Slashdot Mirror
Interview: Two Censorware Experts
This week's interview topic might almost be called "Censorware: Threat or Menace." Our guests are both experienced anti-censorship activists; Jim Tyre is a founding member of the U.S.-based group , The Censorware Project and is also closely allied with Peacefire.org; Irene Graham is a Board Member of Electronic Frontiers Australia (EFA), an on-line civil liberties group (not related to EFF) who also maintains this site. Chosen questions will be forwarded to Jim and Irene Tuesday. Their answers will be posted Friday.
Do you see any positive aspects to censorship? Do you believe that censorship can, in any cases, be used to positive advantage?
marotti.com
Censorship is dumb. The Internet should provide the freedom to speak about whatever you want, post whatever you want, etc. Three cheers for these guys.
The reason I live in the USA is because I am guaranteed certain rights; I do not like seeing my rights removed so we can 'protect the children.' Hell, sex was the main topic of conversation in the class in my second grade - and that didn't make me an immoral human being.
--TheOrangeSquid Is it any wonder things seem so awry? We swim in a sea of confusion and don't have to think to survive
How do individuals fight censorship? I assume that means supporting causes we might not agree with, such as the KKK, terrorist groups, and Microsoft. But, in practical terms, what can/should we do?
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
My question is simple: in light of this, attacking censorware is only attacking the symptom, not the cause. What solutions do you believe are reasonable for accomodating the concerns of these groups? Going one step further, should they be accomodated?
What alternatives to censorware do you propose to keep kids from material that parents don't want the kid to see?
Of course the internet should not be used as a babysitter, but it's impossible for the parent to look over the kid's shoulder every second.
It seems the majority of governments that are instituting censorship legislation are doing this "behind their populations backs". And certainly without majority support of the people they govern over. Mailing/calling our representatives doesn't seem to help much since they just blow us off for special interest groups.
So what can we as individuals do prevent this? What other avenues can we take?
Ex-Nt-User
Two questions here, sort of related:
Do you feel the activities of the Australian Government and, to a lesser extent, the attitude being taken by the Chinese authorities, to be setting global precedents with regard to censorship on the Internet that other governments or similar bodies would choose to either adopt or use as justification for such action?
And secondly, what steps do you recommend programmers/developers/geeks in general can take both individually and en masse to combat the censorship of the medium as a whole?
/Fross
Yet
Another
Fucking
Interview
Two
Internet
Censorware
Experts
Story
Yes, I know the 1st Amendment argument, but let's reverse this for a moment. Let's say I don't want ads from Microsoft on my computer. I am entitled to set up filters, screening them out, and Microsoft's 1st Amemdment rights don't apply. I'm not stopping them speaking, but I have the absolute right not to hear, and my right overrides any rights to speak they may have.
But on a community-based computer, advertisers and sites I personally deem offensive to me can shove what they like down my throat, and there is nothing I can do to stop them. My boundaries, and my right to protect them, cease to exist.
IMHO, this is not OK. I should have the same rights not to see anything I choose not to see in the library or in the home. They're my eyes, and they don't belong to any damn advertiser or web master.
It's my opinion that the problem is not with the ability to filter, but rather the ability to choose -what- to filter. If a child (or an adult) chooses to not see sex & violence, that should be -their- perogative, and nobody else's, and no website should have the power to dictate otherwise. The converse should also be true, though if a child is frequently accessing material child psychologists deem age-inappropriate, their parents might want to see a family therapist.
(A child being blocked from age-inappropriate material isn't, IMHO, a 1st Ammendment issue, but a mental health one. If someone wallpapers over the cracks of a subsiding house, they can hide the problem, but it doesn't make it go away. If a child is prevented from expressing the symptoms of some family problem, it doesn't cure the problem, but it can make the child seriously ill.)
Children do not have a natural urge to look at stuff that has no meaning or relevence to their age. They -do- have an urge to explore, though, which should be encouraged. They encounter something meaningless to them, they'll probably ask about it and move on. It's not going to hold any interest for them.
There is an exception to this. Children from severely dysfunctional families, with seriously screwed-up family dynamics, where their parents are living a gigantic lie, 24/7, are much more likely to behave in ways that do not reflect their age. They'll start by being child adults, and grow up to become adult children. These are the sorts of kids likely to be repeat visitors to porn sites, cos they're the only kids who will find any meaning there. Sex gets approval, approval is what these kids often crave, so porn is a way to get that.
Blaming or shaming either group of kids is not going to do any good. Healthy kids are just that. Kids. Blaming them for being kids is stupid, and probably the act of an Adult Child, so hateful that their own childhood was stolen that they're hell-bent on robbing everyone else's.
Ill kids aren't to blame for being ill. They're simply kids under extreme circumstances. Send the whole family into therapy, and there's a chance you'll fix the problem. Throwing blame around fixes nothing, and just adds to the very disease that made the kids ill in the first place.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
What is the most significant danger of censorware (blocking software, filtering software, web proxies, etc)? What is, in your opinon the worst case scenario for the implimentation of these solutions?
"Where do you get off thinking any OS is superior to DOS?"
People who are mean, suck. The opposite is not true.
A particular point is always raised when talking about the widespread use of censor software - especially in situations like Australia's national censor plan. That point is that the internet was not designed to be censored/filtered and therefor is extremely difficult to implement. Users could use foreign proxies, etc to avoid the local censor (depending on the censor mechanism). Do you feel that law makers and pro censor people grasp this? How much success do they expect these laws to have?
I for one dislike censorship in all of it's forms. However, does government demand it?
:-)
Let me explain a bit...
Ok, here in the US, we have a right to free speech. Conversely, we have no right to be heard. What this means is that it's theoretically ok for me to say "I think that Clinton is a green donkey!". It also means that no one has to hear what I just said. Whether it be a function of censorship, or just because most people think I'm nuts, my view has not been heard. Nowhere am I guaranteed this right.
The problem with this is that it makes censorchip `legal', in a way. The [insert favorite agency to pick on here] can choose not to grant my right to be heard, and that's (unjustly, IMHO) ok.
My question is: Does government, in any form, require censorship to function? Put another way, do we necessarily have to give up our right to be heard by choosing to live in any type of society? Put a third way, is the right to be heard equal to the right to privacy (unlawful search and siezure).
Sorry for the convoluted question. Haven't yet had enough caffiene.
Jedi Hacker (Apprentice) and Code Poet
censorship is a form of noise, which actively seeks to drown out content with silence - Crash Culligan
That should say:
That point is that the internet was not designed to be censored/filtered and therefor it is extremely difficult to implement censorship on a large scale.
We all can ride any censoring product because of incorrect sites that they may block. But what is the real % of completly valid sites that it does block?
Censorship is a necessary evil. So we better just find a good way to make these companies accountable for the censoring that they do. At least this would give us a more accurate view of how these programs react, and give more control to the consumer.
What we really need is an independant rating of censorware products that rates them by several categories.
1) Does it work as advertized? consistantly?
2) What age range does it work for?
3) Inaccuracy of blocked sites
% of sites incorrectly blocked / correctly blocked
4) Inaccuracy of non-blocked sites
% of sites not blocked that should be / test sample of no less than 5,000
5) Turn around time on errors
6) How often data is updated
7) How flexable is the product
This does not make the people that use censorware exempt for ridicule either. Anyone who is using censorware should..
1) Use it only for the intended audiance.
2) Install updates immediatly
3) Re-evaluate use and benifit at least once a year.
4) Never use it on adults.
5) Never use it as a "Quick Fix" to a larger problem.
It seems to me that often the battle cry "Protect the children" is really expressing the ideal "Protect everyone from what society says i should be afraid of". Most issues that revolve around censorship deal with taboos that simply don't make sense anymore. A taboo about sex made sense when sex directly lead to pregnancy. With education, it doesn't anymore. Rather than hiding, perhaps we should educate. Not everyone will make the right choice, but that is their right. To choose.
---
Joseph Foley
Akamai Technologies
Do you believe that we will ever suffiently overcome the technological barriers to useful censorware (ie: censorware that will allow people to see content involving breast cancer, but not porn, and will not involve the rather hopeless task of keeping an up-to-date list of bad sites, or falling back to the totally useless practice of only allowing "good sites"). And do you (to paraphrase Dilbert) feel that pitching your technological abilities against the avg 15 yr olds hormons is a losing battle?
On the whole, I find that I prefer Slashdot posts to twitter ones because I don't get limited to 140 chars before
One of the more alarming trends in online censorship is the tendency for libraries, schools and school districts to enforce the use of censorware on their computers.
What are generally the most effective strategies for discouraging censorware in public institutions? Is it useful to document the famous false positives of censorware (e.g. tools which block the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, the National Organization for Women, or the ACLU)? What other techniques have been persuasive?
As more countries' citizens get exposed to the internet and to the ideas of unbridled free expression, do you see further local pushes to enshrine free-speech protections in their charters or constitutions? Or do you see technology being harnessed to keep the masses in check as it has for millennia?
"If one is really a superior person, the fact is likely to leak out without too much assistance" -- John Andrew Holmes
Do the censorware manufacturers need to be more honest in their claims about the effeciveness of their software? Should they be forced to disclose the criteria they use for filtering?
Do you feel that censorware manufacturers are playing on the fears of parents who fear less technologically aware than their kids, and do they tend to give the impression that their software is an instant solution?
Finally, what advice would you give to parents who are concerned about the kinds of material that their kids might access on the Internet?
