It strikes me that the discovery of illegal content is a local policy
decision. There are jurisdictions that require it and those that forbid
it. Perhaps ALTO needs to support a policy option that allows content
descriptors to be queried, blocked, or redirected in the interest of
local laws and regulations.
I don't want to spoil anybody's fun, of course.
RB
Nicholas Weaver wrote:
On Dec 3, 2008, at 1:15 PM, DePriest, Greg (NBC Universal) wrote:
You note that "A localization service doesn't have to discriminate
[between legit and illegit P2P]..."
I don't understand why it wouldn't.
What's the point of facilitating the illegal distribution of copyrighted
content?
And how would one justify that?
Under the same justification that you allow BitTorrent at all: You
DON'T know that it is copyrighted, it could be Linux ISOs, with enough
probability that you can't just block the protocol and you can't sue
BitTorrent Inc into submission under the Napster and related methods.
Or that you allow HTTP traffic, after all, that could be copyrighted
material, kiddie porn, or other bad content.
It is not the responsibility of the network to police content, and a
localization service doesn't actually have to know what it is
localizing, so it is not in a position to police content one way or
the other.
EG, ask localization service "Who else is accessing 512b-random-ID
SHA-512 file descriptor", and the localization service has no notion
what the resource is, just a list of who's accessing it. Its in many
ways easier to make a localization service which is agnostic.
_______________________________________________
alto mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto
--
Richard Bennett
_______________________________________________
alto mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto
