New York & Hawaii: Frightening bedfellows lacking perspective

New York and Hawaii are bookends to 50 American states. Although separated by 8,000 km, each is rich in heritage, and with a very different political and cultural perspective. Yet, despite the distance and political differences, they are embarking on an identical and ruinous path. Bills introduced in both states suggest that legislators lack fundamental knowledge of history, democracy, economics and, especially, the nature of the Internet. More importantly, they care not a whit of personal freedoms, privacy and individual rights.

[caption id="attachment_1314" align="alignleft" width="147"] NY & HI senate: Lacking historical perspective[/caption]

I should end here with my favorite tag line, “So Sayeth Ellery”, but that would deny readers chilling facts. Facts that ought to shock the senses of every New Yorker and Hawaiian, and humiliate by association. Let’s cut to the chase: Lawmakers in the Aloha state want to criminalize anonymous internet posting while senators in the Empire State plan to create a database of every web site visited by each resident. Yes! They plan to track & archive your internet surfing history. I am not making this up!

[caption id="attachment_1262" align="alignright" width="200"] A government dB of everyone’s web surfing... Now, Isn’t that just special?![/caption]

With regrets to Dana Carvey, Isn’t that just special? After all, an individual concerned about being carded at the door is an individual with something to hide—most likely, guilty of a crime. Who else would object to registering a DNA sample before speaking on topics of the day? A law-abiding citizen doesn’t fear a government that tracks thought, medical history, private communication, bedroom fantasy, or corporate negotiation. Just what are those people afraid of?

Dear Wild Ducks: We are all those people. I am too blinded by disappointment and pity to name names or plow through the facts. (N.B. Names of the proponents are in the tags below this article). So, I offer links to well written summaries. Read along with me and weep. The US is already constructing the world’s biggest database of everything that you say, do and think. Perhaps New York and Hawaii feel left out. Or perhaps legislators in those states skipped out on high school history. More likely, they are decent individuals with good intentions, but simply poor stewards of liberty in an era of ecommerce, the Drudge Report, AWildDuck.

• New York Senate bill seeks to end anonymous internet posting
  “If the bill passes, get ready to hand over your full name and home address”


• Creepy new anti-privacy bill being considered by Hawaii legislature
  Bill would create a database detailing who visits what websites

Does anyone not find this frightening? Forget about “confidential sources”. Want to comment on a breastfeeding blog? Sure. But first, register your fingerprints with an ISP and web host! I can think of three reasons that this won’t fly. More importantly, I am concerned that our legislators don’t see this:

Reasons to avoid suppressing a privacy technology

• If a government bans free expression, the business of internet hosting & access simply migrates to jurisdictions that understand democracy. It’s the nature of any fungible medium.


• Political restrictions on existing technologies or platforms create incentives for the rapid deployment of methods that circumvent or thwart the restrictions. This has the unintended effect of causing even more interference with legitimate investigations and forensic tools.


• History demonstrates the dangers of surrendering free, anonymous speech to a government, no matter how ethical the current leaders. Governments are transient, though they try hard to be self-preserving. They do their best work when prodded by free and democratic constituents.

So sayeth Ellery.

Ellery Davies is not generally known as a liberal commentator.
But he is a political wonk, privacy advocate and editor of AWildDuck.

Filter a child from online porn? Stop worrying

A columnist in my local newspaper recently lamented about the difficulty in “protecting” her child from online pornography. Her child wasn’t searching for the stuff, she explains. But porn is so pervasive in everyday media, that you needn’t search for it to be saturated with it. Not just the subtle innuendo of marketing & commerce—but the hard core variety and even the illegal variety. It appears in many web searches and it is often marketed in a deceptive manner designed to appear across all venues.

I really don’t want to get into a debate about porn, and so, in the past, I would bite my tongue on the issue. I have an unorthodox ap-proach to the issue of online safety, sexual stereotypes and child rearing.

But today, I was contacted by a porn-filtering organization that seeks my endorsement. Like spam filters (a necessary technology) they offer a technical approach to the problem. Of course, they don’t condemn my approach (it’s called parenting), but they claim that an electronic babysitter (I call it a censor) will block exposure to horrific content: Apparently, the potential exposure of a child or preteen to any image of a naked adult fits their definition of “horrific”.

I say, “Why bother?!” Exactly what is the goal of this shield? Will it protect your child's values, chastity or save her from nightmares? In my opinion, it defeats all of these goals. And so, here is my response to the founder of a porn filtering vendor...
_____________

Hi Martin. On your web page for My Porn Blocker, you say:

“One day while at the dinner table my 7 year old daughter
asked me why some people are naked on the computer.
My wife and I nearly fell out of our chairs.”

Additionally, your marketing video begins with a description of your “horror” in finding a racy web site on your son's PC.

I also have a young daughter and, of course, she occasionally comes across online pornography. After all, it is pervasive – and clearly – it is important to many adults

[caption id="attachment_449" align="alignleft" width="260"] A naked human. I'm ruined for life![/caption]

(either the soft core type used for marketing, or the hard-core material that is a market unto itself). That’s why there is so much of it.

While I respect your desire to shield children from material you find offen-sive or contrary to your values, I am puzzled by parents seeking technical help in filtering what children see on the internet or in media. The answer is parenting. Of course, porn will continue to pop-up, even if you surf the web with your child. But consider a more thoughtful response to her curiosity. Why not answer truthfully and in a manner that is age appropriate?

• Mommy! Why are there so many naked people on the internet?

There are many photos like these, because some adults like to view naked people. The world is filled with all sorts of different people. They have many different preferences – and viewing naked people is something that lots of people seem to enjoy.

• What is this person doing? It looks painful!

No—They are not in pain. In fact, they are either having a lot of fun, or they are actors pretending to do these things. In either case, they are doing things that you are not ready for—both physically: it would hurt, and emotionally: you need to develop other types of relationships before you play the adult games shown in these pictures.

If you find the photos personally offensive, I won't fault you for closing a sexy or violent web page before answering. But make no mistake: It is you who cannot handle the momentary exposure of off-topic content–and not her. As you move on to other web pages, you will be surprised by the maturity with which your child accepts an age-appropriate response.

Will she ask friends at school about the lewd photos? Of course! That's life. Discussion is a healthy response to anything that is unexpected or shocking. But if you are consistent, loving and non-hysterical, your daughter will assess all available information through the lens of a consistent upbringing and shared family values.

We have used this approach with our child since she was 4. Since the age of 8, she has owned her own PC. We allow her to surf the web unattended. Although we don't overtly monitor activity, the computer is in an open location. We have never felt it necessary to log and track the web sites that she visits – and we certainly don’t user filters.

Are we fooling ourselves? I doubt it. By 6 or 7, she was aware that sex is fun for adults and culturally pervasive. She knows that older teens talk about it frequently and she is peripherally aware that adults have individual, unique and sometimes very odd predilections. That is, they engage in a broad & seemingly bizarre array of behavior. Most kids figure this out because they listen to adults and because they are not blind to web sites & films that allude to unusual fetishes.

Should you care? I certainly don't lose any sleep. My daughter will make up her mind about these things when her hormones and values tell her that it is time to explore. And even at 8 and 9, she realized this. As parents, we guide her to make the right decisions with our experience and insight, rather than attempt to censor web sites.

Prior to that time, I am convinced that shielding children from accidental exposure to porn is both futile and counterproductive. Only the parents are shocked. For a young child, porn lacks the prurient stimulus that it has for adults. It may prompt occasional questions or discussion with peers, but this is not a bad thing! Believe it or not, a consistent message at home will trump the input from a few dissenting peers.

I typically end these personal pearls of advice with the glib and über confident tag line: "So sayeth Ellery"...but not today. I realize that, like Martin, many WildDucks want to control their children and reinforce values by blocking content. For what it's worth, you now have another side to this story. That's my 2¢.