a way past censorship of individual domains, urls, or page content is to encode content using non-censored internet material.
this would work like private public key encryption. client browser has a plug-in that acts as a public key to decode content.
for example, google uncensored search results could be used as variables in encoding. the client would then use reassemble the encoded material using the public key.
thus random, innocuous, uncensored internet content that would contain the encoded message. this could never be censored unless the entire intenet were blocked.
I have been predicting for years that most major ISPs would get rid of binary Usenet groups. However, it is surprising that Rogers would kill all Usenet access.
The binary Usenet has such a huge potential liability for ISPs because of the risky content, primarily child porn and illegal file sharing. Under Canadian law, possession of child porn is sufficient for a conviction. It is guaranteed that at this very second, and at all times, there are child porn images and/or video in some binary Usenet group, which may be hosted by an ISP. That means that the file is stored on the ISP's computers and that they are in a position to be convicted of possession of child porn.
Another downside for ISPs are costs associated with binary Usenet traffic and storage. While less than 3% (30,000) of their (Roger's) customers made use of Usenet, it likely constitutes up to 25% of their total network traffic. When I was a Roger's broadband customer I was regularly bumping against their traffic limit and I received friendly emails asking me to stay within the limits.
In the end, if Rogers was to have killed only access to the binary Usenet, the loss to consumers would not have been terribly consequential because Google Groups now not only archives Usenet but allows posting to them through a web interface. Therefore, that 3% of Usenet users could have ready access to Usenet for non-binary posting/reading.
However, it is the binary Usenet users that are left in a lurch. Their only access to binary Usenet will be through a third party binary Usenet access provider. However, they will still be stuck with their ISPs traffic limits. Interesting that this is effectively an indirect control on file sharing.
I predict that all major North American ISPs will soon follow suit and eliminate access to, at a minimum the binary Usenet groups, if not all of the Usenet.
The big issue then becomes, is this a reduction of service and what constitutes a fair payment for the reduced service?
Slashdot Mirror
a way past censorship of individual domains, urls, or page content is to encode content using non-censored internet material. this would work like private public key encryption. client browser has a plug-in that acts as a public key to decode content. for example, google uncensored search results could be used as variables in encoding. the client would then use reassemble the encoded material using the public key. thus random, innocuous, uncensored internet content that would contain the encoded message. this could never be censored unless the entire intenet were blocked.
I have been predicting for years that most major ISPs would get rid of binary Usenet groups. However, it is surprising that Rogers would kill all Usenet access.
The binary Usenet has such a huge potential liability for ISPs because of the risky content, primarily child porn and illegal file sharing. Under Canadian law, possession of child porn is sufficient for a conviction. It is guaranteed that at this very second, and at all times, there are child porn images and/or video in some binary Usenet group, which may be hosted by an ISP. That means that the file is stored on the ISP's computers and that they are in a position to be convicted of possession of child porn.
Another downside for ISPs are costs associated with binary Usenet traffic and storage. While less than 3% (30,000) of their (Roger's) customers made use of Usenet, it likely constitutes up to 25% of their total network traffic. When I was a Roger's broadband customer I was regularly bumping against their traffic limit and I received friendly emails asking me to stay within the limits.
In the end, if Rogers was to have killed only access to the binary Usenet, the loss to consumers would not have been terribly consequential because Google Groups now not only archives Usenet but allows posting to them through a web interface. Therefore, that 3% of Usenet users could have ready access to Usenet for non-binary posting/reading.
However, it is the binary Usenet users that are left in a lurch. Their only access to binary Usenet will be through a third party binary Usenet access provider. However, they will still be stuck with their ISPs traffic limits. Interesting that this is effectively an indirect control on file sharing.
I predict that all major North American ISPs will soon follow suit and eliminate access to, at a minimum the binary Usenet groups, if not all of the Usenet.
The big issue then becomes, is this a reduction of service and what constitutes a fair payment for the reduced service?
The CanadianAlien
www.CanadianAlien.com
The binary Usenet tutorial