Why Internet filtering?

[MooPi]

So what is the impetus behind Internet filtering. Is it the spam riden Microsoft boxes causing this idea to spread? The level of pornography ? Or is it just the MAN squashing little guy ? Or is it the MPAA & friends ? who why what ????? It is such a terrible idea that seems to be spreading without check.

[Psumi]

Recurring Discussions in 3... 2--*gets locked because of possible political discussion*

I'd rather not voice my opinion on this because it'll delve into politics.

[MooPi]

I searched before I wrote this and didn't see a common thread. I don't believe it is political and a very important issue that reflects freedom of use on the Internet. Besides I'm just looking for the reason. It's being propigated by politicians but who is pushing for this.

[_h_]

Recurring Discussions in 3... 2--*gets locked because of possible political discussion*

I'd rather not voice my opinion on this because it'll delve into politics.

Almost everything nowadays has something to do with politics. :(

[Psumi]

I don't believe it is political... ...It's being propigated by politicians but who is pushing for this.

*facepalm*

[Post Monkeh]

it depends on the situation. in a school, a professional environment, or when dealing with children, there are rules in every other aspect of behaviour - why shouldn't there be rules and restrictions on internet usage?

[caravel]

I think the focus of internet filtering is not on "protecting the public", but more so proecting the copyrights of big business. If it was about the former, then something would have been done about the "filth" on the internet a decade ago.

[whiskeylover]

In general, violent porn and bomb making instructions are perfectly acceptable, but attempt to download the latest Mariah Carey album and it's off to jail with you.


The latter pertains to copyright laws. Irrespective of how much you hate copyright, its still the law. If you want it changed, lobby your politician.

[caravel]

The latter pertains to copyright laws. Irrespective of how much you hate copyright, its still the law. If you want it changed, lobby your politician.

I edited that post while you were responding - as I suspected that it might provoke such a response.

Illegal music downloads are not the only form of copyright infringement. In the old days kids uses to record off the radio, it didn't hurt record sales.

[dragos240]

Well if it's nationwide, I disagree with it. However if it's in a business, It's to stop you from viewing unwanted material, or prevent you from goofing off on the job.

[_h_]

I edited that post while you were responding - as I suspected that it might provoke such a response.

Illegal music downloads are not the only form of copyright infringement. In the old days kids uses to record off the radio, it didn't hurt record sales.

Yup. Even with alot of people still downloading music online via torrent and P2P, the record companies still make their millions of dollars each year.

[whiskeylover]

I edited that post while you were responding - as I suspected that it might provoke such a response.

Illegal music downloads are not the only form of copyright infringement. In the old days kids uses to record off the radio, it didn't hurt record sales.

I'm not saying it does or doesn't. All I'm saying is its the law. Its up to you to either follow it or disregard it.

Everybody breaks a law sometime or the other. Hell, just today morning, I might have while speeding to work.

[Post Monkeh]

I edited that post while you were responding - as I suspected that it might provoke such a response.

Illegal music downloads are not the only form of copyright infringement. In the old days kids uses to record off the radio, it didn't hurt record sales.

someone copying a song off the radio in 1985 wasn't able to distribute it to millions of people by sticking it on his computer

[Shpongle]

see sig!

[caravel]

someone copying a song off the radio in 1985 wasn't able to distribute it to millions of people by sticking it on his computer
That's beside the point. Tapes and CDs were copied and distributed before the internet and file sharing came along. In many countries this is still going on. Been to Asia or South America lately?

A copied disc/tape being sold down the market, could perhaps be regarded as a "smoking gun", whereas some chap downloading a few tunes in his bedroom isn't. It's a waste of public money, time and resources and impossible to enforce. Filtering won't help and will actually affect users that use mediums such as P2P for legitimate purposes (such as downloading Linux ISOs).

[Post Monkeh]

That's beside the point.

it really isn't.

before the internet the problem was so much smaller it really could be described as insignificant.
one person copying a song off the radio - something that at the time was impossible to stop - was not something for them to worry about.
now, people sharing aren't doing it in a circle of 5 or 6 friends, they're sharing worldwide, to as many people who want it. and it isn't sharing anyway.
sharing is giving up something of yours and giving it to someone else.
"sharing" files on the internet involves nobody losing out except the people who put the work in to make the original product.

[caravel]

it really isn't.
No but it really is.

File sharing has simply taken the place (and the profits) of the old school organised piracy rings that had always operated worldwide, internet or not. Back in the day, music CDs and DVDs (and before that VHS) were counterfeited and sold out of the back of vans, market stalls, or in some parts of the world, openly in shops. Proliferation of all kinds of material has increased with the advent of the "internet revolution", this is only to be expected as more people have computers now than did back then. I don't see it as a good reason to clamp down on P2P or impose filtering that targets P2P specifically.

