Hi, everyone. Short-time lurker (started reading this a few weeks back when I first discovered the issue) and first-time poster.
While I've only just registered on this forum, I certainly haven't been sitting on my (alas) overweight rear twiddling my thumbs... I'm glad to say that I've written to my MP and also to Viviane Reding, EC for Information Society and Media, expressing my concerns.
I even went so far as to email CNNMoney, correcting them on some of their more blatant mistakes in that report.
Quote:
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
|
Ah, no, if you're looking for child porn and terrorism you won't find it - the article was about the BPI demanding that ISPs be held liable for their customers pirating music. One of the arguments against it, as I recall, was 'if you're willing to waste all that time and money hunting for music pirates, why not spend it tracking down child pornographers and terrorists instead?' - but the main focus of the initiative was to curb music piracy.
Edit: Hmm, looks like you guys beat me to it. I blame the head-start you all had by already being registered :P