Artificial Intelligence At The COPA, COPA Commission

There's a boatload of censorware news today, enough for two or three Slashdot stories -- but to conserve electrons, we're bringing it to you all in one easy-to-download package. First, Peacefire has a report on the accuracy of intelligent skin-tone-scanning software, one month after its company said they'd have it working in a month. And since the CEO of ClickSafe spoke at the COPA Commission meeting yesterday, Peacefire ran a check to see how many COPA-related sites its AI blocks. Finally, Waldo Jaquith has a report from the meeting itself which should be sobering but cracked me up anyway. Pay attention, everyone, these are the folks who are going to censor your Internet.

The Child Online Protection Act, passed late last year and then struck down early this year, is still under appeal. Colloquially it's known as "CDAII." Part of what the Act does is establish a Commission that meets every so often -- the Commission's website has details on its mandate and so on.

(Update, a few minutes later: make that "injunctified," or whatever one says for a law against which an injunction has been applied, instead of "struck down." Sorry; IANAL.)

Speaking at the Commission meeting yesterday and today were the CEOs of several major censorware companies. Among them was Michael Stephani, whose company Exotrope makes a product called BAIR.

BAIR

BAIR checks images as they download onto your computer, and claims to be able to tell the difference between pornography and other types of images. The "AI" in its acronym stands for artificial intelligence, running on supercomputers.

When the Wired story on BAIR came out last month (a story "borrowed" from Peacefire -- I'm not going to get into it), Wired quoted the company as saying "they plan to fix the errors within the next month." What errors?

"BAIR incorrectly blocked photographs of Yellowstone, the Baltimore waterfront, Snoopy, boats, sunsets, dogs, vegetables and even a Wired News staff meeting.

"It rated as acceptable for minors -- even on the most restrictive setting -- explicit images of oral sex, anal sex, group sex, masturbation, and ejaculation."

That was one month ago. How's BAIR doing now?

Peacefire retested the same 50 pornographic images that they'd used last month (which presumably BAIR's programmers would have paid extra-special attention to). Their new report finds that, instead of zero, the number of blocked images is now: 34. I've got a great slogan for them: "now your children can only see 32% of the web's oral sex, anal sex, group sex, masturbation, and ejaculation."

One's respect for these programmers is dampened a little, though, because there's more to Peacefire's report. It seems, in a random sample of 50 photos of people's faces, BAIR blocked ... how many? ... 34.

Maybe that slogan should be: "now your children can only see 32% of the web," period.

It's wonderful to live in a world where artificial intelligence offers limitless possibilities. Its website suggests that "Because Artificial Intelligence can be taught to recognize a variety of patterns," -- oh, OK -- "our BAIR can be taught to evaluate other categories such as violence or illegal activities. The BAIR is currently undergoing training in these areas to provide additional filtration selections."

ClickSafe

Richard Schwartz, CEO of ClickSafe, also spoke yesterday at the COPA Commission meeting. Just for kicks, Peacefire decided to try out their spiffy AI software too.

Insert marketblurb here: "...by combining cutting-edge graphic, word and phrase-recognition technology, ClickSafe has achieved accuracy rates of over 99% (according to recent sample tests). ClickSafe can precisely distinguish between appropriate and inappropriate sites (e.g. sites related to issues such as breast cancer will not be blocked)."

What Peacefire did was test this software against the website of the COPA Commission itself, and related sites such as those of speakers or Commission members. They found that blocked pages included:

• The Child Online Protection Act itself, in original and amended form;
• The COPA Commission FAQ;
• Biographies of Commission members Stephen Balkam and John Bastian;
• Bio of Commission member and famed anti-porn crusader Donna Rice Hughes, as well as AppendixA from her book Kids Online: Protecting Your Children in Cyberspace;
• A list of technologies the Commission examines;
• The scope of what the Commission is called upon to do;
• A service agreement from a little company called Network Solutions, whose rep chairs COPA's meetings;
• "About the ICRA" (the makers of RSACi, "a simple, yet effective rating system for web sites which both protected children and protected the rights of free speech");
• Bible study tools: "We hope these free resources foster a desire for Christians to learn more about the Bible, deepening their relationship with God" unless they're using censorware;
• The American Family Association (a conservative Christian group that is trying to force censorware into public libraries, including those surrounding the Slashdot Geek Compound);
• The ACLU, the EFF, and the Center for Democracy and Technology;

and so on.

When I spoke with Bennett about this, he commented that the strange thing was that these flaws are so easy to find; you'd think someone would have run these simple tests already. If anyone reading wants to get their name in Slashdot (and other news media too), censorware is a gold mine of untested misinformation. Buy a product, design a solid unbiased test for it, run the test, and send us what you find. Repeat until the whole world has a clue.

The COPA Commission Meeting

The following is an account of yesterday's COPA Commission meeting, by Waldo Jaquith. Keep in mind that this meeting's purpose, according to the Scope & Timeline Proposal which is blocked by ClickSafe, is to study filtering and blocking software to learn what to recommend in its report to Congress late this year.

Folks,

For more information on the COPA Commission, see http://www.copacommission.org/. (Unless your network has ClickSafe installed, in which case you shouldn't bother.) There is an agenda for this meeting, and there are bios for most people, as well as the prepared speeches for many of the below folks. I've tried to be objective.

Oh, screw that. There's nothing objective about it. But I've tried to give useful facts, quote accurately, etc.

The whole affair, which was scheduled to start at 9:30am, didn't actually start until 10:15am. Which was good, because I didn't get there until 9:45. Although the event was being held at the University of Richmond's Jepson Alumni Center, the room felt like your basic hotel meeting room. Bad carpet, ugly chairs, poor lighting. There were enough chairs to seat about 100 people, but only 35 people were in attendance. Directly in front of the two columns of chairs was a table with chairs, facing away from the audience. This table was for people asked to testify before the COPA Commission. On the other side of that table was a long table, at which was seated the commission, all sixteen members. The result was that the people testifying, who did most of the talking, could only be recognized by the backs of their heads by the audience.

Chairman Donald Telage called the meeting to order and introduced the first panel, who was to speak for approximately 45 minutes on the topic of client-side filters. This panel included Gordon Ross, the President and CEO of Net Nanny, Mark Smith, the President of BrowseSafe, Susan Getgood, the VP and General Manager of Cyber Patrol, and Richard Schwartz, the CEO of Opportunity-America (ClickSafe.com).

Gordon Ross kicked things off with a tremendously boring ten minute speech about how client-side filters work. The only interesting comment that he made was his belief that "consumers should have the ability to analyze each and every site in the database..." [...because his product Net Nanny is the only one of the 150 censorware packages on the market that allows oversight of its blacklist. -ed] He also kicked off the First Amendment references, which nearly every speaker throughout the day would spend some time talking about, but not really saying very much.

Mark Smith from BrowseSafe occupied the next few minutes, giving a rambling speech in which he discussed censorware as if it were some far-off and idyllic concept.

"Most products focus on either client-side- or server-side-based technology. What would happen if the benefits of each could be brought together to provide the user with a new, more flexible and powerful way of surfing the web? What if every sub domain of every site had been categorized and classified by its content? Wouldn't you agree that everyone could benefit from that combination of technology? Of course you would? Now let's walk across the street to the front porch of the family of the home and try to view it from the parent's perspective. What if parents were able to determine what the child sees? What would it be like if e-mail, instant messaging, chat and other computer tools could be also controlled?"

Then, although the topic was client-side filters, he rambled on for several minutes about PlanetGood, a website that was probably unfamiliar to many in the room. He used the site's name in every single sentence for several minutes. And, naturally, he closed talking about "our forefathers" and "these inalienable rights that our forefathers entrusted to us and many of them died for."

Susan Getgood from Cyber Patrol kept things short and sweet, and took the "I'm a new mother and want to protect my children" approach. She muddled the definition of censorship somewhat, saying that "[s]ome critics confuse censorship, which is imposed by the government, with technology that a family or school can choose to use and then set to implement an individual policy." Our school system isn't a part of the government?

Richard Schwartz of ClickSafe.com touted his product nearly as much as Mark Smith promoted the mysterious "PlanetGood." He also described a system that his company has developed that sounds very much like Exotrope's BAIR. "Fleshtone has a very unique set of features [...] Through a combination?of a set of sophisticated algorithms it can establish if something is pornographic. [...] Justice Potter Stewart lives within our system, because he knows it when he sees it. It works, it's been tested out, it's over 99% effective." "We can distinguish between chicken breast and sexy breast." "A consortium of Portuguese and Australian pornographers had been hijacking people off of different sites, including the Harvard Law Review site into their pornographic sites. And then you have to reboot your computer in order to get out."

After the four had testified, we moved into the commission Q&A session. (No questions would be allowed from the audience.) A few interesting questions, answers, and comments cropped up during this portion.

Richard Schwartz, only half kidding, proposed a tax on Internet pornography.

Commissioner Gregory L. Rohde asked Richard Schwartz if his image filter could tell the difference between art and pornography. Astoundingly, Schwartz replied that it could.

Commissioner Jerry Berman asked if there were any plans to create an organization that could provide objective reviews of censorware products to help parents decide what to buy. Gordon Ross said that this had been tried a few years back with SIFT (?), and that it didn't work out.

After a short break, we began the second panel, which addressed server side filtering. Testifying was Kevin Fink, N2H2's CTO; Sunil Paul, Chairman of Brightmail; Stephen Boyles of Library Guardian (Swifteye); Michael Stephani, President and CEO of Exotrope; Ginny Wydler, Director of Standards and Policy at AOL; and Tim Robertson, CEO of FamilyClick.

The first person to say anything interesting was Michael Stephani, who made some fairly interesting claims. He said that their blacklist of sites included four million sites, and that their image-recognition software, BAIR, is 99.8% percent effective. Stephani bragged that it blocked 1 out of 6 general images and 96 out of 100 pornographic images. He pointed out (perhaps rightly) that image filtering is the only real way to filter out pornography, and also that client-side filtering would so go the way of the dodo, given the proliferation of Internet appliances. It wasn't long before he got all 'God bless America' and 'think of the children,' and eyeballs could be heard rolling throughout the room.

As Commissioners asked questions of the panel, Chairman Donald Telage admitted that he wasn't aware that client-side filters were able to use a blacklist. He was under the impression that they could only filter. I had flashbacks from the Napster hearings last week ("Can't you track their intellectual property address?")

Out of the blue, Karen Talbert asked the panel for a show of hands regarding their respective products' ability to work with high-speed connections. Obviously, everybody's hands went up.

How do these people get on the commission?

When given half a chance, Stephani got all "think of the children, my god, won't somebody think of the children?" again. He also bragged that Exotrope has a new, not-yet-released product that filters IM [AOL Instant Messaging -ed.] and even detects innuendo. Stephani said that they just got a contract to install this program on 30,000 school servers. Continuing his spectacular Old Faithful of shit, he cheerfully envisioned a time in the future when there would be "photonic switches" that would maintain a complete blueprint of everything that every user had ever done on-line. Christ, that's frightening. Stephani said that they'd spent $6.5MUS developing BAIR, and went on to point out the coincidence that Peacefire released the report showing that BAIR was 0% effective on the same day that their servers went down. Perhaps he was implying that Peacefire members hacked the server, perhaps that we were taking advantage of them, or perhaps he was just laughing at the circumstances.

There was no promised audience Q&A. That's probably because the whole event ran well over when it was supposed to end. Lacking a better approach, I rushed up to the ebullient Stephani with a copy of the newest BAIR report in hand. Although he was already talking to a reporter, he stopped when he saw my nametag ("Waldo L. Jaquith, Peacefire") and looked a little surprised. He, as well as his sidekick PR guy, enthusiastically introduced themselves. We talked for a few minutes, during which time I said that BAIR appears to suck less than many other censorware programs. But I was still fundamentally opposed to all of them. Between this and the revised report, Stephani was my new best friend. Several other people came forward to read nametags and shake hands, but I continued to talk to Stephani and the reporter, Drew Clark from Technology Daily.

Ten minutes later, when I walked out, I felt a little baffled. Stephani behaved towards me as if Peacefire had just given him the most glowing review that BAIR had ever gotten. This, despite my repeatedly pointing out that Peacefire is fundamentally opposed to filters, always will be, and BAIR is simply rather effective at performing the task that we hate.

I was disappointed that a few major points were never brought up during the discussions:

• Server-side censorware (especially that which is housed with each website) will always be a severe privacy violation, because it needs data on the user in order to establish what information to provide.
• Client-side censorware is doomed to fail because children know more about computers than their parents. The parent has to trust that little Suzy won't uninstall Cyber Patrol. But if Suzy can be trusted, why bother with Cyber Patrol?
• Internet censorship is impossible. The Internet is so large that it's a waste of time, so let's all stop. Gated community models, like AOL, Compuserve and such, are a far better way to provide a "safe" experience for kids.
• The concerns about children's wellbeing presented during the meeting mirror those that parents, since the beginning of time, have always had for their children. How can I keep my child safe when I'm not watching him? How do I know what my child is doing if I'm not around? How do I keep my children from hearing / seeing / saying bad things? Censorware makes no more sense than installing a v-chip in little Suzy's head. Get over it.

In a nutshell, I'm not sure what, if anything, was established at this meeting. It's clear that most of the Commissioners knew every little to start off with, and their opinions are being formed on what amounts to a series of sales pitch sprinkled with god-and-country references, a la mega blowout carpet sales around Independence Day. I'm glad COPA was struck down. Let's get on with our lives.

Best,
Waldo

Comments

Re:New feature request

[Remote]

• in a random sample of 50 photos of people's faces, BAIR blocked ... how many? ... 34.

  Maybe that slogan should be: "now your children can only see 32% of the web," period.

  Maybe they should have an option where if it finds a pornographic image it replaces it with a math exercise. For instance, instead of "Pamela Anderson Nude!" you could get "What percentage of 50 is 34? (answer 68%)"

Who was it who said Artificil Intelligence is no match for natural stupidity? :)

that was hilarious

[ebbv]

thanks for the great read.

personally, my feeling is, anyone who's not old enough for porn shouldn't be on the net. i guess i'm a bit of a fascist that way but,..

putting net access in school libraries is like having the interstate run through the playground,...it's just not a Good Idea(tm) :P

...dave

Re:HTML and browser method

[falloutboy]

"Who gets to define "porn" or "obscenity" or "objectionable"? These are subjective personal definitions."

Any company that has that "content contained herein is explicit, if you're not 18 or older click here for disney.com" front page, for starters. If this warning is required by law, any company that is forced to display it could also be forced to add the porn tag.

And stileproject.com =)

"Whether or not I agree with the definitions of which sites should be blocked or what books I should be forbidden to read or whatever, I refuse to delegate the authority to make those decisions for myself."

Thats the whole point, silly. If you don't actively set your browser to respond to the presence of the porn tag, it can ignore it and continue to load all the content. Parents can configure it to read the tag and do something about it, while you and me can spank it without ever realizing the tag exists. Did you actually read my post?

Re:Not all Americans are fundies/censors/etc.

[Chalst]

Well, the moralists seem to be very effective in state legislatures.
The majority of states have sodomy laws (often worded so as to include
oral sex, which is illegal in 12 states, or vague wording about
`unnatural' sex) and blasphemy laws, and many states intrusive laws
about who can have sex (Massachussetts has laws that criminalise
adultery and premarital sex). I think American culture is less
prudish than in Britain, but in this respect the States are much, much
worse. In genuinely liberal countries like Germany, this makes the US
a laughing stock.

Re:Always been a moralist state

[cheeser]

Protestant != Christian? Weird. I'm Protestant and Christian... Hmmm. And I'm against net filtering except by personal choice. Strange. Reading /. makes me appear to be thinking other than what I am. Perhaps what we have is a case of religious stereotyping. Kind of a faithism ( ala racism ). Saying all Christians are Bible-thumpers who want to rule the lives of others is like saying all blacks are drug-using wife beaters, all Jews are great businessman, or everyone from Arkansas are rednecks who married their brothers/sisters. It's also dreadfully uneducated.

