Recently in Censorship Category

For the first time in 30 years, the Supremes are making a comeback...to broadcast indecency cases. The Associated Press reports that the SCOTUS (as we inside-the-Beltway like to call them) has granted cert (another legal buzzword for "ok, let's hear it")  to FCC v. Fox Television Stations, 07-582.

First off, I'll note that the FCC has a dismal record before the Federal courts. I don't have time to run the numbers, but they lose many more than they win. Normally the Government comes in with a huge advantage, but this agency is simply the Washington Senators of litigation. To bring as many appeals as they do, I guess "they gotta have heart..." On the other hand, Paul Clement, while a great advocate, is still no match for his predecesor, that master Long Ball Hitter Ted Olsen, or even Shoeless Joe from Hannibal Mo'. (Seriously. Go rent Damn Yankees before I post another YouTube clip).

Technically, this case only concerns the Billboard Music Awards show in which expletives uttered by Cher and Nicole Richie were broadcast over the public airwaves in 2002 and 2003. More well known is the seperate case that NBC has brought challenging the FCC's fine against them for broadcasting Bono's use of the "F-word" during the 2003 Golden Globes.

Note that the FCC is the appellant in this case. They are asking the highest Court in the land to overturn a decision by the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals in New York which struck down the Commission's rules on "fleeting expletives." In that 2-1 ruling, the Circuit Court rapped the FCC on the knuckles for changing its' policy and failing to explain the rationale for doing so. The Appeals Court decision nullified the policy until the FCC came up with a better explanation, and also skeptically noted that any such explanation would still be unconstitutional.

Note that the 2nd Circuit hit the FCC with the equivilant of a legal 1-2 combination. The left hand, the procedural grounds rejection is a swift jab, but the constitutional argument is a knockout uppercut with the right glove. 

The government's position is interesting, to say the least. Quoth the AP:

Solicitor General Paul Clement, representing the FCC and the Bush administration, argued that the decision "places the commission in an untenable position," powerless to stop the airing of expletives even when children are watching.

The FCC has pending before it "hundreds of thousands of complaints" regarding the broadcast of expletives, Clement said. He argued that the appeals court decision has left the agency "accountable for the coarsening of the airwaves while simultaneously denying it effective tools to address the problem."

 

One explanation for the Supreme Court revisiting the 30 year old FCC v. Pacifica decision is that the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia is pondering the weighty question of whether or not Janet Jackson's brief flash of jewlery-covered nipple during the 2004 Super Bowl halftime show was indecent and deserves a fine. The Supremes generally intervene to resolve such "split circuit" decisions.

To give some background, I'll return to the AP article:

The new policy was put in place after a January 2003 broadcast of the Golden Globes awards show by NBC when U2 lead singer Bono uttered the phrase "f------ brilliant." The FCC said the "F-word" in any context "inherently has a sexual connotation" and can trigger enforcement.

The Fox programs at issue are a Dec. 9, 2002, broadcast of the Billboard Music Awards in which singer Cher used the phrase "F--- 'em" and a Dec. 10, 2003, Billboard awards show in which reality show star Nicole Richie said, "Have you ever tried to get cow s--- out of a Prada purse? It's not so f------ simple."

Two questions come to mind. 1) are the "thousands" of complaints that Solicitor General Clement refers to actual complaints, or "click to complain" form letters, and 2) did anyone actually watch the Billboard Music Awards?

If a "celebrity" utters an expletive and noone is tuned in, should we even care?

Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers (D-MI) is about to jump into the net neutrality fray.  Although ISPs limiting users' access to certain content, like BitTorrent video transfers, under the guise of "reasonable network management" has gotten more press lately, there's another issue to look at.

 

Here's a very brief excerpt from the article at Reuters

 

By Peter Kaplan

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Congress may have to stop broadband Internet providers from charging content providers higher fees for priority access to the Internet, a senior House of Representatives Democrat said on Tuesday.

"I am concerned that if Congress stands by and does nothing, we will soon find ourselves living in a world where those who pay, can play (on the Internet), but those who don't are simply out of luck," Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers said.

 

 

 

 

This is almost the reverse of the issue that we've covered so heavily.  As opposed to limiting a customer's ability to access someone's content they're limiting a company's ability to distribute the content by way of higher service fees.  Does it make sense that ISPs would want to charge a higher rate to businesses because they're more likely to use a lot of bandwidth?  Sure.  But unless it is made very clear how that pricing is determined we could run into trouble.  If it's settled on as a pay-by-usage syste, like your water or electric bill, then they'd get the (implied) desired effect of limiting the ability of competing companies (like companies who provide competing video on demand content, for instance) from distributing their content.  If a suit was filed the ISP could very easily say "Hey, we make it very clear that businesses pay $xxx for xxxMB of access each month.  We couldn't care less what they're using the bandwidth for." and be reasonably safe.

 

Either way, we're still in potentially dangerous territory.  We're still trying to regulate how public companies provide access to public space.  If there's anything that walks the tightrope between what is and isn't within the Government's jurisdiction, I think this is it.

 

Hopefully, the Government and the ISPs can keep the best interest of the public in mind while they work it out.

 

 

Lo and Behold, Mark Zuckerberg did appear, and answered pretty much every question asked. Some good, some not so good. My favorites:

Some quick dispatches from Congress Daily PM:

The European Union threatened to lodge a complaint at the World Trade Organization over U.S. laws that prohibit gambling Web sites, saying the rules may break global rules by discriminating against companies based in the bloc, Bloomberg News reported. U.S. authorities have targeted European companies for operating gaming sites, said the European Commission, which today announced an investigation into the U.S. practice. The United States has not taken action against domestic companies that offer similar services, said the commission, the European Union's executive arm. "The U.S. has the right to address legitimate public policy concerns relating to Internet gambling, but discrimination against EU companies cannot be part of the policy mix," EU Trade Commissioner Peter Mandelson said in a statement. The U.S. law banning Americans from wagering on gaming Web sites was ruled illegal by the WTO in 2004.

Next, Joe Barton (R-TX) along with John McCain (R-AZ) are quietly trying to kill off the Universal Service Fund, which provides phone service to all Americans, by "capping" the amount it can raise from long distance access fees, as well as changing the source of its' funding to individual consumers, making it a political hot potato. CongressDaily's David Hatch reports:

House Energy and Commerce ranking member Joe Barton, R-Texas, one of the fiercest critics of the $7 billion universal service program, is quietly drafting legislation to permanently cap the federal fund, which subsidizes telecom and Internet connections for citizens, hospitals, libraries and schools in rural- and low-income areas. Committee staffers said the bill is intended to spark debate and influence any legislative action on the topic in 2009 after a new administration takes control. They did not provide a timeframe for the measure's introduction. Barton is preparing his bill as the FCC grapples over revisions to the fund and Energy and Commerce Telecommunications and the Internet Subcommittee Chairman Edward Markey, D-Mass., plans hearings later this year on revamping universal service.

The FCC is seeking to impose a temporary cap, but Barton would go further with a permanent ceiling, a move certain to draw the ire of the fund's many proponents on Capitol Hill, particularly on the Senate Commerce Committee. Nevertheless, some prominent lawmakers have championed the idea. In 2006, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., a former Senate Commerce chairman and now the presumptive GOP presidential nominee, co-authored an amendment that would have capped a key portion of the fund assisting rural carriers. It was eventually withdrawn amid wrangling over the issue.

Get Angry.

Update - they're back up on the Google Blog, but it seems like they aren't letting us link to them from here. Also, the trackbacks are still disabled. Here's the same cut-and-paste as earlier. The images come up now, but they don't come up in the post from yesterday Now click on the link to the entry...still no trackbacks!

Here is a screenshot deeper in the application:



We're proud of the product that we've designed and are continuing to build, but recognize that we are just at the initial stages of our "launch early and iterate" strategy. We look forward to the feedback we will receive from our Cleveland Clinic pilot, from all of you, and from the initial users of our service when we make it publicly available in the coming months.

Did anyone notice that they've disappeared from the Google Blog? Only the original press-releasish blog post remains. Did they put it down the memory hole? Have they invented one?

Are they backtracking now that people have heard about this privacy nightmare of a product? They should know you can't just make it go away.

Still waiting, Google...

OpenDNS has launched a free web-filtering service that parents or network admins can use to block web sites based on content.  Sites with topics ranging from drug and alcohol use to social networking to dirty dirty porn can be filtered out by anyone who takes the time to set up a free account with OpenDNS and change some settings on their machine so that they use OpenDNS' DNS server instead of their ISP's.  Huh?

 

Here's more about how DNS server's do their thing from Security Fix at WashingtonPost.com

OpenDNS filters out Web page requests at the domain name system (DNS) level. DNS is responsible for translating human-friendly Web site names like "example.com" into numeric, machine-readable Internet addresses. Anytime you send an e-mail or browse a Web site, your machine is sending a DNS look-up request to your Internet service provider to help route the traffic.

