Internet porn block 'not possible' say ISPs

Government plans to block pornography "at source" are unlikely to prove effective, say ISPs. The proposal to cut off access to pornographic material was floated by Culture Minister Ed Vaizey in an interview with the Sunday Times. The government is talking to ISPs to set up a meeting at which the proposal will be discussed. But, say experts, technical challenges mean any large scale filtering system is doomed to failure.

Legal issues

A spokesman for the Department of Business, Innovation and Skills, confirmed Mr Vaizey's plan to talk to ISPs about setting up an age verification scheme to govern access to pornographic sites. "This is a very serious matter," said Mr Vaizey. "I think it's very important that it's the ISPs that come up with solutions to protect children." "I'm hoping they will get their acts together so we don't have to legislate, but we are keeping an eye on the situation and we will have a new communications bill in the next couple of years."

In response to the government proposal, Nicholas Lansman, secretary general of the Ispa industry body, said: "Ispa firmly believes that controls on children's access to the internet should be managed by parents and carers with the tools ISPs provide, rather than being imposed top-down." Mr Lansman said its members provided parents with many different means of controlling what is accessible via the computers in their homes. "Online safety is a priority issue for the internet industry and ISPA will be discussing the options available to protect children with Government," he said. "ISPs currently block child abuse content which is illegal and widely regarded as abhorrent," said Mr Lansman. "Blocking lawful pornography content is less clear cut, will lead to the blocking of access to legitimate content and is only effective in preventing inadvertent access." BT, the UK's largest ISP, said it would be "happy" to take part in any discussion of the issues, but added: "There are many legal, consumer rights and technical issues that would need to be considered before any new web blocking policy was developed."

Filter failure

"Unfortunately, It's technically not possible to completely block this stuff," said Trefor Davies, chief technology officer at ISP Timico. “If we take this step it will not take very long to end up with an internet that's a walled garden of sites the governments is happy for you to see” He said the sheer volume of pornographic material online and the number of ways that people access it, via the web, file-sharing networks, news groups, discussion boards and the like, made the job impossible. While some proponents of a national pornographic filtering scheme cite the Internet Watch Foundation (IWF) as an example of how such a scheme might work, Mr Davies said it was not a good guide. The IWF circulates a list to ISPs of sites found to be hosting illegal images of child sexual abuse.

However, said Mr Davies, the IWF draws up its list largely using information passed to it by the public. In addition it only tackles illegal content found on websites. Such a system would not work if it was used to deal with millions of porn sites, chat rooms and bulletin boards, he said. Experience with filtering systems, he said, shows that they are a very blunt tool that often blocks access to sites that could be useful. "You end up with a system that's either hugely expensive and a losing battle because there are millions of these sites or it's just not effective," he said. "The cost of putting these systems in place outweigh the benefits, to my mind," he said.

“What we are talking about is censorship to protect our children”

Mr Davies also feared that any wide-scale attempt to police pornographic content would soon be expanded to include pirated pop songs, films and TV shows. "If we take this step it will not take very long to end up with an internet that's a walled garden of sites the governments is happy for you to see," he said. His comment was echoed by Jim Killock, chair of the Open Rights Group which campaigns on digital liberties issues. "This is not about pornography, it is about generalised censorship through the back door," said Mr Killock. "This is the wrong way to go," he said. "If the government controlled a web blacklist, you can bet that Wikileaks would be on it."

Miranda Suit, co-chair of Safer Media, which campaigns to make media safe for children, told the BBC that the pornography available on the internet was "qualitatively and quantitatively" different from any that has gone before. Ms Suit cited a report compiled by the US conservative think tank The Witherspoon Institute which suggested that easy access to pornography was damaging some young people. "Children are becoming addicted in their teens to internet pornography," she said. "They are being mentally damaged so they cannot engage in intimate relationships." Safer Media backed the government call to block pornography "at source", said Ms Suit. "What we are talking about is censorship to protect our children," she said.

[via]

Review of media classifications ordered

From: AAP, December 21, 2010 11:59AM

THE Federal Government has ordered a wide-ranging review of media classification as a row over access to violent video games continues. Attorney-General Robert McClelland, announcing the review today, said advances in technology meant the whole system of classification needed to be considered. The draft terms of reference for the year-long Australian Law Reform Commission review suggest the classification categories themselves may be changed.

The review is set to look at a host of issues including the impact of classifications on the community and the Government's desire for a strong content and distribution industry. Home Affairs Minister Brendan O'Connor said when the classification scheme began, content and the way it was delivered to consumers was relatively static. "Today, films can be watched in a cinema, on DVD, on TV or downloaded," he said. "Many video games include significant film segments to tell stories, and some films have interactive content."

Comments on the terms of reference will be taken until January 28, 2011 with a full report from the commission due on December 9. The review has been announced in the midst of a continuing debate about legalising the sale of violent video games previously unavailable in retail outlets. Earlier in December, Mr McClelland decided to draw up guidelines for the possible creation of an R18+ classification. The decision angered many family and Christian groups.

The Birth of Cinema

Teaching mise en scène

Nick Lacey offers a definition of mise en scène followed by a description of how he taught this topic to AS Film Studies students in Leeds.

It matters little whether you’re teaching Film or Media Studies: introducing students to reading moving audio-visual images is usually introduced early in the course, pre- or post-16. Although the following is based upon teaching FS1 module of WJEC’s AS Film Studies, I’d be surprised if the ideas weren’t applicable elsewhere. The first section here (extracted from my forthcoming book, to be published by Palgrave Macmillan) offers a definition of mise en scène, which is followed by a description of how I taught this ‘theory’ to AS Film Studies students in Leeds.

The ‘theory’ of mise en scène
Mise en scène is the starting point for analysis of ‘film as film’ (the title of a ‘classic’ introduction to film analysis, Perkins 1993) as distinct from film in its social context. First used by critics in Les Cahiers du Cinéma, an influential French film journal, in the 1950s, mise en scène focuses on what can be seen in the picture. Clearly what can be seen (unless we are dealing with computer generated imagery) must exist before it can be filmed; this is the pro-filmic event. Usually this event will consist of actors performing in a setting; the point of view from which audiences see this is wholly determined by the position of the camera. The film’s director usually decides where the camera is positioned.

For some critics this pro-filmic event defines mise en scène. For example, in the first edition of another classic text, Film Art (1979), David Bordwell and Kristin Thompson state that mise en scène consists of setting, lighting, costume and figure expression and movement (that is behaviour and movement in the scene); they consider camera placement (framing) in a separate chapter. Bruce Kawin’s definition (1992), however, also includes:

choice of filmstock (black-and-white or color, fine-grain or grainy) . . . aspect ratio (the proportion of the screen) . . . framing (how much of the set or cast will be shown at a time) . . . camera placement and movement, and . . . sound environment. (Kawin, 1992, p. 98)

Kawin is unusual in including sound; however, there seems little point in divorcing sound produced in the narrative world from what’s producing it. This is a question of definition and it matters little, when analysing film, whether you consider camera positioning and/or sound as part of mise en scène or not as long as you do consider all the elements. I prefer Kawin’s inclusion of camera placement because the position can transform the way audiences see the pro-filmic event and will include sound in the following as most films we deal with are not silent.

Whilst camera movement also changes the way we see the pro-filmic space, it draws attention to itself and so attention is split between what is ‘in the picture’ and how the camera is transforming what we see. Filmstock, too, can alter the look of the scene; however, it is exterior to it. Therefore we shall consider movement and filmstock separately from mise en scène.

So for our purposes mise en scène consists of:

• Production Design: sets, props and costumes
• Colour (present in both production design and lighting)
• Lighting
• Actors’ performance (including casting and make up) and movement (blocking)
• Framing including position; depth of field; aspect ratio; height and angle (but not movement)
• Diegetic sound (that is, sound that emanates from the scene and is not extraneous to it, such as the music that is not being played within the scene or a voice-over)

The ‘practice’ of teaching mise en scène
After the preliminaries – i.e. trying to find out who the people were in front of me – I showed the opening of The Sixth Sense (US, 1999). This turned out to be a good choice because (amazingly as there is ‘always’ one who hasn’t seen it) all the students had already watched the film. The opening scene – from the credits to the close up of the congratulatory cards – is short and straightforward, yet sets up a sense of menace. The students had to consider the following questions as the basis for discussion:

• What does the sequence mean to you?
• How does it create that meaning?

Opening sequences are obviously good to use as no assumptions are made about an audience’s understanding. However, the fact that students were familiar with The Sixth Sense was useful as the first shot is a close-up of a reddish light bulb, and some were aware that red is significant throughout the film.

I used a second opening sequence with each of my two groups (Don’t Look Now, UK-Italy 1999, and Solaris, US 2002), which they discussed in groups before presenting their ideas to the class. I consciously choose mainstream films to reassure those who’ve only chosen the subject ‘cos they can watch movies’ and to emphasise that ‘even’ Hollywood films are full of meaning. Students then choose their own opening to analyse for written work. In my experience students new to moving image analysis usually lapse into description in their first attempts.

The hope was that our discussion of these sequences would allow us to extract the elements of mise en scène described above. In teaching Media Studies I would then branch off into other media, such as advertising, and show how the skills gained from film analysis are transferable and also suggest that many of the differences – such as the lack of depth in television mise en scène – is often determined by the medium.

Having the ‘luxury’ of teaching Film Studies allows a detailed exploration of the elements and offers an opportunity to widen students’ experience of film. It matters little what films are chosen to illustrate the constituents of the scene; however, it is obviously useful if they emphasise a particular element. I tend to choose films I’ve seen recently and have on video.

Production Design: sets, props and costumes. The Thirteenth Floor (US, 1999) – its ‘1930s’ setting, in the opening sequence, draws attention to the design.

Colour: (present in both production design and lighting)

Lighting: The Virgin Suicides (US, 1999) – contrasting the bright yellowy hues of suburbia with the grey-blue of the bathroom, scene of a suicide attempt (I was impressed that students pegged it as a film set in the ‘70s).

Absence of light can be as significant as what is shown by light. Film noir, for example, uses shadows almost as objects within the mise en scène. The opening sequence from M (Germany, 1931) representing Elsie’s murder, uses Franz Becker’s shadow to suggest menace.

Actors’ performance (including casting and make up) and movement (blocking): Code Unknown (France, 2000) – Juliette Binoche’s audition. This extraordinary film consists of scenes shot in one take (except one) so Binoche’s disintegration in front of the camera, as she realises she’s been kidnapped, is a wonderful (and harrowing) performance. This fell flat with students but I thought it was great.

Minority Report (US, 2002) – as an example of blocking I used the first meeting between the Tom Cruise and Colin Farrell characters. Farrell is set in opposition to the other four; however, he is able to move easily ‘through’ the others and ‘motivates’ the camera to follow him. His verbal jousting with Cruise is particularly interesting (though my students were more concerned with Cruise’s actual height), their position in the mise en scène shifts as they vie for superiority. However, Farrell’s victory is accompanied by him crouching beneath Cruise: patronising or an indication of his ambivalent role in the narrative?

Diegetic sound (i.e. sound that emanates from the scene and is not extraneous to it): I played the scene from Psycho (US, 1960), when the cop wakes up Marion Crane in her car, using audio only. The students agreed that the cop sounded a nice, concerned guy. When we saw the sequence as filmed, it was clear that the cop’s ‘mirror shades’ makes him a threatening character, especially when contrasted with Janet Leigh’s ‘wide-eyed’ performance.

Framing including: position; depth of field; aspect ratio; height and angle (but not movement): For depth of field Citizen Kane (US, 1941) is an obvious choice. The seven minute sequence that follows the ‘March of Time’ pastiche newsreel is ideal as it includes two exceptionally long takes (the crane shot that introduces Susan Alexander starting on the idealised poster image of her and finishing on the alcoholic wreck she has become and young Kane playing in the snow whilst mum signs him away). The latter scene is particularly powerful as the boy remains in the centre of the frame (playing outside seen through the window) whilst he is being signed away; however, he is very small, indicating the degree of influence he has on proceedings.

