Re: [off-topc] ISP responsibility, was Re: European DB-law was: Re: SpamWhack
- Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 21:30:31 +0100
On Mon, Jan 22, 2001 at 01:24:16PM +0100, Paul Wouters wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Jan 2001, Roland Perry wrote:
>> Have a look at the LINX, now also RIPE, SPAM-BCP; we certainly welcome
>> ISPs who declare they have "signed up".
> (It should be /bcp not .bcp)
> Some comments after a quick glance on that page (or why we wouldn't sign it):
> (My reply became much longer then I intended at first, my apologies for the
> unreadable layout)
Maybe the link should have been: http://www.linx.net/noncore/bcp/ube-bcp.html.
> "Material which is illegal to possess" focusses only on one issue only.
Exactly. Plus, it's very UK centered, which is evidenced by the fact that
it references the infamous IWF and that "It is expected that ISPs would follow
their lead" when referring to "IWF's approach".
Paul, I agree with most of what you say so I will cut this short.
> (Btw what is the "IWF"?)
The Internet Watch Foundation is a British construct to make IPSs censor
the Internet. Just enter it in a search engine (Web or Usenet) and you'll
find lots of information about it. Essentially, the UK ISPs founded it,
under quite some pressure from their Government, just so that there would
be no censorship in name. Technically, only the Government can exercise
censorship, so if the task is delegated to private companies it can't be
given the name of it.
I can remember having heated debates over it on a mailing list or in a
Usenet group, but I forgot the name of the list or group since it was a
while ago. I also remember Demon Internet playing a key role in promoting
this privatised censorship and how I felt disappointed about them.
Also check out PICS and RSAci (or whatever the latter abbreviation was)
if you have some time on your hands and a search engine to use. It's
fascinating stuff. ;-)