A Moral Dilemma: Open letter to Gnutella community
 

I’m told, reliably, expect sub-committee hearings or an investigation, starting this fall and early next year; prompted by the recent congressional report commissioned by Rep. Henry Waxman (D) of California and Rep. Steve Largent (R) of Oklahoma. According to the report, new P2P file-sharing programs are increasingly being used to exchange pornography and bypass filters set up by parents. Thousands of pornography videos and photographs, which include child pornography, bestiality, and graphic scenes of brutality and rape, are readily available to children with these programs. All of the content is free, credit cards are not needed, and no attempt is made to exclude minors from accessing it.

The Gnutella network will certainly be front-and-center when hearings occur.

The issue is greatly magnified because pornography rides obtrusively and openly on the coattails of young people’s searches for popular music. A simple search for the name of any popular music star produces a list of songs as well as a large number of often-unrelated pornography videos and photographs. The descriptions of some of these videos and photographs are vivid and lurid by the standards of many people. Make no mistake about it: searching for and downloading music is a popular Internet activity among school-aged children. Make no mistake about it: children are confronted with the worst possible pornography when doing so.

Gnutella’s “dirty little secret” is that home computers, school computers, library computers, and business computers are actively being used – often without the owner’s knowledge or consent – in the dissemination of child pornography. Though it is not a secret to technically savvy users, the public at large is not aware that when people access pornography with file-sharing programs -- a child may do so out of curiosity – they become active participants in its distribution. Once a file has been downloaded the file automatically becomes available for redistribution from the recipient’s hard drive. The recipient thus becomes a distributor, or to be more technically correct, a sharer. Even when young people are only looking for music, the file-swapping programs running on home, school and business computers are being actively used to assist others find pornography. By using one of the popular file-sharing programs, a user implicitly agrees to cooperate with any and all searches by anyone regardless of the nature of the search.

When my company announced that it would provide a free filter to help curb the problem, we hoped for a more positive response from those companies that have a vested interest in the Gnutella network. Instead, we received mostly hostile responses. It was suggested that our filter would disrupt the network, impose unwanted moral standards on others, and defeat the free exchange of ideas and content. In our opinion that is a narrow sighted view. Many users of Gnutella agreed with us. The filter, installed by a parent, school or business, gives the computer’s owner three options: 1) block all Gnutella activity, 2) hide inappropriate content, or 3) not participate in the propagation of inappropriate searches (but only inappropriate searches). It is this last option that has raised the ire of some people. Others, however, have recognized that non-propagation of pornography queries may very well improve the value and performance of the network by reducing a large amount of unwanted traffic.

To not filter, optionally, could very well lead dire consequences for Gnutella and other P2P networks. It won’t be long before members of congress receive live demonstrations of Gnutella. (I am already invited to be in Washington in September and October to conduct demonstrations). I can imagine a public hearing: A computer is placed on the desk before one of the committee members. He or she is asked to imagine himself or herself as a twelve-year old child; then asked to type in something like “Pokemon” or “Mariah Carey;” and finally asked to read aloud, before television cameras, the descriptions of the files that appear on the screen. Quick action to curb Gnutella and P2P will likely ensue unless the P2P industry can demonstrate what it is doing to solve the problem.

There are, among P2P users, those who staunchly defend their rights to exchange any and all information freely. They argue that legislative and enforcement action cannot succeed at interfering with their rights. Technology, they insist, will find ways to protect anonymity and unconstrained distribution of content. Perhaps so; but until then, expect the companies that produce Gnutella software to be targeted or at least inconvenienced with costly legal action. So, too, Internet Service Providers (ISPs), who provide essential connectivity to those who share files, may be targeted. Reports are that it is already happening, to some slight degree.

An argument can be made – and should be seriously considered -- that unconstrained pornography will hurt the sharing of copyrighted music. Though the recording industry has money, clout, and court victories against Napster; they have failed to garner significant and widespread public support for their protests of copyright infringement. Public support to curb P2P pornography, however, and particularly support to curb child pornography, will not be hard to generate. The recording industry certainly realizes that they can be effective by lending support to anti-pornography lobbyists. Expect it.

