Stupid Censorship, Stupid Security

The 2003 Jefferson Muzzle "winners" are out. This year's crop starts with John Ashcroft and the U.S. Congress, and works its way down through the school board that voted to put Harry Potter on the restricted shelf. Innovation in censorship deserves recognition, read and enjoy. And in other stupid news, the winners of the Stupid Security Competition have been announced. I like that I'm being protected from tea. It makes me feel safe.

Comments

censoring

[Interfacer]

the problem with censoring data is that - if you aim to remove access to offending data - there is no end to it. there will always be people who get offended at anything.

for example the harry potter book burning event was just plain stupid. it is just a kids story (good though) and if your belief system is so fragile that you have to protect it by removing access to all data that you find not suitable, you have a problem.

in my experience if people prevent other people asking questions, than that means that that you are not too sure about your answers to those questions.

int.

Re:censoring

[Motherfucking Shit]

the problem with censoring data is that - if you aim to remove access to offending data - there is no end to it. there will always be people who get offended at anything.

Your first sentence is also true in another way; namely, there is no end to the censored information even after the act of censoring.

Case in point, the Muzzle awarded to the high school for censoring a story out of the school paper. The local newspaper ran the content instead, and it probably picked up a considerably larger audience there. The distribution of most high school newspapers is limited to the students of that school who bother to grab a copy, and perhaps their parents. But by trying to censor the story, the principal wound up achieving the opposite: the "censored" material was seen by more people than would have seen it had it remained uncensored in the first place.

We truly have reached a point in the history of human communications where once something is written down or typed in, it's nearly impossible for anyone - even its author - to "unpublish" it. Once the cat's out of the bag, there's no putting it back. The internet makes permanence of speech a guarantee, so long as there are people interested in that speech. DeCSS is perhaps the best example, but there are thousands more.

This is a powerful thing, folks. Remember to use it whenever you can.

Censorship as a concept has no purpose

[Ishkibble]

One of my favorite saying is "Information is not bad, it is the is the holding of information that is bad". The idea that you are protecting a child from harm it unfounded. The only reason Censorship is around is cuz of Right Wing, conservatives are afraid of change. God forbid a child read a book about a kid who can make things float. Censorship is really about control, someone had decided that an idea should not be shared with other people and thus they take it upon them selves to control that idea. An idea could be anything, a book, a word, a movie, etc,. I am a firm believer that Censorship in any form is bad and hinders creativity. The DMCA is one of the biggest acts of Censorship I've ever seen. "NOPE! This here DMCA cays you can't publish that report about anti-copy protection!" common guys, step out of the box for a sec and look at with relevance Censorship has. and i'll tell you, it has none

Re:Censorship as a concept has no purpose

[Motherfucking Shit]

God forbid a child read a book about a kid who can make things float.

Ironic, too, when you consider that most of the parents causing a stir about Harry Potter are making their kids read a book about a guy who can walk on water. Sometimes I wonder who's really corrupting the minds of our children.

Interesting to note...

[friedegg]

That in 2002, the top was:

The United States Department of Defense and Secretary Donald Rumsfeld

"Journalists have been denied access to American troops in the field in Afghanistan to a greater degree than in any previous war involving U.S. military forces."
- Neil Hickey, in "Access Denied," Columbia Journalism Review, January-February, 2002

Amazing how much difference a year and a different battlefield can make. Now there are actual embedded reporters on (or near) the front lines.

Re:Interesting to note...

[davebarz]

I hope you're being sarcastic. Embedded journalism is designed specifically to limit what journalists can see and record to happy, ra-ra images like guns blazing in front of American flags. Embedded journalism is a means of direct control over what journalists see. Journalists aren't where the bombs drop, they aren't in the combat situations, they are only way back in the rear of the war where the big guns fire away at faceless targets. How anyone can feel like this is a good and open practice is beyond me.

Re:Interesting to note...

[sg3000]

> You saw the sanitized war which is exactly what
> the DOD wanted you to see.

This is a good point. Salon recently had an interesting article that featured an interesting observation from Dennis Dunleavy, a professor of photojournalism at San Jose State University in California on the media's coverage of the war.

He said that there are basically 3 "angles" for the news stories and photos:

1. Technology: "It's our power against the rest of the world and these images reflect that. Tanks, soldiers, shots from aircraft carriers, night-vision pictures. That's all about technology."

2. Victims: "But not casualties. It's images of refugees, displaced people squatting on the ground while soldiers stand above them. The dominant interest is the coalition troops against a background of helping the homeless or disenfranchised."