[Post Monkeh]

–verb (used with object)
3.
to divide and distribute in shares; apportion.
4.
to use, participate in, enjoy, receive, etc., jointly: The two chemists shared the Nobel prize.
–verb (used without object)
5.
to have a share or part; take part (often fol. by in).
6.
to divide, apportion, or receive equally. .
nothing is being shared. both parties (or in this case all the millions of parties) have a copy of the file they're stealing, so no one is actually giving up anything to share with anyone. it's being duplicated and used illegally.

btw, i don't disagree with you that there are plenty of other ways that people are profteering via piracy, but like you said, they can't stop that. they can try and stop people doing it online.
it might work, it might not, chances are it'll just punish the people who don't know enough about computers to circumvent any restrictions that would be put in place, but the fact remains, if people didn't pirate software/music/films, then no one would be putting the effort in to stop it, and really, the "but other people are selling it at markets" argument just isn't going to wash. if it's illegal file stealing then it's illegal file stealing, other people doing it in different ways doesn't make it right.

[Zoot7]

I think the focus of internet filtering is not on "protecting the public", but more so proecting the copyrights of big business. If it was about the former, then something would have been done about the "filth" on the internet a decade ago.
Indeed, particularly the media corporations who cling to their old outdated business model, and won't adapt to the times because their old model was more profitable.

[KiwiNZ]

I dont have an issue with Internet Filtering . Our Government has recently started a Nationwide Filtering to block access to known sites for such things as child porn. Full marks to them for this initiative.

It will have zero affect on anything I do . If you are doing nothing illegal , there is nothing to get concerned about.

[Post Monkeh]

Indeed, particularly the media corporations who cling to their old outdated business model, and won't adapt to the times because their old model was more profitable.

the old model of people actually PAYING for stuff you mean? :D

[Zoot7]

the old model of people actually PAYING for stuff you mean? :D
Indeed. ;)

On a serious note the internet scares the crap out of the Record label, Movie Studios, etc etc. because p2p is a
* Distribution Media they Don't control
* Is free for anyone to use without regional lockout or other restrictions
* Is arguably more convenient than conventional channels.
* Delievers a better product. Great illustration of that here:
http://i.imgur.com/GxzeV.jpg

It takes the media out of their hands and bypasses the middleman that they've literally cleaned up throughout the years being. Wouldn't you be afraid if your extremely profitable business model was suddenly rendered useless by something new?

They can’t and won't admit this reality up front of course, so they'll use IP law and the same old crybay act “we’re losing money to pirates” as an excuse to justify their war to turn the Internet into a system, where corporate bodies decide for us what we access, how, where and when though whatever means necessary.

But on a more pragmatic note they could go a long long way to combatting this "war on piracy" by lowering prices and looking into online subscription services.

[KiwiNZ]

Indeed. ;)


But on a more pragmatic note they could go a long long way to combatting this "war on piracy" by lowering prices and looking into online subscription services.

I recall reading a survey where the respondence were asked if they would purchase as opposed to P2P piracy if the songs were say 20 cents each . the response from the large majority was no, it was too much , they want it for free. There inlays the problem.

However in most countries the internet filtering is more about illegal activity concerning Child porn etc

[whiskeylover]

I dont have an issue with Internet Filtering . Our Government has recently started a Nationwide Filtering to block access to known sites for such things as child porn. Full marks to them for this initiative.

It will have zero affect on anything I do . If you are doing nothing illegal , there is nothing to get concerned about.

So it would be okay with you if they came into your house and installed cameras to monitor you?

Whats stopping a corrupt official with access to the logs from using them to blackmail his neighbor who's been browsing legal Japanese porn?

[Post Monkeh]

amazon sell mp3s from 49p sterling on the uk site.

people these days just expect everything for nothing. in the end they may end up having to give us our digital media free, but laced with adverts

[KiwiNZ]

So it would be okay with you if they came into your house and installed cameras to monitor you?

Whats stopping a corrupt official with access to the logs from using them to blackmail his neighbor who's been browsing legal Japanese porn?

Least Corrupt Countries, 2007
1.Denmark
Finland
New Zealand
2. Singapore
Sweden
3. Iceland
4. Netherlands
Switzerland
5. Canada
Norway

http://www.cnngo.com/explorations/none/new-zealand-tops-least-corrupt-countries-553112

[rottentree]

I recall reading a survey where the respondence were asked if they would purchase as opposed to P2P piracy if the songs were say 20 cents each . the response from the large majority was no, it was too much , they want it for free. There inlays the problem.

Where did they ask that in Ethiopia?

Record companies' approach is pretty bad to the situation. Rather than trying to get back their lost(or not) customers with alternative business models they are trying to oppress people into becoming their customers.
I bet even if they became the Supreme Council of All Things Internet their profits wouldn't really rise.

[Shpongle]

its not about doing anything illegal its the fact that they would have to monitor all your activity under the guise of piracy prevention . so its a privacy issue and they wont be able to stop piracy as long as there is means to record stuff.


as said before see links below.

they shouldnt need to filter sites and as for the child porn sites or whatever they should be taken down and anyone involved imprisoned at least , never mind censored .

you have to ask yourself who stands to benifit most from internet censorship . . . its not us , in fact the internet is the only place where true free speech is allowed

[Post Monkeh]

Where did they ask that in Ethiopia?

Record companies' approach is pretty bad to the situation. Rather than trying to get back their lost(or not) customers with alternative business models they are trying to oppress people into becoming their customers.
I bet even if they became the Supreme Council of All Things Internet their profits wouldn't really rise.

49p mp3s on amazon. how cheap do they need to be to tempt people?

[whiskeylover]

Least Corrupt Countries, 2007
1.Denmark
Finland
New Zealand
2. Singapore
Sweden
3. Iceland
4. Netherlands
Switzerland
5. Canada
Norway

http://www.cnngo.com/explorations/none/new-zealand-tops-least-corrupt-countries-553112


Good for you.

And just to clarify, I don't mind governments blocking known bad sites.

[KiwiNZ]

its not about doing anything illegal its the fact that they would have to monitor all your activity under the guise of piracy prevention . so its a privacy issue and they wont be able to stop piracy as long as there is means to record stuff.


as said before see links below.

they shouldnt need to filter sites and as for the child porn sites or whatever they should be taken down and anyone involved imprisoned at least , never mind censored .

you have to ask yourself who stands to benifit most from internet censorship . . . its not us , in fact the internet is the only place where true free speech is allowed

The New Zealand authorities cannot take down sites in Say Somalia and arrest those concerned. So they filter to stop access.

[Post Monkeh]

its not about doing anything illegal its the fact that they would have to monitor all your activity under the guise of piracy prevention . so its a privacy issue and they wont be able to stop piracy as long as there is means to record stuff.


as said before see links below.

they shouldnt need to filter sites and as for the child porn sites or whatever they should be taken down and anyone involved imprisoned at least , never mind censored .

you have to ask yourself who stands to benifit most from internet censorship . . . its not us , in fact the internet is the only place where true free speech is allowed
the illegal websites can be shut down but they'll reopen again pretty quickly on another server. the internet is global, the problem is there isn't a global police force, so the next best thing countries can do is stop THEIR citizens from accessing illegal material.

and once again on the piracy front, if people didn't do it, then there wouldn't be any initiatives to prevent it.

[rottentree]

49p mp3s on amazon. how cheap do they need to be to tempt people?

So cheap that they don't miss the spent money?
Actually I was talking about alternative models like actual extras that come with the cd and such.(Holding concerts is also a revenue flow where you give something extra and people have to pay for it)



and once again on the piracy front, if people didn't do it, then there wouldn't be any initiatives to prevent it.

If people wouldn't commit crimes we wouldn't need police but they do for some reason hmmm...

[Zoot7]

I recall reading a survey where the respondence were asked if they would purchase as opposed to P2P piracy if the songs were say 20 cents each . the response from the large majority was no, it was too much , they want it for free. There inlays the problem.
I'd be willing to bet a lot of alleged pirates today would willingly pay for an online subscription service if one existed. Of course there'll always be those that'll pirate regardless of the circumstances, but that's a given. This whole One Download = One Lost Sale cry baby act that they play is laughable.
Plus when one pays for a product it should be a superior product to a pirated version, but today with all the DRM it really isn't.


However in most countries the internet filtering is more about illegal activity concerning Child porn etc
That would be fine were it true. But sadly it seems IP and copyright takes priority in most cases. France and the UK are two prime examples. No mentioning of filtering child pornography there just "protecting" the rights of corporate bodies.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HADOPI_law
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/8569750.stm

Anyway whatever about the incompetence of the ignorant entertainment industry, what annoys me about the whole thing most, is that when a corporation wants a law passed that suits them and NOT the people of the country, they can muscle goverments into doing so. Sad really.

[Shpongle]

I'd be willing to bet a lot of alleged pirates today would willingly pay for an online subscription service if one existed. Of course there'll always be those that'll pirate regardless of the circumstances, but that's a given. This whole One Download = One Lost Sale cry baby act that they play is laughable.
Plus when one pays for a product it should be a superior product to a pirated version, but today with all the DRM it really isn't.


