Lotus Says: The Industry Supports Censorship 220
Industry has no issue with online content regulation. The industry endorses content regulation.
The context is Australia's new system of dumbing the net down for children; here, the words "content regulation" mean simply: "censorship." An excerpt follows.
Senator Alston, Australia's Minister for Communications, is still working to sell Australia's censorship law, which was passed in June and takes effect on January 1st. Essentially the entire continent's internet will be rated like movies, with teeth. Unless something is done before January - which looks unlikely - it will be the worst trampling of net liberties by a Western democratic nation.
One of the compelling arguments against Australia's plan is that it will slow or halt the technology industry - halting progress means losing venture capital and slowing an entire nation's economy; nobody wants that. So Senator Alston has been looking for evidence to the contrary, and in particular he hopes to convince people that the industry itself supports the plan.
In the excerpted speech below, given on September 30, he recalls a conversation with Jeff Papows, CEO of Lotus, and claims Papows voiced support for the plan. (Note that Alston also claims support from Yahoo. Yahoo denies this, but Lotus has not, and had no comment at press time).
The industry itself accepts that there should be these codes of practice and this form of regulation. We have been trying to negotiate it for the last three years with the Internet Industry Association. Their problem is that there are these maniacs - these electronic frontiers outfits - running around stirring up trouble, using quaint expressions and feeding lines to that woman from the Civil Liberties Union [Nadine Strossen] who then gets out there, gets a good run and says that we are global village idiots. This is just a low-grade political campaign. I do not find industry opposing this approach.
I was fascinated when I was in Silicon Valley about two months ago. I waited for industry to raise it, because it was at the height of the furore. It was just after the legislation had gone through and I was doing the rounds of all the IT companies in the valley. I waited for them to raise it with me. The only people who ever raised it with me were journalists who were saying, 'Isn't this a big problem?' I replied, 'Why it is a big problem?' They said, 'It is because it is getting media coverage. It is coming out of Australia. Your Senator Lundy is faxing the New York Times and saying, "Isn't it disgraceful?" and Electronic Frontiers Australia is calling for the minister's resignation. Isn't this an issue?' It is an issue for the media, because it is new, exciting and a lot of fun, but it was not an issue for the industry.
The only people who raised it with me on that visit were Yahoo who thought it was a good idea. I recently saw the president and CEO of Lotus, which is a major player. He was out visiting Australia. Again, I waited for him to raise it with me and he did not. Over the years I have seen a lot of these people and none of them have ever raised it. I thought I might as well ask him what he thinks. His answer was, 'Industry has no issue with online content regulation. The industry endorses content regulation.' In other words, all of the responsible players - and most of these people have kids of their own - do not for a moment want to see the anarchy that is prevailing at the moment.
Lotus' support for this plan comes as a surprise to those who remember that the company was founded by Mitch Kapor, later a co-founder of the Electronic Frontier Foundation.
What do you bet... (Score:1)
...and in another coincidence, Notes/Domino becomes the new standard for offices in the Australian government?
As several people have always pointed out, companies will kiss up to anyone that has potential purchasing power.
[sarcasm]
I suggest anyone out there with a nice fancy title like "Division Management Director of Information Technology System" call up IBM, ask to get a sales pitch for the new Lotus products, then wait five minutes and call them back to cancel the appointment because you just read on SlashDot that Lotus supports Internet censorship and you believe that is bad business.
[/sarcasm]
- JoeShmoe
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Proposal (Score:1)
Remove everything dangerous to kids. War, disease, poverty, bullies, oppresive school systems, parents, cars, animals, adults, and the environment in general. Only in a complete vacuum can they be safe.
Or keep them tightly sealed in steel barrels until they're 21, and fully capable of dealing with life themselves.
Typical BS, people; the industry gives lip service to this kind of talk so they look good. Duh.
*What* free, better alternatives? (Score:1)
I'd dearly love to have a free alternative to Lotus Notes, but I don't think there is one yet. And the Yoga project is clearly moribund.
--
censorship (Score:1)
Re:Politician distorts the facts. Film at 11. (Score:1)
As long as you don't use the f-word.
Re:Ratings systems=cenorship ? Yup. (Score:1)
Not every parent prints their moral code on a sheet of rubber. Not every child lives in a chaotic world where they get their way if they scream enough.
Lock-out Chips (Score:1)
For example, I recently got Dino Crisis for my Playstation. My Playstation had been modified to allow me to play Japanese games, but when I put Dino Crisis in, it detected the chip. I got a bunch of Japanese text and one of those red cirles with a slash through it like you see on no-smoking signs. Now, I'm sure, a lot of new Playstation games won't work in my Playstation, because of this technology, so I had to go back to the drawing board to try to thwart Sony's latest attempt impose their content controls on me.
I am a bit surprised by the way that Lotus came out so heavily in favor of government sponsored censorship, I'm guessing their is something in it for them, either in regards to control or financial gain.
I wonder how long the citizens of Australia will put up with this nonsense.
Re:Lock-out Chips (Score:1)
Re:Huh? (Score:1)
If industry defines our politics democracy is dead (Score:1)
2) Even if the comment weren't completely untrue, the notion that "industry" supports a particular political stance should not be construed to imply that the stance is in any way morally or ethically OK, or even good for the populace as a whole. Much of Germany's industry supported and profited from Hitler's campaigns of atrocity through world war II. Much of the Serbian industrial leadership supported Milosevic's policies until recently (at least rhetorically). As another person mentioned, industry throughout the world vehemently resisited and actively circumvented the trade sanctions against apartheid, not to mention those against Iran, Iraq, and, yes, Serbia.
In short, if "industry" is defining our political and ethical agendas, we are not only in very big trouble, we are probably already lost.
Ye F'ing Gods (Score:1)
"The Internet has come along in huge leaps and bounds since its invention two or three years ago" (this was mid 98).
This guy is the government minister of all things internet-related *cry*
But their Business Partners do (Score:1)
Our biggest area of expertise is with Lotus Domino/Notes. Lotus's products are used in all of the areas that you cite, and in order for them to sell lisences (I hesitate to use that phrase here, but Lotus is a business and shareholder value isn't created out of nothing) Lotus has to remain competive in those areas.
Starting with Domino 4.5 and continuing through the current release (R5, beta available on Linux) Lotus has been making a very strong move into Internet technologies.
Last point, Internet censorship will affect Lotus BP's, which will affect Lotus. None of us work in a bubble.
Re:Censorship sucks (Score:1)
Situation normal, and hardly confined to Australia.
You US people had Reagan (cluelessness made America proud again!) and now you have Bill "keep it in your pants" Clinton. We have our Howard and Alston.
Politicians. Don't expect much.
