Add Argentina To The List Of Countries Looking To Censor The Internet (For The Children, Of Course)
from the growing-list dept
We've noted that both Russia and China recently pushed for even more internet censorship, and both did so while claiming that it was really to "protect the children." Of course, lots of other countries are following suit. For example, Argentina is now considering a bill that appears to created a blacklist of websites that ISPs must block. Once again, this is done "for the children," as the list is supposed to include sites dealing with child porn. The problem, of course, is that such lists rarely seem to stick to just child porn -- and with little oversight, the over-blocking and over-filtering of legitimate content becomes way too easy. In the meantime, we're still at a loss as to how censorship is a better solution than actually going after those responsible if they're posting illegal content.
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: argentina, censorship, for the children, free speech
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Propose a better solution. The world is all ears (or eyes in this case).
I doubt I will get much back.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
And really, if you're blocking the sites but not stopping it from being filmed you haven't stopped shit. They'll just keep abusing children and routing around the blocks on the internet and all we'll end up with is a worse internet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The other choice is to let it all out there, give them all a free pass, and make sure that Google indexes it for good measure. After all, if you support free speech, you would be very against Google not indexing child porn, right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
That's always an excuse, though. It doesn't work, and I don't know about you but I've never "stumbled" across porn, let alone child porn.
It's just yet another route to introduce widespread censorship. Oh, "it's for the children" now, but do you honestly think these systems won't be abused for unrelated censorship in the near future? You're pretty naive if so.
"The other choice is to let it all out there, give them all a free pass, and make sure that Google indexes it for good measure."
That literally makes no sense. Give who a free pass? Are you saying that there's no way to stop it except for blocking Google?
"After all, if you support free speech, you would be very against Google not indexing child porn, right?"
Of course you would, not least because Google shouldn't be making the call as to what is and isn't OK to index. Go ahead, index it and track those who search for it, then let the police use the same tools to track and arrest those responsible for producing it. Trying to hide it and pretend it doesn't exist doesn't stop it, so stop bullshitting.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Paul, clearly you don't get out much. It's incredibly easy to stumble across porn, and not really THAT hard to find child porn, sadly enough. If you have IRC, you have all you need to get child porn.
"It's just yet another route to introduce widespread censorship."
Prove it. It's never been shown. Mike may spew on about it, but can you show me anywhere that such a specific law has lead to more widespread censorship of ideas and protected speech?
"That literally makes no sense. Give who a free pass? Are you saying that there's no way to stop it except for blocking Google?"
No idiot, what I am saying is that if you are unwilling to do anything about it in general, why should Google? Shouldn't Google have a nice section of links for child porn that point to the real thing? After all, if Google can "censor" their SERPs to avoid putting child porn up there, don't you think it's worth doing on a more official level?
Google already makes the calls, it already avoids indexing child porn. Are you saying they are censoring your right to child porn now?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That's a load of crap. I can honestly say I've NEVER seen child porn online, and with safesearch and other filters it's harder than ever before to simply stumble across ordinary porn. If you find it regularly, I have to wonder what the search terms you're using are.
"If you have IRC, you have all you need to get child porn."
I thought we were talking about web filtering. Are you moving goalposts, or are you just inadvertently admitting that stumbling across child porn while browsing just isn't going to happen?
"Prove it. It's never been shown."
Yes, we should wait until the worst case scenario actually happens before complaining. Russia and China - yeah *those* countries will never use web censorship for political and other legitimate speech, right?
"No idiot, what I am saying is that if you are unwilling to do anything about it in general, why should Google?"
When did I say I was unwilling to do anything about it? I said that a government-enforced web filter wasn't the way forward, but don't try and pretend I said to ignore it. Stop lying about my positions to my face, you'll have an easier conversation.
"After all, if Google can "censor" their SERPs to avoid putting child porn up there, don't you think it's worth doing on a more official level?"
Absolutely not. Google is optional, and can work with authorities to catch those responsible. I do not support ANY form of government-mandated filter forced upon a nation, for ANY reason.
"Google already makes the calls, it already avoids indexing child porn. Are you saying they are censoring your right to child porn now?"
Again, lying about me and putting words into my mouth won't work. Google can do what they want - they're a private entity that nobody is forced to use. Are you really too stupid to understand the difference between that and a government enforced filter?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I've never ever seen even one instance of child porn on the internet. EVER
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No sane, normal person just 'happens' to find child porn, especially not on IRC.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yeah, that worked so well under the prohibition.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Of course it's easier to tell child porn than it is to tell if something's infringement so there's that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Boom.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Then you didn't bother reading the article, let alone listen to the actual arguments being raised. How typical.
The answer is to go after those responsible for producing the content. Sweeping it under a virtual rug not only does nothing to stop it, but it also create other problems - ranging from those people becoming more adept at using methods of distributing their content that are more difficult to police to perfectly legitimate speech being blocked. The unintended consequences can be as dangerous as the content being attacked in the first place.
Is it really that difficult to grasp?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Don't you care about all the children being maimed and killed? Don't agree this must be stopped at all and any cost?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pay attention to what they say, not what they do. Politics has little to do with reality.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Because actually going after those who post illegal content takes effort, and effort is anathema to the government.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
This needs to become the standard response when someone wants to censor.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Blocking websites that have (insert content here) on them and not going after the (insert criminal type here) that do it is equivalent to looking the other way and pretending it didn't happen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Please do not confuse the issue further by calling the World-Wide-Web the Internet. They are most certainly NOT one and the same.
As to the subject at hand, exactly what do you suggest as a solution?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Easy, it pays better. You can make a tidy sum from them by sweeping them under the rug instead of stamping them out.
...Oh, did you mean a better solution for the abused children? Sorry, not going to happen. Kids don't have enough bribe money to be worth protecting.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just like shutting Megaupload down stopped piracy.
Really if they want to censor WHY NOT MAKE A BILL THAT ONLY APPLIES TO CHILD PORN.
They get greedy and try to make their bills possible to censor anything they want when they want..
The only thing their idea of censorship would do is hurt legitimate websites. Their ideas of censorship are meant to PROTECT THE MONOPOLIES not the children.
There is only one way to stop child porn.. Arrest the people responsible for taking the pictures.
Oh wait if it was that easy there would probably be no such thing as serial killers as well.
The truth in this case fucking sucks :( as there are many serial killers still on the run with little luck in catching them.
Even worse there are probably more that's not even known as serial killers as the cases have not been connected yet and might never be.
What can we do to stop these acts? Well awareness is a start that's for damn sure. If I ever did have a kid they would learn to stay away from strangers as well as taking more public paths home straying away from the shady areas.
Internet access for my kid would be very limited till they were old enough to understand all the dangers.
No going out after dark.
No phone calls to numbers I could not verify.
No desert till they eat their goddamn broccoli alright probably not that harsh lol. I'm knocking on 30 and I still think broccoli is nasty.
Some of the rules I would have might make my kid get pissed at me but in the long run they'll thank me.
Lucky for me I would never bring another person into this fucked up world. Even with good awareness crime will still happen :(
What do we do? We teach we guide and then hope for the best. It's all we really can do.
If censorship was really for the kids they would leave the power for companies to abuse it out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Argentina still has to face its past
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirty_War
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In case somebody wonders (this article doesn't seem to explain much), what this law would do if applied is force ISPs to install filtering software on all users (and yes, if your system doesn't support it that means you can't use internet - will do wonders for the smartphone market!). Cybercafes will be required to impose the filters on all users too.
The list of material that would be blocked by this law is (transliteration from article 2): swearing; exhibition of discrimination by race, ethnic, gender, sexual orientation, ideology, socioeconomical status or nationality; unjustified verbal or physical violence; representations of explicit sexual acts for non-educational purposes and "other contents that affect [children's] integrity"
And yes, this is just a senator not knowing anything at all about how internet works. She thinks it works the same way TV and radio does.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Here is the original source from Vía Libre Foundation (Argentina's EFF):
http://www.vialibre.org.ar/2012/07/21/en-el-nombre-del-nino/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]