Re: [WISPA] ISP's Required to Block Sites
Alan Cain wrote: Michael Erskine wrote: It seems that we are all quite busy, John. I want to comment and agree with your sentiment if I may. This list is a *professional* list. People's politics are irrelevant and people who can not separate politics from their profession are immature socially. Just tongue in cheek. Of course this is a *professional* list. Terribly sorry. I'll just go over by the door. LOL. Alan, if there is anyone on this list who is less than professional it would be me. I'll join you near the door. :) -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] ISP's Required to Block Sites
Michael Erskine wrote: Jack Unger wrote: Michael, OK but please clarify. No need to be vague here. Who was paranoid and/or what was the slip? jack Michael Erskine wrote: Jack Unger wrote: For the moment anyway, it appears that ISPs will not be required to block websites based on either suspicion or on the orders of governmental agencies that may or may not have specific political motivations to deny free speech in the name of protecting public security or safety. jack Then there appears to be nothing to be either overly political in our comment or excessively paranoid in our thinking? That is good. Therefore let us try not to do that. Leadership is a tough place to stand neutral politically and it is understandable that the occasional slip happens. Never the less, politics ans paranoia are not the purpose of WISPA. -m- Jack I quoted the pertinents. There is no reason to suggest that governmental agencies with political motivations would try to deny free speech in the name of protecting security or safety. My son (the Iraq war combat veteran with a purple heart) and I talked the other day. He goes back next week. I said, Son, are we winning the war? He said, That depends upon your definition of winning? He explained that he and his brothers are bait. Yep, his words exactly. They are bait because Al Queda is too damn stupid to simply come to the US and kill people. They take the easy target, Americans in Iraq. Most folks don't get that. I got it from day one... six years ago. You see, they can kill our children in Iraq, or they can kill our people in Boston, New York, or wherever. Then he said, but if you define winning as a self sustaining, independant, Iraqui government, that is going to take ten years. What does that mean to you and me? It means that Iraq is going to belong to Iran or Syria before it becomes a democracy. It means that you are going to be paying $5.00 per gallon before you are paying $2.50 per gallon. Vote for the liberal, pro gay, female of your choice... Is Ron Paul liberal and pro-gay, or would Bloomberg be more fun? -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] ISP's Required to Block Sites
The next political grandstanding we see I will request the person(s) responsible get a week away from the list. This is NOT a place to spew your politics. Scriv Alan Cain wrote: Michael Erskine wrote: Jack Unger wrote: Michael, OK but please clarify. No need to be vague here. Who was paranoid and/or what was the slip? jack Michael Erskine wrote: Jack Unger wrote: For the moment anyway, it appears that ISPs will not be required to block websites based on either suspicion or on the orders of governmental agencies that may or may not have specific political motivations to deny free speech in the name of protecting public security or safety. jack Then there appears to be nothing to be either overly political in our comment or excessively paranoid in our thinking? That is good. Therefore let us try not to do that. Leadership is a tough place to stand neutral politically and it is understandable that the occasional slip happens. Never the less, politics ans paranoia are not the purpose of WISPA. -m- Jack I quoted the pertinents. There is no reason to suggest that governmental agencies with political motivations would try to deny free speech in the name of protecting security or safety. My son (the Iraq war combat veteran with a purple heart) and I talked the other day. He goes back next week. I said, Son, are we winning the war? He said, That depends upon your definition of winning? He explained that he and his brothers are bait. Yep, his words exactly. They are bait because Al Queda is too damn stupid to simply come to the US and kill people. They take the easy target, Americans in Iraq. Most folks don't get that. I got it from day one... six years ago. You see, they can kill our children in Iraq, or they can kill our people in Boston, New York, or wherever. Then he said, but if you define winning as a self sustaining, independant, Iraqui government, that is going to take ten years. What does that mean to you and me? It means that Iraq is going to belong to Iran or Syria before it becomes a democracy. It means that you are going to be paying $5.00 per gallon before you are paying $2.50 per gallon. Vote for the liberal, pro gay, female of your choice... Is Ron Paul liberal and pro-gay, or would Bloomberg be more fun? -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] ISP's Required to Block Sites
It seems that we are all quite busy, John. I want to comment and agree with your sentiment if I may. This list is a *professional* list. People's politics are irrelevant and people who can not separate politics from their profession are immature socially. I spent today with a man who is diametrically opposed to my political persuasion. I was helping him to solve a wireless problem he had in a deployment. Both of us understand that we are strongly opposed to each other's opinion about many things, yet we not only had an excellent day together but we solved his problem. When he installs the mesh we worked out today, his customer is going to be happy. Not only did we have a really pleasant day, but we had lunch and left each other with respect at the end of the day... This is not the place to talk about politics, you can do that at DSLR, or anywhere. My boss did not pay for the privilege of talking politics on this forum. He paid for membership because he thinks that WISPA is capable of providing his *business* a service which is worth more than the money he spent. Politics are totally irrelevant. Sadly, *everyone* has a political opinion. Even the board is not immune from that problem; however, we can *all* agree that we will ensure that this forum is *APOLITICAL* and we can all ask our leaders to ensure that our board is *APOLITICAL*. ... and we all should expect nothing more or less than that ... If you have a political need to satisfy, *TAKE IT SOME WHERE ELSE* Thanks -m- John Scrivner wrote: The next political grandstanding we see I will request the person(s) responsible get a week away from the list. This is NOT a place to spew your politics. Scriv Alan Cain wrote: Michael Erskine wrote: Jack Unger wrote: Michael, OK but please clarify. No need to be vague here. Who was paranoid and/or what was the slip? jack Michael Erskine wrote: Jack Unger wrote: For the moment anyway, it appears that ISPs will not be required to block websites based on either suspicion or on the orders of governmental agencies that may or may not have specific political motivations to deny free speech in the name of protecting public security or safety. jack Then there appears to be nothing to be either overly political in our comment or excessively paranoid in our thinking? That is good. Therefore let us try not to do that. Leadership is a tough place to stand neutral politically and it is understandable that the occasional slip happens. Never the less, politics ans paranoia are not the purpose of WISPA. -m- Jack I quoted the pertinents. There is no reason to suggest that governmental agencies with political motivations would try to deny free speech in the name of protecting security or safety. My son (the Iraq war combat veteran with a purple heart) and I talked the other day. He goes back next week. I said, Son, are we winning the war? He said, That depends upon your definition of winning? He explained that he and his brothers are bait. Yep, his words exactly. They are bait because Al Queda is too damn stupid to simply come to the US and kill people. They take the easy target, Americans in Iraq. Most folks don't get that. I got it from day one... six years ago. You see, they can kill our children in Iraq, or they can kill our people in Boston, New York, or wherever. Then he said, but if you define winning as a self sustaining, independant, Iraqui government, that is going to take ten years. What does that mean to you and me? It means that Iraq is going to belong to Iran or Syria before it becomes a democracy. It means that you are going to be paying $5.00 per gallon before you are paying $2.50 per gallon. Vote for the liberal, pro gay, female of your choice... Is Ron Paul liberal and pro-gay, or would Bloomberg be more fun? -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] ISP's Required to Block Sites
DSLR's Excuse for being off line Thu Jun 21 21:58:42 EDT 2007 == DSLR is offline at the moment, total power failure at the data center we use (www.nac.net) an hour ago means we have to bring servers up individually, and check for errors. update: Thu Jun 21 23:09:54 EDT 2007 Looks like this is going to take hours to sort out and we're off to do an all nighter at the data center :( Link to nac... Which was working at time for post? http://www.nac.net/ Which part of power outage is an excuse? The part that was spelled subpoena? Ayup, twice in as many years.. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] ISP's Required to Block Sites
Looks real to me ... http://www.nac.net/announcements.asp?Action=ViewID=83 ** Update ** 6/22/2007 - 12:45am Our Cedar Knolls Facility (MMU) is no longer running on generator power. Utility service has been restored. All systems are functioning normally and no disruption in power occurred at MMU. The Parsippany data center (OCT) is still running on generator power while we resolve a problem at that site. - 6/21/2007 - 10:30pm We have experienced a power problem caused by lightning in our Parsippany, NJ (OCT) Data Center. This location is currently running on generator power. If you are having any problems with your server please call our Network Operation Center Directly at 973-590-5050. In addition our Cedar Knolls Site (MMU) is also on Generator Power but has not experienced any problems. Ed On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 23:50:14 -0400 Michael Erskine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: DSLR's Excuse for being off line Thu Jun 21 21:58:42 EDT 2007 == DSLR is offline at the moment, total power failure at the data center we use (www.nac.net) an hour ago means we have to bring servers up individually, and check for errors. update: Thu Jun 21 23:09:54 EDT 2007 Looks like this is going to take hours to sort out and we're off to do an all nighter at the data center :( Link to nac... Which was working at time for post? http://www.nac.net/ Which part of power outage is an excuse? The part that was spelled subpoena? Ayup, twice in as many years.. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] ISP's Required to Block Sites
