Re: Porn Lists (Maybe Off Topic)

Allen Smith wrote:
>
> On Jul 23, 11:51pm, Dancer (possibly) wrote:
> > It's always ultimately under the control of a human. Humans decide what
> > to block. The machine merely does what it is told to do. In my
> > experience, blocks, once set are never removed, because the human who
> > blocked them no longer cares, and cannot justify the time to check.
>
> The idea that it's ever proper to block information is exactly why,
> despite having some (to me, at least) good ideas on improving Squid's
> regexp et al code, I don't intend to implement them outside of our
> usage (and may not bother inside our usage, since maintaining them
> alone would be quite a bit of a headache). I would make an exception
> on this if Squid's maintainers made an exception in the license
> disallowing this usage, at least of any code I submitted.
>
> Quite simply, I refuse to contribute to censorship. The First
> Amendment to the US Constitution (which, BTW, prohibits public
> institutions in the US from using censorware, although not all of them
> have gotten the message yes) is not just something that should be
> applied inside the US - it's a good idea everywhere. (I have,
> incidentally, previously participated in making it more difficult for
> countries to block controversial information, in this case Neo-Nazi
> information which Germany wished to block.)

Agreed. I'm anti-censorship myself, as well. However, if the customer
wants to have themselves censored, then the customer can _have_
themselves censored. They're paying for the service, and if they want ot
pay money NOT to see some websites, I'm not going to argue with 'em.

Besides, despite my email address, I'm in Australia. Internet censorship
is now law here.

D
Received on Fri Jul 23 1999 - 22:03:47 MDT