Group items tagged

Scroll down and read the discussion forum paper, "Child Protection and Freedom of Expression Online". The report aims to open discussion and reframe the debate surrounding child protection by bringing together, rather than isolating, advocates of online child protection and those of freedom of expression. It rejects the current moral panics that dominate the debate, particularly in the media, which over-represents the likelihood of harm to children online. It highlights the unproductive nature of framing online protection as a moral panic because it obscures and undermines the work of both freedom of expression and child protection advocates. Rather than keeping these two parties as diametrically opposed the discussion laid the first steps in finding common ground between the two. From here they can work together to advance both of their agendas and therefore achieving a more desirable balance between defending the rights of children and maintaining freedom of expression.

The US Federal Trade Commission has release a request for public comment on the  expansion of the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA)  The initial review was scheduled for 2015 but is being brought forward.  COOPA's goal is to protect the online safety and privacy of children under the age of 13.  They are considering extending this to children under the age of 17. 

According to a survey by Newsweek, although young people know the risks online, they choose not to protect themselves. In cases such as this, is it the Government's role to step in and protect people? Or is it the user's own fault for not taking precautions when they know the risks?

A California appeals court allows students to be trialled for hate crimes for posting threatening comments on a fellow student's blog after it was ruled these comments were not protected free speech. Interesting development that narrowss the gap between traditonal schoolyard bullying and cyber bullying.

Article discusses a new "panic button" which can be used to report on safety issues or sexual behaviour onlne. A click takes users to a website where they get advice or get directly in contact with the police. The British Child Exploitation and Online Protection Center (CEOP) has invented this button and wants facebook to integrate it. Facebook wants to refer users to its own Safety Center.

In an attempt by the government to modernise the 25-year-old Sex Descrimination Act, new laws have been made to protect teenagers from cyber-bullying acts such as sexting and online harrassment. It also protects breastfeeding women and gives men the same protection as women in the workplace when it comes to family responsibilities.

The Acadamey of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences are suing domain registration giant (under the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act) 'godaddy' disputing over 100 domain names they have 'parked' such as 2011oscars.com, academyawardz.com and oscarsunplugged.com. The lawsuit is 134 pages long and worth up to $10 million dollars in damages. GoDaddy run 'cashparking' offering customers the chance to earn cash when they buy a domain and park the page collecting funds when godaddy's advertising partners receive revenue based on a cost per click model.

The Australian Government under the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade has released a draft Form of a new copyright protection/regulation which affects the internet providers to be under a more strict copyright laws.

very good info thanks for sharing

"One of the big challenges in the debate so far has been combating the myth that the filter is - or ever was - a cyber-safety tool designed to keep kids safe online. It's not. It's designed to "harmonise" censorship laws, not protect children from inappropriate content. It's censorship for its own sake." This is interesting as EFF Australia are running a campaign to educate people not normally involved in debates around the internet - indeed, the campaign targets people who may be inclined to suport the idea of a filter: mums and dads.

The Chinese government is planning to engage mothers in an effort to apparently  "protect" children. A genuine concern or just legitimization of censorship?

It seems to be like by-the-book State mechanisms to legitimize policy. Classic propaganda.

During a speech at the Media Institute in Washington [February 24, 2010], Larry Strickling, President Obama's top official at the Department of Commerce and administrator of the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), suggested that there should be policy discussions between government agencies, foreign governments and key Internet constituencies on issues such as privacy, child protection, cybersecurity, copyright protection and Internet governance. "It's now time to respond to all the social changes being driven by the growth of the Internet," Strickling said. "We need Internet Policy 3.0. We enter this new decade recognizing that we rely on the Internet for essential social purposes: health, energy efficiency, and education. It's also a general engine for economic and social innovation. We must take rules more seriously if we want full participation, but we must keep the need for flexibility in mind."

Opponents of expanding gTLDs have largely based their arguments on the additional cost to business in performing defensive registration on their brands. What is defensive registration? Basically it's an action taken to protect a trademark (in the case of domain names, to protect a word or phrase which identifies the goods or services of a party). This study investigates how valid the defense registration argument, backed by organsiations such as Microsoft, actually is. It assesses the amount of defensive registration already undertaken in varying gTLDs for the top Fortune 100 companies. The conclusion: 'If past behavior is predictive of future actions, we will see a minimal amount of defensive registration activity in new gTLDs by brand owners, and new gTLDs will be largely ignored by cybersquatters.'

Discussion of data housing locations and legal/regulatory implications.

In 2005 Creative Commons launched Science Commons, a project that seeks to provide a model of rights for scientific material that is available on the web. The project grants different types of licenses to improve the protection of material produced by researchers at the same time that aims to promote this material and its fair use.

This is my blog post on censorhip in south Korea. Korean government says they are protecting people on the internet from propagationg falsehood.But really? Check this out!

There is a call for specific cyber bullying laws to be introduced on Australia.  A recent case that led to the suicide of a 17 year old boy led to the sentencing of a man to a community service order. The Government has agreed that more needs to be done to empower and protect victims.

In the US a coalition consisting of Google, Microsoft, Ebay, AT&T, and Intel is fighting for a change of the Electronics Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) that was enacted in 1986. The coalition stresses the fact that the Internet has changed tremendously since then and the law therefore needs to be adapted. It protects files in the homes of people but law enforcement entities do not need judicial warrant to view files stored with ISPs, in the cloud or get GPS data from mobile phones.\nDefinitely a case worth fighting for - and an opportunity for Google & Co. to get good press. What about the law that allows checking and copying peoples' computer harddrives at airports though?