3 ms·

Please, there is no mention of force anywhere. Not in the title nor in the article. Urge is very different from force, and furthermore they are urging ISPs to

by ihsw 14y ago

Please, there is no mention of force anywhere. Not in the title nor in the article. Urge is very different from force, and furthermore they are urging ISPs to voluntarily block Tor communications.

pyre 14y ago
I didn't say that they could or would force anything. You apparently read this as: OMG! On *WHAT* authority can they do this?! It's a travesty! while my intent was: Do they have authority to take this further than strong suggestions?
- gcb0 14y ago
  just like the SFPD is only suggesting bars/clubs/restaurants install 24h surveillance cameras? http://www.jwz.org/blog/?s=sfpd http://www.jwz.org/blog/?s=sfpd
gwern 14y ago
Given the well-known closeness of industry and government in many countries and especially Japan, is that an important distinction?
Ueland 14y ago
The problem here is that they want this at all, this is a typical first step for introducing censorship. Real life example from Norway: 1: Police wanted/suggested a filter to stop child porn (think of the children, etc) 2: This filter is then implemented by the ISP`s that wants to use it. 3: Police/Government suggests/mentions that it should be required for all ISP`s. 4: Government starts talking about implementing filter for stopping sites that "can be bad"(read: piracy sites) (what will happen in the future, at least as i suspect it) The child porn filter will be forced upon all ISP`s, it will be changed to also block other sites that the government/police thinks that should be blocked. Now this filter is as of today easy to go around by simply using other DNS servers, but the problem is that censorship is wanted at all. I will not be surprised if the next step is to put the filter on a lower level on the network stack. And even in the long term, forbid the use of TOR/Freenet etc.
- ihsw 14y ago
  Iin their eyes there are already limits on what people can browse and adding a couple more is no different than what is already established. You're implying that censorship will lead to a slippery slope but we're already sliding down one.

by ihsw 14y ago

Please, there is no mention of force anywhere. Not in the title nor in the article. Urge is very different from force, and furthermore they are urging ISPs to voluntarily block Tor communications.

pyre 14y ago

I didn't say that they could or would force anything. You apparently read this as: OMG! On *WHAT* authority can they do this?! It's a travesty! while my intent was: Do they have authority to take this further than strong suggestions?

gcb0 14y ago
just like the SFPD is only suggesting bars/clubs/restaurants install 24h surveillance cameras? http://www.jwz.org/blog/?s=sfpd http://www.jwz.org/blog/?s=sfpd

gwern 14y ago

Given the well-known closeness of industry and government in many countries and especially Japan, is that an important distinction?

Ueland 14y ago

The problem here is that they want this at all, this is a typical first step for introducing censorship. Real life example from Norway: 1: Police wanted/suggested a filter to stop child porn (think of the children, etc) 2: This filter is then implemented by the ISP`s that wants to use it. 3: Police/Government suggests/mentions that it should be required for all ISP`s. 4: Government starts talking about implementing filter for stopping sites that "can be bad"(read: piracy sites) (what will happen in the future, at least as i suspect it) The child porn filter will be forced upon all ISP`s, it will be changed to also block other sites that the government/police thinks that should be blocked. Now this filter is as of today easy to go around by simply using other DNS servers, but the problem is that censorship is wanted at all. I will not be surprised if the next step is to put the filter on a lower level on the network stack. And even in the long term, forbid the use of TOR/Freenet etc.

ihsw 14y ago
Iin their eyes there are already limits on what people can browse and adding a couple more is no different than what is already established. You're implying that censorship will lead to a slippery slope but we're already sliding down one.