Re: Say it ain't so: Censorship in America

[Blanchard_Michael () emc com]

 The free service is provided by the Airport (be it government or private, doesn't matter).  If you wish to use it, you 
abide by the rules and restrictions that they put in place for it's use.  In this case, it's no porn.  Either accept it 
and use the WiFi, or don't accept it and don't use the free service....

 Nothing is stopping anyone from using a Cell-WiFi card to view their porn...  

  I'm also a BIG fan of arresting anyone that is viewing porn in a public area where anyone can walk by and see 
material that is objectionable to them.  When in public, you have to obey public decency laws....

  Mike B


Michael P. Blanchard 
Antivirus / Security Engineer, CISSP, GCIH, CCSA-NGX, MCSE
Office of Information Security & Risk Management 
EMC ² Corporation 
4400 Computer Dr. 
Westboro, MA 01580 


-----Original Message-----
From: funsec-bounces () linuxbox org [mailto:funsec-bounces () linuxbox org] On Behalf Of Jacob Appelbaum
Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2008 4:20 PM
To: John C. A. Bambenek, GCIH, CISSP
Cc: funsec () linuxbox org
Subject: Re: [funsec] Say it ain't so: Censorship in America

John C. A. Bambenek, GCIH, CISSP wrote:
> I'm not saying the implementation was intelligent, I am saying it's not
> censorship and quit your whining.  It's not the taxpayers job to facilitate
> people's pervsities... pay for your own porn.  Don't like it, by all means,
> hook up your smart phone and get online that way.  Or better yet, go
> f****ing masturbate at home.


Hi,

First of all: It's a form of censorship.

I'm a regular contributer to Boing Boing (though obviously not an
author, just a pal - so to speak) and I take issue with what you're
saying. BB isn't porn.

You are blocked in the same way, in fact with the same software as users
in Syria. They look for certain offensive material and the filter may
even alert the authorities.

Someone other than the user of the network made the choice to block
content. If you argue that it's not the taxpayers job to facilitate
peoples' perversions, I'd agree. Stop spending tax payers dollars on
this censorship fetish.

We have laws and make a crime of showing porn to children. If it
happens, arrest the suspect and try them. Stop making new rules that
take petty bureaucrats to the level of censor.

No one is asking to masturbate - people are saying that it's blocking
legitimate uses of the network. Yes, it may include your definition of
pornography but your web pages may be my definition of hate speech.

Where does this stop? It won't. Smart filter makes a business out of
censoring information - all kinds of information.

I notice you're a CISSP - how would you like it if all of the CISSP
learning material was censored under the category of "hacking tools?"
Does that make sense? I don't think so.

This kind of filtering is pervasive and a problem. But not because I'm
looking for porn but because it's imperfect at the very core of its idea!

(This of course says nothing of the fact that you can easily get around
any of this bullshit filtering: http://www.boingboing.net/censorroute.html )

Regards,
Jacob Appelbaum
_______________________________________________
Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts.
https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec
Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list.


_______________________________________________
Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts.
https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec
Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list.