| |||||||||||||
We need ISPs to be able to do a certain amount of filteringWe need ISPs to be able to do a certain amount of filteringPosted Jan 3, 2008 10:07 UTC (Thu) by james (subscriber, #1325)In reply to: Regulatory solution, not technical, is required by dskoll Parent article: The future of unencrypted web traffic Such regulation would need to be well-thought-out, or it might prevent (or place a legal cloud over):
That list isn't complete -- I'm sure there are other things we'd expect ISPs to be able to do for the general public. There'll be other things in future, too. Do you trust Congress, Parliament, or whoever to come up with legislation which will prevent behaviour we don't like, now and in the future, will permit filtering that is in the interests of netizens, will be sufficiently flexible for future technologies and problems, and stand up to commercial interests?
(Log in to post comments)
We need ISPs to be able to do a certain amount of filtering Posted Jan 3, 2008 11:58 UTC (Thu) by epa (subscriber, #39769) [Link] Hmm, I'm not sure, it might be better if ISPs indeed did not do any of the above things. Just give each user a quota of packets to send and receive and let them get on with it. Manifestly, all the measures ISPs are currently taking to block port 25 or cut off zombie PCs are ineffective in stopping spam, so it would be no great loss if they went back to just pushing bits.
We need ISPs to be able to do a certain amount of filtering Posted Jan 3, 2008 19:44 UTC (Thu) by vonbrand (subscriber, #4458) [Link] Just think about how bad it would become if they did nothing (Shudder!)
Several categories of service here Posted Jan 3, 2008 16:28 UTC (Thu) by kirkengaard (subscriber, #15022) [Link] The ISP, in its capacity as an email provider, should filter spam and other nuisances _within email traffic_, but only to the extent to which these are contained within email traffic directed to or provided by users of its email services. This is a service provided through that company's internet service provision, but separate from it. This is filtering done by a mail server or associated apparatus on mail arriving over the TCP/IP stream. This should not violate common-carrier status because they don't care what the bits are until they become an endpoint. Services provided to the user to filter traffic at the user end, such as optional parental filtering, are not therefore filtering done at the discretion of the ISP, but end-user defined filtering of end-user defined traffic. This should not violate common-carrier status because the ISP retains its neutrality as a carrier, and filtering is done per-endpoint/per-user at user request. Monitoring and disconnecting virus-infected computers is a grey area as far as caring what the content of packets are, because it does require analysis without being an endpoint. It is, however, undeniably malicious content. This intent to harm the user is the valid reason for filtering, just as the parallel filtering of the mail systems for explosives, toxins and other undeniably hazardous content. Users that desire hazardous materials for legitimate purposes need to go through separate carrier systems and much red tape from the recipient end to request such materials. This asserts the express non-malicious nature of that particular 'packet' of hazardous-to-the-user material. The ISP has a customer safety burden which makes virus filtering and quarantine a legitimate intrusion upon carrier neutrality.
We need ISPs to be able to do a certain amount of filtering Posted Jan 4, 2008 2:03 UTC (Fri) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313) [Link] I specificly picked an ISP that doesn't do any of those things (well, they do offer optional spam filtering)
|
|||||||||||||