<HTML>
Lauren Weinstein raises some issues as well. <BR>
<span class="swb"><BR>
<BR>
Woody Allen, Google, and Internet Censorship<BR>
<BR>
<a href="parse.pl?redirect=http://lauren.vortex.com/archive/000353.html" target="_blank"><span style="color: red;">http://lauren.vortex.com/archive/000353.html</span></a><BR>
<BR>
<BR>
Greetings. Yesterday I briefly discussed the government's inane<BR>
plan in Australia for mandatory ISP blocking of material considered<BR>
"inappropriate" for children <BR>
( <a href="parse.pl?redirect=http://lauren.vortex.com/archive/000352.html" target="_blank"><span style="color: red;">http://lauren.vortex.com/archive/000352.html</span></a> ), to be enforced on<BR>
all home and school customers unless they opt-out with their ISP<BR>
("raise your hand if you want the filthy, disgusting porn feed!").<BR>
<BR>
As I've previously suggested, if customers wish to voluntarily<BR>
sign-up to use blocking software (which typically allows for some<BR>
degree of customization), or subscribe to an Internet feed<BR>
supposedly "sanitized" via a government purity list (doomed to be<BR>
unsuccessful, but more on that later) that's a valid choice, but<BR>
forcing subscribers to opt-out is a reversal of a basic freedom of<BR>
speech principle and cannot be condoned.<BR>
<BR>
I'm reminded of a scene in Woody Allen's 1971 film "Bananas" --<BR>
where he's subjected to a very loud and embarrassing price check<BR>
while attempting to nonchalantly buy an "adult" magazine (praise be<BR>
to YouTube, here's the scene itself -- at least for now ...):<BR>
<a href="parse.pl?redirect=http://youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3DJgOxqwVd5Z8" target="_blank"><span style="color: red;">http://youtube.com/watch\?v=JgOxqwVd5Z8</span></a> <BR>
<BR>
But beyond this aspect, the practical ramifications of such blocking<BR>
are staggering, even apart from the fact that kids will be the very<BR>
first to find the virtually infinite ways around such attempts at<BR>
prohibition. <BR>
<BR>
What would the government block? Photos? Movies? Texts? Hardcore<BR>
porn? "Suggestive" material? And speaking of YouTube, will<BR>
Australia attempt to block that entire site? There's plenty of<BR>
"naughty" stuff on YouTube, with more pouring in all the time, much<BR>
of it uncategorized in any way that would simplify the blocking<BR>
process.<BR>
<BR>
Or perhaps Australia will simply choose to place the entire<BR>
operations of Google on their default block list. After all, search<BR>
engines are a veritable cornucopia of "inappropriate" material that<BR>
can be located with great ease. Google's cache will usually give<BR>
access to the text portions of sites even if those sites are<BR>
directly blocked to customers. And what of Google Images? Without<BR>
even changing any settings from their defaults, Google Images can<BR>
provide virtually endless photos and drawings (albeit somewhat<BR>
small) that the Australian government would no doubt consider to be<BR>
"inappropriate" or worse.<BR>
<BR>
And this brings us to the crux of the matter. Google and other<BR>
search engines cannot be reasonably expected to be the arbiters of<BR>
such materials in furtherance of censorship, and even when they're<BR>
pressured into bed with government censors as the cost of access,<BR>
the associated blocking will be pitifully ineffective, while still<BR>
managing to do significant collateral damage to personal freedoms<BR>
and privacy principles of the most fundamental order.<BR>
<BR>
In the long run, attempts to "effectively" forbid access to a set of<BR>
Internet sites and/or to censor the contents of search engines, are<BR>
likely to lead toward defining not those sites that are blocked, but<BR>
rather a relatively small set of constrained sites that are the only<BR>
ones *permitted*. In essence, all that is not explicitly<BR>
authorized becomes forbidden.<BR>
<BR>
This is not a recent phenomenon of course. Such control has been<BR>
the dream of totalitarian regimes and rulers since the invention of<BR>
the printing press, and earlier. In the modern age, even when<BR>
veneered with privacy-invasive "opt-out" provisions, we're seeing<BR>
the same old dark specter of government control combined with<BR>
shameless pandering to the most emotional fears of the populace,<BR>
with the technical realities of the situation purposely marginalized<BR>
or completely ignored.<BR>
<BR>
Luckily for us all, the Internet is a much more powerful tool for<BR>
freedom of speech than the would-be dictators of decency can<BR>
possibly realize. But the damage that can be done simply through<BR>
attempts to choke the Net is still very real, and the risks of these<BR>
efforts disrupting the delicate balance that keeps many societies<BR>
free are omnipresent.<BR>
<BR>
