Re: Internet.na.us intenet.me.iq internet.uk.eu

[Dude VanWinkle <dudevanwinkle () gmail com>]

On 12/6/05, Florian Weimer <fw () deneb enyo de> wrote:

> I think the whole debate is quite pointless.  They aren't "passed
> control", they already have control on their view of the Internet,
> even if they cannot exercise control over ICANN.
I agree that was bad terminology, "'they' take control" is more
accurate. actually "force control on others when we allow them to take
it".

> ICANN is not a service provider.  Packets are forwarded and content is
> hosted by others.  If those guys don't like your packets or content,
> you lose, no matter what ICANN says.
I am not concerned about my content being blocked (as I have little to
no content to be blocked), I am concerned about being blocked from
content and the general availability of information to people as a
whole.

ICANN is a service provider, they provide management of contracts for
com and net. I thought they provided IP to Name resolution, but I
guess I was wrong about that. Either way I feel I should state that I
am not worried about ICANN but worried about the net being politicised
through content filtering by major and minor nations. I guess I should
quit my whining (as this is inevitable) and start thinking of a way to
have encrypted tunnels into every ones internets after the fact ;-)

> The current state of Internet censorship seems to be, roughly
> speaking:
>
>   * Countries like China filter content for poltical and economic
>     reasons.  Bribe someone, and your competitor goes off the net --
>     a very clean DoS attack.
Same thing here in the states. No one (to my knowledge) can stop a
DDoS attack without cutting off their regular customers or the service
initially provided that is being DDoS'ed

>   * The U.S. censors the Internet in libraries and public schools,
>     based on the "local community standards" doctrine.
Dont get me wrong; keeping porn from kids is OK by me, but that should
be a parents job to raise a kid correctly, not the local governments.

>   * Some U.S. ISPs (well, at least one) configure null routes on
>     routers in Germany to prevent most Germans from accessing certain
>     web sites which might be illegal under German law (but without
>     prior judicial review).
I see this happening worldwide if something is not done to prevent it
ot at least circumscribe it.



>   * A lot of ISPs worldwide put packets into an inferior traffic class
>     because they don't like the payload.
That would be very time consuming,  where did you get this information from?

> Of course, what ISPs like and dislike depends heavily on the
> regulation they are subject to.  This means that governments already
> exercise a lot of control on the Internet as seen by their citizens.
> The UN/ICANN/DoC triangle can't really change that.

> You are looking for censorship at the wrong places.  Have you ever
> wondered why you cannot use Paypal for online gambling?

Never gambled online, dont have a credit card OR a paypal account so I
haven't been exposed to this. I would tend to agree with DR Solly in
that is a business decision and not censorship. There is not much
useful information to be gleaned from giving away your money to
strangers aside from how _not_ to give away your money to strangers
;-) lol jk

I am more concerned with political censorship as the title suggests

_______________________________________________
Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts.
https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec
Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list.