Interview: Two Censorware Experts 116
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.
Good from censorship? (Score:2)
Do you see any positive aspects to censorship? Do you believe that censorship can, in any cases, be used to positive advantage?
first _real_ post (IMHO ;-) (Score:1)
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.
Re:first _real_ post (IMHO ;-) (Score:1)
[Not like anyone cares anyway...]
Fighting Censorship (Score:2)
Re:first _real_ post (IMHO ;-) (Score:1)
My ideas:
Is there a way to keep people from having the urge to protect children in such ways that all of us lose out?
Have any studies shown children who had a censored childhood turned out any better as people?
(I know that Weird Al was censored as a child, and partly because of that became known as Weird F***ing Al in college, later just Weird Al... Is being weird partly from childhood censorship a good thing? Do parents want their children to be social outcasts? Or if no children have ever heard or seen anything inappropriate, would they get along any better?)
Censorship: problem or symptom? (Score:4)
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 (Score:3)
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.
What can we do? (Score:4)
So what can we as individuals do prevent this? What other avenues can we take?
Ex-Nt-User
Precedents + Pre-emptive strikes (Score:1)
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
A conundrum (Score:5)
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.
Biggest Fear (Score:2)
"Where do you get off thinking any OS is superior to DOS?"
feasability (Score:2)
How much is too much? (Score:3)
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:feasability - oops typo (Score:1)
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.
Censorship has good points as well. (Score:3)
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.
Re:Good from censorship? (Score:1)
Children, Indeed. (Score:4)
---
Joseph Foley
Akamai Technologies
Re:alternatives (Score:1)
Censorship: Technical Aspects (Score:1)
Re:A conundrum (Score:1)
how to fight censorware (Score:2)
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?
Free speech in other countries (Score:4)
Re:alternatives (Score:3)
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
--Kevin
How honest are the censorware companies? (Score:3)
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 (Score:2)
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.
Methods for beating censorship (Score:1)
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
Re:alternatives (Score:2)
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.
Question for Roblimo (Score:4)
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?
Tech level (Score:1)
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?
Re:A conundrum (Score:1)
Well, the obvious answer here would be that you are in no way required to go to the library to do your web surfing. If you do, you can choose not to visit sites which advertise Micros~1, or whatever else you don't like.
You bring up a very good point here. A common argument used by the pro-censorship crowd is that a child will be permanently "scarred" by a single accidental click on a link which features adults having sex. (Horror of horrors!)
But of course, it would be far too much to ask of our government (and many parents) to have a little faith in the kids' ability to deal with reality. The children do not have nearly as much trouble handling such information as many adults do. (I know this from experience, having spent quite a bit of time working around preschool aged tots, bless their hearts.)
Adults project their insecurities onto their kids, who, unfortunately, often grow up to have the same problems.
You've poisoned all your children to camouflage your scars
-- Marilyn Manson
Freedom of Speech vs. Freedom of Privacy (Score:2)
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 [geocities.com] meckardt@spam.yahoo.com
Obscenity laws, community values, and technology (Score:3)
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 (Score:2)
IPv6 and public key escrow (Score:1)
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.
A proposal (Score:4)
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. (Score:2)
Censorship v. Bigotry (Score:1)
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
Child psychology--what are your credentials? (Score:1)
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.
Even "1984" had porn ... (Score:2)
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 (Score:4)
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.
Re:A conundrum (Score:2)
Oops! (Score:1)
censorship, apathy, and the general population (Score:3)
Re:How much is too much? (Score:1)
Ok, here in the US, we have a right to free speech. Conversely, we have no right to be heard.
From the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights:
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
People in countries that signed the Declaration *do* have the right to publish and seek information without interference. So censorware is illegal in most countries. Most European states have ratified the Declaration in their constitution.
Censored source code? (Score:1)
It's been pointed out that portions of the Linux source might be deemed offensive by some people [salonmagazine.com]. 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?
Re:A conundrum (Score:1)
With a shared computer, the situation is a little different. If the campus library has an exclusive contract with a large software company that I don't like, it will be more difficult to get away from that company's software while using the shared computer.
In the battle of all or nothing censorship, I think slashdot itself shows a workable third way. We all have a lot of choice in the way we view Slashdot (comment mode, include/exclude topics, authors, etc). I don't see why this couldn't be done on a larger scale for browser preferences.
For example, is there a censorware product available that allows individual users to configure the amount of filtering an individual wants? In the case of a campus library, it could go against an LDAP server to store each individual's preferences for what they would want to have filtered. For a public library, as long as there is a "wide open" option, I would not object to this kind of censorware.
In the long term, I think something like this is the only way to satisfy the greatest number of people. I don't like what I have seen in the current round of censorware products, and in general I do not appreciate companies trying to decide what is or is not suitable for me or my children. When I joined the local Blockbuster Video, I signed the release giving my 4 year old son permission to rent videos that are normally limited to viewers 18 and older because I want to make the decision about what movies he watches, not a corporation.
