- Ms Kaye is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Mary Carlisle is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Prem Gill is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Nancy Flight is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Justin Everett is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- John Westover is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Nora Etches is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Edward Henderson is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Bharadwaj Chandramouli is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Dean Chatterson is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Marius Scurtescu is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Robert Parkes is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- James Murton is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Susan Doyle is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Vincent Strgar is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Helen Spiegelman is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Subir Guin is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Kimball Finigan is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Joanne Manley is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- David Leach is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
Locking Down the Internet
The push to make service providers police content.
Who controls what you see?
As digital technologies and the Internet began to emerge in the mid-1990s, many content companies responded by betting on the ability of technological protection measures to re-assert the control that was rapidly slipping from their grasp. The vision of control through technology required considerable coordination -- the insertion of encryption on content distributed to consumers, cooperation from electronics makers to respect the technological limitations within their products, and new legal provisions to prohibit attempts to pick the new digital locks.
A decade later, the strategy lies in tatters. Many content owners have dropped digital locks after alienating disgruntled consumers fed up with their inability to freely use their personal property. Electronics manufacturers have similarly rebelled, frustrated at the imposition of artificial limitations that constrain their products and profitability. To top it off, the U.S. architect of the legal strategy last year acknowledged that the legislative initiatives to support the digital lock approach have failed.
In recent months, a new strategy has begun to emerge. With the industry gradually admitting that locking down content does not work, it has now dangerously shifted toward locking down the Internet.
What should ISPs do?
The Internet locks approach envisions requiring Internet service providers to install filtering and content monitoring technologies within their networks. ISPs would then become private network police, actively monitoring for content that might infringe copyright and stopping it from reaching subscribers' computers.
The support for locking down the Internet revives an old debate -- the appropriate role and responsibility of ISPs for the activities that take place on their networks. As the content owners were promoting legal protection for digital locks in the 1990s, the ISPs were supporting legal frameworks that treated them as the equivalent of common carriers that transferred data across their networks without regard for the content itself.
While that approach ensured that ISPs did not take an active role in monitoring or filtering Internet-based activity, the recent move toward a two-tiered Internet -- one in which the ISPs themselves dream of distinguishing between different content as a new revenue source -- revived the notion that ISPs could be called upon to play a more active role in monitoring and blocking content.
Content filtering worldwide
With content owners frustrated at the failure of digital locks, last year they seized on this by renewing their focus on the role of the ISP. This movement has been most prominent in Europe, where last summer a Belgian court ordered an ISP to block access to a site alleged to contain copyright infringing materials.
More recently, French President Nicolas Sarkozy unveiled a plan that would mandate country-wide ISP filtering of copyright infringing content. Although a similar pan-European proposal was defeated earlier this month, few believe that the issue is dead, particularly given the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry's claim last Thursday that 2008 will be the year of greater ISP responsibility.
Content filtering plans have also begun to emerge in North America. Large U.S. ISPs such as AT&T have inexplicably promised to develop new content filters on their networks and are discussing an implementation plan with content owners.
Stay alert
Could a similar content blocking approach wind its way north?
Late last week, the Canadian Recording Industry Association stated that it presently is not seeking provisions "related to content filtering or termination of repeat offenders." That provides a measure of reassurance, yet some cultural groups are openly eyeing content filters as a mechanism to adapt Canadian content rules to the online environment, while others have expressed strong support for legal rules that force ISPs to accept heightened "responsibility" for the conduct of their subscribers.
In light of this pressure, some fear that mandatory content blocking could sneak into forthcoming legislation, despite the likelihood that such laws would face constitutional challenges and run the risk of tarring Canada as the home of a censored Internet.
Related Tyee stories:
- How Next Billion Users Will Reshape the Internet
It's an open source future. - Canada Sleeps Through War to 'Save the Internet'
Digital democracy at risk if telecoms get their way say opponents. - How the Grinches Stole 'Net Neutrality'
Internet service providers play favourites with video, large files and political sites.



7
Login or register to post comments
Doug Alder
4 years ago
Content Filtering
Entrepreneurs tend to be conservative. It would suit Harper and his neocon wannabes quite well to have ISPs doing content filtering. Hello ILEC Telus we'd like you to make all liberal websites either disappear from your subscriber's network or at least make them load reaaaaaaaalllllllly slowly. It's not like they haven't done filtering like that before.
As someone who has been in the ISP business for many years I can say that not only is this a ridiculous suggestion, an expensive suggestion, but it is also a dangerous suggestion for anyone that values democracy. An ISP should be responsible for one thing only, delivering you a good connection to the Internet at the bit rate you subscribed to.
Jeffrey J.
4 years ago
Cowardly New World
Even though this topic is relatively esoteric for us average computer users, these policies have very significant implications. Who is going to bat for the public interest? I worry policy makers will simply roll over in favour of industry promising to "look after" the details. An extremely dangerous option. At least Tyee readers are able to hear about these issues. Too bad there is no coverage on BC's dailies. Great series by Mr. Geist!
Grumpy
4 years ago
1984
George Orwell would have been pleased.
Governments hate freedom, they hate the free flow of information. They hate any form of democracy.
Just look locally, the Campbell Liberal government is the most secretive government the province has ever seen. Why? Because the government is dishonest.
TransLink's Board refuses to have public meetings. Why? The Board is dishonest.
The Government wants to control the Internet. Why? The government is dishonest.
For a brief 15 years, the Internet provided an unfettered flow of information, most of it embarrassing to the ruling elites; blogs gave the 'common man' a power almost as powerful as the corrupted classic print media. Soon the Internet will rival the corrupted electronic media. Government wants to stop that - AT ALL COSTS!
Control the flow of information, you control thought, control thought and you control the masses!
jwstewart
4 years ago
I wouldn't worry...
too much about the government filtering content, they are so poor at maintaining even a simple list (gun registry) that they could be easier circumvented.
The problem lies with companies like Bell, Shaw, etc.
They would certainly like to filter your IP phone calls, keep track of who you speak to, and design calling plans to make you pay more.
My suggestion: get and use encryption software for every application you use.
Do you encrypt your email ? If not, don't send it.
Do you encrypt your file transfers ? If not, don't transmit it.
Is there an encrypted version of Skype?
If not, hang up the IP phone.
Privacy is only for those that want to protect & defend it.
Maurice Cardinal
4 years ago
Take it away take it away take it away now
If you don't know what you're missing, you trundle on oblivious.
However, take it away and anarchy erupts.
Large companies hate anarchy because it erodes profit, weakens moral, and makes them easy targets for takeovers.
All it takes is for one communication company to side with consumers.
There are too many workarounds to be concerned about filtering.
ME2
4 years ago
No complacency, please.
I'm not so certain, Maurice, that we needn't worry about about filtering or any other constraint upon freedom of speech on the Net.
Take the breakneck speed of change now happening in electronic communications, the industry's quest for profit and the Gov'ts hunger for control, and then link those up with the average public's fear of breaking the law, and you can be certain that workaround-free methods WILL be devised.
So while it may be true that the esoterica concerning communications is beyond the ken of the non-professional - and my brief foray into the field convinces me that is so - it also demonstrated to me that the industy is run by ordinary people who are far more vulnerable than the technology they hide behind
In the end, then, we are dependent upon analysis' of the type Geist has just given us, and then to act upon that in the only way given to us, public protest in the media and on the Net itself. The only thing the manipulators fear is too many irritated people.
.
ME2
4 years ago
correction
the first line above was supposed to refer to "any other technical constraint"