FInland Proposes Editorial Culpability for Web Content

Sandstorm writes "Electronic Frontier Finland ry has an interesting article about a proposed law in the Finnish parliament on liabilities in public communications. Among other alarming things, the proposed law would require all web publications to have an editor-in-chief, who would have a criminal responsibility for all material published in his publication. That would include discussion on web boards and force editors on sites like /. preview and censor all comments before displaying them."

Comments

just dumb

[retards]

I really wonder about laws of this kind. Do the lawmakers really think about the implications of this? I don't mean that "Big Brother"-shit, I mean, people will not abide by this law because it is too cumbersome. People will not archive every revision of their personal homepage just because they happen to have a small webserver and the law says they have to. I sure as hell won't. Come arrest me.

This kind of civil disobedience may seem trivial, but what happens when lots of people lose respect for the law in other areas because they deem (correctly) that the lawmakers are totally clueless about modern society?

When will politicans realize we cannot have an Orwellian government AND an informed and educated population AND a market economy at the same time? IDIOTS!

Re:just dumb

[signifying nothing]

When will politicans realize we cannot have an Orwellian government AND an informed and educated population AND a market economy at the same time? IDIOTS!

I don't disagree with your conclusions (IDIOTS), but how does a market economy come into this?

It is certainly the case that Orwellian government and an informed & educated populace cannot co-exist in the long-term.

Fortunately, recent history suggests that a better-informed populace can bring about the downfall of an Orwellian government, but that an Orwellian government cannot permanently keep a population ill-informed and ill-educated.

A market economy is possible with or without any of the above.

Re:just dumb

[leviramsey]

Warning: rant ahead...

When will politicans realize we cannot have an Orwellian government...

I'm getting fucking tired of all this "Orwellian" bullshit, and the ease with which people, of all political stripes throw that name around without any idea of what Eric Blair (aka George Orwell) actually thought.

The fact is that anyone who bothers to look at Orwell's writing can find an idea that they can applaud. For instance, Orwell was opposed to having India as a colony of the UK ("In order that England may live in comparative comfort, a hundred millions Indians must live on the verge of starvation -- an evil state of affairs, but you acquiesce in it every time you step into a taxi or eat a plate of strawberries and cream"), but he did not believe India was capable of governing itself. He found Hitler personally appealing ("I have never been able to dislike Hitler... [he] grasped the falsity of the hedonistic attitude to life [which is the attitude of] nearly all Western thought... certainly all 'progressive' thought."), using terms that were eerily similar to those in England and France who endorsed fascism. He thought that Britain should not get involved in war against Germany and advocated planning "illegal anti-war activities." However, as soon as Hitler and Stalin signed the non-aggression pact, he flip-flopped, accusing British anti-war intellectuals of "sabotage"; of having been "Europeanised"; of sneering at patriotism; of weakening the morale of the morale of the English people.

Politically, Orwell was a revolutionary Socialist. He advocated a Socialist revolution in England, and a violent one if that was required. He viewed Hitler's success as the proof of the superiority of the planned economy. He wrote, "It is not certain that Socialism is better than Capitalism, but it is certain that, unlike Capitalism, Socialism solves the problems of production and consumption. However Orwell thought that, while a classless society would be made, the monarchy would continue.

The worst part of Orwell's legacy is providing a new vocabulary for slippery-slope arguments. If ideas are to stand or fail based on their logically possible consequences, than there would be no ideas, because every idea is, ultimately against life itself, if it is taken far enough.

Of course, those who like to use language inspired by Orwell, often times prove that they never read Orwell. The prime example is "Big Brother", which is generally used to mean a system of covert surveillance and manipulation, and oppression in democratic disguise. Nothing could be further than Big Brother; in 1984 all of that was overt; there was no disguising it.

One gets the impression that Orwell's only objection to totalitarianism and propaganda was stylistic; that only because the language they use is ugly are they evil.

Re:just dumb

[retards]

A market economy is possible with or without any of the above.

I disagree, because a market economy depends on the freedom of it's consumers. If people aren't allowed to act freely they analogously they can't consume freely, either.

A government can't allow people to think at work but not at home and still expect to reap all of the so-called benefits of the free market. Why? Because people WILL think at home. Why? Because they have and education. They have television. They have the Internet. I really can't see a modern economy which clamps down ONLY on it's consumers and still expects them to go to the shopping mall and keep the ball rolling.

China would be an example of a country whose government is totalitarian and at the same time attempting to implement a market economy. How many years do YOU give the Communist Pary? I give it five at the most.

Re:just dumb

[evalhalla]

I don't think that television is a good example of something that could help people get an education, expecially if it is controlled by the same "powers" who rule the country. And the internet can help, but only if someone already has some education: most uneducated people seem to browse only on a few sites, without ever feeling the need to look for something else.

As for the law, there is a similar one in Italy, and it has almost never been enforced, except to colose a few "unconfortable" sites that probably coudn't have been closed otherwise (I seem to remember that one of them was the blasphemy case).

Re:just dumb

[retards]

I wasn't refering to George Orwell's personal political ideas, but rather to the system he presented in 1984 (which I have read). I think that that is what most people mean, just like when I say rock n' roll, I mean the music, and not the 1950's slang for "fucking". There is a different vocabulary in spoken word and historical discourse.

The prime example is "Big Brother", which is generally used to mean a system of covert surveillance and manipulation, and oppression in democratic disguise. Nothing could be further than Big Brother; in 1984 all of that was overt; there was no disguising it.

There is no disguising in passing a law that infringes on privacy, either. It will be available in every law book. Also, you state that everything in 1984 was overt, which is false. In the book there was no real resistance: it was invented by the government to ensnare dissidents. The book that "told the truth about the opressive government" in 1984 was written by that same government! And that was THE secret, remember?

Re:just dumb

[seven89]

'Twas remarked:

When will politicans realize we cannot have an Orwellian government AND an informed and educated population AND a market economy at the same time? IDIOTS!

They know that already. Why would they really want an "educated population" (or a "market economy")?

Re:just dumb

[Alsee]

Do the lawmakers really think about the implications of this?

You can't think about something you don't understand. Someone mumbles something about a "problem" with internet "publications". They don't know ANYTHING about the internet, so the fill in the only meaning of publication they know - books, magazines, and newspapers. That's why they think having legally responsible editors makes sense. And achival requirements seem reasonable. Etc etc etc.

They simply have no clue that the internet can be the equivilant of conversations in a clubhouse (messages areas, this post for example), a diary (blogs), an entirely new form of charity/social service (FAQs, knowledges bases, and help forums), support groups, pure artistic expression, scientific work, social activism, policical commentary, all sorts of hobbies, and many many other things.

I think *most* legislators try to do the right thing. They are passing laws regulating something they don't understand. And screwing it up badly.

-

Re:just dumb

[macdaddy357]

This is an example of technophobes who think all computers are Hal 9000, and technically illiterate people with VCRs flashing 12:00 trying to regulate the internet.

Re:just dumb

[Yokaze]

You seam to have a quite peculiar view of George Orwell, and especially of 1984:

"I have never been able to dislike Hitler..."
This statement shows that he is quite aware that Hitler is person, whom should be despised, and despite his rational will, he is unable to hate.
Many of Hitlers opponents attributed a captivating personality to him.

>Orwell was a revolutionary Socialist
So? Does that mean he is in favour of dictators?
You're writing suggests, that you consider Socialism == Communism == Stalinism. One can argue about wether the Communism is possible at all, but not about wether the Soviet-Union or China were classless societies (and communistic for that matter) or not.

Orwell fought in the Spanish Civil War in the United Workers Marxist Party militia. But the stalinists started to hunt down Anarchists, which included several of his friends. They were thrown in prision. After the War and these incidents he was strongly opposing Communism and published "Homage to Catalonia".

>The prime example is "Big Brother", which is generally used to mean a system of covert surveillance and manipulation, and oppression in democratic disguise.

No, it is used to warn people from such a state (without covert and disguise). The "covert" and "disguise" parts are considered as the first step in that direction.

>that only because the language they use is ugly are they evil.

I have to disagree once more. In my opinion, Orwell wrote 1984 as an analysis (and warning) of the political developments in continental Europe.

The reader tends to identify oneself with the main character Winston Smith, who begins to despise the govermental system and is finally crushed by it. This gives the reader a fairly negative impression of the system.

The language part is only the last step in controlling thought (and therefor the ultimate evil). The eradication of the thought by making it impossible to articulate the thought. Newspeak.

Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it. Every concept that can ever be needed, will be expressed by exactly one word, with its meaning rigidly defined and all its subsidiary meanings rubbed out and forgotten.

(From 1984, Chapter 5.)

To quote another source on Orwells political stance:

In 'Why Write?' and 'Politics and the English Language' (1948) Orwell argued that writers have an obligation of fighting social injustice, oppression, and the power of totalitarian regimes.

