Censorware Blocking Methods Using Akamai 233
Snatch Freedom writes "Peacefire has discovered a way to block censorware using Akamai's servers. For example you can see Yahoo! using http://a1.g.akamaitech.net/6/6/6/6/www.yahoo.com/. C|Net had a story about. Censorware cannot block akamai; that will piss off all the advertising people. Akamai says (in the cnet story) that they are not in the filtering business and they won't block anything. The makers of ``Bess'' wan't Akamai to filter it but Akamai says no. "
"High school students rejoice!" (Score:1)
- Max
Broken link (Score:4)
Good news, but... (Score:2)
Plus, surely if this is used in a big way it's going to severely increase the load on akamai's servers?
"Akamai says no" (Score:4)
So I'm pretty sure N2H2 [n2h2.com] goes on the clueless buffoon list for this one. This makes about as much sense as a parent going to congress and telling them the networks can't show sexual content because he's afraid his kid might see it. And it has about as much chance of... oh.
Well, as long as the government doesn't get involved, it's still stupid.
- Michael Cohn
Other similar things (Score:1)
Popular services: Ask Jesus [askjesus.org] (Jesusifies the page though), Anonymizer [anonymizer.com] (fee-payable).
I'm sure that there are many many many more (those are just two off the top off my head that I've used in the last 48hrs), but if you use different ones it'll make it even harder for censorship software to block - they can't know every single proxy system available to the public.
Richy C. [beebware.com]
--
Its the devils work :-) (Score:3)
I hope it works with other address, or the religious zealots are going to have a field day.
BTW For the humor impaired. This is a joke :-)
Re:Good news, but... (Score:2)
I'm sure censor-happy parents would be quick to point out that kids' computer skills develop much more quickly than their life skills. I won't argue the concept here, though.
- Michael Cohn
I think there's a great deal of validity to Akamai (Score:2)
Plus this doesn't seem so useful. The Akamai links look pretty complex; how are you supposed to know where web sites are? Hit and miss?
-- Talonius
Why are peacefire telling us this? (Score:2)
Far better way (Score:3)
Translate from Polish to english, or some other permutation...
Gets mildly mangled, but beats the censorship remarkably well...
This is only for Akamized sites. (Score:2)
Anyone know of pr0n sites that are served thorough Akamai?
Hacking? (Score:2)
How can this possibly be called hacking when it doesn't require altering or patching the filtering software at all and uses standard http requests to the net, just like accesses to any other non-blocked site. It's merely a demonstration of loophole in the censorware - that it doesn't examine the content of the page being downloaded, just the URL.
Update: Later article say Akamai WILL fix (Score:5)
Re:This is only for Akamized sites. (Score:1)
LOL (Score:1)
I think we should applaud 'em.
Furthermore... (Score:1)
Try it:
For example, someone surfing the Web with filtering software installed could access "sex.com" by typing:
http://a1.g.akamaitech.net/6/6/6/6/sex. com/ [akamaitech.net].
Re:Good news, but... (Score:2)
Akamaitech is in the business of providing web services that can handle extreme loads (it's their core business to think in megabytes/second and not in hits/day). They will handle. Whether they like this is something else.
But Akamaitech is used by big sites with loads of visitors (like yahoo) or by big providers of banner-adds. Sites that obviously have money to make sure (part of) their content is available as fast as possible.
This does not seem to match with the average site that gets blocked by censorware because it should not be viewed by office workers/kids. So I don't think the above is going to effect censorware a lot.
Re:Good news, but... (Score:2)
Children have allways been protected from the reality and dangers of this world - and see what type of adults that created!!!!
Re:Other similar things (Score:1)
ZOW!
Re:This is only for Akamized sites. (Score:1)
1. Open a free account on a cgi hosting service.
2. Install your perl proxy program.
3. Use is for accessing any content through any firewall/proxy/content blocker.
4. Everyone stops making noise on slashdot.
This won't last very long. (Score:1)
I'd expect that this hole will be plugged up by akamaitech as soon as they notice any kind of performance impact on their ad servers. There's no way they could afford to leave an exploit open like that if it could cost them money.
Re:Good news, but... (Score:1)
If it is true .... (Score:1)
Haven't have the time to check if the story is true or not, but if it is, then, there is _still_ hope for integrity and guts in the cyber arena.
There have been too many sell-outs in the Net. Our privacy means nothing to the many purveyors with various intentions, and then there are "people" with "good intentions" out there who want to "prevent us from hurting ourselves" by reading things that "aren't suitable for us".
The Net is becoming more and more like the world out there - that is, BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING, AND WE OUGHTTA THANKS THE BIG BROTHER BECAUSE HE IS PROTECTING US FROM ANY HARM.
If Akamai is doing what the story has stated, then, good for them !! And I hope that more people will do similar courageous things to make the lives of those people with "good intentions" as miserable as possible.
The real solution to protect children online (OT) (Score:5)
The internet should not be censored to "protect" anyone. If you don't like your kids seeing porn online, then you should stop them. Teachers should do the same. Review the history files afterwards also just in case, and let them know ahead of time you are going to check what sites the kids visited. I know that won't work against everyone but nothing is fullproof. Especially censorware.
It all goes down to our society not wanting to be responsible for anything. Parents want to blame video games, tv, the internet, music, etc. for how they fail to keep their own children in line. Smokers commit slow suicide by putting fire into their lungs, then sue tobacco companies because these people are too stupid to know better.
