Is terrorism the new child porn

Wed Sep 26 19:08:29 CEST 2012

There is so much I would like to say on this subject.
But rest assured on one thing... I don't think this approach is feasible or sustainable.
Can we come back down to earth please...

Warmly,

Kristina
On 26 Sep 2012, at 12:48, Poncelet Ileleji wrote:

> Hi All,
>
> I think within the context of this discussion, self regulation is very key,  we live in a diverse global village today, Self regulations comes at all levels and needs a certain responsibility, because what is acceptable in Rome might not be acceptable in Yemen.  The need to self  regulate should be seen as a responsibility of all players, As we not not to judge, content providers too have to be responsible and know that people react in different ways based on the societies they live in  and are brought up in. Yes "Internet for All", but the key is Education, Education but this too depends on what the various societies  needs are and how to perceive it to be addressed in terms of Education.
>
> How is the Internet portrayed in our communities, How is it defined what attributes do we need to address of the benefits of "Internet for All" the key attributes to me is the education it brings to people, and if we use this well, then the true positives will come out as self regulation will definitely come into play not by enforcement but by respect to values, cultures, and the diverse world we live in today.
>
> Peace
>
> Poncelet
>
>
>
>
>
> On 26 September 2012 11:14, clarinette <clarinettet at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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
>>
>> 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/
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS
> Coordinator
> The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio
> MDI Road Kanifing South
> P. O. Box 421 Banjul
> The Gambia, West Africa
> Tel: (220) 4370240
> Fax:(220) 4390793
> Cell:(220) 9912508
> Skype: pons_utd

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20120926/d7a9d89a/attachment-0001.html>