Slashdot Mirror
Internet Decency Commission Is Broke
Repton writes, "Another one from CNET's News.com: A commission set up by the government to look into ways to keep youngsters from Internet smut has realized that they have no funding. This is a sad state of affairs, but somehow I don't feel too much sympathy." Perhaps people "charged with evaluating high-tech tools and other methods to keep online pornography away from children," but on a beer budget, should enjoy a few hours reading through the Censorware Project's Web site. At a library in Utah, say.
So, for example, there have been many cases of gay activist web pages being censored. This is because a minority of the customers who purchase filtering software want them censored -- they regard any mention of homosexuality as obscene. The vast majority, while they do not approve of homosexuality (despite "gay rights" rhetoric, most Americans don't) don't really care about that page one way or the other. Those who find any mention of homosexuality obscene rule because they will scream louder about the page not being filtered than the majority who don't care either way. And the few people who want to see gay activist web pages don't use this kind of software anyway.
The bottom line is that the companies best interests' are served by a "filter first, ask questions later" policy.
What is exceptionally pernicious about all this is that it is done in secret. The bottom line is that youcan't copyright a database. And the database of "dirty sites" is the filter company's main asset. So, the filter companies encrypt their database and try to hide it from the world.
It's a vicious circle. The best way out of which I am aware is for operators of pornographic sites to tag their sites as such. Voluntarily. Failing that (its not going tohappen because these people are for the most part pretty sleazy) the best thing would be a public list of filtered sites, reviewed by humans.
Of course, that's never happened because, as I mentioned above, the people who buy filtering software generally don't care about the sites that get erroneously censored! So, they would rather pay $20 or whatever for netnanny than spend their time to protect free speech. And the free speech people are so busy trying to protect the dubious "rights" of pornographers that they can't be bothered to try deal with the real abuses out there (www.whitehouse.com being a wonderful example).
If I ever have any time, maybe I'll start a page for developing something like this. But, not today. I have bigger fish to fry.
--
-- Slashdot sucks.
Can anybody tell me why I am seeing so many fakeries on the Net?
I mean, there are so many people who are so publicly anti-porn (See that article on China's attempt of censorship and the author had to put the word "PORN" in it) but on the other hand, their hard drives may have thousands of kiddie-porn pictures and all other smut stuffs.
Isn't the etho of InterNet is LIVE AND LET LIVE - that is, you do your stuffs, I do mine, you leave me alone and I'll leave you alone, so long as what you do do not hurt me and vice versa?
I really long for the past days in the Net where everyone respect each others' privacy, and no one will come to tell you what you can do, what you can't.
Disclaimer: I am NOT for porn, but I am NOT going to ban porn just because I don't find it interesting. Just like I am not going to publicly asking those puritans to go to hell just because I am tired of their holier-than-thou views.
And one more question - just when all these will end?
Will it end when we are not allowed to watch, received, say or _think_ of anything someone, somewhere find disgusting?
What's the freedom of all these, eh?
Live and let live, fellas !!
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
However, my son will probably go a school, and that school will have to have internet access if he's to have any hope of an education. Now I kow that I will answer any questions he brings home, but I can't say that his teacher will be qualified to answer those questions in school. I can't even say if the teacher will be allowed to answer those questions out of fear of being sued by someone.
Schools, Libraries, and other places where children can log on (mall kiosks, cyber coffee shops, open lan parties) should probably have some sort of method available for filtering. After all, I can't be a parent if I'm not there, and a child does need to be away from his parent every now and then, to explore the world on his own and to expand his boundardaries.
The problem is what to filter and how to filter it. I think we can all agree on three things:
- Current censorware sucks. It just isn't good at doing it's job. It's like a blind man with a shotgun trying to stop a robbery.
- It's easy enough to censor sites that are voluntarily willing to be censored.
- It's also easy enough to censor sites that don't care if they're censored, but who don't want to go to the trouble of tracking down all the censorware sites and identifying themselves.
- It's close to impossible to stop the ones that actively do not want to be censored. (Luckily these are almost always clueless gits who think that Pam Anderson is a porn queen)
The problem is choosing what to censor in a particular area. The standards for Omaha, Ne are puritan compared to the standards for New York City. Add Amsterdam to the mix and you really don't have a standard at all. perhaps the most interesting place to look at community standards would be New Orleans, where the community standards drop once you enter the Quarter and change depending on the time of year and the time of day.I think the answer is to have a standard method of identifying sites that should be blocked, and a number of publicly accessable databases to choose from. These databases should be able to point to one another in the same fashion that web pages do today. For example:
/porn.blk is a well know directory that porn sites can voluntarily add themselves to.
/nudity.blk is a directory of sites that contain nudity. It also points to porn.blk. When you use nudity.blk it automaticly means you're using porn.blk. You could call nudity.blk with a nofollow parameter ond only get the nudity.blk listings. :) .blk in existance. .blk sites thereby preventing your machine from using existing filters.
gay.blk is a religious list that lists all gay sites, including gay rights sites.
pagan.blk is another religious list that lists all wiccan, satanism, santaism, and other cool sites. For some obscure reason it has overlaps with gay.blk
gore.blk is Tipper Gore's personal list to hide all of the sites that should have never made it on her husband's internet. It points to all record lables, lyrics sites, and just about every
cthulhu.blk is a campus list thar lists all the
See, once you get a standard and let us all create .blk lists, much like we all create .htm files with hrefs galore, the internet will return to it's wonderful chaotic state, and everyone will be happy.
This post and the contents thereof are not patented and should be considered prior art if someone tries to patent it. Thank you.