Add this to your list (Score:1)
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.
Re:Stranggling PICS (Score:1)
"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?"
Why would you want the church site rated as gay porn?
If you want people looking for gay porn to visit your site, then I think you are being dishonest.
If you are trying to deliberately throw PICS off in an act of protest, I'd still watch it. There are probably better ways of protesting PICS.
Re:Good from censorship? (Score:1)
Censorship (Score:2)
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?
Re:Methods for beating censorship (Score:1)
One other thing you might try (and I don't know how this will go over, but you better bet I will try it if it comes to it):
Companies like to use the "defense" in court (and on documents you have to sign), that the machines you are allowed to use are their machines, and all data that resides on those machines is therefore their data, and they should have access to it. What happens if you bring in your _own_ machine? They no longer own the machine, therefore they cannot claim the right to put anything on _your_ machine, nor search that machine for "bad" data. They may still have claim to company data - but store your own data on something removable and encrypted, and it should be ok...
Anybody know if this would work?
Guts of censorware are proprietary (Score:1)
Re:Methods for beating censorship (Score:1)
Would this work ?
Re:Fighting Censorship (Score:1)
There were different viewpoints already ... (Score:2)
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
Re:Methods for beating censorship (Score:1)
What you could try is to get yourself a virtual web hosting site - set up a CGI proxy server on this site (hey, make it free for others to use - or, let people subscribe to it, add banner ads - make some money?) that would route the page through it and encrypt the output, to be decrypted by a custom Java program or browser at the end. This way, there would be a complete encrypted channel between the client and the "host" box (the box creating the encrypted pages). Maybe you could work your "home" box into the equation somewhere - all you need to be able to do is create some kind of server that runs on a strange port, and get it to a box the runs on a different port, so you can see it at work (does your work use FTP or telnet? Run your client on those ports...)
Your idea as it stands sounds good if all you want is some "static" updates from favorite places, not places you would actively browse and need "instant" updates (/. is a good example if you don't participate too much).
This is all speculation - I haven't had a good chance to think about it much, but it would be a great exercise to try!
The contingent with a cause (Score:1)
Forget smut, fear Barbie (Score:1)
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".
Legal question.. (Score:3)
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
Censorship, Can we really stop it? (Score:1)
Re:How much is too much? (Score:2)
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.
Re:Rhetoric of anti-censorship (Score:1)
Mein Kampf is an excellant example of censoring personal dislikes. The same people in different breathes will "expose" it as transparent propaganda and nonsense and also demand it be censored as a seductive philosophy.
Another reason it is a good example of pet peaves being included is that it the "peavers" have some psychotic belief that "it can happen again." On those grounds the writings of Julius Ceasar should be censored. After all, we don't want Italy conquering France again, do we?
National Endowment for the Arts (Score:1)
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
A design question (Score:2)
Re:how to fight censorware (Score:2)
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.
Censorship: The Next Drug? (Score:1)
Re:What about SlashDot's censorship? (Score:1)
all fall down (Score:1)
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.
Accountability (Score:1)
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.
Re:Question for Roblimo (Score:1)
As someone whom you would probably characterize as closer to the "Slashdot party line" [sic] I nonetheless agree that this interview would be more informative if it were to include a representative from "Enough is Enough," "Citizens for Community Values," "Family Friendly Libraries," or some other organization of their ilk. I strongly disagree with these organizations' views on censorware, but I think we must all understand their arguments & rhetoric, and examine their responses to ours. If you check their websites, you will see that they are closely monitoring the American Library Association and the ACLU for the same reason.
I believe their would be high enough signal-to-noise even on such a contentious topic that it would be worthwhile. Perhaps on a future occasion...
mandated censorware cost (Score:2)
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?
Educational Filtering (Score:1)
Australia and censorship (Score:3)
Article such as the one about the police commissioner's 10 yar old daughter recieving pornographic spam [smh.com.au] (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.
On the concerns of groups (Score:1)
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.
Re:Censorship has good points as well. (Score:1)
You and I will almost certainly differ as to which sites should be blocked and which sites shouldn't. Given that, how do we evaluate blocking schemes for "correctness?"
"Let's see, I'm fifty percent opposed to abortion, so we'll weight abortion advocacy sites by half. Bestiality and anarchy are right out. But kids should definitely have access to Mein Kampf and godhatesfags.com because they have to know who their enemy is." There's only one instrument that's totally suitable for determining what a child should and shouldn't be able to consume, and that's the eyes of its parents. I can't believe that people are willing to subcontract the job to incompetent software.
It's still censorship (Score:2)
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.
Why not someone pro-censorship? (Score:1)
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.
Censorship in the workplace and at school (Score:1)
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.
Risks of crying "Wolf" at toy poodles (Score:1)
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.
