4 ms·

Let's be clear: government has not just passed a law requiring packet inspection, and there are ISPs who provide unfiltered connectivity. (Eg as discussed here:

Let's be clear: government has not just passed a law requiring packet inspection, and there are ISPs who provide unfiltered connectivity. (Eg as discussed here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6082595 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6082595) The government is proposing that they may bring legislation to Parliament if the industry doesn't do something to thinkofthechildren, but what shape that might take is not yet clear.

the_mitsuhiko 13y ago
> Let's be clear: government has not just passed a law requiring packet inspection Correct. That happened in the past already when ISPs were required to block access to the pirate bay.
- omh 13y ago
  The Pirate Bay block was not a law imposed on all ISPs. It was a court order imposed by a judge for a specific case brought by the recording industries against the few largest ISPs individually. Part of the case was basically that the ISPs already had filtering systems in place (in that case for the IWF child abuse blocks - again, not required by law but installed "voluntarily"). So the industry essentially said that adding TPB to the existing blocklist wouldn't be too much of a burden. (I believe that similar orders have expanded it to cover a few more sites since, but not sure whether those cover all the same ISPs again).
  - replete 13y ago
    The Pirate Bay ban has extended to most of the big ISPs, BT, TalkTalk, Virgin, etc. British.
rmc 13y ago
Exactly. Let's all remember that we often call politicans sleeazy corrupt ineffective busybodies who'll appear for the opening of an envelope, and who make statements and press releases to manipulate the press & public. However when something like this comes along, suddely politicans are disciplined, determined, principled fighters of smut who can get their way....
- timthorn 13y ago
  My point is that it doesn't help to advance a case by stating things that are not true - it just undermines the argument.
vidarh 13y ago
In other words: It could end up much worse. It's "you do something 'voluntarily' now, which there'll be absolutely no democratic oversight over, or we force you". So instead of getting a nasty filtering system subject to freedom of information queries and parliamentary inquiries, we get a system where we are subject to the whims of these businesses, who will all point to the government and say "ask them", while the government will point to it being something the companies added "voluntarily". Frankly, "voluntary regulation" like this should always be a massive warning flag.

the_mitsuhiko 13y ago

> Let's be clear: government has not just passed a law requiring packet inspection Correct. That happened in the past already when ISPs were required to block access to the pirate bay.

omh 13y ago
The Pirate Bay block was not a law imposed on all ISPs. It was a court order imposed by a judge for a specific case brought by the recording industries against the few largest ISPs individually. Part of the case was basically that the ISPs already had filtering systems in place (in that case for the IWF child abuse blocks - again, not required by law but installed "voluntarily"). So the industry essentially said that adding TPB to the existing blocklist wouldn't be too much of a burden. (I believe that similar orders have expanded it to cover a few more sites since, but not sure whether those cover all the same ISPs again).
- replete 13y ago
  The Pirate Bay ban has extended to most of the big ISPs, BT, TalkTalk, Virgin, etc. British.

rmc 13y ago

Exactly. Let's all remember that we often call politicans sleeazy corrupt ineffective busybodies who'll appear for the opening of an envelope, and who make statements and press releases to manipulate the press & public. However when something like this comes along, suddely politicans are disciplined, determined, principled fighters of smut who can get their way....

timthorn 13y ago
My point is that it doesn't help to advance a case by stating things that are not true - it just undermines the argument.

vidarh 13y ago

In other words: It could end up much worse. It's "you do something 'voluntarily' now, which there'll be absolutely no democratic oversight over, or we force you". So instead of getting a nasty filtering system subject to freedom of information queries and parliamentary inquiries, we get a system where we are subject to the whims of these businesses, who will all point to the government and say "ask them", while the government will point to it being something the companies added "voluntarily". Frankly, "voluntary regulation" like this should always be a massive warning flag.