For the London Free Press – August 10, 2009

Read this on Canoe

More governments are looking at ways to censor Internet content. Australia and China have plans to install Internet filters to block access to certain sites.

In Australia, the proposed filter would block unsuitable subject matter such as child pornography and violence.

There would be two levels to the Australian system. The first would require Internet service providers to block sites considered unsuitable for children. This first level would allow people to opt out by contacting their Internet service provider. The second level would block sites considered unsuitable for adults. This level would not allow opting out.

Various organizations, including the child-protection group Save the Children and lobby group GetUp!, argue that the money allocated to the proposed filter would be more effective if used to increase funding for child-protection authorities and police. There is the concern of freedom of speech potentially being limited due to selective blocking of sites.

GetUp! Agrees with Save the Children’s child rights spokesperson Annie Pettit, who said, “We believe it’s really better to teach children so that they have the ability to recognize and steer clear of inappropriate online content for themselves.”

Groups such as the System Administrators Guild of Australia and Electronic Frontiers Australia argue that the proposed filter will unjustly control access to the Internet in Australia, slow the speed of the Internet and increase the cost of Internet access.

Critics state the filter’s effects will be limited, since it will not be able to block e-mail distribution lists, file-sharing networks or chat rooms used for the distribution of illegal Internet content, including child pornography.

Since May 2009, the government has been conducting a trial of the filter.

In China, the government plans to require all computers sold in China to install Internet-filtering software called Green Dam-Youth Escort.

Critics of the Chinese Internet filter argue that the image and keyword filter blocks political content and monitors individual Internet behaviour.

The Obama administration sent a warning to China that the filter will violate free-trade agreements. And the European Union has stated that the software sets limits on free speech.

Beijing had a set deadline of July 1 for all manufacturers to install the Green Dam software on all new computers, but enforcement was delayed due to heavy resistance from home and abroad.

Like Australia, China sells the idea of the filter as an attempt to eliminate pornography and violence to protect minors.

On July 1, a government official stated that the Green Dam Internet filter on all new computers would go ahead. The official said it was only “a matter of time” before the software would go into all computers sold in China.

Internet filtering has drawn heavy criticism from many and varied sources — even from groups who promote measures for child protection.

While it may be a tempting remedy for real issues, in the end, it is a crude, imprecise, and ineffective tool with more factors against it than for it.

Out-Law.com has an article entitled Facebook IP protection is only for companies that join that says Facebook’s protection against misuse of brand names in Facebook names is only available if the brand is actually registered as a username.  A cynical person might wonder if this is in part a way to get more businesses to sign up for Facebook.

The lesson for business, or anyone with a brand they want to protect, is that it may be worthwhile registering your business name and any brands as usernames for as many social networking sites and web 2.0 sites as you can.  Even if you don’t plan to actively use it, set it up with basic information and links back to your website.  For example, facebook, twitter, linkedin, flickr.   There are too many to possible get them all – but at least cover the mainstream ones.   Not sure what they are?  Search Google or Bing for social networking sites or web 2.0 sites.  Or ask anyone younger than you are.

That’s the title of my Slaw post for today.  

It reads as follows:

Surveillance cameras seem to be everywhere these days. They are one of the creeping invasions of privacy that raise difficult issues. Isolated cameras on private homes or businesses controlled by the owner and which retain images for short periods of time are easy to justify on security grounds. On the other hand, massive networks of connected and centrally controlled cameras that track everyone’s every move (the UK for example) and save that information for long periods of time cross the Orwellian threshold.

Some of the questions that don’t appear to have fact based answers include:
- Does camera surveillance really improve security and law enforcement?
- If so, is the gain worth what we give up in privacy and liberty?
- Is this all mere security theatre that wastes valuable resources and breaches privacy with no gain other than a false sense of security?
- Can we balance true security needs with ways to minimize privacy effects?

(FWIW – I’m tired of hearing the “If you are doing nothing wrong you have nothing to be concerned about line”)

The Federal Privacy Commissioner is sponsoring a research workshop on camera surveillance to take place at Queens University in Jan 2010. Proposals are being requested for papers to be presented at the workshop. Details are here.

The call for papers says in part:

Cameras have been appearing for some years in the streets, shopping malls, airports, train stations, arenas, educational institutions and even convenience stores and taxicabs, yet no one has undertaken a systematic survey of what’s happening in the Canadian context. A Report on Camera Surveillance in Canada prepared by SCAN and funded by the Office of the Privacy Commissioner under the 2008-09 Contributions Program, pulls together existing research and offers some of the history of camera surveillance in Canada, the driving forces behind the trends, the deployment of cameras in specific sites and some of the issues, such as the effectiveness of systems, and privacy and civil liberties questions, raised by this relatively new development.

The report identifies the need for further research in many key areas. The aim of the workshop is to build upon this report by generating fresh, clear, independent findings on camera surveillance in Canada and to have an open and public discussion of issues related to privacy and camera surveillance.

In the “you’ve got to be kidding” category is a post on Wired Gadget Lab that refers to an article in the Daily Express that says the UK government is going to put 20,000 UK “problem families” under 24 hour CCTV supervision in their own homes.

And if you subscribe to the “if you’ve got nothing to hide, there’s nothing to worry about” line that we hear all too often, take a look at arguments against that in these articles by Bruce Schneier and Prof Daniel Solove and from the Washington Post.