Should we police the net?

Quote :

People searching the web for information on suicide are more likely
to find sites encouraging the act than offering support, a study says.
Researchers used four search engines to look for suicide-related sites, the British Medical Journal said.
The three most frequently occurring sites were all pro-suicide,
prompting researchers to call for anti-suicide web pages to be
prioritised.
Mental health campaigners said such sites preyed on vulnerable people.

From the BBC (click here for full story)

Should there be an EU approach, or even a joint EU-American approach to try and ban these sort of websites? Whilst the net generation may have contributed to the rise in suicide, it does present some useful tools for those dealing with depression, if properly used. However, should our Governments go after these websites through various means in order to take them off the net?

johnfás wrote:

Quote :

People searching the web for information on suicide are more likely
to find sites encouraging the act than offering support, a study says.
Researchers used four search engines to look for suicide-related sites, the British Medical Journal said.
The three most frequently occurring sites were all pro-suicide,
prompting researchers to call for anti-suicide web pages to be
prioritised.
Mental health campaigners said such sites preyed on vulnerable people.

From the BBC (click here for full story)

Should there be an EU approach, or even a joint EU-American approach to try and ban these sort of websites? Whilst the net generation may have contributed to the rise in suicide, it does present some useful tools for those dealing with depression, if properly used. However, should our Governments go after these websites through various means in order to take them off the net?

Hmm. An online morality police? Where does that end?

ibis wrote:

Where does that end?

That is precisely the question. However, I doubt a book on how to kill yourself would be permitted on the shelves of most European countries. What is the difference.

In fairness this kind of behaviour is always going to find an outlet, though that's no reason for fatalism. Policing the web would be equivilant to censorship of sorts, which people nowadays don't take lightly.

I think myself that banning this kind of behaviour (encouraging suicide, not suicide itself) only makes the problem worse, and it deflects attention from efforts to prevent suicide in the first place.

And do companies like Google have a responsibility in all of this?

An interesting hypothetical (albeit horrific) situation would be a suit in tort against Google when a minor gathered information of this kind having searched Google and then carried out the act. I wonder if the courts would hold that there is a duty of care on the part of Google when they know that children use their search engine.

johnfás wrote:

ibis wrote:

Where does that end?

That is precisely the question. However, I doubt a book on how to kill yourself would be permitted on the shelves of most European countries. What is the difference.

Well, sales would be dreadful - the better the book, the less repeat business.

Why not turn the question round - why should books on how to kill yourself not be available on bookshelves?

If the courts exist in the real world then I doubt they'll find google responsible (besides, I suspect Google can afford a decent lawyer). I just can't see any sort of legal obligations arising here, certainly not with the web in its current form. It can change of course; there was a time before Google, remember.

The question of whether Google has a moral responsibility is a different question, but not one for this forum.

ibis wrote:

Why not turn the question round - why should books on how to kill yourself not be available on bookshelves?

My point was not that a shop would choose not to stock them - but that they would be banned. It is incredibly rare these days that Censorship of Publications Board would censor a book, however in cases like that it would not be beyond the realms of possibility that they would. There exists in ireland a Censor of Films, a Censor of Publications, an Advertising Standards Authority and so on. Is it therefore not hypocritical that the net is not subject to the same level of statutory intervention as other outlets. I am merely posing the question from a neutral position. Perhaps we should do the converse and get rid of the three boards highlighted above.

905 wrote:

The question of whether Google has a moral responsibility is a different question, but not one for this forum.

The question is an important one as to whether or not a court would impose liability on them though. I am merely hypothising againg, but the 'neighbour principle' is a well settled doctrine in the Common Law.

Lord Atkin wrote:

You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you
can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour. Who,
then, in law, is my neighbour? The answer seems to be — persons who are
so closely and directly affected by my act that I ought reasonably to
have them in contemplation as being so affected when I am directing my
mind to the acts or omissions that are called in question.

If our various censorship are seen to be outdated and powrless in the face of access to information then I wouldn't worry too m uch about censoring the web.

And when has hypocrasy ever bothered these kinds of people?

As to the courts, my point was that they might recognise the realpolitik of the situation. Imagine the precedent if Google was held legally responsible for all its information.

905 wrote:

If our various censorship are seen to be outdated and powrless in the face of access to information then I wouldn't worry too m uch about censoring the web.

And when has hypocrasy ever bothered these kinds of people?

As to the courts, my point was that they might recognise the realpolitik of the situation. Imagine the precedent if Google was held legally responsible for all its information.

Indeed - would that not require any information outlet to be held responsible if it turned out to have carried information pointing people to 'dangerous' content?

Quote :

My point was not that a shop would choose not to stock them - but that
they would be banned. It is incredibly rare these days that Censorship
of Publications Board would censor a book, however in cases like that
it would not be beyond the realms of possibility that they would. There
exists in ireland a Censor of Films, a Censor of Publications, an
Advertising Standards Authority and so on. Is it therefore not
hypocritical that the net is not subject to the same level of statutory
intervention as other outlets. I am merely posing the question from a
neutral position. Perhaps we should do the converse and get rid of the
three boards highlighted above.

I would favour the latter, I think.

[quote="johnfás"]

Quote :

People searching the web for information on suicide are more likely
to find sites encouraging the act than offering support, a study says.
Researchers used four search engines to look for suicide-related sites, the British Medical Journal said.
The three most frequently occurring sites were all pro-suicide,prompting researchers to call for anti-suicide web pages to be
prioritised.
Mental health campaigners said such sites preyed on vulnerable people.

Does this suggest that internet use drives one to self destruction?

I came across this today while working on something.

The Society for the Policing of Cyberspace (POLCYB)
http://www.polcyb.org/

Zhou_Enlai wrote:

I came across this today while working on something.

The Society for the Policing of Cyberspace (POLCYB)
http://www.polcyb.org/

The goal

To establish a permanent Network for international criminal justice and corporate sectors to share knowledge, information, and resources to prevent and combat cyberspace crimes.

I see Robocops doing this.

I suppose it its unavoidable, but the only specific cybercrime I can think of (as opposed to use of cyberspace for a 'normal' crime or misdemeanor) is use of the internet to post pornographic images - and assaults on children and adults to provide for this. This seems to be being policed to some extent, from the number of cases in the last two years.

It's more about information security, viruses, botnet attacks, rootkit, phishing etc etc

I only posted it because the name is so appropriate to the thread - who was to know a society founded by the Eropean Council already existed.