That would be fine were it true. But sadly it seems IP and copyright takes priority in most cases. France and the UK are two prime examples. No mentioning of filtering child pornography there just "protecting" the rights of corporate bodies.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HADOPI_law
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/8569750.stm

Anyway whatever about the incompetence of the ignorant entertainment industry, what annoys me about the whole thing is that when a corporation wants a law passed that suits them and NOT the people of the country, they can muscle goverments into doing so. Sad really.
well at least the pirate parties plan to address this!

http://www.pp-international.net/

[caravel]

nothing is being shared. both parties (or in this case all the millions of parties) have a copy of the file they're stealing, so no one is actually giving up anything to share with anyone. it's being duplicated and used illegally.
No, really "loot" can be shared as well. People are actually sharing their media, illegally yes, but they're sharing them.


btw, i don't disagree with you that there are plenty of other ways that people are profteering via piracy, but like you said, they can't stop that. they can try and stop people doing it online.
it might work, it might not, chances are it'll just punish the people who don't know enough about computers to circumvent any restrictions that would be put in place, but the fact remains, if people didn't pirate software/music/films, then no one would be putting the effort in to stop it, and really, the "but other people are selling it at markets" argument just isn't going to wash. if it's illegal file stealing then it's illegal file stealing, other people doing it in different ways doesn't make it right.
Well exactly. Like most copy protection and anti piracy measures, it's the honest consumer that gets hit the hardest. Personally I think it's human nature that people will download and distribute media illegally. It's the "something for nothing" attitude of many people today.

I'm not sure we can fix the world though, nor will prohibition of any kind work (as it never has historically). The problem is convincing everyone that they need to pay for their "media". Personally I buy few CDs/DVDs etc, but the few I do buy, I pay for and get legitimately. I am representative of neither the majority or the minority however. I also use P2P seldom, but when I do it's only for downloading Linux distro .iso's. Supposing my ISP/country started filtering tomorrow, I and millions of others worldwide, would be denied access to this facility even though I have not been abusing it. This is what I am against. By this same logic - one could have grounds to discontinue the entire internet worldwide as it is constantly abused.

[doas777]

So what is the impetus behind Internet filtering. Is it the spam riden Microsoft boxes causing this idea to spread? The level of pornography ? Or is it just the MAN squashing little guy ? Or is it the MPAA & friends ? who why what ????? It is such a terrible idea that seems to be spreading without check.


it's just the man.

[doas777]

The New Zealand authorities cannot take down sites in Say Somalia and arrest those concerned. So they filter to stop access.
perhaps I'm confusing the austraillian plan with the NZ one, but a plan by which all "RC" (refused classification) content is blocked, is not targeting bad actors like 419ers, but instead saying that the state must approve all content you can see.

[KiwiNZ]

The New Zealand plan has a list of sites to be blocked which is approved by Cabinet.

[Post Monkeh]

So cheap that they don't miss the spent money?
Actually I was talking about alternative models like actual extras that come with the cd and such.(Holding concerts is also a revenue flow where you give something extra and people have to pay for it)



If people wouldn't commit crimes we wouldn't need police but they do for some reason hmmm...

how is a 49p single any more wallet bursting than the 4.99 singles people bought years ago? wise up.
people download music because they're too cheap to spend ANY money, and refuse to think of the consequences. if the music was 10p the same people would still download illegal copies.
people need to understand that there's no such thing as a free lunch, they may be able to download their music and films, but with the authorities trying to make it as difficult as possible, everyone else loses out in other ways.

and what extras could come with the cd? inserts? no problem, i've got a scanner.
behind the scenes movie footage? no problem, i can rip it off and "share" it too.
maybe t shirts or other things, and charge £5 or £10 for the lot? no thanks, i just want the song, i'll just download it.

[Post Monkeh]

No, really "loot" can be shared as well. People are actually sharing their media, illegally yes, but they're sharing them.


Well exactly. Like most copy protection and anti piracy measures, it's the honest consumer that gets hit the hardest. Personally I think it's human nature that people will download and distribute media illegally. It's the "something for nothing" attitude of many people today.

I'm not sure we can fix the world though, nor will prohibition of any kind work (as it never has historically). The problem is convincing everyone that they need to pay for their "media". Personally I buy few CDs/DVDs etc, but the few I do buy, I pay for and get legitimately. I am representative of neither the majority or the minority however. I also use P2P seldom, but when I do it's only for downloading Linux distro .iso's. Supposing my ISP/country started filtering tomorrow, I and millions of others worldwide, would be denied access to this facility even though I have not been abusing it. This is what I am against. By this same logic - one could have grounds to discontinue the entire internet worldwide as it is constantly abused.

loot can be shared, but like i said, that means me giving up part of the loot to give to you. the thing i share with you, i have less of.
if i "share" music with you, i'm not sharing it, i'm giving it, since i still get to keep mine too.


the reason drm failed was because all it did was stopped the honest consumer from putting their legally bought song onto a few different replay devices. THAT is where the law (here in the uk anyway) needs clarification. i think technically it's still illegal for someone to take a copy of a cd and put it on their mp3 player, at least it was until a few years ago. of course, if you buy a song, you should be entitled to make as many copies as you like for your own use.
hell, if you "share" it with your friends, no one's going to know. the problem arises when that "sharing" turns into world wide distribution to millions of people, and that's when it stops slipping under the radar.

[blur xc]

If you are doing nothing illegal , there is nothing to get concerned about.

That's a dangerous and slippery slope.

BM

[Chronon]

someone copying a song off the radio in 1985 wasn't able to distribute it to millions of people by sticking it on his computer

The distribution vector was the radio station itself.

