Re: Somewhat OT: Information Wave bans RIAA
In a message dated: 19 Aug 2002 18:22:20 EDT "Ryan T. McCarthy" said: >If you want the whole internet experience, I take it you don't filter >spam. You are paying for access to it, after all. There is a huge difference between *me* choosing to filter spam and someone else *telling* me it won't allow it to come through to me. I don't disagree that connecting to the RIAA website could be considered a security issue, and I don't deny that the RIAA are an intrisically and inherently evil organization that doesn't care one whit about anyone else other than themselves and their own profits. However, I should have the choice to visit any site I want if I'm paying for internet access. I don't see anyone blacklisting web sites which launch 5000 pop-up ads, which could also be considered a security risk. The ISP deciding to block sites for my safety is the same as the gov't dictating I shall wear a seatbelt in *my* car, or that I can't smoke the plant leaf of my choice in *my* house. >From a security perspective, I fully agree that the RIAA website probably shouldn't be visited. From a "freedom of choice" perspective, I fully believe that I should at least *have* the choice. If I were an IWT customer, I'd probably switch. Of course, it would also depend upon how good their service was, and whether or not they had previously pissed me off. As I've stated, I've never visited the RIAA website before, nor am I likely to in the future, so, this one move might not provoke me to switch my ISP. However, if they kept the practice up and did something like ban some of the hacker sites because *they* deemed them *potentially* dangerous, then I'd be outta there! Note: I'm arguing for the sake of arguing here. I don't like the practice, but I'm not directly affected by it, so I don't really care what IWT does :) -- Seeya, Paul -- It may look like I'm just sitting here doing nothing, but I'm really actively waiting for all my problems to go away. If you're not having fun, you're not doing it right! ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: Somewhat OT: Information Wave bans RIAA
On Monday, August 19, 2002, at 01:16 PM, Ben Boulanger wrote: > http://www.informationwave.net/news/20020819riaa.php > > IWT Bans RIAA From Accessing Its Network > > August 19, 2002 > > Information Wave Technologies has announced... You left out the coolest part! " Information Wave will also deploy peer-to-peer clients on the Gnutella network from its security research and development network (honeynet) which will offer files with popular song titles derived from the Billboard Top 100 maintained by VNU eMedia. No copyright violations will take place, these files will merely have arbitrary sizes similar to the length of a 3 to 4 minute MP3 audio file encoded at 128kbps. Clients which connect to our peer-to-peer clients, and then afterwards attempt to illegally access the network will be immediately blacklisted from Information Wave's network. The data collected will be actively maintained and distributed from our network operations site." Erik -- Erik Price email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: Somewhat OT: Information Wave bans RIAA
On Mon, 2002-08-19 at 13:30, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Yeah, at first I was pretty happy with this announcement, but now I'm > thinking it's just a form of censorship. They have no right to tell > me what sites I visit. If I were a customer of theirs, I'd be paying > for *Internet* access. That means the whole Internet. Not just the > sites that they've deemed safe for me to visit. If you want the whole internet experience, I take it you don't filter spam. You are paying for access to it, after all. Spam is actually relevant here. One of the ways ISPs deal with it is by blacklisting sources of it and cutting them off as much as they can. IWT is starting a blacklist that is just as legitimate and perfectly targeted. The RIAA has announced its intention to crack any boxes that it wants to and has even bought a bill that would legalize it for them. That makes the RIAA a big security threat, even bigger when you consider that they have no oversight and a long record of not caring about little things like rights. Any contact with their network makes you vulnerable. Any security type would want their network protected from snooping of any kind. Especially from a company that wants to shut down anyone it doesn't like and is protected against liability for any damage it does. An ISP blacklisting a company that does this, or even just announces that it plans to, is protecting its customers and being a good citizen. I think the idea is going to catch on. -Ryan ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: Somewhat OT: Information Wave bans RIAA
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > So, as Ben S. said: > > "And so it begins..." > > It will be amusing who sues for what, and what the counter-suits will > be as well :) "I will miss this...when it is gone." --kevin -- Kevin D. Clark / Cetacean Networks / Portsmouth, N.H. (USA) cetaceannetworks.com!kclark (GnuPG ID: B280F24E) alumni.unh.edu!kdc ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: Somewhat OT: Information Wave bans RIAA
