[clug] Cleanfeed. Other Comsequences.

[Craig Small]

On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 10:13:47AM +1100, Daniel Pittman wrote:
> The problem is that you are assuming the "false positive" rate is
> completely randomly distributed; in practice it means that a proportion
> of sites are completely unavailable despite being innocent, so 3 percent
> of *websites*, not three percent of *content of all websites*.
It is unlikely that mainstream, such as the age or amazon, would get
blocked. It really depends on where the list comes from.  That's the key
with a lot of the filters, who decides what is in and what is out.

I know perfectly fine sites that are blocked by Trend Micro, for
example, not because of any R or X rating, but because they consider
them "dangerous" because they discuss some of the filters and filtering
and are critical of them.

 - Craig
-- 
Craig Small      GnuPG:1C1B D893 1418 2AF4 45EE  95CB C76C E5AC 12CA DFA5
http://www.enc.com.au/                             csmall at : enc.com.au
http://www.debian.org/          Debian GNU/Linux, software should be Free