[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: censored? corrected [Steve Pizzo cited in The Spotlight]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On Thu, 2 Nov 1995, Sten Drescher wrote:
> Rich Graves <[email protected]> said:
> RG> On Thu, 2 Nov 1995 [email protected] wrote:
> >> But control of Internet domain name registration means the ability to
> >> remove troublesome-or outspoken-computer systems from the
> >> network. Po- tentially, this control also confers the power to
> >> insinuate "phantom" domains into the network-for surveillance
> >> purposes, for example-or for real-time, automatic censorship.
> RG> Anyone capable of sending this message should have known that this
> RG> was complete BS.
> Is it? This is the _one_ thing in the article (is that term
> giving it too much legitimacy?) that I whought was barely true. Whoever
> controls the root level DNS servers effectively controls the Internet.
> I postulated a couple of months ago about how the US Govt might attempt
> to censor the rest of the world: "Remove lurid.porno.site.other-country
> from your DNS system within 72 hours or we will remove references to
> your DNS servers from the root level servers.". (I also speculated that
> if the US Govt tried doing this, that an 'underground' DNS system would
> form almost immediately.)
I stand corrected. SurfWatch already allows people and organizations to do
this voluntarily for anything that mentions sex. I am sure that certain
sites are blocked by China, Vietnam, Singapore, and Fortune 1000
Corporations, for both "moral" and political reasons.
But it's not the DNS you need to control -- it's the routers. Which are
still rather distributed. BBN is part of the Eastern Elite, though...
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----