Signed spam means that notorious spammers can get identified very rapidly. People can forward the return address of spam they receive to a database that pools the addresses of offenders that all subscribers can draw on for killfiles. It would prevent victimisation of account holders whose addresses get spoofed by spammers and would allow anti-spam efforts to focus on specific accounts rather than whole domains. Nothing that isn't being tried already, but if forging an identity becomes impossible, spammers will have far fewer ways to hide.
From what I am reading, this sounds like an application where they can embed Linux so deeply into the server that nobody needs to know what OS it is running or how. I envision them shipping a single CD with OS and server application (and of course source code for the Linux part of the project- for what that's worth) and it being a plug-and-play solution. They can tailor and fine tune the Linux part of the distribution and make it exactly what they want. I don't see them, in this vein, supporting any currently existing 'distribution' of Linux. It's to their advantage to roll their own. There also will be no reason for them to GPL any of their code.
Well, the acceptance of strong crypto is a good thing. It could even end up being a good means of further securing the net and eliminating spam and anonymnity.
With strong crypto and one-way functions, it will be possible to securely sign messages. This paves the way for a requirement that ALL messages (to Usenet or by e-mail) be signed. Without secure crypto that just isn't possible. It could pave the way for end-to-end validation of all email and Usenet traffic. Messages without validatable return addresses can be silently dropped at various points along the way. With signing, spammers won't be able to assume anybody else's identity. And we can all have permanent validated email addresses.
I suspect there will be people who find this a bad thing. I don't.
This could transform the 'net from being a 'wild west' environment into a civilized medium. Only the outlaws need regret that.
Thing is, I don't remember them taking away the fourth, sixth, second, and first amendment. Did they take away the zeroeth amendment so I can't remember?
As filtering software becomes more mainstream (the kind of thing that happens when more libraries are required to use it) it won't be controlled by a right-wing fringe. The classic abuses people are forever using to illustrate the flaws in the filtering software will fade away.
Fine, so the kid goes to the books and looks up history of erotic art or dozens of other books about famous painters who happened to think that the naked human body was a beautiful thing and painted it as such.
Context is important. The books about famous painters and erotic art aren't pornography. Therefore the kid sees the images in a context where it could very well be appropriate and of worth.
In a few years we may have software that can be truly accurate in stopping the filth.
And a good way of helping get that software in place is to start working with it. It won't be created in a vacuum and then magically appear. It has to be hammered out in a public environment, and allowed to evolve.
Otherwise, soon there just won't be public support for Internet Terminals in libraries anywhere.
The problem is that any filtering is in itself arbitrary.
Check your dictionary. Filtering and "arbitrary" are sort of opposites.
There are clear definitions of obscenity that differentiate between art and pornography. They'll come into play as new rules and guidelines are rolled out.
Actually, once the ball starts rolling on censorship, a dialogue begins. Once that dialgoue is going, common sense will previal (as always) and controversial works of merit will not be censored.
It's all about good judgement, people. If you're so afraid good judgement won't be excercised, you're certainly encouraged to become involved the process.
Hiding behind your keyboard and screen bellowing about 'Freedom' isn't enough.
Librarians are pissed about this. They have a long history of fighting censorship. I have seen a lot of library displays on banned books.
Funny how those diplays never seem to have Hustler magazine, or sadomasochistic depictions of Christ on a Cross. Could it be that Librarians want there to always be local discretion, rather than an anything-goes free-for-all?
The whole point in laws like this is to empower local communities to show discretion. You keep citing cases of 'great art' that you seem to feel will suddenly be wiped off the face of the earth. There generally aren't copies of Hustler magazine out in the open on the Library shelf. There are nudes in Art folios available. That's called 'discretion' and no matter how much you scream and try to claim Armageddon is on the way, all you're doing is, well, screaming. The system works when local communities aren't told they MUST expose their children to a completely wide-open Internet. Without such guidelines, communites are going to start banning ALL public Internet access in their area, because that will be their only choice.
The Internet is not a cultural Ram-rod. Some people would doubtless like to use it as such, but they're still in the minority.
Umm, actually, trying to give communities back control of their communities. If big government is bad, then a anything-goes-and-you-can't-prevent-us-from-saying -whatever-we-want internet is the biggest forced mandate of all.
The issue of free speech on the Internet should not be allowed to be a battering ram to force all communities globally to have the SAME standards of what is acceptable.
Parents- do you want to have a say in what your children are exposed to on their trip to the library? Do you want a guy in San Fransisco telling you that you CAN'T prevent you from him delivering his message to your kids? (college kids- no, your opinion doesn't really count here)
This is, obviously, a somewhat loaded example, but people need to think about reality, not about abstract philosophical concepts.
Slashdot Mirror
Signed spam means that notorious spammers can get identified very rapidly. People can forward the return address of spam they receive to a database that pools the addresses of offenders that all subscribers can draw on for killfiles. It would prevent victimisation of account holders whose addresses get spoofed by spammers and would allow anti-spam efforts to focus on specific accounts rather than whole domains. Nothing that isn't being tried already, but if forging an identity becomes impossible, spammers will have far fewer ways to hide.
