Following NY Attorney General Andrew Cuomo’s success in getting ISPs to turn off Usenet access and pretend it was a victory against child porn, a bunch of cable providers under the umbrella of the NCTA have announced an agreement with 45 attorneys general, claiming that they, too, are taking a “stand against child porn.” This “stand” is the same as what Cuomo pressured ISPs to do: officially it’s to block any newsgroup or website that is “known to host child pornography.” Taking a stand against child pornography would be a good thing — but this is not actually a stand against child pornography. This is trying to sweep a problem under the rug so that some politicians and some companies can get some good headlines.

Taking a stand against child porn wouldn’t be overly aggressively blocking access to internet destinations that may or may not have porn (and there’s no review over the list to make sure that they’re actually objectionable). Taking a stand against child porn would be hunting down those responsible for the child porn and making sure that they’re dealt with appropriately. Blocking access to some websites doesn’t solve the problem. Those who still produce and make use of child porn will still get it from other sources — but it will be more underground, making it more difficult for authorities to track down. Also, this sets an awful precedent in that the ISPs can point out that it’s ok for them to block “objectionable” content where they get to define what’s objectionable without any review. For those folks who support network neutrality, this is highly questionable, because it’s clearly going against the basic principles of network neutrality — but in a way no one will protest because they don’t want to be seen as siding with child pornographers. But the truth is this “stand” against child pornography won’t do anything to stop child pornographers other than making them harder to track down — and it sends these ISPs down the slippery slope of getting to decide what they think is objectionable content that should be blocked.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

As I’ve mentioned before, back in high school, I had an art teacher who taught me both how to pick locks and how to make lockpicks (it was a fun class). Since then I’ve always been fascinated by the whole process of picking locks, though I haven’t kept up with the field or even picked a lock in years. However, there is a huge community of folks online — many coming from the tech/hacker community — who spend a lot of time exploring lockpicking, and talking about it in great detail online. And, as Gizmodo notes this is pissing off some locksmiths. What’s not stated overtly is the obvious reason, and it’s the same for any professional system that requires “certification.” It’s rarely about making sure people are good enough, but has everything to do with limiting the competition to keep fees high. The locksmiths aren’t really so worried about criminals learning how to pick locks online (even though some claim that). They’re worried that people won’t need to call locksmiths anymore when they get locked out of their homes. On top of that, the lock companies hate to admit that their locks are pickable (they are), and so they hit back at those who prove it, just as software companies hate to admit that their software has vulnerabilities. Over time, perhaps locksmiths and lock companies will recognize that an enthusiastic hobby community that helps make sure locks are more secure can only be a good thing.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

The common refrain on the newspaper industry is that it’s dying out, being replaced by online news sources. Of course, that leaves out some important facts: such as the fact that there are newspaper chains that are actually doing quite well, even when they mostly focus on the old dinosaur of actual newspapers. Romenesko points us to a story about David Black, a Canadian newspaper publisher who owns a ton of local newspapers around Canada and the US that are actually doing quite well. But, that’s because they’re not competing with the big dailys, but focus on having a lean staff that writes almost exclusively about local news. His papers are all local papers, that don’t try to provide all that other news that you can already get online, but the news that is only going to be interesting to a small group of folks. But, as Black has learned over many years, those small groups of folks are a lucrative audience. While other newspapers have trouble competing, Black’s are full of ads — many from local businesses which find those papers an effective (and cost effective) way to cut through the clutter.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Just a week after we were talking about a new research report on media-induced “technopanics” we’ve got another one. This time, it’s coming from the UK. The headline announces: One in ten children have sexually explicit conversations on the internet, study finds. Oh no! And then, each paragraph adds another scare factor: these kids also lie to their parents! Oh no! Sometimes they chat with strangers! Oh no! Some of them go to websites with adult content! Oh no! Some even pretend to do homework while actually (gasp!) chatting with others! It’s just awful!

Of course, if you actually look at the details, they don’t sound bad at all. In fact, I’m pretty surprised the numbers are as low as they are. The study itself involved a survey of kids from ages 11 to 18 in the UK. That’s a huge range. Kids in the 16, 17 and 18 year old range are quite different from your everyday 11 and 12 year old. And the idea that a 17 or 18 year-old might have had a sexually explicit conversation online doesn’t seem too surprising. Note that it never says anything about with whom the sexually explicit conversation occurred. Assuming that many of these 17 and 18 year olds have boyfriends or girlfriends, and they probably all use instant messaging, social networking or text messaging — you have to imagine that many of them will have had somewhat sexually explicit conversations with that boyfriend or girlfriend. That’s really not that out of the ordinary. The fact that it’s only 11% of kids surveyed sounds incredibly low.

As for lying to parents about what they’re doing online, is that a surprise? The fact that a kid would tell his mom he’s doing homework while he’s really chatting with his girlfriend or his friends? That’s to be expected. Note that the study doesn’t appear to have said just that people lied about having sexually explicit chats, either. Just that they lied about what they were doing online. As for chatting with strangers… while the article mentions that in passing, it doesn’t indicate that the survey actually asked any questions about that at all. And, finally, visiting websites with adult content, I will again point out that we’re talking about boys who are going through puberty. The fact that some of them eventually visit an adult website should hardly be news.

But when the press packages it all together in this nice format, it makes it seem like we’ve got a bunch of deviant kids running around the internet with no supervision from their luddite parents, who need to start standing over the shoulders of their kids as they surf. Either that, or perhaps we can calm down, realize that the stats don’t say anything all that surprising, and move on to something that might actually matter.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story