Comments on: Update on Filtering

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 04:12:23 +0000

When they finally get around to filtering HTTPS and IP6 and all the nonchild-porn sites you can bet they’re going to start blocking sooner or later, you can always use Tor (https://www.torproject.org). It’s free and open-source. If they start blocking Tor’s entry nodes start using the hidden bridge nodes. Don’t trust Big Brother to only filter out the “bad stuff”. The government’s not your friend.

By: thomas

thomas — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 03:11:34 +0000

Joseph – I imagine they’ll be amused.

By: Joseph

Joseph — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 03:08:09 +0000

Are you sure they would like you linking to that site?

By: thomas

thomas — Sun, 25 Oct 2009 05:29:37 +0000

Sam – yes, it does seem a bit optimistic.

Jack M – Well, after discussing the checks with the people at the DIA I did find their explanation of the testing makes sense. They have a URL that had child porn last time they looked, they open it, check that it still has ick on it, tick it off and move on to the next.

Fred – well, they claim that they check them every month and are only filtering sites with images of child sexual abuse. I do wonder if the 7000 is more granular and therefore refers to pages as much as it refers to sites.

Fred – https traffic on a filtered IP is passed through the filter without interruption.

Fred – no IPv6 support yet. They expect it to be added at some point. The DIA even told me to check out http://ipv6porn.com !

By: Fred

Fred — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 01:10:21 +0000

And when IP6 becomes widespread, in oh a year or three, do they scrap the idea? IP6 provides for every site offering HTTPS traffic at the browser’s request.

By: Fred

Fred — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 01:08:31 +0000

So what happens to HTTPS traffic, is it blocked or ignored?

By: Fred

Fred — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 01:06:39 +0000

7000 sites on the list?

IWF, the prominent black list producer has less than 2500 on their list, so what is the other 4500 sites. This is not accounting for the non child pornography sites now on their lists

By: Jack M.

Jack M. — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 00:58:22 +0000

Wow, they going to have one person check 120 sites in one hour, every day? That’s 30 seconds per site! Amazing! I hope they don’t suffer from any type of lag while opening the site, or the whole process would fall behind after, say, the first 30 seconds.

What sort of checks are these, anyway? That they still contain childporn? Or that they still exist? The latter you could do automatically, the former you could not possibly achieve in 30 seconds.

Good luck with that!

By: Sam

Sam — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 20:40:23 +0000

The claim that major outages will be resolved in 5-10 minutes sounds like they have no experience in operations. It certainly is possible that service levels like that may be achieved, but it would cost an order of magnitude more than the $30k p.a. budget they mention. I think one of those numbers is wrong.