Saturday, December 5, 2009

Reporters Sans Frontieres

October brought the annual Press Freedom Index from Reporters Without Borders. The index is compiled every year with input from journalists and media outlets around the world.




Not surprising to me (or anyone who is aware of my love for Finland) was the group of Nordic countries topping the list. Congratulations, Scandinavia, on your transparency. Equally interesting is the high position of the three Baltic nations - Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. History will attest to their independent spirit and I think it is admirable that less than 20 years after declaring freedom from the USSR, they are considered to be some of the most open countries to emerge from behind the iron curtain.

The report includes information about how the index was compiled, along with the questionnaire which was used by journalists and media outlets.

Does the position of any country surprise you?

Wednesday, December 2, 2009

Obama continuing Bush's domestic spying policies???


     The Bush presidency appears to be the gift that keeps on giving. Just when we think we've heard the worst, someone like Wayne Madsen comes along and tells us that there is more...from the Obama Administration. Madsen, a political journalist, is claiming that domestic spying under the Bush administration may now have been even bigger, and started earlier, than previously thought. That's scary, but predictable. What's wierd is that this horror show doesn't end with Bush apparently. Madsen's NSA contacts are saying that Obama is now ordering DOJ attorneys to pressure US Judge Vaugn Walker to drop the lawsuit against the Bush Administration for his warrantless wiretapping program. We can also add to that the support for telecom legal immunity AND the continued love affair the infamous "states secrets" legal defense. Why? Because it all works so wonderfully! Seriously. That's the reason according to NSA insiders. Furthermore, this stuff might actually still be going on.
    
    Are we to believe this? Well, so far Obama seems to have done very little in the way of scaling back the excesses of Presidential power exerted by Bush.  The Electronic Frontier Foundation published an article in April of this year reporting that the Obama Administration was using the "states secrets" defense to get a case thrown out of court. Only 3 months after inauguration. He's supporting this stuff practically right out of the gate. By the way, look at his campaign counter terrorism fact sheet and see what it says.  Or I can spare you the time and tell you that it says what he didn't do where these matter are concerned. Does this mean Obama is untrustworthy? Not necessarily.  Some of this may also be that he is simply surrounded by all the wrong people.  Nonetheless, I'm starting to feel like we've been played, or are being played, for fools.
    
    I started out with this blog by essentially saying that this country didn't have real information policy, but I suspect that I was wrong on that bit. We do have an information policy: Your information is fair game. Policies were made; just not in the interests of American citizens' rights.

Monday, November 23, 2009

Censorship Culture in Singapore



In 2005, photographer and educator Ann Mansolino spent some time in Singapore teaching at Ngee Ann Polytechnic University. She experienced first hand the culture of censorship in the country. While researching in the university's library, she found several photography history books that had pages torn out, sections of pages cut out, text whited out, and images covered up. While there was not a specific policy on censoring the texts, it did seem to be common practice. She decided to document these in a series called "Revised Edition." She says:

"Newer books were just benign -- it was censorship through selection. Rather than having photography books on the shelf that might have significant historical images that involved nudity that they'd then have to remove, the library only ordered books that couldn't possibly been seen as objectionable -- like 'Extreme Sports Photography!' or 'Shooting Weddings with your Digital SLR'. The new books did not have substance or support the curriculum, but no one cared, because they were unobjectionable. When I asked if we could have more books on [black and white] photography, as that's what was taught, the librarian just got a really smug expression and said, 'we have NEW books now.' And that was the end of the discussion." (A. Mansolino, personal communication, October 7, 2009)

Mansolino's experience with censored books is just part of a larger problem in Singapore today. The parliamentary republic is run by the People's Action Party (PAP), which has been in power since Singapore gained independence from Britain in 1959.

James Gomez's book, Self-Censorship:Singapore's Shame, explains how the PAP uses the people's self-censorship to their advantage and also help to continue cultivating the cycle of censorship. It is a complex system that works on many levels.

While the constitution allows for freedom of speech and assembly, it also gives Parliament the right to restrict those freedoms on the basis of national security, public order or morality. Something so broad as morality (whose morality?) leaves the door to restriction of freedoms wide open.

