Re: UK ISPs v. US ISPs (was RE: Network Level Content Blocking)
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Barry Shein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes It'd be a lot easier if we could come up with separate terms for common law common carrier versis CA1934 telecommunications common carrier. What you are looking for is probably a US equivalent of the European Union's "Mere Conduit" law. It's a relatively new (doesn't have historical baggage) law, and has the advantage of in effect being negotiated with telcos and ISPs during the drafting. Additionally there are sensible definitions for the liability of intermediaries in the circumstances of caching and hosting. The caching clause was particularly important from an operational point of view, because the threat was that a different approach (as initially promoted by rightsholders) would have either made caches an illegal beach of copyright, or mandated that cache owners get a licence from all copyright holders (perhaps through a central collecting agency set up for the purpose). Luckily[1], sense prevailed. http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/e-commerce/index_en.htm Topical to the current discussion, and also of crucial operational importance, a subsequent proposal in the UK for sysadmins to be individually licensed in order to obtain immunity[2] from reporting illegal material found on their systems, was lobbied into a more general amnesty for that kind of activity. [1] Actually, no luck involved at all, just sustained lobbying via a network of EU-based trade associations. [2] A bit like seeing a gun in the street and on handing it into the police being prosecuted for possession of an unlicenced firearm; strictly true (if having it in your hand is the definition of possession), but not in the public interest. -- Roland Perry Internet Policy Agency
Re: UK ISPs v. US ISPs (was RE: Network Level Content Blocking)
Keegan Holley Network Engineer, Network Managed Services SunGard Availability Services Mezzanine Level MC-95 401 N. Broad St. Philadelphia, PA 19108 215.446.1242 (office) 609.670.2149 (cell) [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Keeping People and Information Connected® http://www.availability.sungard.com Mark Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 06/11/2007 09:01 AM To [EMAIL PROTECTED] cc Sean Donelan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, nanog@merit.edu Subject Re: UK ISPs v. US ISPs (was RE: Network Level Content Blocking) On Sat, 9 Jun 2007 17:38:20 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > IMHO, unless it's something blatantly illegal such as kiddie porn and the > like I don't think content filtering is the responsibility of the ISP's. > Besides all of the conspiracy theories that are bound to surface, I think > forcing ISP's to block content is a bit like forcing car makers to police > what can be played on the radio. I think that giving parents the option > of manually turning off porn sites would be an improvement. Although > still not within the responsibility of the ISP they are in the best place > to implement such a technology. However, I don't like the idea of a > mandatory global traffic filtering initiative. > > I think in the home is the best place to implement the technology - a power switch or BIOS password. I guess that would go for the cell phone and the computer at the friends house as well... Here is a true analogy. My father worked for a TV station, so you'd think we'd have the TV on all the time, yet right through up until after I left high school, my parents wanted to limit my TV watching ... significantly. Did you ever have to do homework or check you grades on the TV? Did your mother ever pay bills with the TV? Also, did any child molesters ever try contacting you during the commercials. How did they do it ? (a) they didn't buy a TV set and put it in my bedroom - the TV was in a common area of the house i.e. the lounge and/or dining room (b) they didn't allow me to watch the TV unsupervised And you never got up after they went to bed to see what you were missing.. So what I don't understand is why parents put computers in their childrens' bedrooms and don't supervise their children's Internet use. Substituting a piece of filtering software that won't ever do as good a job as a parent in enforcing parental responsibility is just bad parenting in my opinion, and not the responsibility of government or ISPs. I agree but there are many houses where both parents work and the kids for better or worse spend alot of time alone. I think it would be a good thing to give them a way to filter what comes into their living rooms. I'm probably showing my age with this one but my parents actually caught me downloading porn and tried some of those filters. I actually found a website that explained how to disable it. I think we have come a long way from cable TV, both in terms of accessibility and what is deemed appropriate content. Also I think teenagers are different now then they were a few years ago. While a content filtering solution will never be able to replace good parenting and plain common sense. I have no objections to having all three in the same household. Keegan
