<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class="">On Apr 30, 2016, at 1:20 AM, Paul Wilkins <<a href="mailto:paulwilkins369@gmail.com" class="">paulwilkins369@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br class=""><div><blockquote type="cite" class="">If we're honest,
current technology is capable of routing the IPs of suspect FQDNs for
DPI leaving the bulk of internet traffic untouched (as is done in the
UK's CleanFeed). </blockquote><div><br class=""></div><div>If we’re honest, we won’t be using UK’s cleanfeed as a worked example, because it doesn’t actually work, <i class="">especially </i>with increasing penetration of HTTPS.</div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class="">In such a scenario, the privacy arguments no longer
wash, and the technology arguments that applied 10 years ago have
been outpaced by Moore's Law. Time our industry picked its socks up.<br class=""></blockquote><div><br class=""></div>Yeah actually nah.</div><div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><p style="margin-bottom:0cm;line-height:100%" class="">The Inquiry mentions
that instead of silent blocking, there should redirection to a
blocking page, notification that the page has been blocked, the
reason for the block, and a line of appeal. That all seems
ridiculously sensible.</p></div></blockquote><br class=""></div><div>Explain for the listeners how you will detect HTTPS URLs, prevent access to them, and redirect them to “blocked” pages.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>We’ll wait while you collect your thoughts.</div><div><br class=""></div><div> - mark</div><div><br class=""></div><div><br class=""></div><br class=""></body></html>