Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 02:13:30 +0000 From: "L. Bird" <pkeets@hotmail.com> ...it looks to me like they're complaining about the way ISPs handle sites on their servers. They group the site numbers and can't block just one, but have to block a whole groups. Any ISP experts here? George? Is there a way around this, or are the ISPs only bellyaching because they don't want to a) lose the $$ and b) change the way they do things?You might be interested in the full report that we issued -- you can find>it at http://www.cdt.org/speech/030200pennreport.pdf. Our web site hasother information (including the text of the Pennsylvania law) at>http://www.cdt.org/speech/ . Thanks again for your input.
Here's the relevant bit:
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.. The orders issued by the Pennsylvania court (and Attorney General) result in the blocking of web sites that have nothing whatsoever to do with child pornography, simply because those web sites use web hosting services that share a single Internet IP address among multiple web sites. This blocking of fully lawful websites - often in secret - is a blatant violation of the First Amendment.
. Moreover, the effects of the Pennsylvania blocking orders are felt far beyond the confines of Pennsylvania, as the orders ultimately block access by Internet users all around the country. Under First Amendment and Commerce Clause jurisprudence, lawmakers in one state cannot impose their views and values on citizens of another state.
Compliance with the law will carry potentially significant technical risks for theBoth of which are telling philosophical and technical points against the proposals.
ISPs' networks, and the Internet in general. The routers and routing tables that
direct the flow of content on the Internet were not designed to handle the kind of
blocking envisioned by the statute. If Pennsylvania's blocking orders continue, the
stability of the ISPs routers and routing table will be threatened, risking broad
service failures.