Slashdot Log In
Online Rights And Real World Censorship?
Posted by
Cliff
on Fri Aug 11, 2000 12:57 PM
from the stuff-to-talk-about dept.
from the stuff-to-talk-about dept.
Denubis asks: "I'm a firm believer in the freedom of expression, free speech, anti-censorchip, et al, and recently I've found myself walking a very fine line. I've been asked to create a list of 'blocked' keywords (and/or URLs) for a proxy server for a community 'Internet' automatic laundry. However, as an avid reader on Slashdot, I've been indoctrinated about free speech, anti-censorware, and all those wonderful topics that I quite firmly believe in. However, my ideals now get to meet the real world, and they're finding a rude awakening. As a semi-public service, we cannot allow ourselves to display porn, since a junior high school is across the street. How do I make a list of keywords that will satisfy that requirement yet allow someone to look up breast cancer research, or the recipe to chicken Parmesan? My question to Slashdot is "What happens when our ideals hit the real world?"
"How do we deal with the censorship issue ourselves, so that we can offer constructive solutions instead of ranting, raving, and otherwise having fun? On a side note, this automatic laundry (using smart-cards) is located in South Central LA, and is in a very poor area where people haven't been exposed to the Net. How do we go about quelling their fears about the Net?"
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Online Rights and Real World Censorship?
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 588 comments
(Spill at 50!) | Index Only
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Sometimes they bend, sometimes not (Score:3)
That is what humans do. Unlike other living things, when we meet something that doesn't suit us, we can change it. What happens depends on you, your ideals, your convictions, your strength and the "resistiveness" of the real world. Sometimes the real world wins and you are modified. Each and every day someone faces a part of the real world that doesn't match up with their idea of that it should be. It is up to each one to change the world to fit them, or to change themselves to fit reality.
Have you tried explaining why censorware fails? (Score:3)
Leaving out the ideological arguments, it has been quite adequately demonstrated that censorware can't and won't work. Have you tried explaining this to the decision-makers involved, and going from there to discuss the alternatives already canvassed here (Lynx, login and tracking, placing the computers where access is supervised, etc)?
Re:Yes, it is about prudiskness, and censorship... (Score:3)
Censorship is not prudishness.
And yes, you're obviously prudish; you lump bondage and "barely legal" in the same category as bestiality and coprophilia.
Oh gee, I don't like bondage so I'm a prude!? Get real. I lumped these items together because they are things that a lot of parents would have severe objections to their children witnessing. Bondage may be consensual, and for the most part is play-acting, but real dominance in a relationship, particularly when it is usually associated with sadism, is not normal. "Barely legal" caters to the borderline pedophile, and is the pederast's methadone.
"You pro censorship types are such blame-shifting imbeciles."
I am not pro-censorship. If you have read any of my other posts, you will know that. I am a radical libertarian, and as such I have absolutely no interest in telling you what you can or cannot do.
But as a libertarian, I greatly object that you wish to ban a class of software for use in private. Censorware may be morally objectionable to you, but for some people it isn't. It is one thing to keep censorware out of publically funded libraries, but it is quite another to keep it out of a private laundermat. There is a universe of difference between government censorship and the outright banning of pornography and parents restricting what their minor children can view.
This whole slashdot topic was about using or not using censorware in a private business. Your morality simply does not enter into it. Your comment about the ineffectuality of filtering by words was right on topic and informative. Your accusal of Americans as prudes was very off topic.
"If your kids are raised properly, you don't need to protect them from the Big Bad Internet, they'll know which sites are good and healthy and which sites are negative and unhealthy."
It would be great if all children were raised properly. But they're not. But it's completely irrelevant. It's absolutely stupid to say to a parent "you did a bad job raising your kids so you forfeit all rights to keep pornography away from them".
"If parents aren't willing to do that, they shouldn't be parents, and you have no responsibility to filter through software what parents should be filtering by education."
What arrogance! What possibly right do you have to pick and choose who is fit to be a parent? You, sir, have absolutely no moral, legal or ethical right to tell someone else how they should raise their own children. How dare you! Before you start accusing us of reducing the net to our own "narrow ideology and belief and morality", take a good look at youself. We certainly do not want to impose our morality on the net. But you, on the other hand, want to impose your morality on people's lives and children.
there is no way to effectively censor (Score:3)
You can't. At present there is no meaningful way to censor the internet without losing valuable content. The very notion of 'censoring' is predicate on a fixed idea of what is and what is not appropriate. There is no computational method for finding isAppropriate(viewer, content).
i tend to think this is futile (Score:3)
as i said in another post, putting net connections in libraries and schools is like running a freeway through the playground.
if you don't want kids and sheltered adults from finding porn 'on accident' *cough* then the simple solution is don't give them net access.
there is no form of blocking, automatic nor manual that is foolproof. if you go with automatic, either you end up blocking things you'd rather have available, or you miss some of the porn.
for manual, you just simply can't keep up with all the porn sites.
the only 'possible' solution, which is
i really don't see another way.
...dave
Re:Do what needs to be done (Score:3)
I think that filtering in general is a slippery slope to censorship and loss of liberties. that is why I am against a filtering system. Certainly, I agree, as I've stated in other posts, that this is not a big deal - It's a laundromat, for godsakes - however precedents are often set and followed by starting with something innocent and then taking it to the extreme. That is what worries me - how far will we go? Will everything be censored? Will all business access to the internet be filtered? Will we only be able to see what "they" want us to see? Will everything be product placements and advertising and other forms of highest-bidder speech?
That is what I worry about, not the fact that a laundromat is blocking internet access.
Whom ever pays the bill sets the rules (Score:3)
In the other case, I am doing the server/filesharing at my own expense. No one can dictate to me the terms upon which I may or may not share my own files, save perhaps the ISP.
Censorwaring JPEGs and maybe GIFs but not words. (Score:3)
Somebody commented in the past that p0rn pictures are almost always JPEGs rather than GIFs, because of better picture quality and because it's what digital cameras generate, so you can do a surprisingly effective crude first cut by killing JPEGs and letting GIFs through. That does block web sites with pictures of people's kids and cats, and doesn't block animated GIFs or advertising banners for p0rn sites, but it's usually close enough for government work and better than blocking pictures entirely.
no problem (Score:3)
Concerning the moral dilemma...there isn't one. You are not the U.S. government. You are not shutting down these servers with objectionable content, you are not prohibiting anybodies free speech. True, surf n' wash is limiting the content available to it's customers. That's not censorship. It's a business policy. Newspapers don't print expletives found in letters to the editor (at least mine doesn't). Government censors, businesses do not.
Now, businesses and corporations are gaining power in the ability to dictate government policy (maybe they have already gained?). At some point it may be necessary to worry about businesses controlling online content...I don't think we are there yet.
What does AOL do?
Maybe allow for the filter to be switched off with proper identifcation....but would you want to do your laundry at a place where teenage boys are surfing porn?
TGL
Yes, it is about prudiskness, and censorship... (Score:3)
And that is the very definition of censorship. When you filter based on what you, personally, don't wish to see, and have that choice be applicable to everyone, that's censorship. And in this case it's censorship for the purposes of being prudish. If you don't like something, don't look at it. If someone leaves a terminal pointed to a site you don't like, close the window. It's that simple.
And yes, you're obviously prudish; you lump bondage and "barely legal" in the same category as bestiality and coprophilia. The latter two are considered very unusual perversions, while bondage is a consensual lifestyle choice much like homosexuality or heterosexuality, and "barely legal" is a term usually used to refer either to the Hustler magazine/website of the same name, or to girls 18-22 who look young and girlish--in other words, the type of women most men are naturally sexually attracted to.
> My biggest objection however is the insistance that I can't keep my children away
> from anything that isn't immediately fatal.
