|
search / subscribe / upload / contact |
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
| RSS-Feed Depeschen |  |
|
|
||
|
||
Date: 1999-09-13
Internet Control: Rating, Filter, Strafverfolgung-.-. --.- -.-. --.- -.-. --.- -.-. --.- -.-. --.- -.-. --.- Internet/kontrolle: Rating, Filter, Strafverfolgung Zur am Sonntag zu Ende gegangenen Bertelsmann- Veranstaltung betreffend Internet Content Rating, Filtering, Strafverfolgung. E-Kommerz et al. zwei persönliche Kommentare von zwier E-Persönlichkeiten. Rigo Wenning ist ein Gründer von fitug.de, Esther Dyson ist die ehemalige Präsidentin der Electronic Frontier Foundation & arbeitet nunmehr für die gebeutelte Domain/vergabe/behörde ICANN -.-. --.- -.-. --.- -.-. --.- -.-. --.- -.-. --.- -.-. --.- Rigo Wenning [FITUG] Ich persönlich kann aus der Working-Group zur Strafverfolgung und zu Hotlines berichten. Die von Prof. Burkard und Prof. Sieber vorbereiteten Themenpapiere hatten es -selbst für einen Experten gesehen- in sich, in der Quantität aber auch in der Qualität ihrer Ausführungen. Die Diskussion war ziemlich schlapp. Michael Schneider hat die Diskussion geleitet und später in der Vollversammlung Bericht erstattet, der leider wenig mit unserer Diskussion zu tun hatte. Vielleicht wegen der schlappen Diskussion gab es interessante Äusserungen. Ich habe den Bundesanwalt in Sachen Radikal, Dr. Graf gefragt, ob sie den xs4all-Fall wiederholen würden. Antwort: Derzeit werde in diesem Fall noch ermittelt und es sei auch denkbar, dass in Zukunft die Blockierung bestimmter Inhalte verlangt werde. Ausserdem sei noch nicht sicher, ob die RADIKAL in den Niederlanden wirklich legal gewesen sei....... Also, ziehen wir uns warm an. Weiter interessant, dass Sieber entgegen der durch die Verwendung des Begriffes "clean internet" eher auf eine Durchsetzung eines konsensfähigen Minimums von ethischen und sozialen Dingen dringt. Thema war ebenfalls die Privatisierung von repressiven Aufgaben ohne eine entsprechende Garantie des Verfahrens und eine mangelnde Wirkung der Menschenrechtskonventionen in diesem Umfeld. Aus der Diskussion in der Vollversammlung dominieren folgende Eindrücke: Ira Magaziner hat eine der besten Reden gehalten, die ich von ihm je gehört habe. Er hat Europa davor gewarnt, dass durch die Bürokratisierung des Internet und die hohen Kosten für die lokalen Telefon-Verbindungen die Entwicklung so gebremst werden könnte, dass ein amerikanisches Übergewicht im Internet und eine Dominanz der amerikanischen Volkswirtschaft auf lange Zeit zementiert würde. Die heutige Technik-Feindlichkeit der Europäer werde sie in der Zukunft unter Umständen ihre derzeitige Stellung in der Weltwirtschaft kosten können. Als Gesamteindruck bleibt, dass die Vielzahl der Erwartungen der verschiedenen beteiligten Gruppen eine Klarheit der Diskussion von vorneherein verhindert hat. Es wurden die Unterstützung der Strafverfolgung mit einer Regulierung der Anbieter im Bereich Jugendschutz und mit der Problematik der grenzüberschreitenden Datenflüsse zu einem kaum mehr zu verdauenden Cocktail vermischt. Im Gefolge der Konferenz konnte aus diesem Cocktail dann jeder publizistisch seinen eigenen Lieblingsgeschmack als Ergebnis hervorzaubern. Das allerwichtigste Ergebnis der Konferenz bleibt dabei unerwähnt: Die Beteiligten reden miteinander, wenn auch die Stimme der User nur dünn zum Vorschein trat. Rigo Wenning Institut für Rechtsinformatik Saarbrücken http://www.jura.uni-sb.de/ Förderverein Informationstechnik und Gesellschaft http://www.fitug.de/ mail: [email protected] -.-. --.- -.-. --.- -.-. --.- -.-. --.- -.-. --.- -.-. --.- Esther Dyson [ICANN] Response to Bertelsmann Foundation memo This response is my personal reaction to the Bertelsmann Foundation Memorandum on "Self-Regulation on the Internet." I applaud the Foundation's attempts to deal with a tough issue, and this response is intended helpfully, not destructively. Like it or not, many forces want to "regulate the Net," whatever that means, and "self" regulation is probably better than regulation by some "non-self" authority. However, it's not clear who the "self" is to be in this case. Overall, the document leaves me feeling distinctly queasy. So much of it defers details for implementation later. Such and such must be done: Who will do it? Illegal content: Sure, we're all against illegal content, but who decides what is illegal? There are too many questions left open to be answered by some legitimate authority later on. The basic problem is that the group is attempting to come up with a global solution, topdown. But the nature of the world is that it is a collection of sometimes interacting communities, not a single global administration to be governed top-down. In some spheres there is need for coordination and collaboration, but it does not necessarily need to be governed globally. Of course, the idea is that the system for Net content regulation would be run by well-meaning, enlightened individuals who know what is best for everyone. But what happened to the notion that people know what is best for themselves and their children? What happened to regulation by citizens themselves of the content they choose for themselves or their children, rather than regulation by a "self" of industry entities beholden to their gov ernments? The document proposes the creation of a full, broadly integrated set of institutions that can "protect" us all from the problem of illegal content. I fear that we will end up with a worldwide bureaucracy always forced to take the "safe" route, calling for the removal of questionable content. ISPs are properly relieved of responsibility for actions against their customers; let the worldwide content-rating system take the heat. It will take the heat, and dismiss it, because after all it is protecting the public, and a few mistakes here and there are inevitable. Now let me consider some details. Illegal content What is illegal content? Throughout the document, the writers (not named) refer to "illlegal content