How will protect children from harmful information?
On November 29, Roskomnadzor opened the discussion on the “Concept of Children's Information Security” on the Internet forum with the ambiguous name WeCanTrust.Net . I tried to analyze this concept and understand what awaits us.
The concept is 2469 pages of text with misprints and poorly formatted tables. And although the concept is comprehensive - it covers all the information surrounding children, from television to household items - yet it is primarily aimed at regulating the Internet so that it does not pose a risk to children from 0 years of age.
Armed with the priority of the rights of the child over the rights of adults, the state is preparing to solve the problem of information security of children at any cost. Whether this is a reasonable price and whether these measures will lead to the desired result is questionable.
As we already know, if the state comes to the Internet to protect children, it goes to everyone. What are we and our children to expect in connection with the adoption of this concept?
')
Firstly, we should not have any illusions - the course on Internet blocking will continue.
Although the authors of the concept admit that blocking websites is “chasing an elusive shadow,” they also believe that the registry of banned websites functions successfully and performs “the role of a scalpel cutting out harmful areas of information on the Internet.” Therefore, considerable attention in the concept is devoted to responses to criticism of locks, for which the authors resort to international legislative experience.
Thus, a selective analysis of international law helps authors justify the need for a violation of freedom of speech. That is, the provisions of international laws are interpreted as allowing any restrictions on the freedom of speech for the sake of maintaining morality.
At the same time, our researchers do not take into account additional conditions: in which cases it is possible to introduce censorship, to what extent the harm from these restrictions is proportionate to the benefits. The search for a balance of rights - the safety of the child vs the freedom of an adult - is simply not a question. Only priority is given to the right of children to information security.
The most serious of the arguments of opponents of blocking, according to the authors of the concept, is that blocking by IP address entails the closure of bona fide sites located next to the offender. The authors of the concept recognize this argument as fair, but they do not find it sufficient reason to stop blocking by IP address. Just because they do not see other measures to stop the crime.
As for the issue of losing the “connectivity” of the Internet as a result of deleting pages and blocking traffic, including transit traffic, it seems that it was still misunderstood by lawyers, so it is proposed to discuss it separately with experts.
Thus, the authors consider it “appropriate at this stage to preserve the procedure of blocking network addresses in Federal Law # 149”.
The transfer of prohibitive functions from the executive to the judiciary also seems impossible because of the huge amount of sites with “forbidden information”, which will lead to the blocking of the activities of the courts themselves.
Moreover, in order to control the implementation of the law by Internet providers, it is soon proposed to introduce “more stringent licensing requirements for the provision of communication services, providing for the mandatory provision of content filtering services”.
In legislative terms, all the proposals of the concept are also reduced to prohibitive or restrictive proposals. First, it concerns the information about suicide. Since so far there has been criminal liability only for bringing a person to suicide, neither suicide propaganda nor information about suicide methods was prohibited. However, this did not prevent the blocking of sites on this basis. Now, the Administrative Code proposes to add an article “on the promotion of suicide and the dissemination of information on methods of suicide” with the responsibility of fines and confiscation of the equipment on which this information is made.
It is also proposed to level the differences between the Administrative Code and Federal Law # 149 in relation to the dissemination of information about drugs. So, now the Administrative Code assumes responsibility only for “propaganda and illegal advertising” of drugs, and in Federal Law # 149 “information about methods and methods of development, production and use of narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances and their precursors, places of acquisition of such funds, is identified as illegal substances and their precursors, on the methods and places of cultivation of narcotic plants. " Since the authors could not determine which of the formulations is better, it was decided to Solomon to add each of them before alignment, i.e. CAO supplement the ban on informing, and the Federal Law # 149 - a ban on propaganda. That is, it turns out that there should be no information about drugs at all now - neither good nor bad.