Some who have spoken out against the government or general policies have been persecuted. The government brings defamation lawsuits, bankruptcy and tax evasion suits against them, and the local news agencies (Singapore ranks 133rd out of 175 in the 2009 Reporters Without Borders Press Freedom Index), further damage the reputation and character of the individuals in the press (Gomez 17). Those images remain with Singaporeans and cultivate the strong fear of any opposition to the PAP.

Mansolino says, "People generally believe that the system overall is working -- they have the highest standard of living in the region, quality housing and health care, no crime, etc -- and are willing to put up with governmental restrictions as a result. They also fear opposing the system - it is a culture of fear...."

For the time being, there is little censorship on the Internet in Singapore (though there are still consequences for expressing personal opinions). Some Singaporeans are using that to their advantage. The Enquirer is all online, as well as sites like singapore-window.org.

Stay tuned for future articles on censorship in Singapore.



Print source:
Gomez, J. (2000) Self-Censorship: Singapore's Shame. Singapore: Think Centre.

Photos by Ann Mansolino

Sunday, November 22, 2009

We Want YOU To Care About National Information Policy




"What is National Information Policy and why should I care?" . . . I am sure some of you are asking yourselves. This may or not be a question that seems to spark debate over waffles and coffee, maybe it doesn't seem to be a hot button issue . . . but it is (don't let anyone fool you). National Information policies are all around us; behind every internet search we make, the books/ information we have access to, and the very way that we think about the world.

The biggest thing that comes to mind when I think about "National Information Policy" is: ACCESSIBILTY. This issue can (and does) include issues like net neutrality, e-democracy, accessibility of information through the internet,local libraries etc., as well as censorship and intellectual poverty. So, why is there an information hierarchy and what can we do as librarians to put an end to the reign of the wealthy? (I know, I know . . . "putting an end to the reign of the wealthy" is not in our job descriptions as librarians). Knowledge is power, and there are many that have better accessibility to different types of information based on social status. I can attest to this personally, as I spent 6 years of my secondary education in private schools and the other six years in Detroit Public Schools. When I was enrolled in seventh grade at a Detroit Public School, I spent two years reviewing things that I had learned in fifth grade in private schools. The poor suffer from not only an economic poverty but from an intellectual poverty as well. Clearly, there are instances when money can buy knowledge (and greater accessibility) . . .
So as librarians, how do we promote democracy? I think the first thing to do is to take a careful look at our information policies, and information accessibility. Also, the way that we can impact our local Detroit community is to attempt to put an end to the anti-intellectual movement that is rising from the ghettos. And this is no small task my friends . . . no small task indeed . . .

So what is National Information Policy anyway?


Well folks,here is a little tidbit from UNESCO:
"National Information Policies, including considerations of informatics and telematics, are the key to coping with the challenges of the Information Society. There has to be a complete re-examination of traditional information policies in the virtual, interactive, highly volatile reality of cyberspace, particularly in the framework of legal and ethical issues. Many developing countries are now struggling to "catch-up" with the industrialised."

I don't know if that cleared anything up for you . . . but then concepts like national information policy are flexible and transitive . . . and so the dialogue continues. . . .

Saturday, November 7, 2009

International Internet . . .or not?


Since the dawn of the internet,domain names have been dominated by Latin characters. This has severely restricted internet accessibility to those that are not familiar with and did not know how to convert their domain names into Latin characters. Recently, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) has made a decision to allow domain names to be registered with non-Latin characters. It is generally believed that when Latin characters dominated domain names, that it restricted non-English speakers' access to the internet. Many are hailing ICANN's decision as an internationalization of the internet. Domain names will soon be allowed in Arabic, Chinese and Russian characters. Andrey Vorobiev, the RU-Center public relations department manager, is quoted as saying : "Now that all countries can write their URL addresses in their own languages, this decision is an important step for the internationalization of the Internet. The days have passed when people who don't understand Latin alphabet cannot use the Internet"(Tong, X. 2009). Currently, these changes are affecting local country codes (.ru for Russia), and over time top level domain names (.com, .net, .org) will be affected as well. China and Thailand are beginning to introduce workarounds that will allow people to access websites in their own language (BBC News). I think the main question becomes: how will this affect internet accessibility for webpages in different countries? How will this affect people that do not speak Russian, Chinese, and Arabic, and do not have keyboards with these characters?

