Aaron Malone wrote:
> Yes, the administrator has the final say -- I never claimed otherwise.
> However, the majority of categorization is done, as you say, at the level
> of the providing company. Implementing granular control at the level of
> the individual administrator is simply not feasible,
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On
> Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2001 1:49 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: [issues] Re: Filtering in schools and libraries
>
>
> While I agree with what you're saying, I thin
Leah Angel wrote:
> hmm, actually we ask that our client do *not* reboot the proxy server,
> due to possible loss of error log messages.
Hey that's a good one! Pray tell, what do you do to diagnose problems
when your software crashes (speaking rhetorically because even code I
write crashes every
On Wed, Jan 17, 2001 at 05:07:00PM -0800, Jen Hamilton wrote:
> Also fair. I just want to ensure that people are not making opinions
> about N2H2 based on one unsatisfied customer, since the satisfied
> customers are not here to argue against it.
For what it's worth (since I assume you're referr
On Wed, Jan 17, 2001 at 04:38:31PM -0800, Jen Hamilton wrote:
> > Then we're back to control at the level of the filtering company
> > individual libraries as you'd stated. I think you might be surprised at
> You've already proven that this statement is false when you
> said you entered the porno
Not meaning to cause trouble, but these two statements jumped out at me as
something I had to respond to.
Jen Hamilton wrote:
> If peacefire publishes a list of
> sites that are blocked and shouldn't be, then N2H2 does
> everything they can to ensure that those sites are dealt with.
As a memb
On Wed, 17 Jan 2001, Laurel Fan wrote:
> Excerpts from linuxchix: 17-Jan-101 Re: [issues] Re: Filtering .. by Jen
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > There's no reason to argue N2H2's effectiveness or in-effectiveness in
> > this newsgroup. The issue is censorship, not N2H2.
>
> On the contrary. The issu
> Then we're back to control at the level of the filtering company
> individual libraries as you'd stated. I think you might be surprised at
You've already proven that this statement is false when you
said you entered the pornographic URL's into your database. Ultimately,
the control of what is
Excerpts from linuxchix: 17-Jan-101 Re: [issues] Re: Filtering .. by Jen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> There's no reason to argue N2H2's effectiveness or in-effectiveness in
> this newsgroup. The issue is censorship, not N2H2.
On the contrary. The issue is Internet filtering. This issue
includes several
On Wed, Jan 17, 2001 at 03:47:43PM -0800, Jen Hamilton wrote:
> There's no reason to argue N2H2's effectiveness or in-effectiveness in
> this newsgroup. The issue is censorship, not N2H2.
I'm against censorship. I'm against filtering software because a) (see
the first sentence of this paragraph
> > But if filtering is not the most useful solution, then what is?
>
> I don't have an answer to that. I don't think mandatory filtering is it,
> though.
>
There is actualy a nice chart of ideas/options..
http://www.bluehighways.com/filters/options.html
I think above all.. having and Accep
--- Jen Hamilton wrote:
There's no reason to argue N2H2's effectiveness or in-effectiveness in
this newsgroup. The issue is censorship, not N2H2. Are you really
resorting to slandering my company's product in order to prove your
point?
--- end of quote ---
So, correct me if I'm wrong, but a large
There's no reason to argue N2H2's effectiveness or in-effectiveness in
this newsgroup. The issue is censorship, not N2H2. Are you really
resorting to slandering my company's product in order to prove your
point? N2H2 serves over 11,000 schools covering over 9 million students,
so for every dissat
Quick search on BESS and N2H2:
Not knowing much about the N2H2 product(s) I did a search and a quick read
of n2h2's site.. this is what I found:
(as I stated this was a quick search.. so if I'm wrong PLEASE correct me
asap so people aren't left missinformed)
overview of the technology:
there is an
On Wed, Jan 17, 2001 at 06:20:33PM -0500, Laurel Fan wrote:
> I found no studies showing its effectiveness (please post them if you
> know of any?).
I found a couple:
http://peacefire.org/censorware/BESS/MM/
http://peacefire.org/blind-ballots/
There's another that used to be on censorware.org li
On Wed, 17 Jan 2001, Aaron Malone wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 17, 2001 at 02:40:40PM -0800, Jen Hamilton wrote:
> > Yes, I believe you have made incorrect statements about N2H2 and are
> > misunderstanding N2H2's philosophy altogether.
>
> Sorry if what I've said was misunderstood -- it was not my int
On Tue, Jan 16, 2001 at 04:14:56PM -0600, Kathryn Hogg wrote:
> It could be that they don't have any books because no one has asked for them.
> A smaller library is also most likely to be the one that will install the
> cheapest software they can find that requires the least amount of maintenance
Excerpts from linuxchix: 17-Jan-101 Re: [issues] Re: Filtering .. by Jen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Yes, I believe you have made incorrect statements about N2H2 and are
> misunderstanding N2H2's philosophy altogether. The company's web page
> describes in detail how the product works and why.
Not that
On Wed, Jan 17, 2001 at 02:40:40PM -0800, Jen Hamilton wrote:
> Yes, I believe you have made incorrect statements about N2H2 and are
> misunderstanding N2H2's philosophy altogether.
Sorry if what I've said was misunderstood -- it was not my intention to
make statements about any of N2H2's philoso
> solution. If I've made any incorrect statements about your company's
> product, I'd certainly be interested in seeing your perspective.
Yes, I believe you have made incorrect statements about N2H2 and are
misunderstanding N2H2's philosophy altogether. The company's web page
describes in det
On Wed, Jan 17, 2001 at 12:42:29PM -0800, Jen Hamilton wrote:
> Many comments that I have seen here, in newspapers, and in other
> areas about filtering are made on assumptions about the technology
> without researching the facts about what is available.
