So what, you ask? I will tell you.

The elite of well-intentioned family politicians of the Parliamentary Assembly of the european council short PACE was making good use of their right of making and distributing dim ideas.

Recommendation 1882(2009)

The promotion of Internet and online media services appropriate for minors

In essence I paper about what PACE thinks should be done to protect minors within the realm of the net. And doing technology impact assessment is really what we need more of. But what really pisses me of are two things. First what our minors need to be protected from. And second what measures are regarded to be appropriate. Let’s start with the “What”.

Social interaction online should not, however, substitute real life with so-called virtual reality, the psychological and social impact of which is yet unknown.

We start of very strong with a stereotype people that make regular use of social media do that because they have now real life friends. Except of the of the intense relationship to their mom and the pizza delivery boy. This is as every stereotype wrong than it is plainly oversimplifying the matter. And on top of that we find the best political meme ever. We don’t know what it might cause so we have to counteract it. Now!

Certain content on the internet can have negative effects on children and adolescents. For example, content depicting women and girls as objects, or limiting their depiction to nefarious gender stereotypes, can lead in certain cases to gender-based violence both in the virtual and the real world, including (cyber-)bullying, harassment, rape, and even school massacres.

“Certain content” Can you not just say porn? We all know that porn is the cause of rape, to a society that is generating a few Icons and then feeding on the rest that is trying to become one of them. Janus would be proud of you.

Minors often have access to Internet and mobile telephone services without supervision by parents or teachers.

True, but the problem is not access, the problem is guidance. Kids need paragons and role models not that they can trust in, then boundaries don’t need to be guarded.

Parts of their private life are shared publicly on the Internet by a rapidly growing number of minors, while many firms offer information on, and profiling of, individuals based on such private information.

Agreed and this is not just true for minors. But again we have to understand what our kids are doing. This understanding will lead to the appreciation of the advices given. But the normal reaction of parents on stuff their kids are hyped about is make by complete disinterest or even ignorance.

The continuing increase in advertising and business on the Internet and online media leads to more aggressive commercial practices which also target minors. With the global dimension of the Internet, ethics and legal norms may differ drastically. It would be most useful, therefore, to elaborate standards which are recognised Europe-wide and possibly beyond.

Well. what shall I say. “This is not my opinion. So can we please make my standards to yours, now!” If it is not illegal stay out of it.

Traditional media regulation prohibits or restricts media content which is likely to impair the physical, mental or moral development of children and adolescents.

“Due to explicit content, this website cannot be accessed before 10pm.” Really?

The state has the responsibility to raise awareness, provide guidance ��� also against gender stereotypes, and set up minimum standards.

Does it? I thought that is the moral responsibility of the parents. Yes, I know that that not always works, but do we really need everything legislated. He-man is not such a big thing in our days.

The Assembly therefore believes that it will be helpful, especially with regard to minors, to develop secure and restricted computer networks often referred to as Intranets, walled gardens or gated communities, which are accessible to an identifiable group of users only, typically require adherence to a code of conduct, fall under a clear set of legal rules and the jurisdiction of a given country and filter content harmful to minors.

Well, this is just not going to work. You can see that when you switch on xbox live’s voice chat at a time every normal adult is working. And then you listen to the conversations of twelve year olds. The vocabulary used make me pale. And this is how it is going to be in your “walled gardens”. Don’t be naive.

The Assembly emphasises that anyone who produces or makes available illegal content or services should be held liable by law.

That’s right. What’s your point? Ahh, there is more…

Illegal content and behaviour online have unfortunately grown over the past years and thus increased the risks for minors.

Could you be more vague, please? Oh sorry here is the explanation:

This development is aggravated by the steady growth in Internet use, the growing amount of content produced by individual users instead of institutional content providers, the rapid expansion of social online networks often referred to as Web 2.0, and the technological progress in transmitting and accessing audiovisual content. In contrast, traditional media such as newspapers, radio and television have a declining audience among children and adolescents, hence reducing the effectiveness of traditional media policies for the protection of minors.

