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!

Pot Calls Kettle Censor

jamie posted more than 12 years ago | from the pass-the-popcorn dept.

Censorship 206

In the red corner, SafeSurf is the original wacky band of labelling nuts. If you've posted anything to the net without labelling it, they think you need to be sued good and hard, and if it was inappropriate for an 8-year-old you need to go to jail. In the blue corner, MAPS continues to unashamedly blacklist websites for just sharing a network with sites that "support" spam. The fun began when MAPS blacklisted SafeSurf, ensuring millions of TeleGlobe customers were silently kept off the SafeSurf site. The victim has posted a beautiful, pained whine about "stealth censorship" which includes some really awesome metaphors. It's an epic battle of ideologies. Who will win? I say... the audience.

Here's an actual quote from SafeSurf's legislative proposal, I just love this:

"Negligence [failure to label] in the absence of damages may be a civil violation of the rights of the receivers of that data, but it shall not be a criminal offense unless the data is deemed to be harmful to minors. ... Publishers may be sued in civil court by any parent who feels their children were harmed by the data negligently published. The parents shall be given presumption in all cases and do not have to prove that the content actually produced harm to their child..."

Note: since SafeSurf's press release, their site has been taken off the RBL. But for some reason TeleGlobe is still blocking them (click "trace", type "safesurf.com", and wait several minutes for the blocked pings to time out inside TeleGlobe's network). I thought this was supposed to be the realtime blackhole list. Anyway, TeleGlobe is the same ISP that promises it will not "review, censor, or edit the material that is accessible through Teleglobe's network," and adds:

Q. Does Teleglobe support blocking access to ISPs and their non-spamming customers as a method of curtailing spam?

A. No. Teleglobe believes that advocates seeking to punish unwitting collateral ISPs and users who may be tenuously linked to a spam source are acting against the best interests of the Internet community as a whole.

TeleGlobe is one of the few backbones or major ISPs that still uses the RBL to censor websites, since I think AboveNet quit doing it. Anyone know of any others?

cancel ×

206 comments

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

fp (-1)

bitchslapboy (193543) | more than 12 years ago | (#2487693)

This first for Ida!

fp (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2487698)

fp

Re:fp (-1)

bitchslapboy (193543) | more than 12 years ago | (#2487706)

AC bitch. You couldn't get FP if cyborg monkey gave you bone-o-rama.

What is it with these people? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2487708)

MAPS is voluntary, and if you don't like it, switch. If your ISP is screwing you over with it, switch! And if you're too stupid to know that you're being blocked, then you likely deserve to be, anyhow.

As for the 'intended' consequences of MAPS -- I was one of the ones hoping that the 'unintended victims' would bring pressure to bear on the hosts to kick the spammers or the spammer software corporations off -- too bad none seem to be doing so. :(

Re:What is it with these people? (2)

Glytch (4881) | more than 12 years ago | (#2487724)

Hey, buttfucker, try this hypothetical situation:

Suppose there's only two or three ISPs where you live. Imagine if they all subscribe to MAPS. What's your fucking solution now?

Move? Just pick up and leave? Suppose you've got a family, suppose you've got a good job that you'd be an idiot to leave? Suppose you're taking care of an elderly relative who's spent his or her entire life there? Suppose you just can't afford to leave?

Re:What is it with these people? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2487738)

Gee, maybe just put up with it? Or, maybe haul your fat bloated ass off of that dirty couch, and go bitch at your ISP? You are intelligent enough to realize that the MAPS supplied list can be modified on a per-case basis by the ISP, right?

By the way, if you're taking care of your demented grandma, you shouldn't be browsing the net for p0rno in the first place.

Go get a life, fuckhead.

Re:What is it with these people? (-1)

bitchslapboy (193543) | more than 12 years ago | (#2487746)

If all the ISPs in your area use MAPS then that means that is what the market wants. If not enough people don't want MAPS for an ISP to make a profit not having it then you'll just have to put up with the fact that in the real world not everything goes the way you like it. There is no reason that in a free society a minority should be able to force the majority to have something they don't want. As long as the government isn't infringing on anybody's essential freedom then your only recourse is through the normal means of the market.

Re:What is it with these people? (1)

gmack (197796) | more than 12 years ago | (#2487747)

Same thing you do when the isps in your area all charge too much for b/w: co-locate.

Re:What is it with these people? (2)

baptiste (256004) | more than 12 years ago | (#2487748)

Suppose there's only two or three ISPs where you live. Imagine if they all subscribe to MAPS. What's your fucking solution now?

Your solution is to DEAL with it. Email is not a freaking right - it is a privledge. SO you either ask your ISP to handle it in a different manner or just deal with it like other things in your life you can't control. Tired of paying $0.20 a KW for electricity? What are you gonna do then? Burn candles?

The world is not custom made to your liking - you take the best compromise you can get. If no ISP fits your needs - you either move or accept it and move on. Don't try to shut down a service many of us LIKE just because you're in a crappy situation.

Re:What is it with these people? (2)

jamie (78724) | more than 12 years ago | (#2487772)

"Email is not a freaking right - it is a privledge. SO you either ask your ISP to handle it in a different manner or just deal with it like other things in your life you can't control."

That's OK if you think that (I disagree) but I just want to be clear -- TeleGlobe is using MAPS to block websites, and in fact all internet traffic. Not just email.

I probably should have made that more clear in the story itself, but anti-spammers keep assuring me that everybody already knows that MAPS blocks websites... apparently not...

Re:What is it with these people? (2)

baptiste (256004) | more than 12 years ago | (#2487857)

Thanks for the update. I've never read that folks were using MAPs to block anythign but email. Blocking websites on MAPs is retarded. I still think MAPs is a good concept and my mailservers use it - for email. But beyond that..... I can't understand why an ISP would choose to block web sites based on it unless they are doing it to hurt MAPs with bad PR (don't blame us - blame MAPs)

Re:What is it with these people? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2487917)

"Thanks for the update"

Even though it was wrong, MAPS blocks IP addresses , what the ISP chooses to do with this information is up to them.

F

Re:What is it with these people? (2)

cduffy (652) | more than 12 years ago | (#2487924)

Since when was Internet traffic a right, either?

Re:What is it with these people? (1)

sker (467551) | more than 12 years ago | (#2487907)

Don't try to shut down a service many of us LIKE just because you're in a crappy situation.


