Speak Up Project

The battle over Internet pornography and how to stifle it grows as time goes on. We here at Speak Up are making a forum for this debate to exist. We believe in fleshing out opinions. We do not believe in individuals shielding themselves from the issues and opinions of their peers. We’re starting a 21-days to Change program beginning Monday, March 28. We don’t care if you’re with us or against us, we want your voice.

Most people know that pornography is an issue. Many people think there’s a solution. Many people believe it’s unstoppable. An overwhelming amount of people don’t know how to even approach it. We’re going to get out there with no holds barred starting Monday. We want you to see the reaction. We want you to track what we do. If all goes very well, we’ll make a fuss and people will have to listen.

Check back for updates every day. I’ll be live blogging the struggle, and if we can maybe we’ll set up something grand. It will take a miracle to get the focus we need, but we think we can do it.

-Collin

I caught wind of an article that states MySpace is now giving up sex offender data to the police in order to keep things secure on the site. Of course, this news is good to so many people. The TV show, To Catch A Predator, is enough evidence that there’s too much inappropriate interaction between minors and adults alone to cause most parents to ban access altogether. The problems don’t just start there.

Initially, MySpace was resistant citing privacy issues as their protection to giving up the data. Previously, the company would remove profiles that had been tagged as offenders, but that information was kept in the company. After a large demand by state attorneys general, they decided to release the names. According to an article just released today, 68 offenders have already been convicted in Kentucky. These are a small portion of the 7,000 banned names removed for sexual offenses.

Like with anything we talk about, there seems to be an uproar over the matter. A large group of people are in heavy support of the action. However others seem to be adding their voice to oppose the move.

There are a few important things going on here.

First is that the issue is being forced. It’s hard to tell exactly how to quantify the problem due to the serious debate of those who push for an unregulated Internet. One writer explained that  surveys conducted on children asking them whether they have recieved unsolicited sexual advances were inaccurate. His claims were that most of these advances were other teens, and that the kids didn’t mind them. It would be nice to see just how that conclusion was made.

Secondly there is a growing backlash of people who are not okay with technological advances taking precedence over safety and security. It seems that there are more and more excuses as to why we shouldn’t do anything about the Internet, allowing unbridled access to foul content in the name of technology and growth. Often times, these excuses are marginally related. In rebuttal to these excuses, a point could easily be defended that the solution is out there but no one wants to work on it.

This is where we like to think there is a greater problem behind the Internet pornography issue than just security. When does the problem of Internet sexual abuse and offense ever take a back seat to technological progress? Arguments could be made back and forth endlessly, but in the end what is the principle we are fighting for? I am a technophile of sorts, and am very interested in progress. I just can’t justify it at the expense of insecurity.

Too many times we believe that if we put limits on the Internet we are altogether denying ourselves of free speech. However, there are always solutions that can appease both sides of the argument with a bit of give and take. Will any degree of regulation on the Internet cause for a complete security and shield from harmful content? Of course not. However, with regulation in place, those who still seek to publish harmful content will be doing it in direct dissention of set rules and standards. Therefore, it will be much easier to make a case against offenders. With no regulation, there’s nothing saying it was wrong in the first place.

On the other hand, it’s of common belief that by putting regulatory standards on Internet content, we lop the head of free speech off and rob people of a right that is natural. Many believe that limitations will only lead to more and more control over the Internet and eventually put ultimate power in the hands of a governing body who dictates our content for us.

This argument, though valid and important, should be examined more carefully. The Internet is a tool so powerful, that I see no possible way that an over regulated Internet would exist. The backlash would be too intense. I do not see people standing for it. Knowing our world, our modern goals, and our global economy, does anyone else think that an overregulated Internet would ever exist?

I leave this argument open, and think that each side afford the other some honest consideration. In America, we enjoy many more freedoms than other countries in this world. No matter our political situation, the world at large understands that the American constitution gives its citizens a very solid basis for growth and freedom to coexist. However, what drives the progress of this country is an underlying set of standards and rules to protect the freedom and security of the people. The rule of law always presides, and provided that people get involved, becomes a powerful tool in resolving social, moral, and economic issues that are ever changing.

