[Chapter-delegates] Internet Filtering

Mon Jun 30 14:59:28 PDT 2008

Hello Marcin,

Yes, it is becoming a one to one exchange and we can stop here. I read
http://www.economist.com/world/international/displaystory.cfm?story_id=11622401

This form of Government controls is a dangerous trend. It is the
fundamental character of the net that makes it possible to workaround
oppression.

The article got me closer to understanding why the Internet Community
is fiercely resistant to any form of regulation, even regulation by
Community itself.

On this exchange, I will stop here, for two reasons. One, the list
might get bored at the length of this  exchange  Two, I need to better
understand the various reasons why it is fiercely considered best to
leave the Internet as it is, despite the problem of malice. From this
exchange I understood some of these concerns, need to learn more.

Sivasubramanian Muthusamy.

On Tue, Jul 1, 2008 at 2:48 AM, Marcin Cieslak <saper at saper.info> wrote:
> 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 >>
>
>

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