“…when it comes to smut, nothing is more disgusting than kiddie-porn! But don't worry, Republicans have got yer smut solution right here”
The real target of major isp/space providers, so far as their users, is to provide ‘family friendly’ or acceptable environments. The agents dealing with this crap are targeting; kiddie porn, which must be ‘quarantined’ then reported to the relevant authority; generally accessible (that is on public access sites) porn images.
For the corps it is just good business to monitor and control the issue. But there are both legal and commercial constraints.
Forcibly blocking off-color Web sites is fine, but the logistics of hunting these sites is enormous. The corps really have to rely on public complaints, then follow up. Even then the web site ‘owner’ must be given a choice to make the site private or have it killed.
No one government , even the US of A is going to forcibly do anything to the web!
Eavesdropping on what Americans are doing online or anywhere else for that matter, is not new. What is new, historically, and dubious even at its height, is the concept of privacy. Privacy is, and always has been, an illusion.
Making certain hyperlinks illegal – repeat -
No one government , even the US of A is going to forcibly do anything to the web!
Dispatching "search and destroy" bots is great, and efficient- NOT! The beautiful anarchic, liberating, free-for-all web is not about to be reigned in by a set of rigid scripts (bots) with only limited ability to adapt to mind-blowing variabilities of content.
Bots are a blunt instrument, they don’t work effectively, otherwise the US government would already control the web.
I have been playing around with thoughts of Smoke and Mirrors, inspired by Mike at Born at the Crest of the Empire
In a timely fashion, I came across an article which says something about how we humans respond to stimulus.
“Experiments with an honesty box for tea money revealed that people were better at paying up when under a watchful gaze. The surprise was that the eyes were not real, but photographed ones.”
The gist of the argument, under experimental conditions, people behaved more ‘honestly’ when there was a suggestion that they were being watched. Now these were adults, they know a picture from real eyes, but the suggestion seems to be enough.
That, in the end, is the only tools which governments might have, when fighting what they might consider the excesses of the internet.
It all comes down to suggestion, to smoke and mirrors, because that is the only, even vaguely, effective remedy.
Will it work against the sick bastards who deal in kiddie porn? That is to be seen. Given the dynamics of how the major ISPs operate, the only real remedy might be in constant public surveillance and reporting, but that to has its problems. (See previous post - Home Spy Kit)
I know, from god knowledge, that those ‘real’ people monitoring this crap are constantly sickened by it. The corps know how distressing the task is, they make employees sign waivers before they take on the assignment; can’t have too many agents going down with stress at company expense.
But it is a problem, and one that is made more difficult for those of us who champion the anarchic nature of the net. Personally I rank any abuse against the weak by the stronger as nearing a capital offence.
The very reason I rail against powerful, intrusive government holds for these sick individuals who pray on kids and other helpless critters. If we are going to protect the good parts of the net, maybe we have to be more ready and willing to help find ways to expose the people who abuse it.
5 comments:
Your last paragraph really shows what a double-edged sword this issue is.
This is no time for dogma and snap decisions. Thanks for helping me realize that.
Brain....working.....slow. Too.... much.... travel.
I'm inclined to think the whole net must become self policing. I know there are dangers in that, but that is really what anarchy comes down to.
Funny thing is, I have to rely on my soulmate, the wonderful messenger lady, to inform me about all the crap out there.
She has to deal with it, I hardly ever happen on it.
But she can't deal with it unless someone lodges a complaint first. Then it must be deal with along strict guidelines.
Then I have to be the debriefer, curse the bastards!
You're just full of tough issues today, Cartledge. ;-)
I agree that the free nature of the Internet has to be maintained.
Until (if) some precise technology for finding this stuff is developed, self-policing by ISPs is about all that can be done, as stomach-wrenching as it must be for the people who actually have to do it.
I also think law enforcement should be able to track down many of these sites. The URLs have to be advertised somehow, and that can be tracked.
Here's an interesting question. Would you support monitoring the Internet activities of convicted kiddie porn offenders or child sex offenders who have served their time and been released?
the free nature of the Internet has to be maintained.
It's my belief that it is self maintaining, which causes the odd heated discussion with my microshaft spouse :)
As to the question; why not? It beats the Jessica Bill for being effective and essentialy non-threatening to the covicted characters.
But there is still a matter of definition, which that law didn't get right.
The only question is; how do you monitor their net activity?
It's not all that hard to surf anonymously.
Not sure about the technical aspect of monitoring activity. My guess is that if they want to surf from the privacy of home, they can be monitored.
Post a Comment