[Chapter-delegates] Internet Filtering

Mon Jun 30 01:17:13 PDT 2008

Hello Alejandro,

Thank you for your response and for sharing your experience of the
previous work that you have done on this topic.

I am merely throwing ideas, not really am pushing or imposing my
views. I am at least half-wrong in everything that I say and am
entirely wrong half the time. This is precisely the reason why I am
placing the ideas as they occur in this mailing list.

The problems are complicated, so the solution can not possibly occur
as a flawless idea from one person.

The idea that I conveyed is dangerous in one sense, as pointed out by
Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond. At the same time, as per views pointed out
by Jonathan Zittrain, " something must be done". How it is done
without compromising on the essential nature of the Internet is the
trillion dollar question.

I am impressed by what you wrote of Parry Aftab, so sent her a mail
requesting her wise comments Copied the mail to you.

Sivasubramanian Muthusamy.

On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 12:55 AM, Alejandro Pisanty
<apisan at servidor.unam.mx> wrote:
> 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
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Chapter-delegates mailing list
> Chapter-delegates at elists.isoc.org
> http://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/chapter-delegates
>

-- 
http://www.linkedin.com/in/sivasubramanianmuthusamy