3. Soldiers: "Lots of clear pictures of soldiers giving directions, on the move. They're technically beautiful photographs and amazingly well shot for being in a war zone."

So from the American press's standpoint, this is a war about America's soldiers, not really the war itself. Contrast this with the view that other countries, particularly in the Arab world, which are seeing a more complete picture: dead and injured civilians, bombed cities, dead soldiers, as well as the other stuff we see.

America is seeing a sanitized view of the war, which is part of the reason it feels so remote from our daily lives.

Re:It's Sad

[HowlinMad]

if I am not mistaken, our government is our fellow man, atleast here in the USA.

Ashcroft was just making a point

[l0ungeb0y]

from the Ashcroft article:
"Allowing $8,000 in tax dollars to be spent on drapes to conceal two semi-nude statues that often appeared behind the attorney general during press conferences in the Great Hall of the Department of Justice. Ironically, the two statues represent "The Spirit of Justice" and "The Majesty of Law."

Ironic indeed, in fact most telling.
Ashcroft in his post 9/11 reign of the DOJ has done more to hide the doings of the DOJ and execution of it's commandments from the public than any other Attorney General in our nations history.

Being that he is the mind behind "secret search warrants", "secret evidence" and "secret imprisonment", it is quite fitting that he display this by making the representitive figures of his office "secret" as well.

Re:Ashcroft was just making a point

[harangutan]

Another grand irony of this is that it occurred at exactly the time the administration was making much of the oppression of women in Afghanistan -- including their being made to cover up completely in burkas of (what appears on television to be) exactly the same shade of blue...

Reminds me of when...

[Anonymous Coward]

...a certain online service implemented filters in its user registration process. People with last names like Petit or Snodgrass, and people who lived in cities with names like Scunthorpe or Middlesex, were prohibited from signing up for the service! The filters are implemented elsewhere too, one of AOL's remote employees couldn't enter his last name, Kuntz, into his online profile. Way to lose revenue.

Re:Where's the censorship?

[DietHacker]

Do the rest of us a favor who do not see an FBI agent around every corner, stop calling every administrative attempt to restrict a display of objectional art to children censorship.

Definition of censor. The FBI is hardly needed to meet the definition. Also, if that "administrative attempt" is at a public school where children are - by law - required to spend about 1/4 to 1/2 their waking time (during the school year) then they deserve every constitutional protection. Yes, yes, private schools exist. In practice, only so many people can afford that option. Those required to pay for and utilize the public school system have every right to oppose any "administrative attempt".

Stupid people or stupid regulations?

[gmuslera]

Some of the nominations there are about security people that are plain dumb, not about stupid security laws and regulations, like don't let ice cream, water, tea etc to pass instead of cofee or beer, or consider safe glass instead of screwdrivers.

Is ironic that most of the measures assumed that the terrorist are dumb and use always the same method or container for what they will do, not changing a bit their habits (puting bombs in backpacks instead of big, uncontrolled bags?) showing that the real dumbs are in the controlling points, and that the more effective measure of terrorism is letting the same dumb people to do his job, with that is enough.

Re:Where's the censorship?

[Anonymous Coward]

Whether this organization agrees with it or not parents and citizens have a right to restict objectional art from being displayed using publicly funded means, every bit as much as the artists have in producing then getting publishers to distribute and/or display their garbage.

No, that's exactly what censorship is .. you DON'T have the right to restrict things you object to. And you DO have the right to produce and put out "garbage".

If people have a "right" to not be offended, then how can you also claim a right of free speech?

Re:Quote from a simpson's comic

[davebarz]

Substitute for Harry Potter: The Adventures Of Huckleberry Finn, Catcher In The Rye, Brave New World, or The Lord Of The Rings. All beloved books that have been censored at times. The story repeats itself because people continue to hold to belief systems that demand blind, ignorant devotion. Faith is fine, devotion is fine. But not blindly. Not without thought.

schools

[hollowmadman]

did anyone else notice that there were a disproportionate number of awards going to institutions of learning? namely, school districts including middle schools and high schools?

i don't know about anyone else, but this is a scary proposition for me. schools trying to prohibit the dissemination of information about different cultures and schools of thought speaks volumes about the types of people that are educating our young people. if i let my kids in the future go through a given school system, i want availble to them a variety of vantage points, not just the "right one" as prescribed by the administration.

People don't think through security issues

[cmacb]

The Jefferson Muzzle Awards seemed well reasoned on average. The Stupid Security Competition much less so.

