 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0%2C21985%2C24568137-2862%2C00.html
Same story as here: The government has "good" intentions, the implementation
is completely flawed, and only sets up a sensorship system which can be
abused for other things in the future as well.
Why do I feel that child porn in the WWW (note: not the internet as a
whole, but the WWW) is not a big problem per se, but more a convenient
excuse for setting up internet censorship, which seems something every
government is anxious to implement?
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Warp" <war### [at] tag povrayorg> wrote in message
news:490b1677@news.povray.org...
> http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0%2C21985%2C24568137-2862%2C00.html
>
> Same story as here: The government has "good" intentions, the
implementation
> is completely flawed, and only sets up a sensorship system which can be
> abused for other things in the future as well.
>
> Why do I feel that child porn in the WWW (note: not the internet as a
> whole, but the WWW) is not a big problem per se, but more a convenient
> excuse for setting up internet censorship, which seems something every
> government is anxious to implement?
I believe that child porn is way overhyped, but on the other hand, has there
ever been an abuse of the censorship implemented against it - has any anti
child porn law turned into a tool of political oppression? Everybody seems
to make the slippery slope argument, but is it really valid? Governments
that are able to force their way down the slippery slope to oppression don't
need an excuse to implement censorship in the first place, they just
implement it. Why not oppose taxes too? If a government can take 25% of your
earnings, why not argue that it's a convenient excuse for them to eventually
take 99.9%?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
somebody wrote:
> I believe that child porn is way overhyped, but on the other hand, has there
> ever been an abuse of the censorship implemented against it - has any anti
Against child porn specifically, nothing off the top of my head.
However, stuff like cameras all over the streets of UK are openly being
used for much beyond what they were installed for.
Besides, the question may be somewhat irrelevant. Will you accept
random searches into your house (along with all the computers in it) for
illegal paraphernalia (or even just for child porn possession)?
> child porn law turned into a tool of political oppression? Everybody seems
> to make the slippery slope argument, but is it really valid? Governments
> that are able to force their way down the slippery slope to oppression don't
> need an excuse to implement censorship in the first place, they just
> implement it. Why not oppose taxes too? If a government can take 25% of your
I highly disagree. What you say is true for some places. In others,
doing it in stages is simpler.
Remember, they only monitor your phone calls if you're calling
internationally...
--
Who is General Failure and why is he reading my hard-disk.
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mueen Nawaz <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote:
> Remember, they only monitor your phone calls if you're calling
> internationally...
Censorship and monitoring seems to be an increasing trend in the modern
world. Just perform a few google searches on the subject, such as:
sweden phone monitor
uk phone monitor
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mueen Nawaz wrote:
> somebody wrote:
>> I believe that child porn is way overhyped, but on the other hand, has there
>> ever been an abuse of the censorship implemented against it - has any anti
>
> Against child porn specifically, nothing off the top of my head.
>
> However, stuff like cameras all over the streets of UK are openly being
> used for much beyond what they were installed for.
>
> Besides, the question may be somewhat irrelevant. Will you accept
> random searches into your house (along with all the computers in it) for
> illegal paraphernalia (or even just for child porn possession)?
At least in the US, this is one thing we don't have to worry about.
Random searches of private homes are prohibited under our Constitution.
Not that this is terribly great protection. The cops can always claim
they got an anonymous tip about child porn (or some other contraband),
and then find it, even it wasn't there until the cops showed up...
Regards,
John
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
John VanSickle wrote:
> Random searches of private homes are prohibited under our Constitution.
Oddly enough, given that *random* searches of peoples bags and cars are
apparently OK, as long as they're *random*, I wouldn't bet on this not
getting interpreted differently in the future.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> John VanSickle wrote:
>> Random searches of private homes are prohibited under our Constitution.
>
> Oddly enough, given that *random* searches of peoples bags and cars are
> apparently OK, as long as they're *random*, I wouldn't bet on this not
> getting interpreted differently in the future.
This I tend to doubt. The inadmissibility of evidence seized in the
search of a private home, without a warrant (or the owner's consent),
has been a settled question in US case law for decades.