[Chronon]

how is a 49p single any more wallet bursting than the 4.99 singles people bought years ago? wise up.
people download music because they're too cheap to spend ANY money, and refuse to think of the consequences. if the music was 10p the same people would still download illegal copies.
people need to understand that there's no such thing as a free lunch, they may be able to download their music and films, but with the authorities trying to make it as difficult as possible, everyone else loses out in other ways.

and what extras could come with the cd? inserts? no problem, i've got a scanner.
behind the scenes movie footage? no problem, i can rip it off and "share" it too.
maybe t shirts or other things, and charge £5 or £10 for the lot? no thanks, i just want the song, i'll just download it.

You can't digitally copy a concert experience. My peer group seems to see a lot of live music. They are giving money directly to the bands they like.

[Post Monkeh]

You can't digitally copy a concert experience. My peer group seems to see a lot of live music. They are giving money directly to the bands they like.

i'm confused, either i'm missing something or we're talking about people copying songs, not concerts. that's like saying it's fine to download films from the internet because it doesn't beat going to the cinema.

[lisati]

That's a dangerous and slippery slope.

BM

The perp: "I didn't do nothing, officer"
The officer: "Is it possible that the thing you were doing instead of nothing caught our attention?"
The perp: "Huh?"

[rottentree]

how is a 49p single any more wallet bursting than the 4.99 singles people bought years ago? wise up.
people download music because they're too cheap to spend ANY money, and refuse to think of the consequences. if the music was 10p the same people would still download illegal copies.
people need to understand that there's no such thing as a free lunch, they may be able to download their music and films, but with the authorities trying to make it as difficult as possible, everyone else loses out in other ways.

Maybe then people had less things to spend their money on so they didn't mind spending excess cash on songs.
People also need to understand a lot of things like respecting the environment which is much more important imo yet companies don't seem to be so aggressive about it neither authorities.



and what extras could come with the cd? inserts? no problem, i've got a scanner.
behind the scenes movie footage? no problem, i can rip it off and "share" it too.
maybe t shirts or other things, and charge £5 or £10 for the lot? no thanks, i just want the song, i'll just download it.



i'm confused, either i'm missing something or we're talking about people copying songs, not concerts. that's like saying it's fine to download films from the internet because it doesn't beat going to the cinema.

Well fans and collectors usually like to get 'special stuff' so I think you could be a bit more creative ;) (and about the scanning wouldn't that be low quality? )
I think I mentioned concerts as a source of income which people have to pay for and they do pay for it. You could see their downloaded mp3-s as an advertisement. If people like their music then they are going to support them by going to the concerts.

[Post Monkeh]

Maybe then people had less things to spend their money on so they didn't mind spending excess cash on songs.
People also need to understand a lot of things like respecting the environment which is much more important imo yet companies don't seem to be so aggressive about it neither authorities.
they're offering chart songs for less than 50p in mp3 format, i dunno how much more environmentally and wallet friendly you can get.
anyone who thinks 50p is too much for an mp3 you can own and listen to forever is crazy.





Well fans and collectors usually like to get 'special stuff' so I think you could be a bit more creative ;) (and about the scanning wouldn't that be low quality? )
I think I mentioned concerts as a source of income which people have to pay for and they do pay for it. You could see their downloaded mp3-s as an advertisement. If people like their music then they are going to support them by going to the concerts.

scanners are actually really good these days, you wouldn't lose much, if any quality if anything was scanned on a good one.

and half the "artists" in the chart these days are barely old enough to be allowed out past 10pm, let alone go on tour!

[caravel]

the reason drm failed was because all it did was stopped the honest consumer from putting their legally bought song onto a few different replay devices.
On the contrary that is where DRM succeeded and that is precisely what DRM is all about. It is to stop the casual distributor, the individual that makes a copy for their friends or family.

It is not about breaking international piracy rings and never has been. The pirate will always find ways of avoiding DRM and distributing media with the DRM software removed/circumvented.


they're offering chart songs for less than 50p in mp3 format, i dunno how much more environmentally and wallet friendly you can get.
Ask yourself precisely why it's now this cheap compared to the rip off prices that end consumers had to pay in the recent past?

[Post Monkeh]

On the contrary that is where DRM succeeded and that is precisely what DRM is all about. It is to stop the casual distributor, the individual that makes a copy for their friends or family.

It is not about breaking international piracy rings and never has been. The pirate will always find ways of avoiding DRM and distributing media with the DRM software removed/circumvented. that's the problem. the only thing they can ever really do is stop joe blogs from taking a copy to give to his mate. it isn't the real problem but it was because it stopped people from using the songs themselves that caused its failure.
if they can find a way to let one person use the song on their own devices, but not pass it on, they'll do it.
really, no anti piracy measures can stop the professionals. the best they can do is make it hard for amateurs. is there any copy protected game that has been impossible to crack?



