internet 2?

6th

This post in another thread made me sy "Huh?" so rather than drag the other thread off I'm starting this one.

espinolman wrote: »

internet 2 is coming out and there probably will only be a few hundred sites available , the old internet will be dismantled so all the knowledge on free non-polluting energy currently available will be gone .

So, basically .... Huh?

Is this a CT or should I be popping over to the web forum?

espinolman

I was thinking of starting a thread here about internet 2 so its great that 6th started one . I have heard that the old internet is not being upgraded and the new internet is going to be censored like the chinese internet.

6th

How is the Chinese Internet censored?

I really have no clue about this but have to say it spikes my interest.

thecommander

Bit more detail needed please. Are you referring to tiered internet? Or to net neutrality? Or wha?

pwd

well net neutrality is a genuine bone of contention. This is more about discriminatory service levels than actual censorship though. And of course interested parties are trying to get ISPs to block access to sites that violate copyright.

Directions the web seems to be going in technologically:
semantic web: internet pages are more understandable to computers.
cloud computing: desktop-based storage and applications are replaced by online equivalent.

meglome

espinolman wrote: »

I was thinking of starting a thread here about internet 2 so its great that 6th started one . I have heard that the old internet is not being upgraded and the new internet is going to be censored like the chinese internet.

You heard? in a dream? Do you believe everything you hear? or is it just the outlandish stuff?

The Chinese have a small army of people who check what people are doing on the internet I believe they number in the tens of thousands. What western country is that going to be a runner in, I'd suggest none.

humanji

Right, Boards decided to cock up my last attempt at posting this (a conspiracy against me, no doubt), but I was trying to post some basic links for people to get a bit up to speed on these things. So I used the best sourse of non verifiable, easily edited information: Wikipedia.

Chinese Censorship of the net:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_the_People%27s_Republic_of_China

Net Neutrality:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality

and Internet2, which I'm not sure if this is what Espinolman was talking about as this seems to just be a private network that science and technology companies use:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet2

pwd

Well everything you do on the internet is recorded. It may be legally accessed to investigate serious crime, or terrorism.

espinolman

meglome wrote: »

The Chinese have a small army of people who check what people are doing on the internet I believe they number in the tens thousands. What western country is that going to be a runner in, I'd suggest none.

Well now , just wait until the single world totalitarian government gets up and running!

meglome

espinolman wrote: »

Well now , just wait until the single world totalitarian government gets up and running!

So the very governments who couldn't agree on the paint colour for the venue for the talks about having talks are going to band together. Do you read any history at all?

Seriously I would hate to live in your world.

espinolman

meglome wrote: »

Seriously I would hate to live in your world.

And i would hate to live in your world.

meglome

espinolman wrote: »

And i would hate to live in your world.

Law of averages says we would agree on something eventually.

Purple Gorilla

Meh..it's doubtful that this is true. Some of the biggest corporations in the world are supporters of net neutrality including Google, Yahoo, Ebay, Amazon and Microsoft.

Nick_oliveri

Purple Gorilla wrote: »

Some of the biggest corporations in the world are supporters of net neutrality including Google

http://networks.silicon.com/webwatch/0,39024667,39155970,00.htm

Veni Vedi Vici

I hope that nobody is confusing the principles of Interent 2 with those of Web 2.0

L31mr0d

Net Neutrality is HUGE!!!... it's probably one of the only conspiracy theories that I pay heed to because it will have such a large impact on our generation if it isn't protected.

The main issue is really in the US. The ISP's over there want control and want to package the internet and limit access. The way they are doing it is that they are not allowing their, in place, fibre networks to be used yet until they can limit access on them.

Here is Googles stance on it, one of the biggest knife edge companies as they pretty much ARE the internet to a large degree.

http://www.google.com/help/netneutrality.html

Think of it, the american public gets 2 options from the ISP's:

1: High Speed Fibre, limited access to a few hundred sites (all the popular ones, google and all its apps and sites, ebay, amazon, wiki, facebook.... etc), free web tv from the major broadcasters, no download limits

2: Cable slow speed network, unlimited access to the web, no free web tv, download caps

The majority will go for the former.

Don't think so? Look into the history of both radio and TV. When both of these mediums where first discovered there was an explosion of individual broadcasters, sending out their homemade tv channels and radio stations... then they got licensed, and wavelength got sold, and all the small individuals who had been there from the start where now illegal. Forcing a lot of these radio stations and TV channels to shut down.

Do you care about them now? Well if the ISP's in the US get their way, the future generations won't care about the freedom we have on the internet now either.

Veni Vedi Vici

Veni Vedi Vici wrote: »

I hope that nobody is confusing the principles of Interent 2 with those of Web 2.0

I KNEW flashgames were a conspiracy!

Gone West

pwd wrote: »

Well everything you do on the internet is recorded. It may be legally accessed to investigate serious crime, or terrorism.

Well thats just plain untrue.
You should really check up the facts before you just post things that you've heard.

Kernel

FuzzyLogic wrote: »

Well thats just plain untrue.
You should really check up the facts before you just post things that you've heard.

How is it untrue? Any links to read would be appreciated here lads.

comer_97

here you go, from the independent last year. http://www.independent.ie/business/technology/in-a-state-of-surveillance-1301589.html

you should also check out digitalrights.ie to check what else the goverment have been doing. you will be disturbed by some of the stuff that they have gotten in under the radar.

