John VanSickle <evi### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> >   Never mind the questions about basic human rights,

> Questions such as, "Since when is Internet service a human right?"

  Great, another nitpicker.

  - "Hey, country X does not allow women to express their opinion on the
internet. This is a violation of human rights!"
  - "Since when is internet access a human right?"

  - "Hey, the government is allowing the press to censor political parties.
This is a violation of basic human rights!"
  - "Since when is access to paper and ink a human right?"

  The medium and the information are at completely different categorical
levels. You are arguing about the medium, which is inconsequential.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

>> If they censor YouTube (for example) it would save them a huge amount of 
>> money.
> 
>  That wouldn't really be filtering by content, but by volume.

Filter all streaming video content then...

Post a reply to this message

scott <sco### [at] scottcom> wrote:
> >> If they censor YouTube (for example) it would save them a huge amount of 
> >> money.
> > 
> >  That wouldn't really be filtering by content, but by volume.

> Filter all streaming video content then...

  How does that change the veracity of what I said?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

>  Great, another nitpicker.
>
>  - "Hey, country X does not allow women to express their opinion on the
> internet. This is a violation of human rights!"
>  - "Since when is internet access a human right?"
>
>  - "Hey, the government is allowing the press to censor political parties.
> This is a violation of basic human rights!"
>  - "Since when is access to paper and ink a human right?"
>
>  The medium and the information are at completely different categorical
> levels. You are arguing about the medium, which is inconsequential.

Warp, where does it say anything about censorship of Women's rights or 
censoring political parties?  This directive is totally about the ISPs 
wanting to make more money by blocking traffic-heavy data like torrents, 
YouTube videos, BBC iPlayer etc.

You are usually the one going on about how things shouldn't be illegal just 
because they can be used for illegal purposes, so why the sudden 
change-around on this particular issue?

Post a reply to this message

scott <sco### [at] scottcom> wrote:
> Warp, where does it say anything about censorship of Women's rights or 
> censoring political parties?

  Don't you understand the concept of a simile? Unless you are nitpicking,
of course.

> You are usually the one going on about how things shouldn't be illegal just 
> because they can be used for illegal purposes, so why the sudden 
> change-around on this particular issue?

  Something like bittorrent does not break against human rights regarding
freedom of expression and information.

  Government-sanctioned censorship does.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

>> You are usually the one going on about how things shouldn't be illegal 
>> just
>> because they can be used for illegal purposes, so why the sudden
>> change-around on this particular issue?
>
>  Something like bittorrent does not break against human rights regarding
> freedom of expression and information.

What's your problem with the directive then?

>  Government-sanctioned censorship does.

If this is your understanding, then please can you quote the part of the 
proposed directive that says it includes government-sanctioned censorship.

Post a reply to this message

scott <sco### [at] scottcom> wrote:
> >> You are usually the one going on about how things shouldn't be illegal 
> >> just
> >> because they can be used for illegal purposes, so why the sudden
> >> change-around on this particular issue?
> >
> >  Something like bittorrent does not break against human rights regarding
> > freedom of expression and information.

> What's your problem with the directive then?

  ???

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

>> >  Something like bittorrent does not break against human rights 
>> > regarding
>> > freedom of expression and information.
>
>> What's your problem with the directive then?
>
>  ???

Just because the directive *could* be used for "government-sanctioned 
censorship", you don't think it should be allowed?  In reality it will be 
used to charge people more for high-bandwidth content, a perfectly legal and 
sound business model.

My point is, that this is at odds with your usual stance on such matters (eg 
bittorrent, just because it can be used for illegal purposes doesn't mean it 
should be made illegal).

Post a reply to this message

"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message
news:49ed8491@news.povray.org...

>   The European Union is being lobbied into passing the so-called "Telecoms
> Package" directives, which essentially would give all European ISPs full
> powers to choose what they offer their clients from the internet (in other
> words, to offer their clients only what they pay for, and completely block
> and hide everything else).
>
>   Never mind the questions about basic human rights,

How is it basic human right for a *customer* to dictate the goods? Telecoms
are selling you services which *they* alone should be able to define. You,
as a customer, can chose to buy it or not.

Post a reply to this message

"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message
news:49ed8afd@news.povray.org...
> scott <sco### [at] scottcom> wrote:

> > So every company should be forced to do things that are no extra cost to
> > them?

>   Every company should be (and is) forced to submit to basic human rights
> which include, among others, freedom of information. No company has the
> right to actively censor information from its clients.

In this context, information is a commodity, the very thing being sold. They
can chose what to sell and what not to sell, or how to bundle them and what
pricing levels they use.

>   What do car engines have to do with freedom of information and
censorship?

I don't see how it has anything to do with freedom of information.

Post a reply to this message