Frequently Un-asked questions with Bob Turner's Answers (1996)
Part1 - Hype and Positioning
Q...The recent bru-hah-ha regarding censorship & the Internet...how has this affected your business?
A...It is too early to tell how it actually affects the bottom line. But there has been an acceleration iof interest which is expressed by number of of interviews I am giving and the number of offerrs for Public Speaking and general invitations to "show up" So we are being treated like News. Current examples of this phenomena would be the recent McLeans Magazine, the recent CompuServe magazine, and too many smaller publications to even remember.
Also we are receiving more inquires from schools and corporations regarding our licensing fees. In general there is shopping and research going on. They are becoming aware that there is a problem that they will have to do something about.. They don't know what to do yet but they are looking at filtering technologies. In order to make their life easier on this matter we put the URL's for the main players with filtering technology on our home page . We did that last fall. Interest will start to accelerate now as September is coming.and a portion of schools decide they ought to act now. The marketing companies are positioning themselves by virtually giving their programs away to big servers to get an image in the minds of the public so when it trickles down they will be able to sell to the public and the public institutions and grab big market share. We've positioned ourselves with an opposite tack.... were giving it to the people.. the general public with the hope it will trickle up...time will tell...it's a bit of a test of the Internet Culture...what truly influences them....new media or the same old stuff...add in a magazine mentallity...so a funny sort of stalemate is occurring. Allso if you pour through the home pages of some of the companies competitive smearing and goofy competitive stances are being taken which is too bad for the big picture...that energy could be better directed into product developement.
Q...The Internet Filter...it's not just another cyber baby-sitter, now is it?
A...The Internet Filter can be used for purposes other than protecting children from unwanted material or attention. It blocks unwanted sites. An unwanted site is anything you don't want. It also records attempts at making an "illegal entry". It also can forward such attempts to another computer at another destination anywhere in the world. This seems to be of some interest to corporations with networks. It can be used in effect to spy on employees and gather information on people's choices. It also can be used in reverse. It can be configured to only go to sites entered as allowable. This had lead us to our new prodoct IF-ONLY. In fact we are making a change up to IF for our logus..... the full banner reads with a big if....IF ...your world could be a better place. We adopted that because we decided our world could be a better place and furthermore there was something we could do about it. We also have developed IF-Researcher a program that collects data re: Internet usage and forwards it to a data base for data base manipulation and research applications....and of course IF-UNIX for the servers. If Unix will make it possible for servers to position themselves with respect to "morality/free speech/censorship" on the web.
We are keenly interested in Research and Developement. One decision in philisophical orientation of Internet Filtration was to continue to develope this concept of filtering and develope as many permutations and combinations as possible. This is a key reason why we only deliver it over the Internet. Every changeup and improvement is put on our website and is free for all takers to upgrade. If we had printed 30 thousand of them in shrink wrap boxes we'd have to hold our position untill they were either sold or we decided to "eat"our losses. We know we made a huge decision there.... the right decision.
Part 2 Institutional Usage of Internet Filtration
Q...Yes, this sudden "decency" jive outlaws portions of the Holy Bible. It is clearly not about any affront todecency, it is about power.
A...Yes it was on that assumption that we predicted the net would be attacked and discredited on the basis of "decency" and the real issue would be "power" to tax and sell securely. We assume this to be a fact. The day we went on line with the Internet Filter for sale was the day Time magazines famous fiasco fear mongering Porn issue came out. A very embarrassing piece of bad research and journalism for Time magazine.
All that aside though the Internet Filter is a very useful tool. Six years of early childhood education at UBC taught me a thing or two about children, their relationship to family, and young people in general. You always have to walk a balance between protecting children and yet not smothering their independence and natural curiosity about life. For example if you take a playground situation you want the child to explore, play, exercise, and relate to others successfully and at the same time you have to be ever vigilant to protect the child from broken glass, other children throwing sand, rough play that gets out of hand, temper tantrums etc.
