Show it, don’t say it
An overview of ISP filtering around the world, courtesy of Libertus.net: here. Note the growing trend…
I am going to be testifying next Tuesday, March 11, as part of a House Judiciary Committee hearing — net neutrality and the First Amendment. All suggestions welcome.
Comments
2 Responses to “Show it, don’t say it”
Got something to say?
Hi Susan,
One challenge my undergrad class on “Ethics and Policy Issues in Computing” discussed over Internet filtering was the challenge of slippery slopes.
At a fundamental level, do we want to create rules that are subjective, and thus judicially complex, or is something absolute (e.g., “no negatively discriminatory filtering”) simpler to implement and also fairer? [Note, I didn’t say “no filtering”, e.g., ISPs might need to take out spam]. Who gets to determine what is “good” filtering and “bad” filtering?
In CS, there are always extensions of ideas to show (sometimes through first principles) that laws that are “meant” to be one thing actually imply much more or much worse when we apply first principles. E.g., the flawed UCITA bill claimed it mainly dealt with software, but some folks pointed out that the wording of the law extended the protections to embedded software, at which point it could apply to almost everything, from cars, washing machines, sewing machines, etc.
Rahul Tongia
Great to hear you’re one of the ones they’re turning to!
If they’re thinking about NN as a tool for network management (and maybe they’re not — the term is broad enough that maybe they’re thinking about censorship issues, esp. since it’s a First Amendment hearing), then filtering for content probably won’t be an issue; Comcast isn’t suggesting it will ease congestion by blocking all emails that support Democrats, or whatever. But is filtering by app type a First Amendment issue if put in terms of YouTube vs. Hollywood movies? If providers degrade YouTubes (to enhance Hollywood movies), is this a degradation of the people’s voice, in preference or commercial speech? If they block BitTorrent (to prevent congestion), they are also impeding our ability to share large blocks of text, including the “St. James Bible” (as David Cohen called it), the federal budget, or the next “Common Sense.”
Or is it already obvious that blocking by app type violates the First Amendment? Or possibly obvious that it does not? Oh, I wish I were a lawyer!
Anyway, I’m really happy they’re turning to you for advice on this issue. Kick some discriminatory butt!