I think it is ironic that this change is coming after the US government loosened its control over ICANN a month ago. ICANN was initially developed by the US government as a non-profit corporation to oversee a large variety of Internet related tasks. Last month, ICANN signed an agreement that gives it autonomy and puts it under the scrutiny of the "internet community" (BBC News). It seems interesting that now that ICANN is not dominated by English speakers and is taking the needs of the internet community into account, that it is choosing to make the internet more accessible for non-English speakers.

Sources:
Internet Addresses Set for Change (2009, October 30). Retrieved November 7, 2009, from http://news.bbc.co.uk
Tong, X. (2009, November 5). Russian expert: Non-Latin character names key to Internet internationalization. Retrieved November 7, 2009, from http://news.xinhuanet.com
Whitney, L. (2009, October 30). ICANN approves non-Latin domain Names. Retrieved November 7, 2009, from http://news.cnet.com

Friday, November 6, 2009

Democracy on the Internet?

We all love Democracy right? Its one of those things you love without fully understanding what it is, like freedom or hot dogs. So what does it mean when the Council of Europe starts calling for more democracy on the web? This week the Council of Europe will be holding the 2009 Internet Governance Forum in Egypt. While it would be beyond the scope of this blog to point out the irony of holding a forum on e-democracy in a country with a sham democratic system of government, it would behoove us to discuss what e-democracy is.

The internet is recognized to be the means by which everything comes to pass. It can be said that a large number of people in the world effectively live on the internet. Their financial transactions, social interaction, entertainment, learning and working are all done on the internet. So like every aspect of human life, the internet needs to be controlled and it needs to be done in a way that will jive with current governmental/ economic setups, so what else but a democracy?

What does this mean? Are we voting on internet content? e-democracy, according to the Council of Europe, means equal access to content and equal opportunity to produce content. The internet then is an extension of "freedom of expression" or "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" The country of France went so far as to decide that internet access is a fundamental human right. But will the internet become intrinsically linked to our understanding of democracy?

So what do you think? Is the internet a fundamental human right? What does democracy on the web mean to you? Is democracy the best way to govern the web? Should national governments decide how the internet should be run? Should only national governments with democratic systems be allowed to decide? What about China, who currently hosts the highest number of internet users in the world? What should they talk about at the 2009 Internet Governance Forum?

What Do You Know About Net Neutrality?



Net Neutrality can be broadly defined as the" idea that the government should mandate that ISP's act as dumb pipes;"(Singel,2009) allowing internet traffic to flow freely without regard to what is contained in the data packets. There have been many opponents to this idea, people that want to see the internet broken into a tiered service where some websites or services are given a priority. The ALA and the FCC both believe that creating a tiered service would greatly hamper businesses and democracy. In a nutshell, opponents of network neutrality believe that companies should be allowed to pay a fee that would allow their websites to become more readily available on the Internet. As of September 2009, the FCC has instituted rules that ensure that the internet remains a neutral and free flowing network. The main opponents of these rules have been Comcast, Verizon and AT&T. Companies like Comcast want to restrict and slow down internet traffic based on the type of traffic. Thankfully the FCC has decided that they not only want to support Net Neutrality but they are also going to expand the rules to include portable devices/ data connections. Before September, there were no official rules that protected net neutrality; instead there were four guiding principles: "network operators cannot prevent users from accessing lawful Internet content, applications, and services of their choice, nor can they prohibit users from attaching non harmful devices to the network" (Reardon, 2009). If you are interested in viewing the FCC commission meeting click on the link below:
http://www.fcc.gov/openmeetings/ocm-09-29-2009.html#full



Sources:
Reardon, M. (2009) Amazon, Facebook, and Google back FCC on Net Neutrality. www.news.cnet.com
Singel, R. (2009) FCC Backs Net Neutrality-And Then Some www.wired.com

Thursday, November 5, 2009

Private Libraries?

I once visited the Huntington Gardens in Pasadena, California. It is a beautiful setting featuring not only the gardens, but also art collections and a library. But could I visit the library? No. I was not a faculty member or a doctoral student or a scholar. I simply wanted to look.