You pro censorship types are such blame-shifting imbeciles. Sir, you can keep your kids away from anything you want to. You can keep them from going to public access Internet terminals--hell, you can lock them into AOL-only sites on your home computer, if that's what you want. You can keep them out of standard junior high/high school sex ed classes, if you want to. You can keep your kids away from whatever you choose to keep them away from. My sole point is that ultimately it's a parent's responsibility to teach his or her children well enough so that they don't need useless and inaccurate key-word filtering on public terminals to keep them from looking at inappropriate things. If your kids are raised properly, you don't need to protect them from the Big Bad Internet, they'll know which sites are good and healthy and which sites are negative and unhealthy. But I guess Americans just don't want to take responsibility for raising their kids and teaching them well any more, I guess they want to censor the world in the hopes that their kids won't be exposed to sexuality of any kind, ever. That's why we have insanely high teenage pregnancy rates and sex crime rates compared to France, England, and most of the rest of Europe, where kids are taught about sexuality and taught the difference between constructive and destructive sexuality.
It's very telling that someone modded down my first comment in this thread, which simply pointed out that filtering by words contained on the page is ineffectual, and that ultimately it's a parent's responsibility to raise children who know what they should and should not be looking at on a public access Internet terminal. It's very telling indeed, about the outright Puritanism which is still rearing its ugly head in this nation, holding us back even after centuries.
I repeat, and pay attention this time: "Yes, there's lots of unhealthy sexuality on the net that I wouldn't want my kids exposed to at an early age. But do you know the best way to keep them from looking at that stuff? It's by having honest discussions with them about adolescence, life, sex, and the difference between sex with love and sex without it, and the difference between healthy sexuality and destructive sexuality. If parents aren't willing to do that, they shouldn't be parents, and you have no responsibility to filter through software what parents should be filtering by education. Censorship "for the good of the children" is no better than cesorship for any other reason. Nazis and NetNannys are two sides of the same coin; it's the parent's responsibility to supervise the child, to raise the child, to teach the child the difference between constructive and destructive sexuality, not to try half-assedly to reduce the Net to their own narrow ideology and belief and morality."
I worked at a community college... (Score:3)
Really, the only "censorship" we found necessary was blocking web based chat sites. And that was just to keep people from hogging machines in busy labs. I swear, some of those people are friekin' chat JUNKIES!
Point is that you are wasting your time trying to censor content. Personally, I really don't think there is anything worth censoring. Most information, and lets keep it this way, is still legal. There is nothing illegal or unethical about researching illicit drugs or reading racist manifestos. What people DO with the information is another story. I think you should be strong and insist that if it isn't illegal and it isn't blatantly inappropriate, it should be permitted.
-matthew
sigh...young/old, what's the difference? (Score:3)
The truth is that people who are interested in smut will always be interested in smut whether or not they are exposed to smut as young kids in the first place.
Smut is just an interest. If somebody has nothing better to do in his/her life, and like smut then he/she will want it. If somebody likes smut, but then found something else more interesting to do (like writing obfuscated Perl code), then he/she will just lose interest in smut and channel his/her interest somewhere else.
Block smut in Junior/Senior/Blah blah anywhere is NOT going to make a more "moral" world. What's the difference? 12 year old kids will eventually grow up to be 18 anyway.
I personally think watching smut is not amoral. I just think it's boring after a while : there are just so much more interesting things I can do.
Re:You may not want to hear this, but..... (Score:3)
Sticking to your ideals isn't imperative by any means. What most people think are "ideals" are just preconceptions about the way things are and the way things "should" be. Whenever you examine your preconceptions under a bright light, you find them to be not quite so black and white as you first thought.
I'd go even further, in fact. It is imperative that you not stick to your ideals. Your response should be appropriate to the circumstances, not just a knee-jerk reaction because of your preconceptions. It is quite immature, and logically falacious, to say that one preconception overrides all other concerns.
Witness the pro-life groups. Would you say they are right to kill doctors for their ideals? It's a tricky issue, and you can't answer complex questions like these by using your dogma and preconceptions.
You use the term "something you feel strongly about". If only more people would think about the world, rather than try and feel their way through it. Emotions are unreliable indicators.
