Practical Objections to David Cameron's "Porn Ban"

David Cameron's plans for a default internet filter, centred around blocking pornographic material, have a host of practical and abstract issues. The abstract debate is full to the rafters, and confused through over-use of moralising and dramatic words like "censorship", so I'd like to focus on the practical problems with this latest revelation in DC's war on porn, such as stupid filters, clever kids and a general lack of evidence.

Stupid Filters

An internet filter works by searching pages for certain words or phrases that indicate this page needs to be blocked. There are already quite a few out there. O2 has one on it's 3g service and domestic ones can be bought, or come optional with routers. These examples have already demonstrated that filters are far from fool-proof, as beneficial sites on these topics will also be blocked. In 2002, the Journal of the American Medical Association published a study entitled "Does Pornography-Blocking Software Block Access to Health Information On The Internet" The report found two things: that as filters become more restrictive, health sites become blocked much quicker than pornography and that LGBT and sexuality related sites were singled out in the blocking. In a country with already weak sex education and LGBT support, this filter could cut crucial support networks and drastically increase feelings of isolation. This isolation will then be augmented by the fact anybody who needs to use "immoral" phrases to describe their traumatic real-life experiences will find themselves blocked.

While the main risk of this is to sex/uality related areas, other areas such as violent material, anorexia and eating disorder websites, suicide related websites, alcohol and smoking are all planned for the filter. 

People in need of support for anorexia or depression on the internet will struggle, as the government is already cutting mental health services in the NHS. I realise they are trying to tackle websites such as harmful "pro-ana" blogs but they're filter won't discriminate in that nuanced way. It's the fatal combination of good intentions and not really understanding how something works.

Some may argue that that this was back in 2002 and the technology has developed since then, a report from the Open Rights Group in 2011 suggests not. They had four conclusions:

Firstly, sites are often incorrectly classified as containing objectionable material. Second, phone operators aren't forthcoming about the details of how their filtering systems work or what kind of content they block. Third, it's not clear how to report sites that are erroneously blocked. Finally, it’s difficult even for adults to turn the filtering off.

Network filters have problems discriminating, and so could block valuable and beneficial parts of online lives.

Smart People

The second problem is that on the super-information highway some people are travelling a lost faster than others, pre-dominantly the young that this bill is aimed to protect. Teenagers often understand the internet better than their parents, and react faster to changes in it. It won't be long until the young simply begin using identity-masking services like Tor to hide their activities and share this route-around with their friends via social networks. Workarounds like this will be created and shared a lot faster than changes can be made to the massive, clunky internet filter David Cameron proposes, especially if the filter affects more than just porn,

The filter may also antagonise valuable aspects of the internet. When the "dark web" child porn site Lolita City was exposed to the world, government entities struggled to shut it down. Fortunately, the hacking collective Anonymous did, removing 100GB of child porn in the process. Unfortunately, Anonymous aren't always a savoury (or sane) bunch and could easily find themselves falling on the wrong side of the filter due to ill-advised comments by members, a situation hardly conducive to further altrusim and aid by the group. Once again, good things on the internet be lost with the bad.

No Evidence That It Actually Works.

Herein lies a big problem. There is actually little (at least quoted) evidence that violent pornography leads to sexual violence and abuse. An in-depth review by Ferguson and Hartley in 2009 failed to find any meaningful link.and concluded "It is time to discard the hypothesis that pornography contributes to increased sexual assault behaviours." 

In fact, the evidence I've found suggests the opposite. A recent study in the US found that a 10% increase in internet access correlates with a 7.3% drop of reported rapes. Reported rapes have declined 85% over the last 25 years in the US. India, a country with high levels of pornography restrictions (distributing it is illegal) is notorious for brutal rapes and high gender inequality. Perhaps gender inequality and rape fantasies are the cause of violent pornography, and we're targeting the symptoms instead of the cause?

This evidence is nowhere near conclusive. A lot of rapes are unreported and even if rapes are decreasing, the reinforcing and internalising of misogynistic attitudes by porn may still be increasing the frequency of other, more casual sexist acts, such as wolf-whistling.