Re: UK ISPs v. US ISPs (was RE: Network Level Content Blocking)
On Sat, 9 Jun 2007 17:38:20 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > IMHO, unless it's something blatantly illegal such as kiddie porn and the > like I don't think content filtering is the responsibility of the ISP's. > Besides all of the conspiracy theories that are bound to surface, I think > forcing ISP's to block content is a bit like forcing car makers to police > what can be played on the radio. I think that giving parents the option > of manually turning off porn sites would be an improvement. Although > still not within the responsibility of the ISP they are in the best place > to implement such a technology. However, I don't like the idea of a > mandatory global traffic filtering initiative. > > I think in the home is the best place to implement the technology - a power switch or BIOS password. Here is a true analogy. My father worked for a TV station, so you'd think we'd have the TV on all the time, yet right through up until after I left high school, my parents wanted to limit my TV watching ... significantly. How did they do it ? (a) they didn't buy a TV set and put it in my bedroom - the TV was in a common area of the house i.e. the lounge and/or dining room (b) they didn't allow me to watch the TV unsupervised So what I don't understand is why parents put computers in their childrens' bedrooms and don't supervise their children's Internet use. Substituting a piece of filting software that won't ever do as good a job as a parent in enforcing parental responsibility is just bad parenting in my opinion, and not the responsiblity of government or ISPs. Regards, Mark. -- "Sheep are slow and tasty, and therefore must remain constantly alert." - Bruce Schneier, "Beyond Fear"
Re: UK ISPs v. US ISPs (was RE: Network Level Content Blocking)
Thus spake "Kradorex Xeron" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> From my view, ISPs should continue their role as "passing the packets" and not say what their users can or cannot view. It's when ISPs start interfering with what their users do is when we will run into legal, political and otherwise issues that I'm sure none of us want to see. IIRC, AOL got whacked by a court years ago because they censored some chat rooms and not others. The court held that since they censored some content, they lost their status as a common carrier and were liable for other content they didn't censor (either by intent or mistake). This was a particularly interesting case, since the implication was that ISPs who _don't_ censor content _are_ common carriers, which I don't think has otherwise been touched upon in the US. S Stephen Sprunk "Those people who think they know everything CCIE #3723 are a great annoyance to those of us who do." K5SSS --Isaac Asimov
Re: UK ISPs v. US ISPs (was RE: Network Level Content Blocking)
On 6/10/07, William Allen Simpson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Sean Donelan wrote: > 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. > I have not seen any evidence presented that *any* "UK broadband users" either *know* about or "accept" the "voluntary" decisions of their ISP, made for them in their 'Net Nanny role. Could you point to the URL for this scientific polling data? I learned of it this week from NANOG and UKNOF.
Re: UK ISPs v. US ISPs (was RE: Network Level Content Blocking)
Sean Donelan wrote: 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. I have not seen any evidence presented that *any* "UK broadband users" either *know* about or "accept" the "voluntary" decisions of their ISP, made for them in their 'Net Nanny role. Could you point to the URL for this scientific polling data? 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. And that has not worked out well for us. No continuity, no effective lobbying organization. Where, oh where, are CIX, ISP/C, et alia?
Re: UK ISPs v. US ISPs (was RE: Network Level Content Blocking)
IMHO, unless it's something blatantly illegal such as kiddie porn and the like I don't think content filtering is the responsibility of the ISP's. Besides all of the conspiracy theories that are bound to surface, I think forcing ISP's to block content is a bit like forcing car makers to police what can be played on the radio. I think that giving parents the option of manually turning off porn sites would be an improvement. Although still not within the responsibility of the ISP they are in the best place to implement such a technology. However, I don't like the idea of a mandatory global traffic filtering initiative. Sean Donelan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 06/09/2007 04:43 PM To nanog@merit.edu cc Subject UK ISPs v. US ISPs (was RE: Network Level Content Blocking) 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.
UK ISPs v. US ISPs (was RE: Network Level Content Blocking)
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.
