[SimonHickling]

Originally Posted by davidb24v

Well I've been searching the BBC site for a while now but can't find what I thought I saw...

Specifically, I thought I saw an article from the ISPA rejecting any kind of monitoring from ISPs to prevent/detect kiddy porn (or terrorists) because they were "common carriers" (therefore innocent of what their customers do because they can't track it) and the technical difficulties and the costs were just way too much.

I was going to email ISPA to ask what their non-Phormed members might think about them losing their "common carrier" status as a result of a few ISP members trying to make a few quid. Well, in my (untrained and inexpert) opinion if you can read all your customers web traffic to make a few quid you can also spot kiddy fiddlers and report them to the authorities. The Phorm deal surely means that any participating ISP is not a "common carrier". They can't have it both ways, can they?

Dave

Is this the one.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7246403.stm

I particularly like this bit

A spokesman for the Internet Service Providers Association (ISPA) said the 2002 E-Commerce Regulations defined net firms as "mere conduits" and not responsible for the contents of the traffic flowing across their networks.

He added that other laws on surveillance explicitly prohibited ISPs from inspecting the contents of data packets unless forced to do so by a warrant.

Kent ???