Democratic governments have toyed with the idea of Internet censorship for years. ISP-level filtering technology is slowly progressing, but the changing politics of Internet usage is undermining public support for censorship. The issue of Internet content censorship has been a staple of politics since the mid-1990s. Attempts have been made to regulate content. In Western countries, these efforts have typically focused on content providers, with ISPs in the secondary role of taking down illegal or offensive content as instructed by police or regulators. To some, ISP-level filtering technology seems to offer an alternative. But does it?
It seemed like a good idea at the time
The Australian government came to power in November 2007 with a plan to trial ISP-level filtering at a national level. At the time, this seemed an innocuous proposal. Who could oppose just trialing something?
A laboratory trial by the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) was inconclusive. It found that ISP level filtering could slow networks by as much as 87%, as little as 2%, or something in between, depending on the product being tested.
But real-world filtering must rely on a blacklist, a keyword filter or some other mechanism, which will always deliver a number of false negatives and (worse) false positives. That is, 'bad' content will get through and 'good' content will be blocked, no matter how efficient the filter.
So there was nothing in the trial to attract ISPs, which could only face additional cost and degraded performance if filtering were implemented.
That would have been a good place for the government to stop, and a perfect excuse to do so. However, the government announced that it wished to proceed to field trials. This is when the trouble began. A barrage of negative press and online petitions were fuelled by the refusal of major ISPs to become involved in the field trials. The Minister was forced to defend the project against opposition attack.
~ more... ~
No comments:
Post a Comment