Re: Blocking Offensive Material(??) with Firewall

[Darren Reed <darrenr () reed wattle id au>]

In some email I received from Marcus J. Ranum, sie wrote:
[...]
> Back in the early days of MUDs I spent a lot of time on them,
> dealing with player killing, and a bunch of related MUD-crimes.
> This resulted in Ranum's law of making people behave:
> "You can't solve social problems with software."

I wouldn't say you've got a monopoly on that law (;)...as someone who
spent too long with IRC, I can say that phrase is widely agreed upon.

People who want to be a PITA will be so, no matter what you do, short
of cutting their hands/fingers off.

[...]
> _Someone_ has to monitor things and decide what is offensive
> and what is not. If you can't define that, then it's very very
> difficult.

Most governments already have bodies which do that sort of thing
for TV/radio...

[...]
> The problem is one
> that societies have tried to deal with for millennia: what
> constitutes offensive speech/material. We've been debating that
> in the US for a long, long, long time. The problem is that you
> need to answer that question _first_ before you can tell a
> stupid computer how to do it. Good luck.

See above for where to get that definition.  Somewhat curiously,
some American radio programs that are exported seem to censor some
songs whereas when played on local radio it is uncensored.  Maybe
that is to appease the censors in foreign countries ?

[...]
> By far the cheapest "technology" for controlling offensive
> content is by example. Publish the rules, and publish the
> forfeit you'll pay if you break them. Then spot-check and
> when you find someone breaking the rules, deal with them
> immediately and with resolve. After a while, the problem
> will most likely improve.

There's much to be said for requiring ISP's to obtain an operating
license which can be revoked.  I'm sure many ISPs, small and large,
would shiver at that idea.

> In the last few years I've been asked probably 200 times
> "how can we block offensive content with our firewall?"
> My preferred response these days is "when was the last time
> your organization terminated or disciplined someone for
> accessing offensive content?" If the answer is "never"
> then don't even _bother_ trying the technological route.

How many answer that as "never" ?  In an age where you have
to deal with "sexual harrasment", I wouldn't be surprised to
find an answer that wasn't "never".  Even usage of the 'net
in a manner not authorised (i.e. not work-related) might be
enough.

Firewalls use little CPU now (except if you run one which must
have a GUI interface active) so I can't see why requiring them
to actually do some work and look at what goes through them
would be a large penalty to performance.

Darren