The fact that the original poster admitted that Slashdot has "indoctrinated" him into these ideals is also quite telling...
Re:The Real World - which one are you living in? (Score:3)
Here's another illustration. My summer job is providing support for public web terminals at a mall. We have filtering software for one simple reason - if we didn't and someone complained about their kid looking at porn, we'd be kicked out of the mall in about 5 seconds flat. It would happen - no question about it. It doesn't matter if it's fair or not. That's the way things work in the "real world."
I don't like filtering any more than anyone else, but the reality is that it really is necessary sometimes. If you're offering public web access, you're taking a huge risk if you don't at least make some effort to restrict content. No, filtering is not perfect and never will be. My point is that there are situations where it's the only answer.
Censorware or predefined sites (Score:3)
I read an article in the Vancouver Sun about new product which has a rather large database of educational and 'safe' sites and they have a panel adding more sites weekly. It is SafeXplorer.com [safexplorer.com].
What does the /. community think of this option?
don't do it. (Score:3)
community censorship (Score:3)
Re:i tend to think this is futile (Score:4)
Dammit (Score:4)
As a biz owner, you can do what ever you want. If your customers don't want to see it, then thats the audience you have to please. If your customers want porn, close the door to minors and have at it too (though the biz license would probably be harder to come by).
Now if it were the Gov't censoring shit, like the gov't saying ya can't have violent games played on public property like here in Indianapolis (though this still doesn't effect private property 'cause Jillian's still had my favorite sniper game as of last week), I'd say it was a
Enough of my complaining about a nonissue.
clif
Re:Obscene language is the key (Score:4)
Re:You may not want to hear this, but..... (Score:4)
-Vercingetorix
Re:i tend to think this is futile (Score:4)
Please remember that this is a PRIVATE business, not a PUBLIC library. While you may object to censorware on general principles, installing it in a private business is an entirely different proposition than having the government mandate it's use in a public institution. If a private company (or individual) wants to install censorware their own computer, THAT IS THEIR RIGHT. You may not agree with the decision, but it is none of your fscking business. A private laundremat or cybercafe is NOT a public library; it is NOT government censorship, and your tax dollars are NOT funding it.
In this situation, I see nothing wrong with installing censorware. A laundremat isn't a place someone would go to do serious research; so over-blocking isn't going to be a big issue. The idea here is to let people kill time by surfing while their clothes are washing, not give them unfettered net access.
I wouldn't buy any commercial censorware, however, because they are all snake oil and the companies that sell them are beneath contempt. I would suggest using Squid and one of the numerous open-source blocking lists.
"The axiom 'An honest man has nothing to fear from the police'
Re:Just keywords or the whole blocking system? (Score:4)
---
Re:You may not want to hear this, but..... (Score:5)
On the other hand, if you truly believe in your cause, then you'll do what you can to make sure there's a little censorship as possible going on at this laundromat. If you fail to meet the requirements of the management, they will find someone else to replace you, and that other person may simply install CyberPatrol [peacefire.org]. It may be best to compromise your ideals in order to maintain your influencial position.
Isn't politics great?
--
Re:Sometimes they bend, sometimes not (Score:5)
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress
depends on the unreasonable man."
-- George Bernard Shaw
Intelligent filtering (Score:5)
There is no substitute yet for a human when it comes to intelligent filtering. Squid, Perl, and ipchains goes a long way, but there really isn't a substitute for scanning the log files.
I set up something similar for public use for my troop of Boy Scouts. After explaining to them how their privileges would go away (and their parents would be notified) if they disobeyed the rules, and showing them how easy it was for me to monitor what they were surfing (a quick example involving a simple Perl script and the squid access log) they were off and running.
The system has been surprisingly automatic, and it has had the added consequence of getting several of the boys interested in tools like Perl, Squid, and Linux.
However, it wouldn't work at all if there wasn't an intelligent person manning the switches. Much of the tedium can be removed from the job, but your computer is not going to make value judgements for you. No matter how fancy your porn detection algorithms are there will be a way around them, or worse yet, there will be web sites that generate false positives. But if you put an actual human in the mix, then you can make the type of useful system that the poster above mentions.
