Speak Up Project

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

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.

The presentation of free media on the Internet that is controlled by users has been one of the most empowering innovations of the 21st century. In a sense, the promotion of public discourse through online media an awakening experience. Whether through reality television or viral video, Internet surfers are finding more and more entertainment and information that’s generated by their piers. This lack of filtering and editing in much of the media is a problem for some.
These “some” we’re talking about are foreign governments like those of Thailand. In an article put out yesterday by the International Herald Tribune, Thai officials are in a heated battle with YouTube about how to regulate the content that their citizens can access. Surfacing videos highlighting some anti-government propoganda are being accessed by the people of Thailand. The growing uneasiness has been spreading accross other boundaries as well, and different cultures are finding fault with the online video service’s unbridled access to content on the Internet.

There’s a moral conundrum shouting in the face of restraint here. It seems that everyone is terribly hands off about regulating the Internet for the sake of promoting total free speech. Who controls the Internet? What right do they have to that power?

What stands today is that ICANN indirectly controls the access to much of the Internet content that is causing this uproar. ICANN has the ability to control the structuring of the web. In its current state, domains and addresses are all available to users across the globe who get a dial up or more. The speedy pace of technology is making it more possible for youth and adults to access the web on their private devices.

By not taking any action at all, this freedom of information is proving to cause a serious problem in many different demographics of the world. People are claiming that this is a natural evolution. The anarchic qualities of the Internet give way to unparalelled progression. If those tools were to be bound into submission, then we would be robbing people of free speech.

However, the global attitude toward communication and free speech is not always in sync. Many countries frown upon the free distribution of pornographic content on the Internet. Other’s are uneasy at the public mocking of their civic leaders. By letting things like YouTube become a privately accessible forum for individuals to defy the standards set forth by the country they live in, hostilites toward the Internet grow.

The question is does this battle give way to solving a problem?

We’ll be exploring this topic and getting the voices of those who have been in this arena for a long time. What do they think? What are some of the solutions? Stick around to find out more.

Frankly it’s debatable that this term even truly holds weight. The truth is that there are a number of people out there who maintain that the Internet is completely decentralized. What controls the Internet, and who makes decisions about what happens on the Internet? Personally it sounds a bit like using the word organized anarchy to me.

Well, there actually is a governing body called ICANN. ICANN stands for “The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers”. What this means is that ICANN controls the technological organization of the Internet through managing the structure of addresses and ports. Here’s their Mission Statement taken from their site.

The mission of The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (”ICANN”) is to coordinate, at the overall level, the global Internet’s systems of unique identifiers, and in particular to ensure the stable and secure operation of the Internet’s unique identifier systems. In particular, ICANN:

1. Coordinates the allocation and assignment of the three sets of unique identifiers for the Internet, which are

a. Domain names (forming a system referred to as “DNS”);

b. Internet protocol (”IP”) addresses and autonomous system (”AS”) numbers; and

c. Protocol port and parameter numbers.

2. Coordinates the operation and evolution of the DNS root name server system.

3. Coordinates policy development reasonably and appropriately related to these technical functions.

On a basic level, this means that ICANN does not make policy based on the content of the Internet, but simply controls how it is all structured. This, in effect provides ICANN with power to make decisions based on content without taking responsibility for it. Is this fair?

Here’s my proposal. It’s important for each person to decide for themselves exactly what Internet Governance should be. Should there be a multi-national body that agrees on terms universally set? Should the Internet be completely chaotic? Is the Internet in a perfect state as-is? Whatever your ideas are, you must make a personal decision.

Governing the Internet with laws may make people feel like their information is getting restricted by a body of people who may not properly represent the true voice of the people. However complete Internet anarchy will not protect people from content that is harmful. What’s your stance?

Thinking about writing for this blog has taxed my mind unlike any other. Trying to strike a balance between prudence and honesty tends to sytematically cancel out most of the thought provoking ideas I come up with. It just tells me that maybe I shouldn’t be prudent, or perhaps honest.

Well, surely I will never let honesty suffer at the expense of prudence.

This blog will be about Internet governance, freedom of speech, freedom of information, the question about pornography on the Internet, the effects of communication without boundaries both good and bad, the exposure of those who “run” the Internet, and whatever else I deem as appropriately interesting and specifically pertaining to the matter.

This is your Internet, but as of right now you have no control and all the control in the world at the very same time.

You have no control because the haphazard way of regulating the internet gives way to a “hands-off” approach at protection. There are too many things that can be said without consequence. I think of a time one of my old room mates who served in Iraq decided to show me videos of people getting their heads blown off… as a joke. Where maybe his desensitized view of death made it humourous, I was bothered. I had to wonder, “how does this stuff make it online?

However, you have complete control because the Internet depends on you to thrive. The fact that I can start a blog like this, get people to read it, and generate opinions about what I do is purely indicative of the raw power that resides online. I can say something real personal, and if enough people take to it, it can become a standard. You have complete control because people will listen to you, sometimes to your expense.

The modern day thrust towards bigger, better, faster, and more is fed by the Internet. I will explore the ideas behind how this works. I will explore the different measures that are or are not being taken to protect us from letting the Internet get completely out of hand. I will reveal the strengths of the tools we have and expose their abilities to make us better. I will also try to point out its failures and weaknesses, and provide an option for solutions to allowing the information to take over the user.

I’m no expert, but I have a voice and I have the Internet. According to our standard today, that more than qualifies me to be an authority on these matters.