Zoning the Internet to Protect Children

I agree, pjowens75, I think the responsibility lies in the individual and not controls.  I further do not think you will adequately control the internet - just look at the widespread problems in trying to keep a handle on security.

The use of the Internet for pornography is clearly a problem that needs to be dealt with, but the answer lies in choice, reporting options, and parental controls.

You can't control what magazines or books or music is published, so the internet is no different - just wider exposure and more choices.

I think teaching children how to make wiser choices and reinstilling our values to make better choices is a BETTER CHOICE.

 DHagar

Okay, to start with, I am not into pornography, AND I don't have children.

However, I do believe in standing up for my individual rights, and I resent anyone telling me I can't do something, as long as it isn't against the law (legal issue) or harmful to anyone other than myself (moral issue). I also don't believe in owning a gun, but I will defend your right to do so if you choose.

In theory, your plan sounds like it could work...just like the plan a few years back to make sexually explicit sites use .xxx instead of .com. 

I also believe in taking responsibility for my own actions. And what worries me is that you are willing to pass more of the responsibility of raising children away from the parent and on to someone else. How can we possibly teach our children to take responsibility for their actions if, by example, we aren't willing to take responsibility for our own.

 At the risk of sounding blunt, I've already helped pay for your childrens' public education. Now you want me to teach them right from wrong, too?

 Sorry. That is your responsibility as a parent...not mine, not the school system's, not the State's nor any governing body's. It's yours.

Oh, I'm also in favor taxing the industry, on the merits that health and social problems cause a burden to taxpayers, such as california bill AB2914.

Ms. Preston,

 

First, I wanted to tell you that I went to BYU and am also opposed to pornography. I discontinued a job application after I learned that the company I was applying for is one of the largest hosting providers for this disgrace to human dignity.

 

Notwithstanding my strong opinion on the matter, the CP80 proposal will not work from a technical perspective or from a legal perspective. From a technical perspective, there is no magic rule you can make which wil make it impossible to circumvent an ISP implemented content restriction. Once the technical details of how to circumvent this rule are understood, plenty of blogs will discuss how to circumvent it. Pete Ashdown already covered the problems of a technical restriction of CP80. From a first amendment perspective, providing a technical means of separating one type of content from another via regulation to any resources except publicly-funded access point has never been upheld in this country. An appeal to the supreme court on the validity of COPA was recently denied. The EFF also has an opinion on CP80. The rules of who determines what is appropriate content to display on "restricted ports" also make for a lot of debate.

 

While there isn't a simple technical solution for this problem, there are social ways of combating this filth. The simplest one would be to bring to light all those who directly and purposefully  facilitate the storage and transmission of pornography, bring to light all those who work with these companies, and encourage others not to work with those who directly benefit from pornography. While requiring organizations and companies to restrict the content of speech may tread on legal ground, bringing to light organizations associated with disseminating objectional material is not. It is also not illegal for an organization to choose to restrict who it will do business with.

Cheryl,

Vitriolic? Maybe.  Ad hominem? No Way.

An organization's character is defined by the people who comprise it. Ralph Yarrow is central to that point.

Ralph Yarrow is (in)famous for creating technology products that don't meet expectations, and then litigating as though it was somehow going to compensate for the failed product model.  Taken in this context, CP80 will be seen not so much as a technological solution for Internet pornography, than as a political agenda.

Like SCO before, the technology of CP80 is merely the excuse for the lawsuit. Were it any other way, we would see a Technologist, not a legal scholar, advocating its advancement. 

I have just a few comments that I'd like to share regarding the issue of pornography and an internet zoning initiative.

First, surely parents should be the number one influence in the lives of children.  Parents should teach their children and know what they are doing on the internet.  However, even when parents are close to their children and teach them well, it's naive to believe that this is sufficient.  There are many pornographers who are very aggressive at seeking new consumers.  Children are one of their main targets.  Kids gaming sites attest to this fact.  Many gaming sites have links to pornography websites, even on their main pages.

When an increasing number of grown adults--which I believe we can fairly argue are more competent and aware than children--are being fired from their work because of surfing porn at the workplace, it's fair to say that internet pornography is an issue.  If adults, who are not influenced by legal nor parental mandate, surf porn at work even when they know it violates corporate policies, how are we to expect children who are bombarded with pornographic solicitations and invitations online to not view pornography?  Clearly something more is needed. 

