked != porn. Picture af ten-year-old naked != porn. Picture of either of said persons engaging in sexual acts or behaving provocatively = porn. "

Yes, but since you're probably not one of the Finnish policemen in charge of this black list, nor are you one of the highly trained Kmart/Walgreens photo clerk employees, your definition of what "child porn" is -- probably highly suspect.

  • William Kelly was arrested in Maryland in 1987 after dropping off a roll of film that included shots his 10-year-old daughter and younger children had taken of each other nude.
  • David Urban in 1989 took photos of his wife and 15-month-old grandson, both nude, as she was giving him a bath. Kmart turned him in and he was convicted by a Missouri court (later overturned).
  • A gay adult couple in Florida decided to shave their bodies and snap their lovemaking, convincing a Walgreens clerk that one of them was a child. They are suing the Fort Lauderdale police.
  • More recently, Cynthia Stewart turned in bath-time pictures of her 8-year-old daughter to a Fuji film processing lab in Oberlin, Ohio. The lab contacted the local police, who found the pictures "over the line" and arrested the mother for, among other things, snapping in the same frame with her daughter a showerhead, which the prosecution apparently planned to relate somehow to hints of masturbation.
  • http://archive.salon.com/mwt/feature/2000/01/31/kincaid/ [salon.com]

.

"That again: child running about naked on beach - NOT PORN. Child having sex or being filmed in a way intended to arouse the viewer - IS PORN, therefore far beyond questionable content. "

Sure, but that has yet to be proven. This guy [lapsiporno.info] for instance has already received personal threats against him because his site is listed as a "child porn web site", and yet he doesn't have a single picture on his site -- he only compiled a list of web sites that were banned by this list (he simply used a scanner to obtain that information, and it turns out that 99% of those web sites listed do not contain child pornography according to him). Should he put in jail because of this so-called "questionable content"? Should he be branded as a sexual predator and a child porn peddler because of this personal expose?

Re:Questionable content? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25186543)

Jesus, that was hilarious...

"A gay adult couple in Florida decided to shave their bodies and snap their lovemaking, convincing a Walgreens clerk that one of them was a child. They are suing the Fort Lauderdale police."

I think you meant to say "convincing EACH OTHER that one of them WAS A CHILD"... and as for the laughable word "lovemaking" - that doesn't apply to the sick gay perverts...

50% of the victims of paedophiles are boys. Less than 1% of the male population is gay.

So a gay man is 50 times more likely to be a paedophile than a heterosexual man.

Discuss. (I won't hold my breath. After all, who is more vulnerable? 5 year old boys, or those poor, hard done by gay ADULTS?)

Re:Questionable content? (1)

fatphil (181876) | more than 5 years ago | (#25187371)

From your salon link - 2nd page:
"""
Actually, given that the focus of the law has shifted from the photo to the reaction of the viewer, the wise technician will consult his or her loins: A turn-on means porn.
"""

Using that logic, the only way that someone can report you for an offense is if he (or she) admits to being turned on by your kiddie porn? Woh!?!?

Re:Questionable content? (0, Redundant)

KGIII (973947) | more than 5 years ago | (#25182719)

No? I think other cultures have different views than my own and I respect their views even though I don't agree with them. I think it is high time we stop trying to force our ethics on other people/cultures. This whole thing of "basic human rights" is just that, is it one side pushing their moral values onto a society that has different morals.

A clear case of "why you should not do it" (2, Interesting)

luvirini (753157) | more than 5 years ago | (#25181305)

Though noone will likely die or even loose any large ammounts of money or similar due to this particular case, it should still be seen as a clear warning.

As next time it might be something very important that gets accidentally blocked.

Both a direct warning to use a ISP that does not do the filtering(all ISPs in Finland do not use it).

And on second level a warning to reverse the clearly bad law where the Police is allowed to block sites without accountability and

Re:A clear case of "why you should not do it" (2, Informative)

dvice_null (981029) | more than 5 years ago | (#25182739)

> Though noone will likely die or even loose any large ammounts of money or similar due to this particular case

They have already also blocked a site of several companies. Some which are not related to porn at all, but about 99% of the websites they block are legal porn-sites. Also a website who is making critique about this censorship and publishing a list of blocked but legal websites is blocked.

It is quite interesting how little people are defending these legal porn sites. As if it is okay to block them, just because they are porn.