such as child pornography." If there is any content other than child pornography that they think should be illegal, the authors should have the courage to specify what they mean. They make one broader reference: " .racist and discriminatory web sites, child pornography material exchanged in certain newsgroups and chatrooms and 'how to'-gui des on terrorist activity are too disturbing to ignore. Mechanisms have to be developed to deal with illegal content, to protect children online as well as free speech." But that is all. Later, there is some expectation that "illegality" of content will be determined in the home territory of the publishing Website, and will be taken down in accordance with that territory's laws - and presumably by its law -enforcement officials. But in the world of the Internet, with mirror sites, anonymous e-mail and the like, this may not be feasible - fortunately! The proposed rating system The proposed rating system, with its three layers, is nicely designed. The idea is to encourage sites to rate themselves, using some common vocabulary, and then to encourage second parties to create rating "templates" wi th combinations of various metrics and that vocabulary to reflect their values. Finally, a third set of raters should make specific whitelists of acceptable sites - acceptable to children, mostly - beyond the more abstrac t criteria of the second layer. In theory, that neatly eliminates the value issue from self-rating. However: First, in the more detailed rating section, the authors propose that the vocabulary be created by an international group of experts of high integrity: "In addition to experts on civil liberties and Internet polic y, the board should include social scientists who can advise about what kinds of content are more and less harmful to children." What are these social scientists doing defining a value-free vocabulary? Surely they belong only in the second layer. Second, a global vocabulary is inherently limiting and too constrained. It's a matter of emphasis, but the value is in the third layer, where people make editorial choices. Otherwise, where's the appreciation of quality, of a sense of humor, respect for the truth? Surely children need to be protected from bland junk as well as from trashy or harmful junk. Moreover, the focus on protecting children seems excessive. Perhaps it is this focus that makes the idea of almost universal filtering politically palatable. Surely people will have other motivations for filtering, but th ey might not want to use a filtering system as blunt as this one. Personally, I'd like to see a rating system for truthfulness, for disclosure of advertising relationships, for bias, for political leaning, for assumed au dience. (Is the site for techies or for consumers?) At least there's a provision that unrated sites would not automatically be excluded by most filters. Child pornography vs. children viewing pornography The report seems to gloss over the distinction between child pornography, a legal term that connotes the use of children in pornography, which is (almost) universally illegal. This generally involves abuse of actual children, and content on the Net is evidence of the actual abuse of children. This is quite different from the viewing of pornography (on or off the Net) by children, which is almost certainly harmful in excess (like almost anything in excess) but is quite a different matter. Privacy issues I also have some concerns over the report's attitude to privacy protection - and implicitly, to anonymity. It is important to catch criminals, but we need to maintain a balance among society's various needs. There is a suggestion that the Internet industry (broadly defined) should "tak[e] all commercially reasonable steps to verify the identity of subscribers, while protecting subscribers' privacy." That does not seem to be necessary: Abusers can be shut off without their identities being known; persistent abusers will eventually become identifiable. Constructive criticism So what are alternative, positive approaches? First of all, private groups such as the Bertelsmann Foundation are doing the right thing by getting involved in this debate. They should raise people's awareness of the issues and encourage them to think for themselves - and to pick content for themselves and to offer content-rating services or choices to others. Bertelsmann should encourage private groups and companies to develop and promote rating services, not just for porn or violence, but for quality, advertising disclosure, data-collection-and-use practices, and the like. These services, like many services designed to "solve problems," are a huge business opportunity. Bertelsmann should also encourage widespread consumer- education campaigns, led not just by foundations and governments, but also by companies (known as "advertising"). Just as consumers look for price, nutritional information, fabric content, care instructions, warranties and and other information on products, so should they be encouraged to look for similar meta-information on Websites. In short, let's look at the role that informed, empowered citizens can play in keeping the Net a place they want to live in. -- Esther Dyson Always make new mistakes! chairman, EDventure Holdings interim chairman, Internet Corp. for Assigned Names & Numbers [email protected] -.- -.-. --.- Jetzt erst recht! 1000 Sonnen - das Musical zur Wahl heiter, sauber, ordentlich DrezninMusik MoechelBuch PoschRegie Premiere 10. September http://1000Sonnen.heimatseite.com/ -.-. --.- -.-. --.- -.-. --.- -.-. --.- -.-. --.- -.-. --.- - -.-. --.- -.-. --.- -.-. --.- -.-. --.- -.-. --.- -.-. --.- edited by Harkank published on: 1999-09-13 comments to [email protected] subscribe Newsletter - -.-. --.- -.-. --.- -.-. --.- -.-. --.- -.-. --.- -.-. --.- 
|
|
|
 |
CURRENTLY RUNNING |
q/Talk 1.Juli: The Danger of Software Users Don't Control
|
|
|
!WATCH OUT! |
bits4free 14.Juli 2011: OpenStreetMap Erfinder Steve Coast live in Wien
|
|