Re:Censorship sucks (Score:1)
Also, I know someone is going to say ratings == censorship, and that web content will be geared solely for diluted ratings, but this is the web, people! People still buy restricted movies, watch "viewer disgression is advised" TV-shows, and read dirty web pages that clearly say "THIS IS A PORN SITE, GO AWAY". So that statement is essentially false.
'Nuff said.
--------
"I already have all the latest software."
Re:Jeff Papows (Lotus CEO) is a fraud! (Score:1)
All hail Industry (Score:1)
endorsement of Industry. Report to the nearest liquidation center for
summary disposal. Do not speak to Industry approved children while
traveling to your nearest liquidation center.'
Ignorant Shill: `Excuse me, Mr. Industry. I know you're my $64 Billion
Buddy, but I have a question.'
Industry: `Yes?'
Ignorant Shill: `At what point did you become arbiter general for all
things social?'
Industry: `When your lawyers and your governments made me responsible
for The Great Pseudo-Child. Now get to the liquidation center or I'll
take away your mini-van and make you walk.'
Ignorant Shill: `Ok, thanks.'
Re:*cough* (Score:1)
What are you smoking? :-)
Since when does the industry dictate to the rest of us what we will, and will not, see and do?
When did it stop doing that? :-(
Jeff Papows (Lotus CEO) is a fraud! (Score:2)
Lies about his military experience and education and much much more.
Did anybody else read it? I wish I could find a copy of it. Wait a sec. I'll search Google. Well here is one :
http://www.zdnet.com/pcweek/stories/news/0,4153,10 14538,00.html
and http://www.techweb.com/wire/story/TWB19990430S0026
And see a good picture of him here:u st1999/99JAp10_Papows/99jap10_papows.htm l
http://www.groupcomputing.com/Issues/1999/JulyAug
Does he look like a used card salesman or what?
This is not nearly as detailed as the WSJ article. And remember he is also the same who laughed his ass off when asked if there would be a port of Lotus Notes for Linux. And guess what, now he is a fan of everything Linux.
This guy is a con artist and will say just about everything to make people around him happy to gain favors from them.
lotus? (Score:1)
--bc
--------------------------
Industry regulation vs. government regulation (Score:2)
The Australian plan is a particularly insidious and unsettling one - while on the surface it seems to allow people to continue to do as they please without repercussions, in fact it requires the individual to acknowledge and accept the government's right to censor material which they view.
There is no voluntary component - under the Australian law, as I understand it, if users choose not to run filtering software on their computer, they are violating the law. Citizens are forced to choose between exercising what many consider a basic human right, namely the freedom to communicate with others, and breaking the law. Some may consider this a minor issue, but it isn't minor when a government begins criminalizing behavior which otherwise law-abiding citizens might reasonably indulge in.
It's a pity that people like Papows so take for granted the protections that their (U.S.) Constitution provides them with, that they forget how important such protections are. Unfortunately, Australia may need to learn firsthand what the disadvantages of broad censorship laws are before sufficient political will is mustered to eliminate them.
Australia is Australia (Score:1)
sure i feel for you & i know this place aint much better (uk). BUT, just because the US constitution is against this, does it neccesarily mean it is wrong, at least for that place?
5% of people disagree, 40% dont care and the rest are pro, does that mean the remaining 95% are wrong?
this offends me, but as a self professed geek, my opinions differ from the norm - and i'm in no position to force my opinions on the majority.
Won't someone think of the children! (Score:1)
Mrs. Rev Lovejoy
Re:World's 3 most populous countries, in order.. (Score:2)
For future reference countries on the radar are: China, Japan, pretty parts of Europe, Australia, exotic tropical islands, parts of South America where you don't have to see poor people and which have AC, friendly parts of the Middle East, Mexico, anglophone Canada, some parts of SE Asia.
Countries not on the radar: Former Soviet Union and satellite countries, India, Africa (except maybe Egypt. Maybe), hostile parts of the Middle East, places with lots of poor people, francophone Canada, the other parts of SE Asia.
Some of this is because of food preferences, but it's also strongly influenced by what parts of the world you might possibly want to vacation in.
Re:*cough* (Score:1)
Since the industry was given free reign to control the Internet. Case in point: Paul Twomey, head of Australia's IT policy body, the person pretty much responsible for this vile new policy, is also chair of GAC. GAC is the Government Advisory Council to ICANN. ICANN is the private sector company now in control of the Net. ICANN claims GAC doesn't set policy. GAC already has set policy. ICANN listens to large corporations, and ignores the wishes of individuals. In fact, ICANN makes a claim similar to .au: Nobody bothers to participate in our little get-togethers, therefore nobody cares what we do.
The corporations are even now using this very excuse to turn the Net into the next century's television.
I've ranted about this before, and I'll do it again: If you find this sort of thing distasteful, don't bitch and moan about it here, GET INVOLVED. Nothing's going to change if the corporations are allowed to continue down this path unimpeded.
To date, that's exactly what they've been.
Re:Australia is Oztrilya, mate. (Score:1)
sorry, oz was the wrong example to use, lets get hypothetical:
some country historically has female circumcision, but disallows unfettered net access for cultural reasons. Of course western view points are offended by this, but that doesn't neccesarily make them more valid than this countries opinions - probably they are less valid because of the weight of culture.
i just saw a glimmer of this in the situation and it got my shackles up
Re:Censorship sucks (Score:1)
Why should it be prevented? The main thing with censorship seems to be choice. At least with ratings, users have the choice to be influenced by the "moral majority", or not. You suggest not giving them this choice, which could be considered just as bad as censorship itself.
Look at slashdot's ratings aka moderation.
That is a very bad example of how well ratings work. Browse at -1 for awhile and you'll understand what I mean.
So remember: Keep Fit and Have Fun!
--------
"I already have all the latest software."
True, although... (Score:1)
If we consider the practicality of the situation, though, most of the "isms" tend to lean toward totalitarianism/authoritarianism, because all the forms of government (so far) involve a small subset of people to whom everyone else is responsible to. As the general education level increases, this subset increases in number, and power concentrations tend to be diluted, and weaned from some portion of the existing subset. Resistance to this dilution is a natural side-effect of weaning, and act is a specific case as part of the weaning.
Well, I wanted to explain my prior rant, and got into another one. Doh. I guess there are disadvantages to stream-of-conciousness writing. Namely, I can't make a coherent thought that doesn't blend into another one. hehe.
________________________
Re:Badly named thread.. (Score:1)
China, Microsoft, Unix, and the American Way (Score:1)
Who speaks for the tech industry? (Score:1)
Re:Well, yes.. and no.. (Score:3)
I got much better sex ed from alt.sex.* (back before they were spam-havens) and the relevant FAQs than I ever got in high school. Don't underestimate the ability of literate experts in a field, even one like sex or S&M, to produce useful and entertaining documentation.