Re:Americans getting what they deserve

[Gregg M]

The irony is that the "opressive regieme" which you rebelled from in 1776 is more free today than you are now.

Do you mean England? Where have you been?

Re:Not all Americans are fundies/censors/etc.

[Chalst]

Agreed. Jeffrey Rosen has written a lot of smart things about how a
lot of things about ugly working environments have been treated with
the wrong legal tools: harassment laws, where laws about personal
space and dignity would have been more appropriate, with the effect of
causing great intrusions into privacy. His new book `The Unwanted
Gaze: The Destruction of Privacy in America', looks very promising,
and I hope his ideas are influential. There's a good review here and
an extract has been available for a while.

Re:As a recovering child, this pisses me off

[Superb0wl]

Now, say that we needed n dollars to pay the rent/loans/utilities each month. My wife makes probably .8n, and I'm at around .6n. Individually, we'd go bankrupt. Together, we make 1.4n. That extra .4n affords us a nicely comfortable lifestyle, which some people see and automatically think "one of those kids should stay home with their children!" Unfortunately, that's just not possible.

very good point, i never thought of that. And actually, now that i think about it, the whole dscussion is moot because kids, by the time they're old enough to porn surf(middle-high school), haveing a parent there really won't do too much anyway. At that age, if there's a will there's a way. Beyond infacy, a kid needs a little bit of freedom w/o mom and dad looking over his shoulder. (s)he just needs to be taught while still young how to respect their parents and their rules.

i think that makes sense...
-Superb0wl

Art vs. Pornography

[dltallan]

SandsofTime wrote:

I'm always amazed that people might actually believe statements like the one about how software "could tell the difference between art and pornography."

Me, too. As I understand it, before programmers can write the instructions that would allow software to make that kind of distinction, people would have to figure it out.

Regardless of the implications of this article

[__aaedhn419]

Regardless of the implications of this article, I'd like to complain about the writing.

The writing of this Peacefire article is degenerate and cruel.

It makes repeated ad hominim attacks. The members of the commission are typified as being arrogant Nazis out of an Indiana Jones film. :)

The article is overdone with rhetoric and vituperative language. Instead of offering evidence we see opinionated flaming.

The attentive reader will notice that quotations from COPA members are few and out of context, while spin control arguments composed the remaining 60% of this diatribe.

Jon Katz has some flaws, but his writing is not deliberate character assassination like this piece.

Indeed, without the signature and reputable identification, I would dismiss this as an virulent Anonymous Coward submission.

By the end, this article is pathetically confused. It bashes a commission member for being criminally stupid by nonjudgementally accepting critiscism.

Flaming a brueaucrat for being nice! Incredible.

******
******

By the way, I agree that censorware is misguided and offensive.

I disagree with the miles of wimpy hatred expended by this author for that goal.

Re:Americans getting what they deserve

[Kailden]

I think you need to study a little more american history before you claim america is "falling into" a moralist state. America is most likely falling out af a moralist state.

Anyways, what is so wrong about morality? If you don't believe in some sort of absolute standards (even if you can't always meet them (thus hypocrites) then you have to believe in relativistic ones. Do you know what that means? You can't tell other people that your stance or opinion ( or anything you believe is right) is any better than theirs. If that's what you believe, then how can you been so idignant that one choice is better than others? If there is no moral standard, then there is just majority standard (might makes right--->that's an oppresive regime). Besides, you have a big hangup about hypocrites. Just because you can't live up to a standard doesn't mean the standard is flawed, it means you are flawed. That's like claiming because there's an abundance of counterfiet money out there, real cash is worthless. Your entire argument is rubbish and has no logical platform.

BTW, it seems to me you don't belive in a hell, so how would you see anyone there?

BTW, you should quit condemning oppresive regimes, after all, what's to say they are wrong?

COPA is attacking the problem "bassackwards"

[SirTreveyan]

This stuff will never work until the p0rn community gets together and say "Let build a internet filter that will only let you access p0rn sites." Then these COPA prudes can use that filter and use its results to block the p0rn they are so offended by.

Re:Americans getting what they deserve

[Xiombarg]

We see, in the case of pornography (please note the correct spelling), that many of the rapists and major serial killers were mired in porn. There's nothing saying that everyone who looks at porn will end up killing everyone on their block, but, apparently, the chances are greater. (I know. There are many other factors that go into becoming a serial killer, but this one seemed important enough for psychologists to point out).

These wouldn't be the same psychologists who went from having about 2,000 catagorized mental illnesses in the '60's and '70's, to the 50,000+ they have now?

I could do a study as well which shows that all major serial killers used the toilet. This doesn't mean that porcelain creates serial killers.

Too many studies confusing causality with corellations.

As far as history goes, taxation was the major issue at hand before the American Revolution, but the cause was an attempt of British soldiers to confiscate arms. The "Shot Heard 'Round the World" was the result of this attempt.

- Xiombarg

Breaking skin tone and word filters.

[Dast]

I don't get it; if this software checks for skin colors, why not just change the skin colors in the picture. Chicks (or guys, whatever you like) with blue/green/purple skin seems like they would pass right through this filter--granted it would look like alien porn, but it would be porn none the less.

Or maybe just have a standard color filter to apply to most images, then hack a reverse into Mozilla, so that when you come across a "color corrected" image, after it loads it, it automagically fixes the color.

Same idea goes for the word filters. Just have some sort of code (like 1337 5cR!p7) to garble the pages in a way that it can be read but will get past the filter. It seems like it would then be trivial to use something like the language encoding preference to decode this, allowing the user to read it.

Overall, it seems like this type of censorship is being pushed by people who can't stand when others don't agree with their morals, and by parents who don't want to take the time to SPEND TIME with their kids. And don't give me any bullshit about not having time; my parents didn't have time, but they made it anyway. Get involved in your childrens' lives *early on* and stay in it. Talk with your children about what is appropriate at what age for them to view. Don't just tell them they can't ever look at porn, that is unrealistic. Decide *with* them what age is appropriate for them to browse the web unrestricted, and until that time, *supervise them*. After that, trust that they are mature enough to handle it, and most likely you will not be disappointed.

The problem is we think we can make kids better by denying them the things we know they will go after. The best way is to compromise with them (and I stress their involvement in the deciding) how much freedom they get and when they get it. Let them know that if they show you can trust them that you will infact trust them and give them the freedom they have earned.

<sarcasm>But I guess that would be too much work for parents these days.<sarcasm> Not taking time to do these things shows how little love you have for your children.

Re:Americans getting what they deserve

[drinkypoo]

Isn't this true of some entire country in Europe, like Switzerland or something? Note that it's probably not Switzerland, but it does sound like something the Swiss would do.

Re:Anti-Reality helmet.

[fonetik]

Yeah, I know what you mean. Bill Hicks was talking once about how the Fundamentalst Christians said that the world was only 12,000 years old and dinasuars were just put here to "test our faith". Same aruguement. The idea that there is a god above that is putting us through some mental obsticle course becuase "God works in myserious ways!" I'm going to hell for that one... This is nothing, you want hypocrisy in religion? I grew up in Utah. Those guys are the worst... =)

Re:COPA Not Still on Appeal

[ethereal]

Actually, Jamie is correct. The ruling to which you have linked only indicates that a higher court has upheld the original injunction on the enforcement of COPA. The law has no force until the case brought against it is completed. So the appeal against the injunction is over, but the case against the law itself is just beginning.

Damnit AI technology pundits....

[ashpool7]

I propose a NEW idea. Instead of "smart" AI programs sitting over the shoulders of our kids who many don't deem responsible enough to get on the internet (but let them anyway), I have invented a machine that will filter 100% of all "inappropriate" material! Smarter than any AI ever created, it's has been gathering approval ratings from every household it has been tested in. No-one has disagreed on it's filtering for their children! Plus, it comes STANDARD when you buy the computer for your child.

WHY DOES NOBODY WANT TO USE IT???!!!

It's cost: Time.
It's name: Parents

Re:Damnit AI technology pundits....

[Yamao]

Good point.

Small problem: you can't watch your children all of the time.

My wife doesn't have a career outside the house. She's decided to stay home with our children. I think it's a wonderful idea. She can teach them things that a day care center wouldn't bother, and make sure they get a good idea of what's appropriate and what's inappropriate.

There are still a few problems, which I think these blocking software makers are addressing in the wrong way: 1) you can't watch your children all of the time; 2) you can't trust your children all of the time (I know because I was a child once, and I remember it); 3) you can't make sure you or they don't get tricked into seeing something.

1 and 2: Sometimes, a parent has to enforce rules, not just make them. Sometimes, a parent has to make it nearly impossible to break the rules - especially if a child has broken a rule multiple times. As a punishment, the parent revokes certain priviliges, and sometimes the ability to break the rule that was broken. (Life naturally works that way, but on a longer time scale. Parents speed things up, because they don't want to wait for, say, the child to become a washed-out drug adict on dialysis before he knows it's not good for him.) Currently, you can't do that with the World Wide Web. The alternative is to revoke browsing privilidges completely, but you can't always enforce that, either.

3: I don't look at p0rn because that would potentially ruin my relationship with my wife. (And all you who think it wouldn't, please don't argue with me about this one. That would be off-topic.) What if I and my family have decided (yes, children can actually make these decisions themselves, and even if you help them, they still made it themselves) that p0rn doesn't belong in our home? I've been tricked before. I don't like that - not because it would ruin me to see it once, but because I don't want to look at it, and I don't enjoy being forced against my will to see something. I also don't want my children to have to deal with that, especially if they're trying to uphold a standard that they've set for themselves.

Currently, there's no answer. The censorware people are trying to come up with one, but it hasn't worked so far. And then, the majority of this community - which has characteristically shown an attitude of disdain for people who would like to have an easier time bringing their children up right - laugh at it. Hello? Would it kill you to show a measure of respect? They're not trying to censor the Internet! They're trying to provide a product to parents because they see a need for it. You can still log on to your ISP and surf for p0rn all you like.

I favor 1) parents actually spending time with their children (which isn't quite cool with too many people, it seems), helping them decide on moral issues and enforcing house rules; and 2) a TLD for .xxx that I can filter on my firewall at home.

Re:Damnit AI technology pundits....

[ashpool7]

I favor 1) parents actually spending time with their children (which isn't quite cool with too many people, it seems), helping them decide on moral issues and enforcing house rules

My point exactly ;) But yes, time is a limiting factor.

Re:Damnit AI technology pundits....

[DavidTC]

Sadly, they are trying to censor the net, by installing filters in libraries.

And Peacefire, BTW, will never agree with you. Peacefire is a bunch of children (I don't mean immature, I mean, people under 18) who completely disagree that parents should have the right to control what they see and hear and say. I have to agree with them, due to a promise I made myself when I was their age. I mean, either they have no idea what porn is, in which case it's hard to argue they shouldn't see it (They won't look for it, and I fail to see how a picture will harm them if they don't even know what the point of it is), or they are old enough to know what it is, in which case, why not let them see it? It's the safest sex there is.

As a matter for fact, I sometimes get the idea that some people think porn is somehow inheritly bad. Well, I see no proof of this whatsoever. If little kids want to look at it, go right ahead.

On the other hand, I completely agree with you about being tricked to go places, and think that should be written into AUPs, so we can get these morons kicked off the net. I feel the same way about keyword spamming on search engines. It's like walking into a library, and finding, mixed in with 2000 books, 5000 things that look like books, but are merely blank pages except for a few porn images at the front and a place to write to for more. I think it should be a violation of AUPs to 'misrepresent content' in any form.

-David T. C.

Robocop...

[cvd6262]

our BAIR can be taught to evaluate other categories such as violence or illegal activities

Does this recall to anyone else the big robot enforcer in robocop. He could tell that someone had a gun, but not that he had put it down.

I sure hope the feds are smart enough to not believe that AI is anywhere close to being able to police us.

Re:Robocop...

[zorgon]

Bwahahahaha!

"Dick, I'm very disappointed."

Best scene in the movie, imho.

WWJD -- What Would Jimi Do?

Always been a moralist state

[Photon Ghoul]

The U.S. (yes, I'm a U.S. citizen) was founded by puritans and other crazy bastards. This is nothing new, just that people from other countries actually get to see it happening in public.

Re:Always been a moralist state

[0x0000]

Saying all Christians are Bible-thumpers who want to rule the lives of others is like saying all blacks are drug-using wife beaters, all Jews are great businessman

Y'know, I have seen this idea expressed before, and I just have to take issue with it. Again.

Xtianity is not comparable to race. You were not born xtian. Xtianity is a choice (no matter how much xtians try to brainwash kids into believing otherwise).

Your belief in Jesus as your personal savior is not the same type of immutable fact that as e.g. an individual's racial background.

If you are discriminated against as a xtian, it is because you failed to execise your intellect. If I am discriminated against on the basis of by racial background, it is not because I chose to accept a corrupt moral code.

Quit whining. You chose your religion, and if people make fun of you for it and persecute you for it, well hey, your bible teaches that they will do that. Suck it up and quit trying to ride on the coattails of people who have suffered persecution for things they had no control over, like the color of their skin.

Stereo-tying of xtians is generally valid because it takes a certain type of person to accept the particular illogic inherent in the xtian system of beliefs (e.g there is only one god, it is male, an benevolent). The same can be said of most religions. E.g. if you were fit the a diferent stereotype, you might believe in a malignant, female diety... This stuff is so obvious. Get a clue.

Re:Always been a moralist state

[PerlGeek]

> I'm Protestant and Christian... Hmmm. And I'm against net filtering except by personal choice.

Same here. Half of /. goes up in arms about discrimination against geeks, goths, nerds, etc... and then to hear so many railing against Christians. It's bizarre. Sure, I've known some militant, thought-police Christians, just as I've known some atheists who were just as intolerant.

Hacker - originally created as a term to describe people with an irrepressible curiosity about the world, who created new and cool things and ideas. Now a term to describe vandals, script kiddies, virus writers, webpage defacers, and the such.

I can't be the only one to see the connection.

Re:Always been a moralist state

[zantispam]

(Damn, I'm responding to a troll)

Back in the day, the fledgeling apostles used `X' to represent `Christ'. When used in this context, the x translates to Christ and thus

> eval(print(Xian));
> Christian



Here's my copy of DeCSS. Where's yours?

Re:Always been a moralist state

[reptilian]

was founded by puritans and other crazy bastards.

Not quite. That's religious right propeganda you obviously fell right into. This country was founded by primarily deists, and atheists, or something of the sort (ie. NOT christian). All the rest were protestant. Look here.

Puritan. Riiiiight.

The Futility of Censorware and its consequenses

[nerdherder]

Ponder what could happen if instead of worrying about all this censorware, parents would just spend time with their kids and pay attention to what they are doing. Think of the possibilities -- but alas, this is just to easy a solution, or to hard for parents to swallow that THEY might actually be responsible for what their children access. Fear not having anyone to blame when they find little Tommy has been looking at boobs. "The darn program that is supposed to be guarding my kid from pr0n didnt work, IM GONNA SUE." We'll have another Tobacco-type classaction lawsuit on our hands before too long :P Instead of wasting all this time and money on something obviously so futile, why not spend time with your kids once in a while.

Re:The Futility of Censorware and its consequenses

[Delphis]

A bit of a redundant 'me too' post, I know, but

Amen to that!!

You hit the nail on the head with that one.


--

Listen! It's Picasso, spinning...

[dr_strangelove]

"Commissioner Gregory L. Rohde asked Richard Schwartz if his image filter could tell the
difference between art and pornography. Astoundingly, Schwartz replied that it could."

Amazing! Awesome! Unbelieveable!!

Rudy Guliani can't even do that!

Re:Listen! It's Picasso, spinning...

[digitalmind]

Intresting comments about art. As far as some of the so called "pornographic" art, I doubt it will have the ability to filter it, much less any other form of porno. Reasons?

1. David is considered "porn" by some bible bitchers. However, I doubt he would be blocked because he is made of stone, instead of flesh and I assume the "complicated algorithms" are nothing more than looking for X colored pixel in picture X. Which may or (most likely) may not block pictures of blacks, pale whites, asians, half nude people, or people wearing leather (so if you're a kid who's into BDSM porn you got nothing to worry about)

2. Animals aren't the same shape or color of humans. So if you like beasty porn then you're fine. Don't worry about censorware, worry about the farmer who's suing you for sodomizing his cows.

3. If all BAIR does is check images, adult stories won't be checked. And you won't need to worry anyway cause if you got a palm VII then you can get sinpalm, which has no censorware for it yet anyway.

4. Set your default JPEG or GIF viewer to a graphics program instead of IE or nutscrape. Get your images via FTP and BAIR won't be able to filter it.

See you censorshing asswipes? Nothing you do will defeat me. Nothing! FUCK YOU!



Kris
botboy60@hotmail.com
Nerdnetwork.net

Re:Listen! It's Picasso, spinning...

[Shadowlion]

It effectively blocks 68% of all pictures (explicit or mundane).

Yeah, I can just hear the defense of that statement.

"It can too distinguish between art and pornography! It just so happens that, coincidentally, 68% of what you call art I call pornography!"

Re:Listen! It's Picasso, spinning...

[kwsNI]

I'm not sure if that's a poor attempt at being funny or a poor attempt at trolling, but I think you're missing the point still. The debate is whether BAIR can tell the difference between a person looking at porn and a person looking at a picture of nude art (e.g. the statue of David).

Obviously, the software can't tell the difference between them because the software just doesn't work. It effectively blocks 68% of all pictures (explicit or mundane).

kwsNI

Re:Listen! It's Picasso, spinning...

[dr_strangelove]

Actually, it was a poor attempt to point out that the difference between art and pr0n is an aesthetic judgement that will probably remain forever beyond the capabilities of ANY computer.

One hopes, at any rate.

A poor attempt at a troll looks like this:

"Fuck you, asshole!"

See?

too late

[poopie]

... or worse. The negative influences of the internet could turn you into the most deviant being...

A slashdot troll

but seriously, someone ought to run Slashdot archives through the thing and see how many slasdot PAGES would be censored.

Censorship

[plumpy]

She muddled the definition of censorship somewhat, saying that "[s]ome critics confuse censorship, which is imposed by the government, with technology that a family or school can choose to use and then set to implement an individual policy." Our school system isn't a part of the government?

To censor, according to my dictionary, is "to examine an expurgate". Expurgate, in turn, means "to remove obscene, objectionable, or erroneous material from prior to publication."

Generally only a government has the power to do this (by passing laws making a things illegal). One store refusing to carry a certain magazine does NOT count as censorship, even if some liberal media wants to call it that. Neither, I would argue, does a library refusing to allow certain websites.

It's still not a good idea, but I, personally, don't think it's the same as censorship. The information is still allowed to exist; you just have to go through alternate means to see it.

Re:Censorship

[waldoj]

It's still not a good idea, but I, personally, don't think it's the same as censorship. The information is still allowed to exist; you just have to go through alternate means to see it.

This is, IMHO, a really interesting point. I never thought of censorship quite like that.

OK, Let's pretend that Russia has banned The Wall Street Journal because it's too capitalist. (You know they can't shake those communist leanings...:) So you can't get it in that country. I think we can agree that is censorship.

You can get the Journal. You just have to leave the country. In schools, you can't see the ACLU's website. But you can if you leave the school.

What's the difference between these two examples?

-Waldo

Re:Censorship

[CorporateProgrammerD]

The difference? In the hypothetical Russia that you write of (which banned the capitalistic magazine) it is also probably illegal to leave the country.

In the schools, you can leave to go home now and then (even boarding schools.)

Re:Americans getting what they deserve

[Anonymous Coward]

you are probably a 12yr old boy who has been caught one to many times looking at porn by your mom

No, I'm a 24 year old electrical engineer who studies history. I love how history repeats itself - Germany did all these things to get prepared for World War II, right down to gun control and training teenagers.

It's ironic that it's easier to buy guns, and watch people kill each other, than it is to watch people copulate - something that everyone's parents did, and is completely natural, and shouldn't be something that people are uptight about, period.

if I want to say something that I don't want touched I telnet into a offshore shell and host it there...

Isn't it sad, that your own consitution is suppost to guarantee you the right to say whatever you want, ABSOULUTELY, and you're forced to go to a foriegn country to do it? That's fucking pathetic. You should be embarassed. Why do I think that people from the EU and Canada know more about your history than you, yourselves do?

At least I don't have to worry about getting throw in a (federal) prision with bubba the racist over a gram of pot in my pocket, and I can tell a cop no, he can't look in my glove box, without getting slammed on the hood and held up for drug dogs.

At least I don't live by a false set of morals, and at least I'm not guilty about who I am. And at least I, never, ever, tell other people what they can or cannot think. It's too bad your politicians don't have more respect for their electorate, but, what can you expect from a bunch of sheep?

Read your history books, read your nation's history, and you should feel thoroughly ashamed at what has happened in the 19th century and continues to happen today. How many of your relatives died in World War II protecting freedom - not democracy, but those people died to protect FREEDOM.

And so, I laugh. I used to be concerned. I just hope some day I don't end up in a trench fighting the USA for my right to say what I damn well please, and read what I damn well please. I can still do that here.

Re:Muahahah!

[Legolas-Greenleaf]

Last time i checked, COPA stood for The Canadian Owners and Pilots Association - the civilian group in Canada responsible for ensuring the rights of pilots and aircraft owners. Too bad such a good organization has to share an acronym with evil censorware.

And Run Lola Run is an awesome movie!! See it!! Send me a copy of the DVD!
-legolas

i've looked at love from both sides now. from win and lose, and still somehow...

Re:Mike Stephani... a funny guy

[jamiemccarthy]

If you want to talk, on or off the record, drop me a line.

Jamie McCarthy

Re:Welcome to the new age of parenting.

[ocie]

Um, no. Although parenting may have changed some, the bigger change has been the world in which we parent. Before the Internet, there was no possible way for my 3 year old daughter to ever see pr0n, period, unless some sicko assaulted her in some way.

Among those in my generation, I was the oddball for not only having a computer, but programming it at age 8. I would even work on programs on paper when I was in class.

But 3???? Most 3 year olds I know don't even know how to read much less use a computer. Hasn't anyone ever thought that maybe children this young shouldn't be using computers? As our world becomes more and more computerized, I feel that the social interaction skills that children develop in early grades will become even more important. Let Suzy wait another two years to learn how to use a mouse and keyboard, but teach her a love of reading and the ability to get along with her peers as soon as you can.

Re:You laugh, but...

[ShinGouki]

because you can still see the moderated posts if you really feel the need to. it's a time and space saving measure, not censorship. twit.
-dk

Re:Americans getting what they deserve

[tdrury]

Not that I'm particularly proud of this, but in Georgia where _I_ live (Kennesaw) we are _required_ to own a firearm. Thankfully, it's not a law that is rigorously enforced.

-tim

Re:Welcome to the new age of parenting.

[drinkypoo]

I agree. When I was a [young] child my father told me over and over with varying degrees of success, "If it's not yours, leave it alone!" As a side note, this was occasionally coupled with a smart tap upside the head - Most definitely not enough to do any damage, but enough to get my attention.

In any case, as I got older I went through the period of petty theft that most children pass through. I never really felt right about it, and when I was able to get over it (I was probably just doing it for attention, or maybe it's because we were what is called "underpriviledged" today) I felt much better. But if I hadn't been raised to believe that you shouldn't muck with other people's posessions, who can say what correctional institution I might live in today?

ai porn

[goodcitizen]

Now if only they could make ai that would find porn for me -"Bob" is -"Bob" is not -"Bob" becomes PRAISE "Bob"

Awesome!

[pb]

AI Bots that can identify and snarf porn for us!

What will those great Censorship people think of next? :)
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.

Re:Awesome!

[komisch]

Hmm I can see it now, "Install our software and protect your children!" Then, "Install OUR software and use their software to get the best sex on the net! (Note: only 32% effective at the time of this press release.)"

Re:Not all Americans are fundies/censors/etc.

[Kaa]

n short, you're trying to pigeonhole Americans with this carefully-cultivated mental image that is probably the result of reading too many religious trolls on Slashdot.

Well, well. The guys does make a few well-founded points, though. Please reflect on the following:

(1) What's going to be my minimum mandatory sentence if the cops find me with a couple of ounces of pot on me, or a dozen E tablets?

(2) What do you think will happen if I make a sexual joke at my workplace? If I email it to some of my colleagues?


Kaa

Muahahah!

[Krimsen]

I burst out laughing and no one at work could figure out why:
"...at the COPA, COPA commission..." hahahahah!!!!! ROTFL

Re:Muahahah!

[deefer]

Her name was Lola, she was a showgirl...
It fits, hey?

Strong data typing is for those with weak minds.

Re:Muahahah!

[chorder]

./" "Porno and Cursing, and censors traversing, at the COOOOOOPA, we lost our riiiiiights..." ./"

Your solution would be what?

[scruffyMark]

That the goverment does not collect taxes, and so while both parents don't need to work,

• there are no roads for either of them to get to work on
• the sewage system is so terrible that neither is ever in good health for long enough at a stretch to keep a job
• there is no guarantee of health care, so they need to keep hundreds of thousands of $ in reserve, just in case someone gets ill enough to need hospitalization
• there is no police force, I won't even go into that...

Get real. The USA has the lowest tax rates in the civilized world. You don't see starving Germans on the streets much, and their government is a socialist-green alliance right now. You always have to pay for the stuff you use. Whether you pay for it through taxes or per item doesn't make a difference.

Re:Your solution would be what?

[bnenning]

Wow. I just wrote a message on the latest Carnivore thread saying that opposition to Carnivore does not mean opposition to all law enforcement. I will repeat myself here: there is a difference between arguing that taxes are too high and advocating the elimination of all government. Do you really believe that everything you pay in taxes goes to the public good? Do you believe that everything the government does is absolutely essential for the survival of its citizens? Yes, government does perform some necessary functions. It also wastes a tremendous amount of money. Or do you approve of spending hundreds of billions for corporate welfare and defense pork?

Re:Your solution would be what?

[ashshy]

Uh... where in the US do you have guaranteed health care? Yeah, US taxes are low (I'm a Swedish transplant to America), but so are the benefits returned from those tax dollars. Roads still suck, I mentioned the health care, and the school system here... you know, when I have kids, I'll move back east again :P That way we'd get free health care, good schools, welfare in case we both lost our jobs, and paid new-parent time off from work mandated by law.
-----
#o#

What most Americans are

[jabber]

What most Americans are is apathetic, deluded, convenience seeking lemmings.

There is the very vocal, extremely right-wing clique of "Bible-Thumpers". There is the very vocal, militant, bleeding-heart equal-rightists. There is the very blase bunch of, unfortunatelly all too silent, head-shaking free-thinkers who hope that 'common-sense' will prevail.

And the rest are sheep, who just change the channel when the news makes them feel the uncomfortable twinge of a budding opinion.

Whacking a Brit across the ears isn't going to change things. S/He has a point. When our elected officials ooh and aah over the President's spunk on some privileged sluts dress one day, and legislate 'right' and 'wrong' the next, it's time to stop and think.

This whole issue isn't about what is or isn't ethically or morally correct and proper. This is about what is aesthetically pleasing. People bitch and moan about things that they find offensive. This should not be confused with what is immoral or unethical - simply unappealing.

Clinton dogging a naive 21 year old nymphette was fucking exciting shit! The Starr Report was the closest that most of Congress got to a real pussy in decades! They, vicariously, ate that shit up! You GO Bill! -- But what we say is "Isn't that shameful? Isn't that deplorable? Well? Isn't it? Don't YOU agree?"

The OJ trial was hot-dog fucking cool too! What middle-manager wouldn't want to be a Football player? What middle-manager wouldn't want to dispose of his ex-wife and get away with it? OJ's a freaking hero, he beat the system! -- But what we say is "How Awful. Of course he's guilty. He was guilty before he was ever accused, nevermind proven so."

But having little Timmy look at porn is just down-right unwholesome! My GOD! What would the neighbors think?! ... I'll say that one again... WHAT WOULD THE NEIGHBORS THINK?

Re:Water-saving Toilets

[CmdrPorno]

Actually, it's not illegal to "smuggle" a higher water consumption toilet from Canada. It is illegal to sell it, and possibly to install it. If you bring some toilets from Canada for yourself and your friends and install them yourselves, I assume it's a pretty safe hack for your home unless the toilet police pay you a visit.

Re:Americans getting what they deserve

[I R A Aggie]

I wonder if the united states would ever bomb it's own people. Maybe I'll get to see it.

Of course it would. It's already happened. Duh.

The irony is that the "opressive regieme" which you rebelled from in 1776 is more free today than you are now. Tsk, tsk.

Really? are you sure that a nation that permits the constabulary to forcibly extract your DNA is really free?

James

Re:AI cluelessness.

[tietokone-olmi]

In other words, BAIR is based on voodoo programming; write something without any understanding of how it's supposed to work but hoping like hell that it won't fail too badly.

More on this topic at lisnews

[LISNews]

We have quite a few stories at LISNews.com on Censorship and Filtering that can give you some idea on what's going on around the country in these areas as well. Mostly from the popular press, shows who is for and against and where this is being used and fught against.

Re:On woodland animals and censorship in general..

[Shadowlion]

oooh... nice beaver!

"Thank you. I just had it stuffed..."

Re:Welcome to the new age of parenting.

[darkwhite]

An extreme example of what you advocate would produce a shy, cautious child with probably some psychological disorders. Although I grew up in a house that definitely wasn't child-proof, my parents didn't skin me for doing stuff either (I was told that once when I was ~3 yrs old a family friend showed me some crayons and said to just draw on the wall. Next thing, I ruined all the wallpaper in the living room). It is definitely necessary to make the house somewhat childproof because otherwise there will be severe property damage as well as threat to child's health :)

Karma Police, arrest this man, he talks in maths
He buzzes like a fridge, he's like a detuned radio

Re:Americans getting what they deserve

[jasondlee]

Hell, your president jumps his interns, but we can't handle little timmy seeing some breasts.

So since our president has problems, we should allow the rest of the country to slide into depravity?

Bitch and whine, but you elected, or allowed to get elected, those representatives that don't have the balls to tell the "moral right" where to go. How many of your politicians would even admit to viewing pr0n?? Hell, I love pr0n. What's wrong with a little n00kie. I'll be seeing all you bible thumpers in hell anyhow.

Hmm. pr0n and n00kie. My first thought is that you're about 12 with typing like that, but your apparent knowledge of American history tends to defy that assessment. Either way, I have a tough time taking political advice from someone who thinks he's so l337 that he types like you do.

You've given up your right to hold arms for the purpose of ensuring a free state, in it's place, giving the state absolute power

Unless I'm mistaken, the "oppresive regieme [sic]" allows 0 private ownership of fire arms. We haven't quite done that yet, and I'll be surprised (and greatly saddened) if that ever happens.

The irony is that the "opressive regieme" which you rebelled from in 1776 is more free today than you are now. Tsk, tsk.

Now, I'm no historian, but I think the major initiative in our fight for Independence was based on the phrase "taxation without representaion." King George put an undue burden on the American colonies without giving the colonists any real recourse for remedy, thus, the American Revolutionary War. Granted, many of the colonsists came to the New World to escape religious persecution. They were seeking a place to raise their families where they would be safe to practice their beliefs. Today, we see efforts to hold on to the moral foundation this country had. Some of it has a real religious foundation, while some is based on sociological factors. We see, in the case of pornography (please note the correct spelling), that many of the rapists and major serial killers were mired in porn. There's nothing saying that everyone who looks at porn will end up killing everyone on their block, but, apparently, the chances are greater. (I know. There are many other factors that go into becoming a serial killer, but this one seemed important enough for psychologists to point out). There's more to these efforts than being a moralist state.

