UK ISPs v. US ISPs (was RE: Network Level Content Blocking)

Mon Jun 11 13:01:27 UTC 2007

On Sat, 9 Jun 2007 17:38:20 -0400
Keegan.Holley at sungard.com wrote:

> IMHO, unless it's something blatantly illegal such as kiddie porn and the 
> like I don't think content filtering is the responsibility of the ISP's. 
> Besides all of the conspiracy theories that are bound to surface, I think 
> forcing ISP's to block content is a bit like forcing car makers to police 
> what can be played on the radio.  I think that giving parents the option 
> of manually turning off porn sites would be an improvement.  Although 
> still not within the responsibility of the ISP they are in the best place 
> to implement such a technology.  However, I don't like the idea of a 
> mandatory global traffic filtering initiative.
> 
> 

I think in the home is the best place to implement the technology - a
power switch or BIOS password.

Here is a true analogy. My father worked for a TV station, so you'd
think we'd have the TV on all the time, yet right through up until
after I left high school, my parents wanted to limit my TV watching ...
significantly.

How did they do it ?

(a) they didn't buy a TV set and put it in my bedroom - the TV was in a
common area of the house i.e. the lounge and/or dining room

(b) they didn't allow me to watch the TV unsupervised

So what I don't understand is why parents put computers in their
childrens' bedrooms and don't supervise their children's Internet use.

Substituting a piece of filting software that won't ever do as good a
job as a parent in enforcing parental responsibility is just bad
parenting in my opinion, and not the responsiblity of government or
ISPs.

Regards,
Mark.

-- 

        "Sheep are slow and tasty, and therefore must remain constantly
         alert."
                                   - Bruce Schneier, "Beyond Fear"