Comments on: How Filtering Affects ISPs http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/infolaw/2009/03/14/how-filtering-affects-isps/ Information, Law, and the Law of Information Tue, 24 Nov 2009 00:08:14 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Info/Law » Interview with Background Briefing on Australian Broadcasting Corporation http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/infolaw/2009/03/14/how-filtering-affects-isps/comment-page-1/#comment-83973 Info/Law » Interview with Background Briefing on Australian Broadcasting Corporation Tue, 17 Mar 2009 15:58:00 +0000 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/infolaw/?p=469#comment-83973 [...] to the report on-line or download it. For my take on how filtering alters the role of ISPs, see my write-up here, and for my thoughts on the Australian situation, see my SSRN piece [...] [...] to the report on-line or download it. For my take on how filtering alters the role of ISPs, see my write-up here, and for my thoughts on the Australian situation, see my SSRN piece [...]

]]> By: TJ McIntyre http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/infolaw/2009/03/14/how-filtering-affects-isps/comment-page-1/#comment-83238 TJ McIntyre Sat, 14 Mar 2009 16:15:11 +0000 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/infolaw/?p=469#comment-83238 An insightful piece this. I'm in general agreement with your argument (and enjoyed the Cylon reference!) but have to quibble slightly with this point: "There can be benefits from requiring ISPs to act as enforcers. The application of restrictions is likely to be more uniform than with controls on end users directly...." In the UK context (which I'm currently researching) this doesn't seem to have been the case. While government policy requiring filtering of (alleged) child pornography is itself reasonably uniform - being based on the IWF blacklist - the application of that filtering has been anything but. While the majority of ISPs have been using a two stage filter looking at individual URLs, one ISP - Be Unlimited - is reported to have used crude IP address blocking, preventing access to innocent websites sharing the same physical server [1]. A similar issue happened in respect of the Internet Archive, where Demon Internet's application of the filtering system resulted in substantial collateral damage - even to users on *other* ISPs [2]. Transparency has also been patchy: ISPs have differed as to whether they notify users as to why a page is blocked. Demon Internet does [3] while the majority of others appear to use a deceptive error page instead. I'm also slightly sceptical as to what we mean by uniformity. Centralised systems such as the IWF blacklist may be uniform in the sense that each user is subjected to the same restrictions - this is not, however, a guarantee that those restrictions are uniform within themselves. (In the sense that different sites are subject to the same rules and procedures.) For example, the IWF climbdown over the Wikipedia / Scorpions album cover suggests to me that there may be questions as to the legitimacy and accountability of the IWF's procedures, as well as disparities between the treatment of high-profile and media savvy sites and others and between the treatment of online and offline content [4]. [1] http://www.thinkbroadband.com/news/3235-be-unlimited-causes-stir-in-effort-of-blocking-child-abuse-images.html [2] http://www.ispreview.co.uk/news/EkFEAFAyyACWhcpXZJ.html ; http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/01/16/demon_resolves_wayback_issue/ [3] http://www.demon.net/error/403-blocked.html [4] http://tjmcintyre.com/2008/12/some-thoughts-on-iwf-wikipedia-debacle.html An insightful piece this. I’m in general agreement with your argument (and enjoyed the Cylon reference!) but have to quibble slightly with this point:

“There can be benefits from requiring ISPs to act as enforcers. The application of restrictions is likely to be more uniform than with controls on end users directly….”

In the UK context (which I’m currently researching) this doesn’t seem to have been the case. While government policy requiring filtering of (alleged) child pornography is itself reasonably uniform – being based on the IWF blacklist – the application of that filtering has been anything but. While the majority of ISPs have been using a two stage filter looking at individual URLs, one ISP – Be Unlimited – is reported to have used crude IP address blocking, preventing access to innocent websites sharing the same physical server [1]. A similar issue happened in respect of the Internet Archive, where Demon Internet’s application of the filtering system resulted in substantial collateral damage – even to users on *other* ISPs [2]. Transparency has also been patchy: ISPs have differed as to whether they notify users as to why a page is blocked. Demon Internet does [3] while the majority of others appear to use a deceptive error page instead.

I’m also slightly sceptical as to what we mean by uniformity. Centralised systems such as the IWF blacklist may be uniform in the sense that each user is subjected to the same restrictions – this is not, however, a guarantee that those restrictions are uniform within themselves. (In the sense that different sites are subject to the same rules and procedures.) For example, the IWF climbdown over the Wikipedia / Scorpions album cover suggests to me that there may be questions as to the legitimacy and accountability of the IWF’s procedures, as well as disparities between the treatment of high-profile and media savvy sites and others and between the treatment of online and offline content [4].

[1] http://www.thinkbroadband.com/news/3235-be-unlimited-causes-stir-in-effort-of-blocking-child-abuse-images.html
[2] http://www.ispreview.co.uk/news/EkFEAFAyyACWhcpXZJ.html ; http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/01/16/demon_resolves_wayback_issue/
[3] http://www.demon.net/error/403-blocked.html
[4] http://tjmcintyre.com/2008/12/some-thoughts-on-iwf-wikipedia-debacle.html

]]>