U.S. Gov Agency Blunders With Keyword Blacklist 240
Anonymous Submitter writes "There's an interesting CNet article which highlights a report released by the OpenNet Initiative. The report examines how "a U.S. government agency charged with fighting Iranian and Chinese Internet censorship is quietly censoring the Web itself". Among some of the sites this U.S. agency accidentally blocks are breastcancer.com, teens.drugabuse.gov, several gay rights websites, and even usembassy.state.gov. Some of the members of the group who prepared this report were responsible for a previous Slashdot discussion entitled "Academics Take On Government Net Censorship". The report raises questions about the potential inaccuracy of proprietary and other secretive filtering mechanisms: who should be responsible for ensuring their accuracy?"
Slashdotting! (Score:5, Funny)
A new department is needed (Score:5, Funny)
Given that... (Score:3, Insightful)
</tinfoil hat mode>
Re:Given that... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Given that... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Given that... (Score:2)
Maybe they really hate pre-1900 literature. Shrub doesn't read ya know...He might not realize that there are other definitions for the word GAY.
Re:Given that... (Score:5, Interesting)
My observation pool is skewed, though. The pool for the >30 section comes from people I've met throughout life. The pool 30 comes from people that I've had contact with while looking for a roommate in a geographical area that is saturated with military personnel (ie. within 20 mile radius of a military installation). Still, though, all bigotry aside, this indicates to me that the general mood in Washington is,"If they're willing to die in the desert..."
Oh wait. I guess that's about the same as what you said.
So what... (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm in my forties and it dawned on me a long time ago that gay people aren't fundamentally different than straight people. Its your uncomfortableness with the situation that's the problem, not the sexual orientation of who you're dealing with.
I've heard all the nonsense about how gays destroy the "esprit de corp". What utter utter crap.
Live and let live. And if the guy next to you is attracted to guys, what do you care?
Re:Given that... (Score:2, Funny)
Ding!! Ding!! Ding!!
You've been awarded the Bigoted Idiot of the Week prize!!!
How's it feel to know your a complete and utter Jackass?Re:Given that... (Score:2)
Re:Given that... (Score:4, Informative)
Who cares? Compared to the fact that the draft board is making plans to draft geeks the blacklisting of certain keywords in govt. computer systems seems a rather trivial issue.
"In line with today's needs, the Selective Service System's structure, programs and activities should be re-engineered toward maintaining a national inventory of American men and, for the first time, women, ages 18 through 34, with an added focus on identifying individuals with critical skills," [nwsource.com]
How much more relevant the Slashdot editors choices of blacklisted keywords and the SEC fine of Gates are to the average geek reading slashdot! It will be so good to know when you get sent out to Baghdad to fight for Halliburton, that there are people back in the US fighting for the right of middle ranking civil servants to visit gay web sites during working hours.
If news of the plannning were not enough Rumsfeld has denied that the administration thinks that extending the draft is desirable or necessary. If you have been following the real news sites with stuff that matters you will know that Rumsfeld also said that there was no need for more troops in Iraq only a week before they were sent.
Re:Culture Bombing... (Score:5, Informative)
While I was in Thailand recently, the current attitudes in most of asia towards gay rights were all over the news... China is a mostly Buddhist country, and except for the noisy protests of the 5% Christian and/or Muslim members, it's going over without much of a fight. They're currently thinking of legalizing same-sex marriage (albeit slower than southeast asia, where it's very likely that we will see laws being passed shortly).
Re:Culture Bombing... (Score:3, Informative)
Chinese attitudes to homosexuality are very conservative. I've met mainland Chinese who assert that there aren't any homosexuals in China. Until not so long ago (at least the 70s), homosexuality was treated as a psychiatric disorder, and homosexuals could wind up in a psychiatric hospital.
As for China being a mostly Buddhist country... well, China is a mostly Confucian country, with a strong familial ethos and a traditionally prudish attitude to se
Re:Culture Bombing... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Culture Bombing... (Score:2)
The culture is very averse to talking about sex, but whatever happens behind closed doors...
Is this the same country that invented porn?
