The internet is regulated — it’s called ‘the law.’

That Andrews video is illegal in every sense of the word, and whoever produced and promoted it should face stiff consequences.

Posted by James Mirtle from Toronto on 07/22/09 at 06:22 PM ET

And yet, Paul, you allow TPSH to post here, and he shows everyone his ass just about every time he posts.

If that’s not promoting pornography, well…

Posted by HockeyinHD on 07/22/09 at 06:33 PM ET

after edwards video, creation of ‘internet czar’ and government giving out health care soon, i wouldnt be surprised if there is a law that does regulate parts of internet becuase there is already cyberbullying laws on the books and parts of patriot act deals with the internet.

what happen with edwards was a criminal act

Posted by FlyersFan on 07/22/09 at 06:45 PM ET

LOL!! HockeyHD, that’s funny.

Posted by Lindas1st on 07/22/09 at 06:58 PM ET

There are laws regarding that sort of thing, which is a concept the author seems to be unfamiliar with.

The Andrews thing will be taken care of in a court of law. Criminal charges will apply to those who shot the video, as well as those who distributed the video.

I know, it’s a slow news day/week/month or whatever, but there is zero need to create controversy like this.

Posted by Alan from Atlanta on 07/22/09 at 07:37 PM ET

There are legal regulations governing internet commerce (and Big Brother does in fact patrol the interweb), but I agree that there’s something to be said for deciding whether to publish or promote certain kinds of content.

Posted by George Malik from South Lyon, MI on 07/22/09 at 07:50 PM ET

Well, I only visit websites where the girls are naked to the viewing public for a purpose. I feel no shame about that (unless my girlfriend catches me). 

Celebrity nudity through illicit means has no appeal to me. Sadly, quite a few people are tempted by their inner paparazzo which others eagerly exploit, and not for the betterment of mankind.

Posted by Moq from Denmark on 07/22/09 at 07:59 PM ET

sites like TMZ created the culture of video taping and placing it on internet

Posted by FlyersFan on 07/22/09 at 08:12 PM ET

I’ve never favoured regulating the Internet. Until now.

The strength of the Internet is the unfettered freedom of participants to engage in communications without government interference. Some US judge said that and I tend to agree. If you open the door to content regulation of the internet, there is no telling how far it will go and what damage it would do to both the evolution of the internet and related technology and to the welfare of society. We already have laws on what happened to Andrews. How about letting those existing laws deal with this situation instead of trying to make new ones.

Posted by UMFan from Colorado on 07/22/09 at 08:25 PM ET

Andrews chose to flaunt her stuff..and as a public person needs to be careful. I am not a public person…But you know what? I would never ever be caught on camera naked..you know why? Because I CLOSE my shades or curtains when I am!!!
  I get very frightened of people wanting to censore the internet..specially from bloggers… Only use for that is underaged stuff and other exceptions.

  Nude sports bimbo…She’ll get publicity..I didn’t even know who she was until now!

Posted by Peter from Canada on 07/22/09 at 08:44 PM ET

Andrews chose to flaunt her stuff..and as a public person needs to be careful. I am not a public person…But you know what? I would never ever be caught on camera naked..you know why?

My understanding is that the video was taken through a keyhole.  Is that not correct?

I think even a public persona has the right to walk around nude behind a closed door and expect privacy.  It wasn’t as though she were on a nude beach somewhere or something.

Posted by shanetx on 07/22/09 at 08:51 PM ET

I have no doubt that by reading that article, hundreds if not thousands more attempted to find the video.  Well done Mr. Zelkovich.

Paul, I think you’re spot on with your assessment.  There are plenty of jackasses on the internet; yet, the asshattery represent real people.  Anonymity brings out the darker sides of people, but I’m still in charge of what I ultimately do.

The most feasible regulation of the internet would require the centralization of servers, likely slowing everything down, and ultimately encroaching on privacy rights in the process.  This would also make the net more susceptible to just about anything bad (hackers, power failure, solar flare, whatever). So, you know, you’re right as usual.

Posted by MarkK from Maryland on 07/22/09 at 09:01 PM ET

This has absolutely nothing to do with “regulating the internet,” which the way so many people seem to think of the term is impossible - it is hard enough for an entity such as the Chinese government to censor the websites citizens have access to, and that is with a large staff, excellent technology, an autocratic will, and the aid of the companies that provide the search engines and other software in the first place.

In a previous time, this would have made it into the printed tabloids.  It would have been accessible to fewer people than the internet video was, but the principle is the same.  Invasion of privacy is invasion of privacy, by whatever means.

There are laws that address this.  Use the existing legal structure to prosecute the peeping tom and consider the websites that posted the video the same way a tabloid would be if it published stills of the same thing.  This has nothing to do with the internet specifically, and no special rules are needed.

Posted by Baroque from Michigan on 07/22/09 at 09:05 PM ET

Oh, and if you are travelling, there is usually a hook on the back of the door - hang a jacket or blouse on it, and the peephole is effectively blocked. 

Posted by Baroque from Michigan on 07/22/09 at 09:09 PM ET

Yeah, what Baroque said!!

Posted by Lindas1st on 07/22/09 at 09:11 PM ET

I’ve always felt the Internet ranked as possibly the best technological advance of this age. I’ve also felt it also ranks as the worst. For every great use of it, there’s at least one that manages to shine a light on the slimiest elements of our society.

That is a stupid statement.  1 bad thing for 1 good thing?  Ridiculous.  A majority of the Internet is “good”, no matter how you define that word.  A relatively small percentage use the Internet for illicit means, and, like Baroque said, that happens with ANYTHING, regulated or not.  Apparently this guy doesn’t use the Internet for much, and I’m now suspicious of how he spends his time on the Internet.

No Internet regulation, ever.  It’s a stupid idea, and cannot possibly work.  It’s not like the Unites States “owns” the Internet.  It’s completely decentralized, which is was makes it such fantastic technology.  There’s no possible way to feasibly regulate something like the Internet.  Some nations try to do so, but there are so many SIMPLE ways to bypass that sort of thing, you just cannot do it.  Do we really want to be the next China?  Come on.  All it would do is waste money and time, and “regulate” something that is overall a VERY GOOD THING.

Posted by BuzzFledderjohn on 07/22/09 at 09:19 PM ET

A majority of the Internet is “good”, no matter how you define that word.

Really?  Are you new to the internet?

Posted by Garth on 07/22/09 at 10:27 PM ET

The internet is regulated — it’s called ‘the law.’

That Andrews video is illegal in every sense of the word, and whoever produced and promoted it should face stiff consequences.

Thank you James (and Baroque) for pointing out what Zelkovich so clearly misses, in a relatively “free” society where we are responsible for our actions, there are mechanisms in place to deter such tasteless activity while maintaining our personal liberties.  A stiff penalty (no pun intended) for the offenders should make others think a bit longer before sticking cameras on the end of their shoes and such.

I’ve never favoured regulating the Internet. Until now.

This quote makes me very, very angry in its blatant ignorance and hypocrisy.

Until now, Chris?  And why now?  Because it is a friend or colleague that has been affected?

What about child pornography, Z, or those creeps who try and lure young teens on dates?  Up to now was that okay?  By saying the Erin Andrews is what prompted you to change your mind on regulation, you are implying that everything up to this point has been okay with you, and that makes me sick.

Angst-ridden teens downloading “The Anarchist’s Cookbook” in the hopes of making explosives is fine. Cyber criminals this month who have been attacking US government websites are dandy.  At least according to Z.  But once a friend is affected, the gloves come off for Mr. Z.

NOW the internet has gone too far.  Screw you, Zelkovich for your narrow minded ways.  The universe does not revolve around you and your associates.

The Erin Andrews tape is unfortunate.  But it also illustrates that we must accept the good with the bad enjoying our personal freedoms.  I think it is better that way.  If we want to live a life of personal liberty and choice, we have to realize it will not all be sunshine and rainbows.

Society has to buffer the extreme elements through social pressure.  I would prefer that neo-Nazis openly talked about their bigotry and did not keep their ignorance a secret.  I want blatant racists and homophobes to be loud.  Why?  Because by having those with views who do not conform with the direction society has chosen to take, we have a chance to refute ignorance in debate and dialogue.

Society undergoes natural evolution.  We collectively make decisions on what we deem tolerable/intolerable.  By confining extreme elements to the shadows, they fester in the darkness of ignorance.  Let perverts, racists, bigots, misogynists, and other destructive elements out in the open.  The fresh air and exposure will reveal them to be the fools they are, and maybe with debate and dialogue their ignorance will fade.  Maybe.

We have to be willing to take that chance.  We must be willing to accept that we may be exposed to ideas that anger us, that offend us, or even that mock us.  Censorship is not the answer, exposure and discussion is.