Most Internet users use their ISP's DNS servers for this task, either explicitly because the information was entered when signing up for service, or by default because the user hasn't specified any external DNS servers. By creating a free account at OpenDNS.com, changing the DNS settings on your machine, and registering your Internet address with OpenDNS, the company will block whatever content you have specified.

You can change the DNS settings on each computer in your home. But if your network is behind a wireless router, a speedier and more reliable solution is to change the DNS settings on the router (see this link for instructions broken down by router model). That should cover all of the systems that connect to that router.

 

What OpenDNS is offering would be an amazing tool, both for parents and for administrators at companies who need to restrict web access on a budget.

 

Of course, there's opposition.

When I last wrote about this filtering service, I received quite a few comments from readers who took issue with the idea of parents deciding what sites their children should be permitted to visit online. Most who were critical of this approach said parents should instead focus on explaining to their kids why such sites are inappropriate and should be avoided.

But for a lot of parents -- particularly those with very young children -- that approach only goes so far. As nearly anyone who has been online for any length of time can attest, it is often quite easy to start out online at one completely innocent site or simple Web search, only to end up in the back alleys of the Internet's red light district with an errant click.

 

Are you kidding me?  Were any members of the opposition ever children?  Can they say that they never did anything stupid or dangerous even though their parents said not to?  Do we expect parents to watch over their kids' shoulders every second they're online?  It's so ridiculous that parents have a service available to them, for free, that can protect their kids and someone would have the audacity to admonish them for it.  I wonder if anyone opposed even has kids.  Even a kid. 

 

They way I see it, OpenDNS' system is like the V-Chip.  It's there.  If parents want to use it, fantastic.  If they don't care or if they think that they can convince their kids to "do the right thing" without technological aids, more power to them.  For the parents who want to use the technology available to help protect their children from content they don't want them seeing...please do.  I'd rather have parents limiting what their kids can view as opposed to the government getting involved and blocking content from everyone, thanks to some loud-mouthed buffoon whose kid only saw porn because mommy was too lazy to do anything about it herself.

So one of my regular reads is the Google Blog. Recently, I've been writing about some of their entries, and it's been driving some traffic this way since they link to posts that link back to them.

Today around 10:30 am I read a post on Google Blog about their new Google Health product that described it and showed some screen shots. I thought "wow, that's a bad idea" and I so I took a lunch break, threw together my thoughts and posted them here on this site. The post went live at 12:00pm EST.

Now, I had been busy at work, but earlier (around 9:45am EST) I had checked the Google Analytics for the site and the visitor count was low since neither Alex nor myself had posted anything new since last night (2/27/07). Maybe an hour after I posted I went back and was a bit shocked, the visitor count had gone through the roof. I looked at the Google Blog, and out of all the links shown on the "Links to This Post" list, mine was the only one with a remotely critical title, "Google Health is Frightening." The rest were either simply linking or re-reporting with various degrees of fawning and praise going on. Yet, there was my post on how I thought it's a horrible idea, and that any doctor would be insane to use it, and that there were probably legal issues that hadn't properly been considered.  It was maybe the 5th link in the list.

Around 4:00PM EST I noticed the hit count slowing. I went back to the source (the original Google Blog post), and lo and behold, the post had every single link/trackback deleted.

Not only that, but they turned off the trackbacks for every single post on the blog, but didn't remove the presence of the feature from their front page template! Look! Straight-up cut-and-paste job from their front page as of 10:30PM EST:

Here is a screenshot deeper in the application:

We're proud of the product that we've designed and are continuing to build, but recognize that we are just at the initial stages of our "launch early and iterate" strategy. We look forward to the feedback we will receive from our Cleveland Clinic pilot, from all of you, and from the initial users of our service when we make it publicly available in the coming months.

Permalink Links to this post

Labels: healthcare

Now, when I went to click on the "Links to this post" link, I got a blank space. Nothing. All the  trackbacks are kaput.

So, it's ok to link to the Google Blog in order to shower them with praises and talk about how revolutionary and wonderful they are...but criticize them or suggest they are heading down a dark path? They'll make you disappear. At least that's what it looks like. Now, I know a lot of tech types don't get Washington, but us Beltway locals have a saying: "the coverup is worse than the crime." You may have heard that before.

Hey, Google Bloggers: want to tell me why you turned off trackbacks? If you give me a real reason, I'll even apologize to you. Heck, I'll fly out to California and buy you all a round of your preferred beer.

But only if you can prove to me that you're not so scared of criticism based on your own blog that the second someone does, you stop linking back.