I am stunned. You are saying the fact that kids move from traditional media to online media makes them more endangered. Bold statement Mr Murdoch. That seems to be the same argument then the 17+ age rating for apps on the iPhone that allow free web access.

So but “How” can we combat now this heap of rotten stereotypes, pornography and exhibitionistic behaviour? The Answer is so simple. Lockdown.

15.1.assess the technological possibilities of increasing the safety of minors using the Internet and online media services including mobile audiovisual telecommunications, in particular filtering devices and access restriction technologies;

Nokia-Siemens can help you with that. Call Ahmadinejad for a reference.We Germans are just doing the test run in more western environment.

16.4. instruct its competent steering committee to analyse the potential psychological risks for children and adolescents using Internet and online media excessively, in particular social online networks suggesting virtual reality such as Second Life, sites containing nefarious gender stereotypes, as well as violent online games and networks such as World of Warcraft, and to propose appropriate action by the Council of Europe and member states;

HAHA! Second life, sorry I have difficulties to read what I am writing with all that tears in my eyes. You should watch less TV. Before you finalise anything related to this document, the only ones left in second life are the print&TV journalists that told you about it in the first place. And Is World of Warcraft not regulated by video game age rating system anyway.

16.6.initiate work towards ensuring greater legal responsibility of Internet service providers for illegal content, whether or not this originates from third parties or users; this work may require the drafting of a new additional protocol to the Convention on Cybercrime;

And this is the best: “ensuring greater legal responsibility of Internet service providers for illegal content”. That would mean the same as the Royal Mail being responsible for any illegal activities that involved its service. Hello, this is absurd.

Same old, same old a bunch of people that have no understanding of the net, hyped up by conservative media trying to do the right thing and eliminate the potential threads. But bonkers is one of the nicest expressions I can come up with for the course of action recommended here. Legislation is the worse way of fighting sexism and a moral decline. We need good parents, that give more than a shit about their children. That are interested in their kids and in the ways time is spend. This allows much better approach of flagging up threats and counteract them.

The “big nanny” is a foul compromise made by a society that abandoned their kids.

Cheers

Jens

The Internet manifest

1. The Internet is different.
It creates a different public, different ways of exchange and different cultural techniques. The Media must adjust to the mode of operation to the technological reality, rather then ignore or fight it. It is there duty, to develop the best possible journalism based on the available techniques – that includes new journalistic products and methods.

2. The Internet is a media empire in your pocket.
The web is rearranging the media landscape: it is overcoming the previous boundaries and oligopolies. Publishing and distribution of content do no longer involve high investment costs. Journalism has been deprived of its role as a gatekeeper – fortunately. The journalistic quality remains as last differentiator to a bare publication.

3. The Internet is the society within the Internet.
For the majority within the western world are platforms like Social Networks, Wikipedia or Youtube part of there everyday life. Those platforms gained the same status like the phone and television. If media corporations want to keep existing, they will have to understand the realms there users live in and take on the users forms of communication. This includes the social foundation of communication: listening and responding, also known as dialogue.

4. The freedom of the Internet is inviolable.
The openness of the web is the core value that forms the technological foundation of the digital communicating society and therefore its journalism. This openness cannot be changed for the sake of commercial or political self-interest, often concealed within allegedly public interest. The restriction of access in every form alike endanger the free exchange of information and therefor the right of self-determinant gathering of information.

5. The Internet is the victory of information.
Compelled by insufficient technical capabilities, the world’s information was organized by institutions like media corps research institutes or public institutions. Now everyone sets up his or her personal news filter, while search engines tap into amounts of information of an unacquainted quantity. The single individual is informed to a degree that has not been seen before.

6. The Internet changes, improves journalism.
The web allows journalism to perform its society-forming purpose and a new way. The concept of information as a steadily changing process; losing the unchangeability of print is a benefit. The one that wants to keep existing in this information based world need idealism, new journalistic ideas and embracing the emerging possibilities.

