The 463: Inside Tech

Global Voices & Japan's Turn to Protect the Children

463 does a little project work with the Harvard Law Berkman Center for Internet & Society, but I somehow had missed running across a fascinating project of theirs called Global Voices. It's a "non-profit global citizens’ media project." Or, in other words, it's an easy way to read aggregated perspectives of sharp bloggers from places other than North America and Western Europe that you wouldn't otherwise be able to find or understand.

For example, as I write this, the home page features summaries of home-baked blog coverage of Ecuadorian Internet security and privacy concerns; opinions on the current state of affairs in Iraq; and, reports of social networking-fueled strikes in Egypt over pocketbook issues. Super interesting stuff.

What grabbed me most, though, was a thorough summary of Japanese blogger opinion on the all-too-familiar Internet content regulatory creep.

The post by Chris Salzburg explains that the two leading political parties are currently trying to out do each other with legislation aimed to regulate Internet content deemed "harmful" to minors. Moreover, despite mainstream coverage of earlier moves by Japanese officials to filter mobile content to minors and top news sites, the bloggers say that, inexplicably, there seems to be far too little attention being paid to how severe the new potential regulations could become...

Japanese bloggers have been making noise the past few days [ja] in reaction to two separate bills, submitted first by the ruling Liberal Democratic Party of Japan (LDP) and next by the leading opposition Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ), each aiming, in apparently similar ways, to legislate regulation over Internet content deemed to be “harmful” to minors (users under age 18).

On March 19th, LDP Diet Member Takaichi Sanae submitted a bill to a government panel to legislate the “prevention of browsing on the Internet of information harmful to young people” in an attempt to maintain the “sound upbringing of young people”. Shortly thereafter on April 2nd, Diet Member Takai Miho of the Democratic Party submitted a bill with the aim to create an environment that “makes it possible for children to safely use the Internet”. According to bloggers, the bills go significantly further than earlier legislation introduced late last year, which mandated default filtering on mobile phones for minors. Nonetheless, aside from a single article in Asahi shimbun [ja] on the topic, the two bills appear to have been granted no mainstream media attention.

The bills follow on a recent trend of increasing moves toward regulation of the Internet in Japan, but according to bloggers, this time Diet Members Takaichi and Takai are going significantly further — and advancing legislation significantly faster — than in the case of earlier proposals.

Global Voices notes that one blogger raises obvious big issue in the proposed regulation:

First of all, the definition of “information harmful to young people” covers a broad range, and there are many vague expressions like “something that causes …” and “something that poses a danger of …” that can be interpreted at the discretion of the “Committee on the Promotion of Sound Upbringing of Young People"

Check out the post for more classic good intentions; really bad application of law.

(Photo by nolando)

Dem FCC Chair Guessing Game

The good and connected Brooks Boliek at the Hollywood Reporter makes some educated guesses on who the next FCC Chair would be if either Senators Clinton or Obama are elected president.

For Clinton, Boliek hears that...

Susan Ness is the name bandied about among the tele-cognesceti. Ness, a former commissioner, has strong ties to the Clintons. She was a fundraiser and former campaign worker for President Clinton and has continued in that role actively campaigning for the senator. She has been named a "Hill Raiser" for raising more than $100,000 for Clinton and has been active in her campaign.

As for Obama...

...his campaign and Senate staffs are dotted with people who have close ties to the FCC. Connecting those dots, however, is Julius Genachowski, a former aide to Hundt and Kennard and a close friend of Obama's since they attended Harvard Law School....

Aside from commission experience, Genachowski was an executive at Barry Diller's IAC/InterActiveCorp. and a managing director at digital media specialist Rock Creek Ventures and is a special adviser to the private-equity group General Atlantic. (Ed note: Genachowski was Obama's representative at this year's Congressional Internet Caucus conference.)

"He got a lot of people interested in him early on," said Blair Levin, an analyst with Stifel Nicolaus who was a top adviser to Hundt. "There are a lot of people there that would be terrific choices, just as there are in the other campaigns."