Re:Culture Bombing... (Score:5, Interesting)
A big change occurred with the influx of Western culture into China, esp. science. A lot of science at the time said homosexuality was a mental illness and many modern Chinese,eager to grasp Western ideas took this to heart. Homosexuality as well as old Confucian ideas became part of the "old" way and many young revolutionaries were eager to get rid of the "old ways". There's this story about this young revolutionary staring at disgust at his grandfather who came back drunk from a night of debauchery with young male opera stars. Actually the Communists were pretty much against overt romanticism even between males and females as well and even tender parental feelings for your children. You were supposed to be a worker for the state. Women who gave their children to their parents to raise so they could devote themselves to their work were praised (where do you think 1984 got these ideas from?). I'm not sure what the bias against homosexuality is like nowadays. My parents are very conservative religious Chinese who are not very up with PC (eg. they are openly hostile to people with dark skin) and grew up in Communist China. They don't act like they know anything about homosexuality, but then again, they don't act as if they know anything about sex at all. But when I mention something about two teachers possibly being in a homosexual relationship, they just titter rather than act disgusted. They seem to treat it more as something funny than repulsive. I guess I could test it by introducing them to a gay guy...Other people have mentioned that many modern Chinese refuse to admit homosexuals exist at all. It could be because we're from the south (and according to very ancient stereotypes which I'm not sure of the truth of), the south was always supposed to be more liberal about male/male relations (there's extremely old jokes about how "man" and "south" sound a lot alike). And my impression is the far south (Guangdong in my case) was always less influenced by Communist doctrine than further north. Anyway, I see the Communist attitude against homosexuality more similar to their attitude against religion (they banned all
MOD THIS GUY UP. (Score:2)
Re:Culture Bombing... (Score:2)
The point of citing the Muslim rapes is to point out that while Western culture has its share of animals, our animals do not typically use rape as a political statement. That phenomenon is unique to the Muslim ghettoes, and it is a direct outgrowth of Muslim attitudes towards women. Face? Hair? Fair enough, but what does it matter - this is a culture that makes the Victorians look like libertines.
As for airdropping the p
Re:Given that... (Score:2)
If Washington was truly concerned with the future of our country, you would be shot to ensure your ignorance is not spread to another generation. Fortunately for you & for Gay people, we have this concept called Freedom. It isn't reality, but we are supposed to think so.
Extra keywords to submit (Score:2, Funny)
Those topics are generally disturbing and harmful to both the security and the economy of America.
Re:Extra keywords to submit (Score:3, Funny)
Naughty Words (Score:5, Funny)
Rrriite...
Because he Never Looks at porn
Re:Naughty Words (Score:3, Funny)
A Modest Proposal (Score:3, Insightful)
They have admitted in open court that they are unable to take care of themselves or handle adult responsibilities. Therefore, they should be put in a home, and any money they collected from that lawsuit should be turned over to the home to pay for their lifetime care.
This would not only solve the problem of frivolous lawsuits and the quest for deep pockets, but
Re:Naughty Words (Score:2)
The woman that sued McDonalds received third degree burns over 6% of her body because the coffee wasn't hot. It was scalding [everything2.com]. Normal coffee is 60 degrees, McDonalds served coffee at 85, because it was cheaper. Coffee at 85 degrees is c
Re:Naughty Words (Score:2)
And just for your reference, the car was not moving and the woman was 70+ years old. And McDonalds already knew about
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
Regex trouble? (Score:4, Funny)
What? Never heard of
push @naughtywords, $banned =~ m/gay\./
?
IT error? (Score:5, Interesting)
Not from the US, eh? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:IT error? (Score:2, Informative)
just plain stupid (Score:5, Funny)
Re:just plain stupid (Score:5, Funny)
KFG
Re:just plain stupid (Score:2)
Somewhat like Dr Evil in Austin Powers?
Re:just plain stupid (Score:2, Insightful)
Which is what makes it stupid.
KFG
Re:just plain stupid (Score:2, Insightful)
Not that I endorse ignorance, but those stupid people sure are happy. They just do what everyone else does and life is gravy. If you're stupid, you've got lots of company (since there's alot of dumbasses), so it's quite pleasant to drink budweiser, watch WWE, complain about commies and sand niggers, and make fun of smart people with all of your stupid friends. Ignorance TRULY is bliss.
YEEEHHAAAA - Cletus, did you see the size of that chicken?
Common Sense (Score:5, Interesting)
In school environments, we've always set the Squid filters to allow pages containing health, medical, rights, etc - words likely to give context to what may or may not be blocked
Re:Common Sense (Score:3, Funny)
"Common Sense" can be a way to wish things away (Score:2)
But advocates of filters in libraries (and in your school) have been saying stuff like that for years. "C'mon, we can stop people from viewing explicit pRon in the library. All we have to do is install common-sense filtering." The librarians are radicals to oppose such a simple idea, and so on.
