Posts Tagged ‘censorship’

The slow criminalisation of us all

I received another email today from the EFA stop censorship list pointing to Yet Another Call for Censorship (YACfC) and rating of Internet sites. It’s rather ironic that these calls receive any airtime, because they are essentially pointing to the criminalisation of large portions of the population and the infantalisation of us all.

In relatively recent times, in Australia, we have had changes in copyright law which resulted in the criminalisation of a large proportion of the population because it’s now against the law the watch a recorded video more than once (among other things).  How many of us record something and just watch it once?  But, with the wisdom of ages, it was deemed that this activity was not lawful.  Time shifting of content is only a once off affair.  How could anyone think that a recording of a TV program which one day could be kept indefinitely and watched frequently while the next was illegal was worthy of a legislative change?

We’re now facing a global challenge to what is considered okay.  Going is our ability to choose what we do when we use the Internet, most notably the World Wide Web (which is not equivalent, but let’s not let technicalities get in the way).  Why does anyone think it’s appropriate to restrict what is available on the web – which, I might add, is a grown ups place!  The majority of internet users are adults[1].  Why is it that we, the adults of the world, get to surf a kiddy internet instead of the real internet?

It struck me this morning that there has been a trend in parenting that is perhaps partly responsible for the current shifts.  Helicopter parents try to control every aspect of their children’s lives, every decision, every mistake.  Children (and we’re talking about 20 somethings here) need to have their parents ring their employer, their bank, their credit agencies, because they are children and cannot make decisions.  This is the kind of thinking that we are dealing with.  These Helicopter Parents, grounded in the benefit of growing up making their own mistakes, want to save their children from the pain of those mistakes[2].  Why would anyone want their children to remain children for so long?  Is this a response to empty nest syndrome?

But the thing that really struck me as I contemplated censorship and helicopter parents is that we are now entering an era of Helicopter Governance.[3]  Gone will be our ability to make mistakes and to learn from them.  No more will we be at risk of losing, of being hurt.  In its place will be laws for our protection, laws that make adults criminal.

I often contemplate what I would do if I ever did happen to find some child sexual abuse material[4] on the internet.  Would I be able to report it? Would I be able to do anything to protect that child?  Can I safely report that to the Police for investigation? Or will I be investigated for viewing child p0rn?  Will I have my life turned upside down in an effort to save the children from being saved?

Please, I’m 47.  I’m an adult.  I want to take risks.  I want to learn from my mistakes.  I want to push the boundaries of what it is to know, what we can learn from each other.  Don’t make me a criminal for doing my that!

  1. okay, I made that statistic up, but I’m pretty sure it’s correct and it has as much legitimacy as any of the fear mongering stats []
  2. among other things []
  3. See here for another example. []
  4. aka child p0rn []

Tags: , , ,

Video as data

One of my research interests is exploring the varied relationships people have with their technology.  I have been trying to work out a process for exploring this in a way that allows me to dig deeper into these relationships, but besides working out a survey and perhaps watching people, I haven’t come up with a good approach that doesn’t put people on edge because they feel less than comfortable with their level of knowledge which is ironic given that I’m interested in how they learn.

But I was watching the Ludlum/Conroy video and it occurred to me that we see Conroy interacting with his computer in that clip.  Admittedly, there isn’t much to go on but he at least seemed comfortable using the down arrow key.  I think I saw a mouse beside the laptop, but he didn’t use that in that clip.  It occurred to me that there is potentially a heap of, dare I say, ‘evidence’ of the kinds of interactions I’m interested on YouTube and other video sites.

On the face of that one clip, I can conclude that we have a very non-tech savvy Senate.  There were perhaps three (visible) computers that I could see within the chamber – one in front of Conroy, one with Ludlam and one other with, I’m assuming[1], support people.

While videos of people intereacting with their computers may actually be a rich source of data for my research[2], I do not think watching the Senate will contribute much. I might also end up having a brain haemorrhage having to listen to Conroy over and over and over[3].  Oh, but turn down the sound and we see Conroy exhibiting very different mannerisms while reading his canned response to that when he reponds to the follow ons from Ludlum.  Interesting indeed.

  1. and demonstrating my lack of precise knowledge about the Senate []
  2. I will definitely need to investigate the ethical position on this. []
  3. I’m only on my third viewing and already I feel sick []

Tags: , ,

Evidence based approach?

Senator Conroy is on record as saying

The government intends to take an evidence based approach to this issue. The results of the live pilot will inform the government’s policy in this area. (Senate, 13 November, 2008)

A number of questions arise from this statement.

