Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 3rd Jan 2011 11:53 UTC, submitted by SReilly
Internet & Networking "In the physical world, we have the right to print and sell books. Anyone trying to stop us would need to go to court. That right is weak in the UK (consider superinjunctions), but at least it exists. However, to set up a web site we need the cooperation of a domain name company, an ISP, and often a hosting company, any of which can be pressured to cut us off. In the US, no law explicitly requires this precarity. Rather, it is embodied in contracts that we have allowed those companies to establish as normal. It is as if we all lived in rented rooms and landlords could evict anyone at a moment's notice." Recommended reading. I'm no fan of Stallman, but despite a bit too much dramatisation towards the end, this article aptly illustrates in layman's terms why the 'net needs to be free, open, and unregulated.
Thread beginning with comment 455874
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Verging on self-parody
by flypig on Tue 4th Jan 2011 19:50 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Verging on self-parody"
Member since:

And how exactly do you suggest we implement anonymous online funds transfers? Or for that matter, how do you suggest we make ANY non-cash funds transfer truly anonymous?

Without getting into the wider argument, there are many good ways that have been proposed to allow anonymous fund transfers online, such as using blind signatures. Here's a brief explanation about it: (PDF). There have been a whole variety of other approaches proposed with varying characteristics too.

There might be good legal reasons why you might not want to set up a scheme like this (e.g. money laundering), but technologically it could be done.

Reply Parent Score: 1