Proposed legislation to hold ISPs responsible if they allow “worst kind” pornography to flow from “client” machines they service with essential connectivity is likely not far off. Arguments for some measure of control are fortified by the fact that a computer in one’s home or in a school may be used, without obvious knowledge or consent, to share such material. It also may not be long before federal prosecutors and some states’ attorneys general test the power to prosecute not just those who are direct providers and hosting facilitators of child pornography. With Gnutella and P2P, originating sources can remain highly anonymous. Thus, Gnutella software companies and ISPs may be targeted. Though they may be able to defend themselves under current law (I think so), they may not want to face protracted and costly legal action. Small software firms may simply shut down. ISPs may voluntarily block Gnutella and other P2P protocols; either outright, or selectively for certain types of files. If ISPs impose selective blocking rather than full blocking, MP3s may well be targeted because of copyright issues. Winning may simply be too costly. ISPs may well be advised to consider early action before Gnutella grows much more, thus lessening customer dissatisfaction issues and avoiding possible legal action.

I believe that filters, written as responsibly as possible, will help stave off legislative action, legal action, and even ISP action. Gnutella software developers and others who have a financial stake in the network need to recognize this and for the good of open networking endorse and promote filtering.

The moral issue about pornography is murky to some people. So too, it seems, is the moral issue about sharing copyrighted music. But the moral issue about one’ s right to protect children and not actively participate in the dissemination of and searching for pornography, particularly child pornography, is not at all murky. Some will argue that if you use the Gnutella network you have a moral obligation to propagate queries just as your have a moral obligation to share. I understand that, but I respectfully disagree. Gnutella, by design, is uncontrolled and public. Thus a user can participate by degree so long as he or she does not act to hurt others. Not propagating queries for pornography through a privately owned computer is not immoral.

History should teach us that when a problem gains public prominence, one of three possible courses of corrective action takes place: 1) an industry takes initiative to remedy the problem, 2) an industry voluntarily responds to pressure, or 3) the government acts. For some people these possibilities are hard to accept. I understand. There is, among many Internet users, an anti-establishment spirit that feels threatened by the interests of “big business” and “big brother.” There is an inclination among some to want to fight technological “freedom” wars, which will only lead to escalation, make an open and public network into a proprietary closed network, and obviate the opportunity to take a positive initiative. Big business (e.g. Microsoft) will then simply move in and own the open network – with private controls and commercial content.

The problem of sharing copyrighted music is like the speeding problem on an open, public roadway. Most everybody speeds. It is accepted. No one thinks about the moral dilemma of breaking the law by going 65 miles per hour in a 55 MPH limit. Though police have the legal right to set speed traps and give tickets -- which they do – mostly, they enforce the law with a very small percentage of drivers by targeting the worst offenders. However, on the open, public roads drunk driving is not acceptable, at all. On the public, open Gnutella net, child pornography is never acceptable. Worst kind pornography, allowed to continue at current unconstrained levels, may well end the music.

Users of Gnutella should applaud any of the Gnutella companies that encourage the implementation and use of robust filters. Those companies have the best interest of an open network at heart. Frankly, our company, which has other work-in-progress designed to benefit Gnutella users (and make us some money through software sales), is planning on Gnutella’s growth and success as a free, open network.

You have a promise from me: our company will listen to the concerns and suggestions from Gnutella users. We already have. We will also work with other Gnutella companies to help ensure the growth of the network as an open, public network. We are also working to filter existing proprietary P2P networks. We’ll make some mistakes along the way. I’m sure of that. But we’ll correct them as we go, with your help.

Yours truly,

Daniel R. Porter, President and CEO
InnoVal Systems Solutions, Inc.
http://innoval.com/rifilter

Hmmmmmm.
 

Beckerist, this is not the place to advertise a filter. That would be naive on my part and inappropriate. We have engaged an advertising firm for that and a PR firm for other aspects related to this filter. I know that hardcore Gnutella users would not buy this filter nor use it. I am seeking buy-in. That is different.