The Internet today is an entity of its own. An underlying set of standards could empower us to make the Internet work powerfully in our favor while simultaneously being safer with adjustment to the those aspects that are exploited by malicious people.

That’s why it’s time we speak up.

I’ve learned a few important things when blogging about Internet governance, regulation of porn and malicious content, and anything else I write about. For lack of a better word, the response I’ve had has been interesting as well. I want to put this information out there and show you all what I’m dealing with, and what my feelings are about it.

Lessons I’ve Learned

1. The term ‘Internet Governance’ is not well understood - People don’t really know what this means. Maybe this is due to the fact that we’re not even sure how to categorize the growth patterns and effects of the Internet. Every day, new debates turn up about these issues.
2. The term ‘Internet Governance’ directs people’s minds to the U.S. government as a regulatory body - For some reason people immediately think that we imply some kind of federal body as a regulatory force for the whole world. The truth is that there already is a regulatory body that controls the technical aspects of the Internet not within the U.S. government. This group is ICANN (the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers) and is a non-profit corporation located in California.
3. People think that ‘Internet Governance’ is only achieved by restricting access to information at the will of a governing body, and not the will of the people - This is also interesting to me, as we all know very well by now that the Internet is a user run entity and will always be that way. Any kind of governance, organization, or restriction has to begin there. Not with a group that comes in and starts issuing new rules.
4.  There is an overwhelming population of people who are dissatisfied with the state of the Internet regarding pornography, security, and other Internet deregulation spawned issues, but they don’t know where to start - Unfortunately this is a problem that’s not easily solved. It takes education, action, and a lot of persuasion. The data of the harms of these things is very apparrent.
5. Most people don’t want to tackle the issue of harmful internet content because they don’t want to take the heat - I can’t blame em too much. The internet is worldwide, and you have the eyes of millions on you when you seek to make a difference in this arena.
6. In regards to pornography, the United States is the largest problem - We pulled a stat the other day, stating that 89% of the online pornography is generated in the United States. If pornography was such a widely accepted form of communication, and it was generally a good thing, why isn’t the rest of the world so gung ho about it? Just curious.
7. The most outspoken people over internet governance don’t even nearly represent the majority. They are a tiny minority - This is mostly due to the fact that the outspoken are the early adopters of the internet. They understand jargony terms like “net netrality” or “IP address”. They are outspoken because they’re on the Internet all the time. Sometimes that group fails to realize that the Internet isn’t a way of life for everyone, and that most people want the benefits of the Internet without all the negative aspects of it in the way. They want access and a voice without having to be concerned about it all the time.

Allow me to be bold here. You can say what you want, think what you want, and argue your way into any technophile circle about free speech and the Internet. You can show with all the zeal in the world that total and complete deregulation of the Internet is good.

What you can never do is convince me that any child who browses the Internet to find sports information, video game tips, homework information, or cartoon clips will go on his search without stumbling upon some porn. You will never convince me that if he or she does, that it won’t hurt them in some way or another. You will NEVER convince me that all this is worth getting porn when and how you want it. You will never convince me that porn addiction has absolutely zero effect on marital problems. You will absolutely never ever ever convince me that just because someone enjoys porn, it’s okay for the millions of people who find it disgusting and degrading to have their email in-boxes incessantly spammed with maliciously deceptive advertisements to get them hooked.

You may find it okay to look at porn yourself. That is your freedom and your right. You have that and that should not be taken away. Whether that has a good or a bad effect on you is not my businesses. What is my business? My business is to speak up and find a better way to make the internet work.

There are ways, we’re just all afraid to make people have to change.  There are solutions to give those who want porn the freedom of access they need while offering those who want better options to block it those very solutions. It’s a matter of making a change and standing by it.