Society has built courts and justice systems to deal with destructive elements in society.  Trust the system to do its job, and do not try and regulate personal freedoms just because your colleague was harmed, Zelkovich.

Posted by VooX from Behind the Bar in the Hasek Club Car on 07/22/09 at 11:28 PM ET

I feel so strongly about this I actually posted my comment on the Star’s page (with my email) in hopes that Zelkovich considers the other side of the regualtion coin.

Posted by VooX from Behind the Bar in the Hasek Club Car on 07/22/09 at 11:42 PM ET

A majority of the Internet is “good”, no matter how you define that word.

Really?  Are you new to the internet?

Posted by Garth on 07/22/09 at 11:27 PM ET

He should have phrased it differently - perhaps that a majority of internet users are not committing criminal acts using the internet, but using it for communication, research, education, or enjoyment.

And I’m with VooX.  Pretty arrogant to have the idea that until footage of a colleage makes it online, whatever else happens to “some other people” can be dismissed because it just doesn’t matter as much as when it happens to someone more “important.”  I have to admit it doesn’t surprise me, though - there are many many people who are very knowledgeable about the internet and its uses, but also a lot of them who have a fuzzy grasp of it at best, and aren’t all that clear on the uses (good or ill) that some choose to make of it.

And internet censorship will always have unintended effects.  Just ask anyone who tried running an internet search on a public computer for “breast cancer support groups” and all the websites were blocked because “breast” was on the list of obscene search terms.

Posted by Baroque from Michigan on 07/23/09 at 06:14 AM ET

He should have phrased it differently

My problem was with the phrasing as well as the fact that Buzz ignored the quote he was responding to.  Zelkovish didn’t say “1 bad thing for 1 good thing”, he said “For every great use of it, there’s at least one that manages to shine a light on the slimiest elements of our society.”  That’s a pretty huge difference.  Buzz is almost equating the quote with “for every hockey blog there’s a child porn ring”, which he’s clearly not saying.

Don’t get me wrong, I wasn’t commenting on the article, simply responding to that comment.

I agree 100% with Voox and with you and I think it’s disguting that, as shitty as it is, an adult being peeped on is apparently the worst thing that has happened on the internet in the eyes of Chris Zelkovich.

Posted by Garth on 07/23/09 at 07:55 AM ET

Saying that Erin Andrews should have been more careful in making sure she wasn’t illegally videotaped is ridiculous.  She was the victim of a crime and when the perpetrator(s) is/are caught, they will be punished.

However, I will say this.  I do believe that anonymity on the internet does helpt to contributing to real-life crime.  Fortunately, there are means in place by which law enforcement officials can break though one’s online anonymity in order to prosecute them (the kid who threatened Ovechkin’s life online, for example).  I do wish that people were less anonymous, but do not favor any measures that force that.  I am J.J. from Kansas on every hockey site on which I comment by choice, and that’s the way I like it.

Bottom line is that there are always people who want there to be some kind of “though police” out there.  As we have found quite often, a lot of those people would be better served with tending their own farms instead of worrying how the neighbors’ weeds are going to affect their own crops.

Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 07/23/09 at 10:34 AM ET

I do believe that anonymity on the internet does helpt to contributing to real-life crime.  Fortunately, there are means in place by which law enforcement officials can break though one’s online anonymity in order to prosecute them (the kid who threatened Ovechkin’s life online, for example).  I do wish that people were less anonymous, but do not favor any measures that force that.  I am J.J. from Kansas on every hockey site on which I comment by choice, and that’s the way I like it.

Sorry for the length of this post, I don’t want to hijack a thread, but some very interesting issues have been raised, which I wish to address.

Like you J.J., I post as VooX (or similar when VooX is taken) everywhere as I want to be accountable for my thoughts and actions.  I appreciate those like J.J. who CHOOSE to be accountable.

All activity on the internet is hosted by someone.  Every packet sent on the internet has a sending and return IP address.  All addresses (hosts), from servers to websites/blogs have an agenda.  Be it financial, personal, or otherwise, there must be some type of motivation to host or navigate web pages. 

As mentioned, the internet actually CAN be shut down at any time.  There are key bottle necks (ISPs, DNS servers, major fibre optic hubs) on the information superhighway, which can be used to shut down all traffic.

Unlike you J.J., I advocate true internet anonymity is a social benefit.  To be clear, truly anonymous browsing/hosting is exceptionally difficult.  Find a random internet access point with no surveillance cameras and you may have a truly anonymous internet portal, otherwise most traffic is traceable.

