Journal of the Korean Society for information Management (정보관리학회지)

Korean Society for Information Management (한국정보관리학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

A Study of PICS/RDF-Based Internet Content Rating System: Issues Related to Freedom of Expression

PICS/RDF 기반 인터넷 내용 등급 시스템 연구: 표현의 자유를 중심으로

  • 김유승 (중앙대학교 문헌정보학과)
  • Published : 2007.09.29
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Since the use of the Internet has proliferated, the availability of illegal and harmful content has been a great concern to both governments and Internet users. Among various solutions for issues related to such content, Internet content filtering technologies have been developed for enabling users to deal with harmful content. In recent years, commercial filtering has become massively popular. Many parents, teachers and even governments have chosen commercial filtering software as a feasible technical solution for protecting minors from harmful information on the Internet. The Internet content filtering software market has grown significantly. However, Internet content filtering software has led to intense debate among civil liberties groups, They deem this to be censorship and argue that Internet filtering technologies are simply unworkable because they have inherent weaknesses. They are critical of the fact that most filtering has violated free speech rights and will eventually wipe out honor and controversial, yet innocent incidences of free speech on the Internet. In this article Internet content filtering, in particular PICS/RDF-based label filtering, so-called Internet content rating system, will be explored and its advantages and drawbacks relating to end-users' autonomy and freedom of expression will be discussed.

인터넷의 대중화와 함께, 인터넷의 불법유해정보의 존재는 정부와 인터넷 사용자들에게 큰 근심거리가 된지 오래다. 불법유해정보 문제에 대한 다양한 해법들 중에서, 인터넷 콘텐츠 필터링 기술은 사용자들이 스스로 유해정보 문제에 대처할 수 있도록 개발되어 왔다. 지난 몇 년 사이, 상업 필터링 제품에 대한관심이 높아지고 있다. 부모, 교사, 심지어는 정부 당국도 청소년을 인터넷 유해정보로부터 보호하는 기술적 대안으로써 상업 필터링 제품을 선택하고 있고, 그 시장도 빠르게 성장하고 있다. 하지만 시민단체들을 중심으로 인터넷 콘텐츠 필터링에 대한 비판의 목소리가 높다. 필터링은 기술적 측면에서 태생적인 약점을 가지고 있을 뿐 아니라, 표현의 자유를 위축시키는 결과를 초래할 것이라는 비판이다. 이 논문은 인터넷 콘텐츠 필터링 특히 일세대 필터링과 구분되어 내용등급시스템으로 불리는 PICS/RDF 기반의 라벨 필터링의 기술적 측면을 분석하고 표현의 자유, 사용자 자율성과 관련된 문제들을 살펴봄으로써, 불법유해정보에 대한 기술적 해법의 타당성에 대하여 논하고자 한다.