Levin has also been mentioned as a possibility, but he dodged the question when asked if he wanted the job.

Boliek also mentions: Obama policy director Karen Kornbluh, who also worked at the commission under Hundt and Kennard; Don Gipps, an FCC veteran who was former Vice President Al Gore's domestic policy adviser and is now a top executive at Level 3; and, Larry Stcikling, a former chief of the FCC Common Carrier Bureau and an Obama campaign worker.

Add Pakistan to the List

YouTube is banned "till further orders"....

The Pakistan Telecommunication Authority (PTA) told the country's 70 Internet service providers Friday that the popular website would be blocked until further notice, the Associated Press reports.

The authority did not specify what the offensive material was, but a PTA official said the ban concerned a movie trailer for an upcoming film by Dutch lawmaker Geert Wilders, who has said he plans to release an anti-Koran movie portraying the religion as fascist and prone to inciting violence against women and homosexuals.

Even better, this move apparently cut off traffic to the video site for a mere two-thirds of the world.

Seemingly, this is not part of Pakistan's recent hire of a US PR firm to "polish its image".

UPDATE: One day later, the ban is lifted.

Johnny Watches "The L Word"; Mommy and Daddy Get a Fine

Adam Thierer at PFF and The Center for Democracy & Technology's Sophia Cope got hold of a two-year-old transcript of a panel discussion at the National Lawyers Convention.

No.... Wait!  Come back.  This is actually interesting.

Included in the debate is a little ditty by FCC Chairman Martin who throws out the idea that parents might be liable for their kids consuming "indecent" material.  How indecent?  The conversation at that point was centered on satellite radio "shock jocks."  And, previously, the parent liability issue is first raised by a "Morality in Media" rep who want to protect kids from HBO and Showtime.

Even if you assume that Martin's comment was made in the spirit of rhetorical legal debate (as I do), the suggestion is still note worthy enough.

Thierer says:

In a free society, public officials should not act in loco parentis when parents have the power to make media decisions on their own. Raising children, and determining what they watch, play, read, listen to, or download, is a quintessential parental responsibility. We should leave it that way and keep the threat of criminal sanctions for poor parental judgment out of the discussion.

And Cope raises the ante...

(Martin) seems to imply that the government should have the authority to regulate content at any cost, regardless of how burdensome the government’s chosen method is on the right to freedom of speech. We should expect more responsible rhetoric from a public leader who has such immense power to affect a fundamental liberty.

Not to pile on here (seems pretty unnecessary), but it's trial balloons like these that make people get apoplectic about seemingly innocuous pieces of legislation that might allow the FCC to tip their toe into Internet content regulation.

UK Government to Push ISP Filtering Plan

This will make some noise... (from the Times)...

People who illegally download films and music will be cut off from the internet under new legislative proposals to be unveiled next week.

Internet service providers (ISPs) will be legally required to take action against users who access pirated material, The Times has learnt....

...Ministers will make an explicit commitment to legislate with the launch next week of a Green Paper on the creative industries. A draft copy, obtained by The Times, states: “We will move to legislate to require internet service providers to take action on illegal file-sharing.” A consultation paper setting out the options is promised within months.

It will be interesting to see how long it takes for those who want ISPs to filter "indecent" material to get in on the act as this process plays out.

Doesn't Anyone Remember the Movie "Heathers"?

The sad story goes like this.

Small Wales town named Bridgend.

Fourteen teen suicides in one year.

Despair. Anger. Reflection. Blame!

Pointed fingers. Right at the Web. "Social Networking Websites."

"it was revealed she used the computer hours before she died"

"Randall's death raised fears that the suicides were related to a desire for the "prestige" that is associated with having a memorial page on the social networking site Bebo."

Call to action! Now!

Conservative MP has a plan.

"A string of teenage suicides has highlighted the urgent need to tighten up internet safety for youngsters"

Self-regulation has failed.

Solution: An Internet Standards Authority -- A "co-regulatory structure" for the internet, bringing together parties including law enforcement agencies, government, charities and parents.

