RE: BGP-based blackholing/hijacking patented in Australia?
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.
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/">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.
participants (2)
-
Michel Py -
Niels Bakker