March 06, 2006

Resisting The Temptation To Ever Do Censorware Research Again

BBoing's latest on censorware banning translation service:

"It's hard to believe that Secure Computing would behave so irresponsibly as to actually block access to a translation service just to keep its censorware from collapsing."

Sigh ... November 16 2000 - SmartFilter's Greatest Evils - "Abstract: This paper examines what the censorware product SmartFilter considered to be the worst websites, as measured by the number of categories under which the site was blacklisted. It was discovered that two broad classes of websites were maximally blacklisted. These were privacy/anonymity service sites, and language-translation services. In retrospect, this is in fact an obvious requirement of censorware, as any private or anonymous browsing ability is antithetical to the goal of control in censorware."

August 2001 - BESS's Secret LOOPHOLE (censorware vs. privacy & anonymity) - "Abstract: This report examines a [then] secret category in N2H2's censorware ... This category turns out to be for sites which must be uniformly prohibited, because they constitute a LOOPHOLE in the necessary control of censorware. The category contains sites which provide services of anonymity, privacy, language translation, humorous text transformations, even web page feature testing, and more."

This is what marginalization looks like.

I can decrypt and write and blog ... IT'S NOT HEARD!!!

I'm even on the first page of results for a Google search on "SmartFilter". Which debunks the pollyanna argument that you can toss the information out there, into the ocean of webpages, like a message in a bottle, and it'll be found by the magic Google.

I can't say I haven't experienced temptation over the last week. But I think I've been shown once more that, at best, I'm going to have the research ignored and later others will get the credit, and at worst, I'm going to hurt my life (note, again!) by making myself a target. Caveat, that last sentence encompasses a few things I shouldn't discuss in public. But, even so, the objective results seem re-affirmed :-(.

By Seth Finkelstein | posted in activism | on March 06, 2006 11:58 PM (Infothought permalink)
Seth Finkelstein's Infothought blog (Wikipedia, Google, censorware, and an inside view of net-politics) - Syndicate site (subscribe, RSS)

Subscribe with Bloglines      Subscribe in NewsGator Online  Google Reader or Homepage


"Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you" ...

Posted by: Ric at March 7, 2006 08:26 AM

This is appalling--"this" meaning that you're ignored by BoingBoing.

I mean, yes, you've made the point, you're probably never going to be paid attention to by Big Media; you're just not on their radar.

But, good grief, if an EFF mouthpiece doesn't even pay attention to you, something's desperately wrong. Not that I would ever suggest that the people involved with EFF were ever less than perfect. Nope. Not me.

[Yes, I know Cory D. didn't post this particular item. He should, presumably, be aware of it, assuming that BB contributors also read BB... I wouldn't know, I gave up on it months ago.]

Posted by: walt at March 7, 2006 12:42 PM

... hell go for it Seth...the timing will never be pass legislation against pornography filtering MUST be discredited...
because the existance of filtering is the reason why legislation hasn't been passed...

Posted by: Bob Turner at March 7, 2006 11:52 PM