[Foundation-l] Possible solution for image filter

Fri Sep 23 12:50:21 UTC 2011

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<tobias.oelgarte at googlemail.com>  wrote:
>
> From: Tobias Oelgarte<tobias.oelgarte at googlemail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Possible solution for image filter
> To: foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> 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<tobias.oelgarte at googlemail.com>   wrote:
>>
>> From: Tobias Oelgarte<tobias.oelgarte at googlemail.com>
>> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Possible solution for image filter
>> To: foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>> 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
>>> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> foundation-l mailing list
>>> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> foundation-l mailing list
>> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>> _______________________________________________
>> foundation-l mailing list
>> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>