From: kadie@eff.org (Fwd:) Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.news Subject: [SF Examiner] "Why Censoring Cyberspace Is Futile" Followup-To: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk Date: 25 Apr 1994 08:31:08 -0400 Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation Lines: 121 Approved: kadie@eff.org Message-ID: <2pgd6c$d2q@eff.org> [A repost - Carl] [Paraphrase: [Writer Howard Rheingold writing in the San Francisco Examiner] Censoring cyberspace is futile because 'As Net pioneer John Gilmore is often quoted: "The Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it."' "Yes, pedophiles and pornographers use computer networks. They also use telephones and the mail, but nobody would argue that we need to censor or shut down these forms of communication. The most relevant question now is: how do we teach our children to live, in an uncensorable world?" (Some suggestions are enclosed.)] From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk Subject: [SF Examiner] "Why Censoring Cyberspace Is Futile" Date: 24 Apr 1994 19:02:43 -0400 Message-ID: <2petqj$rk6@eff.org> [By Howard Rheingold. Originally published in the San Francisco Examiner, part of a weekly series of columns called "Tomorrow." Reposted with permission.] ======================================= vc.181: Howard Rheingold's "Tomorrow" Columns Online vc.181.27: Howard Rheingold (hlr) Tue 5 Apr 94 20:30 This will appear in tomorrow's Examiner: Why Censoring Cyberspace Is Futile By Howard Rheingold For years, many Netheads had a recurring nightmare that a pedophile would use a computer bulletin board system to make contact with a child, and follow up with physical abuse offline. Now this nightmare has become a reality. (See the news pages of today's Examiner.) It is only a matter of time before law enforcement authorities use cases like this to crack down on the free-wheeling, everything-is-permitted culture of cyberspace. It's not hard to imagine Jesse Helms standing before the US Senate, holding up an X-rated image downloaded from the Internet, raging indignantly about "public funds for porno highways." As the public begins to realize that communications technology is exposing them to an unlimited array of words and images, including some they might find thoroughly repulsive, the clamor for censorship and government regulation of the electronic highway is sure to begin. But it would be a mistake to let traffic cops start pulling people over on the highway. Yes, we have to think about ways of protecting our children and our society from the easy availability of every kind of abhorrent information imaginable. But the "censor the Net" approach is not just morally misguided. It's becoming technically impossible. As Net pioneer John Gilmore is often quoted: "The Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it." The Net's technological foundation was built to withstand nuclear attack. The RAND Corporation designed the network to be a thoroughly decentralized command-and-control-and communications system, one that would be less vulnerable to intercontinental missiles than a system commanded by a centralized headquarters. This decentralization of control means that the delivery system for salacious materials is the same worldwide one that delivers economic opportunity, educational resources, civic forums, and health advice. If a hacker in Helsinki or Los Angeles connects to the Internet and provides access to his digital porno files, anybody anywhere else in the world, with the right kind of Internet connection, can download those steamy bits and bytes. This technological shock to our moral codes means that in the future, we are going to have to teach our children well. The locus of control is going to have to be in their heads and hearts, not in the laws or machines that make information so imperviously available. Before we let our kids loose on the Internet, they better have a solid moral grounding and some common sense. I bought an Internet account for my daughter when she was eight years old, so we could exchange e-mail when I was on the road. But I didn't turn her loose until I filled her in on some facts of online life. "Just because someone sends you mail, you don't have to answer unless you know them," I instructed her. "And if anybody asks if you are home alone, or says something to you that makes you feel funny about answering, then just don't answer until you speak to me." The worldwide virtual communities that provide users with companionship, personal support, enlightenment, and entertainment can also contain imposters and worse. Your 14 year old might look like he is doing his homework, but is actually secretly joining a hot chat session with lecherous strangers. (The same dangers exist with the telephone -- ask parents who have had to pay hefty bills for their kids' 976 habits.) You should have the the right, and the ability, to restrict the massive information-flow into your home, to exclude subject matter that you don't want your children to see. But sooner or later, your children will be exposed to everything you have shielded them from, and then all they will have left to deal with these shocking sights and sounds is the moral fiber you helped them cultivate. Teach your children to be politely but firmly skeptical about anything they see or hear on the Net. Teach them to have no fear of rejecting images or communications that repel or frighten them. Teach them to have a strong sense of their own personal boundaries, of their right to defend those boundaries physically and socially. Teach them that people aren't always who they present themselves to be in e-mail and that predators exist. Teach them to keep personal information private. Teach them to trust you enough to confide in you if something doesn't seem right. Yes, pedophiles and pornographers use computer networks. They also use telephones and the mail, but nobody would argue that we need to censor or shut down these forms of communication. The most relevant question now is: how do we teach our children to live, in an uncensorable world? * * * -- Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me. =kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu = ================= end of repost ================== -- Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me. =kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =