The 463: Inside Tech Policy

Aussie Aussie Aussie Oye Oye.... Oy Vey

As we warned on the second day of this year, even a change in government was unlikely to stem the Australian momentum for a national Web filtering implementation. Though, back then, it seemed as if it may be easy to opt-out. A story today from the Herald Sun suggests otherwise:

Australia will join China in implementing mandatory censoring of the internet under plans put forward by the Federal Government....

The government has declared it will not let internet users opt out of the proposed national internet filter.

The plan was first created as a way to combat child pronography and adult content, but could be extended to include controversial websites on euthanasia or anorexia.

Communications minister Stephen Conroy revealed the mandatory censorship to the Senate estimates committee as the Global Network Initiative, bringing together leading companies, human rights organisations, academics and investors, committed the technology firms to "protect the freedom of expression and privacy rights of their users".

Mr Conroy said trials were yet to be carried out, but 'we are talking about mandatory blocking, where possible, of illegal material.'

The Australian reports on the technical hurdles to this plan...

But System Administrators Guild of Australia president Donna Ashelford said the plan was deeply flawed and would slow internet access down by about 30 per cent according to the Government's own laboratory trials.

Despite this, the national web filter would only censor web content, Ms Ashelford said, and could not deal with the remaining 60 per cent of internet traffic, much of which occurred over peer-to-peer networks such as BitTorrent and LimeWire.

"The bulk of internet traffic is over peer-to-peer networks and the bulk of illegal content is trafficked is over peer-to-peer networks," she said. "There is no choke point at which they can block that material. I do not believe this is an issue that has a technical solution."

Then you get into the ethical issues. From one ISP CEO....

Malone is concerned both of the last two Federal Government's posturing on 'making the internet safe' might be the first step in a path towards censorship.

"I do worry that this is the thin edge of the wedge," he said. "That the Government will come in with a small list of sites for the ISP to block, and that just includes the real stuff that everyone agrees on like child porn and bestiality. So we say, OK we are willing to comply with that. But it becomes an area then that can be used for so much more. So you might see the next step is an attempt to block out XXX sites or hate speech sites, and you think, OK maybe we can live with that [too]."

"But then after that it could be to block out competing political positions or to block out sites about religion or sexual orientation that the Government says is no longer suitable for children in Australia."

All this negativity (commons sense?) is seemingly having an impact. While one wonders where they were when this plan was being talked about last year and into this year, some opposition politicians are beginning to publicly come out against it. Today, the Australian wrote:

A headline-grabbing election promise to crack down on internet nasties looks to be in trouble as Senate opposition grows.

As part of its election-winning pitch, the Rudd Government promised families far-reaching measures to block prohibited content at the internet server level. It now faces a concerted backlash against the proposal by the internet industry.

The Greens have added their voice to Coalition concerns about the plan, with the Greens' communications spokesman calling the proposal "daft".

If the Liberals block legislation imposing server-level filtering, the Government will need the support of the Greens, Family First senator Steve Fielding and South Australian senator Nick Xenophon.

And, when your best defense is that you are NOT China or Saudi Arabia, you perhaps don't have the best political footing. From the same Australian piece:

Communications Minister Stephen Conroy has launched a strong defence of the policy, hitting back at claims by the internet industry that the Government wants a sweeping ban on controversial content.

"I will accept some debate around what should and should not be on the internet - I am not a wowser," Senator Conroy told The Age. "I am not looking to blanket-ban some of the material that it is being claimed I want to blanket-ban, but some material online, such as child pornography, is illegal."

In response to arguments that the proposal would affect basic civil liberties and the principle that households should be able to be their own internet policeman, he said: "We are not trying to build the Great Wall of China.

"We are not trying to be Saudi Arabia, and to say that is to simply misrepresent the Government's position.

Cord Blomquist at TLF wonders if the US in line to have this debate. But, in my opinion, the post makes some pretty big, tangential leaps on what a potential Obama or McCain administration would do. The potential slippery slope of the Child Safe Viewing Act seems like a more apt point to raise eyebrows at.

The Queen of YouTube

Queen Rania of Jordan wins The 463's award for Most Interesting Use of YouTube to Break Down Stereotypes and International Misunderstandings. I'm sure she will be so proud.

Global Voices tipped me to the Queen's effort that has been going on since the spring and has received millions of viewers.

