Return to BSD News archive
Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!news.rmit.EDU.AU!news.unimelb.EDU.AU!munnari.OZ.AU!spool.mu.edu!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.sprintlink.net!rockyd!cmcl2!newsserv.cs.sunysb.edu!sayre From: sayre@cs.sunysb.edu (Johannes Sayre) Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip,comp.unix.bsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.netbsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc,comp.unix.osf.misc,comp.unix.sco.misc,comp.security.firewalls,comp.unix.admin,comp.org.usenix,comp.org.uniforum,comp.dcom.net-management,comp.os.ms-windows.networking.tcp-ip,comp.os.netware.misc,comp.os.os2.networking.tcp-ip,alt.dcom.telecom Subject: Re: Communications Decency Act may corrupt protocols Date: 13 Apr 1996 02:55:17 GMT Organization: State University of New York at Stony Brook (guest) Lines: 36 Message-ID: <4kn52l$9bh@newsserv.cs.sunysb.edu> References: <4ki6d6$ln7@newsserv.cs.sunysb.edu> <4kj36o$2h8@tom.amherst.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: sbpub4.cs.sunysb.edu Xref: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au comp.protocols.tcp-ip:43762 comp.unix.bsd.misc:715 comp.unix.bsd.netbsd.misc:2951 comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc:17206 comp.unix.osf.misc:3016 comp.unix.sco.misc:16186 comp.security.firewalls:1974 comp.unix.admin:40600 comp.org.usenix:5513 comp.org.uniforum:533 comp.dcom.net-management:2405 comp.os.ms-windows.networking.tcp-ip:21986 comp.os.netware.misc:23987 comp.os.os2.networking.tcp-ip:47778 alt.dcom.telecom:16716 In article <4kj36o$2h8@tom.amherst.edu>, PAUL D. CHAPIN <pdchapin@unix.amherst.edu> wrote: >Johannes Sayre (sayre@cs.sunysb.edu) wrote: >: No, this is not a joke. This idea was bandied about when the CDA first >: appeared on the scene, generally by less clueful users. Now apparently, >: the DoJ is seriously considering this idea. > >Are you assuming that DoJ is not clueless? No, they are precisely clueless, don't give a damn about the net or learning something about it, and are motivated at best by bureaucratic impulses and at worst by repressive, social-engineering ones. At best they are harmless and give off dim glimmers of interest, but they're light years away from getting off their comfortable butts and acting decisively outside the bounds of their status quo. Technology is not a priority to the people making up the institutions empowered to regulate it. "People" (and PR) issues override. (I suspect none of this is news, just stating it.) >While I generally have no problem with "truth in packaging" >approaches, this is clearly undoable in any fashion that doesn't >render it a farce. That doesn't mean they won't force it to be attempted, force the time to be wasted, force IPv6 or whatever to be compromised or corrupted, admit the mediocrity of "Reality" to a realm where it so far has not been the norm. They shouldn't even be thinking about it. Let them use Surfwatch or some other app-level method to keep their kiddies from seeing naughty bits. It is disgusting that this crapassed law might be immortalized in the next generation of networking protocols, and it is disgusting that our federal government is contemplating being the cause of it.