Well, I believe the ideal answer is: This will prevent the policy makers to access the "bad" pages, so this is what we do to make them content.
If they can not themselves work a way around the wall we erect, they are happy and that essentially is the target of this whole exercise. (As I see it). On 31/08/12 23:20, Kevin Darcy wrote: > On 8/31/2012 10:42 AM, Oscar Ricardo Silva wrote: >> On 08/31/2012 08:22 AM, Kevin Darcy wrote: >>> On 8/31/2012 2:50 AM, sth...@nethelp.no wrote: >>>>> Again, it's not about how effective the block is or can be. Unless >>>>> Italy >>>>> becomes like China or even worse (but the US had the chance end up >>>>> almost in the same situation very recently, so this is NOT an >>>>> Italian-only problem), there is no way to inhibit users from >>>>> reaching a >>>>> given resource on the Internet: if the user is motivated enough >>>>> he/she >>>>> will circumvent whatever you do, eventually assisted by the >>>>> counterpart >>>>> he/she is trying to reach... >>>> We are in much the same situation in Norway. All the biggest ISPs use >>>> a list of child porn domains to be blocked, specified by the central >>>> police authorities. *In principle* implementing this is voluntary for >>>> the ISPs. In practice there is significant pressure to do so. >>>> >>>> Both the police and the ISPs are fully aware that blocking this at the >>>> DNS level (the ISP recursive resolvers) won't prevent somebody who is >>>> determined. But the police (and the government) still want this done. >>>> >>>> I sometimes suspect their view is of the type "We must do something. >>>> This is something, therefore we must do it." >>>> >>> Nothing is better than paradise. >>> A ham sandwich is better than nothing. >>> Therefore, a ham sandwich is better than paradise. >> >> >> And you won't be able to afford that ham sandwich if you've been >> terminated from your job because you didn't follow the law. We all >> have things in our jobs that we don't want to do but we do them >> anyway. All the ridiculous suggestions and snarky comments aren't >> helping the original poster who mentioned these sites were considered >> illegal and is looking for other ways to do this. > Doesn't the Eurozone have bigger problems right now, than worrying > about a few people looking at dirty pictures? > > In any case, what does the OP expect us to say here? "Yeah, here's a > nifty way to violate the spirit of the whole DNS protocol"? It's one > thing to acknowledge casually that DNS software can be abused by > unscrupulous administrators as form of social control, it's quite > another to ask technical experts to actually give details on how that > abuse can be carried out; giving aid and comfort to the enemy, as it > were. The OP should report to his boss that the technical community > provides absolutely *NO*HELP* in this travesty, and therefore any > "modifications" to the DNS to try and implement this "blocking" will > be incredibly time-consuming and prone to breakage in unforeseen ways. > > - Kevin > _______________________________________________ > Please visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to > unsubscribe from this list > > bind-users mailing list > bind-users@lists.isc.org > https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users -- Best regards Sten Carlsen No improvements come from shouting: "MALE BOVINE MANURE!!!"
_______________________________________________ Please visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe from this list bind-users mailing list bind-users@lists.isc.org https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users
