Question??

MA's OMG thread reminds me of a question I have that maybe some of the more internet savvy people can answer.

Why can we not limit the access of these places that harbour such scams to US citizens? First, is it technologically possible?...and Second, is this some kind of free speech thing?...or Third, are there some bigger issues that I am not thinking about?

I guess my thought process is that the internet (whatever that really means) is not necessarily a right since it is, at least partially, provided via some kind of licenseing. My perception its that it is much like the FCC limiting radio and television transmissions.

It would just seem that it is technically possible to envelope the US, and isolate it from exterior access, and then grant such exterior access to worthy locals through some lind of limited conduit. If such local doesn't control its own citizens...then it does not have access to the US envelope. This would seem that it would help with viruses, credit card frauds, scams, etc.

I'm certain that my thoughts are too elementary, and I'm not trying to get off into some conservative versus liberal BS here. It just seems that it should be technically possible, and even though there may be some isolated issues that would need to be dealt with, the pros might outweigh the cons.

So, those of you who have some knowledge...fire away.

We have the technology...we can do it!

[RK, you surprise me. You seem to be advocating more government...]

strikes me as a bad idea on so many levels... first is who determines the worthiness of the admittants?

We have the technology...we can do it!...] Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

I guess I was hoping for a bit more in depth understanding than that.

[RK, you surprise me. You seem to be advocating more government...] Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

But such a response does not suprise me. I almost put a disclaimer in my post because I felt sure you couldn't respond without a snipe. But I decided to give you the benefit of the doubt. My mistake.

My first thought is if we keep the bad guys out how will we be warned of their goings on? Then again we get so much information that a lot of times we are unable to decipher what is or is not a threat to the U.S.

strikes me as a bad idea on so many levels... Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

Well, taking away someone's earned income and giving it to another strikes me as a bad idea on so many levels too. But there is some meritorious rational behind such a process for the good of society.

first is who determines the worthiness of the admittants? Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

Hell, I don't know...Let's start with the FCC. They exercise control over television and radio...and the sun still rises in the east every day.

Well, taking away someone's earned income and giving it to another strikes me as a bad idea on so many levels too. But there is some meritorious rational behind such a process for the good of society. Originally Posted by Rudyard K

i love freedom more than safety

My first thought is if we keep the bad guys out how will we be warned of their goings on? Then again we get so much information that a lot of times we are unable to decipher what is or is not a threat to the U.S. Originally Posted by Ansley

As I understand it, to some extent things are already limited. There are web sites from terrorist venues that are not accessable to me (not that I want to go see them). So, if we can do them, why not others?

Leaving aside the politics here. From a technical standpoint it would be pretty much impossible to block things. Even countries like Iran and China where the government control the electronic gateways into the country have trouble blocking determined users who use proxies and web anonymizers to get to blocked websites. In a country like the US where the entry points are many the challenge to even attempt something like this would be enormous.

re: FCC. Interesting you mention them, since just recently the US District Court struck down the indecency act that affects regular broadcasters (CBS, NBC, etc). Cable has never been regulated.

Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759

+1

MA's OMG thread reminds me of a question I have that maybe some of the more internet savvy people can answer. Originally Posted by Rudyard K

well, i dunno if John Gilmore is enough internet savvy for you; but he's well known for his statement: "The Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it."

Leaving aside the politics here. From a technical standpoint it would be pretty much impossible to block things. Even countries like Iran and China where the government control the electronic gateways into the country have trouble blocking determined users who use proxies and web anonymizers to get to blocked websites. In a country like the US where the entry points are many the challenge to even attempt something like this would be enormous. Originally Posted by discreetgent

Interesting. As I had it explained to me once (admittedly it was back in the day when we called it the "world wide web" ), there was a central ring of servers, that were highly controlled. And the web was like hundreds of trees splintering off of the central ring, all the way down to your individual computer. So, that when you sent an address request of sorts, it travelled up that tree, maybe along different routes along the way, but ultimately back up to that central ring, before heading back down another tree towards the server that hosted the website I was seeking. Conceptually, in my head, I could see such a system, and frankly haven't thought much about it since. But such a system would lend itself to some degreee of control if one wanted to.

I hadn't thought about one individual user attemting to circumvent the pathway out, past whatever filters were put in place, to access the bad websight. I'm sure that could be done by a lot of smart tech type folks. But the vast majority would not have access to such.

re: FCC. Interesting you mention them, since just recently the US District Court struck down the indecency act that affects regular broadcasters (CBS, NBC, etc). Cable has never been regulated. Originally Posted by discreetgent

Yeah, I know that ruling was just laid down...and cussing and such was not at the high end of what I was wondering. But I do wonder what the ruling would be, cable TV or not, if the broadcast related to more hostile things such as "How to build and explosive device" or, "where to find a mercenary for taking control of your local community", etc.

Leaving aside the politics here. From a technical standpoint it would be pretty much impossible to block things. Even countries like Iran and China where the government control the electronic gateways into the country have trouble blocking determined users Originally Posted by discreetgent

Word!

filtered DNS? change to an unfiltered one.
http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Alternative_DNS

URL block lists? use an alternative hostname / URL
http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Cover_Domains

advanced deep-packet inspection? use heavy crypto (SSH, IPSEC, OpenVPN, etc.)

etc.

Interesting. As I had it explained to me once (admittedly it was back in the day when we called it the "world wide web" ), there was a central ring of servers, that were highly controlled. And the web was like hundreds of trees splintering off of the central ring, all the way down to your individual computer. So, that when you sent an address request of sorts, it travelled up that tree, maybe along different routes along the way, but ultimately back up to that central ring, before heading back down another tree towards the server that hosted the website I was seeking. Conceptually, in my head, I could see such a system, and frankly haven't thought much about it since. But such a system would lend itself to some degreee of control if one wanted to. Originally Posted by Rudyard K

This is total BS. sorry. you confuse BGP routing with DNS. DNS is hierarchical, but this has nothing to do with the routing.

+1 Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

CT, you might want to leave the thinking to those with a thought. I've seen more depth in a mud puddle.

We all give up liberties every day for safety...speed control on roads and streets...license requirements for driving...building codes for building houses...crosswalks for crossing the streets...even, dare I say it, second hand smoke rules.

I've asked a question. If you don't have anything intelligent to answer, why not just let those who might answer?