Re:A clear case of "why you should not do it" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25185475)

I've recently changed my opinion to it being OK (and a good idea) to block/forbid porn, based on its effect on society. From what I've read of social psychology (see e.g. Social Psychology by David Myers) it seems to be fairly clear that increased availability of porn cause increase in rape, and decrease in a availability of porn cause a decrease in rape.

While I enjoy watching porn and wouldn't rape anybody, and I know people that make porn, I think my "right to" watch people having sex and my friends right to publicize themselves in sexual situations come second to women's right not to get raped. If our activities lead to more women getting raped - no matter how indirectly - society is, in my opinion, better off with blocking our activites. For this particular case, it is a smaller loss than benefit.

Re:A clear case of "why you should not do it" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25184007)

And on second level a warning to reverse the clearly bad law where the Police is allowed to block sites without accountability and

...and?

Must be the internet filter.

Straightening out some facts (5, Interesting)

maraz (637490) | more than 5 years ago | (#25181557)

1) Not all ISPs use DNS-based filtering - for example the aforementioned DNA Finland, which uses proxy-based filtering, which in turn is a lot more difficult to bypass.

2) W3C is, AFAIK, still being blocked by MPY.

3) On the first version of the list, less than 1% [kapsi.fi] of the sites were child pornography. Coincidently, a lot of the rest were gay porn.

This is, of course, not at all related to the general opinion on gay people in Finland - in fact, we've already gone half a century without a single forced castration of a gay man!

Boy, does my country make me proud or what.

Re:Straightening out some facts (1)

Lennie (16154) | more than 5 years ago | (#25185017)

It's really easy to bypass a provider, use an other ! And that's exactly why I think this doesn't work.

Re:Straightening out some facts (1)

Skapare (16644) | more than 5 years ago | (#25187813)

1) Not all ISPs use DNS-based filtering - for example the aforementioned DNA Finland, which uses proxy-based filtering, which in turn is a lot more difficult to bypass.

Is this a configured proxy (you configure the browser to use a proxy) or is it a intercept proxy (the TCP traffic to some IPs or all IPs on port 80 or maybe also other ports is intercepted and passed to a proxy)? The former is, of course, easy to bypass, but is otherwise effective for all port numbers. The latter is harder but it can be done with the web site cooperation by using other port numbers (maybe even 443). Either way is expensive because that means a lot of proxy servers.

Do their blocks apply to UDP and SCTP?

2) W3C is, AFAIK, still being blocked by MPY.

Information about how protocols work tells people what they can do to bypass the blocking. So of course they don't want to allow that. Gotta keep the masses dumbed down.

Censoring by domain name? (2, Informative)

Skapare (16644) | more than 5 years ago | (#25181793)

How do they censor by domain name? Do they force/expect everyone to use the ISP proxy server? Do they force/expect everyone to use the ISP name server? Unless they block direct access, it should be easy enough for a user to get around. Of course most users would not know how. OTOH a lot of the really bad pr0n sites don't even use domain names. They use constantly changing IP addresses of proxies running on exploited home/office Windows computers.

Re:Censoring by domain name? (2, Informative)

hydrofix (1253498) | more than 5 years ago | (#25182935)

Yes they use a very simple domain name based cencorship that causes the ISPs' DNS servers to resolve cencored domain names to a machine (hosted by the ISP on the expense of the customers..) that only serves a very ugly "Cencorced by the National Bureau of Investigation" notice (screenie [wikipedia.org] ). It's extremely easy to bypass by editing /etc/hosts, running your own domain name server or using foreign servers like OpenDNS. It should be also noticed, that this cenorship is in its current form voluntary, but the goverment said they hope that ISPs are co-operative so they dont have to make the cencorship compulsory

And still, there are things like Tor that could be employed even if they used IP based filtering. But I hope this is not going to happen..

Re:Censoring by domain name? (1)

TraxPlayer (63993) | more than 5 years ago | (#25183007)

They change their dns to return the wrong ip which
says that the site is blocked but they don't
force you to use the ISP dns.

Re:Censoring by domain name? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25183031)

Some ISPs don't apply censorship list at all, some ISPs use voluntary proxy server (Sonera), some do it by mandatory proxy server (DNA). Others use DNS-based filtering, so people use opendns.fi :)

Samba (1)

Webmoth (75878) | more than 5 years ago | (#25182413)

Every so often, some filters will block samba.org [samba.org] as being in the "Arts & Entertainment" category.

Of course, if you listen to the folks in Redmond, Samba is just for entertainment anyway, not any serious work.

Eh? (1)

sleeponthemic (1253494) | more than 5 years ago | (#25182513)

Sorry Guys, I accidentally typed w3c.org when what I what I mean to type was littleboylove.org..

and ofc, the activist website is censored (2, Informative)

Skal Tura (595728) | more than 5 years ago | (#25182899)

Matti Nikki's website has been censored from almost the start because he has been speaking against this kind of censorship, and it's problems.

One of the problems he claims is that it will be used against sites which do not distribute child pornography, activist websites, critical of the goverment, or otherwise "undesired" websites. This blacklist was entirely made for child pornography.

His site got blacklisted, proofing the point. No action has been taken, and no one seems to care how Finland aswell is turning into a police state.
To access his website, simply use OpenDNS.org nameservers.

  Finland is in a state of masqueraded communism, the taxes are highest in the world and living costs right up there too! For well above minimum wage job, you don't get even twice the amount of money to spend on things than on unemployment checks.

I were born in Finland, and like living here very much indeed, even so much i've denied some REALLY good positions offered to me abroad and stayed in Finland. However slowly i'm starting to rethink the sensibility of staying in Finland, due to things like this blacklist.

Re:and ofc, the activist website is censored (1)

EvilNTUser (573674) | more than 5 years ago | (#25183781)

"Finland is in a state of masqueraded communism, the taxes are highest in the world and living costs right up there too! For well above minimum wage job, you don't get even twice the amount of money to spend on things than on unemployment checks.

I were born in Finland, and like living here very much indeed, even so much i've denied some REALLY good positions offered to me abroad and stayed in Finland. However slowly i'm starting to rethink the sensibility of staying in Finland, due to things like this blacklist."

You think social security programs are "masqueraded communism" and are ready to leave the "police state" due to a misguided but non-mandatory blacklist? Boy will you be surprised at what's going on in the rest of the world if you ever decide to move for real. Maybe you should try something proactive like voting or running for parliament instead, if you want to make things better.

By the way, I've seen other people complain that those humongous unemployment benefits you talk about are barely enough for rent and food. The government can never win, it seems.

Re:and ofc, the activist website is censored (1)

Skal Tura (595728) | more than 5 years ago | (#25183949)

That blacklist IS mandatory for all ISPs.
That blacklist IS being misused.

The unemployment "benefit" alone is only one part of the aids you get. You are being simply stupid if you do not use the whole palette of the aids.

As unemployed you get:
  * Unemployment payments
  * Subsidized rental
  * Social welfare payments

Which equals to:
  After rent, electricity and some other necessities. case by case on internet, computer, phone. I know people who have got even all their furnishing from gov. Also all health related (glasses, doctor appointments, medication etc.) is paid by gov when you are unemployed fully. 380euros on hand for everything else, which is generally food, clothing, travels, hobbies.

  Comparison:
  Basic well over minimum wage job: 1700euros brutto a month, total taxes 20%, rental 700euros a month, job travel 80euros a month, leaves 580euros on hand (This is BEFORE electricity which is paid for unemployed). No subsidied rental, no aids whatsoever from gov. Electricity around 20-40euros a month. Also, no health expense related benefits from govt. unless you've had reaaally big expenses you can get social welfare to pay for them.

  Minimum wage ~1380euros brutto a month. On other hand, the cheapest single apartments go for around 400euros, and are around 12-16sqm, for 500-600euros you get single or double of 25 to 60sqm if you are REALLY lucky. A decent apartment regularly costs around 15euros per sqm a month. so 50sqm is 750euros a month, and well over 20euros per sqm a month is not unheard neither (one of my friend's is considering moving into one which costs 22euros per sqm, due to it's location near trainstation and town center). Ofc, cheaper DO exist, but it's a bit like winning in lottery to get one.

There is also a lot of people who have to still get social welfare after their wage, because so little remains on hand.

Next time you come bullshitting, do make some fact checking. Or maybe try living few years on Finland, only with income you get here. Good luck with that! Especially if you intend to have ANY hobbies AT ALL.

Re:and ofc, the activist website is censored (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25184139)

I'm living quite happily with all of the benefits (except social) and I have an interesting part-time job in audio visual field on top of that.