Sometimes I wish that some people would help us all out by killing themselves. If you feel that you can't be live up to any of your responsibilities and just want to cry how the world has done you wrong, jump off of a tall building...it should be great! You will leave your impression on the Earth, and we will all be thankful to have one less semi-hairless monkey jumping around and screaming about everyone offending and hurting them.
Ok, back on topic a bit more. I wonder how many other sites like this will prevent censorware from working. I was shown something yesterday that triggers censorware that is completely innocent:
This tip is sure to not work.
Various censoreware programs don't like it. Let's look at it again through their eyes:
This tiP IS Sure to not work.
It's pretty interesting...but shows how ineffective this type of software is.
Somehow I don't feel sorry for Bess... (Score:4)
Fink said N2H2 had devised its own fix to the problem. That patch would detect Web addresses included in Akamai URLs and filter based on those nested addresses. It will ship with the next version of Bess.
Woah... you mean, like, parse the rest of the URL? Dude, no wonder you're CTO.
Re:This is only for Akamized sites. (Score:1)
PROOFREAD YOUR STORIES (Score:1)
1) Wrong link in paragraph
2) "C|Net had a story about."
3) "wan't" ??
I can understand wanting to post submissions verbatim, but PLEASE at least proofread them and perform slight edits before posting them. Your salaries should easily justify a proofread and spellcheck of the stories you post. We know you're not in high school any more.
Caveat (Score:3)
---
Re:Other similar things (Score:2)
Richy C. [beebware.com]
--
Re:Hacking? (Score:1)
Re:The real solution to protect children online (O (Score:1)
Flamebait, but it's great!
Oops. Users of crummy-censoware probably won't see that....
Re:This is only for Akamized sites. (Score:2)
Richy C. [beebware.com]
--
I have an interesting tale about Akamai (Score:1)
Why and how is what I want to know!
Thanks
Recipe for an unblockable proxy (Score:2)
2) Proxy generates a unique (random) key to associate with the page.
3) Proxy grabs the requested document off the web.
4) Proxy modifies all href links, image sources, applet codebases, object and embed sources, link sources, and script sources to point to the proxy server instead of the site in question. All file paths should be changed in case blocking software searches for "lesbian", etc. in filenames, use variations of the page key to associate requests to specific resources.
5) Browser receives modified document and sends proxy requests for all media on the page, without a single http://www.superchicken.com url.
6) Proxy receives requests for resources and retreives them by id.
7) Teenie bopper views porn, parents never know.
Re:Caveat (Score:2)
Re:Other similar things (Score:1)
Am I doing something wrong?
Re:Far better way (Score:1)
-- Sig (120 chars) --
Your friendly neighborhood mIRC scripter.
Filter Content, not Sites (Score:4)
OK, so this is an egg-sucking lesson for all you Slashdot grannies out there....
Site-based filtering is broken . This is just yet another instance of it. Proxying the content through another unblocked site (like this Akamai example) will blow holes in it. Blocking Yahoo (and anything else sufficiently generic) because they also link to Scunthorpe.gov.uk, as well as to the Baptist Church Choir, will shut out large valuable parts of the Net -- you might as well burn your modem.
If you don't like the content on the web, then filter on the web content by all means. Let's see PICS rating more commonly used. If you really have an issue with wanting a government imposed central filtering scheme, then pass yourself a law in your country that makes rating schemes mandatory (or you'll be defaulted to XXX). The problem of "keeping the kiddies safe" then defers to browser operators (those who put browsers in the hands of the kids). Set your home browser however you like (they're your kids) and let local communities set the standards for locally-funded institutions like schools and libraries. If you don't like the library filters, because you live in a straight-laced town, then don't complain to the democratic group who paid for it and chose the settings, just buy your own web time.
Don't forget that PICS is a framework for rating systems, not a rating scheme itself. I'd like to see a PICS Hippy-Lovechild rating scheme where free-love and pot sites were rated OK, but accountancy was a major no-no. Build a Tennessee rating scheme if you want, where sex outside a married family is forbidden, but it's OK with your sister (or even yer dawg). Custom rating systems are a fine way to build an "Islamist web", where followers of one set of moral values are perfectly at liberty to define their own standards, implement them on their own set of relevant sites, and neither I nor they will offend each other with moral conflicts.
This might even be a way for eBay to get round the "not selling Nazi relics in France" problem.
Confusing content with location is just never going to work right.
Re:Good news, but... (Score:2)
What happened is:
1. it was proved once again that censorware is crap - and with the pending legislations it implies that people will be forced to use crap
2a. censorware producers are pointing fingers at an innocent bystander (akamaitech) and make him looking guilty
2b. the media happily accepts this nonsense and makes the public think that it is really akamai's fault, not the censorware producers'.
To me, this all sounds disturbing.
Babelfish? (Score:2)
I was able to load www.sex.com in babelfish, and the domain i still www.babelfish.altavista.com but the porn is there in all it's glory. Sure the text is is in German, but that isn't what most people are going to be after....
Or does censorware already block Babelfish? I mean being able to read what those french and german damn foreign perverts have to say can only corrupt America's youth anyways!
I doubt that www.bluescreen.org.lu pays Akamai to (Score:2)
Re:"Akamai says no" (Score:2)
N2H2 is one of many censorware firms that will lazily block out every page in a given domain because of one or two bad pages. And if a search engine should ever point you to Geocities... well, you might as well go home and do your research yourself.
isn't it a parenting issue..... (Score:5)
this was the exact issue that popped in my mind as i read these articles. i don't want to sound like jon katz or get on a stump, but...
is it only me who recognizes that PARENTS today want to use technology to cover the gaps in their role as a parent? ultimately, any control placed to hamper web sites loading can be over come - save one: how about the parents take some responsiblity and turn off the PC?
yeah, yeah. i've heard it before. "we work." "we can't police our children 24/7." "society should set some acceptable norms for all to live by." etc. etc. etc.
look, if you have children, you made a CHOICE to propigate your family linage (and don't give me that bullshit about 'accidents.' there are no accidental births - what did you think the act of sex might result in? free beer?) it is your responsiblity to raise your child. if work gets in the way - well maybe you need to quit your job.
QUIT MY JOB! yeah, wtf do you think is more important - work or family (god, i hate asking that question to some people....)
and before you ask me my wherewithall to rant on this subject - my wife and i chose NOT to have children b/c we have other things we want to accomplish. we made that decsion based on NOT wanting to be part-time parents and full time employees. and also, my 13 year old sis recently got into some adult level chats with some questionable people. the result? no unsupervised PC usage (yeah, my mom actually sits there as she does homework research) and some stearn talk about the world, people, and growing up.
look, sorrry for the rant, but i am sooooo tired of people thinking technology has morals. people have morals. technology is just a means to an end.
Re:Recipe for an unblockable proxy (Score:2)
Re:The real solution to protect children online (O (Score:2)
Oh yeah. Oakland. I'm glad that the proxy filtered out that KKK hate speech that ESPN.com is notorious for. Other words like "hardcore" were blanked out, although you could still go to sex sites. It's not like the content is any more kid-friendly if you take out the bad words -- who reads porn sites anyway?
Re:Recipe for an unblockable proxy (Score:3)
Re:Babelfish? (Score:2)
Re:Babelfish? (Score:2)
Akamai doesn't anonymize though (Score:2)
You can give it try but accessing the Slashdot poll page Her e [akamaitech.net]. (aid=1
The second time you vote, it identifies your proxy's IP as well as your actual IP.
Re:Filter Content, not Sites (Score:2)
Instead of government mandates, have NS and IE incorporate PICS such that any site that lacks a correct PICS identification is immediately concerned of highest blocking requirements; by adding the appropriate PICS ratings does your page become viewable on most browsers. Sort of an opt-in view of publishing. And if you, for sake of getting the page on the net even though the page content is highly questionable and use the wrong ratings intentionally, you can then be prosecuted for false advertizing.
Unfortunately, this would have been ideal when browsers were just coming out; using an old browser if the new browsers supported it would simply defeat the process. Additionally, the gov't could easily step in here as overseer even though the process started as voluntary or industry cooperation.
PICS rating systems are drastically underutilized and could make for a better replacement for filtering, but there is potental for abuse if not gov't regulated, and just plain trouble if regulated.
Re:http://a1.g.akamaitech.net/6/6/6/6/goatse.cx/. (Score:2)
Though, you may be joking. I'd better check it out.
Then again, perhaps you're a clever troll.
I know! Holds up hand to monitor in right place, clicks...
Um, yeah. hits close box It works.
Re:Somehow I don't feel sorry for Bess... (Score:2)
Wonder whether they'll remember to also check for %-encoded URL's...
not free beer (Score:2)
No, man! 'twas the free beer that resulted in the night of unprotected sex!
Cause->Effect
Pope
Freedom is Slavery! Ignorance is Strength! Monopolies offer Choice!
Re:isn't it a parenting issue..... (Score:2)
> level chats with some questionable
> people. the result? no unsupervised PC usage
> (yeah, my mom actually sits there as she does
> homework research) and some stearn talk about
> the world, people, and growing up.
I never did understand that attitude. It seems to me that the entire issue of "Protecting children" stems more from the irrational fears of parents than anything else.
I had playboy mags under my bed and was jerking off daily by the time I was 12. Most people that I know were pretty much the same story. A little pornography fueled sexual fantasy never hurt anyone.
Guess I just never understood the mentality of wanting to stop another person from doing something because I dislike what they are doing. Course I have also been a believer in the old "Let the kid grab the hot dish, he wont do it twice, its how ya learn".
-Steve
It is a parenting issue, but... (Score:4)
1: the world is a complicated place, the internet even more so. If there is a tool that will help me do my job of parenting, I will consider using it. My children are too young yet to surf the web. When they get older, I lean more towards the "show them the squid logs" method than the censorware, but censorware is more appropriate for some parents.
2. Communities have a responsibilty to their collective children, too. By all means, have a porn store, I'd just rather it wasn't next to the ice cream stand. Rather more strongly, I don't have a problem with people selling crack, but I definitely don't want them doing it outside the school gates (or in the classroom).
I don't want to childproof the world, or TV, or the internet. My children are only allowed to watch TV channels that we have approved (this means PBS, in practice). Not that we don''t get other channels, the children are just told what they can watch. I want tools to do the same with the internet, and so do many other parents.
--
Huh? (Score:2)
Re:Update: Later article say Akamai WILL fix (Score:5)
Another interesting note: You can charge your free Akamaization to whichever customer you want. For example, visit CNN and get an Akamaized URL: http://a388.g.akamai.net/7/388/21/866499aaf3f4c0/w ww.cnn.com/images/hub2000/main/cnn.com.l ogo.gif
[akamai.net]. Strip out everything after the first 4 numbers, and replace with your site of choice.