Ummm... Isn't this what MAPS is all about? Shutting down services because someone feels getting spam is a crappy situation seems to be the appeal of MAPS...


It seems like 'deal with it' is often the advice of people who can't do just that. The solution should be as much choice as possible.

Re:What is it with these people? (2)

firewort (180062) | more than 12 years ago | (#2488110)

Email is a privelige? what are you talking about?!

Email is a service. In most cases, for most people, email is a part of the service you get when you contract with an ISP. The contract is, I give money, they give me internet access, a small bit of hosting, an email address and a mailbox on their server. As long as I fulfill my end of the contract (payment) they must fulfill theirs (service.)

There is no other way to describe it, it's a business agreement. Any intrusion upon that agreement is a breach.

Re:What is it with these people? (2)

sqlrob (173498) | more than 12 years ago | (#2488127)

And from my business agreement (RR):
(i) The Road Runner Parties make no warranties as to the performance, including, but not limited to, any warranty that any data, files or other communications by or to Subscriber will be transmitted in uncorrupted form or within a reasonable period of time, that the Road Runner Service will be uninterrupted or error free or as to the results that may be obtained from use of the Road Runner Service.

In other words, if you don't get the mail, tough.

Re:What is it with these people? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2488372)

Yes, what is it?!

I looked all over for "firewort" in Lexis-Nexis and other legal databases (not!) and could find no mention of you or your legal scholarship.

Please follow up with the school you received your law degree from... oh, and the laws that make email service a "right".

You may also want to check you own ISPs service agreement - read the small print about what service you should expect.

Re:What is it with these people? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2487759)

then if you really want to access safesurf site I guess you gotta use a proxy ...

big deal ...

Re:What is it with these people? (-1)

c_g_hills (110430) | more than 12 years ago | (#2487831)

Hey goat-stuffer, you don't have to change your isp, you can just change your mail provider. If all your isps in your area to subscribe to MAPS, then dont use the mail service provided by your isp. There are plenty of mail hosts on the internet. Isps are not oblidged to supply you with a mail service at at all. If you do decide to use their service, then youre agreeing to their terms and conditions. Its retards like you that cause so much false alarm and confusion.

Re:What is it with these people? (-1)

c_g_hills (110430) | more than 12 years ago | (#2488111)

Moderators, why is this modded as -1? it should be +1 informative at the least.

MAPS is a democratic process. (2)

Kasreyn (233624) | more than 12 years ago | (#2487852)

MAPS is the voice of the community speaking, as with one voice, and they are quoting Monty Python at that: "I DON'T LIKE SPAM!!!" You're free to find an ISP that doesn't use MAPS, and failing that, to start your OWN ISP that doesn't use MAPS. The rest of us, who don't like spam, will gladly blacklist you so we don't have to deal with your spam, and go on with our lives. Yes, MAPS is using pressure. Why is this a bad thing? Societies always do this to enforce behavioral norms. MAPS and its subscribers are exerting to try to enforce the behavioral norm, "do not spam". If you spam, this pressure will be brought to bear in an effort to dissuade you from doing so.

This is democracy at work, like it or not.

Suppose there's only two or three ISPs where you live. Imagine if they all subscribe to MAPS. What's your fucking solution now?

Here's a hypothetical for YOU: Say I'm Jeffrey Dahmer. I like to kill people, drill holes in their heads so as to have sex with their corpses, and then eat their bodies. But for some strange reason, society is against this and exerts pressure upon me to try to prevent me from carrying out my desired course of action. They threaten imprisonment, disenfranchisement, and execution for the things I think are my right to do. So what's my solution?

The only "solutions" are to go with society or against it. If you go against society like Dahmer did, you'll be sent to jail for life. If you go against society like spammers do, you'll be blackholed. You do not have a constitutional right to email.

-Kasreyn

Re:What is it with these people? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2487855)

I am in Nepal, and two of our three isps use
teleglobe, including nepal telecom (state isp,
best & cheapest). The third (which uses
singtel) is bad & expensive.

Is it legal for a US isp to censor another
country's web access?

Re:What is it with these people? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2488183)

Is it legal for a US isp to censor another country's web access?"

The legality depends upon the various laws and treaties which are involved. You are free to use Singtel -- you have to decide how important Teleglobe, MAPS, or Singtel are to you. Well, maybe you're not free to use Singtel -- I don't know what your laws force you to do.

Quit your whining and use the marketplace (2, Interesting)

Landaras (159892) | more than 12 years ago | (#2487718)


Here's an idea: instead of wasting their time whining about how awful MAPS is, why doesn't SafeSurf simply take their business elsewhere? Quit using TeleGlobe's service, tell them why you are leaving their service, and set up shop elsewhere. If using the RBL is so evil and dangerous, ISPs will quit using it when enough customers leave because of it.

Finally, raise your hand if you've ever been in a life-threatening emergency and chose to dial-up and check a disaster relief site as opposed to getting somewhere safe and calling 911. SafeSurf's use of that analogy (Think of the children! Think of the children's lives!) to further their point is sickening.

Re:Quit your whining and use the marketplace (3, Informative)

jamie (78724) | more than 12 years ago | (#2487732)

"...why doesn't SafeSurf simply take their business elsewhere? Quit using TeleGlobe's service..."

You missed the point. TeleGlobe is a backbone provider, they deliver the primary or in many cases the only internet access for millions of users (mostly in Europe I believe).

SafeSurf has nothing to do with TeleGlobe, does not pay them, isn't a customer of theirs, they just have a website that TeleGlobe censors. There's no "business" to take elsewhere.

Re:Quit your whining and use the marketplace (1)

Landaras (159892) | more than 12 years ago | (#2487752)

Thank you for the correction. I do stand by my second point, though.

Re:Quit your whining and use the marketplace (1)

rking (32070) | more than 12 years ago | (#2487805)

Yes, their argument seems to be either that even though they're not a cutomer of Teleglobe that Teleglobe should have an obligation to deliver access to their material OR that MAPS should not be permitted to publish a list of sites that they consider to be connected with spamming.

Assuming the facts presented above are true though, Teleglobs would appear to be culpable of claiming to follow a different policy to the one they have actually implemented. If so then their customers do have something legitimate to complain about. If the policy were clearly disclosed though there would be no issue, and I don't see how simply not transmitting someone else's message can be viewed as censorship.