Censoring "sex" will not just block out the "dirty pictures"; it will also block out the real, high-quality, grassroots-produced information. Why? Because a lot of the people who want to stomp out the dirty pictures also want to keep people ignorant.
(Notice that I didn't say "... to keep children ignorant.")
Re:Ratings systems=censorship ? Yup. (Score:1)
... which industry was that again? (Score:4)
Lotus makes application software. Internet censorship wouldn't affect their business one bit, any more than regulation of the bicycle industry would affect airplane pilots.
Wait a sec... (Score:1)
Huh? (Score:1)
Re:Ratings systems=cenorship ? (Score:1)
No.
It's that simple.
As one small part of the reason the answer is "NO", consider the ratings the US Government would put on the following, assuming equal violence, etc:
Our Heroic Merikin Troops Kick The Ass Of The Target Of Today's Five-Minute Hate
The Waco Holocaust Electronic Museum [mnsinc.com]/.
Official Notice (Score:4)
Thank you, and good night.
Censorship sucks (Score:3)
Re:Censorship sucks (Score:1)
are "intelligent beings".
Australians can be intelegent, but we can also be an apathetic mob, lead by the nose by the Alpha Sheep(tm).
What do you expect from a country that made "She'll be right mate" into a national motto.
It really takes something bad for us to do someting (It took 25 years for us to so something about Timor!).
Re:Badly named thread.. (Score:1)
Because we can't read your mind. We can only read what you wrote.
I said it provides a starting point for parents.
You said it should be made mandatory. This is stupid and evil for reasons which have repeatedly been explained here.
/.
Of course the industry supports censorship! (Score:5)
The Computer Industry doesn't make it's money off of freedom of speech, it makes it's money off of computers that push data around. Whether that data is regulated is irrelevant, because regulated data needs computers to push it around just as much as unregulated data.
Since the industry makes money either way, they don't care. And if the industry doesn't care, it will always make nice noises at the powers that be, because then life is better for the industry.
Companies exist for one reason: to make money. Mitch Kapor may be very ardent about free speech, but he is not now nor has he ever been Lotus Personified. Even if he were still in Lotus that would be Lotus' stance, and he would be expected to back it up publicly or probably lose his job.
Companies only weigh in for rights when it affects their bottom line. That's why corporations are so gung-ho about loosening restrictions in encryption -- they want to sell it. That's why corporations are so gung-ho about whether or not the Govt should reign in Microsoft -- either they'll make more money without Microsoft, or they'll make more money WITH Microsoft.
That's also why Corporations are so hot on doing business in China, despite China's atrocious record on human rights -- they can make money in China. That's also why Corporations fought bitterly against Apartheid Sanctions.
Corporations see the green before anything else. It makes me sick, but that's the way it is.
So if Australia wants to censor the internet, why not? Unless you're an ISP, it doesn't affect your bottom line. So the Computer Industry is fully behind Censorship, as long as they keep making money...
Re:Senator Alston is an idiot (Score:1)
Re:yay: the *real* comment (Score:1)
now for my *real* comment.
Australia is pissing me off. I don't know what they want us to do... just make one huge proxie and enforce it worldwide?
Re:Ratings systems=cenorship ? Yup. (Score:2)
One obvious problem with mandatory ratings of web sites is: who's going to do the rating? There are so many web sites and they change on such a continuous basis that there's no possible way that a centralized rating authority can assign ratings to every web page (or really every separately addressable object) in existence. That means that content providers have to supply their own ratings. There's obviously a conflict of interest here. The Australian law seems to try to get around that by requiring that the ratings coincide with what the central censorship bureau would assign the site. That makes it difficult, to say the least, for people to safely rate their own sites. This issue has been discussed in a lot more depth elsewhere, and I don't feel like a lot of typing.
As for this issue of parents vis a vis children, if you want your children to be that coddled, then you can bloody well find the time to research every single thing your child wants to buy/see/use. If you don't want to, you can buy filtering software to do the job for you. If you complain that it doesn't work well enough, then write better software yourself to do it. But don't ask the person running the erotica site to admit that his material is morally wrong and to do your work for you. If nothing else, it won't work. Mandating that every web site be correctly rated is impossible. Don't pretend that it will work -- it won't, and your child will be exposed to all the "garbage" (distinctly a value judgment) that he'd be exposed to anyway. If you think that "mandatory" ratings will relieve you of any effort, you're fooling yourself, I'm afraid.
Besides which, ratings are a very limited way of measuring something. I presume you're thinking about ratings for erotic and violent contact. But what about an Islamic parent who doesn't want his son to see pictures of women with their legs uncovered? Or a Jewish parent who doesn't want her children to get all caught up in Christmas? How does any rating system "protect" them?
Isn't it better to teach your children how to properly handle material that you or they consider undesirable than to pretend that you can magically stop it?
Re:Censorship sucks (Score:2)
*Of Couse* Industry Supports Censorship (Score:1)
Let's face it, not only are major corporations oligarchy-friendly, the growth markets for most technology companies are the non-western countries with governments that want technology but they don't want the freedom of speech and other annoying threats to their power that it entails. *Of course* these companies are more than willing to sell out liberty to make a quick buck. Ruport Murdoch will take news off his satellite, Bill Gates will add back doors to Windows and Lotus will help you censor web pages, and Hughes will help you build better missles.
The scary thing is, everyone always assumed that democracy and freedom were necessary for capitalism to work. Antidemocratic, antifreedom countries were socialist nightmares that American business was afraid to work with. As it turns out, if the state just lets up on the socialist rhetoric American business is more than willing to sell out to countries whose political systems are diametrically opposed to every cherished political belief we have.
I think it's safe to say... (Score:1)
Searches for off-the-top-of-my-head terms (i.e. beastiality [yahoo.com] and necrophilia [yahoo.com]) show that Yahoo will quite happily index content that most people favoring Internet censorship would want suppressed.
Of course, having their listings indexed by category makes it fairly easy for them to prune the database of anything they deem inappropriate, but the more they do this, the more they risk self-destructing, as the business model for your typical portal site depends upon instilling a mindset into your users that your portal is the best way to find anything and everything they want on the Net. If people were to start getting hit with tons of "No match found" messages when looking for even slightly-illicit things, I'd be willing to bet that Yahoo would tank faster than a Mars probe set with English units. [slashdot.org]
There's even more (Score:1)
Nobody Cares About Censorship, Says He? (Score:2)
Does anyone have a SnailMail address for The Distinguished Gentleman from Australia? I'd like to disabuse him of a few misconceptions.
Schwab
Re:Ratings systems=cenorship ? (Score:1)
Re:Ratings systems=cenorship ? (Score:1)
As a parent, I can see that rating is a precious thing. But - rating is essentially the same thing as censorship.
