Firewall Wizards mailing list archives
Content blocking - Singapore seems to manage??
From: "Di Phelan" <diphelan () email net au>
Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 12:18:40 +1000
-----Original Message----- From: Marcus J. Ranum [mailto:mjr () nfr net] Dear Firewall Wizards I am very grateful for your responses re blocking of content on the net. Have been looking at Singapore's SBA pages - and they don't report any trouble at all. They say they've not charged ANYONE, cost hasn't risen, efficiency hasn't been lost, and business is booming. Is it naieve to believe this? Di Phelan
-----Original Message----- From: Marcus J. Ranum [mailto:mjr () nfr net] Sent: Thursday, June 17, 1999 2:44 AM To: Jason Olsen; Di Phelan Cc: firewall-wizards () nfr net Subject: Re: Blocking Offensive Material(??) with Firewall Back in 1995/1996 I did some consulting work for a couple of governments, relating to building "national firewalls" and the issues involved in doing so. As you can imagine, it's not just a technical problem, it's also a political problem. In my opinion, the political problems significantly dwarf the technical problems -- and the technical ones are not exactly a piece of cake to solve, either. 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." The simplest way of illustrating the offensive material blocking problem is at a management level, not a technical one. Don't argue bits and bytes and throughput: argue return on investment and total cost of ownership. _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. For example, based on recent laws in Australia, it sounds like you could (arguably) shut down any web site you didn't like by uploading something "offensive" to it and then complaining. Indeed, some countries have laws barring Nazi speech. So to shut down a site you need merely to argue that it is supporting Nazism, somehow. Or porn. Or whatever. This is a unique form of denial of service, in which the police themselves are a second-order effect of the attack. :) 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. In terms of manpower, managing filters for content is a pain. For a big site (or a country) it entails having a censor's bureau, which approves/disapproves expression in "real-time." Such technology _can_ be built but it's expensive and will degrade performance, since human censors are not "real-time" devices. A human _has_ to be in the loop to prevent the kind of denial of service attacks that are possible. In a corporate environment, nobody will want to pay that kind of management cost or infrastructure cost. 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. 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. Organizations attempt the technological route because they lack sufficient moral confidence to tackle the matter head on. After all, if it's so _offensive_ for crying out loud, you should be able to fire/punish/execute the person for accessing it. It's just conflict avoidance behavior to try to put blocking in, rather than letting the police/HR department/whoever deal with it. mjr. -- Marcus J. Ranum, CEO, Network Flight Recorder, Inc. work - http://www.nfr.net home - http://www.clark.net/pub/mjr
-- Marcus J. Ranum, CEO, Network Flight Recorder, Inc. work - http://www.nfr.net home - http://www.clark.net/pub/mjr
Current thread:
- Content blocking - Singapore seems to manage?? Di Phelan (Jun 20)
- Re: Content blocking - Singapore seems to manage?? Marcus J. Ranum (Jun 20)
- Re: Content blocking - Singapore seems to manage?? Edward Choh (Jun 21)
- Re: Content blocking - Singapore seems to manage?? Technical Incursion Countermeasures (Jun 28)
- Re: Content blocking - Singapore seems to manage?? Edward Choh (Jun 21)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- RE: Content blocking - Singapore seems to manage?? Desai, Ashish (Jun 21)
- RE: Content blocking - Singapore seems to manage?? Alan Lustiger (Jun 21)
- Re: Content blocking - Singapore seems to manage?? Crispin Cowan (Jun 24)
- RE: Content blocking - Singapore seems to manage?? Desai, Ashish (Jun 21)
- RE: Content blocking - Singapore seems to manage?? Henry Sieff (Jun 21)
- Re: Content blocking - Singapore seems to manage?? Marcus J. Ranum (Jun 20)