You now have http://a388.g.akamai.net/7/388/21/866499aaf3f4c0/s lashdot.org/
[akamai.net]. Congratulations, you just viewed Slashdot and placed it on CNN's bill! Play around with the numbers. I've found that the long number can be safely changed to 0; the other numbers control which customer is charged, and perhaps some other variables.
Damn Hackers... (Score:3)
"Although it is a challenge to keep up with hackers who attempt to undermine filtering software, the result in the long run is a better product," SurfControl vice president Kelly Haggerty said in a statement. "We will investigate this and other hacking claims as they arise."
Those damn Hackers just won't stop Hacking and Pirating Copyright Protected Intellectual Property that Endangers the Safety of America's Children(tm). For God sake, you could poke your eye out!
I swear these PR people carry around a Buzzword Bible.
Corporate Affirmation of Benefit of Hackers? (Score:5)
Which is to say "Hackers help us improve our product."
-----
Re:Update: Later article say Akamai WILL fix (Score:3)
Imagine what would happen if there was a rogue version of Gnutella that prepended an Akamai URL to every advertised local file URL. None of the normal Gnutella clients would need to be changed, they'd all access the content fine I think. But the whole network would be sped up because lots of content would get cached for free by Akamai!
evolutionary thinking (Score:2)
Thad
Hey stupid, this is akami's screwup. (Score:3)
I must point out that this is no deliberate desicion by Akamai to stop those 'evil censors'. The truth of the matter is that they never wrote any security into their network to prevent any website from being 'akamized'. I also have it on good authority that it's alot of work to purge content from an akamai server. Thus in reality, akamai's service is the web-equivalent of an open email relay!
This time you all laugh because it's the filtering companies getting the short end of the stick. Next time this bug will affect you. How long do you think it'll take spammers to use this bug to put their 'get rich quick' webpages into akamai and use those links when they send out spam? ISP's right now can eliminate websites near-realtime when they are used to sell products advertised in spam, which discourages spammers from even trying as their page is taken down almost immediately. If the spammers can be relatively sure their pages would be up for days on end (as they could with akamai) then it encourages them to send more spam, that ends up in your inbox.
So what they are really saying when they say 'we will not commit to filtering' is 'we do not see fixing this security hole as enhancing profits and therefore cannot justify commiting programmers to close it'. I'll repeat for emphasis: This is an akamai security hole. This is the web-equivalent of an open email relay.
-- Greg
PS: I've reported this bug in the past, and they claimed it was a non-issue. Does someone have to write a 2600 howto article on getting service from akamai before it's fixed?
Re:It is a parenting issue, but... (Score:2)
Disregarding the consequences of sex is how I got to be a parent in the first place. Until my children are old enough to understand that there are consequences and context the pictures don't show, I won't be letting them see pornography.
--
is anyone proofreading anymore? (Score:2)
"wan't"? Wha? Does anyone proofread before posting anymore?
Why not fix it? (Score:2)
It's a security hole that costs them bandwidth. (which admittedly, Akamai isn't in short supply of, but still...) Every proxy request through Akamai costs them 2X the size of the response; once to get it from the source, once to send it to the client.
Also, it means that THEIR servers are distributing whatever illicit content is found. You can prove that little Johnny was able to download hate literature not from some random skinhead's machine, but straight from an Akamai.com machine.
I can't see what advantage the open proxy gives them. Why wouldn't they want to close it?
google does the same... (Score:2)
Of course, you won't get the pics, but anything text is there... And to those suggesting to filter content rather than sites, that's possible if you don't mind the odd mistakes, sex sites with suggestive rather than explicit language slipping through or breast cancer/safe sex/... sites being blocked (not to mention foreign language sites). Filtering images must be a complete nightmare to get right. For 90%, maybe, but 100% with no "decent" images blocked? I'll believe it when i see it...
Huh? (Score:2)
How is Akamai any different from using a proxy or Anonymizer type thing? The censorware companies just have to block Akamai and the "problem" is solved, no?
---
It's obvious why they don't fix this... (Score:2)
Heh heh, maybe doubleclick will start running similar 'proxies'..
Your Working Boy,
Consumer protection, eh? (Score:2)
But for the software, I would never come near such a abuse of innocent hard drives, but I guarantee that it comes with a license containing a paragraph that reads like (all in caps, but
"This software is provided as is, without express or implied warranty of any kind, including fitness for a particular purpose, and no guarantee is made that it will perform its task as advertised, run for more than four(4) seconds without crashing, or do anything at all other than put a happy little window up on the screen during installation so you will feel all warm and fuzzy that now the children are safe so that you will shell out the cash for our product and line our pockets while actually only preventing kids from viewing sites about the Old Testament and breast cancer and dangerous ideas like free speech, not because we're evil, but because we only care about money and not a damn thing else, especially not your little brats.
What about Google? (Score:2)
Re:Babelfish? (Score:4)
Hmm.. maybe some day a newer version of Babelfish will translate the pictures into German too.
Go to an American pr0n page and there's a nude woman with big tits. Access the same page through babelfish, translated into German, and it's the same nude woman, but one of her tits is covered up by the big mug of beer that she's holding out in front of her, seductively offering it to the viewer. It's cold and frosty, and real dark tasty beer, not CoorsLightPisswaterBeer. Oh yeah, baby, come to Sloppy...
