[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Center for Democracy and Technology
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