Now, in the interest of full disclosure, I did not actually try to make my way into the library. I had checked the requirements on the website and discovered that I did not meet the criteria. (I wonder if they would now make an exception for a LIS student.)


So why this odd mix of emotions in my head? I didn’t have any desire to see anything in particular, I didn’t have research to do – I was just a curious man with a desire to see a beautiful building and its collection. As a private library, The Huntington is free to create its own rules for admittance. It just seems odd that it should be titled a library. Libraries now have the connotation that they are institutions which are free and accessible to all. Would a name change to “The Huntington Collection” make it less appealing to me?


The name Huntington Library was most likely applied to the collection when it was still the private library of Henry Huntington; however, the semantic value of the word library makes me believe that I should have the right to visit. Change it to The Huntington Collection, and I am more willing to accept that access may be restricted. Change the name to The Huntington Archives and I then see accessibility as open, but I would also accept that parts of the collection may be restricted. I find it fascinating the amount of power that simple words can have!


So, should private libraries like The Huntington be called libraries? I don’t know that it is a very sensitive topic or even something that anyone would devote a great deal of time arguing. As a linguist, I find issues of meaning to be very interesting and I often wonder if I am alone in my curiosity.


I’ll get into that library some day.

Wednesday, October 14, 2009

Finland Rules!


My favorite foreign nation has always had a leading role in technological advancement. Finland has quietly progressed on the technology front for years with very little fanfare. I moved to Finland 10 years ago. Before arriving in the country, I had no idea that the Finns were in the forefront of the revolution. I didn't even realize that Nokia is a Finnish company - it certainly sounds Japanese. I see that as one of Finland's main appeals. It is like Japan without the bright lights and self-cleaning toilets. And the latest news out of Finland adds another layer of excitement.

Finland has passed a law making broadband Internet access a legal right of all citizens. By July 2010, all citizens will have a guaranteed right to a 1Mb broadband connection. Naturally a country with only 5 million people will have an easier time implementing such a policy. In the US with our population of 300 million, a guaranteed right to Internet access is pretty unlikely.

Critics may argue that Internet access is no more a right than a car or a nice pair of shoes. I agree. It is not an inalienable right which should be added to various constitutions; however, when the access becomes easier to grant, when many parts of the country already have the infrastructure in place and when most of the population is savvy enough to take advantage of the service, then I don't see the harm.

When I lived in Finland, close to 90% of people had cell phones. Again, this was 10 years ago. That number may seem common now, but 10 years ago in the US, cell phones were still an expensive novelty. Finland seems to silently test ideas and set trends. Perhaps in 10 years, guaranteed broadband laws will not be breaking news.

Friday, October 9, 2009

NTIA announces first states to receive funding for broadband mapping

The National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) recently announced the first states to receive funds for a broadband mapping program. California, Indiana, North Carolina and Vermont will all receive the funds as part of the Broadband Technology Opportunity Program (BTOP).

The plan is to bring grants to each state and territory of the US, as well as the District of Columbia. These four states had the best applications and NTIA is reviewing the rest. The awarded funds will be used to build a national broadband map which will be useful in several ways:


The national broadband map will publicly display the geographic areas where broadband service is available; the technology used to provide the service; the speeds of the service; and broadband service availability at public schools, libraries, hospitals, colleges, universities, and public buildings.


Part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act passed earlier this year, BTOP will be implemented by the Federal Communications Commission in consultation with the NTIA. By February 17, 2010, the FCC must develop a plan to bring broadband capability to everyone in the United States.


Goals of the BTOP are to:


  1. Close the broadband gap in America, focusing in particular on ensuring that unserved and underserved areas – whether rural, urban or in between – have access to modern communications services and the benefits those services offer for education, high-value jobs, quality health care and more.

  2. Bring the maximum broadband benefits possible to our schools, libraries, community centers, and medical centers, as well as to our most vulnerable populations and geographic areas.

  3. Improve broadband service for public safety users.

  4. Help stimulate broadband demand, economic growth, and job creation.

Part of the plan is to create a Broadband Map, which will be publicly accessible, and regularly updated. The deadline for the map is February 17, 2011, and officials expect to have an early version of the map up by February 2010. The map will enable the general public to learn where and what quality of broadband is available, and help businesses decide where to invest.