/endrant

I was surfing the list of blogs that I read today to find out more about what’s going on in the blogosphere. I don’t always look at stuff pertinent to the subject matter of Speak Up, but often find things relative. Sometimes in places I never knew were opinionated about our subject.

Good Magazine put out a video that’s highly provocative about Internet porn. It’s basically a girl who’s written porn stats all over her body. As the camera pans around in suggestive ways, you find stats revealing the reality of Internet porn. Let’s get more of these out there.

12% of all websites are pornographic

25% of all search engine requests are pornographic

35% of all Internet downloads are pornographic in nature

Every second, 28,258 internet users are viewing pornography

Every second, 89$ is being spend on Internet porn

Every day, 266 new pornographic websites appear on the Internet

“Sex” is the most searched word on the Internet

U.S. revenue from porn in 2006: $2.84 billion

72% of Internet porn users are men, 28% are women.

70% of all Internet porn traffic occurs during the 9-5 workday.

There are an estimated 372 million porn web pages, 3% produced by the U.K., 4% produced by Germany, 89% produced by the U.S.

Shocking, no? Well not really because everyone sees it. It’s really in your face. Wonder what the stats are on how parents view these stats? I’d like to see those myself.

Here’s the video… drives a point home. No nudity, but it’s close.

You think you have a hold on your kids access to porn, but you probably don’t. You think that the problem isn’t that big, but it is. Read the stats.

Average age of first Internet exposure to pornography - 11 years.
Internet Pornography Statistics.  Internet Filter Review, 2004.

Largest Consumer of Internet Pornography - 12-17 years.
Internet Pornography Statistics.  Internet Filter Review, 2004.

15-17 year-olds having multiple hardcore exposures - 80%.
Internet Pornography Statistics.  Internet Filter Review, 2004.

8-16 year-olds having viewed porn online - 90% (most while doing homework).
Internet Pornography Statistics.  Internet Filter Review, 2004.

7-17 year-olds who would freely give out home address - 29%.
Internet Pornography Statistics. Internet Filter Review, 2004.

7-17 year-olds who would freely give out email address - 14%
Internet Pornography Statistics.  Internet Filter Review, 2004.

“82 percent of adult Americans surveyed in March 2004 said that the Federal laws against Internet obscenity should be vigorously enforced.”
Americans STILL want federal obscenity laws enforced!  The Morality in Media Newsletter, June, 2004.

In 2004, there were 372 million pornographic Web pages, 2.5 billion emails (8% of total emails), 100 thousand Web sites offering illegal child pornography, and 72 million annual worldwide visitors to pornographic websites
Internet Pornography Statistics.  Internet Filter Review, 2004.

One in 17 children ages 10-17 were threatened or harassed over the Internet in 2000
Report Statistical Highlights.  National Center for Missing & Exploited Children, Crimes Against Children, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 2000.

Child pornography generates $3 billion annually
Internet Pornography Statistics.  Internet Filter Review, 2004.

“More pointedly, according to a poll conducted by UK-based charity the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (NSPCC), over 50 percent of the 2,053 polled children engaged in active Internet surfing revealed they had suffered an “unwanted experience” such as exposure to violent or pornographic material, cyber-bullying, and even sexual grooming.”
Survey Reveals Internet Dangers for Children. Monsters and Critics, 2007

There’s more if you need it.

The other day I got into a deep discussion about CP80 with a close friend. He had a number of opinions about Speak Up Project and CP80. He wasn’t fond of our ultimate approach, although he saw value in the principles. He claimed that responsibility should rest in the hands of the people to filter out  bad content. My argument was that in a perfect world, everyone would be naive enough to do that but filters were weak and the youth are ever more tech savvy than we know. We debated for about an hour and finally our resistances to one another’s points were lowered a bit. Such is the world of debate.