Veni Vedi Vici

Encrypted mail accounts such as hushmail are the least 'private' of all as irony would have it.

thecommander

Veni Vedi Vici wrote: »

Encrypted mail accounts such as hushmail are the least 'private' of all as irony would have it.

whys that?

Veni Vedi Vici

thecommander wrote: »

whys that?

That should have read: If whats been posted here thus far is true then encrypted mail accounts such as hushmail are the least 'private' of all as irony would have it.

In so far as whats been posted thus far of course. It depends on what side of the fence you're perched and whether or not you buy into the fact the digital corrospondences are recorded in the first place.

IF its true, then a representive of the law would hypothetically stumble upon much more illigitimate activity within a mail client thats only allegedly 'secure' from a third party regardless of the encryption process.

Some purists view encryption as the only to go. Others use it to conceal their affairs: drugs, porn and other illegal acts.

pwd

FuzzyLogic wrote: »

Well thats just plain untrue.
You should really check up the facts before you just post things that you've heard.

Comer_97 posted a link about this already since your post. There's plenty of articles on it if you google. You really should check your facts before you just patronise people for stating things you assume are incorrect.
Remember when you *assume* something, you make an *ass* out of *u* and *me*.
("Ass" + "u" + "me" = "assume". Do you understand?)

thecommander

pwd wrote: »

Remember when you *assume* something, you make an *ass* out of *u* and *me*.
("Ass" + "u" + "me" = "assume". Do you understand?)

Thats priceless. Like something Barney would teach

bonkey

Kernel wrote: »

How is it untrue? Any links to read would be appreciated here lads.

You should ask how it is either true or untrue?

One person makes a bald claim, offering no evidence, clarifications, or anything else.
Another person says "nyah, you're wrong".

By only asking one of the people for evidence, are you not applying double standards here...suggesting that only some claims need evidence?

Gone West

1) I responded to the statement that everything you do online is recorded.
2) This does not imply that some times, some things are recorded, just states that is very very untrue to say that all online communications are recorded.

Let us take an example:
I have some servers in datacentres. I built those servers myself, and racked them myself. Both have alarms, which will alert me if they are opened physically.
Everything is encrypted with open source, military level HDD encryption software, and all communications protocols that I use are encrypted.
Mailserver, IRC server, etc.
So any communications I have with this server is encrypted.
The data center does not record data transported. This is a fact.
A number of people here on boards, including myself have previously or currently work in data centers at high technical levels. They don't record your data, that passes through. And in my case, it is moot, as it is encrypted. Not only do I know that the data is not recorded, I know that its useless even if it is.

The datacenter peers with INEX. They do not keep records of all the emails, forum posts, websites downloaded etc, that passes through their exchange.

For the statement that I disagreed with to be true, every ISP would have to be logging all of your data. This is not, and never will be the case, as many ISPs simply do not have the technical capacity.
This independent is a trash paper and reported incorrectly, on the link that was provided as evidence. Also, this story is a year old and very out of date. The current paper is the communications Bill 2009. (retention of data). And no, it has not actually come into affect yet. It is still in medium term industry consultation stage AFAIK.
They led you to believe that eircom, et al would be recording every email sent. This is not true. Sender address, IP, time, recipient address, perhaps that is true, but not content. Also, this only applies to emails sent through their service. safe-mail/hushmail/your own SSL webmail server, none of those emails or anything can be recorded by their very nature.

Networking and digital communications are very ad-hoc in nature. Its foolish to suggest that *everything* anybody does online is monitored. If you had even a basic understanding of the piecemeal structure of the networks, shared peering arrangements, the Tier 1 networks, and the transit protocols of data, you would know that the statement which I disagreed with is untrue.

And no, I don't cite links. Any link to prove anything can be shown. Even IT-related stories by non IT-literate journalists who write for bog roll newspapers. Rather, I am open to technical correction on any serious blunder in my assertations by the good (and technically savvy) people of boards, who work in networking.

To re-iterate my original post:
PWD wrote "Well everything you do on the internet is recorded."
This is untrue, based on my experience of networking and IT. To disprove an "x is always Y" statement, one must only show one example of one time where "X is not Y". I hope that I have shown that to you, or at least given yous something to think about.

And please don't patronise me with "do you understand", when you yourself clearly show a lack of understanding re: The structure of data communications over the internet. I don't claim to be an expert, but I have worked in this area for a number of years, and the thoughts above are just some loose examples.

6th

Excellent post, I hope those that argue against it put as much effort in.

Kernel

bonkey wrote: »

You should ask how it is either true or untrue?

By only asking one of the people for evidence, are you not applying double standards here...suggesting that only some claims need evidence?

I know little about the topic. I'm not applying any double standards, I simply found FuzzyLogic's post to be too brief, which I'm glad he has now rectified with an actual argument.

If someone said 'Well thats just plain true. You should really check up the facts before you just post things that you've heard.' in the context of this thread, and with the uninformed reader (like myself) trying to grasp the concept, then I would also ask for a little more 'meat' to flesh out their position.

sceptre

pwd wrote: »

("Ass" + "u" + "me" = "assume". Do you understand?)

That's just being patronising.
(that's when you talk down to someone)

Sorry, couldn't resist:)