Never, ever, advertise in newsgroups, community forum, etc. But this is a place to engage users. When we first announced the filter, we received significant and helpful advice. (We also received a number of blasting emails).

It is a warning. It is sincere. It is also opinion. Thus disagreement is welcome. BTW: our filter is fully functional and never expires. We hope for commercial revenue but little or no end-user revenue.

It is my opinion that at some time, not too far off, CEO's of Gnutella firms will be called before sub-committees or investigative panels and they will be able to say that there are filters available.

Bearshare's and LimeWire's built in filters are a good step in the right direction but are only useful with fully trusted children or home environments where Internet activity is closely supervised. The reality is that parents, schools, etc. are (maybe sadly) looking for more.

Thanks for your thoughts.

Dan

John, I do agree, child control starts at home. Were all homes a good environment there would be no need for filters, no need for hotlines for exploited children, no latchkey kids on the Internet, and so forth. Nor would congressmen be concerned. But they are. Without filters, I really do believe, Gnutella is in jeopardy.

Dan

I agree with you, innoval, about two things. Gnutella should be free of illegal graphics/pornography, and legal pornography should not appear is search results by mistake. Unfortunately, problem number one is extremely difficult to correct, and if it is corrected, such material will simply move to another P2P network which does not solve the problem. Problem number two can be solved with co-operation of the major producers of Gnutella clients and without third party software such as yours. If you didn't already know, sub-networks can be created inside the Gnutella network. If one is created for pornography (limewire already has one) and it is just as accessible and easy to use as the mother network, I am sure no one would have a problem with using the porn sub-net instead. This would remove or reduce the pornography on the rest of the network to such a degree that accidental search results would not happen. I think this could work, but people have to want to make it work. With out support from all major Gnutella clients, filters like yours may the only solution.

I believe your concerns with the Gnutella net are valid ones, however, I believe the legal solutions such as the ones you have described are the wrong way to solve the problem. Even those attempts succeed, best case scenario, people use another P2P network and make the protocol more anonymous, more secure, and harder to deal with. Napster is a prime example. You didn't get pornography in your search results there did you? Closing it down just made kids pick-up Gnutella, and now look at what we got. These kinds of solutions will just make things worse. The attitude, "If I don't like it, I'll get ride of it", is poor one to have. I think the problems with P2P networks can and should be dealt with by better means.

I completely agree with Beckerish, and I appreciate his input on the matter. You can't blame anyone for being a little suspicious. Children don't need Gnutella to get pornography. Many millions more get it straight off the web. Why you chose to pursue an attack on Gnutella rather than the web may make some people curious until they look at your product.

If it moves outside the mainstream of most Gnutella content, then it becomes less of a problem. It follows the old, somewhat ridiculous, somewhat priggish NY laws that prohibit strip joints from opening within so many yards of a school or church. Out of sight, out of mind.


I agree.

Yes, we do know that. We are building a piece of code that can implement this feature across all clients.

I agree. I agree. I agree. BTW: We will offer optional blocking of the other primary P2Ps, shortly.

First of all we don't look at it as an attack. But we will be adding web filtering in the very near future. The code is done. But until we get Gnutella filtering working we don't want to tie it in. There are other web filters on the market.

Thanks. Good comments, Ahri.

Dan

However...
 

You agree? You must not have been referring to the legal actions you talked about in your letter. Seems like you were in favour of that. These solutions will hurt your cause, not help it. Napster again provides an example. The lawsuit increased awareness and popularity of the program. It caused an exponential amount of growth in the number of users. Before they were taken to court, very few people knew it existed. When they found out, people rushed to get in on free music. You have the same problem with children and Gnutella. Most kids don't know they can get pornography off the internet, never mind Gnutella. By percentage, few kids use the internet for pornography. Taking people to court over Gnutella and publicizing its existence will influence many more kids to use it, many more then your filter will ever stop. What's better, 50% of 100 kids getting pornography, or 100% of 10?

