3 expanded posts ยท every known parent and child
>I'd like to invite discussion, either private or listwise, on: Why is the govt. >targetting BBSs? Welcome to the real, growing, dangerous world, Stanton, where all your fears are true. judi <judic@sunnyside.com>
> >I'd like to invite discussion, either private or listwise, on: Why is the govt. > >targetting BBSs? > > Welcome to the real, growing, dangerous world, Stanton, where all your fears > are true. Doesn't help much. >:) I just want to know what it is about BBSing that scares the <insert fecal matter here> out of the govt. Why are porno, crypto, and <gasp> people saying what the want to, somehow more threating on BBSs than about 10x as many people doing the same thing on govt "controlled" <ha ha ha> educational systems? If the govt really really sees these things as dangerous, would it not be wiser to take care of the "cancer" in one's own body than worry about the health of others? Maybe the govt. is just totally irrational, or something. Not saying anyone should put a stop to alt.binaries.pictures.erotica, I could care less if people like spending inorinate amounts of time uudecoding spotty nudie pics. But the whole rationale behind attacking BBSs seems, like I said, ir- rational... -- Testes saxi solidi! ********************** Podex opacus gravedinosus est! Stanton McCandlish, SysOp: Noise in the Void Data Center BBS IndraNet: 369:1/1 FidoNet: 1:301/2 Internet: anton@hydra.unm.edu Snail: 8020 Central SE #405, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87108 USA Data phone: +1-505-246-8515 (24hr, 1200-14400 v32bis, N-8-1) Vox phone: +1-505-247-3402 (bps rate varies, depends on if you woke me up...:)
It's VERY simple Stanton. Look at the difference. BBSs are still
relatively small standalone "islands", even when they are hooked up to
Fido, RIME, etc. networks. They are a LOT easier to pick on.
The "net" however is essentially many seperate systems and one HUGE system
all at the same time. They realize that to tackle one particular site or
even many sites, really doesn't do anything. The net is like a funhouse
with too many "mirrors." The only way to have any effect would be to
change the rules of the net itself, saying that, for example,
"pornography" is not allowed. This, as we all know, along with all the
other rules they would likely impose, would kill the net DEAD("yeah", I
know, poor english, but you get my point). Also, the size of the net and
the somewhat seemless connection between the numerous networks, would STILL
allow people to pass the information around without law enforcement having
a clue.
In addition, the fact that so much of the net is in some way either owned by,
sanctioned by, or located on government or university property(as you
mentioned), pretty much precludes law enforcement from doing anything. They
can't cut off their own arm. It would be the gov't vs. the gov't. Like a
dog chasing it's own tail trying to bite it. Like Internal Affairs. Like
"Independant" Internal Investigation. Right! They don't mean a d**n thing.
Art
On Wed, 19 May 1993, Stanton McCandlish wrote:
> I just want to know what it is about BBSing that scares the <insert fecal
> matter here> out of the govt. Why are porno, crypto, and <gasp> people saying
> what the want to, somehow more threating on BBSs than about 10x as many people
> doing the same thing on govt "controlled" <ha ha ha> educational systems?
> If the govt really really sees these things as dangerous, would it not be wiser
> to take care of the "cancer" in one's own body than worry about the health of
> others? Maybe the govt. is just totally irrational, or something. Not saying
> anyone should put a stop to alt.binaries.pictures.erotica, I could care less
> if people like spending inorinate amounts of time uudecoding spotty nudie
> pics. But the whole rationale behind attacking BBSs seems, like I said, ir-
> rational...