Re: Center for Democracy and Technology

["L. Bird" <pkeets@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

> Inadvertently, I trust, you significantly misrepresented the CDT's position 
> paper.  This doesn't say they group Website *numbers* (IP addresses), as 
> you say above, it says they group multiple Websites under the SAME SINGLE 
> number...which in turned is assigned to a single physical computer. And 
> yes, anyone blocking access to that one computer's number (NOT a "group" of 
> numbers as in your summary) would automatically block access to all sites 
> stored on that computer, innocent or not.
I don't really know how ISPs handle all this, so forgive me if I've 
misrepresented it.  I've noticed that it's hard to identify a particular 
website when you're looking for it by number, and this is the reason.  But 
how in the world do you get to a particular website if it doesn't have a 
unique number?  Is there a separate index on the individual server?  Why 
can't they identify the particular offending website?  That would seem to be 
the obvious solution.


> Bottom line: it's simply impossible to commit enough resources to monitor 
> the Websites one hosts, even if an ISP should want to, the more so as the 
> ISP becomes more successful and hosts more and more Websites.  Legislation 
> trying to mandate this would simply A) be unenforceable or B) force the 
> ISPs out of business.
It seems the court is presenting an order, so the ISPs aren't required under 
this law to monitor individual websites on their servers.  It seems the law 
is a sort of sledgehammer effort.  Is there a fix to make it workable?

Interesting subject--as I understand it, this is a proposed method to stop 
casino sites, as well.  However, it seems the lawmakers haven't consulted 
their technical experts before committing pen to paper.


keets

_________________________________________________________________
Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*  
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail