one-to-many messaging

[Richard Clayton]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

In article <47F238C2.6040108@callnetuk.com>, PeteM <otcbn@callnetuk.com>
writes

>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.

        http://www.iwf.org.uk/public/page.148.htm

>> and the complete lack -- over several years -- of any reports of errors
>
>Would these error reports be published?

Why wouldn't they be? -- I'm certainly aware of complaints about flaws
in the implementation of blocking by several ISPs, and so I'd expect
that if the blocking was traced to an error in the IWF list then this
would have been made public, and would come to general attention.

The flaws in the Finnish system were rapidly detected and 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.

yes indeed... but Google implements other processes and criteria for
what they are prepared to return in search results -- the Privila sites,
for example, are still not listed by Google...

 http://www.lightbluetouchpaper.org/2008/03/06/the-two-faces-of-privila/

... and these have nothing to do with child abuse images at all.

- -- 
richard                                              Richard Clayton

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.         Benjamin Franklin

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPsdk version 1.7.1

iQA/AwUBR/I7w5oAxkTY1oPiEQLQswCfRzgv/9f+4Ej2pwFRC8Z8fNtNiI4AnRcr
WDD0QGlkx+EMq4U8NDeBwRaW
=EWp5
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----