5 ms·

I don't understand the international enforcement part. It's not illegal in the U.S. to have a porn site or sexually explicit site without an RTA header. There'

by schoen 7y ago

I don't understand the international enforcement part. It's not illegal in the U.S. to have a porn site or sexually explicit site without an RTA header. There's no legal remedy available in the U.S. to the U.K. government against a site that intentionally decides not to use this header, nor against people providing infrastructure to that site. DNS registrars, registries, and ICANN don't require it either.

LinuxBender 7y ago
This solution addresses people in the UK visiting UK sites. If you want to prevent your citizens from going to a site hosted elsewhere, then you would have to consume the RTA auditing results and enforce them at your internet border. Certainly this won't solve VPN's and some proxies, but then who are we trying to block? Adults? Children? If we are thinking of the children, then an order to UK ISP's to consume the non-compliance list and block those domains (and even IP's if you want to get heavy handed) should more than suffice. Whether or not you decide to block CDN IP's is entirely up to how heavy handed you want to get. I predict CDN's would move adult sites to their own CIDR blocks if this starts occurring. If we are trying to block adults, that is a whole other discussion as to the intention of the blocking in the first place. I would expect some countries in the middle east already know how to address this problem, by forcing all traffic through a MITM set of proxies. I believe Syria and Iran use Bluecoat proxies. China uses (or used) a heavily modified netfliter implementation. They have the distinct advantage of not having to be performant. Priority always goes to blocking first.
- schoen 7y ago
  > This solution addresses people in the UK visiting UK sites. If you want to prevent your citizens from going to a site hosted elsewhere, then you would have to consume the RTA auditing results and enforce them at your internet border. But isn't that already the structure of what the old proposal was going to do? UK ISPs would be expected to actively cooperate in blocking things indicated to them, most of which would be hosted outside of the country.
  - LinuxBender 7y ago
    The primary difference being, end users are not registering with a centralized site and handing over sensitive information. There would be no citizen database. Rather, the inverse would be true. A database of adult sites that lack a header. Don't get me wrong, I think a citizen database of porn passes would be a blast, once it leaks out from some public S3 bucket. I would tease Ricky Gervais about his habits until he turns it into a standup routine. (kidding, but it could happen) I'm just hoping one of his writers visits this site.
    - schoen 7y ago
      Oh, sorry, I got confused about which part of the plan you were focusing on. I thought you were focused on the blocking method rather than on the opt-out method, and I didn't see any significant impact on the blocking method. What you've said makes better sense to me now.

by schoen 7y ago

LinuxBender 7y ago

This solution addresses people in the UK visiting UK sites. If you want to prevent your citizens from going to a site hosted elsewhere, then you would have to consume the RTA auditing results and enforce them at your internet border. Certainly this won't solve VPN's and some proxies, but then who are we trying to block? Adults? Children? If we are thinking of the children, then an order to UK ISP's to consume the non-compliance list and block those domains (and even IP's if you want to get heavy handed) should more than suffice. Whether or not you decide to block CDN IP's is entirely up to how heavy handed you want to get. I predict CDN's would move adult sites to their own CIDR blocks if this starts occurring. If we are trying to block adults, that is a whole other discussion as to the intention of the blocking in the first place. I would expect some countries in the middle east already know how to address this problem, by forcing all traffic through a MITM set of proxies. I believe Syria and Iran use Bluecoat proxies. China uses (or used) a heavily modified netfliter implementation. They have the distinct advantage of not having to be performant. Priority always goes to blocking first.

schoen 7y ago
> This solution addresses people in the UK visiting UK sites. If you want to prevent your citizens from going to a site hosted elsewhere, then you would have to consume the RTA auditing results and enforce them at your internet border. But isn't that already the structure of what the old proposal was going to do? UK ISPs would be expected to actively cooperate in blocking things indicated to them, most of which would be hosted outside of the country.
- LinuxBender 7y ago
  The primary difference being, end users are not registering with a centralized site and handing over sensitive information. There would be no citizen database. Rather, the inverse would be true. A database of adult sites that lack a header. Don't get me wrong, I think a citizen database of porn passes would be a blast, once it leaks out from some public S3 bucket. I would tease Ricky Gervais about his habits until he turns it into a standup routine. (kidding, but it could happen) I'm just hoping one of his writers visits this site.
  - schoen 7y ago
    Oh, sorry, I got confused about which part of the plan you were focusing on. I thought you were focused on the blocking method rather than on the opt-out method, and I didn't see any significant impact on the blocking method. What you've said makes better sense to me now.