Geotargeting And The Slippery Slope To Fragmenting The Internet With Localized Censorship
from the the-internet-is-global dept
For years we've talked about the challenges a global internet creates for legal questions that are based on more limited jurisdictions. As different countries start to deal with this, there has been some fragmenting of a global internet in the form of country-wide censorship, such as those seen in the Great Firewall of China. However, what's to stop it from fragmenting further and further? Eric Goldman points me to a recent academic paper arguing that US courts could start enforcing local obscenity laws on the internet by use of geotargeting. As you probably know, disseminating obscenity is illegal in the US, but the "know it when I see it" rule for determining what is "obscene" has generally focused on "community standards." For the most part, that's meant "local" community standards. That works (somewhat) when you're talking about physical distribution and you can try to determine the local community. But on a global internet? As the paper notes, the Supreme Court has mostly punted on this issue. However, the paper suggests that a solution could be to use geotargeting to re-establish local boundaries, jurisdictions and community standards on a global internet:The line between obscenity and eroticism is hard to pinpoint, and varies from community to community. In general, the process of analyzing whether a work is obscene includes asking whether the content violates the community standards of the local geographic area where the material was published. Thus, for most media, publishers of potentially obscene content must choose the communities into which they publish, or face criminal charges from the least tolerant communities. But for online media, the Supreme Court remains undecided whether the obscenity analysis should use the local community standard. The Court’s doubts stem from the Internet’s global reach and lack of control over who receives free online content. For example, if a work is nationally-available online, and is judged using the same legal standard as in other traditional media, any local community offended by the content has the power of a heckler’s veto to make the publisher liable for distributing obscenity.There are a number of problems I can see with this approach -- some of which are addressed in the paper. However, what troubles me more is the larger issue. There's nothing that says this kind of approach needs to be limited to obscenity. Focusing on something like this opens up a fragmented internet ruled by local jurisdictions, where suddenly all sorts of geotargeting requirements start popping up to create a patchwork censorship regime down to very localized regions.
This Article explains why the use of a new online technology resolves the question of whether local community standards should be used to judge online content. Called geotargeting, the technology creates borders on the previously borderless Internet, which allows publishers to specifically target geographically localized communities, thereby excluding areas where the material might lead to criminal charges. This new power to publish potentially obscene materials only to selected communities drastically reduces the constitutional concerns of applying traditional obscenity law to online content.
Many of us consider the global nature of the internet a feature rather than a problem. It allows people stuck in regressive communities to access the outside world and find out that their "community norms" may not be what's considered normal elsewhere. An approach that looks to open up censorship on local standards by use of geotargeting, while unlikely to be effective for those who really do wish to get around it, would almost certainly cause problems for those who have legitimate reasons to reach out beyond their local community.
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, geotargeting, jurisdiction, obscenity, scotus
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Please learn to differentiate between person and action, Prisoner, and understand that an action can be wrong but the person can still be loved and helped. And between what is right and what only seems to be right because it happens to sound good and because it's what we want to hear. It's very easy to get the two confused because sometimes we only want to see things how we want to see them, rather than how they actually are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Thanks for letting us know you're a bigot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Sounds to me like you want to impose your version of "right" onto other people.
I can play that game too - it's my opinion that your view of homosexuality is not right, so please stop commenting.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Either you are very naive, have an ego the size of Jupiter or you are the most subtle troll I have seen in a long time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I think you don't understand that loving and helping a person cannot involve imposing your biased view upon their person. Even if it were just a lifestyle rather than an inherent characteristic, it would still be wrong to attempt to impose your perceptions of right and wrong upon them. Help and love them by leaving them alone, unless you're willing to accept other people imposing their biased points of view upon you. I think your bigotry is wrong, so would you support my ability to restrict your freedoms and deny you equality simply because I thought your inherent characteristics were wrong? If not, you're a hypocrite.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What's next, web page ratings?
This solves the Geotargeting problem that your actual location can differ from the location your internet feed orgiinates. For example, I am on DSL at home and it looks like I live in a city a couple hours away which must be where my provider joins the internet. At work, my internet feed is several states away as I work in a satellite office. So I would see content from that area and not from my own area. Not to mention satellite feeds would make you look like you are clear across the country.
BTW, I hate both ideas, ratings and geotargeting. The internet is borderless, lets keep it that way. We as a society, need to stop bowing to pressure from everyone that screams. If you don't like it, don't look at it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What's next, web page ratings?
Yeah and I know the perfect group to do the ratings, the MPAA.
/sarc
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What's next, web page ratings?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What's next, web page ratings?
The added bonus is that they will not have time to do anything other than rate pages so they can drop all their other stupid things.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What's next, web page ratings?
