Some of the difficulties inherent in content regulation

SmartFilter is a system used by corporations, schools, libraries and governments that allows system administrators to monitor and filter their users' access to web sites. Their website states that "By controlling inappropriate Internet use with SmartFilter, organizations can reduce legal liability, enhance Web security, increase productivity, and preserve bandwidth for business-related activities. SmartFilter puts you in control."

However, the New York Times reports (free subscription required) that the relatively innocent site Boing Boing: A Directory of Wonderful Things had been blocked by SmartFilter on the basis that a site reviewer from SmartFilter had "spotted something fleshy" and incorrectly (or at the least unfairly) labelled the site with the Nudity characterisation.

As is noted in the article, "There is far too much content on the Internet for one company to review manually, so they have to cut corners. And they're going to fall further behind as the Web gets bigger."

Is there a solution to this problem? Should we just accept that it is impossible to provide effective content regulation for the internet? Should we even go so far to say that there should be no regulation of the internet?

Who should profit from a blog?

If you have a popular blog, should you have the write to sell advertising space on that blog? Or should any advertising space be controlled by the web portal that places the blog online? This is the dilemma being faced by Xu Jinglei, a Chinese actress, who is China's most popular blogger. Read more from the New York Times website (free subscription required).

What do you think? Who should profit?

Microsoft v Google

The president of Microsoft Europe, Middle East and Africa, Neil Holloway, has declared that Microsoft will have a better search engine than google in 6 months. The new search engine will be introduced in the US and Britain first, before being introduced into Europe, and will be put into Microsoft's widely used communications tools Windows Messenger and Hotmail. Read more here.

Backspace: 26 February to 5 March

The blog began 2006 with a welcome and some news about an exciting new research project hosted by the Queensland University of Technology, OAK Law. Other issues canvassed in the last seven days have included:

• The big copyright story was the release of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs handing down its report on the inquiry into technological protection measures.
• The other copyright story was that Apple iTunes Music Store stated that it would not be releasing local download figures.
• Moving away from copyright, the blog considered whether email on the Internet should be free. Would charging for email be just like a road toll? When will email cease to be free? And would charging for email introduce a two-tiered system? Would a charging for email reduce our dependence on email?
• Phishing continues to be a threat to Australia, while some US states, like Virginia, are fighting back.
• Internet usage continues to grow, as does the google juggernaut.
• Despite the promises of Bill Gates, spam continues to be a problem, forcing companies and law firms to find ways of limiting spam.
• Threats, hackers and cyberviolence continue to provoke further regulation of the internet.
• Content regulation of the internet in China. This is a major legal, technological and political issue that will be considered throughout the semester and warrants more comment and attention.

I hope you found some of these links and issues interesting. Please post your comments to encourage more debate and discussion.

South Korea and "cyberviolence"

CNN has posted this report on cyberviolence in South Korea. The report is interesting for these aspects:

• South Korea is the world's most wired country, boasting the highest per capita rate of broadband Internet connections.
• The term cyberviolence encompasses anything from online insults to sexual harassment and cyberstalking.
• Prosecutors are beginning to respond to the threat posed by cyberviolence.
• Also responding is the government, who plans to introduce a bill that real-name authentication.
• Websites too are responding by actively seeking to filter comments.

There are four questions worthing considering here. First, is given the nature of the virtual environment of the internet is cyberviolence really a threat or danger? Second, are the respective responses of prosecutors, the government and individual websites warranted and proportionate to whatever threat or danger is posed? Will real-name authentication, which would have the effect of removing anonymous online speech in South Korea, be a threat to free speech? Do we, and should we, have a right to anonymous speech?

Did this school do the right thing?

According to this report, 20 school students were suspended after seeing a posting on a MySpace.com website that contained a threat directed toward a girl at the school. Did the school overstep its bounds by disciplining students for actions that occurred on personal computers, at home and after school hours?

Google continues to expand

Google aims to become a $US100 billion company according to Australian IT today. The article also notes that despite Google's new products, 97% of its revenue is from search-related advertising.

More on when will email cease to be free?

This issue was raised in this blog on Wednesday, but I thought it interesting to posit the idea that perhaps that rather than all-free email or all-pay email, we could be seeing the introduction of a two tiered system. This is certainly the allegation that is being levelled at AOL (see this Financial Times article).

Is there anything wrong with a two tiered system? If users are prepared to pay for an email system that guarantees increased speed and authentication, why shouldn't just accept that it is their right to do so? It all comes back to the fundamental questions: should email be free, and why?

Internet performance in Australia

The Australian Communications and Media Authority has also issued a report on the data rates and reliability of internet connections in Australia. Although the report is quite technical, it concludes that Australian internet performance across different technologies and access plans is generally consistent with transmission protocols and the inherent nature of the internet. The report is titled Understanding your Internet Quality of Service 2004-05.

ACMA warning on phishing

The Australian Communications and Media Authority has issued a warning about phishing, a topic we will cover a bit later in the semester. You can read the warning here.

Are we too email dependent?

Are we too email dependent? Joceyln Noveck wonders if that is so in her article "In the age of e-mail and instant messaging, the lowly handwritten note gains currency ..."

Do you agree or disagree? Is the handwritten note gaining currency?

Content Regulation in China

The issue of content regulation in China was mentioned in this blog last year. In the last few weeks, this issue has once again pushed into the international media. The Washington Post recently published an excellent series of stories on this issue, titled The Click That Broke a Government's Grip.

Here are some other recent stories relating to content regulation in China:

• The Chinese government continues to prosecute people for subversion for online writings. For example, on Tuesday the AP reported that a Chinese journalist has been whose reports on rural poverty and unemployment riled local officials has been charged with subversion after posting essays on the internet.
• China is cracking down on spam and piracy.
• Much to the chagrin of the US government, various internet companies have agreed to China's censorship demands.

For a detailed study, see this report from the OpenNet Initiative: Internet Filtering in China in 2004-2005.

Of course, the Chinese government defends its right to regulate the internet in the way it does.

There are really two issues here. First, how successful has China's regulation been? And second, assuming the Chinese government's attempts at regulation have been relative successful, should a government be able to regulate what its citizens can access through the internet? So basically, the first is a practical or technical question - does it work? - while the second is the moral or philosophical question on the role of government and the value of free speech? Any thoughts or different perspectives? Who would defend what China is doing?