Re: Concerns about Singapore

Jared Mauch <jared@puck.nether.net> Sun, 10 April 2016 17:53 UTC

Return-Path: <jared@puck.nether.net>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F76412B066 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 10 Apr 2016 10:53:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.198
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.198 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.996, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ruXcX5EkXYoA for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 10 Apr 2016 10:53:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from puck.nether.net (puck.nether.net [IPv6:2001:418:3f4::5]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 22C3212B05D for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sun, 10 Apr 2016 10:53:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [IPv6:2601:401:4:3000:14b4:8919:5865:bf3a] (unknown [IPv6:2601:401:4:3000:14b4:8919:5865:bf3a]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by puck.nether.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9D7F55406A1; Sun, 10 Apr 2016 13:53:29 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Subject: Re: Concerns about Singapore
From: Jared Mauch <jared@puck.nether.net>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (13E238)
In-Reply-To: <570A67B4.3010206@comcast.net>
Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2016 13:53:29 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <7060475F-E348-4BF0-B515-BB47143A2C24@puck.nether.net>
References: <0D914666-C3D4-4CCE-AD5E-4E5B34EA1A73@piuha.net> <20160407182936.GA21340@pfrc.org> <CAB75xn780nNDjGa_Cc222J20-+1CCHt09Xp8KHzaK=n0xx51pg@mail.gmail.com> <5706B100.9040509@mnt.se> <CAB75xn6fmj84ROUtG5eUB3GerHx83hrEr3w5vSADY_g=BRg5FA@mail.gmail.com> <5706BA40.3060005@mnt.se> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1604072157240.31096@uplift.swm.pp.se> <A9B63A6D-3102-482F-8FFC-2E57A5FD8336@nic.cz> <16925.1460122349@obiwan.sandelman.ca> <m27fg77zst.wl%randy@psg.com> <57097077.7040703@comcast.net> <m2fuuu75ls.wl%randy@psg.com> <87wpo5a8im.fsf@tops.chopps.org> <m260vp7eke.wl%randy@psg.com> <570A6458.3050206@comcast.net> <m21t6d7c9t.wl%randy@psg.com> <570A67B4.3010206@comcast.net>
To: Michael StJohns <mstjohns@comcast.net>
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/demkHJZ3MzKVAS7sb45gX7l95Rg>
Cc: IETF Disgust List <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2016 17:53:33 -0000

I would suggest European networks have quite different content than elsewhere as a result of local censorship laws and other rights afforded to people in the region. 

Jared Mauch

> On Apr 10, 2016, at 10:48 AM, Michael StJohns <mstjohns@comcast.net> wrote:
> 
> On 4/10/2016 10:45 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
>>>> it was clean unfettered Internet.  some local folk stuck their necks out
>>>> very far to accomplish this.  it was definitely different than one got
>>>> outside of the ietf meeting network.  this has been a condition placed
>>>> on hosts and beijing was no exception.
>>> This surprises me - "this has been a condition placed on hosts...".
>> it was even in the hour of embarrassing babble fred used to prevent
>> people from talking about real problems at the bof
>> 
>>> Could you enlighten us as to which [and I'll try to be precise here]
>>> other IETFs had a condition where the content accessible by the IETF
>>> network was markedly different from the content of say the network at
>>> a local Starbuck's equivalent wifi hot spot just down the street from
>>> the IETF and where that was mandated by the hosts and/or local laws?
>>> I mean besides Beijing?  Key words "markedly different" and "content
>>> accessible".
>> we don't specify it's 'different'.  among other silly distractions, it
>> would require a 'different from precisely what and in what ways?'
>> 
>> we simply specifiy open and unfettered
> 
> I repeat - "where" have the local hosts/laws specified conditions that resulted in the IETF network content access being markedly different than that accessible to the random local citizen?
> 
> 
>> 
>> rndy