[OT] Usenet to be shut down?

jmcquown wrote:

Thank you, thank you, thank you for mentioning *binaries*!! Because
the article (and the intention of blocking Usenet access) is to
eliminate *PHOTOS* containing child pornography*. There's no reason
to get rid of any non-binary newsgroups such as RPCA, which doesn't
support embedded images, flashing emoticons, cute little dancing pigs
and all that happy crap anyway!
In fact, if these ISP's were smart (ha!), rather than knuckle under
to the Attorney General of ONE STATE (New York) they could stimulate
the U.S. economy by hiring people to monitor (NOT in f*ing INDIA) and
delete objectionable (child porn) posts. They could have teams
working with the U.S. Attorney's office and the equivalent in other
countries to trace the source of these posts and go after the
*individuals* responsible for the posts. But no, the knee-jerk
reaction instead is, as the ACLU spokesman stated, "...taking a
sledgehammer to an ant." I admire the intent but I despise (most)
politicians! Is he up for re-election?! Who died and made Andrew
Cuomo the god of Usenet?
*I'd be willing to bet there's more illegal photo content on the many
Web-based unmoderated "forums" on Yahoo, Google, etc. they could go
after than there is on all of Usenet.

Jill

I am in agreement with you, Jill, except on one thing; I frequent binary
groups. I enjoy looking at beautiful pix of scenery, I look at food pix,
Marutchi in alt.binaries.pictures.animals takes some *amazing* shots, and I
don't think that's wrong to share. To ban *all* binary groups isn't right
because most of the world's population isn't a child porn freak. There is
some really wonderful, stunning content out there in binaries. You just
have to filter through it.

Like you said, there are many web-based forums that are way worse than what
you can find on usenet.

kili

"Yowie" wrote in message
...
I found this way too disturbing, and hope its a prank. Please, someone,
tell me its a prank.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-99...?tag=nefd.lede

Yowie

It just tickles me how egocentric US politicians are. I don't even use a
US-based newsreader. Do they really think they're going to have a say in
other countries' laws on UseNet are?

Idiots!

Hugs,

CatNipped

It just tickles me how egocentric US politicians are. I don't even use
a US-based newsreader. Do they really think they're going to have a say
in other countries' laws on UseNet are?

Idiots!

Hugs,

CatNipped

I'm afraid the entire concept of a decentralized, self-managed, worldwide
network is just too much for them to comprehend. And the "self-managed"
part scares them - they think *they* need to be in control.

Daniel Mahoney wrote:

And such perversions as the Patriot Act are just beyond description. There
aren't words adequate to describe how stupid, intrusive, invasive, and
criminal it is.

Yes DHS, I did say that. Again.

OK, now I'm curious - who (or what) is DHS?

--
Joyce

To email me, remove the triple-X from my user name. ^..^

OK, now I'm curious - who (or what) is DHS?

Department of Homeland Security. The folks who violate our expectations of
privacy in order to "protect" us from all those nasty terrorists.

Dan

Daniel Mahoney wrote:

OK, now I'm curious - who (or what) is DHS?

Department of Homeland Security.

Oh right, of course.

The folks who violate our expectations of
privacy in order to "protect" us from all those nasty terrorists.

While their good buddies are out there creating an endless supply
of same, to protect us from. :-/

--
Joyce

To email me, remove the triple-X from my user name. ^..^

"Daniel Mahoney"
Oh geez, I read that article too. Well, maybe there goes my Pink Floyd
group maybe too. I just don't know.
Will it have any effect on rpcc I wonder?
This is totally nuts!!
Kyla

Nope, it won't have any effect on rpca or rpcc. If your PF group is under
the alt hierarchy, then yes, it will affect those people who access the
group from one of the weak-kneed ISPs.

But don't worry too much.

Bah, I'm not worried. If it folds, it folds. So far it's okay. Been ther
for over 11 years now.