Jack Unger wrote: Michael, I appreciate your sharing your thoughts and your son's thoughts and I think I understand your concern. Although he's not in the Army, my oldest son also works for the U.S. government and he too is assigned to serve in a country that experiences daily street warfare. I shall keep you son in my prayers as well. Thank him for his work. I'll continue to pray that your son and my son and all our sons can one day soon return home safely and lead normal lives. jack Aye. That is a worthy prayer. I'm sorry I got miffed last night. Politics is just such a touchy topic, especially with me these days. Have a good day, Jack. -m- -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] ISP's Required to Block Sites
Michael Erskine wrote: Jack Unger wrote: Michael, I appreciate your sharing your thoughts and your son's thoughts and I think I understand your concern. Although he's not in the Army, my oldest son also works for the U.S. government and he too is assigned to serve in a country that experiences daily street warfare. I shall keep you son in my prayers as well. Thank him for his work. I'll continue to pray that your son and my son and all our sons can one day soon return home safely and lead normal lives. jack Aye. That is a worthy prayer. I'm sorry I got miffed last night. Politics is just such a touchy topic, especially with me these days. Have a good day, Jack. -m- Thanks, Michael - You have a good day too. jack -- Jack Unger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc. FCC License # PG-12-25133 Serving the Broadband Wireless Industry Since 1993 Author of the WISP Handbook - Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs True Vendor-Neutral Wireless Consulting-Training-Troubleshooting FCC Part 15 Certification for Manufacturers and Service Providers Phone (VoIP Over Broadband Wireless) 818-227-4220 www.ask-wi.com -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] ISP's Required to Block Sites
Ralph, I read the bill and I believe you are correct. Paragraph (3)(B)(i) appears to state that the bill does NOT apply to the provider of a telecommunications or Internet access service. As of 5/16/07, I don't see anything in this bill or any Congressional Action on this bill that requires ISPs to block specific websites. That doesn't mean it couldn't be amended later to include ISP requirements but the authors do not appear to be targeting ISPs as part of their enforcement attempts. For those who want to read the bill, it's here. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:S.980: For the moment anyway, it appears that ISPs will not be required to block websites based on either suspicion or on the orders of governmental agencies that may or may not have specific political motivations to deny free speech in the name of protecting public security or safety. jack Ralph wrote: Read the act itself. I don't *think* it applies to us. Look at C `(3) This subsection does not apply to-- `(A) the delivery, distribution, or dispensation of controlled substances by nonpractitioners to the extent authorized by their registration under this title; `(B) the placement on the Internet of material that merely advocates the use of a controlled substance or includes pricing information without attempting to propose or facilitate an actual transaction involving a controlled substance; or `(C) any activity that is limited to-- `(i) the provision of a telecommunications service, or of an Internet access service or Internet information location tool (as those terms are defined in section 231 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 231)); or `(ii) the transmission, storage, retrieval, hosting, formatting, or translation (or any combination thereof) of a communication, without selection or alteration of the content of the communication, except that deletion of a particular communication or material made by another person in a manner consistent with section 230(c) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 230(c)) shall not constitute such selection or alteration of the content of the communication. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matt Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2007 10:59 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] ISP's Required to Block Sites http://www.webpronews.com/topnews/2007/05/17/senate-pushes-web-pharmacy-regu lations or http://tinyurl.com/2cl7cs Personally I think its great they are finally doing something about online pharmacies but requiring ISP's to block sites is ridiculous. What will be next. It should be completely illegal to use or actively participate in the use of email or telemarketing for the marketing of prescription drugs directly to consumers. Credit card processing companies should be held liable as well. Matt -- Jack Unger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc. FCC License # PG-12-25133 Serving the Broadband Wireless Industry Since 1993 Author of the WISP Handbook - Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs True Vendor-Neutral Wireless Consulting-Training-Troubleshooting FCC Part 15 Certification for Manufacturers and Service Providers Phone (VoIP Over Broadband Wireless) 818-227-4220 www.ask-wi.com -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] ISP's Required to Block Sites
