{"id":205,"date":"2005-09-15T05:31:06","date_gmt":"2005-09-15T09:31:06","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.law.harvard.edu\/metasj\/2005\/09\/15\/as-long-as-we-can-choose-our-networks\/"},"modified":"2005-09-15T05:31:06","modified_gmt":"2005-09-15T09:31:06","slug":"as-long-as-we-can-choose-our-networks","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/sj\/2005\/09\/15\/as-long-as-we-can-choose-our-networks\/","title":{"rendered":"“As long as we can choose our networks…”"},"content":{"rendered":"

<\/a><\/p>\n

I suppose that should be refined to “as long as we can choose what routes our traffic
\ntakes…” — that is, which peers, what types of lines and routers, perhaps even what
\nlast-mile providers.    It should be possible to say “if
\nthere’s no way to send the following content along routes I trust,
\ndon’t send it.<\/span>”  <\/p>\n

You don’t have to be paranoid to want this.  You might distrust a
\nroute because you expect it to attempt to reconstruct, alter, and
\nresend content; because you suspect it of not accepting content from
\ncertain areas or sites, because you worry that it keeps track of what
\nyou send when, without your permission…  You might not want to
\nsend content through any router that doesn’t respect the “return
\nreceipt” flag which sends back information on how your packets
\ntravelled on their way to a destination. Or you might just not want to
\nsupport in any way certain traffic providers, explicitly asking to
\npatronize other providers whenever possible.<\/p>\n

“I’ll take ‘Arlnet Secure Wifi’ from my
\nhouse to the Arlington Center hub, ‘Hub of the World’ or ‘OpenBelNet’
\nfrom there to the Harvard U. hub, ‘HU Internet2’ to the Cambridge
\nInternet2 backbone hub,  and any lines\/routers run by WorldCom or
\nUUNet, or on the dynamic ‘Debian-Class1’ network list.”\n<\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

“Oh, as for my other options and preferences:\n<\/div>\n
\n