OT - I take it everyone's seen this?

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-99...?tag=nefd.lede


--
Jette Goldie
jette@blueyonder.co.uk
http://www.jette.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/
http://wolfette.livejournal.com/
("reply to" is spamblocked - use the email addy in sig)

On Jun 11, 12:58*pm, Jette <bossl...@scotlandmail.com> wrote:
> http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-99...?tag=nefd.lede
>
> --
> Jette Goldie
> je...@blueyonder.co.ukhttp://www.jette.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/http://wolfette.livejournal.com/
> ("reply to" is spamblocked - use the email addy in sig)

I'm not sure what this means. Can people with Time Warner, for
example. still access usenet groups through the Web at Google Groups?

(For the record, I have charter.net, a Wisconsin provider, but use
Google for news and AOL web based mailed because this is a public
computer in an HUD building.)

Linda Scheimann

Jette <bosslady@scotlandmail.com> wrote:

> http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-99...?tag=nefd.lede

Wow. That's overkill. Removing _all_ the alt.* groups just to stop 88
Usenet groups trafficking in kiddie porn? Why don't they just do what my
provider does: Ban all binary groups. That should take care of photo
sharing, which I assume is the actual problem.

--
Keera in Norway * Think big and then ask for more.
http://home.online.no/~kafox/

Keera Ann Fox wrote:
> Jette <bosslady@scotlandmail.com> wrote:
>
>> http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-99...?tag=nefd.lede
>
> Wow. That's overkill. Removing _all_ the alt.* groups just to stop 88
> Usenet groups trafficking in kiddie porn? Why don't they just do what my
> provider does: Ban all binary groups. That should take care of photo
> sharing, which I assume is the actual problem.
>

Some are going further than that - they plan to stop carrying
newsgroups _completely_


--
Jette Goldie
jette@blueyonder.co.uk
http://www.jette.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/
http://wolfette.livejournal.com/
("reply to" is spamblocked - use the email addy in sig)

Jette wrote the following on 6/11/08 1:58 PM:
> http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-99...?tag=nefd.lede

Oh. My. What is the procedure for moving a group up the Usenet hierarchy?
Rec.support.menopause? Misc.support.menopause? Doesn't it occur to anyone
that groups that do not allow binaries have no venue for posting child porn?

Karen R.

In article
<970072be-b229-451b-ac95-93420c099d70@f36g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>,
Linda <lindascheimann@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Jun 11, 12:58*pm, Jette <bossl...@scotlandmail.com> wrote:
> > http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578 3-9964895-38.html?tag=nefd.lede
> >
> > --
> > Jette Goldie
> > je...@blueyonder.co.ukhttp://www.jette.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/http://wolfette.
> > livejournal.com/
> > ("reply to" is spamblocked - use the email addy in sig)
>
> I'm not sure what this means. Can people with Time Warner, for
> example. still access usenet groups through the Web at Google Groups?

Until google decides to eliminate that portal.

I use the German server (which already doesn't carry binary groups) with
a standalone newsreader, so I don't expect to be affected. I'll have to
change ISPs out of principle if Verizon starts limiting access, though.

> (For the record, I have charter.net, a Wisconsin provider, but use
> Google for news and AOL web based mailed because this is a public
> computer in an HUD building.)

The whole thing is so idiotic. It's like people who blame Internet
access for everything. Technology is a tool you can use for anything.
Before the net there were hardcopy photos. Ban darkroom chemicals and
photosensitive paper! Ban pens and paper, typewriters, printing
presses! Such idiocy.

Priscilla

On Jun 11, 2:17*pm, WWWSC #4 <kre...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Jette wrote the following on 6/11/08 1:58 PM:
>
> >http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-99...?tag=nefd.lede
>
> Oh. My. What is the procedure for moving a group up the Usenet hierarchy?
> Rec.support.menopause? Misc.support.menopause? Doesn't it occur to anyone
> that groups that do not allow binaries have no venue for posting child porn?
>
> Karen R.

I'm not sure, but I think you might start by asking the question in
alt.config.

It might be a matter of starting a new group altogether, in which case
that's where you get approval, I think.

Linda

Keera Ann Fox <thinkbig.shrinktofit@online.no> wrote:
> Jette <bosslady@scotlandmail.com> wrote:

>> http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-99...?tag=nefd.lede

> Wow. That's overkill. Removing _all_ the alt.* groups just to stop 88
> Usenet groups trafficking in kiddie porn? Why don't they just do what my
> provider does: Ban all binary groups. That should take care of photo
> sharing, which I assume is the actual problem.

The two really big mistakes behind all of this was firstly God giving
people free will and secondly a few radical monks deciding it would be
a good idea to teach the common people to read and write.

--
Chris Malcolm cam@infirmatics.ed.ac.uk DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]

Chris Malcolm <cam@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote:

> Keera Ann Fox <thinkbig.shrinktofit@online.no> wrote:
> > Jette <bosslady@scotlandmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-99...?tag=nefd.lede
>
> > Wow. That's overkill. Removing _all_ the alt.* groups just to stop 88
> > Usenet groups trafficking in kiddie porn? Why don't they just do what my
> > provider does: Ban all binary groups. That should take care of photo
> > sharing, which I assume is the actual problem.
>
> The two really big mistakes behind all of this was firstly God giving
> people free will and secondly a few radical monks deciding it would be
> a good idea to teach the common people to read and write.

Oh, that's not a bug. That's a _feature_! :-D

--
Keera in Norway * Think big and then ask for more.
http://home.online.no/~kafox/