Censorware and CYA

[peteryoung]

Over at Boing Boing, Cory has thrown his toys out of the pram because internet author David Weinberger was unable to access Boing Boing from BA's computer terminals in the business class lounge at Heathrow (actually, for toys read 'platinum card'). Thus ensues the predictable us-vs-them, type-before-you-think conspiracy in the comments from the kind who fall over themselves in the rush to express their knee-jerk disapproval of BA and censorware in general. They forget that an easy target is not always the right target: as one comment succinctly points out, "Wait... it's the Company's internet connection? It's the Company's computer system? It's the Company that gets sued if the wrong stuff comes up?" Weinberger is surely smart enough to figure that if he used his laptop's wi-fi connection instead, he could probably have looked at whatever he wanted and not compromise the premises he is using.

A BA lounge at Heathrow is not in and of itself Burma or China or Saudi Arabia, so any reasonably computer-literate person could surely see that the type of thinking behind this is not censorship-driven, it's CYA-driven. Hell, I can't even look at Flickr or MySpace at my local Coffee Republic because their censorware says those entire sites are unsuitable for public viewing on their computers. Annoying, yes, but a fact of online life to be dealt with, though I would prefer to see simple front-page reminders on public computers that encourage sensitivity to other customers when considering which websites to view instead of blanket bans on entire sites that carry both safe and risky material. Such a reminder might even have saved this sick bastard from a jail term, though I have to say he deserves it.

Comments

[drplokta]

I think you're missing the point. BA is simply trying to cover its arse, but the company to which it outsources the actual (and impossible) work of compiling a blacklist engages in censorship by including sites such as BoingBoing which are critical of such companies on its blacklists. The complaint against BA is that it should deal with a more ethical supplier.

[purplecthulhu.livejournal.com]

CYA?

I think it's time that we accepted the reality that suppliers of bandwidth are common carriers and that blocking software can never achieve what is claimed for it. The responsibility of someone viewing child porn in public, as in the example you quote, is that person's not the company providing the bandwidth. After all, someone could do this over their phone and the phone company won't be held responsible, so why should BA, it's bandwidth provider, or BAA be held responsible?

[major-clanger.livejournal.com]

Looking at it in legal terms, BA/BAA have a duty of care as occupier to ensure that visitors don't cause harm (and that can include mental harm) to other visitors. How far that goes in terms of giving them a right - or even a duty - to try to take reasonable technical measures to prevent such harm arising from internet use is a very contentious issue, but again I can see why BA/BAA would err on the side of caution. After all, our wonderful free press will crap all over them if they get it wrong!

I have to say that this is one of those issues where I find the attitude of people like Cory to be rather redolent of doublethink. On the one hand, they seem to be taking a libertarian view that people should be able to look at what they want, and that other people shouldn't be entitled to complain about this. At the same time they seem to be advocating a very statist-authoritarian view that private corporations have no right to set controls on what happens with their assets on their premises.

[purplecthulhu.livejournal.com]

I don't think BAA/BA are erring on the side of caution here. They're doing the minimal thing they can do, which is subcontracting out blocking to one of the usual snake oil salesmen. If they really had an interest in preventing 'harm' to visitors then they would block all wifi and mobile phone access so that none of these evil net browsers could get their pron. They'd also ban the sale of pron in the airport shops, but they don't.

Of course one could take the attitude that (a) nobody has a right to not be offended (b) other action can be taken if someone is doing anything illegal and (c) they seem to ignore other forms of mental harm that they cause (being kept awake all night on a flight packed with mewling and puking infants certainly counts as harm in my book!).

So no, I'm not that sympathetic to BA/BAA's plight.

As to Cory's more general doublethink, I suspect the background to this is the power inequalities between individuals and companies. The libertarian aspect of his position is aimed at individuals while the authoritarian side is aimed at large powerful organisations, private or governmental. Of course there is a paradox here since more government regulation sets the scene for more government abuse, but I don't think anyone would deny the imbalance we currently have between the power of individuals and corporations of all kinds.

[major-clanger.livejournal.com]

My thoughts on this are influence by having recently read Ch 7 of Lawrence Lessig's Code 2.0, where he discusses his 'four regulators' theory of how an individual or group's actions are constrained. Lessig proposes that there are four main regulatory forces:

- Law, i.e. direct limits or prohibitions.
- The Market, i.e. costs constraints or inducements.
- Norms, i.e. peer pressure and social stigma.
- 'Architecture', i.e. the extent to which it is actually possible to carry out the regulated act.