Re:Quit your whining and use the marketplace (2)

BlueTurnip (314915) | more than 12 years ago | (#2488044)

If so then their customers do have something legitimate to complain about.

Right! Their customers have something legitimate to complain about. Safesurf is not one of their customers.

People who subcribe to an ISP certainly have a right to complain and take their business elsewhere if the ISP is not giving them full access to the Internet. But content providers do not have an automatic right to have their web content carried by all ISPs all over the world.

It is really ironic (which I think was the point of the original post) that Safesurf, of all people, would seem to assert that it is!

Re:Quit your whining and use the marketplace (1)

SEWilco (27983) | more than 12 years ago | (#2488198)

The argument still is relevant. If your ISP is affected by TeleGlobe's behavior, as a customer you can tell your ISP of the problems and they can decide what to do. Well, maybe your laws don't let you complain...I don't know. Or maybe TeleGlobe's spamming behavior is required due to the laws which they have to obey.

Various governments have wiped out pirate havens in the past. But that was generally a task for their Navy and Marine forces -- are there any spammers within range of a 16-inch gun?

SafeSurf doesn't use TeleGlobe (1)

CentrX (50629) | more than 12 years ago | (#2487743)

SafeSurf does not use any of the services that they are complaining about. They don't use TeleGlobe. Other people use an ISP that connects via TeleGlobe, which blocks the site. SafeSurf has no say in the matter.

Contrived Example (3, Insightful)

ffatTony (63354) | more than 12 years ago | (#2487720)

Imagine trying to connect to a crisis assistance site after a devastating earthquake, only to find its among a vast IP group being blocked by RBL

Do people really use the internet for such a purpose? I would think a cellphone would be the best means to contact help after a major accident.

Re:Contrived Example (1)

blowhole (155935) | more than 12 years ago | (#2487760)

Keyword: IMAGINE ???

I dunno, I'm just as puzzled as you are. Maybe they mean if the phone lines were out, and you had wireless connectivity?

Re:Contrived Example (1)

42forty-two42 (532340) | more than 12 years ago | (#2487888)

What about Net2Phone?

Re:Contrived Example (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2487969)

On sept 11th it was impossible to call outside of new york on a cellphone or on a regular phone. The internet still worked.

Heh heh heh (1)

jedwards (135260) | more than 12 years ago | (#2487722)

Imagine trying to connect to a crisis assistance site after a devastating earthquake, only to find its(sic) among a vast IP group being blocked by RBL. People can die as the result of their blind imprecision. They MUST be regulated

Imagine trying to connect to a crisis assistance site after a devastating earthquake, only to find it's down for routine maintenance. People can die as the result of their innocent actions. They MUST be regulated

Re:Heh heh heh (2)

gnovos (447128) | more than 12 years ago | (#2487847)

Imagine trying to connect to a crisis assistance site after a devastating earthquake, only to find its(sic) among a vast IP group being blocked by RBL. People can die as the result of their blind imprecision. They MUST be regulated

Imagine trying to connect to a crisis assistance site after a devastating earthquake, only to find it's down for routine maintenance. People can die as the result of their innocent actions. They MUST be regulated


Imagine trying to connect to a crisis assistance site after a devastating earthquake, only to find it's being used by a gay, asian-Italian midget murderer with a surly additude and a switchbalde made out of uranium inload with gerbil bones who not only won't let you use the computer, but will also KILL you and your family! Can you imagine the lives that could be lost in such situations as this?!? SOMETHING MUST BE DONE!

At least .. (3, Funny)

Eloquence (144160) | more than 12 years ago | (#2487727)

.. SafeSurf has changed their old SS-style logo [humanist.de] , which was quite reminiscent of the nazi SS logo [adl.org] . Their new logo [safesurf.com] , however, still looks pretty creepy.

Re:At least .. (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2487896)

Their new logo [safesurf.com] , however, still looks pretty creepy.

Creepy? It looks like a whale tail [beaches.com.au] to me.

Re:At least .. (1)

yesthatguy (69509) | more than 12 years ago | (#2488175)

Or a heart...

Jurassic Park similarities? (1)

weez75 (34298) | more than 12 years ago | (#2487728)

Does this remind anyone else of the end of Jurassic Park (the first movie) when the tyrannasaur and the raptors go at it? Neither of these groups are my favorite so let 'em duke it out!

What am I missing? (2)

baptiste (256004) | more than 12 years ago | (#2487729)

I thought MAPs was used to block spam via DNS queries to their blacklist. SafeSurf makes it sound like their web site is being blocked? It makes no sense! Or do they distribute their list of safe sites via email?

I'm tired of everyone blasting the MAPs service and similar services. SPAM sucks - MAPs helps. Its not perfect. But I'm tired of all these people acting like email is a God given right - its not. If your ISP choses to utilize MAPS or any other blacklist that is THEIR right as the company providing you teh service. Should they notify you? Sure, but if not - too bad.

The bottom line is MAPs is not frocing things down peoples throats. If your ISP choses to use it - well that may be a good thing or bad thing to you just like other stuff such as port blocking, etc. You take that into accont. Remember folks - internet service is provided to you by a provider that sets the rules - don't like it? Go elsewhere or if no alternative exists, deal with it.

It seems more and more groups are trying to shut down MAPs - which personally would piss me off big time. Its a good service. Plus it allows me to utilize it in any manner I choose. I cna have sendmail block emails or use it to add headers, etc. But in teh end - its up to the ISP (I'm my own ISP for services - yay!) to determine how they will handle SPAM. procmail may work for you, but its not for everyone!

As for SafeSurf - that legislation is hilarious. Rating every web page on teh Internet - as if. The scary part is knowing our esteemed leaders - they'll think its a great thing. If it got passed? Well, instead of spending the time rating all my pages I'd form a LLC for my web sites with no assets :) They want to sue? Fine - sue the shell and I'll start another one or move overseas (my servers anyway) :)

Re:What am I missing? (5, Informative)

jamie (78724) | more than 12 years ago | (#2487762)

" I thought MAPs was used to block spam via DNS queries to their blacklist. SafeSurf makes it sound like their web site is being blocked? It makes no sense!"

Nope, it doesn't make sense. There are a lot of readers who, like you, are confused about this whenever we post a MAPS story.

MAPS's blacklist is ostensibly a list of IPs from which spam originates. But more and more, it is a list of websites and Class C's from which no spam comes, but which are either considered "spam-friendly" or are owned by companies which are considered "spam-friendly."

