Re: [freenet-support] British Telecom starting mass censorship ofWeb sites
On Sun, 6 Jun 2004, Nicholas Sturm wrote: > To the UK spokesman: What does "remit" actually mean over there? We use In this case, "area of responsibility". > But you are clear that the goal is censorship on the basis of what one > group decides is unwanted whenever that is feasible regardless of what > other(s) may have chosen. The IWF was set up as an industry response to a certain reality, this being that if industry did not take action then politicians would. The IWF does not act as a police force. Its major function is operating a hotline. It allows people to register complaints about Web sites, etc. If someone reports material to the IWF, their staff will make a judgement about its legality. If they think it's appropriate they notify the ISP concerned and then the police. This occurred, as I recall, in the autumn of 1996. The police had sent a letter to the UK's Internet service providers demanding that they censor certain news groups and in general organize themselves to accept orders from the police, in particular the Clubs and Vice Unit at Charing Cross police station in London. The board of directors at the Internet service providers association (ISPA UK) agreed. A lot of us in industry disagreed. We organized, raised support, and threw out ISPA's board of directors. Then we had a series of discussions with government. The end result was that industry agreed to fund a hot line and the government backed off. The Observer found something else to be excited about. > Ah, well, freedom does have to be known before it can be fought for. We fought. In consequence the Internet in the UK remained free of police control. Perhaps I should point out that I was born and raised in the United States. But I have spent most of my adult life in other countries and have seen and experienced firsthand a considerable uhm variety of degrees and types of freedom. In the UK there does seem to have been a drift towards acquiescence in recent years. However, the remedy to this is not wailing and moaning but the development of clear-sighted understanding of the situation followed by effective concerted action. In the real world it is not possible to eliminate peer-to-peer networking. However, there are enormously powerful groups working towards this and similar goals. The rights holders (trademark holders, music industry, etc) have armies of lobbyists and lawyers. They fund organizations like the Federation Against Software Theft all over the world. They pour money into the pockets of politicians everywhere. The last thing that you want to do is to show up on their radar screens as an easy target, one which can be demonized but one which does not have the power to defend itself. -- Jim Dixon [EMAIL PROTECTED] tel +44 117 982 0786 mobile +44 797 373 7881 http://jxcl.sourceforge.net Java unit test coverage http://xlattice.sourceforge.net p2p communications infrastructure ___ Support mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support Unsubscribe at http://dodo.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [freenet-support] British Telecom starting mass censorship ofWeb sites
Fuck the brits, free speach is what you make of it. Europe doesn't know what free speach is. In my opinion, this idea will be forced upon the europeans by time. ___ Support mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support Unsubscribe at http://dodo.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [freenet-support] British Telecom starting mass censorship ofWeb sites
To the UK spokesman: What does "remit" actually mean over there? We use the word most commonly as in, "Please remit $10 as full payment for product, handling and shipping charges." I do understand the British and Australian English languages are very different from that used in this former colony. Being trained by police definitely does not carry the same confidence here as it apparently does in your country. Here most police understand their job as arresting people, while avoiding being sued for false arrest as much of the time as possible, and letting the courts sort out the guilt. And even then guilt is recognized as not the same as simple truth. But you are clear that the goal is censorship on the basis of what one group decides is unwanted whenever that is feasible regardless of what other(s) may have chosen. I am reminded of a law in Virginia (when it was yet under control of a foreign power) that made it "illegal to bring up your child in an unChristianlike manner" even if you were not a member of a Christian religious sect; that is, unless you studied and followed the child rearing practices of a Christian religious sect, even if you had never hear of Christianity. Perhaps that was the justification for killing American Indians and Australian aboriginal. Ah, well, freedom does have to be known before it can be fought for. > [Original Message] > From: Jim Dixon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: 6/6/2004 5:33:19 PM > Subject: Re: [freenet-support] British Telecom starting mass censorship ofWeb sites > > On Sun, 6 Jun 2004, Nomen Nescio wrote: > > > First they came for the child porn sites ... > > http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,6903,1232422,00.html > > Discussion on http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/04/06/06/132200.shtml > > > > Blocking connections to Freenet nodes will be only a matter of time, > > so what should we do to prevent them from getting on the blacklists? > > This is an Internet Watch Foundation (http://www.iwf.org.uk) project. The > IWF was set up around eight years ago. They have a very clearly defined > remit: identifying Internet sites that are in violation of UK laws > relating to child pornography. Their staff are trained by the police, so > presumably if they say that a Web site is breaking the law, there is a > very high probability that it is. > > In the lifetime of the IWF, there have been many attempts to widen its > remit and change its role. This represents the second major change. The > first was to add criminally racist material to the range of content which > the IWF concerns itself with. BT seems to have maintained the original > focus. That is, they are censoring child porn but not racist sites. > > When IWF was established, there was a lot of pressure on industry to > censor such Web sites. The only reason that censorship was not imposed > was that it was technically impossible. It is now techncally possible to > censor specific Web sites, so it is being done. It is _not_ technically > possible to censor Usenet news, so that isn't being done. > > The point is that it has taken eight years to take this step, despite > often very strong agitation in this direction from the press and in > Parliament. It is well worth noting that the Observer was one of the > main agitators for muzzling of the Internet in the early days -- the > IWF was founded in direct reaction to a front page article in the Observer > about child pornography on the Internet. > > There is no reason to believe that Freenet and similar activities are > at any risk of being censored any time in the near future. Freenet is > much too small, and the machinery of government in the UK is much too > cumbersome. > > -- > Jim Dixon [EMAIL PROTECTED] tel +44 117 982 0786 mobile +44 797 373 7881 > http://jxcl.sourceforge.net Java unit test coverage > http://xlattice.sourceforge.net p2p communications infrastructure > ___ > Support mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support > Unsubscribe at http://dodo.