In February, French MPs finally passed the bill on internal security, Loppsi 2, Article 4 establishes a blocking child pornography sites. Despite much debate and numerous reviews of the effectiveness of the device, blocking illegal websites will be determined by an administrative authority, which will show service providers (ISP) which block addresses.
Before France, other governments have already compiled blacklists of sites, the Internet supposed to address such illegal content. But the filtering of certain places can prevent consultation of child pornography sites? Adopted voluntarily by the ISP, or imposed by governments, aware of the screening procedures varied spells in Europe and Tech News Buzz.
VOLUNTARY SCREENING In Anglo-Saxon, with the notable exception of Australia, governments have chosen not to go through a law requiring filtering, but to conclude agreements with ISPs, on the basis of " Volunteering ". In Canada, for example, major Internet service providers have voluntarily implemented such a system in 2006.
According to the French Federation of Telecom (FFT), "the black list is established according to criteria and a rigorous process." "It includes only the URLs of sites containing images of child abuse in obvious representation and deliberate, and that at least two analysts have reviewed and validated prior to submission," according to the FFT.
In Britain, a similar system was implemented by the operators, but for opponents of filtering, how the "black list" is established problem. "The list is managed by the Internet Watch Foundation (IWF). Beyond the Orwellian character of the name, we ask questions about how the list is managed," said Loz Kaye, head of the British Pirate Party.
We encountered several cases of blockages in error on sites storefront for example, album art group Scorpion on Wikipedia, or the Internet Archive. Last year, the IWF announced the number of reports had increased by 89%, but the number of blocked sites remains constant: about five hundred.
IWF and politicians give the impression that the Internet is just filled with child pornography sites, but their own figures show that is false. " For British Telecom, the leading provider UK, the principle of voluntary filtering is healthy "as it helps protect children and vulnerable people from accessing harmful content." Since 2004, two years before the widespread use of voluntary filtering, British Telecom had launched its own system of blocking child pornography sites, called "clean feed".
No question, however, go further to the provider: "BT has absolutely no right to censor content that is legal on the Internet," explains a spokesman for the company. At what he considers to be a success, the British government plans to take to set up a default filter pornographic websites legal, which is not really the taste of providers.
"ISPs will not have to tell their customers that they must pass a phone call to say 'hey, I want to see porn sites", fun Loz Kaye. "Hell is paved with good intentions: when you give such power to a government, he wants to use it for other types of content." In Australia, where the government has chosen to go through the legislative process and impose a filter, the Telecommunications Minister, Stephen Conroy, has engaged in a standoff that lasted more than two years with the associations of Internet users, ISPs, Web giants like Google, and the opposition.
Its filtering project, using a secret blacklist, was a first defeat in 2009 when the list was published on the Wikileaks site and only a small fraction of sites contained therein were child pornography sites. Among the targets of screening were also legal pornographic sites, sites dedicated to poker or euthanasia.
Since the filtering project has evolved to encompass all content prohibited to minors, but the project is still not operational. OPEN SYSTEMS IN NORTHERN EUROPE "providers of Internet access in all countries of northern Europe are deploying filtering systems to isolate the sites that publish child pornography," said the Open Net Initiative.
The Scandinavian countries have in fact been the first to apply filtering systems open since 2004 for the Norwegian authorities. Unlike other systems that send messages error "404" or "not found" in case of deadlock, the system of this country do not hide from the user object's lock, said the Federation French telecoms, in a study dated 2009.
Similar arrangements were also put into service a year later in Denmark and Sweden. In the Netherlands, authorities have considered the possibility to filter this content by 2006. To measure effectiveness, the leading provider of Internet access in the country have decided to participate in a government program.
An organization was responsible for managing a blacklist, while ISPs should implement it. But the main actors of this system have recently concluded that such a device would not be an effective tool. "The number of sites on this list is too small and dissemination of child pornography images takes place mainly on networks of peer-to-peer, which makes the system inoperable," said Daphne Van der Kroft, association Bits of Freedom.
Elsewhere in Europe, other states renounce filtering. In early April, and after considerable controversy, Germany decided to forgo a device of this type, pending for over a year. An online petition against the filter had collected over one hundred thirty thousand signatures in just six weeks.
Rather than blocking sites, the German government now favors the removal of content from the hosts. Further examples of over-or under-block, some observers also denounced the pernicious effects of blacklists. "These lists are regularly leaked. Instead of reducing the traffic to these sites, they get instead an advertisement for all those interested in this type of content," said Joe McNamee, association European Digital Rights.
"This is not ineffective filtering systems need to invest, but police investigations and psychological support to victims," Judge Loz Kaye. "The blocking measures are an attractive option for policymakers because they cost nothing to governments and give the impression they are acting. The real action [against child pornography networks] are much more costly in terms of time and money, "adds Joe McNamee. 