He did bring up a number of good points about CP80, their proposals, and why he didn’t think they would work. The concerns ranged from the economic soundness to the technological viability of the project. He did make a few good points about Internet filters and the .xxx domain name. Unfortunately only one of those is even an option at this time. I did a bit of research on the matter to find out the pulse of the people over Internet filters. I found some interesting points.

First and foremost is the technical abilities of filters. If you don’t know, a filter works based on simple premises. Filters can have a black list of sites it will auto-block as well as a white list of sites it will always accept. Filters also function by having certain keywords blocked if they show up in a web page. Some filters even analyze pictures to block out a lot of flesh-toned images that could end up being considered pornographic. Needless to say, they are keen and catching a lot of content.

The problem with filters is that they aren’t smart enough to know when they’re differentiating between porn and what is not pornographic content. For example, this blog here mentions porn frequently, although it’s clear we are fighting a battle against pornography. We, however, get blocked from some of these filters. The Internet is too dynamic to be monitored by filters.

So, by blocking positive content, filters gain a reputation for being a moderately effective solution to the problem. In an article released in the Cybercast News Service today, libraries in Illinois decided to take a stand. After a resolution was passed to install filters in the community library computers a protest was set up in opposition. The arguments were that filters were ineffective and “filters end up blocking a lot of things that are perfectly legitimate and valuable”, according to adminstrative librarian Jane Schulten. 

As in many cases around this subject matter there are a valid points. Are filters a good enough resolution for this issue? Are the negative effects of either argument more serious than the other?

It is said that “The Internet is Good”

I was caught today reading a paper by Joseph Reagle at Harvard Law School about “Why the Internet is Good” in effort to gain a better perspective on the different points of view about governance. Seemingly, his thesis has a great deal of credibility that deserves some scholastic examination. As one who respects higher education, I wouldn’t dare refute his theories in their entirety. Rather I’d like to present some of the ideas as well as some of my own and put it in blog format. I’m not in Harvard law, but this is a blog and not a thesis paper. I won’t go into depth, I will simply extract a point I want to comment on and go from there.

As pointed out by Lessig [Less98a], there are in total four things that regulate cyberspace: laws (by government sanction and force), social norms (by expectation, encouragement, or embarrassment), markets (by price and availability), and architecture (what the technology permits, favors, dissuades, or prohibits). Interestingly, the social norm captured in the quotations above seems to side with its symbiotic partner, the dencentralized Internet architecture, and with the the laissez-faire market in order to challenge the power of law. Social norms, markets, and architectures do not always oppose law; however, in this instance, these memes challenge the authority of the government to control speech.

How compelling is this description. These four governing points of the Internet are deemed as self-regulating. Apparently the interchange that exists between these makes for the currently well regulated Internet we enjoy today. Idealistically this would all work perfectly. Reagle goes on to argue that government regulation of the Internet is inconsistent with social norms and that they don’t even go hand in hand, which is why there is a backlash against such issues.

Naturally so, people do not respond well when they are being controlled. So do arguments of Internet governance stop there? Is this solution going to solve any problems?

Well, there are some things that aren’t addressed by this theory.

First, not everyone agrees with this purported “social norm”. There is a large body of Internet users that are scared to get into the Internet for for various reasons. Many are afraid of identity theft, others porn, still others purely afraid of it’s intimidating and complicated nature. This Internet that is seen as the “people’s” Internet has so much power and credibility. However, not everyone is on board with the way it’s moving today. So, to call this style a social norm would be simply short sighted and biased.

Second, “social norms” don’t take into account moral norms. In our open, global communication world it seems that we try to take the lowest common denominator to accomodate everyone so that nobody is oppressed. However still today there are many who uphold their own moral standards against much of the content on the Internet. In multiple communities, the unbridled access to porn is not socially normal. If accessing porn on the Internet was a “social norm” why doesn’t the workplace allow you to browse porn on your free time like you browse sports scores?

