I’ve been puzzling over a phenomenon lately that I’d like to talk a bit about. I want to put this out into the ether and get feedback from all of you. Because I can’t make sense of this—and perhaps your superior brains can.
With the rise in digital content, we’ve seen more and more examples of technology being created to enforce the law and/or a company’s terms of service for their product. And just because technology can do this, does it mean that we as a society should allow it?
In the past, here’s how the law was enforced:
- the law exists
- as a member of a society, you are expected to know about the law
- if you violate the law, in theory someone punishes you
And here’s how the law is enforced now in some cases:
- the law exists
- technology is created to make it difficult or impossible for you to break the law
- if you somehow manage to break through the technology and break the law, you are punished for breaching the system as well as breaking the law itself
Here’s a real-world example of technology-enforced laws to start the discussion. The Saudi Arabian government developed an RFID chip with a cyanide implant. These chips were implanted in known criminals (supposedly terrorists) and if their handlers or probation officers or whoever was watching them suspected that they were violating the law again, BOOM – cyanide in the blood…instant death. No trial, no due process, just a remotely activated death penalty.
In the world of digital content we see this same practice but in a non-lethal incarnation.
The utilization of internet filters in schools and libraries (and on school-issued computers in kids’ homes) is intended as a way to mandatorily enforce laws against child pornography and the display of harmful and obscene materials in public. Advocates for this technology sell it as a way to enforce these laws without human intervention. Unfortunately, the technology doesn’t actually work very well, and about 30% of sites that should be blocked aren’t and 30% of sites that should be allowed get blocked erroneously. The intention is good, but the side effects are not worth the trade off—both access to legitimate information and the false sense of security the technology creates. Some schools and libraries realize the inherent flaws in the technology and choose, instead, to do what we as a society have been doing for generations—trusting people to follow the law, and when they don’t we have policies in place for reprimands or punishments (e.g. calling the cops on their asses).
Another key example is the technology used in digital rights management, called “digital restrictions management” by its detractors, including yours truly. Once again, the technology was created to enforce the applicable copyright law as well as the company-created terms of service for their products and content. And once again, the technology doesn’t actually work. Why?
Digital Rights Management technology doesn’t work because it doesn’t do what the companies tell you it does: stop piracy. If copyrighted content was easy to get legally at a fair price in an easy to access format (read: one not locked down with layers of DRM software), then more people would be willing to pay for it. Why? Convenience and safety. It’s why the music industry is selling DRM-free MP3s and still making money. I’d rather give $7.99 to a band and get a full, DRM-free, legal copy of their album than try to find a complete, high quality, virus-free version on a torrent site. Ultimately, these failed attempts to decrease piracy and (in theory) increase sales not only fail, but they drive even more users away. I strongly believe it is the current state of DRM that drives people into the arms of the pirates—not greed, a lack of ethics, or pure evil. Unless you count DRM as pure evil, which I do.
So…if the idea of the cyanide-laden RFID chip disturbs you, then (following my logic, anyway) the idea of internet filters and digital rights management should equally perturb you. And if you’re a librarian, then dammit—both internet filters and digital rights management should perturb you as a professional and you should do everything in your power to fight them both—in your own library and in the profession as a whole. Fight, librarians! Fight!