Re: [ga] Re: Names Council Resolution on Reform

[Joe Baptista <baptista@dot-god.com>]

On Sun, 4 Aug 2002 eric@hi-tek.com wrote:

> Dear Dr. Joe,
>
> How do we block this threat of kiddie porn, or should we?
> I stand high on the principle of choice but not to that degree.
> I do not think Jim is working to create a bad scenario.

not much we can do about it.  i simply mentioned the fact that ipv8 is
secure enough for kiddie porn networks and untraceable.  of course on the
positive side - it's also private enough to ensure every net user
anonymity - including both the good guys and bad guys.

but it does have alot of potential liability - which is why our ipv8
assignments will be directly managed by our users - we can see potential
headaches in it.

% whois in-addr.god
#
# [DOMAIN RECORD]
#
#        Domain:     in-addr.god
#
#  Organization:     In trust .GOD & .SATAN Domain Owners
#       Contact:     hostmaster@dot-god.com
#
#      DNS type:     Parked at registry
#
#        Status:     Active
#  Date created:     2002-03-07
# Last modified:     2002-03-08

% whois in-addr.satan
#
# [DOMAIN RECORD]
#
#        Domain:     in-addr.satan
#
#  Organization:     In trust .GOD & .SATAN Domain Owners
#       Contact:     hostmaster@dot-god.com
#
#      DNS type:     Parked at registry
#
#        Status:     Active
#  Date created:     2002-03-07
# Last modified:     2002-03-08

we run 7:186 GOD ipv8

http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt

regards
joe

> Thinking especially outside of ICANN what can we do to make it all better?
> My three teenagers have a hard driven sense of morality that is more conservative
> than mine but meets with general standards.  We speak frequently and indeed email
> frequently about right and wrong.  I do not think we can dictate morality or
> ethics to those who do not engage in discourse about life in general.
>
> You normally stay the technical course but you have swayed into my area of
> ministry.
>
> You speak now of facts but do not offer guidance.
>
> What is your suggestion?
>
> Eric
>
> Joe Baptista wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 2 Aug 2002, todd glassey wrote:
> >
> > > If the Chinese are half as smart as I usually give them credit for, what
> > > they will do is insist on two roots and an interoperability treaty. The
> > > point is that ICANN has no right to insist that there be only one root, or
> > > only one Internet. And what they (the Chinese Government) will probably tell
> > > the world is that China has an Information Control policy that is political
> > > rather than technical and that it must operate its own root to satisfy this.
> > > If it is really smart, China might also replicate the entirety of IPv4 space
> > > by simply implementing a set of Gateway NAT Bridges in and out of China.
> >
> > exactly.  and i support your view of the chiness position.  now i know the
> > chiness are twice as smart as we give them credit for.  so i would say
> > they would put some added catch 22 into the works that would favour them.
> > and possibly use a terrorist angle - which is all the fashion rage this
> > year i hear.
> >
> > > Now the world and the techies will jump up and down screaming gross
> > > oppression, and that they have a"right" (and I assume we will soon hear
> > > Cisco screaming about this too)... but the fact of the matter is that this
> > > is the ONLY way any country can impose eBorders, and that is something
> > > despite ICANN, that each and every country has the right and need to do.
> >
> > i don't know about the right and need to do.  in a perfect democracy no
> > eboarders are required.
> >
> > > The problem is that ICANN and its PSO's have made it almost
> > > impossible,without this type of compartmentalization, of having a judicial
> > > boundary for anything electronic... And this is based in no restraint or
> > > understanding of the global effects of new protocols on the Internet, and
> > > the ISP's and long haul carriers just blindly laughing and routing them.
> >
> > exactly and with satellite technology routing around governments is
> > elementary.
> >
> > > If The Internet was truly compartmentalized then Napster would not have been
> > > anything close to the problem it was since it could be addressed this way.
> > > Same diff with Kiddy Porn sites, and other illegal offerings.
> >
> > i have some bad news.  i have examined jim flemmings ipv8 and i would not
> > be surprised if that protocol ends up as kiddie porn heaven.  in fact
> > any group who does not want to be traced can use ipv8 to communicate
> > securly in secure user communities.  it would put the power of napster
> > into the hands of kiddy porn sites and of course anyone else with an
> > interest in privacy.  impossible to trace.
> >
> > we live in interesting times.  i understand thats a chiness curse too.
> >
> > regards ;)
> > joe
> >
> > --
> > This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
> > Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> > ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>


--
This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html