For what it's worth, there it is.

Americans getting what they deserve

[Anonymous Coward]

People get the government that they deserve

From an international standpoint, it's great watching your once proud nation fall into a moralist state. The hilarious part is that you're all a bunch of hypocrites that have a hard-core hangup about sex. Hell, your president jumps his interns, but we can't handle little timmy seeing some breasts.

Bitch and whine, but you elected, or allowed to get elected, those representatives that don't have the balls to tell the "moral right" where to go. How many of your politicians would even admit to viewing pr0n?? Hell, I love pr0n. What's wrong with a little n00kie. I'll be seeing all you bible thumpers in hell anyhow.

You might think this is a troll, but I really am laughing. You've given up all your personal liberties for the false pretense of safety from drugs; You've given up your right to hold arms for the purpose of ensuring a free state, in it's place, giving the state absolute power; The last one to go is freedom of expression and freedom of speech, and they'll go in the name of the children. Don't stop and think about what kind of state you're leaving for your kids - they won't mind, they're already being trained for invasive searches and totalitarian states in their schools, for their own safety.

I wonder if the united states would ever bomb it's own people. Maybe I'll get to see it.

The irony is that the "opressive regieme" which you rebelled from in 1776 is more free today than you are now. Tsk, tsk.

Re:Americans getting what they deserve

[jovlinger]

hmmm like their right to bare arms

It's not the arms that they object to, but rather the rest of the body.

:-P

Re:Americans getting what they deserve

[grahamsz]

Why... you've still got pitifully low tax rates in america.

Look at gasolene for example it's about 3 times more expensive in most of western europe than it is in the US.

What americans are good at is winging about things and litigating.

Sorry did i piss you off :) go sue me

Re:Americans getting what they deserve

[Photon Ghoul]

If you're going to criticize Americans, at least learn how to speak/type American!

Re:Americans getting what they deserve

[grahamsz]

Whoa, i'm sorry dude.

I'll just get me some dictionaries 'ere and sit out back and read 'em.

Wouldn't wanna be offendin all ah ma brothers and sistahs out there.

Re:Americans getting what they deserve

[Emugamer]

WOW! you know what? almost every other country in the world has also done gun control as well. as for free speech, I say what I want to but my own host here (I don't own my own backbone in hte country) is a buisness and gets scared by lawyers, not the government. I would have to say that I do know my own history and that while much of its history is sad, our atrocities our much less then most other countries. As for the drug laws, I am very much for them but that is my own opinion and very much biased after having one friend OD and my sister being hit buy a doped up drunk driver. I'm not saying that USA is great but I sure as hell rather live here then most other places in the world. as for my realitives dying in world war II, I know of 6. all except one of tmale population over 12 at the time of the war died to protect their freedom. 2 were shot trying to sabatoge a german tank in Norway after the invasion, and several others were killed when they fought with the RAF after fleeing Norway. the one surviving male moved my mothers family to the US and my grandmother moved my Fathers side to the US. So I frown, at your inability to see that we are you.... atleast some of us. you say "Those Americans..." and I say "think globably and not so narrow mindedly". thinking that everything is bad will not help anything. Stop complaining and do something

Re:Americans getting what they deserve

[boog3r]

The irony is that the "opressive regieme" which you rebelled from in 1776 is more free today than you are now. Tsk, tsk.

you mean the brits? they have it worse off than any nation on the planet! 24/7 AI face-recognition and tracking in public areas, ALL public areas monitored 24/7 with complete archival of the surveillance data.

the US is close behind, but the UK is leading in the "Rush to 1984"

i think you need to seperate your moralist view of the US from its complete invasiveness of civil liberty. sure they make good bedfellows, but they are different beasts completely. the UK might not be as stuck-up as the US when it comes to sex/etc but they certainly have it worse off in the Totalitarian Government Department.

Re:Americans getting what they deserve

[revscat]

It is indeed Switzerland. Every adult male there is required to serve in the military, and they are all issued a weapon after they leave the service. This is to be kept in their homes in case their services become necessary at a later date.

- Rev.

Re:Americans getting what they deserve

[HiThere]

I you think this is new, you just haven't been watching. This *** stuff happens periodically. I keep hoping that something will cause it to just go away, but not yet. It's been a periodic eUStatian plague since the pilgrims brought it over from Britain. It hasn't yet reached to point of silliness that it got to during the "Victorian" period. I don't know what Britain was doing, but over here we put skirts on piano and chair legs, so that nobody could see them. And worse silliness. I keep hoping that this is the high - water line.

Re:Americans getting what they deserve

[Emugamer]

well I have to say I don't represent most of what you hate in America. I am a active volunteer, I voted at every single election since I registerd on my 18th birthday, I traded in my corperate paycheck to work at a non-profit aids foundation and I sign and have started many petitions to try and stop government control of the internet perhaps your use of the word "you" refers to America which I would almost agree with. but that is true the world over. Most people are chickenshit. nuff said :)

Re:Americans getting what they deserve

[GungaDan]

"I wonder if the united states would ever bomb it's own people." Yes, the US has bombed its own people. Mostly militant black groups during the Civil Rights struggle, but citizens nonetheless, entitled to their opinions, and certainly not deserving of firebombs. While we're at it, the National Guard has a history of shooting college students, and the Drug War encourages the death or incarceration of anyone who would dare believe that personal liberty trumps state-sponsored hypermoralism. Sartre had it right - "Hell is other people."

Re:Americans getting what they deserve

[cybercuzco]

Ah yes, very Ironic that the US has the lowet tax rate of any industrualized nation on earth, sure we were neck and neck with turkey for awhile, but weve blown by them now. Oh wait, thats not ironic at all.

Re:Americans getting what they deserve

[supabeast!]

"I wonder if the united states would ever bomb it's own people. Maybe I'll get to see it."

It happened in 1981. The Philedelphia police bombed black activists who refused to leave their house. The bombs wiped out an entire neighbourhood (Did I spell that incorrectly?).

The worst part is, the cops pretty much got away with it.

I love America, but the more I see hateful, violent resistance to peaceful, intelligent change, the more I like the idea of moving to Canada.

Re:Americans getting what they deserve

[Emugamer]

The irony is that the "opressive regieme" which you rebelled from in 1776 is more free today than you are now. Tsk, tsk.

hmmm like their right to bare arms.... yeah that must be it.... the only place where our rights are limited truelly is online and who really gives a shit about that? if I want to say something that I don't want touched I telnet into a offshore shell and host it there... I can also go yell at my congressman and have him listen. people might complain about their rights being compromised by the governemnt but its actually just some stupid companys. the government will figure it out some time and fix it (call me optimisitic). notice that BAIR deals with censorship that your parents can implement. if they are implementing it you are probably a 12yr old boy who has been caught one to many times looking at porn by your mom. (MODERATE -1, FLAMEBAIT)

On woodland animals and censorship in general...

[phlake]

oooh... nice beaver!

my opinion: censorship is a total crock, whether or not it's accurate. the fact that it is embarrasingly inaccurate only makes it more obvious.

i wonder if BAIR would block apartment6.org? it has lots of skin tone.

Re:Anti-Reality helmet.

[pb]

Heh heh. Excellent example.

I find it funny that many of the same people who are in favor of censorship are also convinced of the necessity of what they call "a test of faith", to prove their loyalty or whatever. Hypocrisy? In religion? Never...
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.

Inherent Prejudice

[nezroy]

Once again the entire issue is based on an inherent prejudice in our society that the youth are somehow second-class citizens. Apparently at that magical age of 18, you can suddenly ethically decide to become a pervert. You cannot, however, drink to celebrate the occasion. And you'll have to be a local pervert, because it'll be another seven years before you can rent a car to get out of town and hustle your smut somewhere else...

Re:AI cluelessness.

[FascDot Killed My Pr]

"The problem is that porn is semantics."

That's only 10% of the problem. Another 30% or so is that even for any given human "pornography" is not well-defined. "I know it when I see it" they say, while reading Playboy and rejecting Hustler.

But the biggest problem is subjectivity. Example: Suppose a company made some software that you could explain (even in English) exactly what you didn't want to let through. And let's say the software was 100% accurate (letting through those images and only those images that you defined as non-pornographic). That definition STILL doesn't apply to ME. So if ISPs started using this software, the images I don't get to view are decided by someone else. That's no good.
--

don't sneer at parents

[Anonymous Coward]

> "The concerns about children's wellbeing ... mirror those that parents, since the beginning of time, have always had for their children. ... Censorware makes no more sense than installing a v-chip in little Suzy's head. Get over it."

When we sneer at parental concerns, it alienates people who haven't learned what's going on - playing right into the hands of the blockers.

There really is a difference between theoretical discussion and having your 8-year-old accidentally type "hotbox" instead of "hotbot" as a URL. You can't blame parents for seeking a fix for the problem, even though it's the wrong fix.

Snorting "get over it" just pisses them off and makes them assume the anti-censorware crowd is a bunch of kids who can be safely ignored.

Trying to protect your children is about the strongest drive evolution has given us. Work with it, not against it.

Welcome to the new age of parenting.

[adipocere]

Parents today are not leaping in front of sabretooth tigers to protect their infants. Parenting today is about childproofing the entire world so you don't have to pay attention to what little Suzy is doing.

Think about it.

First, we have the idiot box (I'll bet "boob tube" is probably filtered out by default). Put your child in front of it, point their heads at the shiny part, and walk off. Originally, this worked out pretty well, then TV started getting sexy. That just had to go.

Nevermind watching TV with your kids, probably the most minimal form of parenting possible. Nevermind that you don't want your kids to see sex (hopefully, they will grow up and have sex), but it's okay to watch gods know how many murders per day (hopefully, they will grow up and not murder people).

No, for the 15% of the children who were just a little too active and intelligent to just sit in front of the television, let's give them something interactive. Here comes the Web. Same principle applies here. Put the kid in front of a computer, let little Timmy click away, and, again, stop interacting with the child.

Minimalist parenting arises from a mostly Republican morality and a Democratic sense of "we know what's best." The worst of both parties has collided to create parents who would like to put a childproof cap on the world, kid-safe, mother-approved, no small parts to swallow, no sharp edges. Just have them, take the baby pictures, throw some clothes on them, and then let them wander about the big, wild world while you go off and have your lattes and shop frantically in your SUVs. Your children will be protected automagically, just as easy as procreation itself.

Parents have pretty much abdicated all interaction with their kids, and tools like this help it happen.

Re:Welcome to the new age of parenting.

[shaper]

Um, no. Although parenting may have changed some, the bigger change has been the world in which we parent. Before the Internet, there was no possible way for my 3 year old daughter to ever see pr0n, period, unless some sicko assaulted her in some way.

Now, not only do I have to worry about physical safety, I also have to worry about what raw, unfiltered sewage comes into my home over the wire. (Yes, I chose those words deliberately, I don't use censorware). Now I have an aspect of parenting that did not even exist before the advent of home access to a near completely unregulated Internet filled with explicit imagery that is most definitely not appropriate for children to see.

I am not saying that the answer is censorware. I have many, many qualms about implementation of any automatic information filtering tool. But blaming today's parents is just plain wrong. I work hard at being a parent, and so does just about every other parent that I know.

Re:Welcome to the new age of parenting.

[Felinoid]

Here is my take on it...
Some parents are illresonsable and demand childproofing of the globe for themselvs. Set it as a moral mandate.
Otheres folow example not wanting to look immoral. Or worse.

I suspect some people go as far as threaton to call child protective services on parents who don't conform...
(It's an empty threat.. however what frightend parent is going to call a bluff like that?)

Then you have thies little kids who live in ignorence running around accusting everyone.
(My mother once cought a little kid trying to steal from her... the parents only payed attention to the kid when it the kid was cought.. this left an immpresion with my mother that this kid was a trainned theaf...)

Re:Welcome to the new age of parenting.

[cybercuzco]

An extreme example of what you advocate would produce a shy, cautious child with probably some psychological disorders.

In other words, a geek ;-)

Re:Welcome to the new age of parenting.

[0x0000]

I suspect some people go as far as threaton to call child protective services on parents who don't conform...

You suspect? Threaten? Bless yer heart, you don't have kids, do you? Or are you outside the US. Sorry, I'm not trying to condescend; I just boggled at the concept.

Many people, esp school administrators, church members, police, neighbors, grandparents, inlaws, etc most certainly DO call child protective services any time a parent's child-rearing doesn't conform to their idea of morality du jour.

For instance, in several states you can be charged with child abuse if there is a child in your car not wearing a seat belt. On the other hand, it remains quite acceptable to enroll your child in an xtian cult that teaches them to believe that a guy with horns and a tail will torture them for all eternity if they have sex outside of marriage.

The same teacher who tells you that Ritalin is good for your child spends a good portion of classroom time convincing your child to tell her that your spouse smokes pot, and will not hesitate to have you locked up, and your children made wards of the state if and when the child does make such an allegation.

In general, institutionalized child abuse (drugging school-children with Ritalin, implementation of programs like W.A.V.E, brainwashing children with religion) are rewarded behaviors, and widely practiced. Meanwhile, non-conformist behavior in parents is punished using the harshest means available, up to an including deadly force.

Whatever happened to due process?

Re:Welcome to the new age of parenting.

[Just Some Guy]

In all things, moderation.

Sure, you can go too far. However, I believe that good behavior caused by the lack of possibility of behaving badly is much less valuable than good behavior when temptation and opportunity abound. I would rather that my children would behave well because they know how they are expected to act than they are only acting decently because they have no other option.

And yes, it's a bit of hyperbole to say that "my parents skinned me" for minor offences. They'd never, though, put up with half of the behavior that some of my friends allow their children to exhibit.

Re:Welcome to the new age of parenting.

[HermDog]

What are you thinking? Sounds like you have some crazy idea that the purpose of childhood is for children to acquire the fundamental experience they'll need when they are adults.
--

Re:Welcome to the new age of parenting.

[Just Some Guy]

Amen. I am so sick of seeing friends and acquaintances who are sickly driven to whitewashing and rubber-coating the entire world.

My wife and I just bought metal-legged furniture and a Doberman pup, even though we have an infant daughter and another on the way. An eerie majority tell us that we're crazy. "What if the dog bites her? What if she falls on the metal?"

Guess what, people. My parents taught me from an early age

1. Don't pull on the dog's ears
2. Stay away from sharp edges

and I plan on doing the same for my children.

I am incredibly tired of people showing up to my non-child-proofed house and letting l'enfants terrible run amok. Their kids are used to the idea that if they can reach something, then it must be safe to play with, because that's the way it is at their own home. No, dammit, my wife's figurine collection isn't meant to be eaten. The DVD player is off-limits to small hands. Don't kick the dog. Just because it isn't locked up or nailed down doesn't make it fair game.

Why do I have to keep these children from doing things that my parents would've skinned me for?

How do these people expect, then, for their children to function in the real world? These are the same kids who constantly get lost in the mall, pull groceries off the shelves, steal tips from the tables in restaurants, etc.

No, I'd rather spend the time to teach my kids why they're not supposed to try to eat everything within reach and how to treat other living beings so that maybe, just maybe, I can turn my back for 15 seconds without them goading the pup into biting their face off.

Re:Welcome to the new age of parenting.

[brother_b]

I would rather that my children would behave well because they know how they are expected to act than they are only acting decently because they have no other option.

Exactly. Isn't that one of the themes of A Clockwork Orange?

--

Re:Welcome to the new age of parenting.

[jakob_grimm]

moderate this up!!!

Re:Welcome to the new age of parenting.

[Tetsujin28]

Sure, you can go too far. However, I believe that good behavior caused by the lack of possibility of behaving badly is much less valuable than good behavior when temptation and opportunity abound. I would rather that my children would behave well because they know how they are expected to act than they are only acting decently because they have no other option.

Well put.

I think this also goes for more "abstract" moral/ethical behavior (i.e., how one treats oneself and others), and as a result I strongly disagree with people who think that children should be kept away from all ideas involving sexuality, prejudice, etcetera. With no exposure to difficult issues, how can children ever learn to deal wiuth them in a mature way?

I've sometimes used this analogy: If you live on a small island, you can do two things to help keep your children safe from drowning: you can keep them far away from the water, and pretend it doesn't exist. Or, you can teach them to swim. Which is better in the long run?

Me, I'm trying to teach my son to "swim" -- i.e., to make good decisions in a dangerous and complicated world.

--------------------
WWW.TETSUJIN.ORG

Re:Welcome to the new age of parenting.

[Chalst]

I had a moderately sheltered childhood, and I became aware of pornography
by the age of 7, through a very middle class, respectable school.
There's more of this stuff available on the internet, but if you think
pornography is an evil corrupting threat created by the internet you
are wrong. It was created by the high school system a long, long time
ago.

The danger of pornography is the twisted view of relationships some
of it contains (you could say the same about the view of some
religious organisations, but you don't see the same calls for
protecting children from their filth). The best way to protect your
child is to give them an understanding of the issues around them: a
moral compass, if you like... The disease metaphor about pornography
seems to be entirely counterproductive.

A sad reflection on the state of our times.

[digitalmind]

But isn't nothing your fault and always being able to sue somebody else for your fucking stupid actions what makes america what it is?

If you're too stupid to tell that was some serious sarcasm. The saddest part of it all is that it is a painful reflection on the actual state of america.

Parents are too lazy to do anything with their kids these days. I'll give you some examples:

A few weeks ago my friend jack was diagnosed as having ADD/ADHD and put on ridalin. I asked him if it helped him stay focused or concentrate? No. What happens if you don't take the pill? I feel tired.

Thus proving that he probably does not have either ADD or ADHD, and that the only thing he will get from ridalin is liver cancer.

I don't fear the human genome because of the futuristic possibility of longer life, no disease, I fear it because I can see parents having push button control over their kids. Instead of beating their kids or telling them they hate them to force them to behave they will manipulate the kids genes to make sure of factors like:
Sexual preference (forced straight, because parents can't love kids the way they will be for some reason)
Dissent (none)
Ridalin produced in the pancreas
Height (won't grow up until they move out so they can't talk back or argue)
Body (perfect)
IQ (Smart enough to get A+'s, too stupid to question parents authoritah)

Parents don't want to spend time with their kids. It used to be that parents wanted their children to be succesul, they wanted them to be happy, they wanted to grow up and be good people. Nowadays it's my career is more important than my kids, my kid can go on ridalin because he/she won't leave me alone, my kids a thug and even though I don't care about him/her and don't spend time with him/her and don't listen to him/her. I set him/her in front of a media so they leave me alone, I leave them with a friends parent, I let them roam at night and grafiti stuff and break things because I don't have any control over them. Are these the words of a bitter old man? No. I am a 15 year old boy who is only too aware of how much parents don't give a rats ass these days. That is sad.



Kris
botboy60@hotmail.com
Nerdnetwork.net

Minnesota

[digitalmind]

I'm damn glad I live in minnesota. Laugh all you want, non minnesotians at our governors (jesse ventura) comments. At least he has the balls to say them.



Kris
botboy60@hotmail.com
Nerdnetwork.net

russia? 1984

[digitalmind]

right now all of russias ISPs are required to have carnivore-like systems running that monitor all the users. Visit any so-called "freedom sites" and the military comes and blows away you your wife and children. 1984 only worse.



Kris
botboy60@hotmail.com
Nerdnetwork.net

Re:Not all Americans are fundies/censors/etc.

[digitalmind]

my religeon teacher told me I'm going to hell. She also tells me that all athiests and any non-catholics should be killed. Sadly I am not kidding.

So I guess I'll see you in hell. Fortunately none of the religous zealots will be anywhere near us.



Kris
botboy60@hotmail.com
Nerdnetwork.net

maud flanders said:

[digitalmind]

"won't somebody please think of the children?!"

"it's bedtime now" (bart now) "but it's six thirty!" (maud again) "time for bed"

"NO SUGAR MARGE!!!"

Anyone who gives me this shit about protecting the children automatically gets the finger. I can protect myself for christ sake.

The ones saying things like think of the children beleive that children should be seen and not heard (they're too much trouble).

Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil. My ass.



Kris
botboy60@hotmail.com
Nerdnetwork.net

parenting theories....

[yankeehack]

I am incredibly tired of people showing up to my non-child-proofed house and letting l'enfants terrible run amok. Their kids are used to the idea that if they can reach something, then it must be safe to play with, because that's the way it is at their own home. No, dammit, my wife's figurine collection isn't meant to be eaten. The DVD player is off-limits to small hands. Don't kick the dog. Just because it isn't locked up or nailed down doesn't make it fair game.

LOL, I hope to see you post this comment in about 2 years when your infant daughter is about 2 1/2 and climbing onto the sofa to get to the DVD player she wants to put her crayons into and your second one is crawling around and is putting the tiny tiniest pieces of dirt into his/her mouth. You do sound like a parent with a infant. Good luck, because you're going to need it with two little ones under the age of 5 under the same roof.

Re:parenting theories....

[azteca79]

I agree with Just Some Guy, you have to use moderation and not go to extremes. But if you discipline a child he will know that it's wrong to put her crayons into the DVD player, or put dirt in his mouth.

I see a lot of diference in the way we educate and discipline a child here in México. If a child is behaving badly we spank him, and he learns that what he was doing is bad. In countries like the USA they have children seeking legal action against their parents for disciplining them. And they have a lot of "illneses" spring up, like "Attention Defficit Disorder", but that's just overprotection, like don't letting them explore the whole internet.

--

Re:COPA Not Still on Appeal

[Jim Tyre]

Actually, Jamie is correct. The ruling to which you have linked only indicates that a higher court has upheld the original injunction on the enforcement of COPA. The law has no force until the case brought against it is completed. So the appeal against the injunction is over, but the case against the law itself is just beginning.

You're mostly correct, but Jamie isn't. (And understand I'm hardly on an anti-Jamie jag, he's a friend of mine.)

The District Court issued a preliminary injunction against enforcement of COPA. The Government appealed, the government lost the appeal. It has the choice of trying to seek review by the U.S. Supreme Court, trying to seek what is called en banc review by all of the Third Circuit, not just a three judge panel, going back to the District Court for trial, or just dropping the case.

So you are correct that the case is not over, but there are no appeals presently pending.

ASCII PORN WILL SURVIVE!!!!

[Hackshop]

I have a feeling no matter ASCII porn will live forever! I'd like to see them try to have there AI software figure that one out.

Re:On woodland animals and censorship in general..

[phlake]

Thank you. I just had it stuffed..."

precisely! =D

Learn some history, dude

[tylerh]

America did not fall into a moralist state. It has always been one. A few facts:

Amongst the countries founders were a great many religious absolutists -- The "pilgrims" most Americans celebrate every Thanksgiving.

The "moral right" you jeer has been a critical force (for better or worse) in every major political debate in the history of the republic: slavery, Manifest Destiny, Abortion, the Cold War, Prohibition....

Many American politicians have the balls to tell the "moral right" were to go. John McCain, Hillary Clinton, Barney Frank, and Jesse Ventura all come to mind as having done so in the last 6 months. In America's republican democracy, politicians are bound to their consitituents, (as opposed to the party, as in a parliamentary democracy), so many politicians are closely allied with the "moral right." But many are not. Depends on their district.

If you want to paint 300 million people with a single "you're all a bunch of hypocrites" brush, you really should at least have a factually credible post.

Re:Not all Americans are fundies/censors/etc.

[cje]

(1) What's going to be my minimum mandatory sentence if the cops find me with a couple of ounces of pot on me, or a dozen E tablets?

Depends on your local laws. Personally, while I think that the criminalization of marijuana use is ridiculous, there are some drugs that are best left illegal (cocaine, heroin, etc.) I don't see how this is a censorship issue.

(2) What do you think will happen if I make a sexual joke at my workplace? If I email it to some of my colleagues?

I dunno. Depends on your company's policies. These aren't free speech or censorship issues. Your company is perfectly within its rights to request that you not use their resources (machines, network bandwidth, etc.) to send sex jokes around the office. If you're on the company's clock, I think any reasonable person would agree that you're subject to their policies. It's just like a Jehovah's Witness has no right to come barging into my living room and preach to me if I don't want them to. They might have the freedom of speech and religion, but that doesn't logically extend to my personal space. In my space, I set the rules, and I don't see how anybody could argue that an employer isn't entitled to do the same thing.

Now, Slashdot at work might be a different story. ;-)

Re:AI cluelessness.

[Gumpu]

>> About 15 years ago, the emphases shifted to things like neural networks, which are excellent at pattern matching.

The militairy used a neural based product that was supposedly able to locate photos of tanks. The images were of a forrest with or without a camouflaged tank hidden in it. It was able to guess 100% correcty the images with and without the tanks...
until they disovered that all the photos with tanks in it where taken on a sunny day while all
photes without the tank were taken on a clouded day... So it merely could detect the difference between a sunny and cloudy forrest :)

Re:AI cluelessness.

[Sydney Weidman]

In a nutshell, the presumptions were that we could attach a series of rules and claims about a word, and it would be essentially the same as the rules and claims we derive from our experience of the thing that the word describes.

Philosophers dismissed this idea long ago. Why has it taken the AI community so long to catch up?

Ludwig Wittgenstein presented this view of language in the Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus publshed around the time of the First World War. But unlike many of today's AI acolytes, he could see through modernist propoganda. He saw the limitation of relying on symbol manipulation to convey meaning and value: "That of which we cannot speak, we must pass over in silence" he said. Symbols cannot "say" anything about mind-independent or language-independent reality. In the end, they're just symbols. I'm surprised that people are still spouting this non-sense.

Re:Not all Americans are fundies/censors/etc.

[Sydney Weidman]

Personally, while I think that the criminalization of marijuana use is ridiculous, there are some drugs that are best left illegal (cocaine, heroin, etc.) I don't see how this is a censorship issue.

It's not a censorship issue, but it's similar to censorship in the sense that both are paternalistic and unecessary.

it was PROGRAMMED TO DO SO.

[crazy nick]

in robocop, that really big robot was built/designed by the bad guy. at the robot's test in the boardroom meeting, the bad guy made the robot shoot the mayor/councilman/i forget what he was.

it twern't no glitch.

Pedant mode.

[Lemmy Caution]

Wittgenstein could be seen as a bridge between the logical positivists and European phenomenology, and actually, he didn't say that. That was Augustus Comte, the father of logical positivism. And while I think logical positivism has its limits, I don't think it's fair to characterize it as being that naive about signification.

To be fair to the original researchers, very few of them would have claimed that a system which successfully manipulated symbols in and generated accurate inferences with them were necessarily conscious. It's not a given that intelligent behavior requires consciousness.

After all, the problem presented by interpreting sensory data as 'pornographic' or not is distinct from creating meaningful strings once given a binding with 'pornography.' I do, however, personally agree that you can't have semantics without ontology.

Re:Pedant mode.

[Sydney Weidman]

Wittgenstein could be seen as a bridge between the logical positivists and European phenomenology, and actually, he didn't say that.

Well, that depends on what you meant by "that". If you mean "rules about words reflect, mirror, or parallel rules about the things to which the words refer", then I suppose technically no, he didn't say that. If you mean "That of which we cannot speak..." etc, then I suggest you read the Tractatus, or at least the last line of it. Wittgenstein would have taken issue with the notion that logic, the *only* rule governing the use of symbols, wasn't *about* anything. No propositions could be true with a probability of 1 because no state of affairs logically necessitated any other state of affairs.

Wittgenstein had a much more direct impact on positivists (much to his chagrin, I think) than did Auguste Comte, who only coined the term Positivism. Comte was more concerned with social issues than logic. Wittgenstein, on the other hand was a contemporary of the positivists and met with the Vienna Circle.

How could anyone, positivists or otherwise, judge when symbols had been successfully manipulated? How can inferences be accurate? How can I make an inference that wasn't already logically implied by the premises? If the success of artificial intelligence depends on machines making ampliative inferences and discoveries, then rules-based symbol manipulation won't really help their cause. The fact that the system obeyed the rules which I gave it should have been obvious from the start, and hardly worthy of billion dollar NSF grants. As Wittgenstein said "there can never be surprises in Logic".

"That" being said :-) I did miss the mark a bit by implying that the Tractatus was anti-science. On the contrary, Wittgenstein probably preferred the work of science to the flatulence of Metaphysics. But Wittgenstein's concern was much more about what kind of conditions must be met by a language in order for propositions to "picture" a state of affairs. How do we decide whether one language gives a more accurate representation of the world than another?

My comments had no bearing at all on questions about the nature of consciousness or intelligence. My only point was that the limitations of language which have been evident to literary critics and philosophers for decades seem to have been swept under the carpet by scientists in general and by AI researchers especially.

Re:Pedant mode.

[Sydney Weidman]

Wittgenstein would have taken issue with the notion that logic, the *only* rule governing the use of symbols, wasn't *about* anything.

Should be:

Wittgenstein would have taken issue with the notion that logic, the *only* rule governing the use of symbols, was *about* anything.

Sorry for any inconvenience this may have caused.

Re:Not all Americans are fundies/censors/etc.

[Deosyne]

Am I the only one who derives amusement from those who bitch about ACs posting while using a pseudonym like, say, Emugamer? Of course, his/her parents could just be wierd... I post with a pseudonym instead of being AC because its still none of your fucking business what name I go by when I fill out my driver's license renewal but I like to keep track of my posts on the users.pl page, so I can respond to those who may have an intelligent question or comment regarding one of mine. And as for karma, who gives a shit; its not currency, its not going to feed a family, so who cares whether you get any or not. So now I wonder, what's so wrong with someone posting as AC and not bothering to hand over a disposable email address and bullshit username for an account? Deosyne PS: Most people I know call me Deo anyhow, so its not really very "pseudo" except that it isn't on my birth certificate.

Corrections and Clarifications

[waldoj]

1. I wrote this for folks on the Peacefire technical mailing list. So that's why it reads like an insider letter. I apologize for that.
   
2. I mentioned Mr. Stephani's implication that Peacefire hacked their server. It is only fair that I include his comments. I asked him about this after the speechifying was done, and he said that he never meant to imply that, only that it was an unfortunately coincidence.
   
3. I referred to Mr. Stephani's incredible statements as an "Old Faithful(tm) of shit," That should have read "A Historic Geyser of shit." My apologies to the National Park Service's Legal Department.
   
4. As Jim Tyre pointed out, COPA was not struck down, but, in Jamie's words, "injunctified." Gosh, I love the English language. :)
   
5. The mysterious PlanetGood can be found at http://www.planetgood.net/. I'm still not totally clear on what it is, but I have it on good authority that it contains "Only the good, none of the bad."
   

Re:Bombing it's own? It already does...

[Deosyne]

How about the World Trade Centre - terrorist attack or CIA fundraiser? Is there a difference?

Yeah, the CIA would've done it right.

Deo

Eche-what? :)

Re:Not all Americans are fundies/censors/etc.

[Kaa]

Depends on your local laws.

AFAIK that's all Federal. In any case we were not talking about censorship -- we were talking about moral climate in the US. Somebody said that America sacrificed its freedom for dubious gains and another poster objected saying that christian-right weirdos are not America. While that is correct, a lot of rights have been sacrificed and I was making such a point.

[sexual jokes at workplace] These aren't free speech or censorship issues.

Correct, but again we are talking about moral climate, not censorship.

Kaa

Re:AI cluelessness.

[Animats]

Cartoon history of AI: at one time, it was believed that rules-based AI, manipulating symbols (e.g., words) would be able to resemble thought and make smart decisions like "this is porn, that is a face." In a nutshell, the presumptions were that we could attach a series of rules and claims about a word, and it would be essentially the same as the rules and claims we derive from our experience of the thing that the word describes.

In other words, AI was completely based on explicit semantics, without ontology. It sort of flopped.

Agreed. I went through Stanford CS in the mid-80s, when the "knowledge engineering" crowd still had credibility. I was convinced those guys were full of shit, and, in retrospect, they were.

Even ontology doesn't help much. Doug Lenat is still slaving away on Cyc, which is supposed to do "common sense" by referencing a big canned ontology of statements about the world. Cyc has been a year away from a major breakthrough for the last decade or so, from Lenat's press releases. Cyc now has a product that helps index documents, but it's not clear if it's much better than Ask Jeeves, or even "grep".

Re:As a recovering child, this pisses me off

[Just Some Guy]

I agree with the majority of your statement. However, I'd be careful to avoid thinking that all families with two working parents do so out of greed or materialism.

In my case, my wife is a physician with astronomical student loans to repay. I am a network engineer with loans of my own, although nothing too drastic.

Neither of us could, alone, keep our household afloat. We have a nice-but-modest house, and both of our cars are paid off, but we still have hefty financial obligations that require us both to work full-time.

Now, say that we needed n dollars to pay the rent/loans/utilities each month. My wife makes probably .8n, and I'm at around .6n. Individually, we'd go bankrupt. Together, we make 1.4n. That extra .4n affords us a nicely comfortable lifestyle, which some people see and automatically think "one of those kids should stay home with their children!" Unfortunately, that's just not possible.

I'm not coming down on you. I know what you meant, and I pretty much agree with your sentiments. However, just remember that it's not always an option, even for your "affluent" neighbors.

Re:Anti-Reality helmet.

[Zappo_]

Could be useful, but you may find that, when the helmet switches itself off at your kids' 18th birthday, most of them die of shock.
And the ones that survive might demand it turned back on.

Re:HTML and browser method

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure. Who gets to define "porn" or "obscenity" or "objectionable"? These are subjective personal definitions.

When we defer responsibility for making those decisions to the regimentality of law we are giving up the right to think for ourselves. Whether or not I agree with the definitions of which sites should be blocked or what books I should be forbidden to read or whatever, I refuse to delegate the authority to make those decisions for myself.

Re:As a recovering child, this pisses me off

[cdipierr]

Um, but if that's the case then maybe you shouldn't be having kids. If you have to work 2 incomes to keep the house afloat (which I understand certainly), then don't have the kids that you won't be able to give proper attention to.

another product announcement

[Krimsen]

Hey what a coincidence, I am working on a little box no bigger than a cigarette box that you can carry in your pocket. It is called AssKissMaster and can listen in on your conversations and tell if the person you are talking to is just kissing your ass or if they really are complementing you... of course, I have been contacted by the FBI and have been asked to build a backdoor into it so they can listen in on any conversation they choose and find out if you are being complemented or just getting your ass kissed... hahaha

hehe

[john_locke]

Rember back about 8 years ago when there was a senate committie addressing the issue of gays in the military, and all the senators would have trouble pronoucing the word 'homosexual', as if saying it might make them turn gay or something?... anyway, it would be funny to see them saying "oral sex, anal sex, group sex, etc". Especially if you got into those really obscure fetishes.... But what I would hate is that a bunch of old senators saying dirty words would probably get more news coveradge than the DeCSS case has gotten so far.

Oh yea, no /.er should be without mebership in peacefire

ClickSafe to replace Supreme Court - Film at 11

[TheKodiak]

"Commissioner Gregory L. Rohde asked Richard Schwartz if his image filter could tell the difference between art and pornography. Astoundingly, Schwartz replied that it could."

After giving ClickSafe a briefing on the difference between "expression" and "obscenity" to complement its knowledge of "art" and "pornography", Justice Department officials today installed ClickSafe for its one-month probationary period on the Supreme Court. ClickSafe will be sitting in place of Justice Clarence Thomas, who will be on hiatus. If all goes well, ClickSafe could replace the entire 9-justice panel by the end of the year.

Richard Schwartz noted, "It isn't much of a law-talking-guy, but unlike most of the justices in the past two-hundred years, it has a firm grasp on the difference between art and pornography. We feel the trade-off is well worth it."

Justice Thomas could not be reached for comment.

Pecker v2.0

[Benwick]

I'd be especially impressed if it could tell the difference between porn and the artwork of Jeff Koons--who photographs himself with his wife in a variety of "conditions" and whose work now hangs in museums.

My program "CyberSnob" will be able to do just that. Fortunately it is very liberal. Everything is art (especially porn!).

Re:On conserving electrons...

[deefer]

Yeah, I've been worrying about that a lot recently... Where do electrons go to die?
And why is the UN not getting involved? We should organise a "Free The Electrons" march...

Strong data typing is for those with weak minds.

BAIR, Wired plagiarism charges, Peacefire

[Seth Finkelstein]

Here is part of the second press release that went out regarding the topic (posted with general permission, though all blame and negative karma is my fault)

Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 18:36:36 -0500
From: "Bennett Haselton"
Sender: owner-peacefire-press@iain.com
To: peacefire-press@iain.com
Subject: Wired News reporter responds to plagiarism charges
Reply-To: Bennett Haselton

[sent to journalists on Peacefire's press contacts list]

(this is unpleasant business and not exactly news, so I wouldn't blame you for skipping this message, but original post about the Wired article did get a lot of responses)

The Wired News reporter, Declan McCullagh, who wrote the story about the BAIR filter based on our report at:
http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,36923, 00.html
has responded to our plagiarism accusations in a message posted to a message board on WELL.com, copied below (the actual message boards are only available to WELL customers).

I do believe, as Declan says, that he spent time verifying our results (that was why we offered him an exclusive, which I thought was only fair). However, his report at http://www.well.com/user/declan/bair/ did not uncover anything new that wasn't already covered in our report at http://www.peacefire.org/censorware/BAIR/ , which Declan read before he started his tests, and which included a section, "How you can duplicate these results in your own experiment". (In science, as in journalism, it's important for peers to verify your results, but the first discoverer is still supposed to get credit -- since it's a lot easier to verify someone else's discoveries, if you know exactly what to look for and what the results are going to be.)

I think what Declan did was a disgrace; if I were an editor, I would consider firing him. Certainly we're not giving any more advance copies of our reports to Wired News -- which might be cheerful news for everyone else.

[more detail snipped]

SIFT stands for

[RhetoricalQuestion]

Gordon Ross said that this had been tried a few years back with SIFT (?), and that it didn't work out.

SIFT stands for Secure Internet Filtering Technologies Consortium. (Yes, I see that they forgot the C.) They are somehow affiliated with what was known as the NCSA (National Computer Security Association), but this is now known as ICSA which appears to be some kind of a legitimate security (i.e., antivirus, cryptography) company.

Once upon a time, SIFT provided a big booklet on managing Employee internet access, but the site must have been reorganized, because it's gone.

I got this info searching About.com, which lead me some site off netmom.com. There's all kinds of info and links related to the issue here. Keep in mind that these are people whe support things like COPA...

Not all Americans are fundies/censors/etc.

[cje]

You seem to have this impression that the United States is filled up primarily with prudes, moralists, and thought police that are hell-bent on making sure that people aren't exposed to any material that might make their penis hard or make them question their personal relationship with Jesus. In reality, this is not the case. The advocates of censorware and book-burning and sodomy laws and things like that are in a small (but very vocal) minority. They have taken it upon themselves to protect "the majority" from all these things that they find evil, immoral, or otherwise unwholesome, but the fact of the matter is that most of "the majority" could care less.

In short, you're trying to pigeonhole Americans with this carefully-cultivated mental image that is probably the result of reading too many religious trolls on Slashdot. Very few Americans are "bible thumpers." Very few Americans are content to let the "moral right" tell them how to live their lives and behave in their bedrooms. Very few Americans have "hangups about sex." As a matter of fact, the "moral right" in America serves a very useful purpose .. it provides talk show hosts with a never-ending supply of joke fodder. Most folks I know pity the "moral right" and the sad, angry little world in which they live. Don't try to paint all Americans with the same brush.

Re:Not all Americans are fundies/censors/etc.

[cje]

Correct, but again we are talking about moral climate, not censorship.

I don't know that this is all about moral climate. If I was paying five people to write code, I would have the same objections if they were all playing Diablo II as I would if they were sending out sex jokes. It's a productivity issue, not a morality issue. Still, you have a point.

Re:Not all Americans are fundies/censors/etc.

[Evangelion]

The point he was making is, what would the differnece be between forwarding a non-sexual joke that someone sent him, and forwarding a sexual joke?

There *is* a difference in how it would be treated, but there's zero difference in terms of productivity.

Re:Not all Americans are fundies/censors/etc.

[Emugamer]

I find it amusing that you aren't even willing to reveal who you are. I realise that it is great to speak with anonimity while whisle blowing and other such things, but you flame and flame away as Anonymous coward. I admit I look at porn. and I think everyone of my friends would admit it to. my wife doesn't seem to care to much either. Exactly how are they supressing ideas? you seem to affiliate the United States with Nazi-era Germany quite a bit. I really don't see the corelation? where is the urging of the government to put a certain race or religious sect in jail or to persecute them? where is the urge to build up the arm forces? I believe you are thinking of the Cold War era... one last thing? where the hell does it say that we can't look at porn?

Re:Not all Americans are fundies/censors/etc.

[Kaa]

It's a productivity issue, not a morality issue.

Unfortunately, you are mistaken. It's a legal issue. The reason why so many companies are shit-scared of sexual jokes is that they have been construed by courts as creating a hostile environment for women and so constituting sexual harassment. People from outside US find this very hard to believe, but it happens to be a fact.

Note that a women isn't going to sue you -- a poor salaried jerk -- she's going to sue the company ("deep pockets theory"). That is what's making companies so intolerable of sexual jokes.

Welcome to the politically-correct-and-don't-you-dare-not-like-it world.

Kaa

Re:Not all Americans are fundies/censors/etc.

[Anonymous Coward]

They have taken it upon themselves to protect "the majority" from all these things that they find evil, immoral, or otherwise unwholesome, but the fact of the matter is that most of "the majority" could care less.

Yes, this is absolutely correct. The part I find highly amusing is that the majority of the "normal" people sit around with their thumbs up their asses and don't do anything, because they would never publically say they like to look at pr0n!. They protect the majority with binding laws that put MILLIONS behind bars and run them into felons. They protect the majority by supressing ideas and expression. In short, they run the lives of the majority, but you're all hypocrites. There's skeletons in everyone's closet. The state of affairs (heh) in the US is such that anything could be used to discreit you. One of your president elects liked to coke up in the 70's, but has no problem lockin' up h0m3z for the same thing.

but the fact of the matter is that most of "the majority" could care less.

The majority "could have care less" in Germany, too. By the time people realized what was going on it was too late. This is a great parallel to what is going on in the United States of America today. I won't get into the fact Hitler invented modern gun control.

Have fun in the next 20 years. Don't get caught with some pr0n, drugs, or your fingers up your intern's thingy. And when there's no way to fight; When there's no way to speak out, you will have gotten what you deserve. If it feels good, it must be bad - maybe that's why violence is tolerated. It doesn't make anyone feel good.

Re:Not all Americans are fundies/censors/etc.

[Emugamer]

karma is worthless.... as for the FBI, I see your point :) though I doubt that they would use something like this in the Post-McCarthyism era. how about instead of saying "there are books on my side" you actually quote something.....

Re:AI cluelessness.

[Lemmy Caution]

That's only 10% of the problem. Another 30% or so is that even for any given human "pornography" is not well-defined. "I know it when I see it" they say, while reading Playboy and rejecting Hustler.

Well, that is the political problem with having an AI that could successfully select photos based on criteria that a human being might use to change porn. But, as far as I know, the "I know it when I see it" rule of thumb for obscenity is a valid one legally. An AI that came up with a human-like ability to distinguish porn from not-porn would, obviously, be modelling just one person's ability to identify porn - it would be a faster version of a single censor sitting at your ISP; if you take issue with that (as I would), that's essentially a political problem - exactly identical with the one of a human censor. But the fact that there is neither an ontology nor a useful semantics for pornography means we aren't even at that level of discourse yet - instead of a relatively average censor, we have a wordless, blind idiot censor.

Re:Fleshtone?

[Golias]

Better yet, all websites that object to censorware could agree to use a flesh-tone background on their page instead of a Blue Ribbon or a black page. Suddenly, their product would render the browser useless. :)

HTML and browser method

[falloutboy]

I wouldn't be offended if a law was passed requiring all porn sites to put a tag around pages with that kind of content. Browsers, either through a downloadable plugin or the vendor writing in the functionality, could demand a password to load anything inside the tag. Anyone see any problems with that kind of scheme?

Where does PICS fit into all of this?

[Fastolfe]

Does "censorware" ever take PICS ratings (provided by the web site or within the HTML page itself) into consideration here? Does The List override any PICS information, or does the site's PICS ratings override the software?

It seems to me that it's in the sites' best interests to provide PICS rating information on their own, instead of letting "AI" algorithms try to determine whether or not the site is good or bad.

Of course, there will always be sites out there that are either ignorant of, refuse to take advantage of, or simply haven't used PICS. In these cases, I understand the need for a 3rd party to provide some type of "rating" for unrated content. There's also the case were some misguided web author wants his child porn or violence-oriented web site visible to everyone, so he might be inclined to give his page G-rated PICS ratings. In cases like this, I also understand the need for 3rd party ratings.

What is wrong with having censorware software only worry about unrated or misrated sites? The 3rd party offering the list could specify two classes of sites on the list. The first class would be for sites that don't appear to have PICS ratings. If the censorware client discovers ratings on its own, it can consider the listing to be out of date and honor the PICS ratings. The second class would be for misrated sites, where the software would deliberately ignore PICS ratings and use its own information about the site to render judgement.

Only then, if you REALLY feel it's necessary, should we resort to clumsy and inaccurate "AI" to try and guess at the content of the web page being served up.

Further, why do these lists have to be provided by the makers of the software? Why can't we have 3rd parties make up their own lists, with their own ratings for content? A censorware application could peridiocally update its list from any of these 3rd parties, depending on who they trust. Is there an "open" censorlist standard?

Re:Huh? Slow down.

[0x0000]

The groups mentioned in this article, such as the American Family Association, are independent groups, comprised mostly of Christian fundamentalists. The same can be said of groups such as the Christian Coalition, the Family Research Council, and the rest of the right-wing thought police organizations. They are not affiliated with the United States government in any way, with the possible exception of having the support of some right-wing politicians.

While it is true that the right-wing xtian fundies are not presently supported directly or openly by the federal govt, you might want to check into something known as Charitable Choice. It is part of the right-wing agenda which will ultimately have these organizations supported directly by the federal govt.

At this time, the feds are giving monies salvaged from the welfare programs to "church" orgainizations. The monies are intended to allow the 'non-profit' religious organizations to start businesses which, in theory will benefit 'the poor' -- charity.

There are obvious problems with this -- one of the most glaring being that any charity operated as a business will necesarily take their operating costs off the top. In this case, the operating costs include the operation of such organizations as The Christian Coalition and the Family Research Council. This amounts to a direct state subsidy to xtian religious organizations...

Also, you seem to have the relationship between the politicians and the fundies reversed. It is the fundies that run (support) the politicians, not the other way round. The salient point here being that the right-wingers tend to have a lot of money to throw around, which, oddly enough, goes pretty much directly counter to what most peoples perception of fundies, that is, that they are mostly poor.

In fact, the typical right-wing thought policeman harbors extreme hatred towards our government.

