Re: Concerns about Singapore

[Robert Withers <[e-mail]>]

Resending to the list...and an extra thought...

If censorship rights are managed in more granularity than nationally, perhaps the neighborhood or subdivision level, it allows variance and differentiation, including mixed access within an urban setting. The nation must be the union and membership in associations may carry censorship requirements limiting one's access by agreement. This sort of approach may be welcomed by those regimes with real concerns regarding 'westernization' of their media. Countries may well allow international conference attendees free access while simultaneously protecting their children from wanting to serve the local warlord rather than sticking to the local Civil Defense Unit. I believe the idea has merit, perhaps reducing slaughter.

From the perspective of those exercising active decision, it would be termed the right to forget, another right to be sure. It's a form of BDS, yes? Quite effective.

Well I think it would be wonderful if network protocols supported filtering in both senses: filter reception from certain senders & filter transmission to certain recipients. I'm thinking of some sort of intersection of sender/receiver permission volumes specified with N dimensional Voronoi tessellations in negotiated session state at the routers, managed with multicast hashes in the traffic headers. One will literally never be in contact with said troublesome traffic and both foreign and domestic users would have that censoring/forgetting guarantee. 

best,
robert

> On Apr 10, 2016, at 16:28, Jared Mauch <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Countries do their own censorship, or have rights for their citizens eg: regional/ national right to be forgotten. 
> 
> If you need some articles on these topics, let me know. 
> 
> Jared Mauch
> 
>> On Apr 10, 2016, at 2:24 PM, Robert Withers <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> 
>> Pardon me, do I understanding you to say that it is a basic right for a local region to censor content? As you put it: "local censorship laws and other rights", So to establish specific censorships in local areas, this is a fundamental right of that neighborhood?  That is a very shiny idea, very Millenarianly said.
>> 
>> Robert
>> 
>>> On 04/10/2016 01:53 PM, Jared Mauch wrote:
>>> 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 <[e-mail]> 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
>> 
>> -- 
>> Robert
>> .  ..   ...    ^,^
>