These IPs are put on the list because MAPS knows that there are still ISPs like TeleGlobe which will censor whatever MAPS tells them to censor. TeleGlobe uses the RBL to block not just mail being sent on port 25, but all traffic. And TeleGlobe is a backbone so this has a huge effect. Essentially this means MAPS can point at any website they want and wipe it off the internet for millions of people. And the purpose of putting SafeSurf (and other websites) on the RBL was to get them censored so that MAPS could throw its weight around to further its goals.

Sounds like you agree with those goals -- but I'm hoping, like me, you disagree with the means used to achieve them.

"Remember folks - internet service is provided to you by a provider that sets the rules - don't like it? Go elsewhere or if no alternative exists, deal with it."

Millions of people are having their internet access censored, by a backbone provider which promises that it does not censor. Many of them have no options for alternative providers, so their only recourse is, as you say, to "deal with it."

Re:What am I missing? (2)

Fastolfe (1470) | more than 12 years ago | (#2487779)

Don't attribute to malice what can be explained equally well by non-malicious intent. Consider the possibility that this isn't some sort of evil, "stealth" attempt at censoring Internet content, and that it just MIGHT be because safesurf.com is hosted by a spam-friendly ISP, or is hosted on the same IP address as a spammer. There are porn sites hosted on the same IP address used by www.safesurf.com, so clearly their ISP is pretty lax with respects to the types of sites it hosts.

Even if the MAPS RBL listed a single IP address here, there would certainly be innocent victims that happen to share that IP address. This is impossible to avoid if an ISP chooses to go the cheapie IP-less route when hosting web sites.

Re:What am I missing? (1)

leeward (313589) | more than 12 years ago | (#2487885)

Unfortunately, the spam problem is getting out of control. And as long as there are no effective legislative restrictions, I absolutely do support this type of, admittedly, draconian measures. I only wish more ISPs had the guts to do what Teleglobe is doing.

Supposedly, my ISP, Pacbell, has started to use SPEWS (an alternative to MAPS) to block email. If they starting blocking all traffic with sites listed in SPEWs, I would be thrilled. I would gladly "deal with it" in exchange for that kind of a 2x4 upside the heads of the spammers. Yes, it causes collateral damage, but for now, collateral damage is just about the only effective tool available.

Re: instead of a url using a .com why not a .kid? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2488026)

a url with a .kid would be easy to use for the children. having this used for kids makes sense.
and for sites that can be deemed kid safe but isn`t just for kids only they could use a url with a .sfk (or whatever you can think of) to say it`s (S)afe (F)or (k)ids. pretty simple to me. this way parents and kids would know right away which sites would be good or safe for them to view.....

Re:What am I missing? (3, Insightful)

seebs (15766) | more than 12 years ago | (#2488186)

Could you name this large block of IP space that is listed on MAPS, but which is not, in fact, hosting well-known spammers? I seem to have missed the actual facts substantiating your claims. Perhaps there aren't any?

Go look at the documentation for a listing. It'll be there, and by the time netblocks are listed, it'll be pretty impressive.

Re:What am I missing? (5, Insightful)

crucini (98210) | more than 12 years ago | (#2488204)

Your post presents an incomplete picture. The reason why spam-support IP addresses are listed is that spam is frequently sent either from throwaway accounts or via open relays. Thus, there is no originating IP to blacklist. But the spammers frequently depend on driving traffic to a web site. The most effective way to fight these spammers is to block access to their web sites. ISPs who deliberately harbor such web sites are outcasts. They are intentionally choosing to pollute the internet with unwanted garbage, with the consequence that other networks may refuse to carry their traffic. And when a spam ISP evades an IP address listing by moving the offending site to a different address, MAPS natually tends to list the whole block.

I wish that in answering someone's request for factual information you would include the appropriate context. Seen in that context, MAPS's actions appear more reasonable.

Re:What am I missing? (3, Insightful)

Todd Knarr (15451) | more than 12 years ago | (#2488226)

Actually, Jaime, sites are put onto the RBL for three reasons:

  1. Spam originates from them and they have failed to do anything about it despite repeated complaints over the course of months.
  2. They host web sites belonging to proven spammers.
  3. They sell programs and materials whose only purpose is to enable spammers to spam.
Those criteria are well-known by anyone who knows about MAPS at all. And yes, this blacklisting catches anyone associated with the spammers or the ISPs who support them in these ways. That's the point: to force those ISPs to choose between the spammers and the non-spammers. Complaints from the rest of us about the spammers don't have any effect because it doesn't hurt the ISP to ignore them. We aren't their customers, after all. It's only when their customers begin to complain and take their business elsewhere that the ISPs do anything.

It's the Internet equivalent of going into a shoe shop and telling the owner "I don't like Nike's child-labor practices. So, not only am I not going to buy Nike shoes, I'm not going to do business with you, at all, as long as you continue to carry Nike shoes on your shelves. And neither is half the rest of the area.". If you just stopped buying Nike shoes but kept patronizing him, he'd have no reason to stop carrying Nikes. He still gets your money for other brands, plus money from people buying Nike. But when he's got to choose between carrying Nike and losing half his customers, it's a slightly different story. And that's what every single one of us who want our ISPs using the MAPS RBL are doing to the ISPs who continue to host spammers.

Re:What am I missing? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2488266)

Do you in fact do this for Nike? If not, why not? Child labor is surely worse than spam.

Re:What am I missing? (2)

Asic Eng (193332) | more than 12 years ago | (#2487900)

But I'm tired of all these people acting like email is a God given right - its not. If your ISP choses to utilize MAPS or any other blacklist that is THEIR right as the company providing you teh service. Should they notify you? Sure, but if not - too bad.

Huh? They've agreed to provide me with a service, for a fee I'm paying. It's their duty to fulfill the contract. Companies have to obey the law, just like people do.

Re:What am I missing? (3, Insightful)

baptiste (256004) | more than 12 years ago | (#2487914)

Huh? They've agreed to provide me with a service, for a fee I'm paying. It's their duty to fulfill the contract. Companies have to obey the law, just like people do.

Right and are you 100% sure that contract forbids them from doing this? Are you sure it doesn't have a clause stating they can do just about anything or that the contract terms can change at any time? Most do.

IP-less virtual hosting victim? (5, Interesting)

Fastolfe (1470) | more than 12 years ago | (#2487751)

There's not much MAPS could have done to prevent this from happening, assuming an RBL listing was necessary. It looks like their ISP is using IP-less virtual hosting, relying upon the browser-provided Host: header to determine where the user is sent.

