4 ms·

>> Users will still be able to access the flagged websites, but they will be advised that viewing child pornography is illegal. That is not true. It won't be p

by arthurk 17y ago

>> Users will still be able to access the flagged websites, but they will be advised that viewing child pornography is illegal. That is not true. It won't be possible to access the website. Edit: ... by just clicking the warning away.

rincewind 17y ago
You can access the servers by their IP adresses. The filtering will be DNS-based
- bjelkeman-again 17y ago
  Do you have a link for that information?
  - rincewind 17y ago
    This is the bill(in German): http://dip21.bundestag.de/dip21/btd/16/128/1612850.pdf http://dip21.bundestag.de/dip21/btd/16/128/1612850.pdf relevant part: Die Sperrung erfolgt mindestens auf der Ebene der vollqualifizierten Domain- namen, deren Auflösung in die zugehörigen Internetpro- tokoll-Adressen unterbleibt. my translation: The blocking will at least take place on the level of fully-qualified domain names, the resolution of which into IP-adresses will remain undone.
  - Sujan 17y ago
    I do, but it's German: (2) Für die Sperrung dürfen vollqualifizierte Domainnamen, Internetprotokoll-Adressen und Zieladressen von Telemedienangeboten verwendet werden. Die Sperrung erfolgt mindestens auf der Ebene der vollqualifizierten Domainnamen, deren Auflösung in die zugehörigen Internetprotokoll-Adressen unterbleibt. Source: http://www.zugerschwg.com/ http://www.zugerschwg.com/ The important part is "Die Sperrung erfolgt mindestens auf der Ebene der vollqualifizierten Domainnamen, deren Auflösung in die zugehörigen Internetprotokoll-Adressen unterbleibt." what means "The blocking is done at least at the level of the fully qualified domain names, whose resolution to ip adresses is omitted.". Still searching for a native English source.
    - pasbesoin 17y ago
      Without (yet) looking at the remaining text, "mindestens" causes me hesitation. "At least" or "at a minimum" does not seem to proscribe additional filtering, e.g. of IP addresses as opposed to DNS lookups. Perhaps the use here has a colloquial or legal definition I'm not understanding. But to me, this language sounds like the proverbial slippery slope. So, will providers work to restrict adherence to the minimum, or will they of themselves or in response to additional pressure go further? Or will the law go further by expanding the scope of this clause? I have no sympathy for the original crimes involved. I also have little trust in legislated censorship and in the control and mission of the same remaining undistorted. I also am uncertain whether it is an effective or appropriate means of addressing the situation. If only an approved government agency can research the situation, will the public be adequately informed? Democracy rests upon (relatively) equal access to information. What does legislation like this do to that basis?
      - Sujan 17y ago
        > If only an approved government agency can research the > situation, will the public be adequately informed? No, they will try to keep the lists a secret. Of course they will fail, as did all the other countries with their filter and censorship lists, but the government will try to not tell its people and destroy democracy, one step at a time.
- jacquesm 17y ago
  That won't work for sites on virtual hosts.
  - Sujan 17y ago
    Then you can use a foreign or even your own DNS server. Avoiding the censorship methods is not the problem. The problem is that a democratic country installs such censorship mechanisms though in its constitution you can read "censorship doesn't take place".
    - jacquesm 17y ago
      I agree, that is a problem. The 'think of the children' or 'be afraid of the terrorists' argument will at some point probably be used to outlaw encryption and to make it mandatory that you sign in to the internet. No more anonymizers, proxies etc.
      - tetha 17y ago
        there are already questions in our (im from germany) government to extend this censorship to 'killing games' and such. great fun. I guess it becomes time to throw rocks again.
      - dan_the_welder 17y ago
        Sounds impossible to implement. Arms race anyone?
- arthurk 17y ago
  Right. What I wanted so say is that you won't be able to just click the warning away.
  - Sujan 17y ago
    You're right, this is not very clear in the article.
ulf 17y ago
You can just used a DNS server which is not inside of Germany. Or you retrieve the IP from somewhere and setup your local hosts file or whatever. That was the point why this law provoked the biggest petition in the history of the country. It does not really help against the matter it is directed at. It just establishes an infrastructure to be used for censorship in general. And no doubt that it will be used for much more than child pornography soon...
- Sujan 17y ago
  German conservative party CDU already requested it to be used to block - first person shooters and online games (they call them "killing games" and think they are responsible for school shootings and rampages) - sites hosting instructions to build bombs (and with them probably everything related to chemistry...) - 'pages of hate' (yep, I have no idea what they mean with that...) Soon there will be requests to block websites of other parties, online gambling, torrents... possibilites are endless.
  - onreact-com 17y ago
    Also there is no real control of which pages get censored. There is not even a judge involved. There are secret blacklists only approved by the BKA, the German FBI.
nopassrecover 17y ago
I'm not exactly sure on the application of censorship in this case, and I am strongly against censorship, but saying "this site is banned because: ..." seems better to me than putting people in gaol/jail retrospectively for say accidentally stumbling into a site (say on terrorism during research unaware it could be criminal) or something.
- Sujan 17y ago
  If you stumble into a site like this, it's not a crime and you won't go to jail. Of course making it impossible to stumble into such sites is a nice thing, but deleting the side is surely the better way than just hiding it.