Your corporate motto is "do no evil" but honestly, this looks like something Steve Ballmer would do. I'm just too far away from the Googleplex for you to throw chairs at me.

So come on, Google Bloggers. Turn them back on, or explain on your blog why they are gone.

I'll be reading. And I'll be writing, too.

Ok, so I've been reading Slashdot since 1998 or so...I have a 4 digit user ID (9848, if you must know), so I've seen alot of stuff pass through those pages. I remember meeting Jeff "Hemos" Bates and the infamous Jon Katz at The Bazaar (a one-off Open Source trade show/love-in where I helped run the Debian Linux booth) and doing some contract work for the company that bought Slashdot (Andover.net, which became OSDN, which got bought by VA Linux, which became VA Software, which I think is now SourceForge). They've broken some interesting stories and were one of the first "must-read" blogs before there was such a word.

They've even acquired enough a patina of credibility through longevity that they can get celebrities and the occasional politician to participate in their "interviews." On the other hand, as they've grown more popular they've had less and less original editorial content, and really have been reduced to a "gatekeeper." They won't link to commentary, even when it's original, only the source story. I've submitted things only to have them pull my words out, put them in the "firehose" where noone sees them (or my work) and just write their own summary and link to the story I found them.

And occasionally they link to total sensationalist trash like this. A former FBI agent named Patrick J. Dempsey has made a startling discover: criminals can use networks to cover their tracks.

Although the Internet may be considered the greatest achievement of the past 50 years, the technology behind it has created a sanctuary for various types of computer criminals. The unfortunate and ugly truth is that the Web is providing a brand new "world" where international cyber criminals can thrive, and the world's numerous criminal justice systems just aren't ready to address these crimes in their entirety.

Cyber criminals don't necessarily need to leave the comfort of their homes to commit their crimes. Today, for example, bank robberies can be committed in Southeast Asia via a computer that's being controlled by an individual in Russia. Identity theft is achieved through a complex network of individuals residing in North America, Europe, and Africa, all effectively working together on the Internet to profit from shared information. And organized crime has ties to spam campaigns, identity theft, denial-of-service attacks, and organized hacking rings.

Is this a joke? This guy's job is "Chief Information Security Officer" at Janney Montgomery Scott, a financial services firm. He has also apparently been living in a cave since 1999 or so. On the other hand, Osama bin Laden lives in a cave and probably knew that the Internet had unsavory elements back when he was using it to plan attacks.  The fact that he's using the term "cyber-" anything makes him horribly dated.

Also, tying organized crime to "spam campaigns, identity theft, denial-of-service attacks, and organized hacking rings?" Did he get his education in Information Security by watching Sandra Bullock in The Net? Also, why is he a "former" FBI agent? Did he retire, or was he fired? Does he have any experience in investigating computer crimes? Does he know anything about computers? I'm curious as to his credentials, because it sounds like he has no clue what he's talking about, or he's using a really outdated Buzzword Bingo card.

But the problem with investigating international cyber crimes and capturing criminals on the Internet is not necessarily due to lack of cooperation among international law enforcement bodies. The issue has much more to do with the fact that the legal systems throughout the world vary greatly and take a very long time to change. These two facts make it extremely difficult for law enforcement to cooperate, investigate, capture, and ultimately prosecute the cyber criminals today.

Oh, so it's not that you can't cooperate, it's those pesky laws...or does he mean lawyers? Maybe Mr. Dempsey was one of those guys that wanted to throw Phil Zimmerman in prison for writing PGP back in the '90s. One more thing. Investigating crimes and prosecuting them are two completely different tasks. I am guessing this man has no law degree, and knows very little about prosecuting criminals.

Either way, Mr. Dempsey has come up with a solution. We need a "new" "more secure" Internet where people will "register" with some kind of "authority." What, like old style AOL? Has he heard of Kerberos or Virtual Private Networks?  All those things allow "registration" with "authority." There's a difference between registration and monitoring...

He throws around terms like spoofing and InterNIC (which by the way hasn't existed since ICANN took over running the world's domain registration system) and talks about "managing a more secure Internet." Whether or not he has a clue what he's talking about, I don't know. It doesn't look that way. His article looks like a cut and paste job from a bunch of sensationalist puff pieces from the Bubble pre-2001 era.

If Mr. Dempsey had done any research he would understand and be able to articulate the Internet is built on 1970's technology designed to survive a nuclear war, that operates based on open protocols and a degree of trust between systems, and requires skilled network managers to keep running. When he talks about a "new internet" he means a more tightly controlled network with systems built in for monitoring and controlling its' use.

The fight against international cyber crime is going to take a concerted effort from large and small corporations, law enforcement in all countries, as well as the governments and legislative bodies of those same countries. Most importantly, the average end user will have to join the fight to bring about change on the Internet, or create a "new" Internet using the lessons we've learned.

What does that mean? Governments and legislative bodies? You mean there is a difference? The biggest change that needs to hit the Internet is adoption of IPv6. If he wants some kind of ubermensch system to keep bad things from happening and bad people from using networks, he's going to have to go back in time or move to China.


I don't think I'm going to read Slashdot as much anymore.

Remember a few years back, when at the urging of FCC Chairman Kevin Martin (R), Cable Television providers started offering "family tiers" of service? When certain groups complained about not being able to get rid of channels with content that offended them, they demanded the ability to "unsubscribe" from them, or purchase the ones they wanted "a la carte."

Obviously, the cable companies did not like this idea, so they compromised. Comcast, Time Warner, and Cox, the "big three" of cable television, started offering "family tiers," or packages without the channels that some considered too racy. In effect, they gave customers the option to "opt-in" to having the selection of channels they received be censored.

Yesterday, in this space, I wrote about a Utah legislator's proposal for "family-friendly" Internet service. I thought it was a good idea that parents, or anyone who wanted content-filtered service (schools, some businesses, etc) could have the option of paying for it instead of filtering software that is often questionable in effectiveness.

Just two days ago, the FCC held hearings on Comcast's alleged throttling of BitTorrent traffic. One of the issues raised was that of transparency, that when people buy what they think is "unlimited" service they are really agreeing to Terms of Service that let the ISP do certain things to manage the network.

Whether or not what Comcast did was proper is up to the FCC to decide. On the other hand, if the cable companies can offer "family tiers" and Utah can have "family" broadband, why can't the broadband providers offer a "tier" of service that is truly "all-you-can-eat" for the power user? Much was made of the need for "full disclosure" of restrictions on bandwidth by broadband providers. I agree that this is true. You should know what you are buying, and you should get what pay for. If a small percentage of users really does use such a large percentage of bandwidth, they should be offered the option of paying for the ability to truly use as much as they want.

Network management is reasonable. Full disclosure is reasonable. Paying a premium for guaranteed maximum bandwidth is totally reasonable. The market for "all you can eat" broadband exists.

If you build it, they will come.

Utah's State Legislature is considering allowing "pre-censored" Internet providers and giving them a special label, according to the Deseret News:

Utah Internet service providers could earn a state-approved "G-rating" for filtering content and insuring that users could not access pornography under provisions in a bill heard by a House committee on Monday.

HB407, sponsored by Rep. Michael Morley, R-Spanish Fork, would require the Utah Division of Consumer Protection to create a designation for providers who prevent access to "prohibited" material. After attaining the "seal of approval," providers would be subject for fines up to $10,000 for violating requirements.

"It's very difficult to figure out a way to monitor the internet," Morley said. "I think it's a positive thing for those who are looking for a site that is dedicated to fighting pornography."

The opponents are Google, Yahoo, etc. Obviously they'd see a decrease in traffic from some Utahn customers, but actually I see this as a good thing. While I'm not a fan of filtering, I do think that it's up to parents to choose what is appropriate for their children. If they want to leave it up to an ISP instead of having to constantly update software that their kids could possibly get around, more power to them. If the market is there for these kinds of "G-rated" ISPs, good for them. Let them make bank.

THE federal Government's plan to have internet service providers filter pornography and other internet content deemed inappropriate for children is going full-steam ahead.

Trials are to be conducted soon in a closed environment in Tasmania.

Today is the deadline for expressions of interest to Enex TestLab, the Melbourne company evaluating internet service provider content filters on behalf of the Australian Communications and Media Authority.

ISP-based filters will block inappropriate web pages at service provider level and automatically relay a clean feed to households.

To be exempted, users will have to individually contact their ISPs.The trial will evaluate ISP-level internet content filters in a controlled environment while filtering content inappropriate for children, Enex said. 

Utah wants an opt-in, market-based solution, while Australia thinks that everyone needs to be "protected" by default and have to go "waltzing matilda" to get out of the filtering system. I'm not so sure why Google and Yahoo! are opposing the Utah bill and not screaming bloody murder about the Aussies. Content providers should support allowing people to choose to not receive their content, that way they can realize how much they use it when it's gone. Let parents get frustrated with their filtered service until they cancel it.