one-to-many messaging

[PeteM]

Richard Clayton wrote  on 1-04-08 13:48:
> In article <47F223F3.8090604@callnetuk.com>, PeteM <otcbn@callnetuk.com>
> writes
>> Richard Clayton wrote  on 1-04-08 12:17:
>>> At the time that BT rolled out their system (and they were not the only
>>> ISP to roll out architecturally similar systems at that time, just the
>>> first to go on the record [because a campaigner leaked news of the
>>> system to one of the Sunday papers]), it could at least be said that the
>>> blocking didn't do much harm (assuming that the IWF list could be
>>> trusted -- which [unlike the recent situation in Finland] does seem to
>>> be the case), 
>> How would we know?
> 
> the third party scrutiny of the IWF processes

Who does that? A search of the IWF website for either "third party" or 
"scrutiny" produces no relevant pages, and I couldn't see it in the FAQs 
or the Constitution, Governance or Organisational Structure pages.

> and the complete lack -- over several years -- of any reports of errors

Would these error reports be published?

> 
> the only example I can recall of an apparent mistake in this area was a
> UK site with a lot of material about Operation Ore (inter alia) which
> disappeared out of Google's search results...  

I remember that. It was very convenient for somebody.

this turned out to be
> related to the way in which they were attempting to "game" their
> positioning, rather than to what was on their site.

I thought that "what was on the site" was supposed to be the IWF's only 
criterion for blocking, i.e. only if the site contains indecent images 
of children (aka "child abuse images" in the approved Newspeak phrase). 
I suppose I am old-fashioned.

-- 
Pete Mitchell