also in-line... On 2/13/07, Alan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
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.
Absolutely, you speak to the simple business truth of it.
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
"We" being the readership of the EUGLUG list circa 2007, or the audience of Wired magazine, or "Gen X/Y/Z", etc. Those of us who think we've got a handle on the tech. Participatory citizens. Time magazine, in 20 years? Maybe. My suggestion was simply my own future-glimpse, which doesn't jive with yours, fine. I think that ISP's currently have the chance you speak of, and because enough customer give a rat's arse, they leave well enough alone. They won't let you route packets for any other IP addresses than that which you are allocated, though, right? So they *are* drawing a line, as far as where they "leave well enough alone"... they might not let you inject entries into their DNS systems, even though one could find applications where it would be useful and legit, of course. So hopefully they're just complying with RFC's, right, and not doing much (if any!) "extra" service so to speak.... maybe what I am suggesting would be better-translated into an RFC 20 years from now? Still nonsense? How many RFC specs were implemented before they were needed? (I know that is very subjective.) ben--
_______________________________________________ EUGLUG mailing list euglug@euglug.org http://www.euglug.org/mailman/listinfo/euglug
