There is nothing more annoying to me than see technically illiterate politicians pontificating about the Internet. What is interesting first of all is this notuion that "Internet Service Providers" must be held liable (and in some peoples view criminally liable) for the content that they allow access to or host.
First of all, if you do that the ISP is not an ISP anymore it is a CSP. A Content Service Provider. An ISP provides IP connectivity to the network, nothing more and nothing less. Secondly, the idea that an ISP can actively block illegal content from being hosted on it's infrastructure is not practically feasible. Illegal images, illegal music, illegal anything is just data. It is a combination of ones and zeros. The ISP cannot actively vet content.
Think about the argument of liability in relation to the Voice network, does anyone ever suggest that BT is liable when someone rings someone else and screams abuse down the phone? Of course no one does. More so BT could not know that such things are happening without actively inspecting all voice calls. Imagine the civil liberties outrage if it happened? That is what these MPs proposing criminal liability on ISPs means in reality. The active inspection of everyones data.
The problem is then compounded by politicians using technical terms incorrectly. Take Dr Brian Iddon MP in the Hansard link. He talks about "firewalls" that "prevent children from accessing some very undesirable material". That is called filtering, it is most definitely not a firewall. A firewall is something that sits at a network gateway and protects the users of a private network from users on other networks. It is about blocking inbound traffic based upon packet inspection related to source and destination address and ports.
Filtering software however is about arbitrarily denying access based upon pattern matching for outbound traffic. It is not, like firewalls, about network security. Talking about "firewalls" in inaccurate ways is much like the misplaced use of the term "hacker". It confuses the public and creates understandings that are simply wrong. The real danger online comes, as I have said before, when Government thinks it can solve the problems with a kitemark for software as Jacqui Smith detailed yesterday.
16 comments:
Dizzy I thought ISP's were classed as common carriers as per telephone companies and come under international law and can't be sued for content of data they move about.
There are political moves afoot to change things
The same logic would apply would it not to the Highways Agency being held responsible for every armed robbery getaway by car !!!
Or the Bus company being responsible for every shoplifter who made it home by bus.
Ooh the possibilities are endless! You could have pubs being prosecuted for the effects of passive smoking or train companies being sued for losses incurred by their delays.
Alternatively, these idiots could reel their necks in.
or the dept of transport for every highjacker.
the home office responsible for every car bomber.
immigration responsible for every foreign mugger, rapist and murderer.
endless possibilities certainly, but who in government has ever taken responsibility over the past 10 years.
So its not about making Government responsible for their actions or omissions, it is instead about making all private enterprise subservient to the Government. In particular Internet censorship, if done the Chinese or Iranian way, would be something of a "hot potato". But if ISPs can be cowed enough to do it without legislation then the Government has its win anyway; and the user has no recourse because its not illegal but all the ISPs "just happen" to do it!
Dizzy If they are classed as common carriers under international laws ,then Britain would have to change the international treaties to do that that would take years,if they try that BT would then be liable for all those scam calls from Florida,I can't see BT wanting any changes.
TBH I;m not sure they are considered common carrier under "international law"
Dizzy I would have to check but many moons age in the age of KA9Q & dialup,somebody tried to sue an ISP but it failed because they were classed under international law as a common carrier.
Dizzy this is a bit out of date 2005 but Register had a Belgian ISP getting hit over music.
http://www.out-law.com/page-487
MPs need to stop watching 24 where the super firewall is as versatile as vinegar. Maybe a new section you your blog "techno-crap" MPs talking about things they no nowt about?
The problem with pedantic complaining about others use of terms is it tends to bite you on the bum!
A firewall can block both incoming and outgoing traffic. Filtering is when you use algorithms to define what you can and cannot access.
As for it being impossible for ISP's to stop people seeing illegal information, have a go at Googling "cleanfeed". All ISP's need to be signed up to this by Jan 2008 under EU rules.
Except that you;re wrong. A firewall is designed to inspect traffic at packet level. Filtering is not firewalling. It's as simple as that.
As to the ISP stuff, I didn't say it was impossible. I said it was practically unfeasible and was also politically distasteful.
Incidentally, cleanfeed is crap and quite easy to workaround because it relies entirely on human based input. It is also a great example of censorship for example the manner in which it can filter out "hate speech" and all manner of categories based on the restriction of infromation flow.
Oh yes, and can you source the EU law bit.
The neat thing about the national firewalls/filters in China, Iran etc is that the state gets to employ lots of wasters with a Mussolini complex to decide which IP addresses go on the blacklist. Voila - a new 'solution' for unemployment.
127.0.0.1 - that site is fucking evil man!
Post a Comment