I'm not going to launch into an anti-censorship rant so I'll briefly summarize my beliefs.
CENSORSHIP == BAD
CHILDREN && PORN == BAD
FILTERING SOFTWARE == GOOD if used voluntarily by observant parents, BAD if required in public computing fascilities.
Since I see no necessary evil in filtering software in voluntary use by observant parents, are there any products on the market that you feel do a fair job in filtering innapropriate content.
--- Linux... a college project gone horribly right
Hi,
;-))
The company I work for has been experimenting with censoring employee internet usage. It looks as if I won't be able to read Slashdot from work next year anymore, and this annoys me greatly. On to my question :
Since the net supposedly treats censorship as damage, and routes around it, how can I route around this stupid censorship proggie running on our proxy server ? Are there any sites that deal with this sort of thing (preferably non censored).
If there are none, I was thinking on implementing a web page running from my home machine, where I can type in an url and have it automatically mirrored there. Would this work ? Do you happen to know if SurfWatch checks for keywords in downloaded pages or does it just block urls ?
(If it looks for keywords, does any slashdotter know of a rot13 implementation I can use in JavaScript ? I'd just rot13 the page contents, mirror them with the JavaScript slapped onto it, and when the page loads the Script can then nicely decrypt it. Or does this already exist ? If not, can I patent it
superblog.org: all your favourite blogs on o
This week's interview topic might almost be called "Censorware: Threat or Menace." Our guests are both experienced anti-censorship activists
As someone who diverges from the Slashdot party line on this topic, I have this question: If you're going to ask two people to participate, mightn't it be more informative to get two viewpoints?
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
Last I'd heard, all the usual consumer software was accessing a database of blocked sites or relying on Meta tags. This seems like two really half-assed approaches to the problem. We do have a right not to hear, and, IMO, parents have the responsibilty to exercise that right for their kids. But the NetNanny database, or whatever could easily blackhole legitimate sites, and certainly doesn't include every potentially objectionable byte on the Web. By a far cry. And meta tags, while sometimes used, are commonly ignored, especially by non-US sites. Are there any tangible breakthroughs to providing a decent control of content on the web?
IP is just rude.
Is there any torture so subl
If the forum where the speech is being made is a public one, then everyone has a right to speak publicly. However, that right may be subject to certain terms which the forum provider stipulates (eg, no pornography, racial-hate talk, etc) as a condition to providing the forum. This is not a restriction of Freedom of Speech. It is more a contractual agreement between the forum provider and the person speaking on the forum.
As for the rights of advertisers or others to present content which we may not wish to see, if the general guidelines of the forum where the material is being displayed allow the content of the advertisement, then it should be okay. Noone forces anyone to follow links to sites which they do not want to look at. Hopefully the advertiser would have the good taste to keep excessively obtrusive content out of the advertisement itself, and save the "best" material for the actual site.
In the case of children, there are certain sites on the web that are specifically designed for children. An advertisement for Porography would be inappropriate here, and I believe that the people hosting such a web site would be very concerned with presenting any, even by accident.
Just as advertisers have 1st Amendment rights to put material of their choosing on a public site (subject to the stipulations I mentioned), individuals have a right to privacy. I could picture some bright new company coming up with filtering software that could be installed on the individual's machine that would do the filtering based on the individual's preferences. Your own machine can't be considered a public place.
Just my 2 cents.
Mike Eckardt meckardt@spam.yahoo.com
Here's a good one:
Ever since Miller v. California, the definition of obscenity has hinged on the content of "contemporary community values". In the internet age, communities seem no longer to be defined by geographical boundaries, but rather by common interests. The "contemporary community values" standard would appear to be outmoded.
But, do you see geographic communities reasserting their common values by means of technologies like censorware? For example, if a community compiles a list of obscene sites and distributes it to its members, then can the geographic community truly be said to be obsolete?
Or do you see the proliferation of censorware making obscenity laws themselves obsolete, since people will no longer be exposed to material they do not wish to see?
"If one is really a superior person, the fact is likely to leak out without too much assistance" -- John Andrew Holmes
Have you ever thought about reconsidering your opposition to censorship? A case can be made that the people, who are the property of the government, depend on that government to choose what they should have access to. After all, individual people can be quite foolish, and need the guiding hand of a benevolent government to help them make the right choices. This may well include restricting access to the wrong choices. We live in an increasingly interdependent world, and perhaps we can't afford to have a bunch of individualists making decisions for themselves. After all, our tax money goes to support these people, so we should get the maximum benefit from them, by encouraging them to be productive consumers of the status quo.
-- My comment is above.
I6v6 is slanted to replace ip fairly soon, and I'm interested to see a logical opinion of what exactly we can expect to finally emerge from the encrypted vs. un-encrypted packets crowd. It seems like including strong encryption would be illegal if exported at all, but what of packets that travel to Hawaii via Japan, or similar such routing issues?
Also, with the NSA and other world intellegence organisations fully shoving public key escrow down our throats, any ideas as to how they can force compliance without violation of every personal freedom to which we are legally guaranteed? (at least as Americans) It seems like the only way to enforce this mandate is to allow for some type of invasive auditing of inter-networked computers, which is a little too big brotherish for me.
Please excuze my blending of personal freedom issues with censorship, but it seems to me that they are on the same side of the coin in that, to prevent censorship we certainly require anonymity and the ability to present controvertial ideas.
It is obvious that "censorware" is a fatally flawed tool. Using technical solutions for social issues doesn't work. However, it's also clear that many parents don't want a T-1 full of porn available to their child every Monday through Friday. So I'd like feedback on the following proposal:
In areas where minors have access to public internet services (school/libraries), they would be given an account. This account would be accessible via a smart "library" card. The account is identified by account# only. These account#'s are logged along with sites that are visited by minor. At the request of a parent/gaurdian, a report can be generated so that they can determine if their child is acting within the acceptable boundaries set by the family unit. No one else would be permitted to use this reporting tool. This takes censorship out of the hands of everyone except the people legally responsible for the minor.
I belive that this approach removes all unnecessary layers of argument and leaves us with one question:
Should anyone (parents/gaurdians included) have the right to control what their child sees/hears/views for entertainment/etc. ?
This question obviously has a precedence: Children under 18 are not permitted to purchase pornography, tobacco, etc. However, a parent could permit their child to have such things. Perhaps by purchasing the items for the minor.
Please give me your thoughts....
Get a life, not a lifestyle. - Hikem Bey
Within the Next 10 years what do you see as the major forces driving Censorship and what can be done to short circuit the improper use of censorship?
Someone mentioned the KKK's website(s) in one of the posts. This brings up an interesting (in the Eastern Curse sense of the word) consideration:
;-)
Everyone wants free speech, except when it infringes on their personal beliefs or chosen mores. I know I'm tremendously biased in favor of freedom -except- when it's "abused" IMnsHO by hate groups and other people who do things that offend my (albeit rather loose) morals.
My question boils down to: how do we reconcile perfectly free speech with the rights of individuals and groups to be free from abuse and hostility at the hands of others?
(Mutual Assured Respect seems to be a pipe dream, which is why I haven't risen to power in an anarchy yet.
Rafe
V^^^^V
Rafe
Opinions expressed by the author may not actually exist in the wild.
Children do not have a natural urge to look at stuff that has no meaning or relevence to their age. They -do- have an urge to explore, though, which should be encouraged. They encounter something meaningless to them, they'll probably ask about it and move on. It's not going to hold any interest for them. . . . There is an exception to this. Children from severely dysfunctional families, with seriously screwed-up family dynamics, where their parents are living a gigantic lie, 24/7, are much more likely to behave in ways that do not reflect their age.
I'd like to know what kind of credentials you have re: child psychology. This sort of statement strikes me as incredibly naive, and I wonder if you're just making this up or you have some familiarity with actual research that suggests that only dysfunctional children like to look at porn sites.
From what I have read, all children are curious about sex from a very early age. A child that wanders onto a porn site may very well be interested, and early exposure to the wrong types of material (i.e. extreme sadomasochism [0], bestiality, pedophilia etc.) can have a negative impact on the child's sexuality for the rest of his/her life. Parents therefore have an understandable interest in controlling their children's exposure to sexual materials.
Censorware is extremely dangerous, of course, but spreading naive nonsense about the necessity for childrens' freedom, as opposed to parents' discretion, doesn't clarify the issue. It only clouds it.
~k.lee
p.s. In this post I focus on sex because I don't think children have as much of a natural interest in, say, neo-Nazism, though the same argument applies.
[0] I am not saying that sadomasochism is an immoral lifestyle for adults. However, if a 4-year-old child wanders onto a site that depicts women being tied up and beaten with a nightstick, with a caption that says, in effect, "Isn't this wonderful!"--that has a lasting negative effect on the child's sexual attitudes, because the child has no capacity for approaching that material critically. Only a fool would assert otherwise. And if you really believe healthy children have no interest in sadomasochism or other disturbing images, clearly you have not watched a cartoon or read a fairy tale lately.
(remove nospam for email)
While you may find the lines blurry, I do not. I wouldn't mind if my hypothetical kids read all about dangerous political ideas. I would mind if my children are exposed to violence or pornography. I don't believe *at all* that these things are "relative to the situation." I'm also unwilling to subscribe to the unoffical NRA motto ("give 'em an inch ...").