People would have to type one-handed while visiting such sites. (The other hand is holding a beverage, of course.)
---
Re:Not a solution... (Score:2)
And what about the parents who aren't as attentive as I am? My kids are going to school with those kids, interacting with those kids, maybe even becoming friends with them; their influence will be felt. What we are building towards is not a parental problem, but a societal one.
You say that censorware isn't the answer. Fine. You also say that government intervention isn't the answer. That's fine, too, but tell me how you're going to shift the balance of power back in favor of the parents without doing these things
Soo... Try this, instead of forbidding things to the kids, why not EDUCATE them about why you believe it's wrong? If you give your kids a decent dose of your brand of morality and teach them some kind of values then they will likely follow them. But if you just say 'NO! Don't do that, I don't want you do and I'm going to lock you out of it!' then of course they are going to do their damndest to break into it.
Kintanon
What exactly is the big problem, anyway? (Score:2)
"Oh my *god*, there's a bare *breast* in this movie! What if the *kids* are watching?!"
What do you think your precious little innocent 'bunny-wabbit' was sucking on for several months of his/her life? What do you think your three-year-old sees when you take him through the women's dressing room at the YMCA? On that note - why is it that from the age of about three, to the age of 17, seeing people other than yourself nude is considered inappropriate? Notwithstanding the fact that nearly every teenager, as well as probably a whole lot of 11- and 12-year olds, have most likely seen at least one or two R-rated movies with nudity. I mean, I understand how some forms of hardcore porn (bondage, torture, beastiality) could give a young kid the wrong idea. But, realistically, how likely is it that anyone, including children, is going to come across something like that by accident. If they're looking for it, then, by definition, they're not going to be 'damaged' by seeing it. So, I ask again, where does this belief that 'inappropriate content' will damage our children come from? Certainly not any form of logic I've ever heard of.
Re:The real solution to protect children online (O (Score:2)
And just what do you think censorware is supposed to do? Stop kids. I have two boys, 3 and 8. I do supervise them on the 'net. I'm not worried about them getting warped by stumbling across something by accident. Frankly, I'm not worried if they go out looking for pr0n. (Although at their ages, it'd sure surprise me!) It'd merit a discussion of what they're seeing and why I think it's inappropriate for them, but no serious repercusions unless they do it repeatedly.
However, I recently installed censorware on their computer, and passworded the screensavers on the others. Why? Teenage babysitters. My wife and I came home from a night out once, and I found a couple of mysterious icons on my desktop. ("Dialer.exe" and "Action.exe", both with images of women. Thank goodness I use a cable modem instead of a telco one, or god only knows what my phone bill would look like!) I checked my browser's history and found several pr0n sites that I know *I* didn't visit. (Not to say I don't visit *any* porn sites, just not those particular ones.) I asked the babysitter about it, and she denied everything. (She later called me back and admitted it.)
I don't mind her using the 'net while we're out, but I don't think she should be doing something in my house that her parents would object to. So, I installed censorware. Sure, she could get around it if she tried hard enough, but I think just the knowledge that her actions are being tracked is a sufficient deterrant.
Now, someone might suggest dropping her as a babysitter. Nope. For one, it's tough to get sitters. For two, she's basically a decent girl who seemed to be exploring after the kids were in bed. I can't really fault her for that. I just want to remind her that we'll know if she does anything out of line.
I guess this is a long-winded way of saying that even imperfect censorware is useful. And if it incorrectly blocks sites that my kids (or sitter) should legitimately see, I hope they'll come and ask me to open that site manually or disable the filter temporarily, rather than attempting to bypass it. Censorware isn't a replacement for parent/child interaction, but it can be an effective tool.
Re:The real solution to protect children online (O (Score:2)
Taking care of children used to be a social priority shared by all members of a society in a slowly changing world where the average work week was 18 hours. Since then we as a culture have decided (economics is something we choose to do, not something that just happens) that we all need to work 60 hours weeks and ignore each other and our kids just so we can have more stuff, faster than ever.
Some of us don't agree with this, and try to get away with one parent working "only" 40 hours a week. It is barely possible to do this in the west these days, even in a well paid profession like mine. Clients look at me like I am from Mars sometimes when I say this.
I say that if we as a society are going to choose to work so hard for such little gain, then we as a society need to share the burden of child rearing somehow. The amount of stuff produced and focused at my child is truly phenomenal these days, and the rights of it's producers are never questioned. But my right to be left alone and not marketed to unless I ask for it is somehow unimportant. Censorware is not the answer, but stopping all the marketing to our kids (Channel One anyone?) and reducing the amount of utter crap I have to filter for my son would help a lot.
And yes, I do believe it is my job to filter the world for my son until he is old enough to do it for himself. And I do believe that it is society's job to support me in that, if only by leaving us alone. And I do intend to let him see some of the crap and critique it as part of his learning process. But there is so much of it these days that if I let him see it all, he'd never have time to do useful things. Like learning to communicate, think, love himself and others and just generally have fun with the great gift of life (that is why we all work so hard, isn't it?)
Re:Filter Content, not Sites (Score:2)
All porn is not created equal (Score:3)
Really? Are you going to show them the picture of a man shitting in a woman's mouth and say "There's nothing to be ashamed of"? Are you going to point out the ads for underaged asian girls and say "There's nothing wrong with it"? How old will your children be when you point them out the pictures of bondage and S&M with no context or explinations of consensual ways to do those things in real life and say "don't be ashamed of looking at this, why add worry to an overstressed world?"