- Things which get rated as adults only, (example-NC17) tend to get regulated to dark corners. Content providers will always be pushing the envelope to gain larger audiences.
- Does your Rated-G match mine? If someone gets hit 2 or 3 times in a story, does the work get a PG-13, when 15 hits gets a rating of R?
What about existing published works readily available at the library. What about the Illiad?? Do you think the dragging of Achillies is too cruel for a 12 year old? Do you think Power-Rangers should be watched by 5 year olds?? If we have content-rating, then it REQUIRES content rating guides like this. No exceptions... else a NAKED LADY may accidentally peek through.
What then? Does your child have the moral values to know this is _wrong_ and go somewhere else?? When something questionable comes on TV in front of your children, do you change the chanel?? If you're at a movie, and there are naked people on the screen, do you get up and leave with your children.
People want others to raise their children. Rating systems enforce material as "safe" and parents believe they can trust it. The "Village" Moral ethic.
I say that content rating systems for published materials are useless and only provide a political avenue to pidgeonhole and "name" particular groups as dirty, salacious, or unfit for human consumption.
I would rather spend the time, give the love and values to them, and enrich my own life by learning together with my children. I would also like a cheaper ISP!
These are just my thought.
Thanks,
Roger
Porn sites on Notes (Score:1)
(Which means that content regulation doesn't affect Lotus' market one way or another.)
Re:*cough* (Score:2)
--
This is getting old, but... (Score:1)
Re:Internet as high seas (Score:1)
Did the citizens create the government, or did the government create the citizens?
The US government RECIEVES its sovereignty FROM the people, as PEOPLE GRANT the government privileges, since you CAN'T transfer a right.
BILL OF RIGHTS
ARTICLE X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Good post BTW.
Cheers
Re:Ratings != Censorship is correct (Score:2)
Re:Censorship sucks (Score:1)
Think about it, folks. You're siding with the spammers on this issue.
You're raising an irrelevant argument. Spam is a private property issue (the spammer is stealing other people's bandwidth), not a freedom of speech issue. Content is irrelevant -- it is no more and no less wrong to dump spam advertising a Teletubbies fan site as it is to dump spam advertising a pr0n site.
/.
Re:Ratings != Censorship is correct (Score:1)
This makes sense.
No (easy) way to rate internet content. (Score:1)
In addition things like publishing a newspaper on line will most likley have to be restriced - you will end up with things that are perfectly legally published out in the real world becoming illegal once you place them on the net.
As someone who works in the IT industry I shudder at the eventual cost of this legistation, all because some parents don't feel the need to supervise their children while they use what is obviously a adult tool.
Re:Content Regulation is okay (Score:1)
I can understand your POV, but I submit that you are not taking the goal of parenting into account in your opinion. The purpose of parenting to adequately care for and nurture a growing individual, preparing the child for adulthood, when completely autonomous decision-making is required. Contrary to the desires of many government and industrial institutions, which would be better served by drone workers who ask no questions and accept direction from authorities, the desire of a parent who truly understands his/her calling is to produce a child with the abilities of deduction, induction and introspection... qualities that will allow the child-turned-adult to assess situations and make decisions independently. To that end, a parent must engage the child with material that is ever more challenging, both intellectually and ethically. Their bodies grow strong from exertion of the muscles. Their minds and hearts from exertion of reason and ethics.
Rather than look to anyone to provide content regulation for our children (and mine is not hypothetical, but a very real and computer-savvy 6-year-old), we should be involved to the point where our children will ask us for our opinion if they see something puzzling or interesting. And yes, that means exposure to nudity, sex, hate speech, violence and abuse. And that's just the Bible! We also have the Louvre, the Library of Congress, the Tower of London... All great places containing the many facets of what we are. Let's not hide it from our children, but teach them to weigh it and ponder it. They are, after all, adults in the making.
Typical Politician (Score:1)
(slightly offtopic) Sig Translation (Score:1)
"Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Fuhrer" - Adolf Hitler "One People, one Government, one Ruler" - Adolf Hitler (translated)
Thought the German-impaired might like to know that... :)
Posted by the Proteus
Re:Ratings systems=cenorship ? Yup. (Score:1)
Re:Politician distorts the facts. Film at 11. (Score:2)
And high speed net access in Australia? Unless you're Kerry Packer (professional rich bastard), or one of a *very* and I mean *Very* limited number of people living in a few exclusive suburbs of Melbourne or Sydney which have cable internet access, you can forget it. It would be cheaper to fly to hawaii, rent a house and download stuff onto a zip disk from a @Home connection than it would be to get single channel ISDN here.
Heck, most of areas inside Australia's state capitals don't have cable TV, with neither of the people providing it (both of which who happen to Telcos.. *urg*) planning on a big rollout any time soon. It's not so bad.. we still have 6 TV Stations. Well, 1 is government run and generally not that great, the other one is mostly foreign stuff, another is a public access one, so we effectivly have 3 channels. woohoo. And if you're outside Perth, capital of WA, a state hrm, three/four times the size of Texas, there's two stations, including the gov't run one.
The one great thing about Australia I do have to say however is that I'm perfectly allowed to trash the country's name any way I like. We do have freedom of speech in that way. Hell, in Indonesia a few days back they were burning our flag.. the general response of people seemed to be "hmm, well make sure nothing that's actually important catches on fire".
Re:Censorship sucks (Score:2)
Censorship isn't going to go away, and a certain amount of it is apparently compatible with the First Ammendment and has been so for 200+ years. Yeah, there's more of it than there should be. But when colleges are tossing out students for calling each another names, when people are seriously proposing to "reform" our political system by jailing people who campaign in certain ways, when anything that can be chracterized as "commercial speech" is exempted from guarantees of freedom, well, I'm just not going to lose much sleep over Australians' right to surf for porn.
Re:Content Regulation is okay (Score:1)
here I have the biggest issue with content regulation is that the Australian government has decided to implement the content regulation on a nation wide level irrespective of who is trying to look at the content.
To me, this is synonomous to saying that since drivers aged between 18 and 25 cause the most accidents on the road, we should ban all drivers.
The brush is simply too broad and everyone is being tarred.
In my mind, this is the issue with content regulation - the fact that it is applied on a macro and not a micro level.
[[/quote]]
I agree with your basic premise -- that requiring all the people to conform to a law because a few are at risk is foolish.
There are, however, additional issues to consider here. Firstly, current filtering/rating software is grossly ineffective, cutting off sites with such topics as Bible discussion, the Quran (sp?), and Human Anatomy. This is a travesty because it forces such sites to "rate or be excluded."