The Internet is for a child is not unlike a playground situation. There is lots to explore and some of it is perilous. There are many things on the Internet that are harmful for certain ages and stages of a child's development. You would no more want your child to go into "tits of the week" than you would want him to wander into a porno and dildo shop. On the other hand if you don't mind your child frequenting porno stores then you don't really have a problem with any of this. However, it will be time itself that will tell if your child will have a problem or not.
For example the day Jeff put Version Zero on the Net we were guests on David Berner's talk radio show for an hour starting at midnight. This show is broadcast from Vancouver to Toronto and many stations in between where we talked about this situation and it's relationship to the Internet Filter. Ironicaly at five to one A.M. the last call was from an eleven year old boy from Winnipeg who phoned to say our filter idea/product in his estimation "it sucked"... I believe those were his exact words. Because viewing and downloading pornography was his thing. Now you have to understand that it was three oclock in the morning in Winnipeg and here was a child with a computer good enough to do all this stuff and also make long distance telephone calls to radio stations in the middle of the night so you have to ask yourself - where are his parents? Obviously there is no one home for this child. It was a very sad call but it sort of made our case. In an enlightened world there would be no need for constraints such as an Internet Filter. Children's upbringing would be their protection. But that is clearly not the case and that call demonstrated it very clearly.
There are institutional situations in schools where Internet access is desirable from an educational point of view but they are in a vulnerable situation because they are responsible to uphold community norms. If a child were to access pornography it would be most unfortunate for the administration and teachers responsible for the program. Regional community values are exposed to Global values and filtering offers some security so these type of programs can go forward. Filtering might be seen as a control that makes Internet and education more likely. The very real concern about what is out there just might pull the plug on some worthy programs if control mechanisms are not installed.
You also have to consider the idea of free speech. For example Ernst Zundell has quietly moved away from Canada to run a business of creating Video hate propaganda on the cable Public Access system. So the Cable companies of course aren't overwhelmingly please to have such a "creature" as this setting up shop utilizing their doorstep. But it is legal and they have a mandate to provide the broadcasting opportunity. One of the threads here is Cable Broadcasting might be getting into the same free speech wringer that the internet is currently drifting into. How many people are going to take the position that public TV is intellectually dangerous with it's undesirable content in the same manner that people are scared of the potentials of the Internet. Will similar censoring legislation follow.? Is this not exactly as dangerous for North America as welcoming the National Guard because you are afraid of the general populations uprising as was expressed when Rodney King's beating was exposed by "home video". I personally feel EVERYBODY has the right to say whatever they want whenever they want to ever and where ever they want to....even if it is not in the bounds of 'good taste' but I certainly don't have to listen to it. Of course I realize that there are arguments against that and I can only say that I've got a right to my opinion. However, at some point It also stands to reason that the young and the vulnerable, the people who are the legal responsibility of someone else, for whatever reason must have some mechanism of protection. All of this is a very complicated issue.
Q..So I can install this thing on my employees' computers, and they simply won't be able to go anywhere except the Sales Database Server and the employee's Notice Board, for example.
A...Yes in a network situation the Internet Filter can be installed in all of the computers and it wouldn't be know unless the employee was literate enough to suss it out and disable it. In the next version (Version Two) it will not be necessary to have it installed in all of the computers of a network. One computer will be designated supervisor and the program will only be in the supervisors computer and that computer could be anywhere in the world. It would not have to be on site - just on line. It would be an obvious boon as a control mechanism which would eliminate possibilities of doing personal business from the network, wasting company time on video games, or even worse sending files and communicating with the competition. We already have a second generation product called IF-ONLY whose main feature is it only goes to preconfigured sites. We see it as the Fail safe way for school and corporate networks....with secondary advantages of simplicity and cheaper licensing.
Q..Well, I'm sure business managers aplenty would find that a boon. But I'm more interested in the stealth features of this technology...that it can be used "against" me, and without my knowledge...
A...There are some rather ugly features enabled by a technology such as this. We haven't spent any time trying to figure out how to bring harm to other human beings through filtering the Internet but there are some obvious implications.