  1. What is an evidenced based approach?
  2. What evidence will the live pilot produce?

I’m not an expert in Evidence Based Medicine from which Evidence Based Policy (and I’m assuming, an evidence based approach to policy) arises. I do remember reading a critique of EBM somewhere online, but as it’s only a side issue for me, I did not bookmark nor record that particular piece of ‘evidence’. I do, however, have some skills in searching out evidence, skills I used to find some critiques of evidence based methodologies.

One of the most interesting finds was a paper on Evidence Based Policy which looks specifically at the Australian context. It was noted in that paper there are many forms of evidence including

Expert knowledge; published research, existing research; stakeholder consultations; previous policy evaluations; the Internet; outcomes from consultations; costings of policy options; output from economic and statistical modelling (UK Cabinet Office, 1999 quoted in Marston and Watts, 2003, p145)

This is not an exhaustive list, but gives some idea of the kinds of ‘knowledge’ that can be used within the process of making policy. Marston and Watts make the claim that “the meaning and practice of ‘evidence-based policy’ are contested” (2203, p143). Knowledge is also highly contested[1] and hierarchical, with scientific, objective forms of research contributing more strongly than other forms of empirical data (including expert knowledge derived from practice – that is, that developed by Systems Administrators who daily engage with the concepts under contestation).

Marston and Watts (2003, p150-1) give the following list as the “core features of all evidence-based arguments“:

  • an implied or identified question
  • a claim or proposition that such and such is the case or that such and such explains or renders intelligible
  • the evidence adduced in support of that claim or proposition
  • a set of assumptions that have assisted in a) shaping the question, b) selecting what will count as the relevant evidence and c) which then link the evidence to the claim by means of conceptual processes that warrant the proposed link between the claim and the evidence actually advanced.

Let’s apply these to the current debate.

Read more of Evidence based approach?

  1. and if you contest that you prove my point []

Tags: ,

Needle … meet haystack!

I was reading about some of the fuzzy statistics that relate to the current attempts to filter/censor the ‘internet’ and I couldn’t help but wonder how effective it will be.  Many other people have pointed out just how hard it would be, but I’m basically a numbers person, for all that I now like qualitatively styled research. I should mention that I’ve lost most of the links to the posts where others have pointed out how hard it will be to filter.  But, after reading the statistics that Irene at libertus.net gathered, I couldn’t help reorganising some of those numbers.


No Clean Feed - Stop Internet Censorship in Australia

Read more of Needle … meet haystack!

Tags: , ,

Senator Conroy doesn’t want you to see …

this pair of nice boobies[1].

A pair of blue-footed boobies in the Galapgos Islands

A pair of blue-footed boobies in the Galapagos Islands by Eugene on Flickr

It seems the planned Australian Filter has hit mainstream news.  Not that I watch much of that, but it’s been bubbling around the intarwebs for a while.

I always think about the false positives that are going to happen.  The biggest area, in my mind, that will be affected is the birds.  No more nice boobies.  Admittedly, there are a few bird names that kids giggle over.

It reminds me of when I was much younger and we only had books.  We used to look words up in the dictionary.  You can be sure I would have been googling words, but we were fairly limited.  I mean, I remember looking up the word ‘fart‘ only to find it’s definition was sadly lacking and puritan: an explosion between the legs.  WTF?  I mean, there’s way more to it than that, but that was the only definition we had.

The other incident that springs to mind when I think about this is when I was working in a regional uni and introducing school kids to this new fangled internet. It would have been 1998/9.  I was watching a group of young girls looking up the Spice Girls.  Innocent enough, but the search also returned ‘spicy girls’ – not exactly what they were looking for.  After they clicked on one link and got something that was, to them, rather disappointing, the student teacher who was working directly with them totally freaked out.  I think she almost wanted to put herself between these innocent children and these images.  As I was standing behind the group at the time, I leaned over to the girls and said something like, oh bother, that’s not what you want, hit the back button.  The kids were very happy to comply because they didn’t want that, they had more sense than the student teacher!  It wasn’t a big deal to them.  They knew what they wanted!

It still peeves me that that woman will be transferring her puritan ideals to a whole new group of children.  Please think of the children, let them grow and explore.  Let them find the information they need to become well adjusted.  Don’t block their access to everything!

  1. I find it ironic that these boobies have no heads []

Tags: , ,

Theme by RoseCityGardens.com
Modified by Me!