7. The net demands networking.
Links are connections. We connect via links. The ones that do not use them, exclude themselves form the societal discourse. That is also true for the online presence of the old media.

8. Links mean profit, commentary is adornment.
Search engines and aggregators expedite quality journalism: they enhance find-ability of outstanding content and are therefor an inherent part of the new, connected public. Citations, links and references enable the culture of collaborative societal discourse in the fist place. This is also and especially true for doing so without financial or any other arrangements with the originator of the content.

9. The web is a new space for political discourse.
Democracy is based on participation and freedom of information. The transfer of political discussions from the traditional media channels to the web and the opening of the discussion for the public to participate is the new task for journalism.

10. The new name of freedom of the press is freedom of expression.
The German constitution (ger: Grundgesetz) article 5 states no protective right for any occupational group or any traditional business model but the the right of free expression. The web tears down the walls separating amateurs and professionals. Ergo, the privilege of freedom of the press must apply for everybody, who can contribute to the fulfillment of the purpose of journalism. The qualitative difference does not lie in the funding of the creator of content but in its abilities.

11. More is more – too much information is impossible.
Once it was the church that choose power over the information of the individual and so warned of the information flooding, when the print was invented. On the other side pamphlet writer, annalists and journalists proved that more information results in more freedom. And this is true for the individual as well as for society. That has not yet changed.

12. Tradition is not a business model.
It is possible to monetize journalistic content in the Web. Even today their are many examples. But adjustment of existing business models to the advertisement heavy web are necessary. Nobody should try to detract from the inevitable change by trying to conserve the status quo. Journalism need the open competition for the best concept of funding in the web. And it need the courage to invest in multiple implementations.

13. In the web copy right civil duty.
Copy right is a cornerstone of the order of information within the web. Also in the Internet the right of the creator to decide about distribution of his content, the ways and extent applies. Thereby, copy right must not be abused to safeguard superseded supply mechanisms or to avoid new distribution and licensing concepts. In ownership lies obligation.

14. The Internet uses many currencies.
Advertisement funded content trades information for attention to advertising message. Time of readers, listeners and viewers has a price. This principal was always the fundamental way of funding in journalism. Sustainable and different ways must be explored to fund journalism

15. What enters the web never leaves .
In the Internet frees journalism of prior boundaries. Online, texts, sound and images do not need to be volatile. Keeping everything online creates an archive of contemporary history. Journalism must respect the change in information, the change in its interpretation and so admit and transparently correct mistakes.

16. Quality stays the most important characteristic
The Internet unmasks low-labor, off-the-shelf products. Credibility, excellence and recognizability will win a audience over. The expectations of users have risen. The journalism must comply to them while not neglecting its often formulated principals.

17. Everybody for everyone.
The web is a infrastructures for societal exchange that transcends the mass media of the 20th century. In case of doubt, the “generation wikipedia” is able rate sources, research the origin of news, verify and asses them, alone or as part of the group. Journalist exercising the pride of place by disrespecting the users media competences will not be considered reasonable. Rightly so. The Internet allows to directly communicate with those previously called readers, listeners and viewers, to use there knowledge. Not know-all journalist is needed but the one that communicates and investigates.

Internet, 07.09.2009
Markus Beckedahl http://www.netzpolitik.org/
Mercedes Bunz http://www.mercedes-bunz.de/
Julius Endert http://www.blinkenlichten.com/
Johnny Haeusler http://www.spreeblick.com
Thomas Kn?ºwer http://blog.handelsblatt.com/indiskretion/
Sascha Lobo http://www.saschalobo.com/
Robin Meyer-Lucht http://www.berlin-institute.de/
Wolfgang Michal http://www.autoren-reporter.de/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=23&Itemid=66
Stefan Niggemeier http://www.stefan-niggemeier.de
Kathrin Passig http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kathrin_Passig
Janko R??ttgers http://www.lowpass.cc/
Peter Schink http://www.peter-schink.de/
Mario Sixtus http://www.elektrischer-reporter.de/
Peter Stawowy http://www.xing.com/profile/Peter_Stawowy
Fiete Stegers http://www.netzjournalismus.de/

translated by Jens Kaufmann http://www.jens-kaufmann.net/blog/

This text is under Creative Commons (CC-BY)

