Kuro5hin.org: technology and culture, from the trenches
create account | help/FAQ | contact | links | search | IRC | site news
[ Everything | Diaries | Technology | Science | Culture | Politics | Media | News | Internet | Op-Ed | Fiction | Meta | MLP ]
We need your support: buy an ad | premium membership

Websense - free sex sites and "blacklist wars"

By Seth Finkelstein in Internet
Tue Jun 11, 2002 at 03:33:28 AM EST
Tags: Freedom (all tags)

Websense, a censorware company, is now distributing daily lists of sex sites supposedly not blacklisted by other censorware companies. This is hilarious. I am not making this up.

[ This is adapted from a message I just sent out to my Infothought mailing list, and is archived as "Websense - free sex sites and 'blacklist wars'". Maybe K5ians will be interested in, umm, err, "researching" the quality of the Websense sites given, especially if they are subjected to the competing censorware companies. Note: Obviously, these sites may contain explicit sexual content.]

Go to http://www.websense.com/ . Click on the big red-and-yellow "Test The Competition" button in the upper left. Then click on the big red-and-yellow "Test It For Yourself" button on the upper right. This brings you to a page where Websense states (emphasis added):

Select the company you are considering from below, and we will show you a daily list of 17 Web sites, 12 of which are Adult Content sites, that are in the Websense database but not in competitors' databases.

The options are "SurfControl" or "SmartFilter". After some more clicking through the screens, they'll present you with, they claim:

The following 12 sites are in the Websense database, but leak through the SmartFilter database. They therefore will be blocked by Websense but not by SmartFilter.

For those readers with sweaty palms already, the following URLs should take you there directly:

http://www.websense.com/index.cfm?database=SurfControl&step5=139591&pass word=&iagree=Yes

http://www.websense.com/index.cfm?database=SmartFilter&step5=139591&pass word=&iagree=Yes

Perhaps other censorware makers could be persuaded to retaliate?

Now, censorware companies peddle snake-oil, and the above lists are no exception. It's partially a PR trick. Some of the supposed sex sites listed are just front pages, which redirect to other sites which are in fact on the competitor's blacklist. In other cases, they've given a site which is not on a competing censorware blacklist by its name, but it is on the competing blacklist by its Internet Protocol address (for an explanation of this sentence, see the paper "Blacklisting Bytes", by Seth Finkelstein and Lee Tien )

So, a person will find "This is not as hot a party as I had anticipated". But still, you might get lucky. Websense is certainly giving sex-site seekers a head start, and plenty of ideas. Fresh leads every day.

Note, because of the dynamic method Websense uses to generate the pages on its website, other censorware companies will have a hard time blocking those pages. The URLs I've given above are just one means of reaching that information. On Websense's site, they use an involved method of passing around the site navigation information within their dynamically generated pages.

In addition, even variations of the URL data will work, such as:

http://www.websense.com/index.cfm?step5=139591&database=SurfControl&pass word=&iagree=Yes
http://www.websense.com/index.cfm?password=&step5=139591&database=SurfCo ntrol&iagree=Yes

This is in fact an example of another problem of censorware, dilemmas involving banning dynamic pages (I had a formal anticensorware report planned on this, but I'm having such difficulty getting any coverage, combined with increased legal risk, that such extensive work is currently postponed indefinitely.)

But these "blacklist wars" will be the source of much humor. If the sex sites are in fact blacklisted in practice by competitors, or are only mere redirects, then Websense is being dishonest (ok, what else is new?). If the sex sites are not blacklisted, then this is a "daily dose" provided straight by a censorware company.

Whatever happened to the concept that one reason for not permitting evaluation of censorware blacklists, was due to their extensive collection of where porn might be found? (skipping over the fact that there are plenty of such third-party collections ...)

I can hardly imagine how censorware critics would be pilloried if they pulled a stunt like this. Think of the children!


Voxel dot net
o Managed Hosting
o VoxCAST Content Delivery
o Raw Infrastructure


Websense's sex sites are:
o a PR trick 56%
o reachable but boring 16%
o reachable and interesting 3%
o Polls? Who has time for polls now? 23%

Votes: 55
Results | Other Polls

Related Links
o Infothough t
o Websense - free sex sites and 'blacklist wars'
o http://www .websense.com/
o http://www .websense.com/index.cfm?database=SurfControl&step5=139591&pass word=&iagree=Yes
o http://www .websense.com/index.cfm?database=SmartFilter&step5=139591&pass word=&iagree=Yes
o "Blacklist ing Bytes", by Seth Finkelstein and Lee Tien
o http://www .websense.com/index.cfm?step5=139591&database=SurfControl&pass word=&iagree=Yes
o http://www .websense.com/index.cfm?password=&step5=139591&database=SurfCo ntrol&iagree=Yes
o anticensor ware report
o Also by Seth Finkelstein

Display: Sort:
Websense - free sex sites and "blacklist wars" | 63 comments (42 topical, 21 editorial, 0 hidden)
Imagine the possibilities. (4.00 / 9) (#1)
by Apuleius on Mon Jun 10, 2002 at 04:53:37 PM EST

Censorware companies could secretly bankroll new sex sites, censor them right away, and thus gain an edge on competitors! This could be great!

There is a time and a place for everything, and it's called college. (The South Park chef)
kind of like virus/anti-virus companies in russia (3.00 / 6) (#2)
by boxed on Mon Jun 10, 2002 at 05:00:50 PM EST

ehem, [nt] I was gonna add but I couldn't fit it in -_-;

[ Parent ]
Are there (2.00 / 2) (#29)
by davidduncanscott on Mon Jun 10, 2002 at 11:13:26 PM EST

virus companies in Russia? Jeez, I thought this stuff was bad enough with a bunch of amateurs!

[ Parent ]
Where do I apply? (4.33 / 12) (#15)
by jabber on Mon Jun 10, 2002 at 06:49:26 PM EST

It must take a lot of hard work, many sleepless nights, and considerable risk of repetative stress injury, to do all the research necessary for finding new pr0n sites every day. I'd like to help, umm, fight indecency on the Internet. Where do I send my application?

[TINK5C] |"Is K5 my kapusta intellectual teddy bear?"| "Yes"

Join the autopr0n.com staff... (3.66 / 3) (#42)
by Netsnipe on Tue Jun 11, 2002 at 12:18:43 PM EST

Sooner or later some censorware group is going to plug itself into autopr0on and let some horny surfers do all their work for them.

Andrew 'Netsnipe' Lau
Debian GNU/Linux Maintainer & Computer Science, UNSW
[ Parent ]
Filtering is the last thing I'd do (4.00 / 1) (#52)
by panum on Wed Jun 12, 2002 at 04:16:38 AM EST

I'd like to help, umm, fight indecency on the Internet.
Yeah, right. How many times a day you'd like to check whether goatse.cx or rotten.com has suddenly become mainstream?

Unfortunately, all the porn is not about cute centerfolds. There's a lot of, uhm, alternative forms of entertainment available.


[ Parent ]
Retaliation (3.80 / 5) (#19)
by mentat21 on Mon Jun 10, 2002 at 07:43:23 PM EST

Perhaps the anti-censorware companies can start posting a list of sites that are blocked that shouldn't be. (Perhaps they do)

No incentive for daily bad-ban list (4.25 / 4) (#24)
by Seth Finkelstein on Mon Jun 10, 2002 at 09:14:19 PM EST

There's no anti-censorware companies. Peacefire has a Blocked Site of the Day script. I could do something similar, but generally don't bother, because practically no-one would read it. Some efforts, such as the old Censorware Project reports, or some of Peacefire 's lists, or a few of my Anticensorware Investigations, get into such listings.

But in general, there's no incentive for a list every single day. It takes significant effort. The return for Websense is they're one-upping their competition.

I was planning something every day for the CIPA trial, but that got completely derailed (another story ...)
-- Seth Finkelstein
[ Parent ]

I think... (4.50 / 2) (#36)
by J'raxis on Tue Jun 11, 2002 at 07:58:48 AM EST

I think the original post meant that SurfControl should find out what WebSense is blocking that it shouldn’t be and use that as a selling point. “Our competitor WebSense accidentally blocks breast-cancer research sites depriving you of invaluable medical information. We at SurfControl check our lists on a daily basis to ensure that we only block sites that would be harmful to your children” or somesuch marketing gibberish.

— The Raxis

[ J’raxis·Com | Liberty in your lifetime ]
[ Parent ]

Blocked site of the day (2.50 / 4) (#30)
by danny on Mon Jun 10, 2002 at 11:17:36 PM EST

Peacefire has a "blocked site of the day" on its home page. On 10th June, that was the Feminist Majority Foundation Online, blocked by SmartFilter as a "cult".

