Should ISP block websites from users for their own safety?

[bloodbob]

Should isp TOTAL block with no option to unblock website that might cause certian program that are faulty ( The program is broken ) damage your system?

http://forums.whirlpool.net.au/forum-replies.cfm?t=295522

 

[K.I.L.E.R]

Good.
I hope Optus does the same.

 

[Guden Oden]

From what I gathered from reading that thread, it wasn't a case of just some random site with normal content that did some mistake and accidentally triggered this behavior in IE; it was a deliberately set-up scam site meant to tricking users into installing some kind of malware or such.

I don't quite understand why you think people need access to that. You'd have a point I think if the site was legit in other respects, but that doesn't seem to be the case like I said earlier.

 

[bloodbob]

The point is I pay to access whatever I want and well they aren't letting me access it.

 

[Guden Oden]

That argument sounds a bit like someone complaining he pays his tax, yet the government is denying him his right to keep a box of plutonium in his basement. I don't see why you pay for anything of the sort really; is there a clause in your contract that states you should have unrestricted access to the net, even if it means getting infected with some virus which you would then proceed to spread to other customers on your ISPs network?

 

[bloodbob]

Or better yet you buy your paper and the paper boy cuts out some of the articles.

2nd THERE WAS NO VIRUS. And there is contractual obligation that I don't spread virus which I wouldn't have.

I have no problems them blocking me if I start sending out viruses the point is I don't so why shouldn't I be allowed to use the net as I fell I should within the limits of the law and my contract.

 

[Diplo]

Personally I think it's a worrying trend when ISPs start to censor websites, even if they are pure scams. Next it will be pr0n sites ("those girls sure look young") and MP3 sites ("how do we know all those files are legal? The RIAA sure is putting pressure on us and our legal department is having kittens, best just block it...").

There are also some strong legal arguments that mean that ISPs could loose their legal status of being a "carrier" (meaning that they are not currently legally responsible for the content that is carried over their network). This is basically the same status as a telephone company; AT&T or British Telecom can't being held accountable for conversations carried out on their network, even if they are used to plan terrorist outrages etc. Their defence is that they are simply "carriers" and not responsible for content. Likewise, the same goes for ISPs.

However, the moment ISPs start to block content then they are effectively giving up their legal status as a "carrier" and are taking responsibility for the content that is sent over their network. This opens up a nasty legal can of worms and has huge implications for everyone that uses the net. Once ISPs start getting sued for content found on the internet the internet will cease to be free and open and become just as restricted and censored as tradtional mediums.

"Take away the right to say "fuck" and you take away the right to say "fuck the government." - Lenny Bruce

 

[epicstruggle]

An ISP has the right to decide what it wants to carry over its line, read that contract carefully. It should in there state something along those lines. You have the right to go else where if you dont like how they do business. Seems simple.

epic

 

[bloodbob]

An ISP has the right to decide what it wants to carry over its line, read that contract carefully. It should in there state something along those lines. You have the right to go else where if you dont like how they do business. Seems simple.

epic

So in theory your saying its perfectly fine they block everything and charge you for your entire contract?

 

[Dave Baumann]

Chances are you are not already "paying to access everything" since large numbers of websites already drop many, many USENET News groups.

 

[digitalwanderer]

An ISP has the right to decide what it wants to carry over its line, read that contract carefully. It should in there state something along those lines. You have the right to go else where if you dont like how they do business. Seems simple.

epic

So in theory your saying its perfectly fine they block everything and charge you for your entire contract?

If that is in the terms of service you agreed to when you signed up, then yes.

ISPs as a general rule are out to make a buck and protect their own ass first, and defenders of users access rights second. I know it ain't how most of us would like it, but even I'm realistic enough to understand why.

Vote with your wallet. Don't use the ISPs who have crappy blocking policies, it's about all you can do anyways.

 

[[maven]]

Chances are you are not already "paying to access everything" since large numbers of websites already drop many, many USENET News groups.

While that in essence is true, it is not the same as blocking access to certain IP-addresses on the web. For usenet, the ISP is offering one of their machines as newsgroup-server (on which they usually drop binary newsgroups due to their high bandwidth requirements and questionable legality).

 

[epicstruggle]

An ISP has the right to decide what it wants to carry over its line, read that contract carefully. It should in there state something along those lines. You have the right to go else where if you dont like how they do business. Seems simple.

epic

So in theory your saying its perfectly fine they block everything and charge you for your entire contract?

If that is in the terms of service you agreed to when you signed up, then yes.

ISPs as a general rule are out to make a buck and protect their own ass first, and defenders of users access rights second. I know it ain't how most of us would like it, but even I'm realistic enough to understand why.

Vote with your wallet. Don't use the ISPs who have crappy blocking policies, it's about all you can do anyways.

I cant believe im saying this, but digi is absolutly correct. You signed a contract with your isp, its your job to check and see what type of service your signing up for.

epic

 

[digitalwanderer]

digi is absolutly correct.

Quoted for posterity!

 

[London Geezer]

digi is absolutly correct.

I'd start worrying.

 

[Dave Baumann]

]While that in essence is true, it is not the same as blocking access to certain IP-addresses on the web. For usenet, the ISP is offering one of their machines as newsgroup-server (on which they usually drop binary newsgroups due to their high bandwidth requirements and questionable legality).

I know how they are structured, but its fundamenatlly the same thing - if you signed up to an ISP that blocks one thing then you are not "paying to access everything". The legality issue is arguably similar since even with HTTP they are a conduit to the information.

 

[Diplo]

Chances are you are not already "paying to access everything" since large numbers of websites already drop many, many USENET News groups.

This isn't really relevant. It's like saying an ISP who doesn't offer email is blocking email, even though you could still use GMail or Hotmail via the ISP. Same goes for USENET. Even if your ISP's newserver blocks certain groups it doesn't mean they are stopping you from using another USENET provider (such as Giganews or even Google Groups) to access those groups. They are not blocking the groups, they are simply not offering them on their server. Two entirely different things.

 

[bloodbob]

Chances are you are not already "paying to access everything" since large numbers of websites already drop many, many USENET News groups.

My isp hosting a usenet server has nothing to do with me access the internet. No part of the ip protocol or other parts of the sweet require the upstream provider to run a usenet server.