RE: BGP-based blackholing/hijacking patented in Australia?

Mailman List Mirror (Read Only)
1

Niels Bakker wrote:
Do you propose blocking goatse/tubgirl as well? The
same reasoning can apply to those sites.

No, and you are comparing apples to oranges. As far as I know, neither
goatse nor tubgirl tried to phish my password, SSN, or PIN (or I am
missing something?)

OTOH, I have received phish in my inbox asking me to update my paypal
info.

<me puts the devil's advocate suit on one more time>

If more people had seen goatse and tubgirl, there would be more laws and
legislation making it illegal. Especially in the Hypocritical
Puritanical States of America.

</me puts the devil's advocate suit on one more time>

Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
in general, it's my belief, that folks using the web should
make that censorship decision for themselves, gov'ts or ISP's
shouldn't make that call. Unfortunately, gov'ts often like to
impose their will's on their citizens.

I agree. Although I personally find some stuff disgusting, I prefer
freedom of speech to censorship.

That being said, phishing is not about freedom of speech. I would oppose
blocking goatse/tubgirl but I do not oppose blocking phishing.

However, the issue I see with this redirection stuff is that what it
does is to redirect surfers from goatse to tubgirl (or the other way
around, depending on which way you voted, perverts). The wrong part is
the redirection, not the content.

Michel.

2

Niels Bakker wrote:
Do you propose blocking goatse/tubgirl as well? The
same reasoning can apply to those sites.

* michel@arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us (Michel Py) [Sat 14 Aug 2004, 06:38 CEST]:

No, and you are comparing apples to oranges. As far as I know, neither
goatse nor tubgirl tried to phish my password, SSN, or PIN (or I am
missing something?)

You forgot to quote some needed context. You said that "the user never
wanted to access the site in the first place" and "[t]he reason to visit
a web site never existed in reality." This applies to goatse/tubgirl as
well (at least in my case, and I assume I'm in polite company).

The problem is users sending personal information to the wrong party
where they could've known better (unverified website over unencrypted
and unauthenticated connections). The problem isn't users accidentally
visiting websites they, in retrospect, didn't want to visit.

I agree. Although I personally find some stuff disgusting, I prefer
freedom of speech to censorship.

That being said, phishing is not about freedom of speech. I would oppose
blocking goatse/tubgirl but I do not oppose blocking phishing.

Have you read the LINX paper on this subject? It's a good read.

However, the issue I see with this redirection stuff is that what it
does is to redirect surfers from goatse to tubgirl (or the other way
around, depending on which way you voted, perverts). The wrong part is
the redirection, not the content.

Well then, say bye-bye to the principle of links such as
<a href="http://site1/&quot;&gt;visit site2</a> where the href target differs
textually from the anchor text.

Oh, the usual (old, tired) trick is redirecting from an innocent-looking
link to either goatse or tubgirl, not between the latter two.

  -- Niels.