nanog mailing list archives
Re: backbones filtering unsanctioned sites
From: Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists () gmail com>
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2017 13:19:41 -0500
On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 1:10 PM, Jean-Francois Mezei < jfmezei_nanog () vaxination ca> wrote:
On 2017-02-14 08:27, Jared Mauch wrote:So risk avoidance on the part of the 100k other sites hosted by CF isnow a conspiracy? Cogent is a backbone network that is international in scope. When China tells a network to block the BBC that block happens only in China.
'when possible' (also, PRC is a special case...) you might make the analogy here to the singaporian 'block these 100 objectionable sites' law (since repealed I believe) though.
If the USA wants to be like China and start blocking web sites it doesn't like, then it should only affect traffic in the USA.
yes, because of course the networks in question here are built around national borders... and of course also on internal (to the nation) boundaries.. and of course even more granularly on the internal, internal national boundaries (country -> state -> county -. city -> burrough -> apt-building -> floor - door -> room -> person -> device clearly cogent did this as well)
Google is a content company. Removing a company from its search results is a content issue, not a telecom issue. Cogent blocking an IP is a telecom issue and at least in canada should this be brought up at CRTC, would raise a Section 36 violation.
excellent, goodluck fellow traveler.
And if transit providers start to block content, especially if they do not warn their ISP customers (so thei can warn their retail customers), then this is really not correct.
sure, but... what about dhs/ice revocation of domains in com/net/org/etc? :)
In Canada, the supreme court has ruled, from different slants all reaching tghe conclusion that a neutral carrier is not responsible for the content that travels through its pipes. The second that carrier starts to exert control over content, it loses that immunity.
good thing cogent isn't a canadian company I suppose?
Cogent blocking content affects traffic outside of the USA.
it sure does, you might have luck bringing this up with your equivalent to the US State Department, no?
Current thread:
- Re: backbones filtering unsanctioned sites, (continued)
- Re: backbones filtering unsanctioned sites Alistair Mackenzie (Feb 11)
- Re: backbones filtering unsanctioned sites Marco Teixeira (Feb 11)
- Re: backbones filtering unsanctioned sites Jason Canady (Feb 11)
- Re: backbones filtering unsanctioned sites William Waites (Feb 11)
- Re: backbones filtering unsanctioned sites Jean-Francois Mezei (Feb 13)
- Re: backbones filtering unsanctioned sites Christopher Morrow (Feb 13)
- Re: backbones filtering unsanctioned sites Patrick Boyle via NANOG (Feb 14)
- Re: backbones filtering unsanctioned sites Niels Bakker (Feb 14)
- Re: backbones filtering unsanctioned sites Jared Mauch (Feb 14)
- Re: backbones filtering unsanctioned sites Jean-Francois Mezei (Feb 14)
- Re: backbones filtering unsanctioned sites Christopher Morrow (Feb 14)
- Re: backbones filtering unsanctioned sites Ken Chase (Feb 14)
- Re: backbones filtering unsanctioned sites Andrew Paolucci (Feb 16)
- Re: backbones filtering unsanctioned sites Florian Weimer (Feb 17)
- Re: backbones filtering unsanctioned sites Kyle Drake (Feb 16)
- Re: backbones filtering unsanctioned sites Sadiq Saif (Feb 16)
- Re: backbones filtering unsanctioned sites Jean-Francois Mezei (Feb 16)
- Re: backbones filtering unsanctioned sites Baldur Norddahl (Feb 16)
- Re: backbones filtering unsanctioned sites Todd Crane (Feb 16)
- Re: backbones filtering unsanctioned sites Florian Weimer (Feb 17)
- Re: backbones filtering unsanctioned sites tim () pelican org (Feb 17)