BBC: File-sharing to bypass censorship
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/3611227.stm File-sharing to bypass censorship By Tracey Logan BBC Go Digital presenter The net could be humming with news, rather pop, swappers By the year 2010, file-sharers could be swapping news rather than music, eliminating censorship of any kind. This is the view of the man who helped kickstart the concept of peer-to-peer (P2P) file-sharing, Cambridge University's Professor Ross Anderson. In his vision, people around the world would post stories via anonymous P2P services like those used to swap songs. They would cover issues currently ignored by the major news services, said Prof Anderson. Currently, only news that's reckoned to be of interest to Americans and Western Europeans will be syndicated because that's where the money is, he told the BBC World Service programme, Go Digital. But if something happens in Peru that's of interest to viewers in China and Japan, it won't get anything like the priority for syndication. If you can break the grip of the news syndication services and allow the news collector to talk to the radio station or local newspaper then you can have much more efficient communications. 'Impossible to censor' To enable this, Prof Anderson proposes a new and improved version of Usenet, the internet news service. If there's material that everyone agrees is wicked, like child pornography, then it's possible to track it down and close it down Ross Anderson, Cambridge University But what of fears that the infrastructure that allows such ad hoc news networks to grow might also be abused by criminals and terrorists? Prof Anderson believes those fears are overstated. He argued that web watchdogs like the Internet Watch Foundation, which monitors internet-based child abuse, would provide the necessary policing functions. This would require a high level of international agreement to be effective. The effect of peer-to-peer networks will be to make censorship difficult, if not impossible, said Prof Anderson. If there's material that everyone agrees is wicked, like child pornography, then it's possible to track it down and close it down. But if there's material that only one government says is wicked then, I'm sorry, but that's their tough luck. Political obstacles Commenting on Prof Anderson's ideas, technology analyst Bill Thompson welcomed the idea of new publishing tools that will weaken the grip on news of major news organisations. Such P2P systems, he said, would give everybody a voice and allow personal testimonies to come out. But the technology that makes those publishing tools accessible to everyone and sufficiently user-friendly will take longer to develop than Prof Anderson thinks, added Mr Thompson. Prof Anderson's vision underestimates the political obstacles in the way of such developments, he said, and the question of censorship had not been clearly thought through. Once you build the technology to break censorship, you've broken censorship - even of the things you want censored, said Mr Thompson. Saying you can then control some parts of it, like images of child abuse, is being wilfully optimistic. And that's something that peer to peer advocates have to face. -- Eugen* Leitl a href=http://leitl.org;leitl/a __ ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE http://moleculardevices.org http://nanomachines.net pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: BBC: File-sharing to bypass censorship
Eugen Leitl pastes: File-sharing to bypass censorship By Tracey Logan BBC Go Digital presenter If there's material that everyone agrees is wicked, like child pornography, then it's possible to track it down and close it down Ross Anderson, Cambridge University I think the problem here is that material which John Ashcroft, Jerry Falwell, and Pat Robertson think is wicked, may not be what Ross Anderson or I think is wicked. After all, to some people Howard Stern is disgusting and obscene. To others, he is merely witty and slightly burlesque. Prof Anderson believes those fears are overstated. He argued that web watchdogs like the Internet Watch Foundation, which monitors internet-based child abuse, would provide the necessary policing functions. Well, it's good to know Professor Anderson values the opinion of an organization that won't even use the term child pornography to refer to the things that offend Ashcroft, Falwell, and Robertson, but demands everyone use terms like pictures of children being abused and child abuse pictures. As those who flog the Sex Abuse Agenda are well aware, 90% of successful propaganda is owning the vocabulary. I am reminded of the changing of the term statutory rape to child rape a few years ago, which I am sure we will all agree is a less than accurate description of a 20 year old who has consensual sex with a streetwise 17 year old crack whore. I think Hakin Bey's suggestion that plastering pictures of naked children everywhere is a great form of political theatre has merit. All the right wing crackpots will have to hide in their homes to avoid having strokes, and the well-balanced representatives of the Forces of Reason can finally live their lives in peace and quiet. Perhaps we can have Public Service Announcements by the Coalition for a Prude-Free AmeriKKKa. This is Timmy. This is TImmy's cock. This is Timmy's cock in Billy's mouth. Any questions? -- Eric Michael Cordian 0+ O:.T:.O:. Mathematical Munitions Division Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole Of The Law
Re: BBC: File-sharing to bypass censorship
Harmon Seaver (2004-04-11 20:05Z) wrote: This is insane -- on what basis, under what Constitutional authority, does the state get to decide that the christer marriage vows are sacred and legal, and a pagan or indig taking to wife isn't? This is one nation under God (the Christian God), or haven't you noticed? If the Christian Right thinks God doesn't like something, it's not Constitutionally protected. -- You took my gun. It's just your word against mine! Not necessarily. -Bernie vs Tom, Miller's Crossing
Re: BBC: File-sharing to bypass censorship
On Sun, Apr 11, 2004 at 12:41:03PM -0700, Eric Cordian wrote: As those who flog the Sex Abuse Agenda are well aware, 90% of successful propaganda is owning the vocabulary. I am reminded of the changing of the term statutory rape to child rape a few years ago, which I am sure we will all agree is a less than accurate description of a 20 year old who has consensual sex with a streetwise 17 year old crack whore. Or even his 17 year old virgin girlfriend. I really have a hard time understanding how we reached this point -- it wasn't even 100 years ago when girls of 17 were considered in danger of becoming old maids if they weren't married already. In fact, when I was growing up, the legal age for marriage in Mississippi was 12 for girls and 14 for boys, with parents permission. Without, it was 14 and 16. Many, many states had similar laws. And, in fact, back then at least one state, Maryland IIRC, had a statutory rape age of 8. So, while on the one hand, more young teens are having sex fairly openly, and at younger and younger ages, even in preteen, some as young as 10 from what I read in the press; the laws are becoming more and more repressive. And not just the law, also the prosecutors -- in Racine, WI a month or so ago it was announced that prosecutors had charged a girl and boy, both 15, with having sex with a child -- each other. WTF is going on? What else is this but religious oppression? Look, I can marry a girl (with parents okay) on her 16th birthday here in WI, but if I just have her come live with me, I could spend probably most of the rest of my life in prison. This is insane -- on what basis, under what Constitutional authority, does the state get to decide that the christer marriage vows are sacred and legal, and a pagan or indig taking to wife isn't? -- Harmon Seaver CyberShamanix http://www.cybershamanix.com Hoka hey!
Re: BBC: File-sharing to bypass censorship
Justin wrote: This is one nation under God (the Christian God), or haven't you noticed? If the Christian Right thinks God doesn't like something, it's not Constitutionally protected. Even worse, I've once heard a coworker explain to me why Bush doesn't give a rats ass about the environment: just like the impromptu pilots who learned how to fly, but not land, Bush and Crew believe that this world is theirs to do with as they wish, and that pollution isn't important - so what if thousands die of cancer, so long as they earn a place in their idea paradise. Yes, between the flat-earther's, witch burners, jihadists, and other nuts, religion certain has had a wonderful influence on humanity.
