On Sun, Dec 7, 2008 at 2:01 PM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com> wrote:
2008/12/7 Maury Markowitz
<maury.markowitz(a)gmail.com>om>:
On Sun, Dec 7, 2008 at 12:47 PM, techman224
<techman224(a)yahoo.ca> wrote:
It's too bad the UK is censoring Wikipedia.
I'm just shocked to see an
English Country that's fully developed to censor Wikipedia. It is like
They're not. Its a technical problem that will no doubt be solved.
A load of ISPs blocking a page that contains a (IMO decent) nude
picture of a young girl (and in one case displaying a notice about
child pornography in its place) is a not censorship but a technical
problem? I'm not buying it... it seems pretty intentional to me...
(The whole transparent proxies meaning our blocks of vandals have
massive collateral damage thing is a technical problem, but that's not
really the issue.)
Some ISP of folks have talked to the IWF. The block was made
intentionally, and it was made in awareness of other copies of the
image on the internet. The IWF opted to take a "more pragmatic
approach" to other URLs showing the image. (Perhaps they reasoned that
other people would be more likely to sue them into oblivion). This
may also explain why the entire Wikipedia article was blocked rather
than just the image itself.