It is unlikely that such an approach can be called adequate. Indeed, according to the results of research presented in the same concept, almost 70% of schoolchildren aged 6-12 years old call the Internet the main source of information. Parents as a source of information are in fourth place, after friends and school. It can be assumed that for high school students this percentage will be even higher. Therefore, if adolescents will not be able to get any objective and scientifically confirmed information about drugs, for example, from the same on Wikipedia, they will receive it from “authoritative” sources on the street where there are no restrictions on the dissemination of information.
Surprisingly, the above-described concept blocks conflict with the psychological research cited here about the problem of protecting children from harmful information. The study says a lot about the need for a pedagogical, psychological, historical and cultural approach to the assessment of the usefulness and harmfulness of information. Here, psychologists advise not to remove potentially harmful information, but, depending on the cultural and historical context and level of development of the child, to give him an explanation of what he saw.
The recommendations of psychologists are essentially ignored. And so, in general, the concept replaces the concept of “information security,” which should include not only a restriction on harmful information, but also access to useful information, “a ban on the dissemination of prohibited information.”
The very phrase “prohibited information” is very doubtful. Information is an objective reality that does not disappear anywhere, no matter what prohibitions are imposed on it. Information is an integral part of the phenomenon, as long as there is a phenomenon or memory of it, it is difficult to do something with information.
The question of determining the correct terminology is half the solution. The false approach here is already laid, for example, using the definition of “information products”. The approach to “works of art” as to “products” also gives rise to the possibility of restricting access to it, regardless of “artistic value”.
If the authors of the concept thought in terms of “artistic value”, “works of culture”, then perhaps they would remember that even fairy tales for the smallest children sometimes cause fear, horror or panic. This is the psychological and therapeutic effect of these ancient works - to teach how to control your emotions. But according to the logic of the “defenders” of children, now any fairy tale in which good does not conquer evil can be identified as “informational products” that “harm the health, moral and spiritual development of children.”
Therefore, the proposal to recommend providers to voluntarily assume obligations to protect children from “harmful information” seems somewhat untenable. How providers can take on the role of parents and teachers in evaluating information is completely unclear. Moreover, different information can be called harmful at different ages. Kids can grieve the fact that Santa Claus does not exist. And adolescents will already be useful to be informed about sexual relations. In the end, children sometimes produce information themselves that can hurt other children. This also applies to Internet harassment, and posting various video clips.
As we see, the concept as a whole raises a lot of questions and concerns. However, it should be noted that at least it expressed the desire to move from a “prohibiting” strategy to a “developing” one. In the legal part of the concept even an analysis of the manifestation of the independence of cyberspace of John Barlow was discovered. The authors note that, “with all its ambiguity and inconsistency, it suggests that when creating mechanisms for regulating and self-regulating the Internet, one should not forget about the basic principles - freedom of speech, the right of a person to access information, the right to personal expression”. This suggests that the authorities at least try to understand the Internet.
But unfortunately, so far the “developing” strategy remains just a wish, and the whole spirit of the concept is predominantly prohibitive.
Obviously, the information security of children is an important and serious problem. But it is also clear that blocking websites and expanding the range of “forbidden information”, which is inaccessible not only to children, but also adults, like any prohibitive measures on the Internet, cannot lead to long-term positive results, especially considering that information in network doubles every year. This means that with this approach, the state is doomed to be in the role of a catch-up, and adults in the role of children.
Recently it was confirmed that by the end of 2013 a Cyrillic domain will appear. CHILDREN. At its base it would be possible to create an island of child safety. It is important to understand that the state itself is not able to cope with this task. It seems that the freedom-loving Internet can count on a weakening of regulation on the part of the state only if it takes upon itself the issue of protecting children.
While on the forum Rokomnadzor (We Can Believe No) left only 5 comments. And if we do not express our opinions, fears and suggestions there, the ILO will happily report that the public discussions were successful, there were no objections. Children are in danger! Vasya, cut the cable!
UPD1: Added discussion threads on the RKN forum
Against the expansion of the list of prohibited information
Age Periodization
Creation of the children's Internet
UPD2: Another new thread of discussion on the RKN forum.