My question is, do you see a difference between these? Do you feel that all children everywhere should be subjected to all sorts of pornography and violence rather than, by some horrible oversight, they aren't exposed to somebody's political viewpoints? Is there any possibility of either of your organizations reaching a consensus with your "censorware" opponents?
I'm certain I haven't been the first person to bring this up, but I couldn't really find any docs on your websites about it...
Jack Valenti and the MPAA are to technology as the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone
For example, I run a church web site and I'm seriously considering the idea of using PICS to rate it as major gay porn. What do you think?
What arguments have you used to try and persuade people that censorware is not an acceptable answer to whatever problem they are currently having with the world at large?
I ask for two reasons. I have been a fan of Bradbury for some time and will always suggest that everybody needs to read _Fahrenheit 451_, but I have also recently read Ken Burke's "Rhetoric of Hitler's 'Battle'". He argues therein that _Mein Kamf_ should not be censored on the grounds that history might repeat itself if we are unaware of what has gone on before.
This is vaguely related to this and the Slashdot "on trolls" thread last week, so I just thought I'd ask: What is the legal problem with a web site w. a moderator deleting posts? Is it really essentially a form of editing and/or editorial control?
Does it create a situation where the site is then responsible/liable for ALL posts? Such that if someone posted something libelous, the site would be responsible because it exercises a form of editorial control through deletion, and it didn't delete the one offending post?
How can we attempt to show the general population that censorship is not a good thing? It seems that people accept the spoonfed excuse of "it's for your own good"; how can we get people to think critically about the situation and come to their own conclusions?
It's been pointed out that portions of the Linux source might be deemed offensive by some people. Open source advocates believe that access to source code is important for a number of reasons (the ability to fix somthing that's the broken, the ability to learn from the work of others, etc.). The idea that Linux (or any other Open Source software) might be censored because of comment text worries many of us.
Have there been any examples of this actually happening? Do any of the major censorware products block access to Linux or other source code?
CVS is teh suck. Use Vesta instead.
Which people or organizations would you say are the worst enemies of activists fighting against censorware?
8) Can I find out the list of blocked sites, and alter this list if need be?
I took a look at peacefire.org, and in CYBERsitter's case, the answer was not only a resounding "NO," but they took pains to keep the list of blocked sites secret, even adding peacefire.org to their list when Peacefire took issue with this. Sites like NOW's site were on CYBERsitter's bad site list, which I find highly disturbing.
Throughout the centuries, anti-censorship movements have always been directed against the government control of information. However, I see this new anti-censorship movement as being directed against voluntary individuals who choose not to view every form of information available.
Censorware programs, though misnamed, are very different from real censorship in that their use is 100% voluntary for the viewer of the information. The possibility of government mandated "voluntary" self rating systems is an entirely different matter. The current US television rating system is not voluntary, but the movie rating system is.
Do you consider truly voluntary rating systems as censorship in the same way that mandated systems are? Of course, there is the even bigger question, what is wrong with self-censorship?
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
And that is the soul of the issue. There is a reasonable and long standing interest of parents in control of what their children view. Why is another issue entirely but there is. But when buying there is no way to know what is being blocked other than general categories which are undefined. One of them just added sites related to guns presumably in reaction to Columbine? Why not their favorite rock stars? Maybe they have but they will not tell us. Is that the same vendor of the censorware used by the US Armed Forces that blocks a major website on WWII history? Is our military also being protected from viewing sites on guns? Censorship or secrecy? Which is the threat?
It's a known fact that United States Libraries (probably one of the few places to get Free net access in the US) are damn opposed to Censoring their users. As a Free Speech Advocate, I commend them for this (and wish that they were a more influential entity).
I fail to see any arguments where putting Censorware on a Public Internet Terminal would actually do anything it's supposed to. Usually, the Public nature of the place keeps people away from sites of questionable content.
ISPs also seem to be taking some flak. I remember how Prodigy, a company (once?) owned by Right-Wing Extremeists, took steps to censor for their customers, usually without asking, IIRC. I think people should be protected against Censors like Prodigy - those who wish to impose their beliefs upon their customers. After all, people's RIGHTS are at stake here.
I also fail to see how Forcing ISPs to censor their lines for customers would protect children without sacrificing the freedoms of those who are mature enough to understand what's out there.
Essentially, I fail to see how a concept Censorware could even be concieved in an era "Family Values." If Government wants to get back to "Family Values," then they're going to have to quit trying to make substitutes for good parenting.
Is that the point of these 'Censorware' advocacy groups? To force congress to be a better parent?
By my own survey (ymmv) I found well over 90% of the porn sites can be blocked by keywords. And by economics, porn operators want paying customers and not have their bandwidth wasted on people who will never be customers. And the really "good"/dirty stuff exists behind the credit card wall.
But the vendors are self-promoting on fear tactics. Not only do they refuse to disclose what they are censoring but they hype fear and children to block a huge range of topics.