As should be clear by now,  I oppose the government's proposed porn filter for a whole host of practical reasons. The plan is misconceived, unfounded in evidence and could actually harm vulnerable people. It needs to be stopped. 

The Open Rights Group has started a campaign and petition against Cameron's proposals. Sign it here: 

Some Thoughts On The World's End

The World's End is a zombie film, but not as we know them. Forget the trademarks of Romero-esque zombies such as groaning and pallid skin. Pegg, Frost and Wright already covered that in Shaun of the Dead. The World's End, however has taken the essence of zombie and updated it to the modern world.

When you think zombie, you think of a literal corpse. You think of decayed skin and blank eyes. You think of death. That's ultimately what Zombies represent, but they also represent other, subtler things. The pale crowds of near identical rotting faces, shuffling and groaning in time, represents the fear of losing individuality and identity. Zombies aren't unique. All zombies have the same skills (none). Unlike Vampires or Werewolves, no part of you except your body remains, and even that goes eventually. That's what makes zombies scary.

Why else would they make us afraid? They're slow, dumb and lack the most basic of co-ordination. Unlike Vampires and Werewolves, Zombies can easily be hacked, whacked, maimed or even out-run. You don't even need any specific weapon, like stakes or silver bullets, just any blunt object will do. Zombies are tenacious, but easy to defeat. This provides hope, the most crucial aspect to any horror film. It provides hope against the collectivist threat. (Perhaps why Romero was popular in the Cold War?)

These traits, the essence of zombie, are ever present in the antagonistic "blanks" of The World's End. A group of 5 drunk, middle-aged males can defeat a whole room of these mechanical drones, whose limbs come off as easily as a zombies and will continue to writhe despite being disconnected. While they're fast and seem to have mild martial art skills, they can be beaten.

However, the fears of losing individuality have been updated. The blanks are still blanks. Sure, the automatons have the personalities of the people they replaced, as well as looking and sounding like them, but they still all give the impression of being the same. As the number of blanks grow the individual voices get lost in the masses of the connected network. The individualism is still lost, not because everyone becomes the same, but because they are all connected into a system where their individual contribution is negligible. Sounds a lot like this thing called The Internet. Hopefully, since you're reading this, you've heard of it.

The World's End is a very clever film. It adapts the spirit of the zombie (paradox?) into our modern, hyper-linked world, all the while weaving it into a story about the teenage desire to rebel and do what you want. This may just be a load of rubbish, the classic ploy of finding meaning where there was none intended. I'm not forcing my views onto you, just putting them out into this connected world we live in.

Thanks for reading.

POEM: In My Pocket

In my pocket lies my life
It is small, shiny and squar
It contains all the people, conversations and memories
That make it so dear.

I am a child of today
Meant to be free and wild
But never before have our lives
Been so filed and compartmentalised

Yet despite this organisation
I know my life is special
While they are all made the same
But through experience become unique.

I would die if my life were lost.
I'm told I should "Diversify my risk"
But life shouldn't be hunted and piecemeal
It should be wholly at your fingertips.

What should the European Union do to keep Britain in?

In Britain, there is growing discontent about the European Union. UKIP, the vehemently Eurosceptic party, are growing in members and influence, achieving second place in the Eastleigh by-election. Meanwhile, the growing momentum behind the movement for an in/out referendum resulted in the promise of one. According to a YouGov poll[1], 42% of British voters would vote to leave the EU, while 36% would vote to stay. If the European Union wishes to keep Britain as a member, it will need to persuade the British public to vote otherwise.

One strategy is to preemptively open negotiations about returning powers to the United Kingdom’s parliament, ahead of the referendum, and before Cameron asks for talks. If sufficiently publicized, this show of good faith and initiative would appeal to British voters, most of whom see the European Union as detached and bureaucratic. Another YouGov survey[2] revealed 48% of Britons believe Britain should renegotiate our relationship with Europe, and then hold a referendum. Only 22% of Britons on the other hand, want a referendum without renegotiation. There is a clear demand for renegotiation. If the European Commission were seen to supply it, rather than David Cameron, the British public may find the EU more palatable. If this negotiation were generous, it could also split the “No” vote.

