This is the fourth and final installment of B.Z.s posts on Internet Communities. Please have a look and respond. B.Z. is my student at the U, and is doing a research project on internet community dynamics. Here, he is taking an opportunity to tell this community what he is thinking.
The Internet can be censored using a variety of technical methods such as IP filtering (blocking a specific user's address), DNS filtering (similar to IP but using a name resolution), URL filtering (websites are blocked to the entire population), Packet filtering (monitoring language in communication) to name a few.
On a technological side, this concept it flawed. New websites are created every minute - keeping up with this mass growth will always be a game of catch up. Filters themselves are flawed, and often do not block 100% of the intended targets, and often produce false-positives on sites that are in fact "ok" to access. Finally, it is extremely difficult to fully manage all methods for information sharing (such as file sharing, point-to-point, e-mail, newsgroups, etc).
Workplaces and even entire countries subjectively and discriminately filter the Internet. In the workplace common reasons given for this practice include increased security, enhanced productivity, and protecting company reputation.
I see flaws in this logic; a secure network shouldn't have anything to fear from unrestricted Internet access. Productivity may in fact be decreased significantly. One's job may involve researching the internet for various topics that may even involve online community interaction. If when a user attempts to access a site that would help with his or her production level approval must first be given in a tedious and time consuming process (if at all) production is certainly diminished.
Protecting company reputation cant be a valid reason either, how would anyone outside of the company know what is going on internally if the security is up to snuff? It is also commonplace for workers to work form home, and the company policies don't apply to an individual's home computer. A worker could have bookmarks to relevant topics that help with ones job (perhaps ones that are blocked at work due to filtering!), anyone who gets access to those individuals computers would know private company related material based off their bookmarks and search results. Furthermore, it is often the case that only mid to low level employees have filtering enabled, management and executive levels often have the privilege of have unrestricted access, no doubt increasing the negative effects of feeling "class" within the workplace.
People should only see what they are told to see.
When a country attempts to filter the Internet for its entire population, the reasons seem more malevolent than flawed. Internet Censorship in the People's Republic of China is to mostly aimed at preventing political and religious knowledge from disseminating, a major human rights issue viewed by democratic nations such as the United States of America.
However the list of what exactly China allows varies. Some known taboo topics include: spiritual practices; police brutality; political protests; freedom of speech; democracy; Marxism; news and media outlets; obscenity; pornography; Tibet, and many more. Exactly what crosses the line seems to be very subjective, there is no clear guideline, and the only thing that is clear is that whatever is deemed undesirable for the masses is blocked. This mass level of censorship (it is estimated that over 40,000 "internet police" focus on the capital city of Beijing alone) takes place outside of the internet as well, from community message boards to traditional "snail mail".
What can or should be done about this situation?
Creating awareness within the boundaries and channels that lead to others so that pressure can be applied to policymakers to provide a voice for change may help this situation. Productivity may increase in positions were workers need less constrictive environments and perhaps even whole cultures like the country of Australia, which is considering a country-wide internet filtering program can be prevented if enough awareness and action is taken to whole situation.
Do you have specific experiences with internet blocking or any kind of censorship? Has censorship or restriction ever enhanced your productivity or otherwise improved your lot?
Comments
As someone who frequently contributes to the English Wikipedia I was involved in the recent filtering attempt by British ISPs. The filtering was at best ineffective if one knew about it but had the serious problem of massively reducing functionality of Wikipedia for British users while it was active. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Watch_Foundation_and_Wikipedia for an overview if one is not familiar with the issue.
Posted by: Joshua Zelinsky | December 12, 2008 1:37 PM
Speaking of packet filtering, there's been a big stink in the YouTube atheist community regarding YouTube's new policy of algorithmically demoting videos with objectionable content.
Posted by: The Science Pundit | December 12, 2008 2:44 PM
Early on in browsers, some bluenose decided that "beaver" was obscene. Among those unfairly impacted were:
1. Beaver County, Oklahoma, and its county seat, Beaver
2. Beaver County, Oklahoma, and its county seat, Beaver
3. Beaver County, Pennsylvania, with its county seat, Beaver, the city of Beaver Falls, and the borough of Big Beaver
4. Beaver County, Utah, with its county seat, Beaver
5. Beaver State Park in Oklahoma
6. Little Beaver State Park in West Virginia
7. Beaver College in Pennsylvania, which changed its name to Arcadia University
8. Beaver Stadium at the University Park Campus of Penn State University
Most filters now pass "beaver" without trouble, but imagine the consequences if a dozen years ago someone had decided "bush" was obscene.
Posted by: CRM-114 | December 12, 2008 4:09 PM
Speaking as a System Admin at a company, I'm the one doing the filtering. Years ago, people had free reign on the internet. Productivity loss was an issue, but with a minority of people. The other side effect which happened from time to time, was that someone would click on something in an email or on a website they shouldn't have, and infected their computer with some spyware. Our staff mainly consist of data entry people who may need to access only certain websites for work, so a filter was put in place to allow access to only certain websites. We implemented an SLA for the approval process for a site. If you submit a request, the site is added within five minutes. We may get one request every two months, of course after a period of more frequent requests. The internet afterward, was treated more like a tool for work, and less like a distraction.
To offset the burden placed on staff who just NEED to check MySpace, a different area, with different computer, running a different operating system, was set up with full internet access.
From a business perspective, you can be held liable as a company if you do not filter, or attempt to filter, sexually explicit content. There was a case where a woman sued her employer for harassment because a coworker was browsing porn at work, and she saw it. What a company may think that's stupid, if they want to limit that liability, they at least have to attempt something.
From a security stand point, protecting a company's reputation can be important, but what is more important is IP, or Intellectual Property. There are solutions for protecting your data, all expensive, and not fool-proof. You can log file transfers, monitor email being sent out of a company, control what can be copied from a workstation or laptop, prohibit the use of USB flash drives, even control copy and paste functions from one source into another, such as a webmail account. Some data is that important, most of it isn't, but data accountability can be a big issue depending on the industry.
The best way to promote responsible computer behavior in a corporate environment, is to train staff and follow up with checks for compliance. Providing positive reinforcement, while cheesy, can be effective in promoting good behavior.
Posted by: Bjorn Watland | December 12, 2008 4:45 PM
I work in a school. Obviously we need internet filters for the student server. But the teacher server also had a filter. This prevented teachers from having access to You Tube videos. Many teachers were annoyed that they couldn't use some very neat You Tube videos to support what they were teaching. Recently, the administration and IT Team decided to allow access and provided teachers with instruction on how to use You Tube professionally. For example, they explained teachers shouldn't search You Tube while displaying results to students because often you'll see things you didn't intend.
Posted by: Serena | December 12, 2008 9:35 PM
Furthermore - company privacy died the day cell phone cameras became commodities.
I don't think your argument against filtering needs the assumptions of security and privacy, but they're bogus nonetheless.
Posted by: llewelly | December 12, 2008 9:41 PM
Australia is trying to join China as one of the very few countries with mandatory internet filtering.
http://nocleanfeed.com/
Posted by: zayzayem | December 16, 2008 6:31 AM