On Fri, 8 Jun 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In this case I would suggest that it is in ISPs best interests to get
involved with network content blocking, so that ISPs collectively become
deep experts on the subject. We are then in a position to modify these
activities in a way that is beneficial to ISPs and their customers (who
happen to be voters too). And we are in a position to advise government
on future actions as well. If ISPs choose not to get involved, then they
are less likely to be listened to by government partly because they have
less credibility and partly because they simply don't understand the
issue and therefore fail to communicate effectively.
UK ISP associations have developed a centralized blocking solution with
IWF providing the decision making of what to filter. 90% of the UK
broadband users accept the same "voluntary" decisions about what to
filter.
On the other hand, US ISP associations have advocated for decentralized
blocking solutions, leaving the decision to parents and multiple content
filtering companies. US ISP associations have been active in this area
since the early 1990's, although US ISP associations seem to only last so
long before they disappear and a new association springs up.
Is a centralized filtering solution better or worse than a decentralized
filtering solution?
Schools, libraries, families, etc in the US choose which content filter
product to use, which vary greatly how well they work and what they
choose to filter. Since its "voluntary," some US families choose not to
have any content filters. Other US families choose to filter much more
than other families.
Cisco, Juniper, Streamshield, NetNanny, etc sell identical products around
the world. If an ISP anywhere in the world wants to offer either a
centralized or decentralized filtering solution, the products are available.
Likewise, if an individual is concerned about what his or her family sees,
they can use without their ISP, the products are available.