The resulting negative impacts for everyone could be far worse than<BR>
embarrassment from buying a magazine, of that much we can be sure.<BR>
<BR>
--Lauren--<BR>
Lauren Weinstein<BR>
<a target="_blank" href="javascript:top.opencompose%28%27lauren@vortex.com%27,%27%27,%27%27,%27%27%29">lauren@vortex.com</a> or <a target="_blank" href="javascript:top.opencompose%28%27lauren@pfir.org%27,%27%27,%27%27,%27%27%29">lauren@pfir.org</a> <BR>
Tel: +1 (818) 225-2800<BR>
<a href="parse.pl?redirect=http://www.pfir.org/lauren" target="_blank"><span style="color: red;">http://www.pfir.org/lauren</span></a> <BR>
Co-Founder, PFIR<BR>
- People For Internet Responsibility - <a href="parse.pl?redirect=http://www.pfir.org" target="_blank"><span style="color: red;">http://www.pfir.org</span></a> <BR>
Co-Founder, NNSquad <BR>
- Network Neutrality Squad - <a href="parse.pl?redirect=http://www.nnsquad.org" target="_blank"><span style="color: red;">http://www.nnsquad.org</span></a><BR>
Founder, PRIVACY Forum - <a href="parse.pl?redirect=http://www.vortex.com" target="_blank"><span style="color: red;">http://www.vortex.com</span></a> <BR>
Member, ACM Committee on Computers and Public Policy<BR>
Lauren's Blog: <a href="parse.pl?redirect=http://lauren.vortex.com" target="_blank"><span style="color: red;">http://lauren.vortex.com</span></a> <BR>
</span><BR>
<BR>
VK3CFI <BR>
<BR>
<span style="font-weight: bold;">On Sun Jan 13 11:32 , 'Tony Forster' <forster@ozonline.com.au> sent:<BR>
<BR>
</forster@ozonline.com.au></span><blockquote style="border-left: 2px solid rgb(245, 245, 245); margin-left: 5px; margin-right: 0px; padding-left: 5px; padding-right: 0px;">The Victorian government held an inquiry:<BR>
<BR>
Education and Training Committee Final Report<BR>
Education in the Net Age - New Needs & New Tools Report on the Inquiry into <BR>
the Effects of Television and Multimedia on Education in Victoria<BR>
October 2006<BR>
<a href="parse.pl?redirect=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.parliament.vic.gov.au%2Fetc%2Freports%2Fmultimedia%2Fmultimedia_rep.pdf" target="_blank"><span style="color: red;">http://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/etc/reports/multimedia/multimedia_rep.pdf</span></a><BR>
Filtering was discussed on pp66-69<BR>
<BR>
Submissions by our ASISTM cluster, Students of St Francis Xavier College, <BR>
Australian Teachers of Media , ICT in Education Victoria, Apple Computer <BR>
Australia, and The Victorian Information Technology Teachers Association<BR>
<BR>
said that filtering was both anti-education and ineffective. Despite <BR>
considerable supporting material being supplied by these witnesses, the <BR>
parliamentary inquiry found:<BR>
<BR>
"While noting that the current filtering technologies are not perfect, the <BR>
Committee believes that they are an essential safeguard in schools that <BR>
needs to be continually upgraded. Further, the Committee believes that <BR>
schools should have a responsibility to inform parents about the range of <BR>
filtering technologies available and the benefits of their use in the home <BR>
(refer below). The Committee believes that responsibility should be given to <BR>
a specific unit within the Department of Education and Training to monitor, <BR>
evaluate and advise on advancements in filtering technologies. "<BR>
<BR>
The Committee's findings were disappointing to me as they did not appear to <BR>
be evidence based.<BR>
<BR>
----- Original Message ----- <BR>
From: Margaret Lawson<BR>
To: Year 12 IT Applications Teachers' Mailing List<BR>
Sent: Sunday, January 13, 2008 1:15 PM<BR>
Subject: Re: [Year 12 IT Apps] OT Internet Access<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
Perhaps VITTA can put together a position statement representative of <BR>
members views, and put it forward to various government representatives<BR>
<BR>
:)<BR>
<BR>
Margaret<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
_______________________________________________<BR>
<a href="parse.pl?redirect=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.edulists.com.au" target="_blank"><span style="color: red;">http://www.edulists.com.au</span></a> - FAQ, resources, subscribe, unsubscribe<BR>
IT Applications Mailing List kindly supported by<BR>
<a href="parse.pl?redirect=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.vcaa.vic.edu.auvce%2Fstudies%2Finfotech%2Fitapplications3-4.html" target="_blank"><span style="color: red;">http://www.vcaa.vic.edu.auvce/studies/infotech/itapplications3-4.html</span></a> - Victorian Curriculum and Assessment Authority and<BR>
<a href="parse.pl?redirect=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.vitta.org.au" target="_blank"><span style="color: red;">http://www.vitta.org.au</span></a> - VITTA Victorian Information Technology Teachers Association Inc<BR>
)<BR>
</blockquote></HTML>
<BR>