Ask yourself precisely why it's now this cheap compared to the rip off prices that end consumers had to pay in the recent past?
because music these days is quickly produced rubbish? plus distributing an mp3 is a lot cheaper than distributing a cd. it's besides the point anyway, if cars suddenly started being sold for 50p you wouldn't start stealing them just because you feel like you've been being ripped off for years.

[rottentree]

they're offering chart songs for less than 50p in mp3 format, i dunno how much more environmentally and wallet friendly you can get.
anyone who thinks 50p is too much for an mp3 you can own and listen to forever is crazy.


Well people can get it for free so how about record companies try to think of something else than lowering prices and 'Damned pirates are killing us. Ready the iron curtain! ' ?

I think it's the same with the game industry rather than looking for problems inside the industry they look in problems in people but still some (independent) companies show that people are willing to pay (for example: Unknown Worlds offered 2 pre-orders to choose from: the special edition is more expensive by 20$ dollar and you get access to the alpha game and 1 special skin over the standard pre-order yet 90% people chose to buy the more expensive one)



scanners are actually really good these days, you wouldn't lose much, if any quality if anything was scanned on a good one.

But people like to own things and holding a properly made physical product in your hand means much more than having it in e-form or hammering it together yourself.



and half the "artists" in the chart these days are barely old enough to be allowed out past 10pm, let alone go on tour!

:D

[cascade9]

So what is the impetus behind Internet filtering. Is it the spam riden Microsoft boxes causing this idea to spread? The level of pornography ? Or is it just the MAN squashing little guy ? Or is it the MPAA & friends ? who why what ????? It is such a terrible idea that seems to be spreading without check.

IMO, the christain right, big business and MPAA (+ pals) love the idea of intenet filtering, but its the smiling neo-facists who are pushing for it.

Typically, its a hidden list of blocked sites. You cant see the list, so even if you have been blocked for no reason, you cant actually dispute it because you have no right to know the list (and even seeing the list is circumventing the law)


perhaps I'm confusing the austraillian plan with the NZ one, but a plan by which all "RC" (refused classification) content is blocked, is not targeting bad actors like 419ers, but instead saying that the state must approve all content you can see.


The New Zealand plan has a list of sites to be blocked which is approved by Cabinet.

Its not that different to the .au plan. Its all run by the gonverment censors.


The filter (http://www.neowin.net/news/new-zealand-implements-country-wide-government-internet-filter#) system is a manually maintained blacklist of sites, which is kept up to date by government appointed censor officials

http://www.neowin.net/news/new-zealand-implements-country-wide-government-internet-filter

Also its a secret list, like .au version-


TechLiberty says the list of what is filtered is kept secret, in direct contrast to the rest of New Zealand's censorship regime where the Chief Censor must publish decisions banning offensive material. Its also got the same major issue as the .au version, the short version being this-


Tech Liberty says it is also concerned about the expansion of government powers represented by the filter.

"It establishes the principle that the government can choose to arbitrarily set up a new censorship scheme and choose which material to block, with no reference to existing law," the group claims.


http://www.stuff.co.nz/technology/digital-living/3434754/New-Zealands-internet-filter-goes-live

Child porn, LOL. Thats the excuse. Making a block list is not going to work, with the way that porn sites (including dodgy ones) can move address at the drop of a hat (besides the fact that most of it is moved by P2P, ftp or encrypted https) Not like the facists havent done this sort of thing before-


"The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people."Adolph Hitler, Mein Kampf

BTW, if anyone has seen the 'extended' version of this, its actually a misquote (its not in mein kampf) from the essay under the quote, but it is what adolph was driving at-


he state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people." I explained that as long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation.

http://www.aapsonline.org/brochures/lapin.htm

[whiskeylover]

IMO, the christain right, big business and MPAA (+ pals) love the idea of intenet filtering, but its the smiling neo-facists who are pushing for it.

Typically, its a hidden list of blocked sites. You cant see the list, so even if you have been blocked for no reason, you cant actually dispute it because you have no right to know the list (and even seeing the list is circumventing the law)





Its not that different to the .au plan. Its all run by the gonverment censors.



http://www.neowin.net/news/new-zealand-implements-country-wide-government-internet-filter

Also its a secret list, like .au version-

Its also got the same major issue as the .au version, the short version being this-



http://www.stuff.co.nz/technology/digital-living/3434754/New-Zealands-internet-filter-goes-live

Child porn, LOL. Thats the excuse. Making a block list is not going to work, with the way that porn sites (including dodgy ones) can move address at the drop of a hat (besides the fact that most of it is moved by P2P, ftp or encrypted https) Not like the facists havent done this sort of thing before-

Adolph Hitler, Mein Kampf

BTW, if anyone has seen the 'extended' version of this, its actually a misquote (its not in mein kampf) from the essay under the quote, but it is what adolph was driving at-



http://www.aapsonline.org/brochures/lapin.htm

ifb4locked4discussiononpoliticsandreligion

[rottentree]

ifb4locked4discussiononpoliticsandreligion

You know loving whiskey that much is definitely not healthy.