Re:Question for Roblimo (Score:2)
- Robin
Re:Semi OT: deleting posts (Score:1)
In theory, editing and moderation make the difference, as the poster suggested. If you don't moderate at all, or moderate just to remove spam and irrelevent posts, you're not liable--but if you edit at a certain level, like removing posts with racial slurs in them, you are liable for anything that slips through.
Take a break for reality. In the U.S., I don't know of any case where an ISP or even a forum like Slashdot was found liable. Prodigy and AOL have both been through the courts (remember when Matt Drudge was sued, and AOL along with him?--I was sure AOL would get the book thrown at them that time because they paid Drudge) but emerged Teflon-clean. Please correct me if I've forgotten something.
In the U.S., the copyright act makes you liable under certain conditions, yahda, yawn, read the law. (Just 130 pages, I think.)
In England, there's one case that's scared ISPs a lot: the Demon case (that's the name of the ISP, guys) where somebody successfully sued for defamation when they didn't respond to requests to remove defamatory newsgroup posts. Could have been any ISP that carried newsgroups--scary, I told you.
In France, a new law absolves the ISP from liability under most circumstances. In Germany, too, the ISP is shielded but there are loopholes. ISPs may be liable for illegal content if filters are available and work well.
Re:Morality of beating censorship (Score:1)
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?
Re:On the concerns of groups (Score:1)
Re:A proposal (Score:1)
AFAIK Censorware in schools is illegal. (Score:1)
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.
Re:On the concerns of groups (Score:1)
However, we can define a very natural conception of what is it for a group to have the properties you abscribe here to individuals from what your assumptions. A group of individuals that share some set of concerns, needs, values, rights and/or obligations can be said to have precisely those shared properties.
There are, in that sense, groups that have concerns. For example, people who speak a shared language and wish to be able to conduct as much aspects of possible of their community life in that language can be said to be a group of people that has a concern for the maintenance and survival of their language. My example here, of course, is that of various groups of "minority" language speakers. I put "minority" in quotes because the kind of group I refer to is those who are a local majority that speaks a different language from a national minority. Examples are French Canadians and Inuits in Canada, the Galicians, Catalonians, Basque and Valencians in Spain.
Using the "rights" of groups has been the standard-issue way to oppress/rob/kill people in most if not all of history.
I agree with this, but with a slight modification: you should say the "rights" of "groups" (with the quotes around "group"). For it is more than often the case that whenever "rights" or concerns of "groups" are invoked, the "group" under question is a questionable entity.
For a prime example, there is no such thing as the "Aryan race".
Another example, related to the minority languages issue, is that of the rise of the modern European nation-states. For example, pre- and post-revolutionary France. Before the French Revolution, France was linguistically a far more diverse country than nowadays; in particular, local languages like Provencal, Occitan and others were quite strong in their regions. But after the revolution, the French State embarked upon a project of eliminating the local languages in favor of French. Of course, it was all claimed to be in the "interests" of France.
Also, under the rule of Franco, in Spain minority languages were persecuted, supposedly in the "interests" of Spaniards.
So there you go. Groups, in a simple sense, can be said to have interests; this, however, has been historically abuse by claiming that some alleged "group" (which may or may not actually exist) has some "interest" or "right" (which it really doesn't).
---
Re:It's still censorship (Score:1)
Hmm... If I choose not to rent a porno, is that censorship? Is not buying or reading Hustler magazine "silencing someone's expression"? What if I simply don't go to porn sites? What if I find that porn sites use dishonest (IMHO) tactics to get me onto them and I'd rather just be able to eliminate them from my searches and links? How is that any more censorship than ignoring the "adult" section of the video store?
I used to mock filtering software to "protect the children" because I believed that no one found porn on line without going out and looking for it. Then I and my friends began dealing with sites that deliberately used search strings with no connection to their content (a search on a political term found thousands of porn sites and forced me to use a more indirect and less effective search to find what I wanted) or misleading main pages before dumping you into hard core porn (with the wonderful extra windows that don't close, etc). I still don't directly buy any "for the sake of the children" arguments, but I have found myself much more interested in filtering software.
But anyway, here's a real question : In times past, I heard a lot about companies selling filtering software without being entirely honest about what it was filtering. A school would want to block porn in its computers and find out that they were also blocking resource pages for gay youth or some other site that the software maker found "objectionable". Does that problem remain with commercially avalible filter-ware, or are products being developed now that allow the user to customize what is viewed?
No one is "pro-censorship" (Score:1)
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.
Re:A conundrum - Hardly! (Score:1)
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
Tech level non-existant, NetNanny very broken. (Score:1)
> But the NetNanny database,
Great, now I have a reason to kick them again for making such a crappy product [passagen.se] . (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.
Re:Accountability (Score:1)
Use and install proxies to bypass censorship (Score:1)
Open source censorware (Score:1)
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?
Re:Good from censorship? (Score:1)