Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: aldo_14 on October 26, 2005, 12:03:19 pm
-
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/10/26/child_abuse_blocking_disclosure_bill/ / http://81.144.183.106/Articles/Article.aspx?liArticleID=211123&PrinterFriendly=true / http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4377348.stm
This is interesting, IMO, for 2 reasons. One, how can ISP actually content-filter websites given the inherent difficulty of doing so with any sort of automatic (i.e. keyword frequency) system (and wouldn't full disclosure of methods merely encourage circumvention)? Secondly, would the parliament even be able to understand any disclosed methods?
( If PMs questions shows anything, it's how thick the elected representatives are; almost every question that isn't pre-selected (proposed by a government backbencher; as evidenced by the Pm/other answerer having handy exact figures right in front of them) is deflected with some meandering, off topic and completely irrelevant answer, usually either focusing on another planned policy or attacking the record of the opposition the last time they were in government.)
Another thing that occurs to me is that placing responsibility for blocking access in the hands of ISPs would seem to be also removing it from the police. There may be an arguement it's better to 'allow' access, and thus let the police track down paedophiles from that; certainly a content block wouldn't stop paedophiles being paedophiles (in the highly unlikely event of it actually working to block 100% of sites), it'd just risk making them turn to harder-to-trace methods of obtaining material or perhaps escalating behaviour (although this is itself contentious; it's equally possible access to child pornography may cause paedophiles to become more likely to take a step further and abuse children if they are not doing so already).
Thoughts?
-
One has to question what they're going to block. Anything actually illegal isn't going to be found on www.littlekiddiepr0n.com. In this modern day and age, its going to be steganographically stuffed in other files, distributed in a disjointed manner, etc. Anything they could block is likely not illegal.
On the same subject, but from a different angle, what sort of content are they going to block? Photos and movies, I'm sure. But what about art and fantasy stories? Whilst they may be distasteful, they certainly don't cause any harm to anyone (to argue that they do is similar to arguing that watching Terminator makes people kill other people).
As for the discolsure of methods, well, there's nothign wrong with that. For one thing, closed systems are nearly impossible to properly audit and for another whether the ISPs disclose officially or not, someone somewhere WILL disclose the methodology.
-
This is a slipperly slope to government censorship of the net China style. I don't care how many pedos slip through, it's not worth the risk.
-
Originally posted by vyper
This is a slipperly slope to government censorship of the net China style. I don't care how many pedos slip through, it's not worth the risk.
The slippery slope is considered an informal logical fallacy for a reason...
-
And yet, outside of pure logic, in a mysterious realm called "the real world", the "slippery slope" has been demonstrated repeatedly.
-
Originally posted by mikhael
And yet, outside of pure logic, in a mysterious realm called "the real world", the "slippery slope" has been demonstrated repeatedly.
Faulty analogy. Let me rephrase: when it is possible to demonstrate that the events necessary to occur to reach the conclusion you desire is likely, it is not a fallacy. Such is not the case here.
In fact, by putting the burden of enforcement on the ISPs, the government is surrendering control.
-
So they can't be arsed, basically.... :no:
-
I would sanction any means neccessary to stop these scum; up to and including sniping them from a nearby rooftop. They are about the most vile people around, and nothing should stand in the way of stopping them. I am a totally non-violent person in most circumstances, but I would happily put a bullet through the head of every known paedophile, individually, personally, and with malice of forethought.
Simple as that.
Don't care if you agree or not, this is how I feel....
-
Originally posted by ngtm1r
The slippery slope is considered an informal logical fallacy for a reason...
The problem is when you risk equating the slipperly slope in such a way, you can also be arguing for the complete abolition of law itself; there are probably slippery slope arguements that would equate, perfectly logically, theft to the banning of personal ownership (for example).
But on the other hand there can be clear precedence where a law or social concept has set a precedent in one direction or the other that has allowed (or would allow) damaging legal situations.
