On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 3:19 PM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com>wrote;wrote:
2008/12/12 Anthony <wikimail(a)inbox.org>rg>:
On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 5:52 AM, Florence
Devouard <Anthere9(a)yahoo.com
wrote:
If tomorrow, a really illegal-in-UK image is
reported to the IWF, they
will block it for real. And they will block again editing.
"They" didn't block editing. "You" did.
Technically, yes, but they made it impossible for us to do anything else.
I think at this point you have to describe what you mean by "block editing",
then.
On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 6:44 AM, Dan Collins
<en.wp.st47(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Do you have a suggestion? Not everyone uses XFF, certainly not ISPs
with dynamic IPs, how would you suggest we block anonymous users?
If you want to block anonymous users, block anonymous users. If you want
to
allow anonymous users to edit, then understand
that you can't block
anyone.
If someone is anonymous, then you don't know who they are, so you don't
know
whether or not they're blocked.
That's nonsense. In the vast majority of cases there is a one-to-one
correspondence between IP addresses and users (at least over the short
term) and blocking by IP address works very well.
If there is a one-to-one correspondence between IP addresses and users, then
there isn't any anonymity, is there?