Here is the first video:

And, here is a recent one that uses Arab comedians to make a point...

Live by the Net; Die by the Net; Cast Revenge on the Net

What if Barack Obama is sprung into office partially through the power of Internet donations to his campaign and his ability to inspire a new generation of voters to vote via social networking tools? Yet, he comes into office bitter about the lies bandied about on the Web in chain mails about his religious background and patriotic beliefs -- so bitter that he decides to push for regulation of Web-based opinions and news?

This isn't an exact corollary to what is happening now in the good democratic country of South Korea, but it is not that far from it.

There, the relatively new government was greatly assisted by the country's Web savvy voters when it won it's election five months ago. But, those unintended consequences of the Internet came back to bite the government on its flank when it was the delivery mechanism for hysterical fears of rampant Mad Cow disease after the government began to accept American beef back into the country. This then manifested itself in massive street protests (see below) against the government that have its popularity to Bushian-levels.

Now comes the attempt to put the genie back in the bottle....

...the newly elected South Korean conservative government, led by Lee Myung-bak, has unveiled a package of reforms and laws aimed at curbing some of what it claims is the outrageously libellous commentary and ungrounded scaremongering found online.

Lee Han-ki, the OhmyNews editor-in-chief, told MediaGuardian.co.uk: "The proposed legislation will not only hinder free speech by Korean netizens but seems to be aimed at controlling the public opinion of internet news media.

"Such measures would not help to promote the democratic development of the Korean press and could end up turning back the internet clock in Korea."

Should Lee's new Seoul government get its way, new laws would allow any internet company publishing news stories to be regulated in the same way as journalistic organisations.

All forum and chatroom users will be required to make verifiable real-name registrations.

Internet companies will have to make public their search algorithm to improve "transparency". And, most controversial of all, regulatory body the Korea Communications Commission will be given powers to immediately suspend the publishing of articles found to be fraudulent or slanderous for a minimum of 30 days. (Guardian UK)

An Internet-Sized Unintended Consequence

I'm an Internet cheerleader. It's a massive democratizing force. It's an efficiency machine. It creates untold economic opportunity. Sis Boom Bah.

Boo Nicholas Carr. Hiss Andrew Keen.

But, sometimes, it's important to recognize when the organic nature of the Internet creates dynamics that we wish weren't so...

Lots has been said about how the power of the Internet will eventually break down old barriers in regimes where democracy isn't a way of life. And, much faith has been put in the hands of young people to use the Web to tear down walls. In fact, this is a rational for why American companies put up with censorship in places like China. The idea is that a taste of unfettered communication will eventually push a people to demand minimal restrictions on speech, and this will eventually have a bubbling-up effect of creating a more perfect open, capitalistic and representative society. I happen to agree with this. Still.

Yet, societal transformations aren't always pretty and don't happen in black and white.

For example, what happens if this great Internet makes a good portion of said young people more closed to a world and less willing to embrace Western ideologies? Or, simply, what if the great democratizing tool lessens the appetite for the kind of democracy that you prefer?

A fascinating recent New Yorker piece examined these questions as it went behind the scenes of the creation of this video below...

"On the morning of April 15th, a short video entitled “2008 China Stand Up!” appeared on Sina, a Chinese Web site. The video’s origin was a mystery: unlike the usual YouTube-style clips, it had no host, no narrator, and no signature except the initials “CTGZ.'”...

...The video, which was just over six minutes long and is now on YouTube, captured the mood of nationalism that surged through China after the Tibetan uprising, in March, sparked foreign criticism of China’s hosting of the 2008 Summer Olympics. Citizens were greeting the criticism with rare fury...."

...In its first week and a half, the video by CTGZ drew more than a million hits and tens of thousands of favorable comments. It rose to the site’s fourth-most-popular rating. (A television blooper clip of a yawning news anchor was No. 1.) On average, the film attracted nearly two clicks per second. It became a manifesto for a self-styled vanguard in defense of China’s honor, a patriotic swath of society that the Chinese call the fen qing, the angry youth."

The story traces the video to a well-educated and soft-spoken graduate student who has a better grasp of Western ideology and philosophy than most Americans, Germans or Brits. The fact is that he can easily circumvent state-driven censorship and this doesn't fuel him to question his country. It, instead, makes him defend it even more. (Of censorship, the student says "because we are in such a system [of media censorship], we are always asking ourselves whether we are brainwashed, but when you are in a so-called free system you never think about whether you are brainwashed.")

Many of those who are older than "the angry youth" in China either regret that they don't understand the purpose of protests like Tiannemen Square or are fearful of the intensity of their feelings (indeed, as one Chinese blogger who admired the NYer article wrote: It was the Communists who repressed patriotism). Yet, the 105 million under 30-year-old Internet users in China hold the power over the impact of the technology in their country in the coming decades -- for better or for worse.

UPDATE: Kevin Donovan thankfully wrote in below and alerted me to a post that he did on this very same New Yorker article. His comments from his interesting new-ish blog that I will soon put in the blog roll here ....

The instantaneous, global spread of ideas is unprecedented in human history. Sure, the Silk Road is a fascinating example of the globalization of products and diseases; even a few ideas made the journey. Sure, by some measures the world was just as globalized prior to WWI. But the scale and extent of the current global information society dwarfs historical comparisons. For the first time in history, ordinary citizens have the capabilities to connect across the globe to people of wildly different backgrounds, histories and interests. It was supposed to be a sovereign realm unto itself where “governments of the industrial world… have no sovereignty.” Nationalism was supposed to disappear, to dwell in history with the horrific wars and conflicts it supported.

The reality, is quite different. The Economist notes that, “the very people whom the Internet might have liberated from the shackles of state-sponsored ideologies—are using the wonders of electronics to stoke hatred between countries, races or religions.” How can these painful distortions of humanity be limited in the digital realm? The answer, of course, isn’t clear, but my intuition is that it will not depend on hardware or software. A future free from conflict - digital and physical - will be paved by breaking down the cultural differences and coming to understand the reasons for differences of opinion.

That referenced July Economist piece was titled "The Brave New World of E-Hatred -- Social networks and video-sharing sites don’t always bring people closer together".

An African, a Mongolian and a Beijing Cop Walk into a Bar...

A South China Morning Post story (reg. required) yesterday made a claim that:

Bar owners near the Workers' Stadium in central Beijing say they have been forced by Public Security Bureau officials to sign pledges agreeing not to let black people enter their premises.

"Uniformed Public Security Bureau officers came into the bar recently and told me not to serve black people or Mongolians," said the co-owner of a western-style bar, who asked not to be named.

The story since spread across the globe and has been harumphed by many a Western blogger, DIgg contributer and message board commentator.

I've never been to Asia -- let alone the Beijing club scene -- so I really have no qualification to speak to the truth of the charges. But, my guess is that while when there is smoke, there is some fire. However, it's also entirely possible that a reporter could have blurred the actions of a few overly-proactive officers with official policy.

But, the realities of the SCMP story isn't the point of this post. Rather, it's the reaction inside of China by bloggers and blog commentator that have, within hours, effectively "crowd sourced" the charge and countered it with their own research and perspectives. (And, granted, I'm obviously limited to English language posts). Check out this one. And, here's one blogger who writes exclusively on the Beijing bar scene:

A second update on the South China Morning Post story that claims Beijing is “secretly” trying to ban blacks and Mongolians from bars during the Olympics.

I hit some Sanlitun bars last night and made some phone calls today, and this is what I found:

- An owner said police met with Sanlitun bar reps and told them to monitor black patrons. He said the police told the reps that drug dealers are predominantly black in the area. He said the police did not ask bar owners to ban blacks.

- Several Sanlitun area bar owners said they had not been told by police to ban blacks or Mongolians.

- I also spoke to several people in the restaurant business and they told me they have not heard of police telling city eateries to ban people.

- Most interesting, two people working at one bar had different perspectives on the terminology used by the police. One said the police used “black” in reference to skin color; while the other said it was used in terms of bad elements (the Chinese character for “black” is part of a phrase used to describe criminals).

Bloggers/commentators have called out the credibility of the SCMP story and have underscored how educated, tech savvy folks inside of China are probably the country's most credible counterweights to Western media (and Icelandic singers) that are perceived as blowing internal issues out of proportion in the lead up to the Olympics. I mean, who would have thunk that a dude who writes about where to find the best whisky bar in Beijing, might contribute to taking the air out of a potential International Incident?

This naturally presents the question of whether the powers that be within China will reward this unprompted support and begin to loosen controls on social networking tools and services (i.e., YouTube, Facebook, 56.com, etc.). I'm reminded of when Thailand temporarily banned YouTube because of one negative video about their and, by doing so, effectively took down reams of homemade and heartfelt propaganda about their great leader.

Of course, odd policy considerations about social media aren't limited to Asia. MediaShift wrote yesterday of one EU Parliament member (from the supposedly ultra-tech savvy country of Estonia) who wants to create a blogger registry...

...in an article on the European Parliament’s website, the intentions behind Mikko’s recommendations became clear:

Ms. Mikko told us “the blogosphere has so far been a haven of good intentions and relatively honest dealing. However, with blogs becoming commonplace, less principled people will want to use them.”

Mikko goes on:

We do not see bloggers as a threat. They are in position, however, to considerably pollute cyberspace. We already have too much spam, misinformation and malicious intent in cyberspace…I think the public is still very trusting towards blogs, it is still seen as sincere. And it should remain sincere. For that we need a quality mark, a disclosure of who is really writing and why.

The conclusion to be drawn from the report recommendations and Mikko’s later comments is that legislation should be put in place to identify bloggers and the “quality” of their writing lest they be used to harm cyberspace.

(photo by tao_Guangzhou)

A European Perspective on the YouTube/Viacom Privacy Imbroglio

A US judge orders that Google provide full access to YouTube user data to Viacom, an Irish reporter reacts....

The EU is currently arguing that IP addresses should be considered personal information and fall under data protection regulation. However, the Viacom case is showing that, as privacy advocates have been arguing, this may mean zilch in real terms.

Once EU users access a service, their details can be stored on servers anywhere in the world and the provenance of those details, in legal terms, becomes murky. Yes, they may be data theoretically protected under EU law but in practicality - as with the Google data - once those details are on US or other servers and demanded under US law for a case that has nothing directly to do with Europeans, it is going to be handed over despite EU protestations - if any.

If the data is, rightly or wrongly, so easily surrendered for a mere commercial case (and some prominent US privacy lawyers argue the Viacom judge was wrong to do so), then one can imagine the ease with which law enforcement might get hold of similarly highly revealing information.

All of which begs the question: what does online privacy really mean? Are EU data safeguards just political window dressing and if so, how can our privacy be better protected, as so many aspects of our private lives move inexorably online?

Regulate YouTube to Save the Australian Idol

Follow along please....

A prominent Australian recognizes that "consumers are demanding more extensive online, video-based entertainment" and that "we are the 'what, when and how we want it' generation."

He then says that require circa-1960s rules that require that 55 per cent of all programs broadcast on free-to-air TV between 6pm and midnight to be Australian are outdated.

The punch-line has to be that he views the TV content content rules as so archaic in a networked world that they should be struck down?

Wrong.

Instead, he is calling for these types of "Made in Australia" rules to be extended to the Internet.

Oh, and I suppose it is relevant that the man making this pronouncement is the head of the Australian public television network -- ABC-TV.

Seems that Kim Dalton believes:

"It is likely that existing regulatory arrangements to deliver local drama, documentaries, comedy, children's, news, current affairs and other programming may have diminishing effects on the market as the existing business models of broadcasters are challenged and the content offered becomes, increasingly, foreign.

"It is time to reassess and reshape the Australian content policy framework.

"By making new connections between the previously distinct fields of communications, media and cultural policy, the Government can address the issue ofensuring Australian content ismade available in the digital environment."

What happened to consumers getting what they want, when they want?

After all, Australian TV viewers consistently watch Desperate Housewives, Lost, CSI and Law & Order more than most any homegrown products. And, the most popular locally produced shows are generally bastardizations of American or European created shows like Australian Idol, the Australian Big Brother and Who Wants to Be a Millionaire.

Nothing wrong with that. But, pretending that you are going to save Australian culture by getting government involved to force people to watch your network's programming on all mediums is a bit, uh, problematic.

Fortunately, the reaction in Australia was not positive.

Today, The Australian ran reactions. Here is one...

John Lindsay, the carrier relations manager for Internode -- one of the country's largest internet service providers -- said the call was hypocritical.

"This used to be the same Australian media industry that refused to make Australian TV available online," Mr Lindsay said. "You can't regulate it. It connects everyone to everyone. Are they really going to stop people watching YouTube and CNN?"

He said attempts to try to restrain or direct people's use of the internet would be met with fierce resistance by consumers.

