IE 11 Not Supported

For optimal browsing, we recommend Chrome, Firefox or Safari browsers.

How to Solve Cybersex Hysteria

How to Solve Cybersex Hysteria

July `95



By Jim Warren







It's not bad enough that provincial, net-naive federal senators have threatened every citizen and sysop with a $100,000 fine and two years in prison or both for using or knowingly permitting the use of any "telecommunications device" for any "comment, request, suggestion, proposal, image, or other communication which is obscene, lascivious, filthy, or indecent" [see April, 1995, column].



Now some equally naive state politicians are leaping aboard the pandering platform - with unrealistic legislative language to regulate things about which they know nothing. Like many frightened and naive parents, they have made the mistake of believing the foolishness aired during ratings races in evening TV news - sex is even better than blood in grabbing viewers.



These proposals are akin to ordinances, a century ago, that required someone to walk fifty paces ahead of a horseless carriage, ringing a bell or swinging a lantern. Dumb! Embarrassing!



But those legislative committees and rule-making bodies that conduct reasoned, responsible deliberations on proposed cyber-censorship legislation will find that there are substantive issues and alternatives worth considering:







Technology as Excuse



What most people do online on the global computer networks is speak. The only difference is that their speech uses electronic waves rather than sound waves. Or they may be chatting in private electronic rooms, assembling in electronic Hyde Parks or publishing paperless periodicals using recyclable digital ink.



Contrary to what one sees in the ratings-race television exploitation, sexual content is a tiny, tiny fraction of the information available on and shared across the global computer networks. Sex stories available on the net are often far less erotic than Danielle Steel novels. Provocatively titled files may be originated by a proud husband, picturing a dowdy housewife in a two-piece bathing suit. And certainly most of the electronic chat and commentary is less outrageous than what can be heard over phone lines or at bars and cocktail parties.



Legislative and regulatory bodies should consider carefully the implications of attempting to use technology as an excuse for attacking First Amendment freedoms.









Baby's Bath Water



Ill-phrased legislation targeted only for technology-aided speech, press or assembly could inadvertently prohibit electronic exchange of text or images in medical records, legal briefs, court evidence, suicide intervention, child-safety information, law enforcement details, sex counseling, AIDS awareness, art history, gallery photography and so on -especially recognizing that computer networks are global in scope.



Sexual content forms a continuum, from essential to outrageous. Furthermore, what may be inappropriate for one group is crucial for another group.







Technological Solutions



There are problems with cybersex - most of them related to children.



Perhaps the greatest reason for responsible policy-makers to go slowly in mandating cyber-censorship is that there are often computer solutions to the problems that computer networks have created regarding offensive content:



+ Filters. Computer programs can allow users to self-censor offensive text. "Bozo filters" automatically reject messages from offensive senders. Programs can scan all incoming text and 'X'-out words and phrases that the user specifies as being objectionable. Filter lists can be password-protected for adult control.



+ Blockers. Similar software could allow parents, teachers and librarians to limit the computer sites and/or addressees to which their children, students or patrons can have access. Such limits could be inclusive or exclusive - allowing the supervising person to specify what is accessible or what is blocked.



+ Tracers. Parents and teachers wishing to monitor where their children are going and who they are playing with could require that they use software that records all user IDs, site names and file names accessed by each child. Those who are offended by such parental or teacher oversight need not use them.



For people who are being harassed, reader software could be designed and warranted to retain a certified copy of all such transactions, for use as evidence in criminal prosecution or civil litigation.



+ User IDs and computer site names. Most sysops that offer adult content - at least those who hope to stay out of jail -are more than willing to prohibit access by children. But they need to be able to identify minors.



Parents and institutions that provide user IDs for children could include "kid" as part of the user id, such as "kid.jim". Schools could choose site names that include "K12" as part of their names. Then, sysops of adult sites could easily reject access requests from such user IDs and site names. Additionally, this would allow children to identify other children or provide strong evidence of intent against a suspected pedophile who used a child or school id.



Similarly, operators wishing to offer adult content could use site-names that include "xx" and "xxx" as a dot-delimited part of their site's name. Then parents, schools and libraries could use blocking or filtering software to prohibit access to such clearly marked adult sites.



Of course, this would allow kids to more easily locate adult sites and the rare pedophile to identify children - but that simply reflects the real world.



+ User and site lists. Concerned organizations could set up directories of all user IDs declared as belonging to minors -perhaps provided by parents or schools. Similar directories could list all adult sites.



Various groups - the Moral Majority, the Sexual Freedom League, etc. - could maintain lists of "recommended" and "offensive" sites.



What technology has endangered, it can sometimes protect. Give it a chance.



Jim Warren received the James Madison Freedom of Information award, the Hugh M. Hefner First Amendment Award and the Electronic Frontier Foundation Pioneer Award in its first year. He founded the Computers, Freedom & Privacy conferences and InfoWorld magazine. Warren lives near Woodside, Calif. e-mail/jwarren@well.com