Some of you may have noticed a link on the left hand side of this place to my Flickr account. Yesterday as I was idly browsing I came across the photostream of someone living in Iran - and in it,
this photo. And he wasn't the only one complaining, I found more images along the same lines from other members. Although I was vaguely aware that Iran filtered websites, I was surprised -- but then I remembered the trouble a friend of mine in Iran recently had, again with access to the relatively harmless* and rather fun
Flickr, and randomly,
Statcounter.
The Problem
I sympathise with their frustration. At my place of work internet access is filtered -- and it is not only pointless but completely hampers any legitimate use of the net. Search engines are practically useless because many of the results are blocked, research and literature searches are nearly impossible (medical papers will contain reference to certain parts of anatomy which the filters seem to think makes them pornographic), and stupidly enough a heck of a lot of inappropriate (in terms of work) sites like
YouTube and
MSN seem to get past the filters.
I'm not saying the reasons for filtering websites at work are not valid; after all nobody thinks its acceptable to spend the whole day at work on forums or shopping online -- but you need to give people their freedom too. Who cares if someone checks their email or reads the paper online in their lunch hour? Or if they need to find out the cost of sending a parcel right before they head for the Post Office on their way home? Apparently, my employer does. Even though the activity is innocent, costs them nothing and is completely within allocated breaks, they insist that it shouldn't be allowed. Its just this narrow-minded and overbearing attitude that breeds dissent. All in all, the shortcomings of the filtering process and policy has stirred up a lot of ill-feeling towards the IT department & higher management.
And this is just filtering at work. I would not be impressed at all (to say the least!) if I had to face the same thing at home.
On the Other Hand...The issue as I see it is that Iran is an Islamic country with rules and social etiquettes largely defined by this identity. And lord knows, a heck of a lot of the stuff on the internet is not Islam-friendly. I can't count the number of times I have done an innocent Google search and come across a wildly inappropriate and completely irrelevant site within the results -- once I searched for an old DOS game by typing "Daggerfall" (the title), and nearly fell off my chair when half way down the screen there was a link to what seemed like a pornographic site, possibly involving paedophilia (this is based on the description, I didn't click the link!). Adding the word "download" to practically any search seems to give similar results -- even with safe search on. The image search suffers from similar drawbacks, I've been traumatised too many times through inappropriate freak-show type images popping up on my screen even though I try to take measures to avoid them. One of my friends father was surfing some university site which had been hacked, and got redirected to some porno site where 100 revolting pop-ups filled his screen, much to his horror. Most of us users of the net in the "free world" have had some kind of experience like this.
After all, the owners of such sites want to increase their traffic and so will tag their sites with hundreds and hundreds of words which may not be relevant at all: but will improve their chances of popping up on a search. This tagging, sadly, also has the potential to confuse filters. Amongst the other crud of the Internet we haven't yet covered chatrooms, which are known to be a hangout for paedophiles to try and lure children into meeting them offline: the British
Home Office has recently launched a campaign to address the dangers of this. Couple this with the viruses, malicious emails, piracy and groups which promote illegal and deviant behaviour, and there you have it:
one hell of an argument to filter the net -- to make it safe to use for people of all ages including children, and nice normal people who don't want to be bombarded by viruses, adverts and porn; and who don't want to give potential serial killers, rapists, paedophiles and other criminals the chance to learn, encourage each other or convene. It is a fact that the internet has become a recruiting ground for many of these criminal groups.
Many people in the UK and US, amongst them my relatives who have pre-teen children, have invested in some form of personal internet filtering software such as
CyberPatrol, and blocked pretty much everything except a few children's sites they know and trust. Speaking from personal experience for the reasons outlined previously, there is no way I would let a young child in my care access the internet in its entirety. Children are impressionable and known for their curiosity; exposure to the worst the internet has to offer may develop illicit interests in them will likely have a serious adverse effect on the social, religious and personal development of the child. In terms of society at large, the net - like television and computer games - can desensitise people towards certain behaviour. Films and video games are age-rated to give some level of protection to vulnerable and impressionable individuals, but of course the internet has no parallel in this. A call for freedom is one thing, but I don't think the majority would argue this means giving
everybody full access to
everything.
The role of the State
As an intelligent adult, there is no doubt a part of me that would resent censorship by the state: particularly given that I don't agree with a lot of what my country of residence does. But there is another side of me which does want some limits, some form of curbing of the descent of the internet into a fetid swamp of crime, malicious activity and smut (article:
the internet will become unusable by 2008).
And if you ask me if I would rather raise children in the UK or in Iran, my answer will be Iran about a thousand times over - Flickr or no Flickr.So what should the role of the state be? Should we expect full access of the internet wherever we are and leave filtering as a responsibility of the individual, even though the effects of this freedom with
irresponsible individuals may increase the dangers in our society? Should we expect the state to filter some content to protect the casual surfer, and if so, how -- the issue is that filtering mechanisms are far from perfect and will undoubtedly block some legitimate sites while allowing inappropriate ones anyway - but is this inconvenience better than the alternative? Should we have progressive filtering, where individuals can petition to open access to certain sites which may have been filtered incorrectly (as at my place of work, although there is a very inconvenient delay of days to weeks before the site becomes unblocked). Or should we just ban the internet altogether? (Just kidding!)
The question is not an easy one to answer, but one which needs to be addressed. There must be some middle ground whereby us moralistic Flickr users can have our cake, and eat it too.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/salehoffline/41107653/* * *
* Flickr is fine as long as you don't actively look for bad photos.
Mar '08