[900 book reviews and other stuff]
[ Parent ]

redundant - see Seth's post [nt] (1.33 / 3) (#31)
by danny on Mon Jun 10, 2002 at 11:22:12 PM EST

[900 book reviews and other stuff]
[ Parent ]
I agree so very much. (2.85 / 7) (#21)
by Estanislao Martínez on Mon Jun 10, 2002 at 08:22:17 PM EST

After all, we at Adequacy were victims of Websense's censorship software, which listed us under the category "Tasteless" for some time. This had terrible ramifications; one of our editors was filtered off the site by them. Eventually, after threats of legal action, they came to their senses and relisted our site under "Alternative Journal".


I'm shaking in my boots (2.50 / 6) (#22)
by E r i c on Mon Jun 10, 2002 at 08:45:47 PM EST

Oh dear, legal action from Adequacy.org!  Run for the hills!

I blame my past transgressions on Eminem's music. Reform number five is currently in progress.
[ Parent ]
Let's check, shall we? (4.85 / 7) (#28)
by DavidTC on Mon Jun 10, 2002 at 10:23:51 PM EST

Front page right now, first three articles:

A plan to sterilize all women because they are evil temptresses.
An article debunking the Hiroshima and Nagasaki nuclear bombing.
An article talking about how degenerate all savages were before the West was won.

Right, not a bit tasteless at all

-David T. C.
Yes, my email address is real.
[ Parent ]

Heh (2.00 / 2) (#34)
by joecool12321 on Tue Jun 11, 2002 at 03:21:10 AM EST

God I miss adequacy.



I do.


[ Parent ]

Question on a tangental issue... (4.42 / 7) (#23)
by SvnLyrBrto on Mon Jun 10, 2002 at 08:47:02 PM EST

Referring to the censorware "blacklists" as such has gotten me to wondering...

We periodically see news of spammers sueing MAPS, ORBS, and the like when they wind up on the RBL or it's cousins.  So has a porn site ever sued a censorware company?  If so, to what degree of sucess?  And if not, WHY not?

So far as I can tell, it's very much the same principle... a third party's blacklist is interfereing with other parties' ability to do "business".

No matter how such a suit was decided, I can only see the result as being good.  Is the porn site wins, the ability of censorware vendors to do business is pretty much destroyed.  If the porn site loses, it sets a precident that should make it a lot harder for spammers to harass MAPS, ORBS, and the like.  Either way, we win.

And if ANYONE in the online industry has the cash flow to go after the censorware peddlers, it should be the porn industry.


Imagine all the people...

Many tangents (4.50 / 4) (#25)
by Seth Finkelstein on Mon Jun 10, 2002 at 09:25:43 PM EST

Generally, the outright porn sites like censorware companies. Those sites tend to have a very narrow, dedicated, segment of buyers. They are usually concerned only with preserving the ability for those boyers to engage in commercial transactions with the site.

Lawsuits are expensive. And it's unclear if a censorware company would lose.

Similarly, spammers have lost when suing spam blacklists.

I've never thought the idea of suing the censorare companies would work well. It's always seemed to me that it would just make them martyrs, as they screamed "Free speech! Free speech! Help, help, we're being oppressed!"

Really, if someone has the money for a lawsuit, I'd much prefer they used it to defend me from being sued by censorware companies, for my work. Other programmers have been sued by censorware companies, so this is a real worry on my part.
-- Seth Finkelstein
[ Parent ]

rightly so (3.50 / 2) (#40)
by tps12 on Tue Jun 11, 2002 at 11:53:16 AM EST

I've never thought the idea of suing the censorare companies would work well. It's always seemed to me that it would just make them martyrs, as they screamed "Free speech! Free speech! Help, help, we're being oppressed!"

Hopefully any suit against censorware companies would be laughed out of court. They would be correct to call such legal action an attack on free speech. As long as it's not installed in libraries and public schools, people can make any sort of damn fool software they like, if you ask me.

[ Parent ]
circumvention (3.20 / 5) (#26)
by John Thompson on Mon Jun 10, 2002 at 10:09:35 PM EST

I'm no expert, but wouldn't it be possible for someone to use this "feature" to circumvent filters in place, say at a school?  Eg, Joe Student sitting at an obscure workstation in the high school library type in " http://www.websense.com/index.cfm?database=SurfControl&step5=139591&pass word=&iagree=Yes" and connects to the naughty web site while the school's filter neither stops him nor records it as a naughty visit by Joe Student (he's just checking out websense, what a nice boy).

Am I wrong?

