[ga] Re: [ PRIVACY Forum ] Google Images Illegal? -- And the Price of Freedom

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Lauren and all,

  I have to agree this legislation goes way too far.  But it is reasonable
to
consider and concede that the "Big three" search engine providers
also have not adaqutely policed their own data bases and search
engine key word search capability either.  Hence leading to
over reacting with too far reaching legislation. If any industry
doesn't police itself to the satisfaction of the broad community
than consumers and/or community members are going to demand
governments to make law which will force industry to be regulated
to the extent beyond what is reasonable.

  I abhore government over regulation and barely can tolorate
any government regulation, as they usually do it wrong.  However
I also recognize that if any industry demonstrates even worse, than
government regulation becomes necessary.  Sort of like the ignorant
correcting the blind, deaf, and arrogant.

  IF industry leaders would truly govern themselves from
the bottom up, really listen to their customers and/or users and
were far less arrogant, governments would have little no motivation
to regulate.  However as we have all seen, experianced, or been
a victim of industry abuse < in this case search engine providers >
there ONLY real motives are profits and market dominance at
any and all costs regardless.  I too, as a Sr. Exec. at my company
seek profits and at least a good share of our market niches, but
NEVER EVER at the abuse or damage of even a single customer
or user.

privacy@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:

>               Google Images Illegal? -- And the Price of Freedom
>
>                  http://lauren.vortex.com/archive/000264.html
>
> Greetings.  Are perhaps millions of photos on Google Image Search,
> other search engines, and the associated, linked hosting Web sites
> to be made illegal?
>
> That appears to be essentially the plan of some legislators here in
> California, who are pushing for a law making it illegal to display
> photos of young children on the Internet "without permission."  Note
> that the idea isn't just to prohibit pornographic photos, or naked
> photos, but all photos of "toddlers" -- including fully clothed in
> completely public settings.
>
> A quick survey of the Google Image Search database yielded over 600K
> hits simply for "toddler or toddlers" -- one can easily imagine the
> scope of similar photos to be found using other related keywords.
>
> This new move toward photo restrictions is being driven by the same
> forces -- laudable but misguided and ineffective attempts to protect
> children -- that I discussed a few months ago in the context of
> mandated ID requirements for Web site access:
>
> "MySpace, Google, and the Path to Tyranny"
> ( http://lauren.vortex.com/archive/000240.html )
>
> In the current case, the outrage is over an admitted "pedophile"
> (currently living out of his car here in L.A.), who has no criminal
> record, is not a registered sex offender, and says he does not act
> upon his impulses in illegal ways.  Municipalities are trying to
> find ways to ban him and make illegal his apparently favorite
> activity -- taking photos of children in public places and posting
> them on his Web site.
>
> That this character is exceedingly creepy is undeniable.  That he
> might be potentially dangerous is obviously not at all out of the
> question.  But in fact, what's he's committing at this point is
> literally nothing more than "thought crime" in the purest sense of
> Orwell's "1984" -- and if the plan now is to try cage up everyone
> who ever thinks dangerous thoughts ... well, we're going to need a
> lot of space for the necessary concentration camps.
>
> Similarly, trying to make it illicit to display such photos taken in
> public places is a potentially disastrous path.  Do the proponents
> of such a course seriously believe that "nasty people" won't
> continue to trade any and all photos through underground channels?
> And when the first stage proves ineffective, what's the next step?
> Ban photos of public buildings?  People's houses?  Cars?  Dogs?
>
> Well, there goes the immensely valuable Google Maps images, Google
> Earth, and Google Street View down the toilet, not to mention their
> competition in these various technology spaces.
>
> One wonders what the endgame is in the reasoning of the folks who
> propose such restrictions on information?  We've already seen
> Homeland Security used as an excuse for blocking community access to
> data about dangerous sites within their midsts, and for harassing
> innocent people taking photos of bridges and tunnels.  Such
> restrictive actions can easily lead to cover-ups and actual
> disasters.  In a time when our physical infrastructure is crumbling
> for lack of funds (while hundreds of billions are being spent on
> Iraq and the "war on terror"), a serious rethinking of our
> priorities would seem to be in order.  Would a bit more money spent
> on infrastructure instead of padding "terror war" contractors
> pockets have saved those lives lost on the Interstate 35 bridge in
> Minneapolis yesterday?  It's difficult not to ponder the question.
>
> Homeland security arguments may seem a far cry from trying to ban
> photos of children.  But the underlying principles are the same.
> I'll say this yet again for the umpteenth time.  You cannot
> effectively censor the Internet.  To be sure, not every datum of
> information should be on the Internet in the first place, but once
> it's out there, you can't take it back.  And public places are by
> definition public.  Trying to impose a special category of "public
> places whose images are not allowed on the Internet" is simply
> impractical and ineffective, and in the end also ridiculous and
> dangerous.
>
> While I have indeed called for research and discussion in the areas
> of Search Engine Dispute Notifications (e.g.
> http://lauren.vortex.com/archive/000254.html ), this approach is
> associated with my belief that the only "cure" for problematic
> information on the Internet is more information, not less.
>
> New demands for Internet IDs (e.g., an "Internet Driver's License"),
> and the various calls for broad restrictions on photos and other
> data from public places, are being driven not only by fear,
> but also by political and other opportunism as well.
>
> Unless we wish to see the Internet reduced to a pablum of the lowest
> common denominator, it is imperative that we stand up for key
> principles, even when that means sometimes having to align ourselves
> in certain respects with some of the least admirable members of
> society.
>
> Such is the nature of standing up for freedom, not only in the 21st
> century, but throughout human history.
>
> --Lauren--
> Lauren Weinstein
> lauren@xxxxxxxxxx or lauren@xxxxxxxx
> Tel: +1 (818) 225-2800
> http://www.pfir.org/lauren
> Co-Founder, PFIR
>    - People For Internet Responsibility - http://www.pfir.org
> Co-Founder, IOIC
>    - International Open Internet Coalition - http://www.ioic.net
> Founder, CIFIP
>    - California Initiative For Internet Privacy - http://www.cifip.org
> Founder, PRIVACY Forum - http://www.vortex.com
> Member, ACM Committee on Computers and Public Policy
> Lauren's Blog: http://lauren.vortex.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> privacy mailing list
> http://lists.vortex.com/mailman/listinfo/privacy

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 134k members/stakeholders strong!)
"Obediance of the law is the greatest freedom" -
   Abraham Lincoln

"Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is
very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt

"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B;
liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by
P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."
United States v. Carroll Towing  (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947]
===============================================================
Updated 1/26/04
CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security
IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng.  INEG. INC.
ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402
E-Mail jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
 Registered Email addr with the USPS
Contact Number: 214-244-4827