(viamediengestalter.cc)

Ich wollte eigentlich nur Johnny Haeuslers Post kommentieren, aber mittendrin fiel mir auf dass es mir wirklich stinkt also kann ich es auch selber posten.

Wo fang ich an. Ich bin ein Linker, schon immer gewesen und so schnell wird sich das auch nicht ?§ndern. Mein Vater ist SPD Mitglied solange ich denken kann. Ich habe zusammen mit Michael Clivot und Christine Streichert ich glaube in 1996 den ersten JUSO Gemeindeverband in einem Ort gegr?ºndet, der immernoch von Saarsozis als “Schwarzafrika” (for real) bezeichnet wird. War dann jahrelang aktive auf Landesebene aktiv und war regelm?§?üig auf Bundeskongressen als Deligierter. Ich habe die Jahre mitgemacht indenen der Saarsozi zu dem jeder aufgeschaut hat zur dunkeln Seite gewechselt ist, da sein Ego nicht genug beachtung bekamm. Ich habe mitansehen m?ºssen wie Schr??der der Sozialdemokratie einen Rechtsruck verpasst hat. Um mir dann auf dem BuKo von M?ºntefering anh??ren zu m?ºssen, dass wir es uns jetzt gerade nicht erlauben k??nnen, dass es Zweifel an der Geschlossenheit gibt (Maulkorbpolitik). Dann wurden wir alle Zeugen wie ein fragw?ºrdiges Gesetz nach dem andern implimentiert wurde. Die einzige Hoffung die du als freiheitsliebender Sozi noch hast ist: “Ahh, das Bundesverfassungsgericht wird das doch wohl wieder kippen, oder?”. Und jetzt kolaboriert die Fraktion, der ich meine Stimme gegeben habe, auch noch dabei wie in Deutschland eine Zensur-Infrastruktur installieren.

Das Ma?ü ist voll.

Ich kann und werde diese SPD nicht mehr w?§hlen, Punkt. Und ich werde daf?ºr sorgen das es auch niemand in meiner Ungebung tut.

Jens Kaufmann

Cheers
J

Yeah,
This is exactly what we need, another ISP co-operating with the content mafia. This is the problem that they are looking in our traffic. Why are we still taking this, we would not let the royal mail look in our letters, would we? Stand up and sue this people in Luxembourg City.

Jens

Virgin Media in talks to trial three strikes regime against P2P | The Register: “”

(Via .)

Da hat der Herr Heusler mal wieder einen sch??nen Beitrag zur aktuellen ¬†Diskusion geliefert. Ich kann die Bedenken Johnny’s nur teilen, unsere Politiker haben Angst die Kontrolle zu verlieren. Die neuen kommunikationsmodelle werden als unkontrollierbar und potenziel gef?§hrlich eingestuft (“sowas wie mit dem napster passiert uns nicht mehr”). Und ich bin mit Johnny einer Meinung, der mal in einem seiner Podcasts (ich weis nicht mehr genau welchem aber die sind ja im Moment ?ºberschaubar [ging um Sch?§uble]) meinte, dass die ganzen Ma?ünahmen im zur Zeit nichts mit Repression zu tun haben die meinen es alle nur gut.¬†Da muss aufgekl?§rt werden.Das Internet ist eine Chance f?ºr die Demokratie keine Bedrohung. ¬†Und dieses Verst?§ndniss muss endlich in die K??pfe rein.Jens

