No-one is removing websites like the Pirate Bay. What is happening is
courts are ordering ISPs to block access to them, but these are easily
circumvented and simply don't work. The Pirate Bay is still going strong
Check out this article on the matter:
http://www.firmmagazine.com/blocking-orders-torrent-sites-uk-working/
Mark Leiser
Mark R. Leiser, Phd Student
School of Law, Humanities & Social Sciences Faculty
PGR Room, Lord Hope Building
University of Strathclyde
141 St James Road,
Glasgow G4 0LT Scotland
Mobile: +44 (0) 7719739090
Email: [log in to unmask]
Twitter: http://twitter.com/#!/mleiser
LinkedIN: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=189149411&trk=tab_pro
Google+: https://plus.google.com/u/0/105289982691060086995/posts
On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 10:44 AM, Andrei Barburas <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> It's already happening if you ask me. The "removal" of certain sharing
> websites at a national level (pirate bay, etc) is only the beginning. If it
> can happen with those websites, who can say what other websites can/might
> be banned?
>
>
>
> *Andrei Barburas*
>
> CRSO/IO
>
>
>
> International Institute for Communication and Development (IICD)
>
> P.O. Box 11586, 2502 AN The Hague, The Netherlands
>
> NPOC, ICANN member
>
>
> M: +31 62 928 2879
>
> T: +31 70 311 7311 | F: +31 70 311 7322
> Website: iicd.org <http://www.iicd.org/> | Check out our Annual Report
> for 2012; We reached one million beneficiaries in Health.. Imagine that!<http://annualreport.iicd.org>
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 11:40 AM, David Cake <[log in to unmask]>wrote:
>
>> There was that draft floating around last year of a draft document for
>> national (or regional, or even corporate) variant DNS systems, where you
>> define your own national root with domains added and removed. People are
>> already trying to justify variant views of the internet.
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> David
>>
>> On 03/07/2013, at 5:29 PM, Alex Gakuru <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>> Wildly thinking...
>>
>> This development could, at some point in future, be used to justify a
>> need for different "Internet Layers" arguably to fix emergent single points
>> of failure. They may be "InterNet","RegNet" and "NatNet". Users could
>> choose which network the wish to login to. International, Regional or
>> National. Of course, one would expect "internet fragmentation" counter
>> argument. I am just thinking out loud here...
>>
>> [Sent from my tiny screen wireless device. Excuse mobile brevity and or
>> unintended typos]
>> On Jul 3, 2013 12:03 PM, "Klaus Stoll" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>>> Dear Friends
>>>
>>> I think it is just a matter of very short time until someone will
>>> connect ICANN in some way to this. Even if ICANN has nothing to do with
>>> anything, it is a god send for the UN and ITU, they just need to mention
>>> ICANNs status as a US foundation.
>>>
>>> We can see it as a problem or I think here is a opportunity. The root of
>>> all these problems is still the fact that the general public depends on the
>>> Internet, but does not know anything about how it is governed and run.
>>> ICANN suddenly looks a very very old organization because it is not capable
>>> to address the real issues of the time and is stuck in the past. What is
>>> needed now is a big push towards true democratization of the Internet, as
>>> awareness and involvement by all is the only way to govern the beast. It is
>>> the general ignorance that lets those in power get away with it. If I know
>>> that and how things are done I can try to control them, if I don’t even
>>> know the basics I am just condemned to ignorance and in this case ignorance
>>> is NOT bliss. (When, oh when will we finally accept that the Internet is a
>>> common good and can and should not be in parts or as a whole be owned by
>>> anybody. We need a universal declaration of Internet rights NOW!). You
>>> might have seen the emails and activities regarding this topic in the last
>>> month and weeks, (I-Inform alliance), so you will know the tools and
>>> concepts are in place, what is missing is the will and effort to do it now!
>>>
>>> Yours
>>>
>>> Klaus
>>>
>>> (Those who want to know more about the I-Inform Alliance can send me an
>>> email and I will forward more info).
>>>
>>> *From:* Alex Gakuru <[log in to unmask]>
>>> *Sent:* Wednesday, July 03, 2013 10:23 AM
>>> *To:* [log in to unmask]
>>> *Subject:* Re: ICANN Paranoia
>>>
>>>
>>> I suspect that many people remain silent on this -- perhaps still stuck
>>> at the "Denial" stage on the Kübler-Ross model ?
>>>
>>> [Sent from my tiny screen wireless device. Excuse mobile brevity and or
>>> unintended typos]
>>> On Jul 3, 2013 10:54 AM, "Andrei Barburas" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> And personally, I am still not sure why everyone was/is surprised
>>>> about the tapping and the surveillance..
>>>>
>>>> What Snowden did, was just confirm the "theory". At the end of the day,
>>>> just because you don't know about something, that doesn't mean that it's
>>>> not happening.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *Andrei Barburas*
>>>> CRSO/IO
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> International Institute for Communication and Development (IICD)
>>>> P.O. Box 11586, 2502 AN The Hague, The Netherlands
>>>> NPOC, ICANN member
>>>>
>>>> M: +31 62 928 2879
>>>> T: +31 70 311 7311 | F: +31 70 311 7322
>>>> Website: iicd.org <http://www.iicd.org/> | Check out our Annual Report
>>>> for 2012; We reached one million beneficiaries in Health.. Imagine that!<http://annualreport.iicd.org/>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 9:26 AM, Adam Peake <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Jul 3, 2013, at 4:13 PM, William Drake wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> > On Jul 3, 2013, at 7:08 AM, Marc Perkel <[log in to unmask]>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>> >
>>>>> >> Considering the NSA and PRISM stuff and that they are into
>>>>> Microsoft, Google, Apple, Facebook, etc - shouldn't we assume that ICANN
>>>>> has been compromised? Considering everything else they are into how can
>>>>> they not be into ICANN?
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> Having said that - what does that mean to our trip?
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Maybe that we should have all worried less about having our
>>>>> computers compromised at the Beijing meeting? Or, worried more broadly...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
|