Jack Unger wrote: For the moment anyway, it appears that ISPs will not be required to block websites based on either suspicion or on the orders of governmental agencies that may or may not have specific political motivations to deny free speech in the name of protecting public security or safety. jack Then there appears to be nothing to be either overly political in our comment or excessively paranoid in our thinking? That is good. Therefore let us try not to do that. Leadership is a tough place to stand neutral politically and it is understandable that the occasional slip happens. Never the less, politics ans paranoia are not the purpose of WISPA. -m- -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] ISP's Required to Block Sites
Michael, OK but please clarify. No need to be vague here. Who was paranoid and/or what was the slip? jack Michael Erskine wrote: Jack Unger wrote: For the moment anyway, it appears that ISPs will not be required to block websites based on either suspicion or on the orders of governmental agencies that may or may not have specific political motivations to deny free speech in the name of protecting public security or safety. jack Then there appears to be nothing to be either overly political in our comment or excessively paranoid in our thinking? That is good. Therefore let us try not to do that. Leadership is a tough place to stand neutral politically and it is understandable that the occasional slip happens. Never the less, politics ans paranoia are not the purpose of WISPA. -m- -- Jack Unger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc. FCC License # PG-12-25133 Serving the Broadband Wireless Industry Since 1993 Author of the WISP Handbook - Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs True Vendor-Neutral Wireless Consulting-Training-Troubleshooting FCC Part 15 Certification for Manufacturers and Service Providers Phone (VoIP Over Broadband Wireless) 818-227-4220 www.ask-wi.com -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] ISP's Required to Block Sites
Jack Unger wrote: Michael, OK but please clarify. No need to be vague here. Who was paranoid and/or what was the slip? jack Michael Erskine wrote: Jack Unger wrote: For the moment anyway, it appears that ISPs will not be required to block websites based on either suspicion or on the orders of governmental agencies that may or may not have specific political motivations to deny free speech in the name of protecting public security or safety. jack Then there appears to be nothing to be either overly political in our comment or excessively paranoid in our thinking? That is good. Therefore let us try not to do that. Leadership is a tough place to stand neutral politically and it is understandable that the occasional slip happens. Never the less, politics ans paranoia are not the purpose of WISPA. -m- Jack I quoted the pertinents. There is no reason to suggest that governmental agencies with political motivations would try to deny free speech in the name of protecting security or safety. My son (the Iraq war combat veteran with a purple heart) and I talked the other day. He goes back next week. I said, Son, are we winning the war? He said, That depends upon your definition of winning? He explained that he and his brothers are bait. Yep, his words exactly. They are bait because Al Queda is too damn stupid to simply come to the US and kill people. They take the easy target, Americans in Iraq. Most folks don't get that. I got it from day one... six years ago. You see, they can kill our children in Iraq, or they can kill our people in Boston, New York, or wherever. Then he said, but if you define winning as a self sustaining, independant, Iraqui government, that is going to take ten years. What does that mean to you and me? It means that Iraq is going to belong to Iran or Syria before it becomes a democracy. It means that you are going to be paying $5.00 per gallon before you are paying $2.50 per gallon. Vote for the liberal, pro gay, female of your choice... -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] ISP's Required to Block Sites
Michael, I appreciate your sharing your thoughts and your son's thoughts and I think I understand your concern. Although he's not in the Army, my oldest son also works for the U.S. government and he too is assigned to serve in a country that experiences daily street warfare. I'll continue to pray that your son and my son and all our sons can one day soon return home safely and lead normal lives. jack Michael Erskine wrote: Jack Unger wrote: Michael, OK but please clarify. No need to be vague here. Who was paranoid and/or what was the slip? jack Michael Erskine wrote: Jack Unger wrote: For the moment anyway, it appears that ISPs will not be required to block websites based on either suspicion or on the orders of governmental agencies that may or may not have specific political motivations to deny free speech in the name of protecting public security or safety. jack Then there appears to be nothing to be either overly political in our comment or excessively paranoid in our thinking? That is good. Therefore let us try not to do that. Leadership is a tough place to stand neutral politically and it is understandable that the occasional slip happens. Never the less, politics ans paranoia are not the purpose of WISPA. -m- Jack I quoted the pertinents. There is no reason to suggest that governmental agencies with political motivations would try to deny free speech in the name of protecting security or safety. My son (the Iraq war combat veteran with a purple heart) and I talked the other day. He goes back next week. I said, Son, are we winning the war? He said, That depends upon your definition of winning? He explained that he and his brothers are bait. Yep, his words exactly. They are bait because Al Queda is too damn stupid to simply come to the US and kill people. They take the easy target, Americans in Iraq. Most folks don't get that. I got it from day one... six years ago. You see, they can kill our children in Iraq, or they can kill our people in Boston, New York, or wherever. Then he said, but if you define winning as a self sustaining, independant, Iraqui government, that is going to take ten years. What does that mean to you and me? It means that Iraq is going to belong to Iran or Syria before it becomes a democracy. It means that you are going to be paying $5.00 per gallon before you are paying $2.50 per gallon. Vote for the liberal, pro gay, female of your choice... -- Jack Unger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc. FCC License # PG-12-25133 Serving the Broadband Wireless Industry Since 1993 Author of the WISP Handbook - Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs True Vendor-Neutral Wireless Consulting-Training-Troubleshooting FCC Part 15 Certification for Manufacturers and Service Providers Phone (VoIP Over Broadband Wireless) 818-227-4220 www.ask-wi.com -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] ISP's Required to Block Sites
And let us both hope that does not come at the cost of a few thousand civilian lives. ... because it most certainly could come at that cost ... -m- Jack Unger wrote: Michael, I appreciate your sharing your thoughts and your son's thoughts and I think I understand your concern. Although he's not in the Army, my oldest son also works for the U.S. government and he too is assigned to serve in a country that experiences daily street warfare. I'll continue to pray that your son and my son and all our sons can one day soon return home safely and lead normal lives. jack Michael Erskine wrote: Jack Unger wrote: Michael, OK but please clarify. No need to be vague here. Who was paranoid and/or what was the slip? jack Michael Erskine wrote: Jack Unger wrote: For the moment anyway, it appears that ISPs will not be required to block websites based on either suspicion or on the orders of governmental agencies that may or may not have specific political motivations to deny free speech in the name of protecting public security or safety. jack Then there appears to be nothing to be either overly political in our comment or excessively paranoid in our thinking? That is good. Therefore let us try not to do that. Leadership is a tough place to stand neutral politically and it is understandable that the occasional slip happens. Never the less, politics ans paranoia are not the purpose of WISPA. -m- Jack I quoted the pertinents. There is no reason to suggest that governmental agencies with political motivations would try to deny free speech in the name of protecting security or safety. My son (the Iraq war combat veteran with a purple heart) and I talked the other day. He goes back next week. I said, Son, are we winning the war? He said, That depends upon your definition of winning? He explained that he and his brothers are bait. Yep, his words exactly. They are bait because Al Queda is too damn stupid to simply come to the US and kill people. They take the easy target, Americans in Iraq. Most folks don't get that. I got it from day one... six years ago. You see, they can kill our children in Iraq, or they can kill our people in Boston, New York, or wherever. Then he said, but if you define winning as a self sustaining, independant, Iraqui government, that is going to take ten years. What does that mean to you and me? It means that Iraq is going to belong to Iran or Syria before it becomes a democracy. It means that you are going to be paying $5.00 per gallon before you are paying $2.50 per gallon. Vote for the liberal, pro gay, female of your choice... -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] ISP's Required to Block Sites