From what I am reading, this sounds like an application where they can embed Linux so deeply into the server that nobody needs to know what OS it is running or how. I envision them shipping a single CD with OS and server application (and of course source code for the Linux part of the project- for what that's worth) and it being a plug-and-play solution. They can tailor and fine tune the Linux part of the distribution and make it exactly what they want. I don't see them, in this vein, supporting any currently existing 'distribution' of Linux. It's to their advantage to roll their own. There also will be no reason for them to GPL any of their code.
Another commercial vendor announces support of Linux. On the server only. As with nearly all of the commercial vendors.
Well, the acceptance of strong crypto is a good thing. It could even end up being a good means of further securing the net and eliminating spam and anonymnity.
With strong crypto and one-way functions, it will be possible to securely sign messages. This paves the way for a requirement that ALL messages (to Usenet or by e-mail) be signed. Without secure crypto that just isn't possible. It could pave the way for end-to-end validation of all email and Usenet traffic. Messages without validatable return addresses can be silently dropped at various points along the way. With signing, spammers won't be able to assume anybody else's identity. And we can all have permanent validated email addresses.
I suspect there will be people who find this a bad thing. I don't.
This could transform the 'net from being a 'wild west' environment into a civilized medium. Only the outlaws need regret that.
Thing is, I don't remember them taking away the fourth, sixth, second, and first amendment. Did they take away the zeroeth amendment so I can't remember?
Who is this "they" anyhow?
Pardon me, but your ideology is spilling all over the place and making a big mess.
Why does all information need to be free?
(oh, and tell me again your bank account number, passwords, any unsual identifying marks on your lover, etc. It needs to be free.)
As filtering software becomes more mainstream (the kind of thing that happens when more libraries are required to use it) it won't be controlled by a right-wing fringe. The classic abuses people are forever using to illustrate the flaws in the filtering software will fade away.
Nobody reads those magazines. Hadn't you heard?....
Fine, so the kid goes to the books and looks up history of erotic art or dozens of other books about famous painters who happened to think that the naked human body was a beautiful thing and painted it as such.
Context is important. The books about famous painters and erotic art aren't pornography. Therefore the kid sees the images in a context where it could very well be appropriate and of worth.
In a few years we may have software that can be truly accurate in stopping the filth.
And a good way of helping get that software in place is to start working with it. It won't be created in a vacuum and then magically appear. It has to be hammered out in a public environment, and allowed to evolve.
Otherwise, soon there just won't be public support for Internet Terminals in libraries anywhere.
The problem is that any filtering is in itself arbitrary.
Check your dictionary. Filtering and "arbitrary" are sort of opposites.
There are clear definitions of obscenity that differentiate between art and pornography. They'll come into play as new rules and guidelines are rolled out.
Actually, once the ball starts rolling on censorship, a dialogue begins. Once that dialgoue is going, common sense will previal (as always) and controversial works of merit will not be censored.
It's all about good judgement, people. If you're so afraid good judgement won't be excercised, you're certainly encouraged to become involved the process.
Hiding behind your keyboard and screen bellowing about 'Freedom' isn't enough.
Context is very important.
Meaning and relevance are important.
Most pornography is rather lacking in this regard.
Librarians are pissed about this. They have a long history of fighting censorship. I have seen a lot of library displays on banned books.
Funny how those diplays never seem to have Hustler magazine, or sadomasochistic depictions of Christ on a Cross. Could it be that Librarians want there to always be local discretion, rather than an anything-goes free-for-all?
Their Hatian neighbors also want out. Let's just say blaming it purely on communism is propaganda, not the whole truth.
The whole point in laws like this is to empower local communities to show discretion. You keep citing cases of 'great art' that you seem to feel will suddenly be wiped off the face of the earth. There generally aren't copies of Hustler magazine out in the open on the Library shelf. There are nudes in Art folios available. That's called 'discretion' and no matter how much you scream and try to claim Armageddon is on the way, all you're doing is, well, screaming. The system works when local communities aren't told they MUST expose their children to a completely wide-open Internet. Without such guidelines, communites are going to start banning ALL public Internet access in their area, because that will be their only choice.
The Internet is not a cultural Ram-rod. Some people would doubtless like to use it as such, but they're still in the minority.
Umm, actually, trying to give communities back control of their communities. If big government is bad, then a anything-goes-and-you-can't-prevent-us-from-saying -whatever-we-want internet is the biggest forced mandate of all.
The issue of free speech on the Internet should not be allowed to be a battering ram to force all communities globally to have the SAME standards of what is acceptable.
Parents- do you want to have a say in what your children are exposed to on their trip to the library? Do you want a guy in San Fransisco telling you that you CAN'T prevent you from him delivering his message to your kids? (college kids- no, your opinion doesn't really count here)
This is, obviously, a somewhat loaded example, but people need to think about reality, not about abstract philosophical concepts.