Third, moral conservativism is no more oppresive than idealism bloated with good intentions. The idea of an Internet with total free flow of information is bound to get corrupt by the few who will ruin it for the masses. Where it’s just as “incorrect” to push moral viewpoints in order to constrain potentially negative material on the Internet, it’s equally as oppressive to flippantly dismiss the standards that people are trying to uphold for themselves and their families.

Frankly put, Internet pornography wouldn’t be this much of a hot button topic if it wasn’t widely seen as potentially harmful.

As scholars put their minds together to find out just how we can freely enjoy the power of the Internet, they are still confused at how to appease all parties. Solutions are out there, but no one seems to be willing to make the call on what’s “right” and what should be regulated.

In the meantime, as it stands there are some social norms that govern the Internet. The requirements of the people are catered to as long as markets prove needy, technology proves able, and laws prove to be generally kept. Unfortunately, “social norms” covers all manner of issues as a blanket and doesn’t address the facts as they may actually be. Until we can come up with an agreement on how to resolve this issue of Internet governance, some norms will be thrown under this blanket of “information thirst”. The demand of the people to gain more knowledge will always supersede the moral needs of the people.

This is why ” the Internet is good, but not complete.”

I started a Facebook group just the other day for Speak Up Project. I knew it would be a difficult thing to get others to sign on to. Asking people to declare a stance on something is no easy task. The problem is most people don’t really have a point of view about something in the first place, so they don’t want to be responsible for owning up to that.

I can respect that, and don’t expect others to associate themselves with what they don’t know. That’s where a call to education comes in.

You see, here at Speak Up, we’re talking about a problem. The problem isn’t that the Internet is free and full of information. The problem isn’t that we’re scared of that information attacking us and holding us hostage in world of robots and microchips. We’re not doomsdayists. We actually have a positive outlook.

The problem is that we’re trying to tell people that the bad of the Internet is linked to an issue of Internet governance. Many youth don’t even know what that is. They don’t know how it affects them. As long as they get online, get what they want, and get off then they are happy.

So then why are we so concerned? For a few reasons.

1. Pornography - Pornography is known to be destructive. Sure, there are people who are going to say that they enjoy it with their spouses, or it’s something they do just some of the time. However studies prove that it has some side effects that are detrimental.

• Broken homes and marriages - So many couples break up because of pornography. Many people who have problems are less apt to solve them and more apt to go to a quick fix for pleasure. Could it be called a drug? I look at it this way… would you be upset if your spouse was cheating on you and getting his/her pleasure with another human? Then why is it okay that they’re doing it with a computer? They are still going elsewhere for pleasure, not you. They still are building up in their mind a defense against facing life’s problems. Sometimes couples fight and argue… the ones who work it out usually find out they still love each other and are able to rekindle past romances.
• Degrading to women - In a society that’s so obsessed with trying to eradicate problems with discrimination and hatred, it appalls me that we are okay with pornography. I’ve seen countless accounts of women saying how embarrassing and degrading it is for them. How can we turn our head one way and fight for the right for women to be respected and honored and then conversely allow to have pornography in our homes?
• Porn destroys productivity, it’s in the stats - CP80’s site has some interesting stats up about how porn truly effects productivity beyond the personal life. It actually effects the professional life. Sorry, but read the stats.

So we’ve said before we don’t like to take a moral stance… I mean if you’re okay with all the things I mentioned before and pornography in your home is a green light.. then that’s another story. I guess we do have to retract our point and say that we think pornography does more harm than good.

2. Security - I read an interesting article about Internet security and how amazing it is that we just trust the Internet. We hear about Identity theft, robbery, hacking, etc. all the time. I also read about how terrorist organizations are proclaiming that the Internet is a cheap and easy tool to push their terrorist efforts. They’re not shy about that.

So when did a little security ever hurt us? All at the expense of some governance?

3. Protecting rights with government is more effective than not - History proves that trying to protect rights like free speech without something to govern those rights is fruitless. I don’t know why people seem to think the Internet is different. By turning a blind eye to the issues when they crop up because we want to be able to say and do what we want, we give in to oppressive material. What happens when the number of child pornographers and people into child pornography eventually outnumber the number of measures and people willing to resolve the issue? Do we just accept it at that point?