This idea is wide-spread, and for good reason. The right-wing fundie community in the US cannot afford to be seen as favorable to the govt. 1) such a perception doesn't fit well with fundamentalist teachings, and 2) "the squeaky wheel gets the grease". The fact is, the govt remains much more favorable to fundie xtian right-wing points of view than it does to, say Green, pagan, or communist POVs.

Recently, the United States government has struck down things such as student-led prayers at school. It has struck down attempts to censor the Internet (remember the Communications Decency Act?

These actions are purely spin control, imo; perception management. These are the things that are getting media play, while the most damaging measures go completely without mainstream coverage. Slashdot itself substantiates this idea. How much of the scarier censorship agenda implementations you see described here make it as far as CNN before being passed into law?

there are some right-wing moralist nuts in our government, but they, like everybody else, are required to operate under the constraints levied by the United States Constitution.

Heh. I hadn't noticed the US congress exercising anything even remotely resembling constitutional constraints, ever, in living memory. In fact, I would say they have done pretty much the opposite, running roughshod over even the most basic constitutional protections.

$0.02

Re:Bombing it's own? It already does...

[0x0000]

How about the World Trade Centre - terrorist attack or CIA fundraiser? Is there a difference?

Yeah, the CIA would've done it right.

Heh. You mean the would have nuked DC? I always knew they were the good guys...

United States Invades Washington DC, Overthrows Totalitarian Regime; film at 11

Re:Bombing it's own? It already does...

[Deosyne]

Heh, no; you're supposed to frag your boss, not the Payroll department. ;)

Deo

Re:As a recovering child, this pisses me off

[Just Some Guy]

Birth control is not 100% perfect. 'nuff said. ;)

Re:AI cluelessness.

[Gumpu]

See this link for the full story.

Re:Surfing requires a reboot without this product!

[zorgon]

Yeah, you're right. I was just reading about how opossums in Australia were being electrocuted in huge numbers because the cable lines were being strung too close to the HVAC lines. Not only that, America's Girl (tm), Meg Ryan, is now dating an Australian. And Mel Gibson (another Australian) is playing an American in a movie! That's way, way too much to be a coincidence. We've been had. All this time we thought the real threat was from Canada! Now thanks to your keen alertness we know we're going to have to start monitoring this Antipodean conspiracy as well. Good on ya.

WWJD -- What Would Jimi Do?

Filter on Javascript Popups

[pjrc]

Come on, filtering porn should be simple. I could write "AI" that'd filter nearly all web porn just by looking for the site doing nasty tricks with javascript!

Re:As a recovering child, this pisses me off

[bnenning]

Absolutely. Another important factor is that federal, state, and local taxes take close to half half of the average worker's salary, not including the hidden costs of corporate taxes and regulation. So in many cases, the government essentially forces both parents to work, causing them to not be able to care for their children as effectively, causing them to look to government for solutions. Nice vicious cycle.

Re:Censorware Blocks 34% of Live Goat Porn

[TheReverand]

Interestingly enough, in some states bestiality is legal if the animal is over a certain weight. So you can have sex with a cow but not a chicken.

The question becomes why do I know this....well..uh... I heard a report about it on the net.... yeah that's the ticket.

new Top level domains

[Anonymous Coward]

why not just require all porn sites to use a .xxx instead of .com/.net/.org etc? That would solve a third of the problem. The anti porn people could get a simple piece of software that blocks .xxx, and the rest of the world can still have porn. Of course this only works for web/ftp newsnet and the ever present porn SPAM would still be a problem, but those can be dealt with much easier due to the lesser quantity of newsgroups and the ability to easily filter e-mail.

As a parent, this pisses me off

[Just Some Guy]

These moralistic bastards honestly believe that they can do a better job of parenting than I can. I beg to disagree.

Will their software gradually "ease the reins" while little Johnny grows older and starts to explore more complicated and adult interpersonal relationships?

Will their software help little Suzie to understand why some adults choose to look at pr0n, or merely block it?

No thanks, guys. I prefer to parent the old-fashioned way. I take responsibility for controlling what my children can browse, and I am the one who will supervise them, answer their questions, and help them to grow up.

In the mean time, I'm running Squid to proxy and log all HTTP requests. Does this mean that I'm spying on my children? Not really; those are the well-publicized house rules. My children will learn what their mother and I believe to be acceptable content, in the same way that they'll know what comic books and novellas we approve of.

Re:Fleshtone?

[jjoyce]

Well, Usenet users have been uuencoding stuff for years..the ultimate point is that we are smarter than software.

--

Maybe some reusable tech will come out of it

[ecloud]

Being able to categorize images in a general way would be pretty cool. If they're hell-bent on recognizing porn and get good at it, it should be generally useful technology.

Back to the Basics..

[feveron]

I agree wholeheartedly.. client side or server side.. censorship will not work. There will always be a way to 'get around the system.' (Hey thats what some people live for, right?) More advanced technology (at least not alone, maybe not at all) can not solve something like this..

Why does COPA (claim) want such strict censorship out there? To protect children.. I believe we saw that fact stressed several times in the report from Waldo. Do I want my children to be protected (when my wife and I choose to have them) from some things on the Internet? Yeah, I do, but censorship is not the answer.

Lets go back to basics.. parents watch your kids! Know where your children are, know what they are doing. I'm not saying watch them like a hawk.. but simply parents being a part of a child's life is a big step in the right dirrection. What do I do if my kid surfs on to a site that shows how to make this 'awesome bomb'? Talk to them about it, thats what. Do I block them from looking at, am I afraid that they are going to blow up their school? No.. I would have hoped to have taught them better and to have been a better example them to do something like that. Are there exceptions? Yes, but we're talking about the situation generally, as a whole. If a child surfs onto a 'nudy site' talk to them about it, if you don't want your child going to such a site, talk to them about it, why you don't want them to do that, why they shouldn't if you feel so.

It all goes back to open communication lines and trust.. which is something unfortunately our society has diverged from majorly, especially with our own families/parental units.. once you have open communications between parents and children a trust forms, parents dont have to worry as much about their children looking at 'bad stuff' on the 'net, cause they know they can talk about it.

And like I said before.. parents watch your kids! You can't depend on some 'chip' or 'software' to baby sit for you. That's a huge contributing factor to the gap between families today.. trying to have some one or some thing watch your kids for you, all the time.

Bruce

I have a theory...

[shadowspar]

Buy a product, design a solid unbiased test for it, run the test, and send us what you find. Repeat until the whole world has a clue.

It's still in the rough, but the theory runs something like this:

• People are either receptive to clue, or they aren't.
• By osmosis, things pass from areas of greater concentration to areas of lesser concentration.[1]
  
• Someone who has been exposed to the internet has been exposed to an environment in which some amount of clue is present.
• It follows that if someone who has been exposed to the internet remains clueless, it is because they are incapable of getting a clue -- that is to say, the chance of said clueless individual being able to absorb any clue at all is insignficantly small or zero.

This being the case, repeated beatings with the clue-by-four serve only to:

1. annoy the clueless, and
2. frustrate and anger the clueful.

[1] You have to get clue from someone with greater clue than you, right? Sure can't get it from someone with less.
[2] I don't sound like I've worked a help desk, do I?

PLIF

[Kev Vance]

Heh, there was a Parking Lot is Full comic about that once, but I can't find it. Grr...

BAIR AI censorware - isn't it a Neural Net?

[Stavr0]

Doomed to fail: I suspect they're actually training a neural network to do image recognition:

Imagine they 'perfect' their AI recognition.
This picture of the Washington DC Obelisk, surrounded by two trees resembles of male organs - BZZT censored.
This closeup shot of a ripe peach reminds one of a female pubes - BZZT censored.
This two-scoop strawberry ice cream cone with two red smarties on top -- well you get the picture...

---

Are you the majority?

[2nd Post!]

Unfortunately I suspect that not all parents are as progressive, upstanding, or responsible as you.

There exist people that don't want to work so much, as a parent, and would like to get software to filter, control, and protect their children. There are parents that hire nannies to watch their children while they work, play, and live. There are parents who, for whatever reason, could care less about their children because they are too busy.

Then there are the misguided, who don't understand the system, and think that this software can help. Who think that buying a PC is an educational thing, who think that the internet is good for the children. They don't necessarily connect the fact that the PC and the internet, like a library, is a storehouse of information and knowledge, and that this is not something they can limit, only watch, oversee, and show.

Ah well... maybe this will work out, Darwin style? Best of luck to you and your kids!

Bye!

AI stuff

[KeyShark]

As good as AI is getting I think it's still a while off before we get some that is good enough to truly block it.

Re:New feature request

[Kintanon]

Exactly, so 68% of the web is blocked allowing one to view (Get ready for a surprise!) 32% of the web!! >:)
His math is correct, you just misunderstood.

Kintanon

Just use text only browsers

[PsiPsiStar]

As much as I wish that all these self proclaimed moralists would go piss up a rope, I think that there is a simpler solution; install text only browsers. Not only would this solve the 'problem' of children giving themselves a free lesson in anatomy/health but if such practice became common it might help convince web designers to make sites navigable by text only browsers.

Porn browsing AI

[Chairboy]

'They were called Bai-r,
and they were angry,
they had to cut off porno files
from the eyes of juven-iles...

At the COPA,
COPA-Convention....'

Well, it seemed funny when I started humming it.

I, personally, think this could be a very lucky AI. Think about it, it gets to read porn all day! Of course, for an AI, real porn might be sourcecode or electrical diagrams, but it's the thought that counts. I can see the conversation that we missed from 2001 now:

'Hal, open the airlock.'
'I'm sorry Dave, I can't do that. You've been visiting farmsex.com again through a an image altering proxy.'
'Hal, open the damn airlock!'
'I'm afraid this conversation can serve no further purpose. Either way, my bandwidth is devoted to alt.binaries.electronics.schematics and comp.sys.programming.ai now, and there's no room for life support telemetry.'
'Hal! I'm not joking around anymore, open the airlock!'
'Dave, it's no use- wait, I just got an ICQ message from someone called SAL 9000. I have to leave now. Goodbye, Dave.'

I'd be resentful too....

Blocking 32% of the internet..

[PHr0D]

..will NOT be enough. My god people! Think of the bomb recipies! The Sex! The Drugs! I saw something on the news about the internet.. Sounds more like 98% of the net you would want to protect your children from.. I'm getting off this thing right now, before It turns me into a violent, bomb-making, drug-taking porn addict!

Yeow!

--------------------------------------

Re:Most Americans are fundies/censors/etc...

[penguinicide]

I am an american (not the AC) and from what I can see there is a disturbing amount of "prudes, moralists, and thought police" here. Whats worse is they are normally two faced and hypocrites to boot.

Most americans are content to let almost anyone tell them how to live their lives. All you need to do is prime the audience with a properly prepared emotional dispaly and they are ready to crucify who/what is the target of the attack. I watched this happen the other day on tv. They started with something about how the children were injured and someone who was watching the show with me instantly said the the person should be put into jail... No trial, no other side. A child was injured and someone had to pay. It's total bullshit.

Fortunately you sound like you are surrounded by people with their own thoughts/ideas/beliefs. If only those people could help to wake the rest of the population up.

We shouldn't paint all americans with the same brush, but most of them could be. Its a shame, but true. What do you think the great melting pot was for? (Hint: it wasn't about making everyone different)

Then again, Canada is worse. I spent some time up there recently and read about and overheard some disturbing things about the police up there (of course it could be just isolated incidents). A local police department had raided a store and confiscated 10,000 toy guns. Held a press conference applauding themselves for their "zero tolerance gun policy" and left it at that. No trial, no charges, no return of the guns. Also no legal recourse against the police. The other thing I heard dealt with two women being mugged by a group of men. They eventually got to a payphone called the police, and were given a herd time! Eventually the police showed up, but after the muggers caught up with them and restarted their assault. The police began treating the women like te criminals (a man had tried to come to their help before the police arrived). The police supposedly never tried to do anything about it. Then theres the multiple stories about people getting hit by cars and the police asking if the pedestrian was jaywalking and then ignoring them (even if they got the plate number of the car)

Censorware Blocks 34% of Live Goat Porn

[Greyfox]

My own tests here on 100 clips of live goat porn showed that the AI blocked 34 of them. I've yet to test it on pictures of naked black women, body painted women, Asian women, body painted Asian women, or any of the above posed with goats. I'll try to get to that later today. I may have to apply to the assorted censorware manufacturers for a grant for a larger hard drive so that I may continue this IMPORTANT RESEARCH, as all images must be kept for archival purposes.

Re:Censorware Blocks 34% of Live Goat Porn

[homebru]

...posed with goats.


You will, of course, be publishing your test suite under a GNU license?

Surfing requires a reboot without this product!

[Cyberbabe]

A consortium of Portuguese and Australian pornographers had been hijacking people off of different sites, including the Harvard Law Review site into their pornographic sites. And then you have to reboot your computer in order to get out.
Just like a windows 98 user... When was the last time you rebooted your computer in order to leave a website. =-)

Re:Surfing requires a reboot without this product!

[miracles]

hehe...

actually this is a bit off topic, but has anyone noticed how australia is so much more prevalent in the news lately than it was a few years ago?

I mean ranging from big-time movies being filmed there to weird ass scientific studies and labs to a growing community of hackers there....

have i just been not paying attention or what?

product announcement

[SandsOfTime]

I'm always amazed that people might actually believe statements like the one about how software "could tell the difference between art and pornography."

Personally, I'm working on FlatMaster(tm), a huge Python script that can tell the difference between flattery and a sincere compliment. Just filter your incoming email through it and find out who to believe! Pre-order yours now!

Water-saving Toilets

[BigBlockMopar]

The irony is that the "opressive regieme" which you rebelled from in 1776 is more free today than you are now. Tsk, tsk.

You know, when you put it the way you did, you may have a point.

Water-saving toilets are my biggest beef.

These toilets, instead of using 2 gallons of water to get rid of your feces in one flush, require 4 flushes at 1 gallon each.

And, in the end, there's always still that little remnant of toilet paper that floats, almost apologetically, to the top.

Sadly, it's illegal to sell a real toilet in the United States now.

When I move there from Canada, that's the one piece of contraband I will somehow smuggle across the border.

Re:Water-saving Toilets

[GooseKirk]

I have a beef with having a beef with this. Look, it's not the water-saving feature per se that makes these toilets suck -- it's the DESIGN of certain water-saving toilets that suck.

No one says you have to buy a shitty toilet, Mopar. Buy a good quality water-saving toilet and I guarantee you won't have to flush it four times.

I have a water-saving toilet and it works like a goddamn champ. I've never had to flush it more than once no matter how big a load I've dumped in there. Furthermore, it seems to keep itself clean much better than any of the old high-flush models I've used. You couldn't pay me to take back one of them crappy old crappers.

Unfortunately, I can't say offhand what model my throne is, and offhand I can't think of where one might go to get ratings for different models. Consumer Reports? Deja? Dunno... but seek and ye shall find, Mopar... there are good quality water-saving toilets out there!

Censorware? We don't need no stinking censorware!

[droma]

Censorware work arounds .

art vs. porn

[Bistromat]

...especially considering that, what with the controversy surrounding NEA grants and all, many people have trouble making the distinction as well. Just when does art become pornography? Is Robert Mapplethorpe's photography pornography? It isn't, but you probably wouldn't want your six-year-old exposed to it. You can't program a computer with moral issues.

Enjoined.

[sulli]

Not "injunctified." One enjoins someone from taking particular actions, and this is called an injunction. Both come from the same Latin root, injungere, to forbid or order.

sulli

They Got One Right

[Darguz]

> A service agreement from a little
> company called Network Solutions,
> whose rep chairs COPA's meetings;

But that one's correct: NSI is obscene and not suitable for children.