I have plenty of time for all of my projects and hobbies. I'm unemployed and an entrepreneur (which is quite an interesting status to have. A bit of paperwork needed but very possible). I have a 32 sqm flat in Helsinki center for 480 euros.

The benefits are not just enough to cover all of my expenses, but with the job and my company I can easily cover the rest and even save. This could go on until the end of 2009 (modified unemployment benefit limits to certain number of days - and it scales with my income). Needless to say I'm quite happy, live full life with my girlfriend and enjoy the freedom.

Of course I'm looking for a steady income, but I have nothing against the system, which allows me to do what I want and be happy. I don't think you have realized your full potential. The loss I make as an entrepreneur counts as a personal income loss, which means less taxes for example. Besides my tax rate stays below 20% anyway.

Re:and ofc, the activist website is censored (1)

EvilNTUser (573674) | more than 5 years ago | (#25184341)

Before you accuse me of bullshitting, maybe you should check your own facts. It is NOT MANDATORY for internet service providers. The blacklist is shit, its proponents are disgusting, and a lot of voters are morons, but it is NOT MANDATORY, and it does not make Finland a "police state".

And I really don't care whether you think those benefits are too much. The point is that it's not communism in disguise. Do you even know what communism is? (but apparently I'm the one who's "stupid")

Your apartment prices are also completely ridiculous, unless you insist that people with the lowest incomes should be able to live in premium locations.

Re:and ofc, the activist website is censored (1)

Skal Tura (595728) | more than 5 years ago | (#25184513)

do some fact checking, cheapest single apartment you will find is around 350-400euros.

I've personally got twice lucky, 55½sqm for 445euros a month, while my GF was paying for OWNED apartment of 56sqm with full mortgage only interest being paid, first 390euros a month, and later on 460euros month as interest got raised and the housing co. raised their charge for maintenace at the same time. My next apartment 59sqm and 500euros a month.

At the same time, my friend was paying 750euros a month for 65sqm in more remote location, and another friend 2 years earlier paid near my GF for around 70sqm, 880euros a month.

In a remote location, single apartment of 24sqm went for 350euros in a single day, i was looking to move there to goto school. City and organizations over there were even more expensive. At the same remote location, the school offered shared apartments for 150euros a month for half a room furnished. Those apartments were triple apartments, with 6 people sharing it. Their understanding of "single apartment" as well were two people living in it for 300euros a month. You weren't eligible to bring any furnishing you own, and no storage space was being offered neither.

That location was really remote for being part of the capital city area, 70km from eastern helsinki, and 10km from nearest junction to highway. Not even proper internet access is guaranteed over there. Public transportation was available, but to say the least, not very good.

A small real house costs always over 1000euros a month, and all row houses i've seen has been over 800euros a month. and they are still small.

The blacklisting IS mandatory here for ISPs, and i doubt you were expecting me to list all the things making Finland close to police state. Did you for example know that all highways and major roads in capital city area have dozens and dozens of cameras tracking where you are going, from where you are coming from, what speed you are going from. Hell, they even sometimes snail mail you to ask from where you were coming and where to you were going!

I don't know on what basis the parent does base his arguments, and accusations, it seems parent should be mod as TROLL.

Ofc, all the people who speak for human rights, civil liberties, and freedom are stupid like the parent said ;) It's just like opposing DRM, RIAA/MPAA is futile and stupid, afterall they are here FOR THE PEOPLE!

So EvilNTUser, come and move to Finland, live there for a few years, and let me know how cheap of apartment you were able to find etc. and was essentially 50hr work weeks to benefit 200euros is worth it compared to 0hr work weeks, and spending your time educating yourself, sports, hobbies, or just generally building the skills which are required for 2500+ euros monthly wage before it makes it all worth, and you are able to live comfortably.

Oh and good luck on getting 2500+ euros monthly wage, middle management doesn't here make that much generally, coders don't make that much generally, and mostly where you get to that kind of salary is some serious overtime hours.

Re:and ofc, the activist website is censored (1)

EvilNTUser (573674) | more than 5 years ago | (#25184857)

I searched for a few minutes, and found some pretty reasonable apartments for between two and three hundred. Some of the locations were remote, of course, but that doesn't matter, because this is beside the point. The taxes are heavy, and the social security system isn't perfect, but that doesn't make the country communist, and most people seem quite satisfied. I do actually live here and I must say you have a very peculiar understanding of the resources available to the average citizen.

