1996-09-11 - Re: China joins Singapore, Germany, ….

Header Data

From: declan@well.com (Declan McCullagh)
To: Duncan Frissell <frissell@panix.com>
Message Hash: 93dc5b0318f4fc6a9fb675f3f1515745c9f828785cbba6462ba3715e001f247c
Message ID: <v01510109ae5bb6783c97@[204.62.128.229]>
Reply To: N/A
UTC Datetime: 1996-09-11 02:27:07 UTC
Raw Date: Wed, 11 Sep 1996 10:27:07 +0800

Raw message

From: declan@well.com (Declan McCullagh)
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 1996 10:27:07 +0800
To: Duncan Frissell <frissell@panix.com>
Subject: Re: China joins Singapore, Germany, ....
Message-ID: <v01510109ae5bb6783c97@[204.62.128.229]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


I respectfully disagree. I spend most of my time going through sites like
cnn.com, hotwired.com, news.com, altavista.digital.com, yahoo.com,
lycos.com, hotbot.com, eff.org, well.com, mit.edu, whitehouse.gov, and so
on. Search engines and directories, in particular, are good chokepoints to
block.

Blocking 100 sites would certainly be significant to me -- as long as
they're the right ones. Before the technical fixes, that is.

-Declan


Duncan writes:

>You must admit
>that a ban on 100 sites out of all the sites in the world is pretty
>insignificant.  The swamping effects of thousands and soon millions of sites
>means the governments of the world won't even be able to evaluate a
>significant percentage even if they want to.  And all this *before* we apply
>any of our technical fixes.
>
>DCF







Thread