This is how I've seen it done. (Score:5)
This is the approach that was take for a University hall of residence.
Firstly, squid was used to do some IP address filtering. The suspect domains were obtained by greping the
The next thing was to put posters up, explaining what was done, stressing the blocked sites were selected by an automatic method, and that porn (and others - warez etc) was banned.
The next step was to ensure that all the monitors could be seen anyone (ie no terms tucked in a corner).
After that, anyone caught, the site was baned, and so were they [1].
The bandwidth each user utilised was also examined (automatically). If it was found that a person downloaded more than a limit [2] of data from one site, in one day, the site was flagged for checking to the admin. This was desiged to catch warez sites, and similar. IIRC, the only think it caught was uk.kernel.org
This approach yeilded one complaint about an incorrectly blocked site (It was along the lines of fuckedcompany [fuckedcompany.com], although I forget the exact one, and one person caught for looking at porn.
The reason for the porn ban is that porn is just about the only clearly recognisable objectionable item, at a distance (ie for someone at the next term). There were other banned catagories, but they were unlikely to cause problems. Porn is also a bandwith killer.
Today, we'd probably be looking at throttling Napster, or possably blocking it [3].
Whilst this is possably slightly more than you want to block, it's justifyable on most fronts.
[0] In the UK, the netherlands is infamous (rightly or wrongly) as a source of, uh, XXX porn.
[1] This, of course requires user authentication, which I assume you are doing.
[2] Something insane, like 400 Mb (we were on the back of 155Mb/s ATM link).
[3] The Net was explicitly for 'academic purposes only'. One guy we found downloading porn claimed it was for his course
This will get on-topic eventually... (Score:5)
The whole filtering debate is useless, as everything is shades of gray -- like the poster alluded to, showing a baby breast-feeding is not porn to most people. I'll bet it is to someone, though. Violent scenes could essentially be porn to someone; pornography is not about genitals and breasts and butts -- it's about lasciviousness, gluttony, and passivity (not necessarily bad things in themselves, IMHO). The reason you see governments, big business, the wealthy, the powerful, and elite having problems with porn is that they have a hard time using it to control you (well, that's not totally true, but mostly, I think). Violence in the news, on the other hand is a very effective tool for them to get their way (which is usually to fill their pocketbooks), by teaching the public their own filtered view of reality.
I'll try to make this on topic again by saying that you, the poster, as well as anyone else who cares about their freedom, have a duty to NOT participate in such filtering nonsense. Anyone who would be harmed by certain content on the internet should not be using it without parental guidance anyway; filtering software is NOT a suitable replacement for a human being. It is far worse, IMO, for benign content to be accidentally blocked that it is for a child/sensitive viewer to see something that might prod their value system a little bit (heaven forbid!).
In a word: abstain.
On Censorware In General (Score:5)
You have been given an impossible task. There is absolutely no chance in hell that you will be able to block even .001% of the pr0n/objectionable sites out there. Commercial software filters can cover a lot more sights, but not with much better accuracy. Instead, look at your target audience. You are serving people who have little if any experience with the net. Therefore, a nice portal site will lead them in the right direction without you worrying about "objectionable" material.
You definetally need to make your users sign agreements for internet use. You need to make sure your company isn't held liable for any problems they have or cause. Another clause must deal with objectionable material. Perhaps simply having an agreement that they will immediately close any material that the management deems inappropriate to the customer base. Maintain no liability, but keep the option open to kick people off the system if you get enough complaints. Train your staff to simply scan the monitors and make sure nothing explicit is available.
The problem with censorware has always been choosing what is objectionable to whom. I am a strong advocate of free speech, but when people are using a pay service in public, the proprietor of the service has a right to enforce certain rules. Allowing the on-site staff to survey online use to make sure nothing "inappropriate" to the customer base is probably the best solution - this way people on the scene can address whether content affects them and their neighbors, instead of relying on a person or company far removed.
