William Allen Simpson wrote:
> Pardon me for interrupting a fine theoretical discourse, and summarizing the
> dialog for the benefit of our moderator, but perhaps we should take a look
> at the actual application under discussion?
>
> The application itself reports who it blocks. When access is attempted,
> the site is listed as blocked. What I am unsure about: is the precise
> reason for blocking displayed? When there are multiple reasons?
Good summary. I guess we all dislike someone else controlling what
we are allowed to see. But, in this case, perhaps we should also take
a look at what this discussion may turn into -- find a way to demonize the
application CyberPatrol as if that could justify the *illegal* means used to
render it ineffective.
I guess that there is no doubt that reverse engineering is illegal when the
software copyright owner so denies. Now, can we say that it is illegal for
a parent to shut off the TV when certain shows are aired? Or, to allow the
V-chip to block certain shows? Or, finally, to allow software to do it? Is using
the V-chip a defamation? No -- it is done inside one's own house. Why is
this different from the same parent using Cyberpatrol for the same objective
but in a computer -- and, look, the parent wants it.
Regarding the political agenda, this is also one's own choice -- otherwise,
we must assume that someone can tell me what to watch or read, like it
or not.
Thus, what mildly bothers me is that when choosing between privacy and
security we seem (of all groups) to prefer security. We need to accept
that the privacy of source code is protected by intellectual property rights
which the owner chose to claim (trade secret) *before* the end-user decided
to use the software. Security of others, even in the good name of free speech,
cannot in my view justify an invasion in the privacy of one. Those that prefer
securit over privacy deserve none, would perhaps Ben Franklin say today.
That said, I agree with any argument for the first amendment but as long
as privacy is respected. It cannot be that privacy is important as long as it
is my privacy only.
The guys that reverse engineered CyberPatrol seemed to believe that
"security" can justify trespassing. I think we need to ponder about
the fallacy of it, as if the end could justify the means.
Cheers,
Ed Gerck
>
>
> However, the reasons can be deduced, without reverse engineering, by
> selecting the individual blocking class, and re-testing the URL.
>
> Therefore, I believe that we have both elements:
> (a) the blocking is reported;
> (b) the reason is evident to the user.
>
> So, are the reasons defamatory to the blocked sites?
>
> Will some fine lawyer undertake to contact and ask them?
>
> To take examples, from the paper:
>
> the anti-censorware site of Peacefire <http://www.peacefire.org/>
> is listed as containing
> "Violence / Profanity, Partial Nudity, Full Nudity,
> Sexual Acts / Text, Gross Depictions / Text, Intolerance,
> Satanic or Cult, Drugs / Drug Culture, Militant / Extremist,
> Sex Education, Questionable / Illegal & Gambling, Alcohol & Tobacco".
>
> Church of the SubGenius.
> Banned in every category except sex-ed.
>
> The Nuclear Control Institute.
> "Militant / Extremist"
> "Violence / Profanity"
> "Questionable / Illegal & Gambling"
>
> Anti-nuclear-bomb articles from the Tri-City Herald newspaper.
> "Violence / Profanity"
> "Militant / Extremist"
> "Questionable / Illegal & Gambling"
>
> The Marston Family Home Page, with the usual round of pictures of
> Mom, Dad, the kids, the dog, etc. Entire directory blocked for
> "Militant / Extremist, Questionable / Illegal & Gambling",
> apparently just because of this paragraph in young Prescott's section:
>
> In school they teach me about this thing called the Constitution
> but I guess the teachers must have been lying because this new law
> the Communications Decency Act totally defys [sic] all that the
> Constitution was. Fight the system, take the power back, WAKE UP!!!!!
>
> "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" wrote:
> > I think there may be a claim in defamation if your site was blocked and
> > the software claims you have some kind of nasty content...
> >
>
> Ed Gerck wrote:
> > But, what happens (as is the case) when that software claims nothing...
> > you cannot even view what is being blocked. A difamation claim IMO
> > would require others seeing a disclosure of the site's name in a blocking list
> > ... hmmm, that is perhaps why they do not disclose (even to parents?).
> >
> > Anyway, the idea of blocking and not even telling you what is being
> > blocked is a "trust me" procedure -- a well-known nothing. Trust me ;-)
> >
>
> "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" wrote:
> > Presumably they make some representation somewhere - in the manual? -
> > about what they block or why?
> >
>
> Ed Gerck wrote:
> > "What they block" does not seem to be defamation, it seems to be freedom of
> > choice. The way I understand it, a defamation claim would have to be based on
> > a two-part test: (a) they have to publicly report "who they block" (so, there is
> > cause for action by someone in that list) and (b) they have to say they do it for a
> > reason considered to be derogatory, offensive, etc. (so, there is actually
> > defamation).
> >
> > Thus, "why they block" (the reason, item b above) alone cannot be defamation
> > either, IMO, because they do not report who they block.
> >
> > Otherwise, we would support the funny idea that someone could suffer defamation
> > without ever being reported by any means. A very contradiction with the
> > word "fame" (report) in defamation.
> >
