BGP-based blackholing/hijacking patented in Australia?

Sat Aug 14 04:37:21 UTC 2004

> Niels Bakker wrote:
> Do you propose blocking goatse/tubgirl as well?  The
> same reasoning can apply to those sites.

No, and you are comparing apples to oranges. As far as I know, neither
goatse nor tubgirl tried to phish my password, SSN, or PIN (or I am
missing something?)

OTOH, I have received phish in my inbox asking me to update my paypal
info.

<me puts the devil's advocate suit on one more time>

If more people had seen goatse and tubgirl, there would be more laws and
legislation making it illegal. Especially in the Hypocritical
Puritanical States of America.

</me puts the devil's advocate suit on one more time>

> Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
> in general, it's my belief, that folks using the web should
> make that censorship decision for themselves, gov'ts or ISP's
> shouldn't make that call. Unfortunately, gov'ts often like to
> impose their will's on their citizens.

I agree. Although I personally find some stuff disgusting, I prefer
freedom of speech to censorship.

That being said, phishing is not about freedom of speech. I would oppose
blocking goatse/tubgirl but I do not oppose blocking phishing.

However, the issue I see with this redirection stuff is that what it
does is to redirect surfers from goatse to tubgirl (or the other way
around, depending on which way you voted, perverts). The wrong part is
the redirection, not the content.

Michel.