What is Digg?112 Comments
- razend, on 01/16/2008, -0/+42my money's on the backfiring spectacularly
- lOvOl, on 01/16/2008, -0/+41Soooooo..... what if content is encrypted? Is it going to be a law that anything you send over the internet needs to be in plain text rather than cipher text? To do that would basically be tangential to outlawing encryption itself.
- metafluence, on 01/16/2008, -0/+30Boo on this. Looks like we need to by pass the hard wired Internet. Hate to tell these lofty law makers, but the Internet routes around censorship. Kind of ironic when it's the nature of a packet switched network they originally commissioned for this reason (they thought about it in terms of a network that could survive nuclear war).
- jawadde, on 01/16/2008, -0/+29my prediction : 2008 will be the year of internet encryption
- inactive, on 01/16/2008, -1/+26The FCC limits what can be said and done on radio broadcasts... Sirius and XM Satellite Radio step in. The FCC limits what can be said, shown and done on network television and Cable TV, PPV and Satellite TV step in. Hopefully, this could be a solution to the Internet filtering that seems almost unavoidable. I'm not big on trying to steal copyright content, music or movies but what really matters is what the man in the office decides needs to be filtered. Once in place, a filter could evolve into an Internet I don't want in my house!
- gothicform, on 01/16/2008, -0/+24Writing as a successful photographer I cant wait for ISPs to do this. People like me will make the rules totally unworkable... you'd be amazed how many companies infringe my copyright all the time. It includes in the last year the state broadcasters of three european countries, and even one major hollywood studio which committed over 2200 infringements by then licensing my work to fan sites. They took the images from my personal website, didn't ask permission, removed the watermark on the images, and then distributed them complete with their own copyright notice asserting ownership! I can't wait to have these guys content filtered so no one can visit their websites anymore. I'd like to see ISPs try and argue against filtering everything that commercially infringes my work as they will lose their neutral carrier status in having filtered P2P.
Big corporations should remember people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. - indigocc, on 01/16/2008, -0/+21Only idiots think that they can filter the Internet.
Unfortunately some of the idiots make laws and company policies. - orlyfactor, on 01/16/2008, -2/+20Try to filter my SSL connections, bitches!
- themacx, on 01/16/2008, -2/+18hmm we need a new grassroots Internet, ***** the corporates!
- apollomurga, on 01/16/2008, -0/+14I don't think any of these Congressmen really know how the Internets work o_O
- CountryTime, on 01/16/2008, -0/+11it's like we're in china
- Chaoticfist, on 01/16/2008, -0/+10All i can say is support your Pirate Party. Here in Canada me and a bunch of others are leading the way to regestering The Pirate Party of Canada. Criminalizing filtering of the internet is one of our goals, as well as making personal use downloading legal. Fight these laws. 20th century laws have no place in the 21st century.
Join us here(sorry its facebook, we are working on a website, as i type this)
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=6709501675&r ...
Also the American Pirate Party is here.
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2204546161
http://www.pirate-party.us/ - Thedarklord187, on 01/16/2008, -0/+9and my prediction is that the more they fight and try to censure the internet the more the internet is going to fight back and beat the ***** out of the isp's
- roodammy44, on 01/16/2008, -0/+9Totally.
Open Source wireless router firmware is becoming the next big thing. I reckon routers linking to each other to make a city-wide network free of filtering will become huge if they try to keep censoring our tubes
And with filtering and customer support costing lots and peer-to-peer wireless being free, you can see the advantage - munkyxtc, on 01/16/2008, -1/+10People like me will make this unworkable; as we'll fart on snare drums, call it music and put the MP3 out there and then turn over the digital fingerprint for each of the various "IP" thus requiring each ISP to filter a ton of extra data making the solution a complete waste of time
- matx, on 01/16/2008, -0/+9You shouldn't need to filter your packets at the ISP end. Once the packets reach the ISP then the routers will send the data with as little latency as possible.
If you need to prioritize your network traffic then it should be done at your point of presence or your router. Set your router or alternatively a pc to control the data going through it and throttle it when needed.
Filtering isn't a good thing when your ISP is telling you what should be filtered. - ArchangelZLT, on 01/16/2008, -1/+10Big brother is watching you.
- chrispr, on 01/16/2008, -0/+8You're confusing QoS with filtering. Filtering means the packet is not sent through (like a filter on your water faucet). Qos, or traffic-shaping, allows you to push certain packets of a designated higher priority through before the rest. QoS is already done on many ISPs.
- chrispr, on 01/16/2008, -1/+9Lol, yeah, good luck on that buddy.
Problems like this should be taken to court. - chrispr, on 01/16/2008, -0/+7What this means for diggers:
You will continue to get your copyrighted content over an illegal channel and suffer no repercussions. You will, however, have your friends bitch about their problems with downloading the latest prison break episode. - SpykerSpeed, on 01/16/2008, -0/+7The problem with ISP's economizing their bandwidth like that is there's suddenly no incentive for them to upgrade their infrastructure. Instead it's a zero-sum game where they're debating about how to best make use of what they've currently got.
- mataranka, on 01/16/2008, -1/+8AT&T are interested because if they can filter out P2P traffic it will take a massive strain off their network and they'll probably earn more money doing so. its all in the profit margins.
- N3M3515, on 01/16/2008, -0/+7Gotta love big government stepping in telling you what you can and cannot do, eat, or say. Gotta love the USA!
- Thedarklord187, on 01/16/2008, -0/+6i concur AT&T have been in bed with the government for quite some time now
- InorganicMatter, on 01/16/2008, -0/+6Like I said, expect an update to the BitTorrent specs or a new standard on file trading. I imagine SSL or some form of 128-bit encryption being standardized. Under this system, it would be a violation of federal law for them to even try and look at your packets for filtering based on content.
It's just a game of cat and mouse, and no matter what they do, the mouse will ALWAYS win. - Coolestdude1, on 01/16/2008, -0/+5I think this might become reality, at RIT we all already got the big notice that they will start filtering content starting soon. And punishment is done by disconnects and classes of file sharing. Taking out RIT will take out a big portion of file sharing on the net. I just find it funny that they call the act the affordability act...
- dills2214, on 01/16/2008, -0/+5"2008 shaping up to be Year of Internet Filtering"
Not if they want my money... I'd rather have no internet than filtered internet. - schnibitz, on 01/16/2008, -0/+5If this happens with my ISP, Im jumping ship . . . Repeatedly until I find one that doesn't filter. I suggest you all do the same. These ISPs are getting a little too brave.
- lazyfisherman, on 01/16/2008, -0/+5Thanks for pointing out that some of the biggest copyright infringers are the same companies that want to filter the Internet. All I can say is that I hope there aren't going to be two sets of rules and laws... one for the little guy and one for the big corporations.
- thestaton, on 01/16/2008, -0/+4Surprisingly Time Warner seems to be against it.
- breezytrees, on 01/16/2008, -0/+4lobbying FTL :-(
- BrianWGray, on 01/16/2008, -0/+4If I can do it at the company level with devices like webwasher, an ISP can do it too. http://www.securecomputing.com/index.cfm?skey=1538
- icndvl, on 01/16/2008, -0/+4If this happened anywhere in Europe people would hit the streets.
- juventus1, on 01/16/2008, -2/+6I dont think you quite understand...
the internet is a series of tubes...... - mousky, on 01/16/2008, -1/+5What "massive strain" is P2P traffic putting on their network? The tubes are far from being full. This has nothing to do with capacity and everything to do with ISPs being the next RIAA/MPAA lawsuit target.
- betobeto, on 01/16/2008, -0/+4If we could turn back the clock to 1995... when the Web was wild, free and largely undiscovered...
- MacEnvy, on 01/16/2008, -0/+3Maybe, but there's a hell of a lot of tubes, and they can't clog them all.
- diggermike, on 01/16/2008, -1/+416 days in an we know what 2008 is going to be known for in the tech world already. Could we at least wait till July or August to figure this out?
- technoredneck, on 01/16/2008, -0/+3Of course they do--it's a series of tubes!
- N3M3515, on 01/16/2008, -0/+3What I think you meant to say is.. "Unfortunately MOST of the idiots make laws and company policies."
- andyakadum, on 01/16/2008, -0/+3Apart from the root nodes. (China manages to filter the internet just fine)
- MacEnvy, on 01/16/2008, -0/+3The line is too thin between the two to make a solid legal distinction. Who's to say what's crap and what's legitimate? That's a subjective decision.
- inactive, on 01/16/2008, -0/+3america turning into china :/ next thing you know you will be shot for uploading your blog.
- SpykerSpeed, on 01/16/2008, -0/+3Maybe I'm just being cynical, but somehow I think this announcement about filtering is just a bait by ISPs to get Congress to pass a network neutrality bill. They are aware that net neutrality will one day lead to further government entanglement and restrictions, possibly giving the major players an edge over the smaller ISPs that are bound to pop up in the future.
- gothicform, on 01/16/2008, -0/+3They are taken to court but this is an additional remedy I think :) Big media companies should also be taking things to court rather than just wanting to filter everything.
- Zapkiller, on 01/16/2008, -0/+2You censor EVERYTHING! Damn americans...
- gothicform, on 01/16/2008, -0/+2This is the beauty of court orders. As well as getting an injunction ordering them to remove the content we will be able to get injunctions ordering major peering locations to block the content from the infringing websites users until they remove it :)
- misterpony, on 01/16/2008, -0/+2From what I've read, experts see it like this: The cablecoms and telcoms want control of everything: infrastructure ownership, content control, application control, control of all application and content charges, network contracts. The more control they have over the available content, the more control they have over fees to the user and the provider. The users make the internet successful by being billions of end points as destinations. But if the ISP controls the infrastructure, provides their own content, and restricts access to other content, they could control more costs and more destiny of their own profits. Most people wouldn't pay attention and it would take just as long for the internet to recede as it's taken for it to succeed. By then, the internet and all content would be in the hands of 3 or 4 big companies and no one would be the wiser. (See: telephone industry). It has to be protected before that happens or years of regulation trying to fix it could happen (See: telephone industry).
- apc3161, on 01/16/2008, -0/+2Hmm.
I actually don't understand this. Someone please explain to me. Why would AT&T for instance want to voluntarily filter internet streams for copyrighted material. Won't that cost them a lot of money, and won't a lot of customers get upset? What's their long term goal here? - Pixelante, on 01/16/2008, -1/+3Keep in mind that the ISPs can shut down the Internet for good. You know, it's like thinking your tap water can fight the water company.
If they decide to filter or reduce your access to the internet, there's nothing you can do but cancel your subscription. And since all ISPs will abide by the same laws dictated by government and Big Money, you won't find another with a difference policy.
And since internet access is more and more becoming an essential part of life, like electricity and the phone, you won't be able to live "off the grid".
It's sad, but they will win. We have nothing to fight them with. -
Show 51 - 100 of 108 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is