[LUAU] From the Star Bulletin

[Maddog]

Jim,

Welcome to the Socialist Republic of Hawaii

MD
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jim Thompson" <jim at netgate.com>
To: "LUAU" <luau at lists.hosef.org>
Sent: Friday, February 02, 2007 5:19 PM
Subject: Re: [LUAU] From the Star Bulletin


> 
> 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".
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> LUAU at lists.hosef.org mailing list
> http://lists.hosef.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/luau
>