[LINK] RFC: Evidence for Joint Select Ctee on Cybersafety

rene rene.ln at libertus.net
Fri Mar 18 20:17:29 AEDT 2011

On Fri, 18 Mar 2011 18:43:38 +1000, rene wrote:
> Unfortunately, I don't have a suggested term to replace "ISP". I just
> know that term is bandied about and often
> misinterpreted/misunderstood - particularly when the writer intends
> to speaking about "service providers" such as Facebook, Google, etc,
> and are not actually meaning to include "service providers" who
> merely enable people to access/connect to the Internet and thereby
> access services provided by other service providers.

To provide an example...

The DBCDE "FAQ" seeking to justify the govt's planned mandatory ISP level 
blocking claims (answer to Q9):

"The Government's ISP filtering policy is consistent with the International 
Telecommunications Union guidelines on Child Online Protection, which 
recommend '(t)he strategic objective for the Internet Industry for child 
internet safety should be to reduce the availability of and restrict access 
to harmful or illegal content and conduct.' "

However, the ITU Guidelines also state, in a footnote on page 13, that:

"Note: Sections on Internet Service Providers discuss approaches available 
to the Internet industry as a whole. This includes Internet access 
providers, as well as electronic service providers / providers of  content 
and services – these are referred to collectively in this document as 
Internet Service Providers (ISPs). As such, it should be noted, that not 
all recommendations will be applicable to all ISPs."

Nowhere in the ITU Guidelines does it suggest, let alone recommend, that 
Internet *Access* Providers block or restrict access.

The DBCE FAQ answer to Q9 demonstrates, being charitable, failure to fully 
read and comprehend what the ITU Guidelines actually say, or being 
uncharitable, intentional gov't misrepresentation of what the ITU said.


More information about the Link mailing list