[Chapter-delegates] Internet Filtering

Sun Jun 29 12:25:01 PDT 2008

S.,

among ohter venues, long ago in the Internet Societal Task Force (ISTF) we 
went through some related discussions. We were blessed at the time by the 
presence of Parry Aftab, whose wisdom I'v continued to tap over the years.

It is hard to find around the world a single set of obnoxious contents 
that attract uniform repulsion and are well defined enough to filter. 
Child pornography does have a relatively tight definition; many other 
forms of malfeasance do not.

So, keeping this content completely off the net is a goal that cannot be 
realized, for this and many other reasons.

The alternative view is indeed to help define and exclude content much 
closer to the final user, in spite of the huge costs and endless risks 
this in turn implies (including piles of false positives, which are also a 
very nasty thing; right now I'm msuffering it in trying to submit a 
project and it's very painful.)

Some forms of legal frameworks are useful, even necessary, and will be so 
when they are truly global (otherwise the nasties can always shop for a 
safe haven.) Training judges, prosecutors, and lawyers does much immediate 
good while you wait for legislation. that is, for the legal coordinate.

Training users, ISPs, opening up intelligent discussion, and instilling 
sensibility work wonders and are what we excel at. Andn, at the ned of the 
line, where the technical component of the solutionn must come in, we 
aren't bad either... but, principles first!

Alejandro Pisanty

.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . .  .  .  .  .  .
      Dr. Alejandro Pisanty
UNAM, Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico

*Mi blog/My blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com
*LinkedIn profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty
*Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614

---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, www.isoc.org
  Participa en ICANN, www.icann.org
.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .

On Sun, 29 Jun 2008, Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote:

> Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2008 23:09:23 +0530
> From: Sivasubramanian Muthusamy <isolatedn at gmail.com>
> To: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl at gih.com>
> Cc: Alejandro Pisanty <apisan at servidor.unam.mx>,
>     Chapter Delegates <chapter-delegates at elists.isoc.org>
> Subject: Re: [Chapter-delegates] Internet Filtering
> 
> Hello Oliver,
>
> I am far from a person who advocate control of the internet, but
> someone who believes that certain basic measures are required (Not by
> the Government, but by the free Internet Community)  to make the
> internet safer for us, people of the world, who own the internet.
> There is a lot of malice around, that arises out of the power placed
> on the malicious underground (here again I would like to say that the
> "underground" per se is not malicious, but a section of the
> underground)  that brings down computers and whole networks down with
> destructive malware. On extreme issues such as child pornography I
> believe that the Internet community needs to find a way to keep these
> untraceable content completely out of the net.
>
> It requires some form of regulatory mechanism. I am not suggesting
> that such powers be vested with the Government. But would there be any
> harm if such powers are vested with the Internet Community - you and
> me and those from the Internet Community renowned for their values of
> freedom and privacy and other rights and values that are
> characteristic of today's internet?
>
> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy
> www.isocindiachennai.in
>
>
>
> On Sun, Jun 29, 2008 at 9:42 PM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl at gih.com> wrote:
>> "Sivasubramanian Muthusamy" <isolatedn at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Lot of money and efforts are redundantly replicated when each nation
>>> tries to do that on its own. Rather than do it at a national level if
>>> it can be done at the global level by a central, neutral authority it
>>> can be more effectively done. .
>>
>> I hope that you are joking. You are suggesting a central authority through
>> which all of the Internet's traffic is channelled in order to be censored?
>> Please tell me you are not suggesting this.
>>
>>> IPV4 has there classes, IPv6 can have a hundred.  Class 7 would be for
>>> incorporated business, Class 14 for accreditted academic institutions,
>>> 90 can be child pornography, Class 94 for Soft Pornogrphy, Class 98
>>> for Potentially Destructive.
>>>
>>> Australia and the World can choose to shut out Class 90,98 while
>>> Palestine and a few other nations could shut out 94 and 98 and so on
>>>
>>> A Class 7 IP address abusing its IP with class 98 content could be
>>> centrally shut out.
>>
>> The Internet has succeeded because it has remained neutral to the traffic is
>> has carried. Basically you can throw anything you want at it and it will
>> carry it where you want it to be carried. Without this *fundamental* rule,
>> companies like Google, Yahoo, YouTube, Hotmail would not exist. Dividing the
>> Internet into classes of content will:
>>
>> 1. bring an end to the Internet itself
>> 2. bring an end to freedom of speech, and thus,
>> 3. bring an end to democracy worldwide
>>
>> This is short of the end of the world - I am *not* kidding.
>>
>> If some governments wish to censor traffic on their backbone or in/out of
>> their backbone, it is their own choice. I wonder if it is the choice of
>> their people.
>> I am sorry to write such a harsh reply, Sivasubramanian, but you are
>> touching on a subject and making suggestions that would eventually lead to
>> your type of traffic, say Class 1984 (free speech), being shut down. Is this
>> really what you wish? I suggest you read the book by George Orwell.
>>
>> Kind regards,
>>
>> Olivier
>>
>> --
>> Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond, Ph.D.
>> E-mail:<ocl at gih.com> | Tel:+33 (0)6 14 65 35 37 | US Fax:+1 (414) 434 2740
>> http://www.gih.com/ocl.html & http://www.nsrc.org/codes/country-codes.html
>>
>>
>
>
>
> -- 
> http://www.linkedin.com/in/sivasubramanianmuthusamy
>