A dangerous precedent (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message

Evility -> A dangerous precedent (6/12/2008 8:24:38 PM)

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-9964895-38.html

Many people will not be affected or concerned by this since to the average computer user the internet consists only of the web and email. It's a sad day.



thornhappy -> RE: A dangerous precedent (6/12/2008 8:35:51 PM)

That's bogus, to kill access to all due to a small amount of troublesome sites. There are some great engineering groups there.

thornhappy



Real_Trouble -> RE: A dangerous precedent (6/12/2008 8:37:31 PM)

Retarded.

That's like bombing all of New York because there was a pedophile there.  On the upside, I have a feeling this won't stand up to challenge; blanket restrictions on speech in public forums rarely do.

"Congress shall pass no law..." and all that.



cyberdude611 -> RE: A dangerous precedent (6/12/2008 9:55:40 PM)

It's not really blocking anything. A user just has to go through a 3rd party or a proxy.



DomAviator -> RE: A dangerous precedent (6/12/2008 10:09:30 PM)

Ity means nothing AOL got rid of Usenet newsgroups years ago. All this will do is move the kiddie porn for new yorkers over to mIRC or peer to peer file sharing networks.... The internet really is practically impossible to regulate... I dont use the alt newsgroups - but I use a couple of the rec. for business advertising so I run an NNTP server on a linux box on my T-1 at the office LOL. There is always a way around....



pinksugarsub -> RE: A dangerous precedent (6/13/2008 2:18:42 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Evility

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-9964895-38.html

Many people will not be affected or concerned by this since to the average computer user the internet consists only of the web and email. It's a sad day.

 
i admit i've never heard of Usernet before, but the article is very disturbing.  If pressure from a state politican is sufficent to cause ISP's to block access to whole groups of sites, like iVillage, under the guise of 'stopping online child porn', what's to stop them from using this tactic to close off political discussion groups and the like?
 
i'm not sure i understand why the ISP's made any accomodation of the NY Attorney General rather than fighting this in court.
 
Whatever the underlying dynamic is, it's another example of our shrinking 1st Amendment rights in this country.
 
pinksugarsub
 
 




Evility -> RE: A dangerous precedent (6/13/2008 2:57:52 AM)

It's appears that whoever wrote the article really doesn't understand what Usenet is or how it works. Getting a large ISP to limit or drop their own Usenet access is one thing since it only represent a small portion of their product. AOL dropped Usenet access several years ago. The notion that companies like Supernews and Giganews (the one I use) whose sole business is providing Usenet access will just roll over and play dead doesn't necessarily follow.

Wait til Cuomo discovers IRC.



Asherdelampyr -> RE: A dangerous precedent (6/13/2008 3:46:39 AM)

that will be the day....

it would be like WW3, just on-line



Termyn8or -> RE: A dangerous precedent (6/13/2008 8:29:16 AM)

I used to love Usenet until it got spammed to death. AOL quit suporting it in their package a few years ago and I bitched. "You are the most expensive end user ISP and now you have less ?".

I have made money on Usenet, both by selling things and by getting tech tips. I have had political discussions there that would get ten people kicked off here.

When AOL dropped it they gave me the NNTP numbers with which I could setup a viewer like Outlook. I never got that done and now only get it through Google.

Which brings up something, an ISP can't block it, all you have to do is go to the Google homepage and you see up where it says images, videos etc, those tabs ? The last one is more. Click that and it drops down with a menu, in there is groups. If you've never been there before you go to page where you can select groups. Use their search engine to find one that matches your interests, don't bother trying to go through the whole list. It is way too long. I'm on there under three different names, but that was not by choice, I was forced to change it.

That is because AOL dumped me. They stop support for Usenet, then they stopped offering DSL, which is what I was using, their DSL. Now a couple of years later they offer DSL again, tough shit, I got SBC now. Plus they were overpriced.

If you want to go through Google you'll need a disposable email address to register. Of course anyone can read, but to write you have to pick a password and recieve one email. Dedicate that email to Usenet activities. Some groups will result in spam, others will not.

They are not going to kill Usenet that easily. Really, except for the spam there are alot of intelligent people there. Usenet predates the internet but was a step up from the old BBSes. Most of the servers are run by universities.

If they were to succeed in blocking Usenet from the internet, only college kids and staff could get the kiddie porn. Typical GI solution.

T



MusicalBoredom -> RE: A dangerous precedent (6/13/2008 9:39:02 AM)

Um...groups.google.com is the google access to usenet.  Requires no usenet access from the ISP and is just a website and is searchable.  I'm sort of thinking they aren't going to block Google.  I don't think anyone is actually doing anything other than publicly congratulating each other on their tremendous job of "stopping child pornography."

I can't wait to see what new sting operations they start now.



Evility -> RE: A dangerous precedent (6/13/2008 2:58:25 PM)

I'm aware of Google groups. The old Deja archive. I do use it to search the archives. I post and read daily with Forté's Agent.

I realize Cuomo is just huffing and puffing. Typical politico. Government strong arm. "Tough on child porn". Right. Spitzer. Clinton. Cuomo. Lately I am not terribly impressed with politicians from the Empire State.

This is what bothers me about this whole thing. Let's apply the logic that was used in this case to the US Postal Service. It's not unreasonable to expect that mixed in with all of the millions of letters and packages that the USPS delivers everyday are at least a few that contain child porn material. Let's shutter every post office and rid society of that scourge, too.

It wouldn't surprise me to find that more child porn is transmitted via the web and/or email on a daily basis than changes hands on Usenet. Most folks don't even know what Usenet is. Let's just pull the plug on the net altogether.

Thank for letting me vent.





cyberdude611 -> RE: A dangerous precedent (6/13/2008 5:25:53 PM)

The government is not going to be able to stop this filth because the vast majority of it occurs outside the jurisdiction of western civilization. You may be able to trace it to the end user that downloads it. But you will never cut off the source.

That's the problem with the war on drugs and human trafficking too. We are putting the end users in jail while the traffickers roam around just outside the borders. These people that engage in any of these international criminal enterprises are not stupid people. If they were, they would have been caught long ago. The kingpins are extremely sophisticated.

So all this huffing and puffing by US politicians on this type of stuff is meaningless. There will not be a solution unless you get a very large significant amount of countries together to crack down on it. And good luck doing that. Many of these countries are corrupt and are being paid off by criminals. That's been the problem in Mexico for decades. The drug cartels have infiltrated the police, the military, and the government.



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.03125