how-to block ads
|
|
Uniqs:
273 |
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
| Question is what % of users will it stop or slow down Conroy and company are spending millions on a game of whack-a-mole that, if history is any indication, simply won't work.
Stephen Conroy indicates they'll take aim at P2P traffic as well:
The Government understands that ISP-level filtering is not a 'silver bullet'. We have always viewed ISP-level filtering as one part of a broader government initiative It seems many here think in terms of black & white, all or nothing. But that isn't the real world as Australia's Conroy admits. If the filtering stops 50%, 60%, 75% of illegal traffic, is it then a failure? I would say no and so would many others. But some subscribe to the theory that if even 1 person beats the system, then the system is a TOTAL failure.
If a law enforcement system for crimes like burglary, theft, rape, or murder was abolished just because it can't achieve perfection then we wouldn't have any crime prevention and punishment at all.
The same applies to the internet. You don't give up trying to stop online crime just because it is hard to do and can't achieve complete success.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page
Ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya punk? | | |
|
 SabreDi relung hatiku bernyanyi bidadari
join:2005-05-17 | said by fAcEtIOUs:If the filtering stops 50%, 60%, 75% of illegal traffic, is it then a failure? I would say no and so would many others. But some subscribe to the theory that if even 1 person beats the system, then the system is a TOTAL failure. This is a valid argument, but there's more to it than that. Not being Australian and thus having limited exposure to this story, I would nonetheless raise two counterpoints:
• Many, including lawmakers, tend to push this sort of filtering system as exactly that, a perfect solution that will stop everything. While that's effectively impossible, as you've noticed, filtering "solutions" frequently aren't sold that way. This leads to the uninformed (often those same politicians) believing they have a foolproof solution, becoming flustered when it's not, and then continuing to try to make it foolproof, with predictable results.
• It'd be impossible to judge the success rate without also having a comparable false-positive rate to go after. The more successful an illegal-filtration system is, the more likely it'll have a higher false-positive rate. Rarely discussed in questions like this is what an acceptable level of false-positives versus true-positives would be. In addition, in cases of false-positives, what recourse exists? Suppose a content owner doesn't want his/her/its data filtered out - how will this be handled, who is responsible, and what, if any, compensation would apply?
A truly successful filtering system isn't one that stops 100% of illegal content. It has to also stop 0% of legal content. This makes the question much murkier and much harder to find a middle-ground solution that is appropriate.
--
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world.
Save American Soccer - Stop the MLS! | |
| Actually, this is a system that will become less effective if it attempts to filter P2P. Even if we can assume that a filtering system can successfully sniff and filter pirated files and/or other material the government wishes to block, that ability goes away when encryption is applied. And everyone knows that encryption is coming, and with many programs notifying users of new versions and some making upgrading just a one or two-click process, the number of people utilizing encryption is going to rapidly increase once it's incorporated into the major P2P clients. | |
|