There are a lot of small guys out there, with their home Linux and FreeBSD
and OpenSolaris machines on DSL circuits and in colocations. When too many
of the big players fold up their tents and go home, we'll start running an
NNTP server on our home machines. Or, more to the point, those of us who
are already running NNTP servers at home will make them either publically
accessable, or available to select groups of friends and acquaintances.
Unless Big Brother dictates some extreme measures, there will always be a
backbone of Usenet servers available. Usenet originated as a loose network
of small machines; it might well return to that.

Dan

Thanks for the info.
Hug
Kyla

"Daniel Mahoney"
How would that affect those of us who subscribe to newsgroups through
servers like "NewsGuys"? And those whose ISP is NOT a telecom company,
and not "broadband"?

For now, it won't. In the future, who knows?

Personally, I object to ANY curtailment of free speech on the Internet.

I agree.

While child porn is deplorable and sickening, it's not the huge monster
thing that the media like to make it out to be. It's entirely possible to
surf the net a lot and never get exposed to it. The last time I stumbled
upon any kiddy porn was back in the 90's. Of course I don't go looking for
it; I suppose if you went Googling for it you might be able to find it
without too much difficulty, but that's true for most any subject.

The key to safe enjoyment of Usenet is to control your browsing habits.
Don't want your kids to look at Usenet porn? Then install filters on YOUR
computer to keep YOUR kids off inappropriate sites. Don't know how? Then
either 1) accept it, 2) learn how, or 3) pay someone to do it for you.
Having your legislators pressure the ISPs to remove newsgroups YOU don't
approve of is not the way to do it.

I can't express how sick I am of having people try to enforce THEIR
morality by means of legislation. I have my own ideas of morality and
ethics, and to me they're just as valid as the next guy's. Having the next
guy's morality imposed on me just because he contributed more money to a
politician's re-election campaign ****es me off. Hugely. Indescribably.
And such perversions as the Patriot Act are just beyond description. There
aren't words adequate to describe how stupid, intrusive, invasive, and
criminal it is.

Yes DHS, I did say that. Again.

AMEN!!
Hug
Kyla

Daniel Mahoney wrote:


I can't express how sick I am of having people try to enforce THEIR
morality by means of legislation. I have my own ideas of morality and
ethics, and to me they're just as valid as the next guy's. Having the next
guy's morality imposed on me just because he contributed more money to a
politician's re-election campaign ****es me off. Hugely. Indescribably.
And such perversions as the Patriot Act are just beyond description. There
aren't words adequate to describe how stupid, intrusive, invasive, and
criminal it is.

Until the Patriot Act was perpetrated upon us, I had always looked
somewhat askance at the ACLU, and some of its "crusades". After the
passage of that infamous bit of legislation, my first response was to
become a card-carrying ACLU member. (I suddenly realized that some of
the "civil liberties" they've been protecting all these years might well
turn out to be my own!)

"EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)"


Daniel Mahoney wrote:


I can't express how sick I am of having people try to enforce THEIR
morality by means of legislation. I have my own ideas of morality and
ethics, and to me they're just as valid as the next guy's. Having the
next
guy's morality imposed on me just because he contributed more money to a
politician's re-election campaign ****es me off. Hugely. Indescribably.
And such perversions as the Patriot Act are just beyond description.
There
aren't words adequate to describe how stupid, intrusive, invasive, and
criminal it is.

Until the Patriot Act was perpetrated upon us, I had always looked
somewhat askance at the ACLU, and some of its "crusades". After the
passage of that infamous bit of legislation, my first response was to
become a card-carrying ACLU member. (I suddenly realized that some of the
"civil liberties" they've been protecting all these years might well turn
out to be my own!)

The people who bother me the most are racists and bigots,
people who are cruel to animals and child molesters.
I've no time, no patience for their 'ideals'. Period!!
They really hiss me off. But, that's just me.
Hug
Kyla