[97362] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: UK ISPs v. US ISPs (was RE: Network Level Content Blocking)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Kradorex Xeron)
Sat Jun 9 18:31:30 2007
From: Kradorex Xeron <admin@digibase.ca>
Reply-To: admin@digibase.ca
To: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2007 17:28:35 -0400
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.64.0706091620350.21932@clifden.donelan.com>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
On Saturday 09 June 2007 16:43, Sean Donelan wrote:
[...]
> Is a centralized filtering solution better or worse than a decentralized
> filtering solution?
[...]
In my opinion, it is not. With centralized, who gets to decide what is=20
filtered and why? I don't beleive a governmental entity should have to trea=
t=20
it's *adult* citizens like children. with de-centralized, it is the user's=
=20
perrogative what gets filtered and what doesn't - if the user doesn't want=
=20
their them or their children seeing certain content, then filtering is thei=
r=20
option. As well as it gives the user power over *WHAT* gets filtered and=20
*WHY*.
=46rom my view, ISPs should continue their role as "passing the packets" an=
d not=20
say what their users can or cannot view. It's when ISPs start interfering=20
with what their users do is when we will run into legal, political and=20
otherwise issues that I'm sure none of us want to see.
And with ISP level filtering: what's to say a legitamate page won't get cau=
ght=20
in the filter? i.e. if a news article is covering a child pornography story=
,=20
what's to stop the filter from picking up on that and blocking the news sit=
e=20
due to a false-positive?