The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act provides $4.7 billion for the project.


In a press release from the White House, Commerce Secretary Gary Locke said, “The Commerce Department’s Broadband Technology Opportunities Program will reach the last frontiers of America’s information landscape, and the investments it makes in inner-city neighborhoods and rural communities will spur innovation and pave the way for private capital to follow.”


More awards will be announced throughout the fall.


These programs will help increase access to information for all Americans, whether it will enable them to use broadband in their homes or provide access at public libraries. Hopefully the program stays on track and once the plan is developed, it can be acted upon.


Facts on Broadband:

http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/highspeedinternet.html

See what projects have been proposed:

http://www.ntia.doc.gov/broadbandgrants/applications/search.cfm


Tuesday, October 6, 2009

Bless you Tom Curley!

     The CEO of the Associated Press testified in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee recently about the Freedom of Information Act(FOIA) and it's monsterous collection of loopholes that it contains.  His first point, which comes to no surprise to me, is that the Office of Government Information Services(OGIS), established by the Open Government Act of 2007 to ensure that agencies compliance to FOIA, is overworked and underfunded. Side note:  It took almost two years to get OGIS up and running.

     It is no secret that Federal agencies have fought every step of the way to keep information out of public eyes.  If there is one truth in Washington it is: If you can't kill the bill, put tons of loopholes in it, and if that doesn't work, ignore it and hope no one enforces it.  I already knew that the FOIA contained a list of exemptions that allowed certain kinds of information to be kept from the public despite any FOIA requests that may come through. Curley, however, notes that there are even more loopholes that appear to be in the works (I'll let him speak for himself here):

"I’d like to focus in my remaining few minutes on the fourth and final point -- that so-called b(3) amendments to legislation are severely undermining FOIA’s ability to preserve the public’s access to government activities and information.

As you know, b(3)s are provisions embedded in other laws that put certain very specific kinds of information beyond FOIA’s reach. They are often inserted with little or no discussion and no public notice, and they now constitute a very large black hole in our open records law. The Sunshine in Government Initiative found about 250 b(3)’s on the books, and about 140 of these show up in agency denial letters in any given year.

In many cases these special exemptions protect information already covered under one or more of the other exemptions in FOIA’s section B. In other cases they are creating whole new categories of information not subject to disclosure."


Black hole indeed..

     Yes, I understand that there are some rare times when information should be protected, but what's the point of claiming to have a transparent government when the law supporting it is shot full of holes?  It's lip service pure and simple.  Nonetheless, it's nice to see that members of the press are not giving up on making our multi-headed behemoth of a Federal Government more transparent, even while agencies and politicians cry and scream, albeit behind closed doors.  This is far to important of an issue to let up now.

Tuesday, September 29, 2009

Does Free Wireless Internet Have A Chance?


In the months following Hurricane Katrina, New Orleans mayor Ray Nagin made it a priority to have free wireless internet available throughout the city. The local government believed that this would give small businesses a chance to reestablish themselves, even though they may lack a physical location. The service did actually launch in the late part of 2005, but it was taken down less than a year later. What happened?

In the case of New Orleans, a private company began providing access to the area covered by the city owned system. Surprisingly, the service remained free.

I get excited when I think about the prospect of free wireless internet. As a subscriber to the local ISP that has a bit of a monopoly over the area, I have always tried to find a service which would give me the same speed for a lower price. However, if I could get service for free, I may be willing to sacrifice a few Kbps.

EarthLink mentions that higher speed access would be available to residents of the area for a fee. Obviously. I would never expect a company to enter a market without the idea that money could be made. I do think that it is a measure of good will that they had the sense to carry on the free service that the city determined was necessary. While it remains to be seen if the service will continue indefinitely, I see this as an interesting model for other cities that hope to provide better access to their citizenry.

Philadelphia shows the next possible step in the effort. Last year, Philadelphia transferred ownership of its city wide wireless internet service from EarthLink to a local company. It is estimated that about 80% of the city is now covered by the service.

I know that there are other factors involved in arming every citizen with free wireless access. Access is great, but what happens when many people cannot afford a computer. With major cities like New Orleans, Philadelphia, Atlanta and Chicago piloting different programs, we are bound to discover what systems work, what needs improving, and what can be used to increase access to an ever growing population of hungry internet consumers.

