Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt12

Don't quote me on this, but I remember hearing something that under the copyright act, it is illegal to bypass a protection scheme. If the filter goes into law, couldn't that be applied to it, since the filter would be a legal protection scheme, as much as we all hate it?

If so, then let's go one better. What happens when little Joey deliberately circumvents the filter and little Joe's mum catches him and complains. Will the ISP be held accountable for allowing the filter to be circumvented ?

Also (but not related) assume that after ILCF is trialed and implemented, a mum walks in on her little Johnny one day just as he has finished receiving via msn or some such program, a little home-movie made by little Jenny at school – a webcam movie she was sucked into making by little Jeffrey at the same school coz she thought they were, "like, in [heart] like 4eva", but really he was just stringing her along so he could get the goods and then share it with his mates.

"but ILCF was supposed to stop this, wasn't it", waa every mum and dad who learns of the story, and but of course a number of the mums and dads go and see the police and see who can be arrested about all of this, and also see their lawyers to see who they can sue for damages about it too.

ATM, who can get arrested and who can get sued over such a (not unlikely) scenario ?

I've got a feeling that our elected governments would far prefer it if the ISPs could be held responsible on the financial side of things ...

Sure, ILCF 0.9b on its own ain't ever going to prevent the likes of the Little Jenny Show, so if "protect the children" is going to be forefront of our government's charge into achieving believable internet control for the sake of The Child, I think it only stands to reason that in the end, ISPs are going to be MADE to be responsible for the traffic of a lot more than mere url/web data.

regarDS