Secondly, and perhaps more to the point, is that any Government -- especially one which claims to be 'free' -- does not have the right to censor information. (note: yes, there are some exceptions for classified data, but even this should be released when no longer sensitive) Should parents be concerned about what their children view on the Net? Absolutely? Should they install filtering software if they can't be with their kids all the time? Perhaps, I leave it to the parent. But that's the very point -- the responsiblity, and more importantly the choice, rests on the parent. By enforcing such a filtering law, the government is, in effect, saying that their citizens are so foolish that they cannot decide for themselves or their children what is "appropriate."
Is there content available on the net that I wish wasn't there? You bet. Do I try to stop it? Hell no. Freedom of speech is a basic freedom -- and to take it away from even one person or group is to hinder us all.
Just my $0.02
remove SPAMKILLER- to contact me.
Posted by the Proteus
Re:Censorship sucks (Score:1)
Re:Education industry anti-censorship? (Score:2)
If I meant public high schools, I'd say "indoctrination" or "alienation" or "degradation" maybe.
(Just to clear things up...)
Re:Censorship sucks (Score:1)
if parents are not willing to put the time into things themselves, to ensure that something questionable passes THEIR standards, then they shouldn't have kids. Too many people use ratings as the Final Definitive Word (tm) in things, and don't bother to look into it further. This is where ratings effectively = censorship.
Yes ratings can be a good thing. Look at slashdot's ratings aka moderation. it seems to work fairly well. it's when ratings are misused that problems come into play. it's hard for ratings to be misused if there are a huge pool of moderators/raters.
ideas?
Re:Politician distorts the facts. Film at 11. (Score:1)
I think he's playing to more than just Harradine, he probably feels like he will be treated like a hero in the conservative section of society, where the technology is also not understood and who do not understand the implications.
ISP's were e-mailed a disgustingly ignorant letter on the 20th April this year from a representative of Senator Alston. If anyone would like a copy I can forward it to them. It discusses the fine points of their justification, all convoluted and wrong with very sad anecdotes and analogies, and claiming as above that it has support from various areas that it probably hasn't even queried (or simply ignored their calls for common sense). It also says the time to discuss the matter is now, after several replies to the e-mail, there was no feedback from the senator or his representatives.
Also, the TIO (Telecommunication Industry Ombudsman) is an organisation that _forces_ ALL Australian ISP's to join. It then proceeds to dictate to the media and the public what the Internet industry members are thinking and feeling (completely made up to please the Government, no reflection of the industry at all). It is also illegal to then give any negative media towards the organisation if you are a member. What's an ISP to do?
Not all content regulation is bad. (Score:1)
I really believe that there are some things that children or even people should not see before they are ready.
Look if it's true for physical stuff, why should it be so different for other areas?
You don't send people into a warzone before training and preparing them. That would be foolishness.
You don't stick a sapling in the open without any protection if you care about it, you try to let it grow strong and straight first. If things go well you only need some pruning here and there, (if things go very very badly the tree may end up totally chopped down).
The problem nowadays is
1) The Locusts want to be in every nook and cranny. They don't care about your "saplings" they just want to suck the max sap out of em.
2) Parents seem to have or make less and less time for their children, in pursuit of Global Competitiveness and Success.
3) Thus they have a smaller window of opportunity to prepare their saplings for the world.
Sure if you left everything on their own, some will survive. But why then bother with civilisation? Civilisation is "Human Selection" in contrast to "Natural Selection".
Why delegate some of your Selection/choice to someone? Well that's because hierachical systems tend to be easier to manage, and most people have better things to do.
If you don't like the Moderator or how things are moderated then all get together and change stuff. But that doesn't mean the need for a Moderator vanishes.
It's how it's done, and who you select to do it.
Cheerio,
Link.
Re:Ratings systems=cenorship ? (Score:1)
But I can still make my own movies or record CDs of my own music and sell them without submitting them for approval; I just might have trouble getting the local theatre to show my movie, or the local CD-o-rama to stock my disk. And I don't have to say "This song may contain explicit lyrics" when I'm playing guitar on the streetcorner.
Sorry, but the fact that you negelected to use birth control puts no responsibility on me. I'm not obliged to shut up when your kids enter the room, or to give you some sort of warning that I may say something you don't want them to hear. Raise your own damn kids and leave me the hell alone.I say... Government porn. (Score:1)
Extensive e-commerce support
Streaming support
Unlimited storage space
Excellent rates on bandwidth
And the clincher...
Entry into the Australian Pornédex, the premier source for access to pornography of all types!
Hey, if they're the premier porn gateway in Australia, they can determine who gets in! Isn't that blessedly easier?
Re:Huh? (Score:1)
Re:The battle has started in earnest. (Score:1)
Socialist != totalitarian; socialists and capitalists both come in libertarian and authoritarian flavors.
For more on Libertarian Socialism, see this [spunk.org].
As for me, though, I'm a Zenarchist [mindspring.com].
Re:Nobody Cares About Censorship, Says He? (Score:1)
That's the way politics works. It's all about vested interests and covering one's arse. Lofty principles don't matter one whit.
Not so clear... (Score:1)
However, it's easy to lie with statistics. The small ISPs going to the wall can be explained as a natural tendency to consolidate, or the result of other factors. The problem can be explained away, and the experiment can be branded an inspiring success by advocates of censorship in other countries. Expect this to inspire the Christian Coalition and miscellaneous social engineers in the US and elsewhere.
And expect the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade to subsidise these pro-censorship groups under the table. After all, in this climate, censoring routers and filter software will become Australia's main high-tech industry. This industry will want to export their censorware, and there is only so much demand in China and Saudi Arabia, so they will endeavour to boost demand in the US and other countries.
Re:Ratings systems=cenorship ? Yup. (Score:1)
My theory, as is many others, is that a kid young enough won't be affected by something like porn, because they'll just be grossed out, or racism, as that takes some deliberately misguided high level thought to reason that crap out.
Theory: If they're old enough, they were probably looking for it. So no point in stopping them. But if you object to it, TELL THEM in a REASONABLE manner. Don't just say "Because that's immoral" or "Because I said so". Those are just saying "Go for more and stretch the limits"
The battle has started in earnest. (Score:1)
Really, though, the whole concept of passing such an act stands as a measure of how socialist Australia's government is: One thing that a socialist nation cannot deal with is overachievement. This concept is intolerable to a socialist. The idea that their population may contain advanced, free-thinking people that may not subscribe to their party scares them. I consider this trait to be a link between most (if not all) totalitarian forms of government. I was surprised to see this pop up in Australia, but I should not have been. They are the first nation to act on the concept that the Internet, and the self-development benefits people can obtain from it, provide a slim but growing chance that nations will evolve towards a more democratic society, at the expense of the current "ruling classes" (cheesy term, but it loosely applies).
