Saturday, February 28, 2009

Hate Site Hassle

Ever since my 12th January post about the Prince Harry brouhaha (the last one), I've had mails from various readers pointing out that their employer or local authority web filter software now classifies me as a 'hate site'. At the time I presumed it was because I'd actually used the word that Prince Harry used in the post, rather than asterisking it out - so I asterisked like a good-un, yet (I'm told) the status remains.

The very excellent FilteringFacts site has a page of test-it-yourself links, where you can see how various companies classify various sites. So Laban's had a look to see what various filtering companies make of the blog :

Blue Coat : "Media/News"

Cleanfeed seems to be defunct - a/c/t Wikipedia it now only targets dodgy images, but I couldn't find a site.

Fortinet : Category: Society and Lifestyles

Netsweeper : Journals and Blogs, Category result okay

Secure Computing : Hate site. I've mailed them and left feedback to ask why. There's also a 'Reputation' tag, whate'r that be - mine is currently 'Neutral'.

I see they're now owned by McAfee.

OpenDNS - I presume this is one of those co-operative open source endeavours - Hmmm.

It's 'Tagged for Review' and the 'Screenshot may be offensive' !

Someone called sesom, who has apparently submitted over 390,000 domains (must be a busy boy), has flagged it as a hate site. And someone calling themselves therossfamily has recently flagged the site as Adware, Forums/messageboards, Parked Domains, Lingerie/Bikini, Nudity and Pornography as well as the more reasonable Politics. I think someone's being malicious.

This is one of those Wiki-like sites where moderators have influence and votes also count. I've signed up and objected to the tags - we shall see.

SurfControl : "categorized as Blogs & Forums"

Websense : not sure, because you actually have to register and download an evaluation copy of the software. Anybody got one and can tell me what the site's categorised as ? But a/c/t Wikipedia Websense now own SurfControl, and I'm kosher/halal/cushti on that.

A fair few of my posts are devoted to liberal idiocy, and its effects upon (among other things) people's free speech. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised to find myself a target. Perhaps it means I'm getting up the right noses.

What do you think ?

How Hateful is Laban's Blog ?
Innocent as a new-born babe
As mild as a wee lambkin
Eminently Reasonable
Somewhat combative
Downright Rude
Sinister Overtones
May incite hatred against people it's not OK to incite hatred against
Spittle-flecked ranting of the worst sort
Makes 'Der Sturmer' look like the Guardian's 'Society' section
Arrest that man at once !
pollcode.com free polls



UPDATE - I guess shooting the messenger or attempting to silence those voicing inconvenient truths is a long and dishonourable tradition.

"The glass is falling hour by hour, the glass will fall forever,
But if you break the bloody glass you won't hold up the weather"

16 comments:

Edwin Greenwood said...

... that their employer or local authority web filter software now classifies me as a 'hate site'

Rispek', man!

Anonymous said...

Well, I do think the site is provocative.. But its not your fault, its simply that the truth is more worrying than what the MSM tell us.

Often when the MSM do tell us of stories they only briefly touch on it and don't give the full information.

Such as your post in 2009/02 "Allahpu Akhbar ?"

Anonymous said...

Your previous post is about the slimeball Goodwin.

Whilst I'm incline to agree that his remuneration deal was a scandal, I have a problem with the implication that the state break the law to recover the money that he doesn't deserve. We need to look for a solution that prevents directors being rewarded for failure. This is a problem that affects state employees as much as any bank employee.

The implication you make is that somehow it would be good for the state to grab the money it thinks undeserved and redistribute it. I can't believe that a sober person would advocate such a course of action. The state's idea of undeserved doesn't begin to match yours (or mine). Therefore I must assume you were not sober.

If you want a example of hate speech then demand the state "solve our problems"

Anonymous said...

I think you are wrong Anon 11:26.

Goodwin bankrupted RBS, the only reason it is still operating is because the tax payer bailed it out.

Goodwins pension should be only the same size has he would have got if RBS had gone 'officially' bankrupt, which would be a hell of a lot less than he is getting.

Thats whats wrong with the situation, Goodwin is getting a pension he is not entitled to simply by the governments mishandling (or corrupt handling) of the bailout.

If a bank paid £10,000 into your account by mistake they would claim it back asap because it was a mistake, not your money, the same should happen here, Goodwin has got money that doesn't rightfully belong to him.

Claim its in his contract all you want, but that counts for little in a bankrupt company.

Anonymous said...

What if Fred had merely been an old boy cleaning out the bogs at RBS HQ. If RBS ran into major problems, quite likely his pension could affected adversely.

"Sorry Fred old boy, we've all got to make sacrifices.".

Or if RBS went bankrupt, perhaps no pension at all.

"Sorry Fred old boy, the pot is empty."

In reality Fred has been wiping his arse with the principles of prudent banking and has helped to bring RBS to its knees. In reality he should get NOTHING.

"Sorry Fred old boy, we've all got to make sacrifices, performance related pay and all that, a seasoned executive like you would understand. No hard feelings, drop your office key off at reception and dont nick any biros."

Ross said...

Damn you hatemonger!

Hugh Oxford said...

It's probably The Loony from Catford or Woolly Minded Liberal off CiF. You know how fanatically intolerant such people are of people who do not share their highly broad minded and tolerant world view.

Anonymous said...

Well I see I'm in a minority.

Most commentators here have no problem with the state taking property from people they deem undeserving.

This seems to apply even if that person broke no law to get that money. It's not in dispute that we all agree this money is undeserved. Nor is it in dispute that if he has committed fraud then the money should be recovered, but as far as I know this hasn't happened.

