1. Tank belonging to warring side A
2. Tank belonging to warring side B
3. Just a tank that was passing by and got hit by mistake :-)
4. Something that looks like a burning tank
5. An archive shot that reporter added for visual impact

Same applies to the "primary weapon" of a modern TV war: "evidence of atrocities of the opposing side."

What's the truth? Who knows... progress brought us "TV wars,"  is this the first "YouTube war"? But if we cannot believe the media coverage, how can we believe a random video online? Well ...  maybe the same way we often believe Wikipedia over Britannica. 

In any case, if there was a better time to turn off the TV (and tune off the web news...), it would be now. Also, time to get the dust off my copy of Toffler?

Rant mode off :-)

OK, I am not really a big car racing fan.  I don’t know, Long Island was not a NASCAR hot bed. Of course the Indy 500 was always big news.  In any event I have become much more of a race fan since Chip Ganassi racing became a StillSecure customer.  They are using a complete NAC solution that performs both pre and post connect testing. Racing today is not about some gearheads putting in spark plugs and changing tires.  It is high, hi-tech and their information security needs to protect their IP are high priority. 

Rather than the usual case study, our VP of marketing Jayson Ayers actually tried something new.  A video case study is what we have done.  I think it is pretty cool and in the spirit of the YouTube generation, am embedding it here.  You can read more about this on our site here.

You will discern a certain amount of enthusiasm for blocking, and for a “something must be done” approach. However, in coming to their conclusions, they do not, in my view, seem to have listened too hard to the evidence, or sought out expertise elsewhere in the world…

Google/YouTube told them that 10 hours of video was posted every minute, and the amount is increasing. In the oral evidence session an MP helpfully suggested: “That video content is tagged. You do not need to look at every single minute of video content. Surely you could have people who would look at the video content which is tagged with labels which suggest it could be inappropriate.” Of course “happy_slapping.wmv” or “fluffy_bunnies.avi” must always contain exactly what it says on the tin (not!) but unaccountably Google said it was a “fair suggestion”, so perhaps my cynicism is misplaced.

However, back to blocking.

I submitted some evidence of my own, which the committee summarised, reasonably accurately:

Dr Richard Clayton, a researcher in the Security Group of the Computer Laboratory at Cambridge University and author of several academic papers on methods for blocking access to Internet content, pointed out that there was no single blocking method which was both inexpensive and discerning enough to block access to only one part of a large website (such as FaceBook). In his view, the fatal flaw of all network-level blocking schemes was the ease with which they could be overcome, either by encrypting content or by the use of proxy services hosted outside the UK.

The committee’s conclusion, having read this was:

At a time of rapid technological change, it is difficult to judge whether blocking access to Internet content at network level by Internet service providers is likely to become ineffective in the near future. However, this is not a reason for not doing so while it is still effective for the overwhelming majority of users.

which I suppose logically means that the committee thinks that blocking should now be discarded as a policy option — but somehow I think that isn’t their intended meaning.

The Committee should perhaps have a look at this Australian report, which found that ISP level content filtering (and in Australia the politicians want to use ISP level filtering to provide a child-friendly Internet) did work (up to a point) at Tier 3 (the smallest) ISPs. The up-to-a-point is that unlike previous tests the systems didn’t completely wreck the browsing experience by slowing it down. However, the systems blocked only 85-98% of illegal material and similar percentages of material suitable for adults but not for younger children. Interestingly some products were better at different categories.

Getting that many sites wrong is really quite significant, so it’s difficult to see this as a ringing endorsement for blocking the web. Additionally, the Australian report found that the blocking was useless on “non-web” protocols (such as peer-to-peer) and their report specifically didn’t consider cost, or ease of circumvention — so it’s not just UK politicians not wanting to consider evidence on that topic!

Finally, I should note that the Culture Media and Sport Committee has also ignored some rather more recent academic work. The MPs have put into their report that they were horrified to discover that child sexual abuse images took 24 hours to remove in the UK. What (should they ever learn of it) will they make of the recent discovery by Tyler Moore and myself that shows that if the website is hosted abroad then a month is more to be expected?