To the extent that content filtering is absurd

November 16th, 2007 by Mike | Posted in Opinion |

Lately there have been a number of instances of ridiculous behaviour from ISP’s down south. First it was indiscriminate spying without warrants, and most recently it is targeted packet shaping and most recently content filtering.

AT&T owns and maintains a vast chunk of the ip backbone in the United States. What this means, is that whether or not you subscribe to their internet service, your traffic will end up passing through their network in some way shape or form, and probably more often than you’d think.

Recently, AT&T has announced that it will start a project to distinguish pirated from legit content in an effort to rid their vast network of unlawful content.

Clearly this is an attempt to appease lobbying groups and copyright owners, which at first glance, seems almost rational. Copyright is a big issue in the United States as demonstrated by lawsuits and advertisements, etc. However, it starts to get fuzzy when you think deeper into the situation.

AT&T also maintains wired and wireless telephone networks. Certainly these networks may transport or house unlawful information in various ways, but they do not spend money and time trying to crack down on whatever various offenses are played out over those networks. It makes sense, as a telecommunications provider they can’t be held liable for assuring that all use of their networks is lawful and moral. Certainly there exists a process for investigating, charging, and punishing criminal activity. So why is it up to a telecom to get into the business of enforcing copyright law?

The worst part, as far as I can see it, is that the sifting of all that traffic, and having the computing power to somehow pass judgment on packets are legal and what are not, is going to require a lot of man power, and a lot of computer power. That translates to $$ being spent on the project, and you can be pretty sure that they’re not doing it just for the moral principle, big telecoms don’t spend money unless they are forced to, or if it’s likely to provide a return on their investment. Neither looks great for the average consumer.

To be fair, I actually lied, that’s not the worst part. The worst part is that the money and time spent is going to protect the profits of industries that pay actors in the tens of millions for a 90 minute movies that really aren’t that great. I have never heard so much whining about money from someone so well off since Lars Ulrich and Metallica started their battle against Napster.

No wait, I thought of something even worse. Many school shooting plots are advertised on the internet before they are perpetrated. If you’re going to police your traffic, why not build systems to flag traffic of this nature. Or child pornography, or anything more serious that copyright infringement.

Money Talks