You may need to add additional points: 5. A country or ISP does not unblock Wikipedia because he doesn't think that it's a usable alternative for a full block, even if he could filter the images based on the filter. (It already works, why step down...)
6. A country or ISP that only hides certain topics/articles could decide to also hide images marked by the filter. Am 23.09.2011 14:38, schrieb Andreas Kolbe: > As I see it, if the personal image filter categories can be exploited by > censors to restrict image access permanently and irrevocably, this could > result in the following scenarios: > 1. A country or ISP that currently does not censor access to Wikipedia > switches to access without the categorised images, removing choice from users > (net loss for free access to information; this might extend even to basic > anatomical images of vulvas, penises etc.). > 2. A country or ISP that currently blocks access to Wikipedia completely > makes Wikipedia available again, but without access to the images covered by > the personal image filter categories (net gain for free access to > information). > 3. A country or ISP that currently blocks access to all Wikimedia images > restores access to all images outside the personal image filter categories > (net gain for free access to information, but it would be useful to have > confirmation as to how many ISPs currently block all Wikimedia images -- at > the moment we only have an unsourced statement in > http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_websites_blocked_in_the_People%27s_Republic_of_China&oldid=451338781#Wikipedia > claiming that some Chinese ISPs do this). > 4. A country or ISP that currently blocks access to Wikipedia completely, or > currently blocks access to Wikimedia images globally, restores access, using > the personal image filter as designed, i.e. leaving it at the user's > discretion (net gain for free access to information, but I agree with you > that this scenario is rather unlikely). > We clearly should not assume that these net gains or net losses are all equal > in magnitude, or that all these scenarios would be equally likely. > We should also remember that this only addresses the consequences of > countries or providers using the personal image filter categories in the way > that you have warned would be possible, i.e. for complete censorship of these > images. > Such use of the categories for outright censorship is an important part of > the picture, but it's not the whole picture, as there is also the perceived > benefit of the personal image filter when it works as designed (i.e. giving > the user a choice they don't have right now). > > Still, these are important matters to think about. I like the personal image > filter idea as designed, but I'd be uncomfortable with 50 countries, say, > using the opportunity to implement scenario 1. > > Andreas > > --- On Fri, 23/9/11, Tobias Oelgarte<[email protected]> wrote: > > From: Tobias Oelgarte<[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Possible solution for image filter > To: [email protected] > Date: Friday, 23 September, 2011, 12:03 > > I gave you a simple example on how easy it would be to use our > categorization to implement a filter based upon those categories. > > The sources on that this actually happens are not rare if we look at > china or Iran. The problem are many local providers over which you will > seldom find a report. Many third world Internet users are bound to use a > single local provider or the access depends at an organization. > > You said that we have to concern the point, that Wikipedia might be > blocked entirely if we don't have such a feature. > > This argument is weakend by the fact that the filter (as intended) can > just be ignored by user. This rises the doubt, that the feature would be > strong enough for "censors needs" and therefore might not be reason > against blocking Wikipedia completely. > > But lets also think the other way around. Many of this "potential > censors" aren't blocking Wikipedia entirely since this would most likely > result in pressure against the decision to "take down" Wikipedia. > Blocking only selected content is the way censors prefer. It is done in > a much greater amount of countries. For example even in Taiwan or South > Korea. > > If we provide the categories then this is exactly one of the things what > could be used to extend censorship without the pressure to take down > Wikipedia entirely. It is much more acceptable. An option that is not > present at the moment. > > To be fair: We have no numbers on that. It is speculation and it might > go the one way or the other way. But should we take that risk? > > Currently we are promoting free access to information and knowledge. If > a filter like this has a 50:50 chance to improve or worsen things, then > we might raise the question: Is it worth the effort or should we search > for better solutions? > > Greetings Tobias > > Am 23.09.2011 12:38, schrieb Andreas Kolbe: >> Tobias, >> That is not quite what I thought we were talking about, because these are >> set-ups made on an individual computer, rather than restrictions at the >> internet service provider level. >> For example, I would not have a problem with it if schools figured out a way >> to prevent access to controversial images on school computers. I might have >> a problem with it if no one in an entire country were able to view these >> images; hence my question. I thought that was what you were talking about. >> If there are countries/Internet service providers that restrict all of their >> citizens from accessing porn sites, searching for adult images on Flickr, or >> prevent them from performing Google searches with safe search switched off, >> then it would be reasonable to assume that they might make an effort to do >> the same for Wikipedia. >> There was a similar situation in Germany, when Flickr prevented all German >> users with a yahoo.de address from accessing adult Flickr material, because >> Germany has unusually strict youth protection and age verification laws. >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flickr#Controversy >> However, that was done by the company itself, because they wanted to avoid >> legal liability in Germany, and not by German Internet service providers. >> People in Germany with a yahoo.com (rather than yahoo.de) e-mail address >> were still perfectly able to access adult Flickr material from within >> Germany, using German internet service providers. >> >> I believe Saudi Arabia has sporadically blocked access to Wikipedia, and >> blocks access to porn sites at the Internet service provider level: >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_Saudi_Arabiahttp://www.andrewlih.com/blog/2006/07/27/wikipedia-blocked-in-saudi-arabia/ >> >> Wikipedia was also briefly blocked in Pakistan, because of the Mohammed >> cartoon controversy. So there might be a scenario where countries like Saudi >> Arabia and Pakistan figure out how to block access to adult images and >> images of Mohammed on Wikipedia permanently, using methods like the ones you >> describe, based on the personal image filter categories. >> That might be a concern worth talking about. Of course, it has to be >> balanced against the concern that these countries can block Wikipedia >> altogether. >> >> Regards,Andreas >> >> >> --- On Fri, 23/9/11, Tobias Oelgarte<[email protected]> wrote: >> >> From: Tobias Oelgarte<[email protected]> >> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Possible solution for image filter >> To: [email protected] >> Date: Friday, 23 September, 2011, 8:33 >> >> Yes we are aware of such pages. Just search for "google safe version" >> and so on. At first you will find plugins from Google for browsers >> itself, that can be used to enable the filter as an default option. If >> you scroll down a bit, then you will find other pages that are using >> Google to perform so called "safe searches".[1] There is a room for such >> tools.[2] Google limited it somewhat by providing the feature trough >> browser plugins itself. But you still find many examples for such pages.[3] >> >> There is already a market for such tools. First someone could check them >> out to see if we really need to do categorization or if this software is >> already good enough. Secondly it's nearly a proven that we would make an >> addition to that market. >> >> [1] For example: >> http://www.uk.safesearchlive.com/ >> http://www.safesearchkids.com/wikipedia-for-kids.html >> (Interestingly it does safe-search for Wikipedia trough Googles image >> categorization) >> [2] >> https://addons.mozilla.org/de/firefox/addon/linkextend-safety-kidsafe-site/versions/ >> Plugin for firefox that removes even the buttons to disable "safe >> search" from google pages. >> [3] Many Anti-Virus software includes googles "safe search" >> functionality http://forum.kaspersky.com/lofiversion/index.php/t145285.html >> ... >> >> >> Am 23.09.2011 02:46, schrieb Andreas Kolbe: >>> Are you aware of any "providers" that use other sites' category systems in >>> that way? E.g. to disable Google searches with "safe search off" for all of >>> their subscribers, disable access to adult Flickr material, etc.? >>> >>> >>> Am 23.09.2011 01:21, schrieb Andreas Kolbe: >>>> And where would the problem be? If a user prefers to go to a Bowdlerised >>>> site like that, >>>> rather than wikipedia.org, where they will see the pictures unless they >>>> specifically ask not >>>> to see them, then that is their choice, and no skin off our noses. >>>> A. >>>> >>> The problem would be simple. The people that depend on one "provider" >>> for internet access would have no other choice then to use a censored >>> version. They type "en.wikipepedia.org", the local proxy redirects them >>> to "filterpedia.org" which provides only the content which is not in one >>> of the pre-choosen categories. >>> >>> It's simple as that. They don't choose to use that site but they will be >>> forced to. *We* would make that possible. >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> foundation-l mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l >>> _______________________________________________ >>> foundation-l mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> foundation-l mailing list >> [email protected] >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l >> _______________________________________________ >> foundation-l mailing list >> [email protected] >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l >> > > _______________________________________________ > foundation-l mailing list > [email protected] > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > _______________________________________________ > foundation-l mailing list > [email protected] > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
