Google Images Illegal? -- And the Price of Freedom

["Dave" <dave () farber net>]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Lauren Weinstein" <lauren () vortex com>
To: <dave () farber net>
Cc: <lauren () vortex com>
Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2007 3:37 PM
Subject: Google Images Illegal? -- And the Price of Freedom


>              Google Images Illegal? -- And the Price of Freedom
>
>                 http://lauren.vortex.com/archive/000264.html
>
>
>
> Greetings.  Are perhaps millions of photos on Google Image Search,
> other search engines, and the associated, linked hosting Web sites 
> to be made illegal?
>
> That appears to be essentially the plan of some legislators here in
> California, who are pushing for a law making it illegal to display
> photos of young children on the Internet "without permission."  Note
> that the idea isn't just to prohibit pornographic photos, or naked
> photos, but all photos of "toddlers" -- including fully clothed in
> completely public settings.
>
> A quick survey of the Google Image Search database yielded over 600K
> hits simply for "toddler or toddlers" -- one can easily imagine the
> scope of similar photos to be found using other related keywords.
>
> This new move toward photo restrictions is being driven by the same
> forces -- laudable but misguided and ineffective attempts to protect
> children -- that I discussed a few months ago in the context of
> mandated ID requirements for Web site access:
>
> "MySpace, Google, and the Path to Tyranny"
> ( http://lauren.vortex.com/archive/000240.html )
>
> In the current case, the outrage is over an admitted "pedophile"
> (currently living out of his car here in L.A.), who has no criminal
> record, is not a registered sex offender, and says he does not act
> upon his impulses in illegal ways.  Municipalities are trying to
> find ways to ban him and make illegal his apparently favorite
> activity -- taking photos of children in public places and posting
> them on his Web site.
>
> That this character is exceedingly creepy is undeniable.  That he
> might be potentially dangerous is obviously not at all out of the
> question.  But in fact, what's he's committing at this point is
> literally nothing more than "thought crime" in the purest sense of
> Orwell's "1984" -- and if the plan now is to try cage up everyone
> who ever thinks dangerous thoughts ... well, we're going to need a
> lot of space for the necessary concentration camps.
>
> Similarly, trying to make it illicit to display such photos taken in
> public places is a potentially disastrous path.  Do the proponents
> of such a course seriously believe that "nasty people" won't
> continue to trade any and all photos through underground channels?
> And when the first stage proves ineffective, what's the next step?
> Ban photos of public buildings?  People's houses?  Cars?  Dogs?  
>
> Well, there goes the immensely valuable Google Maps images, Google
> Earth, and Google Street View down the toilet, not to mention their
> competition in these various technology spaces.
>
> One wonders what the endgame is in the reasoning of the folks who
> propose such restrictions on information?  We've already seen
> Homeland Security used as an excuse for blocking community access to
> data about dangerous sites within their midsts, and for harassing
> innocent people taking photos of bridges and tunnels.  Such
> restrictive actions can easily lead to cover-ups and actual
> disasters.  In a time when our physical infrastructure is crumbling
> for lack of funds (while hundreds of billions are being spent on
> Iraq and the "war on terror"), a serious rethinking of our
> priorities would seem to be in order.  Would a bit more money spent
> on infrastructure instead of padding "terror war" contractors
> pockets have saved those lives lost on the Interstate 35 bridge in
> Minneapolis yesterday?  It's difficult not to ponder the question.
>
> Homeland security arguments may seem a far cry from trying to ban
> photos of children.  But the underlying principles are the same.
> I'll say this yet again for the umpteenth time.  You cannot
> effectively censor the Internet.  To be sure, not every datum of
> information should be on the Internet in the first place, but once
> it's out there, you can't take it back.  And public places are by
> definition public.  Trying to impose a special category of "public
> places whose images are not allowed on the Internet" is simply
> impractical and ineffective, and in the end also ridiculous and
> dangerous.
>
> While I have indeed called for research and discussion in the areas
> of Search Engine Dispute Notifications (e.g.
> http://lauren.vortex.com/archive/000254.html ), this approach is
> associated with my belief that the only "cure" for problematic
> information on the Internet is more information, not less.
>
> New demands for Internet IDs (e.g., an "Internet Driver's License"),
> and the various calls for broad restrictions on photos and other
> data from public places, are being driven not only by fear, 
> but also by political and other opportunism as well.
>
> Unless we wish to see the Internet reduced to a pablum of the lowest
> common denominator, it is imperative that we stand up for key
> principles, even when that means sometimes having to align ourselves
> in certain respects with some of the least admirable members of
> society.  
>
> Such is the nature of standing up for freedom, not only in the 21st
> century, but throughout human history.
>
> --Lauren--
> Lauren Weinstein
> lauren () vortex com or lauren () pfir org 
> Tel: +1 (818) 225-2800
> http://www.pfir.org/lauren 
> Co-Founder, PFIR
>   - People For Internet Responsibility - http://www.pfir.org 
> Co-Founder, IOIC
>   - International Open Internet Coalition - http://www.ioic.net 
> Founder, CIFIP
>   - California Initiative For Internet Privacy - http://www.cifip.org 
> Founder, PRIVACY Forum - http://www.vortex.com 
> Member, ACM Committee on Computers and Public Policy
> Lauren's Blog: http://lauren.vortex.com 

-------------------------------------------
Archives: http://v2.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
RSS Feed: http://v2.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com