So the demand appears to be: the state should have the right to confiscate property from any citizen who is deemed to have upset the people (but not broken any rule)

I hope all the people who make this demand understand that once the state goes down this path it won't limit the grab to rich bankers. Indeed, I doubt that many bankers will find their pockets picked. Sure there'll be a few high profile grabs to fill the papers but thereafter the state will take the property of middle class people who don't follow the party line.

Do you recycle? Perhaps you run a blog where you quoted the word "P*k*". Does anyone think the Harriet Harpersons of this world will hesitate to grab the property of people she deems to be hatemongers?

Make the demand. Feel good about yourselves for now. Don't complain when the state knocks on your doors.

Anon 11:26

Anonymous said...

Anon I in no way support the government taking property from people it considers undeserving.

Thats NOT whats going on here, Goodwin bankrupted RBS, if it wasn't for government support he would have nothing.
It is the tax payer who is funding his pension.
Why should my family who earn maybe £25,000 be forced through taxation to contribute to this mans £650,000 a year pension?

Its not me who wants the government to take money from Goodwin on my behalf, its Goodwin who is getting the government to take money from members of the public and give it to him, you have got it the wrong way aronnd Anon 1:25.

Martin said...

All I can say is, thank God I only get 70 hits a day.

Moriarty said...

I suppose it could be worse, the sweary Devil's Kitchen is classed here as 'pornography'.

(currently reading Laban via the Google cache)

Edwin Greenwood said...

Moriarty: (currently reading Laban via the Google cache)

Be careful, Moriarty. If the corporate Stasi check their logs and catch you doing that, you'll be out on your ear on a gross misconduct charge. There's no obvious reason for reading the Google cache of a page of which the original is still up other than to by-pass company web policy. Mind you, if they're so thick they haven't already blocked off Google cache, then they probably won't have the smarts to catch you anyway.

Company I used to work for went through a phase of blocking all blogs, messageboards, etc, on the grounds that, given the chance, we'd be spending the whole day on-line slagging them off. As if we'd do something like that. Ironically, the blanket block caught not only useful sites I regularly consulted when resolving IT problems but also - oh the joyous Schadenfreude - sites that senior management firmly recommended us all to visit.

Anonymous said...

Thats NOT whats going on here, Goodwin bankrupted RBS, if it wasn't for government support he would have nothing.
It is the tax payer who is funding his pension.
Why should my family who earn maybe £25,000 be forced through taxation to contribute to this mans £650,000 a year pension?


I was making a narrow point about the dangers of retrospective legislation. Even the Left Wing Harry's Place gets it

here

However let's do a just suppose. In an alternate universe the government learns RBS is going under. It has three choices

1. Let the bank sink - repay the depositors up to the guaranteed sum

This option is right one in normal circumstances. There is some concern about the domino effect of bank failings currently, so this is rejected.

2. Set up a new shell organisation which takes over the assets and certain liabilities of RBS

This means that the depositors are protected, and banking confidence is retained. RBS employees are offered positions but not on the basis of their existing contract. The new bank offers remuneration at the old rate less 10% with NO rises or bonuses until the bank is profitable. Anyone who doesn't accept the offer gets statutory redundancy from the existing RBS.

3. The bank buys a big share without due diligence

The Gordon Brown option.

---

Now I'd be happy to have done 2. If companies fail in normal times and what they did was at all useful, then other companies buy the assets and hire the useful staff. The worthwhile bits continue with new management. My option 2 is designed to do just that. We don't need the whole bank. We just look at what is worth salvaging and buy that at the current market rate or slightly above. The rest of the bank can go insolvent.

RBS honours its existing remuneration contracts from what it obtains through the yard sale. Insolvent companies pay staff first, creditors last. Fred may get some bonus but certainly not the current amount.

But we didn't do that. We did 3

---

My objection is to the idea that the state can act as if the law can be made up on the hoof. This is a terrifying idea. It would scare me if I shared ideology with the ruling party let alone if I did't. This is Harriet Harperson who thinks that not enough men get convicted of rape. A party that can't tell the difference between tax evasion and tax avoidance.


Anon 11:26

Anonymous said...

Well when you put it like that you are right Anon 11:26.

But I think any company that gets a bailout from the government should be considered defacto bankrupt.. prior to that support.
If that was so it would give the government chance to get out of a lot of these crazy contracts, including unaffordable sporting sponsorships.

I question the notion that there is any such thing as a private company that happens to be majority (or even a small but significant share) owned by a government.
For example EDF, it is state controlled whether officially or not, it is never going to move its management or a significant amount of R&D to another country no matter the economics of the decision.

-
You say Gordon Brown made decision 3.
What gives him the right?
This was a rush decision without much parliamentary debate at all.
They are behaving like dictators.

Alastair said...

I use OpenDNS as my DNS provider - I switched because I knew they were immune to the bad DNS attack discovered last year.

It's "open" in that anyone can use the service free. I don't think you need an account at all in fact, although I have one.

Coincidentally, yesterday I was looking at something else and saw some "filtering" options in their settings - and saw I was set to "minimal" (or some such) - I changed this to "none". I think "minimal" filtering must be a default for them. I have definitely read your site at this setting though - so the damage must be done at the a heavier filter setting. Which is not so bad, but still not so good either ...

The service is good - but the "wisdom of crowds" filtering approach can be easily subverted I think.

Alastair

Anonymous said...

Be careful, Moriarty. If the corporate Stasi check their logs and catch you doing that, you'll be out on your ear on a gross misconduct charge.

I don't think they'd notice unless they were looking through the logs specificly to target me, in which case I'm probably toast anyway so what the hell. The way blogger handles comments helps. As it happens, since posting that last comment ukcommentators has been unblocked anyway.

(incidently, the computer I'm on has already been used to search for this blog recently by someone else, so there must be a lot of LT fans about.)