3 ms·

They could employ internet filtering software used by China, Syria and Iran. Shouldn't be too difficult to get their hands on, considering it's made by an Ameri

They could employ internet filtering software used by China, Syria and Iran. Shouldn't be too difficult to get their hands on, considering it's made by an American company, Blue Coat Systems [0] [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Coat_Systems https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Coat_Systems

smt88 11y ago
That software (whatever is used by China and Iran) is designed to tell the difference between parts of the web that are political and parts that aren't. It isn't designed to tell whether Inmate X is flooding Victim Y's Instagram with veiled threats. You'd have to create an incredibly complex system of rules for each individual inmate in order to do anything close to being effective, and even then, you'd require a level of AI sophistication that doesn't exist yet. It's just not possible right now.
- intopieces 11y ago
  I'm not sure I follow why the system has to be so complex. Why not just block access to Instagram entirely? China does, and they seem to be satisfied with the results. I don't forsee prison inmates getting access to VPNs. As other users have proposed, a locked-down version (not 'unfettered') of the web seems like a reasonable compromise.
  - thaumasiotes 11y ago
    Because "you have unfettered access to the internet, except for the parts of the internet with other people" doesn't really work. It's so stupid that pretty much anyone who hears it will immediately realize it doesn't work. We're trying to prevent prisoners from communicating. The internet is a tool the sole purpose of which is communication. To be remotely plausible, you'd have to use a very restrictive whitelist approach, something like "you are allowed to send email (through the prison's forwarding server) to the following addresses".
    - intopieces 11y ago
      > To be remotely plausible, you'd have to use a very restrictive whitelist approach, something like "you are allowed to send email (through the prison's forwarding server) to the following addresses". TRULINCS appears to work like this. [0] I think a lot of the hesitation surrounding a system for giving inmates additional access to the Internet focuses on the premise that all inmates would get access at once, or all the time. But that's not necessary. It could used as a reward for good behavior. Basic monitoring technology already exists, and humans could be employed if absolutely necessary. Additionally, it's easy to know who committed what crime and disqualify them if they're likely get up to no good. [0] http://wysk.lamp.uscourts.gov/ex-offender-suggestions/trulincs-inmate-computer-system-w-y-s-k/ http://wysk.lamp.uscourts.gov/ex-offender-suggestions/trulin...
  - smt88 11y ago
    You can't prevent access to any social network that has an API, which Instagram, Facebook, and Twitter have. The connection the social network happens on the server side, where the filter can't get it. Further, you can't prevent access to email for the same reason.
    - cmdrfred 11y ago
      Why not doesn't the API have a hostname? Can't you just point the DNS at 127.0.0.1?
    - intopieces 11y ago
      >You can't prevent access to any social network that has an API Could you elaborate on this? China blocks Facebook/Instagram/Twitter [0] so well that there's an entire industry of VPN providers making bank on getting them access to it illicitly. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Websites_blocked_in_mainland_China https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Websites_blocked_in_mainland_C...

smt88 11y ago

That software (whatever is used by China and Iran) is designed to tell the difference between parts of the web that are political and parts that aren't. It isn't designed to tell whether Inmate X is flooding Victim Y's Instagram with veiled threats. You'd have to create an incredibly complex system of rules for each individual inmate in order to do anything close to being effective, and even then, you'd require a level of AI sophistication that doesn't exist yet. It's just not possible right now.

intopieces 11y ago
I'm not sure I follow why the system has to be so complex. Why not just block access to Instagram entirely? China does, and they seem to be satisfied with the results. I don't forsee prison inmates getting access to VPNs. As other users have proposed, a locked-down version (not 'unfettered') of the web seems like a reasonable compromise.
- thaumasiotes 11y ago
  Because "you have unfettered access to the internet, except for the parts of the internet with other people" doesn't really work. It's so stupid that pretty much anyone who hears it will immediately realize it doesn't work. We're trying to prevent prisoners from communicating. The internet is a tool the sole purpose of which is communication. To be remotely plausible, you'd have to use a very restrictive whitelist approach, something like "you are allowed to send email (through the prison's forwarding server) to the following addresses".
  - intopieces 11y ago
    > To be remotely plausible, you'd have to use a very restrictive whitelist approach, something like "you are allowed to send email (through the prison's forwarding server) to the following addresses". TRULINCS appears to work like this. [0] I think a lot of the hesitation surrounding a system for giving inmates additional access to the Internet focuses on the premise that all inmates would get access at once, or all the time. But that's not necessary. It could used as a reward for good behavior. Basic monitoring technology already exists, and humans could be employed if absolutely necessary. Additionally, it's easy to know who committed what crime and disqualify them if they're likely get up to no good. [0] http://wysk.lamp.uscourts.gov/ex-offender-suggestions/trulincs-inmate-computer-system-w-y-s-k/ http://wysk.lamp.uscourts.gov/ex-offender-suggestions/trulin...
- smt88 11y ago
  You can't prevent access to any social network that has an API, which Instagram, Facebook, and Twitter have. The connection the social network happens on the server side, where the filter can't get it. Further, you can't prevent access to email for the same reason.
  - cmdrfred 11y ago
    Why not doesn't the API have a hostname? Can't you just point the DNS at 127.0.0.1?
  - intopieces 11y ago
    >You can't prevent access to any social network that has an API Could you elaborate on this? China blocks Facebook/Instagram/Twitter [0] so well that there's an entire industry of VPN providers making bank on getting them access to it illicitly. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Websites_blocked_in_mainland_China https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Websites_blocked_in_mainland_C...