content owners vs. ISPs

[Ray Dillinger]

Right now, attempts to control the internet lean on ISP's and 
backbone sites pretty heavily.  Most of the nodes on the internet 
have exactly ONE route to the internet, and if you can get to 
somebody's upstream, she's toast. 

In the long run, I don't think the machinery of freedom is going 
to work very well until most of the nodes on the internet have 
at least three or four different routes to the internet.  

One person connected to one ISP is easy to monitor, easy to 
interfere with.  But if a dozen people connected to a dozen ISP's 
are also all connected to each other directly, then each and 
every one of them becomes much harder to interfere with. 

Unfortunately, extra phone lines and nailed-up connections 
cost money, and at that point they'd just start going for the 
phone companies instead of the ISP's anyway.  The benefit is 
that  common carrier anti-censorship laws might be a little 
stronger with phone lines.

				Bear




On Thu, 15 Mar 2001, Joseph Ashwood wrote:

>I'm sorry, there will be no war _between_ security of any kind, and privacy
>of any kind. One implies the other.
>
>If something is private, it must be secure
>If something is secure, there is obviously something worth keeping
>restricted.
>
>Now how exactly are they going to start monitoring people at the ISP level,
>when we are all free to make use of things such as IPSec, Freedom, etc? If
>we don't exercise our rights, they can of course take them away.
>                        Joe
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Blank Frank" <bf at mindspring.com>
>To: <cypherpunks at cyberpass.net>
>Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2001 1:54 PM
>Subject: CDR: content owners vs. ISPs
>
>
>>
>> "Copyright holders aren't going to be happy with Freenet and
>>                     Gnutella," Mohr said. "They are going to want to
>> start monitoring
>>                     people at the ISP level, and that means there is
>> going to be a
>>                     coming war between individual privacy versus network
>> security."
>>
>> http://wired.com/news/business/0,1367,42438,00.html
>>
>