Den 12. april 2016 18:52, skrev Ted Lemon:
The UK filter is an "opt out" filter, and I assume that we (the IETF)
opted out. Even the "opt out" blocking is voluntary at present--an ISP
is not required by law to have a filter, but in practice the big ones do.
The particular case that made the blacklist famous in at least some
fora, and exposed quite a bit on how it worked:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Watch_Foundation_and_Wikipedia
"the action also had some indirect effects on Wikipedia, namely
temporarily preventing all editors using said ISPs in the UK from
contributing to any page of the encyclopaedia, and preventing anonymous
edits from these ISPs while the URL remained on the blacklist. This was
described by the IWF as unintended "collateral damage".[7] This was due
to the proxies used to access Wikipedia, as Wikipedia implements a
blocking policy whereby contributors can be blocked if they vandalise
the encyclopaedia. Therefore, all vandalism coming from one ISP would be
directed through one proxy—hence one IP—and all of the ISP's customers
using that proxy would be barred from editing."
On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 12:24 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker
<phill(_at_)hallambaker(_dot_)com <mailto:phill(_at_)hallambaker(_dot_)com>>
wrote:
On Sun, Apr 10, 2016 at 3:19 PM, John Levine <johnl(_at_)taugh(_dot_)com
<mailto:johnl(_at_)taugh(_dot_)com>> wrote:
>>The IETF has a meeting network requirements document that specifies a
>>number of parameters which includes no blocking.
>
> In London in 2014, do you know whether we were behind the national
> child porn filters?
>
> R's,
> John
I am not sure that they actually filter.
I think it rather more likely that if you were to surf to
kiddieporn.com <http://kiddieporn.com> from the Hilton Metropole,
that you would find Mr Plod
knocking on your hotel room door 15 minutes later. That being the
driving time from New Scotland Yard.