From Slashdot today

[Billy Crook]

Probably a better way of enforcing network neutrality is to encrypt
all communications (say, using IPSEC) to the point, where ISPs are
*NOT ABLE* to tell content apart, and to use anonymity networks like
TOR so ISPs are *NOT ABLE* to tell who is connecting to what.  Time is
ticking though.  Software and users need to act fast to set a
precedent of being untrackable and untraceable before ISPs set a
precedent of inspecting and controlling all traffic.

On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 10:33, James Sissel <jimsissel at yahoo.com> wrote:
> "For all their incessant bickering in the first two presidential debates
> over conflicts of interest and government regulation, PopMech columnist
> Glenn Derene is puzzled that the candidates have yet to be challenged on a
> vital issue directly related to both those topics: Net neutrality. John
> McCain and Barack Obama have stated elsewhere their opposing views on the
> issue, with McCain being opposed to Net neutrality and favoring light
> regulation of the Internet, while Obama is in favor of neutrality and seeks
> Government involvement. In any case, since there is no standard accepted
> definition of "network neutrality," until the candidates elaborate on their
> positions (which they both declined to do for this piece, nor anywhere else
> so far, for that matter), "both sides can make a credible case that they're
> the ones defending freedom of innovation and open communication.""
>
> And we should all know when the Government gets involved (for good or
> evil) the whole thing starts circling the drain.  And just what is "light
> regulation"?  Are both candidates clueless or just stupid?  Which one is the
> lesser of 2 evils?
> _______________________________________________
> Kclug mailing list
> Kclug at kclug.org
> http://kclug.org/mailman/listinfo/kclug
>
>