[LUAU] From the Star Bulletin

[Jim Thompson]

On Feb 2, 2007, at 10:26 AM, R. Scott Belford wrote:

> Jim Thompson wrote:
>>
>> On Feb 2, 2007, at 12:04 AM, R. Scott Belford wrote:
>>> One of the assurance we gave the C&C was that the bad sites would be
>>> blocked.  We are not in a position to be cavalier about this.   
>>> Members
>>> of our neighborhood board have pressed me on the issue.   
>>> DansGuardian
>>> and Squidguard are taking care of it through transparent proxying.
>>> The K12LTSP makes this very easy.  Tim Newsham has offered to help
>>> keep an eye on things.
>>
>> When Scott says "we" here, he doesn't include >me<.
>>
>> Note that:
>>
>> 1) I don't believe in filtering, as filtering makes *you* (the  
>> filterer)
>> responsible for any/all content that gets through.
>> 2) since no filtering is perfect, you will get sued.
>> 3) I don't like censorship of any kind.
>> 4) I had *nothing* to do with setting this part up, or maintaining  
>> it.
>> Nor will I in the future.
>> 5) You can't build community without privacy.
>
> At any rate, this was the compromise we made to get the wireless  
> network
> in place.  I explained to the decision-makers that it was not perfect
> and that blocking sites was a cat and mouse game.  We will not get  
> sued.
>
> In order to achieve some goal of community wireless here in Ewa,  
> this is
> what we, or I, or whatever, did.  So be it.  Should you pursue similar
> goals, Jon, then be advised that you may be asked to make a similar
> compromise.  We are using a City funded DSL connection and an AP on  
> City
> property, so we cannot make our own rules.

'we' could, but someone compromised.   I even understand 'why', but I  
don't agree.   Note that I helped pull and terminate the wire, and yes,
I donated the AP, and I was even aware that you were filtering, but I  
can't stomach people thinking that I endorsed it.  I'm not asking you to
rip it out, but I do feel the need to explain why I think its a very  
bad idea.

I have more experience in this area than I could possibly relate in  
fewer than 17-18 'beers' worth of bar time.  The "first" time
was at Sun, in 1988 about the alt.* newsgroups.   There were many,  
many hours of dealing with lawyers and the FBI during my time
at Wayport.  You would not believe what people do in their hotel  
rooms when they're not paying to watch PPV p0rn.  (At one point,
one of the FBI agents slipped and called us "Wayporn".)

Once you filter (or allow someone else to force you to filter) you  
become the provider of "approved content".  As you indicate, it
can become a huge work-a-day project, constantly slapping down new  
sites, and there are (way) more of them then there are of you.

And who says "Yes" and "No"?  Who writes the rules?  Who will watch  
the watchers?

How soon does the word haole get censored? I find it offensive.    
(Kidding, but I hope you got the point.)

What would your stand be if the Time Warner/HawaiiTel duopoly was  
convinced by "the powers that be" (or some large community coalition)  
to put all
of the DSL / cable modem traffic in-town behind a similar filtering  
setup?   Assume, for the sake of discussion, that there was no  
negative performance
impact of such an operation.  (It could even be that you see some  
slight boost in loading speed for popular web pages.)

Would you still take the stance that, "we can't make our own rules"?

(AUPs are fine, btw.)

What would your stance be if C&C put up a bunch of money (in the form  
of bonds) to build out fiber to every home and business on Oahu,
running at 100Mbps or even a gigabit/second, with your choice of back- 
haul provider (for traffic that exits the island), but full access  
inside the
island for everyone, but for the single proviso that all traffic must  
be filtered to remove "objectionable content".  After all, C&C "paid"  
for all the fiber
(even if it was really the taxpayers.)  Shouldn't they have some  
'say' in how things are run?

(Similar things are proposed in other communities...)

Even if I wave aside all the first amendment issues and technical  
objections,  (and I am explicitly not), how are you going to defend
against some 'kid' in the park  "seeing" something s/he "should not",  
even if it didn't come across that DSL line, but rather came out
of some other, nearby AP to which the perp managed to get  
associated?   How are you going to >>prove<< that the traffic wasn't
yours, and that your filter didn't "fail"?  How are you going to  
prove that the "dirty bits" were actually in the perp's browser cache,
and never flew over your AP?

Why should the people of Ewa Beach have to deal with censorship?  You  
can keep the politicos, media and (other) folk who
don't get it "happy" by saying "we filter!" (*), but its an  
Sisyphean, if not impossible task to do correctly without having it  
bite back.  Hard.

And then there is this:

	Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
	or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom  
of speech,
	or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble,  
and to petition
	the government for a redress of grievances.

(Check Amendment IV while you're at it.)

Jim
(*) trust me, in the heat of argument, they will forget that you once  
said, "but its imperfect".