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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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,
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
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
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?
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
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
/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
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
23 matches
Mail list logo