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 At some point hitherto, [EMAIL PROTECTED] hath spake thusly: > (not that I have *ever* gone to the RIAA site before, or would ever want > to in the future, I just think this is a dangerous and slippery slope > to climb!) Know your enemy. - -- Derek Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED] - - I prefer mail encrypted with PGP/GPG! GnuPG Key ID: 0x81CFE75D Retrieve my public key at http://pgp.mit.edu Learn more about it at http://www.gnupg.org -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD4DBQE9YTTUdjdlQoHP510RAlVLAJdMzXs/RDsfjPJ7ZDFutVkN+oWaAJwJXc2W 6Adexdv9pFOKvMxOYpOa2w== =JW3H -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: Somewhat OT: Information Wave bans RIAA
In a message dated: Mon, 19 Aug 2002 13:46:12 EDT Ben Boulanger said: >On Mon, 19 Aug 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> Yeah, at first I was pretty happy with this announcement, but now I'm >> thinking it's just a form of censorship. They have no right to tell >> me what sites I visit. If I were a customer of theirs, I'd be paying >> for *Internet* access. That means the whole Internet. Not just the >> sites that they've deemed safe for me to visit. > >They have every right to tell you what sites you can or cannot get to. >You're signing up for their service, not the other way around. You have >no "rights" to anything outside of what your contract says you have right >to... and even then, the contract usually says 'we have the right to >change this at any time'. Well, I can't find any such contract on their site. The best I could find was a sign-up form which allows me to fork over a paypal account or credit card number. However, they explicitly state that they are "a regional service provider providing Internet access, network consulting, colocation, and hosting solutions to the New York, New Jersey, Connecticut tri-state area." Last I checked, riaa.com was part of the "Internet". Now, there well may be a "Censorship clause" in the contract they insist I sign, but as I said, I could find no such thing available on their web site. What they're doing is tantamount to Verizon saying you can no longer call AT&T because "their service might cause you problems". >And likewise, you have every right to say "Sorry, you don't deserve my >money anymore". Yes I do. But my point was that they are stating on their web site that they provide internet access, but then restricting where you can go. They should say "We provide censored internet access." Which, technically, I guess they do with that news article. So, you're right, and I'm wrong. They are a private company, and can do whatever they like. Just like Blockbuster has the right to censor the movies they rent, and WalMart has the right to not sell certain movies and music. But it doesn't mean I have to like it :) (not that I have *ever* gone to the RIAA site before, or would ever want to in the future, I just think this is a dangerous and slippery slope to climb!) -- Seeya, Paul -- It may look like I'm just sitting here doing nothing, but I'm really actively waiting for all my problems to go away. If you're not having fun, you're not doing it right! ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: Somewhat OT: Information Wave bans RIAA
On Mon, 19 Aug 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Yeah, at first I was pretty happy with this announcement, but now I'm > thinking it's just a form of censorship. They have no right to tell > me what sites I visit. If I were a customer of theirs, I'd be paying > for *Internet* access. That means the whole Internet. Not just the > sites that they've deemed safe for me to visit. They have every right to tell you what sites you can or cannot get to. You're signing up for their service, not the other way around. You have no "rights" to anything outside of what your contract says you have right to... and even then, the contract usually says 'we have the right to change this at any time'. And likewise, you have every right to say "Sorry, you don't deserve my money anymore". Ben -- So farewell hope, and with hope farewell fear, Farewell remorse: all good to me is lost; Evil, be thou my good. - John Milton ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: Somewhat OT: Information Wave bans RIAA
In a message dated: Mon, 19 Aug 2002 13:32:53 EDT [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: >On Mon, 19 Aug 2002, at 1:16pm, Ben Boulanger wrote: >> IWT Bans RIAA From Accessing Its Network > > "And so it begins..." Yeah, at first I was pretty happy with this announcement, but now I'm thinking it's just a form of censorship. They have no right to tell me what sites I visit. If I were a customer of theirs, I'd be paying for *Internet* access. That means the whole Internet. Not just the sites that they've deemed safe for me to visit. Of course, I'm not a customer of theirs, nor do I ever expect to be. I also don't think this will have an overly large impact on most people, since most people are completely unaware that the RIAA and MPAA are slowly stealing peoples rights to begin with. So, as Ben S. said: "And so it begins..." It will be amusing who sues for what, and what the counter-suits will be as well :) -- Seeya, Paul -- It may look like I'm just sitting here doing nothing, but I'm really actively waiting for all my problems to go away. If you're not having fun, you're not doing it right! ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: Somewhat OT: Information Wave bans RIAA
On Mon, 19 Aug 2002, at 1:16pm, Ben Boulanger wrote: > IWT Bans RIAA From Accessing Its Network "And so it begins..." -- Ben Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | The opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and do not | | necessarily represent the views or policy of any other person, entity or | | organization. All information is provided without warranty of any kind. | ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
