EU’s Wish to Use Web Filtering is Heavily CritisizedAdded: Tuesday, May 4th, 2010
Category: Recent Headlines Involving File Sharing > Current Events
Tags:ET, p2p, Torrent, Piracy, Peer To Peer, Network, Hackers, Internet, BitTorrent, Google, utorrent, bitcomet, extratorrent, 2010, www.extrattorrent.com
There are a lot of discussions about web filter that possibly can be set in EU as a measure of copyright protection and content control. Such filters are supposed to stop child pornography distribution, as well as ban illegal file-sharing.
While the benefits of EU-wide filter are obviously important, there are a lot of concerns around this. Ed Black, the head of Computer & Communications Industry Association (CCIA), says that “this proposal may cause unexpected consequences. There is no guarantee that filter can really ban the online child abuse. Additionally it gives the politicians legal rights to ban everything they don’t like in the Internet”.
According to Computer World, the EU has already spent about €300,000 to embody the EU-filter on a legal basis.
Such filtering systems have been already implemented in several countries, but these attempts weren’t successful and were criticized much due to the conflict with human rights and freedoms. China was trying to control the traffic in such a way, as well as Australia. Australians used it for banning porn content, but it was successfully cracked by a teenager. AU $84 million filter has shown its ineffectiveness.
Each filter works by blocking websites where inappropriate content was found. The blacklists formed in such a way caused a lot of debates because they contained a lot of websites blocked by mistake. The filtering is almost impossible in some cases like P2P traffic or messaging services. The technology itself is not powerful enough to provide sensitive and flexible filtering with no mistaken bans. That is why it will hardly work ever.
Providing web filtering is a difficult political question. This is some kind of censorship that limits human freedoms. While banning pornography is good for the most of citizens, there is no guarantee that once implemented such a filter wouldn’t be used for banning ‘politically incorrect’ information.
Web-filtering can be used as a great tool to fight business competitors. If a company website appears in the ‘Blacklist’ (thanks to a big joke from its competitor), its reputation will be tainted forever.
As for the social cons, it is impossible to find a group of administrators for such a filter, independent from any influences and desire to gain profits from filtering. From any sight, there are too much problems that make web-filtering unacceptable for today’s society.
May 4th, 2010Posted by:
Tuesday, May 4th, 2010
|posted by (2010-05-04 22:52:28)|
|and every day the paper boy brings more...let the good fight begin..thank you SaM for the information.|
|posted by (2010-05-05 02:05:42)|
|I dont think anyone would trust any government with the power to do this even if they say it was just for stuff like child porn you know they would misuse it|
|Gezzzz. Free the Europeans|
|EU Aka. China-MarkII|
|Some countries have a compromise solution. For instance, in Singapore there is a filter, but it is specific URL based and not keyword based. A list of several hundred URLs are banned, but nothing else. The sites banned are the obvious ones like Playboy and Penthouse etc.|
However the Singapore Government has made a public statement that they do not even bother to attempt to actually filter the web, so anyone who really wants to bypass the filter can do so easily.
Most Popular Stories