You tell me ... (3.00 / 3) (#27)
by Seth Finkelstein on Mon Jun 10, 2002 at 10:16:53 PM EST

Practical research results would be of interest ... :-)
-- Seth Finkelstein
[ Parent ]
Bypass filters? Not likely. (4.00 / 1) (#45)
by panum on Tue Jun 11, 2002 at 03:16:52 PM EST

Your idea sounds fun, but most likely won't work. I haven't played much with censorware as my university doesn't use any filtering, nor do the company I do consulting for. Thus, I haven't bothered with trying to find out how to bypass some.

For a censorware to work, it must somehow intercept your web requests, analyze either your request or the reply. This can be achieved by two ways. 1) Integrate the functionality into the web browser. 2) Analyze the network traffic your computer sends and recieves.

Apparently, the first solution is somewhat limited, as one could install another web browser to bypass the filtering. This can be countered by using an OS that enforces security, i.e. WinNT or some Unix, in which you simply can't just install your own software like that.

Based on the limitations the 1st way has, the censorware products have taken the second path. There is a firewall-like piece of software that looks into HTTP traffic. As HTTP traffic is often plain-text (save SSL), it is very easy to see if you are requesting for a peek at teenbithces.com or kuro5hin.org.

The Websense page is out of order at the moment, so I can't check how it exactly works. But, even if they use transparent linking into frames, your web browser is going to ask the porn page from the original server, not from Websense.

The simpest way to fool a filter is to copy the content to a "respectable" address. Websense is not likely to do this. First off, adult content is protected by copyrights too. Secondly, hosting porn on their own servers would give the competitors a valid reason for blacklisting them :)

There are many ways to get past censorware. The simplest one is by using a proxy connection, in which the communication peer seems to be the proxy, not the porn server. This, by the way, is the reason why Anonymizer tends to be blocked by most of the censorware products.


[ Parent ]
proxies (3.00 / 1) (#46)
by John Thompson on Tue Jun 11, 2002 at 05:19:30 PM EST

panum wrote:

There are many ways to get past censorware. The simplest one is by using a proxy connection, in which the communication peer seems to be the proxy, not the porn server. This, by the way, is the reason why Anonymizer tends to be blocked by most of the censorware products.

Yes, that's exactly what I was thinking. Wouldn't connecting to those pr0n sites through the websense links essentially be the same thing as doing it through an external proxy? Ie, the filter would only see you going to websense, not the pr0n site?

IOW, websense in effect would be providing the means to access these sites to people who would otherwise be blocked from them?

[ Parent ]
Websense page is not a proxy, nor a mirror (none / 0) (#49)
by panum on Wed Jun 12, 2002 at 01:58:52 AM EST

Wouldn't connecting to those pr0n sites through the websense links essentially be the same thing as doing it through an external proxy?
Not the way Websense's page is working. As of now, the page worked A-OK so I can base my statements to facts instead of idle speculation.

The Websense page provides just links to uncensored pages. They do not mirror the contents of the pages. When you click on a link, your browser sends just an ordinary HTTP GET request to the WWW server hosting the page. The request sent by clicking a link is usually almost identical to a request created by typig the URL into the address bar and pressing the enter key. (Referal information is not available via manual opening, whlist link-clicking offers it by default.)

The censorware sitting between your browser and network interface will intercept all the HTTP requests and answers and restrict your access based on a black-list. The black-listing is based on a list of URLs the software provider has collected. Keyword blocking is not that widely used, as it is likely to be erratic. Consider the old cases in which access to pages containing names like Heather Mills and Ann Sexton were denied.

It's not like URL blacklisting is 100% proven technology either. The Peacefire pages (blocked by many censorwares) list several incidents in which censorware blocks pages without a valid reason. It seems ironic that Cyber Patrol seems to be blocking access to some Catolic web sites because of "sexually explicit material". And X-Stop seems to be blocking The Vatican.

Now, this gives me an idea... If you have to cope with SurfControl or SmartFilter and you want to get porn, just use the "Hear, hear, unblocked porn here!" -service Websense is so happy to provide.


[ Parent ]
bypass filters (5.00 / 1) (#59)
by n e m o on Wed Jun 26, 2002 at 03:27:04 PM EST

I haven't checked out the page on websense but I guess it's just a regular link to the porn sites. a good way to access banned pages thru filter proxies is using a translation website, most of them will happily display the unchanged webpage if you ask for a translation from some asiatic language and the page has none.

[ Parent ]
Surf Control has still won the war (4.66 / 3) (#35)
by scubacuda on Tue Jun 11, 2002 at 03:55:50 AM EST

For a while I worked next door to Websense (in San Diego). Later I worked for a reseller that sold *both* Websense AND Surf Control. I know a lot about what they do and how to set it all up.