The questions in this /. posting aren't going to vanish because of common sense. Maybe th
Re:Common Sense (Score:2, Funny)
Oh fsck it, nevermind...
Censured Words (Score:5, Informative)
It gets better! (Score:5, Insightful)
Blocking sites with "asian" in it must really help out those poor Chinese..
Brilliant Move (Score:5, Interesting)
Brilliant. Now I've heard it all. So, when do we start "conserving bandwidth" in the US?
George **** & **** Cheney 2004!!! (Score:5, Funny)
Well... (Score:3, Funny)
"poor" Mr. Powell? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:"poor" Mr. Powell? (Score:2)
Just two comedians off the top of my head...
Colin Quinn?
Colin Mockery?
Re:"poor" Mr. Powell? (Score:2)
Ummm.. Americans don't pronounce it like "colon" either, just one person who happens to be well known. You really are an ignorant twat.
I would also point out that every English-speaking country, other than England of course, speaks an offshoot of English.
A bit sensationalist, isn't it? (Score:5, Insightful)
And I dount they have much choice. Government agencies often have this stuff mandated on them to "protect" the workspace, avoid having citizens groups screaming about government employees surfing porn on the job, hostile workplace regulation, etc.
Re:A bit sensationalist, isn't it? (Score:5, Interesting)
Otherwise, we'd have problems with people screaming about us not blocking it the first time somebody was surfing porn and an 'objector' came across it and said they're harrassed.
It's sad, but the current policy is that 'harrasment is defined by the harrassee'.
Re:A bit sensationalist, isn't it? (Score:2, Insightful)
It's censoring the pages that people in China and Iran can see, via a proxy server (Anonymizer, which used to be legit) that it is funding as a way for the Chinese and Iranians to get around their government's censorship. That's the whole point: They're replacing the Chinese and Iranian government's censorship with the US government's censorship.
The Chinese government doesn't want Chinese pe
Who needs accuracy? (Score:5, Interesting)
Nobody needs to ensure their accuracy if no one will use them.
I think they should quit trying to filter out pr0n and drugs etc, and instead focus on scam and advertizing cites. Then maybe I might use their filter.
stupid goal and stupid implementation (Score:5, Insightful)
Any content-based restriction on what sites people can visit is improper. Not only does the government have no business playing censor, but it sends the wrong message to people elsewhere, namely that censorship is okay, as long as it is the right kind.
If they really didn't want to waste resources on anything other than pro-democracy web sites, they could provide access just to specific sites, or they could provide open access but limit bandwidth. The images from porn sites will generally use much more bandwidth than the text of a political discussion. As it stands, the keyword list the contractor used is really hopeless. It just goes to show that there aren't very many words that are likely only to be associated with porn cites. I bet that any number of Catholic sites, for example, are blocked by the "virgin" keyword. In any case, where foreign countries are concerned, keyword blocking should be easy to get around. Instead of putting the sexual terms in your domain name, you put them in meta tags and site text, and you put them there in Chinese and Persian and so forth. How halfway intelligent people with the serious mission of spreading freedom and democracy can waste their time on such a thing is beyond me.
Talk about behind the times (Score:5, Interesting)
I remember by father's inability to access the Middlesex county government page from work because of the string "sex" in the URL. This was 12 years ago. They switched to a different filter system a few months afterwards.
Re:Talk about behind the times (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Talk about behind the times (Score:2)
Re:Talk about behind the times (Score:2)
Here are some keywords that cause an email (incoming or outgoing) to be rejected
"Joke" - because the email must be a joke.
"blone" - err.. presumeably because its a blonde joke?
And, most clever of all:
"spam" - because, the email *must* be spam!
Brilliant! Why hasn't anyone thought of this before! Quick, I'm off to patent this filtering method.
I'm not convinced (Score:2)
http://www.w3.org
Only to get the BIG RED BANNER OF GOODNESS telling me I was obviously mistaken for wanting to go there.
Little did I realize that the W3C is a terrorist organization intend on spreading sex and disease amongst our children.
Whatever the reason, it's actually gotten worse at work, not better.
Re:Talk about behind the times (Score:2)
Incompetent brainwashing? (Score:5, Funny)
Majority Rule... (Score:5, Insightful)
The IBB has justified a filtered Internet connection by arguing that it's inappropriate for U.S. funds to help residents of China and Iran--both of which receive dismal ratings from human rights group Freedom House--view pornography.