Porn sites are the easiest, absolute easiest to filter for the reasons in the first paragraph. It can be done on the metatags only in almost every case.
Now I'm sorry folks but I can do a credible bit of software blocking based upon metatags in an afternoon. It might take an entire week to come up with a complete list of words that trigger blocking.
But the vendors will solemnly intone that it is more difficult than that. Why? Because they are blocking other things that are not self-labeled, things that are their pet peaves.
65% of the parents in the US are not paranoid liberals and have no problem with their children viewing sites on guns. But is that being used in the marketing? And lose that much of the market? Don't be foolish.
Honesty in advertising and honesty in contentare not to be found among the censorware vendors.
just because they weren't the ones you'd like to see posed against each other doensn't mean they were exactly the same.
...
If the debate were about the nature of gravity, would you want to have one scientist in favor, and one against?
I'm all for voluntary filtering of any kind, just not decisions from the top down to save us from ourselves
timothy
jrnl: http://tinyurl.com/c2l8yr / foes: http://tinyurl.com/ckjno5
There is another type beware of. They are those who will take up any cause as a venue to bring their own trappings along with. This is most commonly a marxist/leftist trick. In the censorship arena we find many who are absolutely against any and all forms of censorship ... but some things are just beyond the pale. They feign high principles and make those principles appear as lofty as possible. That is the set up. After the setup comes the "but". The "but" is just so "evil/unacceptable/unbathed" that it overcomes the nobleness of their principles. A variant of this is the old maxim regarding counting the silver when a dinner guest proclaims his high moral standards. It is all just a ruse and a rather transparent one at that.
Protecting kids from "smut" is stupid and redundant. Younger kids ignore or giggle at smut, older kids will feel lust regardless - for the cute PE teacher with the tight shorts if not for online porn. Adults of every other species of social ape posture sexually and have sex in the open in full view of the kids, and are always naked. Their kids don't get traumatized by this.
However I'd say there was a good case for protecting kids from the menace of for-profit advertising whilst they are still gullible, especially from advertising aimed direct at kids. There is also a case to be made of course, for the application of the phrases "no, you may'nt have it" and "I don't care that your friends all have one".
Frequently censorware seems to targe anti-censorship (sites/people) as much as they target porn (this was especially a problem in Australia). What can be done about this? Are there laws in the U.S. or Australia that would allow people who censor anti-censorship sites to be sued?
Also, how good is the anti-censorship software now? Are there Active X things which will disable the censorware when someone visits your page? It seems to me that a good way to fight the censorship of anti-censorship sites is for everyone to turn his/her site into an anti censorship site, i.e. offer programs which remove the censorware for download and install Active X stuff which automatically disables it.
Jeff
The Christian religion has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world. -- Bertrand Russell
What do you see as the real message comming from Australia's censorship policies today? And how are these messages going to affect the decisions of the policy makers in other countries? And is fighting censorship even a possibility at this point or would it be better to try to focus our efforts on softening the censorship blow by taking a more active role in shaping government policies?
What's your opinion of SlashDot's moderation system? They don't actually delete posts they disagree with, but saying "I think software piracy is bad and should be prosecuted" sometimes gets you a -1 score, hiding the message from people who aren't careful to click on the link with the -1 threshold.
Does the fact that the money cannot go to all artists, the NEA therefore limits the freedom to express of some artists, so it should therefore be removed as a program? Or because of the fact that it helps some artists provide there views, it is therefore good and should be kept? Should taxpayers have to pay for something that they don't agree with? I belive that most people would agree that the NEA has done some good by promoting art, but has it done more harm than good?
Matt Leese
Assuming that there is a real consumer (ie non-government) demand for filter/censorware, what do you think would be the best design for such a product? That is, how would you as censorware critics design the best filter possible (given that a perfect filter is clearly impossible) for people who really want to be "protected" from obscenity?
In California they have fences and require anyone other than a student or employee to check in. If their presence is not allowed they are not allowed to stay or be invited in a classroom. Why isn't censorware really a cyberfence? Kids are not allowed to have anything or anybody they want at school (even if its accidential), or for just anybody off the street to stumble in and start teaching.
I don't understand why my tax dollars spent to put computers in my son's classroom should allow him to view inappropriate material, when my same tax dollars put the fences up to keep inappropriate people out.
What do you think about imposed censorship, such as rated R movies? In this day and age, parents should be able to control their 7 year old enough not to take them to a rated R movie correct? So why impose the restriction? And what about occasional errors in censorware, such as not being able to view medical drawings and pictures online because, perhaps, there might be a stray penis/vagina/anus in there? Or perhaps places that have SEX, BLOW, CUM, or other sexual references inside of the, such as Middlesex County?
Where do you feel lies the happy medium? It's not always possible to restrict access to the web on some computers.