As a total solution, Surf Control beats the shit out of Websense. While Websense on a Nokia platform may be cake to set up, it is a bitch to administer in the long run. Surf Control much better report templates, e-mail filters, and granularity. The control that Surf Control gives you in the long run outweighs any the fact that it's database is as complete as Websense's.

There are a thousand forms of subversion, but few can equal the convenience and immediacy of a cream pie. Noel Godin
What's all the fuss about? (none / 0) (#55)
by TurboThy on Thu Jun 13, 2002 at 03:02:12 PM EST

That may well be, but the usefulness of this type of software still escapes me...It seems like discussing the merits of two different implementations of The Tea Cooker in KDE - there might be differences, but overall the program is practically useless.

The only explanation I can think of is that Merkins are prudes.
'Someone will sig this comment. They will. I know it.' [Egil Skallagrimson]
[ Parent ]
Or perhaps... (none / 0) (#57)
by Wah on Thu Jun 20, 2002 at 12:11:21 AM EST

...it's because the goatse man is bit strong for a 5 yeard old to look at.

Hi anyone else who is reading this 10 days late, or more.
Fail to Obey?
[ Parent ]

Parental responsibility (none / 0) (#58)
by TurboThy on Thu Jun 20, 2002 at 03:38:39 AM EST

mm, but we're not allowing 5-year-olds to surf the Internet on their own hand, are we now?

And it doesn't matter it's 10 days late, I subscribed and got Reply WatchTM :o)
'Someone will sig this comment. They will. I know it.' [Egil Skallagrimson]
[ Parent ]
Only 10 days late?! (none / 0) (#60)
by mcherm on Mon Jul 08, 2002 at 11:37:24 AM EST

Why the big fuss about a mere 10 days late?

As posting dates should demonstrate, I'm reading this  another 18 days after your posting.

Of course, I just got back from vacation...

-- Michael Chermside
[ Parent ]

Has anyone considered... (3.33 / 3) (#37)
by Shren on Tue Jun 11, 2002 at 08:52:34 AM EST

Has anyone considered a peer-to-peer censorware platform? You know, you decide what material you've seen that you don't want your kids to see and store that information in a local node, then those opinions are in a massive p2p query network. You can ask the network about a specific site and it comes back with a consensus.

Bad idea... (4.00 / 2) (#38)
by substrate on Tue Jun 11, 2002 at 09:30:02 AM EST

It wouldn't be long before people would start flooding it with misinformation (in the context of being a so called good censorware engine) out of spite. Even if there was some sort of subscription mechanism where you had to prove you're a good little sheep it would eventually be hacked. Then sites like http://whitehouse.gov, http://chick.com and http://www.cc.org would end up blocked.

Personally I don't find this any more objectionable than any other censorware products, but the point is that for the customers who purchase the products they'd soon be even more useless than they their intentions.

[ Parent ]

It's not the best idea in the world... (2.00 / 1) (#39)
by Shren on Tue Jun 11, 2002 at 11:48:49 AM EST

But like the RIAA's attempts to subvert p2p file sharing, I think it's surpassable.

[ Parent ]

Well knock my noggin! (2.50 / 4) (#41)
by axxeman on Tue Jun 11, 2002 at 12:12:17 PM EST

Technology, culture, and free daily pr0n, from the trenches!

Feminism is an overcompensatory drama-queen club, with extra dykes. ---- Farq

If this discussion keeps up... (3.40 / 5) (#43)
by toganet on Tue Jun 11, 2002 at 02:11:23 PM EST

Websense will start filtering K5, and then I'll have nothing to do at work except... work.

Johnson's law: Systems resemble the organizations that create them.

damn censorware (2.66 / 3) (#44)
by enterfornone on Tue Jun 11, 2002 at 02:19:20 PM EST

All of the sites in the list were blocked by the filter at my net cafe. No porn today :(

efn 26/m/syd
Will sponsor new accounts for porn.
A little p0rn featuring a trollop never hurts. (2.50 / 2) (#47)
by mediaguy on Tue Jun 11, 2002 at 10:39:25 PM EST

Seth writes, ". ...censorware companies peddle snake-oil." It's an excellent point. If censorware worked, they'd find a way to hide those Orbitz ads.

