Slashdot Log In
Munich, The Censors' Convention
from the censorship-is-freedom dept.
A number of articles have appeared in the online press about Munich. Half of them are just rehashes of press releases - nothing very useful there. Some of them are fairly in-depth (we think CNET and the NY Times had the best coverage), but none of them really give you the big picture. We're going to try to. Let us know how we do.
The first thing that the press is missing is that there are (well, were) two meetings in Munich, not one. The first is the one you heard about: a meeting called by the Bertelsmann Foundation, part of the huge Bertelsmann publishing empire, which sponsored the Internet Content Summit. They're getting together to have a little feel-good session about "self-regulation" of internet content. By self-regulation they don't mean that end-users regulate their own behavior; they mean that ISPs regulate users instead of government doing so directly. Users will still be regulated, of course. And the regulation will be driven by what the national government wants. It's just that government will lay their heavy hands upon the ISPs, and the ISPs will act as the enforcers rather than law enforcement. Think of it as a distributed system - government assumes the role of a second-line rather than first-line manager. At a previous internet content summit, this type of regulation was described as "soft law" versus "hard law", and we think that's a good way to think about it. They are not talking about voluntary, individual actions of corporations - they are talking about imposing laws and restraints on the citizenry through another means. Self-regulation = soft law, but law nonetheless.
The first meeting is interesting for a number of reasons, but not terribly ominous - the people meeting were not previously working together, and all that will come out of it is thoughts and ideas. The second meeting is rather more dangerous.
The second meeting, scheduled in conjunction with the first, was of the principals of INCORE, Internet Content Rating for Europe. This group consists of a number of European corporations and protect-the-children groups and their sole goal is to establish a single rating system for use across Europe (they're also coordinating with Australia). Of course, the members of this group overlap significantly with the first - for example, Jens Waltermann, director of the Bertelsmann Foundation and sponsor of the first meeting, is also one of the prime movers in INCORE - which ought to tell you why the Bertelsmann conference is so slanted towards ratings systems as the sole means of protecting the children.
But why is this going forward? As at least one slashdot poster pointed out in the discussions of last week's article, rating systems have been discussed before, and haven't come to anything yet.
What happened is the government (the European Commission, in this case) decided to get serious. They buckled down, and at the end of 1998, allocated funds to be spent on the development of a global rating system. About $11 million is allocated to be spent on developing this system, so the corporate participants can be reasonably assured of being reimbursed for all their plane fares and hotel costs. (Question: if it's so voluntary, how come the government is paying people to develop it?)
The European Commission's plan runs from January 1999 to December 2002, four years. 1999 is scheduled for development and meetings. 2000 is scheduled for rollout and beta testing. 2001 and 2002 are allocated for the encouragement process and tweaking - making sure everyone is toeing the line. There's plenty of time allocated because it's important to make sure that the resulting rating system aligns with national laws - for instance, since Germany outlaws hate speech, one of the rating categories will involve hate speech, and Germany will outlaw the transmission of any content rated in this category into the country. Laws can be "hung" off the rating categories, if they're set up properly.
The rating system will be based off the American Recreational Software Advisory Council's system, that they originally developed for video games and then, when threatened by Congress with the CDA, transformed for internet content. (The funny thing is, for the first year that RSACi was being promoted for use on webpages, it still had all the original references to video games. Pretty sad.) RSAC was recently folded into the Internet Content Rating Association, basically so they can revamp the RSACi system and submit it to the European Commission for approval and funding. Who is the chairman of ICRA's board of directors? Jens Waltermann again. Are you beginning to see a pattern?
Civil liberties groups world-wide have finally recognized the threat that government-mandated rating systems pose to the internet. The ACLU was the first major group to speak out against them, in their 1997 paper Fahrenheit 451.2: Is Cyberspace Burning?. But for this Munich conference, the chorus was loud and close to unanimous - the Global Internet Liberty Coalition condemned it, the ACLU condemned it, Electronic Frontiers Australia condemned it, Internet Freedom (UK civil liberties group) condemned it.
Several civil liberties groups managed to wrangle themselves invitations to the conference. The Electronic Privacy Information Center is attending and distributing a book free of charge to all participants (besides the attack on free speech, EPIC is irritated because the European Commission has also recommended that online anonymity be strictly prohibited for all European Union residents - after all, if they're anonymous, it's harder to make them obey the law). Nadine Strossen of the ACLU published the statement she's making to the Conference, harshly opposing the labeling requirements; even Esther Dyson, a tremendous supporter of rating systems, expressed her unease at the slant of the conference.
