one-to-many messaging

[James Firth]

On 01 April 2008 12:18, Richard Clayton wrote:
> >The content of normal traffic is left uninspected.  IP address =
matching
> >(clearly traffic information) re-routes packets to suspected sites
> hosting
> >images of child abuse.  In order to avoid accusations of censorship =
and
> >logistics of IP address recycling, this traffic is then "shunted" via =
a
> >proxy server, which then decodes HTTP layer and checks specific URLs
> against
> >the IWF list.
>=20
> I don't think it could be said that the system avoids accusations of
> "censorship" -- it's just that very few people are prepared to stand =
up
> and say that suppressing access to child abuse images is "censorship".

Sorry, I meant over-censorship.

>=20
> >The two-stage process ensures there are good grounds for intercept =
before
> >the content of a data packet is inspected.
>=20
> BT would (I've no doubt) say that the blocking system was part of =
their
> service, and hence the exemption in RIP s3(3) means that their
> interception was lawful...  if indeed there is any interception of
> content since in practice the system works entirely by inspection of
> traffic data.

Hence my earlier mention of inspecting of lawful inspection of incoming
parcels by Customs/Royal Mail.


> >and access to
> >(legally available) content, gives some protection for IP address =
owners
> who
> >pick-up dodgy IP addresses
>=20
> que?
>=20

The earlier suggestions were a simple IP-ban, made most likely by =
na=EFve
officials who thought they understood the internet.  I lost interest in
Cleanfeed as a topic once it emerged the technical solution was very
unlikely to hinder "normal" operation of the internet.=20

> >and helps to some degree prevent access to
> >illegal abuse images.
>=20
> see above -- the degree is somewhat limited IMHO

Oh yes, but it's hardly worth protesting about so long as it is =
completely
transparent.

However, with one major open question: was there a sub-motive to the
roll-out?  It is now technically possible to discretely censor any given
website.

But as you say Richard, it will take a brave group to start arguing for
removal of this type of block.  And that probably goes some way to
explaining why Phishing blocks and the like would never be implemented
within Cleanfeed, in order to keep the motives for the system apparently
above scrutiny.=20

James Firth
=20