It is impossible to live in today’s world without technology, especially the internet.  Work, school, and our way of life depend on the internet.  If the internet could be zoned it would save a world of heartache for employers, parents, and individuals alike.  Corporations face lost productivity, lawsuits, and sexual harassment in the workplace because of internet pornography.  Parents have the greatest difficulty guiding and monitoring their children with the current situation of the internet.  Many individuals are adversely affected by pornography.  Counselors, and others, can tell you of the struggles that children and even older people have with pornography.  Even when they do not want to view pornography because it interferes with their daily living, they are unable to stop because the internet is saturated with pornographic content.  Obviously some people are fine with the internet as it is now, but many would happily welcome a change.

The CP80 initiative is hopeful though not impeccable.  While I don’t know the nitty-gritty of the technical issues, it is clear that something needs to be done about pornography.  Because the greatest portion of porn comes through the internet, something needs to be done about internet pornography.  In my opinion a fair-sided analysis of the effects of internet pornography merit an evaluation as to how internet pornography can successfully be regulated.  While it’s possible, it is highly unlikely, for evidence is lacking, that Ralph, Cheryl, or others want to implement this because they are scheming individuals seeking to make money.  That is one of the most farfetched, foolish ideas that I have ever heard. 

 

What I propose is that instead of looking for potential weak points, such as peer-to-peer file sharing, to discredit an attempt such as CP80, we ought to recognize where the initiative needs to be strengthened and then attempt to critique and improve the weakness rather than criticize and throw it out.  Should we be reasonable and realistic in our approach?  Of course.  But if we come to the table with a preconceived notion that pornography is not an issue or that this solution is not viable, we will look for ways to justify that notion.  Yet, if we come looking for solutions, maybe we can all work toward a solution.  Something needs to be done, so I say lets start working. 

Dear KnarfO,

Wow, that is a lot of vitriol for a Friday night. 

I was general counsel for CP80 for one year (2006).  CP80 reimbursed my academic salary for one semester when I was on leave.  Other than that I have never been paid by CP80 or anyone else with respect to my work on the Internet pornography problem.  I have been in academia for 18 years.  Before that I did banking and estates law.  I never represented a plaintiff.  I have never initiated a law suit.  I don't personally know anyone who does class-action plaintiffs' cases, as would be the type available under my proposal.  Surely, I don't do this for the esoteric possibility of more work for lawyers.  There are many other areas of research and writing that would translate much more easily into billable lawyer time.

Setting up Ralph Yarro for ad hominem attacks is hardly a response.  Do you know him?

From your reference to "diversionary," I assume you have read my article discussing the definitional options: Making a Family-friendly Internet a Reality: The Internet Community Ports Act, 2007 B.Y.U. L. Rev. 1471-1531 (Kids Online Symposium Issue).  I understand it is online on redOrbit.  Is there anything you would like to address about my specific arguments and illustrations on the definition question?  How about the legal arguments in the companion piece? Zoning the Internet: A New Approach to Protecting Children Online, 2007 B.Y.U. L. Rev. 1417-1567.  Or any of the other pieces in the symposium discussing this proposal?

Pete Ashdown, one local ISP officer, does seem to be quite opposed to this proposal and others I have suggested.

As to replacing a loving parent -- nothing replaces that.

Ms. Preston would have you believe that she is an advocate for the protection of children. I submit to you that she is nothing more than a shill for a cabal of unethical individuals intent on profiting from a barrage of legal activity that will overburden our judicial system.

Make no mistake, these are seasoned veterans at this game. They have done this before and failed. But they appear to have learned from their mistakes and are polishing their tactics, employing a more subtle and complex approach than their previous schemes. So far, this scheme is succeeding.

Who comprises this cabal? For starters, the people responsible for CP80 (of which Ms. Preston is the General Counsel…oops, I guess she neglected to disclose that in her Astroturf article). The idea that there be a clean, kid-friendly port on the net was one of the best concepts in a long time. Right up to the point where they proposed to make it a law, instead of a voluntary standard to follow. Suddenly it morphs into a legal bludgeon, placed in the hands of people who have a long history of employing tort law under dubious justifications in order to get rich.

Ralph Yarro III

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ralph_Yarro_III
http://ebusiness.byu.edu/biography.php?person=69
http://linuxbusinessnews.sys-con.com/read/48789.htm
http://www.sco.com/company/execs/

Many IT professionals will recognize the name Ralph Yarrow, and equate it with infamy. Without a doubt one can safely equate his name with CP80.

I wish I could praise Ms. Preston’s article, because her thesis starts from a laudable premise: Protect Our Children. Who can argue with that? No one.

The debate begins around the methods and limits of that protection. The issue of protecting kids from internet pornography is nothing new. Several strategies have been proposed to segregate online content, and there is abundant evidence that from a technical standpoint, the concept is quite feasible. One need look no further than ‘The Great Firewall of China’ for a proof of concept.

The debate bogs down as soon as people begin to deal with the definition of obscenity. Ms. Preston will no doubt argue that “Definitions” is a diversionary argument in this debate. But any reasonable human being understands that out of the 6 billion people alive in the world today, no two draw the line in exactly the same place when it comes to deciding what counts as filth, and what does not.

One can attempt to legislate morality all they want; people will invariably cross the line (intentionally or not). Therefore, any new laws aimed at stemming vice will lead not to less immorality, but only to more litigation. Think about that for a minute, and ask yourself “Who stands to benefit from a spike in legal activity?”

The appeal of Ms. Preston’s mis-guided proposal to address the issue of minors accessing pornography lies in a fundamental flaw in parenting philosophy – the notion that it is possible to coerce a child into being good. It would be sad enough to know that she believes she can raise her kids under that illusion. What makes her point deserving of a public rebuke is the fact that she and others like her intend to extend that into the public domain, and tie up public resources to enforce the concept.

For a great overview on why exactly CP80 won’t work, read Pete Ashdown’s excellent posting on it.

Inevitably there will be perceived ‘violations’ to CP80’s statute definition of obscenity. It doesn’t take a genius to see what a landslide of litigation will ensue. Every case brought against a defendant means more work for lawyers in general, and more money in the pockets of Ms. Preston and her associates behind CP80 in particular.

An admirably sophisticated scheme to be sure. One we as an informed public will hopefully not fall for. I would like to believe Ms. Preston is nothing more than an unwitting accomplice to all this, but her track record of success as an attorney and an academic leads me to believe she is far too intelligent to be ignorant of the company she keeps. She has either overlooked the significant obstacles that exist to implementing her proposal (as well as the shady background of her boss), or she is, lamentably, part of a group of subtle predators in our society who seek to profit by inciting panic.

Rather than attempt to force every content provider on the net to adhere to their standards, one might think that the folks at CP80 would see the wisdom in teaching children correct principles, creating a rampart of high standards within the walls of one's own home, and trusting them to make the right choices once they venture out into the rest of the world. Now there is a cause worth devoting your life to.

No technological tool, no legal device or statute can compete with, let alone replace, a loving parent actively involved in their childrens’ lives. The very suggestion that a filter can block unwanted material in the absence of parental supervision is in and of itself a subversion of the very principle of parental responsibility proponents of CP80 claim to be upholding. It promotes a false sense of security among parents that once they have the filter, they no longer need to worry about monitoring their kids online.

Face it people, our kids are going to see pornography before they reach adulthood. The more educated and intelligent our children are, the earlier in life they will encounter obscenity. The way to deal with this awful truth is not to pretend that a filter or a law is going to replace us as parents, but rather we should redouble our efforts at being involved in our kids’ lives, giving them sound guidance on what to do when they come across questionable material, and making sure we have the kind of relationship with them where they trust us and we can trust them.

Dear Cheryl,

Glad to see another one from BYU in the ThinkerNet. Hopefully we may have a chance to chat in person some time in the campus.

Although I am not an expert on protocol design, I support your proposal from a Web researcher's point of view. We can add a few restrictions on port usage to protect especially our new generations. Besides the technological difficulties, certainly there are many law issues related to this proposal. But it is a right proposal and I hope it could be a law to regulate the information communication on the Web.

Yihong

Dear dlavie,

I have taught Internet law for several years and at two law schools.  There is no law governing access by minors, outside of a public library that receives federal funding for technology.  The CDA was held unconstitutional before it went into effect in 1997.  COPA has been to the Supreme Court twice.  The injunction against its enforcement was made permanent March 22, 2007.  CIPA, the statute requiring filters at libraries as a condition of receiving funds, is the only one standing.

State laws have been held unconstitutional under both federal preemption doctrine and commerce clause basis.  The Internet is under federal jurisdiction.

My proposal is not "removing" anything from the web.  The sites that serve content harmful to minors will continue to serve on Open Ports.  Any adult who does not change his or her service to a Community Port only service will notice no difference whatsoever in accessing those sites.

With respect to your advice to parents -- AMEN!!