Ben Barrett wrote:
But they are [coordinating with "big brother"], pandering to RIAA for
instance, all the while
doing nothing to support the "little guy"... whose resources are being
sucked by botnets.
Most major ISPs pander to the RIAA because the law says they must.
I'm sure they'd much rather spend the resources, legal effort, and time
raking in more money.
Remember, every subscriber the RIAA gets disconnected is lost profit to
an ISP.
Consider this analogy: I'd liike local police to crack down on property
theft, say, even ones
under $700 in value. That doesn't mean that local police should
confiscate
all dark-colored
clothing, and also confiscate all crowbars, boltcutters, etc...
I'd also like it if they cracked down on murder, but I think that is
possible while maintaining
the right to Bear Arms (yes, arms of a bear, comic relief!).
The difference being, of course, in the real world we have civil
liberties to protect us from such things.
In the business world, there is less restraint (within the bounds of the
contract, naturally).
I don't think there's enough collective intelligence at the politcal &
business level, but I think
that in 20 years we'll laugh about the naughts (00's) and the nineties.
What would stop them
from arbitrarily deciding that some other [ipv6!] traffic is "bad"
would be
the same things that
help us collectively determine what is acceptible public behaviour in an
open society.
Things like a sense of consequences, how actions affect others,
understanding of the physics
(or shall I say "the nature") of our environment, etc.
Who is this "we"? Give the ISPs a chance to monitor for traffic they
don't like, and you'll soon find yourself at the end of a 512k pipe port
locked to allow browsing to only paying sponsored sites.
-ajb
_______________________________________________
EUGLUG mailing list
euglug@euglug.org
http://www.euglug.org/mailman/listinfo/euglug
