Pot Calls Kettle Censor 206
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?
What is it with these people? (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Contrived Example (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Blind Blocking, Anyone? (Score:3, Insightful)
I looked all over the SafeSurf web site and didn't see their block list anywhere.
Stop trying to legislate a safer world (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Most people can't just "deal with it" (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Libertarian Parent (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
WTF? (Score:3, Insightful)
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:
Re:What am I missing? (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:What am I missing? (Score:3, Insightful)
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? (Score:5, Insightful)
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? (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, Jaime, sites are put onto the RBL for three reasons:
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:IP-less virtual hosting victim? (Score:3, Insightful)
What, you mean like the vast majority of small ISPs and their webhosting customers do because A) it can be expensive or impossible to acquire scads of IP addresses from your upstream provider, B) the HTTP 1.1 standard explicitly encourages this, and C) the current IPv4 address space is running increasingly short of free addresses and IPv6 has been coming Real Soon Now for eons?
Why should innocent parties have to go hunting for new ISPs because the vigilantes who run MAPS can't be bothered to worry about collateral damage? Unless the legal tradition has vastly changed in the last ten minutes, that's negligence on their part, and yes, they can and should be sued for it.
Please don't think I have any sympathy for either censorware or spam, but I have even less for a self-appointed judicial and enforcement agency with no legal authority and no accountability to the electorate. I might feel differently if they actually did a good job, but MAPS has a long, long history of heavy-handed tactics, incompetence, and a refusal to deal fairly with those site admins who DO fix open relays and ban customers who spam. We need actual laws to regulate spam, not arrogant nerds who neither know what they're doing nor do it in good faith.
Re:How do I mod the article up? (Score:3, Insightful)
There's a hackerish "funny" that goes like C|N>K which stands for "Coke piped through the Nose and redirected onto the Keyboard".
I'm assuming that's what the parent poster meant. Laughing while drinking and spraying it onto the keyboard.