Before France, other governments have already compiled blacklists of sites, the Internet supposed to address such illegal content. But the filtering of certain places can prevent consultation of child pornography sites? Adopted voluntarily by the ISP, or imposed by governments, aware of the screening procedures varied spells in Europe and Tech News Buzz.
VOLUNTARY SCREENING In Anglo-Saxon, with the notable exception of Australia, governments have chosen not to go through a law requiring filtering, but to conclude agreements with ISPs, on the basis of " Volunteering ". In Canada, for example, major Internet service providers have voluntarily implemented such a system in 2006.
According to the French Federation of Telecom (FFT), "the black list is established according to criteria and a rigorous process." "It includes only the URLs of sites containing images of child abuse in obvious representation and deliberate, and that at least two analysts have reviewed and validated prior to submission," according to the FFT.
In Britain, a similar system was implemented by the operators, but for opponents of filtering, how the "black list" is established problem. "The list is managed by the Internet Watch Foundation (IWF). Beyond the Orwellian character of the name, we ask questions about how the list is managed," said Loz Kaye, head of the British Pirate Party.
We encountered several cases of blockages in error on sites storefront for example, album art group Scorpion on Wikipedia, or the Internet Archive. Last year, the IWF announced the number of reports had increased by 89%, but the number of blocked sites remains constant: about five hundred.
IWF and politicians give the impression that the Internet is just filled with child pornography sites, but their own figures show that is false. " For British Telecom, the leading provider UK, the principle of voluntary filtering is healthy "as it helps protect children and vulnerable people from accessing harmful content." Since 2004, two years before the widespread use of voluntary filtering, British Telecom had launched its own system of blocking child pornography sites, called "clean feed".
No question, however, go further to the provider: "BT has absolutely no right to censor content that is legal on the Internet," explains a spokesman for the company. At what he considers to be a success, the British government plans to take to set up a default filter pornographic websites legal, which is not really the taste of providers.
"ISPs will not have to tell their customers that they must pass a phone call to say 'hey, I want to see porn sites", fun Loz Kaye. "Hell is paved with good intentions: when you give such power to a government, he wants to use it for other types of content." In Australia, where the government has chosen to go through the legislative process and impose a filter, the Telecommunications Minister, Stephen Conroy, has engaged in a standoff that lasted more than two years with the associations of Internet users, ISPs, Web giants like Google, and the opposition.
Its filtering project, using a secret blacklist, was a first defeat in 2009 when the list was published on the Wikileaks site and only a small fraction of sites contained therein were child pornography sites. Among the targets of screening were also legal pornographic sites, sites dedicated to poker or euthanasia.
Since the filtering project has evolved to encompass all content prohibited to minors, but the project is still not operational. OPEN SYSTEMS IN NORTHERN EUROPE "providers of Internet access in all countries of northern Europe are deploying filtering systems to isolate the sites that publish child pornography," said the Open Net Initiative.
The Scandinavian countries have in fact been the first to apply filtering systems open since 2004 for the Norwegian authorities. Unlike other systems that send messages error "404" or "not found" in case of deadlock, the system of this country do not hide from the user object's lock, said the Federation French telecoms, in a study dated 2009.
Similar arrangements were also put into service a year later in Denmark and Sweden. In the Netherlands, authorities have considered the possibility to filter this content by 2006. To measure effectiveness, the leading provider of Internet access in the country have decided to participate in a government program.
An organization was responsible for managing a blacklist, while ISPs should implement it. But the main actors of this system have recently concluded that such a device would not be an effective tool. "The number of sites on this list is too small and dissemination of child pornography images takes place mainly on networks of peer-to-peer, which makes the system inoperable," said Daphne Van der Kroft, association Bits of Freedom.
Elsewhere in Europe, other states renounce filtering. In early April, and after considerable controversy, Germany decided to forgo a device of this type, pending for over a year. An online petition against the filter had collected over one hundred thirty thousand signatures in just six weeks.
Rather than blocking sites, the German government now favors the removal of content from the hosts. Further examples of over-or under-block, some observers also denounced the pernicious effects of blacklists. "These lists are regularly leaked. Instead of reducing the traffic to these sites, they get instead an advertisement for all those interested in this type of content," said Joe McNamee, association European Digital Rights.
"This is not ineffective filtering systems need to invest, but police investigations and psychological support to victims," Judge Loz Kaye. "The blocking measures are an attractive option for policymakers because they cost nothing to governments and give the impression they are acting. The real action [against child pornography networks] are much more costly in terms of time and money, "adds Joe McNamee.
No comments:
Post a Comment