Decius wrote:

Hackers identifying themselves as “Anonymous” launched a denial-of-service attack Wednesday against a web site for Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd to protest a government proposal to filter internet content, according to the Australian Associated Press.

This seems like a stupid stunt, but then again, the news reports caused me to notice the issue. I'm dismayed that the UK has allowed this kind of filtering scheme to be deployed with hardly a whimper of protest, at least as far as I heard over here. That success has emboldened censors in numerous western countries who want to deploy similar systems. I have the impression that the filter list that is running in the UK is fairly carefully managed such that most Internet users don't know its there. The only controversy that I've heard of was over that Scorpions album, which is obviously an edge case. The Australian filter list was leaked, and reports seem to indicate that it contains material that should not have been listed. Making matters worse, the Australian government has tried to censor the list.

I don't think goverments should filter the internet. If they insist, there is something to be said for doing it transparently.

I'm not clear about what you are referring to when you say filtering has been deployed in the UK. If you mean the recent Mandelson plan -- that remains talk at the moment -- if you mean the throttling of p2p traffic by ISPs -- are you saying that AT&T etc doesn't as a routine part of traffic management at peak times? I am not aware of the UK government itself doing any filtering (GCHQ aside) although plans for an uber database have been floated but with that there is a certain amount of scaremongering and tabloid journalism involved.
You say filtering which implies there is a blockage. I am not aware that I am blocked or censored in the UK from any global site. It would seem I need educating. Let's run some tests.

ubernoir wrote:
I'm not clear about what you are referring to when you say filtering has been deployed in the UK. If you mean the recent Mandelson plan -- that remains talk at the moment -- if you mean the throttling of p2p traffic by ISPs -- are you saying that AT&T etc doesn't as a routine part of traffic management at peak times? I am not aware of the UK government itself doing any filtering (GCHQ aside) although plans for an uber database have been floated but with that there is a certain amount of scaremongering and tabloid journalism involved.
You say filtering which implies there is a blockage. I am not aware that I am blocked or censored in the UK from any global site. It would seem I need educating. Let's run some tests.

According to Wikipedia about 98% of the UK is filtered, so its likely that you are. The IWF claims there are only about 100 URLs on the list at any one time, so you probably haven't noticed 'cause I'm guessing you're not into child porn. :) I don't suggest running tests...

100 URLs is a pretty tight list that is targeted specifically at something that no one is worried about filtering. The fact that its managed so well is the reason no one is complaining about it.

According to Wikipedia the list in Australia is an order of magnitude larger and has had some problems with it.

Australia sort of demonstrates what the problem is with this. Once the infrastructure exists, expanding its use is just a matter of policy. Conservatives in Australia are calling for censorship of numerous categories of material.

When you think about the ultimate scope that these things will have - consider the fact that this website received a DMCA takedown notice, and consider the amount of money behind that sort of thing.

Decius wrote:

ubernoir wrote:
I'm not clear about what you are referring to when you say filtering has been deployed in the UK. If you mean the recent Mandelson plan -- that remains talk at the moment -- if you mean the throttling of p2p traffic by ISPs -- are you saying that AT&T etc doesn't as a routine part of traffic management at peak times? I am not aware of the UK government itself doing any filtering (GCHQ aside) although plans for an uber database have been floated but with that there is a certain amount of scaremongering and tabloid journalism involved.
You say filtering which implies there is a blockage. I am not aware that I am blocked or censored in the UK from any global site. It would seem I need educating. Let's run some tests.

According to Wikipedia about 98% of the UK is filtered, so its likely that you are. The IWF claims there are only about 100 URLs on the list at any one time, so you probably haven't noticed 'cause I'm guessing you're not into child porn. :) I don't suggest running tests...

100 URLs is a pretty tight list that is targeted specifically at something that no one is worried about filtering. The fact that its managed so well is the reason no one is complaining about it.

According to Wikipedia the list in Australia is an order of magnitude larger and has had some problems with it.

Australia sort of demonstrates what the problem is with this. Once the infrastructure exists, expanding its use is just a matter of policy. Conservatives in Australia are calling for censorship of numerous categories of material.

