Tuesday, August 22, 2006
Knock-down versus knock-out
In boxing, there is a big difference between a knock-down and a knock-out. A knock-out is an automatic victory.
The Canadian Association of Internet Providers has a self-governing policy that knocks down websites that contain potentially illegal content, or content that contravenes the ISP's acceptable use policy. The Canadian ISP believes it has done good, because it no longer collects $20 per month in hosting fees and it claims that it is contributing to a better world. But in fact, the internet is no safer from these exercises.
Like boxing, knocking down is only a temporary inconvenience. The website re-appears soon, hosted on another ISP, often outside of Canada.
Look at the case of Dossier Noir, a white-supremacist Quebec website that was knocked down, only to reappear in the US, darker and more dangerous. The CBC writes about the site, noting
Technorati Tags:
racist, Illegal Content, CBC, CAIP, Dossier Noir, human rights, Net Neutrality
The Canadian Association of Internet Providers has a self-governing policy that knocks down websites that contain potentially illegal content, or content that contravenes the ISP's acceptable use policy. The Canadian ISP believes it has done good, because it no longer collects $20 per month in hosting fees and it claims that it is contributing to a better world. But in fact, the internet is no safer from these exercises.
Like boxing, knocking down is only a temporary inconvenience. The website re-appears soon, hosted on another ISP, often outside of Canada.
Look at the case of Dossier Noir, a white-supremacist Quebec website that was knocked down, only to reappear in the US, darker and more dangerous. The CBC writes about the site, noting
A racist website that shut down Sunday night after a complaint to the Canadian Human Rights Commission returned to the internet less than a day later in a more vitriolic form.What I think is needed is to block access to the site. If the content is offensive enough that an ISP will knock it off their servers, then knock it out completely. Finish the job.
Technorati Tags:
racist, Illegal Content, CBC, CAIP, Dossier Noir, human rights, Net Neutrality
Posted by Mark Goldberg @ 8/22/2006 08:00:00 AM 
Comments:
<< Home
ISP Content filtering is a slippery slope. Once you start blocking access/content at the ISP level, you could open the doors to being always accountable for managing the acceptability of the content. ISPs have traditionally only been blind networks, which left the legality of deciding what is acceptable and what is not to the legal systems. I would be surprised if ISPs took on the responsibility of censorship on the internet.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for removing annything that promotes hate, abuse, or racism, but I'm not convinced it should be the responsibility of the ISP to determine it.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for removing annything that promotes hate, abuse, or racism, but I'm not convinced it should be the responsibility of the ISP to determine it.
Posted by 
: 11:10 AM, August 22, 2006
: 11:10 AM, August 22, 2006
Free speech is great, but it isn't all encompassing. There are laws against hate speech, plain and simple. Newspapers can't print it, why should ISPs be allowed to serve it?
Why would it be surprising for ISPs to take responsibility for internet censorship? As described in this post, they are already knocking down illegal content. Why not go one step further and knock it out?
Explained during a session entitled "Illegal Content on the Internet" at the 2006 Canadian Telecom Summit, technology is evolving much faster than the laws that govern it. Those who develop new technologies should be responsible for evaluating how it can be abused, AND taking measures to prevent such abuse.
Most view the internet as a locale in which anything can be done without consequence: illegal file sharing, child pornography, hate speech. This needs to change, and those who seem to be the most capable of enforcing this change are the ISPs.
Why would it be surprising for ISPs to take responsibility for internet censorship? As described in this post, they are already knocking down illegal content. Why not go one step further and knock it out?
Explained during a session entitled "Illegal Content on the Internet" at the 2006 Canadian Telecom Summit, technology is evolving much faster than the laws that govern it. Those who develop new technologies should be responsible for evaluating how it can be abused, AND taking measures to prevent such abuse.
Most view the internet as a locale in which anything can be done without consequence: illegal file sharing, child pornography, hate speech. This needs to change, and those who seem to be the most capable of enforcing this change are the ISPs.
Posted by : 5:18 PM, August 22, 2006
: 5:18 PM, August 22, 2006
This has nothing to do with free speech and everything to do with plain old criminal activity. ISPs should not be in the business of permitting their service to be used by the likes of this Nazi to counsel the murder of an individual. Congrats to Mark , CJC and Richard Warman for going after this person. He is nothing but a common criminal in my books.
Posted by : 2:49 PM, August 23, 2006
: 2:49 PM, August 23, 2006
I must admit to being torn by this one but on balance I have to agree with o"Hara. I would reject outright any attempt at censoring speech even vile hate speech. However on this one advocating the murder of someone crosses every line imaginable.
Posted by : 4:13 PM, August 23, 2006
: 4:13 PM, August 23, 2006
A friend directed me to this interesting discussion. The issue that worries many civil libertarians is the "slippery slope" argument. And to be sure if we were discussing free speech the argument would be a valid one.
However, as pointed out by others the free speech issue becomes moot when extremists use the internet to counsel or promote the murder of fellow human beings.
As a civil libertarian myself my line in the sand is drawn by the criminal actions of people like Bill White. In a free and democratic society the anarchy of propogating murder cannot be tolerated.
Richard Warman whom I dont always agree with is in this case to be commended.Together with Mr. Goldberg and the Jewish Congress they are taking a stand in defence of democracy against individuals who feel they can wantonly issue warrants of murder.
Post a Comment
However, as pointed out by others the free speech issue becomes moot when extremists use the internet to counsel or promote the murder of fellow human beings.
As a civil libertarian myself my line in the sand is drawn by the criminal actions of people like Bill White. In a free and democratic society the anarchy of propogating murder cannot be tolerated.
Richard Warman whom I dont always agree with is in this case to be commended.Together with Mr. Goldberg and the Jewish Congress they are taking a stand in defence of democracy against individuals who feel they can wantonly issue warrants of murder.
Posted by : 8:26 PM, August 23, 2006
: 8:26 PM, August 23, 2006 << Home
Syndicate