The European Union initiating talks, rather than Cameron, would allow the EU to begin negotiations on their terms. This strengthened bargaining would allow the European Union to concede just a few powers, for large potential gain. Some select powers returned could greatly reduce British qualms about the European Union, especially if in areas such as the Common Agricultural Policy or immigration.

However, these two areas seem the least likely to be reformed. Pressure is actually mounting for Britain to lose it’s rebate for the CAP as more agricultural states such as Bulgaria and Romania join. The reasoning is that these countries are poorer, and so should be prioritized over Britain.

Immigration reform is also unlikely. Britain being allowed limit EU immigration could greatly harm the single market, which stipulates the free movement of labour. If the free movement of people is restricted for this country, it would be to Britain’s sole advantage.

This is why the other powerful members in the European Union are unlikely to indulge Britain and give it special privileges. There is already animosity towards Britain in Europe. As the French finance minister, Laurent Fabius, has made clear, “You can't do Europe a la carte." The European Commission cannot be seen to take too soft a stance when dealing with Britain’s referendum, which many Europeans see as a childish tantrum. The European Union has to finely balance the carrot and the stick, or face revolt on the continent.

If re-negotiation is the carrot, Britain leaving the single market could be the stick. The British press and politicians often state free movement of goods as the EU’s main advantage, and for good reason.  The EU is Britain’s main trading partner and a rise in tariffs and protectionist policies between the EU and Britain would leave Britain the worst off. The EU would find it easier to recoup it’s smaller loss trade than a solitary and uncertain Britain would. The European Union should publicize this harsh consequence were Britain to leave the EU, and maybe voters will vote “Yes” to Europe.

Many Eurosceptics argue if Britain did leave the EU, it could sign up to a similar model as Norway and retain free trade. By entering the European Economic Area (EEA) and the European Free Trade Association (EFTA), Norway remains in the single market and is exempt from the Common Agricultural Policy. However, Norway also has to contribute to the EU budget, adopt most legislation and has no say in any negotiations. Between 2004 and 2009, it will have paid 1.3 billion euros for the privilege.[3] To those demanding a return of sovereignty, this would clearly be unacceptable.

According to a recent YouGov poll, 74% of Britons believe the economy is one of the most important issues facing Britain[4].  At a time of non-existent growth, downgrading and austerity, changing the single market would be disastrous for the British economy.  If the European Union made this threat a well-known possibility, it would be a signal British voters could not ignore.

If it wants to keep Britain as a member, the EU needs to convince the British people that the EU is a gain. The European Union should sweeten the current deal but also remind Britain of the stark consequences an exit could bring. Most importantly, it needs to ensure the British public understands this message, so they can vote accordingly.

---

[1] YouGov EU Referendum:

http://yougov.co.uk/news/2013/01/17/public-divide-eu-narrows/

[2] YouGov EU Referendum:

http://yougov.co.uk/news/2013/01/17/public-divide-eu-narrows/

[3]Norway and the EU

http://www.regjeringen.no/upload/UD/Vedlegg/eu/Norway%20and%20the%20EU.pdf

[4] YouGov survey

http://yougov.co.uk/news/2013/02/27/update-labour-lead-10/  

Problems with the Internet as a Democratic Institution.

Internet is an extremely open, accessible institution and if added to the democratic process, could make the system more deliberative and much more direct. Government forums could be set up, citizens registering for accounts with citizen numbers and secure passwords, reading and commenting upon bills. Comments could be up-voted and down-voted in a manner similar to Reddit or YouTube. Polls could be taken easily on bills. If it wanted to be really radical and edgy, the Government could show tweets with the current debate's hashtag in the chamber. None of these ideas would be binding and force law-makers into decisions, for the Internet is not yet a wholly responsible and safe place, but it would provide clearer indications of public support and concerns.

So what are the problems?

The first is that not everybody can use the Internet because not everybody has an Internet connection. It is unfair that one citizen could have more weight over the democratic process than another (*cough* Donations *cough*). Everyone has an equal right to participate in the democratic process, and the economic means to exercise that right. Therefore, we need to get as many people an Internet connection as is possible before it can be used as a democratic institution.

The second problem is that politicians are unwilling to explore the great frontier that is the Internet. When they do explore, incursions into the world-wide-web normally result in the desire to tame it rather than listen to it. A lot of politicians are scared of engaging with the Internet, because monsters do dwell there. Politicians need to trust the Internet and accept it before it has any hope of becoming a formal, deliberative part of democracy.

However, their fear is not without reason. The Internet could easily turn round and bite this new idea on the ass. Malevolent or irresponsible groups could try and crash the forums, manipulate the comment voting or post hate and vitriol unless carefully moderated. Any moderation could then be criticised as a lack of free speech. Bills could be taken down or the polling process disrupted at critical moments. The Internet, like any other institution, is open to abuse.

This belies a greater problem with the idea, which is that people can be irresponsible, if not downright disengaged, with political participation. A lot of people don't care, providing ample ammunition for those who argue people are too irresponsible for more participation and a more direct system. I see the issue as a chicken and the egg problem. More chances to participate will foster more responsible engagement as people, but many politicians won't return that control until people actually engaged more responsibly.

This stand-off needs to be broken, and perhaps debating adding the Internet to the roster of democratic institutions will do so. I argue those in the law making process have no right to deny us this chance for participation and treat us as children. The Internet could be a direct link to public ideas and strengthen democracy. Instead of packing politicians off every four years through voting, there will be a continuous chance to engage. It will have it's problems, but if non-binding, the system could be tried without serious disaster.

Batgirl, Batman and "Batgirl Volume 1"

"We weren't always close Batman and I. Not always. He didn't want a partner, and I didn't want to be another partner. Similar name and wardrobe, sure. But I stood apart, I was Batgirl." - Batgirl Issue 6

Upon recommendation, I recently bought "Batgirl Volume 1: The Darkest Reflection", written by Gail Simone. It is wonderful to read. It delivers all you could want in a superhero comic. It is intelligent, plays on grand themes, has great artwork and kick-ass fight scenes. However, it is also notably different to what I expected of a "Bat-"  comic and hugely different to Batman. It isn't dark, but playful and humourous whenever appropriate. The grand themes it kisses aren't ones such as fear or sanity, but miracles and forgiveness. In the mean, dark streets of Gotham, this is delightfully refreshing.

Barbara Gordon (Batgirl) has re-donned her cowl and cape, having miraculously recovered from the paralysis of the legs caused by a gunshot wound in the spine (see Alan Moore's "The Killing Joke", which is also highly recommended). Within a few pages, she's fighting a well-armed zealot who believes that miracles are God's errors, taking upon himself to "fix" these "mistakes." Within a few pages, the urge to support Batgirl in her fight against this villain, and the survivor's guilt he is symbolic of, is overwhelming.

Why? Because Batgirl quickly becomes an incredibly human character. The narration is quick and constant. The reader is constantly updated with what Barbara is thinking. We know when she doubts herself, when she's happy, sad or angry at herself. She has emotions we all relate to and empathise with.  This is a sharp contrast to Batman, who is aloof, brooding and closed off. Batman doesn't talk about his feelings, not even to his closest allies. He fires off stories and facts relevant to the case at hand, but never talks about the emotionally neglected Bruce Wayne that lies (maybe?) beneath the Bat. Batman guards himself with constant, vigilant cynicism whereas Batgirl's response to life is eternal, bright optimism. This attitude fits wonderfully with her origin story as the plucky go-getter determined to fight crime, with or without Batman's approval.

This return to Batgirl's roots after the miraculous re-birth is maintained throughout the novel. She moves into a small apartment in a bad neighbourhood, the opposite to the luxury of Wayne Manor. Batgirl receives information through text alerts and researches using a laptop, not through a super-computer. Her kept company is a firebrand political activist, not swanning socialites. Simone's Batgirl makes it very clear she wants to be alone and independent. She want's to be a friend of, not a member of, the Bat-family. As a result, Batgirl feels vibrant and new, freed of the looming goliath that is Batman, and is better because of it.

