[Chapter-delegates] Internet Filtering

[Marcin Cieslak]

Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote:
> There is a fallacy here. Marcin would set up filters and firewalls in
> his computer effortlessly as an Information Technology Expert. I have
> trouble installing even a click and install firewall. 

I can reassure you that I am also having problem installing a "click and 
install" firewall as opposed to some more elaborate solutions like 
FreeBSD's ipfw or OpenBSD's ipf.

Why? Because once you grasp the details of the TCP/IP and you really 
understand what you are doing - the "click and install" becomes too 
simple to you. You have just moved up the ladder of knowledge.

> Infotech experts who are responsible for policy and technical standards 
 > often make the unconscious mistake of judging the rest of the world
 > from what they are

Just because something is difficult, it does not mean it is not the 
right way.

Look at how much the ease of use of the computer has changed over the 
years. The Ad-block extension is getting more and more easy to use, as 
are spam filters - those tools are used easily by my 60+ mother.

Privoxy might be the tool suited for me - right - but there are other 
tools that are getting much more easy to use, and there will be many more.

> It takes at least 14 or 16 years of age to have the capacity to judge
> and choose. 

I fully agree.

I referred to the "end-user" in the discussion, the person that can make 
responsible judgment. As you write, one cannot except this from a child 
and of course the parents are the responsible party there, as for the 
whole aspect of the child education.

It is a different aspect however, and still discussed widely, to what 
extent this power should be transferred on to the government and 
schools. There is no single policy here and we should respect different 
people's views.

> In the case of adults, a very large proportion of the adults who are
> already on the net and soon to get into the Internet are sort of
> technically inadequate. Don't only think of your fellow citizens in
> Europe, consider for example a tribal village in India or a remote
> region in Africa that is hardly electrified, suddenly connected to
> the Internet by a Government's program for access. It would take a
> generation for this and several related classes of Internet users to
> be in a position to take care of themselves.

I do not find people raised in underdeveloped countries to be less 
capable of grasping technology than their developed counterparts.
I suspect that even the reverse can be true.

I still remember, as a 9-year old, I had no access to the (8-bit then) 
computer. I started getting books and learned programming mostly in my 
head and on paper, since I could put my hands on the computer for maybe 
an hour once per two weeks. So I learned as much as I can to use the 
"computing time" as effectively as possible. Few years later I had to 
commute 40 minutes one way to get access to the BITNET and later the 
Internet at the university - I agree this is better than some remote 
villages have today, but that had taught me how use my time and my 
skills responsibly. Interestingly enough, my richer friends who had 
their machines at home developed interest mostly in games and never 
caught on the IT disease.

Just give them education, and so much stuff to learn that they will 
grasp how to explore the world.

Why do you think some countries export IT talent and some other import? 
It's not only because some are poor and some are rich. It's also because 
things learned *hard* way in the demanding environment promote creative, 
responsible and intelligent people. If all your IT environment is 
provided to you by the experienced vendor and everything "just magically 
works" - you don't have opportunity to learn and to solve your problems 
by yourself, using your own creativity.

Give the tools and access to the villages - right - but do not treat 
them as the blind. They are humans, too, and they can make their own 
judgments, right or wrong.

> Why do you have an Internet environment "too-free" for anyone to have
> a presence, set up an anonymous server, break into a network, steal
> email addresses, spam, DDOS and cause havoc? There is a lot of
> resistance to the very idea of very basic, very essential controls,
> simply because of the fear that the fundamental character of the
> Internet would be lost. This need not be the case. You have a license
> plate for your car and your information is printed on a driving
> license. Without this requirement for everyone who wishes to drive,
> you will drive through chaos and might not make it home ....For the
> roads to be safe for everyone to drive, the basic measure is ensure
> that everyone plays by some basic rules. In the Internet there seem to
> be no rules, no obligations, no conventions....  ( don't take this
> literally )

Reasons for this demand for the "free" Internet, are, among others, the 
following:

1. The Internet would even be a fraction of this what it is today if it 
had not been created in a very simple and open way. Many 
telecommunication operators tried to create data networks that would 
deliver the function of today's Internet.

If you would go out to PTT's in the 1960s with 200 million USD (the 
8-year ARPANET budget), would they deliver you the Internet?
Do you remember X.25 networks or X.400 mail where you had to pay 
per-message or per-minute dues? Internet works because it is smart on 
the end and dumb in the network - I recommend reading the introduction 
to the RFC 1122 for this.

2. I always point out that the car/road analogy is flawed in so many 
ways - if you look at the 'net literally, it's like sending millions of 
cars remotely controlled from your kitchen, only to meet and crash with 
other cars, without harming humans. Let's put up with flawed analogies, 
Internet is quite different to what we have seen before, at least on
the roads.

3. And finally my own, personal trail: having been born in a country 
that had recently broke out of 260+ years of various oppressing regimes, 
I value the possibility to be able to speak freely over the 
administrative control. But coming back to the filtering, as they say - 
the right for free speech includes the right not to listen, if not 
interested.

I wonder how long our dear chapter-delegates will put up with us, 
therefore I will stop now with a good reading from the last The Economist:

http://www.economist.com/world/international/displaystory.cfm?story_id=11622401

-- 
               << Marcin Cieslak // saper at saper.info >>

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 273 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/private/chapter-delegates/attachments/20080630/363df9d5/attachment.asc>