Keywords

References

  1. ACLU. 1997. 'Fahrenheit 451.2: Is cyberspace burning? How Rating and Blocking Proposals May Torch Free Speech on the Internet.' [cited 2007. 9. 11]
  2. Akdeniz, Yaman. 2001. 'Governing pornography & child porno graphy on the Internet: The UK approach.' In Cyber-Rights, Protection and Markets: A Symposium. University of West Los Angeles Law Review, 247-275
  3. Akdeniz, Yaman. 2004. 'Who watches the watchmen? The role of filtering software in Internet content regulation.' In OSCE (Ed.), The media freedom Internet cookbook: 101-121. Vienna: OSCE
  4. ALA Intellectual Freedom Committee. 2000. Statement on library use of filtering software. [cited 2007.8.15]
  5. Archer, Phil. 2004. ICRA's experience of the technical and policy issues related to content labelling. [cited 2007. 8. 1]
  6. Balkin, M. J., Noveck, Beth & Roosevelt, Kermit. 2000. 'Filtering the Internet: A best practices model.' In Waltermann, Jens &Machill, Marcel (Eds.), Protecting our children on the Internet: 199- 261. Gutersloh, Germany: Bertelsmann Foundation Publishers
  7. Burk, Brian E. and Ryan, Rose. 2005. Worldwide Secure Content Management 2005-2009. IDC [cited 2007. 8. 1]
  8. Commission on Child Online Protection. 2000. Final Report of the COPA Commission. [cited 2007. 8. 1]
  9. Cyber-Rights & Cyber-Liberties (UK). 1997. 'Who watches the watchmen: Internet content rating systems, and privatised censorship.' [cited 2007. 8. 19]
  10. Cyveillance. 2000. 'Internet exceeds 2 billion pages.' [cited 2002. 1. 26]
  11. Das, Arun Kristian & Pike, Sarah. 2001. 'Federally funded peep shows: The legal wrangling over CIPA.' PC Magazine. [cited 2007. 8. 19]
  12. European Commission. 1997. 'Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions.' 26 November 1997, Action Plan on promoting safe use of the Internet (COM(97)0582 Final)
  13. European Commission. 1999. 'Action plan on promoting safer use of the Internet: Decision No. 276/1999/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 January 1999 adopting a multiannual community action plan on promoting safer use of the Internet by combating illegal and harmful content on global networks.' The Official Journal of the European Communities, L33, Vol. 42, 1- 11
  14. GILC. 1999. Global Internet Liberty Campaign member statement submitted to the Internet Content Summit. Munich, Germany. [cited 2007. 8. 19]
  15. Heins, Marjorie, Cho, Christina, and Feldman, Ariel. 2006. 'Internet filters: A public policy report. Brennan Center for Justice.
  16. Hong, Sung-Tae. 2001. 'Internet Naeyong Deunggeupjeui Munjejeom [A issue of the Internet content rating system]' In Jeongbo Tongsin Gemyeol Bandae Gongdong Haengdong [United Action Group Against Information and Communication Censorship], Conference report: Jeongbuwi Internet naeyong gyujewa pyoheonui jayu, mueosi munjeinga? [Governmental Internet content rating system and freedom of expression, what is the issue?] 16-22. [cited 2005. 4. 5] ᣬ—⨀㄄덐⣬–⨀〄င雃ǃ륦 眀敮最䅮⁘䵌⁓捨敬愠䅰灲潡捨⁴漠䅰灬楣慴楯渠偲潦楬敳
  17. ICRA. 1999. Internet Content Rating Association formed to provide global system for protecting children and free speech on the Internet. [cited 2007. 8. 19]
  18. ICRA. 2006a. ICRA labelling System Specification. [cited 2007. 8.15]
  19. ICRA. 2006b. Vacbulary mapping. [cited 2007. 8. 15]
  20. IWF. 2003. Safe surfing: Software tools. [cited 2003. 6. 2]
  21. Kaiser Family Foundation. 2002. See no evil: How Internet filters affect the search for online health information: Executive summary. [cited 2007. 8. 19]
  22. Keller, Daphne & Verhulst, Stefaan. 2000. Parental control in a converged communications environment self-regulation, technical devices and meta-information: Final report for the DVB Regulatory Group. Oxford: University of Oxford, Progamme in Comparative Media Law and Policy. [cited 2007.8. 19]
  23. Lyman, Peter and Hal R. Varian. 2003. How Much Information, 2003. [cited 2007. 7. 20]
  24. Miller, James (Ed,). 1996. PICS label distribution label syntax and communication protocols. [cited 2007. 8. 19]
  25. PCMLP. 2004. IAPCODE final report: Self-regulation of digital media converging on the Internet: Industry codes of conduct in sectoral analysis. [cited 2007. 8. 19]
  26. Pierlot, Paul. 2000. 'Self-regulation of Internet content: A Canadian perspective. In Guedon, Jean-Claude & Murai, Jun (Co-Chairs).' Global distributed intelligence for everyone. INET 2000 The Internet Global Summit. Yokohama, Japan. [cited 2007. 8. 19]
  27. Resnick, Paul. 1999. PICS, censorship, & intellectual freedom FAQ. [cited 2007. 8. 19]
  28. W3C. 1996. Recreational Software Advisory Council launcher objective, content-labelling advisory system for the Internet. [cited 2007. 8. 19]
  29. W3C. 1997a. Platform for Internet content selection. [cited 2007. 8. 19]
  30. W3C. 1997b. PICSRules 1.1. [cited 2007. 8. 19]
  31. W3C. 1998. Statement on the Internet and use of PICS: Using PICS well. [cited 2007. 8. 19]
  32. W3C. 1999. Resource Description Framework (RDF) model and syntax specification. [cited 2007. 8. 19]
  33. W3C. 2000b. PICS frequently asked questions. [cited 2007. 8. 19] http://www.w3.org/2000/03/PICS-FAQ/
  34. W3C. 2000c. PICS rating vocabularies in XML/RDF. [cited 2007. 8. 19] http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-pics
  35. W3C. 2001. Semantic activity statement. [cited 2007. 8. 19]
  36. Wallace, Jonathan. 1997. Purchase of blocking software by public libraries is unconstitutional. [cited 2007.8. 19]
  37. Wallace, Jonathan & Mangan, Mark. 1997. Sex, laws, and cyberspace. New York: Henry Holt and Company

Cited by

  1. The effects of individual innovativeness on users’ adoption of Internet content filtering software and attitudes toward children’s Internet use vol.29, pp.5, 2013, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.03.009