Heh. It just occurred to me to glace at
On Wed, Jan 17, 2001 at 12:42:29PM -0800, Jen Hamilton wrote:
> described earlier) will not work. However, a proxy-based solution updated
> daily with new URL's that are categorized into types of sites (yes,
> by the filtering company)...
Then we're back to control at the level of the filtering
> By choosing a list of broad categories of what should be blocked, thus
> depending the judgement of the filtering company's automatic scripts and
> employees.
No, by choosing from a list of more than 40 categories of web sites based
on ALL content, whether 'naughty' or 'nice', including aucti
On Tue, Jan 16, 2001 at 03:03:32PM -0800, Jen Hamilton wrote:
> The initial list of what is allowed and what is blocked is determined by
> the person who buys the filtering at the time of install,
By choosing a list of broad categories of what should be blocked, thus
depending the judgement of th
On Tue, 16 Jan 2001, Kathryn Hogg wrote:
> > My point is that censorship already exists in schools and libraries,
> > with the proper technology, filtering will not make that any different
>
> But does that make it right?
If censorship exists with or without internet filtering, does that make
f
Jen Hamilton said:
> My point is that censorship already exists in schools and libraries, and
> with the proper technology, filtering will not make that any different.
But does that make it right?
> A person searching for gay and lesbian resources is a great
> example. However, if the library
On 16 Jan 2001, Kristin M. Fitzsimmons wrote:
> While I'm not entirely comfortable with the thought of a
> kindergartener having access to pornography, etc, I'm more
> uncomfortable with the arbitrary ages that the government
> has come up with to partition off mental development -- why
> is 18 th
On Tue, 16 Jan 2001 13:49:18 -0800 (PST)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> While I agree with what you're saying, I think it's
> important to point out that we're not just talking about
> teenagers here. We're also talking about elementary
> school age (and younger) kids, and as a mom, I think
> yo
> I'm not quite sure what that is supposed to prove
My point is that censorship already exists in schools and libraries, and
with the proper technology, filtering will not make that any different. I
don't think the issue is internet filtering, I think there is a broader
issue which is, "who deter
>
> Another complaint I have against this legislation is that I think many of
> the kids in this country are tired of being treated like infants by the
> government, who seems to think our kids are either too stupid or amoral to
> make their own decisions. I'm also tired of the government using o
Jen Hamilton said:
> I suppose a better question is,'Have any English classes in American High
> Schools NOT included a book on Gay and Lesbian issues in their required
> reading classes?'
I'm not quite sure what that is supposed to prove. I don't remember having
to read any books about Wicans f
> > Has any English class in American High Schools
> > included a book on Gay and Lesbian issues in their list
> > of required reading?
>
> Mine did.
I suppose a better question is,'Have any English classes in American High
Schools NOT included a book on Gay and Lesbian issues in their required
On Tue, 16 Jan 2001, Jen Hamilton wrote:
> Is filtering the internet in libraries and schools any different than a
> librarian or school advisory board choosing the types of books that are
> bought and put on the shelf?
Yes. It's very different. Schools have to limit the books they buy
accor
On Tue, 16 Jan 2001 09:57:39 -0800 (PST) Jen Hamilton
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Has any English class in American High Schools
> included a book on Gay and Lesbian issues in their list
> of required reading?
Mine did.
> Do you really believe that
> filtering the internet is any differ
Is filtering the internet in libraries and schools any different than a
librarian or school advisory board choosing the types of books that are
bought and put on the shelf? Are books about beastiality and making bombs
accessible in print right now for free check-out? Should they
be? If pornograph
While the idea may sound like a good idea, I think it has too much potential
for abuse and could be too restrictive of free speech rights. So far no
blocking software (at least that I have seen) is fool proof. My biggest
concern, of course, is the possibility of this easily snow-balling into
other
On Wed, Jan 03, 2001 at 10:25:05AM + or so it is rumoured hereabouts,
Conor Daly thought:
> On Tue, Jan 02, 2001 at 01:41:16PM -0700 or so it is rumoured hereabouts,
> Wood, Mary thought:
> > > Oh well... Sorry about this. Chalk up my long windedness
> > > to me being pregnant. :) -sharon
>
On Tue, Jan 02, 2001 at 01:41:16PM -0700 or so it is rumoured hereabouts,
Wood, Mary thought:
> > Oh well... Sorry about this. Chalk up my long windedness
> > to me being pregnant. :) -sharon
>
> Oh, I'd call your post more like medium-winded ... and just
> fine by me. Good to have a place for
>I think the view on filtering software needs to be revisited.. most people
>seem to look at filtering in the default allow (ie. blocking things that
>are bad while leaving everything else open).. vs. default deny
>(ie. blocking everything except for what is known to be good).. yes the
>second app
As a mother of two (soon to be three, as I just found out a
couple of days ago), I have some ideas about this. At home,
my kids have unrestricted access via our network, but I supervise
them and do all the things that most anti-filtering supporters
advocate.
Personally though, I don't think filte
I think the view on filtering software needs to be revisited.. most people
seem to look at filtering in the default allow (ie. blocking things that
are bad while leaving everything else open).. vs. default deny
(ie. blocking everything except for what is known to be good).. yes the
second approach
Jen Hamilton wrote:
> This question is in regards to the Children's Internet Protection Act in
> the US.
>
> Here's some info:
> http://www.onlinepolicy.org/action/legpolicy/us00-hr4577-a3610.htm
>
> Since we are on the subject of libraries (in [EMAIL PROTECTED]), I
> would be interested to know
42 matches
Mail list logo
