Slashdot Mirror
Testing ISP Censorship
ryants writes "As part of a research project, Christian Ahlert ran an interesting experiment. He posted John Stuart Mill's On Liberty, which is clearly in the public domain, on different ISPs. He then sent the ISPs phony copyright violation notices. The results are troubling, with ISPs "acting as judge, jury and private investigator at the same time.""
I might be evil but when I read this it made me think "wouln't this be a great way to remove websites you don't like". If it is that easy to remove websites it would be pretty easy to abuse as well.
99 bottles of beer in 175 characte
The time, it is to be hoped, is gone by, when any defence would be necessary of the "liberty of the press"', wrote John Stuart Mill nearly 150 years ago. But his hopes have not been fulfilled. In the vast digital land of cyberspace, private companies regulate, eliminate and censor what we want to say, publish or communicate.
As part of a recent research project, I posted a section of Mill's On Liberty on the internet (which is clearly in the public domain), then issued unfounded copyright complaints against it (1). One internet service provider (ISP) removed the chapter almost immediately. This illustrates the problem with self-censorship procedures, which rely on hidden judgements being made by unaccountable bodies.
There is a murky context behind this peculiar form of private censorship. On the internet, millions of websites have been created by individuals who post all kinds of content - and some argue that this justifies the current system of regulation. But there is a mistake in this chain of logic: just because the internet is big, diverse, decentralised and digital it isn't true that public bodies can't police it.
Of course, policing would be difficult, but this should not be a reason to be in favour of private governance and regulation. Governments, companies and individuals have taken the easy route to regulation, by relying on ISPs. Everyone who wants to publish, post and propagate content on the internet needs the services of ISPs, which host most of the content available on the World Wide Web and are often also hosting providers. This is why ISPs have been identified as the agents in the internet's communication chain who should be responsible for removing illegal and harmful materials, ranging from copyright infringement to cases of defamation, racist websites and pornographic content.
ISPs have been made responsible for removing illegal and harmful content under so-called notice and take down (NTD) procedures, once they have been put on notice by a complainant. Because it comes under the rubric of internet self-regulation, this kind of censorship is seen as less intrusive. But why private governance should be less intrusive than government regulation is something I have never quite understood. State censorship, while clearly problematic, is at least open to questioning and accountability. Notice and takedown is censorship without debate.
The quantity of complaints and websites removed under NTD is unknown, and the process by which ISPs determine whether or not a website contains illegal or harmful content remains obscure. Once an ISP disables access to a website the content disappears from the internet, undoubtedly an effective form of censorship.
My research project attempted to unpick the workings of NTD, using a method termed the 'mystery shopper'. This consisted of a complaint to an ISP about alleged copyright infringement on a website that actually contained perfectly legal material. One website was set up with one of the most established US ISPs, and another with a major UK-based ISP. The identity of the person who uploaded the site was fictitious.
For symbolic reasons, the material uploaded was chapter two of On Liberty, in which Mill discussed the freedom of the press and the dangers of censorship. This content is clearly in the public domain, because it was published in 1869, and subsequently its posting does not constitute any form of copyright infringement.
The UK ISP took Mill down almost immediately
The US ISP followed up on the dubious complaint, made on behalf of the chairman of the non-existent John Stuart Mill Heritage Foundation, with detailed questions. But the UK ISP took the site down almost immediately, effectively censoring legal content without investigation.
ISPs are acting as judge, jury and private investigator at the same time. They not only have to make a judgement whether a website is illegal or not - they also have to act as a private detective agency, investigating the accusations and deciding
superman runs linux
The writter of this story doesn't really under stand the meaning of censorship. Only a government can censor a person, a private company does not have this ability. Even though they allow their servers to be used with public access doesn't mean the servers are public domain. The servers belong to the company, and the company can do what ever they want with them, including deleting files at will. Granted companies don't do this because it is bad PR, but it is totally with in their rights.
/. had a better bogus story/content filter (notice I didn't say censor, because /. is not part of the government, so they are unable to censor anything :) ).
So when he wrote, "For symbolic reasons, the material uploaded was chapter two of On Liberty, in which Mill discussed the freedom of the press and the dangers of censorship." I just about lost it because it shows how little this guy actually knows about the issues he is addressing. Also as a side note you cannot censor published content, you can restrict it, but the litteral word of censor is not possible to do on published content. So the government can never censor published content.
I summary, this writer is a moron, and just lobbing un founded accusations out there and hope one hits the wall and sticks. I think both the US and UK ISP did the right thing and it was probably with in their corporate policies.
I really wish
Just my critical view of it, after several Associates, a Bachelors, Masters and starting on a second Masters degree.
You don't need several degrees to know his sample size is statistically worthless.
Two.
Two.
Even lowly ol' about-to-complete-first-bachelor's me knows this isn't even usable as propaganda, for the very reason pointed out by practically every poster. At most, this could be considered the start of some serious research.
I hope this guy isn't expecting kudos, or grades, or grants to come from this.
Someday, you're going to die. Get over it.