All the censor would have to do is block any content with the telex flag. Unless the flag is being encrypted in HTTPS, which would mean your traffic is being decrypted by the ISP - not exactly a good thing either.
[citation][nom]christop[/nom]Can they not just use tor.[/citation]
TOR doesn't guarantee immunity. China for example has tracked users that hid their tracks with TOR. The problem is not so much TOR itself - that protocol is VERY difficult to break - but rather the possibility of intercepting a connection before it enters or after it leaves the onion thingy.
So essentially this requires the ISPs to go against the government in the case of government censorship. All comes down to how far out a user is allowed, sure it could work if say a person in China is allowed to go to websites based outside of China and ISPs outside have setup the system. If things hit the fan like they did in Lybia than its no go.
For the US right now such a system would not mean much. Besides viewing content on websites like youtube and BBC with content that are region blocked in the US.
Still says they need to uncrypt to connect cause to connect you are going through uncrypted points of use.
not many places have encypts much anyways, but some do though, even say on some "normal" website use. Mainly if you sign-up for them, yes?
May not make some sense, but think even then is partial for the time being, yes? Just in it is the content which is say relevent of the place of such use, otherwise most content isn't.
Think the "arguement" ads to updates and patches, many websites start to have alot of encypt for normal use even when most the site isn't, yes? Or partial encypt of use. Without say loggin in, right?
Most pages will say, if you continue to say, that the page is encypted or not. Places of downloads at times have this, for many reasons i think. Malware, Viruses, Spyware, Spam.
Sounds like, they are trying to change these things the most, doesnt sometimes? When this is in mind, otherwise it sounds like they are trying to access things normal accessed but now encpyted and in lack of use due to it. Which one i wonder the most, right?
Region blocking seems debatable with or without the issue/argument.
Cause say then if content is placed within say just regional access, then of what that isnt, what is the issue? All things are not set to say regional restrictions which would make sense, to many points.
But regions would probably vary for access to say of use at times, rather ISPs, or server providors. Yes?
[citation][nom]bustapr[/nom]though it looks like a clever idea, its a fact that if pedos (paedophiles*) find this, they will use it for crap, so im not really happy about this.[/citation]
Zzzzz not this argument. IF used incorrectly and falling into the wrong hands, cars can kill, fertiliser can make bombs and people can go on a killing spree with guns. Things are only dangerous when used by people. They aren't dangerous on their own. It's like saying 'Oh noes faster internet connection means paedophiles can molest and groom more kids, we should all go back to dial up!'
This requires that ISPs install software to circumvent government censorship. This would only really work if your ISP was located outside of the country or the ISP of the website that you pretending to go to has Telex installed and reroutes the traffic. There is really no incentive for an ISP to that though.