$ host www.safesurf.com
www.safesurf.com. is an alias for safesurf.com.
safesurf.com. has address 63.107.146.25

$ host 63.107.146.25
25.146.107.63.in-addr.arpa. domain name pointer ustoyou.com.
25.146.107.63.in-addr.arpa. domain name pointer safesurf.com.
25.146.107.63.in-addr.arpa. domain name pointer us2you.com.


WARNING: Browse the 'us2you.com' sites at your own risk. Porn pop-ups abound.

Their analogy of MAPS blocking an entire telephone prefix isn't very sound. It's more like safesurf.com using a party line, and MAPS blocks access to their very specific phone number. It's not their fault you chose to get your site connectivity with a shared IP address.

*shrug* I personally think this is pretty amusing. I would definitely be asking my provider for a new IP address, though, one that wasn't being used by the types of people the MAPS RBL targets.

(Note: Assumption being made) (2)

Fastolfe (1470) | more than 12 years ago | (#2487763)

Note that I am making an assumption here that it was (or could have been) their specific IP targeted by the RBL. It's equally possible, though, that the RBL included this ISP's entire subnet, if the ISP itself were targeted by the MAPS RBL. This has its own set of religious debates.

In either case, I would be interested in knowing WHY my subnet was blacklisted. If my ISP is indeed involved in some shady, spam-friendly business practices, this kind of fall-out is hardly unexpected. I'd take my business elsewhere.

Re:(Note: Assumption being made) (2)

crucini (98210) | more than 12 years ago | (#2488227)

Probably the subnet. Although MAPS seems to have unlisted it, SPEWS is still listing it. See the file here [spews.org] .

Re:IP-less virtual hosting victim? (2)

MrResistor (120588) | more than 12 years ago | (#2488014)

WARNING: Browse the 'us2you.com' sites at your own risk. Porn pop-ups abound.

You mean ustoyou.com, us2you.com seems to be a domain registry service (they do have a cool mouse-over-controlled spinning cube, though it doesn't seem to have any real purpose other than being cool), and has some link to some interesting (at first glance) space/scifi sites.

ustoyou.com is just porn pop-ups (including one really annoying one I had to Ctrl-Alt-Del to get rid of), there doesn't seem to be any actual content.

NOT IP-less virtual hosting victim (2)

Seth Finkelstein (90154) | more than 12 years ago | (#2488029)

That was a fine conjecture. But in fact, the issue doesn't have anything to do with virtual hosting. It has to do with spammish sites in that netblock.

Read this whole thread about the spammish sites at safesurf.com's ISP [google.com]

Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org) [sethf.com]

Re:NOT IP-less virtual hosting victim (1)

djmurdoch (306849) | more than 12 years ago | (#2488122)

I didn't see anything from MAPS in that thread. Did you see MAPS's explanation for listing safesurf.com somewhere? If so, please post it.

Solution (2)

Zeinfeld (263942) | more than 12 years ago | (#2488326)

You gotta love a censorware company that shares its Web hosting with a porn purveyor.

Simple solution is for safe surf to explain to their customers how they can access their site by going through one of the anonymous proxy servers...

Blind Blocking, Anyone? (3, Insightful)

phraktyl (92649) | more than 12 years ago | (#2487753)

At last the RBL is available [mail-abuse.org] to search through.

I looked all over the SafeSurf web site and didn't see their block list anywhere.

Re:Blind Blocking, Anyone? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2487783)

That lookup form has been there for years.

Re:Blind Blocking, Anyone? (1)

rking (32070) | more than 12 years ago | (#2487826)

I think "last" was a typo for "least"

If websites causing damage get sued ... (1, Funny)

OeLeWaPpErKe (412765) | more than 12 years ago | (#2487770)

let's start with cnn.com ... they are at least partly responsible for the average united states IQ and that is responsible for ... well ....


precision bombing [yahoo.com] (AGAIN)

[yahoo.com]
terror laws (well, one cannot argue that the name isn't accurate)

[yahoo.com]
they're firing on our invasion force !!! THE BASTARDS (ok you didn't do it, but you provided the invasion force)

America's online losers [aol.com]

Microsoft Stupidity Network [msn.com] (this is slashdot, and there was no mention of microsoft in this post, I'm no karma whore, but I'm not stupid ;-) )

Stop trying to legislate a safer world (3, Insightful)

canadian_right (410687) | more than 12 years ago | (#2487771)

I wish everyone would stop trying to get the government to play the role of global babysitter.

If you don't want your kids to see things you don't like on the internet then SUPERVISE your kids. Educate your kids. Teach your kids to respect themselves. Trust your children to use their own good judgement when they are old enough. (If you don't trust your kids you screwed up as a parent) BUT don't try to legislate away a problem that is only a problem for the lazy, apathetic, and those willing to force their narrow views on everyone.

Soular is a stuipd self-serving git. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2487778)

"To make matters worse, MAPS has no idea of what content it may be blocking. Imagine trying to connect to a crisis assistance site after a devastating earthquake, only to find its among a vast IP group being blocked by RBL. People can die as the result of their blind imprecision. They MUST be regulated," Soular reasoned.

What a dick. People lile Soular can die as the result of their own extreme stupidity.

New Rating system (1)

jackb_guppy (204733) | more than 12 years ago | (#2487817)

Lets dump them all and start a new rating system... called Word of Mouth.

Everyone is required to run the client software. When any site is accessed the client will ask the reviewer (person) what they think of it... Good / Bad, Adult, Hatred,... These responces will then be logged so the next time someone accesses the site and the say... Adult thresshold is not low enough they will be blocked.

Then the communtiy at large will be the raters. Allowes for new site (unrated) to come on line and soon to be blocked for what ever or if a search in like google starts to use the info - be placed at the top of lists for being the BEST.

You could even register as a Jew, Christian, Afro-American, .... so client could then "change" the rating system to look for responces by others with a simular belief or heritage.

This could even work for TV and dump those stupid VChips.

Re:New Rating system (1)

RGRistroph (86936) | more than 12 years ago | (#2487887)

If the trolls on slashdot can have moderator points and mod themselves up, how the hell do you think you are going to make this work ? What's to stop the owner of a porn site from running scripts that flood the system with good ratings ? All the same attacks, distributed scripts which log in to thousands of the open NT boxes left by Code Red and then do their work, etc, are still there.