In the abstract, the argument is a reasonable one. If the IBB's service had blocked only hard-core pornographic Web sites, few people would object.
In other words, censorship is a perfectly acceptable thing to do when the majority doesn't complain about it? What kind of fucked up, idiotic logic is that?
Whether the majority cares or not is irrelevant, it's not a reasonable argument because censorship is censorship. I'm sure someone will try to spin it that "oh, well, it's the government censoring ANOTHER country", but that's just bullshit too. If you can't extend the beliefs of this country to non-citizens, there's no particularly compelling reason to believe they should apply to us, either.
Why is it that every time I turn around these days, some sort of idiotic bullshit like this is coming out of the government? Who the fuck let them off their leash anyway?
Re:Majority Rule... (Score:4, Insightful)
It also turns the "US as example of freedom to the rest of the world" concept on it's head. I mean, what, you're going to teach other countries about freedom of speech via acts of censorship? Yeah, a real shining beacon of freedom of speech there. Way to be a role model to the rest of the world.
Re:Majority Rule... (Score:2)
Simple: because it benefits the powerful elite. Any expansion of government, success or failure, can only benefit government. More often than not, government agencies which fail outright are *rewarded* with more revenue.
Re:Majority Rule... (Score:5, Informative)
And, here's the other thing that drives me nuts. All you nutters that think this sort of behavior is perfectly normal and acceptable. You... are... fucking.... insane. WAKE UP.
First of all, if human rights aren't universal, we don't deserve them any more than anybody else does, and our government has no need to feel obligated to keep those inconvenient "rights" that are such an impediment to their power plays and growth. Removing a right from a single person is like taking a chisel and putting a crack in the dam. The instant it's there, it's only a matter of time before the whole thing is worn away from that foothold and the water comes crashing through. The longer you ignore it, or try to play it off as insignificant, the harder it becomes to patch it back up. Let it go long enough, and only a mssive, coordinated, immediate response will avert disaster.
Second of all, YOUR bandwidth is YOUR private "property", as it were and is not subject to the same rules as the government. That has NOTHING to do with anything related to this discussion, and if you've taken at least a basic Civics class and think about it for a minute or two, you'll realize why.
Thirdly, democracy has nothing to do with censorship and, in fact, part of the reason the government is there is supposedly to protect the minority from majority abuse. Censorship is censorship, and the government has no place practicing it without an extremely compelling reason to do so. Yelling 'fire' in a crowded theatre can be censored (and even that's debateable due to the "crack in the dam" thing again) because it presents a legitimate public safety hazard. Last I knew, nobody ever died jerking off to porn unless they had a fucking heart attack or something.
Finally, not only is it irrelevant to this discussion what YOU think is a waste of tax dollars, it's also irrelevant how success is measured, if at all. These are completely different issues, and are only superficially related to the topic of censorship.
And, I might add: I agree, if the government cannot be trusted to run these systems without sticking their nose into moralistic bullshit like what the Chinese should and shouldn't watch, they shouldn't be running the fucking servers.
Re:Majority Rule... (Score:2, Insightful)
um, that makes it my machine. (Not exclusively, but...) My tax dollars, "government of, by, and for the people", etc.
Not to mention the irony of combatting censorship by *providing censored internet access*.
Fear the church! (Score:5, Interesting)
The US government is trying to help the people of China bypass the censorship that their country has put into place. Why? Simple, to defend the human rights of the people of China. Quite obviously, the US Government has no fear of any possible backlash from the Chinese government in doing this.
However, the squeals from the many church organizations that would be offended by the US Government giving unrestricted access to p0rn and gay rights websites would be unbearable!
Fear the church! Fear it more than you fear the largest communist country in the world!
Re:Fear the church! (Score:2)
That's right David (Score:5, Funny)
John.
keyword blocking is stupid without context (Score:3, Insightful)
Accidental? (Score:3, Insightful)
The submitter obviously is not familiar with the Bush Administration's stance towards anyone who is not hetereosexual. Anything that happens towards us these days that is negative, do not believe for a moment it was just an "accident".
If you're not convinced, check out The Human Rights Campaign [hrc.org] website.
Re:Accidental? (Score:2)
Also, be careful; he's trying to get tin foil banned in the US.
