Re: Rescheduled: P2P file sharing national security and personal security risks
The problem - to try to steer this bus back onto topic - is the sheer amount of self-policing that the powers-that-want-to-be want us to do. Or it becomes our fault.
Who should do the policing then Peter?
Neil J. McRae wrote:
The problem - to try to steer this bus back onto topic - is the sheer amount of self-policing that the powers-that-want-to-be want us to do. Or it becomes our fault.
Who should do the policing then Peter?
From a viewpoint in the UK, the real police (as in the ones doing the work - not the management) are getting more and more frustrated, they have been reported as saying, at the increasing level of work they are expected to do following the continual implmentation of new legislation. I am sure that
The police ? police forces around the world have similar viewpoints. One of the parts of the process of introducing new criminal law should (nay - must be) a consideration for how it is going to be actually implemented on a day-to-day basis. Pouring money into the bottomless pit that is any civil service project (the police included) very rarely solves the underlying problems. Perhaps more thought is required by the legislators before they pass new acts ? By trying to get around this and requiring soft targets, such as under-represented (OK - under-lobbied to be accurate) industry segments like ISPs, to do this work 'unpaid' is a way of making the politicians look competent and make any self-policed industry look bad when something is missed or goes wrong. rgds, -- Peter
On Mon, 16 Jun 2003, Peter Galbavy wrote:
By trying to get around this and requiring soft targets, such as under-represented (OK - under-lobbied to be accurate) industry segments like ISPs, to do this work 'unpaid' is a way of making the politicians look competent and make any self-policed industry look bad when something is missed or goes wrong.
Except this is not "self-policing." ISPs are not being asked to police what ISPs do. For the most part ISPs don't attack their customer's (or anyone else's) computers. Remember, the traffic generally flows THROUGH the ISP's network, it doesn't come FROM the ISP. ISPs are being asked to control what their customers can do. Yet another analogy, its a bit like asking grocery stores to "self-police" their customer's eating habits. Should grocery stores be responsible that the public only buys healthy food or holding the grocery store liable for the hospital bills when customers buy junk food. ISPs generally exert even less control over their customers than a grocery store, and don't have double coupons. Most ISPs don't police (or self-police) their customers' use of the Internet. Like a grocery store, if a customer is harassing other customers, the grocery store may ask them not to come back. But generally the customer just moves on to another grocery store. Its up to the police to arrest people engaged in criminal activity.
Sean Donelan wrote:
Except this is not "self-policing." ISPs are not being asked to police what ISPs do. For the most part ISPs don't attack their customer's (or anyone else's) computers. Remember, the traffic generally flows THROUGH the ISP's network, it doesn't come FROM the ISP.
OK - my mis-wording. You have expressed what I meant.
Yet another analogy, its a bit like asking grocery stores to "self-police" their customer's eating habits. Should grocery stores be responsible that the public only buys healthy food or holding the grocery store liable for the hospital bills when customers buy junk food. ISPs generally exert even less control over their customers than a grocery store, and don't have double coupons.
My turn - grocery stores can police much better than ISPs - they just do not stock products that are classified as 'bad' by some established standard. This sort of happens in the Internet, with prefix filters, routeing registries etc. but I see your point.
Most ISPs don't police (or self-police) their customers' use of the Internet. Like a grocery store, if a customer is harassing other customers, the grocery store may ask them not to come back. But generally the customer just moves on to another grocery store. Its up to the police to arrest people engaged in criminal activity.
The grocery store analogy breaks down and we are back to the tired old 'highway' nonsense. This is more like the 'public spirited' induhviduals (sic) that block lanes to prevent others 'speeding' - or rather requiring property owners to perform this task on the parts of the road that run past their turf. Which is scarier. Peter
participants (3)
-
neil＠DOMINO.ORG -
Peter Galbavy -
Sean Donelan