Monitoring of the Internet

Within the family of bloggers that is the b5media business channel, the latest cross-group activity is what we’re calling The Odd Couple posting challenge. Two bloggers get to post their reaction to a statement. I’m partnered with Anne at The Golden Pencil and our challenge is:

Should the government monitor content on the internet as closely as it does content for television and radio?

To give you my quick answer, it’s no. I strongly believe that governments should not censor and control content on the web, which I’m taking this question to mean. An alternative understanding is to ask if governments should be privy to everything I do on the web, including emails etc, and my answer to that is also no. But on to a longer answer

Until recently, TV and radio were relatively space-bound, they were tied to the geographies of a country. (Today, of course ,I could get almost any programme from any country in the world over the net) A government could control and set the limits, as they ‘controlled’ the airwaves, granted licences to electromagnetic radiation with legal backing to stop anything they did not want. This also meant they could set limits on the content, set the boundaries of what they consider tasteful, ensure stations provided news coverage or educational programmes, whatever they considered necessary. Each country developed their own set of standards, usually based on a religious frame of reference. Today I still can’t get over the restrictions placed on US broadcasts, where they can’t show things or use language which would be perfectly OK in the UK - violence has no problem, but sex or the odd swear word is way off-limits.

The web is different, from the start it has been global. I would see it’s primary use as connecting people with each other and connecting people with the information and entertainment that they want. It’s flattening the world, it’s breaking down barriers. But letting people see what is going on elsewhere on the globe can be very frightening to countries, who then try and block access to content on a national level because of political or religious reasons. There are ways around the blocks, but it can be difficult.

The US, UK, Europe and many other countries want to believe they are beyond this, that they are no longer scared of their own citizens that they have to block things. There are laws in place to allow prosecution for content that is considered obscene, or inciting hatred and these cover all forms of content, not just the web and these are used to good effect when needed. But there are moves afoot to restrict access further, either by companies concerned they are missing out on profits or governments concerned that their children are at risk or the terrorists are out to get them.

In the UK, a former head of MI6 has called for more regulation, because people are using the web to communicate and plan things. Kevin Marks has dug up a quote from Douglas Adams in 1999

Newsreaders still feel it is worth a special and rather worrying mention if, for instance, a crime was planned by people ‘over the Internet.’ They don’t bother to mention when criminals use the telephone or the M4, or discuss their dastardly plans ‘over a cup of tea,’ though each of these was new and controversial in their day.

Unfortunately, that’s still valid today. The internet is a tool, a channel of communication. It’s global and ubiquitous, block it and people will find away around it, but not usually the people who use it to talk to their Aunty Nora a few 100 miles away who will be left inconvenienced.

Instead of saying block it, moderate it, censor it, control it, focus on using that energy in education of the benefits, in how to navigate safely. Or on changing the political landscape so that people don’t want to commit terrorist acts.