‘Durch den Konsum bestimmter Medienangebote wird das k??rpereigene Belohnungssystem in Gang gesetzt.¬†Der damit einhergehende Dopaminaussto?ü f?ºhrt zu einem gef?ºhlten Erfolgserlebnis, auf das manche nicht mehr verzichten k??nnen.’ ¬†¬†¬†

 und

‘Zu den typischen Abh?§ngigkeitssymptome geh??ren ein unkontrollierter, stundenlanger Konsum, die stetige Erh??hung der ‚ÄûDosis‚Äú, eine st?§ndige gedankliche Besch?§ftigung mit dem Suchtverhalten, misslingende Reduzierungsversuche sowie Entzugserscheinungen bspw. in Form von Aggressivit?§t, wenn das Suchtmittel einmal nicht zur Verf?ºgung steht.’

Lest es euch einfach selber durch: ( http://www.falk-lueke.de/index.php/2008/01/23/kopfschutteln-08-ausgabe-01/) 

WTF 

Beispiel: Vorratsdatenspeicherung.

Dies ist ganz offensichtlich eine Ma?ünahme die eingef?ºhrt wurde um dem Staat die M??glichkeit zu geben einer Entwicklung Herr zu werden die bisher komplett verschlafen wurden. Das hier nun mit einem besonders gro?üen Holzhammer gearbeitet wird, ist auf die komplette Unkenntnis der Entscheider zur?ºckzuf?ºhren. Es zeigt sich, dass eine Angst basierent auf der nicht m??gliche Folgenabsch?§tzung in den zust?§ndigen Gremien herrscht, die in einem diffusen Gef?ºhl der Hilflosigkeit resultiert und dann offen ist f?ºr scheinbar gute L??sungen von ‚Äúerprobten‚Äù Lobbyisten and Interessenverb?§nden (Wirtschaft, Polizei, Nachrichtendiensten)

Und dass ist unsere Schuld

Dass diese Spieler ihre eigenen Bed?ºrfnisse, Vorstellungen und Bed?ºrfnisse haben ist intrinsiche. Und dass hat nichts mit Verschw??rungen zutun oder ?§nlichem so werden Gesetze gemacht Politiker wenden sich an vertrauensw?ºrdige Berater. Und genau da liegt der Knackpunkt,

die Technik community ist nicht vertrauensw?ºrdig.

Hier m??chte ich auf die Ignoranz zur?ºck kommen. Wir k?ºmmern uns als community nur da um Politik wenn wir uns auf den Schlips getreten f?ºhlen. Und trauen wir irgend jemandem, nein weil eigentlich trauen wir keinem. Ich will nat?ºrlich nicht die Arbeit die ?ºber die letzten Jahre vom Chaos Computer Club geleistet wurde nicht schm?§lern allerdings ist das nicht genug. Wir alle m?ºssen was tun und da reicht es auch nicht hin und wieder auf www.abgeordnetenwatch.de reizuklicken und dann mal den allen zu zeigen dass wir es besser wissen.

Ich finde wir sollten dass tun was wir auser hacken noch sehr gut k??nnen, Networking, unser Wissen so breit wie m??glich bereitstellen so von der Wurzel an den politischen Entscheidungsprozess beinflu?üt und es unsere Entscheidungstr?§gen bem?§chtigt Aussagen und Einsch?§tzungen von Interessensgruppen und Lobbyisten zu gewichten, sowie Seiteneffekte und das Ausma?ü solcher Entscheidungen zu sehn.

Ich pers??nlich habe mich sehr ?ºber den CRE066 ( http://chaosradio.ccc.de/cre066.html ) gefreut den Tim Pritlove mit Falk Luke gemacht hat. Der Podcast gibt noch mal ne sch??ne ?úbersicht ?ºber die Hebelpunkte die man hat. Also keine Ausreden mehr. Zeig deinem Abgeordneten wie er sich sein Internet selbst ausducken kann.

Jens Kaufmann