Apparently you also have reading difficulties, since I never said anything about people who speak out for human rights. Your facts are just wrong. If anyone is a troll, it's you, because the burden of proof is on the person making the extreme statements, not vice versa. I have made no accusation other than that nothing you have said supports your premise. (Speed cameras also don't make the country a police state, even if I agree that they are a bad idea.)

And once again, the filtering is not mandatory. http://www.hs.fi/kotimaa/artikkeli/Osa+operaattoreista+p%C3%A4%C3%A4st%C3%A4%C3%A4+kielletyille+verkkosivuille/1135234066254 [www.hs.fi]

Re:and ofc, the activist website is censored (1)

Skal Tura (595728) | more than 5 years ago | (#25185573)

Then show these 200-300euros apartments by all means!

Oikotie, Etuovi, Nettiasunto, Keltainen Porssi for example does not have them.

I've seen a "grandma's cabin" going for 250euros a month. Is this what you mean? The landlord couldn't even tell the size, so i'm assuming around 10sqm. Same landlord was offering car trailers parked on a backyard for 150euros a month.

That article you are quoting is over 7months old, as far as i know it is mandatory blacklisting, and that was the whole point of it.

This seems too good to be true! (1)

shazzle (1242132) | more than 5 years ago | (#25182981)

It looks as if we got what I've been dreaming for: Some huge cock-up in this secret censorshiplist of the police, where it is WELL beyond doubt that someone is pulling this list completely off their hat. This only goes to show that huge mistakes like this are all too easy to make and how it takes ages for someone to correct it. THIS is exactly why we need supervision over this kind of list and its makers.

BTW, I'm very glad that at least the people of Finland are taking censorship seriously, whereas other europeans are taking their blinding medicine one site at a time.

Works fine with Sonera (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25183071)

Those sites work fine with my Sonera-ISP, although I'm using OpenDNS. Haven't bothered to try the ISP's own DNS (ever).

Re:Works fine with Sonera (1)

ravenlock (693538) | more than 5 years ago | (#25183137)

Saunalahti provides two unblocked DNS servers.

(http://sensuuri.info/wiki/Operaattorit#_note-0)

Background on Finnish censorship from a Finn (4, Interesting)

Kizor (863772) | more than 5 years ago | (#25183641)

I'm a Finnish tech student and have been following this for a good long time now. Let me give a run-down of what's going on. Afterwards I have a very important question to ask - I'll add that as a reply.

Finland is one of those modern first-world democracies that accords its citizens more freedom than the United States and is smug about it. Like many such states, Finland's government has been taking steps to change that. Case in point: From January 1st, 2008 onward, Finland's Federal Bureau has had the right to list child born websites for ISPs to block. This has been accused of being a sterotypical power grab (and some representatives are openly salivating at the prospect of expanding censorship), but more likely it's just stereotypical gross populism. There was no chance of defeating the bill that had a stated purpose of fighting child porn.

Finland's geek population is united against censorship for a simple reason. It does not and cannot work. This has not been disputed - everyone and their mother has been trying to tell the lawmakers that, including the Federal Bureau before the law came to force. Effective Internet censorship is not possible without an effort on China's or Saudi Arabia's level, and even then Saudi Arabia's leaks like a sieve. I can think of four ways of circumventing Finland's without specialist knowledge, and I got a 1/5 out of my single network course. In fact everything about this is permeated by bureaucratic incompetence to the point that accusing W3C of child porn is not disproportionate. Not only does the censorship only target web pages, which I'm told make up a very small percentage of online child porn, there's no oversight, no way to appeal, and in several publicized cases, no effort to remove the material from the Internet.

Matti Nikki is both a devoted proponent of online freedom and kind of a dick. He published a list of censored sites to prove that censorship makes them much easier to catch with an automated webcrawler without restricting access in any meaningful way. (Later examinations of this list suggest that it has a 2% accuracy rate, but happens to feature the first Google search results for "gay porn.") When Nikki converted the list into links, his site was censored. That is to say, a domestic text-only website was censored using a law that legalized the censorship of foreign child porn. BOOM! Organized resistance!