Could we please stop pretending that there is one porn site on the internet and it contains artistic nudes, loving sexual scenes and some content slightly raunchier than PlayBoy? Its a long way from saying "we shouldn't hide sex" to giving kids access to representations of sexual violence, degradation and coercion and no ethical guidance on what real people are like.
As a mature, sexually active adult, I have come across things on line (yes, you can find porn accidentally) that made me feel mildly sick, or confused, or in some cases threatened. For a child that does not yet have any healthy sexual expereince to draw on, who may not be able to understand the levels of consensuality and pleasure in, say, BDSM, I could see such images being damaging to their development of a healthy sexuality. And even in the most perfect family, no child is going to be able to come to a parent and say "I saw a picture of a pretty woman being whipped and then I dreamed last night about whipping someone and got a woody, and it makes me feel gross that I liked that thought." They will bottle it up, and if they're lucky, sort it all out when they get older.
There is a emotionally healthy rate at which children learn about sexuality. Don't call people names because they want to preserve that learning curve instead of throwing truely adult sexual content at their 8 year old.
-Kahuna Burger
Re:Filter Content, not Sites (Score:3)
You should put them in the hands of everyone who grants access to the web (I buy my kids a web browser, the local community funds a library, a mosque provides a "safe" browsing environment for those who share their moral outlook).
Sorry. Gotta disagree. There should absolutely not be filters installed in local libraries. The Mosque example is fine, that is a religious establishment and should therefore be under the control of religious authorities. I may disagree with those authorities, but it's their Mosque. If I don't like it I can leave. Libraries are a differnt matter. They are publicly funded and serve one purpose. Research. A filtered net access is contrary to this goal in several ways:
1. Formost is the fact that "Community standards" are pretty broad things. Some parents object to their children being able to access information on Wicca. Should that be blocked? (if answer=="Yes" println "Irate Wiccan: You are blocking information that I and my children use for our religion"; elseif answer=="No" println "Irate right wing Christian: You are exposing my children to cults and Satanism";) While we could probably all agree that besiality sites should be blocked, human nature is such that once blocking begins, it will quickly become standard to add other "Offenesive" topics to the list. "Well we already block porn, and most of the community feel that sex education does not belong on the web either. Let's just add that."
2. Filtering software, as has often been pointed out in this forum, sucks. It is unacceptable, in a place dedicated to reserch, that I might be unable to reach information on breast cancer or AIDs because it contains "bad" words. What may be an acceptable crippling for home use ("Mom, the filter is blocking an article I need for school, can you turn it off?") is unreasonable in a publicly funded store house for knowledge ("Excuse Mr. Overworked Buerocrat, but if it's not to much trouble, and when you are done helping all these other people, could you modify the filtering software to allow the folllowing list of benign sites, which I understand you will have to veiw and check out before making any changes? I'll just sit here and wait a few hours, thank you.")
3. The question of what level of filtering is appropriate is unanswerable. Should we treat the computers like young children will be using them? Like teenagers will be? Obviously some things approriate to teenagers are not appropriate to ten year olds. Who should we cater to? If we cater to teenagers, then you are limiting adults and not really protecting small children. If you cater to small children then you are limiting your web access to a fraction of the sites on the net, and dooming library employees to a Hell of making exceptions to the rules for special cases.
The simple way to monitor library internet access is to simply put the computers where the librarian can see them. If someone does something truely offensive, they can be ejected. Filtering software should not be placed in libraries. They are publicly fund (hence covered by the first amendment) and their primary purpose (the pursuit of knowledge) would be critically hampered by the crap most of these companies are peddling.
When tech fails, they use law to patch the hole (Score:2)
Doesn't avoid government intervention (Score:2)
Sure, there would be incentive for porn peddlers to give themselves the raunchiest rating possible in order to draw more consumers. But at the same time, the ones with the most resources could easily have two parallel sets of pages, one with a raunchy rating and the other with a benign one, in order not to miss the ones who'd get snagged by censorware. With cgi-generated html wrapped around stock images, this could even be a preference-box on the user's home page within that site.
If mandatory self-ratings are to work as you intend, then there has to be some followup by the government to punish those whose ratings do not conform with community standards. But that's the same as having government-imposed censorship in the first place.
(And the idea that some people can construct an entire www for themselves containing only sites that agree with them and filtering out all other sites so there's not hte slightest chance that a dissenting opinion might slip in and provoke a new idea is abhorrent in my view.
Re:Recipe for an unblockable proxy (Score:2)
State that being listed in a category does not imply that that site actually contains the banned speech, just that it MAY contain that speech and/or information that could allow someone to access such content.
Not very nice, but legal perhaps?
Re:All porn is not created equal (Score:4)
IMHO, an 8-year-old child has no more business being on the internet without supervision than he/she has walking through downtown NYC alone. The internet is not a babysitter, nor is it a sanitized playground made for the enjoyment of little kids. It's a medium by which people exchange information.
If you don't want your precious little darling downloading goatsex pictures, unplug the modem. Using filtering software to keep kids from downloading pr0n is like using a shotgun against mosquitos; you'll never kill them all, and a lot of innocent bystanders are going to get shot. There is no substitute for supervision, and there never will be.