I guess now we have to organize a response, an "Internet Free Australia", so to speak. I won't be visiting that country anytime soon, either, because I don't want my tourist dollars to be taxed to fund that abomination.
_____________________
Re:... which industry was that again? (Score:1)
Disclaimer: I live in Oslo, Norway, and only have experience with a few (two, actually) schools, but I do have a general impression of the state of things in the Norwegian school system in general.
Shoestring budget, absolutely! My school is 50/50 486/66 w/8-32MB RAM and P-200 (or equivalent) wiht 32MB RAM, all running Windows 3.11. The main file/print server is a 486/66 running NT 3.51 SP-0
Censorship, on the other hand, is *very* tight (or attempts to) the proxy server does an URL-based filtering of known porn/warez sites, + generic string matches ("porn", "xxx" (which blocks xxx.lanl.gov, the Los Alamos National Laboratory White Paper server), "warez" and stuff like that). Of course this won't block the *really* nasty porn sites, because they don't have obvious URLs. This proxy server (Squid on Linux BTW) has an uptime that stinks worse than my week-old socks, and the firewall only lets through HTTP originating from the proxy, except when the admins notice that the proxy is down after a couple of hours.
It also blocks everything outbound except FTP and IRC, and *all* inbound traffic.
The firewall's external hostname is Fat-Mama, and the internal one is Big-Papa, which I find extraordially appropriate :)
---
Ilmari
So where are you developers? (Score:1)
Perjurers and Fools (Score:2)
The WSJ had a -very- interesting expose on Mr. Papows earlier this year...
Then again, it sounds as if the govermental turkey was fibbing more than a bit, too. Probably wanted to pick an industry figurehead who's denials wouldn't be believed when he fabricated his "indistry support" song and dance...
SoupisGood Food
Re:Of course the industry supports censorship! (Score:2)
a) The popular acceptance of amorality in business is a relatively recent phenomenon, and a bad one, IMHO. Nevertheless, there are several more pragmatic arguments that are relevant here.
First, there is the slippery slope argument, which I doubt I need to elaborate upon, except to say that this regulation may open the door for more regulation which, at some fuzzy point in the future, may expose Lotus (etc.) to liability.
Second, just because a company isn't in the content business now doesn't mean that they won't be in the future. This doesn't require you to visualize some fuzzy point in the future. Take Yahoo! for example: they may have had some liability under this stature before they purchased GeoCities, but that purchase certainly increased their exposure exponentially; given the lightning pace of mergers and acquisitions in the industry, it's not at all inconceivable (although not terribly likely) that this regulation could negatively impact Lotus' mid- to long- term exposure. It's easier to keep legislation from being passed than it is to repeal it; legal inertia, you might say.
B) Accusing companies of being [im/a]moral for dealing with China jumps to a rather unwarranted conclusion.
This is true because it assumes that doing business with China is bad for the Chinese people (assuming that you have their welfare in mind), a conclusion that isn't really supported by the facts. Perhaps pouring money into the PRC actually improves the political situation there; there certainly is a correlation between prosperity in post-Mao PRC and individual freedom, although you might be premature to jump to a cause-effect conclusion there.
On the other hand, there is a fair body of supporting evidence for that hypothesis: Taiwan comes to mind, and Cuba and North Korea stand out as examples of the situation getting worse or not changing when investment is withheld. One might surmise that withholding investment hurts the masses (not the leaders), and investing helps everybody out (a rising tide lifts all boats, or something like that). I'm no friend of big business, but even as a stopped clock is right twice a day and you can lead a horse to a cheesy aphorism, but you can't make him read it, they might be doing the wright thing for the wrong reasons here.
Or, they may be doing the wrong thing, but it's definitely not a black and white choice.
Contact The Minister (Score:2)
If you would like to suggest to the Minister that perhaps he has misunderstood the "industry", or that the views of "industry" are not necessarily those of the people he represents please send an email to the Minister [mailto].
Well, yes.. and no.. (Score:2)
We already have rating systems for movies, video games, and CDs (and lots of other things, for that matter). I'm thinking most adults are pretty aware of how these things are used. Seriously, who here actually thinks that watching a rated-R movie is going to warp some kid's mind? Even if it did, which part?
Sex? Well, it's something kids need to learn about anyway, and if you ask me, sex ed. is the worst place (that class made me sick.. ugh..). Not that I know the best, but you know, kids are going to learn about sex no matter what, and if you ask me, it's probably better that they learn about it some other way than by having it at 13 or 14 when they probably don't know enough about STDs and whatever to be too health-conscious about it. However, if that's what they want to do anyway, it would be good if they learned about it in a healthy fashion beforehand so maybe they won't screw their lives over so early on.
Besides which, the "child" in question viewing the movie is either old enough that they've probably already had sex (surprise mom/dad!) or they're too young and don't even care.
Violence? I'd just like to say that after watching Nightmare on Elm Street, I went on a homicidal rampage and butchered my whole neighborhood. I'm typing this behind prison walls on Death Row. They treat us good in here. Good food.. Yeah, right. Get real. Kids in general think it's cool to see violence in movies, not to reenact it in real life. Those who are violent irl are fscked in the head to begin with, and not because of the movie.
Profanity? I'm sorry, but even in Catholic school will you hear more profanity than any other part of your life other than a real high school. The profanity found in movies will not be nearly as creative, either.
In short, I could probably give a fsck less what movies my kids watch when they get "old enough" (this being determined on a case by case basis, though I can assure everyone it will be at much lowers ages than the MPAA or U.S. gov. would like it to be), should I ever choose to have them (I just might, just so that more intelligent people roam the land =P). Besides, if you can't keep your kids from seeing movies you disapprove of, you're probably a bad parent one way or the other, and need to relax your death grip on them or actually spend time with them for once. Ratings are abstract, and serve no purpose other than to attach a stigma to "bad" movies (you have to stay under the dread NC-17 mark or else no one will ever see your movie.. well, or else over it, and even then only porn freaks will). An "R-rated" movie could be a total homicidal freak show, or it could just say "fuck" once too often. Real specific, guys!
Video games.. Pretty much the same thing, except there's not likely to be too much sex or profanity. And guess what? The violence isn't likely to be too realistic. But you get to control the violence! I'll sum it up right here: After playing Mortal Kombat for the first time, I ripped my friend's spine out! It kicked ass! Yeah.. I definitely see people's point when they say violent video games and role-playing games are the cause for why our children are fucked up. Personally, I think it's because our delusional parents are twisted renditions of the Antichrist painted in biggotry and ignorance. Grr.
Down with Big Brother and all his evils! CDs with sexual/explicit content.. Oh come the fuck off it already! I already said we'd have more profanity in high schools! You have to be 18 to buy CDs with "explicit content"? I'm not sure if that's the age limit, I thought I remembered my favorite girl mentioning something about that. That's straight up stupid. What do they expect kids to listen to? Country/western music? Ugh.. Not for all of us, thanks.