Censorship made the evening news a couple of times, appeared in some newspapers and talk shows, and sparked one large geek demonstration back in March. "Google is a browser! Google is a browser!" we chanted, quoting the Bureau's chief on why Google has not been censored despite making child porn available as much as Nikki. We had no effect whatsoever. Okay, some ISPs have made censorship an opt-out system and maybe the Parliament will be wary about expanding it. Aside from that, I feel like the biggest achievement involved was me pissing off a bodyguard of the Minister of Communications with my taped-over mouth. Everything about the issue seems to be mired in its morass of utter incompetence that makes it meaningful debate impossible. For instance, the spokesman of a usually benign children-saving organization appeared in a debate and went on for minutes about the way censorship is a valuable statement of principles (as if making child porn strictly illegal wasn't enough) without ever addressing her opponent's statement that censorship does not work, cannot work, and does more harm than good to its cause. That debate sums up this whole sordid mess.

Nowadays Finland's tech-savvy population is quietly simmering, and the local IT building's basement has had a poster of the Minister of Communications in a Nazi uniform since February with no complaints from the staff.

Re:Background on Finnish censorship from a Finn (1)

Skapare (16644) | more than 5 years ago | (#25187933)

Finland's geek population is united against censorship for a simple reason. It does not and cannot work. This has not been disputed - everyone and their mother has been trying to tell the lawmakers that, including the Federal Bureau before the law came to force. Effective Internet censorship is not possible without an effort on China's or Saudi Arabia's level, and even then Saudi Arabia's leaks like a sieve. I can think of four ways of circumventing Finland's without specialist knowledge, and I got a 1/5 out of my single network course. In fact everything about this is permeated by bureaucratic incompetence to the point that accusing W3C of child porn is not disproportionate. Not only does the censorship only target web pages, which I'm told make up a very small percentage of online child porn, there's no oversight, no way to appeal, and in several publicized cases, no effort to remove the material from the Internet.

I bet the problem with W3C is not that they host any child porn, or even any porn at all. Instead, W3C hosts technical details on protocols that would allow people, especially teens, to figure out how to bypass the blocking filters. Once someone learns about things like TCP and port numbers, they can figure out how to bypass things. For example, by using HTTPS, the proxy will have no idea what the host NAME is, since that is inside the encrypted protocol. All the proxy can do is pass on the TCP connection via the CONNECT command (if the browser has the proxy configured) or via the TCP SYN packet (if they route map the traffic via the proxy). So all the porn sites need to do is enable HTTPS. Then the only way to block is by IP address, or do the stupid thing and block all port 443 or anything that looks like HTTPS.

Matti Nikki is both a devoted proponent of online freedom and kind of a dick. He published a list of censored sites to prove that censorship makes them much easier to catch with an automated webcrawler without restricting access in any meaningful way. (Later examinations of this list suggest that it has a 2% accuracy rate, but happens to feature the first Google search results for "gay porn.") When Nikki converted the list into links, his site was censored. That is to say, a domestic text-only website was censored using a law that legalized the censorship of foreign child porn. BOOM! Organized resistance!

So just post the list on Slashdot and get Slashdot censored.

Censorship made the evening news a couple of times, appeared in some newspapers and talk shows, and sparked one large geek demonstration back in March. "Google is a browser! Google is a browser!" we chanted, quoting the Bureau's chief on why Google has not been censored despite making child porn available as much as Nikki. We had no effect whatsoever. Okay, some ISPs have made censorship an opt-out system and maybe the Parliament will be wary about expanding it. Aside from that, I feel like the biggest achievement involved was me pissing off a bodyguard of the Minister of Communications with my taped-over mouth. Everything about the issue seems to be mired in its morass of utter incompetence that makes it meaningful debate impossible. For instance, the spokesman of a usually benign children-saving organization appeared in a debate and went on for minutes about the way censorship is a valuable statement of principles (as if making child porn strictly illegal wasn't enough) without ever addressing her opponent's statement that censorship does not work, cannot work, and does more harm than good to its cause. That debate sums up this whole sordid mess.

I'm all for censorship on an opt-in basis, provided there is competition that allows someone using censorship to choose who to use for their censoring parameters so they might choose to use the ones that are more accurate.

I'd like to see a list that censors big evil corporations. I'd like to see a list that censors undemocratic governments. I'd like to see a list that censors web sites that have too much flash on their web pages. I'd like to see a list that censors ad banner providers. This could go one for a while.

Re:No judicial review? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25189383)

Is there no way to go to court and force the police to remove your site from the list?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>