It could be good, but before we start getting swept into a wave of euphoria, believing that the Internet has survived the onslaught, stop. This is just the beginning. There's a long way to go and we've only just begun the battle. First blood went to the Netizens, the censors are smarting but they'll be back. And this time they'll be stronger, more prepared and ready to fight.

So what's in their armoury for the next battle in what may prove to be a long war? Well without a doubt they'll be bringing software such as CyberPatrol and NetNanny, but these can be quite easily proven to be ineffectual and unjust. Some of these pieces of software filter out words such as breast, gay etc. In doing so they filter out things like breast cancer sites, sex education sites and gay rights sites. Anyone but the most puritanical would object to having such sources censored from their children's access. But it seems that those software companies peddling products to make the Net 'safe' are made up of the most hard line, puritanical, moralistic people around. The products not based on keyword censoring usually rely on a long list of sites they (the companies) find inappropriate. The companies try to keep these lists secret, claiming them to be trade secrets upon which their products depend. But people from organisations like Peacefire have cracked some of the lists to find that they ban women's lib sites, gay rights and sex education sites. If parents knew this they might not be buying such software and I'm sure any judge would agree. These companies seem to be uniquely lacking in tolerance and quite strangely moralistic even though they sell a program which basically replaces a parent's moral right to choose what their children see and learn from which, to me, seems to be quite an immoral act, especially when the companies deny parents the right to choose what is banned with the software they paid for.

Having put aside that threat, what else can be thrown at us? The most direct and pertinent threat currently posed is from the PICS labeling system. I mentioned some of PICS' risks in March. But with the CDA dead, the risks are now even greater. PICS is being developed and enhanced to make it into a more convincing and reliable alternative to the CDA. The basis of PICS is that every web site is labeled with a set of simplistic tags. You set your browser to allow whatever levels you approve of, sites which don't match your criteria can't be viewed. The labeling can be very subjective so you could choose to assess pages by their own rating or ratings of other 'trusted' organisations. But under the current system ratings would be relatively easy to fake. Also we could come to the point where you wouldn't be able to alter the settings or even choose whether or not to use PICS with your browser. This might be avoided in the homes of Western countries but schools, libraries and more repressed countries would definitely use this as the ultimate form of censor ship enabled by technology. And what if you can't afford/don't want/can't get a PICS rating? Then the browser filters you out. Above all, though, how can we rate such a wide range of sites covering so many different viewpoints and interests with a small number of labels? Do we face a future where people design sites to meet a certain labeling criteria? I hope not.

We face not only the reduction of the Net into a few safe 'channels' thereby stamping on its trademark diversity be we also risk enabling the greatest censorship technology ever created. j-dom 3.0 stands for awareness, and now that you are aware of the risks PICS poses, face them and stop it while we still can.

© 1997 j-dom media. contact us.

go home

by Jason P. Kitcat [e-mail him]