Chris Kelly, Facebook's chief privacy officer explained how sex offenders are banned from Facebook. "We have been working productively with General Blumenthal and other attorneys general to keep sex offenders off Facebook, and to assure that those who attempt use our site in violation of their parole or other restrictions are brought to justice. This is one of many measures that we continue to take to make Facebook a safer and more trusted online environment." (our emphasis - the quote is from "Report: 5,585 sex offenders purged from Facebook", CNET, 20 February 2009).
This answers my concerns when I first read the headlines in several newspapers. I wondered on which criteria Facebook banned people. At least it is after a conviction, not before a conviction, and on the terms of the sentence given.
However, I share one concern with TechDirt's author Longino: the ban seems to me very general and rests on the assumption that sex offenders will use Facebook ONLY to track down future victims. To make a parallel, it's like saying that each time they switch TV is to look for and at child porn or the like. Or that they enter a bookstore only to find filthy images. I find the assumption in violation of those offenders' most basic rights of freedom of communication. Let's be clear though: there is a possibility that Facebook or MySpace can be use to groom. HOwever, I think justice should have evidence of it (like where they log in) rather than accept a preemptive ban so broad it is forbidding sex offenders to use an important mean of communication nowadays. "Facebook Boots Off Almost 5600 Sex Offenders; Don't You Feel Safer Now?" (TechDirt, 20 Feburary 2009)
Showing posts with label Offences - Obscenity. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Offences - Obscenity. Show all posts
Thursday, 26 February 2009
Thursday, 19 February 2009
Paying people to filter the internet
China seems to now pay people per porn website discovered and reported. Being cynical, I wonder to which extent this solution might be cheaper than hiring them as full-time employees for the Great Firewall. A future law and economics study?
In terms of human rights and liberties, well, using people to report websites (free of charge) is a common procedure in most countries. UK does it with Internet Watch Foundation; France does it with the Internet Gouvernance website and system, etc... None however when as far as paying them! The question is probably how the prospect of being paid could affect the "objectivity" (if any) of the person's appreciating the contents of the website. As usual, how the information reported is used by Government or non Governmental agencies is crucial as lack of transparency promotes censorship and violation of human rights.
"China Looks To Build Human Firewall With Fun, Prizes" (13 February 2009)
In terms of human rights and liberties, well, using people to report websites (free of charge) is a common procedure in most countries. UK does it with Internet Watch Foundation; France does it with the Internet Gouvernance website and system, etc... None however when as far as paying them! The question is probably how the prospect of being paid could affect the "objectivity" (if any) of the person's appreciating the contents of the website. As usual, how the information reported is used by Government or non Governmental agencies is crucial as lack of transparency promotes censorship and violation of human rights.
"China Looks To Build Human Firewall With Fun, Prizes" (13 February 2009)
Tuesday, 10 February 2009
Online watch for illicit content - France
After a bit of research (online though), the text for fraud is a Ministerial Decree from the Home Secretary - Décret n° 2008-1109 du 29 octobre 2008, available at Legifrance http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichTexte.do?cidTexte=JORFTEXT000019708364&dateTexte
The title itself is "experimental automatic treatment of online pre-complaint". In other words, the online system is just an online tool for the police to do their job and for the victims to complain, as they would do at their local police station.
It is experimental because it has been tested in two "counties" (départments in French). It is the police who investigates once they received the information; a face to face meeting will be requested and if the person does not pursue, the data after 30 days will be deleted.
The CNIL (a quango for ensuring privacy in the collection and use of data) approved of the scheme in April 2008 - Délibération n° 2008-102 du 29 avril 2008 portant avis sur un projet de décret en Conseil d'Etat autorisant la création d'un traitement automatisé dénommé « pré-plainte en ligne » PUblished in the JO 31 october 2008 http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichTexte.do;jsessionid=14152FC1A28C9B4FFBC3C63149E83684.tpdjo04v_1?cidTexte=JORFTEXT000019709044&dateTexte=20081031&categorieLien=cid
The title itself is "experimental automatic treatment of online pre-complaint". In other words, the online system is just an online tool for the police to do their job and for the victims to complain, as they would do at their local police station.
It is experimental because it has been tested in two "counties" (départments in French). It is the police who investigates once they received the information; a face to face meeting will be requested and if the person does not pursue, the data after 30 days will be deleted.
The CNIL (a quango for ensuring privacy in the collection and use of data) approved of the scheme in April 2008 - Délibération n° 2008-102 du 29 avril 2008 portant avis sur un projet de décret en Conseil d'Etat autorisant la création d'un traitement automatisé dénommé « pré-plainte en ligne » PUblished in the JO 31 october 2008 http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichTexte.do;jsessionid=14152FC1A28C9B4FFBC3C63149E83684.tpdjo04v_1?cidTexte=JORFTEXT000019709044&dateTexte=20081031&categorieLien=cid
Sunday, 1 February 2009
Obscenity (UK) and outsiders' view
The new offence of extreme porn attracts more media coverage than Government's funding. So is there a point in enacting such laws if they cannot be enforced? Let's hope one day Government will wake up to cybercrime's threats...
"Police will not target offenders against law on violent porn" (The Guardian, 26 January 2009)
The same question of "why legislation" was raised, but for different reasons: "UK Citizens Worked Up About Broad And Vague Obscenity Law" (TechDirt, 29th January 2009)
"Police will not target offenders against law on violent porn" (The Guardian, 26 January 2009)
The same question of "why legislation" was raised, but for different reasons: "UK Citizens Worked Up About Broad And Vague Obscenity Law" (TechDirt, 29th January 2009)
Friday, 5 December 2008
Offence of possessing extreme porn - UK
The concept of possession for child pornography troubled the courts in the recent years. The main question is to which extent deleting images makes one still in possession of those images? The courts were warry to create a legal test that would lead to convicting the "innocent" person receiving unwelcomed porn by e-mail.
The issues have been partially adressed with the new offences of extreme porn (rather than modification of child porn) in s. 63 to 67 Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008. Contrary to what everybody says, there is no defence if one deletes the materials. One has to prove that one did not solicit to receive the materials and that is much harder to do than it appears at first sight. The official guidelines are clear as long as one does not read only para. 21, but also read para. 19 and 20. The test is in line with the French courts' approach
"UK.gov says extreme porn isn't illegal if you delete it..." (The register - 28 November 2008)
"UK Says You Can't Have Some Kinds Of Porn, But It Determines What Kinds" (Tech Dirt - 2 December 2008)
with the official guidelines available at the Ministry of Justice website http://www.justice.gov.uk/news/announcement261108a.htm
The issues have been partially adressed with the new offences of extreme porn (rather than modification of child porn) in s. 63 to 67 Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008. Contrary to what everybody says, there is no defence if one deletes the materials. One has to prove that one did not solicit to receive the materials and that is much harder to do than it appears at first sight. The official guidelines are clear as long as one does not read only para. 21, but also read para. 19 and 20. The test is in line with the French courts' approach
"UK.gov says extreme porn isn't illegal if you delete it..." (The register - 28 November 2008)
"UK Says You Can't Have Some Kinds Of Porn, But It Determines What Kinds" (Tech Dirt - 2 December 2008)
with the official guidelines available at the Ministry of Justice website http://www.justice.gov.uk/news/announcement261108a.htm
Tuesday, 14 October 2008
Diversity of laws - a dilemna?
Apparently somebody in the US - Florida was sanctionned for obscenity after prosecutors went forum shopping for the most stringent laws on the matter. Diversity of laws is not a new issue; comparative law is highly aware of it. Internet just increases the problem
"What Are 'Community Standards' When It Comes To Obscenity Online?" (13 October 2008)
"What Are 'Community Standards' When It Comes To Obscenity Online?" (13 October 2008)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)