Ohmigod!

[gmhowell]

You guys don't even read the stories half the time, now you're supposed to read every comment?!

Re:Ohmigod!

[TimMD909]

what story?

Re:Ohmigod!

[Kibo]

Timothy is going to have to put off that vacation to Finland indefinately and he won't be getting all of his deposit back.

He knows there won't be a Free Timothy t-shirt, and a Free Taco t-shirt would just be missunderstood.

The background

[Caid Raspa]

The Finnish parliamentary elections will be held in a few months (around 16.3). So the politicians are busy, trying to show that they have done something, and deserve re-election.

A mall was bombed last year. (try googling for "Myyrmanni bomb") Several people got killed, including the bomber. It turned out that the bomber was active poster on several discussion forums. Some of these were crackpot forums, and one was for people interested in explosives. The moderator of the explosives forum got arrested, but was released afterwards.

Another point is that the Finnish telecom, (Sonera) got thoroughly blasted by an anonymous book first published on the web. The book seemed credible enough, and later a police investigation showed that the security department of Sonera had been scanning the e-mail and the phone calls of the employees, without their consent. Probably this was done by a pissed-off employee. However, a big company got in trouble because the net allowed fast spreading of the book, and there was no way to press the publisher.

The outcome is logical, as the politicians and voters do not understand the net. Large campaign financiers have an interest in regulating the net. Play with the fears of the people and get paid when you desperately need good press and money for the commercials.

I'm getting more and more ashamed for being Finnish.

Re:The background

[sraak]

"I'm getting more and more ashamed for being Finnish."

you don't have to. every nation, at some point, works just like ours, finnish one. the only reason is the big %'s of stupid people. no one can change that.
it's sad, but it's the way world is. i am not happy either...

Re:The background

[hopey]

Who elected these guys anyway? I'm sure I didn't... whops, you can arrest me now.

hopey

Re:The background

[villoks]

Hi,

It's stil unclear if there's enough time before the elections to pass this law.

Unfortunately that is not the case with the national EUCD-implentation. The chairman of the committee of culture and education (Suvi Linden) has decided that they won't ask the opinion from the constitutional commitee, which would have taken too long to finish the law in time before the elections.

Electronic Frontier Finland is launching a last minute campaign to get certain improvements to the law and also the preserve the good parts like no protection for the DVD country codes and the legality of personal circumvetion. If you want to do your part, please join the effi-aktivistit mailing list!

Ville Oksanen
Vice Chairman, EFFI ry

Re:The background

[iltzu]

While the issues you point out may well be relevant, it should be pointed out that the proposal for the new law has existed in more or less the same form as it has now for several years already. Recent events may be important in determining whether the law gets passed, but they did not influence its drafting.

For crying out loud...

[lightspawn]

Those lazy Finns... just monitor and log all network traffic yourself, like any halfway decent government. No need to bother Joe Public with the details.

A change in landscape

[Twylite]

While I don't support a law like this, and really don't like what it would do to my favourite addiction, the effects could be interesting in push technology forward in a way that sorts of a lot of related legal problems (including responsibility, copyright, etc).

I have long thought that web forums were a step backwards. They are often slow, the interface is limited, and in general you have little control over the forum's functionality. Compare this to Usenet or BBS-style mail and forums, where your client provides the functionality needed.

The first step we need to take is to a distributed usenet-type system. Instead of web-interfaced forums, we have a lot of different news servers, which are not connected in a hierarchy. NNTP is also suitable as it is, although the servers would need some work to make the groups and articles more manageable, and allow a system for ratings.

The second step is to get away from centralised storage. A host site has an initial article and a storage index, which is a collection of links to a whole lot of other sites -- one per poster in fact. The poster's client posts the article to their "home" server, and notifies the host site about the relationship of that article to the discussion.

Now the host is merely publishing a short comment, and linking to a huge amount of discussion on that comment, where each part of the discussion resides with its owner. The responsibility for their contribution, as well as copyright, is far more clear in this situation.

Well, that's my 2c. Damn, I wish I could get Slashdot in QNX ...

What we need (IMNSHO) is a distributed usenet-type system

Re:A change in landscape

[archnerd]

We have it. It's called usenet. And it's awesome.

Re:A change in landscape

[Twylite]

Is it just me, or did you completely lose the point of my comment?

