On Sat, 3 Mar 2007, Yonah Russ wrote:
You are confusing a one to one relationship (surfer to voting center)
with a one to many one (surfer vs. potentially an infinity or URLs).
No- I 'm suggesting a 1-1 relationship of surfer to ISP proxy.
Try to think this through please. You go to an internet cafe. Open your
laptop. Connect. To the wifi router which has an account at the cafe's
ISP. The router makes you indistinguishable from the other 20 guests who
use the cafe. If the ISP will implement the law then it will have to
implement some kind of bridge to forward your VPN connection to your
real ISP, and you can surf only through your ISP. This is technically
impossible now, and utopical. How do they get paid ? The NAT in the wifi
router makes you indistinguishable from the other guests. Captive
session managers exist for wifi but they require a login at the router.
Then you are paired by MAC with the session. Still this requires a very
powerful router and then the filter to run on it. After all this, the
way 'out' through a proxy on the net is still open, and always will be.
Can you see where this is going ? You build a secure tunnel that leads
to freedom as before.
Nor with the costs ? With the stupid childish mandatory software made by
a company with 'exclusive' rights that happens to work only on Windows ?
With the unceasing technical problems ? With crashed sessions when you
try to surf your bank account the 7th time because the authentication
software clashes with some gizmo you recently installed without knowing
?
I don't know what manditory software but I would guess that very
little should be client side in such a set up- maximum a java applet
for the physical identification which could be totally cross platform.
?! Please. You are talking about live distributed content filtering and
a vpn to the ISP at least. Without this, a box in the middle (which can
be anywhere on the net, including a 'cracked' router at a cafe etc)
fixes the auth problem for good.
As for your bank site-I highly doubt you would need to pass through
the authentication system at all to browse it unless your bank is
different than mine.
Really ? According to the ideas in the law you could not get an IP
without authentication. So you would certainly have to pass through the
auth. Not to mention all the 'adult' webcams in this country (as you
noticed) which are on the same subnets with everyone else.
I don't see the connection- In this case the teacher was obviously
negligent in leaving her computer open to use by students.
Similar things occured in libraries and elsewhere. The teacher is not
technically respnosible for what is happening. It was not her computer,
she had no training and she had specific orders not to turn the machine
off (and that also 'covers' covering it with a coat, even if that would
not have started a fire after a long enough time).
I leave it to your imagination what happens if such a
thing occurs to an ISP or newspaper or magazine website after the law is
implemented (even disregarding the possibility of someone doing it
deliberately to cause trouble).
I would actually suggest that ISPs have the option to use a third
party system developed for the purpose. This third party system would
be developed for by a company who wins a government bid and would be
approved and maintained by/for the government. This could alleviate
the problem of blame on the ISP side and fulfill the requirements of
the law. ISPs not wishing to use the service would be open to legal
action based on the quality of their solution.
Sure, way to go. There will be yet another monopoly in this country.
Mandatory chaperon software.
Peter
=================================================================
To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command
echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