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support > Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Support mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support Unsubscribe at http://dodo.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [freenet-support] British Telecom starting mass censorship of Web sites
On Sun, 6 Jun 2004, Nomen Nescio wrote: > First they came for the child porn sites ... > http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,6903,1232422,00.html > Discussion on http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/04/06/06/132200.shtml > > Blocking connections to Freenet nodes will be only a matter of time, > so what should we do to prevent them from getting on the blacklists? This is an Internet Watch Foundation (http://www.iwf.org.uk) project. The IWF was set up around eight years ago. They have a very clearly defined remit: identifying Internet sites that are in violation of UK laws relating to child pornography. Their staff are trained by the police, so presumably if they say that a Web site is breaking the law, there is a very high probability that it is. In the lifetime of the IWF, there have been many attempts to widen its remit and change its role. This represents the second major change. The first was to add criminally racist material to the range of content which the IWF concerns itself with. BT seems to have maintained the original focus. That is, they are censoring child porn but not racist sites. When IWF was established, there was a lot of pressure on industry to censor such Web sites. The only reason that censorship was not imposed was that it was technically impossible. It is now techncally possible to censor specific Web sites, so it is being done. It is _not_ technically possible to censor Usenet news, so that isn't being done. The point is that it has taken eight years to take this step, despite often very strong agitation in this direction from the press and in Parliament. It is well worth noting that the Observer was one of the main agitators for muzzling of the Internet in the early days -- the IWF was founded in direct reaction to a front page article in the Observer about child pornography on the Internet. There is no reason to believe that Freenet and similar activities are at any risk of being censored any time in the near future. Freenet is much too small, and the machinery of government in the UK is much too cumbersome. -- Jim Dixon [EMAIL PROTECTED] tel +44 117 982 0786 mobile +44 797 373 7881 http://jxcl.sourceforge.net Java unit test coverage http://xlattice.sourceforge.net p2p communications infrastructure ___ Support mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support Unsubscribe at http://dodo.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [freenet-support] British Telecom starting mass censorship of Web sites
> First they came for the child porn sites ... > http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,6903,1232422,00.html > Discussion on http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/04/06/06/132200.shtml > > Blocking connections to Freenet nodes will be only a matter of time, > so what should we do to prevent them from getting on the blacklists? The only way to surely prevent governments (whether the brithsh or the chinese or whichever else) from blocking freenet would probably be to give up development, and that really isn't an . I think it might be a good idea to not start mirroring the blocked content on Freenet merely to prove a point, though. -- 7:21PM up 124 days, 4:36, 1 user, load averages: 0.18, 0.20, 0.18 Every non-empty totally disconnected perfect compact metric space is homeomorphic to the Cantor set. ___ Support mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support Unsubscribe at http://dodo.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[freenet-support] British Telecom starting mass censorship of Web sites
First they came for the child porn sites ... http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,6903,1232422,00.html Discussion on http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/04/06/06/132200.shtml Blocking connections to Freenet nodes will be only a matter of time, so what should we do to prevent them from getting on the blacklists? ___ Support mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support Unsubscribe at http://dodo.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [freenet-support] alert
On Sunday 06 June 2004 18:51, Robert Greenage wrote: > I received the following "Alert" while I was in the process of d/l one > image that was part of a larger file. I was connected to freenet at the > time. Any thoughts? > > > The connection was refused when attempting to contact 127.0.0.1: This happens, when you start too many connections to FProxy/FCP at once. Then, the node closes the port until the load dropped a bit. You should make less requests at once. good byte pgpmLgaIAaIMR.pgp Description: signature ___ Support mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support Unsubscribe at http://dodo.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [freenet-support] alert
Robert Greenage wrote: I received the following "Alert" while I was in the process of d/l one image that was part of a larger file. I was connected to freenet at the time. Any thoughts? The connection was refused when attempting to contact 127.0.0.1: Do you use a router ? I was getting that error all the time for a while. I think I finally got my router configured properly, and haven't seen it since. Might be a coincidence, but that's my thought on what to check. Mike S. ___ Support mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support Unsubscribe at http://dodo.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[freenet-support] alert
I received the following "Alert" while I was in the process of d/l one image that was part of a larger file. I was connected to freenet at the time. Any thoughts? The connection was refused when attempting to contact 127.0.0.1: ___ Support mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support Unsubscribe at http://dodo.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
