NNSquad - Network Neutrality Squad
[ NNSquad ] Re: Pakistan YouTube block routing changes disrupt YouTube worldwide
Similar debates were held in the past when companies like Google or Yahoo! Filtered content in China. I know everyone wants a neutral Internet. Some believe that since it connects different countries around the world it somehow transcends the sovereignty of individual nations and is held to some higher-order. I don't believe that and support the enforcement of local laws wherever they are, within that particular part of the Internet. There will undoubtedly be analogies, and it's important that if any are used to describe the censorship of any material from the Internet that we use an agreed upon "bad" practice or content. Hence, I would submit that child pornography is a universally despised, twisted, and evil thing. I would hope that everyone would agree that is content that should be filtered (how it is filtered or banned is a completely different topic). Yes, there are stupid laws that ban other things, like anti-government speech, religious speech, etc. However, it is important to know that it is each sovereign nation's responsibility to govern themselves, and make the laws or other social structures to run their society. Hence, if some backwards country bans something that you think is not right, then don't live there, do something to try and change the law if you do live there, or if it is that threatening to human dignity and rights do something about it if you do not live there (sanctions, embargo's, war). So, with that said, I think it would only be logical to agree that any country has the sovereign right to make their own laws and enforce them. If that means that the government forces companies to comply with the law then I have no problem with that. If that means forcing a company like Google or Yahoo! From filtering certain content, that is fine. If it means EBay can't sell Nazi memorabilia in France, then that's fine. If it means that Pakistan filters out certain content because it is religiously offensive, that is fine. If there is a mistake made, and content that is not banned by the laws of a country are filtered, then that is obviously regretful and should be rectified as soon as possible. This also ties into network neutrality in another way. The same way I believe countries can ban certain content, I also believe each country has the right to ban certain practices that would ban certain content. Without getting into specific analogies, there are plenty of examples where governments have laws that say if you are getting into business to sell X service you must comply with these regulations and provide X service, or have X safety measures, or follow X reporting practices, etc. ISP's and the Internet are no different than any other business in this regard. They can be regulated, and in certain instances I believe they should be regulated, just like any other business. Some, particularly ISP's, will complain, saying it isn't fair, or that it would put them out of business. Well, if they are the laws of the land, either follow them, try to change them if you are in a particular country that has them, move to another country, or if they are egregious enough to affront human dignity and rights do something about them if they are not in your country (sanctions, embargo, war). I don't think it could be put any more generic than that. I believe in a neutral Internet, meaning anything goes, except for situations where as a society we agree, either through actual laws or through regulations enforced by a government entity given the right to do so through laws, where certain content or practices are unacceptable. This means that if Bit Torrent, or any other protocol or practice, were evil enough to ban it, interfere with its content, etc, that we should have specific laws enacted that allow such censorship. We don't, therefore such banning or interference is against the law and should not be allowed. Remember we are specifically talking about Internet service here. As mentioned by someone else, we are not talking about "ISP Y's Custom Filtered Network, Where You Have Some Connectivity to the Internet" service. If companies want to sell their service as such, then that's fine by me, just don't call it "Internet access" or for that matter call yourself an ISP. Also, remember the point about mistakes. If there is illegal content being transferred in torrents, then that is obviously breaking the law and should be stopped. It is the responsibility of the government to enforce the law. They can get warrants to search someone's property or otherwise examine things that they normally would not. If you are an ISP and outright ban torrent traffic you would undoubtedly be "enforcing" the law, even though it is not your responsibility or right to do so, but you would also undoubtedly be banning legitimate traffic, and that in and of itself is against the law (or should be, that's what our government is debating right now). Fred Reimer -----Original Message----- From: nnsquad-bounces+freimer=ctiusa.com@nnsquad.org [mailto:nnsquad-bounces+freimer=ctiusa.com@nnsquad.org] On Behalf Of Rahul Tongia Sent: Monday, February 25, 2008 10:15 PM To: McTim; nnsquad@nnsquad.org Subject: [ NNSquad ] Re: Pakistan YouTube block routing changes disrupt YouTube worldwide Having spent a lot of time in and worked with developing regions, there are many archaic laws if not draconian ones whereby blasphemy, hurting the sentiments of minorities, etc. are criminal acts. IMHO, this isn't an issue of NN per se, just complying with really stupid/misguided laws. I remember the relatively recent issue in India where someone was (falsely) arrested for posting inflammatory stuff on Orkut (Google's MySpace equivalent, big in Brazil and India), stuff that actually let to some mild violence. The person arrested was handed over by his ISP, who matched his IP address. Turns out they got it wrong, but he still spent days in prison. :( [makes me wonder about keeping my open WiFi access point!] e.g., http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Wrong_man_jailed_for_50_days/articleshow/ 2513737.cms A government is always free to say that content X is illegal. Drugs, bombs, pedophilia, denying the holocaust, etc. The challenge is how we deal with it. By taking down an entire domain? That then shifts the onus of policing - but is that upon the ISP or on the application/service provider? An ISP can only block a set of IP addresses, unless they start examining content. So in that sense, it's "better" ala NN they banned YouTube than forcing ISPs to block specific content within YouTube. Rahul ************************************************************************ Rahul Tongia, Ph.D. Senior Systems Scientist Program in Computation, Organizations, and Society (COS) School of Computer Science (ISR) / Dept. of Engineering & Public Policy Carnegie Mellon University Pittsburgh, PA 15213 USA tel: 412-268-5619 fax: 412-268-2338 email: tongia@cmu.edu http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~rtongia McTim wrote: > On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 8:10 PM, Lauren Weinstein <lauren@vortex.com> wrote: >> This story hasn't seen much mainstream media play yet. Apparently >> the means chosen by Pakistan's ISPs to conform to their government's >> attempt to block their people's access to "religiously offensive" >> video materials -- low level routing changes > > Points up the need for securing the routing infrastructure...work is ongoing. > > If you want to see exactly what happened, and when, go to: > > http://www.ris.ripe.net/dashboard/36561, and you will see the /25 > announcements from youtube. > > For a really cool look, try http://www.ris.ripe.net/bgplay enter > 208.65.153.0/24 and specify starting time on the 23rf Feb, and you can > clearly see when AS1757 stating announcing the /24 more specific. > > Do we know for sure it was malicious? Routing is hard, not knowing > what they were doing is a more likely scenario. >
Attachment:
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature