EU Censorship Plan With A Cheesy Name: The Clean IT Project
from the voluntary-until-we-make-it-compulsory dept
A couple of weeks ago, Techdirt reported on UK politicians calling for ISPs to "take down" terrorist content. Now it seems that the idea has not only spread to other European countries, but even acquired a cheesy name: "the Clean IT Project".
The internet plays a central role and is of great strategic importance for terrorists and extremist networks. These networks know that propaganda is a critical tool for generating funding, recruits and support for their cause within these communities. Historically they have used a variety of media channels, such as television, radio and publishing, in order to communicate their views. During the past decade of huge global growth of the internet, Al Qaida influenced extremists for example, have made increasing use of this medium. The internet and its fast and anonymous means can contribute to individual radicalization processes. There are concerns about the illegal use of the internet for terrorist purposes and the misuse of legal / neutral websites. The question is if we can limit the use of internet for terrorist purposes, without affecting our online freedom. Therefore this project is based on a public-private dialogue.
Those last two sentences are particularly ominous. First, because they show no awareness that any attempt to "clean" the Internet inevitably affects everyone else's online freedom. Given that there are no hard and fast rules about what is terrorism, the past teaches us that there is always collateral damage in the form of over-reaction -- not least because people understandably err on the side of caution in this area.
The other reason we ought to fear this new initiative is that it is based on getting the private sector to act as online police, using a "non-legislative" approach:
The main objective of this project is to develop a non-legislative 'framework' that consists of general principles and best practices. The general principles will be developed through a bottom up process where the private sector will be in the lead. Through a series of workshops and conferences, the private and public sector will define their problems and try to draw up principles. These principles can be used as a guideline or gentlemen’s agreement, and can be adopted by many partners. They will describe responsibilities and concrete steps public and private partners can take to counter the illegal use of Internet.
This is of a piece with similar attempts to get ISPs to spy on their users, or search engines to censor their results: since everything is done through a non-legislative 'framework', there is no oversight and no formalized legal recourse. It's part of a general move to control the Internet through extra-judicial means, thus avoiding all the risks of a democratic debate or the need to produce any evidence that the measures are effective and proportionate. Significantly, it's also one of ACTA's key (bad) ideas.
Even though the project is being sold as a voluntary "gentlemen’s agreement", the reality is that lurking in the background is the usual implicit threat:
The covenant, the principles and the practices should be non-legislative because they will be adopted on a voluntary basis with support from the industry. It should also be possible to implement them quickly in any European Member State, or even worldwide. Nevertheless, it is possible that one of the results will be a call for better regulation by governments.
That is, if industry doesn't adopt the principles and practices -- and implement them "quickly", too -- it will be forced to do so through legislation.
It's not even clear that "limiting terrorist use of internet" is the best way to fight terrorism. There is an argument that it would be better for as much terrorist activity as possible to take place where security agencies can keep it under close surveillance. Shutting down the more obvious sites and means of communication will simply drive terrorists deeper underground, and make it harder to monitor and thus counter them.
So once more, we have the worst of both worlds: while the rights of the general public are diminished further in the name of "combatting terrorism", the actual fight will be made more difficult.
Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: censorship, clean it project, eu, isps, privacy, terrorism
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Oh the stupidity
This "question" makes my brain hurt. It's not a question; it's an obvious contradiction. You cannot, by definition, limit something without adversely affecting freedom. This is the same kind of intellectually dishonest thinking that politicians use when saying that PIPA/SOPA isn't censorship. What they really mean is that "Restricting what people can say isn't censorship if I don't agree with what they are saying. 'Censorship' is bad, but what I'm doing is good; therefore this isn't censorship."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Oh the stupidity
The ENTIRE point of having freedom of speech is that you are allowed to speak ill of the government. That is why it was put into the US constitution.
I recognize this is particular post is not talking of the US but I am not as familiar with European laws in that regard. The main point though is that those in power are trying to take away peoples right to talk negatively about them. They are doing this simply by pointing at the boogie man in the corner they are calling "terrorists".
I for one have ZERO fear of these "terrorists". They have proven to be relativity stupid and of little real threat. I AM AFRAID of what the GOVERNMENT is doing.
The actions of the terrorists do not in any way affect my day to day life. Even if we dropped all security these guys well over half the time get caught because they can't get their bomb to detonate. We are talking about something a damn USA high school student would have no trouble with. That is a very LOW standard.
The government on the other hand does greatly affect the day to day lives of everyone. Especially here in the US where you have to be sexually molested in order to get on a plane.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The question is
Easy answer. We cant. Now STFU and go catch some real criminals.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not to mention ineffective. The moment the 'industry' implements this, non-censored alternatives will surface.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I'm getting so very sick of the way the world governments are headed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The best way to prevent terrorism is to prevent conditions from becoming so terrible that people think it's their best option. The best way to prevent conditions from becoming terrible is to (gasp!) actually pay attention, and to have a mind open to the thought that maybe, just maybe, someone's complaints are valid. The best way to pay attention is to read and listen and think...all of which are facilitated by the Internet, among other things.
Dialogue today is much cheaper and easier than military action tomorrow.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The high cost of peace
The powers that be would love nothing more than nice obvious terrorists they could use as an excuse for all-out war against the rights of its citizens.
Lacking credible enemies, they've had to busy themselves with make cardboard cut-out terrorists so as to keep the FUD going until they finish setting up a real at-home terrorist organization.
Peace, public good, these things are not a concern.
[/conspiracy theorizing]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The high cost of peace
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Perhaps Politicians should remember this quote.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Apparent transparency
At the first workshop in Amsterdam only a few ISP´s were participating. In the second one in Madrid we have more participants from the internet industry and also some NGO's. We will however not share names in public without their permission. Companies might be a bit reserved to link their corporate reputation to a project without knowing precisely what the end-result will look like.
Translation: Since we're starting from a false premise that the best approach is censorship, we already know that the end-result it going to be controversial, so we want to hide as much as possible until it's already too late for you pesky citizens to do anything about it.
Take note, this is the post PIPA/ACTA model: give lip service to transparency, but still keep all of the essential dealing behind closed doors.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Huh?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Huh?
Smells fishy huh?
(Sorry couldn't help myself)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Huh?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Huh?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We need to stop terrorism on the web... REALLY
I just wonder why they never bring up this site....
http://kkk.com/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: We need to stop terrorism on the web... REALLY
If you want to censor hate and ignorance on the net, you need to change the name of the project to Take the Net Down Now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Terrorists can use newspapers.Should we block newspapers?
Terrorists can use Mail delivery.Should we block the Mail?
This is fuck all to do with terrorists, peadaphiles and all the other fucking "buzzwords", this is about control over its public
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
And then what, we progress from terrorism, to "you cant broadcast that, the government would'nt like it"
i.e. the sopa protests...cant inform the people on unsavoury subjects now can we, they might garner more support
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Replace the word "internet"...
Just for a laugh.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
FIFY
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
morons. what's that old definition of insanity?
Ah well, if they ever stopped slamming their collective dicks in a drawer, what would we come to read about on techdirt?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
These guys...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
what I want is..
jeeze...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]