Subject: [P2Prg] Control of Content in a P2P network

From: Sean Bennett <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 16 Aug 2003 14:07:26 +0100

http://www.opendemocracy.net/debates/article-8-101-1398.jsp

Some of you may have seen this.

I realise this is a technical research group but the corrorally of control
(assuming a system is created in which control is possible) must be the
implementation of policy of which documents/files/objects are propogated.

Creating a P2p system that cannot be censored may appear the obvious soloution
- based on our _western_ ideas of culture and freedom.

But it may not be the best soloution for all cultures.

Control (trusted 3rd parties, distributed approval , etc.) can always be turned 
off for a given instalation.

	Just MHO.

		Sean
-- 
Sean Bennett.
E Pluribus Unum

_______________________________________________
P2prg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2prg

---

From: Patrick Kirk <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 16 Aug 2003 19:47:04 +0100

> off for a given instalation.
I followed the link and frankly I'm shocked that I find attitides like 
this being promoted in a technical mailing list.

Does that article really represent your views?  You are saying that 
freedom is only for "Western" people and offering it to people in Saudi 
Arabia is "cultural imperialism, with its stress on US values and free 
trade."   Just in case some poor Westerner is caught in your little web 
you say "Control (trusted 3rd parties, distributed approval , etc.) can 
always be turned off for a given instalation."

Sean, I suggest you not call ideas like this "humble opinions" - its not 
humble at all.  Its the old "Them darkies just are not mature enough to 
vote"  argument.  Even if you sincerely believe it, it still _stinks_.

Slightly off topic here but even as a non-American I must admit to 
amusement at the arrogance of an author who descibes the USA as not 
having  a legitimate government while defending the shenagigans of the 
Saudi regime.  The sad truth is that the Saudi royal family has _no_ 
interest in governing America. Apart from your friends in the House of 
Saud, who are the dictators you feel Americans could aspire to be 
governed by?  (Idi Amin is dead so you can't choose him).

---

From: Sean Bennett <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2003 08:28:01 +0100

Dear Sir,

You have my point exactly backwards.

It is you, these technologists, the IETF that I contend should not have the vote -
to override the will of a sovereign nation.

[You may argue that many nation states are undemocratic, monstrous, etc. and
I would happily agree with you]

That is, of course, not the point.

To abrogate the will of a nation or people - no matter how misguided we may
believe them to be (The USA's DMCA, The UK absurd secrecy laws, etc.)
by virtue of a technical solution is a political choice.

To make a political choice in a technical environment inherently disenfranchises
the people of all nations.

I also direct you to consider this phrase from the charter:

"...the group offers a forum for researchers to explore a broad range of fundamental P2P issues such as: ... security of P2P systems involving reputation-based trust for ad-hoc systems or more centralized, CA-like approaches"

I think that further discussion should be taken off the group.

	Yours, Sean Bennett

On Sat, Aug 16, 2003 at 07:47:04PM +0100, Patrick Kirk wrote:
> always be turned off for a given installation."
> 

-- 
Sean Bennett.
E Pluribus Unum

[email-masked]