Will ISP Web Content Filtering Continue To Grow?

unixluv writes to tell us that another ISP is testing web content filtering and content substitution software. One example sees a system message that is pre-pended to an existing web page. While it seems innocent enough, is this the wave of the future? Will your ISP censor or alter your web experience at will? There have been many instances of content filtering lately and it seems to be a popular idea on the other side of the fence.

1 Acronym

[Anonymous Coward]

SSL

!Content-Filtering

[Ambiguous Coward]

Just to be clear, what Comcast has been caught at is not content-filtering. They have been breaking connections based on the *type of the connection*, not the content contained therein. Let's call what Comcast is doing by a more descriptive name. I propose Context Filtering. This way, we have QoS (throttling throughput while leaving it operational, etc.), Content-Filtering (watching the data going through and responding to the actual data) and Context-Filtering (watching the type of connection and reacting to that, such as SMTP connections, HTTP connections, BitTorrent connections, etc.) These terms are not interoperable, and shouldn't be treated as such.

-G

You've Agreed To It

[jcm]

Each person should review the Terms of Service (ToS) they accepted (and most likely continue accept each time they use their Internet connection) and look to see what is stated there. Also, realize that the ISP's will update it with nearly no notice. Inside of those agreements that you agree to generally through your use of their services you'll find all kinds of interesting things. For example, here is some relevant quotes from Verizon's ToS [verizon.net] in Section 14.4:

"You hereby consent to Verizon's monitoring of your Internet connection and network performance, and the access to and adjustment of your computer settings, as they relate to the Service, Software, or other services, which we may offer from time to time."

Who is to say that "adjustment of your computer settings" doesn't include adjustment of .html files being delivered to you. Oh and just in case that wasn't strong enough, in Section 15.8 you get:

"15.8 You agree that Verizon assumes no responsibility for the accuracy, integrity, quality completeness, usefulness or value of any Content, data, documents, graphics, images, information, advice, or opinion contained in any emails, message boards, chat rooms or community services, or in any other public services, and does not endorse any advice or opinion contained therein. Verizon does not monitor or control such services, although we reserve the right to do so. Verizon may take any action we deem appropriate, in our sole discretion, to maintain the high quality of our Service and to protect others and ourselves."

Similar allowances are inComcast's Acceptable Use Policy [comcast.net]. Basically, folks have to understand what they are signing up for and how often it can change.

There are companies out there today, Phorm [phorm.com] for example, who already are working with ISPs around the world in order to put their gear in the ISP networks to create targeting advertising based on all Internet habits, not just specific sites with specific cookies or the like. So far they all seem to be giving you an ability to Opt Out, but that appears to be a way to create good will for the moment. If there was case law backing them up, who knows if they'd continue the practice.

Re:Um, use email or texting

[Stevecrox]

90% of phones capable of receiving texts? Your kidding right? I remember the Nokia 5110 (basically a n402) was released in 1998 (I owned one on pay as you go then too) was capable of 192 charracter sms messaging, My Nan's BT Cellnet own brand analog phone (this predated both the digital antenna's and the GSM sim card standard) which she bought in 1996 was capable of supporting text messages and that was a cheap end phone. (it was still in use until O2 forced a discontinue of service on that model for technical reasons.)

In the last ten years I have taken a keen interest in mobile phones and never seen a model which does not support SMS messaging, heck in the last 4/5 years I don't think I've seen a phone which doesn't support picture messaging (well ok the iPhone doesn't, but then the phone you can get free from Asda when you buy £20 of credit does.)

Its always puzzled me why ISP's won't text you about network outages, filtering and bandwidth limitations.

Copyright

[Bogtha]

The reason why ISPs can get away with copying resources into their caches is because they are "incidental copies", where permission for copying is implied for the purpose of normal operation. Web developers can apply Cache-Control: no-transform [ietf.org] to indicate that changes of this nature should not take place. It seems to me that any ISP that alters such pages would be creating unauthorised derivative works and permission would not be implied to copy, thus making them guilty of copyright infringement.

Not Just a Bad Idea: IT'S THE LAW

[Doc Ruby]

Well, it's almost the law, and proably will be soon enough, to require ISPs to spy on your every message, request and download.

The House just passed the "SAFE Act" [cbs4denver.com] to force all ISPs to take responsibility for all content they host or transport, even if they don't moderate it, in direct contradiction of the landmark CDA [wikipedia.org] which let ISPs be like telcos always have. Lots of child molesters trap children in telephone conversations, but the telco has no liability. Because holding them responsible requires tapping every conversation, which is what the SAFE Act (not the one with the same name that sanely deregulated crypto export) now does: forces ISPs to monitor and analyze the content of your every Internet communication.

When the Senate passes it, then the president signs it, every ISP will be forced to spy on your every online move (just like the government does - hi, Dick!). Just the threat of enforcement will be enough to get ISPs to do whatever the government wants.

Mirror of the picture

[lobStar]

Mirror of the hi-res picture: http://forum.pigvj.se/uploadfiler/37/rogers-google.jpg [pigvj.se] OK, i admit putting i there mostly to mess with my friends web hotel account. :)

Re:Fuck You America!

[Crispin Cowan]

I'm sick of an American school system that produces children who are brought up to believe that America IS the world and anything that goes on outside is irrelevant. Children so stupid they think America invented the Internet, computer, motor car, light bulb, telephone etc ad infinitum....

Here's a clue: "America" (people in America) did invent the Internet [wikipedia.org], a substantial part of the computer [wikipedia.org], the light bulb [wikipedia.org], the telephone [wikipedia.org] ... not quite ad infinitum. America did not invent everything, not even a majority of things, but American inventors certainly did invent a huge fraction of things invented since 1776.

If you are going to throw an irrelevant troll rant, at least get your facts straight :-)

Re:Here you go

[Anonymous Coward]

No, you will not see this anytime soon. It is far far too 'expensive' (cpu intensive, memory, extra network bandwidth, etc...) for websites to serve everything over https.

See http://apache.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=99/10/29/2050218 [slashdot.org] for more info