Your filter has one major problem, and this is why you are getting no support from the Gnutella community. It gives people the option to stop their software from routing descriptors. This causes a disruption in the network and provides absolutely nothing to users of the filter. I strongly urge you to remove that feature from your program. If your software in anyway disrupts the health of Gnutella, such that it is hurting non-users of your filter, you can expect anti-filter software. Think about a free filter remover on the home page of all Guntella clients. If kids can install a Gnutella client, I'm sure they can install a filter remover.

Your company and its supporters seem to oppose legal pornography on the Internet. I say, if its okay in magazines, its okay for the Internet.

No!
 

I agree with the general, um populace of this board. I felt that even in his speech he had many flaws. No offense, he does raise some good issues, however most of them are being intorduced into software even now (Limewire sub-network of Adult Content). I don't feel threatened by the filter, or its company but I do feel that this network should.

A clean fundamentalists aproved network in 3 easy steps
 

step one, filter porn
step two, filter software
step three, filter mp3

Filtering the network should be seen as a moral dilemma

To the Gnutella executive who ...
 

Let me make myself perfectly clear:

1) We are not out to hurt Gnutella in any way shape or form.

2) Our number one goal is to offer as much protection to as many children as possible.

That said, we did not release a product without trying to engage the user community. In these forums, there have been some good ideas and a lot of criticism. Good, I appreciate that. In emails received from Gnutella users (from those we could figure out) about 20% agree with propagation block. About 15% don’t think it is a big deal. The remainder are opposed to it.

Among people heard from who seem knowledgeable, want filtering, and don’t, themselves, use Gnutella, most want propagation blocking. Businesses who want to use Gnutella (and will pay for filtering) favor propagation blocking. For me, that is a problem.

Now, let me also say, we are trying to work with you and get a filter out the door ahead of the competition which may not be so willing to listen or accommodate. There is absolutely no reason for me to be in these forums except to engage and try to seek accommodation.

One of the problems I have as a businessman is trying to find a solution that is free of any coercion, free of threats, free of any conflict of interest. I had hoped for some engagement from the Gnutella companies but received from them mostly diatribes and threats. That’s simply not productive.

So lets get back to my objective of protection to as many children as possible. Lets talk about offsets. So long as the servent monitor windows are in the open and clear, we have a hard time not hiding this information and the only technical way we have found is to block propagation. If the companies were willing to lock those windows with passwords or even honor a semaphore from a filter, then we could come along way towards compromise.

The other criteria, for maximum protection to as many children as possible, is widespread promotion of any responsible filters. Here the companies could help. Here the user community could help. Lets not try to read between lines anymore. You may be suspicious of my motives. Yes, I do want to make money but I don’t need this headache to do so. Our company does very well, thank you. (Yes, we may lose some sponsorship funding if we remove propagation blocking but not if I can put some winning arguments on the table). The goal HERE is to protect as many children as possible. Period.

I’m not a moral prig (or as the previous poster suggested, a fundamentalist). If some of you want pornography that is fine with me. I don’t care to explore reasons, parents who don’t do their job thus it is their fault, First Amendment rights, etc. I care about those things but they are not germane to the fact that filtering is needed now and effectively. I do believe that Gnutella is jeopardized or inconvenienced by some unknown degree if the problem is not addressed. I am trying to do something.

If you haven’t sensed it, I am listening, reading and thinking about what you say. To the Gnutella executive who wrote me to cease and desist, I expect an apology or a clarification, or better yet a good suggestion or two. To the person who sent a package of dog stuff to our office: thank you, the roses will love it. To the rest of you, I need ideas.

Now people, here is a screen shot of the settings window at http://innoval.com/rifilter/screenshot.htm How do we get rid of the second option? Help.

Dan Porter

<br>Insults are unacceptable, Dog Poo is even worse. We are not here to play childish games, we are just worried about certain aspects this program may have on our creation, or product that we helped to create. I think this may have some potential, and I also feel that this is a good place to turn to for help. But when I say help, I generally mean programming help, or something along that lines. <br>This is not what I was refering to by help. Earlier you said, and I quote "... this is not the place to advertise a filter. That would be naive on my part and inappropriate." However you are saying that you want to get out before the competition. Which is it? I am starting to see the usefulness of this program, but am still seeing downfalls. I am; however, confused why someone would feel that strongly to send insults and physical objects. Anyways, I feel there may be a middle ground here. Innoval (Dan) seems to be fighting for his life on these boards, and we don't need to discourage anybody from developing anything. Maybe just help him to acheive a common ground.

Come on Dan you give **** all about this community, and your filter will get there wether the Gnutella users like it or not.
All you are interested in is making a buck, and "protecting children" sounds great.
But I rather protect my own two children my way by telling and explaining them what's acceptabe and what's not rather than offer them electronic protection by a buisness man.

RaaF, father of a 10 and 9 year old

You must admit though...
 

Even though he is a buisness man, trying to get "One step ahead of the competition", dog crap and fruitless insults are still not necessary. I want to know who would pay postage to deliver that? Who would deliver it in the first place? This is a strange world!

Have it your way
 

I've said my piece.

Dan

soo cheap.......

You are right. I apologize. And, yes, I do care about the network, partly because we have financial interests in its future, partly because I don't like to be viewed as the bad guy, partly because I support technology advanced. No I don't use it much. My kids do.

Dan

ROFLMAO HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
oh my god, that almost killed me, someone sent you dog ****, heehee

You can't be serious. You can't....heehee, dog poo...prevent offensive queries from getting on the monitor list without blocking them. Why can't your program route them? Problem solved. Anyway, that is a stupid excuss. Kids are probably worse off having the really world hidden from them. Come on, you think the word "booby" is somehow going to harm kids? People like this have a very poor oppion of childern. Kids aren't as stupid as you think, they can handle a few dirty words. I've seen what goes threw the monitor, and any child that could be possible be affected by it has been serverly missparented. If parents talked to thier kids about these things, childern would be able to handle a lot more then what could be writen on a screen.

heehee, dog poo in the mail...

RiFilter Changes
 

InnoVal Systems Solutions, Inc. will modify its original filter design so that it does not block the propagation of queries or query responses that are being passed through the computer on their way to other computers on the Gnutella network. The filter will, however, prevent children from originating inappropriate queries and, more importantly, from seeing inappropriate query responses to their own queries. This will be done in a way that will have no adverse effect on the network or any running servents (server/clients).

There remain two problems: One, inappropriate queries are visible in the monitor windows of servent applications. Two, by not blocking propagation, inappropriate queries will reach the servent and, in theory, allow the user to share a file that a parent, implicitly or explicitly, does not want shared. We are exploring two options:

1) Provide two APIs: The first API would test for the filter and determine if it is running in lock down mode. The second API would test any query to determine if an upload is appropriate. This approach would require voluntary cooperation by servent developers. In addition we would provide Java classes for the Java-based servents running with Windows runtime environments. We would produce a public standard to encourage other filter companies to do likewise so that a single call would work with any servent that chooses to incorporate this feature.

2) Do all propagation at the filter level of those queries and query responses that are deemed to be inappropriate and do so in full accordance with Gnutella specification and protocol. This is more foolproof but requires that the filter become a surrogate-servent. Architecturally, this is a poor idea and it introduces a liability for introducing down-stream error. For instance, BearShare, sends messages to other BearShare servents.

We value advice from the user community and from Gnutella developers and are open to other suggestions on these problems.

We are also exploring several ways to benefit the Gnutella community with out technology. The filter, having no propagation blocking, would be beneficial to some users who want to limit visibility of responses beyond what is provided for in some servents. We might strengthen some of the algorithms, particularly as they apply to spam and hijacking (a special, growing and difficult problem). Another option, high on our list, is to give the user the option to hide himself or herself from web-based “search engines.” (It is ironic that some people recommended propagation blocking queries from these engines, which we will not do). Web-based search engines, as of now, do nothing to contribute to sharing. We are also examining several “share incentive” options. We are looking at chat, instant messaging, server-side-meta-assisted search for people who want to share in a more robust way, etc. We might also provide support for creating alternate networks/channels that would work with all servents. All of this can be accomplished at the filtration-technology level without having any adverse effect on any servents. We will soon be blocking other P2P networks as well. Since they are proprietary we will likely block them completely leaving Gnutella the only open channel for young people whose parents, schools, etc. choose to filter. Again, we would appreciate advice.

