[LINK] Weinstein: Conroy Bananas

[Roger Clarke]

           Woody Allen, Google, and Internet Censorship
           http://lauren.vortex.com/archive/000353.html

Greetings.  Yesterday I briefly discussed the government's inane
plan in Australia for mandatory ISP blocking of material considered
"inappropriate" for children
( http://lauren.vortex.com/archive/000352.html ), to be enforced on
all home and school customers unless they opt-out with their ISP
("raise your hand if you want the filthy, disgusting porn feed!").

As I've previously suggested, if customers wish to voluntarily
sign-up to use blocking software (which typically allows for some
degree of customization), or subscribe to an Internet feed
supposedly "sanitized" via a government purity list (doomed to be
unsuccessful, but more on that later) that's a valid choice, but
forcing subscribers to opt-out is a reversal of a basic freedom of
speech principle and cannot be condoned.

I'm reminded of a scene in Woody Allen's 1971 film "Bananas" --
where he's subjected to a very loud and embarrassing price check
while attempting to nonchalantly buy an "adult" magazine (praise be
to YouTube, here's the scene itself -- at least for now ...):
http://youtube.com/watch?v=JgOxqwVd5Z8

But beyond this aspect, the practical ramifications of such blocking
are staggering, even apart from the fact that kids will be the very
first to find the virtually infinite ways around such attempts at
prohibition.

What would the government block?  Photos?  Movies?  Texts?  Hardcore
porn?  "Suggestive" material?  And speaking of YouTube, will
Australia attempt to block that entire site?  There's plenty of
"naughty" stuff on YouTube, with more pouring in all the time, much
of it uncategorized in any way that would simplify the blocking
process.

Or perhaps Australia will simply choose to place the entire
operations of Google on their default block list.  After all, search
engines are a veritable cornucopia of "inappropriate" material that
can be located with great ease.  Google's cache will usually give
access to the text portions of sites even if those sites are
directly blocked to customers.  And what of Google Images?  Without
even changing any settings from their defaults, Google Images can
provide virtually endless photos and drawings (albeit somewhat
small) that the Australian government would no doubt consider to be
"inappropriate" or worse.

And this brings us to the crux of the matter.  Google and other
search engines cannot be reasonably expected to be the arbiters of
such materials in furtherance of censorship, and even when they're
pressured into bed with government censors as the cost of access,
the associated blocking will be pitifully ineffective, while still
managing to do significant collateral damage to personal freedoms
and privacy principles of the most fundamental order.

In the long run, attempts to "effectively" forbid access to a set of
Internet sites and/or to censor the contents of search engines, are
likely to lead toward defining not those sites that are blocked, but
rather a relatively small set of constrained sites that are the only
ones *permitted*.  In essence, all that is not explicitly
authorized becomes forbidden.

This is not a recent phenomenon of course.  Such control has been
the dream of totalitarian regimes and rulers since the invention of
the printing press, and earlier.  In the modern age, even when
veneered with privacy-invasive "opt-out" provisions, we're seeing
the same old dark specter of government control combined with
shameless pandering to the most emotional fears of the populace,
with the technical realities of the situation purposely marginalized
or completely ignored.

Luckily for us all, the Internet is a much more powerful tool for
freedom of speech than the would-be dictators of decency can
possibly realize.  But the damage that can be done simply through
attempts to choke the Net is still very real, and the risks of these
efforts disrupting the delicate balance that keeps many societies
free are omnipresent.

The resulting negative impacts for everyone could be far worse than
embarrassment from buying a magazine, of that much we can be sure.

--Lauren--
Lauren Weinstein
lauren at vortex.com or lauren at pfir.org
Tel: +1 (818) 225-2800
http://www.pfir.org/lauren
Co-Founder, PFIR
    - People For Internet Responsibility - http://www.pfir.org
Co-Founder, NNSquad
    - Network Neutrality Squad - http://www.nnsquad.org
Founder, PRIVACY Forum - http://www.vortex.com
Member, ACM Committee on Computers and Public Policy
Lauren's Blog: http://lauren.vortex.com
_______________________________________________
privacy mailing list
http://lists.vortex.com/mailman/listinfo/privacy
-- 
Roger Clarke                  http://www.anu.edu.au/people/Roger.Clarke/

Xamax Consultancy Pty Ltd      78 Sidaway St, Chapman ACT 2611 AUSTRALIA
                    Tel: +61 2 6288 1472, and 6288 6916
mailto:Roger.Clarke at xamax.com.au                http://www.xamax.com.au/

Visiting Professor in Info Science & Eng  Australian National University
Visiting Professor in the eCommerce Program      University of Hong Kong
Visiting Professor in the Cyberspace Law & Policy Centre      Uni of NSW