[97361] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: UK ISPs v. US ISPs (was RE: Network Level Content Blocking)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Keegan.Holley@sungard.com)
Sat Jun 9 18:13:54 2007
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.64.0706091620350.21932@clifden.donelan.com>
To: Sean Donelan <sean@donelan.com>
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
From: Keegan.Holley@sungard.com
Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2007 17:38:20 -0400
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
This is a multipart message in MIME format.
--=_alternative 0076DE8E852572F5_=
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
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 <sean@donelan.com>
Sent by: owner-nanog@merit.edu
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, michael.dillon@bt.com 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.
--=_alternative 0076DE8E852572F5_=
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">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.</font>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<table width=100%>
<tr valign=top>
<td width=40%><font size=1 face="sans-serif"><b>Sean Donelan <sean@donelan.com></b>
</font>
<br><font size=1 face="sans-serif">Sent by: owner-nanog@merit.edu</font>
<p><font size=1 face="sans-serif">06/09/2007 04:43 PM</font>
<td width=59%>
<table width=100%>
<tr valign=top>
<td>
<div align=right><font size=1 face="sans-serif">To</font></div>
<td><font size=1 face="sans-serif">nanog@merit.edu</font>
<tr valign=top>
<td>
<div align=right><font size=1 face="sans-serif">cc</font></div>
<td>
<tr valign=top>
<td>
<div align=right><font size=1 face="sans-serif">Subject</font></div>
<td><font size=1 face="sans-serif">UK ISPs v. US ISPs (was RE: Network
Level Content Blocking)</font></table>
<br>
<table>
<tr valign=top>
<td>
<td></table>
<br></table>
<br>
<br>
<br><tt><font size=2><br>
On Fri, 8 Jun 2007, michael.dillon@bt.com wrote:<br>
> In this case I would suggest that it is in ISPs best interests to
get<br>
> involved with network content blocking, so that ISPs collectively
become<br>
> deep experts on the subject. We are then in a position to modify these<br>
> activities in a way that is beneficial to ISPs and their customers
(who<br>
> happen to be voters too). And we are in a position to advise government<br>
> on future actions as well. If ISPs choose not to get involved, then
they<br>
> are less likely to be listened to by government partly because they
have<br>
> less credibility and partly because they simply don't understand the<br>
> issue and therefore fail to communicate effectively.<br>
<br>
UK ISP associations have developed a centralized blocking solution with
<br>
IWF providing the decision making of what to filter. 90% of the UK
<br>
broadband users accept the same "voluntary" decisions about what
to <br>
filter.<br>
<br>
On the other hand, US ISP associations have advocated for decentralized
<br>
blocking solutions, leaving the decision to parents and multiple content
<br>
filtering companies. US ISP associations have been active in this
area<br>
since the early 1990's, although US ISP associations seem to only last
so<br>
long before they disappear and a new association springs up.<br>
<br>
Is a centralized filtering solution better or worse than a decentralized
<br>
filtering solution?<br>
<br>
Schools, libraries, families, etc in the US choose which content filter<br>
product to use, which vary greatly how well they work and what they<br>
choose to filter. Since its "voluntary," some US families
choose not to<br>
have any content filters. Other US families choose to filter much
more<br>
than other families.<br>
<br>
Cisco, Juniper, Streamshield, NetNanny, etc sell identical products around
<br>
the world. If an ISP anywhere in the world wants to offer either
a<br>
centralized or decentralized filtering solution, the products are available.
<br>
Likewise, if an individual is concerned about what his or her family sees,<br>
they can use without their ISP, the products are available.<br>
<br>
<br>
</font></tt>
<br>
--=_alternative 0076DE8E852572F5_=--