In an attempt to head off inappropriate and irresponsible filtration methods from other companies we might publish filter standards for Gnutella. We would like assistance from the Gnutella servent development community on this and from some of the users who want to see a responsible approach to filtering. It would certainly help the Gnutella community with “image,” if and when congressional investigations or sub-committee hearings take place, if an industry initiative is in place and an optional filter is available.

Okay. We will shortly provide a prerelease version of RiFilter. (See screenshot at http://innoval.com/rifilter/screenshot.htm ). It will not block propagation. Our website will be updated over the weekend to reflect this change. You convinced us. Some of you may think you did so with threats and rude letters. Maybe so. I like to think it was the reasonable people with good suggestions and persuasive arguments. Regardless, thank you for your input.

Dan Porter, President
InnoVal Systems Solutions, Inc.

I guess I have to congratulate you on removing the propagation blocking, well done.

In an eirther post I siad, "Your filter has one major problem, and this is why you are getting no support from the Gnutella community." That is not entirely true. There are still at least two kinds of people who will still hate you for the filter.

1) People who think this technology will eventualy lead to total blockage of porn, music, programs and anything else copyrighted from being downloaded over Gnutella. I don't see how this is possible and no one has to worry about it. However, ignorance exists.

2) People who use Gnutella at the office or at school. This people have a valid complaint, but I do believe computer owners have the right to ban Gnutella on their computers if they want to. Offices and schools will probably use the filter to to completly block all downloads. I know schools like mine will do this for sure cause they're pricks. I can't even use FTP at school. They make it impossible to do anything other than HTTP, even though there are plenty of free computers and and we have nothing else to do. We aren't even allowed to chat or get e-mail on school computers anymore. Never the less, you can't argue with an office' or school's right to control their own computers. But people still aren't going to like it.

Whether or not this is enough for Gnutella companies to oppose this filter and not help, I guess we have to wait and see.

I should like to point out, although I'm sure the point has already been raised, any attempt to filter content can only be applied on a per client basis, not on a network wide basis. Gnutella being a protocol, could only be stopped by filtering the packets as they pass through a router or other device, which is unlikly. If one has a client that does not feature filtering, filters are useless. This is an issue that MUST, by definition, be self regulated. And although it is my personal view, i do not see any push for this to happen.

Although I do believe that the original post was an advertisment.

Gosh, it is working very well on our test machines. It does in fact filter out query responses that I choose to filter out and works nicely with BearShare, LimeWire, Gnucleus, Gnotella, etc. It in no way impacts the network since we opted to not block propagation.

In fact, I'm not using it so much to filter out pornography as to get rid of a lot of lengthy garbage file names (descriptions) loaded with spam keywords. I like that.

I would be very stupid to advertise here unless my purpose was to advertise for an angry mob to throw bricks at me. What did happen is that we received a significant amount information, suggestions, etc. that showed up weaknesses in our own thinking. In a sense, yes, we advertised for expert opinion and got it.

Dan

silly person.

My point was never that your silly filter wouldn't work, frankly I dont care. I know you can filter a single machine. My point was that you cannot filter the network itself. Your original post stated that some government official was wanting to stop gnutella and they were calling you about it. My point was that in order to filter the network, you have to install filters on EVERY server(servant, servlet, whatever). Which a government agency cannot do.

On another of your silly points, It is unreasonable to expect that a government agency will pass legislation providing penalties for what ISPs allow through their networks. How could this possibly happen? How could an ISP know what a jpeg named 1.jpg was a picture of? How about 1.mpg? A text search you say? what if it blocked ANTI-CHILD-PORN.mpg.