Ohh How I wish all these people that don't like that the internet is open, global and unregulated will just leave it alone an build their own freaking network and regulate it how ever they want.
Using a patent/copyright trolls words: Why don't you invent a new, better and bigger one. It should be crime free with no privacy and where "everyone" can prosper and make huge amounts of money. And patent it so we can't copy it with out paying your community fees.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What's next, web page ratings?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What's next, web page ratings?
They could promote their creative cultural values, but that would involve more work and satisfy an entirely different urge.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: What's next, web page ratings?
FTFY
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: What's next, web page ratings?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: What's next, web page ratings?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oh the pay proxy services would love it
Agree with John Doe: Ratings system similar to games. Hell with all the parent control software out there, it's practically a none issue. Any one can block content on the personal level.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
OR ...
Don't look at things that offend you!
Close the window, change the channel, turn away. People amaze with the sheer stupidity of acting as if they are forced to watch things they don't like. We don't need geotargeting, we need education on how to use a damn off switch.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Those who do not know history
If the Internet starts to fragment, the same will happen: a new unified network will grow, and the fragments of the old Internet will end up connected to it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
...
Then again, most people in Tennessee might not have had the internet in the 90s.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
We b**ch and complain about it, but go running to the abusive "boyfriend" whenever we see something that makes us uncomfortable or offended.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This foolishly presumes...
There aren't.
Oh, the people flogging their fraudulent geolocation "services" like to pretend that there are, because there are plenty of gullible, stupid people willing to pay them for their made-up information, but anyone who actually understands IP, routing, forwarding, tunnels, dynamic addressing, and such knows this is nonsense.
I am sitting, at this moment, in location A. I'm connected back to one of my home systems at location B, to two at work at location C, to a remote server at D, to another remote server at E, and I'm tunneled into a non-server host at F. I'm thus sending and receiving packets from 6 different locations in 5 different states. Those could just as easily be 5 different countries. It is beyond stupid, it is set-yourself-on-fire idiocy to claim that any of these "geolocate" me or that I should be subject to the arbitrary whims of the network-illiterate legislators in any of those.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This foolishly presumes...
It's hard for some people to understand, but yes, local governments do matter. This isn't about geo location per se, rather that you cannot usurp local, regional, or federal laws just because you are doing it "on the internet".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: This foolishly presumes...
Really? Please specify the mechanism by which that will happen.
Once you're done with that, explain while this will go away -- given that we're inventing, testing, and deploying new mechanisms to do this very thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: This foolishly presumes...
Then you can choose to be a criminal, and accept the liability on your server for having provided such a service.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: This foolishly presumes...
Then you can choose to be a criminal, and accept the liability on your server for having provided such a service.
Not gonna happen. At least not without a SOPA scale fight.
Anonymity has been recognized prior to the inception of the United States and has been upheld multiple times by the Supreme Court. That's not going to change because it involves the internet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This foolishly presumes...
SOPA plus... imagine the corporate response to the budgetary ramifications of such a change. I'd guess you'd have just about every multi-national corporation with a US branch buying up congressmen left, right and centre to stop it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: This foolishly presumes...
And that worked sooooooooooo well for the "war on piracy" didn't it? Make everything criminal and everybody just stops it? Ha ha ha haahahahahahahahahaha.
So the next one is a "war on networking"? I can't wait to see it. Is this another one where the US governemnt is going to get on its sanctimonious high-horse on behalf of a clueless minority and try and bully all the other countries around the world to comply? I wonder how many of those pointless and unwinnable "wars" the US can support before going completely broke and being bought by China.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: This foolishly presumes...
I don't know what this "forward for" business is. Can you point to an rfc?
In any case, it most suredly won't "go away" if it were to become illegal. Worst case, the field will just be spoofed. Also, it would be impossible to detect.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: This foolishly presumes...
Or are you just drooling over the prospect of a tightly controlled Interne, like your freedoms are becoming?
Your shortsighted comments put everyone's freedoms at risk. Including yours, your families, your friends, everyone. Just because you don't think you are violating any laws Now, doesn't mean you wont be in the future.
Remember, there is Always someone else more screwed up in their beliefs than you. i.e. There will always be a bigger bully on the block. You are not the last word in any subject.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: This foolishly presumes...
> without showing the "forwarding for" in the header.
Unconstitutional. Anonymous speech is protected per the 1st Amendment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: This foolishly presumes...
That country rakes in millions in proxy fees from international customers.
Not that you'll have an easy time mandating a forward for header.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: This foolishly presumes...
Could you explain this in more detail? I don't understand why a body whose highest purpose is filling in potholes should be allowed to regulate what I do with my computers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Various
Either that or tell everyone who wants to twist and warp the Internet to their own perverted will to f-off.
I still remember the days when the Internet was cool and fun and no one cared what was going on provided on one damaged the network or was anti-sociable. Now we only have open Warfare with copyright mostly to blame.
As to pornography then that has mostly been expanding in one general direction of fairly standard media. From what I have seen this has mostly been enlightening in a new awareness that largely shifts the bounds of obscenity.
I would expect in a generation or two for general movies and TV programming to merge with pornography. They are already close in many discrete ways but they should eventually go with full scale banging as is appropriate to the creation. Actors and actresses will then be graded on more than acting talent not that popularity has that much to do with talent already.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Various
Absolutely. The laws of any city, state, province or country do not apply: we are above them, beyond them, outside them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Various
Precisely!
The internet has no geographical fix. Cities, states, provinces, and countries are defined by geographical limits. You cannot map one onto the other, and no localized laws should apply to the internet as a concept.
Such laws can and should, however, apply to the people who are in those areas. If you're in a no-porn area, then it only follows that you are breaking the law if you surf porn. However, if the porn company is not also in that area, those no-porn laws should not restrict their actions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Various
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Already possible
These would not even have to be created specifically, all OpenDNS would have to do is average the custom configuration of all the user in different geographic areas to create those profiles.
The cool thing is that using this method you don't just "not see" available content. You are immediately aware if something has been blocked and can make a reasonable decision about whether you want to circumvent that self-imposed blocking and view it anyway.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Already possible
(tongue firmly in cheek...)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Already possible
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Already possible
(tongue firmly in cheek...)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Internet is now fully mainstream, so it's done.
The huge influx of Internet advertising, sales, marketing, pedaling, money-grabbing, sherriffing, spying, contamination (er, regulation), bullshit-opinion preaching and general crap-pushing presages the end of a useful Internet, just as happened to the telephone, radio and television (to name but a few).
As always, commercial hands are killers' hands.
It's time, once again, for a new vehicle, so we can enjoy a few years usefulness before the unstoppable crap-tsunami hits that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Isn't it about time ...
Also, to assist the customer, providers could self rate their material with descriptors that customers can rate as accurate or inaccurate. Then voluntary computer level filtering could be easily accomplished by using a filter that only allows through appropriately rated web sites with community deemed accurate ratings.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Isn't it about time ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Considering all the crazy rulings coming out of the court recently, perhaps that's a good thing. :(
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It works both ways...
The thing is, Peterman won his case because his lawyer was smart enough to subpoena the pay-per-view records from the Marriott hotel next to the courthouse. These records demonstrated that, not only did the citizens of Provo watch way more porn than they claimed to, but that Peterman's porn supply was a drop in the bucket compared to the total porn consumption of the area. A jury cleared Peterman within minutes.
The conclusion one can draw from this is that, if you want to enforce 'local community standards' rules on content, you first need to have a clear understanding of what 'local community standards' are. Nobody (or almost nobody) wants to stand up in a town meeting and express their deep devotion to pornography, but there's a pretty good chance that a lot of people at that meeting watch pornography in private.
Anyway, TFA suggests that local 'community standard' laws could be applied to the internet using geotargeting, but any content that's accessed by a significant percentage of the community is ipso facto not obscene by community standards. For such a geotargeting system to work, ISPs would need to be tracking local content access -- and that implies that the ISPs would know how much of the community was really accessing that content. By implementing a system like this, and providing detailed breakdowns of what content people accessed (despite claiming not to access it), the ultimate effect would probably be to cripple the 'community standards' laws almost completely.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It works both ways...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Large scale fail
Any ruling which depends on "know it when I see it" cannot be solid jurisprudence. I don't care what court they sit on.
The community standard fails because it isn't based on the community. It is instead based on the standards of a group of individuals who generally are supposed to represent the community but that in this case simply cannot know what the community really thinks.
That is unless they are either snooping on my internet and TV viewing, or they've gone around asking everyone what they think.
In some areas of the country I am sure that a strict standard might fly. But in most, it really wouldn't if you put it to the test for real.
Honestly it isn't up to any government to stop me from consuming porn if I want to, and I'd argue they shouldn't be putting out of business an entire industry which isn't any more harmful in the hands of a normal sane person than tobacco or alcohol, and is arguably FAR less.
Given the obsession some people seem to have with limiting all things sex, it seems that they protest too much! The ought get their heads out of the gutter and leave mine there if I want it there! :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Slippery Slope - Internet
WHO is the U.S. to this? They DON"T own the Internt!
You know who owns it? We, THE People do! It has been OUR money all along!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]