So really the issue becomes one of 'braking'; would filtering child porn lead to filtering adult (i.e. consensual) porn, and eventually all sorts of material considered 'immoral'? Can we trust the law to solidly prevent that sort of slide towards the China style censorship - not just now, but in the future?
As it stands, I honestly haven't made my mind up. On the one hand, you can stop some very evil people accessing or distributing some very vile stuff. On the other hand, there are a myriad of problems, both technical (will be virtually impossible to correctly filter, and you'll either have a loose system that lets stuff through or a tight system that bars legit content, for example), and also social (risking removing the problem in such a way as to become 'hidden' from public scrunity and thus pressure to investigate, precedence for allowing censorship, etc).
-
Clave: if those means including you giving up your right to read/look at what you want you would still give them up
if so get the hell out of america
-
He's not in America.
-
good! then he can stay out of america!
-
Thing is, as has been said before, paedophiles are aware that they are hated and hunted, they take every precaution to hide what they are doing. As Aldo says, it gives a disproportionate amount of control over Internet content when compared to the good it will do.
At the end of the day, hunting down those who download child porn is, once again, not really dealing with anything, you need to get your hands on the people making these things, and to do that does not require any Internet changes, it simply means governments actually working together on an international basis in Real Life to catch and convict these people.
-
Ignore the troll. :roll:
Its really simple: those who are in the right should never give up their rights on the chance that doing so MIGHT stop those who are in the wrong. Making ISPs block content because it is illegal is fine (herding cats, but still fine). The problem is precedent: without careful handling, such a move may be considered a precedent for blocking content that is considered offensive (but not illegal). Now, in a strictly logical sense, there is no precedent (blocking illegal content != blocking legal content), but for some people, who find some content offensive, it WILL. And they will argue it. And they will fight for it. And they might just win.
That's what I mean when I say that in the real world, the slippery slope is NOT a fallacy. People work really hard to make it a REALITY, if doing so will get them what they want.
-
Originally posted by Kazan
good! then he can stay out of america!
:lol:
Just... :lol:
Even if he were here, it's his right to believe whatever he wants. You can't be a defender of people's liberties, and then go all soup nazi on people for differening. :p :lol:
-
Censorship is wrong, regardless of target. The Internet is a free medium anyway; people should be free to post whatever they like on it regardless of how disgusting it is.
However, if such material is illegal in meatspace, I have no problem with ISPs furnishing the long arm of the Law with the information required to catch the lawbreakers.
Freedom of speech is not synonymous with freedom of action.
-
Raa: i was attempting to be funny :D
NO AMERICA FOR YOU!
-
Och, at least let him have the southern continent.
-
Originally posted by Raa
soup nazi
:wtf:
That's a new one...
I like it though. ;)
-
Its a seinfeld reference, pyro.
-
Ahh. I didn't watch that...
-
Am I the only one whose first thought was of the almighty soupdragon? (http://webzoom.freewebs.com/tombakerornormal/_286965_soupdragon150.jpg)
-
Um... No.
Please tell me that's a Brittish kid show.. :D
I hate Nazi's normally, but for some strange reason I would let the Soup Nazi live (Just give me the damn soup!).
I don't know if Raa used the analogy correctly (I only saw the episode once)..
I think Ice T was absolutely correct when he coined the lyric, "Freedom of speech, just watch what you say!"
-
That there is the Soup Dragon from The Clangers, one of the best kid's programmes ever made. Good thought, aldo. :yes:
-
Kids programmes?
Kids programmes?
I'll have you know it was a documentary (http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php/topic,26705.0.html)!
-
Originally posted by Getter Robo G
I don't know if Raa used the analogy correctly (I only saw the episode once)..
The soup nazi would only sell soup if you followed the implied rules of his business. As soon as you did anything[/b] that he didn't like, he took the soup back from you, gave you back your money, and banned you from his store. :p
-
Originally posted by Kazan
good! then he can stay out of america!
Gladly, especially after the last time I was there...
Anyway, what right do you have to freedom?
