 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Internet Freedom Under Fire
|
|
|
Subject: BS: Internet Freedom Under Fire From: Azizi Date: 02 Feb 06 - 06:56 PM Is the end near?? "The nation's largest telephone and cable companies are crafting an alarming set of strategies that would transform the free, open and nondiscriminatory Internet of today to a privately run and branded service that would charge a fee for virtually everything we do online. Verizon, Comcast, Bell South and other communications giants are developing strategies that would track and store information on our every move in cyberspace in a vast data-collection and marketing system, the scope of which could rival the National Security Agency. According to white papers now being circulated in the cable, telephone and telecommunications industries, those with the deepest pockets--corporations, special-interest groups and major advertisers--would get preferred treatment. Content from these providers would have first priority on our computer and television screens, while information seen as undesirable, such as peer-to-peer communications, could be relegated to a slow lane or simply shut out. Under the plans they are considering, all of us--from content providers to individual users--would pay more to surf online, stream videos or even send e-mail. Industry planners are mulling new subscription plans that would further limit the online experience, establishing "platinum," "gold" and "silver" levels of Internet access that would set limits on the number of downloads, media streams or even e-mail messages that could be sent or received." -snip- Source: http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060213/chester Read the entire article. This is some scary stuff. Among other things this would mean the end of Mudcat as we know it, wouldn't it? If this is true, what can we do about it? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Internet Freedom Under Fire From: Azizi Date: 02 Feb 06 - 07:03 PM Here's one more paragraph from that same article: "If we permit the Internet to become a medium designed primarily to serve the interests of marketing and personal consumption, rather than global civic-related communications, we will face the political consequences for decades to come. Unless we push back, the "brandwashing" of America will permeate not only our information infrastructure but global society and culture as well". -snip- BTW, that article-"The End of the Internet?" -was written by Jeff Chester and was posted February 1, 2006 on the Nation's website. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Internet Freedom Under Fire From: Bill D Date: 02 Feb 06 - 07:20 PM hmmmpff! I wonder if they know about King Canute? There are some pretty powerful and clever folks who would not take to that plan....I wouldn't bet on it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Internet Freedom Under Fire From: GUEST,dianavan Date: 02 Feb 06 - 07:31 PM Well, of course! Introduce the internet at a nominal fee (like we have now) and then when everybody is hooked, raise the price. Capitalism at it finest. I'm not surprised. Not only that, it insures that the rich get richer and provides yet another way to keep the poor in their place. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Internet Freedom Under Fire From: Bert Date: 03 Feb 06 - 01:26 AM Ah well, I guess we'll just have to start our own. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Internet Freedom Under Fire From: Rapparee Date: 03 Feb 06 - 09:13 AM I'm not worried about it. Geez, people think that the Internet (specifically the World Wide Web, which is more precise) is a secure medium for private messages. It's not and it never was. What you post moves from node to node -- there might be seven, eight, twenty, or more nodes between my house and the Mudcat servers, for instance -- and the packets could be read or blocked at any one of the nodes between here and there. Besides, the ISPs mentioned -- Comcast, etc. -- are NOT the only carriers. Believe this, as difficult as it may be. It is quite possible to purchase, install, and use a private satellite uplink for example. And if worst came to worst, you can go back to text-only -- sure, it's not visually exciting but it does communicate ideas. Or pick up the phone. Or write a letter.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Internet Freedom Under Fire From: Bill D Date: 03 Feb 06 - 11:45 AM "secure medium for private messages. It's not and it never was" It is if you encrypt it....if you seriously NEED totally private communications, it is absolutely possible. There are 'chained proxies' and encryption schemes and "mountable partitions" for your hard drive for storing stuff. I would imagine that much terrorist stuff is done this way now. It's not all 'simple'...but neither is doing your taxes. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Internet Freedom Under Fire From: mack/misophist Date: 03 Feb 06 - 12:29 PM Encryption is common, or should be, in many business circumstances. And with PGP it's free and simple. The 'secure connection' that's set up when you shop on line is encrypted via SSL. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Internet Freedom Under Fire From: Rapparee Date: 03 Feb 06 - 12:51 PM There is no totally secure encryption that I'm aware of. Three Chinese researchers cracked SHA-1 in February 2005, and that's used in PGP, SSH, SSL, S/MIME, VPN, and IPSec. PkCrack will break PKZip encryption. In 1998 it was reported that the DES encryption standard was broken. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Internet Freedom Under Fire From: Amos Date: 10 Jun 06 - 09:55 AM Court Backs Government Broadband Wiretap Access By REUTERS Filed at 12:11 p.m. ET WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A U.S. appeals court on Friday upheld the government's authority to force high-speed Internet service providers to give law enforcement authorities access for surveillance purposes. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit rejected a petition aimed at overturning a decision by regulators requiring facilities-based broadband providers and those that offer Internet telephone service to comply with U.S. wiretap laws. The court concluded that the FCC requirement was a ''reasonable policy choice'' even though information services are exempted from the government's wiretapping authority. The FCC has set a May 14, 2007 deadline for compliance. The ruling comes at a time when critics have voiced concerned the Bush administration's surveillance program violates civil liberties. The administration argues it needs the program, which allows the National Security Agency to monitor international telephone calls of U.S. citizens, as part of its broader war on terrorism. Authorities are concerned the growth of Internet communications could allow criminals to circumvent wiretaps by using e-mail and Internet phone services instead of traditional telephone services. Private networks would not be subject to the wiretap requirements, but those connected with a public network would have to comply with the law. The FCC decision has prompted an appeal by universities and libraries. The groups, including the American Library Association and Association of American Universities, challenged the agency's authority to extend such requirements to high-speed Internet services. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Internet Freedom Under Fire From: number 6 Date: 10 Jun 06 - 10:44 AM Not surprised ... remember when all you had to do was put up an antennae on the top of your house and you got 3 TV channels for free ... sure, ya had to put up with commercials, but it was free ... then along came cable, then satellite ... we now had an illusionary concept of more choice, better/stable reception ... the WWW is going the way of tv .... big money to be made, and think of all that info they can gather, all that info = $$$$ ... make us pay, and tell us some bogus thing about now we have more choices, and how much 'safer' it will be. sIx |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Internet Freedom Under Fire From: GUEST Date: 10 Jun 06 - 11:10 AM I'm less worried about that one as that is us business but I read this and this on "net neutrality" yesterday. I've a horrible feeling the US will end up paving the way for the world on this one. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Internet Freedom Under Fire From: number 6 Date: 10 Jun 06 - 02:13 PM The U.S. will pave the way for the world on this one Guest .... were there is money to be made ... there is control ... and the U.S. has urgent requirements for control. sIx |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Internet Freedom Under Fire From: DougR Date: 10 Jun 06 - 02:45 PM Ready, gang, all together ...THE SKY IS FALLING! (Feel better now?) DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Internet Freedom Under Fire From: number 6 Date: 10 Jun 06 - 02:46 PM It is falling Dougie .... pouring rain with high gale force winds off of the Fundy today. sIx |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Internet Freedom Under Fire From: Cobble Date: 10 Jun 06 - 03:36 PM Read the latest New Scientist, theirs more on this subject. Cobble |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Internet Freedom Under Fire From: beardedbruce Date: 10 Jun 06 - 03:49 PM I guess we can all lament the better times long ago, when the entire funding for the Internet was provided by the US DoD.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Internet Freedom Under Fire From: Amos Date: 24 Oct 07 - 06:44 PM From a technology and politics list I get: " Comcast Admits Interfering with Internet Traffic http://lauren.vortex.com/archive/000323.html Greetings. A few days ago, I reported on apparent tampering with Internet traffic by Comcast ( http://lauren.vortex.com/archive/000321.html ). Caught with their pants down by Associated Press traffic tests, Comcast has now admitted to what they call "delaying" traffic -- in this case a euphemism for what network engineers would call the spoofing or forging of traffic to disrupt the expected normal communications protocol sequences ( http://www.nbc10.com/technology/14408077/detail.html ). For those of us who have long been concerned about assuring Network Neutrality, this case represents but the tip of the iceberg in terms of the sorts of potential likely abuses that we can expect from the unfettered ISPs. If ISPs have problems with the traffic generated by a particular class of applications, the correct approach would be to work with the network community toward solutions, not acting like an incompetent hacker who could care less about disrupting network protocols designed with considerable effort over decades. This case isn't just a Network Neutrality smoking gun, it's a veritable bazooka -- and it's aimed right at ISP customers -- that's you and me. Good luck getting out of the line of fire. --Lauren-- Lauren Weinstein" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Internet Freedom Under Fire From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 24 Oct 07 - 07:15 PM It's a big world, online and offline, and even big countries pretty soon find they aren't really that big. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Internet Freedom Under Fire From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 25 Oct 07 - 04:24 AM Anybody remember FIDONET? Before the net became available/affordable to 'us little people' - in the days where about all you could get here in Oz was ISDN from Telstra, or dialup at 1200/75. A whole bunch of people world wide set up BBSes - local dialup bulletin boards - incidentally my current ISP started off that way! - which would dialup each other in an organised 'chain' which even included 'end users' who didn't have a BBS to allow people to send 'emails' around, and chat on various bulletin board threads. Maybe it's time for them again... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Internet Freedom Under Fire From: Rapparee Date: 25 Oct 07 - 09:17 AM Freedom is ALWAYS under fire. What are you, personally, doing about it? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Internet Freedom Under Fire From: Greg F. Date: 25 Oct 07 - 09:58 AM Ready, gang, all together ...THE SKY IS FALLING! (Feel better now?) DougR Finally! the usual predictable, inane, and totally worthless comment from the resident fatuous dickhead. Took him a bit longer than usual tho- he's falling down on the Clown job. Couldn't we just arrange for a Clone to insert this idiotic one-liner automatically in all threads to save Douggie-boy the trouble?
