Re: Protocols at the Point of a Gun

[shamrock@netcom.com (Lucky Green)]

At 11:48 4/11/96, Timothy C. May wrote:
>As required by the CDA (Competency Disclosure Act) my Ignorance bit is set
>to "1" for this speculation.
>
>At 11:03 PM 4/10/96, Lucky Green wrote:
>
>>If my computer creates the IP packet, what is there to prevent me from
>>modifying the value of the "Minor/Adult" flag at my leisure?
>
>Are the "minor/adult" settings (and Christian/Atheist, Southern
>Baptist/Reformed Baptist, Creationist/Evolutionist, etc. bits) even be
>proposed to be set at the IP packet level?

Yup. Sen. Exon and this staff demand that IP be redesigned to include such
a flag. No doubt, we'll soon hear about demands to include a male/female
flag, a cast flag (there go another two bits), a flag for meat
eater/vegetarian, a flag indicating your HIV status, one they get going,
the sky is the limit.

>I'd've thought it would be at the message level, such as this message or a
>posting to Usenet. (Granted, many messages are presumably the same as IP
>messages. But I'd assume that the setting would be within the message, so
>that any forwarder of the packet would not be likely to tamper with
>internal message settings....)

Sure. Access control belongs into the application layer, or somewhere
nearby. The problem is that those in power wouldn't know a modem if it bit
them in the ass. Expect legislation that mandates routers to support the
various flags in the near future.


-- Lucky Green <mailto:shamrock@netcom.com>
   PGP encrypted mail preferred.