[whiskeylover]

You know loving whiskey that much is definitely not healthy.

Hey, I have no problem with cascade's post.

[Grenage]

I am in total agreement with cascade9. Filtering does little to stop 'criminal' activity, and a lot to hamper normal activity. Proposed filters are innocent enough, but I don't like where they lead.

Politicians shouldn't get involved heavily in the internet, they always make a mess of things. Does anyone recall the proposed XXX domain, when the US politicians stepped in?

[rottentree]

Hey, I have no problem with cascade's post.

I was just joking :P

[samjh]

So what is the impetus behind Internet filtering. Is it the spam riden Microsoft boxes causing this idea to spread? The level of pornography ? Or is it just the MAN squashing little guy ? Or is it the MPAA & friends ? who why what ????? It is such a terrible idea that seems to be spreading without check.

Spam-ridden Microsoft boxes? Not really, although they are one of the factors.

Pornography? One of the larger factors.

The MAN squishing little guy? Not really.

MPAA & friends? One of the larger factors.

Government exists to regulate society. This includes forms of communication, including the Internet. If the Internet is used for illegal or otherwise dangerous purposes, and the benefits of keeping the Internet relatively liberal outweighs the drawbacks, then governments are obliged to try to control it.

The drawbacks include infringements of copyright, electronic fraud, other forms of cyber-crime, the threat of cyber-warfare, other criminal activities such as the distribution of illegal pornography, etc.

If governments are to be discouraged from implementing ISP-level filtering, then strong reasons must be put forward to prove that doing nothing is better than doing something. Keep in mind that politics is very much about perception: if the government is not seen to be doing something about a perceived problem, people will complain and politicians will lose votes. It's not a great system, but it's the unfortunate reality of government.

[Patrick Snyder]

This should scare you.
From this FAQ on NZ filtering (http://techliberty.org.nz/issues/internet-filtering/filtering-faq/):

Is it possible to check whether a website is on the filtered list?
The only way to check whether the website is filtered is by attempting to access it.


If a website is filtered is it possible to find out why?
No.


And this is the attitude that scares me:

It will have zero affect on anything I do . If you are doing nothing illegal , there is nothing to get concerned about.
Whether or not it has an affect on you, it will have an affect on legitimate people. When the AU filter was leaked through wikileaks, legitimate sites were found on the filter list. Then there was a raid on a man's house in Germany who was suspected to have helped get the leak (with the information that legitimate sites were blacklisted) to wikileaks.

There are already a number of filters you can subscribe to easily in whatever web browser you use. You can keep your family safe. And if you find that the filter isn't working for you, you can switch to another.

Any system will be eventually pushed to the edges of what's possible. Enforcing a secret list (no accountability) will create problems for legitimate people somewhere down the line. And there's no reason to impose it, when solutions are already present.

If you live in New Zealand, you are paying for the creation of this list through taxes. Yes, legitimate people will be hurt by this. It may not be your months, years, or life that is ruined, but that doesn't mean you should stay silent.

‘All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing’

[Patrick Snyder]

strong reasons must be put forward to prove that doing nothing is better than doing something.
You're right that this is the way it's perceived in government, and how people usually get re-elected, but unfortunately it's ***-backwards.

Doing "something" by creating regulation to combat a problem always restricts freedoms.

We should remind our elected officials that strong reasons must be put forward to prove that restricting our freedoms (by doing "something") is better than not regulating and restricting them.

[KiwiNZ]

This should scare you.
From this FAQ on NZ filtering (http://techliberty.org.nz/issues/internet-filtering/filtering-faq/):

[’

The link you provided is from a pressure groups scare tactics site and is Hokum.

Better to refer to this

http://www.dia.govt.nz/diawebsite.nsf/wpg_URL/Services-Censorship-Compliance-Digital-Child-Exploitation-Filtering-System?OpenDocument

[doas777]

The link you provided is from a pressure groups scare tactics site and is Hokum.

Better to refer to this

http://www.dia.govt.nz/diawebsite.nsf/wpg_URL/Services-Censorship-Compliance-Digital-Child-Exploitation-Filtering-System?OpenDocument

you may be too trusting.

"the govt can be trusted! look they say so here!"

[Patrick Snyder]

The link you provided is from a pressure groups scare tactics site and is Hokum.

Better to refer to this

http://www.dia.govt.nz/diawebsite.nsf/wpg_URL/Services-Censorship-Compliance-Digital-Child-Exploitation-Filtering-System?OpenDocument

The government site you referred us to corroborates with the site I referred to. Did you even read the 2 sites?!?


From the site you used:
"The Department will not disclose the 7000 objectionable websites which have been compiled through its own forensic work and with its international law enforcement partners.