Quick theory: George the Younger comes to power and suddenly blacklists, conspiracy theories and circumventing the rights of citizens become all the rage. If I didn't know better, I'd say that John Ashcroft - whom the good citizens of Missouri kicked out of office in favor of a dead man - once stormed out of a half-filled concert hall in Branson proclaiming that the Captain and Tennille are too saucy.

The net is a vast dumping ground for half-baked marketing plans and vats of disinformation (of course, present web site excluded). In fact, had Al Gore invented the net a little sooner, who knows how this could have re-directed the future of countless members of the clergy. Censorware serves a role. It helps fundamentalist parents watch FOX News in peace. They'll never suspect that little Billy understands the Add/Remove Program dialog.

Add/Remove, nah. Don't need it. (3.00 / 1) (#53)
by Elkor on Wed Jun 12, 2002 at 10:24:03 AM EST

Just go into "services" shut down the service for the censorware application.

Johnny then restarts the service and logs off the computer when he's done.

Of course, Johnny with have administrative control. Who else would have set up the computer in the first place?


"I won't tell you how to love God if you don't tell me how to love myself."
-Margo Eve
[ Parent ]
So, in other words... (none / 0) (#54)
by haflinger on Thu Jun 13, 2002 at 12:26:43 PM EST

They're providing a means for people who are using SurfControl or SmartFilter to get around the filters. You even get to select which filter you're using to get at the pr0n. That's funny. If only these net filters were protecting copyright, they could be sued under the DMCA by the companies that make SurfControl and SmartFilter. :)

Did people from the future send George Carlin back in time to save rusty and K5? - leviramsey

Peacefire.org 's mission (4.00 / 1) (#56)
by scubacuda on Tue Jun 18, 2002 at 03:16:27 PM EST

In response to companies like Cyber Patrol and Websense often miscategorizes innocent sites, Bennett Haselton created Peacefire.org and started offering free software designed to bypass content filtering programs completely. (Taken from CNN and Seattle Post-Intelligencer). Peacefire.org educates the public on political, science, and health sites that are incorrectly classified by blocking software companies as "pornography". Haselton's philosophy is interesting--particularly the part about the 60% of the population that DOES believe in evolution NOT helping the next generation of kids whose parents won't let them read about it in the first place.

There are a thousand forms of subversion, but few can equal the convenience and immediacy of a cream pie. Noel Godin

MSNBC ran a story on Websense "free sex" (none / 0) (#61)
by Seth Finkelstein on Sun Jul 21, 2002 at 11:03:39 AM EST

MSNBC picked up the story, and there's an excellent article about it at:
"Filter firm's Web site bares all"
"Websense links to X-rated sites that it says rivals didn't block"

Websense remains unrepentant:

"Meyer said that company executives were not concerned that kids would use the tool to access objectionable content that that might otherwise be blocked by their parents, teachers or librarians because the company's site caters to corporations and government entities rather than the public."

I'm quoted in the article:

"Seth Finkelstein, a civil libertarian computer programmer adamantly opposed to such "censorware," said the double standard apparently arises out of fear that an internecine feud would highlight the shortcomings of filtering technology."

"If somebody else had done this, they would ban it immediately," said Finkelstein, who won the Electronic Freedom Foundation's 2001 Pioneer Award for his work in monitoring the filtering field. "They do ban directories of such sites, but they're not doing it for this one."

-- Seth Finkelstein

buh? (none / 0) (#62)
by ipinkus on Fri Jul 26, 2002 at 11:28:35 AM EST

"Meyer said that company executives were not concerned that kids would use the tool to access objectionable content ... because the company's site caters to corporations and government entities rather than the public."

.. And pornographic websites cater to adults, not children but kids end up there too (or so the Germans would have us believe)

[ Parent ]

Websense has archived the MSNBC story (none / 0) (#63)
by Seth Finkelstein on Thu Aug 22, 2002 at 10:28:43 AM EST

Websense now has the MSNBC story archived on the Websense site

The amusement continues :-)

-- Seth Finkelstein
[ Parent ]

Websense - free sex sites and "blacklist wars" | 63 comments (42 topical, 21 editorial, 0 hidden)
Display: Sort:


All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. The Rest © 2000 - Present Kuro5hin.org Inc.
See our legalese page for copyright policies. Please also read our Privacy Policy.
Kuro5hin.org is powered by Free Software, including Apache, Perl, and Linux, The Scoop Engine that runs this site is freely available, under the terms of the GPL.
Need some help? Email help@kuro5hin.org.
My heart's the long stairs.

Powered by Scoop create account | help/FAQ | mission | links | search | IRC | YOU choose the stories!