North American Network Operators Group
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: Network Level Content Blocking (UK)

  • From: Leigh Porter
  • Date: Thu Jun 07 18:33:15 2007

[email protected] wrote:
On Thu, 07 Jun 2007 22:40:20 +0200, Iljitsch van Beijnum said:

Interestingly, nobody has mentioned on the list what the offending content is yet. Or why this would even remotely be a good idea.

Quoting the article http://publicaffairs.linx.net/news/?p=497

"At present, the government does not propose to require UK ISPs to block
content and our policy is to pursue a self-regulatory approach wherever
possible. However, our legislation as drafted provides the flexibility to
accomodate a change in Government policy should the need ever arise."

Lot of different ways to read that depending on your paranoia level. The
phrase "Slippery Slope" does come to mind, however...

Well indeed, it'll be "terrorist" sites and "Fundamentalist religious" sites and "Sites that contain material that may incite religious hatred" or some other such nonsense. And then who decides what does and does not constitute these sites and *BANG* you have the great firewall of Britain or America or wherever.

And since all these things are largely operated by para-government organisations and civil servants your vote makes little difference.

But the reality is that right now the four hoursemen are a lovely political hot topic and either networks in the UK do somethin g about it themselves (i.e. filtering, not matter how ineffective it is) or some idiot who can't tell Internet Explorer from Excel will do it for us.

Everybody knows it's really quite dumb, but it's less dumb than the dumbness that will be legislated if nothing gets done.

So we'll all have odd boxes that inject a thousand or so routes into BGP (nowhere neat that many actually) and filters a bit of port 80 and everybody's happy for a while.

Perhaps it'll even go away.

--
Leigh Porter