The enforcers?

ISPs. Of Course.

What to censor? Easy. "Harmful content would include content where cultural, taste and decency judgments have to be made."

Moreover. No sites with this: "glorification of violence and terrorism, pornography, cyber-bullying, suicide, internet gambling and anorexia websites"

ISPs would offer two-tiers of content for kids and adults. The "default" would be for kids. Opt-out. Like the Australian plan.

Need a password to read about anorexia.

No happy endings involving Winona Ryder.

Track Who Loves Children the Most

Children Are Our Future - The Simpsons
Students: Children, children,

Future, future.

Milhouse: Are you ready for the...
Students: ...children, whoa whoa who
Lisa: The future is a...
Students: ...coming, hey hey hey!

Children, children,
Future, future

Students: Children, children,
Children are the future!
Kids!

In order to get prepared for this great future, many in Congress have been quite busy crafting legislation that would protect said children from bad stuff emanating from various forms of media, including the Internet. As has been well documented on these pages, these efforts are largely well intentioned, some would work well, but others cross the line and create a slippery slope for regulation of new media content.

Because the legislation has been coming at a fast and furious pace and it's not always easy to instantly tell the difference between your S.602 and your HR.3845, the Center for Democracy and Technology and the Progress and Freedom Foundation have teamed up to provide a handy scorecard and guide to all these kid-loving laws.

It provides different ways to slice and dice the category of the rules, gives a quick summary and analysis.

You can download it here.

Both PFF and CDT provide their own analysis, too.

Adam Thierer at PFF writes:

This new CDT-PFF joint compendium of legislative activity shows that federal lawmakers have a growing appetite for regulating media content and online communications. Some of this legislative activity is warranted since it addresses legitimate threats, specifically, harm to children. But a great deal of the legislation being proposed today goes much further in an attempt to ostensibly sanitize the Internet and modern media platforms and content.

While Congress is right to take steps to protect children against actual harms—namely, child predation and child pornography—it would be unwise for lawmakers to expand the censorial schemes of the past.

And, after the jump, CDT says:

Many Small Ladders; One Great Firewall

Today, the International Herald Tribune delves into China's Internet censorship policies and efforts to combat them...

For the vast majority of Internet users, censorship still does not appear to be much of a factor. The most popular Web applications here are games and messaging services, and the most-visited Internet sites focus on everyday subjects like entertainment news and sports. Many, in fact, seem only vaguely aware that the Chinese Internet universe is carefully pruned, and even among those who know, a majority hardly seems to care.

But growing numbers of others are becoming increasingly resentful of restrictions on a wide range of Web sites, including Flickr, YouTube, Wikipedia, MySpace (sometimes), Blogspot and many other sites that the public sees as sources of harmless diversion or information.

The mounting resentment has inspired a wave of increasingly determined social resistance of a kind that is uncommon in China.

(Flickr photo by Hannibal Poenaru)

YouTube Korea Faces Regulatory Hurdles

Despite the enthusiasm of the Koreans in the video above, The Korea Times has a skeptical piece on YouTube's launch in the Korean market.  Competition in a crowded field of familiar Korean brands is one big issue.  The others are regulatory burdens that would send a million blogs a-blazing if they were implemented in the US...

Censorship is another critical issue that YouTube must solve. The Korean government enforces relatively strict guidelines for sexual, violent, or politically controversial contents on Web sites. So major local portals such as Naver and Daum employ several hundreds of monitors in Korea and in China who check all video and text content and filter inappropriate material 24 hours a day.
 
YouTube's Arsiwala said Wednesday that the firm will do its best to comply with the Korean regulations. But there certainly will be loopholes because of the sheer amount of the videos uploaded onto the site ― Arsiwala says that YouTube sees about 10 hours of videos uploaded every minute.

3Qs with Adam Thierer on the MySpace/AG Child Safety Effort

PFF Senior Fellow Adam Thierer wrote the book on online child protection, so who better to give insight on today's long-awaited MySpace/Attorney General agreement to create protections for kids using the News Corp site.

