From: m5@dev.tivoli.com (Mike McNally)
Date: Thu, 7 Mar 96 12:41:09 PST
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: re: io.com & SurfWatch
Message-ID: <199603072041.OAA17349@kenya.tivoli.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



Well, it turns out  that (according to a nice  person at SurfWatch who
put up with the rant    I mailed in   and send  back a denial   rather
quickly) io.com isn't  actually blocked.  At least, so  they say.   No
comment on whether there's anything like the "25 complaints" policy.

I don't own SurfWatch, but if anybody does and finds www.io.com
blocked, I'll send in another rant.

I wonder whether they've actually considered the liability situation
in re: blocking sites that shouldn't be blocked?    I mean, sure, they
seem nice enough about setting things right (like with the Nynex sites
whose url's had "xxx" in the paths), but it seems to this non-lawyer
that a case could be made for damages inflicted by being known as a
purveyor of filthy indecency for even a short while.

______c_____________________________________________________________________
Mike M Nally * Tiv^H^H^H IBM * Austin TX    * pain is inevitable  
       m5@tivoli.com * m101@io.com          *
      <URL:http://www.io.com/~m101>         * suffering is optional