So, I do believe that this model does have a chance to be sustainable. Free wireless is obviously something that gets people talking. It helps to create a more even playing field and it gives opportunities to local businesses and residents who may have been left out otherwise. Will this be a quick and painless transition? I think not. Will it ever cover the country? Not likely. However, I don’t believe that slow service or the possibility that a corporation may be involved should put a stop to growth and expansion.

Friday, September 25, 2009

Is Banned Books Week Neccessary?

According to a recent Wall Street Journal article by Mitchell Muncy, it isn't.

Since 1982, Banned Books Week has been celebrated in the last week of September every year. The event “stresses the importance of ensuring the availability of unorthodox or unpopular viewpoints for all who wish to read and access them.” 
Many events around the country are planned this year in celebration, kicking off with the Banned Books Week Readout. Authors of some of the top ten challenged books for the past year will read from their works and discuss their experiences with censorship and their works being challenged.

According to the ALA, books are most often banned due to sexual content, offensive language, or inappropriateness for an age group. 

Classics that have been banned or challenged include The Catcher in the Rye, The Color Purple, and Slaughterhouse Five. Some of last year's most challenged books are: And Tango Makes Three by Justin Richardson and Peter Parnell, about two male penguins who become adoptive parents (based on actual events at the Central Park Zoo in New York), His Dark Materials trilogy by Philip Pullman, challenged because of political and religious viewpoints and violence, and Gossip Girl by Cecily von Ziegesar, the basis for the TV show of the same name.

Muncy makes the point that these books are rarely successfully banned – most have simply been challenged. He pulls most of his quotes – and most of his ire – from a Manifesto recently adopted by Banned Books Week, which is actually a poem by Ellen Hopkins. She wrote it in response to having her book banned from a town in Idaho. An excerpt:
Torch every book.

Burn every page.

Char every word to ash.

Ideas are incombustible.

And therein lies your real fear.

Muncy writes, “For the ALA, what makes [those who challenge books] censors is that they spoke up at all: "True" patriots, presumably, would have kept quiet. Who, then, is afraid of discourse?”

On its website, the ALA makes it clear that no viewpoint should be censored – even that of those who would have books banned. However, just because one person disagrees with something expressed in a book or elsewhere does not mean that others should not have access to that information if they want it.

Most often, those who speak out against books are parents, looking out for the interests of their children. “What inflames the ALA," Muncy writes, "are attempts by parents to guide their children's education. One of the 'frequently asked questions' on the ALA's Web site is: 'Can't parents tell the librarian what material they don't think children should have?' The Manifesto's answer is clearly 'no.'”

It is understandable that parents want to shield their children from certain subject matter, but that is a choice only they can make for their children. In the Free Access to Libraries for Minors Statement from the ALA,
“Librarians and governing bodies should maintain that only parents and guardians have the right and the responsibility to determine their children's—and only their children’s—access to library resources. Parents and guardians who do not want their children to have access to specific library services, materials, or facilities should so advise their children.”

In an article by the Guardian, Ellen Hopkins says, "My books speak to hard subject matter. Addiction. Cutting. Thoughts of suicide. Abuse. Sexual abuse. All these issues affect children. Look at the statistics. Closing your eyes won't make these things go away. Why not talk about them with your kids, to arm them with knowledge.”

Muncy implies that librarians are the real censors, since they make the decision about what goes on library shelves and what doesn't. Librarians try to make their decisions about which books to buy based on what will best serve their community's needs. Muncy ignores the fact that libraries are increasingly under tight budget restrictions. Even given larger budgets, we all know that it is impossible to please everyone. That's why there's Interlibrary Loan, which allows patrons access to books their local library doesn't have.

Banned Books Week brings attention to the importance of the first amendment and our freedom to read. If we were to lose our freedoms in the US, they would no likely be taken away in one fell swoop. They would disappear little by little, and we may not even notice until they are gone. This is why events like Banned Book Week are important – so that we don't ignore attempts to take away our freedoms, like the freedom to choose what we read and what ideas we have access to.

Here is a video of Ellen Hopkins reciting her Manifesto:

Thursday, September 24, 2009

Do We Really Need Senate Legislation?