Usenet exists in a hierarchy, and there are rules for adding groups (forums). There is no support for user accounts or for collaborative filtering ("moderation" as found on Slashdot). Posts are stored on a central server, and worse are lost over time; as opposed to being published by their author onto private "forum space" where (s)he can claim copyright and take responsibilitity, addressing the legal issues involved.

No matter how low the single to noise ratio can get on Slashdot, it doesn't come close to usenet.

Anonymous Book

[moc.tfosorcimgllib]

Another point is that the Finnish telecom, (Sonera) got thoroughly blasted by an anonymous book first published on the web. The book seemed credible enough, and later a police investigation showed that the security department of Sonera had been scanning the e-mail and the phone calls of the employees, without their consent. Probably this was done by a pissed-off employee. However, a big company got in trouble because the net allowed fast spreading of the book, and there was no way to press the publisher.

This really disturbs me with the implications. Publishing a book anonymously on the web with no editor is a big responsibility.
This is a freedom that should be protected, but continue to keep it unregulated. This presents a possiblity to publish good books ("The Jungle", where an industry should improve for health reasons) before a huge crisis ensues (Think Enron), or it could be misused (The Globe, National Inquirer, etc.).
It would simultanously be a great loss and huge gain if you held no liability for what was said on the internet.

Sounds like

[PaddyM]

Time for Freenet. Along with a totally wireless point-to-point distributed internet.

These lawmakers need a brain transplant...

[Tuxinatorium]

"Among other alarming things, the proposed law would require all web publications to have an editor-in-chief, who would have a criminal responsibility for all material published in his publication. That would include discussion on web boards and force editors on sites like /. preview and censor all comments before displaying them."

That's the most absurd law I ever heard of. That's exactly like blaming the telephone company when some psycho makes threatening calls to someone. They just have no respect for the immunity of unmoderated mediums anymore.

Re:These lawmakers need a brain transplant...

[Ecyrd]

Um. If you take a closer look at the proposed law, you will see that it takes quite a lot to be qualified as a "web publication". USENET and any private message board maintained by an individual are not within the purpose or reach of this law. However, the definition of a "web publication" is faulty within the proposed law, and that should be re-examined before it actually becomes official.

What they are trying to do is to apply the same kind of rules to web-based publications as to print publication: if you are a company that publishes also on the internet, AND you allow people to discuss within your web page, you should keep track of what they say and apply some sort of filtering - much like what the current opinion sections in the newspapers are like.

Especially anonymous commenting allows all sorts of crap, personal abuse, etc. to appear on those sites, since not everyone has a slashdot-like moderation system.

Heh

[4of12]

I'm glad they didn't have this editorial review in process when a famous Finn, Linus Torvalds, came out with source code commentary on Minix.

IIRC, Tanenbaum didn't think too highly of Linus' initial work.

Were Tanenbaum the editor of comp.os.minix, maybe the work of Finland's most famous author in the last decade would have been quashed.

...interprets censorship as damage and ...

[unitron]

Okay, so Finland won't have any decent web sites anymore, but do they think that they can either impose this law on sites in other countries (rotsa ruck) or block access for the entire nation to sites in other countries? What if someone makes a long distance call to a dial up provider in France or Sweden or wherever? (Yeah I know that gets expensive really fast but some people will do it anyway.) Even China's having trouble keeping their people from checking out un-authorized sites, how's a country like Finland where the populace doesn't fear a bullet in the back of the head for any little infraction going to handle the uproar over blocked sites? It's not as though they can keep people from finding out that there are sites to which they are being denied access.

We should be talking on alt.slashdot.yro, not here

[FreeUser]

Is it just me, or did you completely lose the point of my comment?

I think he may have, but I think you have missed something in his reply as well (see below).

Posts are stored on a central server

This is incorrect. Posts are stored on distributed servers, replicated over time. If I use nntp.mynews.com, then my post first resides on nntp.mynews.com and is forwarded to other peers throughout the world, probably over the course of the next day or so. In this sense USENET is distributed.

The heirarchy is in the newsgroup naming conventions and organization, not in the servers themselves (unlike DNS for example, in which the servers themselves are heiarchical). There is no "central" usenet server to disconnect.

User accounts are generally served by identifying a user by his or her email address, and GPG signatures can be used to verify identity beyond that. This IMHO is a huge plus over sites like slashdot.

Anonymouty is served very nicely by double-blind remailing services (cf. cypherpunks et. al.)

Signal to noise ratio issues are addressed quite effectively through kill lists (and hot lists), and can be even more effectively addressed with Spam Assassin type technologies and Beysian filtering.