In conclusion, let me congratulate you on developing a fine product. I'm sure it works beautifully and you must be very proud. I would recomend that every parent who doesn't want their children exposed to pornography go out and download it right away. But to think that a government agency would adopt your product to somehow shut down the network, well, that is silly.

Silly Person
 

I hope I never suggested that the "government" wanted to filter the network. If you get that impression then I did not make myself clear. There is a congressional report that raises serious concerns about pornography in the world of P2P. There will be some investigation. They will look for places to target including the Gnutella companies and the ISPs. I agree that at a technology level it is difficult if not impossible. But legislative bodies and prosecutorial agencies can still muck up the water and apply a lot of pressure.

What I suggested was that the availability of filter tools and a proper industry attitude/posture could help stave off action. I'm not arguing that new laws would work or even be enacted. But the "heat" could send some running for cover.

Dan

Dan,

I apologize for my reaction, I can be venehment at times.

Allow me to consider a few points overnight.

I still stand by my statment that the ISPs could never be held accountable.

By the way, how does your filter work? is it a text-keyword matcher? if it was looking for the phrase "child porn" would it catch "c-h-i-l-d-p-o-r-n.jpg" or "norpdlihc.jpg" (backwards)?

just curious.
-Phil

Hello all
 

Innoval has posted to other forums (notably BearShare's as "rifilter") with the same initial post... It is in that forum some of the heaviest brick were thrown at him (not to mention my pumpkin launcher! regarding propagation filtering). As such, I've so far refrained from posting here, as no man deserved having MY pumkins launched at him in more than one place! Many of the changes in Innoval's approach to filtering were probably strongly affected by posts in that forum that you guys haven't read...

I'm interjecting here now to object to some of the silly ideas I see bouncing around here.

Innoval as a buisness seeking profit. He cetainly wouldn't have to do this and show up to these forums to make money; Innoval makes whatever progras buisnesses want. However, there is a unique opportunity for Innoval to gain a good image and a position on the forefront of P2P tolerance and filtering that is a good idea to take advantage of. (Now that I believe he will do this without harming GnutellaNet, I don't think this is a bad idea at all :))

Neither of these groups has any reason to hate the latest incarnation of RIfilter. Group (1) is typically contains no ignoramuses, and if it did, said bozos would have no efficacy. Group (2), reserving the option to block Gnutella completely at their leisure, would have no objection to this filter either.
Firstly, I agree (and have ranted elsewhere) that ISP can/will not be made liable...

As for the filter, assume it is effective. Be assured that if it needs something added to it, Innoval will update that part of the program immediately. No need to worry about the effectiveness of the filtering algotrithm chosen, I simply assume that it will eventually be made near-perfect. That leaves me free to concern myself with its interjection into P2P networks.

Re: RiFilter Changes
 

Now I have no problems with your filter ........

Yeah, both of those groups i talked about do exist, but like i said, people have the right to deciede what goes on their computer.

I still don't see what the big deal is with dirty words in the monitor list. But if you guys still want to go through all that trouble, then by all means go ahead, just make sure the descriptors still get routed.

that unregisted post is mine, i forgot to login

i just thought of something else, i don't know wheather i should say or not, it might turn around and kick me in the *** later or get people ****ed at me if it works but, have you considered makeing a version of the filter for proxies or network routers? If all computers on an intranet or lan connected through a proxies, the filter only needs to be installed once. This would make tampering impossible if it could be done.

the spam keyword idea does sound good, though

There is a Gnutella client (XoloX) that has an adult filter, with password functionality.. (www.xolox.nl)


I think more clients should adopt a technology like this !!!!

Greets,
Postman

Re: To the Gnutella executive who ...
 

And I'm not available for a free R & D gig with Innoval.

"Reasonable" Dan you are a businessman regardless of what your subjective views are supposed to be be. I don't buy your arguments at all. Please, dude, we've heard you before a million times already. Why don't you do a B2B partnership with your brothers at RealPlayer.