RE: RE: [Asrg] 4a. Taxonomy. Censorship vs. filtering

["Denny Figuerres" <denny@figuerres.com>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: asrg-admin@ietf.org [mailto:asrg-admin@ietf.org] On 
> Behalf Of Jon Kyme
> Sent: Saturday, December 13, 2003 12:11 PM
> To: ASRG
> Subject: Re: RE: [Asrg] 4a. Taxonomy. Censorship vs. filtering
> 
> >  
> > 
> > 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: asrg-admin@ietf.org [mailto:asrg-admin@ietf.org] On 
> Behalf Of 
> > > Jon Kyme
> > > Sent: Saturday, December 13, 2003 7:12 AM
> > > To: ASRG
> > > Subject: Re: [Asrg] 4a. Taxonomy. Censorship vs. filtering
> > > 
> > > >   For those who are don't read long messages, I'd like to
> > > summarize my
> > > > thoughts in a short message.
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > >   Censorship =~ rejection of traffic based on content
> > > > 
> > > >   filtering =~ rejection of traffic based on invalid
> > > control messages
> > > > 
> > > >   Unlike Telecom, IP sends control traffic "in-band".  This
> > > means that
> > > > when that control traffic is filtered, people get confused,
> > > and call
> > > > it "censorship".
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > Can someone remind me why "censorship" must be a Bad Thing. 
> > > As long as it's explicit and appropriately authorised, I 
> don't see 
> > > any sensible objection.
> > 
> > Well I think there are several reasons why Alan's comments 
> are "right".
> > 
> > First thing is:
> > Filtering the content of a message is *subjective* not *objective* 
> > like the issues with "This is art!" and "No it's porn!" too much 
> > ambiguity and room for "wiggle".
> > This relates to what has been said about classifying "SPAM" 
> Vs. "HAM"
> > some
> > folks want to get what you might call "SPAM".
> > 
> > Next thing is an offshoot of the first:
> > I can write a program to reject a connection based on IP or 
> based on 
> > some other set criteria and it can be verified to work 100% of the 
> > time. (well 99.9999% or whatever in the "real world") But 
> as far as I 
> > know of no one can write a program that will be 100% correct in 
> > processing random text, we do not yet have a system that can write, 
> > read or "Understand" human communications (where's Hal 9000 
> when you 
> > need him?)
> > 
> > And there are the legal issues:
> > If you permit some content to be "Published" and not other like or 
> > simmilar content then you are engaging in the role Of "Editor / 
> > Publisher" ISP's found that this can get them into legal 
> hassles .... 
> > USNET News / NNTP servers ISP's found that to stay clear of some 
> > problems they had to take a "Use at your risk, we do not edit / 
> > monitor the content here" policy.
> > 
> > If you can be shown to Edit and control the publishing of 
> content then 
> > you can be sued for what content you chose to publish and for what 
> > content you chose not to publish.
> > Freedom of the press and all that....
> > 
> > 
> >    Censorship =~ rejection of traffic based on content Is a 
> mine field 
> > that can and will get you hurt.
> > NOTE: if you censor *your* inbox that's filtering, the 
> issue is when 
> > some third party does it "on your behalf"
> > 
> 
> But if "they" are doing it on my behalf and according to my 
> expressed wishes, I don't have a problem. That's what I mean 
> - it's a social rather than a technical distinction. Also, 
> it's clear that an objective measure can be *evaluated* in a 
> subjective context. Consider "filtering" based on source IP. 
> "Publishing" is a bit of a red herring here. IANAL but I 
> can't see how enforcing an agreed policy for communications 
> to a named recipient can have anything to do with "publishing".
>
Sorry My Bad !

"They" and Consent and censorship:

Just imagine this:

Spam.com is sending to isp.com's users such as smith@isp.com

Smith and others *DO WANT* spam blocked.
Isp.com is doing what the users have asked for.

Spam.com sues isp.com for "censorship and the right to free speech"
Now I think we would all tend to see this as a nasty way for spamers to
harras the isp.
But in the legal system if the legal staff working for spam.com build the
right case and take it to court they will get a court order for isp.com
To stop censoring while the court studys the issues.
And spam.com starts filing motions and drags it on for as long as they
can....
And you get spam you do not want ....

It's evil, it's nasty, but it can be done..... The spamer just has to get
creative, like using the can spam bill as a crutch:
I will let the users at isp.com "opt out" but first they need to get my
messaage and visit my "Opt out" web site, I am not doing anything wrong
here.
In fact isp.com is at fault as they are circumventing the means for the
optout system to work. So if isp.com is suffering form to much email it is
their fault...
And if spam.com gets just one person at isp.com to ask for the spam.... The
case just gets uglyer....

See what I mean now??

 
> 
> 
> >  filtering =~ rejection of traffic based on invalid control 
> messages 
> > Safe and legal.... Can be strutured as an "Objective" system.
> > 
> > Does that make this more clear?
> > 
> 
> No. It's not the sort of thing that's easy to make clear. 
> It's one of those "human communications" things you mentioned.
> I think that we're in danger of making ourselves look very 
> foolish by trying to define something like censorship. Define 
> "filter" by all means.
> And remember, that of all the possible communication aimed at 
> you, this group is chartered for the purpose of researching 
> how you might select just that communication that you consent 
> to. Equally, organisations must have the right to apply 
> organisational policy to the communications of their members.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Asrg mailing list
> Asrg@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg
> 


_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg