Lotus Says: The Industry Supports Censorship

According to an Australian official, the CEO of Lotus Development Corporation believes:

Industry has no issue with online content regulation. The industry endorses content regulation.

The context is Australia's new system of dumbing the net down for children; here, the words "content regulation" mean simply: "censorship." An excerpt follows.

Senator Alston, Australia's Minister for Communications, is still working to sell Australia's censorship law, which was passed in June and takes effect on January 1st. Essentially the entire continent's internet will be rated like movies, with teeth. Unless something is done before January - which looks unlikely - it will be the worst trampling of net liberties by a Western democratic nation.

One of the compelling arguments against Australia's plan is that it will slow or halt the technology industry - halting progress means losing venture capital and slowing an entire nation's economy; nobody wants that. So Senator Alston has been looking for evidence to the contrary, and in particular he hopes to convince people that the industry itself supports the plan.

In the excerpted speech below, given on September 30, he recalls a conversation with Jeff Papows, CEO of Lotus, and claims Papows voiced support for the plan. (Note that Alston also claims support from Yahoo. Yahoo denies this, but Lotus has not, and had no comment at press time).

The industry itself accepts that there should be these codes of practice and this form of regulation. We have been trying to negotiate it for the last three years with the Internet Industry Association. Their problem is that there are these maniacs - these electronic frontiers outfits - running around stirring up trouble, using quaint expressions and feeding lines to that woman from the Civil Liberties Union [Nadine Strossen] who then gets out there, gets a good run and says that we are global village idiots. This is just a low-grade political campaign. I do not find industry opposing this approach.

I was fascinated when I was in Silicon Valley about two months ago. I waited for industry to raise it, because it was at the height of the furore. It was just after the legislation had gone through and I was doing the rounds of all the IT companies in the valley. I waited for them to raise it with me. The only people who ever raised it with me were journalists who were saying, 'Isn't this a big problem?' I replied, 'Why it is a big problem?' They said, 'It is because it is getting media coverage. It is coming out of Australia. Your Senator Lundy is faxing the New York Times and saying, "Isn't it disgraceful?" and Electronic Frontiers Australia is calling for the minister's resignation. Isn't this an issue?' It is an issue for the media, because it is new, exciting and a lot of fun, but it was not an issue for the industry.

The only people who raised it with me on that visit were Yahoo who thought it was a good idea. I recently saw the president and CEO of Lotus, which is a major player. He was out visiting Australia. Again, I waited for him to raise it with me and he did not. Over the years I have seen a lot of these people and none of them have ever raised it. I thought I might as well ask him what he thinks. His answer was, 'Industry has no issue with online content regulation. The industry endorses content regulation.' In other words, all of the responsible players - and most of these people have kids of their own - do not for a moment want to see the anarchy that is prevailing at the moment.

Lotus' support for this plan comes as a surprise to those who remember that the company was founded by Mitch Kapor, later a co-founder of the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

Comments

Re:Well, yes.. and no..

[Frater 219]

On the contrary, bondage and sadomasochism websites are a place to learn about bondage and sadomasochism, obviously. :)

I got much better sex ed from alt.sex.* (back before they were spam-havens) and the relevant FAQs than I ever got in high school. Don't underestimate the ability of literate experts in a field, even one like sex or S&M, to produce useful and entertaining documentation.

Censoring "sex" will not just block out the "dirty pictures"; it will also block out the real, high-quality, grassroots-produced information. Why? Because a lot of the people who want to stomp out the dirty pictures also want to keep people ignorant.

(Notice that I didn't say "... to keep children ignorant.")

... which industry was that again?

[Frater 219]

Obviously Lotus does not work in the Internet-service industry, nor the Web-publishing industry, nor the education industry (which often runs its IT budgets on a shoestring and definitely can't support expensive filtering, and further has age-old political objections to censorship).

Lotus makes application software. Internet censorship wouldn't affect their business one bit, any more than regulation of the bicycle industry would affect airplane pilots.

Official Notice

[cpt kangarooski]

As a duly appointed representative of The Technology Industry (TM), I'd like to publicly state that Lotus has just been kicked out. It is my understanding that, as they will no longer be allowed to sell technology products or services, they'll be switching over to afalfa farming.

Thank you, and good night.

Censorship sucks

[merlynn]

I cannot and will not stand idly by and watch as yet another thing in this world be perverted and twisted in political agenda. Censorship has been a hot topic for as long as I can remember. Whether it is books or music or theatre, no one is happy with what is available. Then along comes the WWW. It has no restrictions, whatsoever, except for the occasional password barrier. When it hit, I thought that the world as a whole was going to get past these trifling issues, but I guess we as a world community are just too immature. Sure, there is lots of content on the Web, good AND bad. You cannot have one without the other, I am sorry! Deal with it folks. Let the information speak for itself, and let the intelligent beings of the planet decide for themselves. /rant

Of course the industry supports censorship!

[brennanw]

Or, rather, the Industry doesn't care one way or the other.

The Computer Industry doesn't make it's money off of freedom of speech, it makes it's money off of computers that push data around. Whether that data is regulated is irrelevant, because regulated data needs computers to push it around just as much as unregulated data.

Since the industry makes money either way, they don't care. And if the industry doesn't care, it will always make nice noises at the powers that be, because then life is better for the industry.

Companies exist for one reason: to make money. Mitch Kapor may be very ardent about free speech, but he is not now nor has he ever been Lotus Personified. Even if he were still in Lotus that would be Lotus' stance, and he would be expected to back it up publicly or probably lose his job.

Companies only weigh in for rights when it affects their bottom line. That's why corporations are so gung-ho about loosening restrictions in encryption -- they want to sell it. That's why corporations are so gung-ho about whether or not the Govt should reign in Microsoft -- either they'll make more money without Microsoft, or they'll make more money WITH Microsoft.

That's also why Corporations are so hot on doing business in China, despite China's atrocious record on human rights -- they can make money in China. That's also why Corporations fought bitterly against Apartheid Sanctions.

Corporations see the green before anything else. It makes me sick, but that's the way it is.

So if Australia wants to censor the internet, why not? Unless you're an ISP, it doesn't affect your bottom line. So the Computer Industry is fully behind Censorship, as long as they keep making money...

Re:Of course the industry supports censorship!

[Hobbex]

Corporations see the green before anything else. It makes me sick, but that's the way it is.

There is a quote I remember the QT movie Jackie Brown, where Samuel L says something like "I know I can't trust her, but I can always trust her to be herself."

This goes with corporations. Companies do not have morals, ethics, consience or anything else beyond what is good PR. Companies have profits and losses. That is the way they work. This is the only way they can work.

Trying to put a moral standard on companies is as stupid as trying to apply it to an animal - as entities, they just don't operate that way.

We can never rely on companies to ensure our human rights, we need individuals (hopefully ourselves) for that. The really awful things that corporations do (pollution, suing 3 year olds who posts Teletubby pictures) cannot be blaimed on the companies, but on the inadequasy of the legislation we have set up to rule them. Corporations are like script kiddies constantly attacking your security: if there is a hole, they will find it, but so bluntly that any reasonably attentive sysadmin can patch it before any real damage is done.

The problem is not in the companies, but rather in our governments who have let us down completly. They are awful, awful sysadmins. Countries like the USA and the EU are more or less ruled by corporate lobbyists today - giving the companies power over us through an institution established to achieve the exact opposite.

That, if anything, makes me sick...

-
/. is like a steer's horns, a point here, a point there and a lot of bull in between.

Re:Nobody Cares About Censorship, Says He?

[ewhac]

His staff have a standing order to dump mail on this matter.

If true, then he has abrogated his duties as a public servant. I hope efforts are made to inform his consitituents of this fact come the next election.

Schwab

The Industry Supports Money

[Elias Ross]

The industry is about making money. It seems to me that they'll lose nothing when censorship in Australia goes into effect.

It sounds like a way to sell more software, like imagine a new version of Lotus123, with Australian Approved(tm) CensorMate3000 (tm). "Austrialian Brand CensorMate(tm) keeps you legal: Intelligent word count features track the usage of explicatives and racial slurs. AutoCensor(tm) features turn 'shit' and 'fuck' into Australian Approved words as you type!"

I just hope the laws are enough hassle to those who actually have to work harder to provide "censorship approved" content. Maybe some companies would step up and do something about it.

It's worse than that.

[schon]

Or, rather, the Industry doesn't care one way or the other.
The Computer Industry doesn't make it's money off of freedom of speech, it makes it's money off of computers that push data around. Whether that data is regulated is irrelevant, because regulated data needs computers to push it around just as much as unregulated data.

This is all true, but it goes beyond that.

The person who claims that "the industry" supports censorship is 100% accurate - it's not that they're indifferent to it.

The issue isn't "regulated or unregulated" data, it's HOW the data is regulated.

Regulated data requires more storage (to hold the list of what's accepted and what isn't,) more CPU power (to make decisions based on those lists,) and more software (to drive the CPU's.)

What dies this translate into? MORE MONEY that has to be spent on software and computers; which means more money for the "industry." Which, since that's what they're for, is why they support it.

Of course, for the ISPs (who have to put up the money to buy all of this,) this doesn't apply (I guess they're not "industry".)

Interesting logic...

[Wakko Warner]

The guy asks two IT people their opinions on internet censorship, gets two favorable responses, and assumes the rest of the world thinks the same way. Well, I'm sure glad to know that, I, as a member of the IT industry, fully endorse content filtering!

Human intelligence is constant. The population grows...

- A.P.
--

"One World, one Web, one Program" - Microsoft promotional ad

*cough*

[Signal 11]

As an official representative of The Rest Of The World, I would like to inform you that we don't give a hoot what the Industry likes, dislikes, wants, or desires. We Are The Customer, And The Customer Is Always Right.

Since when does the industry dictate to the rest of us what we will, and will not, see and do? This isn't television - there are no marketing directors and stuff to tell us what's 'hot and what's not'. We set the agenda. If we want porn, goddamnit, we're gonna have porn and there's not a thing you can do about it. And if you ask me, I think if these politicians got some more often they wouldn't be so damned stupid. :^)

Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated into the Collective.

This reality check brought to you by the makers of Reality, who choose to remain anonymous because the police are still looking for us....

--

Politician distorts the facts. Film at 11.

[Bilestoad]

Clearly, Senator Alston could not find his arse with both hands, and has conveniently forgotten that:

1. The Internet censorship laws exist for no other reason than to ensure the support of the puritanical Senator Brian Harradine in the Government's quest to pass legislation allowing the sale of a further portion of Telstra. Senator Harradine holds the balance of power in the senate, and can single-handedly reject legislation which the House of Representatives wishes to enact provided the rest of the senate votes along party lines. Hence this religious old Tasmanian holds a very big stick.

2. This legislation was universally opposed at the time it was debated by not only those electronics frontiers "maniacs" but the Australian Computer Society, every ISP, and numerous other professional bodies. Not that there was much debate - they not only rushed it through, they smokescreened it very effectively with "the republic debate" and the Olympic circus.

3. Lotus are now an irelevant producer of software which is almost universally reviled for its poor interface, sorry performance and general instability. Seriously, it's worse than anything Microsoft has done. It survives mainly because there are those IT manager types whose job security depends on nobody finding out about free, better alternatives, and there are those managers who still like to parrot buzzwords like "groupware".

Perhaps the minister was mistakenly talking to theatre groups or bankers on his recent visit - almost everyone I meet who is remotely connected with the net has a good laugh at my government's attempts to treat the net like television. It's not nice to hear my country compared to such freedom-loving nations as Singapore.

I could mention that Australian government departments use net-nanny software which blocks a seemingly random array of sites... I could quote the price of ISDN to residents in Australia... I could contrast some of the salaries that I used to earn in Australia to what software engineers typically make here... I could tell you that Australian companies do NOT give out options... but I'll just say that I am so happy I came to live in the bay area instead of staying in Melbourne. Australia is a great place - and one day I know I will live there again - but with just a little common sense it could be so much better. I look forward to the minister taking over the portfolio for say, agriculture.

Content Regulation is okay

[dustpuppy]

When I heard that the Australian government wanted to implement 'content regulation' I was pretty ticked off (since I live in Australia).