What you need is a way to assure that a particular rating came from a real person and that a real person is not doing more of the rating. A meta-mod like system of ranking the rankers has a built in time lag, and the "enemy" can always produce new moderators wholesale.

So in the end, the you still cannot insulate yourself completely from the rest of humanity. There are pornographers out there, and they are also part of the human race, and so the normal interaction of a human will eventually lead you to one.

You can try to move to the right side of the tracks, but eventually "they" will move in next door, or you will find out the preacher in your white little church was one of "them" all along. You can set your threshold to 4, miss all the good stuff, and still get a little goatse now and then. You can ban TVs and computers and make your daughters wear burkas, but then the fact that your society lacked the democratizing characteristics of TVs and etc means that your leaders allowed something to happen that brings "them" back at the point of a gun.

Give up. You are human and humans are dirty. There is nothing you can do to stop yourself from being a member of the single giant community that is the globalized world.

Most people can't just "deal with it" (2, Insightful)

mcg1969 (237263) | more than 12 years ago | (#2487820)

I'd say the vast, vast majority of people (90 percent or more) have no idea what MAPS is, how it works, or that it does work. So the option to "fight back" really isn't available for most, because most people don't know that there is an enemy.

Unfortunately the end user will often simply not be able to access a particular web site, and when that happens simply assume that it's the fault of the web site.

I'm not sure that it is possible or practical to educate the masses about this stuff. That's where I think that a good Internet watchdog organization or activist group can do a real service.

Odd... (1)

keiferb (267153) | more than 12 years ago | (#2487823)

I can't seem to get to SafeSurf's page. Mozilla keeps telling me it doesn't exist.

I can't decide on a metaphor for MAPS... (2)

Kasreyn (233624) | more than 12 years ago | (#2487828)

Either they're a jackbooted Schutzstaffel officer stealing Einstein's violin, or they're Bruce Willis, saving the day once more (in a tank top no less), then crackin' open a cold one and getting the girl.

So hard to decide...

-Kasreyn

Re:I can't decide on a metaphor for MAPS... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2488157)

i vote for the latter. i'd rather someone resend their mail than get 100 porn emails.

the legislative proposal is laughable (1)

gmack (197796) | more than 12 years ago | (#2487830)

Once again we see an american group forgetting that all the world is not the USA.

What happens when a webmaster simpy hosts in say.. Russia?
What then? do they block all countries without similar laws?

Re:the legislative proposal is laughable (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2487846)

Once again we see an american group forgetting that all the world is not the USA.

Fortunately for those of us in the USA, though, nobody else really counts for shit, when you get right down to it.

Re:the legislative proposal is laughable (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2488082)

Fortunately for those of us in the USA, though, nobody else really counts for shit, when you get right down to it.
...until the day they turn up in your office, through the window with a few tons of jet fuel.

SS redux (1)

the_rev_matt (239420) | more than 12 years ago | (#2487833)

The rampant hypocrisy of SS is truly entertaining. I'm sure they don't see it, and would insist that any censorship is GOOD censorship as long as it's "for the children".

http://www.theonion.com/onion3534/missing_the_po in t.html

.... (1)

Tviokh (315844) | more than 12 years ago | (#2487835)

What ever happened to parents making sure their kids weren't going to sites that they felt were "inappropriate"?
Hell, what ever happened to parental involvement in their childrens' lives?

Blame everybody but yourselves...yeesh.

Am I the only one... (3, Interesting)

nochops (522181) | more than 12 years ago | (#2487836)

...who noticed that
"... Publishers may be sued ...by any parent who feels their children were harmed..."

but
"...The parents ...do not have to prove that the content actually produced harm to their child..."

So the publishers can be sued by any parent, and they will AUTOMATICALLY LOSE the case because the parent's don't have to prove any wrongdoing?

Where's my passport? If this shit gets passed, I'm outa here.

Re:Am I the only one... (5, Funny)

Todd Knarr (15451) | more than 12 years ago | (#2487870)

Naw, you want it passed. When it passes, you immediately sue SafeSurf for publishing information (their blocked-site list) that you feel harmed your child (by preventing them from finding information on various topics that could save their life). Then watch SafeSurf try to worm out of their own legal language.

Re:Am I the only one... (0)

nochops (522181) | more than 12 years ago | (#2487899)

Ahhh!
Good point young grasshopper!

Libertarian Parent (4, Insightful)

rossz (67331) | more than 12 years ago | (#2487856)

As a libertarian, I believe censorship is wrong. As a parent, I believe censorship is sometimes necessary. I do not, however, advocate government sponsered censurship. I am my daughter's censure. When she surfs the web, I sit with her. When she does a google search, sometimes I will not let her click on one of the resultant links. On several occassions I've had her leave the room so I can check out a site first.

There is one case where I think the government should come down hard, fast, and without mercy. I want to hurt those scumbags who use urls that are common variations of sites kids might go to, but are really porn sites, e.g. whitehouse.com and disny.com.

Finally, I can justify shutting down spammers even though I am a libertarian. I pay for my internet access. The spammers do not. Your freedom stops at my front door. You can go to a park and spout your beliefs all you want. You can not demand entry into my home using the argument of "free speech". If you insist on forcing entry, I'll introduce you to another one of my rights. My right to own a gun.

Re:Libertarian Parent (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2487930)

Shut up, pussy.

Re:Libertarian Parent (3, Interesting)

TheMCP (121589) | more than 12 years ago | (#2488219)

I am my daughter's censure. When she surfs the web, I sit with her. When she does a google search, sometimes I will not let her click on one of the resultant links. On several occassions I've had her leave the room so I can check out a site first.

Now, what are you teaching her about how to deal with the sort of material you have chosen to censor? How is she going to know how to react to it when she encounters it when you're not there to censor it? She will eventually encounter it without you there, even if she has to wait until she's 18 to do it. You would really rather prevent her from seeing it now and prevent her from having the benefit of your wisdom on the topic?

I talked to my aunt about it once. She's a conservative Christian, and I figured she'd be as conservative as possible about her children's use of the net, and I was concerned about it. I was surprised: she lets all three kids use the net uncensored... but not unsupervised. She'll let them look at whatever they want to, but they have to do it when and where an adult family member can see them to provide guidance about what they're looking at. She told me she knows her children will all have to face the world without her someday, and she wants them to have the knowledge, ability, and background to help them deal with it well.

