A Moral Dilemma: Open letter to Gnutella community

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.
 
I can't tell if this is an advertisement or a sincere warning. The software/website looks promising, but if you really feel that you need to have parental filtering, use Bearshare. The only true way of using parental filtering is to be sitting in the room with your child. I know that isn't possible in some cases, but using some programs (such as those provided by Iopus.com) the internet could be monitored very well, without the use of purchased program (yes I know iopus.com does offer some shareware programs, but they still are fully functional for a limited time). I am not advertising this website, I am just showing whats out there, which could very well be what This company is doing, but I am fairly suspicious of this post.In conclusion () I feel the best way to monitor your child's use of the internet is by either being with them while they are online, periodically checking the Temporary Internet Files, or History of internet sites visited, using completely seperate programs to do this monitoring for you, or simply talk with your child and set standards.
 
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.
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.
 
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
 
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
 
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
 
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!
 
In all seriousness, thank you for the 'warning'. I do know where this problem stems from, and (in my opinion, which this is a board of) I feel it is the parents faults in the first place. Child control starts at home. Being the son of a teacher and a high-school student myself, I know this all too well.
 
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
 
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.
 
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
 
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.
 
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
 
Back
Top