U2, I Mean, YouTube Now Faces Political Speech Regulation in Brazil

....and so does any other Internet publisher big or small that publishes political content.

According to a blog round-up on the excellent Global Voices, the top election law body in Brazil has created a legal environment where:

Broadcasting of any political propaganda on the Internet, radio or television - including, among others, community radio stations and television channels operating in UHF, VHF and by subscription - and, besides, rallies or public meetings are prohibited, from 48 hours before through 24 hours after the election.

This means that a blogger might need to black out a post advocating a candidate two days prior to election day. It means that questions over whether YouTube, for example, would be responsible to pull all Brazilian election content would be raised.

And, speaking of YouTube, just to get a sense of the Internet reading level that the Brazilian ministers were operating under, the Global Voices post translates the words of a Brazilian judge writing about the opinion:

As I heard the arguments being presented, I was increasingly surprised in face of the ministers' lack of knowledge to understand what the Internet is. It seemed - and this impression was very strong - that they did not know what they were talking about. To get an idea, Youtube was turned into U2.

Ultimately, this lack of understanding led to a confused opinion:

In the end, the decision was a clear sample that they did not know what they were deciding right then. It was decided that to the extent that problems arise, they would be dealt with, case by case. This is great for lawyers and too bad for voters, who are left with a Sword of Damocles hanging over their heads without knowing what they can and can not do.

I've said it before: The Internet has created the greatest generational divide since Rock 'n' Roll. This borderless divide has also proven that cultures of all stripes have the ability to enact profoundly counterproductive (and technically impossible) rules that increase the chasm between both sides.

The Egyptian Facebook "Revolution"

General Al Jazeera story on the protests

Jack Fairweather of Islam's Advance (Newsweek/WaPo) writes a fascinating post on the role of Facebook in organizing recent protests in Egypt. He notes that the social network has engaged young moderates and liberals in the type of political activity previously reserved for Islamists. The piece also suggests that the impact of the social network might be overblown thus far. Of course, that could be true, but, then again, could you imagine reading an article like this two or three years ago?

A excerpt:

When most people log onto Facebook, the thought of fermenting revolution is pretty far from their minds. But in the Middle East, and most recently in Egypt, Facebook has become an important platform for dissent in countries that routinely clampdown on liberal activists, and where the mosque has traditionally been the only outlet for venting political frustration.

Last month saw the arrest of Esra Abdel Fattah, 27, after she formed a group on Facebook calling for protests against the high price of food and other commodities in Egypt. Strike action was already planned by factory workers in the Nile Delta city of Mahalla al-Kobra, and the Facebook group, which attracted 64,000 members, tapped into a national mood of unrest. During Fattah’s incarceration, police clashed with protestors in Mahalla, killing three; some 500 people were detained.

By the time Egyptian police freed her two weeks ago, Fattah, an active online activist and member of the liberal al-Ghad political party, had become something of a cyber folk hero, feted by Middle Eastern bloggers and tech-minded students.

Singapore Regulation and a Japanese Update

Singapore is currently considering how to best regulate Internet content and have asked a group of 15 bloggers to help them formulate a framework.  From TodayOnline:

An open letter on proposed changes to Internet regulation will soon be sent to the Ministry of Information, Community and the Arts (Mica) by a group of 15 bloggers.

Their proposals include the setting up of an Internet consultative committee for the free and responsible use of digital media, and for rules governing speech to be the same across media platforms...

...The "platform-neutral" regulations should also be as minimal as those regulating the "current freest platform", which they believe to be film.

Nice gesture.  But, of course, whether buttoned-downed Singaporean government listens to the bloggers is a whole other story.

Now, if the Japanese government listens to 91 percent of the public there, "harmful" Internet content will be shielded from those under 18-years-old.  We wrote up a piece on the Japanese march toward content regulation earlier this month.  Today, the Daily Yomiuri provides a update and broaches the white elephant in the regulation...

At a meeting on April 11 of the LDP General Council's committee on countermeasures against illegal and harmful information, many members questioned the advisability of allowing the government to get involved in vetting information on the Internet.

"People have different views about what is and isn't harmful," one committee member said.

Unlike judgments on explicitly illegal information, such as instigating murder or the use of narcotics or stimulants, distinguishing between "wholesome" and "harmful" information can be difficult.

Indeed, but it seems like they are still going to try.