“If we did, inevitably some people would visit them in the interim, effectively facilitating further offending and making the Department party to the further exploitation of children,” Keith Manch said."


From the site I used:
Is it possible to check whether a website is on the filtered list?
The only way to check whether the website is filtered is by attempting to access it.


If a website is filtered is it possible to find out why?
No.


Did you look up "hokum" before you used it?


The first point stands:
1. It's a secret filter.


And what about the other points?
2. When the AU filter was leaked through wikileaks, legitimate sites were found on the filter list.

3. There are already a number of filters you can subscribe to easily in whatever web browser you use. You can keep your family safe. And if you find that the filter isn't working for you, you can switch to another. (Note: If the ISPs in your area are using the government's filter, you may not be able to switch to another ISP.)

4. Enforcing a secret list (no accountability) will create problems for legitimate people somewhere down the line. It always has in the past.

5. You are paying for this through your taxes.

[KiwiNZ]

The government site you referred us to corroborates with the site I referred to. Did you even read the 2 sites?!?


From the site you used:
"The Department will not disclose the 7000 objectionable websites which have been compiled through its own forensic work and with its international law enforcement partners.

“If we did, inevitably some people would visit them in the interim, effectively facilitating further offending and making the Department party to the further exploitation of children,” Keith Manch said."


From the site I used:
Is it possible to check whether a website is on the filtered list?
The only way to check whether the website is filtered is by attempting to access it.


If a website is filtered is it possible to find out why?
No.


Did you look up "hokum" before you used it?


The first point stands:
1. It's a secret filter.


And what about the other points?
2. When the AU filter was leaked through wikileaks, legitimate sites were found on the filter list.

3. There are already a number of filters you can subscribe to easily in whatever web browser you use. You can keep your family safe. And if you find that the filter isn't working for you, you can switch to another. (Note: If the ISPs in your area are using the government's filter, you may not be able to switch to another ISP.)

4. Enforcing a secret list (no accountability) will create problems for legitimate people somewhere down the line. It always has in the past.

5. You are paying for this through your taxes.

Did You read this

"Independent Reference Group


The Department established an Independent Reference Group (IRG), the membership of which is representative of enforcement agencies, the Office of Film and Literature Classification (OFLC), Internet Service Providers (ISPs), Internet users, and agencies and community groups with an interest in the welfare of children.

The general function of the IRG is to maintain oversight of the operation of the Digital Child Exploitation Filtering System to ensure it is operated with integrity and adheres to the principles set down in the Code of Practice."

Yes I do know what Hokum is and I remind you of Forum rules. And yes that is a warning

[red_Marvin]

I think the * of the internet has begun to dawn on governments in general, and that they realise they do not really have much control or insight into it. I might be skirting politics here, but as I see it, governments try to be stable, maintaining some sort of status quo and because of this in times of change they are more often than not playing the conservative part.
To be able to maintain stability control is needed, hence they seek to control the internet.

* = I cannot find an appropirate word here, neither in my native tongue. What I want to convey is the sheer size of it, the possibilities of instantaneous unrestricted information exchange and the mindboggling ramifications of that combination. "yield", "payload" and other bomb/explosion metaphors present themselves, but they seem not entirely correct.

[samjh]

* = I cannot find an appropirate word here, neither in my native tongue. What I want to convey is the sheer size of it, the possibilities of instantaneous unrestricted information exchange and the mindboggling ramifications of that combination. "yield", "payload" and other bomb/explosion metaphors present themselves, but they seem not entirely correct.

Revolution? Paradigm shift?

[cascade9]

Yes I do know what Hokum is and I remind you of Forum rules. And yes that is a warning

How was the post by Patrick Snyder in any way against the forum rules?

[samjh]

I was wondering about that also. It's merely a differing point of view, expressed strongly, but not rudely. I fear this thread is close to being locked.

I hope these two links will help to make this thread more productive. Australia introduced compulsory ISP filtering early this year, much to the chagrin of some ISPs and civil liberties groups. The row has died down somewhat from last year, but the debate still continues.
Labor divided on Internet filtering plan (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/australian-it/labor-divided-on-internet-filtering-plan/story-e6frgakx-1225843981660)
Conroy slams Internet Enemies report (http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/conroy-slams-internet-enemies-report-20100315-q9fi.html)

Our Communications Minister, Senator Stephen Conroy, has often used the shopping analogy to describe what his government is doing with Internet filtering. Basically, they are using film and literature classifications on Internet content. There is a problem with that analogy in my opinion, which is that film, television, and books are unilateral media: they are delivered from the content provider to the client with little or no interaction beyond the material presented. In other words, they are presentation media. The Internet is not a presentation medium: the Internet was and still is a communication medium where users interact with each other, often also with the content providers. The shopping analogy is a poor fit. A better analogy is a telephone conversation, video-conferencing, or a face-to-face chat. Censoring or "filtering" such communication would be unacceptable in democratic society, so such control measures should not be used on the Internet either.