----- Original Message ----- 
"Russ Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> If they crack down on the botnets, what's to stop them from deciding
> (arbitrarily) that some other tcp/ip traffic is "bad"? I like the fact
that
> most ISPs have taken the attitude that they are  just a piece of wire
>in the circuit. I didn't ask them to protect me from myself, and
> I appreciate the fact  that they aren't acting like big brother.

Why not let everyone drive 100MPH on I-5? Myself I am glad there are rules
enforced to help keep the traffic flowing for everyone and to help keep
people safe.

Certainly there are risks and opportunity costs to everythng. As with all
rules designed to protect society there is always the underlying desire to
balance the liberties of one with the common good.

The potential impact of the botnets on the internet (e.g. on civilization)
are too great to ignore. If we let "market forces" control everything (or
turn the cheek to certain issues)  then nothing much will be accomplished
for the common good. I'm with Ben on this. It will take a "collective"
effort to both educate and deal with the technicalities surrounding this
issue. Hopefully the service providers, large internet companies and all the
other stakeholders (government, business, developers, common internet
citizens, etc) can come to a common understanding soon on this. I have been
not following to closely on what ideas are are on the table to deal with
manging  botnets and their effect on the internet, but it appears to me the
leaders are avoiding this subject (possibly becasue they don't have a grip
on the underlying technical aspects of the issue) and are hoping the
situation will just magically get better on it's own. So educating our
leaders should be the immediate initiative.

Hopefully we can avoid  another CAN SPAM law. What was Wyden thinking
anyway?

Woody

_______________________________________________
EUGLUG mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.euglug.org/mailman/listinfo/euglug

Reply via email to