Return to BSD News archive
Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!news.mira.net.au!news.vbc.net!garlic.com!fox.almaden.ibm.com!uunet!in1.uu.net!csnews!coopnews.coop.net!hops.entertain.com!usenet
From: dwatson@abwam.com (Darryl Watson)
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.secur
Subject: Re: Communications Decency Act may corrupt protocols
Date: 6 May 1996 14:37:04 GMT
Organization: ABWAM, Inc.
Lines: 40
Message-ID: <4ml2qg$3sg@hops.entertain.com>
References: <4l7k5h$if1@alca.Helsinki.FI> <4litt0$5n5@MICRO-HEART-OF-GOLD.MIT.EDU>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 199.45.153.241
X-Newsreader: WinVN 0.92.5
Xref: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au comp.protocols.tcp-ip:44358 comp.unix.bsd.misc:926 comp.unix.bsd.netbsd.misc:3519 comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc:18850 comp.unix.osf.misc:3085 comp.unix.sco.misc:17286
In article <4litt0$5n5@MICRO-HEART-OF-GOLD.MIT.EDU>, jc@eddie.mit.edu (John Chambers) says:
>
[snip]
>> 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.
>
<sarcasm>
That's it! You've got the answer:
Anyone who fears the intrusion of thoughts which might change their own
world view can get a FQDN with the .ost suffix ("OstrichNet"). It would
be a lot easier to regulate traffic via a 'dangerous concept' bit in
the network layer, or tagged at the application level, while at the same
time allowing the rest of us to communicate freely.
Ha ha! Free at Last! I bet anyone that if this solution were proposed
to the US Congress, they'd eat it up. Just think: it looks like they
are doing something during an election year, when in fact they just
legislate a virtual wall into existence, while leaving the rest of us
alone. The 'enforcement' burden would be taken off the FBI and put into
the hands of private citizens, just like they do with sales tax.
</sarcasm>