Strossen's comments above neatly summarize the civil liberties community's objections to so-called self-rating systems, and we urge all readers to take a look at that link above. She makes several points:
- Self-Rating Schemes Will Cause Controversial Speech To Be Censored
- Self-Rating Is Burdensome, Unwieldy, and Costly
- Conversation Can't Be Rated
- Self-Ratings Will Only Encourage, Not Prevent, Government Regulation
- Self-Ratings Schemes Will Turn the Internet into a Homogenized Medium Dominated by Commercial Speakers
Strossen is far more eloquent than we are, and she makes the points extremely well. Take a look, it's worth your time.
But back to the conference. The main document to come out of the conference is their Memorandum on Self-Regulation (538K), released yesterday. A number of "internet experts" contributed to the report - mostly these same people we've been seeing, representatives of the companies that want the Net to be kid-friendly (increase profits!) and protect-the-children groups from throughout Europe, and representatives from various governmental agencies. They lay out their censorship proposal in some detail. The basics are laid out in a single phrase: "Content providers worldwide must be mobilized to label their content...".
Prepare to get mobilized.
"It is in the best interest of industry," they say, to take the steps necessary to "enhance consumer confidence" and meet "business objectives." The suits invited must all have nodded their heads to this one: if only they could get the obnoxious people off the net, then all the soccer moms and grandpas would feel safe enough to fire up a browser and finally type in their credit card numbers.
So, problem: naughty stuff on the net. Answer? Open source! <spit>
On p. 59 of the 60-page memo is a neat diagram that looks almost like an API to a multi-layer code library. Except in this case, the bottom slice is the underlying technology of censorship (PICS), and the top slice is the user's experience of censorship (at the browser).
Sitting on top of PICS is Layer 1, in which the content creators - that's you, me, and everyone else who makes anything public on the internet - label our data with a "basic vocabulary" of keywords. If we write porn, we call it porn. Simple enough so far?
Next comes Layer 2, which is where the fun stuff starts to happen. Here, third parties can invent "template profiles." These combine the keywords in interesting ways. The idea is that in one country, the ratings systems will typically rate porn as bad but violence as OK; in another, perhaps the opposite; someone else will invent a profile for use in schools that blocks everything noneducational; a profile for your company's router might block all sports but let profanity through; a national profile for Australia might block all sex but let stupid political grandstanding through; and so on.
These template profiles should be, according to Bertelsmann, "open source."
How are they going to do this? They can't rely on a NetNanny or SurfWatch to rate the net: censorware has been a dismal failure in practice, the software just doesn't work because there's too much of the net and too few censorware employees to evaluate it all.
What they need instead is for you, the author, to do their work for them. Remember that "basic vocabulary" of keywords? It turns out you're not just going to pick porn vs. non-porn. Oh no. After all, you have to provide enough information for the profiles to work with.
That means you're going to be rating everything you publish according to:
"e.g.: gratuitous violence,
frontal nudity,
explicit sexual acts,
crude language,
vulgar language,
sports,
extreme hate speech,
arts,
aggressive violence,
death to humans,
medicine,
non-explicit sexual acts,
strong language,
history, ..."
E.g.? E.g.!? There's more?
Well, there has to be more. In fact, Bertelsmann has only scratched the surface. In order for there to be enough "template profiles" to be worth mentioning, the variety of keywords has to be extreme.
Be ready to run down a checklist for everything you write and decide whether it contains gratuitous or non-gratuitous violence, explicit or non-explicit sex acts. Please rate from 1 to 10 how much art and history was in that last post of yours. Don't think you'll have a choice about doing it - your ISP will be enforcing it upon you, as a condition of service.
And the "template profiles" that are provided for the end user? These profiles are just simple sets that group the predefined keywords together. If I'm the CEO of NetSitterPatrol, I group keywords 1, 3, 5, and 12 together and call it "NetSitterPatrol Profile."
And if I'm a national government that's cracking down on porn, violence, hate speech, or vulgar language (your government wouldn't do anything like that, would it?), I'll just add the keywords for indecency, abortion information, hate speech, racism, or whatever else I want to censor, and give the list to the backbone providers in my country to filter out and protect the delicate citizens. Hey look, I'm an open source programmer!
by Michael Sims and Jamie McCarthy
Soft Regulation Can be Dangerous (Score:3)
Methods of "soft-regulation" can be more dangerous than direct!
