Hello Shane,

  Thanks for your reply


El 12/4/17 a las 5:04 a.m., Shane Kerr escribió:
> Alejandro,
>
> At 2017-04-11 13:28:42 -0400
> Alejandro Acosta <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>> El 11/4/17 a las 12:05 p.m., Niels ten Oever escribió:
>>> Great you're following this. I think the design of a system can have
>>> some properties that makes is harder or easier to infringe on rights. To
>>> make the analogy to spam: when I receive spam in my spamfolder, I can
>>> still read it. Spam that is blocked, I cannot read.
>>>
>>> With RPZ I think there is a risk that content get's blocked because
>>> people don't like it, not because it's malware. And it does so without
>>> the consent of the user, or even without informing them.
>>>
>>> Why could the system not be designed similar to the warnings with TLS in
>>> the browser so there would be a red screen: THE LINK YOU'RE FOLLOWING IS
>>> PROBABLY MALWARE (only continue if you verified the source) ?  
>> This would be an Utopia & it does not work for those horrible goverments
>> that block unwated websites.
> Note that this is not necessarily true. When I visited Dubai blocked
> sites gave a clear message:
>
> http://cdn1.yourenotfromaroundhere.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/website-blocked-in-uae.jpg

  This is exactly my point,  receving a clear message is something nice,
good, etc.
  At least to have listed the blocked domain names somewhere is good enough.

>
> I actually approve of such an approach. Almost every government blocks
> something due to humans being humans and politics being politics.

Yes..,  I agree to certain things blocked but not politicis particularly.
>
> Of course other countries like China have a deliberately vague system
> designed to maximize chilling effects. (Google's approach before they
> kicked themselves out of China was to explicitly identify censorship,
> and so probably not much appreciated by the government.) In that case
> you are right they would disable any features in a censorship system to
> make it clear what is going on.
>
> Note also that countries like France have a secret blacklist that is
Do you know countries where the list is not secret?

> used today and poorly maintained and implemented by ISPs. This is not
> through any well though-out policy of oppression, but mostly due to
> confusion and lack of attention. An RPZ-like system would improve the
> situation there.
Absolutely

>
> Finally a system like RPZ could perhaps allow users to opt out of
> unwanted filtering in a straightforward manner. So a British housewife
> could get her porn by changing to her ISP's unfiltered DNS servers
> without having to have an embarrassing call to her provider or
> exposing everyone in her household to unfiltered access, like the
> current system there (as I understand it).
BTW I agree with RPZ and the old fashion DNS "view" approach.

>
> Cheers,
>
> --
> Shane