The chief problem with search-and-seizure law in the US is that the
Constitution prohibits "unreasonable" searches and seizures, which of
course means whatever the court says it means.
Regards,
John
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
somebody <x### [at] ycom> wrote:
> Everybody seems
> to make the slippery slope argument, but is it really valid?
Think about this:
A large amount of web pages added to the censorship list by the Finnish
police are hosted in servers which are located inside the EU and the USA. By
adding these websites to the censorship list they are proclaiming that they
contain illegal child pornography.
If these websites, hosted in servers inside the EU and the USA, indeed
contained illegal child pornography, the proper course of action would be,
naturally, for the Finnish police to contact the proper authorities in
those countries so that these websites would be closed and the owners
prosecuted. The Finnish authorities work together with the authorities
inside the EU and the USA (and many other countries) to fight CP, so it
would be natural for them to contact the authorities of the other country.
However, they are not doing that. They are simply adding these websites to
the censorship list and doing nothing else.
Why? Why would they claim that the websites contain illegal CP but not
contact the authorities of the hosting country so that something would be
done about it? It would be egregiously irresponsible for them to do nothing
about this illegal material, even though they have the means to do something
about it.
The only possible answer to this question is that they actually know the
material is not illegal, and that contacting the authorities of those other
countries would be a waste of time. And indeed, the vast majority of websites
in the censorship list only contain adult pornography. While it might be
indecent in the eyes of many people, there's still nothing illegal about it.
The new Finnish censorship law does *not* give the authorities the right
to censor legal material, only illegal. Yet they are censoring legal material
(and they even fully aknowledge that, even if indirectly, by the fact that
they are *not* contacting the authorities of the hosting country to bring
the websites down).
The reason for this is probably as "innocent" as them just wanting to show
that "something is being done". The censorship list would probably be very
short if they were only censoring material which was truely illegal (and
which is hosted in countries whose authorities don't care), so they
artificially make the list longer by including also legal porn sites, just
to show that the measures are "effective".
But the reason doesn't really matter: They are already abusing the law
for something which the law does not give them any rights to do. Even if
it's just for shows, and even if there's not really a big harm being done,
it's still an abuse of the law. The law does not give them permission to
censor legal sites to simply give the illusion that "something is being
done".
So it's not a question of "can the censorship law be abused by
authorities?". They are abusing it *already*. They are already doing things
the law does not give them any permission for.
> Governments
> that are able to force their way down the slippery slope to oppression don't
> need an excuse to implement censorship in the first place, they just
> implement it.
But governments who are not able to go to oppressive measures right away
because it would be a scandal, need to do it little by little. First apply
a very small and "innocent" measure, let people get accustomed to it, then
apply another, let people get accustomed to it, and so on. Repeat as many
times as necessary. When this is continued long enough, people will not
even notice how far it has gone. They will be too accustomed to the small
changes to see the bigger picture.
> Why not oppose taxes too? If a government can take 25% of your
> earnings, why not argue that it's a convenient excuse for them to eventually
> take 99.9%?
Funny you would say that, as the Finnish government already takes 60% of
your income here if you earn too much. That amount would be rather outrageous
in many countries. (And this is one of the reasons why Finland is not such
an enticing country for people and companies to search for work.)
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 2 Nov 2008 04:11:59 -0500, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
>> Why not oppose taxes too? If a government can take 25% of your
>> earnings, why not argue that it's a convenient excuse for them to eventually
>> take 99.9%?
>
> Funny you would say that, as the Finnish government already takes 60% of
>your income here if you earn too much. That amount would be rather outrageous
>in many countries. (And this is one of the reasons why Finland is not such
>an enticing country for people and companies to search for work.)
At one point, in the UK, the highest rate of tax, under Harold Wilson, was 19/6
in the pound that is 97.5%.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> The only possible answer to this question is that they actually know the
Agree with everything except the "only" bit.
Never underestimate stupidity. It's greater than evil.
--
"I think not," said Descartes, and promptly disappeared.
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
