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

Re: Network Level Content Blocking (UK)

  • From: Deepak Jain
  • Date: Thu Jun 07 18:25:41 2007

Ok. I'll chime in.

William Allen Simpson wrote:

Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
Interestingly, nobody has mentioned on the list what the offending content is yet. Or why this would even remotely be a good idea. I would think that if the content in question is legal, ISPs and the government shouldn't touch it, and if it isn't, law enforcement should do something about it.

It was in http://publicaffairs.linx.net/news/?p=497

"images of child abuse"

"voluntary" "co-operation"

"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, 90 per cent. of connections is not enough...."


I find these two lines to be the most interesting "..we are setting a target that by the end of 2007, all ISPs offering broadband internet connectivity to the UK general public put in place technical measures that prevent their customers accessing websites containing illegal images of child abuse identified by the IWF."

and

"âAt 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. â

The last line being most significant. I read it as, "We will threaten you with a law to do the work, but since we don't want it challenged [like we would with the US legal system] we are going to threaten it...even if it might not pass."

And this is for anyone "selling broadband to the general public" -- however that is defined. Are commercial connections the general public? or just residential?

While I can't wait until web hosts/operators have to debug screwy performance and Squid bugs for sites passed through "untouched" by these proxies just because they share an IP address

While offering this as a service, or a free service is interesting (and in the spirit of voluntary cooperation) where users could opt in or out for it might be interesting... I can't imagine this would fly in the US.

Britain's moves to become a police state notwithstanding, I wonder how this insidious door-opener for censorship will rear its head as it effects the general Internet. Google's "voluntarily" censoring itself in China as a precondition of operating there. I am sure this "voluntary" policy in Britain will make getting various permits or approvals impossible even if they don't create a law to expressly mandate its use -- The Home Office Minister has already said he expects it in place, thats not far from a precondition of operation.

On the positive side, this will spark all kinds of innovation and give the conspiracy theorists all sorts of fun filled evenings.

Deepak Jain
AiNET