Wrong approach (Score:5)
A better option?
1. Put the computer near the counter or wherever your guys stand. People won't mess around when their screen can be seen by employees.
2. Post usage policies next to the computer in a _visible_ location.
It acts on the same principle that should hopefully keep our libraries uncensored: People wanting to avoid public embarrassment.
--
You may not want to hear this, but..... (Score:5)
-Vercingetorix
The Real World (Score:5)
That said, IMHO there is no good technical solution in terms of blocking, whether by keyword or anything else. Witness the tens of commercial products that are rediculed by Peacefire on a frequent basis. For any blocking scheme, there will always be holes in the system, and also sites that are incorrectly blocked.
I would suggest that each person should have to log on with a unique ID to use the system, and that all accesses would be logged, and that they are told that their activities are logged, and analyzed.
That said, it would probably also help to put the terminals in a position where the contents of the screen are prominently visible to other patrons of said laundromat. Public embarassment can be a reasonably good deterrent.
My $0.02
Just keywords or the whole blocking system? (Score:5)
For example, say that the word "breast" is a -1 word, being rather mild and usable in ok ways ("There goes a robin red-breast!") while "worse" words such as "penis" are -5. Some phrases ("hot bitch") would be -10, and so on.
Some words would activate "positive" words, so that finding "breast" might allow "cancer" to be a +1, so "breast cancer" is a 0, not a -1.
Once the page has been scanned and a score has been figured, determine a score needed to allow viewing, adjusted for number of words (so that someone looking at "-1" on Slashdot doesn't find it blocked because some troll posted "Jon Katz is a cunt" 30 times in a row).
I dunno how well this would really work, but it's an idea. It still runs into some problems - the optimal solution would be to have someone watching people online. And of course, go over the proxy logs and see where people have gone - block sites that shouldn't have been allowed that way.
how often do you guys wash your clothes? (Score:5)
1. The "Social shame will keep porn to a minumum" argument.
Laundromats are strange places. They attract strange people. And they seem to make ordinary people lose a lot of their inhibitions. I've seen people take off their pants and throw them into a washing machine, as if it were perfectly normal to get nekkid in public. That some dirty old man won't immediately begin to hunt for porn seems like wishful thinking, even if he's got an enormous audience.
2. The "Supervisory staffing will be a burden" caveat.
Laundromat employees are hardly burdened as it is. Maybe there's some secret work that they do that I've never noticed, but it seems like most of the time they sit around and watch TV or read or stare at people. Once in a while they'll clean a lint trap or yell at someone for using too much detergent. Asking them to keep an eye on the internet terminals, or even to man an administrative terminal to process un-blocking requests, seems like no big deal to me.
3. The "Stick to your ideals! Screw the Man!" exhortation.
We're talking about a laundromat. Nothing noble has ever happened in a laundromat. Stop quoting Camus and making wild comparisons to great moments of integrity throughout history.
Re:i tend to think this is futile (Score:5)
That's why you don't block.
If you want to give junior high kids "internet access", you know they'll go through trying every single porn site until they hit one that beats your filters
Instead of selective denial, the best you can do is selective allowance. Give them access to msn.com, aol.com, disney.com, dictionary.com, a few encyclopedias, etc. I mean, in a school library, they don't start by buying every book in existence and then beginning the horrific task of throwing out the porn and racist manifestos. They add things, one at a time. That's the same way school 'net connections should work, too.
Re:i tend to think this is futile (Score:5)
Browsing the Internet while washing your jeans is not as big of an issue as racism. It's just not.
If you are unable to discern the difference, you will end up a mad hermit like Harrison Ford in "The Mosquito Coast", putting yourself and your loved ones through hell because of your unwillingness to participate in a society that forces you to make small compromises.
Obscene language is the key (Score:5)
Remember that the sites want to be found by search engines, so think about what they are going to put into their text to get indexed and act accordingly.
Filtering based on "breast" is not going to lose any porn sites that filtering stronger language left behind.
TWW
Use Lynx (Score:5)