cleanfeed and wikipedia

[Richard Clayton]

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

In article <4944F090.8060904@defoam.net>, Adrian Midgley
<amidgley2@defoam.net> writes

>But lying "the page does not exist or is not served by the server" might
>also have a downside, particularly if the news later goes around, as it
>did with WP, that the reason was inclusion in the IWF list, and the
>reason inferred for inclusion in the IWF is as suggested.

The message you quote is one produced by the browser on the end user
machine ...  what the ISP does is to send either a connection reset or a
null page (systems differ).  So they are misrepresenting what is
available from the remote site (probably not even attempting to fetch
it) -- which is "lying" is you prefer that word -- but it is the browser
which is representing that lie to the user.

>Once the lie collapses the inference has been given to the customer by
>the ISP, and to many members of the public and potential customers for
>whatever the blocked server is selling, that the site contains illegal
>content, or if the whole site is handled thus that the site is for
>illegal content.

hmm...  I expect the ISP would argue to the court that only an expert
would be able to determine that they had interfered with the traffic
(and in the case of DPI systems it's impossible even for the expert to
be sure -- you could only infer it from the hop count on incoming
packets).  viz: the combination of significant obscurity and an act of
omission (rather than any act of commission) meant that there was no
defamation.

>It seems to me that being specific about why the page is being blocked -
>becuase it is on a list provided by the IWF, for purposes with which the
>ISP assumes its customers are generally in sympathy, provides the user
>and sote-provider with the means to correct the situation at the
>earliest opportunity and with the least effort, cost and disruption to
>trade or whateve rthey do; and that it points anyone aggreived clearly
>at the responsible party.

I agree with that...

>  That seems to me to provide a degree of
>protection to an ISP.

... but not with that. Nevertheless I think on balance being transparent
about what is happening is to be preferred.

- -- 
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/AwUBSUVDjJoAxkTY1oPiEQJpXgCbBs/02npvFfd+NzTJk+3gTL1LWxEAoKpA
/HZlUPJ7Grxqswp4uaR8xF1x
=hnui
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----