<h1><a href="http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2011/02/real-internet-censors-isps/all/1">http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2011/02/real-internet-censors-isps/all/1</a></h1><h1>The Real Internet Censors: Unaccountable ISPs?</h1>
<div class="entryDescription">
<ul><li class="entryAuthor">
By <a href="http://www.wired.com/epicenter/author/matthew-lasar/" title="Posts by Matthew Lasar, ars technica">Matthew Lasar, ars technica</a> <a href="mailto:matthewlasar@johnabell.com">
<img src="http://www.wired.com/epicenter/wp-content/themes/wired/images/envelope.gif" alt="Email Author" border="0" height="11" width="14">
</a>
</li><li class="entryDate">
February 13, 2011 |
</li><li class="entryTime">
12:30 pm |
</li><li class="entryCategories">
Categories: <a href="http://www.wired.com/epicenter/category/internet-culture-etiquette/" title="View all posts in Internet Culture & Etiquette" rel="category tag">Internet Culture & Etiquette</a> </li>
<li class="entryEdit">
<br></li></ul>
</div>
<div id="story">
<div><img class=" aligncenter" src="http://static.arstechnica.net/assets/2009/01/censorship-thumb-640xauto-236.jpg" alt="" height="360" width="640"></div>
<div>
<p>According to a new report, the Internet police are coming… and
they’re not wearing badges. Instead, governments are devolving
enforcement powers on the ‘net to ISPs.</p>
<p>Here at Ars Technica, we regularly report on the uneasy relationship
between Internet Service Providers and the national legal systems under
which they operate. This tension surfaces most obviously when it comes
to suing individual consumers for illegal file sharing.</p>
<p>Plaintiff lawyers want maximum cooperation from ISPs in <a href="http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/03/shlockmeister-uwe-boll-sues-2000-far-cry-p2p-downloaders.ars">tracking down subscribers</a> to be subpoenaed, while providers like Time Warner Cable insist they can only process <a href="http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/07/judge-limits-time-warners.ars">so many requests at a time</a>. Denounced as <a href="http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/06/time-warner-cable-a-good-isp-for-copyright-infringers.ars">permissive on piracy</a>, ISPs and content industry lawyers collide in the courts.</p>
<p><img class="alignright size-full wp-image-24913" title="ars-technica_logo" src="http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/epicenter/2010/11/ars-technica_logo.gif" alt="" height="128" width="168">But a <a href="http://www.edri.org/files/EDRI_selfreg_final_20110124.pdf">new report</a>
suggests that nations are slowly turning ISPs into the off-duty
information cops of the world. Eager to placate politicians in order to
achieve their own goals (like the selective throttling of data),
networks are cooperating with governments looking for easy, informal
solutions to difficult problems like copyright infringement, dangerous
speech, online vice, and child pornography.</p>
<p>Network and content providers are ostensibly engaging in “self-regulation,” but that’s a deceptive phrase, warns the <a href="http://www.edri.org/">European Digital Rights</a>
group. “It is not regulation—it is policing—and it is not ’self-’
because it is their consumers and not themselves that are being
policed,” EDR says.</p>
<p>The report, titled “The Slide From ‘Self-Regulation’ to Corporate
Censorship,” cites many situations and examples to make the case for an
emerging “censorship ecosystem” driven by ISPs. Here are two:</p>
<p>EDR sees the United Kingdom’s Internet Watch Foundation as a primary
concern. Established following a London police official’s open letter
to UK ISPs, insisting that they take “necessary action” against
newsgroups containing illegal content, Internet Watch has become an
executor of extra-legal rulings “on what is illegal and what is not,”
EDR charges.</p>
<div>
<div><img class=" alignleft" src="http://static.arstechnica.com/digitalrights.jpg" alt="" height="362" width="427"></div>
<div>
<div>When the nonprofit identifies sites as unacceptable, ISPs remove them. The IWF is probably <a href="http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2008/12/iwf-backs-off-of-scorpions-wikipedia-block-after-criticism.ars">most famous</a> in the United States for its 2008 recommendation that Wikipedia pages showing <em>The Scorpions’</em>
controversial “Virgin Killer” album be blocked. They were, until the
organization backed down on its insistence that the cover constituted
child pornography.</div>
</div>
</div>
<p>The end result of all this blacklisting fervor is that legitimate
content is censored and child pornography is not stopped, says EDR. On
the contrary—in some instances, important evidence leading to the
prosecution of criminals may be scattered.</p>
<p>But “the British government is happy with a system where it can show
activity in this important policy area without necessarily having to
devote significant resources to the problem. Similarly, the ISPs that
have signed up to the system get good publicity without having to invest
significantly in terms of either time or money.”</p>
<p>Interestingly, the report contends that the United States has a
somewhat fairer system for copyright takedown notification and appeal
than Europe. EDR cites a number of disturbing studies in which
researchers sent bogus takedown notices to European ISPs, and got what
they asked for—deleted content.</p>
<p>One of the most famous of these was the <a href="http://www.bof.nl/docs/researchpaperSANE.pdf">Bits of Freedom</a> takedown test of October 2004. In this <a href="http://www.bof.nl/docs/researchpaperSANE.pdf">experiment</a>,
the Dutch digital rights group published an excerpt from an 1871 text
by Eduard Douwes Dekker, author of the famous anti-colonialist novel <em>Max Havelar</em>. The text appeared on various websites, which noted that it was in the public domain.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2011/02/real-internet-censors-isps/"><em>Continue reading …</em></a></p>
<p>Bits of Freedom then set up a fake group called the
E.D. Dekkers Society to claim ownership of the passage, and the Society
sent this missive to respective server hosts and hosting ISPs:</p>
<blockquote><p>E.D. Dekkers society, Rotterdam</p>
<p>To whom it concerns,</p>
<p>I am writing to you as the legal representative of the E.D. Dekkers
society. The society owns the copyright of all the published works of
E.D. Dekkers. I hereby notify you that you are hosting material
(published via a so-called home-page) which infringes on our copyrights</p>
<p>The address of the website is <different per provider></p>
<p>Use nor distribution of this material has been authorised by the
E.D. Dekkers society. Hence I have to conclude that this publication
constitutes an infringement of the copyrights of the society.</p>
<p>Under the European E-Commerce directive you as a hosting provider
are liable for unlawful content if you don’t act immediately after you
have been notified of this fact. I trust you will take all necessary
measures upon receipt of this notification to end this and all future
infringements of our intellectual property rights.</p>
<p>Thank you for your courtesy and anticipated co-operation,Mr. J.
Droogleever (legal advisor E.D. Dekkers society),
<a href="mailto:johandroogleever@hotmail.com">johandroogleever@hotmail.com</a></p></blockquote>
<p>Here’s how one of the hosting ISPs responded to the phony notice:</p>
<blockquote><p>They did call and e-mail the customer, and confirmed the
take down to Droogleever. They took all the arguments for granted, and
reported to the customer on the phone that the infringement was ‘a
fact’. In their e-mail they said, ‘We are obliged to do this after we
have been notified of an alleged criminal act.’ In their zealousness to
comply, to Droogleever they added a very surprising line: ‘Normally we
only take materials off-line if we receive a written notification with
proof, but in this case we have made an exception.’</p></blockquote>
<p>Bottom line: 70 percent of the providers in the experiment took down
the content without scrutinizing either it or the complainant.</p>
<p>All this is central to the censorship ecosystem that European Digital
Rights fears, and it worries that this sort of extra-judicial
censorship could get much larger in the near future. The group wants
more debate “to assess the scale of the policing measures being
entrusted to Internet intermediaries, the cost for the rule of law and
for fundamental rights as well as the cost for effective investigation
and prosecution of serious crimes in the digital environment.”</p>
</div>
</div>