North American Network Operators Group
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: Blocking certain terrorism/porn sites and DNS

  • From: Abhishek Verma
  • Date: Thu Aug 18 05:58:54 2005
  • Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=O9AkHTzcYWhToHHe9m//Izy7pjLiyGWnDpJ2LM/0mh0wB6f6lEFSXvpvg8gdtJmRf+/IlLyP0QDeOR+pHnGM7WiguhbFQcd0aEwmT5+kyU/WfeK616rwBd/Qs1biB9c3nkHpBMHp6zs1yIS6SxuH8Wkm4e4jvYyOnRNXbMmAk8s=
> It was bad enough back in the '90s when Internic refused to accept
> registration of certain four letter words.  DNS is not a proper venue
> for censoring ideas.

Again, I am not discussing "censoring ideas". I want to know if its
indeed "tehnically" possible and feasible to block a website URL from
being accessed.

> 
> 
> > No, that wasnt my point. I just wanted to make sure that my
> > understanding of banning a hostname was indeed correct. We can this
> > way atleast block all websites with *alqaida* domain names.
> >
> > I wanted to know if the arguments of "freedom of speech" etc. apply to
> > the Internet also, wherein somebody could argue that no central
> > authority can stop somebody from expressing their thoughts, etc.
> 
> Within the USA, arguments of "freedom of speech" DO apply.
> 
> Somebody can and should argue that no central authority
> is entitled to stop somebody from expressing their thoughts.
> 
> IMHO, it is not the purpose of network operators to make value
> judgments regarding the packets that we transport.
> 
> Why not just bring back the "evil bit" as a serious proposal?
> 
> 
> Kevin Kadow
> 


-- 

--
Class of 2004
Institute of Technology, BHU
Varanasi, India