I'm sick of rating systems! I'm sick of censorship! I'm sick of regulation! I'm sick of "editing" for what-the-fuck ever content! All it does it make me angry, and make those cavorting devils in the extreme right all warm and fuzzy inside because they can sleep better at night knowing they've raped me so that parents everywhere can sleep soundly knowing their children have no rights to decide for themselves! Did I say rape ?? Yes, I did! Why? Because my freedom has been taken away from me by force ! My freedom, you say? Well.. yes!
Everyone has the right to choose for themselves (or should). It's my life. I decide who I'm going to be. I decide what I'm going to watch, listen to, play, whatever. Someone else wants to force their ethical/moral values upon me? They're going to get a clue-by-four upside their fscking skull! They should live their own lives, decide their own decisions, not take the "burden" off of the rest of us by deciding for us too. Those kind of people make me sick, and ought to be ejected from this country and sent to a true police state where they'll feel right at home. They don't want to go? We have plenty of electric chairs, guys.. *evil grin*
In short, Joe Public may not know much about computers, but even if he did, he wouldn't give a fuck. He'd still want the censorship to continue. Why? He's a lazy fucking idiot who shouldn't have procreated in the first place.
P.S. If my favorite girl is reading this, I'm not suggesting we have kids. Don't hurt me. =P
Re:Of course the industry supports censorship! (Score:3)
There is a quote I remember the QT movie Jackie Brown, where Samuel L says something like "I know I can't trust her, but I can always trust her to be herself."
This goes with corporations. Companies do not have morals, ethics, consience or anything else beyond what is good PR. Companies have profits and losses. That is the way they work. This is the only way they can work.
Trying to put a moral standard on companies is as stupid as trying to apply it to an animal - as entities, they just don't operate that way.
We can never rely on companies to ensure our human rights, we need individuals (hopefully ourselves) for that. The really awful things that corporations do (pollution, suing 3 year olds who posts Teletubby pictures) cannot be blaimed on the companies, but on the inadequasy of the legislation we have set up to rule them. Corporations are like script kiddies constantly attacking your security: if there is a hole, they will find it, but so bluntly that any reasonably attentive sysadmin can patch it before any real damage is done.
The problem is not in the companies, but rather in our governments who have let us down completly. They are awful, awful sysadmins. Countries like the USA and the EU are more or less ruled by corporate lobbyists today - giving the companies power over us through an institution established to achieve the exact opposite.
That, if anything, makes me sick...
-
Re:Am I really reading this..? (Score:2)
OK, I'm only going to respond to this part, because I agree with all of it... I just wanted to add something. It just occured to me that the "zero responsibility" attitude, at least as it applies to internet censorship, comes from computer phobia on parent's parts. That is, the parents are too scared of the computer to monitor their children's access themselves. This may sound ridiculous to us, but I've worked in retail computer sales, and it's a very real phenomenon. People old enough to have children accessing the internet are, in general, scared to frikin' death of the computer. They don't want to touch it, they don't want to mess with it, nothing. The kids are 100% in charge of the computer. This is why these parents go and cry for external help in regulating it. Now, I'm not defending the regulation, nor am I defending these parents. Personally, this phenomenon makes me extremely angry. These people need to learn not to be scared of the computer. Then they need to learn to raise their own children. Of course, I'm not a parent yet, so maybe I don't know what I'm talking about...
Internet as high seas (Score:2)
Re:Nobody Cares About Censorship, Says He? (Score:3)
If true, then he has abrogated his duties as a public servant. I hope efforts are made to inform his consitituents of this fact come the next election.
Schwab
The Industry Supports Money (Score:3)
It sounds like a way to sell more software, like imagine a new version of Lotus123, with Australian Approved(tm) CensorMate3000 (tm). "Austrialian Brand CensorMate(tm) keeps you legal: Intelligent word count features track the usage of explicatives and racial slurs. AutoCensor(tm) features turn 'shit' and 'fuck' into Australian Approved words as you type!"
I just hope the laws are enough hassle to those who actually have to work harder to provide "censorship approved" content. Maybe some companies would step up and do something about it.
Cabletron & Censorship (Score:2)
Back in July or August, at the height of this debate, when every sensible tech. company on earth was telling our (I'm Aussie) goverment how dumb this plan was, Cabletron (Swich manunfacture & Cisco competitor) wrote to the Alston and said what a wonderful idea it was, and how well their products would deal with it.
Surprise, surprise, Cabletron now have a nice fat government contract!
Can we expect Lotus to annouce some multi-million dollar sale of Dommino server sofware to the the Australian government in the next few weeks? I'd bet on it.
It's worse than that. (Score:3)
The Computer Industry doesn't make it's money off of freedom of speech, it makes it's money off of computers that push data around. Whether that data is regulated is irrelevant, because regulated data needs computers to push it around just as much as unregulated data.
This is all true, but it goes beyond that.
The person who claims that "the industry" supports censorship is 100% accurate - it's not that they're indifferent to it.
The issue isn't "regulated or unregulated" data, it's HOW the data is regulated.
Regulated data requires more storage (to hold the list of what's accepted and what isn't,) more CPU power (to make decisions based on those lists,) and more software (to drive the CPU's.)
What dies this translate into? MORE MONEY that has to be spent on software and computers; which means more money for the "industry." Which, since that's what they're for, is why they support it.
Of course, for the ISPs (who have to put up the money to buy all of this,) this doesn't apply (I guess they're not "industry".)
Yes, censorship sucks. (Score:2)
I happen to like MUCKing. While I MUCK I happen to like certain activities as an intellectual challenge that would likely be banned simply because they have sexual content. What is wrong with sexual content? The point of life and the goal as stated in most religions (particularly Christianity) is procreation, but the acts which lead to procreation are taboo. I find this highly hypocritical and disturbing.
My mind, also, would likely be censored. I have thoughts and feelings which many find objectionable but which are part of me. I can't change my very nature just to try to conform to the world, but because of my very nature I am immediately a sinner who can, at best, go to hell by the arbitrary standards setup by many ignorant Christian fundamentalists who are self-contradictory. (Not that all Christian fundamentalists talk out of their asses. I know several who know what they're talking about, and they don't have the same views as me but don't think I'm, by default, unsavable.) I'd also be censored because of my views about these religious groups.
I'm sick of people using porn spam as the example of what "free speech" is trying to protect, because it's not, and never has been. Freedom of speech in the United States of America is specifically to protect people with differing views, lifestyle choices (as long as they don't harm others, of course), and religious beliefs. Information on paganism and homosexuality would certainly be some of the first stuff to be censored after all of the so-called smut were cleared out. Also, my personal religious beliefs (or lack thereof) include that there's nothing wrong with people expressing their sexuality as long as it doesn't interfere with anyone else; getting, creating, and selling pornography is fine by me.
