5.4 Parental Priories and the Quest for Values


5.4 Parental Priories and the Quest for Values

In the Middle Ages, the Church acted as the primary control mechanism to influence social morals and structured the behaviour of individuals with ritual and dogma. The standards of conduct controlling society were implicit in the rules of chivalry and explicit in the guidelines expressed in the Bible and other church doctrine. These guidelines to societal behaviour evolved from the Roman-Judaeo-Christian legacy of morals and ethics passed down over the ages to the present day. These morals now influence the development of the Internet, in many cases without considering the long-term implications of the involvement of morals and technology. Nowadays, in particular, it is clear that cultures around the globe do not share the same ethical, moral or religious values; what will then happen if one nation’s ethics and morals start hindering the development of Internet technology in another nation? Likewise, if the Internet has no limits and no parental guidance is available, how can one protect one’s children from its potentially damaging contents?

The technology industry, the media and finally the government have all jumped on the high-profile media hype of protecting children from Internet pornography. Special interest groups and the government, each having very different motives, are all supporting their own particular agenda. Let us examine these motives and understand what the implications of these socio-economic behaviours are and how they are similar to a set of motives employed by medieval society to control the values of the population. It is crucial to understand this progression of moralistic behaviour from the Middle Ages to the present day as this behaviour continues to affect individuals today. Even if the majority of western society is distancing itself from religious values, the morals and ethics behind the religious doctrines are still very powerful. In eastern societies, this is even clearer, as the importance of religious values is more evident. In the western world, for example, the morals of one generation, and what is or is not ‘socially acceptable’, change constantly. What was considered pornographic in the 1950s is no longer thought to be so. What was considered outrageous behaviour in the 1960s is today perfectly acceptable. The question of what is offensive to society is relative, and is not only attributable to generational issues (as said above, geography and culture play a very important part). In a world that is constantly moving towards globalized values, how can we ensure that different levels of tolerance will not translate into censorship?

In the digitally connected world, media hypes are the single most important behaviour creators. The industry has the clearest motive: to sell software by latching onto the anti-pornography media hype. Companies get free advertising and sell a lot of software that caters to the need for an electronic babysitter, one which will prevent one’s child or teenager from meeting a paedophile on a seemingly innocent chatroom. Frightened parents caught up in the fear of child abduction and moral decay seek to protect their children from visiting pornographic sites by using software filters and other censorship mechanisms. The early users of the Internet did not even know of or how to access pornography until it was reported by the media. As pornography was tucked away in obscure places that only a very experienced netizen (a citizen of the Internet) could find (that is, before search engines), the media was indeed responsible for creating the curiosity and the opportunity for children to access pornographic sites. Therefore, it could be assumed that most children discovered dirty pictures on the Internet thanks to the press coverage – which also reduced the pornographers’ advertising costs. On the other hand, the media highlighted the easy access to all sites on the Internet. One could argue that making Internet pornography news is legitimate; however, encouraging parents to become frightened by using isolated cases as a general rule is mere sensationalism.

The other fear that the media brought to our attention was the phenomena of children meeting the lurking masses of rapists, child abusers and abductors waiting at every Internet service provider’s (ISP) corner. Yes, there are reported cases. However, to prove any point anyone can find any number of isolated incidences that are statistically flawed. As a percentage of total crimes, the Internet abduction is miniscule in comparison with similar crimes in people’s own neighbourhoods. The Internet, like any medium that gives children access to material that is objectionable to society, must be regulated by parents in the home. Parenting begins with the individual families, not with technology. If government, for example, passes a law that all pornographic sites are forbidden and anyone who looks at them will be prosecuted, this would rightfully be considered an invasion of civil rights. The responsibility to educate and promote individual choice – and choose according to one’s values – belongs to the individual. More can be done by a parent playing an active role in a child’s access to the Internet than any software you can buy.