Re:Accidental? (Score:2, Insightful)
This just a case of stupid filtering gone wrong because keywords aren't good for filtering. Keywords are stupid because things that aren't PORNographic GAY PICs with homoSEXual and biSEXual same-SEX COUPLES will be filtered because they are "naughty" words that a lot of PORN sites use to get peoples attention. The same filter would apply to a church fighting GAY and LESBIAN same-SEX COUPLE from getting married. It isn't a personal call by George BUSH or DICK Chenny to put the
Re:Accidental? (Score:2)
This just another (Score:2, Funny)
Who'd have thought? (Score:2, Insightful)
Instead of spending time helping others route around censorship, the U.S. government hires people to censor the web. These people then accidentally censor U.S. government sites.
At this point, the intelligent response would be to say, "Oh, we forgot that idiotic ideas tend to attract idiots. Our bad. We're going to go back to sowing free thought around the world now."
However, the government response will be, "We'll just hire some more people for even more money to implement a better filter. In fact,
Censorship is bad m'kay (Score:3, Informative)
As the amount of information and its accessibility increases the whole idea that you can selectively censor the right things 100% accurately all the time becomes comical. You simply can't have a proliferation of easily accessible information and censor the "bad information" since what is bad is subjective anyway.
If you must place controls, its more practical to do so on the tools and materials required to perpetrate the "evil" you wish to combat.
I for once like the access to information that the internet gives me. Its empowering and I've used this information practically not just for entertainment or frivolous uses.
When doctors have given me and the ones I love incomplete or inaccurate information as they have on a couple of occassions I've been able to get better information and present it back to them to act on it. Its sped up a couple of key diagnoses for my girlfriend and I. In both cases not working out what the problem was as soon as we did would have resulted in each of us spending significant amounts of time out of work (not to mention feeling miserable). We'd each for different medical reasons have been permanently excluded from driving, and would almost certainly have had our lives shortened. Had the information been buried in some public library without any access to anecdotal evidence (usenet) life today for me would be very much worse.
No anonymity here! (Score:5, Informative)
Anonymizer.com is intended to keep your identity a secret only from the target web server. From the original article: "they can use Anonymizer.com as a kind of jumping-off point, also called a proxy server".
This is correct. The client sends a request for a web page (say google.com) from anonymizer.com (or sedayama.com, or barandaz.com, or whichever). The anonymizer goes out, fetches the page for them, and then feeds it back. In this way, google.com has no idea who they are.
Since anonymizer.com's server is in California, all data must be sent between the server in California and the client in Iran, through the country's firewall and whatever sniffer programs they have running.
In no way whatsoever does this process prevent the Iranian government from snooping the connection between the browser and anonymizer.com to see whatever the heck the client is looking at. In fact, it makes the censor's life easier. All they have to do now is scan for all data to or from anonymizer.com, sedayama, etc. Then they can either parse the data and see what banned sites the client is viewing, or just assume that they're up to no good, raid their house, confiscate their computer and look at the browser cache.
According to the Opennet report [opennetinitiative.net], the only real "anonymizing" functionality of this site comes from converting URLs from text to hexadecimal, and the obfuscation from the anonymizer site having to change URLs and IP addresses whenever the Iran government blocks one.
I think the IBB is doing these people a grave disservice by advertising that sites can be viewed anonymously, when in fact they can't. Even if the connection was completely encrypted with SSL, the government censors could determine that a connection was made to an anonymizer site, and that the client is worthy of further investigation.
Again, from the OpenNet report: "Iranian users may not be aware that their use of the service may identify them to Iranian government authorities as citizens wishing to view forbidden content, or as supportive of the ideas found within that content."
Enough said. The people who run the IBB Anonymizer project should realize it was a well-meaning but flawed concept from the start, and it can actually be counter-productive by exposing Iranians who trust the claims of anonymity.
Those claims should be retracted and a big warning banner posted on the site(s), or the project should be killed outright.
Out of curiousity... (Score:4, Insightful)
censorship? prudery? (Score:2, Interesting)
OpenNet, Open Source (Score:4, Funny)
My site? (Score:2, Funny)
Hmmm (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Hmmm (Score:5, Informative)
Here's the important info for anyone else who may be curious:
For those who are found to be within Iran, the service is freely accessible through several domain names. As soon as the Iranian authorities block one of the service's domain names or IP addresses, new locations are announced to Iranians through Radio Farda and VOA Persian Radio broadcasts. (Some of these domain names are filtered by some ISPs in Iran and thus inaccessible to users, however even the filtered domains can be accessed by directly entering the IP address.)
