Technical Considerations for Internet Service Blocking and Filtering
Listers, A very informative RFC especially in our context. It addresses use of various technologies for blocking and filtering communications over the Internet. Among other things considered are user consent when employing blocking/filtering, who sets blocking policy? who enforces blocking policy? Some purposes of blocking, efficacy of the methods as well as consequences. Some takeaways are that we are going to see more blocking/filtering but it would help if there was more transparency. And as regards content blocking, a collaborative approach is required. "where filtering is occurring to address content that is generally agreed to be inappropriate or illegal, strong cooperation among service providers and governments may provide additional means to identify both the victims and the perpetrators through non-filtering mechanisms, such as partnerships with the finance industry to identify and limit illegal transactions." https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7754 Regards, -- Grace L.N. Mutung'u Nairobi Kenya Skype: gracebomu Twitter: @Bomu <http://www.diplointernetgovernance.org/profile/GraceMutungu> PGP ID : 0x33A3450F
Grace, Quite a salient subject indeed, that the ietf makes an attempt to shed/spotlight perspective on.. Drawing from experience, I suppose the foremost key objectives for blocking and filtering would broadly fall under jurisdictional oversight & control and informational security policing. For this very reason, the subject will at best, forever remain contentious and controversial, depending on whose perspective you seek on the matter. In other words, for a very long time to come, it'll almost be impossible to achieve a universal, unanimous consensus on a firewall that serves "everyone' "anywhere" in this globalized networked digital village that cuts across diverse geopolitical, religious,cultural,governance and even family or personal jurisdictions. One would delve on and on in finer detail on the subject - and the scope is hugely wide, just as the ietf has disclaimed. However, my best take-away from such a rich discourse is, "Moderated Balance". Ideally, the basic minimum threshold should be; how to strive to achieve the most appropriate concurrence where jurisdictional policing(which is necessary), either at country/government level, corporate, or even at home - assuming you set up a family firewall meets/embraces the inherent guaranteed/enshrined universal freedoms of access to information.. But again, who should police/enforce the attainment of this moderation and balance on jurisdictional authorities..? Using which methodologies..? Who knows.. As ietf aptly puts it in their preamble .... *"Whether particular forms of filtering are lawful in particular jurisdictions raises complicate legal questions that are outside the scope of this document. For similar reasons, questions about the ethics of particular forms of filtering are also out of scope"* Plenty of regards, Harry On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 7:03 PM, Grace Mutung'u (Bomu) via kictanet < kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> wrote:
Listers, A very informative RFC especially in our context. It addresses use of various technologies for blocking and filtering communications over the Internet. Among other things considered are user consent when employing blocking/filtering, who sets blocking policy? who enforces blocking policy? Some purposes of blocking, efficacy of the methods as well as consequences. Some takeaways are that we are going to see more blocking/filtering but it would help if there was more transparency. And as regards content blocking, a collaborative approach is required.
"where filtering is occurring to address content that is generally agreed to be inappropriate or illegal, strong cooperation among service providers and governments may provide additional means to identify both the victims and the perpetrators through non-filtering mechanisms, such as partnerships with the finance industry to identify and limit illegal transactions."
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7754
Regards,
-- Grace L.N. Mutung'u Nairobi Kenya Skype: gracebomu Twitter: @Bomu
<http://www.diplointernetgovernance.org/profile/GraceMutungu>
PGP ID : 0x33A3450F
_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
Unsubscribe or change your options at https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/harry26001%40gmail.com
The Kenya ICT Action Network (KICTANet) is a multi-stakeholder platform for people and institutions interested and involved in ICT policy and regulation. The network aims to act as a catalyst for reform in the ICT sector in support of the national aim of ICT enabled growth and development.
KICTANetiquette : Adhere to the same standards of acceptable behaviors online that you follow in real life: respect people's times and bandwidth, share knowledge, don't flame or abuse or personalize, respect privacy, do not spam, do not market your wares or qualifications.
Well captured Harry, It is a tough call when faced with situations where acts of terrorism in which the same technology is a key facilitator are rampant. We are faced with a tougher situation in our part of the world where Citizen's with limited opportunities in advancing their education are bombarded with too much information (grape vine,politics) which they cannot synthesize properly resulting in polarization as a result of deeply divided opinions. This results in scenario's where they are risks unto themselves (thinking like Kaparo ;-)). That is why Universal Access is still key in this part of the world since it will create an empowered Citizen, Access to Education, Access to the Internet, Access to Telecommunication, access to ICT's name it. My 2 cents On 3/10/16, Harry Delano via kictanet <kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> wrote:
Grace,
Quite a salient subject indeed, that the ietf makes an attempt to shed/spotlight perspective on..
Drawing from experience, I suppose the foremost key objectives for blocking and filtering would broadly fall under jurisdictional oversight & control and informational security policing. For this very reason, the subject will at best, forever remain contentious and controversial, depending on whose perspective you seek on the matter. In other words, for a very long time to come, it'll almost be impossible to achieve a universal, unanimous consensus on a firewall that serves "everyone' "anywhere" in this globalized networked digital village that cuts across diverse geopolitical, religious,cultural,governance and even family or personal jurisdictions.
One would delve on and on in finer detail on the subject - and the scope is hugely wide, just as the ietf has disclaimed. However, my best take-away from such a rich discourse is, "Moderated Balance". Ideally, the basic minimum threshold should be; how to strive to achieve the most appropriate concurrence where jurisdictional policing(which is necessary), either at country/government level, corporate, or even at home - assuming you set up a family firewall meets/embraces the inherent guaranteed/enshrined universal freedoms of access to information..
But again, who should police/enforce the attainment of this moderation and balance on jurisdictional authorities..? Using which methodologies..? Who knows..
As ietf aptly puts it in their preamble .... *"Whether particular forms of filtering are lawful in particular jurisdictions raises complicate legal questions that are outside the scope of this document. For similar reasons, questions about the ethics of particular forms of filtering are also out of scope"*
Plenty of regards, Harry
On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 7:03 PM, Grace Mutung'u (Bomu) via kictanet < kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> wrote:
Listers, A very informative RFC especially in our context. It addresses use of various technologies for blocking and filtering communications over the Internet. Among other things considered are user consent when employing blocking/filtering, who sets blocking policy? who enforces blocking policy? Some purposes of blocking, efficacy of the methods as well as consequences. Some takeaways are that we are going to see more blocking/filtering but it would help if there was more transparency. And as regards content blocking, a collaborative approach is required.
"where filtering is occurring to address content that is generally agreed to be inappropriate or illegal, strong cooperation among service providers and governments may provide additional means to identify both the victims and the perpetrators through non-filtering mechanisms, such as partnerships with the finance industry to identify and limit illegal transactions."
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7754
Regards,
-- Grace L.N. Mutung'u Nairobi Kenya Skype: gracebomu Twitter: @Bomu
<http://www.diplointernetgovernance.org/profile/GraceMutungu>
PGP ID : 0x33A3450F
_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
Unsubscribe or change your options at https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/harry26001%40gmail.com
The Kenya ICT Action Network (KICTANet) is a multi-stakeholder platform for people and institutions interested and involved in ICT policy and regulation. The network aims to act as a catalyst for reform in the ICT sector in support of the national aim of ICT enabled growth and development.
KICTANetiquette : Adhere to the same standards of acceptable behaviors online that you follow in real life: respect people's times and bandwidth, share knowledge, don't flame or abuse or personalize, respect privacy, do not spam, do not market your wares or qualifications.
-- Barrack O. Otieno +254721325277 +254733206359 Skype: barrack.otieno
participants (3)
-
Barrack Otieno -
Grace Mutung'u (Bomu) -
Harry Delano