Friday, January 9, 2009

Shhhhh - Cyber censorship sleeping.


Of all the articles about Gaza, this is one of the scariest for me: it effectively means censorship on the net of organising activities for those who disagree with government. It also means a blogger in one country potentially could be charged by and deported to another country for violating 'censor' laws (this is not far fetching, the EU is currently implementing such a plan for member states.) I am afraid this is the writing on the wall for internet freedom (see yesterday's post here).

Freedom of speech is in grave danger of disappearing in cyberspace. Our connections in this realm are very fragile. Read and weep.


Gaza war sparks torrent
of fiery comment on the Internet
Pro-Palestinian commentary pushes Internet chat to become rear-guard battleground of public opinion.
Source
PARIS - European and US media and social network websites are struggling to cope with a deluge of reader comments sparked by the Gaza conflict, most fiercely partisan and some explicitly anti-Jewish or anti-Muslim, according to the sites' administrators.

Emotions on both sides are running high as the war enters its third week, and the Internet has become a rear-guard battleground of public opinion.

The torrent of highly-charged commentary -- especially when it violates in-house rules or national hate-speech laws -- poses at least two serious problems, representatives of the sites said.

One is logistic. All major news media sites filter reader views, and vetting hundreds, or thousands, of submissions -- not all of them coherent or concise -- is labour-intensive.

"The number of comments has exploded since the start of the conflict in Gaza," said Alberto Piccinini, an editor at the left-wing Il Manifesto in Italy.

"The debate is very lively, often virulent," he said, adding that most comments were pro-Palestinian and that some were bordered anti-Jewish.

The influx of views was so heavy at discussion forums of some French media sites that administrators simply shut the doors.

"The moderators were overwhelmed," said Clemence Lemaistre of 20minutes.fr.

Some published comments were seen as anti-Jewish by some readers while other remarks were viewed as anti-Muslim by other readers, prompting chat mediators to reject all contributions at the end.

The same action was taken at left-leaning Liberation, where the comments "very quickly degenerated into a spiral of hate and insults, with no end in site," the newspaper said in an editorial.

Two online debates hosted by BBC attracted nearly 40,000 comments.

Social network sites such as YouTube, Facebook, Twitter and MySpace do not vet content before it goes online, depending on community members to signal posts that may go beyond the pale.

But all these websites confront the even thornier problem of where to draw the line between an opinion that might virulent but acceptable, and one that could be interpreted as a racist insult.

The criteria for exclusion are not always clear, and rarely made explicit on a case-by-case basis.

Yassine Ayari, a 29-year old engineer in Paris, said that a pro-Palestinian discusssion group he created on website on December 29 was shut down on Wednesday by the website's administrators.

"My aim was to link up as many people as possible to centralise initiatives of support for Gaza," he said, adding that the group attracted more than 1000 members.

The space was blocked hours after Ayari receiving a boilerplate warning by email from the website, which followed up with a second email stating that "hateful, threatening, or obscene groups are not allowed."

Neither email, however, specified what was objectionable, and Ayari said he was careful to remove potentially injurious comments.

According to Facebook spokeswoman Debbie Frost, "The goal is to strike a very delicate balance between giving Facebook users the freedom to express opinions and beliefs, while also insuring that individuals and groups do not feel threatened or endangered."

That balance can shift depending on cultural norms and national laws. "There are no legal restrictions on comment in the US," said YouTube spokesman Scott Rubin.

The video-sharing platform "gives the power to our community to control the comments of their videos," but draws the line at "hate speech or incitement to violence."

Digg, a site that builds discussion groups around news items, has borrowed from a popular US parenting technique to keep debate civil.

If alerted to a statement that may cross the line, "our first step is to place that commenter in a 'time out' which prevents them from commenting, though they are able to access their account," said spokeswoman Jen Burton,

This technique works with people "who are otherwise good but occasionally lose their cool in an argument or just start acting out," she said in an email.


2 comments:

Rugfish said...

Thought this would interest you.

From another forum:

Author: Blank Xavier

Comment:
Quote:

I am a professional software engineer. I've been in the industry for 21 years. I currently write an SMS router, which is sold to the large mobile telcos. I write Windows kernel code in my spare time (network filter drivers to permit bandwidth shaping).

It is straightforward to install the necessary software on a PC to ensure privacy from State monitoring.

I use Tor to anonymise my web-browsing and I use PGP to encrypt my emails.

Anyone with one inch of brain can do exactly the same. It is *VERY* easy, it has been made very easy, so that the software can be widely used.

The technical rationale of this massive survellience effort is *profoundly and blatantly flawed*.

I don't mean a little bit, or perhaps its understandable that it's not been understood - I mean, fatally, obviously, blatantly, profoundly, absolutely and unquestionably incorrect. It is NOT a valid reason and it could never be a valid reason. Anyone presenting it as a reason should immediately be removed from any position of authority relating to this work because they have proved by their opinion that they are utterly unqualified both technically and professionally - because they do not know absolutely fundamental information and they have failed to obtain that information when it is trivial to acquire.

Anyone who wishes to retain their privacy can do so. The average Joe in the street will not, because he has no need. Anyone doing anything significantly illegal *will* be very likely to do so.

The only people being watched by this effort are the innocent.

Sheilanagig said...

Panther -

Very interesting indeed.

I am beginning to take security seriously...not because I a would be very interesting to officials, but for the same reason I don't want Big Brother in my bedroom.

The cheek of them.

Thanks for posting this...anymore will be appreciated also. I am leaving this url for you which is related: I have heard Kapersky is an excellent system.

http://bbvm.wordpress.com/2009/01/12/well-block-police-home-pc-hacks-security-vendors/

Good to hear from you.

Cheers

Welcome

All blogs are really just small snapshots of a person's mind, heart and soul as they evolve together through life....

Small bits of the thread of life we weave together into the fabric of ourselves, in the hope we will make sense of our existence, individual and collective.

On this page, is the cloak I have fashioned from my fabric to warm myself in a universe which often makes little sense.

Inside my cloak, it is warm enough to face the blistering cold winds of the insane world in which I find myself.

If you find some a bit of 'the good stuff' here, it has been my pleasure.