Just one example: San Fransisco's subway system BART is criticized for closing their public restrooms. In Washington DC the subway systems was designed 20 years or so ago without public restrooms in the first place. It is in fact hard to find a spot in the DC subway system where you are not under the watchfull eye of a video camera, all being monitored by at least one attendant visible to the public (I think the feeds go to a central location as well). Since they don't put subway stops in deserted parts of the city, this is hardly a major inconvenience. You simply visit a public restroom before you enter the station.

I can't think of any security measures anywhere that don't have at least one of the following problems:

1. Inconvenient
2. Invasion of privacy
3. Not 100 percent effective

The awards seem to include examples of all three. When I have talked to people who complain about various security measures I try to come up with scenarios that would justify the specific measure that they are complaining about. I can almost always get them to say "Oh, I never thought of that."

In a perfect world we would do this experiment: Every city would have TWO airports. One with the current mix of inconvenient, invasive, and imperfect security checks, the other with only the most cursory check in place (like US Airports in the 50's). Pilots, passengers and employees would use/work at the airport of their own choosing. There would probably be significant cost savings associated with having little or no security measures in place, so that airport could use lower costs as an incentive too.

I'd love to see the long-term results.

About that gunpowder tea...

[Ozan]

I think they refused the passenger to take the foil with 'gunpowder' written on it on board because he might fake a bottle of actual gunpowder and threaten to blow it up in the plane. This is why no toy-weapons are alowed on board, too.

Just my idea.

Re:They just want to hide nudity.

[sg3000]

> those curtains were bought to hide the breasts
> simply to stop the press from acting like 5th
> graders trying to get politicians into a shot
> with the breast. if you see the actual setting,
> the statue would hardly be seen from a normal
> point of view, but photographers would go out of
> their way to include them in a shot.

I've seen this written a couple of times on Slashdot. Do you have any proof of this?

It doesn't make sense to me, because I can't imagine an editor of a major newsagency allowing hundreds of photos to be shown with the same pair of statue's breasts in them. So why would professional photographers go out of their way to immaturely compose their pictures that won't get printed anyway. I mean, it's not like the breasts improve the photo's newsworthyness.

I guess you could use the same justification to censor the war photos: "We got rid of this whole free speech thing because people started acting like a bunch of fifth graders, you know showing pictures of injured civilians and stuff."

A scary trend

[ChaoticLimbs]

I have noticed lately that there are very concerted attempts from both the radical left and extreme right wings to limit speech that they find offensive. It is very troubling. The lefties want to limit "offensive" speech- like Mark Twain- , and the right wing-nuts want to ban BAD things like NUDITY.

I think both of these extreme groups need to take a breather. How about READING Tom Sawyer and Huckleberry Finn. The "nigger" Jim was the most noble and compassionate character. Even as an opressed slave man, he showed that his humanity remained with him. He was the earliest black character to portray true nobility. Sure, he was uneducated and ignorant of many things, but his character was unselfish and kind. Can no-one spot the irony of someone like Jim being called "the nigger" by even his closest friends?

And realistically, I have two young sons, and I object more to the gratuitous and unrealistic violence on television than nudity. Nudity is part of human existence and is almost never offensive. (okay, the nudity in "1984" offended me). I would trade 50% of the violence for 300% more nudity if humans must be titillated in order to watch TV.

Just remember, folks, the PC crowd and the Religious Right may disagree on what should be banned and why, but they're basically identical personalities, believing themselves to know best for OUR kids.

Re:obligatory Simpsons quote

[Pharmboy]

Yes, yes Harry Potter was burned in hell by far right conservitives who want control your lives. Its sort of stupid to ban books like Harry Potter and Huck Finn since its seen as the enemy. Its like burning the pages to The Catcher and the Rye.

Whoa now, hold on cowboy. Im as conservative as anyone you will ever meet, and I am not a Christian, so you can't stereotype us that way. Most conservatives don't give a damn one way or another about Harry Potter. Its a book. Its free speech. End of conversation. Next?

Don't confuse extremist christians with conservatives. Granted, most extremist christians are conservative in many ways, the fact is, they represent a small potion of the conservative political presence. Conservatives range from Log Cabin Republicans, business owners, ex military, Ayn Rand followers, soccor moms, and one hell of a lot more.

I agree with your point that some religous extremists want to control our lives. I agree that its stupid to ban books, and would extend it to say immoral to ban books, and it's an attack on all things American. I disagree with your assumption that anything more than a tiny minority of conservatives think this way. The vast majority of us do not. I don't think all liberals eat tofu either.

Re:True story from 2001

[jsse]

You show no mercy in killing their blood-and-sweat hard work away out of obvious, clueless order...you must be that BOFH(Bastard Operator From Hell) we always talk about.

Nice to meet you! :)