Consequently if one of her kids accidentally encounters adult material (which is a far less common thing than people make it out to be, but it can happen) they're merely uninterested and just find another page to look at.

There is one case where I think the government should come down hard, fast, and without mercy. I want to hurt those scumbags who use urls that are common variations of sites kids might go to, but are really porn sites, e.g. whitehouse.com and disny.com.

Thank God we have the constitution to stop people like you.

The net is like the world: not designed for small children, but capable of being useful to them. If you want your children to be able to use the net, you have to supervise their use of it yourself, just as you supervise your child living in the world. If you can't take the time to fulfill your parental responsibilities regarding the net, you shouldn't let your child on the net. It's not everybody else's responsibility to make sure your child is safe and/or not exposed to what you don't want your child exposed to by changing the net, just as it's not our responsibility to ensure that your child is always safe everywhere on earth by eliminating all sharp objects.

And I'll remind you of something else: it is not only your responsibility as a parent to protect your child and see to their well being, but also to see that they aren't a nuisance to everyone around them and that they are socialized properly. So, even if you could get perfect censorware software (which we know can't exist, but let's pretend), it would still be your obligation to monitor your child's internet usage to ensure that they don't annoy everybody else on the net. So, why should we go changing the net to accomodate your tastes given that it's your responsibility to be there anyway?

If disny.com is a porn site, though, you might contact the Disney company about it, which might take perfectly legitimate (and constitutional) legal action of their own about the matter, such as for trademark violation.

Re:Libertarian Parent (1)

tkrotchko (124118) | more than 12 years ago | (#2488305)

censure - to subject somebody or something to severe criticism

censor - supervision and control of the information and ideas that are circulated among the people within a society

You're welcome.

WTF? (3, Insightful)

Velex (120469) | more than 12 years ago | (#2487858)

Ok, isn't SafeSurf among the guys responsible for not letting me do research on breast cancer, transsexualism, gay rights, the second amendment, and drug abuse, among other things not suited for the children? Here are a few points:

  1. SafeSurf is easily guilty of the same things it accuses MAPS of, namely censorship.
  2. Most of SafeSurf's argument is dependant on the children, and this should set off a red flag.
  3. SafeSurf's basically saying that it's their liberty to participate in denying liberty to others.
  4. SafeSurf accuses MAPS of being "blinded by the smell of spammer's blood," not seeming "to care how many innocent Web sites they trounce in the process." Couldn't the same easily be said about SafeSurf's obsession over filtering anything they this is unsuitable for the children?
  5. "Censorship is a broad brush that drips paint on the pure, as well as the tainted." Listen to your own words, SafeSurf.
  6. Overall, the strength of the rhetoric compared to the severity of the problem here and the difficulty that MAPS would have avoiding the problem tends to indicate to me that SafeSurf really has no case, and they know it.
  7. SafeSurf seems too concerned about the children for me to really take them seriously

Congrats... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2488037)

you just managed to articulate the blindingly obvious!

Re:Congrats... (1)

Velex (120469) | more than 12 years ago | (#2488081)

you just managed to articulate the blindingly obvious!

I know, it's a talent I'm developing with the help of my friend, Melandri-sensei, who is the Master of the Obvious.

Email to Safesurf (1)

innocent_white_lamb (151825) | more than 12 years ago | (#2487880)

I just sent the safesurf people this email. It will be interesting to see what their response is:

I just read your proposal for regulating the Internet.

Three questions:

1. The Internet is international. How do you propose to enforce this law (assuming that you get it passed) against a site hosted in Russia, Zimbabwe, Cuba or Pakistan? If it can't be enforced "internationally" then it will be zero value because any "questionable" content will be hosted somewhere out of reach of your proposed law.

2. How do you propose to deal with differing community and cultural standards? For instance, nudity is accepted in Europe much more than in America. What about religious bans? For example, I'm sure that the Taliban would be opposed to any anti-Muslim statements being made on a web site. The government of China would be opposed to anti-Communist web pages. And so on. How do you propose to please everyone? Once again, the Internet is international and any proposal must take into account the differing nature of the various world-wide communities.

3. What about personal web sites? "Hi, my name is Jack and this is a picture of my sister and my cat and my budgie bird". Do you propose that all web sites of this nature must be rated as well? Who will pay the cost for doing that? And who will pay for and re-certify the site when it changes? How much change constitutes "change". If Jack puts up a new picture of his budgie bird, does the site have to be re-certified? What if he adds a new picture of his budgie bird in addition to the one that he already has posted?

Thank you for reading this. I look forward to receipt of your response to these questions.

In other metaphorical news... (1, Offtopic)

A_Non_Moose (413034) | more than 12 years ago | (#2487902)

The skillet (slashdot) reports on the pot calling the kettle censor.

we will either loudly hold on to our liberty or it will become clear that we gave up our rights by our silence.

This is the reason some of us refuse to shut up on the topic [slashdot.org]

Now before this is modded down as a troll, I don't troll. Flamebait, guilty on odd occasions. Offtopic? who does not stray off topic from time to time, eh? Over/Under rated.. ego slap/stroke... had overrated applied to me so much it is almost a punishment because it so over used (especially when it is used less than 2 to 5 minutes after posting...oye veigh!).

Censorship takes on many forms; from the subtle "I don't like this person for reason X" lets mod him down every chance we get; to the not so subtle "Just SHUT UP, will ya!".

In either case, is it warranted?
In my case (and a few vocal slashdot minorities) who knows? If every time someone gets modded down the moderator has to post a 20 word reason I think there would be a change in thinking. Heck, if I got a (in vivian's voice) You're a complete bastard, and we all hate you! (end voice)...Ok, cool, that is a reason (not a good one, but a reason none the less).

As for the Article, side A and B think they are right...somewhere in the middle is the truth.

Read the quote again.

Applying punishment to the many for the failure/stupidity of one is applicable in the military, not on the internet.

Oh, well, here sometimes "It is better to be silent and thought a fool, than to start typing and prove otherwise (with apologies to the author of such wisdom..Confucious?)

Moose out....

Substantially false... (2)

seebs (15766) | more than 12 years ago | (#2487915)

MAPS doesn't blacklist sites for sharing a network with spammers; they blacklist networks that have a spam problem. This is different, just as there's a difference between hitting someone who jumps in front of your car and trying to run someone down.

I know everyone likes to stick up for the little guy, but when the little guy would rather work with companies that host spammers than companies that don't, I guess I don't have a lot of sympathy left for him.

Teleglobe - dumb. (1)

JamesGreenhalgh (181365) | more than 12 years ago | (#2487918)

Don't Teleglobe realise that the RBL is actually intented for use on mail blocking? Using it to block all traffic from a listed network is extremely stupid, especially for a backbone provider.

I'm not sticking up for SafeSurf, I'm sick and tired of stupid censorware providers whining when someone censors them, and justifying everything 'for the sake of the children', but it appears to me, that Teleglobe, are dumb. ;-)

Re:Teleglobe - dumb. (1)

leeward (313589) | more than 12 years ago | (#2488023)

Except that it is not censorship. The purpose of the blocklist is to put market pressure on ISPs to clean up their act, and stop supporting spammers. Teleglobe is not being stupid. They are trying to protect their network from being buried under spam, and in my opinion they are fully justified in their actions. Not every case of blocking access is "censorship". I for one am sick and tired of stupid spamware providers.

Important info - spammers in safesurf netblock (4, Informative)

Seth Finkelstein (90154) | more than 12 years ago | (#2487954)

Without getting into the whole spam issue, here's some relevant info:

safesurf.com is IP address 63.107.146.25 There were a bunch of spammish sites at OTHER places in the 63.107.146.* netblock. And MAPS will blacklist every single address within a netblock when it "escalates" their dispute.

See this long list of spammish sites once in the 63.107.146.* netblock (June 22 2001) [google.com]

Note many if not all of these sites have changed address by now.

Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org) [sethf.com]

Are they stupid...? (1)

RyuuzakiTetsuya (195424) | more than 12 years ago | (#2488024)

Last I checked they sold software. By requiring this kind of filtering on the web, they're making thier job alot harder to compete.

Figure this

Standard in Net content is established.

Microsoft incorporates said standard into IE. Which is free. even if you're still using Win95..

Microsoft may very well end up killing another company unintentionally. Or intentionally? In this case I think the software giant my just roll over and accidentally squish a smaller vendor.

Well

It's either microsoft doing it for free, or Norton or someone else doing it with a big brand name, or for cheap(cheaper).

Wrong Icon? (1)

ironheart (87073) | more than 12 years ago | (#2488031)

Shouldn't this have the Monty Python Foot "Humor" icon?

Funniest thing I've seen all day. Couldn't even get to the end of the press release.

I hadn't realized that stealth censorship was so much worse than real censorship.

Ironheart

So much for the "end of irony."

Goddamnit (1)

Erik Fish (106896) | more than 12 years ago | (#2488084)

> unashamedly blacklist websites for just
> sharing a network with sites that "support"
> spam

What does MAPS have to be ashamed of? Also, those quotes around the word "support" imply that MAPS is not truly blacklisting spammers, their supporters and the customers of their supporters.

Once again I would like to ask Slashdot to get off it's anti-MAPS kick. If the editors actually read the comments they would realize that most of their readers do not share their poorly informed negative opinions of MAPS.

Yet another Jamie Doesn't Like MAPS story (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2488139)

Jamie doesn't like MAPS.

It's because a website he's associated with (peacefire.org) got put onto the RBL. The circumstances around it are vague, but it would appear that peacefire was *deliberately* placed onto a netblock already RBL'd because of spammer infestation, just to make a point.

Personally, MAPS is too weak, spews.org is much more effective, since they don't pretend to try to educate spam-friendly ISP's, they just blackhole them until they whine. Hopefully teleglobe will start to use spews, just so Jamie have have another aploplectic fit over someone remembering that the internet is made up of PRIVATE networks, and they can block anyone they bloody well please.

Re:Yet another Jamie Doesn't Like MAPS story (2)

crucini (98210) | more than 12 years ago | (#2488274)

Exactly. I hope someone mods you up. I won't be upset if the lawyers destroy MAPS. It will just push the technical community towards more hard-line services like SPEWS. Eventually we might end up with a Freenet-like system, in which listings are crypto-signed but untraceable. In the mean time, Jamie, Bennet Haselton, and others like them try to whip up anti-MAPS sentiment by telling the story of evil Goliath vs. little David (who just happens to spam a bit on the side, so what?) It mostly impresses people who haven't researched subject much.

How do I mod the article up? (3, Funny)

pigeonhed (137303) | more than 12 years ago | (#2488153)

Cause that was so funny I just ruined a keyboard.

Mod Article: +1 Funny

Re:How do I mod the article up? (1)

Louis_Wu (137951) | more than 12 years ago | (#2488333)

I need to get my lobotomy reversed: How did you ruin your keyboard, and how is that related to the humor of the article? Yeah the article is painfully funny and ironic - but how does that affect your keyboard?

Clueless in Seattle.

Why block web sites? (2)

Skapare (16644) | more than 12 years ago | (#2488298)

Why is MAPS blocking web sites? I want SPAM to be blocked, not web sites. I don't get SPAM from web sites, I get SPAM from mail servers. So I want mail servers to be blocked when they send SPAM. And if a network of mail servers is sending it (determined by SPAM having come from 2 or more in the same netblock), then block all the mail servers from sending SPAM. The ISP need not even be blocked, unless the ISP makes the blocking difficult by either not properly identifying the spammer network assignment, or changing the spammer network address range (unless actually required to enlarge their network, or the ISP has to renumber everything). This would be for "spamhaus" type operations. Open relays and direct spam from dynamic IP customers is another matter (but can be dealt with).

MAPS is misleading people by blocking more than SPAM. They are using those who subscribe to their black hole to push their agenda on others (even though I personally agree with some of it, I don't agree with their methods).

MAPS is also mismanaged, but I don't really care about that anymore. The fact that they are mismanaged helped keep me from inadvertently being one of their pawns.

Hyperbole (2, Funny)

jayhawk88 (160512) | more than 12 years ago | (#2488314)

Thousands of family friendly Web sites, for no fault of their own, are being rendered inaccessible by "stealth censorship" and it may be putting people's lives at risk, warned SafeSurf, the online safety organization.

That's pretty good, but what they really needed to do here was say that it put children's lives at risk. Orphan children. Orphan children who have been raising money for their local church community center. And who own puppies.

You don't want to see church fund raising, puppy owning, orphan children be put at risk, do you?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?