When you think about the ultimate scope that these things will have - consider the fact that this website received a DMCA takedown notice, and consider the amount of money behind that sort of thing.

since I'm not opposed to censorship in principle I don't have a problem with the blocking of child porn sites since I regard freedom of speech as fundamental yet not an absolute. And Ok yes NOT going to be running tests. You complain (I would suggest by inference) about creating the infrastructure to regulate the internet as a human space. Upon reflection I see this as inevitable just as nature abhors a vacuum and because I am not an anarchist (in the Kropotkin sense) I think a modicum of regulation is necessary in human interaction. I believe in law and governance. Whilst I understand the romance of a chaotic free for all I think one of the first duties of society is to protect the innocent. A balance must always be struck between order and disorder. Too much order and you have the Nazis or Stalinism -- too little and you have Somalia or 90s Afganistan. I return to Hobbes and Leviathan. I believe in law. The concern then is as you say the lack of transparency. How much regulation not the infrastructure itself? Who sets policy? And guarding the guardians!
I think it is foolish to raise the cry of Big Brother whenever a society seeks to regulate a particular space. And such filtering is, I would venture to suggest, a normalization of an unregulated space. That is not to say that eternal vigilance is not the best defense against tyranny. The creation of the wonderful interpipes (sic) has been a huge movement of the pendulum towards global freedom of speech. I think it has been, in many ways, a phase change and a new equilibrium is being established and part of that is to acknowledge that the internet is not nirvana and in certain instances ie child porn conservatives (emphasis small c) have a solid case for regulation and censorship.

ubernoir wrote:
since I'm not opposed to censorship in principle I don't have a problem with the blocking of child porn sites since I regard freedom of speech as fundamental yet not an absolute.

I certainly agree that child porn is not protected speech. I'm not arguing that they shouldn't regulate child porn. However, there are different ways that they can choose to go about regulating it. This particular approach is dangerous.

In general, speech is speech. In my view the government has no business censoring any kind of speech. However, there are places where speech extends to action, such as when something is both speech and an act of trafficing in stolen credit cards, and those are places where government regulation can be warranted.

I think child porn is one of those cases. I tend to think about it in terms of privacy - the people depicted did not consent to being depicted and even possession of the images constitutes continued violation of their privacy. This view of the issue is somewhat inconsistent with how governments view the issue. Many people cast this in the terms you did - that freedom of speech is not absolute - so some kinds of speech can be regulated as long as we find them offensive. This is an unbounded (and in my view somewhat unprincipled) way of looking at the issue that opens the door to censorship of a great deal of speech. Viewing regulation of child porn through the prism of privacy creates a clear distinction with speech that is purely expressive, and it also raises questions about other kinds of privacy issues that I think ought to be raised, such as the case of the "starwars kid," but this is a huge digression.

No matter how you slice it, child porn is a small exception to the general rule that speech is speech and the government has no business regulating it. The government has choices in how they go about regulating speech and I believe that they need to be careful in this domain that they are not posing a threat to legitimate speech. There are various ways that the UK government could go about dealing with 100 or so URLs that contain content they believe to be illegal. Clearly, one approach would be to work with other countries to get that content pulled down.

Filtering creates four problems.

First, it requires building an infrastructure that can be used for the censorship of any content. A different government elected to power could quickly react to a "crisis" situation by blocking access to international news sources. They could literally move from decision to implementation in hours. So the infrastructure represents a significant threat to liberty regardless of how it is being used today.

Second, it is usually overbroad in practice. The system in the UK seems very carefully maintained and so it is the exception to the rule. But even they ran into a problem where they literally blocked anonymous editing of Wikipedia for the entire coun... [ Read More (0.3k in body) ]

Decius wrote:

ubernoir wrote:
since I'm not opposed to censorship in principle I don't have a problem with the blocking of child porn sites since I regard freedom of speech as fundamental yet not an absolute.

I certainly agree that child porn is not protected speech. I'm not arguing that they shouldn't regulate child porn. However, there are different ways that they can choose to go about regulating it. This particularly approach is dangerous.

In general, speech is speech. In my view the government has no business censoring any kind of speech. However, there are places where speech extends to action, such as when something is both speech and an act of trafficing in stolen credit cards, and those are places where government regulation can be warranted.

I think child porn is one of those cases. I tend to think about it in terms of privacy - the people depicted did not consent to being depicted and even possession of the images constitutes continued violation of their privacy. This view of the issue is somewhat inconsistent with how governments view the issue. Many people cast this in the terms you did - that freedom of speech is not absolute - so some kinds of speech can be regulated as long as we find them offensive. This is an unbounded (and in my view somewhat unprincipled) way of looking at the issue that opens the door to censorship of a great deal of speech. Viewing regulation of child porn through the prism of privacy creates a clear distinction with speech that is purely expressive, and it also raises questions about other kinds of privacy issues that I think ought to be raised, such as the case of the "starwars kid," but this is a huge digression.

No matter how you slice it, child porn is a small exception to the general rule that speech is speech and the government has no business regulating it. The government has choices in how they go about regulating speech and I believe that they need to be careful in this domain that they are not posing a threat to legitimate speech. There are various ways that the UK government could go about dealing with 100 or so URLs that contain content they believe to be illegal. Clearly, one approach would be to work with other countries to get that content pulled down.