The Internet has some amazing content, all for our use. The progress with things like Web 2.0 and open source software is proving to be an essential tool in taking technology to the people. There are ways however to make things work more effectively. We don’t need to just let the Internet happen if it starts to prove dangerous.

My Facebook group has got a bit of attention, and people are sharing their views. I like that. I don’t care if they hate or love our ideas… I think the debate only gives way to finding a solution. I think that turning people’s minds on to the idea that the Internet needs more interaction will help feed the fire that organizations like ICANN know that they should be putting out.

Have you ever heard of Digg? If not, it’s about time you did.

Digg is a social news website that empowers users to choose the content they want to read. If you like a story, you “digg” it and it moves up the chain. Only the best stories make it to the top pages for each category. Digg has been a powerful tool for infogeeks and technophiles all over the world.

Over the last week, an individual had cracked the code put in HD-DVD players that decrypts the data. This means that software can now easily be written to circumvent copy protection digital rights management. The key was owned by the MPAA according to US law. Due to this, the key has been deemed as an illegal number. Despite all this, the key was published all over the Internet.

When the key was published, Digg users did everything in their power to distribute the key and promote it to the front page. It worked. DCMA takedown notices were issued to Digg and their users promptly demanding the keys to come down due to copyright infringement. Users did not abide and Digg was left in a difficult position.

A few days later, Digg founder Kevin Rose made a statement about the position they were forced into. To quote his words:

Today was an insane day. And as the founder of Digg, I just wanted to post my thoughts…

In building and shaping the site I’ve always tried to stay as hands on as possible. We’ve always given site moderation (digging/burying) power to the community. Occasionally we step in to remove stories that violate our terms of use (eg. linking to pornography, illegal downloads, racial hate sites, etc.). So today was a difficult day for us. We had to decide whether to remove stories containing a single code based on a cease and desist declaration. We had to make a call, and in our desire to avoid a scenario where Digg would be interrupted or shut down, we decided to comply and remove the stories with the code.

But now, after seeing hundreds of stories and reading thousands of comments, you’ve made it clear. You’d rather see Digg go down fighting than bow down to a bigger company. We hear you, and effective immediately we won’t delete stories or comments containing the code and will deal with whatever the consequences might be.

If we lose, then what the hell, at least we died trying.

Here’s an image of what the Digg pages looked like. Click here.

Digg decided not to err on the side of caution and listen to their users. As one of the top visited websites on the Internet, this move means so much for the pacing and direction of our Internet than we have seen in a long time. By giving in to the democracy of the issue, Digg users won over the law and Digg decided not to take down the stories with the HD-DVD key.

Today a story surfaced in the Times Online about the efforts being made to take legal action against bloggers who published the key. Bloggers on the Internet have been claiming that such a matter is an issue of free speech. Despite the legal implications they are fighting for their right to spread the information.

The matter is still unresolved, and people are finding more and more reasons to confront this issue. The question is, what really is free speech? When laws are being broken, and people are suffering at the hand of “free speech” what should happen? Does free speech receive a definition that’s all too liberally applied? It’s for us to decide.

An opinion piece in the Statesman Journal speaks up against the idea that Pornography is freedom of speech. Taking the stance that pornography is degrading and harmful, writer Robert Graves compels readers to assume that pornography is sexual exploitation, and the free distribution fuels negative self image and broken relationships.

“Traffic Control”, a documentary about the availbility of Internet porn, is announced for DVD release. This article from BusinessWire highlights quotes and information from the video. The CP80 Internet Channel Initiative is also featured as an option to regulate the Internet without infringing on free speech.

The US Courts scrapped the Child Online Protection Act on terms of violations of Free Speech. The ACLU argued that the act was too restrictive and infringed on these rights. Government lawyers pointed out that filters were ineffective and the problem was only perpetuated.