Decius wrote:
ubernoir wrote:
I'm not clear about what you are referring to when you say filtering has been deployed in the UK. If you mean the recent Mandelson plan -- that remains talk at the moment -- if you mean the throttling of p2p traffic by ISPs -- are you saying that AT&T etc doesn't as a routine part of traffic management at peak times? I am not aware of the UK government itself doing any filtering (GCHQ aside) although plans for an uber database have been floated but with that there is a certain amount of scaremongering and tabloid journalism involved.
You say filtering which implies there is a blockage. I am not aware that I am blocked or censored in the UK from any global site. It would seem I need educating. Let's run some tests.
According to Wikipedia about 98% of the UK is filtered, so its likely that you are. The IWF claims there are only about 100 URLs on the list at any one time, so you probably haven't noticed 'cause I'm guessing you're not into child porn. :) I don't suggest running tests...
100 URLs is a pretty tight list that is targeted specifically at something that no one is worried about filtering. The fact that its managed so well is the reason no one is complaining about it.
According to Wikipedia the list in Australia is an order of magnitude larger and has had some problems with it.
Australia sort of demonstrates what the problem is with this. Once the infrastructure exists, expanding its use is just a matter of policy. Conservatives in Australia are calling for censorship of numerous categories of material.
When you think about the ultimate scope that these things will have - consider the fact that this website received a DMCA takedown notice, and consider the amount of money behind that sort of thing.
since I'm not opposed to censorship in principle I don't have a problem with the blocking of child porn sites since I regard freedom of speech as fundamental yet not an absolute. And Ok yes NOT going to be running tests. You complain (I would suggest by inference) about creating the infrastructure to regulate the internet as a human space. Upon reflection I see this as inevitable just as nature abhors a vacuum and because I am not an anarchist (in the Kropotkin sense) I think a modicum of regulation is necessary in human interaction. I believe in law and governance. Whilst I understand the romance of a chaotic free for all I think one of the first duties of society is to protect the innocent. A balance must always be struck between order and disorder. Too much order and you have the Nazis or Stalinism -- too little and you have Somalia or 90s Afganistan. I return to Hobbes and Leviathan. I believe in law. The concern then is as you say the lack of transparency. How much regulation not the infrastructure itself? Who sets policy? And guarding the guardians!
I think it is foolish to raise the cry of Big Brother whenever a society seeks to regulate a particular space. And such filtering is, I would venture to suggest, a normalization of an unregulated space. That is not to say that eternal vigilance is not the best defense against tyranny. The creation of the wonderful interpipes (sic) has been a huge movement of the pendulum towards global freedom of speech. I think it has been, in many ways, a phase change and a new equilibrium is being established and part of that is to acknowledge that the internet is not nirvana and in certain instances ie child porn conservatives (emphasis small c) have a solid case for regulation and censorship.
