From: Dan Marner <dmarner@mis.nu.edu>
Date: Sun, 14 Apr 1996 03:45:57 +0800
To: "Declan B. McCullagh" <declan+@CMU.EDU>
Subject: Re: Enforcing the CDA improperly may pervert Internet architecture
In-Reply-To: <8lOUXbq00YUvBYs3cV@andrew.cmu.edu>
Message-ID: <199604091820.SAA24783@mis.nu.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



There are more details about Livingston's Exon Box (they call it
ChoiceNet) available at
http://www.livingston.com/Marketing/Press/choicenet_press.html .

My kneejerk reaction was to hate this thing too, but now I'm not so
sure. If I was responsible for the Internet connectivity for a K-12
school system, I would want this capability in a big way. 

I see the Livingston product as an enabling technology. The obvious
associated risk is Big Brother deciding, "If one router CAN do it, then
every router MUST do it!" The idea of having a Naughty_Enabled Bit in
IPv6 is, of course, even worse; but I'm glad it isn't my job to
exlpain why it is horrid to a Federal judge. 

Dan

On Tue, 9 Apr 1996 02:51:19 -0400 (EDT)  "Declan B. McCullagh" wrote:

[ SNIP ]
>  Enforcing the CDA Improperly May Pervert Internet Architecture
>  
>   by David P. Reed
[ SNIP ]   
>   I just read in Inter@ctive Week (March 25, 1996) that Livingston plans
>   to announce an "Exon box" - a router that is designed to enable ISPs
>   to restrict access to "indecent sites" or unrated sites unless an
>   "adult" enters an authorization code when opening a session to enable
>   the router to transmit packets to the site.

--
Dan Marner                             dmarner@mis.nu.edu
Network Weasel
National University                    "Not on MY network!"