The scene straight after the newsreel, where the journalist is given the job of finding out what ‘rosebud’ means, is particularly striking in the use of light and shadow. The journalists lack individuality as bright light shines directly at the camera casting them as silhouettes. They are ciphers that will lead the narrative to its conclusion. Welles’ characteristic use of a low angled shot, which shows ceilings in shot, are also evident in the scene from Kane’s childhood.

For aspect ratio, Blade Runner (US 1984, Director’s Cut 1991) – is used simply because I have a ‘pan and scan’ version. Comparing the framing of Batty’s death scene with the widescreen shows how much is lost and how the spurious close up necessitated by ‘pan and scan’ changes the meaning of the scene. It’s gratifying that it’s actually getting difficult to find ‘pan and scan’ versions of films on television; though not all widescreen versions of terrestrial television are anywhere the correct ratio. Most of Sky Television’s movie channels are now in the original ratio, though I noticed that TCM occasionally lapse into ‘full screen’ versions.

I won’t know how successful my introduction to mise en scène was until I see the practice coursework essays, but when we revised the subject, a few weeks later, I was pleased with students’ oral responses.

Bibliography
David Bordwell and Kristin Thompson (2003, 7th edition) Film Art: An Introduction (McGraw-Hill)
Bruce F. Kawin(1992) How Movies Work (University of California Press)
Victor Perkins (1993) Film As Film: Understanding and Judging Movies (Da Capo Press)

Resources
The BFI’s Introduction to Film Language CD-ROM is superb. Using a brilliant 10-minute animation The Sandman (1991) by Paul Berry as its focus students can navigate their way through all they need to know about all aspects of film language. I don’t go through the jargon with student but expect them to pick it up through their reading and using this resource.

The books cited in the bibliography are very useful teacher texts.

Robert E. Yahnke’s website (http://www.tc.umn.edu/~yahnk001/filmteach/teach.htm) is certainly worth checking out as, if you use the films suggested, he saves you a lot of legwork.

© Nick Lacey

The inhumane conditions of Bradley Manning's detention

By Glenn Greenwald via salon.com

Reuters/Jonathon Burch/AP/Salon

Bradley Manning, the 22-year-old U.S. Army Private accused of leaking classified documents to WikiLeaks, has never been convicted of that crime, nor of any other crime. Despite that, he has been detained at the U.S. Marine brig in Quantico, Virginia for five months -- and for two months before that in a military jail in Kuwait -- under conditions that constitute cruel and inhumane treatment and, by the standards of many nations, even torture. Interviews with several people directly familiar with the conditions of Manning's detention, ultimately including a Quantico brig official (Lt. Brian Villiard) who confirmed much of what they conveyed, establishes that the accused leaker is subjected to detention conditions likely to create long-term psychological injuries.

Since his arrest in May, Manning has been a model detainee, without any episodes of violence or disciplinary problems. He nonetheless was declared from the start to be a "Maximum Custody Detainee," the highest and most repressive level of military detention, which then became the basis for the series of inhumane measures imposed on him.

From the beginning of his detention, Manning has been held in intensive solitary confinement. For 23 out of 24 hours every day -- for seven straight months and counting -- he sits completely alone in his cell. Even inside his cell, his activities are heavily restricted; he's barred even from exercising and is under constant surveillance to enforce those restrictions. For reasons that appear completely punitive, he's being denied many of the most basic attributes of civilized imprisonment, including even a pillow or sheets for his bed (he is not and never has been on suicide watch). For the one hour per day when he is freed from this isolation, he is barred from accessing any news or current events programs. Lt. Villiard protested that the conditions are not "like jail movies where someone gets thrown into the hole," but confirmed that he is in solitary confinement, entirely alone in his cell except for the one hour per day he is taken out.

In sum, Manning has been subjected for many months without pause to inhumane, personality-erasing, soul-destroying, insanity-inducing conditions of isolation similar to those perfected at America's Supermax prison in Florence, Colorado: all without so much as having been convicted of anything. And as is true of many prisoners subjected to warped treatment of this sort, the brig's medical personnel now administer regular doses of anti-depressants to Manning to prevent his brain from snapping from the effects of this isolation.

Just by itself, the type of prolonged solitary confinement to which Manning has been subjected for many months is widely viewed around the world as highly injurious, inhumane, punitive, and arguably even a form of torture. In his widely praised March, 2009 New Yorker article -- entitled "Is Long-Term Solitary Confinement Torture?" -- the surgeon and journalist Atul Gawande assembled expert opinion and personal anecdotes to demonstrate that, as he put it, "all human beings experience isolation as torture." By itself, prolonged solitary confinement routinely destroys a person’s mind and drives them into insanity. A March, 2010 article in The Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law explains that "solitary confinement is recognized as difficult to withstand; indeed, psychological stressors such as isolation can be as clinically distressing as physical torture."

For that reason, many Western nations -- and even some non-Western nations notorious for human rights abuses -- refuse to employ prolonged solitary confinement except in the most extreme cases of prisoner violence. "It’s an awful thing, solitary," John McCain wrote of his experience in isolated confinement in Vietnam. “It crushes your spirit." As Gawande documented: "A U.S. military study of almost a hundred and fifty naval aviators returned from imprisonment in Vietnam . . . reported that they found social isolation to be as torturous and agonizing as any physical abuse they suffered." Gawande explained that America’s application of this form of torture to its own citizens is what spawned the torture regime which President Obama vowed to end:

This past year, both the Republican and the Democratic Presidential candidates came out firmly for banning torture and closing the facility in Guantánamo Bay, where hundreds of prisoners have been held in years-long isolation. Neither Barack Obama nor John McCain, however, addressed the question of whether prolonged solitary confinement is torture. . . .

This is the dark side of American exceptionalism. . . . Our willingness to discard these standards for American prisoners made it easy to discard the Geneva Conventions prohibiting similar treatment of foreign prisoners of war, to the detriment of America’s moral stature in the world. In much the same way that a previous generation of Americans countenanced legalized segregation, ours has countenanced legalized torture. And there is no clearer manifestation of this than our routine use of solitary confinement . . . .

It's one thing to impose such punitive, barbaric measures on convicts who have proven to be violent when around other prisoners; at the Supermax in Florence, inmates convicted of the most heinous crimes and who pose a threat to prison order and the safety of others are subjected to worse treatment than what Manning experiences. But it's another thing entirely to impose such conditions on individuals, like Manning, who have been convicted of nothing and have never demonstrated an iota of physical threat or disorder.

In 2006, a bipartisan National Commission on America's Prisons was created and it called for the elimination of prolonged solitary confinement. Its Report documented that conditions whereby "prisoners end up locked in their cells 23 hours a day, every day. . . is so severe that people end up completely isolated, living in what can only be described as torturous conditions." The Report documented numerous psychiatric studies of individuals held in prolonged isolation which demonstrate "a constellation of symptoms that includes overwhelming anxiety, confusion and hallucination, and sudden violent and self-destructive outbursts." The above-referenced article from the Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law states: "Psychological effects can include anxiety, depression, anger, cognitive disturbances, perceptual distortions, obsessive thoughts, paranoia, and psychosis."

When one exacerbates the harms of prolonged isolation with the other deprivations to which Manning is being subjected, long-term psychiatric and even physical impairment is likely. Gawande documents that "EEG studies going back to the nineteen-sixties have shown diffuse slowing of brain waves in prisoners after a week or more of solitary confinement." Medical tests conducted in 1992 on Yugoslavian prisoners subjected to an average of six months of isolation -- roughly the amount to which Manning has now been subjected -- "revealed brain abnormalities months afterward; the most severe were found in prisoners who had endured either head trauma sufficient to render them unconscious or, yes, solitary confinement. Without sustained social interaction, the human brain may become as impaired as one that has incurred a traumatic injury." Gawande's article is filled with horrifying stories of individuals subjected to isolation similar to or even less enduring than Manning's who have succumbed to extreme long-term psychological breakdown.

Manning is barred from communicating with any reporters, even indirectly, so nothing he has said can be quoted here. But David House, a 23-year-old MIT researcher who befriended Manning after his detention (and then had his laptops, camera and cellphone seized by Homeland Security when entering the U.S.) is one of the few people to have visited Manning several times at Quantico. He describes palpable changes in Manning's physical appearance and behavior just over the course of the several months that he's been visiting him. Like most individuals held in severe isolation, Manning sleeps much of the day, is particularly frustrated by the petty, vindictive denial of a pillow or sheets, and suffers from less and less outdoor time as part of his one-hour daily removal from his cage.

This is why the conditions under which Manning is being detained were once recognized in the U.S. -- and are still recognized in many Western nations -- as not only cruel and inhumane, but torture. More than a century ago, U.S. courts understood that solitary confinement was a barbaric punishment that severely harmed the mental and physical health of those subjected to it. The Supreme Court's 1890 decision in In re Medley noted that as a result of solitary confinement as practiced in the early days of the United States, many "prisoners fell, after even a short confinement, into a semi-fatuous condition . . . and others became violently insane; others still, committed suicide; while those who stood the ordeal better . . . [often] did not recover sufficient mental activity to be of any subsequent service to the community." And in its 1940 decision in Chambers v. Florida, the Court characterized prolonged solitary confinement as "torture" and compared it to "[t]he rack, the thumbscrew, [and] the wheel."

The inhumane treatment of Manning may have international implications as well. There are multiple proceedings now pending in the European Union Human Rights Court, brought by "War on Terror" detainees contesting their extradition to the U.S. on the ground that the conditions under which they likely will be held -- particularly prolonged solitary confinement -- violate the European Convention on Human Rights, which (along with the Convention Against Torture) bars EU states from extraditing anyone to any nation where there is a real risk of inhumane and degrading treatment. The European Court of Human Rights has in the past found detention conditions violative of those rights (in Bulgaria) where "the [detainee] spent 23 hours a day alone in his cell; had limited interaction with other prisoners; and was only allowed two visits per month." From the Journal article referenced above:

International treaty bodies and human rights experts, including the Human Rights Committee, the Committee against Torture, and the U.N. Special Rapporteur on Torture, have concluded that solitary confinement may amount to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment in violation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman, and Degrading Treatment or Punishment. They have specifically criticized supermax confinement in the United States because of the mental suffering it inflicts.

Subjecting a detainee like Manning to this level of prolonged cruel and inhumane detention can thus jeopardize the ability of the U.S. to secure extradition for other prisoners, as these conditions are viewed in much of the civilized world as barbaric. Moreover, because Manning holds dual American and U.K. citizenship (his mother is British), it is possible for British agencies and human rights organizations to assert his consular rights against these oppressive conditions. At least some preliminary efforts are underway in Britain to explore that mechanism as a means of securing more humane treatment for Manning. Whatever else is true, all of this illustrates what a profound departure from international norms is the treatment to which the U.S. Government is subjecting him.

The plight of Manning has largely been overshadowed by the intense media fixation on WikiLeaks, so it's worth underscoring what it is that he's accused of doing and what he said in his own reputed words about these acts. If one believes the authenticity of the highly edited chat logs of Manning's online conversations with Adrian Lamo that have been released by Wired (that magazine inexcusably continues to conceal large portions of those logs), Manning clearly believed that he was a whistle-blower acting with the noblest of motives, and probably was exactly that. If, for instance, he really is the leaker of the Apache helicopter attack video -- a video which sparked very rare and much-needed realization about the visceral truth of what American wars actually entail -- as well as the war and diplomatic cables revealing substantial government deceit, brutality, illegality and corruption, then he's quite similar to Daniel Ellsberg. Indeed, Ellsberg himself said the very same thing about Manning in June on Democracy Now in explaining why he considers the Army Private to be a "hero":

The fact is that what Lamo reports Manning is saying has a very familiar and persuasive ring to me. He reports Manning as having said that what he had read and what he was passing on were horrible -- evidence of horrible machinations by the US backdoor dealings throughout the Middle East and, in many cases, as he put it, almost crimes. And let me guess that -- he’s not a lawyer, but I'll guess that what looked to him like crimes are crimes, that he was putting out. We know that he put out, or at least it's very plausible that he put out, the videos that he claimed to Lamo. And that's enough to go on to get them interested in pursuing both him and the other.

And so, what it comes down, to me, is -- and I say throwing caution to the winds here -- is that what I've heard so far of Assange and Manning -- and I haven't met either of them -- is that they are two new heroes of mine.

To see why that's so, just recall some of what Manning purportedly said about why he chose to leak, at least as reflected in the edited chat logs published by Wired:

Lamo: what's your endgame plan, then?. . .

Manning: well, it was forwarded to [WikiLeaks] - and god knows what happens now - hopefully worldwide discussion, debates, and reforms - if not, than [sic] we're doomed - as a species - i will officially give up on the society we have if nothing happens - the reaction to the video gave me immense hope; CNN's iReport was overwhelmed; Twitter exploded - people who saw, knew there was something wrong . . . Washington Post sat on the video… David Finkel acquired a copy while embedded out here. . . . - i want people to see the truth… regardless of who they are… because without information, you cannot make informed decisions as a public.

if i knew then, what i knew now - kind of thing, or maybe im just young, naive, and stupid . . . im hoping for the former - it cant be the latter - because if it is… were fucking screwed (as a society) - and i dont want to believe that we’re screwed.

Manning described the incident which first made him seriously question the U.S. Government: when he was instructed to work on the case of Iraqi "insurgents" who had been detained for distributing so-called "insurgent" literature which, when Manning had it translated, turned out to be nothing more than "a scholarly critique against PM Maliki":

i had an interpreter read it for me… and when i found out that it was a benign political critique titled "Where did the money go?" and following the corruption trail within the PM’s cabinet… i immediately took that information and *ran* to the officer to explain what was going on… he didn’t want to hear any of it… he told me to shut up and explain how we could assist the FPs in finding *MORE* detainees…

i had always questioned the things worked, and investigated to find the truth… but that was a point where i was a *part* of something… i was actively involved in something that i was completely against…

And Manning explained why he never considered the thought of selling this classified information to a foreign nation for substantial profit or even just secretly transmitting it to foreign powers, as he easily could have done:

Manning: i mean what if i were someone more malicious- i could've sold to russia or china, and made bank?

Lamo: why didn’t you?

Manning: because it's public data

Lamo: i mean, the cables

Manning: it belongs in the public domain -information should be free - it belongs in the public domain - because another state would just take advantage of the information… try and get some edge - if its out in the open… it should be a public good.

That's a whistleblower in the purest and most noble form: discovering government secrets of criminal and corrupt acts and then publicizing them to the world not for profit, not to give other nations an edge, but to trigger "worldwide discussion, debates, and reforms." Given how much Manning has been demonized -- at the same time that he's been rendered silent by the ban on his communication with any media -- it's worthwhile to keep all of that in mind.

But ultimately, what one thinks of Manning's alleged acts is irrelevant to the issue here. The U.S. ought at least to abide by minimal standards of humane treatment in how it detains him. That's true for every prisoner, at all times. But departures from such standards are particularly egregious where, as here, the detainee has merely been accused, but never convicted, of wrongdoing. These inhumane conditions make a mockery of Barack Obama's repeated pledge to end detainee abuse and torture, as prolonged isolation -- exacerbated by these other deprivations -- is at least as damaging, as violative of international legal standards, and almost as reviled around the world, as the waterboard, hypothermia and other Bush-era tactics that caused so much controversy.

What all of this achieves is clear. Having it known that the U.S. could and would disappear people at will to "black sites," assassinate them with unseen drones, imprison them for years without a shred of due process even while knowing they were innocent, torture them mercilessly, and in general acts as a lawless and rogue imperial power created a climate of severe intimidation and fear. Who would want to challenge the U.S. Government in any way -- even in legitimate ways -- knowing that it could and would engage in such lawless, violent conduct without any restraints or repercussions?

That is plainly what is going on here. Anyone remotely affiliated with WikiLeaks, including American citizens (and plenty of other government critics), has their property seized and communications stored at the border without so much as a warrant. Julian Assange -- despite never having been charged with, let alone convicted of, any crime -- has now spent more than a week in solitary confinement with severe restrictions under what his lawyer calls "Dickensian conditions." But Bradley Manning has suffered much worse, and not for a week, but for seven months, with no end in sight. If you became aware of secret information revealing serious wrongdoing, deceit and/or criminality on the part of the U.S. Government, would you -- knowing that you could and likely would be imprisoned under these kinds of repressive, torturous conditions for months on end without so much as a trial: just locked away by yourself 23 hours a day without recourse -- be willing to expose it? That's the climate of fear and intimidation which these inhumane detention conditions are intended to create.

Those wishing to contribute to Bradley Manning's defense fund can do so here. All of those means are reputable, but everyone should carefully read the various options presented in order to decide which one seems best.

UPDATE: I was contacted by Lt. Villiard, who claims there is one factual inaccuracy in what I wrote: specifically, he claims that Manning is not restricted from accessing news or current events during the proscribed time he is permitted to watch television. That is squarely inconsistent with reports from those with first-hand knowledge of Manning's detention, but it's a fairly minor dispute in the scheme of things.

Tom the Dancing Bug: Julian Assange Goes to Prison For Espionage, and Joins a Gang

click to enlarge

[via]

Air Force Blocks Sites That Posted Secret Cables

by Eric Schmidt The New York Times

WASHINGTON — The Air Force is barring its personnel from using work computers to view the Websites of The New York Times and more than 25 other news organizations and blogs that have posted secret cables obtained by WikiLeaks, Air Force officials said Tuesday. When Air Force personnel on the service’s computer network try to view the Web sites of The Times, the British newspaper The Guardian, the German magazine Der Spiegel, the Spanish newspaper El País and the French newspaper Le Monde, as well as other sites that posted full confidential cables, the screen says “Access Denied: Internet usage is logged and monitored,” according to an Air Force official whose access was blocked and who shared the screen warning with The Times. Violators are warned that they face punishment if they try to view classified material from unauthorized Web sites.