Filtering creates four problems.

First, it requires building an infrastructure that can be used for the censorship of any content. A different government elected to power could quickly react to a "crisis" situation by blocking access to international news sources. They could literally move from decision to implementation in hours. So the infrastructure represents a significant threat to liberty regardless of how it is being used today.

Second, it is usually overbroad in practice. The system in the UK seems very carefully maintained and so it is the exception to the rule. But even they ran into a problem where they literally blocked anonymous editin... [ Read More (0.3k in body) ]

Decius wrote:
I think child porn is one of those cases. I tend to think about it in terms of privacy - the people depicted did not consent to being depicted and even possession of the images constitutes continued violation of their privacy. This view of the issue is somewhat inconsistent with how governments view the issue. Many people cast this in the terms you did - that freedom of speech is not absolute - so some kinds of speech can be regulated as long as we find them offensive. This is an unbounded (and in my view somewhat unprincipled) way of looking at the issue that opens the door to censorship of a great deal of speech. Viewing regulation of child porn through the prism of privacy creates a clear distinction with speech that is purely expressive, and it also raises questions about other kinds of privacy issues that I think ought to be raised, such as the case of the "starwars kid," but this is a huge digression.

This is an interesting approach, but I don't think it works as well as you think it will. So if I put up a "I hate Barney Frank" site, because I disagree with the politics and perspectives of Barney Frank, wouldn't Barney Frank have the ability to censor me for violation of his privacy? Especially if I was reporting on the daily activities of Barney Frank? Posting pictures of Barney Frank?

Seems like a dead end.

flynn23 wrote:
This is an interesting approach, but I don't think it works as well as you think it will. So if I put up a "I hate Barney Frank" site, because I disagree with the politics and perspectives of Barney Frank, wouldn't Barney Frank have the ability to censor me for violation of his privacy? Especially if I was reporting on the daily activities of Barney Frank? Posting pictures of Barney Frank?

Seems like a dead end.

I think different rules would apply for Barney Frank than for, say, Flynn23, because Frank is a public personality and a Congressman. If you posted a stalker page about someone who wasn't a public personality that might get you in trouble, reasonably. Daniel Solove was written about this stuff...

Decius wrote:

flynn23 wrote:
This is an interesting approach, but I don't think it works as well as you think it will. So if I put up a "I hate Barney Frank" site, because I disagree with the politics and perspectives of Barney Frank, wouldn't Barney Frank have the ability to censor me for violation of his privacy? Especially if I was reporting on the daily activities of Barney Frank? Posting pictures of Barney Frank?

Seems like a dead end.

I think different rules would apply for Barney Frank than for, say, Flynn23, because Frank is a public personality and a Congressman. If you posted a stalker page about someone who wasn't a public personality that might get you in trouble, reasonably. Daniel Solove was written about this stuff...

But that's my point. In the future, we're all "public personalities", since everything we do is shared more and more with more and more transparency.

This is a repost of something I wrote a long time ago:

Filtering creates four problems.

First, it requires building an infrastructure that can be used for the censorship of any content. A different government elected to power could quickly react to a "crisis" situation by blocking access to international news sources. They could literally move from decision to implementation in hours. So the infrastructure represents a significant threat to liberty regardless of how it is being used today.

Second, it is usually overbroad in practice. The system in the UK seems very carefully maintained and so it is the exception to the rule. But even they ran into a problem where they literally blocked anonymous editing of Wikipedia for the entire country. Typically these lists are not well maintained and sites end up being listed that should not be listed. In most cases these lists end up containing sites that are blocked for politically motivated reasons.

Third, there is a lot of different kinds of content that western governments deem illegal. Gambling, information about narcotics, "hacking tools," torrent lists, etc. Once the system exists there will be political demands to expand its application and there is no clear limit to what might be filtered. Once the list begins to expand the risk of accidental or politically motivated blocks increases.

Fourth, to filter is to surveil. You can't block peoples web traffic without inspecting it. When it comes to something like child porn you'd be remiss if you didn't investigate hits on your filters. So these filtering systems constitute a defacto surveillance system. At least in America you'd have to square that with the principal that you don't spy on people without probable cause, and other countries claim to uphold similar values. I think in the US they'd argue out of this corner using the rationale applied in Illinois v. Caballes - that you've no expectation of privacy in regard to evidence of your guilt, but I don't personally agree with the conclusions of that case - I think it opens pandora's box for surveillance technology.

Child porn is bad, the police ought to go after it, but that doesn't mean that and any and all approaches are equally reasonable. A total internet censorship infrastructure is a step too far in my view. I think the threat that it represents to liberty outweighs its usefulness as a law enforcement tool.