Is something like "libraries must use a non-graphic browser" like Lynx or such, an answer, since most of the objections I've seen in the comments were to "kiddies seeing a picture"?
I know there is no the answer, and I don't expect there to be.
This is only effective, however, with parental diligence - ie: parents actually make a reasonable effort to keep up with their kids. There is no solution to apathy. Keeping this in mind, ISPs could (as a value-added option instead of a requirement by law) offer to keep logs of where the userid they signed up under has been. Like I said, it would be optional. That's a key point... but combine that with smart filtering and black listing and you have a rather comprehensive list that you can ship back to the parents on a daily/weekly basis. This neatly takes away power from the people who want it and put it back in the hands of the people who need it.
I don't care if a parent wants to censor material before being passed to their child, or even just logging where they've been. I do have a very serious beef to pick with any agency or group other than the parent(s) who want this . This is why I believe the australian broadcasting authority's approach is fundamentally flawed. Kids don't have access to the resources adults do, and legally they have no recourse / say - their parents have the ultimate authority. However, step on an adults toes and you've opened up pandora's box.
That being said... I would hate to be going to school in a place that implimented a system like this.
Seen in a slightly different light:
I don't have kids, not yet at least. If censorware is mandated at a national level why should I contribute to the cost, if it's not protecting me from anything?
Can this argument be used against "mass" censorware/rating mandates like what we've been hearing from Australia lately?
ISPs that provide access to kids can have their own rules, thankyouverymuch. I'll just use the ones that cater to grown-ups. Do you see a use for this type of argument in fighting government-imposed censorware moves?
In other words, it's not "the" Internet. Everyone's Internet can be customized/filtered (or not) according to what they or their legal guardians think is appropriate. Do you feel this point should be stressed?
What level of filtering do you feel is appropriate in a public school setting? Do you feel that some level of school filtering is appropriate, or do you feel that First Amendment concerns override this issue?
What do you think of the Australian legislation? I'm Australian, and I was amazed that there was almot no public debate at all. Despite the EFA's efforts, stories relating to the bill were stuck in the middle of computer sections of the paper. I first heard about this on slahsdot, rather than through local papers.
Article such as the one about the police commissioner's 10 yar old daughter recieving pornographic spam (which I believe isn't covered by the new bill anyway) got page 3 treatment on the evils of the internet:
Mr Ryan said: "I thought it was disgraceful people could send unsolicited mail of that type to young children and I think it is a very very prevalent thing that's occurring."
Is it censorship to stop this sort of thing from occuring?
As well, there were lots of political aspects in this legislation, but to what extent do you think that politicians and the general public knows, or even cares, about both the issues as a whole, and specifically the technical problems with censoring the internet? I know that a quick survey of some (non CS) friends of mine showed that only about half had heard of the legislation in the first place, and most of the rest coulnd't see any technical problems in doing it.
I'm glad you brought this up.
They don't have any valid concerns, IMHO. _Individuals_ have concerns, needs, values, rights, obligations. Groups are only that, groups.
Using the "rights" of groups has been the standard-issue way to oppress/rob/kill people in most if not all of history.
If I were an elected member of the local library board, with a voter mandate to find a legal and moral way to prevent minors from accessing on the internet in the library the same kind of material that in print form they would not be able to legally purchase (i.e. offensive material under community standards), and I asked for your advice, what would you say?
The only difference is that, if it's a privately owned forum, then it doesn't implicate the 1st amendment or the 14th amendment which only apply to government actions. Don't mislead yourself by thinking it's anything other than censorship; for you are silencing someone's expression solely on the content of that expression.
Any discussion of children must recognize the (usually silly) notion that children are not afforded full constitutional rights in this country. Even the government may sometimes take actions concerning children that would be unconstitutional if taken concerning adults. You are committing a gross error if you try to extrapolate from the former to the latter.
And there is a constitutional right to privacy located in the 5th and 14th amendments. That right, however, does not encompass the right not to be offended. Don't try to kid yourself otherwise.
"If one is really a superior person, the fact is likely to leak out without too much assistance" -- John Andrew Holmes
Shouldn't you also have a couple of pro-censorship people to ask questions of?
Otherwise this is hardly a debate, and we only get a one-sided view of things.
A lot of people are proposing censorship, and it's supporters seem rather successful in Autralia. They must have some coherent arguments. Let's hear them.
Given the large number of lawsuites by employees against employers for hostile work environments due to sexual material and other inapporpriate material available over the internet and on computer screens in the work place. How do you see reconsiling the legal issues with the freedom everyone wants to see on the internet and some of the anti-censor mentality that some groups hold up? Also what do you see about the liability of schools who allow kids access to material that in other formats would be illegal or questionable at best? How should schools respond to these issues in light of their legal duties as well as in light of not being a censor?