Some of this started a little over a month ago in some hearings. http://news.com.com/Senators+demand+more+regulations+on+Net+pharmacies/2100-1028-6184455.html?part=dhttag=nl.e703 There was a Harvard Law Professor that made some unbelievable remarks there: Philip Heymann, a Harvard Law School professor who specializes in drug-related legal issues, suggested formulating a group that would monitor for objectionable sites, alert ISPs to their existence, and require ISPs to offer their subscribers the option of having such sites rendered inaccessible from their accounts. (He did not mention that Web-blocking software, which permits end users to block access to designated Web sites, has existed for more than a decade.) It is no burden to (the ISPs). They know how to do it; they can do it in a minute, Heymann told the politicians. He also suggested that search engines like Google and Yahoo be required to place banners at the top of their search results pages warning users that it's illegal to buy certain drugs without prescriptions. Heymann also suggested that ISPs could be forced to filter all Web traffic for specific ads, something that would be technically problematic given the current state of Internet filtering technology. We believe that Internet service providers should make available to their customers the opportunity to block ads for illegal sales of controlled substances from their Internet service, he wrote in his statement. If you click on his name, it will give info about this prof and his e-mail address. I know I sent an e-mail to him pointing out his errors. Tim Kerns CV-Access - Original Message - From: Sam Tetherow [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2007 10:13 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] ISP's Required to Block Sites If anyone has already started looking into this more, like where the bill is and what the time line is, please post to the list (I'll do the same). This is definitely something that needs to be nipped in the bud. This is not the job of and ISP in any form. What happens if the ISP blocks traffic to a legitimate site, are we now liable for lost revenue and defamation by implying that a site is not legit? I will have to take exception to his statement that the internet needs regulation. Sam Tetherow Sandhills Wireless Jack Unger wrote: I agree 100% with the author of this article. Requiring ISPs to block sites that they suspect of advertising or selling illegal pharmaceuticals is the wrong way to go about dealing with marketing abuse. Once ISPs are required to block sites based either on suspicion or on government order, we will have lost more of our ever-shrinking freedom than we will ever gain in security. I'm going to get more information about this bill and then write Senator Dianne Feinstein (D.-Calif.) and Senator Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) to make them aware of my concern and ask them to drop the ISP-requirement provisions. jack Matt wrote: http://www.webpronews.com/topnews/2007/05/17/senate-pushes-web-pharmacy-regulations or http://tinyurl.com/2cl7cs Personally I think its great they are finally doing something about online pharmacies but requiring ISP's to block sites is ridiculous. What will be next. It should be completely illegal to use or actively participate in the use of email or telemarketing for the marketing of prescription drugs directly to consumers. Credit card processing companies should be held liable as well. Matt -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] ISP's Required to Block Sites
I agree 100% with the author of this article. Requiring ISPs to block sites that they suspect of advertising or selling illegal pharmaceuticals is the wrong way to go about dealing with marketing abuse. Once ISPs are required to block sites based either on suspicion or on government order, we will have lost more of our ever-shrinking freedom than we will ever gain in security. I'm going to get more information about this bill and then write Senator Dianne Feinstein (D.-Calif.) and Senator Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) to make them aware of my concern and ask them to drop the ISP-requirement provisions. jack Matt wrote: http://www.webpronews.com/topnews/2007/05/17/senate-pushes-web-pharmacy-regulations or http://tinyurl.com/2cl7cs Personally I think its great they are finally doing something about online pharmacies but requiring ISP's to block sites is ridiculous. What will be next. It should be completely illegal to use or actively participate in the use of email or telemarketing for the marketing of prescription drugs directly to consumers. Credit card processing companies should be held liable as well. Matt -- Jack Unger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc. FCC License # PG-12-25133 Serving the Broadband Wireless Industry Since 1993 Author of the WISP Handbook - Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs True Vendor-Neutral Wireless Consulting-Training-Troubleshooting FCC Part 15 Certification for Manufacturers and Service Providers Phone (VoIP Over Broadband Wireless) 818-227-4220 www.ask-wi.com -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] ISP's Required to Block Sites
