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.

Comments

Good from censorship?

[hodeleri]

Do you see any positive aspects to censorship? Do you believe that censorship can, in any cases, be used to positive advantage?

Fighting Censorship

[Tony]

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?

Censorship: problem or symptom?

[Signal 11]

I believe censorship is a result of various groups / countries wanting to protect their cultural identity (which includes their social taboos). The second thing I want to put forward is the fact that the internet is a culture-neutral medium - it breaks down the traditional geographical barriers that seperate us from other countries. Witness cultural exchange programs, founded under the premise that communication == exchange of ideas. That generally promotes a "blending effect" (for lack of a better description) between cultures.

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?

alternatives

[aphr0]

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.

Re:alternatives

[kevin805]

For some absurd reason, a lot of people see the internet as some sort of "interactive TV". If it were something like this, then censorware might make sense, but the internet is not an entertainment device, or a communication device. The internet is a growing subset of the world. I don't know how easily I can explain this. People like to divide things up into categories. For example, you divide businesses in an area into "stores", "consumer services", "manufacturing companies", and so on. You divide the community up into "businesses", "government", "homes", and so on. It seems natural to people to include the internet as one of these categories, but it isn't.

The internet isn't a category of this type. It isn't a service either. The internet is a separate community, which to some extent mirrors the physical world, and to some degree doesn't. Saying "the internet shouldn't be used as a babysitter" shows that you think the internet is a depository of information and entertainment. You say that you can't watch over your kid every second, but tell me, when you are walking through the bad part of town, are you going to let your kid out of you sight? If a preacher on a street corner is saying something you don't like, is it his responsibility to be quiet, or is it your responsibility to keep your kid at home if you want them to be sheltered?

It isn't an alternative between "use the internet as a baby sitter" and "look over the kids shoulder every second". There is another solution, which people have been using for a lot longer than the internet has been around for similar situtations. Don't let your kids use the internet. When they use the internet, watch them. You aren't going to let a 10 y.o. take the bus to another town by himself (compare, internet is babysitter), so when he needs to go somewhere, you go with him (looking over his shoulder every second).

The censorware "solution" is the equivalent of sanitizing the whole world to make it suitable for children (how young? teenagers? three year olds?). People may claim that censorware doesn't prevent people who want to read whatever from seeing it, but it is clear from what is going on (censorware companies pushing governments for ... manditory censorware in schools and libraries e.g.) that it would quickly be "optional" in name only.

--Kevin

Re:alternatives

[dblslash]

Well, not to sound silly, but how about talking to your kids? That seems to be the approach that my parents took with me. At a somewhat early age, just before the onset of puberty, ie, actual interest in sex, my parents sat me down and explained a few basic facts to me.

As to sex, the physiological aspects were all explained quite nicely. They rented some Department of Health videos from the local Blockbuster equivalent, brought some educational brochures home from school (My father was a guidance counselor), and had several long discussions with me. The concept of pornography was explained, as well as why it probably wasn't a good idea. The main reasons being that the vast majority of it is exploitative of women, and it does horribly skew one's views and expectations of sex if it's viewed at an early age with little or no real experience. This was all presented rationally and logically, and because of it, I chose to not view pornography of my own accord. Personally, I've never really needed it for purposes of arousal. I've always had a pretty active imagination.

As to violence, my parents took the "rational" approach with that, as well. As a child, and easily impressionable, viewing violence on TV or in the movies had a direct effect on my behavior. I would become more aggressive towards my siblings and friends. I would be surly for days after. My parents simply pointed this fact out to me. There was such a stark difference between my behavior before watching something violent and after, that I couldn't ignore it. I chose not to watch violent movies until I could control myself and my actions. After awhile, I learned to separate what was happening on the screen with my own feelings. It became nothing more than entertainment, not an outlet for my own emotions.

I suppose I'm being idealistic here, but I've always found that the best censorship was not that which is imposed by ignorance, but that which is imposed by oneself because of a rational desire simply not to be exposed to something disagreeable. This doesn't mean that I think we should shut our eyes and ears to things which disturb us. We should always be aware that something exists, just as my parents explained the concepts of porn and violence to me. We should just also be aware that there are some things that really aren't worth wasting time on.

What can we do?

[Ex-NT-User]

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

A conundrum

[jd]

Given the popularity of community-based systems (whether that's at the level of the family, a school, or the general public), and given the preference to have these set up as single-user machines, is there a serious alternative to filtering software? (A long-winded argument, to explain the question follows.)

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.

Re:A conundrum

[Mendax Veritas]

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.

You seem to be equating web surfing at home with web surfing in public. This is sort of like saying that because no one has a right to barge into your house to preach at you, therefore no one has a right to stand up in a public place to preach. I do not believe your equation holds. Your right to privacy is not absolute when you are in a public place.

Biggest Fear

[Ke]

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?"

feasability

[matman]

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?

How much is too much?

[zantispam]

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

Re:How much is too much?

[mgiwer2]

Does our dear government censor? Does it have to censor? Were it not for non-NATO sources would we have ever heard the truth about Kosovo? Serbia?

After all NATO only killed about 3000 of them and the total actual provable body count of all Kosovars in 2108. No more. Not the 100,000 NATO lied to us.

And the greatest act of censorship in the war, bombing Serbia's TV station (and murdering ten) because they were telling their side of the story. How improper of them.

Censorship has good points as well.

[_LORAX_]

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.

Children, Indeed.

[poohbear_honeypot]

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

how to fight censorware

[Tim Pierce]

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?

Re:how to fight censorware

[dublin]

Personally, I wouldn't have a censorware product that *didn't* block the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, the National Organization for Women, or the ACLU. This is one reason it's good for censorware to be very tunable.

Those organizations are right at the top of the list of groups I do *not* want my children exposed to until they have learned to discern truth from lies.

Censorship is not always a bad thing. We do need far better censoring technology, though - what's available is pathetic, and the shame of it is that this may drive me to eliminate the cable modem entirely if there isn't a good option by the time I'm ready to allow the children to use a browser. Hopefully someone will come through with good alternatives.

Free speech in other countries

[/]

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?

How honest are the censorware companies?

[HugoRune]

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?

Your favorite alternatives

[BigD42]

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.

Question for Roblimo

[Otter]

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?

Re:Question for Roblimo

[Roblimo]

We'll have some pro-censorship people another time. Relax. I expect it to be as much of a circus as the JD thing, but I can handle it if you can. ;-)

- Robin

Freedom of Speech vs. Freedom of Privacy

[meckardt]

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

Obscenity laws, community values, and technology

[/]

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?

Opposition to Censorship

[Rev. Null]

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.

A proposal

[dclydew]

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....

10 year look.

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

Even "1984" had porn ...

[karb]

I feel there is a huge difference between "censorship," as in I Don't Want To See A Person Killed On The Evening News, and "Censorship," as in "we don't want people to hear about (insert random dogma.)"

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...

Rhetoric of anti-censorship

[H3lldr0p]

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.

censorship, apathy, and the general population

[Requiem]

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?

Censorship

[Arandir]

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?

There were different viewpoints already ...

[timothy]

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

Legal question..

[Weezul]

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

A design question

[The G]

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?

mandated censorware cost

[beeblebrox]

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?

Australia and censorship

[Bradley]

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.

It's still censorship

[/]

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.