Published on 14th May 2009 by
While what the IWF does is, technically a form of censorship, you would have to be extremely committed to the idea of freedom of expression to have a problem with a group whose role includes blocking images of child pornography.
Originally Posted by PhilIf you can still get access to /b/, how censored can the Internet be, right?
Originally Posted by HugoBQuote:Originally Posted by AlexIf you can still get access to /b/, how censored can the Internet be, right?
What, no link? ;)
Originally Posted by AlexIf you can still get access to /b/, how censored can the Internet be, right?
Originally Posted by evanbraakensiekI think the scope of this article was too broad.
Originally Posted by PsytekIf you block a port, we'll use a different one. If you block a protocol, we'll write a new one. If you snoop our traffic, we'll encrypt it.
IP's can be spoofed, VPN's, private servers, no international boundaries. You can't stop the internet from being free... that's like trying to stop a dog licking it's crotch.
Originally Posted by Natima
- "creative activity (writing or pictures or films etc.) of no literary or artistic value other than to stimulate sexual desire"
The internet should not, ever, be filtered in the same way China does.
Yes, the internet is access all over the globe, in almost every jursdiction imaginable, but that does not mean that the content should be filtered to suit that jurisdictions laws, to a very certain degree.
There needs to be a better implementation of the IWF, one that isn't haphazard, badly regulated, and very capable of making some very bad judgements (See the Virgin Killer album cover fiasco, the wikipedia editing fiasco etc, for evidence of this). I am not, by any means, arguing for allowing child pornography, or anything else equally illegal (Snuff films etc). What I am saying is, things should be regulated by a watchdog of equal standing and capability as (UK reference) OFCOM.
However, the internet should not be a chargable/pay-perview affair. By that I mean, yes we should pay monthly connection fees to our service provider. No, we absolutely should not be charged extra for breaking the 'fair usage' limit. There should be no such thing - Our telecommunications network should be more than capable of handling the amount of data consumption required by users, rather than the current system of charging 'per gb', as it is.
Tiered packages should exist - And I don't mean tiered in terms of what content you can access based on what tier you pay for. I mean tiered in terms of connection speeds and tweakability of the connection. As they currently do.
The current situation of companies, such as ESPN, approaching ISP's and trying to negotiate a situation where the subscribers pay an extra charge per month and get unlimited access to supposed 'high quality' streaming videos for sports events etc.
This should happen, however it should be a very much opt-in, not an opt-out system. It should operate the same way mobile phone contracts do for businesses. Everyone on the same tier of service should get the same service, however, each individual customer can modify the contract with any number of "bolt-on" options for extra cost per month, if they choose to.
A lot of this stinks to high heaven of content controllers trying to weed out piracy. All the more power to them. Piracy is a terrible thing. However, it does not affect them in the volumes they claim (Most, if not all of you, seem to agree that if they want the money they're trying to charge for things, the content should be longer, sans adverts, and a damnsight better than it currently is). Stopping internet based piracy is not going to happen. It just isn't, it's been going for too long and has picked up too great a following to stop. They can only hope to discourage it through being decent human beings, and charging for their content appropriate to the quality - And right now, it should damn well be near free.
The internet is not a governable 'place' or thing. It was designed as, and should stay as, a method of quick transmission of information and data - A place where you can learn or see what you want to - Within reason. Each jurisdiction should filter ONLY what is considered illegal consistent with that jurisdictions laws. Everything else should remain fair game.
with relatively light or non-existent DRM
Child porn is not a real arguement IMHO. Where are the people who are supposed to be stopping it from happening to begin with? So I guess it turned into: Let childern continue to get raped/exploited and just block it, probem solved.
Originally Posted by Imperium
The only change to that I would propose would be to better train computer crime unit people, or to add more people to the teams that are already fighting this battle.
You are not logged in, please login with your forum account below. If you don't already have an account please register to start contributing.
16th September 2014
15th September 2014
11th September 2014
© Copyright bit-tech