Comments on: More censorship. http://www.lawfont.com/2007/08/10/more-censorship/ an analysis of law, technology, economics, and policy Wed, 24 Feb 2010 22:51:01 -0800 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Paul Donley http://www.lawfont.com/2007/08/10/more-censorship/comment-page-1/#comment-55723 Paul Donley Mon, 20 Aug 2007 02:15:14 +0000 http://www.lawfont.com/2007/08/10/more-censorship/#comment-55723 (insert deep loud chuckling here) I see for Kim, her morning Wheaties are employed as a sort of 'cynicism alert'. Over the last few years, I can only imagine she's worn out a few counters and tables cleaning up the mess... On a recent trip to New Zealand, I was warned that I couldn't get porn because it was filtered. So.. I tracked up a couple of my favorite porn sites. One a free site with hundreds of excerpts; another a subscription site. Both came up easily and nicely. Checking, both sites have keywords "porn, pornography, explicit sex,..etc.) The Kiwis spent millions on that state of the art filter and have been keeping it upgraded. The government just doesn't seem to get the point: The value of the Internet is that it is a wide open source for information of all sorts. It is the last refuge of the individual; and requires all the equal measure of responsibility that accompanies freedom. If parents don't want their children viewing pornography, then there are many remedies available. Some of the most effective are free. If the kids are more technically savvy (which as a professional in the field is really questionable), then maybe responsible parents need to learn to overcome their fears of the unknown and make it known. The governments of Australia have made the Internet into a giant, menacing boogie man. Hint: This is another political straw man. And the government, in collaboration with Telstra, has been bilking the consumers of Australia for years to milk the Australian public. Kim, you have one of the warmest and most incisive minds in this country. Maybe someday someone will listen. Be assured many already do. Paul (insert deep loud chuckling here)
I see for Kim, her morning Wheaties are employed as a sort of ‘cynicism alert’. Over the last few years, I can only imagine she’s worn out a few counters and tables cleaning up the mess…

On a recent trip to New Zealand, I was warned that I couldn’t get porn because it was filtered. So.. I tracked up a couple of my favorite porn sites. One a free site with hundreds of excerpts; another a subscription site.
Both came up easily and nicely.

Checking, both sites have keywords “porn, pornography, explicit sex,..etc.) The Kiwis spent millions on that state of the art filter and have been keeping it upgraded.
The government just doesn’t seem to get the point: The value of the Internet is that it is a wide open source for information of all sorts. It is the last refuge of the individual; and requires all the equal measure of responsibility that accompanies freedom.

If parents don’t want their children viewing pornography, then there are many remedies available. Some of the most effective are free.

If the kids are more technically savvy (which as a professional in the field is really questionable), then maybe responsible parents need to learn to overcome their fears of the unknown and make it known.
The governments of Australia have made the Internet into a giant, menacing boogie man.
Hint: This is another political straw man. And the government, in collaboration with Telstra, has been bilking the consumers of Australia for years to milk the Australian public.

Kim, you have one of the warmest and most incisive minds in this country. Maybe someday someone will listen.
Be assured many already do.

Paul

]]> By: John http://www.lawfont.com/2007/08/10/more-censorship/comment-page-1/#comment-55722 John Sun, 12 Aug 2007 23:46:57 +0000 http://www.lawfont.com/2007/08/10/more-censorship/#comment-55722 I can see it now, dozens of IT experts advising the Government how to help parents hide the sleaze from their kids. Instead someone mentioned filtering, "That's it, a filter we need a great big filter" Spend loads of money on a filter, let's have a big white one with sparkling lights and give it a name life "safe-t-kids" or something. This Government appears to be clueless about all things IT, don't get me started on the broadband issue... I can see it now, dozens of IT experts advising the Government how to help parents hide the sleaze from their kids. Instead someone mentioned filtering, “That’s it, a filter we need a great big filter” Spend loads of money on a filter, let’s have a big white one with sparkling lights and give it a name life “safe-t-kids” or something. This Government appears to be clueless about all things IT, don’t get me started on the broadband issue…

]]> By: Dave Bath http://www.lawfont.com/2007/08/10/more-censorship/comment-page-1/#comment-55721 Dave Bath Sun, 12 Aug 2007 15:23:14 +0000 http://www.lawfont.com/2007/08/10/more-censorship/#comment-55721 Technically, the "net filter" they propose seems flaky. Personally, I'd do everything to encourage porn into a "red-light district" (a proposal for a .xxx domain went up a few years back - nothing happened). Outside the red-light district, distributing porn would be big trouble. Inside the red-light district, as long as it wasn't unclassifiable, who cares? A red-light district on the net (.xxx, .sex, .sex.au or whatever) is dead easy to filter out, and most of the people seeking to sell or buy such services would go to the red-light district as the most popular marketplace. This is what we did with newsgroups back in the pre-http days (established alt.sex.....) and that pretty much cut out the problem everywhere else. But of course, Howard's proposal sounds great to that audience and to those parents who are less computer-literate than the kids they are trying to protect. Technically, the “net filter” they propose seems flaky. Personally, I’d do everything to encourage porn into a “red-light district” (a proposal for a .xxx domain went up a few years back – nothing happened). Outside the red-light district, distributing porn would be big trouble. Inside the red-light district, as long as it wasn’t unclassifiable, who cares? A red-light district on the net (.xxx, .sex, .sex.au or whatever) is dead easy to filter out, and most of the people seeking to sell or buy such services would go to the red-light district as the most popular marketplace.

This is what we did with newsgroups back in the pre-http days (established alt.sex…..) and that pretty much cut out the problem everywhere else.

But of course, Howard’s proposal sounds great to that audience and to those parents who are less computer-literate than the kids they are trying to protect.

]]> By: James Purser http://www.lawfont.com/2007/08/10/more-censorship/comment-page-1/#comment-55720 James Purser Fri, 10 Aug 2007 10:20:19 +0000 http://www.lawfont.com/2007/08/10/more-censorship/#comment-55720 Hi Kim, Long time no talk :) Whats really telling is the fact that the Prime minister announced this move during an address to "town hall" type meeting with several hundred devout christians. Now I have no problem with devout christians, so long as they don't try and turn me into one, however I do have a problem with our national ICT policy being aimed at only a very small segment of the population. Hi Kim,

Long time no talk :)

Whats really telling is the fact that the Prime minister announced this move during an address to “town hall” type meeting with several hundred devout christians.

Now I have no problem with devout christians, so long as they don’t try and turn me into one, however I do have a problem with our national ICT policy being aimed at only a very small segment of the population.

]]>