SMS wrote:
> Jer wrote:
>> Jackzwick wrote:
>>> In article <12gha0bbojqa218@corp.supernews.com>,
>>> Jer <gdunn@airmail.ten> wrote:
>>>
>>>> SMS wrote:
>>>>> "http://www.engadget.com/2006/09/13/cingular-bans-the-word-engadget-from-its
>>>>>
>>>>> -customer-forums/"
>>>>
>>>> Sounds to me like some screwball employee wet nurse got grumpy and
>>>> decided to appoint themself to pompous control freak status for a
>>>> day or two. Maybe they're on the street now, selling pencils.
>>>
>>> Are they allowed enough time to check every TinyURL to make sure it
>>> doesnt point to Engadget?
>>
>>
>> A firewall proxy could do this nicely and automagically if wanted, I
>> just can't imagine them wanting to, but I could be wrong.
>
> TinyURL is a good way of getting around these sorts of issues, but it
> doesn't have the same impact.
>
> Of course you could also mis-spell Engagdet <sic>.
>
The firewall proxy systems I've seen don't care that much about the URL
itself - they parse the page content while it streams through it's own
cache to detect 'offensive' words, and can easily be updated to include
common misspellings, munges and other variants - and include a
decryption probe. The only way around this draconian filter is to use
images to represent the readable text (or hide it completely from casual
optical scanners - think China). Corporate enterprise network gateways
are routinely set up this way with the filter imbedded in edge devices
to sniff http and smtp protocols, and often more. Corporate network
privacy is an oxymoron. For the internet, Carnivore II.
--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'
Cingular bans the word "engadget" from its customer forums 
Linear Mode