-
Well, if you believe the Declaration of Independence, all mankind has an unalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, listed in ascending order. Not enough people do in the current age, though :(
-
So..
You can do anything you want? just because you live in America?
That piece of paper/parchment has no relevance to me in any way whatsoever.
It is a typical conceit to speak for 'all mankind' when you are just one country, so I ask again, what gives you the right to freedom?
An accident of birth?
Did you earn it?
Did you buy it?
I am curious...
-
Of course it doesn't mean you can do anything you want. It is, however, stating an Enlightenment-inspired position that all people are entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. This has the obvious connotation that you do not have the right to infringe on others right to enjoy these same rights.
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
Kids programmes?
Kids programmes?
I'll have you know it was a documentary (http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php/topic,26705.0.html)!
:lol:
That thread is ****ing awesome. :D For more than one reason... :yes:
-
Originally posted by Clave
So..
You can do anything you want? just because you live in America?
That piece of paper/parchment has no relevance to me in any way whatsoever.
It is a typical conceit to speak for 'all mankind' when you are just one country, so I ask again, what gives you the right to freedom?
*sigh* If you would actually READ what you're arguing about, you'd see that the document refers to ALL MANKIND. Not Americans. You would also see that the rights in question are "self evident" and endowed in mankind, meaning they stand alone without need for being deserved or earned.
You're free not to buy into it, but dude, at least KNOW what you're complaining about.
-
That's exactly my point. America created a document for 'all mankind' to live by - And while the sentiment is good, it is also the highest form of arrogance...
-
You think it's unique for a group of people to do that? Also, it's not a document for all mankind to live by; the relevant section is a statement of what they feel to be undeniable fact.
-
Originally posted by Grey Wolf
Of course it doesn't mean you can do anything you want. It is, however, stating an Enlightenment-inspired position that all people are entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. This has the obvious connotation that you do not have the right to infringe on others right to enjoy these same rights.
What about the situation where two people's happiness is mutually exclusive? Or when someone's liberty has to be curtailed to protected someone else's liberties?
And here, kids, we see the difference between 'morals' and 'ethics'.
-
Originally posted by Clave
That's exactly my point. America created a document for 'all mankind' to live by - And while the sentiment is good, it is also the highest form of arrogance...
America's founding fathers were simply proponents of ideas that had already been put forward. If you want to call someone "arrogant", you should start with John Locke, who believed that life, liberty, and property are not privileges bestowed upon people by their governments, but natural rights that all people possess simply by virtue of their humanity. It's a theory of political philosophy, so of course it applies to all people. I don't see why it's arrogant for a document to imply that the principles implemented here can be applied anywhere. Don't get me wrong; I don't support America actively forcing itself on other nations, but the Declaration of Independence doesn't say that either. It says, just as Locke did, that when a government deprives its people of their natural rights, that government is no longer entitled to the people's obedience.
-
It's not being forced on the rest of the world. It's how they believe humans should be treated and a declaration of how they will treat the rest of the world (not how they will force the rest of the world to treat themselves).
Nothing wrong or arrogant about that. It's like saying "I'm going to be nice to people"
Only wish the recent administrations had paid more attention to it. :rolleyes:
-
well, bear in mind recent administrations seemingly won't even ratify the likes of anti-land mine conventions or the Convention on the Rights of the Child.......
-
It's actually against the intentions of the United States founders' that it be imperialist.
From Washington's Farewell Address:
Why forego the advantages of so peculiar a situation? Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground? Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor or caprice?
It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world; so far, I mean, as we are now at liberty to do it; for let me not be understood as capable of patronizing infidelity to existing engagements. I hold the maxim no less applicable to public than to private affairs, that honesty is always the best policy. I repeat it, therefore, let those engagements be observed in their genuine sense. But, in my opinion, it is unnecessary and would be unwise to extend them.
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
well, bear in mind recent administrations seemingly won't even ratify the likes of anti-land mine conventions or the Convention on the Rights of the Child.......
Since when do children have "rights"? Little buggers are lucky to have a place to live and something to eat. ;)