I still am - but I have also thought about the issue a whole lot more without trying to jump on the 'censorship is evil and the work of the devil' bandwagon.

If I was a parent, I could see the benefits of content regulation. I would hope that I would be a parent who would take an interest in what my kid does and who would make sure that I knew what my kid was doing on the Internet. However, I cannot be around my hypothetical kid all the time and if content regulation helps me control when my kid is exposed to elements of society that are of the more unsavory kind, then so be it.

However,

where I have the biggest issue with content regulation is that the Australian government has decided to implement the content regulation on a nation wide level irrespective of who is trying to look at the content.

To me, this is synonomous to saying that since drivers aged between 18 and 25 cause the most accidents on the road, we should ban all drivers.

The brush is simply too broad and everyone is being tarred.

In my mind, this is the issue with content regulation - the fact that it is applied on a macro and not a micro level.

So, with regard to the Lotus CEO, I too agree with content regulation, just not how it is being implemented at the moment.

Am I really reading this..?

[Kitsune Sushi]

This will probably have low signal/noise ratio due to the fact that I stayed out of the last censorship discussion (though I was a very active part of the one before that), and have some pent-up energy about it all.. You've been warned. =P

You know, after seeing all the crazy laws in Europe and Australia, I find it quite laughable when the true "intellectuals" from those parts of the world who post here on Slashdot talk about how horrible and stupid the U.S. government is.. Sorry, I just can't get it out of my head when people say things like "it's good to snub your nose at America". That said, I'm still above slamming countries and regions myself. I see little to condemn about long stretches of dirt, anyway. =P

The industry itself accepts that there should be these codes of practice and this form of regulation.

Hmm. The "Bertelsman industry" (sp?) maybe. =P

We have been trying to negotiate it for the last three years with the Internet Industry Association.

If it's so widely accepted and agreed upon, why are they "trying to negotiate".. and why would it matter that:

Their problem is that there are these maniacs - these electronic frontiers outfits - running around stirring up trouble, using quaint expressions and feeding lines to that woman from the Civil Liberties Union [Nadine Strossen] who then gets out there, gets a good run and says that we are global village idiots.

What.. people wanting their civil liberties? They are maniacs! This is just slanderous. Certainly "low-grade".. Speaking of which!

This is just a low-grade political campaign.

Talk about a total fscking hypocrite! You'd think this guy could think of something more intellectual to say. Hell, I could think of a more eloquent way to put it, and I'm still blown away by how well-versed spokespeople from, say, the ACLU, are in the English language.

I do not find industry opposing this approach.

I've heard that it is often difficult to find something you are not looking for..

In other words, all of the responsible players - and most of these people have kids of their own - do not for a moment want to see the anarchy that is prevailing at the moment.

Anarchy!? That's really funny. If I have to deal with one more "save the children" campaign that is aimed at censoring the Internet (or anything else), I'm going to murder someone. I think it's interesting to note that someone said in a previous discussion that once Australia and/or Europe have workable laws in place concerning "regulation" of Internet content, the U.S. will follow suit.. What, like a cow being led to slaughter? I kind of doubt it. The one thing the judicial branch excels at is protecting the First Amendment rights of U.S. citizens. =P

At any rate.. Isn't anarchy a political "structure"? This guy obviously has not a clue what true anarchy really is .. I swear, the zero responsibility attitude of parents these days is dragging the world down into the bowels of hell itself. Would it be so bad if more people learned how to raise children effectively or were forced to give them up for adoption (or better yet, not have them at all)? This "pass the buck" mentality is driving.. me.. in.. sane..

Update to this story

[Trick]

Oct 4 - Sydney: In an attempt to cool the strong public outcry following his statement that Lotus Corporation supported Internet cencorship, Senator Alston, Australian Minister for Communications, defended his position.

"These people say I have only two backers in the technology industry. This is a complete lie. I have three."

Alston has published his recollection of a discussion with highly-regarded members of the industry, at which he recalls W. Warner saying:

"...I, as a member of the IT industry, fully endorse content filtering!"

Warner was unavailable for comment at press time.