-----
No Zen is good zen
The council spent all their money buying Adult Check IDs so they could "investigate" all the different kinds of porn sites out there, and the best way to get everybody on AOL so they could censor them all from a single point, just like China!
As someone who used to run ISP's for a living, (Yes I used Linux, FreeBSD, Solaris, AND NT on occasion :-) ) I am quite used to getting the kind of call/letter/email from a member of the outraged public, along the lines of "I searched through all the newsgroups you carry, looked at all the homepages, did some searches on the search engines you link to, and eventually, after two or three hours, I found some filth!"
The Internet is not a kiddie playground, supervised by social workers and kindly policemen. It is an anarchic meeting ground - different races, different political views, and different business drivers all come together. Sometimes they collaborate, sometimes they fight. However, if we do not encourage the freedom of expression on the Internet, it will cease being the port-of-call that it currently can be, and become just a slower form of Cable TV.
There are things on the Internet I don't want my children to see - this is also true of TV. It's my responsibility as a parent to make those choices, to educate my children and to share with them why I am making those choices.
What I would welcome from a legislative body is a process for me to choose what content I view, control where my personal information is stored (and thereby, how big my data shadow grows) and have the ability to publish my thoughts and express my beliefs without fear of prejudice, reprisal, or bigotry.
It would also be nice if I could be assured that the communications I send and receive remain confidential, retain integrity, and that the channels I communicate over - be it email, web, IRC, telephone, letter, or whatever - undertake to protect those channels, and to maximise their availablity to me.
I know this may sound like a utopian dream, but this is the kind of aspiration most of us share - we are drawn to OS's like Linux and BSD not only because they extend the invitation to directly participate in their development, but also because those who have already participated in that development have chosen to build it as best they can. Focusing on stability and reliabity has given us a stable platform, which assures us that we can use it as a communications base without fear of being let down.
We need the same level of assurance in our communications - we need to have an assurance that our privacy is respected, the integrity and confidentiality of our communications is controlled and measurable, and that those who we trust to carry our messages will do so to the best of their ability.
Part of the answer to this may be strong crypto - certainly things like PGP, Thawte, and so on allow us to set controls on privacy and identity.
It is not the role of the government to protect us from ourselves - we do not want it, or need it.
Thinking alters Thinking.
From the article:
Similar panels in Washington enjoy budgets in excess of $1 million, roughly the cost of a single Tomahawk cruise missile.
Well, I suppose that's one way of keeping smut off the Internet... just blow up their servers.
NO CARRIER
It sounds like there's a lot of heavy-hitters on the panel (AOL, PSInet). It would be in their best interests to fund the panel to keep Al Gore's baby "self-regulating" and "self-policing". They make enough cash to buy little toys like, say, Time-Warner, why not fund it themselves (tax deduction!) aso they can use it to thump their chests and say "We are the dreamers of dreams, and we care enough about Al Gore's invention to make it free of smut and A-bomb plans and unbiased news... oops, scratch the last one."
Sounds like a big ole' slap in the face (with hot grits and beer). Geez, I'm crazy for not posting this anonymously...
"First things first, but not necessarily in that order."
- Doctor Who
This kind of mentality will prevent the formation of a sane society, one that is not afraid of sex and the human body, one in which even a child can tell the difference between images which are art or textbook material and those which are simply in poor taste.
If we continue sheltering our children from everything, they'll never learn how to protect themselves, and they'll never be able to deal with reality. And we're already seeing the effects of this phenomenon: millions who can't cope with the world around them, and in turn are more willing than ever to sell out their freedoms for a dubious-at-best sense of security.
And this decrease of freedoms and increase of governmental hand-holding creates more of these helpless people, which feeds the vicious cycle.
Even if the creation of a sane, healthy society is too "impossible" for lazy and unimaginative politicos to even consider, I think that there's still a quick, simple solution that won't cut our freedoms short:
Encourage parents to guide their kids while using the Internet.
[straw man:]
Of course, thousands of parents cry, "But we can't be there to monitor them 24/7!"
And, of course, the Powers-That-Be agree. Spending time with your kids means less time "working"... might hurt the economy if parents started doing that en masse.
But I'm not advocating that parents monitor children's access. By "guiding", I mean teaching kids how to use the Internet responsibly, and instilling a sense of responsibility in them that will follow them wherever they go. Of course, it might mean that parents might have to learn a thing or two about the Internet themselves, not to mention responsibility.
Overall, however, the benefits to society would be too great to ignore. Children growing up with a sense of responsibility and independence will create adults who aren't afraid to stand up for their freedoms, and who can fend for themselves.
Also, parents who think they need their kids' access "secured" because they "can't be with their kids all the time" need to severely reexamine their assumptions. What many are trying to say is "I can't spend any time with my kids because I'm at work all the time and I want a magic pill to take the burden of parenting off my shoulders."
The damage, if any, caused to kids by seeing a few pornographic images absolutely pales in comparison to growing up with no real parental contact.
Understandibly, there may be situations where this isn't possible, such as single parents (who, btw, have a very tough job and my utmost respect), but children of single parents are usually expected to act with some degree of responsibility and independence in all aspects of life, and these virtues easily translate to the online world. (Not to mention the opposite: that responsibilities in Internet usage can also serve as important lessons for Real Life.)
Treating the Internet as an excuse to take away kids' freedoms (and consequently, their responsibilities), only serves to erode any responsibility and independence they may have learned offline.
By ignoring, rejecting, and fearing the ideas laid out above, American society has become its own dirty little secret. Insisting on living a self-destructive lifestyle and avoiding our real problems with shoddy workarounds is insane. But somehow it's become the "American Way".
--
Stay up hacking each weekend. Sleep is for the week.