Aided by detailed, up-close art, Simone creates a Batgirl that the reader empathises with and understands, but never pities. Batgirl is a character so open and honest, that the resulting comic feels almost liberating. In the dark and often claustrophobic world of the Batman, "Batgirl Volume 1: The Darkest Reflection" It is an emotional tour de force and a great collection of comics.

Woolwich

A tragedy occurred recently in Woolwich, London. Lee Rigby, a 25 year old member of the British military was murdered in broad daylight by two men shouting "Allahu Akbar." After trying to behead him with a machete and a cleaver, they then filmed a message detailing their justification as outrage at British foreign policy in Iraq and Afghanistan. An urgent Cobra defence meeting was then commenced by leading Police, Military and Government figures, describing the attack as "terrorism."

So far, two main streams of thought have dominated the political discussion as to why this tragic event occurred. The first is the one offered by ultra-Nationalists such as the EDL, who argue this is symptomatic of the large "evil" Islamic presence in Britain. The second one stream of thought is that unjust British foreign policy in the Iraq war and Afghanistan have raised tensions and made us a target for radical islamists. Both are incorrect.

Despite what the English Defence League may tell you, Woolwich was not a result of Islam's beliefs because Islam probably played a negligible role in the killer's motivation. Whether you are a Muslim or not isn't the deciding factor of whether you are going to kill someone, as evidenced by the many peaceful Muslims not inclined to murder anybody. The man was a Muslim, but that does not mean his Islamic faith caused the murder. Islam, like any culture or part of society, has its own share of bad people who do bad things.

Nor was British foreign policy the main cause of this atrocity, with some claiming we made ourselves "a target for terrorist attacks" Whilst the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan has angered many Muslims and other protestors, nearly all have found a way to oppose the wars peacefully. The foreign policy did not inspire normally peaceful people to suddenly murder. It has just provided an excuse for the already disturbed and violent to lash out in an exceptional and horrific manner. The cause of this murder was not foreign policy, but the inability of two people to deal with it in the peaceful way the majority of others had opted for.

The Woolwich tragedy was not caused by the killers' Islamic faith, or British foreign policy. It was caused because two presumably disturbed, volatile and violent men had the psychological capacity to kill someone and found an excuse to do so.

So why have these two false narratives of faith and policy garnered such attention and ground?

The first reason is because of our selective bias. We already have views and opinions, and we will subconsciously attempt to fit events into this frame of reference "as evidence" for those beliefs. The EDL want to believe Woolwich was the result of the Islamic faith because they already believe Islam is bad and this narrative supports that view. The anti-war campaigners want to believe this is the result of the Iraq war because that narrative would support and further justify their argument. Both these groups are large and have good media exposure, meaning these narratives gain intellectual ground quickly.

The adoption of these positions is also because they offer a "lesson" that can be learned, so as to prevent them happening again. They not only provide reason for the tragedy, but a comforting message that we can take steps to stop it re-occurring. This not only assures those worrying about their safety, but also ensures the tragedy did not occur in vain, because society can "learn" from it. This is another reason these narratives have proved popular; because they provide comfort and meaning.

In the anti-Islamic case , the "lesson" is that Islam should be removed from Britain, and this will stop tragedies like this occurring again. In the case of those who blame foreign policy, the "lesson" is that we need to withdraw from our conflicts faster, apologise, and take a more conciliatory approach in future issues, this will help prevent a similar event in the future.

However, this tragedy was not caused by these two things. It was caused by two men with warped morals deciding to kill someone, with Islamic outrage at foreign policy providing a convenient excuse. It was a senseless heinous act. There was no meaning to this violence. There is no lesson we can learn from it and no easy solution. There will always be violent people in the world, with the capacity and will to murder. Tragedy doesn't need to be meaningful, reveal an insight or provide a realisation. Woolwich was an example of this, perhaps increasing it's tragic nature. The blame and responsibility lies not with Islam or the Iraq war, but with the men that committed this atrocity.