IP: some thoughts re more on CyberPatrol

[David Farber <farber () cis upenn edu>]

> From: gep2 () terabites com
> Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2000 17:51:16 -0600
> Subject: IP: More about CyberPatrol
> To: farber () cis upenn edu
> Status: U
>
>  >>             Software that blocks blocking software from blocking websites
> > children should not see is blocked by a judge's court injunction as free
> > speech advocates would like to block that decision by the judge.  The
> > software may not be distributed by the producing online business or its
> > employees or by mirror sites.  The software was target marketed to
> > children as a means of overriding parental invocation of childproofing
> > filtering software on internet access by children on home computers.
> > Are we witnessing an internet version of a block party?
>
> The fact of the matter is that the software in question is already widely
> available on the Net and thousands of copies (if not hundreds of 
> thousands) have
> already been distributed worldwide.
>
> The judge may well be able to banish it from US-based mirrors but 
> doing so (just
> as Chinese or Iraqi officials may try to ban stuff that they don't 
> want seen by
> their people) only just guarantees that it will be made available by that many
> more mirror sites in other countries, where this ill-advised judicial decision
> has no jurisdiction.
>
> What's more, it's not just a runnable piece of software, but a 
> virtual tutorial
> (and an exceedingly interesting and well-written one) regarding how to
> GENERICALLY work your way through the reverse-engineering of all 
> manner of such
> sorts of software... so even if the "cphack" software in question were
> eradicated, the general approach to accomplishing such things (and 
> tools to aid
> in doing so) have been described in enough detail that any good and motivated
> programmer could probably make a pretty good stab at unravelling many such
> programs.
>
> I think it's pretty reprehensible for the CyberPatrol people to try to squelch
> public awareness of some of the apparently rather shoddy and themself
> disreputable things they've done in their program (such as blocking a lot of
> CyberPatrol-critical sites... and even PERFECTLY INNOCUOUS sites... which
> obviously have nothing to do with the category of supposedly "offensive" site
> that CyberPatrol has assigned them to) and it's not surprising that 
> they're more
> than a little bit embarassed by their ugly little secrets being set 
> out into the
> open.
>
> Serves them right, in my opinion.
>
> Gordon Peterson
> http://web2.airmail.net/gep2/
> Support the Anti-SPAM Amendment!  Join at http://www.cauce.org/
> 12/19/98: the day the Conservatives demonstrated their scorn for their
>    fraudulent sham of representative government.  Voters, remember it!