Greg, consider yourself warned. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Internet Freedom Under Fire From: jeffp Date: 25 Oct 07 - 10:19 AM Way back in June of last year. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Internet Freedom Under Fire From: Stilly River Sage Date: 25 Oct 07 - 10:44 AM Peter Suber and Net Neutrality. SRS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Internet Freedom Under Fire From: kendall Date: 25 Oct 07 - 12:06 PM A gentle reminder folks, no personal attacks or Guest posting in the BS section. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Internet Freedom Under Fire From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 26 Oct 07 - 09:08 AM "he's falling down on the Clown job." Yeah, the Fooles Troupe is thinking of leaving - too much competition! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Internet Freedom Under Fire From: Greg F. Date: 26 Oct 07 - 10:00 AM And this doesn't constitute a puerile personal attack on all & sundry WHY, exactly?? Ready, gang, all together ...THE SKY IS FALLING! (Feel better now?) DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Internet Freedom Under Fire From: Peace Date: 26 Oct 07 - 11:07 AM "Internet Freedom Under Fire" Maybe it's really over the grill . . . . |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Internet Freedom Under Fire From: kendall Date: 26 Oct 07 - 12:37 PM Greg, what Doug said is in no way a personal attack. What you said certainly is. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Internet Freedom Under Fire From: Little Hawk Date: 26 Oct 07 - 12:50 PM Personal attacks are a perception in the mind of the beholder. There are some things we can all agree on as being personal attacks. Others we will see in different ways. Doug was implying that the liberal-minded people here (meaning those he doesn't agree with) are forever raising a big hulabaloo about absolutely nothing and "crying wolf", as he sees it. Greg finds Doug's attitude snide and irritating. And it is a bit snide and irritating, isn't it? ;-) It's a contemptuous dismissal of something that concerns a lot of other people. Whether or not it's a personal attack, however, is a matter of perception, as is your opinion that Greg's response to it is a personal attack. I think someone could make a good case that neither of them made a personal attack...or that they both did. Depending on perception. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Internet Freedom Under Fire From: kendall Date: 26 Oct 07 - 12:58 PM I stand by my statement. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Internet Freedom Under Fire From: Peace Date: 26 Oct 07 - 01:00 PM I found some lyrics for a Mudcatter. Feels better than an argument. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Internet Freedom Under Fire From: jeffp Date: 26 Oct 07 - 01:24 PM Doug's comment was made 4 months and 8 days after the original post. Greg F.'s response to Doug's comment was made 4 months and 15 days after Doug's comment. Who is behind the times here? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Internet Freedom Under Fire From: Little Hawk Date: 26 Oct 07 - 01:26 PM So do I, Kendall. ;-) Typical, right? That's the way people are. We all stand by our perceptions. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Internet Freedom Under Fire From: Little Hawk Date: 26 Oct 07 - 01:28 PM I see your point, Jeff. The 15 days really is stretching it... (grin) "Are we having fun yet?" - Zippy the Pinhead |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Internet Freedom Under Fire From: jacqui.c Date: 26 Oct 07 - 01:30 PM Finally! the usual predictable, inane, and totally worthless comment from the resident fatuous dickhead. Took him a bit longer than usual tho- he's falling down on the Clown job. Couldn't we just arrange for a Clone to insert this idiotic one-liner automatically in all threads to save Douggie-boy the trouble? Sounds like a personal attack to me. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Internet Freedom Under Fire From: kendall Date: 26 Oct 07 - 01:35 PM I'm always curious how other people think. If someone were to approach you in person and call you a "fatuous dickhead", would you consider that a personal attack? Where I come from, it would probably get you hurt. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Internet Freedom Under Fire From: jeffp Date: 26 Oct 07 - 01:36 PM My point (do I really have to spell it out?) is that he took longer to make the comment then the time lag he was referencing. I guess irony is lost on you Canadians. :) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Internet Freedom Under Fire From: Little Hawk Date: 26 Oct 07 - 01:51 PM Perish the thought, jeff! We live and breathe irony in Canada. It's written into the contract here. I think what happened was, that thread had disappeared off the board for a long time. When it finally resurfaced, Greg read the thread again...and it was THEN that he reacted to Doug's comment. That being the case, the passage of time in this case is, frankly, irrelevant. A statement takes impact when one reads it. But, hey, he DID personally insult Doug in his first response. No doubt about that whatsoeve! I wanted Chongo to test out your theory, Kendall, and go downtown to the bars, pick people out at random, and call them a "fatuous dickhead". He just looked back at me and said, "You think I'm stupid, don't you? Go do it yourself...you fatuous dickhead." Not easy to pull the wool over Chongo's eyes... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Internet Freedom Under Fire From: beardedbruce Date: 26 Oct 07 - 01:56 PM Chong IS smarter than many ( most?) of us on Mudcat... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Internet Freedom Under Fire From: Amos Date: 26 Oct 07 - 02:02 PM I think above these points of style is the larger question of whether the institution of the free internetwork -- inherited as a presumably Unquestionably Good Thing from it's beginnings under DARPA -- should be protected, or subordinated to commercial pressures. You may recall what an uproar first ensued when the first use of email for commercial purposes began. Seems there was a deal of wisdom in thos eprotests. A free and open communication channel, and a commercially constrained service, are not quite compatible. In the days of Ma Bell, it seemed they were, but those were circuit-switched connections, and they could not be slowed or improved because of their content. Using packet-switched digital connections means you can sniff the who and why of each message and treat it better or worse accordingly, just by parsing the headers (not in every case, understood). The promise of the internet to greatly free large volumes of information has been partially acheived, offset by the glut of torturously bad information it has also been loaded with by those who wouldn't know good from bad if it bit them in the ass. But subordinating this great good to commercial interests AND wide-spread public mediocrity (not to say insanity) will be the ruin of a good reliable information universe. Them's my two bits. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Internet Freedom Under Fire From: Peace Date: 26 Oct 07 - 02:14 PM Who said Canadians don't understand irony? "The grenade exploded near my leg and now my leg is very irony." HAH! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Internet Freedom Under Fire From: jeffp Date: 26 Oct 07 - 02:28 PM Was that said with a steely glare? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Internet Freedom Under Fire From: kendall Date: 26 Oct 07 - 02:33 PM Let's pull the fuse from this potentially explosive situation. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Internet Freedom Under Fire From: Little Hawk Date: 26 Oct 07 - 02:37 PM Time to put the pedal to the metal, I say. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Internet Freedom Under Fire From: Amos Date: 26 Oct 07 - 03:41 PM You guys are real crackups; but apparently have no thoughts about the issue. Ah, well, sic semper sciocci. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Internet Freedom Under Fire From: Peace Date: 26 Oct 07 - 04:54 PM No offense to anyone on the thread, but I'd sure like to hear from John in Kansas. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Internet Freedom Under Fire From: Little Hawk Date: 26 Oct 07 - 05:10 PM I think the issue is an important one, Amos, and I echo your own thoughts in your post of 26 Oct 07 - 02:02 PM in pretty much every particular. How's that? I think it is unfortunate that spammers and commercial interests have been allowed to inundate people's mailboxes with unsolicited advertising. I'm not sure what could be done about it, however. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Internet Freedom Under Fire From: kendall Date: 26 Oct 07 - 09:30 PM I have a great spam filter. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Internet Freedom Under Fire From: JohnInKansas Date: 26 Oct 07 - 10:27 PM The real arguments over the "freedom of the internet," at present boils down to one word: "DVD" The people who "built the internet" have signed in with the opinion that while there is some room for some expansion of the capacity of the 'net, it cannot be expanded enough to give everyone equal access if large numbers of users download large amounts of video content. Those who see massive profits in pimping/selling/renting video are attempting to get most of the bandwidth for themselves, and to have priority to distribute video, which will effectively leave the rest of us on a "crippled and unusable" internet. Some business (and government) users do already experience service interruptions due to traffic on the open internet. For the most part, those who see this problem and need to do something about it are able to create "private networks" to meet their needs. A private network doesn't work at all, though, when the purpose is to "sell to any consumer" since only "business associates" have access to the private network. A private network is also somewhat expensive to build and operate, so marginal large users would benefit from being able to "buy dedicated capacity" on the open internet to eliminate or defer their need to create their own comm systems (to compete with the BANDWIDTH HOGS who are downloading videos). Several service providers have responded to the "BANDWIDTH HOGS" who've used high speed connections to download massive amounts of programming - invariably ALL VIDEO - since their use amounts to a Denial of Service attack on the ISPs and their other users. Some of the methods used have been "questionable" to say the least, but at present there is no agreed upon standard for "hog identification" and no accepted response. The "telecom" corporations see a fast few bucks by giving the DVD distributors what they want. Essentially, the "prioritizing of the internet" is an attempt to convert the whole thing into a massive "cable TV" network that can be run for the sole benefit of the "video programming" distributors. It has NO OTHER VISIBLE PURPOSE OR BENEFIT. They've got a lot of money, and a lot of paid sycophants in Congress, so it will be difficult - at best - to prevent it from happening. John |