For example, drink driving is illegal (Law), it results in higher insurance premiums (Market) and it is socially stigmatised (Norms). There are not as yet architectural constraints on it, but ones have been suggested, such as building brethalysers into cars.

Lessig goes on to suggest that in fact Law tends to underlie the other three regulators, in that most market and architectural constraints arise from legislation, and legality influences social norms.

Now, apply this to the case where an airport authority or airline (or any other such body) is trying to prevent some of its customers from unlawfully accessing obscene material and/or accessing such material so as to upset other customers. The traditional ways in which this could happen are already regulated: the authority can control what magazines are sold in shops in its premises, and there will be legal constrains on what those magazines contain anyway. Even for those magazines that are sold, there are social norms relating to them - most people don't have to be told not to read $DIRTY_MAG in public.

But the internet is different; as it stands, the airport has no control over the content accessed, nor can it rely on legislative control, which has proven ineffective. Furthermore, there same social norms as for magazine-reading may not apply, or might be undermined (you can't take a public internet terminal into the toilet, or hide it inside your copy of Country Life. So, the authority is really limited to architectural constraints, and that means blocking software. The problem arises with the limits to how accurate such constraints are as a regulator, and the transparency/visibility of them. Indeed, Lessig makes a particular point of warning about the dangers of invisible and unaccountable architectural regulators.

Turning to your other points:

- It's doubtful that anyone does have a right not to be offended, but recklessly causing severe distress is another matter. And for that matter it is a criminal offence (SOA 2003) to allow minors to view depictions of sexual activity.

- Yes, illegal actions can be punished, or staying within the civil rather than criminal realm, tortious acts can result in damages. But most legal theorists think it better to find solutions that avoid the need to go to court in the first place; that's why, for instance, Health and Safety laws enforce all sorts of safeguards even though common-law negligence provides for perfectly adequate remedies for those injured at work.

- I Know What You Mean (and you have my sympathy), but I think there is a distinction to be drawn between the common vicissitudes of air travel and the specific nuisances caused by fellow travellers.

[peteyoung.livejournal.com]

CYA=Cover Your Arse.

In total agreement, because I'd prefer to see it accepted everywhere that it's the end user who is ultimately (and entirely) responsible for what is viewed on a publicly provided computer when a complaint is made. But in such an event the damage has already been done, and an operator like an airport lounge might wish to prevent a reoccurence and avoid the charge of having done nothing about it. Maybe I didn't make it abundantly clear enough, but I reckon using censorware to block entire sites like Flickr, MySpace, Boing Boing or even LJ for CYA reasons is an overreaction, but when certain sites such as BB do occasionally contain risky imagery they can't cry 'foul' when it hits them. Boing Boing being blocked really is no big deal, but until end-user responsibility is enshrined in law, and while there's no "I agree to indemnify" clause to accept before browsing on many public computers (such as those that ISPs require you to accept even when you're on your laptop in the privacy of your hotel room), many companies obviously fear they are leaving themselves wide open to litigation unless their sensitive legal department can pre-empt the possibility of lawsuits by using some draconian censorware. And I'm sure the guy in Melbourne will be the first to put his hand up and say yeah he was stupid doing what he did from where he did it. And I also wonder if Apple run censorware in their stores.

[purplecthulhu.livejournal.com]

I think the fear of litigation comes because there are too many ambulance chasing lawyers out to make a fast buck, and companies have bigger pockets than individuals. If ISPs of all kinds, including those who provide open terminals in airports, were given common carrier status this would be solved. Nobody tries to sue the post office for delivering pron after all.

[feorag.livejournal.com]

Even in business class lounges, the access is a service you buy. They should at least make it clear that what you are paying for is not actually internet access, but rather, access to a tiny subset of the internet, not including many of the most popular sites.

[drplokta]

Nearly all sites occasionally contain risky imagery. If you block any site that ever contains images of nudity, you'll be blocking Wikipedia, Google, the BBC, eBay, etc. You won't have any Internet left.

[peteyoung.livejournal.com]

Yup, naked breasts on default icons at porn-free LJ accounts, fr'instance...

[stevegreen.livejournal.com]

As Frank Wu pointed out in The Drink Tank #143, there are things on the internet a lot more offensive than exposed flexh.

[del-c.livejournal.com]

I know! Just the other day some bloke was blaming the company I work for because his boiler was leaking... :-)

[peteyoung.livejournal.com]

Can't think who that might have been. Anyone I know?