Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

discuss - Re: [opennic-discuss] Vote to keep or drop peering with NameCoin

discuss AT lists.opennicproject.org

Subject: Discuss mailing list

List archive

Re: [opennic-discuss] Vote to keep or drop peering with NameCoin


Chronological Thread 
  • From: Amunak <amunak AT amunak.net>
  • To: discuss AT lists.opennicproject.org
  • Subject: Re: [opennic-discuss] Vote to keep or drop peering with NameCoin
  • Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2019 13:13:48 +0200

Yes, the EU for example mandates net neutrality, but that covers only ISPs. Individual countries still potentially can (and often do) ban certain domains and such to enforce their own laws (or that's the excuse anyway). That doesn't even prevent ISPs for blocking stuff from "generic block lists" like the IWF.

Where I live, for example, gambling sites that aren't registered in my country are supposed to be banned to "prevent tax evasion". Some providers also block stuff on IWF's watchlist.

Other countries have similar provisions to "protect themselves". Germany, for example, censors the internet by pressuring providers, social media sites, news sites and such to censor "hate speech" and "extremism", basically restricting freedom of speech. France forces telecom companies to use devices that send all traffic to the government. Stuff like that.

But of course they are the good guys so it's all fine.

I suggest you read up here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Internet_censorship_in_Europe - especially about Germany, France and the UK.

Fair warning: we live in a fairly depressing, oppressive world with very little freedom that continues to diminish.

Amunak

On 01.07.2019 2:17, Daniel Quintiliani wrote:
Even in countries which mandate net neutrality?

--

-Dan Q


On Sun, 30 Jun 2019 17:07:51 -0700, <vv AT cgs.pw> wrote:

I think you're wrong about that. A quick google and
you'll see that DNS filtering is actually quite common.

~ Ole


On Sun, 30 Jun 2019 18:56:32 -0400 (EDT)
"Daniel Quintiliani" <danq AT runbox.com> wrote:

No ISP in the free world does this with their DNS
servers. Why should we?

--

-Dan Q


On Sun, 30 Jun 2019 15:58:11 -0500, kevin
<krattai AT gmail.com> wrote:

The problem here was, spamhaus painted ALL opennic
peers with a broad brush.  So those that won't filter
anything, which I fully support, could potentially
affect everyone.

As many, if not most of us here appear to believe, this
project has always been about freedom with
collaboration via a touch of democracy (voting) thrown
in. And I believe that everyone can (and will) do as
they please.

But...  and so to repeat, those that filter nothing
(including malware) could affect all of us.  And like
the .free domain, I don't care and would have preferred
to keep it under openNIC.  But, not everyone agrees
with what I think. lol  So filtering, at least for
malware, certainly could be suggested as a strong
guideline or recommendation. And my opinion with
anything else, obviously leave that to the individual
T2 hosts.

Kevin

On Sun, 2019-06-30 at 12:05 +0200, Amunak wrote:  
Why? The T2 server list is capable of displaying and
filtering pretty 
much anything. Some T2 server providers may choose to
run more blacklists, some may choose to run none.
That's their decision and as 
long as they say so in their server's description
then more power to everyone - the whole point of
sharing T2 servers is to provide a service 
to other users who have an interest in that service
*with that particular configuration*. Same goes for
logging and such.

Sure, don't show it on the homepage among
"recommended servers" but there's no reason to
essentially blacklist those servers and operators 
from OpenNic.

Amunak

On 30.06.2019 1:55, Jacob Bachmeyer wrote:  
Jeff Taylor wrote:  
It could relate to any domains, opennic or
icann.  And I'm not saying 
we WILL, I'm just saying we COULD have that
option.  Like with the 
spamhaus listings, use of this would be up to the
individual T2 operators.  At the moment there is
nothing planned, I just wrote the 
API so we could expand on its use later if we
chose to.  
I suggest a policy restricting the use of
non-malware blacklists to 
private T2 servers.  In other words, T2 servers
using blacklists for 
any category other than malware would not be
eligible to be listed in 
the public directory.

We might even want to require public T2 servers to
blacklist known malware domains, but that is sure
to be highly controversial. Should 
we censor ransomware?


-- Jacob



--------
You are a member of the OpenNIC Discuss list.
You may unsubscribe by emailing 
discuss-unsubscribe AT lists.opennicproject.org  
--------
You are a member of the OpenNIC Discuss list. 
You may unsubscribe by emailing 
discuss-unsubscribe AT lists.opennicproject.org  
-- 
http://ca.linkedin.com/in/kevinrattai/

https://winnipegcryptoconference.com/

https://github.com/krattai


--------
You are a member of the OpenNIC Discuss list. 
You may unsubscribe by emailing
discuss-unsubscribe AT lists.opennicproject.org  


--------
You are a member of the OpenNIC Discuss list. 
You may unsubscribe by emailing discuss-unsubscribe AT lists.opennicproject.org



--------
You are a member of the OpenNIC Discuss list. 
You may unsubscribe by emailing discuss-unsubscribe AT lists.opennicproject.org



Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.19.

Top of Page