1996-05-04 - Re: PICS required by laws

Header Data

From: “E. ALLEN SMITH” <EALLENSMITH@ocelot.Rutgers.EDU>
To: sjb@universe.digex.net
Message Hash: b53a8675a3b2818df693fa745e2067f8c6066df61fae1be4ef7a96ee38e9649f
Message ID: <01I4A37X6Y0W8Y56P8@mbcl.rutgers.edu>
Reply To: N/A
UTC Datetime: 1996-05-04 07:36:12 UTC
Raw Date: Sat, 4 May 1996 15:36:12 +0800

Raw message

From: "E. ALLEN SMITH" <EALLENSMITH@ocelot.Rutgers.EDU>
Date: Sat, 4 May 1996 15:36:12 +0800
To: sjb@universe.digex.net
Subject: Re: PICS required by laws
Message-ID: <01I4A37X6Y0W8Y56P8@mbcl.rutgers.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


From:	IN%"sjb@universe.digex.net"  "Scott Brickner" 16-APR-1996 19:02:13.04

>The sorts of organizations that form the core of the internet, and are
>involved in this network layer censorship scheme, just *aren't* the
>sort of "subversives" (or "patriots", take your pick) that would try to
>bypass the system.

	I am not quite certain if the model of
[content provider]-[ISP]-[Phones]-[ISP]-[ISP]-[user] is going to work much
longer. That routes the material through quite a few too many bottlenecks,
among them the phone lines. I could reasonably easily sign up with two ISPs
and start myself as a router (with a good computer and the right software),
from what I know of the subject; with ecash routing of messages, this might
get quite common (and profitable).
	When you've got a few large organizations doing the routing, what
you've said is _probably_ correct. When you've got a lot of people doing it
out of their garages, then it isn't.
	-Allen





Thread