In fact, the NSA currently uses technology purchased from firms in Israel to split the fibre optic traffic at key internet hubs throughout the US and record internet activity.  Theoretically, ALL internet traffic within the USA, and passing through its borders, is being recorded.  The problem with that is everything recorded needs to be analysed.
 
With the volume of internet traffic in North America analysis is unfeasible.  In countries with oppressive governments/heavy censorship, traffic is easier to analyse because internet access/content is restricted.  The volume of traffic is less and the desire to persecute, even kill, those who speak out against the government and oppression is great.

For every scumbag who abuses anonymity by having proxy servers to redirect traffic to servers hosting child porn, there may be someone who is trying to organize his country out of oppression and needs anonymity to protect their lives.  The recent Iranian uprising was documented on Twitter by Iranians in order to try and overturn what they felt was a rigged election.  Do you want those people to be tracked down and killed?  Do you really want someone telling the world about genocide through the internet to be discovered and tortured to death?

There is a price to pay for true anonymity, but I am willing to pay it.  The social benefit far outweighs the cost.  J.J., Baroque, Mirtle, Malik, Kukla, IwoCPO, I, and others prove people will CHOOSE to be accountable even when internet activity is perceived as anonymous.  And we are not the only ones.

Posted by VooX from Behind the Bar in the Hasek Club Car on 07/23/09 at 12:24 PM ET

While I agree that stringent internet regulation could help curb some of the more unrestrained and illegal activities running rampant and seemingly unchecked on the Web, I would be staunchly opposed to a radical takeover over by any government on the grounds of net neutrality violation.  As with most things, the internet has both its desirable and illicit components, but it is a highly effective (and therefore significantly important) medium which requires a vast element of freedom to operate at maximum potential.

Sadly, even with the advent of tougher regulatory statutes, the instant a person consciously chooses to “de-regulate” himself/herself from the standards of morality is the same instant that the tight collar of ANY regulation becomes no more than a mere “slip knot”.

Posted by Eye Candy on 07/23/09 at 12:30 PM ET

Saying that Erin Andrews should have been more careful in making sure she wasn’t illegally videotaped is ridiculous.  She was the victim of a crime and when the perpetrator(s) is/are caught, they will be punished.
Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 07/23/09 at 11:34 AM ET

I absolutely agree. Erin Andrews does not get a lot of coverage up here in Canada and it is truly sad that this will be what she is most famous for up here. Bruce Arthur wrote an article about it up here in the National Post http://www.nationalpost.com/sports/story.html?id=1813899. In today’s age with digital cameras, cell phone cameras or hell the little pen cameras you can get from most audio/video stores, public persona’s will always have to worry about this sort of thing.

That doesn’t make it right and I hope the perpetrator is caught!

Posted by lordhogie from Calgary on 07/23/09 at 12:56 PM ET

Do you want those people to be tracked down and killed?  Do you really want someone telling the world about genocide through the internet to be discovered and tortured to death?

Well put, Voox, and you’re right.  I didn’t mean to sound like I was against all internet anonymity.  It’s the focus of my entire point of disagreement with Zelkovich.  I agree with him that people SHOULD be better behaved online, but I wholeheartedly disagree with his point that we should somehow be forced to.

Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 07/23/09 at 12:58 PM ET

Peter, A) Either you’re just trying to be a contrarian just for the sake of being a contrarian. Or B) You’re ignorant and you don’t know the story about what happend to Erin Andrews. She was a victim in every sense of the word and is NOT responsible for ANY of this.

This was a crime that has nothing to do with the internet. The first crime was filming her without her consent and then showing it. All this can be done without using the internet. The internet is the internet because there is no regulation. With regulation it would not be the same.

Posted by Lindas1st on 07/23/09 at 05:26 PM ET

ICANN handles domain name registration and disputes. As the WWW spans countries, there’s no defacto law for it. Even things like child pornography CAN be posted on the Web, one just needs to live in a country where such material is legal, and host it in a place where such content is legal to possess and distribute. Believe it or not, there’s a few tiny islands like this, but virtually every hosting companies prohibits certain content.
On another note, as I hinted at, the WWW isn’t really even subject to International law, for non-UN nations also have access and the right to use and see content legal within their jurisdictions.Private Investigator

Posted by Private Investigator on 08/12/09 at 07:21 PM ET