Concept being
The legitimacy of this public comment
I will open the Code on any page
The concept is 2469 pages of text with misprints and poorly formatted tables. And although the concept is comprehensive - it covers all the information surrounding children, from television to household items - yet it is primarily aimed at regulating the Internet so that it does not pose a risk to children from 0 years of age.
Armed with the priority of the rights of the child over the rights of adults, the state is preparing to solve the problem of information security of children at any cost. Whether this is a reasonable price and whether these measures will lead to the desired result is questionable.
As we already know, if the state comes to the Internet to protect children, it goes to everyone. What are we and our children to expect in connection with the adoption of this concept?
')
Firstly, we should not have any illusions - the course on Internet blocking will continue.
Although the authors of the concept admit that blocking websites is “chasing an elusive shadow,” they also believe that the registry of banned websites functions successfully and performs “the role of a scalpel cutting out harmful areas of information on the Internet.” Therefore, considerable attention in the concept is devoted to responses to criticism of locks, for which the authors resort to international legislative experience.
Thus, a selective analysis of international law helps authors justify the need for a violation of freedom of speech. That is, the provisions of international laws are interpreted as allowing any restrictions on the freedom of speech for the sake of maintaining morality.
At the same time, our researchers do not take into account additional conditions: in which cases it is possible to introduce censorship, to what extent the harm from these restrictions is proportionate to the benefits. The search for a balance of rights - the safety of the child vs the freedom of an adult - is simply not a question. Only priority is given to the right of children to information security.
The most serious of the arguments of opponents of blocking, according to the authors of the concept, is that blocking by IP address entails the closure of bona fide sites located next to the offender. The authors of the concept recognize this argument as fair, but they do not find it sufficient reason to stop blocking by IP address. Just because they do not see other measures to stop the crime.
As for the issue of losing the “connectivity” of the Internet as a result of deleting pages and blocking traffic, including transit traffic, it seems that it was still misunderstood by lawyers, so it is proposed to discuss it separately with experts.
Thus, the authors consider it “appropriate at this stage to preserve the procedure of blocking network addresses in Federal Law # 149”.
The transfer of prohibitive functions from the executive to the judiciary also seems impossible because of the huge amount of sites with “forbidden information”, which will lead to the blocking of the activities of the courts themselves.
Moreover, in order to control the implementation of the law by Internet providers, it is soon proposed to introduce “more stringent licensing requirements for the provision of communication services, providing for the mandatory provision of content filtering services”.
In legislative terms, all the proposals of the concept are also reduced to prohibitive or restrictive proposals. First, it concerns the information about suicide. Since so far there has been criminal liability only for bringing a person to suicide, neither suicide propaganda nor information about suicide methods was prohibited. However, this did not prevent the blocking of sites on this basis. Now, the Administrative Code proposes to add an article “on the promotion of suicide and the dissemination of information on methods of suicide” with the responsibility of fines and confiscation of the equipment on which this information is made.
It is also proposed to level the differences between the Administrative Code and Federal Law # 149 in relation to the dissemination of information about drugs. So, now the Administrative Code assumes responsibility only for “propaganda and illegal advertising” of drugs, and in Federal Law # 149 “information about methods and methods of development, production and use of narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances and their precursors, places of acquisition of such funds, is identified as illegal substances and their precursors, on the methods and places of cultivation of narcotic plants. " Since the authors could not determine which of the formulations is better, it was decided to Solomon to add each of them before alignment, i.e. CAO supplement the ban on informing, and the Federal Law # 149 - a ban on propaganda. That is, it turns out that there should be no information about drugs at all now - neither good nor bad.
It is unlikely that such an approach can be called adequate. Indeed, according to the results of research presented in the same concept, almost 70% of schoolchildren aged 6-12 years old call the Internet the main source of information. Parents as a source of information are in fourth place, after friends and school. It can be assumed that for high school students this percentage will be even higher. Therefore, if adolescents will not be able to get any objective and scientifically confirmed information about drugs, for example, from the same on Wikipedia, they will receive it from “authoritative” sources on the street where there are no restrictions on the dissemination of information.
Surprisingly, the above-described concept blocks conflict with the psychological research cited here about the problem of protecting children from harmful information. The study says a lot about the need for a pedagogical, psychological, historical and cultural approach to the assessment of the usefulness and harmfulness of information. Here, psychologists advise not to remove potentially harmful information, but, depending on the cultural and historical context and level of development of the child, to give him an explanation of what he saw.
The recommendations of psychologists are essentially ignored. And so, in general, the concept replaces the concept of “information security,” which should include not only a restriction on harmful information, but also access to useful information, “a ban on the dissemination of prohibited information.”
The very phrase “prohibited information” is very doubtful. Information is an objective reality that does not disappear anywhere, no matter what prohibitions are imposed on it. Information is an integral part of the phenomenon, as long as there is a phenomenon or memory of it, it is difficult to do something with information.
The question of determining the correct terminology is half the solution. The false approach here is already laid, for example, using the definition of “information products”. The approach to “works of art” as to “products” also gives rise to the possibility of restricting access to it, regardless of “artistic value”.
If the authors of the concept thought in terms of “artistic value”, “works of culture”, then perhaps they would remember that even fairy tales for the smallest children sometimes cause fear, horror or panic. This is the psychological and therapeutic effect of these ancient works - to teach how to control your emotions. But according to the logic of the “defenders” of children, now any fairy tale in which good does not conquer evil can be identified as “informational products” that “harm the health, moral and spiritual development of children.”
Therefore, the proposal to recommend providers to voluntarily assume obligations to protect children from “harmful information” seems somewhat untenable. How providers can take on the role of parents and teachers in evaluating information is completely unclear. Moreover, different information can be called harmful at different ages. Kids can grieve the fact that Santa Claus does not exist. And adolescents will already be useful to be informed about sexual relations. In the end, children sometimes produce information themselves that can hurt other children. This also applies to Internet harassment, and posting various video clips.
As we see, the concept as a whole raises a lot of questions and concerns. However, it should be noted that at least it expressed the desire to move from a “prohibiting” strategy to a “developing” one. In the legal part of the concept even an analysis of the manifestation of the independence of cyberspace of John Barlow was discovered. The authors note that, “with all its ambiguity and inconsistency, it suggests that when creating mechanisms for regulating and self-regulating the Internet, one should not forget about the basic principles - freedom of speech, the right of a person to access information, the right to personal expression”. This suggests that the authorities at least try to understand the Internet.
But unfortunately, so far the “developing” strategy remains just a wish, and the whole spirit of the concept is predominantly prohibitive.
Obviously, the information security of children is an important and serious problem. But it is also clear that blocking websites and expanding the range of “forbidden information”, which is inaccessible not only to children, but also adults, like any prohibitive measures on the Internet, cannot lead to long-term positive results, especially considering that information in network doubles every year. This means that with this approach, the state is doomed to be in the role of a catch-up, and adults in the role of children.
Recently it was confirmed that by the end of 2013 a Cyrillic domain will appear. CHILDREN. At its base it would be possible to create an island of child safety. It is important to understand that the state itself is not able to cope with this task. It seems that the freedom-loving Internet can count on a weakening of regulation on the part of the state only if it takes upon itself the issue of protecting children.
While on the forum Rokomnadzor (We Can Believe No) left only 5 comments. And if we do not express our opinions, fears and suggestions there, the ILO will happily report that the public discussions were successful, there were no objections. Children are in danger! Vasya, cut the cable!
UPD1: Added discussion threads on the RKN forum
Against the expansion of the list of prohibited information
Age Periodization
Creation of the children's Internet
UPD2: Another new thread of discussion on the RKN forum.
Concept being
The legitimacy of this public comment
I will open the Code on any page
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/205184/
All Articles