---
"'Is not a quine' is not a quine" is a quine.
Interesting logic... (Score:3)
Human intelligence is constant. The population grows...
- A.P.
--
"One World, one Web, one Program" - Microsoft promotional ad
Unenforceable (Score:2)
The Aussies are going to have a hell of a time enforcing these rules. It is too easy to remote admin a server used for web publising. One can own several servers across the globe, employ colocation, etc. The only laws governing the internet that will ever really have "bite" are treaties. The internet is a global phenomenon and can only be governed globally, much like the open seas are now governed by international treaties.
The internet should be officially declared international space. Then we will get some sensible resolutions to the conflicting values inherent in international intercourse. Until that happens, we can safely evaluate all domestic attempts to govern the internet as ineffective. There is no international enforcement mechanism (nor should there be, arguably); but until there is one, moving from violative status to non-violative is a simple matter of pointing the DNS entries to different IPs (in a foreign jurisdiction where the regulations do not apply). This will remain the case for the foreseeable future.
*cough* (Score:3)
Since when does the industry dictate to the rest of us what we will, and will not, see and do? This isn't television - there are no marketing directors and stuff to tell us what's 'hot and what's not'. We set the agenda. If we want porn, goddamnit, we're gonna have porn and there's not a thing you can do about it. And if you ask me, I think if these politicians got some more often they wouldn't be so damned stupid. :^)
Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated into the Collective.
This reality check brought to you by the makers of Reality, who choose to remain anonymous because the police are still looking for us....
--
Politician distorts the facts. Film at 11. (Score:5)
1. The Internet censorship laws exist for no other reason than to ensure the support of the puritanical Senator Brian Harradine in the Government's quest to pass legislation allowing the sale of a further portion of Telstra. Senator Harradine holds the balance of power in the senate, and can single-handedly reject legislation which the House of Representatives wishes to enact provided the rest of the senate votes along party lines. Hence this religious old Tasmanian holds a very big stick.
2. This legislation was universally opposed at the time it was debated by not only those electronics frontiers "maniacs" but the Australian Computer Society, every ISP, and numerous other professional bodies. Not that there was much debate - they not only rushed it through, they smokescreened it very effectively with "the republic debate" and the Olympic circus.
3. Lotus are now an irelevant producer of software which is almost universally reviled for its poor interface, sorry performance and general instability. Seriously, it's worse than anything Microsoft has done. It survives mainly because there are those IT manager types whose job security depends on nobody finding out about free, better alternatives, and there are those managers who still like to parrot buzzwords like "groupware".
Perhaps the minister was mistakenly talking to theatre groups or bankers on his recent visit - almost everyone I meet who is remotely connected with the net has a good laugh at my government's attempts to treat the net like television. It's not nice to hear my country compared to such freedom-loving nations as Singapore.
I could mention that Australian government departments use net-nanny software which blocks a seemingly random array of sites... I could quote the price of ISDN to residents in Australia... I could contrast some of the salaries that I used to earn in Australia to what software engineers typically make here... I could tell you that Australian companies do NOT give out options... but I'll just say that I am so happy I came to live in the bay area instead of staying in Melbourne. Australia is a great place - and one day I know I will live there again - but with just a little common sense it could be so much better. I look forward to the minister taking over the portfolio for say, agriculture.
Content Regulation is okay (Score:3)
I still am - but I have also thought about the issue a whole lot more without trying to jump on the 'censorship is evil and the work of the devil' bandwagon.
If I was a parent, I could see the benefits of content regulation. I would hope that I would be a parent who would take an interest in what my kid does and who would make sure that I knew what my kid was doing on the Internet. However, I cannot be around my hypothetical kid all the time and if content regulation helps me control when my kid is exposed to elements of society that are of the more unsavory kind, then so be it.
However,
where I have the biggest issue with content regulation is that the Australian government has decided to implement the content regulation on a nation wide level irrespective of who is trying to look at the content.
To me, this is synonomous to saying that since drivers aged between 18 and 25 cause the most accidents on the road, we should ban all drivers.
The brush is simply too broad and everyone is being tarred.
In my mind, this is the issue with content regulation - the fact that it is applied on a macro and not a micro level.
So, with regard to the Lotus CEO, I too agree with content regulation, just not how it is being implemented at the moment.
Am I really reading this..? (Score:4)
This will probably have low signal/noise ratio due to the fact that I stayed out of the last censorship discussion (though I was a very active part of the one before that), and have some pent-up energy about it all.. You've been warned. =P
You know, after seeing all the crazy laws in Europe and Australia, I find it quite laughable when the true "intellectuals" from those parts of the world who post here on Slashdot talk about how horrible and stupid the U.S. government is.. Sorry, I just can't get it out of my head when people say things like "it's good to snub your nose at America". That said, I'm still above slamming countries and regions myself. I see little to condemn about long stretches of dirt, anyway. =P
Hmm. The "Bertelsman industry" (sp?) maybe. =P
If it's so widely accepted and agreed upon, why are they "trying to negotiate".. and why would it matter that:
What.. people wanting their civil liberties? They are maniacs! This is just slanderous. Certainly "low-grade".. Speaking of which!
Talk about a total fscking hypocrite! You'd think this guy could think of something more intellectual to say. Hell, I could think of a more eloquent way to put it, and I'm still blown away by how well-versed spokespeople from, say, the ACLU, are in the English language.
I've heard that it is often difficult to find something you are not looking for..
Anarchy!? That's really funny. If I have to deal with one more "save the children" campaign that is aimed at censoring the Internet (or anything else), I'm going to murder someone. I think it's interesting to note that someone said in a previous discussion that once Australia and/or Europe have workable laws in place concerning "regulation" of Internet content, the U.S. will follow suit.. What, like a cow being led to slaughter? I kind of doubt it. The one thing the judicial branch excels at is protecting the First Amendment rights of U.S. citizens. =P
At any rate.. Isn't anarchy a political "structure"? This guy obviously has not a clue what true anarchy really is .. I swear, the zero responsibility attitude of parents these days is dragging the world down into the bowels of hell itself. Would it be so bad if more people learned how to raise children effectively or were forced to give them up for adoption (or better yet, not have them at all)? This "pass the buck" mentality is driving.. me.. in.. sane..
Update to this story (Score:3)
"These people say I have only two backers in the technology industry. This is a complete lie. I have three."
Alston has published his recollection of a discussion with highly-regarded members of the industry, at which he recalls W. Warner saying:
"...I, as a member of the IT industry, fully endorse content filtering!"
Warner was unavailable for comment at press time.