If you get more details please share them here. I will join in writing a letter. Having the government telling us to turn off this site or that site is a dangerous precedent to allow. It is similar to having them decide what books get to reach the shelves. That was never allowed and this should not be either. Scriv Jack Unger wrote: I agree 100% with the author of this article. Requiring ISPs to block sites that they suspect of advertising or selling illegal pharmaceuticals is the wrong way to go about dealing with marketing abuse. Once ISPs are required to block sites based either on suspicion or on government order, we will have lost more of our ever-shrinking freedom than we will ever gain in security. I'm going to get more information about this bill and then write Senator Dianne Feinstein (D.-Calif.) and Senator Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) to make them aware of my concern and ask them to drop the ISP-requirement provisions. jack Matt wrote: http://www.webpronews.com/topnews/2007/05/17/senate-pushes-web-pharmacy-regulations or http://tinyurl.com/2cl7cs Personally I think its great they are finally doing something about online pharmacies but requiring ISP's to block sites is ridiculous. What will be next. It should be completely illegal to use or actively participate in the use of email or telemarketing for the marketing of prescription drugs directly to consumers. Credit card processing companies should be held liable as well. Matt -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] ISP's Required to Block Sites
Yes, Jack Please keep this thread updated with your progress and more details if you contact these individuals. Zack On 6/13/07, John Scrivner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If you get more details please share them here. I will join in writing a letter. Having the government telling us to turn off this site or that site is a dangerous precedent to allow. It is similar to having them decide what books get to reach the shelves. That was never allowed and this should not be either. Scriv Jack Unger wrote: I agree 100% with the author of this article. Requiring ISPs to block sites that they suspect of advertising or selling illegal pharmaceuticals is the wrong way to go about dealing with marketing abuse. Once ISPs are required to block sites based either on suspicion or on government order, we will have lost more of our ever-shrinking freedom than we will ever gain in security. I'm going to get more information about this bill and then write Senator Dianne Feinstein (D.-Calif.) and Senator Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) to make them aware of my concern and ask them to drop the ISP-requirement provisions. jack Matt wrote: http://www.webpronews.com/topnews/2007/05/17/senate-pushes-web-pharmacy-regulations or http://tinyurl.com/2cl7cs Personally I think its great they are finally doing something about online pharmacies but requiring ISP's to block sites is ridiculous. What will be next. It should be completely illegal to use or actively participate in the use of email or telemarketing for the marketing of prescription drugs directly to consumers. Credit card processing companies should be held liable as well. Matt -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] ISP's Required to Block Sites
Matt wrote: Personally I think its great they are finally doing something about online pharmacies but requiring ISP's to block sites is ridiculous. Where will I get my quasi-illegal pharmaceuticals now? :( Also, does anyone think this has a serious chance of passing Constitutional muster? It should be completely illegal to use or actively participate in the use of email or telemarketing for the marketing of prescription drugs directly to consumers. My doctor and my quit-smoking support program would like to have a word with you. (I'm completely serious about this - I'm on a program to help quit the cigarettes, and part of this program involves a pretty healthy amount of email being exchanged, most of which remind me to take my prescribed drugs that they sold me daily. Their emails do come, at times, pretty close to marketing, despite the fact that I explicitly requested them.) Laws like this almost always clash with the law of unintended consequences. David Smith MVN.net -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] ISP's Required to Block Sites
If anyone has already started looking into this more, like where the bill is and what the time line is, please post to the list (I'll do the same). This is definitely something that needs to be nipped in the bud. This is not the job of and ISP in any form. What happens if the ISP blocks traffic to a legitimate site, are we now liable for lost revenue and defamation by implying that a site is not legit? I will have to take exception to his statement that the internet needs regulation. Sam Tetherow Sandhills Wireless Jack Unger wrote: I agree 100% with the author of this article. Requiring ISPs to block sites that they suspect of advertising or selling illegal pharmaceuticals is the wrong way to go about dealing with marketing abuse. Once ISPs are required to block sites based either on suspicion or on government order, we will have lost more of our ever-shrinking freedom than we will ever gain in security. I'm going to get more information about this bill and then write Senator Dianne Feinstein (D.-Calif.) and Senator Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) to make them aware of my concern and ask them to drop the ISP-requirement provisions. jack Matt wrote: http://www.webpronews.com/topnews/2007/05/17/senate-pushes-web-pharmacy-regulations or http://tinyurl.com/2cl7cs Personally I think its great they are finally doing something about online pharmacies but requiring ISP's to block sites is ridiculous. What will be next. It should be completely illegal to use or actively participate in the use of email or telemarketing for the marketing of prescription drugs directly to consumers. Credit card processing companies should be held liable as well. Matt -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] ISP's Required to Block Sites
In this instance, WISPA needs to make an official stance to publicly state that we oppose any and all legislation requiring an isp to block this or other sites, pharmaceutical or not. We are not the censors of the internet and it's a slippery slope when we take on that roll. George Matt wrote: http://www.webpronews.com/topnews/2007/05/17/senate-pushes-web-pharmacy-regulations or http://tinyurl.com/2cl7cs Personally I think its great they are finally doing something about online pharmacies but requiring ISP's to block sites is ridiculous. What will be next. It should be completely illegal to use or actively participate in the use of email or telemarketing for the marketing of prescription drugs directly to consumers. Credit card processing companies should be held liable as well. Matt -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] ISP's Required to Block Sites
It brings to mind an old movie, done in 1966. (well the web page says 1967) FAHRENHEIT 451 The title of the movie comes from, as Montag puts it in one scene, Fahrenheit four five one is the temperature at which book paper catches fire and starts to burn. http://www.destgulch.com/movies/f451/ Not only is this a slippery slope, this is a scary slope. - Original Message - From: Jack Unger [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2007 11:24 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] ISP's Required to Block Sites I agree 100% with the author of this article. Requiring ISPs to block sites that they suspect of advertising or selling illegal pharmaceuticals is the wrong way to go about dealing with marketing abuse. Once ISPs are required to block sites based either on suspicion or on government order, we will have lost more of our ever-shrinking freedom than we will ever gain in security. I'm going to get more information about this bill and then write Senator Dianne Feinstein (D.-Calif.) and Senator Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) to make them aware of my concern and ask them to drop the ISP-requirement provisions. jack Matt wrote: http://www.webpronews.com/topnews/2007/05/17/senate-pushes-web-pharmacy-regulations or http://tinyurl.com/2cl7cs Personally I think its great they are finally doing something about online pharmacies but requiring ISP's to block sites is ridiculous. What will be next. It should be completely illegal to use or actively participate in the use of email or telemarketing for the marketing of prescription drugs directly to consumers. Credit card processing companies should be held liable as well. Matt -- Jack Unger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc. FCC License # PG-12-25133 Serving the Broadband Wireless Industry Since 1993 Author of the WISP Handbook - Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs True Vendor-Neutral Wireless Consulting-Training-Troubleshooting FCC Part 15 Certification for Manufacturers and Service Providers Phone (VoIP Over Broadband Wireless) 818-227-4220 www.ask-wi.com -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] ISP's Required to Block Sites
Read the act itself. I don't *think* it applies to us. Look at C `(3) This subsection does not apply to-- `(A) the delivery, distribution, or dispensation of controlled substances by nonpractitioners to the extent authorized by their registration under this title; `(B) the placement on the Internet of material that merely advocates the use of a controlled substance or includes pricing information without attempting to propose or facilitate an actual transaction involving a controlled substance; or `(C) any activity that is limited to-- `(i) the provision of a telecommunications service, or of an Internet access service or Internet information location tool (as those terms are defined in section 231 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 231)); or `(ii) the transmission, storage, retrieval, hosting, formatting, or translation (or any combination thereof) of a communication, without selection or alteration of the content of the communication, except that deletion of a particular communication or material made by another person in a manner consistent with section 230(c) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 230(c)) shall not constitute such selection or alteration of the content of the communication. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matt Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2007 10:59 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] ISP's Required to Block Sites http://www.webpronews.com/topnews/2007/05/17/senate-pushes-web-pharmacy-regu lations or http://tinyurl.com/2cl7cs Personally I think its great they are finally doing something about online pharmacies but requiring ISP's to block sites is ridiculous. What will be next. It should be completely illegal to use or actively participate in the use of email or telemarketing for the marketing of prescription drugs directly to consumers. Credit card processing companies should be held liable as well. Matt -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
