Re: UK: Government Sets Target Date for Blocking Child Porn

["Jerry Hill" <malaclypse2 () gmail com>]

On 5/18/06, Valdis.Kletnieks () vt edu <Valdis.Kletnieks () vt edu> wrote:
> Right, that's the theory.  The problem arises when laws are passed that
> impose more costs on the non-offenders than on the offenders.  In this
> case, every UK ISP gets to bear the cost - while there's plenty of ways
> for the offender to bypass (google for 'conceal IP address' if you don't
> believe me).

Well, we don't know what costs it would place on the ISPs.  Perhaps
the UK government would decide to subsidize the costs needed to
implement thier filtering scheme, or maybe they wouldn't.  We don't
know because there isn't even any legislation on the table, as far as
I know.  All we're responding to are the comments of a government
minister of some sort.

I'm well aware that there are lots of ways to bypass firewalls and
content filters.  In fact, I think I mentioned that in my first post
on the subject.  All of those involve added costs though.  Again, not
all costs are monetary -- have you ever tried web browsing through
something like Tor?  It feels like being back on a 2400 baud modem.  I
don't think I could stand to use it for full time web surfing.  Most
of the anonymizing proxies that I've played with are the same way.

Anyway, I don't really have an opinion on the cost / benefit analysis.
I don't know how much it would cost, or how much web traffic it would
cut off to those sites that are on the Bad Site List. I only responded
in the first place because fergie posted a proposal that seemed
eminently implementable and declared it impossible.

_______________________________________________
Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts.
https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec
Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list.