Some Air Force officials acknowledged that the steps taken might be in vain since many military personnel could gain access to the documents from home computers, despite admonishments from superiors not to read the cables without proper clearances. Cyber network specialists within the Air Force Space Command last week followed longstanding procedures to keep classified information off unclassified computer systems. “News media Web sites will be blocked if they post classified documents from the WikiLeaks Web site,” said Lt. Col. Brenda Campbell, a spokeswoman for the Air Force Space Command, a unit of which oversees Air Force cyber systems. “This is similar to how we’d block any other Web site that posted classified information.”

Colonel Campbell said that only sites posting full classified documents, not just excerpts, would be blocked. “When classified documents appear on a Web site, a judgment will be made whether it will be blocked,” she said. “It’s an issue we’re working through right now.” Spokesmen for the Army, Navy and Marines said they were not blocking the Web sites of news organizations, largely because guidance has already been issued by the Obama administration and the Defense Department directing hundreds of thousands of federal employees and contractors not to read the secret cables and other classified documents published by WikiLeaks unless the workers have the required security clearance or authorization.

“Classified information, whether or not already posted on public websites or disclosed to the media, remains classified, and must be treated as such by federal employees and contractors, until it is declassified by an appropriate U.S. Government authority,” said a notice sent on Dec. 3 by the Office of Management and Budget, which is part of the White House, to agency and department heads. A Defense Department spokesman, Col. David Lapan, in an e-mail on Tuesday night sought to distance the department from the Air Force’s action to block access to the media Web sites: “This is not DoD-directed or DoD-wide.”

The Air Force’s action was first reported on The Wall Street Journal’s Web site late Tuesday and underscores the wide-ranging impact of the recent release of secret State Department documents by WikiLeaks, and five news organizations, including The Times. It also illustrates the contortions the military and other government agencies appear to be going through to limit the spread of classified information that has become widely available in the public domain. “It is unfortunate that the U.S. Air Force has chosen not to allow its personnel access to information that virtually everyone else in the world can access,” said a spokeswoman for The Times, Danielle Rhoades Ha. A senior administration official said Tuesday that the administration’s policy contained some leeway, for instance, to allow certain employees to download information in order for them to be able to verify that classified information was leaking into the public domain, and to assess damage to national security and potential danger to sources.

Steven Aftergood of the Federation of American Scientists, a secrecy specialist, said dozens of agencies, as well as branches of the military and government contractors, had issued their own policy instructions based on the Office of Management and Budget memo. “It’s a self-defeating policy that will leave government employees less informed than they ought to be,” Mr. Aftergood said.

William J. Broad contributed reporting from New York.

Related:

State’s Secrets

Articles in this series examine American diplomatic cables as a window on relations with the rest of the world in an age of war and terrorism.

• Documents: Selected Dispatches
• Release on Bail of WikiLeaks Founder Is Delayed by Appeal (December 15, 2010)
• FiveThirtyEight: Bayesianism and Julian Assange (December 15, 2010)

German Schools to Teach Online Privacy

By Jessica Donath

Social networking sites such as Facebook play a large role in young people's lives - but not all children and teenagers know how to keep their data safe. Social networking sites such as Facebook play a large role in young people's lives, but not all children and teenagers know how to keep their data safe.

Internet companies such as Facebook and Google have come in for repeated criticism in Germany, where the government has concerns about what they do with users' data. Now one state, worried about the amount of information young people reveal online, plans to teach school pupils how to keep a low profile on the web. Many of Facebook's 2 million users in Germany are young people who might not give a second thought to posting pictures of themselves and their friends skinny-dipping or passed out at parties. Unfortunately, being casual with one's data also has its risks. After all, potential employers also know how to use social networking tools.

Now the government of the state of North Rhine-Westphalia, recognizing that young people are not always aware of the dangers of revealing personal information on the Internet, is planning to teach school students how to deal with the Internet and social networking sites such as Facebook and Twitter. "Our goal is to convey that the Internet doesn't only offer chances and opportunities, but also has risks that students should understand in order to exercise autonomy with regards to digital media," said North Rhine-Westphalia's media minister, Angelica Schwall-Düren, in an interview with the Thursday edition of the regional newspaper WAZ. "Many young people are unaware of how many details they reveal about themselves online," Schwall-Düren told the newspaper. Children need to know that future employers and friends can follow their digital footprint online, something that could negatively affect their professional and private lives, she explained. Social networking sites such as Facebook are controversial in Germany, where they have been criticized over data privacy concerns.

Schwall-Düren also stressed that young people need to learn how to be more critical when watching the news. "Many people just believe news on television or on the Internet without giving it a second thought," said the minister, who says she does not use Twitter or Facebook herself. To address the problem, the minister said the government wants to introduce a so-called "media literacy driver's license" in schools, whereby children would learn "how to deal with media responsibly."

'Cultural Differences'

The teacher's union GEW reacted to the new plans with a mixture of interest and caution. "How to conduct oneself in the virtual world and how to use new media are already topics in our schools on a daily basis," Michael Schulte, head of the local chapter of GEW, told SPIEGEL ONLINE. Schulte, however, said he had noticed "palpable cultural differences" between his generation and his students when it comes to new media. He fears that teachers "may not be equipped" with the necessary tools and resources for the new initiative. The state government still has to work out exactly how schools will help to make children fit for the digital age. Beate Hoffmann, a spokeswoman for the state's Media Ministry, told SPIEGEL ONLINE that an inter-agency study group will be established when politicians return from summer recess to decide on the scope, form and content of the new media literacy "driver's license." The government in North Rhine-Westphalia could turn to their colleagues in Bavaria for inspiration. A pilot project in which elementary school children are taught about different kinds of media with the aim of strengthening their independence started in 30 elementary schools there in the fall of 2009.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,710320,00.html

The Top 10 Movie Cliches

We've seen them so many times, we've forgotten that they're cliches.

Neglecting my blog

I've been neglecting this blog recently...

So I decided to start a new one http://bizarrerantings.blogspot.com/

I'll keep this up and running for more sensible SFW links and we'll see where it goes from there.

HERE'S why you should be worried about privacy on Facebook.

A team of software engineers and developers in San Francisco has created the ultimate in online voyeurism – a website that lets you search through the status updates of Facebook users all over the world. The site, called Openbook, scours status updates written by people who have not set them to private. At the time of writing, a search for "sad" returns more than two dozen status updates posted within the last 60 seconds, by users located anywhere from the US to the Middle East. For example, one user from Canberra said: "pretty good day today (: bit sad that i cant go to netball :(" Another from Phoenix, Arizona: "Had so much fun at applebee's! hahaha:D tonight was sad but good." The search results show each user's name, photo and a link to their profile alongside the full text of their status and can be filtered to include only men, only women or everyone. Some of the most recent search phrases on the site include "naked pictures", "going to a strip club" and "rectal exam". All three return dozens of results – though they might not be as raunchy as searchers were expecting.

The people behind Openbook say they created the site to draw attention to Facebook's recent controversial privacy changes that mean more of each user's information is set to public by default. "To us, it was immediately clear that many people's privacy was being breached," developer Peter Burns told news.com.au. "But in this raw form it was also clear that only very technical folks would understand what was happening. "Someone has to draw attention to this breach of privacy in a way that people will understand." Mr Burns created the site with fellow Californian geeks Will Moffat and James Home. He said the amount of private information being shared with the world through Facebook status updates was staggering. "We've seen people post their private medical history, their phone numbers, their home addresses, personal tragedies and private moments with loved ones," he said.

Openbook uses the tools Facebook makes available to developers who want to search its data – called APIs – to operate. The site doesn’t "hack" anyone's information, but relies on users forgetting to set their status updates to private. Mr Burns said many people didn't realise their information was public because Facebook didn't make a point of telling them. "They change the rules frequently and give no indication when you're sharing something with the entire planet," he said. And if Openbook seems a bit creepy, Mr Burns said there were worse ways people could take advantage of Facebook's "newly relaxed" privacy settings. "An insurance company could build a database of people engaging in risky behaviour or exhibiting precursors to expensive medical conditions," he said. "(Or) thieves could look for status updates indicating people would be out of town on extended vacations."

[via]

98pc support R18+ video game rating

A preliminary report from the Commonwealth Attorney-General's Department has found overwhelming support for the introduction of an R18+ classification for computer games. Almost 60,000 people responded to the Government's discussion paper on whether the National Classification Scheme should include an R18+ category. More than 98 per cent said they were in favour of it.

Electronic Frontiers Australia spokesman Geordie Guy says the response is not surprising because at the moment people are blocked from playing computer games that do not make it in the MA15+ classification. "Every developed country has a rating for adults to be able to access adult-type entertainment, (but) we don't have an R18+ rating for computer games in this country," he said. "The highest rating we can have for a computer game is MA15+, so if we can't squeeze it into an MA rating then it has to be refused classification and no adult can get their hands on it. "We're hoping the Government will listen to the overwhelming public response and fix that up."

The lack of an R18+ rating means particularly violent or adult-themed computer games are either censored or banned in Australia.

Australia does have an R18+ rating for movies.

[via]

Top 10 internet filter lies

by Eliza Cussen, 25 Mar 2010 - via The Punch

Just in case readers believe what people tell them, here are some of the things that have been said about internet filtering…and exactly why they shouldn’t be believed. Don't believe everything you read on the internet.

Lie # 1: The filter will help in the fight against child pornography.

I wish this were true. But it isn’t. Even child protection group, Save The Children, has come out exposing Conroy’s plan as unworkable and the wrong way to protect children online. The filter will not (and Stephen Conroy admits this) work for the areas where unwanted material actually lives, namely: peer-to-peer networking, instant messaging, torrents, direct emails and chat rooms.

Lie # 2: The filter won’t slow connection speeds.

The filter is not equipped to process large bandwidth sites such as YouTube or ABC iView. Google, owner of YouTube, has said that filtering such volume sites is not technologically possible, without an extremely serious impact on internet access speeds. Why? Imagine a tub of yoghurt. In this tub there are a few billion bacteria- almost all of which are good for you. But just one of those germs is believed to be salmonella. In order to get rid of the bad one but keep the billions of good ones, every single germ has to be checked for nastiness. And meanwhile you’re still waiting for your smoothie. No wonder this kind of a filtering won’t work.

Lie #3: Conroy’s filter will stop your kids viewing harmful stuff online.

The filter is designed to block material which is defined Refused Classification by the classification review board. This means that the ISP filter won’t help you protect your child from viewing things that you might prefer they don’t see - only parental control can do that. It’s a bit like hiring a really expensive babysitter who lets your six-year-old watch whatever they want. On the internet you simply can’t outsource parenting.

Lie #4: The filter has been proven in Government trials.

Testing and scaling are two very different things when it comes to filtering mass amounts of content. On top of this Stephen Conroy’s test criteria appear to only have been formulated after the test began. With that kind of logic we should be glad Conroy isn’t designing the national curriculum.

Lie #5: This plan is no different to what is already done with books and films.

OK, so that’s a little bit true. But that’s the problem. We don’t use books and films to communicate one to one or store our family photos. A mandatory filter would give the government permission to scrutinise a space which is both public and private in a way current censorship laws could never allow. The mass concerns of the hundred thousand plus Australians who’ve taken action on this issue are beginning to be heard with the Government appearing to cave in on whether Government officials or classification board members review websites that find themselves on the list. But here’s the point – while with movies we can keep an eye on the classification board and what they are blocking, there’s no way to know which sites will be on the blacklist under the Government’s current proposal. Informing the public of which url’s are on the list may have its own problems. Clearly then, censoring the internet just can’t work (and we’re only half way through our list).

Lie #6: The ISP filter is similar to ones in other Western democracies.

Senator Conroy made this claim and then later admitted that in fact no Western democracy has a mandatory ISP level filter designed like Australia’s in. Surely we don’t want to join countries like Iran, China and Saudi Arabia with their harsh and ineffective censorship approach.

Lie #7: The filter will not make the internet more expensive.

The filter itself is pricey. The Government has set aside $44m for the scheme for four years. In 2004 a government report said “given the limited benefits of an ISP-level filtering system, the costs of a mandated requirement to filter do not appear justified.” The same Government report estimated that a filter of this kind would cost $45m to establish (the equivalent to putting over 300 AFP officers on the online beat) and $33m each year there after. Because much of the burden of maintaining the filter may fall to ISPs it isn’t unfeasible to imagine the costs being passed on to consumers.

Lie #8: If you’re anti mandatory filtering you’re pro child porn.
Conroy, through his argument in parliament and in the media, has constructed a universe where those who question mandatory filtering are, by extension, in support of child pornography. Surely he wouldn’t accuse people within his own party of being pro child porn. Would he?

Lie #9: The filter would be impenetrable.

No matter how smart filtering technology may be, there is always someone smarter. The current model of filter has already been cracked. In fact, there’s a good chance your children can show you how. What’s more, organisations around the world are already developing ways to get around the filters of oppressive regimes. One that’s doing a particularly good job in helping Iranians get around their Government filter is Access Now (hyperlink:http://www.accessnow.org/), founded with the support of organisation’s like Avaaz.org, MoveOn and Australian organisation GetUp.org.au).

Lie #10: An ISP filter is the best option out there.

Calls to provide parents with tools to control their children’s access to the internet are well founded and practical. An optional, computer level filter would be far more efficient and cost effective without handing over unnecessary power to a government body. And this is the plan that Australians actually want. GetUp’s Galaxy phone poll found that 86% of Australians think that parents, not the Government or Internet Service Providers, should have the primary responsibility for protecting children online.

Let’s just hope Senator Conroy read’s this post – I would love to read his reply.

VIOLENT video games like Call of Duty and Resident Evil make you SMARTER, new research has revealed.

By CHRIS POLLARD

The study says shoot-to-kill video games improve quick-thinking and make players more able to cope with the demands of modern life. It refutes claims video games turn teenagers into violent criminals — and argues parents should encourage their kids to enjoy a bit of virtual blood-and-guts. The team of researchers from the Netherlands also say games consoles should be installed in NURSING HOMES. Assistant Professor Dr Lorenza Colzato, of Leiden University's psychology department, said: "Playing video games helps the natural reflexes, it makes players more responsive and able to switch between different tasks. "This type of thinking is very practical for the modern lifestyle where people are doing so many things at the one time. "They may be checking their email, then taking a phone call. They need to be flexible."

She added: "If someone likes violent video games it does not mean they will engage in anti-social behaviour. Parents should not be scared to let their children play video games." Prof Colzato said the skills learned from the video games would help people in fast-paced jobs. And they could even help elderly people fight off the signs of ageing. She said: "If elderly people had a lot of problems with their thinking they could play video games to improve their minds. "This could become a common nursing home activity, it would be a successful strategy."

The report, compiled at the Leiden University and the University of Amsterdam, was published in the journal Frontiers in Cognition.

Read more: http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/2944067/Video-games-good-for-brain.html?OTC-RSS&ATTR=News#ixzz0m0HnkLBW

A New School Teaches Students Through Videogames

By Susannah F. Locke via popsci.com

A school uses videogame-based lessons to teach a new generation of kids

An 11-year-old boy taps furiously on a laptop, blasting enemies as he weaves through a maze. They wipe him out before he can reach the end—game over. Frustrated, he opens the game’s programming window, adjusts the gravity setting, and this time bounds over the baddies. Victory!

This could be the future of American education, and that’s not necessarily a bad thing. The Quest to Learn school opened last September in Manhattan, welcoming the first class of sixth-graders who will learn almost entirely through videogame-inspired activities, an educational strategy geared to keep kids engaged and prepare them for high-tech careers.

Ever since Pong, videogames have outperformed teachers in one key way: They command attention for hours. “Games are exceptionally good at engaging kids,” says Quest’s main designer Katie Salen, a game designer and technology professor at the New School university. “They drop kids into complex problems where they fail and fail, but they try again and again.” She knew, though, that when kids face tough problems in school, they sometimes just give up, which is partly why only a third of eighth-graders earn “proficient” math scores on national assessment tests.

With this in mind (and with MacArthur Foundation funding), three years ago Salen started the Institute of Play, a nonprofit collaboration of game designers and learning experts who create games to teach school material. After successful tests in city classrooms, the group worked with the New York City Department of Education to open Quest to Learn.

This year’s 72-student class is split into four groups that rotate through five courses during the day: Codeworlds (math/English), Being, Space and Place (social studies/English), The Way Things Work (math/science), Sports for the Mind (game design), and Wellness (health/PE). Instead of slogging through problem sets, students learn collaboratively in group projects that require an understanding of subjects in the New York State curriculum. The school’s model draws on 30 years of research showing that people learn best when they’re in a social context that puts new knowledge to use. Kids learn more by, say, pretending to be Spartan spies gathering intel on Athens than by memorizing facts about ancient Greece.

Most sixth-graders don’t expect to ever need to identify integers, but at Quest, it’s the key to a code-breaking game. In another class, when creatures called Troggles needed help moving heavy objects, the class made a video instructing how long a ramp they should build to minimize the force they needed to apply. “They’re picking concepts up as well as, if not better than, at other schools,” says Quest’s math and science teacher Ameer Mourad. Beyond make-believe, Quest is the first middle school to teach videogame design. Salen says building games teaches students about complex systems, which will prepare them for growing fields such as bioinformatics.

The plan is for this class to attend Quest through high school, adding more sixth-graders every year. Although students must pass the annual standardized tests that all public students do to keep a school open, educators so far are impressed. “We need new ways to create a passion for learning,” says Gregg Betheil, a New York City Department of Education director who helped Quest’s application. “The planning has been extremely thoughtful. It seemed like a chance worth taking.”

Salen has pilot studies to back up that risk; however, she won’t know if the school prepares kids for real-world success until the first class graduates. But Quest has already proved itself in one area: The kids love it. “It’s fun,” says student Nadine Clements. Her least favorite part of school? “Dismissal.”