Crossposted without permission from cyber-rights-UK@mail.cyber-rights.org (originally posted by Yaman Akdeniz) Web inventor denounces net censorship The Observer, John Arlidge, media correspondent Sunday October 8, 2000 On the tenth anniversary of the creation of the internet, the British scientist who invented the world wide web has called for the abolition of censorship online. As parents' groups and politicians press for new ways to police websites, Tim Berners-Lee rejects censorship as 'horrific'. In an exclusive interview with The Observer , Berners-Lee dismisses the recent outcry over paedophiles targeting youngsters in web chatrooms, child pornography and fraud, and rejects calls for a 'net regulator'. 'I know there are some very strong feelings but you can not banish technology or regulate content. 'Regulation is censorship - one grown-up telling another what they can and cannot do or see. For me, the idea is horrific. Universality is the key. You must be able to represent anything on the web.' Illegal material - child pornography, 'video nasties' - should remain illegal, but he insists 'the world is a diverse place and we should trust people, not try to police them... There are many cultures and they are continually changing. What somebody in Tennessee might think of as reasonable when it comes to nudity is very different from what someone in Finland might think. 'Two neighbours next door to each-other might have very different ideas. So any attempt to make a global centralised standard is going to be unbelievably contentious. You can't do that.' Instead of regulation it is up to parents to 'catch up' with the new e- generation and teach youngsters how to use the web safely. Children are at risk because they are 'technologically ahead of most grown-ups, who have to ask the younger generation how to turn the thing on and get it working. Adults are slower than children. They need to catch up so they can teach their children what to see and what to avoid.' Ten years ago Berners-Lee wrote the electronic code that enables computers across the world to 'talk' to each-other down a telephone line. The internet was born and has grown from a single website to more than 800,000,000 , with e-commerce, chatrooms and email transforming the way we work, shop, do business, socialise and relax. The Manchester-born scientist has been hailed as 'the man who invented the future'. A decade on he says we are still 'just scratching the surface' of what the internet can do. 'The web is far from done. Just imagine you were back in the Middle Ages and somebody asked "Given the full impact that paper is going to have, where will we be?" That's where we are.' He describes the future as 'the semantic web... a new, more powerful interactive network that will really enable e-commerce and industry to hum. But I don't want to say more or everyone will jump on the bandwagon and that will wreck it.' He says his creation is 'progressing remarkably well... it's neat. It is an achievement of a group of people who had a twinkle in their eye about a possible future. We should celebrate the fact that we can change the world by creating a new social tool. It gives a great feeling of hope that we can do it again.' Patrolling the internet Alan Travis, 18 September, 2000, The Guardian Extract from Bound and Gagged, published by Profile The British government is preparing a legal framework to control what is available on the web. In an exclusive extract from his new book Bound and Gagged, the Guardian's home affairs editor Alan Travis argues that the trend is towards censorship rather than a libertarian approach. Britain is on the verge of a new censorship debate, this time over how to regulate the content of the web. A communications white paper will be published this autumn which will set the legal framework for delivery of net to every home in Britain within the next four years through the domestic digital television as well as the home computer. Tony Blair has already said he worries about the kind of information that his three 'very computer-literate' children, Euan, Nicky and Kathryn, can find on the net. "We try to keep a careful watch on what our children are getting access to on the internet. There are organisations that give advice to people, but it's very difficult if the parents aren't around watching what is going on. There are dangers. In the end I think it is more a matter for parents than for governments. We can do what we can, but it is down to parents," Blair has said. For a politician this represents a very liberal stance compared with America and Australia where attempts to impose state regulation of the net have criminalised not only porn sites but also those which talk about safe sex and abortion as they curb offensive as well as obscene sites. The Home Office insists that it is possible to enforce the current obscenity laws and ensure that "what is illegal offline is illegal online". So far ministers have been content to leave it to the British internet industry to develop its own self-regulation through the Internet Watch Foundation - a body similar to the British Board of Film Classification. The IWF is at the centre of a government-backed effort to make sure that what is illegal is not available through the main servers, such as AOL, Demon, BT internet and the others, and that includes race hate material as well as hardcore porn. Those who back the development of the rating and filtering systems that are used argue that for the first time it will give each family - rather than the state - the power to decide what kind of material should enter their home. But critics fear that the "wish of the lazy parent to allow unsupervised access to their children will reduce adult browsing to the level of suitability of a five year old." So far American and Australian politicians have not been able to resist the temptation. Will British ministers be any different?