Is terrorism the new child porn

Wed Sep 26 13:14:46 CEST 2012

Hello all,

I think we need to bare in mind that we live in a global society with a
multitude of cultures and societal rules.

More, internet has no barrier and therefore free speech has even a greater
meaning.

Yes, porn industry has long been the fuel of the internet. is this
necessary a bad thing? Who am I to judge and who can define what 'porn' is
in first place? According to which principle or culture will we define
'porn'? It's already hard enough to define offensive materials, child porn
and zoophilia to prohibit.

Combating anonymity? have we considered all these freedom fighters in
oppressive regimes? how would they have any speech if they could not try to
remain anonymous?

TOS you are saying? oh, much more than half people don't read them. I am a
lawyer and I can confess not always reading them myself. Why? because I
have no choice, no other choice than clicking YES, I AGREE or leaving.

I do not believe on sanctions, regulations, prohibitions that only makes
things worst. Look back at what alcohol prohibition did.

What we need is education, education, education. We need more weight to ask
for transparency and control.

Very exceptional should remain attempts to freedom of speech.

See what happened, or maybe hasn't happened but could well happen in the
future, with the Facebook bug making public private messages. What is
important is to make big corporations such as Facebook or Google or Apple
or Microsoft to respect their users and not simply taking them as a
product. (more on The Facebook Bug controversy
http://clarinettesblog.wordpress.com/2012/09/25/facebook-bug-on-the-news/)

I quite like the Internet & Jurisdiction project.

Regards,

Tara Taubman

On 26 September 2012 11:57, Mark Leiser <markleiser at gmail.com> wrote:

> I join Edward in rejecting your proposal. Can I give you a very clear
> example relative to today?
>
> The Reddit community took it upon themselves a few months ago to highlight
> their own perceptions about religious fanaticism. This took the form of
> satire, jokes, and innuendo. All of which would have been considered free
> speech in the west, and very easily would have been interpreted as being  hatred
> against religions around the world by others. I have shared some of those
> materials that Reddit community came up with on my FB page.  I personally
> am atheist and believe in free speech first and foremost as a way to openly
> discuss and diffuse fanaticism in the world. The notion that I could make a
> joke, upload a meme or make a video, and that "could lead to terrorism" as
> a consequence is not my fault, nor is it any social media platforms. It is
> the terrorist, no-one else's.
>
> I think it is a noble idea that you want to rid what you see as the
> triggers of violence, but the notion of filtering software and hardware
> scanning all of my uploads for what someone at Facebook pre-programs
> (normally in relation to Californian and American values) is so frightening
> to me that I would leave FB immediately for a lesser known platform, and
> then the platform would lose people like me who seek to comment, diffuse
> and debate fanaticism! It is a precarious circle, but I find your solution
> counter-productive.
>
> Sincerely,
>
>
> Mark Leiser
>
> Mark R. Leiser, Phd Student
> School of Law, Humanities & Social Sciences Faculty
> PGR Room, Lord Hope Building
> University of Strathclyde
> 141 St James Road,
> Glasgow G4 0LT
> Scotland
>
> Email: markleiser at gmail.com
> Twitter: http://twitter.com/#!/mleiser
> LinkedIN: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=189149411&trk=tab_pro
> Google+: https://plus.google.com/u/0/105289982691060086995/posts
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 11:20 AM, Edward Morris <
> edward.morris at alumni.usc.edu> wrote:
>
>> First, not every country does have cyberlaw for their own territory. Many
>> countries are making it up as they go along.
>>
>> Two, having two hundred plus laws for every post makes it a bit difficult
>> to...well, have any post.
>>
>> Three, Facebook has a real name policy. It has selective enforcement. It
>> pretty much stinks. That's why I prefer VK as my social media site. Based
>> in Russia, VK really doesn't try to be a police force.
>>
>> Bertrand de la Chapelle has a great project exploring some of these
>> issues, internet and Jurisdiction  ( http://www.internetjurisdiction.net ).
>> He's concerned, as am I, about social media companies Terms of Service
>> (ToS)  being de facto Constitutions. Rebecca MacKinnons *Consent of the
>> Governed*...fantastic book about, in part,  the danger of rule by
>> private ToS. She's particularly concerned, as are many of us, about the
>> incremental loss of anonymity online by things like real name
>> policies...and seemingly proposals like yours.
>>
>> Do you by any chance mean "Picture upload should be banned"...I don't
>> think you are calling for everyone to scan and upload pictures if they have
>> pornographic contents etc. Although I'd prefer that to the banning option.
>>
>> Were you aware that pornography is the second most popular use of the
>> internet (it used to be number one but those social media sites have
>> replaced them)? Porn users have rights too. I happen to live at times in
>> jurisdictions that do not have hate crime laws, sharia law and the like.
>> I'm perfectly happy with the free speech I have there.
>>
>> Congratulations on Indonesia's Facebook status. Was there a wider point
>> here? I think of the tens of thousands of Indonesians who bought Lady Gaga
>> tickets the minute they went on sale in Indonesia...against the tens or
>> hundreds of people protesting the Innocence of Mohammed.
>>
>> Your proposal to hold social media sites responsible for content loaded
>> by it's members is dangerous and must be rejected in whole. That would
>> effectively end social media as we know it. I would encourage this
>> Constituency to join me in respectfully rejecting your proposal in it's
>> entirety.
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 4:21 AM, rusdiah <rusdiah at rad.net.id> wrote:
>>
>>>  Facebook should enforce their policy:
>>> 1. Picture upload by a person... the person should be accountable for
>>> any pictures upload.
>>> 2. Picture upload should be scanned if it has pornographic contents,
>>> child pornography, lead to terorism, hatred against race, religions and so
>>> on...
>>>
>>> Here Facebook should be accountable... where ever they operate..since
>>> every country now has Cyberlaw for their own territory. Indonesia now ranks
>>> four of FB user in the world.
>>> So not only gain profit from advertisement, but also accountable for its
>>> content loaded by its member.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> regards, rudi rusdiah - apwkomitel - indonesia
>>>
>>> On 09/25/2012 08:35 PM, Mark Leiser wrote:
>>>
>>> I actually wrote about this the other day on my FB page. Frightening. I
>>> don't know what I expected, but thought more from the fine folks at the
>>> EU.
>>> Most puzzling and shocking is the demand that "Social Media Platforms
>>> should ensure users upload a real picture of themselves"...
>>>
>>>  Talk about mission creepy!
>>>
>>>
>>> Sincerely,
>>>
>>>
>>> Mark Leiser
>>>
>>>  Mark R. Leiser, Phd Student
>>> School of Law, Humanities & Social Sciences Faculty
>>> PGR Room, Lord Hope Building
>>> University of Strathclyde
>>> 141 St James Road,
>>> Glasgow G4 0LT
>>> Scotland
>>>
>>>  Email: markleiser at gmail.com
>>> Twitter: http://twitter.com/#!/mleiser
>>> LinkedIN: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=189149411&trk=tab_pro
>>> Google+: https://plus.google.com/u/0/105289982691060086995/posts
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 2:24 PM, Kerry Brown <kerry at kdbsystems.com>wrote:
>>>
>>>>  *http://www.edri.org/cleanIT* <http://www.edri.org/cleanIT>
>>>>
>>>> It seems that people who want to control the Internet always need an
>>>> excuse to explain their actions. It used to be that they used stopping
>>>> child porn. It seems this is changing to fighting terrorism.
>>>>
>>>> Kerry Brown
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>

--
Internet & Privacy Lawyer - LLM
Keep the internet safe
http://FlyAKite.org/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20120926/4ff0daca/attachment-0001.html>