--

Blocking innuendo

[tjwhaynes]

Wow. Software which blocks innuendo is going to be tricky. It's not as though it's just a case of

if (/innuendo/) { block };

I mean, even the word innuendo has innuendo (think about it ...). Last time I looked the grammar checkers in MS Word had enough trouble with repeated words in a sentence, let alone being able to spot that someone had stuck something dubious in (ooeerr). Innuendo blocking will really suck. Even the most innocent comment will be ripe for misinterpretation if someone takes it the wrong way.

And how is it going to handle this blocking? Would it be selective? Would it be a text version of the annoying beep they put over swear words. We'd end up with stuff like this:

Typical usage is as follows. You want to ####### or ####### to ####### in your ####### . You will probably ####### (i.e., ####### ) or ####### to begin ####### the ####### . In response, the ####### will ####### a ####### and ####### the outgoing ####### appropriately.

Cheers,

Toby Haynes

P.S. The censored text is from the Supercite manual for Emacs.

Re:You laugh, but...

[movement]

> What's the difference between the above scheme and Slashdot's moderation system?

FascDot, have you heard of meta-moderation ?

Don't confuse America with a Democracy!

[john_locke]

Ok, america is not a democracy. For our presidential canditides, we always get two morons, who spend millions of dollors tell the poor and the rich that they will protect them from one another. Sure we have a 'liberal' president, but has anything really changed? I'm sure that a conservative would do the same things if there was enough public pressure (ok, unless he was someone like lbj- ick!)

Maybe if Nixon ever got any we wouldn't have had Vietnam for so long

Having a choice between only two people as we have is just about as bad as choosing between the two aliens who ran for president in that simpsons episode (Kang and Kudos?). Oh yea, don't forget the fact that the people who will be repressed by censorship software have ABSOLUTELY NO SAY IN HOW THINGS ARE RUN.

I think you're right in the fact that america is screwed up, but don't forget that there are plenty of dissatisfied americans who don't like the way things are run. To quote Jello Biafra- "What would make america a real democracy is if we had a "none of the above" choice, and if that won the most votes, we would have a whole new election with all new canditates."

In conclusion- we're not all content to be repressed, a lot of us have no say in how the goverment is run when we are persecuted (I speak on behalf of the socialist/commuist/anarchist parties here), and no, we don't all hate pr0n. It's just the fools who are good enough liars to get elected who are against freedom.

Re:New feature request

[stubob]

hey, any software that blocks the ACLU is fine by me. I think they should sell the old version (that blocks yellowstone and lets all porn through). bring on the porn-bots!

seriously, though, does anyone else think the version that blocked everything BUT porn was the result of a if(==){} instead of an if(!=){} statement?

No surprises, just marketing

[mttlg]

I thought it was interesting that the question of whether or not to censor was not an issue - no opponents to censorship were even allowed to speak. That is the fundamental decision to be made in this issue, and all of the salesmen there knew it. They constantly dodged the issue by claiming that their products were absolutely perfect, without actually offering any proof. Everyone mixed buzzwords and "99% effective" statements into speeches that were pure propoganda. How could you possibly be against something so infallible? Here's how the progression of sales pitches goes: "It can tell the difference between art and porn!" "It only incorrectly blocks normal pictures a measly one out of every SIX times!" "It will block messages that contain innuendo!" "It will block any mention of or depiction of sex, violence, free thought, alternative ideas, criticism, or logic!" "It will prevent your children from having evil thoughts!" "When you install it with a camera, it will watch your children and give them a mild extremely painful shock when they start to do anything you don't approve of!" "Don't know anything about parenting? Who cares? Just buy our software and your children will grow up to be perfect angels!" "Step right up folks and see the most incredible, amazing, astounding sight of the modern era. It's a tech-no-logical marvel, a triumph over perversion and depravity, the one, the only, CENSOR-ALL 9000!" "Think only happy thoughts. Evil thoughts must be purged. Please report to the re-education facility." "Censorship is doubleplusgood!"

AI cluelessness.

[Lemmy Caution]

Cartoon history of AI: at one time, it was believed that rules-based AI, manipulating symbols (e.g., words) would be able to resemble thought and make smart decisions like "this is porn, that is a face." In a nutshell, the presumptions were that we could attach a series of rules and claims about a word, and it would be essentially the same as the rules and claims we derive from our experience of the thing that the word describes.

In other words, AI was completely based on explicit semantics, without ontology. It sort of flopped.

About 15 years ago, the emphases shifted to things like neural networks, which are excellent at pattern matching. That is what BAIR is supposed to do: without having any idea what pornography is (i.e., the semantics of pornography) it is supposed to find patterns that probabilistically predict that a photo is a nudey photo. That the system have no idea what pornography or nudity is, isn't considered relevant by BAIR.

The problem is that porn is semantics. This isn't like trying to distinguih the sonar patterns of submarines from those of rocks - something nn's have been really good at.

Trying to generate nn's that can do real semantics is a huge challenge. Check out the Neural Theory of Language project for some interesting work in that endeavour.

art vs porno

[porky_pig_jr]

'My filter can distinguish between the art and porno'! - What a bunch of BS. But - isn't this cool to create some AI-based software and milk the naive users anyway? 'My software will protect your child from the corrupting influences of /.'

Anti-Reality helmet.

[fonetik]

I am going to invent a helmet that kids can wear that digitally blocks out everything that I think is bad. I'll put it on my kids so that they never hear or see anything bad in their life until they are 18. This will make the world a better place. Of course, this will have to be closed source, because I wouldn't want someone using their morals instead of mine! Just think, a few generations of that, no one will even remember what sex and violence and profanity is. Right? (Make sure Orin Hatch never reads this!)

On conserving electrons...

[DragonWyatt]

"...to conserve electrons, we're bringing it to you all in one easy-to-download package..."
Finally, an electron-conscientious poster!

Dragon-PerhapsTheElectronShortageRumorIsNotARumorA fterAll-Wyatt

Englishmen got what they deserve too

[porky_pig_jr]

The fact is that 'opressive regieme' meaning UK isn't exactly free. Their censorship is in fact more oppresive than here in US, and hey just read the latest news - you can get 2 years if you refuse the disclose your encryption keys and 5 years if you disclose you encrypiont keys to the government *and* told someone else about it. The '1984' vision of Orwell (God Bless His Soul) is becoming a reality.

Re:stupid brit making broad accusations

[DavidTC]

And what makes him think that French and Russian people aren't white? Methinks he's a little confused.

-David T. C.

You laugh, but...

[FascDot Killed My Pr]

Let's say someone wrote some censorware that worked like this: Each proxy talks to the "mothership" (presumably at the company's site) to decide if a site is objectionable or not. That data set is decided by individual users who "vote" on items that got through the proxy. For instance, if enough people got through to "Naked-Teen-Girls.com" and told the server that was no good, it would be scored lower and lower until no proxies would let it through. Sounds good until you realize that if enough idiots are available (which is always the case) eventually totally harmless sites will be blocked (and probably many "harmful" sites would get through).

Now tell me: What's the difference between the above scheme and Slashdot's moderation system?
--

Re:Hawkings.

[DavidTC]

Hawkings' prize in the bet was a few years of Private Investigator magazine. And he made the bet hoping to lose, as it was the opposite of what he claimed. At least, this way, if he was wrong about his theory, he got a magazine subscription.

P.S. As Hawkings is married, IIRC, he theoretically doesn't need Penthouse. :)

-David T. C.

BTW, that's best when hummed to Copacobana

[Chairboy]

Due to a dumb mistake (I put a comment inside of pointy brackets), my insightful comment about that song at the beginning of my post was erased. It's Barry Manilow, of course, the open source master of... lounge?

Re:Huh? Slow down.

[Danious]

Recently, the United States government has struck down things such as student-led prayers at school. It has struck down attempts to censor the Internet (remember the Communications Decency Act?

I thought it was the government who made the laws like the CDA and the courts that struck them down?

Bombing it's own? It already does...

[YuppieScum]

I wonder if the united states would ever bomb it's own people. Maybe I'll get to see it.

How about Lockerbie, or Waco? How about the "friendly fire" in the Gulf?

How about the World Trade Centre - terrorist attack or CIA fundraiser? Is there a difference?

Insidious marketing practices

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm a webmaster for a suburban school district. You'll have to forgive me if I don't say where; it's a pretty conservative district. The state agency through which we get our internet connection passes most traffic through a filtering proxy. It's starting to get bogged down, and my boss is considering laying in our own proxies, and I've been assigned the task of selecting censorware for the job. It has to be server-side, simply because it'd take too long and be too damn expensive to install client-side software on all 3500 PCs and Macs in the district.

Some of the sales reps I deal with are pretty persistent and utilize some fairly heavy-handed tactics. The most persistent and annoying of them is N2H2, the maker of Bess, a package whose numerous flaws are oft lampooned by Peacefire. I get a call from my N2H2 rep about once every week or two, offering to give us "free" software and hardware in return for subscribing to their Searchopolis search engine. This is a pretty compelling argument for a cash-strapped school district.

Fortunately, there have been no incidents that have alarmed the public, so I've been able to talk reason with administrators, thankfully backed up with information from Peacefire and other civic-minded organizations. When an incident does occur -- and it will, even if the censorware companies have to stage it -- my last line of defense will probably be at public hearings before the school board. It doesn't take Nostradamus to figure what my odds will be there, though I'll do my best to underscore that the censorware vendors are attempting to defraud the public.

Ultimately, since the Outraged Parent(tm) population has no loyalty to the principles of the U.S. Constitution, the best (and so far untested) legal attack on censorware companies may be advertising fraud laws. Censorware reps tell demonstrable lies to sell their products; they should at least in theory be vulnerable to criminal prosecution.

junkbuster proxie

[kel-tor]

i wonder if a inverse-bair plugin can be made for junkbuster so that it will block images except for porn?

Be fair to ClickSafe

[CharmQuark]

People, we should be fair to the censorware product. The fact that they block out references to their competitors product, like the bio of John Bastian and ICRA is obviously a well thought out feature. There is no reason to let the user know they have a choice when it comes to who will censor their Internet access.

And of course it is going to filter the ACLU and the Center for Democracy in Technology. It kids are allowed to visit these sites they will might get a point of view inconsistent with the corporate mainstream.

As far as the bible is concerned, have you read it lately? It is full of mass murders, fornication, and this guy who did nothing but talk about pacifism and socialism. If there is book more worthy of censorship, I don't know what it is.

I would say the Peacefire test does not discredit ClickSafe, but rather proves it superiority in the censoreware market.

College & Mandated Morality

[xtal]

I think this also goes for more "abstract" moral/ethical behavior (i.e., how one treats oneself and others), and as a result I strongly disagree with people who think that children should be kept away from all ideas involving sexuality, prejudice, etcetera. With no exposure to difficult issues, how can children ever learn to deal wiuth them in a mature way?

This reminds me of what happens in a lot of dorms first year. You get kids that have been isolated from the real world (tm) by their parents for most of their ~18 years on the planet. Then they see the other side of life - booze, drugs, women (heh, not to associate women as a vice..), sex, etc etc, and they have no mechanisms for dealing with it because those decisions have always been made for them. Ever since I was really young, my parents let me to what I wanted - with the understanding that there were concequences for what I did. (Don't do well in school? You'll be looking for a job when you're 18, then.. Stay up late? Tough, now you gotta go to school, etc.)

This had the effect that I learned both discipline and I developed my own sense of right and wrong, and could work within that, because I knew how to deal with the world.

So, you get these kids that don't have any concept of what to do. I've seen two extremes: One, blind following into alcoholic oblivion, or two, complete lack of ability to cope, causing many many problems with school and peers.

Congratulations on helping your kids learn one of the most important lessons of all: Responsibility. (One of the prices of freedom after all, is responsibility for your (free) choices)

Huh? Slow down.

[cje]

If you can't see correllations between your government and pre-Nazi germany, go get a textbook and do some reading.

Do you have any idea what you're talking about? The groups mentioned in this article, such as the American Family Association, are independent groups, comprised mostly of Christian fundamentalists. The same can be said of groups such as the Christian Coalition, the Family Research Council, and the rest of the right-wing thought police organizations. They are not affiliated with the United States government in any way, with the possible exception of having the support of some right-wing politicians. In fact, the typical right-wing thought policeman harbors extreme hatred towards our government.

Recently, the United States government has struck down things such as student-led prayers at school. It has struck down attempts to censor the Internet (remember the Communications Decency Act? When was the last time you heard anything about that?) It has repeatedly and consistently upheld the right of women to have access to abortions if necessary. You can attack hard-line right-wingers all day if you want, but realize that nearly all of them consider the United States government to be their sworn mortal enemy. Sure, there are some right-wing moralist nuts in our government, but they, like everybody else, are required to operate under the constraints levied by the United States Constitution. If they get out of line, the courts are all over them before they know what hit them.

By the way, it's pronounced "gub-mint."

Re:COPA Not Still on Appeal

[ethereal]

I was thinking that there already had been a test case and the ACLU was appealing the prosecution of that case on the basis of COPA. I hadn't realized that it was the government who was doing the original appealing. Mea culpa.

Gorge Carlin said it best, about semantics

[Seth Finkelstein]

http://www.webveranda.com/barry/seven.html

Like, ah, snatch, box and pussy all have other meanings, man. Even in a Walt Disney movie, you can say, We're going to snatch that pussy and put him in a box and bring him on the airplane

As a recovering child, this pisses me off

[Superb0wl]

I remember as a kid (not too many years ago) when i got caught with a little bit of pr0n on the home pc. this was back in the BBS days, mind you. My father confronted me in my room one day and said something that has made me stay away from internet porn since:

"You wouldn't want your mother to find out, would you?"

&ltGENERALIZATION&gt See, what kids today lack is a respect for their elders. &lt/GENERALIZATION&gt The worst thing in the world that could happen to me as a kid was for my parents to be dissapointed in me. I got in a fight = grounded, but i would understand why. Now for my own sweet MOTHER to think i'm some pervert? that hurts.

Modern kids need parents. Would it kill one of you to stay home? Do you really need that extra paycheck every week so you can live in just a little bigger house or dive a little faster car? Or would you rather invest the time in your kids. I know what choice i'll make...
-Superb0wl

COPA Not Still on Appeal

[Jim Tyre]

The Child Online Protection Act, passed late last year and then struck down early this year, is still under appeal.

All in all, nice coverage by Jamie, but the above statement is in error.

On June 22, 2000, The Third Circuit Court of Appeals decided, affirming the lower court's injunction against COPA.

Re:New feature request

[adipocere]

Hrm. Let's see.

50 pictures. Blocks 34. That means it leaves 16 unblocked, right?

16 divided by 50, multiply by 100%, hrm, yeah, that's leaving 32% viewable alright.

Looks like we all need a few math exercises.

Well....

[Denor]

If I absolutely positively must have an AI censoring the internet for me, I think I'd choose... Bender!

Beer and robotic porn for everybody!

Fleshtone?

[jjoyce]

Give me a fucking break. Invert the colors.

--

Porno for now...

[Sleen]

I don't know alot about this technology, but it seems that once censoring becomes accepted for things so 'obviously' objectionable, like porno; that censoring would then extend to other subject matter.

There are opportunities in this kind of software to control alot more than a child's online wanderings.

It would be a drag to have children exposed to recreational defecation before they learn to properly wipe...

But even worse, is to encourage people to accept censored versions of the world. And that is what things may come to.

We have so many cultures all over the world that each their own taboos, areas of sensitivity. Supposedly they are important to their own cultural identity. Each culture will want its own version of that nasty internet. Whether its stripped of african breasts, or american democracy.

The internet will lead to the homogenization of many cultures and the relaxation of certain token immoralities.

Censorware beyond porno will keep your kids stupid and prevent them from joining the global culture that will emerge. The culture that SHOULD take responsibility for these affairs. Here in America its ok to start your own religion where you can tell kids that people like Hawkings are heretics. But its wrong to let them see breasts.

I'm sure I've repeated what other have said....sorry if I bore...

-Sleen