Freedom through technology (Score:3)
--
Keyword ratings don't work (Score:5)
If you don't permit enough detail, then things which shouldn't get through do.
For a set of good examples of this, using RSAC to prove the point, see here [usyd.edu.au], but specifically this link [mrlizard.com], which rates both Alex's Haley's Roots and a pornographic, racist novel using RSACi, and finds that they both have to be given almost the same rating.
Bradley
Why this is crazy (Score:4)
Imagine how this will be on the national level. I'd be banned from half the useful information on the internet just because it was controversial or conflicting with the ideas of one of the people that decides what sites get what ratings.
If this does become a reality, I can tell you right now I'll be fighting it with every ounce of energy I've got. You can't tell me the script kiddies won't be cracking away everyday in protest. Since some countries would ban different things (ie Germany - no hate speech...which of course translates into any speech that is controversial ) I would definately set up a system of proxies in the US and send massive amounts of email to be forwarded to the germans showing them how to use the proxies. Get the idea now? Civil disobedience is also on the top of the list, I'm sure a lot of sysadmins would be glad to rate ALL of their content as "sexually violent racial slurs" or something like that. Then when kids can't get in to te useful information, they complain to teachers or parents, and in turn to congressmen and such. Another plan is the ever popular petition. Everyone on my block and everyone in my school and everyone in my email address book would be glad to send around petitions or take a few seconds to sign one. If the leaders of this beast receive 6 billion signatures, and a few billion emails, do you think theyd get the picture? Maybe not, but it would be worth it. If EVERYONE does EVERYTHING in their power to shoot this down, I think we can.
---------------------------
"I'm not gonna say anything inspirational, I'm just gonna fucking swear a lot"
Re:Damned if we do, damned if we don't. (Score:3)
And what's so horrible about it? You found out that there was porn on the net? The search engine did the right thing: you searched for keyword "Bleys", you got sites with it. Or you really want to play-pretend that there are no naughty things on the 'net? I can understand this case as a call for better search engines, but you seem to think that this shows the need for ratings. Not IMAO.
Incident #2, which I'm actually much more irritated by: I'm a pagan who follows the Norse gods. It's bad enough that some of the Norse pagan sites have a "racialist" slant, but it's even worse when the KKK has Meta-tags on its web-page that include Odin, Thor, and Freya. Can you imagine the impression that some kid doing a research project on Norse mythology would get if he did a web search for Thor and came up with the KKK home page??
Sigh. I don't think you understand what the expression "freedom of speech" means. You seem to think that your view of the Norse gods is the "correct" one and other views, especially ones which you find objectionable, are the "wrong" ones and so should be eradicated, or at least kept in the ratings' dark closet never to be shown to ordinary folk. I am no big fan of KKK, but why in the world do you think they have no right to their own view of Odin, Thor, etc.??
What would a kid doing research on Norse mythology think? Well, if he is a smart kid, he'll think that the world is a diverse place and there are sure some strange people around.
I've got no problems with voluntary standards as long as they remain truly voluntary rather than coercive
Unfortunately, it doesn't work this way. Obviously, no reasonable person would object to people describing their sites in keywords for the ease of finding these sites. The problem is that legislation or industry self-regulation quickly follows.
Once upon a time it was thought that ladies and gentlemen do not use words like 'fuck' and 'cunt'. All voluntary, right? So how come there are seven words that nobody can say on the radio?
Kaa
Re:Keyword ratings don't work (Score:3)
The sites could even make an argument that they are "educational" -- children would learn all sorts of things there. Not good things, but they'd still learn.
So now if we have porn sites calling themselves "educational", no only will they not be blocked, they'll be explicitly let into the schools! So much for protecting our children.
When will people realize that information is neither good nor bad -- it's what we do with it that counts. Instructions on how to build a nuculear bomb are morally netural; building one and exploding it in a city is morally wrong.
Living in ignorance is not a solution -- it's a problem.
Bertelsmann - yet another greedy media company (Score:5)
Medium Dominated by Commercial Speakers"
Thats the goal of Bertelsmann. Bertelsmann is a multinational company which owns pay-TV and TV channels, advertising companies, newspapers, publishing companies, a share in AOL and much more. They have huge assets in non-physical 'media intellectual property', ie. sports rights, movie rights, sattelite frequencies, etc. Bertelsmann controls a fair chunk of Germany's TV-news feed to ordinary germans, and subsequently Bertelsmann has entrenched political connections to the establishment. Bertelsmann's main business plan is to _control and own information and information sources_, no matter what type of information. And the Internet as of now 'threatens' much of Bertelsmann's 'core business': proprietary information. This pretty much explains why Bertelsmann is in the center of Internet censorship.
The Wild West gets tamed... (Score:4)
Someone once made the comparison of the Internet to the Wild West. I forget who it was--I believe it was Nicholas Negroponte of Wired and MIT--but with things like this, it seems ever more apt than ever.
The premise of the comparison was that the Wild West of the USA was once wild, untamed, mob rule--yet still on the whole tranquil, at least for the first Europeans who arrived (Davy Crockett types) who also got along with the local Indians. Then the later settlers came in, who promptly began trying to "civilize" everything--imposing rules, laws, institutions and so on, both on the earler settlers and on the Indians living with them. The previous occupants resented this and tried to fight back, but ultimately the settlers--and especially the corporations who followed them--won out through force of numbers and money (and, in the case of the Indians, through guns and disease). This is exactly what is happening here: a large, multinational company--hand in hand with other "interest groups" recently become interested in the Net--are trying to impose their value system on the wild, untamed Internet. I'm as angry as anyone here about it, but let's face it, there is little to be done: money (and power and influence) talks.
Furthermore, those suggesting a free Internet Jr. to run parallel to the current one ignore that, eventually, it too would be swamped by corporate interests--someone would begin using it for profit, and as soon as that day arrives, it's the beginning of the end for Internet Jr. as others begin elbowing their way in. Nevermind the logistics: who would set up the backbones? Where would the bandwidth come from?
The crazy part is that the Internet is already being Balkanized anyway, as China, Singapore, and others are in effect building parallel Internets that only have limited access to the greater Internet--precisely to screen content for political purposes. Censorship is already taking place on a massive scale, and self-censorship--i.e. by not seeking or clicking on subversive or unacceptable content for fear of prosecution or persecution--already takes place as well.
I wish I knew of a solution, and hate being such a pessimist, but my gut feeling tells me we just have to get used to it--or go out and vote for liberal/libertarian parties up the yin-yang, then pray.
Ethelred [surf.to]
.xxx, .kid, and protecting children (Score:3)
First of all, porn sites don't charge money because of "restrictions" -- they charge money a) because they can and they know people will pay, and b) because porn is very popular, and eats lots of bandwith.
Secondly, a workable "first step"/compromise along the lines of what the original AC was proposing would be something like this:
1. Have the
2. Have a
3. Leave the rest of the net alone.
Folks who wanted ordinary net-access, which would include access to
Folks who wanted the
Thoughts? Could this work?
Damned if we do, damned if we don't. (Score:4)
On the one hand, censorship is a very bad thing. I think we can all (for the most part) agree on that. And even most "voluntary" systems have the potential to become de facto censorship (look at what's happened to movies thanks to the MPAA rating system, which BTW doesn't tell you anything about what's actually IN the movies
On the other hand, two recent incidents from my own web-surfing make me wish there was something that could be done so that, at the least, search engines don't spit out something that isn't what you're looking for (and that you definitely wouldn't want to BE looking for). And both of these give me some understanding as to why a parent would *want* to use blocking software (silly as I think the stuff is).
Incident #1: I had forgotten the URL to a particular Amber fan-fic page that I like, and I remember that I had found it in the first place using the keyword "Bleys." I somehow ended up with several porno sites in my search results because the url was "http://www.pornsite.xxx/hotpics/bleys/corwin/tee
Incident #2, which I'm actually much more irritated by: I'm a pagan who follows the Norse gods. It's bad enough that some of the Norse pagan sites have a "racialist" slant, but it's even worse when the KKK has Meta-tags on its web-page that include Odin, Thor, and Freya. Can you imagine the impression that some kid doing a research project on Norse mythology would get if he did a web search for Thor and came up with the KKK home page?? (My boyfriend and I discovered this via 2600's web page, which talked about the past hack of the KKK site.)
I have ratings tags on a few of my pages, and I'll put them on ALL of my pages when I finish my move to drak.net. I've got no problems with voluntary standards as long as they remain truly voluntary rather than coercive. And I'd much rather have to self-rate than have the government step and rate for me.
But as far as setting up a standard goes, it's damned if we do and damned if we don't, so to speak. The "chicken breast" problem has already been mentioned, but if you want something more sophisticated, you're going to have to deal with the more "complex" rating systems, and even those won't give you all the info you'd like to have. (Case in point: someone rating the KJV Bible using SafeSurf. *chuckles*)
On the surface, the VCR seems like a good idea, but it was come up with by Solid Oak, a company I wouldn't trust farther than I could throw my station wagon. (They make CyberSitter. Nuff said.) How would they actually like to see "suitable for 13 and up" vs. "suitable for 18 and up" defined? I don't think I want the answer. Again, godhatesfags.com would probably be 13+, while godlovesfags.com would probably be 18+. *sigh*
I wish I could think of some way to cover all the bases here, but there just isn't one. Any possible system (including no system) is open to abuse. Having no system makes it really easy to mis-inform the public or at least the search engines about your content (see above KKK example). OTOH, even a purely voluntary system is likely to cause problems for, say, the gay 15-year-old son of fundie parents, or the sexual abuse victim. (I've talked to plenty of these kids online, and it's not pretty.)
The problem I've always had with ratings meant to protect children is that the parents who have decent relationships with their kids don't need the standards -- they can just say that they'd rather their kids wait to see the movie, read the book, or check out certain kids of Web pages. It's generally the fundie, abusive, or otherwise scary parents who want to keep their kids from accessing certain content. And those tend to be the kids who need the alleged pornography or Satanic sites the most. (Gay teen support groups, Pagan info, sexual abuse survivor sites, you get the idea.)
*sigh* I wish I had a good answer. Unfortunately, I don't. But the questions are important to ask on *both* sides of the issue, rather than just making knee-jerk anti-censorship statements -- tempting as I know that is.
Re:Some background information in a long screed (Score:3)
They are also punted about by the conspiracy theorists, who study any connection with Bavaria and powerful groups based there. Tends to generate a lot of material, most of which I discount.
I also know of them since they are a competitor in the internet world, especially picking up consulting jobs advising large scale communication projects, which is where I make all my money. So I tend to read what I can about them. They are considered "conservative" by my Bavarian friends, who I consider to be the most conservative people I know. Their views on "self-censorship" are widely known in Bavaria, and stir up old memories and a lot of discussion. They also employ more people there than BMW and the beer industry combined.
the AC
[As I read back over what I've posted, I'm beginning to get the idea I should go find my flame retardant undies, or perhaps not read
Some background information in a long screed (Score:5)
Anonymity. This is one of my regular problems working in Europe. France has codified into law outlawing all anonymity, and has even criminalized attempting to hide your identity from any governmental organisation. This is one of the remnants of the Vichy government, and was kept by the domestic surveillance DST and SCSSI services. Other countries with a history of terrorist acts on their soil have also outlawed anonymity (England and Germany), but Italy and Norway allow it.
Bertelsmann. The European Commission (DG13) created a budget of 10 Million Euros to study "the threat to national laws by the internet, and methods to enforce national laws within European borders" (paraphrased from memory). Bertelsmann picked up the entire E10million (no euro symbol in ISO8859, yet) through their contacts with an "old boys network" controlling DG XIII [*disclaimer*, this could be sour grapes, I helped a client bid on the project, and there were 12 shortlisted big companies all locked out]. They have created a draft proposal designed to protect all their interests as the largest publisher in Europe, as well as a major shareholder in dozens of ISPs including AOL. Bertelsmann also controls several of the largest publishing houses in the U.S., and is the largest single owner of copyright material in the U.S.
If other posters start using inflammatory terms like "Hitler", "Nazism", and "Censorship", it could be justified in this slashdot thread.
Bertelsmann made its fortune during the Nazi's rise to power in the 1930s, as the publisher of the Nazi manifests. They gained the favor of the Nazi party by being the first publisher to openly embrace "self-censorship" when the Nazi party wasn't yet powerful enough to create laws. They purged their entire publishing line of questionable materials (what we might call free-thinking), then taunted other publishing houses to do the same.
When the Nazis came to power, all the publishers defending "free press" or "freedom of speech" were put out of business, and their facilities were given to Bertelsmann. This gave Bertelsmann 90% of the publishing market during the war.
After WWII, the Bertelsmann empire came through mostly intact, and used Marshall plan reconstruction funds to rebuild its antiquated facilities into a modern (for the 1950s) business. There was only a few prosecutions of Bertelsmann upper management for war crimes (but only in conjunction for military activities), and Bertelsmann became a major haven for ex-Nazis looking for a new life after the war.
Back to the problem at hand.
There is a realisation that the internet can route around most problems related to network connectivity. But by crafting restrictive laws tied into the licensing of tier 1 & 2 internet carriers (all in europe are considered telcos, and licensed accordingly), then effective censorship can be imposed. There are a few technical work arounds, but for every hackish proposal of IPSec tunnels, there is an easier government response of pressure on the license holders.
So, all you slashdotters should be afraid, if you want to continue to have free (as in liberty) and unlimited access to the internet. Once the EU gets a handful of workable laws on the books, the U.S. and Australia will follow suit. I would also expect every militaristic/fascist/religious government to take notice as well.
Expect within 10-15 years you will look back on the '90s as the golden years before the big evil governments woke up and took back control. Not only do we have to fight this at the law making level, we also have to create bigger and better protocols and workarounds to make it impossible for tier 1 & 2 providers to filter content.
Ok, go back to sleep now.
the AC
Be afraid. Be very afraid. (Score:5)
A couple of points to be noticed:
1. This entire thing has been organized by a private "foundation". That probably means we are safe from ultra-stupid and clueless laws and regulations, since the proceedings of this conference will not have the same weight as if it was, say, organized by the EU Parliament of Strasbourg. So far, this is one good point.
2. On the other hand... the foundation in question is the *Bertelsmann* Foundation. For those of you who are not in Europe, Bertelsmann is one of the largest publisher in Germany (and also in Europe, and in the world). Think Rupert Murdoch with a German accent, and you have a pretty good idea of what Bertelsmann is. Now, this a certified Very Bad Thing (tm), since German publishers are notoriously conservative and stuck-up. And, AFAIK,
Bertelsmann is no exception to the rule, unfortunately.
That does not mean German people (in general) are
conservative and stuck-up -- just that their press is. (If you are German, don't flame me, I have very good German friends that I respect and care about -- thank you very much).
3. Another Very, Very, Very BAD Thing (tm) is the roster of "experts" that are on board. We have a *huge* bunch of politicos, law "experts" (read: clueless lawyers) and, worse than this, "law-enforcement experts" -- with a huge contingent of German people. Again, I don't want to appear critical of Germany, but we have to remember it was Bavarian police officers who prosecuted CompuServe for "porn" and also tried to block German users from the XS4LL Dutch web site and access provider because of some leftist/anarchist web site there.
Oh, and we also have a representative from... Microsoft Corporation Europe (Shock! Horror! The Number of the Beast!!) =)
On the plus side, we also have one (count them, people, "one" !) representative from the ACLU. and Esther Dyson, which, I suspect, is more interested in pushing ICANN than really defending free speech. Ouch. Click here for a complete list of experts. [bertelsmann.de]
In summary, we have a probably conservative foundation, putting a panel of "experts", made up of "law-enforcement officers" (policemen, to remain polite). That panel of expert is going to convene in a city and a state of Germany known for its heavy-handed tactics against the 'net and its conservative Catholicism. Draw your own conclusions (DYOC).
That does not smell good people. Not by a long shot. I'll keep an eye on this.
Just my US$ 0.02...
unification (Score:3)
Something like this shouldn't be possible. A confrence like this shouldn't have been able to get past the random neuron connection in someone's mind stage. The problem here it seems is the eurpoean unification.
When you unify, you also promote a centralization of power. This is a Bad Thing(tm). I see it here in the US, and now in europe. The federal government is taking more and more power, a centralized power, where that power should be left most entirely to the individual states.
Now the world has taken it a step further: The EU. We now have a trend of entire countries themselves unifying under a common flag, of sorts. And whether the EU has a great amount of power or not is not the point. The point is that the power is centralized. It's taken father away from the individual. The more people you have to rule, the less the individual matters. This inevitably leads to assaults on civil liberties, because what do civil liberties matter but to the individual?
It seems rather unavoidable anymore, though. With greater internationalization, there's always going to be an inevitable push toward commonality between nations This can be achieved through unification.
