-----Original Message-----
From: asrg-admin(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
[mailto:asrg-admin(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On
Behalf Of Jon Kyme
Sent: Saturday, December 13, 2003 7:12 AM
To: ASRG
Subject: Re: [Asrg] 4a. Taxonomy. Censorship vs. filtering
For those who are don't read long messages, I'd like to
summarize my
thoughts in a short message.
Censorship =~ rejection of traffic based on content
filtering =~ rejection of traffic based on invalid
control messages
Unlike Telecom, IP sends control traffic "in-band". This
means that
when that control traffic is filtered, people get confused,
and call
it "censorship".
Can someone remind me why "censorship" must be a Bad Thing.
As long as it's explicit and appropriately authorised, I
don't see any sensible objection.
Well I think there are several reasons why Alan's comments are "right".
First thing is:
Filtering the content of a message is *subjective* not *objective* like
the
issues with
"This is art!" and "No it's porn!" too much ambiguity and room for
"wiggle".
This relates to what has been said about classifying "SPAM" Vs. "HAM"
some
folks want to get what you might call "SPAM".
Next thing is an offshoot of the first:
I can write a program to reject a connection based on IP or based on some
other set criteria and it can be verified to work 100% of the time. (well
99.9999% or whatever in the "real world")
But as far as I know of no one can write a program that will be 100%
correct
in processing random text, we do not yet have a system that can write,
read
or "Understand" human communications
(where's Hal 9000 when you need him?)
And there are the legal issues:
If you permit some content to be "Published" and not other like or
simmilar
content then you are engaging in the role
Of "Editor / Publisher" ISP's found that this can get them into legal
hassles .... USNET News / NNTP servers
ISP's found that to stay clear of some problems they had to take a "Use
at
your risk, we do not edit / monitor the content here" policy.
If you can be shown to Edit and control the publishing of content then
you
can be sued for what content you chose to publish and for what content
you
chose not to publish.
Freedom of the press and all that....
Censorship =~ rejection of traffic based on content
Is a mine field that can and will get you hurt.
NOTE: if you censor *your* inbox that's filtering, the issue is when some
third party does it "on your behalf"
But if "they" are doing it on my behalf and according to my expressed
wishes, I don't have a problem. That's what I mean - it's a social rather
than a technical distinction. Also, it's clear that an objective measure
can be *evaluated* in a subjective context. Consider "filtering" based on
source IP. "Publishing" is a bit of a red herring here. IANAL but I can't
see how enforcing an agreed policy for communications to a named recipient
can have anything to do with "publishing".
filtering =~ rejection of traffic based on invalid control messages
Safe and legal.... Can be strutured as an "Objective" system.
Does that make this more clear?
No. It's not the sort of thing that's easy to make clear. It's one of those
"human communications" things you mentioned.
I think that we're in danger of making ourselves look very foolish by
trying to define something like censorship. Define "filter" by all means.
And remember, that of all the possible communication aimed at you, this
group is chartered for the purpose of researching how you might select just
that communication that you consent to. Equally, organisations must have
the right to apply organisational policy to the communications of their
members.
--
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg