The unintended consequences of blocking IP addresses

In late August 2022, an issue with local Austrian Internet Service Providers (ISPs) caused a service disruption that affected thousands of websites in Austria over a two-day period. The court-ordered IP block was intended to block 14 websites that copyright holders argued were violating copyright. However, the blocking of these IP addresses also rendered many other unrelated sites inaccessible. This incident highlights the problematic nature of IP blocking as a method for addressing content online. IP blocking is a common practice used by governments and ISPs to limit access to certain websites or types of content. However, it often results in collateral damage, where legitimate websites are also blocked due to sharing an IP address with restricted sites. This can have significant consequences for website owners and users who rely on these sites for information or services. The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has ruled that the indiscriminate blocking of websites is impermissible, as it amounts to arbitrary interference with the rights of owners of such websites. Despite this ruling, IP blocking continues to be a widespread practice around the world. One solution to address the issue of content control without causing collateral damage is to focus on removing or restricting content at its source. This can be achieved through legal mechanisms like the EU's new Digital Services Act or the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which provide tools for addressing illegal content while respecting important due process principles. In conclusion, IP blocking is a problematic method for addressing content online, as it often results in unintended consequences and collateral damage. Instead, governments and ISPs should focus on building legal mechanisms that enable the removal or restriction of content at its source, while respecting users' rights to access information and services.