Another Internet Provider Censors Access (fwd)

---------- Forwarded message ----------


Another shoe drops?

---------- Forwarded message ----------

Date: Mon, 1 Jan 1996 19:44:30 -0600
From: x
To: y

Y -
 
Coming off CompuServe's announcement last week that it was 
cutting off all access to "alt.binaries" newsgroups under 
pressure from the German government, I'm passing along another 
apparent development from another Internet access provider, 
Netcom.
 
Under the guise of a minor software upgrade, Netcom has changed 
its newsgroups access list to totally exclude "alt" groups 
altogether.  Since there is no way to sign up for a newsgroup 
other than via the selection menu that Netcom provides, it 
appears that Netcom has managed to censor access to all those 
discussion groups.
 
We are witnessing the not-so-gradual erosion of freedom of the 
Net.  I not often find myself allied with John Perry Barlow, but 
on this one we are four-square:  what with stupid attempts of 
government to pass unconstitutional restrictions, and 
acquiescence of the private sector to intimidation and pressure, 
freedoms of the many are being dictated by reactionary elements 
in places like Memphis, Tennessee.  
 
The next opportunity, I expect, will be to help underwrite the 
defense of the first criminal action brought under the new law.  
In the meantime, we can unsubscribe to services that curtail our 
liberties.
 
"X"
Speaking solely for myself, this time.

In article <Pine.SOL.3.91.960102000200.10683A-100000@use.usit.net>,
Brad Dolan  <bdolan@use.usit.net> wrote:
>Date: Tue, 2 Jan 1996 00:02:44 -0500 (EST)
>---------- Forwarded message ----------
>Coming off CompuServe's announcement last week that it was 
>cutting off all access to "alt.binaries" newsgroups under 
>pressure from the German government, I'm passing along another 
>apparent development from another Internet access provider, 
>Netcom.
> 
>Under the guise of a minor software upgrade, Netcom has changed 
>its newsgroups access list to totally exclude "alt" groups 
>altogether.  Since there is no way to sign up for a newsgroup 
>other than via the selection menu that Netcom provides, it 
>appears that Netcom has managed to censor access to all those 
>discussion groups.

I saw all the posts regarding this and proclaiming it to be false.  I
feel obligated to point out a discussion we had at work last week about
our news feeds (I work for an ISP).  Our news machines are constantly
filling up, and we can only add so much disk-space to the news spools.
We have been reducing the expire times, and the news spools are still
filling up too fast.  40%, I think it was, of the news was alt.*.  I
suggested (Bad, Mike!) that we kill all the alt.* groups, and add back
only those that people customers actually request.  The whole
engineering group jumped down my throat saying that that action would
be seen by the customers, and potential customers, as censorship.  I
withdrew my proposal, because I agreed with them.

The reason I bring this up is to point out that the removal of the
alt.* groups does not necessarily mean the people removing those groups
are trying to censor anything, but may just be trying to reduce the
resources eaten by news on their systems and network.

-------------------------------------------------------------|
| #include "std/disclaimer.h"         Michael P. Brininstool |
| http://www.hoplite.org/~mikepb/     NIC: MB458             |
|-------------------------------------------------------------

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

> Under the guise of a minor software upgrade, Netcom has changed 
> its newsgroups access list to totally exclude "alt" groups 
> altogether.  Since there is no way to sign up for a newsgroup 
> other than via the selection menu that Netcom provides, it 
> appears that Netcom has managed to censor access to all those 
> discussion groups.

Really?  A quick check shows that alt. groups, even the alt.sex.* groups, 
are still in /usr/lib/news/active, and articles are still in 
/usr/spool/news/alt/sex/*.

Whoever supplied that information is apparently wrong.
- --
Ed Carp, N7EKG    			Ed.Carp@linux.org, ecarp@netcom.com
					214/993-3935 voicemail/digital pager
					800/558-3408 SkyPager
Finger ecarp@netcom.com for PGP 2.5 public key		an88744@anon.penet.fi

"Past the wounds of childhood, past the fallen dreams and the broken families,
through the hurt and the loss and the agony only the night ever hears, is a
waiting soul.  Patient, permanent, abundant, it opens its infinite heart and
asks only one thing of you ... 'Remember who it is you really are.'"

                    -- "Losing Your Mind", Karen Alexander and Rick Boyes

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2

iQCVAwUBMOjNciS9AwzY9LDxAQE74gP+MD9vqln8W/55QXW7IgBosZkWu0923Wp/
8il41W2xhJEv7/DYcDjzMAZZKK1/F5Nwl6rv1mqxzUGP6UJg60RC3w6+Q9Pnr5R3
i7DJ0IO8LryJOFMFrIT9RAKLdwjic7NjglksD8rWjHJP14XV2m1R8xToGMtFeE+T
Y8VWdh98ZXM=
=V6vA
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Gulp.

Sorry.

