Date: Fri, 06 Sep 1996 23:03:23 +1100
To: link@charlotte.anu.edu.au
From: Michael Baker <mbaker@pobox.com>
Subject: Global Alert: UK Threat to Free Speech on Net
Sender: owner-link@charlotte.anu.edu.au
Precedence: bulk
Please redistribute this document widely with this banner intact
Redistribute only in appropriate places & only until 30 September 1996
The Sunday, August 25 issue of the London Observer splashed across its front page a sensationalized account of child pornography on the Internet, falsely accusing two Internet Service Providers, Clive Feather of Demon UK (a full service site) and Johan Helsingius of anon.penet.fi (an anonymous remailer) of involvement in the distribution of child pornography. Why were these accusations made? Demon UK had refused to remove a broad range of sexually-oriented newsgroups identified by UK authorities as possible sources of child pornography, and anon.penet.fi was identified without substantiation as a source for `90% of child pornography on the Internet.'
In fact, Demon UK was simply acknowledging that Internet Service Providers (ISPs) cannot police the data that traverses their systems, or assume responsibility for it, any more than the post office can assume responsiblity for content that is sent through traditional mail. And Helsingius, contrary to allegations in the London Observer, had long before restricted the size of files that could be transferred through anon.penet.fi, effectively eliminating the possibility that binary files containing pictures could be exchanged.
This story was extreme, but not without precedent: much has been written associating the Internet with those who make and distribute child porn, and there have been many attempts to hold ISPs responsible for objectionable or illegal content.
ISPs are not content providers; they channel content provided by their users. It is outside the scope of the ISP to monitor, evaluate, and attempt to remove objectionable content. In fact, any attempt by an ISP to block particular kinds of content will ultimately be fruitless, as providers of that contentwill simply find alternate channels of distribution.
Moreover, it is wrong to assume that the Internet has no rules, and is friendly to the exchange of objectionable materials. In fact the Internet is a `virtual community' of users with a distinct culture incorporating diverse views but finding consensus in opposition to censorship and access control. There is also strong opposition to the exploitation of children; in fact, many Internet users have cooperated in attempts to identify those who create and distribute child pornography.
Summary: The physical abuse and exploitation of children is a very real problem demanding a proactive response, however we vigorously opposeattempts to stifle the free and open exchange of information over the Internet in the mistaken belief that overbroad restrictions on the flow of information will protect children from abuse. We support Demon UK and anon.penet.fi (which Helsingius has shut down), and deplore the Observer's lurid attempt to make respectable Internet providers the "cause" of a problem for which they have no responsibility.
The Observer story is not the first of its kind: it represents an ongoing confusion about a complex new medium. Unfortunately this misunderstanding has become a global problem, represented in proposed or enacted restrictive legislation as well as negative press.
Consider these possible analogies to the Internet:
Our position: These measures constrain everyone because of the misdeeds of a few. It is more sensible to find and deal with the sources of child pornography than to impede the flow of data over the Internet. The imposition of censorship and additional constraints applied to ISPs will not solve the existing problem, but will create a new problem, a barrier to the free and democratic exchange of ideas.
For press contacts, and for more information about the Internet, see homepages for the signatories to this message:
CommUnity (UK) * http://www.community.org.uk
EFF (USA) * http://www.eff.org
EFF-Austin (USA) * http://www.eff-austin.org
Electronic Frontier Canada * http://www.efc.ca/
Electronic Frontiers Australia * http://www.efa.org.au/
Electronic Frontiers Houston (USA) * http://www.efh.org
Elektronisk Forpost Norge (Electronic Frontier Norway) * http://www.sn.no/~efn
Fronteras Electronicas Espan~a (Electronic Frontiers Spain) * http://www.lander.es/~jlmartin/
HotWired * http://www.hotwired.com
Posted by Dr Michael Baker, EFA Board Member, PO Box 5, Flaxley SA 5153, Australia
Go to Roger's Home Page.
Go to the contents-page for this segment.
Last Amended: 7 September 1996
| These community service pages are a joint offering of the Australian National University (which provides the infrastructure), and Roger Clarke (who provides the content). | |
| The Australian National University Visiting Fellow, Faculty of Engineering and Information Technology, Information Sciences Building Room 211 | Xamax Consultancy Pty
Ltd, ACN: 002 360 456 78 Sidaway St Chapman ACT 2611 AUSTRALIA Tel: +61 6 288 6916 Fax: +61 6 288 1472 |