Not invulnerable (Score:2)
Of course a properly designed piece of censorware should be able to deal with this problem. They just have to be a bit cleverer about dealing with URLs. How do I know this? Because Junkbuster is capable of screening out Akamized content by looking at the whole URL. When it sees "ads.doublclick.net" in the URL, even if it isn't the base domain, it knows to filter it. A reasonably designed censorware proxy could do the same thing with "www.pr0nstars.com" or, sadly, "www.peacefire.org". Actually, you could turn Junkbuster into a Censorware proxy very easily by feeding it a different list of sites to block...
Akamai serves content you don't want to censor (Score:2)
Some of the sites that Akamai lets you access are their customers who are paying them to handle content. Other sites appear to be non-Akamai-customers that the Akamai cache system will serve if asked nicely in the correct syntax, which is most of the problem here. There probably are some Akamai customers who provide content that SOME censorware vendors want censored.
Re:Not a solution... (Score:2)
Lessee, everyone I know first saw porn when they were a teen, everyone I know first became interested in the concept of porn when they were a teen, gee, it seems like as soon as the kid becomes interested in porn they find some regardless.
And yes I was a really good kid, because the 1 time I disobeyed my father he gave me one hell of a spanking. That's all it took for me to know that when he told me to do something he meant business. And that's the last time I was ever spanked.
However, my parents never said anything one way or the other about nudity, or porn, or any of that. So I of course eventually became interested it and found some, and lost interest in it because frankly a picture of a naked female isn't all that entertaining if you have the real thing around.
And yes, there is a proliferation of porn ON THE NET, so teach your kids that if they hit a site to just close it (And all of the popups it will no doubt spawn) and go about their business.
Kintanon
Re:Good news, but... (Score:2)
Yes, that occurred to me too. It would be highly ironic if instead of the filter people suing Akamai for circumventing their filters, Akamai actually sued the filter people for dumping traffic on them.
Re:Age-appropriate learning (Score:2)
If you've told her what will happen, and she still does it, yes she should. If she knows what will happen and does it anyway, she's either accepting the consequences, or she's stupid. I don't believe in laws to protect stupid people from themselves. I guess I'm too much of a hardcore darwinist that way.
Re:When tech fails, they use law to patch the hole (Score:2)
Something like DMCA2 maybe...
Re:It is a parenting issue, but... (Score:2)
My personal morality has no qualms with killing people I think are stupid and worthless. I think you are stupid and worthless, so I kill you. I doubt you'd agree with me, but it's too late, you're dead. But hey, morality's relative, right? I can do whatever I want and you have to accept it.
Hmmm, blows a big ol' hole in your hypothesis, doesn't it? No matter how you feel about it, there is a standard for right and wrong. You are not the one that sets that standard. (Just because you feel like doing something doesn't make it right.) Society doesn't set that standard. (Just because "everybody's doing it" doesn't make it right.) God sets the standard. "Relative morality" is a failed concept.
No, it doesn't blow any hole in the hypothesis. What you're talking about is against the law. The reason it is against the law is because it would throw the country into disorder. If it was legal to kill people, then the country would be in a constant state of civil war. No, there is NOT an absolute standard for right and wrong. These are standards of orderly conduct, not morality. The law is the to keep order; to protect people from physical harm from others and theft from others. It's not there to enforce a standard morality.
It wouldn't be a complete post without a metaphor, so think of an email server. Most email servers have maximum size limits, so you can't send 12 gig emails. This isn't an attempt to censor emails or dictate what emails are moral, it's simply a practical concern, because the email server couldn't function if it had to send 12 gig emails.
Re:The real solution to protect children online (O (Score:2)
Somewhere there is a list of censored words and comments. Many words which are used in a "porn" context are also used in completly different contexts. Just hope somone isn't trying to look up construction or music.
Re:isn't it a parenting issue..... (Score:2)
It's not even as simple as money. Many (if not most) women these days would find the job of homemaker insulting. They (and by that I mean other women) fought hard for their shot at the workplace, and now that they've got sexual harassment laws, anti-discrimination laws, and they're coming up on equal pay, the suggestion that they relegate themselves to the role of house-keeper and child-raiser is horribly offensive. But it doesn't occur to them that maybe if the previous generation's (or the one before that) women focused their lives on raising their child(ren), maybe those women were accomplishing something. Maybe you can't just blow it off and say they were wasting their time and you can do the same job in 5% of the time that they did.
Now before the men chime in with "Yeah, preach it man, stick it to the uppity bitches!" stop and think about devoting YOUR life to raising kid(s) and letting your wife work. If you wouldn't be okay with this, then maybe you shouldn't be a parent. It applies to both parents. We used to have FULL-TIME parents. This isn't just a time issue, it's about the fact that there was at least one person whose focus in life was their kid(s), and everything else was secondary. If your kid just wanted to talk with you, would you leave work? Of course not. But maybe they wanted to talk about drugs or sex or something very important. Maybe if you didn't work, you'd be around for that talk. Don't assume you can parent as well as previous generations while only putting in a tiny fraction of the time and effort they did.
And don't expect the government to put in that time and effort for you. That's not why it's there.
Re:The real solution to protect children online (O (Score:2)
No, it's not that simple. I work for a major school district, in the computer networking division. As part of that, I oversee the censorware. No, it's not my call how to implement it. That's determined by the politics above me. I just keep it running.
