Two followups about Ogrish.com banned in Spain [fs]

[Declan McCullagh <declan () well com>]

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [Politech] Explanation about why Ogrish.com may or may not 
be banned [fs]
Date: Tue, 02 Nov 2004 16:43:10 +0100
From: MDoval BC <mdoval () labitacora com>
To: Declan McCullagh <declan () well com>
References: <41879CBE.4010405 () well com>

Hi Declan,

the site is banned if you want to access to it from the Telefonica's
network but not from other Spanish carriers. For example, last Thursday
I visited it from the Rediris network which is the public universities
network from Spain. That means that a government network didn't follow
the judge order :o) or actually the police didn't even try it. You can
read my post (in Spanish) about it at
http://www.internetpolitica.com/archivos/000251.html and
http://www.internetpolitica.com/archivos/000250.html

Some people left comments saying they could visit the site from
Retevision or cable networks so I guess the police just got the big
chunk (Telefonica) and forgot about the rest.

Montse Doval




-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [Politech] Explanation about why Ogrish.com may or may 
not be 	banned [fs]
Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2004 07:35:40 -0800
From: Paul Hoffman <phoffman () proper com>
To: Declan McCullagh <declan () well com>
References: <41879CBE.4010405 () well com>

> This is becoming more and more common of a problem, as more countries with
> laws allowing speech suppression issue orders to prevent "objectionable
> speech" (variying from web sites that "support" Osama to things as banal
> as Ogrish).   The most common response to such an order by the web site
> operator is to change IPs - leaving the court order ineffective, the
> carrier with holes in their routing table which they cannot [legally]
> remove (despite any performance issues or similar technical difficulties
> which may result), and the target web site "on the air".  This may account
> for the off-the-air/on-the-air reports (or it may not - either way, I
> thought this explanation would be both timely and relevent).

If this is really a problem for the carriers (and I could certainly
imagine it could be), it would be interesting to set up a mechanism
where the banned sites could publicly proclaim "We were banned, we
were using IP 1.2.3.4 for the banned material, and we promise to
never ever use that IP address again". This allows the carriers to
remove the null route with impunity (and thus make the routing tables
cleaner again), and yet doesn't force the banned site to actually say
whether or not they're going to appear on a different IP address.


_______________________________________________
Politech mailing list
Archived at http://www.politechbot.com/
Moderated by Declan McCullagh (http://www.mccullagh.org/)