That's the last time I believe anybody with a name like "Y."

bd

On Tue, 2 Jan 1996, Ed Carp [khijol SysAdmin] wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> 
> > Under the guise of a minor software upgrade, Netcom has changed 
> > its newsgroups access list to totally exclude "alt" groups 
> > altogether.  Since there is no way to sign up for a newsgroup 
> > other than via the selection menu that Netcom provides, it 
> > appears that Netcom has managed to censor access to all those 
> > discussion groups.
> 
> Really?  A quick check shows that alt. groups, even the alt.sex.* groups, 
> are still in /usr/lib/news/active, and articles are still in 
> /usr/spool/news/alt/sex/*.
> 
> Whoever supplied that information is apparently wrong.
> - --
> Ed Carp, N7EKG    			Ed.Carp@linux.org, ecarp@netcom.com
> 					214/993-3935 voicemail/digital pager
> 					800/558-3408 SkyPager
> Finger ecarp@netcom.com for PGP 2.5 public key		an88744@anon.penet.fi
> 
> "Past the wounds of childhood, past the fallen dreams and the broken families,
> through the hurt and the loss and the agony only the night ever hears, is a
> waiting soul.  Patient, permanent, abundant, it opens its infinite heart and
> asks only one thing of you ... 'Remember who it is you really are.'"
> 
>                     -- "Losing Your Mind", Karen Alexander and Rick Boyes
> 
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: 2.6.2
> 
> iQCVAwUBMOjNciS9AwzY9LDxAQE74gP+MD9vqln8W/55QXW7IgBosZkWu0923Wp/
> 8il41W2xhJEv7/DYcDjzMAZZKK1/F5Nwl6rv1mqxzUGP6UJg60RC3w6+Q9Pnr5R3
> i7DJ0IO8LryJOFMFrIT9RAKLdwjic7NjglksD8rWjHJP14XV2m1R8xToGMtFeE+T
> Y8VWdh98ZXM=
> =V6vA
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>

An embarrassed Brad Dolan <bdolan@use.usit.net> writes:

 > Gulp. Sorry. That's the last time I believe anybody with a
 > name like "Y."

Netcom has not removed access to the alt groups, but they have
definitely screwed something up in the news system for the shell
machines.  Netcruiser accounts seem to work fine.

I just tried a test post to a bunch of alt.sex groups from Netcom
shell and it bounced instantly with the obnoxious message.

/usr/lib/newsbin/inject/injnews:alt.sex.girl.watchers,
alt.sex.graphics,alt.sex.hello-kitty,alt.sex.homosexual,
alt.sex.incest,alt.sex.intergen,alt.sex.magazines,
alt.sex.masturbation,alt.sex.pedophile.mike-labbe:
no groups in active file

/usr/lib/newsbin/inject/injnews: article in /u1/mpd/dead.article

/usr/lib/news/inews failed

Given Netcom's superb reputation for protecting free speech, It
is very unlikely this has anything to do with censorship.
Possibly someone encountered this glitch while trying to access
an alt group and jumped to conclusions.

Then again, maybe the Bavarians are running Netcom now. :)

--
     Mike Duvos         $    PGP 2.6 Public Key available     $
     mpd@netcom.com     $    via Finger.                      $

> Under the guise of a minor software upgrade, Netcom has changed 
> its newsgroups access list to totally exclude "alt" groups 
> altogether.  Since there is no way to sign up for a newsgroup 
> other than via the selection menu that Netcom provides, it 
> appears that Netcom has managed to censor access to all those 
> discussion groups.

Horsefeathers.
I'm reading alt.fan.david-sternlight in another window
as I type. Yes, on netcom8.netcom.com.....

-- 
A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz@nrk.com
& no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433

>Under the guise of a minor software upgrade, Netcom has changed
>its newsgroups access list to totally exclude "alt" groups
>altogether.  Since there is no way to sign up for a newsgroup
>other than via the selection menu that Netcom provides, it
>appears that Netcom has managed to censor access to all those
>discussion groups.

Can you say B-U-L-L-S-H-I-T ???

Man, this place is like a bunch of guerilla fighters preparing for war.
People are really on edge.  Make one wrong move and everybody starts
shooting.  I'm afraid that sooner or later it could be real bullets too.

BTW, Netcom splits its newsfeed between two servers.  Currently the
netcom.*, comp.*, and rec.* are all on one, and everything else is on the
other, although they move them around every few months.  Occasionally one
or the other server starts acting up, causing the respective heirarchies
to be temporarily inaccessable.

> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> 
> Another shoe drops?
> 
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>  
> Under the guise of a minor software upgrade, Netcom has changed 
> its newsgroups access list to totally exclude "alt" groups 
> altogether.  Since there is no way to sign up for a newsgroup 
> other than via the selection menu that Netcom provides, it 
> appears that Netcom has managed to censor access to all those 
> discussion groups.
>  
    Not entirely.  From my shell account I just used Tin to view and
    subscribe to alt.sex and several others without a problem.
    Perhaps the above is true of their browser (NetCruiser) accounts?

    Bart