We must not forget that pornography is a current preoccupation of western nations with regards to the Internet and the freedom of access to information that it promotes. In other nations, however, the issues of Internet freedom and censorship – either cryptically masked as protectionism or openly referred to as such – are quite diverse. In China, where traditional media outlets are censored, the Internet seemed off limits until recently, when the government punished three websites which were allegedly divulging ‘harmful information’ about China.[140] The fact that the punishment coincided with China’s defeat in its World Cup football debut against Costa Rica, when members of Internet chatrooms expressed their frustration with the Chinese team, made it very clear that in China the Internet is not free from censorship – and in a matter which any western nation would find most trivial. As always, it is important to remember that different countries have different cultures and values, and not all nations will react the same way to the same threats and opportunities.

Protectionism

Individuals seeking to protect themselves and their children from disturbing contents on the Internet are gravitating towards solutions offered by two avenues of thought. The first avenue is that of individualized censorship, or enclaves of similar values. A self-censorship or family unit regulation of information takes the form of purchasing software packages such as Filtered Internet Solutions (FIS)[141] or WiseChoice.[142] In this type of service, pornographic sources are identified and filtered from the viewer. One could argue that the sales pitches used by the majority of these vendors are not selling security, but capitalizing on fear, as indicated by NetAngle:

Unfortunately, there are dangers associated with allowing your children to surf the Internet unsupervised. Much like you would not allow your child to purchase alcohol or see an X-rated movie, you should not risk exposing them to the filth and evil that exists on the Internet.[143]

In some cases, search engines can be blocked. Needless to say, children today are very clever and often more computer-savvy than their parents; to bypass the rules and gain access to pictures or websites containing pornography is therefore as easy as finding one’s uncle’s hidden Playboy magazines. These intervention technologies work by using filters based on word compositions, in which certain words can block certain websites, eMail attachments and so on. In other cases, the technology works using algorithms which analyse the physical contents of a file (for example searching for photos with flesh tones) to determine its offensive nature and duly delete it or prevent the opening of the file. A side effect of this particular technology was suffered by a consultant who innocently eMailed his PowerPoint presentation to a client, only to have it rejected time after time by the corporate filtering software. An analysis of the presentation showed its disgraceful content: one of the images used was of a woman’s head showing a significant part of flesh in the neck area. It happened to be a scanned photograph of a 10 note and the reprehensible image was Queen Elizabeth’s neck.

To thwart the use of text-based filtering, pornographers in some cases simply changed the names of files containing illicit pictures, calling them ‘biologyhomework.jpg’ instead of ‘bignakedbreasts.jpg’. Filters that employ photo analysis have been bypassed by adjusting colour levels and placing text at the bottom of photos to indicate how to reset the colour back to the original.

The second avenue is the establishment of enclaves of similar values, that is, locations on the Internet where the content is carefully controlled and prefiltered to support a specific ideology or set of common beliefs. Christianliving.com is an example of a social enclave which promotes a sense of protectionism by advocating a particular environment. As expressed on the Christianliving.com website:

Rest easy: our tamper-proof, adjustable server-based ‘Smart-Filter’ system safeguards your family from online pornography and other harmful influences, so you and your loved ones can surf safely. And our filter is optional, so you can also sign up with Christianliving.com without a filter.[144]

Clearly, the ‘optional filter’ is probably targeted at part-time Christians or people struggling with their own personal morality.

These technological solutions, regardless of moral motivation or simple profit incentive, do exemplify an individual’s right to make a choice and reduce the need for government intervention. Scholars, theologians and industry experts have been engaged in the debate over promoting the regulation of the Internet by government. Although they are not united in a solution, they recognize that government-based censorship in one area leads society down a slippery slope from which it is often difficult to recover. Castells describes the paradox that the Internet brings to society:

We are living in an age of ‘informed bewilderment’, in which the elasticity of the Internet only intensifies the contradictions with which we have to live. The Internet, to give one example, genuinely expands individual freedom and yet also enables corporations and governments to exercise more control and surveillance over what we do.[145]