Perhaps the age of empires is at hand once again.
Self Ratings = increased hits... (Score:4)
6. Self-Rating Schemes will be used only at each extreme of the spectrum, by those who have something to gain by being at that end of the spectrum.
Run a XXX site? Damn right I'm going to rate my site an 11 out 10 - people search for the baddest of the bad. Or if click-through advertisers start limiting their ads to host pages with acceptable ratings, you can bet every page will suddenly be rated "suitable for a 2 year old". Like it or not, the inherent decency of mankind (or what little does exist) will by and large go straight out the window once the almighty dollar makes an appearance.Re:What can we do? (Score:3)
What frustrates me even more is that it all wouldn't make the least bit of difference. If a child/young adolescent wants to lay their hands on porn (or whatever) they shall get it, one way or another. And according to me sex, nudity, etc. hasn't done anyone any harm...(most of us are born thanks to sex
I wonder when the governments are finally going to realise that even the lowly civilians can grow up and make up their own mind. If you find something on the web that would upset you, don't visit the site, if you read something that you don't want to read, don't read it.
For me it's all very simple... just do what you want to do, if you want to spend the entire day writing/reading hate texts, watch porn, experiment with drugs, etc. do it, as long as you don't bother anyone else with it, I don't care. and neither should anyone else.
But the Brits don't like Brussels (Score:3)
AC above is right that Blair and his bunch are frightening, paternalistic weasels. But:
1. This particular measure isn't likely to even reach the government. It's being put together by the "foundation", under the aegis of the European Commission (The Commission != the European Parliament -- it's kind of like a Civil Service sort of thing, but more powerful).
2. Because of this, it will be sorted out by civil servants. If the relevant UK minister (not sure who that would be -- prob Jack Straw?) ever sees it, it will be just to tick up the civil servants' decision to keep stalling. Unless it becomes a cause celebre, in which case his mind will be on damage limitation.
3. Why am I so sure that the UK civil servants will want to stall it forever? Well:
First, because they don't want to transfer any power to Brussels. They hate Brussels.
Second, if they allow the Commission to have jurisdiction on this one, they will be in a weak position to resist when the EC says that it should have jurisdiction in the matter of taxing the Internet when that comes up for negotiation. For a UK civil servant, the very Worst Thing You Can Possibly Do is to allow any tax power to go to Brussels.
Third, they will look at it and fear bad publicity. Civil service departments are more and more coming to be ruled by their Press Offices.
That's the reasoning behind my attack strategy. We can't do anything about the first and second points, but the third depends on how much of a media sh*tstorm can be generated. The rule of thumb is always that if two out of UK, France, Germany, Italy and Spain are against something, it's dead. I think that this is achievable.
jsm
(who, in a past life, was one of these bloodsucking drones)
Important not to be too pessimistic (Score:4)
The European Commission's plan runs from January 1999 to December 2002, four years. 1999 is scheduled for development and meetings. 2000 is scheduled for rollout and beta testing. 2001 and 2002 are allocated for the encouragement process and tweaking - making sure everyone is toeing the line.
Well
US$11million doesn't really sound like that much of a budget, when you consider how fantastically overpaid and over-expensed EC personnel are. It's important not to see this as an inevitability.
So what can we do? Hassle them! Hassle them to death! Make sure that every Euro politician knows that he'll have to face election as "The guy who's trying to censor the Internet". Or even better "The guy who's trying to let Brussels censor the Internet for us". Politicians hate that stuff -- anything which appears to be "complicated" or "unpopular" tends to be avoided.
Start creating the impression that it is technically impossible to censor the Internet. If I were really Machiavellian, I would suggest "extending" the META tag formats into a million and one incompatible versions, so that the keyword approach wouldn't work. But just suggesting to non-techie bureaucrats that it's a technological nightmare will suffice to raise millions of "issues" which slow the whole thing down.
It seems like unsatisfactory, but to my certain knowledge the Takeover Directive has been held up in this fashion by vested interests for 20 years. Let's all be a vested interest.
jsm
very true and furthermore (Score:5)
Perhaps the European Union will come up with categories like "Aryan Self-defence" or "Christian Truth -- Homosexuality" that people would actually use, but I rather suspect that political correctness will interfere with effective lawmaking here.
Not that I actually want to see effective lawmaking
jsm
[1] in principle, "he or she", in practice, "he".