Somebody Think Of The Children

You’re welcome. I’m antsy about the move in some areas toward bloggers throwing a video or audio piece up and saying “Hey! Look at this!”. This leaves a whole lot of people with no access to the conversation at all, from deaf and blind people to people with much older technology or limited access.

If more bloggers would make transcripts or at least summaries available, accessibility would improve – and it would also make these pieces indexable by search engines, so it’s a win-win situation for everyone.

[/pet topic]

By lauredhel on Nov 15, 2008

Thanks for the wrap-up, it’s sometimes a bit hard to keep track of everything going on surrounding this issue.

While all the activity is encouraging and the Conroy Logic site is amusing, I’m still concerned about the practical aspects of fighting this. It’s not enough to just be right or have the facts on our side. We need to get political about it.

I’ve written a post with some thoughts on how to defeat internet censorship. Read it here:

http://www.danupoyner.com/2008/11/14/how-to-defeat-internet-censorship/

By Danu Poyner on Nov 15, 2008

Damn clipboard. Please moderate that last comment to remove the two paragraphs before the link so it makes sense

By Danu Poyner on Nov 15, 2008

Um. Blind people can’t read blogs.

They can listen to audio.

Blind people can’t sense images or watch video. They need to have them described to them.

All video is indexed by search engines.

You’ll find more about censorship in Australia by doing a google “image search” on the topic than you will a google “web search” and then reading the associated article(s).

There’s an old adage.. “a picture paints a thousand words”.

By Bob Bain on Nov 15, 2008

as an addendum to the statement that you’ll find more about censorship in Australia by doing a google “image search”. An “image search” resulted in a number of interesting items including the compulsory censorship of mail…

Here are some examples of mail (letters) opened by the Commonwealth censors

http://www.censoredozmail.com/page5/index.html

These aren’t videos sent through the mail system but letters that the censors read and passed as acceptable.

I find this pertinent due to an intrest in Esparanto many years ago where I corresponded in this international language with people behind the “iron curtain” as it was known then.

It became quite clear to me that a number of letters I wrote concerning political issues written in Esperanto never made it past the censors in the former USSR.

At one stage I sent photographs of Russian ships moored off the coast of South Africa. They never made it to Estonia.

I have no doubt I was on a list maintained by the KGB.

Bob

By Bob Bain on Nov 15, 2008

“Um. Blind people can’t read blogs.”

Of course they can. They use screen readers. The blindosphere is rocking. There are other devices, such as refreshable Braille displays, which can also make text content accessible for deafblind users. When there is relevant visual content that is interpreted/described by the transcriber or summariser, they can then access that content.

Video titles and tags are indexed, but obviously the content is not unless someone transcribes.

By lauredhel on Nov 15, 2008

Wow, you guys picked up on ConroyLogic.com pretty quickly.. like before it had even been up for 24-hours . Good work.

By James Brooks on Nov 15, 2008

Keep up the good work Mike. Things must be picking up as I have fallen behind in my reading on the issue after only three days off line.

By Sean the Blogonaut on Nov 15, 2008

Here is a brilliant satire on internet filtering posted on whirlpool by Rommel.

GOVERNMENT TO TRIAL MANDATORY FOOD FILTERING
========================================

14/11/08, Canberra.

In a statement delivered to the media today, Health Minister Nicola Roxon outlined the Rudd Government’s ambitious ‘food filtering’ plan, designed to combat the growing epidemic of childhood obesity. Under the proposed filtering regime, all Australian supermarkets would be carefully monitored, with the contents of trolleys inspected at the checkout and ‘unwanted’ contents automatically removed. Hailing the trial as a “great stride forward” in childhood nutrition, Ms Roxon said the filtering, which will be mandatory for all Australians, will begin in the first quarter of 2009, once participants can be found within the food distribution industry. “This scheme will bring us into line with other countries around the world who have implemented similar schemes,” said Ms Roxon. Countries with similar food-control policies include Ethiopia, Somalia and Zimbabwe.

Although the exact technical workings of the filter are currently unknown, it is thought that a two-tier approach will be used to determine which foods are ‘appropriate’ for consumption. The first, mandatory tier will include foods which are prohibited for all Australians, and will include items such as doughnuts, icecream, and softdrinks, all of which are strongly linked to obesity. Although some critics of the scheme claim that such foods in moderation are an acceptable part of the diet, Ms Roxon rebuffed the allegations. “While it is true that some foods on the blacklist may indeed be safe to consume in small quantities, research has clearly shown that consumption by children may lead to health problems in later life, such as heart disease, lung cancer, Alzheimer’s disease and those really annoying ice-cream headaches.” The second, optional form of filtering will target a much broader range of food items, with automated systems scanning each product for signs of ‘offensive’ ingredients such as fat, sugar, and salt.

