Forum - View topic[semi-OT] Australia sets up ISP filtering
|
|
| Author | Message | ||
|---|---|---|---|
Dargonxtc
 Posts: 4463 Location: Nc5xd7+ スターダストの海洋 |
|
||
|
Not really my favorite topic, but I know some people on here love to talk about it. And it might have some impact on the more risqué (to put it lightly) side of anime and manga. At least in Australia.
Looks like it will be set up like the States donotcall.gov, where you tell them you don't want to participate. Here is the link. |
|||
|
|||
|
Fallout2man
Posts: 275 Location: San Diego, CA |
|
||
|
They've mandated it there, but it'd be optional here. Either way I can't see it as being effective. Way back during the days of net nanny and cybersitter there was a lot of stuff that got through those. Doing this at an isp level won't change much. The only way they could actually make it work would be to require every web page to embed a ratings tag with content descriptors, and then have a law enforcement agency constantly check and be sure the ratings are kept accurate and up to date.
Anything else just lacks teeth needed to be effective. ISPs and companies don't have the manpower to keep up with the web themselves so they'd only be able to do it by shifting the burden to website owners. Of course since the web's international only certain sites would comply, so you'd have the same problem all over again. i'm betting this won't work out very well. |
|||
|
|||
|
Dargonxtc
Posts: 4463 Location: Nc5xd7+ スターダストの海洋 |
|
||
|
That first sentence is confusing and I am not sure I understand.
As far as effectiveness, if you are talking about 100%, then I agree with you. But If you think doing this at the ISP level is only as effective and '"safe"' as Net Nanny, then I think you would be in for a rude awakening. The differences should be obvious. First I don't think the burden would need to be shifted to the webpage level companies, and I definitely don't think certificates would ever be used. That's like banning someone, and then showing them how to log back on afterwords. And remember a government does not have to be fair as a company like Net Nanny tries to be, whose certificates were solely issued on a notion of fairness to web page owners as well as to give subscribers a perceived safety net. I also think you seriously overestimate the amount of manpower needed to run such a government operation. Even 10 such dedicated people, assigned solely as the people to help ISPs out, could run a semi-effective screen. They could be the keepers of the "list" as well, providing an extra gate right there. How long does it take to ban an IP address permanently? 5 seconds MAX. Are things going to slip through the filter? Yes. Is it going to to severly limit the percentage of the total internet web pages that is able to be viewed. A most definite yes. And if you are looking for something that is only found at one place, and that place is banned, your screwed. I think saying that someting like this won't work(85-90% effective), is a miscalculation. Surprisingly though, I'm probably on your side with this issue looked on as a whole. In that I don't like it. Only where you see it as ineffective, I can see it as going way too far, in a short amount of time. |
|||
|
|||
 |
All times are GMT - 5 Hours |
|
|
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group