Daily Archives: July 31, 2008

King Canute, MP

Posted on by

The House of Commons Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport has been pondering the ‘problem’ of ‘unsuitable’ online content and, having deliberated, has brought forth a report which is a flake of Cadbury proportions. Here’s an excerpt from the Summary:

Sites which host user-generated content—typically photos and videos uploaded by members of the public—have taken some steps to set minimum standards for that content. They could and should do more. We recommend that terms and conditions which guide consumers on the types of content which are acceptable on a site should be prominent. It should be made more difficult for users to avoid seeing and reading the conditions of use: it would then become more difficult for users to claim ignorance of terms and conditions if they upload inappropriate content.

It is not standard practice for staff employed by social networking sites or video-sharing sites to preview content before it can be viewed by consumers. Some firms do not even undertake routine review of material uploaded, claiming that the volumes involved make it impractical. We were not persuaded by this argument, and we recommend that proactive review of content should be standard practice for sites hosting user-generated content. We look to the proposed UK Council to give a high priority to reconciling the conflicting claims about the practicality and effectiveness of using staff and technological tools to screen and take down material. We also invite the Council to help develop agreed standards across the Internet industry on take-down times—to be widely publicised—in order to increase consumer confidence.

It is common for social networking sites and sites hosting user-generated content to provide facilities to report abuse or unwelcome behaviour; but few provide a direct reporting facility to law enforcement agencies. We believe that high profile facilities with simple, preferably one-click mechanisms for reporting directly to law enforcement and support organisations are an essential feature of a safe networking site. We would expect providers of all Internet services based upon user participation to move towards these standards without delay…

One wonders if any of the boobies who sit on the Committee have ever actually used the Internet. I’ve just checked with Flickr (one of the user-generated content sites which exercises these Tribunes of the People). A total of 4,219 images were uploaded to it in the last minute.

Charles Arthur has the measure of these crazies.

And then they drop the big idea: “We recommend that proactive review of content should be standard practice for sites hosting user-generated content.” Not just that, but there should be a hotline to the police: “Few [social sites] provide a direct reporting facility to law enforcement agencies. We believe that high profile facilities with simple, preferably one-click mechanisms for reporting directly to law enforcement and support organisations are an essential feature of a safe networking site.”

And as if that weren’t enough, their final, big, razzle-dazzle is a call for, yes, a centralised body, a fabulous new self-regulatory quango:

“Under which the industry would speedily establish a self-regulatory body to draw up agreed minimum standards based upon the recommendations of the UK council for child internet safety, monitor their effectiveness, publish performance statistics, and adjudicate on complaints. In time, the new body might also take on the task of setting rules governing practice in other areas such as online piracy and peer to peer file-sharing, and targeted or so-called “behavioural” advertising.”

Oh, my aching neurons. Let’s start at the top. Proactive review? That means checking before putting up. That means one pair of eyes per pair of eyes uploading stuff. Unfeasible, unless we demand Facebook employ, say, 50,000 new staff to look over all the content being uploaded by Facebook’s 8 million-plus UK users. Hey, I’m sure Mark Zuckerberg would be delighted.

A hotline to the police? Have you noticed how uninterested the police are when you call them to say that your bank card has been cloned and hundreds taken from your account? And how will they deal with a zillion people clicking “report to police” each time someone says, “I’m going to kill you!” on some user forum? The problem with this is that it doesn’t – to use the net phrase – “scale”.

Bill Thompson also has a go at this in Index on Censorship.

A bunch of MPs has decided the best way to get some publicity at the start of the summer recess, when newspaper editors are starved of ‘serious’ stories, is to announce that the Internet is like the Wild West, and children are constantly exposed to unsuitable material on YouTube, reveal intimate personal details on Bebo and surf the web looking for pro-anorexia or suicide support sites.

Sadly, it seems that John Whittingdale and his committee members have not been poring over the technical details of IPv6 and OpenID, so what we’ve got in their report is yet more condemnation of the dark side of today’s Internet and a few poorly-grounded suggestions as to what might be done, most of which seem to comprise a call for Internet service providers and web hosts to become the net’s new morality police.

Could Labour win again?

Posted on by

I’ve just caught up with David Miliband’s article, which is refreshing because it’s about ideas rather than the brain-dead media obsession with Brown’s personality. I liked this passage:

With hindsight, we should have got on with reforming the NHS sooner. We needed better planning for how to win the peace in Iraq, not just win the war. We should have devolved more power away from Whitehall and Westminster. We needed a clearer drive towards becoming a low-carbon, energy-efficient economy, not just to tackle climate change but to cut energy bills.

But 10 years of rising prosperity, a health service brought back from the brink, and social norms around women’s and minority rights transformed, have not come about by accident. After all, the Tories opposed almost all the measures that have made a difference — from the windfall tax on privatised utilities to family-friendly working.

Now what are they offering? The Tories say society is broken. By what measure? Rising crime? No, crime has fallen more in the past 10 years than at any time in the past century. Knife crime and gun crime are serious problems. But since targeting the spike in gun crime, it has been cut by 13% in a year, and we have to do the same with knife crime.

What about the social breakdown that causes crime? More single parents dependent on the state? No, employment has risen sharply for lone parents because the state has funded childcare and made work pay. Falling school standards? No, they are rising. More asylum seekers? No, we said we would reform the system and slash the numbers, and we did…

That’s a start. It’s nice to see a Labour bigwig express some regrets. But he doesn’t go far enough. No serious mention of the decision to go to war in Iraq, for example (just regret that there wasn’t more planning for the aftermath). No appreciation of the fundamental weaknesses of Labour’s approach to the public services — in particular its crazed obsession with ‘targets’. And then there’s the government’s innate authoritarianism, its insistence on detention without charge or trial, its determination to have an ID card system and its relentless extension of the powers of surveillance. Miliband’s willingness to admit to weakness and maybe even of error is a welcome change, but it looks like pretty feeble stuff to me.

Now if there were to be a putsch that unhorsed Brown, and if the new leader were really to make a clean break with the past in relation to the above list, then it would pull the rug from under the Cameroonians, and might even cause the electorate to rub its collective eyes in amazement — and interest. But I can’t see it happening.

Sunder Katwala (Secretary of the Fabian Society) has some critical comments on the Miliband article.

On the beach

Posted on by

Nice piece of literary fantasy in his week’s Economist, which has been wondering if Gordon Brown has a future.

He decided to ring Downing Street. No, his chief of strategy told him, there had been no outbreaks of agricultural disease that might require him to convene a COBRA emergency meeting. No, they were not expecting any abnormal weather that would oblige him to rush back to London. Try to relax, prime minister, the strategist said.

He tried. He went down to the beach and made a sandcastle, carefully planting a miniature Union Jack on top of it, endeavouring not to think about the perfidy of the voters in the Glasgow East by-election and the deluded nationalism of his Scottish countrymen. Finally he rolled up his trousers and waded into the surf, looking out moodily across the grey and choppy waters. His mind flitted between love, fate, betrayal, the decline of North Sea mackerel stocks and the Icelandic cod war of 1958. For a moment, he felt at peace. He loosened his tie.