The issue of the preservation of morals, the enforcement of ethics and the control of societal behaviour will continue to be the subject of great debate within national boundaries and become more intense as individual nations begin to realize that citizens in cyberspace can cross international boundaries in the wink of an eye. That said, the one shinning light through this dark cloud of Internet opprobrium is that it does reduce the amount of time children spend on other pursuits, as noted by Bridge:

The internet, more specifically access to global information is significantly affecting the lives or at least the behaviours of children. Children use the internet mostly at home, and in many cases are reducing the amount of time spent watching television.[146]

Here again, the problems associated with the issue of access to materials is not a technological problem but a social one. The computer use and network security policy of Southern Utah University (SUU) addresses this problem and places the matter into the hands of the individual:

The rights of academic freedom and freedom of expression apply to the use of university computing resources and university-hosted web sites of faculty and students. So, too, however, do the responsibilities and limitations associated with those rights. The use of university computing resources, like the use of any other university-provided resources and like any other university-related activity, is subject to the normal requirements of legal and ethical behavior within the university community. Thus, legitimate use of a computer, computer system, or network does not extend to what ever is technically possible. Although some limitations are built into computer operating systems and networks, those limitations are not the sole restrictions on what is permissible. Users must abide by all applicable restrictions, whether or not they are built into the operating system or network and whether or not they can be circumvented by technical means.[147]

Simply, the SUU is declaring that people using a public medium of communication within an academic environment must use common sense in adhering to the rules. If you want to engage in activities that might be considered offensive to some people in the community, you should go and buy your own computer and use your own service. The beauty of this policy is that it requires people to use the world’s most advanced computing system to solve the problem: the brain.

The most upbeat policy on the use of the ‘porn filled Internet’ comes from the least likely source, the Holy See:

And even though the world of social communications ‘may at times seem at odds with the Christian message, it also offers unique opportunities for proclaiming the saving truth of Christ to the whole human family. Consider_… the positive capacities of the Internet to carry religious information and teaching beyond all barriers and frontiers. Such a wide audience would have been beyond the wildest imaginings of those who preached the Gospel before us … Catholics should not be afraid to throw open the doors of social communications to Christ, so that his Good News may be heard from the housetops of the world’.[148]

The Vatican’s policy on the Internet acknowledges that there is a darker side to how parts of society use the technology, but recognizes the enormous potential to influence and perhaps lead people in a different direction. That said, technology can be applied to address the social, moral or behavioural problems in two ways: by special interest groups wishing to impress hidden agendas on others, or in a benevolent manner, promoting personal choice.

[140]R. McGregor, ‘Websites Punished as China Acts to Control Content’, Financial Times, June 6 (2002).

[141]Filtered Internet Solutions, available at http://www.filteredinternet solutions.com.

[142]WiseChoice pornography filtering software, available at: http://www. wisechoice.net/.

[143]NetAngle anti pornography ISP, available at http://www.netangle.com.

[144]See www.Christianliving.com.

[145]M. Castells, The Internet Galaxy: Reflections on Internet, Business and Society. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001).

[146]S. Bridge, ‘The New Generation’, eBusiness, Vol. 6, May (2000) p. 19.

[147]Southern Utah University, computer, use and network security policy, Available at: http://www.suu.edu/pub/policies/, May 2002.

[148]Vatican Policy on the Internet. John Paul II, Message for the 35th World Communications Day, n. 3, May 27, 2000, as cited in Pontifical Council For Social Communications, The Church And Internet, available at http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/pccs/documents/ rc_pc_pccs_doc_20020228_church-internet_en.html.




Thinking Beyond Technology. Creating New Value in Business
Thinking Beyond Technology: Creating New Value in Business
ISBN: 1403902550
EAN: 2147483647
Year: 2002
Pages: 77

flylib.com © 2008-2017.
If you may any questions please contact us: flylib@qtcs.net