And, no really, Adam did write the book. (You can download "Parental Controls and Online Child Protection: A Survey of Tools and Methods" here.)

Before we get to the Q&A, here is a brief overview/opinion of the agreement courtesy of NYT's Brad Stone:

Among the dozens of measures MySpace has agreed to take, the social network will let parents submit the e-mail addresses of their children, so the company can prevent anyone from using that address to set up a profile. It will also set the profiles of all 16 and 17-year-olds to private, so only their established online friends can visit their pages - essentially creating a “closed” section for users under age 18.

MySpace also promises to hire a contractor to identify and delete pornographic images on the site. And the company will take charge of an Internet safety technical task force to develop an age and identity verification tools for social networking sites.

Now, to Adam...

Q: Why is today’s AG/MySpace announcement significant? What about this tells you that this will be more substantive than the veritable “blue ribbon committee” that peaks at launch?

The agreement is significant because it represents a sensible step forward in terms of online safety. Indeed, many of the principles in the agreement could form a potential model “code of conduct” that other social networking sites could adopt. That is important because (a) it really could help keep kids safer online; and (b) it will help us avoid the specter of government regulation of the Internet and others forms of digital communication.

The agreement with the AGs is especially notable for what it does not include: age verification mandates. The call for an Internet Safety Technical Task Force to study online safety methods and identity authentication tools is a sensible alternative to the rush to mandate age verification, which some AGs have been advocating vociferously over the past two years.

Hopefully the task force will provide critical examination of the issue and not simply begin with pre-ordained conclusions about the wisdom or effectiveness of online age verification techniques and technologies. At the press conference announcing the agreement, however, Attorneys General Roy Cooper of North Carolina and Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut seemed to imply that that the goal of the task force would be to develop and implement a full-blown age verification system for the Internet. “We are going to find and develop online identity authentication tools,” said AG Cooper. And AG Blumenthal reiterated an argument he made ad nauseum last year that, “if we can put a man on the moon,” then we ought to be able to verify the ages of people before they go online.

But it’s just not that simple. As I argued in a lengthy PFF study last year entitled, “Social Networking and Age Verification: Many Hard Questions; No Easy Solutions,” there are no silver bullet age verifications solutions. Online authentication is a complicated, multi-faceted technical issue. And, even assuming we could find a way to make it work, there are many other considerations that must be taken into account, such as the burden it might impose of freedom of speech or individual privacy.

The danger, therefore, is that the AGs have a pre-ordained conclusion and that they will either stack the deck on the task force with age verification advocates or pressure the task force to adopt mandatory age verification without thoroughly studying the issue. Again, that would be a serious mistake and it would also likely give rise to legal challenges.

Q: What other companies are critical to making the Internet Safety Technical Task Force successful? And, as far as you know, was their consideration to having them involved prior to this announcement?

If the task force does go forward, it needs to be a balanced panel of experts and include other social networking players, such as Facebook. This shouldn’t just be a MySpace thing.

Q: While this obviously is targeted towards collaborations with state law enforcement, what do you think the DC impact will be of the Internet Safety Technical Task Force?

Some AGs have tried to get the federal government involved in the effort to regulate social networking sites, but so far nothing has come of that. Ironically, if anyone was going to take the lead in terms of social networking regulation, it should be the federal government—not the states—since the Internet is not a local medium or platform. In fact, that’s one of the reasons why the AGs have wisely not pursued any formal legal action against MySpace thus far; they know it would likely be struck down as an unconstitutional burden on what is clearly interstate commerce.

Of course, the last thing I want is more federal Internet meddling and silly bills like the Deleting Online Predators Act (DOPA) that are completely counter-productive. If the feds get involved at all, it should be in terms of education and awareness building about sensible online safety efforts and parental empowerment tools. They should adopt an “educate first” approach to the issue. But I have a sneaking suspicion that, to the extent they do get involved, they will once again take the “regulate first” approach.