Sexual Harassment and Porn (Score:5, Interesting)
"Unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature constitute sexual harassment when this conduct explicitly or implicitly affects an individual's employment, unreasonably interferes with an individual's work performance, or creates an intimidating, hostile, or offensive work environment."
The "offensive work environment" has been defined to include porn. See this on Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/harris.html
"Even though CP had not been offended by her co- workers' bawdy remarks, she believed that the posting of pornographic pictures demeaned women. She complained to her supervisor who refused to ask the employees to remove the pictures. Shortly thereafter, more pictures were posted. After again receiving no response to her complaint, CP filed a charge.
Based on these facts, an investigator should find that the conduct was unwelcome, i.e., that CP subjectively considered the pornographic pictures to be abusive. Her willingness to engage in sexual banter is not material to assessing her perception of the pictures."
IANAL, but at this point it is a completely reasonable argument that employers should install anti-porn software by default and that failure to do so constitutes neglect. And I'm sorry, but these issues about sexual harrassment were brought up far before Bush. And mostly by left-wing feminists (see Tailgate, Clarance Thomas, et al). If the government didn't install these filters and someone was viewing porn and it offended someone else then there would be a big scandal about it and Bush would be portrayed as the anti-feminist woman hating porno president.
And the poster forgot the obvious difference here between Iran and the US is that you can go home to your own computer if you want porn! You do not have the right to view porn on government (ie tax payer owned) computers. Heck, technically you don't have the right to view breastcancer.com unless it pertains to your work! So if you don't like the government's filters, tough. If you need the site to do your work email the admin. Otherwise, don't view the site on the taxpayer's dime.
Brian Ellenberger
Re:Sexual Harassment and Porn (Score:2)
As a side issue, he has already portrayed himself as the anti-feminist woman hating president, sans porno.
And, you're right, Iranian citizens can not go home to their own computers to watch porn. And, I,
Re:Sexual Harassment and Porn (Score:2, Interesting)
I work for a local govt agency which uses the Websense filtering software. It throws up a warning when you try to access a domain which is considered non-work-related, reminding you of department policy regarding internet use but allowing you to click through, except for pr0n, etc., which is blocked absolutely - no clicking through.
So far, so good. I cann
Re:Sexual Harassment and Porn (Score:2)
Ironically, many Iranians actually have more porn access than Americans do. TV in Iran is heavily censored, and it's goddamn boring too. As a result every Irani who can afford one has a satellite dish, and although the gov't at one point managed to block the politically sensitive Farsi-language NITV [www.nitv.tv] from LA (apparently from Cuba [pbs.org]), they have no hope of shutting down th
Very different scenario (Score:4, Insightful)
Read: her supervisor who refused to ask the employees to remove the pictures
Employees were posting pictures, and the employer didn't make them stop nor offer disciplinary measures. I wouldn't expect to get away with pr0n at work, and I'd definately expect to be disciplined (perhaps fired) if I tried to. It appears that both the other employees and the employer were definately at fault - but not for lack of filtering.
Bypassing keyword filter? (Score:2, Interesting)
Weird keywords (Score:2, Interesting)
Great idea (Score:3, Interesting)
censorship or social control? (Score:3, Funny)
Why is anonymizer still unblocked? (Score:2)
Duh... block images... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:only employees are filtered (Score:4, Funny)
Stop oppressing us!
Re:Stupid 'possesion is 9/10ths of the law' mental (Score:2)
> he says that since you don't believe in rules, then no rules apply to the person that committed a crime against you.
Are you seriously that braindead? Christ man, buy a clue. "As long as no one is hurt..." of course, no one gets hurt during A RAPE?!?!?! You are an absolute moron. You can't even come up with a decent TROLL? Fer fuck's sake, man, try using your brain.
Re:Keyword filtering will never, ever work (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:my question is... (Score:4, Interesting)
That's exactly why america wants to control the internet. Control the information, and you control the people. Throw a little "won't somebody please think of the children" in there to shut up the damn civil rights hippies, and the status quo is so much easier to maintain.
Re:my question is... (Score:2)
Can't agree with you. Anyone can set up whatever networks they want and make them routable onto the Internet without too much crap coming from the US government. I'm guessing that ICANN/IANA is probably more US-oriented, but I'm dubious as to how many problems that's caused.
IP allocation is clearly US-biased, but that
Re:Dear TWATRAVEL.COM (Score:5, Funny)
Yeah, but what about this is scunthorpe [thisisscunthorpe.co.uk]?