It is easy to say don't censor anything but the reality and legality of it is different. I don't think the issues are quite as clear cut as some people would like to think.
After all, so-called "censorware" is really "filterware". You don't get it unless you want it, buy it, and install it on your computer. Why is this exercise of personal choice in any way bad, much less a "threat or menace", to quote the wording of the title of this discussion.
This is quite apart from any issues of how good or selective a job some particular piece of filterware might do.
If the Australian government implements its mandatory filtering scheme, many of us will want to circumvent it on occasion. For instance an overzealous classification board could ban bugtraq, or I might want to distribute my private webpage to those who request it, even though it might be inappropriate for broadcast on the TV or radio. Although Australian censors have been sensible so far, and pretty good at resisting political pressure, they could break down under load, like the US patent examiners.
Of course, circumventing the filters would be illegal, and because you don't agree with the law is not necessarily a reason to break it. On the other hand, one could argue governments have no business restricting personal communication (evidently a lot of people don't agree). Do you intend to obey the filtering laws? Would you encourage others to do so?
The last time I checked, the Hazelwood decision from the Supreme Court, in reaffirming the Tinker decision, practically outlawed school censorware. In order for a school to censor, according to the decision, it must either be obscene (porn, fuck, nigger, etc.) or not pertaining to the curriculum. I can think of no sites not containing porn that could then be censored as they could somehow be used by the cirriculum.
Case in point: Recently while doing a research paper on the leadership qualities of Anton Szandor LaVey (creator of the Church Of Satan) and many sites were blocked by the schools censorware. Furthermore, I was required to use the school's connection. The blocked sites did contain relevent information and the leader was OKd by the teacher. As far as I can tell, the material could not legally be blocked, and I am now in the process of taking action toward the removing of the censorware.
My point is, if you look for a "pro-censorship" boogyman, you will never understand the people you are trying to oppose. And if you don't understand them, you will never sucessfully engage them.
It might be interesting to ask the interviewees to describe the type of person or group which produces, endorses or uses filtering software. Their ability to do so without reversion to "evil censor" mode would say a lot about how successful they will ever be in their goals.
...will work for Chick tracts...
Yes, I know the 1st Amendment argument, but let's reverse this for a moment. Let's say I don't want ads from Microsoft on my computer. I am entitled to set up filters, screening them out, and Microsoft's 1st Amemdment rights don't apply. I'm not stopping them speaking, but I have the absolute right not to hear, and my right overrides any rights to speak they may have.
Whilst I'd hate to take M$ side on anything, what you're stating here is pure crap!
If you disagree with the advertising content that a particular site is providing, then you should avoid that site altogether.
The site is able to provide the level of content that it does through the money paid it by its advertisers, rather than charging you a subscription.
By circumventing those advertisements and reading the content regardless, you are, IMHO, effectively stealing that content.
They're my eyes, and they don't belong to any damn advertiser or web master.
As stated above, you pay for the content that a site provides in by allowing your eyes to peruse their ads, rather than forking out hard cash for a subscription. That's tough. Either you agree to do that or you don't.
If you don't, then you should be taking your eyes elsewhere and letting them get on with running their business - or volunteer your time and money, so that they can buy the servers and equipment required for maintaining and expanding the site without having to find the bucks to do so!
M@T
'sapientia potestas est'
> But the NetNanny database,
Great, now I have a reason to kick them again for making such a crappy product . (Yes, this is a plug, but I think it's very informative for those who have never been exposed to just how crappy these products are).
What I would like to know is why most of the censorware-producers are trying to hide which sites they are blocking. They usually say it's because they want to "protect their business", but I'm sure we can all agree that is pure bullshit. If one of their competitors wanted to extract the database, they could. The real reason they are trying to hide the facts about their software is because it reflects their own agenda, which seem to be mostly religious in type.
Belief is the currency of delusion.
Have variants of Brian Ristuccia's IANS project demonstrated that filters and ratings depend on the co-operation and support of everybody connected to some network?
Taking the above into account, do you see a future for open source censorware, enabling parents to obtain independent assistance with tuning their filters to their preference, rather than simply buying some vendor's obscure notion of "objectionable"?
If the kid finds out that he is explicitely disallowed to view a particular website (as may easily be the case with open source censorware), is this worse than him finding out that he isn't allowed to watch a particular X-rated movie?
I work in computer services for a public library. We lost the fight against censorware; now we have a mix of censored and uncensored machines. I have two questions.
First, it's obvious that we all have to compromise in our working lives, at least sometimes. I'd be interested to hear what compromises you feel would be acceptable (for yourselves).
Second, what role do you think that public employees can play in this sort of dispute? As a public servant, I feel a strong disposition towards serving all the public; but as a citizen, I feel a strong disinclination to serve those who want to shut down this or that view.