Well if you don't filter by scanning the content, then you aren't filtering much at all. If you block URLs, then people can just go to the IPs (which they can get in many different ways). If you block unresolved IPs, then they can go somewhere like babelfish.altavista, and tell it to translate a page, either from German to English (which won't have much effect on an alread English page) or pick a random language and then say display in original language.
This isn't a problem with the people being overzealous, it's a problem with the inherent inability of machines to comprehend content. It's a flaw in the very concept of censorware. A machine can't differentiate between appropriate and inappropriate material, so there's no effective way for it to censor all inappropriate material, and the act of censoring inappropriate material almost always spills over to censor appropriate material.
Re:Other similar things (Score:2)
Re:Filter Content, not Sites (Score:2)
IMHO, you let the librarian decide. If you don't like it, then maybe you need to be careful picking your librarians.
There is still a disconnect here. I don't make librian hiring decsions. My theoretical Wiccan lady doesn't make librarian hiring descions. These descsions are made by politicians who are going to cave at the first sign that a majority of people support blocking some unpopular topic (like Wicca or homosexuality in the Bible Belt), or even that a vocal minority of people support the blocking. The reason that the first amendment exists is to protect the expression of unpopular minority opinions. I think that when it comes to censorship the old adage of "Give them an inch, they will take a mile." is well proven. I have looked at the banned book lists of several school and library systems, and there is some pretty innocuaous stuff in there. I never made the claim that the first amendment grants the right to free commercial porn in libraries. I, in fact, presented a viable solution to just that problem. One of the nice things about commercial porn sites is that they tend to make their own nature very clear even from a distance. Yes, librarians do already exact quite a bit of control over the collections of most libraries, but this is a passive control. No one is going out and actually blocking anything, they can simply have limited budgets, and make purchases based on their own tastes and interests which they project onto others. What you are talking about is a more active form of control. The information is out there and freely available, and you are preventing someone from reaching it. The one is like a mother telling a child that s/he cannot have a novel because the money would be better spent on a textbook (The parent is making a judgemnt call based on cost ratios and the values s/he holds), the other is like telling a child that they may not have a free copy of Anne Has Two Mothers (Or whatever the name of that oft banned book is) because it would be bad for the child to have it. There are already laws in most states against displaying pornographic materials in a public place. Put the terminals where the librarians can see them, and let them enforce those laws. I stand by my statements that censorware is:
a) To powerful, and to tempting a power for many censors, and
b) To stupid in it's current incarnations to be trusted with the important job of making libraries true store houses of knowledge.
This is all of course IMHO, but I think that many courts would agree with me.
This is kinda funny... (Score:2)
While I doubt a poverty stricken family here in the US would buy a 60 inch TV to hook up a free "state" inet appliance, sometimes I see things here that make me wonder...
I was once in line at the grocery store, the individual in front of me was using one of those "fancy" card-swipe "debit" style cards for WIC purchases (welfare approved items - they are using these card things, because welfare stamps are too obvious, and can be bought/sold on the black market). After I got done, I walked out of the store, and saw them putting their groceries away - into the standard "bumpin!" style low-rider truck with a big stereo.
Now, of course, his girlfriend was up front with the kid - the stereo on so loud it hurt my ears, and I was a good 50 ft away. However, it made me wonder - why is this guy on WIC? He has an excellent truck (I mean, the stereo and all the body work isn't free, is it?), he was wearing good clothes - yet he can't afford bread?
I work full time and make a decent salary - what is this guy doing that I'm not? Of course, the snide remark would be "Selling drugs, of course!" - but I see these kinds of people all the time - sometimes I see kids with the hopped up, great paint job and stereo Honda CRX - maybe 16 years old if they are a day - the car has to cost a ton of money (stereo and engine stuff) - did mommy and daddy pay for it (and if they did, are they legally insane)? Or what is this kid doing?
I try to put it outta my mind, but your comment brought it up.
In the end, I hopped into my Ford Ranger, and drove off...
I support the EFF [eff.org] - do you?
Re:Somehow I don't feel sorry for Bess... (Score:3)
lol
i got kicked out of my school library for finding that hole and reporting it. funny thing is, i later found out i had signed something saying something to the effect of "if you find a security hole in our internet software, you are to report it asap" in order to be allowed to use the school library's computers.
Re:Why are peacefire telling us this? (Score:2)
>Since Peacefire is usually blocked who is it helping?
Actually, this question sounds like a defence for peacefire - they oppose censorware, but pages like that open them up to accusations of trying to expose children to indecency (yeah, I don't see the logic anyway, but we're talking about the pro-censorware lobby). That they Deliberately put that information on a blocked page is a good response.
As to who it is helping - the page has been slashdotted. It's yet another thing to hold up when the lobby is claiming the infallibility of their product - like "95% of pronographic images are blocked by our neural net AI program" (while peacefire found it to be 40% or whatever for pron and non-pron alike...)
Re:Babelfish? (Score:2)
//rdj
Re:Filter Content, not Sites (Score:2)
//rdj
Re:Age-appropriate learning (Score:2)
I'm betting that you don't have any kids, Ketzer.
I have a zero year old daughter. I doubt I'll ever use censorware to block her net connection in a few years (maybe some sort of anticommercialist filter though, to block the adverts), but damn straight am I going to keep her away from older sleazeballs when the time comes.Another aspect of hardcore Darwinism is the protection of one's genetic investment -- aka parenting.