Return to BSD News archive
Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!news.rmit.EDU.AU!news.unimelb.EDU.AU!munnari.OZ.AU!news.hawaii.edu!ames!olivea!xenitec!news.kei.com!uhog.mit.edu!jc
From: jc@eddie.mit.edu (John Chambers)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip,comp.unix.bsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.netbsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc,comp.unix.osf.misc,comp.unix.sco.misc,comp.security.firewalls,comp.unix.admin,comp.org.usenix,comp.org.uniforum,comp.dcom.net-management,comp.os.ms-w
Subject: Re: Communications Decency Act may corrupt protocols
Date: 23 Apr 1996 15:44:32 GMT
Organization: Has not been determined.
Lines: 52
Message-ID: <4litt0$5n5@MICRO-HEART-OF-GOLD.MIT.EDU>
References: <4l7k5h$if1@alca.Helsinki.FI>
NNTP-Posting-Host: eddie.mit.edu
Xref: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au comp.protocols.tcp-ip:43960 comp.unix.bsd.misc:806 comp.unix.bsd.netbsd.misc:3270 comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc:17902 comp.unix.osf.misc:3038 comp.unix.sco.misc:16608 comp.security.firewalls:2069 comp.unix.admin:40979 comp.org.usenix:5525 comp.org.uniforum:544 comp.dcom.net-management:2444
vhalkka@cc.helsinki.fi writes:
> In article <4l4hcl$n75@hobyah.cc.uq.oz.au>,
> Catherine Allen <cccalle0@dingo.cc.uq.oz.au> wrote:
> >This is a world-wide net and a world-wide problem.
> >Your president and your laws do not have jurisdiction over most of it.
> >A better solution is needed.
>
> I don't know.. maybe we should just gradually leave the USA out of the
> current Internet, vital services will surface in some other place.
>
> There could be a US governement controlled filth gateway between
> 'US-safenet' and the Internet.
Perhaps this is a very practical idea. This is not materially
different from the "perimeter network" model that a lot of
organizations are using for security. The idea is fairly simple, and
is described in a lot of texts on security. The organization simply
provides two parallel networks, one an "internal" network that is not
connected to the outside world, and the other the "perimeter" network
that is connected. A small number of gateways between the two
implement the organization's access policies.
We might start suggesting to the politicians that this be adopted for
the Internet. All the FQDNs in the ".us" domain will be considered
internal to the USA and subject to its jurisdiction. All other domains
will be declared legally external to the USA.
How might this be used? Well, for one, all those parents worried about
their childrens' Internet access could ust make sure that their
machines (and those in the schools) are in the .us domain, where the
authorities would patrol for indecent material and suppress it. Adults
could apply for a domain outside .us and get unlimited access.
Companies that want to use secure communications could keep their
domains outside .us; those that want their communications to comply
with the US government's key-escrow policies could apply for
subdomains under .us.
This seems like an approach that could satisfy everyone, and it'd only
take a small reorg of the Net to implement.
Hey, do you think we could get the politicians to buy it?
;-)
--
#!/usr/bin/perl -s-- -export-a-crypto-system-sig -RSA-in-3-lines-PERL
($k,$n)=@ARGV;$m=unpack(H.$w,$m."\0"x$w),$_=`echo "16do$w 2+4Oi0$d*-^1[d2%
Sa2/d0<X+d*La1=z\U$n%0]SX$k"[$m*]\EszlXx++p|dc`,s/^.|\W//g,print pack('H*'
,$_)while read(STDIN,$m,($w=2*$d-1+length($n||die"$0 [-d] k n\n")&~1)/2)