Senate legislation was introduced on June 25th which would require any US government agency or department with a budget of over $100 million to make various research findings available on the Internet. Click here to view the text of the bill. Understandably, the policy does not apply to various pieces of information like phone calls or classified research. It does dictate that non-classified research be made available online as soon as possible after the article has been published.

While I believe this is valuable legislation, I wonder if it goes far enough. $100 million is a lot of money - but so is $50 million, or $10 million. I know that these figures may be small change to the government, but in the real world they are pretty substantial. Perhaps the government would argue that that would be too much information to publish online, but as far as I am aware the Internet does not have a limit to the amount of information that can be published. If the research will already be published in a pear-reviewed journal (as the legislation dictates) then it does not seem like a stretch to add a quick Internet link to a copy of the research findings which can be viewed by anyone with an Internet connection.

I can also foresee the argument that certain topics which require small funding budgets do not have the level of interest required to publish online. 10 years ago, I would have welcomed any opportunity to ease my research on Finnish syllable structure. I realize that the US government probably contributes virtually no (if any) funding to this topic. But hypothetically, a small amount of research that I could have accessed online may have saved hours of cross referencing and trips to various different libraries. I received no funding for my thesis research and I would have happily published my findings online - knowing full well that the interest in the topic may extend to about 10 other people.

I may be naive, but it seems that it should not take legislation to require research findings be published online. Is it actually that difficult? As I stated, I know that there are topics that should remain classified; however, if I came up with a finding that I believed was important or interesting enough to share, why not share it with everyone? It seems like a logical decision.

Wednesday, September 23, 2009

Thought Control: Australia's Firewall




If you were to enter the Australian government website you would find a bright colored smiley face with the words next to it that read Cyber Smart. A click on this link would take you for a ride to the happy land of multi-level censorship. Censorship, which the Australian government labels "cyber safety," has various Internet control options for children, teens, parents and even libraries.

Australia's government has forcibly erected ISP filters which they claim are designed to regulate and filter inappropriate content mainly for children. There is NOT an opt out option. Internet users can choose to opt out of the filter for child safety but there not an option to opt out of the "illegal content" filter. The question really becomes "who is deciding what is illegal content?"
The government is relying solely on the Australia Media and Communications Authority (AMCA) to provide specific sites for blacklisting. ACMA is also responsible for telecommunication, broadcasting, and radio regulation as well as Spam control.

On February 24, 2009 in a news interview the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, Stephen Conroy, admitted that there is a possibility that the government will block legal as well as illegal content. Currently the Internet content that is considered illegal is Refused Classification and X18+ material, which includes simulated sex (without an age limit), depictions of actual sex, and child pornography. One of the main problems is that sexual content is considered to be on the same criminal level as child pornography. It is highly possible that the censorship program could end up prohibiting news articles pertaining to sex in addition to other sexual content. The AMCA also has enacted the Ruddock-era book ban on alleged terrorist material, which would also limit academic research. Stephen Conroy is intent on expanding the definition of "illegal content" to include suicide counseling information, gambling websites, and material that has been banned by multinational corporations.

In my mind, the largest problem with ISP filters is that by controlling the information that people can access you are controlling their thoughts. I completely agree that Spam and child pornography should be deemed illegal, but I don't believe that it should come with the heavy price of forcible ISP filtering and government censorship of other content. People should have the right and freedom to the access of information. And the most terrifying thing of all, is that this is a government sponsored program that is being backed by conservative and corporate interests.


Sources:

Chow, E. (2008) Australia to Build Great Firewall Down Under. Retrieved from http://www.gizmodo.com


Commonwealth of Australia. (2009) How Filtering Works. Retrieved from http://www.acma.gov.au


Commonwealth of Australia. (2008) Minister Welcomes Advances in Internet Filtering Technology.

Retrieved from http://www.minister.dbcde.gov.au


Doctorow, C. (2008) Australia’s Great firewall: Just like China, Syria, and other ‘free” Countries. Retrieved from http:// www.boingboing.net


Internet Filtering Trials Explained. (2009). Retrieved from http://www.lawcouncil.asn.au


Pauli, D. (2008) No opt-out of Filtered Internet. Retrieved from http://www.computerworld.com