Some concerns have been raised about the affect of the scheme on both food prices and checkout queues. Laboratory trials conducted at a private government facility showed that customer processing times decreased by as much as 85% for one of the tested filters, which lead to queues that in some cases stretched the entire way around the store. Ms Roxon responded to these concerns, saying “Speed issues are not a problem, since customers will be buying considerably less food from now on.” Also of concern is the accuracy of the filtering algorithms. Many ‘safe’ food items were incorrectly blocked during the trials, including unsalted peanuts, Weet-bix, and Extra sugar-free gum, presumably for containing prohibited words on the packaging in large type. Inexplicably, fresh broccoli was also blocked by all the tested filters, despite its high nutritional value and complete lack of sugar, fat and salt. “Kevin doesn’t like broccoli,” was the only response the minister would give when questioned on this matter.

Shadow health minister Peter Dutton has called the scheme “a gross overreaction by the government”, and stated that the onus should be on parents to ensure their children are fed in an appropriate manner. Ms Roxon promptly labeled Mr Dutton “a supporter of heart disease”, and pointed out that for years the government has supplied free nutritional information to parents, which have had limited effect. “Parents are clearly confused by the nutritional information on product labels and the diets published by the CSIRO”, Ms Roxon stated. “The low takeup rate of these items gives us a clear mandate to introduce a mandatory filtering scheme. Think of the children!”.

Food industry spokesman Ken Tucky was also critical of the plan, claiming that it would not achieve it’s stated goals and would destroy the supermarket industry in Australia. “What Australia needs is a world class food distribution network, not a draconian system of fascist food censorship that will increase prices for all consumers, massively increase waiting times, and prevent access to foods that are currently enjoyed by the vast majority of Australians.” He also predicted that there will be numerous ways to avoid the scheme entirely. “Vending-machine Product Networks (VPNs) are completely outside the proposed scheme, meaning that anybody can still access prohibited items if they so desire.” Independent research supports this claim, showing that the vast majority of children have a good understanding of VPN technology, and would likely source any prohibited items from conveniently located vending machines.

By Terrence Valter on Nov 16, 2008

Just a quick question if anyone knows, Optus has gone ahead with the plan does that mean all customers will be placed under the restrictions of the filter and have innocent sites,”illegal” and “inappropriate sites” blocked along with the speed drops? Do the customers get a say?

By Jarrod on Nov 16, 2008

I think it is quite appropriate that Optus has elected to participate. It is, after all, partially owned by the Singaporean government, that well known bastion of democracy and human rights.

By Jon Seymour on Nov 16, 2008

Jon Seymour wrote…

“I think it is quite appropriate that Optus has elected to participate. It is, after all, partially owned by the Singaporean government, that well known bastion of democracy and human rights.”

————–

From the OpeNet Initiative…

Published on 10/May/2007

http://opennet.net/research/profiles/singapore

ONI testing results

ONI conducted testing on Singapore’s two major IASPs, SingNet and StarHub, and on a third ISP, SysTech. A common perception of the Singaporean Internet community points to the existence of a list of 100 banned Web sites purportedly maintained by the Media Development Authority (MDA). ONI found that only seven Web sites tested, all relating to pornography, were blocked, including sex.com, playboy.com, and penthouse.com. The blocking of only these high-profile sites suggests that filtering is indeed mandated for symbolic, rather than preventative, purposes. Moreover, the seven sites blocked on SingNet and StarHub were all accessible on SysTech.

Conclusion

The Singapore government implements a limited filtering regime, relying mainly on nontechnological measures to curb online commentary and content relating to political, religious, and ethnic issues. The purported purpose of these measures is “to promote and facilitate the growth of the Internet while at the same time safeguarding social values and racial and religious harmony.”30 The threats of lawsuits, fines, and criminal prosecution inhibit more open discourse in an otherwise vibrant Internet community.

==============

Check also IDA Singapore

http://www.ida.gov.sg/Policies%20and%20Regulation/20060627155443.aspx

Content Regulation

Singapore has a 3-prong approach to Internet content regulation. Firstly, a light-touch class license scheme which provides minimum standards to safeguard values and promote healthy growth; secondly, encouraging industry self-regulation; thirdly, an active public education programme to promote parental supervision over children’s access to the Internet. The class license scheme, administered by the Media Development Authority of Singapore, is an automatic licensing scheme that requires Internet Service Providers and content providers to comply with an Internet Code of Practice.

—————–

Check the IDA Masterplan…

http://www.ida.gov.sg/About%20Us/20070903145526.aspx

Singapore regard themselves a major hum in the Internet infrastructure and from what I read they don’t wish to bog the network down with excessive filtering of pornographic content.

Somewhat different to starting out with mandatory testing on 10,000 “unwanted” and unspecified websites. Singapore is a major link in the Internet infrastructure. I don’t think they wish to hamstring their future prosperity with excessive filtering.

Bob

By Bob Bain on Nov 16, 2008

Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for testing out this PoS filter and showing the govt just how bad it is going to be, but i don’t want to be blocked from innocent sites such as this one, sites that are inappropriate for children and i dont want my connection slowed down

By Jarrod on Nov 16, 2008