The dark side of the internet is an affront to decency
and a risk to employers, writes Simon Moores
Earlier this summer, during a Westminster debate on
internet content (called as a consequence of rising concern
about the availability of violent pornography and the murder of
Jane Longhurst) Conservative MP Tim Loughton mentioned a US website
that is hiding behind First Amendment rights to freedom of
speech.
The site offers nothing less than a global digital catalogue of
atrocity with no image too tasteless or extreme for its webmasters,
who have twisted the democratic principles of free speech to a
point that would be quite unrecognisable by the founding fathers of
the US constitution.
Since that debate, the way the internet has been leveraged to
display politically motivated content has also changed in a graphic
and unpleasant manner such as has not been witnessed since the end
of public executions as a form of mass entertainment.
Last week, suspecting the worst, I revisited the website in
question and was not surprised to see that the recent wave of
so-called executions from Iraq and Saudi Arabia were available on
demand to anyone with a broadband connection and a strong stomach
for reality TV at its worst.
Executions or murders are now big business on the internet and
are proven tools for driving traffic and advertising figures, As a
result I was even more disturbed to read, under the captioned link,
“All the Iraq beheadings can be seen here”, a new message.
“We are looking for people who are able to provide us uncensored
and exclusive content from the Middle East (war in Iraq/Afghanistan
and other uncensored/newsworthy scenes)," it said. "We are
interested in obtaining the images/videos PLUS possible copyrights
to them. We're willing to pay for the copyrights. Think you can
help us? E-mail us here and possibly attach a sample. Thanks!”
Reading between lines it seems clear to me that a US-based
business, hiding behind the First Amendment, is calling on people
who are prepared to commit murder to offer video footage of such
atrocities to it first, in return for for cash.
This is an example of the world turned upside down. How can a
so-called legitimate business be protected by law as it peddles
images of murder, openly calling on the architects of atrocity at
source, allegedly in the interests of free speech?
The implications raise a raft of issues which embrace not only
the concept of treason in the 21st century, but obscenity
legislation and the sinister connections between the internet,
terrorism and organised crime.
For employers there is a potential liability issue to consider
as well, which is why I have deliberately not named the website in
this column. That is the vicarious liability problem that an
employer faces if an employee stumbles across such content in the
workplace, is shocked by what he or she sees and then chooses to
sue the employer for a “failure to provide a safe working
environment”.
Larger organisations may choose to use filters to limit their
risks but 95% of companies in the UK count as small businesses and
may not be taking steps to block content that may leave them
exposed to risks from the darker, twisted side of the internet.
Perhaps, then, this is the future facing all of us: one without
any real checks and balances on information and content. An
on-demand, everything or nothing world where one man’s personal
terrorist nightmare is another’s 30-second Windows video clip.
Setting the world to rights with the collected thoughts and
opinions of leading industry analyst Dr Simon Moores of
Zentelligence. Acting globally, Zentelligence (Research) advises
governments, suppliers, business and the media on the evolution,
application and delivery of leading-edge technologies and
specialises in the areas of e-government and information
security. For further information on Zentelligence and its research,
presentation and analyst services visitwww.zentelligence.com |
|
|
 |