For example if you are on a network and there is no evidence of the presence of the device all your futile attempts to access alt.sex.powertools and related interests would be logged and forwarded presumably to those who you had to account to and who had some say in your promotion and evaluation from the point of view of the company that employs you. This could be considered insidious but I am sure it will be accepted in the same way that we accept video surveillance which if you think about it is more insidious...well at least equally insidious. You might say the technologies of a culture reflect the culture that utilizes the technology. If the technology is used to harm it is because it is the evil that lies in the hearts of men..the evil does not lie in the technology.
However, it could be argued that a new technology gives a new man a new outlet for evil. This is getting pretty dark but then you are interested in the stealth features and how the technology can be used against yourself. I don't know of any case where someone would violate your rights by shoving a filter in your personal computer without your knowledge. It could be done.. but it definitely would be a violation of your rights ..like tapping your phone. Of course phones are tapped all the time but that is done at the phone company not off the power pole holding the line going into your house. Your computer would be tapped at the server probably not at your computer. But you never know. Anything is possible.
I think the most insidious feature of the Internet Filter technology lies in the log and send feature. It's insidious application will find its way to the advertising business. It will be used to log your preferences which will be recorded on what you choose when you are "surfing" these choices reflect life style and can be forwarde to the appropriate interest group. For example if you hang out at alt.bomb and related sites I would bet 100 dollars that the FBI/CIA type organizations would be interested in adding your name to their list for future reference. More commonly if you were hanging out at alt.luxury.sports.cars in general there are several commodities available to match the demographics of such an interest and they would love to have a shortlist of people already interested in what they are selling.
Part 3 Mythologys of Technology
Q...Sure, sex infects all new technologies, movies, videos, tv, telephone 900 services, and we don't hear a lot of shrill pontificating about that. Even when little Johhnie runs up a $14,000 phone bill it seldom makes a half column in the Local News section.
A...Excellent point. There is a lot of mythology about technology and in particular a lot of mythology about the Internet. It is in a sense an elitist delivery system. People who are not on it watch all the television references to it and feel they are left out of things. There are people on the Internet wandering aimlessly around corridors wondering why they are there. Like any delivery system it's most important if it's delivering something of value to someone else who wants or needs it. Every technological changeup is loaded with mythology. There is a story from my music producing experience that comes to mind that illustrates this point.
A few years ago there was a change up from audio cassettes to CD technology. In the midst of that Vinyl bit the dust. Then to my constant amusement recording artists -if anyone asked them what they were doing would respond with "I'm working on my CD". They were in fact identifying with the mythology of the delivery system. They never ever would have identified with an audio cassette delivery system and wouldn't be caught dead saying I'm working on my Audio Cassette. No- what they would have done is described the work.."I'm working on an album of songs about loneliness or something like that. The focus changed from the work to the mythology of the delivery system. It's a bit like saying "I've sent out for pizza- it's coming by limousine." As if the delivery system mattered more than the quality of the pizza. This was not an isolated incident.....almost everybody made this perceptual mistake and they still do. That is a very pure example of the mythology of technological change and the Internet is taking this mythology "through the roof".
Q..OK, is filtering a viable technological fix for the perceived problem of protecting innocents from dangers they are unprepared to handle? This is the nut of it (Communications Decency Act). Where would it not work?
A...Yes it is a viable fix. There a two main reasons why it will work and one technological reason why it's not a total fix now. Starting with the problem of why it won't totally work right now is that there is some kludge gear out there and most of the existing consumer filters are only for Windows 3.1 and Windows 95. All the other stuff would be custom made and there for extremely expensive. That's the current problem.
But this will change. Windows 95 and its upgrades will be the only platform that matters within the consumer demographics of commerce on the net. Therefore it will be easy to install them as an OEM or include it with your new modem purchase and all that kind of marketing which will eventually put an Internet Filter in the consumers hands for cheap. The other reason why Filtering will work is that all the heat that is being generated will eventually come down on the servers. The filtering focus on companies like ourselves will be to concentrate on the consumers and then concentrate on providing the fix for the servers. They are going to be stuck in the same way a Television or radio station is stuck. They will be made responsible for what is going on in their service. This is of course very difficult for them to live with and will take you back to the original problem which is government and big business wants the legit taxable, tollable, sewer pipe, huge band width information highway.
As a final thought it is indeed unfortunate the free speech setback that currently exists. When we looked at this last year we hoped The Internet Filter would be a contribution. We offered our Cyber baby version for free on our web page so a concerned parent could have it if he wanted it. It is still free. And it is downoaded by the thousands each month. As the issues emerged from concepts we anticipated to the realities of legislation, in spite of the positive effect it has on our business we are not pleased. It is a very bad cultural sign. Very bad indeed. My hope is that the up side of this is a large number of people will be motivated to contribute what they can to bring about the results they want. We have the computers and that knowledge multiplied by the sheer numbers of people involved represents yet another future power possibility.
Part 4 - Censorship
Q.. (Censorship) Examples range from any condensed Television newscast presented in a restrictive and constrained manner with a format based solely on choosing what to include or exclude (and including the political interests of the commercial stations owners and sponsors) to the actual lists of books banned by religious hierarchies and school boards. Opinions shaped by blatant advertising is also a form of censorship guided by the necessity of competitive standing in the marketplace. Along this line of thinking, is the issue of censorship viable in itself as it pertains to the market place?
A..I think the first thing you have to do is notice the difference between censoring, censorship, and editing. When a Newsbroadcast tells you what is happening in the world in 22 minutes then you can be sure there is a lot of editing going on. When the events of 5 billion people are boiled down to 22 minutes of sound bites for sure someone is deciding what is important and what is not and you can also be sure that those decisions are falling into the ideological, economic, and political rational of a conglomerate of vested interests. How else could it possible be? This would also be the case with a newspaper, a history text book and fact any media at any time is faced with editing decisions. Something is deciding what's "hot" and "what's not". This is normal expressions of human nature with normal biases. It is called editing.
Any artist who is attempting to make a statement on 6 square feet of canvas cannot place the entire history of the world on it ... he has to limit his reference to a vital statement that hopefully will communicate something that is important to him. In the same way the "psychological concept of perception" works in the same way if you were to notice everything in the world at the same time with the same importance you would be flooded with information to such an extent that nothing would have any meaning because of a pure information overload. However, this is not the case. We perceive a figure against a background. For example if you are walking downtown and you are hungry you see the restaurant signs...they leap out at you... everything else becomes a background....However, if someone was to threaten you in front of a restaurant with knife you would see the knife and the menacing gestures.. you would no longer be interested in the restaurant signs... they would have faded into the background. In other words deciding what is important is editing not censorship.
Having said this lets look at censoring. Including and excluding is more of a censoring process. For example in Noam Chomsky 's film "Manufacturing Consent" it was noticed that he and presumably people with opinions like his were not included in the major prime time editorial social comment opportunities. You could say that Chomsky was being censored for his opinions. I would also conclude that if he was to change his opinions and become more conservative with his reputation and skills he would probably be included in more prime time stuff. This is the stuff of politics in media and he is being "censored" in the sense that he is being ignored. He is not getting a slice of the media pie. He is not one of the good old boys. He is in short "out of the club". All clubs have the legal right to determine their members and they decide who is among them and if you blackballed then I would say you would be censored.
Censorship is something else. It contains the elements of a crime. When a book is banned then it becomes a crime to distribute the book. This is a totally different order of events. When you think of it as it applies to the Internet it is doubly puzzling. The Internet is after all a delivery system. Why would Penthouse magazine be a crime on the Internet when you can buy it down the street. Why would it be legal to print certain words when you can read them in the library. Why would it be this medium of communications so selected for such censorship. That is why the issue is to use your term ... bogus. Child pornography is hauled out as an example of why such censorship ought to exist. The truth about child pornography is it is already illegal. It is illegal to create, possess and distribute. When we were testing the Internet Filter I saw more pornography than I have ever seen in my life and never once did I see any example of anything that could be remotely construed to be child pornography. I don't think the people who are up in arms about free speech on the Internet are advocating child pornography. Child pornography is a ruse. Anyone participating in Child pornography ought to be prosecuted to the full extent of the law and those laws already exist. There is nothing new here.
Part 5 - Power and Marketing
Q...(and) If the Internet is to become a Cybermart with unlimited shopping opportunities, how can capitalist economics take censorship seriously when its whole survival is dependent on a form of censorship?
A ..I don't think it does take censorship seriously apart from its relationship with private property and that it takes extremely seriously. Censorship of the Internet is simply put a gambit to re-route the economicflow into a taxable, chargeable, controllable pipeline.You can walk around and mumble and be as crazy as you want and if you do you will be excluded from the club (Censored) you will not be exposed in the economic forums (edited) but if you violate private property you will be locked up and possibly never be heard from again (censorship).
Q... If a country enacts legislation on the issues of censorship are they not defeating the demands of the corporate lobbyists who cannot afford to perhaps tell the truth and the whole truth about their products and practices.
A...No I don't think so at least not with the Internet. If there are corporate lobbyists who have vested interest they would be lobbying for the so called "Information Highway" and it would be to their advantage to have the population in a state of fear and loathing about the quality of peril available to you and your family by blind participation to the Internet. I think you can look forward to obscure horrors widely reported and in fact over reported by x to the n th + 1. If there is corporate lobbying then the legislation would be on their behalf. You just have to ask yourself who will gain by the discrediting of the Internet. It will be the major players who will control the Information Highway.
The Internet is a hundred thousand lanes and roads composed of winding paths and dead ends. It is not reliable enough for the type of commerce envisioned by the corporations that would employ lobbyists. The "Information Highway is what they want."
Q..Are there two kinds of censorship- one hidden to benefit the power elite, and one engaged in a Don Quixote battle, in what comprises the information zone, to give shape to required cultural definition and to win the hearts and minds of the consumers?
A...Yes there definitely are those two types. I think we just covered the power elite. The Don Quixote situation is being played out in the Christian morality sector. It is necessary for them to control the sins they imagine exist. That is the link to Don Quixote. They have heard about the horrors, the horrors they have heard about are obviously evil (to them), so now we have a fight on with the devil. So the fallacy is "if we express solidarity with censorship and we will all be safe". This sentiment makes sense if you are philosophically there. I'm not there so it doesn't make sense to me.
We were talking to the CEO of another Filter manufacture and he said it outright. They are going to go after the fundamentalist Christian market. They (the Christians) are the most afraid and therefore the better market. I'm sad to say he might be right.... one thing for sure he's going to try and win the hearts and the minds of the consumer.
Q. Well what do you think about the other companies products in relationship to yours.
A. Yes I think ours is the most useful tool.. When we came out in June our version Zero which we give away for free for Win 3.1 we were state of the art then. Since then some of the other companies have surpassed our free one but no one has surpassed our commercial Version One and when we do Version Two it is clearly going to sweep. Anyone who buys a version from us gets the upgrades free forever so there aren't any dopey software games being played by us. When I look at the strategy of some of the other companies I'm filled with fear and loathing at what they are doing but thats the business climate of the day and everybody has a right to position themselves however they choose, ..What disturbs me is the ones that are taking the opportunity to promote fear in the culture and provide a solution to the fear that is running rampant surrounding the net. It is not our style to single and name any of these companies as it would serve no point compared to the trouble it would cause. I t would be best to look at the big picture and let everyone find their own place in the overview.
To promote the big picture we have provided links to all of the filtering companies on our home page. They have been there since fall of 95. We did that to make it easier for people to do their homework and discover what is available. We take the attitude that it is a big old world out there and there is room for everybody. This issue of free speech versus censorship is not going to go away. It is the Rock and Roll of the Nineties and possibly into the millenium.
Copyright Bob Turner/JeffKoftinoff 1996