Filtering.html
12.6 KB
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
<head>
<meta name="generator" content=
"HTML Tidy for Mac OS X (vers 31 October 2006 - Apple Inc. build 13), see www.w3.org" />
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html" />
<title>
Web architecture: Filtering and Censorship
</title>
<link href="di.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" />
</head>
<body bgcolor="#DDFFDD" text="#000000">
<address>
Tim Berners-Lee
<p>
Date started: December 19, 1997
</p>
<p>
Status: personal view. Editing status: As good as it will
get for a while..
</p>
</address>
<p>
<a href="Overview.html">Up to Design Issues</a>
</p>
<h3>
Philosophy of the Web - Filtering and Censorship
</h3>
<hr />
<h1>
Filtering and Censorship<i><br /></i>
</h1>
<p>
Information is powerful stuff. The world has been
enthralled by the power which the Web, the universe of
accessible information, gives to people and to groups
working and playing together.
</p>
<p>
Information about information is powerful not just as
information, but because it allows one to leverage one's use
of information, to benefit from that which is relevant,
accurate, stylish, unbiased, or timely, -- whatever one
regards as being of "quality" -- without being enmired
in that which is not.
</p>
<p>
Powerful tools are often usable for constructive or
destructive purposes just as paper and ink be used for truth
or lies, and metal for ploughshares or swords. The Web's
power stems from its universality - for example that a
hypertext link an point to any information out there, not
just a subset. People have asked whether I regret that
the Web has been used for some uses, but I have to reply that
if somehow it had been built to control the material which
was placed in it, then that would be the technology
controlling society, rather than the other way around as it
should be.
</p>
<p>
True, one could take the view that our society is not strong
enough to be trusted with a powerful information system.
One could take the view that society does not currently
have the wherewithal to prevent the Web from being abused by
destructive forces to an extent that the overall pain is
greater than the gain. I do not believe this is true.
In the western developed world, at least, I believe that the
democratic process will have sufficient control over
governments and the judicial process sufficient control of
criminals, to continue to defend the health of the evolving
society.
</p>
<p>
We should be very careful, by constant inspection, to ensure
that this continues to be the case.
</p>
<h3>
Filtering and Censorship
</h3>
<p>
One of the threats which posed itself in 1994 was of
government censorship over information on the Web. In
general, there are information acts which societies regard as
legal, and those which are illegal (such as fraud). The
problem which arose was that in the very subjective question
of what information is deemed suitable for children, there
was a threat that, in order to "protect" children, seeing no
other alternative, governments were contemplating making
draconian legislation for example prohibiting the
transmission of "indecent" material. The problems here were
many.
</p>
<p>
First of all, the concept of "indecent" was being enforced as
a central single concept, quite against the distributed
subjective nature of its definition in society. The Web
works as a decentralized system, with no hierarchical or
other structure to force society into a shape imposed by
technology. This works. Centralization of such an
idea would [prevent the Web from being an accurate mirror of
society itself.
</p>
<p>
Secondly, the problem being solved was the reading of such
information by children, not its transmission. Thirdly, the
question of "transmission" seemed to include intermediate
parties who were not responsible for the content in an
editorial or authorship sense. And one could list other
problems, but this is enough for the present.
</p>
<h3>
Information Quality
</h3>
<p>
The basic problem being addressed was that of subjective
information "quality". This is the same problem
reported by newcomers to teh web who find (typically after a
search engine search) too much "junk".
</p>
<p>
It is unreasonable to ask for information delivered from the
web to be of consistently high "quality" if you can't define
what "quality" is. There is a need, then, to be able to
represent "quality" in a completely subjective way.
</p>
<p>
This is what the PICS project was all about. PICS was
specifically aimed at demonstrating that individuals could
obtain their own subjective notion of quality without the
government having to try to "protect" them by enforcing some
centralized notion. Politically, PICS is a system
necessary for the preservation of free speech on the
Internet.
</p>
<p>
The system needed a few different sorts of documents
</p>
<dl>
<dt>
a "rating system"
</dt>
<dd>
which defines a scale or scales on which one might judge a
document. The fact that anyone can create one of
these is a strong force allowing decentralization of
concept, breaking the problem of the global, centralized
definition of for example "indecency". PICS allows
communities of any size (from one up) to establish their
own criteria. Agreement over a large community
enhances global harmony, but threatens diversity. Agreement
over a small community does the reverse. So in fact some
balance is necessary
</dd>
<dt>
a "label"
</dt>
<dd>
which is a statement about something in terms of the
schema. This can be made by any party, not just
author or reader, and certainly not just central
government. These can be created and exchanged in all
manner of ways, so the PICS standard for interoperability
is essential.