by arthurk 17y ago

rincewind 17y ago

You can access the servers by their IP adresses. The filtering will be DNS-based

bjelkeman-again 17y ago
Do you have a link for that information?
- rincewind 17y ago
  This is the bill(in German): http://dip21.bundestag.de/dip21/btd/16/128/1612850.pdf http://dip21.bundestag.de/dip21/btd/16/128/1612850.pdf relevant part: Die Sperrung erfolgt mindestens auf der Ebene der vollqualifizierten Domain- namen, deren Auflösung in die zugehörigen Internetpro- tokoll-Adressen unterbleibt. my translation: The blocking will at least take place on the level of fully-qualified domain names, the resolution of which into IP-adresses will remain undone.
- Sujan 17y ago
  I do, but it's German: (2) Für die Sperrung dürfen vollqualifizierte Domainnamen, Internetprotokoll-Adressen und Zieladressen von Telemedienangeboten verwendet werden. Die Sperrung erfolgt mindestens auf der Ebene der vollqualifizierten Domainnamen, deren Auflösung in die zugehörigen Internetprotokoll-Adressen unterbleibt. Source: http://www.zugerschwg.com/ http://www.zugerschwg.com/ The important part is "Die Sperrung erfolgt mindestens auf der Ebene der vollqualifizierten Domainnamen, deren Auflösung in die zugehörigen Internetprotokoll-Adressen unterbleibt." what means "The blocking is done at least at the level of the fully qualified domain names, whose resolution to ip adresses is omitted.". Still searching for a native English source.
  - pasbesoin 17y ago
    Without (yet) looking at the remaining text, "mindestens" causes me hesitation. "At least" or "at a minimum" does not seem to proscribe additional filtering, e.g. of IP addresses as opposed to DNS lookups. Perhaps the use here has a colloquial or legal definition I'm not understanding. But to me, this language sounds like the proverbial slippery slope. So, will providers work to restrict adherence to the minimum, or will they of themselves or in response to additional pressure go further? Or will the law go further by expanding the scope of this clause? I have no sympathy for the original crimes involved. I also have little trust in legislated censorship and in the control and mission of the same remaining undistorted. I also am uncertain whether it is an effective or appropriate means of addressing the situation. If only an approved government agency can research the situation, will the public be adequately informed? Democracy rests upon (relatively) equal access to information. What does legislation like this do to that basis?
    - Sujan 17y ago
      > If only an approved government agency can research the > situation, will the public be adequately informed? No, they will try to keep the lists a secret. Of course they will fail, as did all the other countries with their filter and censorship lists, but the government will try to not tell its people and destroy democracy, one step at a time.
jacquesm 17y ago
That won't work for sites on virtual hosts.
- Sujan 17y ago
  Then you can use a foreign or even your own DNS server. Avoiding the censorship methods is not the problem. The problem is that a democratic country installs such censorship mechanisms though in its constitution you can read "censorship doesn't take place".
  - jacquesm 17y ago
    I agree, that is a problem. The 'think of the children' or 'be afraid of the terrorists' argument will at some point probably be used to outlaw encryption and to make it mandatory that you sign in to the internet. No more anonymizers, proxies etc.
    - tetha 17y ago
      there are already questions in our (im from germany) government to extend this censorship to 'killing games' and such. great fun. I guess it becomes time to throw rocks again.
    - dan_the_welder 17y ago
      Sounds impossible to implement. Arms race anyone?
arthurk 17y ago
Right. What I wanted so say is that you won't be able to just click the warning away.
- Sujan 17y ago
  You're right, this is not very clear in the article.

ulf 17y ago

You can just used a DNS server which is not inside of Germany. Or you retrieve the IP from somewhere and setup your local hosts file or whatever. That was the point why this law provoked the biggest petition in the history of the country. It does not really help against the matter it is directed at. It just establishes an infrastructure to be used for censorship in general. And no doubt that it will be used for much more than child pornography soon...

Sujan 17y ago
German conservative party CDU already requested it to be used to block - first person shooters and online games (they call them "killing games" and think they are responsible for school shootings and rampages) - sites hosting instructions to build bombs (and with them probably everything related to chemistry...) - 'pages of hate' (yep, I have no idea what they mean with that...) Soon there will be requests to block websites of other parties, online gambling, torrents... possibilites are endless.
- onreact-com 17y ago
  Also there is no real control of which pages get censored. There is not even a judge involved. There are secret blacklists only approved by the BKA, the German FBI.

nopassrecover 17y ago

I'm not exactly sure on the application of censorship in this case, and I am strongly against censorship, but saying "this site is banned because: ..." seems better to me than putting people in gaol/jail retrospectively for say accidentally stumbling into a site (say on terrorism during research unaware it could be criminal) or something.

Sujan 17y ago
If you stumble into a site like this, it's not a crime and you won't go to jail. Of course making it impossible to stumble into such sites is a nice thing, but deleting the side is surely the better way than just hiding it.