Your other points are correct however: there are rules for adding forums (except in the alt. heirarchy, which is a free for all), there is no support for collaborative filtering (though it could be tacked on the way GPG/PGP was ... with an independent protocol or mechanism), and articles which are not archived by places like groups.google.com are lost over time.

The ADVANTAGE of USENET is that NO ONE can claim copyright and take responsibility (though there are moderated groups, the moderator could in theory be anonymous), making an asinine law such as the one proposed in Finland impossible to enforce, or even interpret sensibly. This IMHO is a very Good Thing, and why you are so very correct in pointing out that web forums such as slashdot and avsforum are such a step backwards.

Im seems that...

[Anonymous Coward]

It seem that Finland has a serious disilusion problem toward the Internet.

already de facto situation in some EU countries

[metalpet]

There has been at least one court case in France where a webmaster was found guilty for having illegal speech on his website. The speech in question was located on a forum, and wasn't put there by the webmaster.
This effectively means that anybody who puts up an unmoderated forum in France is taking a chance.

It didn't require extra laws, and probably didn't make a lot of headlines, but it's a reality.

http://www.homo-numericus.bonidoo.net/article.ph p3 ?id_article=169
http://vulgum.org/libre/article.p hp3?id_article=25 8

Re:already de facto situation in some EU countries

[parliboy]

If googlefish is translating properly, the judge said one of the problems was that the site owner lost the right to claim it was unmoderated and that he was unaware of it when he participated in the slanderous discussion. Basically: "Your Honor, I knew nothing about this." "So why did you reply to it?" "Do you take a check?"

It IS absurd

[Anonymous Coward]

Finland, although touting itself as somekind of "information society", only recently got away from the stone age with regard to .fi domain registration. Previously you had to fulfill so strict qualificiations to get a .fi domain so that it really wasn't worth the trouble (unless you were a big multinational company).

This law is stupid. It will never be upheld. There are laws, and there are laws that can be enforced. Speeding is against the law. Yet practically every driver does that in Finland.

Suvi Linden and her clueless party, and the people in the damn board are not getting my vote. I'd rather vote for some weird-ass small party like the "yoga flyers" than these idiots.

Get Linus

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, that butthead has published lots of idiotic stories on the web.. Sue him please!

Enforcement issues

[mrtroy]

Lets just say ./ was hosted in finland (i assume they have no jurisdiction for web sites hosted elsewhere)
Some crazy skript kidding named FinishCowboy ./roots the site and posts offensive materials. Is ./ held responsible???
Lets say I wish to envoke some freedom of speech and rant about something which is offensive. Is this something that they would try to do something about???
Lets say that I start am the editor-in-cheif for this Finnish hosted ./ site. If i get a higher paying job and want to screw over ./ can I quit and allow open, non moderated posting on the website? Because technically i quit being the editor-in-cheif...so would my second in command guy get screwed?

If any of these are true please host ./ in finland and lets have a field day in court! (just dont ./ the courtroom or we will have more charges...since the court case will contain illegal-to-display information)

Who really lives in finland anyway?

Re:Enforcement issues

[Anonymous Coward]

>Who really lives in finland anyway?

I do, of course. Silly of you to ask.

How quickly things change...

[tansey]

Finland was recently ranked #1 in freedom of speech. http://hawaii.indymedia.org/news/2002/10/3_comment .php

Just goes to show how bad of a job that our world does with freedom of press. I know it hasn't passed yet, but you would think that the #1 country wouldn't even have these crazy laws proposed.

Freedom of PRESS*

[tansey]

They were ranked #1 in freedom of press, sorry.

Not that dumb

[xixax]

If it could be used to make running online forums (such as this one) too risky for any sane person to consider, I'd think that some people would be very happy with such implications.

I really wonder about laws of this kind. Do the lawmakers really think about the implications of this? ...
People will not archive every revision of their personal homepage just because they happen to have a small webserver and the law says they have to. I sure as hell won't. Come arrest me.

They won't arrest everyone who fails to comply, but someone will use this to sue your ass off or have you arrested if you draw the right/wrong kind of attention.

Xix.

Public restrooms are next

[phr2]

The owners will be liable for anything written on bathroom walls in restaurants, libraries, etc. Sheesh.

When you reach the last Lapp...

[ChristTrekker]

...you know you're near the Finnish line.

Pa-dum-BUMP!

(Sorry, couldn't resist.)