</dd>
<dt>
A "profile"
</dt>
<dd>
which describes for a given person the particular rating
systems and levels on those scales which represent
"quality" information at a given time and in a given
context. This sort of information can either be input
by a person using a graphic interface (such as a set of
sliders in a dialog box), or can simply be transferred from
someone they trust, whether family, organization, or
friend. Inability to transfer this would prevent people
from building their own communities with common standards
of trust: hence the importance for this (picsrules) as a
standard.
</dd>
</dl>
<p>
These are all subsets of a general metadata language,
designed to be easy for people to use. In particular,
by being limited in their power, they allow graphic
interfaces to be built.
</p>
<h3>
On social responsibility of technologists
</h3>
<p>
The argument has been made that PICS technology should be
suppressed as the power it gives may be abused by
governments. (There are even those who have suggested
that the whole scheme is a government inspired plot to
promote censorship and limit free speech. This is
certainly not the case, as neither in the idea, the
funding nor the intent.) Whereas most readers may find
this far fetched, it is worth a response on principle.
</p>
<p>
As I pointed out when closing the first International World
Wide Web conference, speaking to (then a mere 350) geeky web
enthusiasts, I firmly believe it is the task of scientists
and technologists to be aware of and responsible for the
social implications of their work. This cannot just be
left to "professional socially responsible people", as each
engineer and scientist is often best aware of the
potential of the work. Uttered in the auditorium at
CERN, whose particle physicists trace their roots through
nuclear physics, I don't think the message went unheard, even
though it may have sounded strange in such a new field.
Now, (1997) the World Wide Web Consortium has one of
its three domains dedicated to the relationship between
Technology and Society.
</p>
<h3>
So what about PICS?
</h3>
<p>
The question basically is whether the potential danger of the
technology outweighs the freedom and positive good it
accords. You can certainly argue this for nuclear
fission, and you can certainly argue it for the wide
distribution of firearms in populous countries. Can you argue
this for PICS and metadata? Is there anything about
PICS specifically or metadata in general which makes it more
of a danger than a boon?
</p>
<p>
The specific types of document in PICS are very general. As a
system, it is quite generalist, and extremely decentralized.
It does as good a job as it can of leaving policy up to
others to set, although it does (compared with other systems
one could imagine) tend to favor by its nature cultural
diversity, and freedom of speech, including freedom to
endorse other's work.
</p>
<p>
The specifications of communication protocols enable,
but do not enforce, what manufactured software will or
will not be able to do. One cannot, therefore, at this
level say what individuals will be able to do. The
technology can leave the policy up to others, which leaves
other groups to ensure that the values which they hold dear
are not lost in new legislation, industry practices, or
public apathy.
</p>
<p>
A metainformation system allows one to talk about
information. It enables all kinds of uses of information
</p>
<ul>
<li>finding information
</li>
<li>talking about information
</li>
<li>making laws about information
</li>
<li>breaking laws about information
</li>
</ul>
<p>
It is not the place of a technical metadata system to try to
limit the statements one can make with metadata, or the laws
if any which are made. That is the role of the
democratic process and whatever government the people trusts.
The W3C as an industry consortium can act for industry in
promoting standards, but cannot act to create laws.
What we can do is explain to lawmakers and others the
effect and intention of technology. That is what this
article attempts to do.
</p>
<h4>
Conclusion
</h4>
<p>
So Metadata, PICS and otherwise, is powerful, as is
information in general. Constant vigilance by concerned
members of the public, industry and government is a very
important part of the system of controls which keeps society
healthy. The PICS technology was created
specifically in order reduce the risk of government
censorship in civilized countries. It was the result of
members of the industrial community being concerned about the
behaviour of government. The indications are that in this it
will succeed, but that does not remove the need for
such vigilance.
</p>
<p>
To conclude, out of fear or ignorance, that PICS is more of a
danger than it is a boon would be throw the baby out with the
bathwater. Metadata is not just a new tool, it is the
start of a machine-understandable web (a "web phase 2") of
information whose impact should be as empowering to
humanity as the human-understandable web of today. We
must understand it as we build it.
</p>
<hr />
<address>
Tim BL, December 1997
<p>
Last edit $Date: 2009/08/27 21:38:07 $
</p>
</address>
</body>
</html>